80
No Students’
Name Aspects Scale
A B
C D
E
17. Student 17
Did not have preliminary test 18.
Student 18 Absent
19. Student 19
Absent 20.
Student 20 Did not have preliminary test
21. Student 21
Did not have preliminary test
Based on table 4.6, the range of structure and vocabulary was symbolized with A, breadth and precision of expression was B, the accuracy was C, the
pronunciation was D and the voice quality was E. The researcher recorded their performances of each pair the same as in Cycle 1. By listening students’
performances, the researcher analyzed the speaking. In the speaking test, the researcher only focused on the students’
pronunciation. Table 4.7, shows the students’ pronunciation percentages in Cycle 2.
4.7 Table of Percentages of Students’ Pronunciation Improvements in Cycle
2 No
Students’ Name
Pronuncia tion Scale
Correct Pronunciation
of English Words
Percentages of Students’ Pronunciation Improvements
in Cycle 2 D
1. Student 1
3 26
65 2.
Student 2 3
27 67
3. Student 3
4 30
75 4.
Student 4 4
35 87
5. Student 5
4 32
80
6. Student 6
Did not attend meeting II Cycle 1 7.
Student 7 3
28 70
8. Student 8
4 30
75 9.
Student 9 3
28 70
10. Student 10 3
29 72
11. Student 11 Absent
12. Student 12 Absent
13. Student 13 Absent
14. Student 14 3
27 67
15. Student 15 3
24 60
16. Student 16 3
27 67
17. Student 17 Did not have preliminary test
81
No Students’
Name Pronuncia
tion Scale Correct
Pronunciation of English
Words Percentages of Students’
Pronunciation Improvements in Cycle 2
D 18. Student 18
Absent 19. Student 19
Absent 20. Student 20
Did not have preliminary test 21. Student 21
Did not have preliminary test
Based on the table, the percentages of the students’ pronunciation improvements were seen. The students whose numbers were 11, 12 and 13 did not attend the
class. Therefore, those students were not scored in Cycle 2. The student number one pronounced 65 or 13 words correctly. The
student number two pronounced 67 or 13 words correctly. The student number three pronounced 75 or 12 words correctly. The student number four
pronounced 87 or 14 words correctly. The student number five pronounced 80 or 21 words correctly.
The student number seven pronounced 50 or 11 words correctly. The student number eight pronounced 75 or 16 words correctly. The student number
nine pronounced 70 or 10 words correctly. The student number ten pronounced 72 or 19 words correctly. The student number 14 pronounced 67 or 13 words
correctly. The student number 15 pronounced 60 or 18 words correctly. The student number 16 pronounced 67 or 20 words correctly. Therefore, the average
of the students’ performances in pronouncing the 40 words in Cycle 2 was 70. The complete table of the students’ performances in pronouncing 30 English
words can be seen in Appendix I p. 215. The researcher compared the students’ pronunciation in Cycle 1 and Cycle
2. The student number one improved from 43 to 65. The student number two
82 improved from 43 to 67. The student number three improved from 40 to
75. The student number four improved from 47 to 87. The student number five improved from 70 to 80. The student number seven improved from 37
to 50. The student number eight improved from 53 to 75. The student number nine improved from 33 to 70. The student number ten improved from
63 to 72. The student number 14 improved from 53 to 67. The student number 15 stayed in 60. The student number 16 also stayed in 67.
Table 4.8 The Students’ Performances in the Elements of Pronunciation in Cycle 1 and Cycle 2
No Students’
Numbers The Percentage of Elements of Pronunciation
Phonemes Stress
Intonation Articulation
C1 C2
C1 C2
C1 C2
C1 C2
1. Student 1
53.3 70
70 82.5
73.3 90
50 77.5
2. Student 2
56.6 75
70 73
70 98
70 90
3. Student 3
53.3 75
73.3 70
83.3 97.5
70 92.5
4. Student 4
57 93
77 93
77 98
80 93
5. Student 5
73.3 82.5
93.3 90
93.3 97.5
76.6 95
6. Student 6
Did not attend meeting II cycle 1 7.
Student 7 46.6
75 56.6
87.5 70
97.5 90
92.5 8.
Student 8 70
82.5 70
85 93.3
100 86.6
95 9.
Student 9 40
72.5 56.6
82.5 76.6
100 66.6
92.5 10.
Student 10 66.6
80 80
87.5 90
100 90
95 11.
Student 11 70
Absent
63.3 Abse
nt 90
Absent
86.6
Absent
12. Student 12
66.6
Absent
73.3 Abse
nt 83.3
Absent
73.3
Absent
13. Student 13
30
Absent
33.3 Abse
nt 63.3
Absent
46.6
Absent
14. Student 14
63.3 75
73.3 95
93.3 100
86.6 95
15. Student 15
66.6 62.5
76.6 85
100 97.5
86.6 90
16. Student 16
66.6 80
73.3 80
100 100
93.3 100
17. Student 17
Did not have preliminary test 18.
Student 18 Absent
19. Student 19
Absent 20.
Student 20 Did not have preliminary test
21. Student 21
Did not have preliminary test Average
58,6 76.8
69,3 84.1
83,75 97.9
76,8 92.2
83 Table 4.8 shows the comparison of students’ performances on the
elements of pronunciation in Cycle 1 and 2. The improvements of the students’ pronunciation were in the elements of correct phonemes, correct intonation,
correct stress, and clear articulation. For example, when student number one said, “why don’t you ask Arya’s suggestion?”, She had clear articulation. Firstly, she
had wrong pronunciation in the word “suggestion.” The word “suggestion” should
be pronounced sə’dʒestʃən. However, the student whose number was one pronounced it su’gest’ʃən. Then, the student corrected it directly by sə’dʒestʃən.
The students’ pronunciation abilities in Cycle 1 increased compare to the students’ pronunciation abilities in Cycle 2. The percentage of the students’
pronunciation improved from 58,6 to 76,8 in their correct phonemes. Then, the students’ correct intonation in pronouncing increased from 69,3 to 84,1.
Next, the abilities in stressing each word provided increased from 83,75 to 97,9. The clarity of students’ articulation in speaking increased from 76,86 to
92,2. The average of the elements improved 15,65 compared to the average of Cycle 1.
Table 4.9 shows the students’ improvements in the elements of pronunciation in Cycle 1 and 2.
Table 4.9 The Students’ Improvements in the Elements of Pronunciation in Cycle 1 and 2
No Students’
Numbers The Percentage of Elements of Pronunciation
Phonemes Stress
Intonation Articulation
1. Student 1
Improved Improved
Improved Improved
2. Student 2
Improved Improved
Improved Improved
3. Student 3
Improved Didn’t
Improved Improved
Improved 4.
Student 4 Improved
Improved Improved
Improved 5.
Student 5 Improved
Didn’t Improved
Improved
84
No Students’
Numbers The Percentage of Elements of Pronunciation
Phonemes Stress
Intonation Articulation
Improved 6.
Student 6 Did not attend meeting II cycle 1
7. Student 7
Improved Improved
Improved Improved
8. Student 8
Improved Improved
Improved Improved
9. Student 9
Improved Improved
Improved Improved
10. Student 10
Improved Improved
Improved Improved
11. Student 11
Absent 12.
Student 12 Absent
13. Student 13
Absent 14.
Student 14 Improved
Improved Improved
Improved 15.
Student 15 Didn’t
Improved Improved
Didn’t Improved
Improved 16.
Student 16 Improved
Improved Didn’t
Improved Improved
17. Student 17
Did not have preliminary test 18.
Student 18 Absent
19. Student 19
Absent 20.
Student 20 Did not have preliminary test
21. Student 21
Did not have preliminary test
The students who improved their abilities in pronouncing correct phonemes were the students whose numbers were one, two, three, five, seven,
eight, nine, ten, 14 and 16. The students who improved their abilities in stressing each word were the students whose numbers were one, two, four, seven, eight,
nine, ten, 14, 15 and 16. Next, the students who improved their abilities in having correct intonation were the students whose numbers were one, two, three, five,
seven, eight, nine, ten, and 14. The last, the students who improved their abilities in having clear articulation were the students whose numbers were one, two, three,
five, seven, eight, nine, ten, 14, 15, and 16. Based on table 4.9, the pronunciation of students whose numbers were ten,
15 and 16 did not improve. However, their pronunciation improved compared to
85 their pronunciation in preliminary test. The pronunciation of students whose
numbers were one, two three, four, five, seven, eight, nine, and 14 had improved. The students’ improvements were different from each other. Based on the
table, the students’ elements of pronunciation in Cycle 1 improved compare to the Cycle 2. The students’ abilities in having correct phonemes had improved 91.
Then, the students’ abilities in correct stressing improved 83. Next, the students’ intonation in pronouncing improved 83. The last, the students’ abilities in
having clear articulation improved 100. Therefore, the researcher concluded that drilling technique improved pronunciation of XI AP students of SMK BOPKRI 1
Yogyakarta.
86
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
This Chapter V presents the conclusions and the recommendation of the study. The conclusions are drawn from the findings of the study which are based
on the problem formulation in Chapter 1. The recommendation is intended to the English teacher, the students of XI AP class and the future researcher.
A. Conclusions of the Study
The researcher focuses on the students’ pronunciation which is the part of speaking elements. Pronunciation should not be ignored from speaking skill. The
meaning of a word will be different if the students pronounce the word incorrectly. This study was held in SMK BOPKRI 1 Yogyakarta. The participants
were the students of XI AP class. In this case, the students had difficulties in pronouncing English words correctly. Therefore, the researcher applied drilling
technique to help the students overcome their problems in pronouncing English words.
The researcher used two cycles to conduct the study. In each cycle, the researcher had four stages, which are plan, action, observation and reflection. In
planning stage, the researcher planned all instruments needed. In action stage, the researcher conducted the study by having the instruments and the lesson plan.
Next, in observation stage, the researcher was helped by three observers who observed the class by filling the observation checklists and field notes. The last
