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
In this step, the researcher analyzed the result of the students’ pronunciation intelligibility. In the first cycle, the students’ errors were still a lot.
Five students were chosen as the subjects in the research. Those five students had errors more than 30 in the pronunciation. The five students were
considered as low level students. The rest of the students had errors less than 30.
lxxi PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
All of the students in class got treatment in the pronunciation practices. The researcher applied the communicative drill during the research. After applying the
communicative drill, the students decreased the errors significantly. The researcher analyzed the students’ pronunciation intelligibility using
the checklist and rubric. From the checklist and rubric, the researcher could know the students’ unintelligible pronunciation. The low level students decreased the
errors up to 10 during the first cycle. Only one student had errors for 37, 1. This student was considered as a low level student.
c. Planning
In the first cycle, the researcher was used communicative drill to improve students’ pronunciation intelligibility in speaking. In the second cycle, the
researcher needed to verify whether the method worked well or not. The researcher also used the same technique as in the first cycle. The technique was
the communicative drill. The purpose of the communicative drill in the second cycle was the same with the purpose in the first cycle; to improve students’
pronunciation intelligibility in speaking. The communicative drill helped the students to have a better pronunciation in the communication.
d. Action
This step was conducted in one meeting. This step was the step in which the research applied the communicative drill in the class to improve students’
pronunciation intelligibility in speaking. The action was conducted on February 17
th
, 2009. The action consisted of students’ drill on the pronunciation. The class started at 12.05 p.m. until 13.30 p.m. The researcher took the second hour for
lxxii PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
forty five minutes teaching – learning activities. The second hour started at 12.45 p.m. until 13.30 p.m.
The researcher started the class with pronouncing the vocabulary together with the students. This kind of pronunciation drill had purpose to make the
students more easily to remember the pronunciation of the words. Afterward, the researcher gave example sentences of the vocabulary. This action had purpose to
make the students able to use the vocabulary in the communication. After pronouncing the vocabulary, the students practiced in pairs. The researcher asked
the partner in pairs to help the other student in correcting the pronunciation. This communicative drill was highly effective for the students to improve their
pronunciation intelligibility. The students reduced the errors significantly from the first cycle. The students learned the pronunciation together with the teacher and
the other students in the teaching – learning activities in class. After using the vocabulary in the conversation, the researcher asked the
students to pronounce the vocabulary individually. The researcher recorded the students’ pronunciation during the lesson. The recording observation will be the
valid data for the researcher. After recording the data, the researcher analyzed the data and performed the data in form of table. The researcher also asked the
students if they found any difficulties in the pronunciation. In the end of the class, the researcher pronounced the vocabulary together with the students. The
researcher summarized and closed the lesson. The researcher found that the students reduced the errors in pronunciation
significantly. Only few students made mistakes in their pronunciation. The low
lxxiii PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
level students increased their pronunciation intelligibility for about 20. Four level students achieved the high level in the second cycle. Only one student
achieved the medium level. The rest of the students also made significant progress in the second cycle. The rest of the students achieved high level in the second
cycle. One of the students made 0 error. The students spoke intelligibly during the research in the second cycle.
Finally, the students got familiar with the words. They could use the proper sound for each of the words in the vocabulary.
The students reduced the errors of each word significantly in the second cycle. The errors percentage of each word
after the implementation in the second cycle was presented in the table 4.3.
Table 4.3. The Students’ Words Pronunciation Intelligibility Errors after the Implementation of the First Cycle and after the Implementation of the Second Cycle
No Words
The number of the Students’ errors
after the Implementation of
the First Cycle The number of the
Students’ errors after the
Implementation of the Second Cycle
Increase
1. Amaze
2,8 2,8
2. Anger
8,6 8,6
3. Ashamed
11,4 8,6
2,8 4.
Assume 5.
Burden 11,4
2,8 8,6
6. Conclude
2,8 2,8
7. Confuse
8. Cruel
14,2 2,8
11,4 9.
Doubt 80
65,7 14,3
10. Dread
57,1 34,2
22,9 11.
Inspire 20
8,6 11,4
12. Jealous
2,8 2,8
13. Jeopardize
14. Misery
2,8 2,8
15. Overwhelm
16. Regret
22,8 14,2
8,6 17.
Relish 20
20 18.
Scorn 5,7
2,8 2,9
Continued to page 57
lxxiv PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Continued from page 56
No Words
The number of the Students’
errors after the Implementation of
the First Cycle The number of the
Students’ errors after the
Implementation of the Second Cycle
Increase
19. Sorrow
5,7 5,7
20. Terrify
8,6 8,6
21. Legend
2,8 2,8
22. Wealth
42,8 14,2
28,6 23.
Mock 8,6
8,6 24.
Widow 8,6
2,8 5,8
25. Think
26. Believe
11,4 11,4
27. Understand
28. Consider
2,8 2,8
29. Discover
30. Enjoy
31. Love
32. Hate
51,4 20
31,4 33.
Dislike 34.
Prefer 35.
Fear 20
11,4 8,6
From the result on table 4.3., the researcher concluded that most of the words pronunciation intelligibility was increasing. Most of the students
pronounced carefully and intelligibly in the pronunciation. Twelve words were pronounced 100 intelligible. In the first cycle, some of the students still made
mistakes in the pronunciation. For example, the word “assume” in the first cycle, one of the students pronounced unintelligibly and in the second cycle, there were
no students made mistakes in the word pronunciation. The errors reducing happened not only for the twelve words above, but also for the other words. The
word “hate” also increased significantly after the researcher implementing the method. In the first cycle before the implementation, 91, 4 of the students
pronounced unintelligibly. In the first cycle after the implementation, the number
lxxv PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
of the students who made mistakes were reduced until 51, 4. In the second cycle after the implementation, the number of the students who made mistakes also
reduced until 20. This also happened to all of the words. The researcher concluded that communicative drill helped the students to be familiar with the
English words. Moreover, the students could reduce the errors significantly in the pronunciation in each step.
From the result, the researcher concluded that communicative drill worked well during the research and was effective to improve students’ pronunciation
intelligibility in speaking for the students of XIIPA 3 of SMA 2 Ngaglik. The students were able to use the intelligible pronunciation in their speaking. The
researcher presented the result of the students’ errors and their progress after the implementation in the first cycle and after the implementation in the second cycle
in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4. The Number of the Students’ Pronunciation Intelligibility Errors after the Implementation of the First Cycle and after the Implementation of the
Second Cycle Decrease
The number of the Students’ errors after
the Implementation of the Second Cycle
Errors The number of the
Students’ errors after the Implementation of
the First Cycle
- 33
11 0 - 10
17 1
18 10 - 20
4 4
20 - 30 1
1 30 - 40
- 40 - 50
- 50 - 60
- 60 - 70
- 70 - 80
- 80 - 90
- 90 - 100
lxxvi PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
The implementation of communicative drill was highly effective for the students in increasing their pronunciation intelligibility in speaking. The low level
students could achieve the medium and high level after the implementation of communicative drill. The rest of the students also made progress on their
pronunciation intelligibility. First, the students had a better knowledge on English phonetic. The students rarely made mispronunciations in their pronunciation.
Their pronunciation was understandable and considered as intelligible. The students also got the knowledge of English phonetic. This would make them
aware to pronounce the words intelligibly. Second, the students were getting familiar with the English words. The
drill during the research made the students familiar to the English words. They knew the meaning of the words, able to pronounce the words intelligibly, and able
to use the vocabulary in speaking. The communicative drill let the students to do more practices using the vocabulary. In this research, drill was conducted
frequently. The students also asked the teacher if they do not know how to pronounce the words. They asked the correct pronunciation to the teacher. The
students were braver to ask the teacher about pronunciation during the research. Before the research conducted in the class, the students rarely asked the teacher
about the pronunciation of the English words they found. This made them easily produce unintelligible pronunciation in class. In communicative drill, the students
got different experiences in learning the pronunciation. The students learned pronunciation together with the teacher and the other students in class.
lxxvii PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter presents the conclusions and suggestions. The researcher divides into two main parts. The first part presents the conclusions, which are
drawn from the research findings and the data analysis described in chapter IV. The second part, the researcher presents the suggestions for the English teachers
and other researcher.
A. Conclusions
There was a research question to be answered in this research. The question was how communicative drill can improve students’ pronunciation
intelligibility of XIIPA 3. Based on the data analysis, there were some problems of the students of
XIIPA 3 of SMA 2 Ngaglik in the pronunciation intelligibility. First, the students of XIIPA 3 were not familiar with the English words. The students produced
unintelligible pronunciation most of the time during the research. The students rarely asked the teacher about the pronunciation and the meaning of the words in
the class. Second, the problem was the students’ limited knowledge in the English phonetic features. Because of the limited knowledge, the students of XIIPA 3
cannot differentiate between the English sounds and their first language sounds. The students’ pronunciation on the vocabulary was unclear and unintelligible.
Most of the time, the students produced unintelligible pronunciation. The unclear
lxxviii 60
