168
No Actions
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
made them care more towards their
assignment. The feedback given to their
speaking performance, in terms of the process
and product encouraged them to speak up more
and they got more knowledge on how to
pronounce the words correctly.
students who got the achievement
improved the students’
participation. The students were more
engaged to the activity conducted
because the availability of the
rewards.
D. The Students’ Speaking Test Scores
The students’ speaking skill improvement affected the speaking score they gained. In this research the speaking assessment was conducted by the English
teacher and me to minimize the risk of subjectivity in the scoring and to make the data more reliable. It used the investigator triangulation and the inter-rater
reliability. The followings were presented the summary of the students’ speaking
mean scores in the pre-test and post-test in each aspect see Appendix H for the complete details of the score.
Table7: The Result of the Pre-test in Each Aspect of the Speaking Criteria Rater
VE G
F IS
PI Rater 1
1.71 1.61
1.52 1.90
1.16
Rater 2 1.45
1.48 1.58
1.87 1.74
Combined 1.58
1.55 1.55
1.89 1.45
Table 8: The Result of the Post-test in Each Aspect of the Speaking Criteria
Rater VE
G F
IS PI
Rater 1
2.41 2.21
2.62 2.59
2.45
Rater 2 2.86
2.45 3.03
2.90 3.17
Combined 2.64
2.33 2.83
2.74 2.81
169 The aspects to be assessed in the speaking pre-test and post-test were the
vocabulary and expression VE, grammar G, fluency F, interactive skill IS, and pronunciation and intonation PI. The score for each aspect ranged from 1-4.
1 for poor performance, 2 for fair performance, 3 for good performance, and 4 for excellent performance. Therefore when the score of each aspect was summed, the
maximum score would be 20. In the pre-test the students were shy to speak. They were hesitant and
unconfident. They switched to Indonesian a lot. Their mean score in each aspect of speaking criteria fell into a poor performance category because it did not reach
2. However, during the post-test, the students were more interactive and could maintain speaking. Their mean scores in the post-test improved. They fell into a
fair performance category. The following table presents the gain score of the speaking skill in each aspect.
Table 9:
The Students’ Gain Scores in Each of the Speaking Criteria Test
Freq VE
G F
IS PI
Pre-test 31
1.58 1.55
1.55 1.89
1.45
Post-test
29 2.64
2.33 2.83
2.74 2.81
Gain Score 1.06
0.78 1.28
0.85 1.36
The above table shows the score improvement or the gain score of each speaking skill aspect.
The following chart displayed the students’ speaking score comparison between the pre-test and post-test in each aspect in Table 9.
170
Figure X:
The students’ mean scores comparison in each aspect of the speaking criteria
In general, the students’ speaking score improved in the post-test. The
following table presented the students’ total score of the five aspects of the speaking and their gain score.
Table 10:
The Students’ Mean Scores in the Pre-test and Post-test inall Speaking Criteria
Pre-test Post-test
Gain Score Mean Score
8.02 13.34
5.32
Out of 20, the students’ pre-test mean score in the five aspects of speaking was 8.02. Meanwhile, their post-test mean score was 13.35. Their score
improvement was 5. 32.
E. General Findings
