123
Figure 21: The number of students who performed each indicator in Cycle 2
From the explanation above, the result of Cycle 2 was said to be valid because it was in line with the concept of process, dialogic and outcome validity.
It meant that there were some improvements after implementation of actions which were supported by some data sources, such as field notes and interview
transcripts. The result was also reliable because there was more than one observer in gathering the data. It was in line with the concept of researcher triangulation.
By considering good improvements of students’ speaking skills, it was decided to stop the cycle.
3. General Findings
Based on the reflection of Cycle 1, the students had shown improvements on their participation, confidence, comprehension, vocabulary and pronunciation.
However, they still got problems in fluency and grammar. Therefore, the
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Meeting 1
Meeting 2
Meeting 3
N u
m b
e r
o f
st u
d e
n ts
in
Comprehension Fluency
Vocabulary Pronunciation
Grammar
124
researcher and the English teacher decided to continue the cycle. In Cycle 2, it was found that the students improved in every indicator. The result of the both
cycle can be seen in the following chart.
Figure 22: The number of students performing each indicator in cycle 1 and 2
The chart above shows that the number of students who performed each indicator improved. It indicates that the use of the jigsaw technique and the
accompanying actions were successful in improving the students’ speaking skills. As the result, there were changes that occurred during the implementation of the
actions. Here is the summary of changes that happened before and after the actions were conducted.
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
1st 2nd
3rd 1st
2nd 3rd
N u
m b
e r
o f
st u
d e
n ts
in
Meetings
Comprehension Fluency
Vocabulary Pronunciation
Grammar
Cycle I
Cycle II
125
Table 12: The Changes that Existed after the Implementation
Before the Actions were Implemented
After the Actions were Implemented Cycle 1
Cycle 2
The students did not fully participate during the
speaking activities. The students participated in
the speaking activities. They paid attention and gave
responses to the explanation. Most of them were
enthusiastic to join in. The students kept their
participation during the activities.
They practiced speaking enthusiastically.
Most of the students were not confident to speak
English. They were shy and afraid to make mistakes in
speaking. Most of them were not shy
and afraid to speak anymore. They were willing to
practice speaking. However, they still needed much
encouragement. The students’ confidence in
speaking English improved. They were not
shy to speak and not afraid to make mistakes.
The students had difficulties in following what was said
in English. They could comprehend
only a few instructions and social conversation, such as
greeting and leave taking. The students had been
accustomed to the use of the classroom English. Most of
them could give appropriate responses on greeting,
checking attendance and leave taking. However, they
were still confused when the researcher used English in
explanation. The students needed more help in
translation. The students could
appropriately respond to greetings, checking
attendance, and leave taking.
They could comprehend explanation and some
instructions in English better with less translation.
Most of the students could not speak fluently.
They were hesitant to speak and sometimes forced into
silence when they were asked to practice.
Some students were fluent enough when they used the
language functions that had been taught. However, some
of them sometimes forgot the language function and
made grammatical mistakes. Some students were fluent
enough when they used the language functions that had
been taught in correct order. Their grammatical
mistakes were reduced.
The students lacked vocabulary mastery.
They stopped speaking to look for the vocabulary by
asking their friends. Even though the students
still forgot some words, they could memorize the
vocabulary better than before.
The students could memorize the vocabulary
well. They could use the words in language
functions.
Continued Continued
Continued
126
Before the Actions were Implemented
After the Actions were Implemented Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Continued Continued Continued The students often spoke
with grammatical errors. The students realized the
grammatical errors in their speaking.
The students were more aware if they said
something wrong in grammar.
The students had difficulties in pronunciation.
They mispronounced some words and used
inappropriate intonation. Some students could apply
the appropriate intonation when they said the language
functions. However, they still got difficulties in
pronouncing the words. Most of the students could
pronounce the words correctly and said the
functions with the appropriate intonation
better than before.
The speaking teaching and the learning process lacked
of fun activities. The students began to
explore and try some various media and activities during
the learning process. The students enjoyed the
activities during the learning process.
Besides the result above, the success of the actions was also considered by comparing the results of the pre-test and the post-test. In pre-test and post-test,
some indicators were used to assess students speaking skills. They were comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar. The students’
pre-test and post-test scores could be seen in Appendix F. The different average results between the pre-test and the post-test based on each indicator can be seen
in the following table.
Table 13: The Mean Score of Each Indicator in Pre-test and Post-Test Indicators Pre-Test
Post-Test Comprehension
2.14 4
Fluency 1.83 3.15
Vocabulary
1.70 3.38
Pronunciation
1.56
3.11
Grammar
1.45 2.88
127
The table shows that in each indicator, the post-test score is higher than the pre-test score. It means that the students’ speaking skills were improved. The
improvements of students’ speaking skills can also be seen in the following chart.
Figure 23: The Mean Score of Each Indicator in Pre-test and Post-Test
From the chart above it is clearly seen the mean score of each indicator in the post-test increased. The improvements of the mean scores were 86.92 for
comprehension, 72.13 for fluency, 98.82 for vocabulary, 99.36 for pronunciation, and 98.62 for grammatical accuracy. To support the data of
grammar, the researcher conducted a written test of grammar to the students. The improvement of mean score was 45.75. The result can also be seen in the
following table.
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4.00 4.50
Pre ‐Test
Post ‐Test
Me a
n S
co re
Comprehension Fluency
Vocabulary Prounciation
Grammar
128
Table 14: The Mean Score of Written Grammar Indicator Pre-Test
Post-Test Written Grammar
55.1 80.31
As the final reflection, the researcher and the English teacher discussed the result of this research. They agreed that the actions implemented were successful
to improve students’ speaking skills. In other words, the objective of the research was achieved. Therefore, after the result of the last cycle had shown a good
improvement in students’ speaking, they decided to stop the cycle.
C. Research Discussion
