After the teacher made sure that her students had done her order, she started the speaking test. She asked the students in pair to come in front of the class to practice
the conversation. Waiting for their turns to introduce themselves, the other students paid attention to their friend who was practicing their conversation. The teacher asked
the other students to keep silent while their friend practiced in front of the class, it is hoped that in recording process the record voice more clearly.
2.3 Post activities
After all students had practiced their conversation, the teacher did a reflection by asking them some questions related to the material they had learnt that day. As usual,
the students answered the teacher‟s questions together even though they had different opinions. Nevertheless, the teacher continued asking the other questions without
caring about the understanding of each student. The following dialogue is the example of reflection did by the teacher:
e.g. Teacher :
“Do you have a best friend?” She pointed one of the students and asked him to answer her question.
Student : “Yes.” Teacher : “What is his name?”
Student : “His name is Konoha Miss Teacher : “What does he look like?”
Student : “He short.”
Students : “Salah. Seharusnya He is short…” Teacher : “Good…..”
The teacher tried to discuss the question form of the conversation once more in order to made the students more understood what they should use when asking and giving
someone personality. So, when there were some students made the incorrect question- answer form when doing the practicing conversation before, they can correct their
incorrect For example: for question “What does he look like?” there may the students sa
y “What he looks like?” which is incorrect and be told “He short,…….”. In this case, the students will correct their incorrect answer after they find the correct one
which is given by the teacher.
When the teacher was sure that her students were able to answer her questions, she closed the class.
3. Result of Observation and Interpretation
Since the focus of this research lies on the learning product and the learning process,
so there are two kinds of data that were observed. The learning product is the data of the students‟ speaking ability, meanwhile, the learning process covers the data of the
students‟ learning activities. The result of observation from the learning product will be explained as follows:
3.1 Learning Product
Learning product is th e students‟ scores from the speaking test. The indicator of the
students‟ achievement is, if at least 80 of the students can reach score 60 for the speaking test, it means that the implementation of self directed dialogue technique is
applicable to improv e the students‟ speaking ability. The following table will show
the frequency of students with the speaking scores they got: Table 1. Table of Frequency of the Students‟ Speaking Scores in Cycle 1
No Scores
Frequency Percentage
1 80-100
2 70-79
1 3.33
3 60-69
12 40
4 50-59
12 40
5 40-49
5 16.67
Total 30
100
From the table above, there is one student 3.33 who reaches 70-79 in the speaking test. The student got the score since she was able to practice describing someone
personality in the form of dialogue well in pronunciation, fluency, grammar and vocabulary.
Meanwhile, there are 12 students 40 who get 60-69. These students were able to practice giving their personal information in the spoken form. Even though they were
not as good as the student who got 70 but their speaking ability was good enough.
In addition, there are 12 students 40 who get 50-59. When they were speaking, there were still several weaknesses in their pronunciation, fluency, grammar and
vocabulary. However, their weaknesses did not cause a communication break down when they practiced describing someone personality.
So, in line with table 1, there are only 13 students 43.33 whose speaking scores have achieved the target of the indicator. While, there are 17 students whose scores
are under the target, the details are as follows:
There are 12 students 40 who reach 50- 59. It means that the students‟ speaking
ability was not good because these students had several serious errors when they were speaking. There were also a few weaknesses in their pronunciation, fluency, grammar
and vocabulary. In addition to the above explanation, there are 5 students 12.67 who are only able
to reach 40- 49. This means that the students‟ speaking ability was poor. They had
many weaknesses in the pronunciation, fluency, grammar and also vocabulary. The weaknesses caused a communication breakdown when they practiced describing
someone personality in the form of dialogue.
Even though the indicator of the research has not been fulfilled in the first cycle but the data of the learning product has shown that there is an improvement of the
students‟ speaking ability if it is compared with the data got by the researcher when she did the pre observation. At that time there were only 5 students 16.67 who
could describe someone personality in English, whereas after the first cycle was conducted there were 13 students 43.33 who could do that. For detail information,
the data of the students‟ speaking scores at cycle 1 can be seen in the table 1.
However, the second cycle must be conducted in order to fulfill the indicator of the research for the learning product, that is, 80 of the students must be able to reach 60
for their speaking ability.
In addition, because this research used an analytical scoring to score the students‟
speaking ability, the researcher identified the students‟ scores per each component of speaking, that is, pronunciation, fluency, grammar and vocabulary. It was done in
order to know which component of speaking became an obstacle for most students to achieve the target of the indicators in the first cycle see appendix 7. The data in the
table of students‟ score was explained as follow:
3.1.1 Pronunciation
For pronunciation, there were only two students 6.67 who got 20. It means that her pronunciation was very good because it was only very slightly influenced by
mother-tongue.
There are 17 students 56.67 who got 15. Their pronunciation was slightly influenced by the mother tongue and most utterances they said were correct. Most
of these students were not right in pronouncing the word “like”. In fact, this word must be pronounced laik but they pronounced it lik. In addition, these students
were still confused in pronouncing “old”. This word must be pronounced owld but they pronounced it all. Nevertheless, their pronunciation was good.
Meanwhile, 11 students 37.67 reach 15. Though their pronunciation was still moderately influenced by the mother tongue but they did not have any serious
phonological errors. The words which were pronounced wrongly by them were almost similar to the words pronounced by the students who got 15 but there were
some other words additionally. For example, they said l
I
p instead of l
I
v for the word “live”. Besides that, they also had difficulties in pronouncing the words in
plural forms like “being”. When they pronounced them, they add the letter with –r, so they pronounced the word became bring.
Based on the data in the table 2, there were 19 students whose pronunciation scores have achieved the target of the research indicator. It is shown in the table that there
are 11 students 36.67 who get 15. It means their pronunciation was still poor. Their pronunciation was influenced by the mother tongue but they had only a few
serious phonological errors. The mistakes made by them in pronouncing the words were almost the same as the mistakes made by the students who get 15 but they
absolutely did more mistakes than the students who get 15. If the students who get 15 did not read the letter like became lik, the students whose pronunciation was
still poor not only did it, but they also pronounced the word “being” wrongly. Some students said bring.
3.1.2 Fluency
There were six students 20 who can reach 20, which means that their fluency were very good. They spoke without a very great effort with a fairly wide range of
expression and she searched for words occasionally but only one or two unnatural pauses.
In addition, there are 18 students 60 who get 15. This means that their fluency was good. In speaking, they made an effort at times to search for words,
nevertheless, very smooth delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural pauses.
There are also 4 students 13.33 who reach 15. They made an effort and searched for words but there were not too many unnatural pauses and it was fairly
smooth delivery mostly.
Meanwhile, there are 2 students 6.67 who get 10, which mean their fluency was poor since they made an effort for much of the time. They often had to search for
the desired meaning and rather halting delivery and fragmentary.
It means that their fluency was very poor because there were long pauses while they searched for the desired meaning with frequently halting delivery and fragmentary.
They almost gave up for making the effort at times.
3.1.3 Vocabulary
For vocabulary, there were six students 20 who get 20. It means that their vocabulary was very good because it was easy for the listeners teacher, researcher,
and students to understand their intention and general meaning.
Besides that, there are 12 students 40 whose vocabulary was also good so they get 15. Their word and general meaning were fairly clear, though there were a few
interruptions by listeners for the sake of clarification.
There were also still 12 students 40 who reach 15. It means that their vocabulary was enough. In speaking, their words clear but there were several
interruptions by the listeners to help them to convey the message or to see the clarification.
3.1.4 Grammar
For grammar, there were 13 students 43.33 who get 15. It means that their grammar was very good because it was easy for the listeners teacher, researcher,
and students to understand their sentence.
Besides that, there are 11 students 36.67 whose grammar was good enough so they get 15. Even tough their sentence and the using of grammar still made the
researcher confused, but the point that they mean still be understood.
Meanwhile, 6 students 20 get 10 because their grammar was poor. They got the scores since the listeners could understand a lot of what they said, but they must
constantly seek clarification. Besides, the listeners could not understand many of the speaker‟s more complex or longer sentences.
In line with the above explanati on about the students‟ scores for each component of
speaking, that is, pronunciation, fluency, grammar and vocabulary, it can be concluded that the students‟ scores of the three components vocabulary,
pronunciation and grammar are still under the target. It is so because there are only approximately 13 students 43.33 whose scores are 15 or more for grammar. In
addition, for vocabulary, there are also 14 students 46.67 whose scores are 15 or more, and for pronunciation there are only 19 students 63.33 whose scores are
15 or more. Meanwhile, the students‟ scores for fluency have fulfilled the target of the indicator because there were 24 students 80 whose scores are 60 or more.
However, the second cycle must be held since the students‟ scores for pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary are still under the target.
3.2 Learning Process
In this classroom action research, the learning process covers the students‟ activities during the teaching and learning process.
3.2.1 Students’ Activities
As mentioned on chapter III, the indicator of the students‟ activities is, if at least
80 of the students did at least 80 of the activities during the teaching and learning process, it means that the students‟ learning activities are good when the
self directed dialogue technique is implemented. There are six activities that must be done by the students, that is,
responding to the topic enthusiastically, giving responses to the lesson explained by the teacher, answering
the teacher‟s questions, following th
e teacher‟s instructions noting the information on an identification card,
making the new conversation, etc, practicing describing someone personality in dialogue form, and a
ble to respond to the teacher‟s question. The information of the activities done by each stude
nt and the percentage of each student‟s activity can be seen in Appendix 3.
To know whether the target of the indicator of this classroom action research has already been achieved or not after the implementation of self directed dialogue
technique, the f ollowing explanation will show the process of the students‟
activities during the teaching and learning process:
3.2.1.1 Pre-Activities
When the teacher did an apperception, there were about ten students who responded to the topic enthusiastically. Thoug
h they responded to the teacher‟s questions together but at least they had shown their interest to the topics. Actually
some other students also answered the teacher‟s questions but their facial expression showed that they felt bored with the topic. Meanwhile, the rest of the
students in that class only became the viewers of their friends.
3.2.1.2
While Activities
For while activities, there were about four activities that became the focus of the observation, that is, giving responses
to the lesson explained by the teacher, answering
the teacher‟s questions, following the teacher‟s instructions noting the information on an identification card, making the new conversation, etc, and practicing
to describe someone personality in dialogue form.
When the teacher started doing the self directed dialogue technique, there were approximately 13 students who gave responses to the lesson explained by the
teacher. They looked eager to follow the class, moreover, when they were asked to describe their best friend. Nevertheless, there were still six students who were
busy with their own world like day dreaming, and drawing something on the desks.
Then when the teacher asked some questions related to the material, there were only 11 students who answered the questions voluntarily. Meanwhile, the other
students only answered the questions when they were asked by the teacher. They felt shy and afraid of being laughed at by their friends if they gave silly answers.
Nevertheless, since the teacher was very strict so when the students were asked to follow the teacher‟s instructions like
noting the information on an identification card, making the new conversation
, doing the self directed dialogue technique, and practicing describe someone personality in pairs, all the students did the
instructions.
Because children like asking, so when the teacher asked them to asked their friend they looked happy, but since they were asked to ask about one topic
someone personality, their speaking ability was not developed. As a matter of f
act, the students‟ ability can be developed when they got a prop from the teacher. The students can maximize developing their speaking ability by looking the
example form of the prop. For that reason, when they practiced the conversation on the prop, they just did it perfunctorily. After noting the information on the
identification, they started doing the conversation activity to practice their new ability.
Having enough practice, the students were asked to practice introducing themselves in front of the class. All students did this activity since the teacher
called the students in pairs. Some students looked unconfident when they practiced describing someone personality because when they made mistakes the
teacher directly corrected the mistakes.
3.2.1.3 Post Activities
For the last activity, the researcher only observed the students‟ ability to respond to the teacher‟s question. From 30 students, there were only 12 students who
responded to the teacher‟s questions voluntarily. They raised their hands and answ
er the teacher‟s questions. The other students were only able to respond to
the teacher‟s questions together.
From the explanation of the activities done by the students during the teaching and learning process in cycle 1, the researcher got the data, that is, there were 17
students 56.67 of 30 students who did 80 of the activities observed by the researcher. It means that the students‟ learning activities in the first cycle are still
poor during the implementation of the self directed dialogue technique in the speaking class, in other words the indicator for the students‟ learning activities
has not been achieved.
The activities which were not done by most students in cycle 1 are responding to the topic pre activities, and answering the teacher‟s questions while and post
activities. Due to this reason, the second cycle must be held in order to achieve the target of the indicator.
3.2.2 Teacher’s Performance
The indicator of the research for the teaching performance is, if the teacher can get sc
ore at least 70 for her teaching performance, it means that the teacher‟s teaching performance is good. The process of teaching done by the teacher in cycle 1 will be
explained as follows:
3.2.2.1 Pre-Activities
In pre activities, actually the teacher was quite good in doing the apperception. She tried to make the students remember their previous lesson about describing
someone that the students‟ have learnt when they were at the first grade, and she also asked the students some questions related to the topics. However, there were
still many students who were not interested in the topic.
After doing the apperception, the teacher informed the competence that would be achieved to the students. The teacher was good enough at doing this activity
because she clearly informed the students what they would be able to do after doing the teaching and learning process.
3.2.2.2 While-Activities
In observing the teacher‟s teaching performance, the researcher emphasized on the teacher‟s mastery of learning material, the learning strategy used by the
teacher, the use of learning media, the students‟ involvement and the evaluation did by the teacher. The explanation of the teacher‟s performance in while-
activities is as follows:
a. The Mastery of Learning Material
When the teacher t aught the students how to describe someone‟s personality, she
told the students the utterances usually used to give the personal information like names, addresses, ages, and hobbies. The utterances were quite simple so the
teacher assumed that some of her students must have ever heard them in their daily life. So for correlating the material with the real life, the teacher had done it
well.
Besides that, the teacher was also good at achieving communicative competence. During while-activities, the teacher implemented the self directed dialogue
technique in which she invited the students to describe their best friend about hisher identities names, addresses, ages, hobbies. The students also responded
to the teacher by giving their opinions in simple sentences, short phrases, even in single words in English. By doing so, the teacher had stimulated the students to
communicate. Then, in teaching speaking by implementing the self directed dialogue technique,
the teacher tried to use the language components of English like pronunciation,
vocabulary, grammar, and fluency. Even though she did not use them all the time but she was able to use the language components well.
b. The Learning Strategy
