From the examples above, the researcher concluded that the students still have unintelligible pronunciation. The listeners could catch the different messages
from the spelled words. This problem will become the distraction in the communication.
From the reflection, the researcher counted all of the errors on the students’ pronunciation intelligibility. The researcher found that there were still
many mispronunciations on the English words. The researcher employed checklists and rubrics to check the students’ level. The result showed that from
thirty four students in the class there were five students who had low level in the pronunciation intelligibility. The low level students’ errors in the pronunciation
were more than thirty percents. Those five students shared almost the same errors on the pronunciation. In the next step, the researcher employed drill method to
improve students’ pronunciation intelligibility in speaking.
c. Planning
In this stage, the researcher started making a plan to improve students’ pronunciation intelligibility in speaking. From the result, the researcher could plan
the best technique to be implemented in class. The researcher carefully planned the technique. The researcher organized the classroom activities during the
research. First, the researcher decided the appropriate technique to improve
students’ pronunciation intelligibility. The researcher chose the communicative drill to be implemented in the class. Based on the observation, the researcher
found that the students had difficulties in their pronunciation in speaking. The
lxiii PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
researcher decided to use communicative drill in the class. She believed that communicative drill would help the students to be more intelligible in their
pronunciation. Communicative drill was a kind of drill that used the drill for communication purpose. Therefore, communicative drill would help the students
in practicing their pronunciation. Second, the researcher decided to make an achievement target. The result
in the observation showed that five students still had low pronunciation intelligibility. The students’ errors in pronunciation intelligibility were more than
40. Therefore, the researcher decided to reduce the errors of the students’ up to 30. Those five students should achieve at least the medium level. In medium
level, the low level students had errors at least 30. The subject of the research were the students of XIIPA 3 of SMA 2
Ngaglik. The class consisted of thirty six students, but in the first observation two students were absent. Finally, the researcher employed thirty four students in the
research. Hopefully, the students would decrease the errors up to 30.
d. Action
In this stage, the researcher applied the method in class. The purpose of the method was to improve students’ pronunciation intelligibility in speaking. The
method was carefully and consistently implemented in class. In the research, the first cycle was conducted in three meetings. The first
meeting was observation, reflection, and planning. The second and third meetings were action. The second meeting of the first cycle was conducted on February 7
th
, 2009. The class was conducted for 45 minutes. The class started at 09.30 a.m.
lxiv PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
until 11.00 a.m. The teacher took the second hour which started at 10.15 a.m. until 11.00 a.m.
In the second meeting of the first cycle, the teacher pronounced the vocabulary in the class. By pronouncing the vocabulary, the students could know
the correct and intelligible pronunciation of the vocabulary. Then, the teacher asked the students to pronounce the vocabulary together. The purpose of this
action was to drill students’ pronunciation. Afterward, the teacher explained phonetic. One problem of the students’
pronunciation intelligibility was the lack knowledge of English phonetic features. At the first time, the students did not know the English sound features. Hopefully
by giving the knowledge of phonetic, the students could understand the English sound features, although only at the surface. The teacher explained one by one the
English sound features to the students. The teacher explained that there were forty four English sounds; consisting of twelve vowels, twenty four consonants, and
eight diphthongs. The teacher also explained that it was different between Indonesian sound features and English sound features. Indonesian rarely uses
diphthong and only used vowels and consonants in the sound system. Diphthong was a new subject for the students. Therefore, the teacher explained carefully and
in detail. During the lesson, the students asked some question about the English
sound features. The teacher answered the questions based on her knowledge of phonetic. The students study the phonetic to make them familiar with the English
sound features. The students listened carefully to the teacher explanation. The
lxv PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
teacher also gave examples of each sound feature. The examples helped the students to be understood on the practical used of phonetic. From this lesson, the
students understood the sound features of English. After teaching the phonetic, the teacher asked the students to pronounce
the vocabulary together with the teacher. This was one action of drill method. There were a lot of practices on the drill in this research. In the end of the class,
the researcher closed and summarized the lesson. The third meeting of the first cycle was conducted on February 10
th
, 2009. The class was conducted for forty five minutes; started at 12.45 p.m. until 13.30
p.m. The teacher started the lesson by pronouncing the vocabulary. Pronouncing the vocabulary helped the students to remember the correct pronunciation of the
vocabulary. After that, the teacher pronounced the vocabulary together with the students. The teacher corrected the students’ pronunciation if there were errors in
the pronunciation. Next, the teacher asked the students to use the vocabulary in speaking. In this stage, the teacher used communicative drill in class. During the
lesson, the students were not only drilled on each word, but also used it in the practical communication.
In communicative drill, the students were able to use the vocabulary for communication in intelligible way. The students practiced in pairs. The teacher
asked each pairs to listen carefully on his or her partner’s pronunciation. If there were errors, the partner should fix the errors. The communicative drill took 15
minutes from the lesson. The teacher also asked about the difficulties in the speaking. In the end of the class, the teacher closed and summarized the lesson.
lxvi PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
After implementing the method, there was significant progress on the students’ pronunciation intelligibility. The result showed that the students’
pronunciation intelligibility in speaking improved. The students reduced the errors in each word pronunciation. The researcher would like to present the result of
words pronunciation increasing in table 4.1. The result was gathered from the analysis of the recorded students’ pronunciation in class during the lesson.
Table 4.1. The Students’ Words Pronunciation Intelligibility Errors before and after the Implementation of the First Cycle
No Words
The number of the Students’ errors before
the Implementation of the First Cycle
The number of the Students’ errors after
the Implementation of the First Cycle
Increase
1. Amaze
2,8 -
2. Anger
2,8 11,4
- 3.
Ashamed 20
5,7 14,3
4. Assume
2,8 2,8
5. Burden
8,6 11,4
- 6.
Conclude 5,7
2,8 -
7. Confuse
8. Cruel
20 14,2
5,8 9.
Doubt 94,3
80 14,3
10. Dread 82,8
57,1 25,7
11. Inspire 31,4
20 11,4
12. Jealous 5,7
2,8 2,9
13. Jeopardize 14. Misery
5,7 2,8
2,9 15. Overwhelm
5,7 5,7
16. Regret 40
22,8 17,2
17. Relish 45,7
20 25,7
18. Scorn 8,6
5,7 2,9
19. Sorrow 2,8
5,7 -2,9
20. Terrify 17,1
8,6 8,5
21. Legend 2,8
2,8 22. Wealth
74,2 42,8
31,4 23. Mock
8,6 8,6
24. Widow 5,7
8,6 -
25. Think 2,8
2,8
Continued to page 50
lxvii PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Continued from page 49
No Words
The number of the Students’ errors before
the Implementation of the First Cycle
The number of the Students’ errors after
the Implementation of the First Cycle
Increase
26. Believe 11,4
11,4 27. Understand
28. Consider 8,6
2,8 5,8
29. Discover 30. Enjoy
31. Love 32. Hate
91,4 51,4
40 33. Dislike
34. Prefer 2,8
2,8 35. Fear
40 20
20
From the result on table 4.1., the researcher concluded that some of the words’ pronunciation intelligibility was increasing. The communicative drill
effectively improved students’ pronunciation intelligibility. Before the researcher implementing the communicative drill, the students still pronounced the words
unintelligible. For example, the word “doubt”, at the beginning 94, 3 of the students pronounced unintelligible. After the researcher employed communicative
drill, the students who made the mistakes were decreased up to 14, 3. From the table 4.1., there was also some increasing on the students’ pronunciation errors.
For example, the words “amaze”, “anger”, “burden”, and “conclude”, the number of the students who made mistakes increased. The errors increasing happened
because of some problems. The problems were the students influenced by the other students’ pronunciation and the students forgot the correct pronunciation of
the words.
lxviii PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
At the first lesson, five students still had low level pronunciation intelligibility. Those five students had errors in the pronunciation intelligibility
more than 30. They made almost the same mistakes in pronouncing the words. After the teacher employed the communicative drill method in class, those five
low level students showed better progress in their pronunciation. The four low level students made errors in pronunciation less than 30. Only one student had
errors of 37, 1. This improvement also showed in the progress of the medium and high level students. In this research, the students pronounce the vocabulary
individually and together with the teacher. Some exercises on drill made the students familiar with the vocabulary.
The students could know the correct and intelligible pronunciation of the vocabulary. Moreover, the students also asked to use the vocabulary in speaking.
The speaking was in pairs. Their pairs fixed the errors during the conversation. This strategy brought the students to a better drill for their pronunciation. For the
low level students, this communicative drill made them more comfortable in practicing the drill on the vocabulary. Those low level students could know the
errors and correct it together with the other students. Communicative drill helped the students to have experiences to use the vocabulary in communication. From
the result above, the researcher would like to present the result in Table 4.2. The result consists of the students’ errors from the beginning of the research until the
end of the first cycle.
lxix PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Table 4.2. The Number of the Students’ Pronunciation Intelligibility Errors before and after the Implementation of the First Cycle
Errors The number of the
Students’ errors before the Implementation of
the First Cycle The number of the
Students’ errors after the Implementation of
the First Cycle Decrease
- 11
6 0 - 10
- 18
18 10 - 20
1 4
5 20 - 30
4 1
5 30 - 40
- 40 - 50
- 50 - 60
- 60 - 70
- 70 - 80
- 80 - 90
- 90 - 100
2. The Second Cycle
The second cycle was a verification cycle. In the second cycle, the researcher verified the result from the first cycle. The researcher employed the
same method in the first cycle. The researcher employed communicative drill to improve students’ pronunciation intelligibility in the second cycle.
The second cycle consisted of four steps. The steps were the same with the first cycle. The steps were observation, reflection, planning, and action. The
second cycle was conducted in two meetings. The first meeting consisted of three steps i.e. observation, reflection, and planning. The second meeting consisted of
one step i.e. action. The first meeting of the second cycle was conducted on February 14
th th
, 2009. The second meeting was conducted on February 17 , 2009. The subjects of the research were the students of XIIPA 3 of SMA 2 Ngaglik. The
numbers of the students were thirty six students. The research employed thirty
lxx PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
four students because at the first meeting of the first cycle two students were absent. The research took place in SMA 2 Ngaglik.
a. Observation
From the first cycle, the students showed a better progress in their pronunciation. The students decreased their errors in pronouncing the vocabulary.
In the first cycle, the students made a lot of unintelligible pronunciation. In the beginning of the research, the students’ speaking was not clearly heard by the
listeners. After applying the communicative drill, the students produced a better pronunciation in their speaking.
In communicative drill, the students had the opportunities to build their own ability in pronunciation mastery. The students practiced a lot of drills during
the lesson. The teacher led the students into organized teaching – learning activities. The teacher fixed the errors when the students pronounce unintelligible.
This is very important, because by correcting the errors brought the students into a deeper understanding in the pronunciation mastery. The students learned in pairs
with their partner. The teacher drilled the students over the lessons. The practices on drill made the students have a long term memory on the pronunciation.
b. Reflection
