THE EFFECT OF TIME TOKEN ON STUDENTS SPEAKING ACHIEVEMENT AT SMK HKBP PEMATANGSIANTAR.
THE EFFECT OF TIME TOKEN ON STUDENTS’ SPEAKING
ACHIEVEMENT AT SMK HKBP PEMATANGSIANTAR
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Partial Requirements
for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By :
ESTER MARGARETHA SITORUS
Registration Number : 2113121023
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2016
ABSTRACT
Sitorus, Ester Margaretha, Reg.No 2113121023. 2015. The Effect of Time
Token on Students Speaking Achievement at SMK HKBP Pematangsiantar.
A Thesis. Medan: English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State
University of Medan.
This study was conducted as an attempt to find out the effect of applying Time
Token on students’ speaking achievement. This study used experimental design.
The population of this study was the students of SMK HKBP Pematangsiantar.
There were thirty eight students of the eleventh grade as the sample in this
research. This study was conducted with two randomized groups namely
experimental and control group. The experimental group was taught by applying
Time Token while the control group was taught by applying Explicit Instruction
model. The instrument of collecting the data was FSI weighting Table. The data
were analyzed by using t-test. The calculation shows that t-observed (3.9) is
higher than t-table (2.028) at the level of significance (α) 0.05 with the degree of
freedom (df) 36. Therefore, Time Token has significant effect on the students’
speaking achievement.
Key Words: Time Token, Speaking
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to express her deepest thanks and praise
to God the Almighty Jesus Christ for His love and blessings who has given her
spirit, strenght, and wisdom untill this thesis can be accomplished. This thesis is
as one of partial fullfillment of the requirements to obtain the S1 degree of Sarjana
Pendidikan at the English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State
University of Medan.
This thesis could be accomplished by the guidance, suggestions,
comments, and support from several people, therefore the writer would like to
express her sincere gratitude and special thanks to:
1.
Prof. Dr. H. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of
Medan.
2.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Faculty of Languages and
Arts, State University of Medan, and Vice Dean I, Vice Dean II, Vice
Dean III, and all the Administrative Staff.
3.
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Department, Faculty
of Lanugages and Arts, State University of Medan and her Examiner.
4.
Dra. Meisuri, MA., the Secretary of English Department, and her
Examiner.
5.
Nora Ronita Dewi, S.Pd., S.S., M.Hum the Head of English Education,
Faculty of Lanugages and Arts, State University of Medan
ii
6.
Drs. Willem Saragih, Dipl., Appl., M.Pd and Indra Hartoyo, S.Pd.,
M.Hum her Thesis Consultants.
7.
Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., her Academic Adviser and for all
Lecturers throughout her academic years.
8.
Drs.
Nelson
Sinaga,
M.H,
the
Headmaster
of
SMK
HKBP
Pematangsiantar and R. Tampubolon, S.Pd, the English Teacher.
9.
The deepest thanks are expressed to her amazing parents, Pintor Sitorus
and Mariaty Nahulae who have patiently given moral, spiritual and
financial support including the endless love and pray for her. Thanks are
also given to her beloved sister and brother Martalina Sitorus and Eben
Ezer Jerry Sitorus.
10. Her best friends, Coordination UKMKP UP FBS 2015, Endang her sister,
Rani, Elsabat, Dewi, K’ Dosma, Inra, Anna, Fransiska, Reg 11 A,
Achiera, (K’Elda, Da’e Pesta, Aser), Amin (B’Chandra, Yusnita),
Tabita, Graviela, Dominique for their support, pray, love, laugh and care.
The writer realizes that the content of this thesis is still far from perfect,
but she warmly accepts any suggestions that will improve the quality of this
thesis. The writer hopes that this thesis will be usefull for those who are
interested in this field of study.
Medan,
March 2016
Ester Margaretha Sitorus
2113121023
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................... vii
LIST OF PICTURES .................................................................................. viii
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................ ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION................................................................ 1
A. The Background of Study ........................................................... 1
B. The Problem of the Study ........................................................... 5
C. The Scope of the Study .............................................................. 5
D. The Objective of the Study ......................................................... 5
E. The Significance of the Study ..................................................... 5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...................... 6
A. Theoritical Framework ................................................................ 6
1. Speaking ................................................................................ 6
a. The Nature of Speaking .................................................. 6
b. The Purpose of Speaking ................................................ 7
c. Types of Speaking ........................................................... 8
d. Principles for Teaching Speaking ................................... 10
e. Problem in Speaking ....................................................... 10
f. Strategies for Speaking ................................................... 11
iv
g. Students’ Achievement in Speaking ............................... 14
2. Models of Teaching............................................................... 15
a. Time Token ..................................................................... 15
b. Explicit Instruction .......................................................... 16
3. Transactional and Interpersonal Exchange ........................... 17
a. Transactional .................................................................... 17
b. Interpersonal ..................................................................... 18
4. Assessment of Interactive Speaking ..................................... 19
5. Assessment Rubric ............................................................... 22
6. Expression of Giving Argumentation .................................. 24
7. Expression of Giving Agreement and Disagreement ........... 25
8. The Previous Research Studies Applying Time Token ....... 28
B. Conceptual Framework ............................................................... 29
C. Hypothesis ................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................. 32
A. Research Design .......................................................................... 32
B. Population and Sample................................................................ 33
C. The Instrument for Collecting Data ............................................ 33
D. Scoring of the Test ...................................................................... 34
E. The Procedure of Research ......................................................... 35
1. Pre- Test ................................................................................. 35
2. Treatment ............................................................................... 35
3. Post – Test .............................................................................. 37
v
F. The Technique for Data Analysis ............................................... 37
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS 38
A. Data ............................................................................................. 38
B. Data Analysis ............................................................................. 41
1. Analyzing the Data by using T-Test Formula ...................... 41
2. Testing Hypothesis ............................................................... 42
C. Research Findings ...................................................................... 42
D. Discussion .................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ....................... 45
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 46
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
FSI Weighting Table .............................................................. 23
Table 2.2
FSI Conversion Table ............................................................ 24
Table 3.1
Research Design ...................................................................... 32
Table 3.2
Rubric for Speaking Assessment .......................................... 34
Table 3.3
The Treatment for Experimental Group ............................. 35
Table 3.4
The Treatment for Control Group ....................................... 36
Table 4.1
Students’ Score in Pre – test and Post - Test ........................ 39
Table 4.2
The Result of the T- Test Calculation ................................... 42
vii
LIST OF PICTURES
Picture 3.1 Coupon ..................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.1 Students’ Score in Pre - Test .................................................. 39
Figure 4.2 Students’ Score in Post - Test ................................................ 40
Figure 4.3 The Amount of Students’ Score in Pre - Test ....................... 40
Figure 4.4 The Amount of Students Score in Pre - Test ........................ 41
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. APPENDIX A ................................................................................. 48
1. The Score of Pre - Test in Experimental Group ...................... 48
2. The Score of Pre - Test in Control Group ................................ 50
3. The Score of Post - Test in Experimental Group .................... 52
4. The Score of Post - Test in Control Group............................... 54
B. APPENDIX B................................................................................... 56
1. Calculation of T-Test for Experimental Group ....................... 56
2. Calculation of T-Test for Control Group ................................. 57
C. APPENDIX C .................................................................................. 59
1. Transcript of Experimental Group .......................................... 59
2. Transcript of Control Group .................................................... 65
D. APPENDIX D ................................................................................. 71
LESSON PLAN .............................................................................. 71
E. T-table ............................................................................................. 94
ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Language deals with communication, whether it is oral or written. There
are many languages in the world and English is one of the languages that should
be mastered. Many countries use English as their tool of communication. In
Indonesia, English is taught from the kindergarten up to the university level.
Mastering English means mastering the four language skills, namely
listening, reading, speaking, and writing skills. In order to communicate, speaking
skill seems to be the most appropriate one. The ability of a person to communicate
to another is seen by their speaking skill. Speaking is a meaningful interaction
between people (Luoma, 2004:1). According to Levelt (1993:1), speaking is,
moreover, one of our most complex cognitive, linguistic, and motor skills. People
do not only want to get or share the idea but also to see the articulation, grammar,
etc. Thus, the speaking aspects should be concerned in communication.
For many years, the ways of learning speaking are only memorizing and
practicing the dialogue in front of the class. But now, learning speaking requires
the goal to improve the communicative skills. Through that way, the students can
express their idea, attitude, pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and learn how to
use the suitable language based on the social and cultural in each communicative
circumstance.
1
2
The writer did an observation in SMK HKBP Pematangsiantar. The
writer took 26 students in doing the observation. The data showed there were
14/26 (53,8%) of the students stated that English is a very difficult and
uninteresting subject for them. Then, the teacher’s way in opening the class is
uninteresting because the teacher always asks about the homework. After that,
11/26 students stated that the teacher’s methods are discussion method and answer
the questions in the textbook. While 10/26 students stated that the teacher only
asks the students to write the material and do the exercise.
The writer also did an interview to the teacher. The writer found the data
as follows:
-
The teacher usually uses Indonesian and Batak languages in teaching and
learning process because the students find it difficult to understand
English.
-
The facilities do not support the teaching and learning process.
-
The students are lack of motivation in learning English.
-
The ability in speaking English is still low. Less than 50% of the students
can speak English, but the grammar is still not good, bad pronunciation,
and lack of vocabulary and the other 50% just know how to introduce
themselves.
Based on the data, the writer concludes that the facts above will give bad
effect to the students’ speaking ability. Vocational students are prepared to the job
field and in this era one of the most important requirements is the ability in
3
speaking English. Thus, the writer concerned to see the speaking ability and try a
model that can effect the students’ speaking achievement.
There are some ways to solve the problems in teaching and learning
proccess, by using strategy, method, model, or technique. By seeing the problems
above, model is the appropriate way to solve the problem, because model guides
the teacher from the preparation until the assessment.
Time Token is a model that can be used to teach social ability and skill,
to avoid the students domination or lack of participation in speaking. Time Token
asks the students to speak in a limited time by using the coupon and the students
should speak untill they do not have coupon (Istarani, 2012:194).
The reason why the writer chooses Time Token as the model of this
research is because Time Token helps all the students to be active and have a
good participation in teaching and learning process. By using Time Token, the
students that still have the token must be talk, which means that there aren’t
students who dominate or just stay silent. The students are asked to speak in the
short term of time, and give comment or idea as short as possible but they try to
give the suitable one, (Brown, 2004 : 271). Then, Time Token alows the students
to give their opinion in the right way and in the effective time to others
(Istarani,2011:194). By considering the explanations above, this study expects that
Time Token will give significant effect to the student’s achievement in speaking.
There are some researches applied Time Token. Sedima (2010) conducted
a research by using Time Token for the tenth grader of senior high school. Sedima
did not focuss on the specific kinds of speaking and limited the material to asking
4
and giving opinion. The research shows that the students’ achievement in
speaking, which was measured by using quantitative (orientation test) and
qualitative (diary notes, interview and observation sheet) data is higher by
applying Time Token than by using conventional method. Sedima concludes that
the students’ achievement is improved by applying Time Token.
Another research was conducted by Sukmayati (2014). The research was
conducted by teaching expression of asking and giving opinion and suggestion on
the eleventh graders of senior high school. The researcher also didi not foccuss on
the spesific kinds of speaking. Indeed, students in experimental group shows
greater improvement than the students of control group.
A research also conducted by Aziz and Ratmanida (2014). The researchers
applied Time Token for junior high school students. In this research the students’
improvement in speaking also higher than by using teacher centered strategy.
The differences of the previous study and this research are the kind of
speaking that will be measured was interactive speaking. The researcher also
choosed different materials since speaking ability is influenced by the speakers’
purpose and the type of material that will give effect to the procedure of
conducting the research. The materials that taught in this research were
Argumentations and Agreement and disagreement and also giving responds. For
this study, the researcher was eager to find out whether Time Token also has
significant effect if it was applied for different materials, and specific kind of
speaking.
5
B. The problem of the study
The problem of the study from this research was formulated in the form
of question as follows:
“Is there any significant effect of applying Time Token on students’
speaking achievement?”
C. The Scope of the Study
Actually there are five types of speaking, Imitative, Intensive,
Responsive, Interactive, Extensive. This study attempted to find out the
effectiveness of Time Token model on the students’ achievement in speaking
especially in interactive speaking which asks the students to maintain the social
relationship and share specific information .
D. The objective of the Study
This study was intended to find out the effect of Time Token on students’
speaking achievement for the eleventh grade of Vocational high school.
E. The Significance of the Study
The result of the study hopefully would be useful for:
1. The researchers, a reference for conducting a deeper research on students’
speaking achievement.
2. English teachers, a source of valuable information about Time Token that
can be used as one of the alternative strategy to teach speaking.
3. The students, improve their speaking skill by using Time Token.
2
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A.
Conclusion
Based on the research findings, the researcher concludes that there is a
significant effect of applying Time Token on students’ speaking achievement.
Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is accepted and null hypothesis is rejected. It
was proven statistically with t – observed > t – table (3,9 > 2,028; df = 36, α=
0,05).
B.
Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above, the result of the findings give some
valuable suggestions for those who are interested in teaching reading as follows:
1. The researchers should use this study as reference for conducting a
deeper research on students’ speaking achievement.
2. The English teachers should improve their model in teaching speaking by
using Time Token because it enables the students to be active in the
classroom.
3. Students should apply Time Token when they encounter speaking
activity since Time Token asks the students to talk efficiently.
45
46
REFERENCES
Anwar, F Munash.2008. English in Progress. Bogor : Yudhistira
Ary, D.,Jacobs, LC., & Razavieh,A.2002. Introduction to Research in Education.
USA: Wadsworth Group.
Aziz, Auliatisny & Ratmanida. 2014. “Using Time Token Strategy to Increase
Students’ Participation in Speaking for Junior High School”. Journal of
English Language Teaching. Padang. Vol 2 No 2. Serie A. Retrieved from
July 2, 2015.
Bachman, Lyle. F. 1991. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing.
Hongkong: Oxford University Press.
Bradford, Gwen. 2015. Achievement. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. New York. Longman
Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assesment Principle and Classroom
Practices. New York : Longman
Burns, A. and Joyce, H. 1997. Focus on Speaking. Sydney: National Centre for
English Language Teaching and Research.
Flucher, Glenn. 2003. Testing Second Language Speaking. Harlow : Pearson
Longman.
Hamdani.2011. Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Pustaka Setia
Hughes, Rebecca. 2002. Teaching and Researching Speaking. London : Pearson
Education.
Istarani. 2011. 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Medan: Mediaperesada.
Levelt, Willem.J.M.1993.Speaking from Intention to Articulation. London: MIT
Press.
Luoma, Sari. 2004. Assessing Speaking. Melbourne : Cambridge University Press
47
Rusyda, Nanda A. (2013). Expressing agreement and disagreement. Retrieved
from
:
http://nandaralby.blogspot.com/2013/03/contoh-expressingagreement-and.html
Sanjaya, Wina.2008. Strategi Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media
Group
Savignon, Sandra J. 1983. Communicative Competence : Theory and Classroom
Practice. Wesley Publishing Company.
Sedima, Nova.2010. “Improving Students Speaking Achievement Through Time
Token”. Journal of Universitas Negeri Medan. Medan. Retrieved from
July,7 2015
Sudjana. 2002. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito
Sukmayati.2013. “Improving Speaking Ability Of The Eleventh Year Students Of
SMA Laboratorium Unsyiah Banda Aceh By Using Time Token Arends
Technique”.Journal of Universitas Sebelas Maret. Solo. Retrieved from
July,7 2015.
Sutinah, Entin.2010. Get Along with English. Jakarta: Erlangga
Ur, Penny. 1996. A course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory.
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
ACHIEVEMENT AT SMK HKBP PEMATANGSIANTAR
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Partial Requirements
for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By :
ESTER MARGARETHA SITORUS
Registration Number : 2113121023
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2016
ABSTRACT
Sitorus, Ester Margaretha, Reg.No 2113121023. 2015. The Effect of Time
Token on Students Speaking Achievement at SMK HKBP Pematangsiantar.
A Thesis. Medan: English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State
University of Medan.
This study was conducted as an attempt to find out the effect of applying Time
Token on students’ speaking achievement. This study used experimental design.
The population of this study was the students of SMK HKBP Pematangsiantar.
There were thirty eight students of the eleventh grade as the sample in this
research. This study was conducted with two randomized groups namely
experimental and control group. The experimental group was taught by applying
Time Token while the control group was taught by applying Explicit Instruction
model. The instrument of collecting the data was FSI weighting Table. The data
were analyzed by using t-test. The calculation shows that t-observed (3.9) is
higher than t-table (2.028) at the level of significance (α) 0.05 with the degree of
freedom (df) 36. Therefore, Time Token has significant effect on the students’
speaking achievement.
Key Words: Time Token, Speaking
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to express her deepest thanks and praise
to God the Almighty Jesus Christ for His love and blessings who has given her
spirit, strenght, and wisdom untill this thesis can be accomplished. This thesis is
as one of partial fullfillment of the requirements to obtain the S1 degree of Sarjana
Pendidikan at the English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State
University of Medan.
This thesis could be accomplished by the guidance, suggestions,
comments, and support from several people, therefore the writer would like to
express her sincere gratitude and special thanks to:
1.
Prof. Dr. H. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of
Medan.
2.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Faculty of Languages and
Arts, State University of Medan, and Vice Dean I, Vice Dean II, Vice
Dean III, and all the Administrative Staff.
3.
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Department, Faculty
of Lanugages and Arts, State University of Medan and her Examiner.
4.
Dra. Meisuri, MA., the Secretary of English Department, and her
Examiner.
5.
Nora Ronita Dewi, S.Pd., S.S., M.Hum the Head of English Education,
Faculty of Lanugages and Arts, State University of Medan
ii
6.
Drs. Willem Saragih, Dipl., Appl., M.Pd and Indra Hartoyo, S.Pd.,
M.Hum her Thesis Consultants.
7.
Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., her Academic Adviser and for all
Lecturers throughout her academic years.
8.
Drs.
Nelson
Sinaga,
M.H,
the
Headmaster
of
SMK
HKBP
Pematangsiantar and R. Tampubolon, S.Pd, the English Teacher.
9.
The deepest thanks are expressed to her amazing parents, Pintor Sitorus
and Mariaty Nahulae who have patiently given moral, spiritual and
financial support including the endless love and pray for her. Thanks are
also given to her beloved sister and brother Martalina Sitorus and Eben
Ezer Jerry Sitorus.
10. Her best friends, Coordination UKMKP UP FBS 2015, Endang her sister,
Rani, Elsabat, Dewi, K’ Dosma, Inra, Anna, Fransiska, Reg 11 A,
Achiera, (K’Elda, Da’e Pesta, Aser), Amin (B’Chandra, Yusnita),
Tabita, Graviela, Dominique for their support, pray, love, laugh and care.
The writer realizes that the content of this thesis is still far from perfect,
but she warmly accepts any suggestions that will improve the quality of this
thesis. The writer hopes that this thesis will be usefull for those who are
interested in this field of study.
Medan,
March 2016
Ester Margaretha Sitorus
2113121023
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................... vii
LIST OF PICTURES .................................................................................. viii
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................ ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION................................................................ 1
A. The Background of Study ........................................................... 1
B. The Problem of the Study ........................................................... 5
C. The Scope of the Study .............................................................. 5
D. The Objective of the Study ......................................................... 5
E. The Significance of the Study ..................................................... 5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...................... 6
A. Theoritical Framework ................................................................ 6
1. Speaking ................................................................................ 6
a. The Nature of Speaking .................................................. 6
b. The Purpose of Speaking ................................................ 7
c. Types of Speaking ........................................................... 8
d. Principles for Teaching Speaking ................................... 10
e. Problem in Speaking ....................................................... 10
f. Strategies for Speaking ................................................... 11
iv
g. Students’ Achievement in Speaking ............................... 14
2. Models of Teaching............................................................... 15
a. Time Token ..................................................................... 15
b. Explicit Instruction .......................................................... 16
3. Transactional and Interpersonal Exchange ........................... 17
a. Transactional .................................................................... 17
b. Interpersonal ..................................................................... 18
4. Assessment of Interactive Speaking ..................................... 19
5. Assessment Rubric ............................................................... 22
6. Expression of Giving Argumentation .................................. 24
7. Expression of Giving Agreement and Disagreement ........... 25
8. The Previous Research Studies Applying Time Token ....... 28
B. Conceptual Framework ............................................................... 29
C. Hypothesis ................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................. 32
A. Research Design .......................................................................... 32
B. Population and Sample................................................................ 33
C. The Instrument for Collecting Data ............................................ 33
D. Scoring of the Test ...................................................................... 34
E. The Procedure of Research ......................................................... 35
1. Pre- Test ................................................................................. 35
2. Treatment ............................................................................... 35
3. Post – Test .............................................................................. 37
v
F. The Technique for Data Analysis ............................................... 37
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS 38
A. Data ............................................................................................. 38
B. Data Analysis ............................................................................. 41
1. Analyzing the Data by using T-Test Formula ...................... 41
2. Testing Hypothesis ............................................................... 42
C. Research Findings ...................................................................... 42
D. Discussion .................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ....................... 45
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 46
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
FSI Weighting Table .............................................................. 23
Table 2.2
FSI Conversion Table ............................................................ 24
Table 3.1
Research Design ...................................................................... 32
Table 3.2
Rubric for Speaking Assessment .......................................... 34
Table 3.3
The Treatment for Experimental Group ............................. 35
Table 3.4
The Treatment for Control Group ....................................... 36
Table 4.1
Students’ Score in Pre – test and Post - Test ........................ 39
Table 4.2
The Result of the T- Test Calculation ................................... 42
vii
LIST OF PICTURES
Picture 3.1 Coupon ..................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.1 Students’ Score in Pre - Test .................................................. 39
Figure 4.2 Students’ Score in Post - Test ................................................ 40
Figure 4.3 The Amount of Students’ Score in Pre - Test ....................... 40
Figure 4.4 The Amount of Students Score in Pre - Test ........................ 41
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. APPENDIX A ................................................................................. 48
1. The Score of Pre - Test in Experimental Group ...................... 48
2. The Score of Pre - Test in Control Group ................................ 50
3. The Score of Post - Test in Experimental Group .................... 52
4. The Score of Post - Test in Control Group............................... 54
B. APPENDIX B................................................................................... 56
1. Calculation of T-Test for Experimental Group ....................... 56
2. Calculation of T-Test for Control Group ................................. 57
C. APPENDIX C .................................................................................. 59
1. Transcript of Experimental Group .......................................... 59
2. Transcript of Control Group .................................................... 65
D. APPENDIX D ................................................................................. 71
LESSON PLAN .............................................................................. 71
E. T-table ............................................................................................. 94
ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Language deals with communication, whether it is oral or written. There
are many languages in the world and English is one of the languages that should
be mastered. Many countries use English as their tool of communication. In
Indonesia, English is taught from the kindergarten up to the university level.
Mastering English means mastering the four language skills, namely
listening, reading, speaking, and writing skills. In order to communicate, speaking
skill seems to be the most appropriate one. The ability of a person to communicate
to another is seen by their speaking skill. Speaking is a meaningful interaction
between people (Luoma, 2004:1). According to Levelt (1993:1), speaking is,
moreover, one of our most complex cognitive, linguistic, and motor skills. People
do not only want to get or share the idea but also to see the articulation, grammar,
etc. Thus, the speaking aspects should be concerned in communication.
For many years, the ways of learning speaking are only memorizing and
practicing the dialogue in front of the class. But now, learning speaking requires
the goal to improve the communicative skills. Through that way, the students can
express their idea, attitude, pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and learn how to
use the suitable language based on the social and cultural in each communicative
circumstance.
1
2
The writer did an observation in SMK HKBP Pematangsiantar. The
writer took 26 students in doing the observation. The data showed there were
14/26 (53,8%) of the students stated that English is a very difficult and
uninteresting subject for them. Then, the teacher’s way in opening the class is
uninteresting because the teacher always asks about the homework. After that,
11/26 students stated that the teacher’s methods are discussion method and answer
the questions in the textbook. While 10/26 students stated that the teacher only
asks the students to write the material and do the exercise.
The writer also did an interview to the teacher. The writer found the data
as follows:
-
The teacher usually uses Indonesian and Batak languages in teaching and
learning process because the students find it difficult to understand
English.
-
The facilities do not support the teaching and learning process.
-
The students are lack of motivation in learning English.
-
The ability in speaking English is still low. Less than 50% of the students
can speak English, but the grammar is still not good, bad pronunciation,
and lack of vocabulary and the other 50% just know how to introduce
themselves.
Based on the data, the writer concludes that the facts above will give bad
effect to the students’ speaking ability. Vocational students are prepared to the job
field and in this era one of the most important requirements is the ability in
3
speaking English. Thus, the writer concerned to see the speaking ability and try a
model that can effect the students’ speaking achievement.
There are some ways to solve the problems in teaching and learning
proccess, by using strategy, method, model, or technique. By seeing the problems
above, model is the appropriate way to solve the problem, because model guides
the teacher from the preparation until the assessment.
Time Token is a model that can be used to teach social ability and skill,
to avoid the students domination or lack of participation in speaking. Time Token
asks the students to speak in a limited time by using the coupon and the students
should speak untill they do not have coupon (Istarani, 2012:194).
The reason why the writer chooses Time Token as the model of this
research is because Time Token helps all the students to be active and have a
good participation in teaching and learning process. By using Time Token, the
students that still have the token must be talk, which means that there aren’t
students who dominate or just stay silent. The students are asked to speak in the
short term of time, and give comment or idea as short as possible but they try to
give the suitable one, (Brown, 2004 : 271). Then, Time Token alows the students
to give their opinion in the right way and in the effective time to others
(Istarani,2011:194). By considering the explanations above, this study expects that
Time Token will give significant effect to the student’s achievement in speaking.
There are some researches applied Time Token. Sedima (2010) conducted
a research by using Time Token for the tenth grader of senior high school. Sedima
did not focuss on the specific kinds of speaking and limited the material to asking
4
and giving opinion. The research shows that the students’ achievement in
speaking, which was measured by using quantitative (orientation test) and
qualitative (diary notes, interview and observation sheet) data is higher by
applying Time Token than by using conventional method. Sedima concludes that
the students’ achievement is improved by applying Time Token.
Another research was conducted by Sukmayati (2014). The research was
conducted by teaching expression of asking and giving opinion and suggestion on
the eleventh graders of senior high school. The researcher also didi not foccuss on
the spesific kinds of speaking. Indeed, students in experimental group shows
greater improvement than the students of control group.
A research also conducted by Aziz and Ratmanida (2014). The researchers
applied Time Token for junior high school students. In this research the students’
improvement in speaking also higher than by using teacher centered strategy.
The differences of the previous study and this research are the kind of
speaking that will be measured was interactive speaking. The researcher also
choosed different materials since speaking ability is influenced by the speakers’
purpose and the type of material that will give effect to the procedure of
conducting the research. The materials that taught in this research were
Argumentations and Agreement and disagreement and also giving responds. For
this study, the researcher was eager to find out whether Time Token also has
significant effect if it was applied for different materials, and specific kind of
speaking.
5
B. The problem of the study
The problem of the study from this research was formulated in the form
of question as follows:
“Is there any significant effect of applying Time Token on students’
speaking achievement?”
C. The Scope of the Study
Actually there are five types of speaking, Imitative, Intensive,
Responsive, Interactive, Extensive. This study attempted to find out the
effectiveness of Time Token model on the students’ achievement in speaking
especially in interactive speaking which asks the students to maintain the social
relationship and share specific information .
D. The objective of the Study
This study was intended to find out the effect of Time Token on students’
speaking achievement for the eleventh grade of Vocational high school.
E. The Significance of the Study
The result of the study hopefully would be useful for:
1. The researchers, a reference for conducting a deeper research on students’
speaking achievement.
2. English teachers, a source of valuable information about Time Token that
can be used as one of the alternative strategy to teach speaking.
3. The students, improve their speaking skill by using Time Token.
2
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A.
Conclusion
Based on the research findings, the researcher concludes that there is a
significant effect of applying Time Token on students’ speaking achievement.
Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is accepted and null hypothesis is rejected. It
was proven statistically with t – observed > t – table (3,9 > 2,028; df = 36, α=
0,05).
B.
Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above, the result of the findings give some
valuable suggestions for those who are interested in teaching reading as follows:
1. The researchers should use this study as reference for conducting a
deeper research on students’ speaking achievement.
2. The English teachers should improve their model in teaching speaking by
using Time Token because it enables the students to be active in the
classroom.
3. Students should apply Time Token when they encounter speaking
activity since Time Token asks the students to talk efficiently.
45
46
REFERENCES
Anwar, F Munash.2008. English in Progress. Bogor : Yudhistira
Ary, D.,Jacobs, LC., & Razavieh,A.2002. Introduction to Research in Education.
USA: Wadsworth Group.
Aziz, Auliatisny & Ratmanida. 2014. “Using Time Token Strategy to Increase
Students’ Participation in Speaking for Junior High School”. Journal of
English Language Teaching. Padang. Vol 2 No 2. Serie A. Retrieved from
July 2, 2015.
Bachman, Lyle. F. 1991. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing.
Hongkong: Oxford University Press.
Bradford, Gwen. 2015. Achievement. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. New York. Longman
Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assesment Principle and Classroom
Practices. New York : Longman
Burns, A. and Joyce, H. 1997. Focus on Speaking. Sydney: National Centre for
English Language Teaching and Research.
Flucher, Glenn. 2003. Testing Second Language Speaking. Harlow : Pearson
Longman.
Hamdani.2011. Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Pustaka Setia
Hughes, Rebecca. 2002. Teaching and Researching Speaking. London : Pearson
Education.
Istarani. 2011. 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Medan: Mediaperesada.
Levelt, Willem.J.M.1993.Speaking from Intention to Articulation. London: MIT
Press.
Luoma, Sari. 2004. Assessing Speaking. Melbourne : Cambridge University Press
47
Rusyda, Nanda A. (2013). Expressing agreement and disagreement. Retrieved
from
:
http://nandaralby.blogspot.com/2013/03/contoh-expressingagreement-and.html
Sanjaya, Wina.2008. Strategi Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media
Group
Savignon, Sandra J. 1983. Communicative Competence : Theory and Classroom
Practice. Wesley Publishing Company.
Sedima, Nova.2010. “Improving Students Speaking Achievement Through Time
Token”. Journal of Universitas Negeri Medan. Medan. Retrieved from
July,7 2015
Sudjana. 2002. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito
Sukmayati.2013. “Improving Speaking Ability Of The Eleventh Year Students Of
SMA Laboratorium Unsyiah Banda Aceh By Using Time Token Arends
Technique”.Journal of Universitas Sebelas Maret. Solo. Retrieved from
July,7 2015.
Sutinah, Entin.2010. Get Along with English. Jakarta: Erlangga
Ur, Penny. 1996. A course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory.
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.