imagination. Even though the situation was noisy, the task made them more willing to ask and think creatively.
In conclusion, the cycle was successfully done. The problem found in the first cycle could be fixed in the second cycle and the students
reached the goal of the lesson. The speaking skills of the students improved and the classroom atmosphere became more alive. Therefore,
the cycle stopped.
e. Revising the Plan
From the result of cycle 2, it could be seen the improvement of the students’ speaking proficiency. The speaking test score was increased
although there were still some minor distractions games were implemented; the atmosphere of the teaching and learning process was
also increased on a better side. From those observation and reflection, the researcher did not revise the plan and decided to stop the cycle.
B. Research Findings
After analyzing the result from several sources of the data, such as field notes, interview transcript, researcher observation report, the speaking score,
and students’ written interview, the researcher obtained some findings which answered the research question.
The research findings include the improvement of students’ speaking proficiency, and the improvement of the classroom atmosphere in teaching
learning process and the findings of teacher’s behavior. The researcher also
provided the results of pre-test and post-test scores of the students speaking performance to support the findings. A pre-test was held before the first cycle
was began to measure the students’ speaking proficiency. The pre-test was held
in the form of conversation. The students were asked to perform a dialogue in pairs.
The components
being assesed
included task
completion, comprehensibility, fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, and language control.
The following is the chart of pre-test.
Figure 4.1. Pre-test Score
I : Task completion
II : Comprehensibility III : Fluency
IV : Pronunciation
V : Vocabulary
VI : Language control
The post-test was held after cycle 2 finished to measure the improvement of students’ speaking ability. The students were asked to perform a dialogue in
pairs. The researcher and the teacher observed and assesed the students’
0.5 1
1.5 2
2.5 3
3.5 4
4.5 5
I II
III IV
V VI
Students Pre-test Score
performances by using the same speaking assesment instruments. The following is the chart of post-test.
Figure 4.2. Post-test Score
I : Task completion
II : Comprehensibility III : Fluency
IV : Pronunciation
V : Vocabulary
VI : Language control
From both charts, it could be seen that there was a progress of students speaking skill. It proved that there was an
improvement on the students’ speaking skill. Most students got higher scores in post-test. Moreover, the score
of some categories increased well. There were improvements on task completion, fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, and language control. The
chart below show the change or improvement of the students speaking proficiency.
0.5 1
1.5 2
2.5 3
3.5 4
4.5 5
I II
III IV
V VI
Students Post-test Score
