Cycle I The Implementation of The Research

commit to user 71 Related to the statement, the researcher should apply techniques in which they can activate the students to embroil in the process of the teaching and learning. The techniques are applied to upgrade the students’ participation in discussing the materials actively, so they will not only be able to comprehend what they are learning in the class but also express their own English orally. Here, the teacher has a very crucial role in managing and creating the class lively and actively. Consequently, the class will be possibly crowd but it is enjoyable. Furthermore, applying a debate technique in teaching speaking skill may influence students’ learning motivation. In this case, students may be more motivated to have more vocabulary, to read more information and to be courageous in telling their opinions. In line with this, correlating between CoLT, in this case is critical debate and language teaching process, they have a very close relationship mainly in developing students’ speaking ability. Therefore, the researcher is interested to conduct a research about “Using Critical Debate to Improve Students’ Speaking Ability at the Eleventh Grade of SMAN 1 Sakra in 20102011 academic Year. The researcher used three cycles. Each cycle consisted of three phases- Planning, Acting, Observing, and Reflecting.

2. The Implementation of The Research

a. Cycle I

In this part, the researcher did a set of activities which consisted of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. Acting which included three meetings in which each meeting consisted of opening the class, presentation, practice, production, and closure. commit to user 72

1 Planning

To overcome the problems in speaking class in using Critical Debate Technique, the researcher purpose a planning consisting of some steps: 1 Socialized the research including reported and asked permission that there would be a research in SMAN 1 Sakra as well as to the head master of SMAN 1 Sakra and also told the students that there would be a research in their speaking class. The researcher made an agreement with the students about the time , the role and the schedule of the research ; 2 made a lesson plan containing the learning teaching process in speaking using Critical Debate Technique; 3 discussed and cooperated with the collaborators in order to create the same assumption and understanding about the learning teaching process using Critical Debate Technique and Everything that would be done in the research, for example: what would be observed in the classroom and assessed in speaking; and 4 prepare the instruments consisting of speaking assessment using Critical Debate Technique, interview and observation sheet appendix .

2 Acting

Acting was the implementation of these activities that have been made in the planning. The stage of acting included 3 meetings for different materials and the same motion as schedule below: commit to user 73 Table 7: Schedule of Cycle 1 Meeting Day Date Materials 1 Friday, 25 February 2011 Asking for someone opinion 1 Passive Modal 1 Mobile Phone 1 2 Saturday, 26 February 2011 Asking for someone opinion 2 Passive Modal 2 Mobile Phone 2 3 Monday, 28 February 2011 Assessment on oral test Students should not be allowed to bring mobile phone to school. a First Meeting The first meeting of cycle 1 was conducted on Friday, 25 th April 2011, there were collaborator-WDJ and 31 students attend the class. This part, the researcher and collaborators did a set of activities dealing with the teaching learning process that has been already mentioned before. As follows: opening the class warming up, presentation surviving the materials, practice practicing activity, production checking the students’ understanding about the materials and closure closing the class. The detail information can be explained in the following part: 1 Opening the Class Warming Up In this activity, the researcher used opening session to focus the students’ attention. He used greeting before beginning the lesson. The teacher came to the class and greeted the students. He asked the students about their condition “ Good morning students” ? “ How are you today? ” The researcher also asked about the commit to user 74 students’ attendance, “ Anybody is absent today” ? And then the students responded together ” no one absent sir.” Meanwhile, when the researcher warmed up the class, most of them seemed to be ready and strived to answer what the teacher asked. However, there were also some students who looked un-ready to answer the researcher’s questions. For example, the researcher asked a student like “ Why do you keep silent when I greet you?” The student just smiled and answered slowly ‘I…. I….. Held her ear. As the researcher stated before, in doing this activity, then he moved on from one student to another to give daily light questions randomly. 2 Presentation surviving the materials Before giving the material , the researcher reviewed the topic that had been taught in the previous meeting. After that, he gave the explanations about the way to do critical debate. He explained the procedures of debate and the topic related to motion. The new material that had been given before conducting the activity. In this case, the theme of the debate was “ Mobile Phone” and the motion of the theme was “ Students should not be allowed to bring mobile phone to school” . Then, the researcher explained some useful expressions clearly. The materials related to this theme were: asking for someone’s opinion , structure , vocabularies and pronunciation. There were five indicators to asses students speaking activity; they are content, organization, grammar, fluency and pronunciation . He also gave some examples in order to make students clear as in the following: commit to user 75 Examples I: Asking for someone’s opinion What do you think of …? What do you think about …? What’s your opinion about …? Do you agree with …? Do you disagree with …? Examples II: Carol : Do you agree if our school prohibits us from using our mobile phones in our school? Emma: I dont think thats very fair. Carol: You mean you disagree with the idea? Emma: Absolutely That is too much I dont believe it Carol: Well, Mobile phone has disturbed our class and unhealthy competition among students. Emma: That may be true. But cant you think about the advantage? Our family can contact us at any trine they want. We can also contact them at anytime. The Structure: Passive Modal Auxiliaries: Subject + Modal + Be + Past Participle For example: Mobile phone should be banned Students who come late will be penalized The Vocabularies: Noun: School [skul], mobile [mobail], phone [feun], Competitionf kompetisyen], student [sfstjudens], advantages [adventejes], thing [thing], lifef [laifJ, idea [aidiei]. After the teacher had explained those expressions and dialogue, he asked the students to follow his speech in order to check the students’ pronunciation. After finishing the explanation the teacher gave direction to do the activity, the commit to user 76 next step was; the class was talking about those expressions. It meant that, if the students had some questions or they did not understand about the topic, they could consult by raising their hands then conveying the question. In this session, the researcher gave a chance to the students to ask some questions if they did not understand the material. Here, the researcher always gave opportunity for the students to share about their problems in mastering the material. Then, the next activity was doing debate. The students were divided into 5 groups and each group consisted of 4-6 students. 3 Practice Practicing Activity In this activity, the researcher asked students doing debate activity. The students practiced the debate activity with the material or the theme that had been given by the researcher previously. The researcher asked the students to make five groups consisting of 4 until 6 students randomly. The first group for pro, second group for contra, third group for mediator, the fourth group for defender of the first group pro group and the fifth group for defender of the second group contra group. The students did the debate activity based on the topic. The researcher as facilitator provided the material, controlled the implementation of debate and gave the correctness to the students. Before doing debate, the researcher reminded the students the ways to do critical debate and that debating was not a discussion process in which there was no compromised result as in a discussion. The point of having a debate was to speak out and listen to different kinds of opinions and at the end respecting those commit to user 77 differences. In this case, the researcher used a format. The format worked as follows: a There were 2 debating teams, each consisted of 3 three debaters who would be 1 st. 2 nd, and 3 rd speakers. b One team was the GovernmentAffirmative side – the side agreeing the motion. The other team was the oppositionnegative side-the side disagreeing the motion. c Every team was given 30 minutes preparation time after the motion released and before the debate began. During this preparation time, teams were not allowed to get help from anybody or use laptop, PDAs, or any other communication devices. d Each speaker delivered a substantial speech of 8 eight minutes in duration, with the affirmative going first. Afterwards, either the 1 st or 2 nd speaker on both sides delivered. the reply speech of 4 four minutes in duration, with the negative going first. The complete order of the debate activity process were as follows: 1 st Aff à 1 st Neg à 2 nd Aff à 2 nd Neg à 3 rd Aff à 3 rd Neg à Reply Neg à Reply Aff e The members of the opposing team were allowed to give an interruption, called Points of Information POI to the speaker delivering the speech. POIs might be delivered between the 1 st and 7 th minute of the 8-minute-speech. f A time keeper signaled the time. There was one knock at the end of the 1 st and 7 th minutes to signal the starting and ending times for POI. There were two commit to user 78 knocks at the 8th minute to signal that delivery time for speech had ended. Any debaters speaking before 7 th minutes were considered under-time and hisher points could be reduced. g Any debaters speaking after 8 th minutes 30 second were considered overtime and hisher points could be reduce as well. h For reply speech, there was one knock at the 3 rd minute to signal that delivery time was almost over, and two knocks at the 4 th minute. i Every debater was judged by an odd number judges and only the judges decided who wins the debate there was no draw in result of the debate Every the end of the debate activity, the researcher asked the other students to give applause; in order the students would be more motivated and more comfortable in classroom. Consequently, the students were a little noisy but it was interesting and exciting, not boring. Therefore, the students were excited and interested in attending the speaking class. Hereby they could achieve a progress in mastering the English speaking competence. Besides, while they were doing a debate, the collaborator observed the teaching learning process related to three indicators as the criteria of success here. The students’ attitude toward the implementation of Critical Debate technique, the students’ involvement in the teaching and learning process, and the students’ ability in sharing or delivering argument based on the motion and the information they have got from their friends. In this case, there was no problem during the debating process and it meant they could meet the criteria of success in this cycle. commit to user 79 4 Production Checking the students result on what they had just learned, the researcher asked the students to do a debate with topic given. There were 2 teams of debating, each consisted of 3 three debaters who would be 1 st .2rd and 3 rd speakers of the teams. One team was affirmative side- the side agreeing with the motion. The other team was the opposition negative side- the side disagreeing with the motion. Each speaker delivered a substantial speech of 8 eight minutes in duration, with the affirmative going first. Afterwards, either the 1 st or 2rd speaker on both sides delivered the reply speeches of 4 four minutes in duration, with the negative going first. Each speaker delivered a substantial speech of 8 eight minutes in duration, with the affirmative going first. Afterwards, either the 1 st or 2 nd speaker on both sides delivered the reply speeches of 4 four minutes in duration, with the negative going first. When the students did a debate, the collaborator observed the implementation of the activity. The observation was done to gain or record data about aspects or events occurred during the implementation of the technique .She observed the researcher’s activities and the students’ attitudes during the implementation of Critical Debate. 5 Closure Closing the class At the end of the lesson the teacher did reflection in order to evaluate the learning teaching process asking the students” what do you think about our lesson to day? Students replied together “ Yes so happy ? The teacher continued asking the students? “ did you get involve actively in your team?” . The students answered commit to user 80 “ yes, sir’ . The teacher was very happy to hear it. Finally, the students were given homework- find the material from the internet related to the motion . He did not forget to remind the students to study harder at home and prepared the following meeting as good as possible. The teacher appreciated the students’ attention and participation as well. Then, he closed the meeting by greeting “ good morning and see you next meeting.” it meant that the teacher really wanted to make the students feel comfortable in all steps of teaching learning process. This condition would make the students enjoyable and easy to understand the materials. At the end of the class, the student came to the teacher asked” apakah minggu depan materi seperti ini lagi? Tehnik ini sangat menarik bagi kami . that expression had very deep impression and showed that the students really enjoyed the learning teaching process in that meeting. After the class finished, the teacher asked the students informally about their feeling when they joined the speaking class using Critical Debate Technique. The student with the data source S20 stated: “Pembelajaran yang kita ikuti tadi secara umum sangat effective karna saya dan teman-teman merasakan ada perubahan system belajar, saya dapat mengungkapkan pendapat saya lebih leluasa karena ada team yang bisa membantu kerja sama, lagi pula semua kita terlibat dalam proses belajar mengajar dan banyak kelebihan dalam teknik tadi yaitu bisa merangsang daya pikir yang kritis, meningkatkan motivasi dan menyenangkan”. Friday, 25 February 2011. Similar statement was given by the student with the data source S25. She admitted that the learning teaching process was interesting and effective to improve the students’ pronunciation, fluency and grammar. Besides that, their psychological problem-shy, nervous, afraid of making mistakes, afraid of being commit to user 81 laughed by friends. And less confident-be overcome. The statement was as follow: “Proses belajar seperti tadi membuat saya lebih tertarik karna bisa melatih ucapan bahasa English dengan baik karena ada team yang bisa membantu sehingga kami tidak merasa terbebani, tidak merasa takut, percaya diri walaupun ucapan dan susunan kata-kata yang tersusun salah, yang jelas saya lebih oke” Friday, 25 February 2011 . The statement above showed that the students interested in practicing pronunciation in speaking class. They were very helped by his team, no burden and feel enjoyed. Based on the reflection of the first meeting, it was recognized that the learning teaching process in speaking using Critical Debate Technique generally was very effective. Besides that, the students had high motivation to speak. It was recognized from the students’ encouragement to speak. The students were very active in speaking class. The students also enjoyed the learning teaching process. That was the end of the first meeting in cycle 1. b Second Meeting The second meeting was conduct on Saturday, 26 th February 2011. There were collaborator-WDJ and 31 students attend the class. In this part, the researcher and collaborator did a set of activities dealing with the teaching learning process like at the first meeting. In this meeting, the teacher hoped the students to be better than previous meeting. They could learn about their lack and improved it as good as possible because the theme was still the same as the previous theme ‘Mobile Phone’ . commit to user 82 In this meeting, the activity consisted of five phases such as opening the class warming up, presentation surviving the materials, practice practicing activity, production checking the students’ understanding about the give materials and closure closing the class. 1 Opening the Class Warming Up This activity was not quite different from the activity in the first meeting. The researcher used opening session to focus the students’ attention. He used greeting before beginning the study. The researcher came to the class and greeted them. He asked the students about their condition and also asked about the students’ attendance. After that, he reminded and gave the students questions related to materials that they had already learnt at the first meeting. It was just to refresh their mind about the materials given. When the researcher opened the class, the students seemed to be ready to join the speaking class. They sat on their seat neatly and they mostly paid attention to their teachers speaking seriously. However, on the left side there were students who made a little conversation but they didnt disturb the class because they spoke with low sound. Then, when the researcher checked their attendance, they raised their hands one by one while saying Yes, any sir or Yes, sir” or only Yes or even only raised hisher hand without saying anything after hisher name called by their teacher. On that day there were no absent students. In that class, they were complete 31 students. Meanwhile, when the researcher gave questions to check their memorization about the previous lesson, they mostly could answer well. commit to user 83 They seemed having mastered the previous material well. It could be seen, when they answered the questions, there were no misunderstanding. The questions could be answered correctly and acceptably by students. Even the class looked alive because there was a life communication between the researcher and the students interactively. 2 Presentation surviving the materials In this part, the researcher only repeated the previous expressions by giving explanation about what they had learned before. It was aimed at enriching their understanding about the expressions dealing with the topic. In this case, he gave another model dialogue. Then he read it and asked the students to repeat after him loudly. After that he pointed some students to read aloud just to pronounce certain words. When the researcher explained about the topic related to debate activity, such as asking for someone ‘s opinion , structure, pronunciation and vocabularies related to theme “ Mobile Phone ”, there was a student raised her hand. She asked “ Sir, Could I use another words beside the words which have been discussed related to expressing someone’s opinion?” Such as I behind you it meant ‘I agree’?”. Then the researcher answered the quetions by giving the wise answer “ well, that is a good question After that the researcher explained the student’s question ‘the expression “ I behind you.” could be used. It does not matter as long as you know where you should use the expression and know its mean. commit to user 84 After answering the student’s question, another student instantly raised his hand again. The researcher said “ what is your question?” The student started talking “ May I add another words to express my opinion, Sir?” The researcher said again, ‘what is it?’ “Like this Sir, the student responded, “ I disagree at all……” Then the researcher said “ that is very good ”, it means you really disagree about your opposite team in delivering their reasons, it is ok, no problem. Anything else The researcher asked to the class. Because there was no question anymore, he continued to describe what they had to do. 3 Practice practicing activity In this part, the researcher asked the students to repeat their previous topic by practicing it in front of the class. In this case, they were asked to produce or use their own English words. The researcher reminded them not to be afraid to make mistakes, because English was not their own language. So mistake was common, but later on he committed to correct the mistake together in that class. Therefore, once more the researcher reminded them not to be afraid to make mistake. He also reminded that in that second meeting the students had to do better than before. In this activity, the researcher asked the students doing a debate activity as the first meeting. The students practiced doing a debate activity with the material or the theme that had been given by the researcher. He asked the students to make five groups consisting of 4 until 6 students randomly. The first group for pro, Second group for contra, third group for mediator, the fourth group for defender of the first group pro group and the fifth group for defender of the second group commit to user 85 contra group. The students did the debate activity based on the topic given. The researcher as facilitator provided the material, controlled the implementation of debate and gave the correctness to the students. There were 2 teams of debating, each consisted of 3 three debaters who would be 1 st. 2 nd, and 3 rd speakers of each of the team. a One team was the GovernmentAffirmative side – the side agreeing with the motion. The other team was the oppositionnegative side-the side disagreeing with the motion. b Each speaker delivered a substantial speech of 8 eight minutes in duration, with the affirmative going first. Afterwards, either the 1 st or 2 nd speaker on both sides delivered the reply speech of 4 four minutes in duration, with the negative going first. c Every team was given 30 minutes for preparation after the motion was released and before the debate began. During this preparation time, teams were not allowed to get help from anybody or use laptop, PDAs, or any other communication devices. The debate process was done through the following pattern: 1 st Aff à 1 st Neg à 2 nd Aff à 2 nd Neg à 3 rd Aff à 3 rd Neg à Reply Neg à Reply Aff d Members of the opposing team were allowed to give an interruption, called Points of Information POI, to the speaker delivering the speech. POIs might be delivered between the 1 st and 7 th minute of the 8-minute-speech commit to user 86 e A time keeper signed the time. There was one knock at the end of the 1 st and 7 th minutes, to signal the starting and ending times for POI. And two knocks at the 8th minute signed that delivery time for speech had ended. Any debaters speaking before f 7 th minutes were considered under-time and their points could be reduced. Any debaters speaking after 8 th minutes 30 second were considered overtime and their points could be reduce, too. g For reply speech, there was one knock at the 3 rd minute to sign that delivery time was almost over, and two knocks at the 4 th minute. h Every debater was judged by an odd number judge and only the judges decided who won the debate there was no draw in result of a debate. At the end of the activity, the researcher always gave a stimulation and spirit to the students by giving applause. This situation could motivate them and created more comfortable class situation. Consequently, the class would be a little noisy but it would be interesting and exciting, not boring so that the students would be excited and interested in joining the class. When the students practiced, they seemed enjoying the speaking class. It could be seen from their physical appearance are not to be burdened. They looked excited to do it. Their expression was good, and their pronunciation, intonation, their rhythm were good too. They werent shy and doubt to express it anymore. They did the activity freely without any burden, they almost did it perfectly. Thus, they got a loud applause from their friend. After finishing the activity, they returned to their seat again. commit to user 87 Next, the second group continued the debate activity in front of the class. When they practiced it, there was a member who was still a little doubt to express. Perhaps, she-didnt make preparation well. Because she often responded the questions lately and sometimes she was a little less clear. Her friends often asked her to repeat again by saying pardon me. Basically they could practice it well. Only, it meant that what they had to communicate to each other could be done interactively, though they had to be a little patient to wait their friends response. Until the last group, they took turns interchangeably. The practice from the second group until the last group, there were no serious problems. They all could practice it well. Only a little problem happened to some students as having been mentioned above. Once again, at every end of the activity, each group was always applauded by their friends as the audiences. It was aimed at creating the class not to be bored and uncomfortable. Otherwise, the class was more attractive, comfortable and motivated; therefore, the result of the activity was better. This meant that there ought to be any better progress than before. At least, their willingness to master English orally was higher so they were able to communicate by using English in their real daily life. 4 Production This part, the researcher did almost the same activity as what he did at the first meeting. Checking the students understanding on what they had just learned, the researcher asked the students did a debate activity freely. The researcher asked them to make team about ten and gave them the topic. There were 2 debating commit to user 88 teams consisting of 3 three debaters who would be 1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd speakers of the team. One team was as affirmative side- the side agreeing with the motion. The other team was as the opposition negative side- the side disagreeing with the motion. Each speaker delivered a substantial speech of 8 eight minutes in duration, with the affirmative going first. Afterwards, either the 1 st or 2rd speaker on both sides delivered the reply speeches of 4 four minutes in duration, with the negative going first. When the students did the debate process, the collaborator observed the implementation of Critical Debate. The observation was done to gain or record data about aspects or events occurred during the implementation of the technique. And also she observed the researcher’s activities and the students’ attitudes during the implementation of Critical Debate by using collaborator’s journal and field notes. 5 Closure closing the class Finishing all the activities on that day, the researcher ended the class by saying “ thanks for joining the lesson actively and attentively ”. He hoped so much that the students could apply their English in their real daily life. Besides, he also reminded them to prepare the next meeting with the evaluation test dealing with the previous topic. Before closing the lesson, the researcher gave the students opportunity to ask some questions related to the topic and asked them to brose it through internet. Finally, he said “ good bye and see you next meeting .” commit to user 89 At the end of the class, informally the teacher asked the students about their opinion when the teacher implemented Critical Debate Technique in speaking class. The students with the data source S 013 stated that: “Pebelajaran speaking di kelas sangat menarik bagi kami sebab bisa melatih pengucapan, memperbanyak kosa kata, tidak menghafal, langsung menggunakan kata kata sendiri sehingga kami bisa menggungkapan ide secara langsung dan berani tampil beda.” Saturday, 26 February 2011 The students with the data source S17 gave similar statement as follows: “Menurut saya pebelajaran dengan mengguanakan tehnik tadi sangat apuh untuk menguji ketrampilan bahasa Enggris siswa teruma anak anak SMA,selama ini kita hanya diberikan dialogue dan dialogue itu di suruh untuk menghafal, cara ini tidak efektif, karna tidak keluar dari ide kita sendiri, yang penting saya harus berlatih terus.” Saturday, 26 February 2011” c Third Meeting The third meeting was conducted on Monday, 28 th February 2011. There were collaborator-WDJ and 31 students. In this part the researcher and collaborator evaluated the students orally test. The activities only consisted of three activities namely opening the class warming up, main activity doing the test orally. And closure ending the class. The following were the detail information: l Opening the Class Before going on his duty, the researcher had to greet the student’s first. Then he didnt forget to check their attendance one by one to make sure that they had been complete. On that day, there were no absent students. They were complete 31 students. Then, the researcher explained what they were going to do commit to user 90 on that occasion. He gave a test to evaluate what they had learned before. The test was oral test. In the oral test, the students were given time to prepare their argument and they might worked together with their team. The motion was “ the students should not be allowed to bring mobile phone to school” . Each speaker had three minutes maximally to deliver a speech or argument. The researcher gave a lottery to know their team, in this case affirmative team or negative team. 2 Main Activity In this activity, firstly the researcher gave the spoken test to the students. All students with their teams were ready with the topic. In doing a debate the researcher and collaborator prepared assessment. There were five indicators: content, organization, grammar, fluency and pronunciation. They may get a maximum of twenty five points on each of these five points and one hundred points in all the analytical scoring rubric of oral language assessment Brown, 2004: 173. The teacher explained about the rules of the Critical Debate Technique. There were 2 debating teams consisting of 3 three debaters who would be 1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd speakers of the team. One team was as affirmative side- the side agreeing with the motion. The other team was as the opposition negative side- the side disagreeing with the motion. Each speaker delivered a substantial speech of 4 four minutes in duration, with the affirmative going first. Afterwards, either he 1 st or 2rd speaker on both sides delivered the reply speeches of 4 four minutes in duration, with the negative going first. commit to user 91 When the students did the debate process, the teacher and collaborator gave score to students, the score was individuals ‘score. After the assessment end, the teacher did reflection with the students about the teaching learning process done. The student with the data source S25 admitted as follow: “Menurut saya proses belajar mengajar yang dilaksanaka seperti tadi sangat menyenangkan, sebab, kami di test merasa senang dan gembira, sebelum saya tampil, saya berkolaborasi dulu dengan team saya sebab, dalam debate itu kita harus menyimak dengan saksama penyataan team lawan, kalau peryataannya bertentangan dengan team saya, maka itu kesempatan team saya untuk bisa menyanggah pernyataan team lawan. Sekarang tidak lagi merasa takut berbicara dedepan team lawan dan juga tidak merasa nervous karna ada team yang bisa memecahkan kebuntuan.” Monday, 28 February 2011 Based on the reflection done, it was recognized that the test was interesting and the students were happy to do it. Besides that, the students were able to work together with their friend and they did not feel nervous and afraid any more. Quite similar answer was given by the student with the data source S26 as follows: “Dengan mengikuti test seperti tadi, saya merasa tertantang untuk bisa berbuat lebih banyak terutama dalam segi pengucapan,,penyusunan kata- kata, dan mengorganisasikan pendapat yang berhubungan dengan motion. Ada satu hal lagi yang paling menyenangkan dalam berdebat yaitu dimana pembicara harus menyampikan dengan tenang dengan menggunakan kata- kata yang sederhana agar bisa dimengerti oleh team lawan.” Monday, 28 February 2011” The statement given by student with the data source S26 showed and proved that Critical Debate Technique was very effective in speaking assessment since the students felt more relaxed with his team, besides that students was able to organize his logical opinion using simple words. commit to user 92 3 Closure Finishing all the activities, the researcher closed the class by saying thanks to the students’ attention and participation for joining the class well. But before closing the class, he didn’t forget to remind them to study harder in order they could master English speaking competence better. Besides, he also gave a chance to ask the difficult things that they didn’t understand yet. Then, he told the students the following topic that they were going to study well. Finally, he said ‘good bye to the class for parting’. 3 Observing The stage of Observing was carried out in order to find out the effect of the action in developing speaking ability using Critical Debate Technique. It was aimed to find out whether Critical Debate Technique can develop speaking ability of the second year students of SMAN 1 Sakra or not. Besides that, it was aimed to find out how far the teaching technique can make progress to learning process. The technique used in observing was observation, interview, and questionnaire. The observation was carried out during the learning teaching process in speaking using Critical Debate Technique. It was done by collaborator and the teacher in each meeting. Since there were in cycle 1, the observation was done for three times-during the first meeting, second meeting and the third meeting. Out after each meeting finished and also after cycle 1 finished. The interview was carried out by researcher to the students. The interview was done he directly after the class end by interviewing some students about the learning commit to user 93 teaching process. The interview was usually done for about 30 minutes. The researcher did the interview for three times because three meetings in cycle 1- three times interview after each meeting-exactly on Friday, 25 February 2011, Saturday, 26 February 2011, and Monday, 28 February 2011 and interview after the end of cycle 1- Questionnaire was also given to all students after cycle 1 finished-on Monday, 28 February 2011, all students were asked to answer the questionnaires given by the teacher about learning teaching process using Critical Debate Technique. It was done for 10 minutes. Based on the observation done it was found out some results of the research, as follows: a The improvement in speaking ability. Based on the result of the speaking assessment carried out at the last meeting of cycle 1, it was found out that that the students’ speaking ability improved. It was recognized from the score got by students in the assessment of cycle one. The students’ pronunciation improved. The average score of content was 3.74, the average score of organization was 3.74. The average score of grammar was 2.75. The average score of pronunciation was 2.65.The average score of fluency was 2.51.The complete score can be seen in appendix 183. commit to user 94 Table 8: The Average Score before the Research and after Cycle 1. No Aspects Average score Percentage Max.score Pre-Research Cycle 1 1 Content 2.98 3.74 75 5 2 Organization 2.95 3.74 75 5 3 Grammar 2.59 2.75 55 5 4 Pronounciation 2.32 2.65 53 5 5 Fluency 2.5 2.51 50 5 Total 13.34 15.39 62 25 Based on the fact that students had low speaking ability, it was recognized that the student had problems in: 1 pronunciation; 2 fluency; and 3 grammar. Table 9: Students Speaking Ability in Cycle 1 Number of students Percentages Level of Speaking ability Speaking score 20 64.51 High level Above 6.3 11 35.48 Average level 4 to 6 Low level Under 4 From the table above it can be describe that the researcher found that there were only 20 students who got mark more than minimum standard 6.3 and there were 11 students who got under minimum standard. The average score is 63.81 the highest is 72 and the lowest one is 56. See appendix 184. b The progress on the students’ involvement in learning teaching process. commit to user 95 Most of the students involved actively in the activities since they had much time to talk with their friends in team. They did much activity which was different from the previous semester. Most of students took part actively in speaking in team. Many students realized that there were chances in their speaking habit. Of course, it was very good for speaking class. Most students practiced actively in speaking instead of keeping silent as they did during this times. This situation much influenced the speaking ability they had. By having much practice in the team with many friends are more relax interesting situation, the students could participate in speaking activity. They could speak English without being forced by other people. It was recognized by students’ intensity in joining the activities in team. It was admitted by the student with the data source S08, as follows: “Menurut saya pribadi, dengan menggunakan technique ini speaking saya semakin okey, dimana kita dilatih untuk bisa mengungkapkan ide-ide secara kreatif dan juga bisa melatih ketrampilan berpikir yang kritis, juga dapat meningkatkan motivasi siswa dimana siswa bisa berargumentasi secara aktif kemudian bisa menyagah pernyatan dari team musuh, disamping itu pula bisa saling melengkapi dan sangat membantu dalam kerja team, dimana kita bisa bertanya kepada team kita tentang apa saja yang harus dipersiapkan sebelum tampil di depan kelas. Cara ini membuat saya lebih menyukai Bahasa Inggris, khususnya speaking karena saya merasa wawasan saya bertambah.” Tuesday, 1 March 2011” This statement above proved that Critical Debate Technique was interesting and exciting for students because Critical Debate Technique can increase the students’ motivation and make them more confident to speak. Besides that there was progress, students’ involvement in speaking. They were more active, more confident ,more relax and they could speak English without being force by other people. commit to user 96 c To increase the students’ motivation. Most of students had high motivation to speak since they had many friends in team. They were more motivated to speak in speaking class when they have friends to talk. Besides that, it could make them relax to speak. By having many friends in the team, the students were able to explore the idea and knowledge they had in speaking. Besides that they felt that there was a competition in their team that made students felt challenged to practice. It was recognize by the statement stated by student with the data source S19, as follows: “Menurut saya dengan menggunakan technique critical debate motivasi saya lebih meningkat bila dibandingkan dengan sebelumnya, sebab dengan critical debate saya bisa mengungkapkan pendapat secara leluasa dengan mengacu pada topic, secara kebetulan topiknya sangat menatang, sehingga saya merasa percaya diri tampil di depan team saya maupun team lawan, kemudian saya langsung memberikan argumentasi dan sanggahan kepada pihak lawan. Speaking saya semakin lancar dan membuat saya semakin termotivasi.” Tuesday,1 March 2011” d The decrease on the psychological problems Because of being with many friends in the group, the students could forget the psychological problems they usually had when they wanted to speak. It was admitted by many students who were not nervous and afraid any more to speak. On the other hand, they were more confident and not nervous anymore to speak because they were together with their friend. They were also felt that there was a kind competition in team. It was recognized by a student with the data source S 21 writing that: “Dengan menggunakan tehnik kritikal debat bahasa inggris saya semakin lancer, karna saya bisa belajar dari tim saya, lagi pula topiknya sangat menantang kepekaan dalam menaggapi suatu permasalahan, sehingga saya bersama tim saya tidak merasa redah hati melihat penapilan tim lawan, karna saya berkerja dengan tim”. Tuesday,1 March 2011”. commit to user 97 e The improvement on the social relationship They become cleverer in having relation with other people. They did not only speak and discuss with a friend, but they had many different friends to talk to. It was recognized from the students with the data source S 16 as follows: “Dengan menggunakan tehnik kritikel debate, saya bisa saling menukarkan pendapat mengenai topic yang sedang diperdebatkan, sehingga saya dengan teman-teman dalam tim saya bisa bersosialisai, saling kenal mengenal satu sama lain. Dengan adanya hubungan yang intim kami bisa beradaptasi dengan teman teman walaupun ada beberapa teman yang memiliki pandangan yang berbeda, hendaknya perbedaan itu menjadi satu pelajaran agar bisa saling hormat menhormati satu-sama lain, sehingga kita maju terus dalam menggapai suatu cita-cita luhur”. Tuesday,1 March 2011”

4 Reflecting

This stage was aimed at examining the strength and the weaknesses of the first cycle. The weaknesses then were used as the basis for making the recommendation which would be used to make planning for cycle two. The organization of report in this reflection included: a the strengths of developing speaking ability using Critical Debate Technique.; b the weaknesses of developing speaking ability using Critical Debate Technique; and c Recommendation. commit to user 98 a The strengths Based on the reflecting done in cycle 1, it was found out many strengths of the research. They were: 1 The students’ score increase in content and organization aspect of speaking. 2 The relationship between the students and the teacher become closer as they often talked and discussed about the learning teaching process, either during the lesson was done or after the lesson end. However it could create good motivation to study and attend the speaking class. 3 The support from collaborator was very good. The researcher always discussed everything concerning with the learning teaching process, not only before the research was carried out, but also after the research was done. 4 The atmosphere in the class was very good because the students got something new. The students had to study in so different ways that had never been got before that made them felt interested in it. That’s why the students enjoyed the lesson. 5 The students were more motivated to speak since they had many friends to speak. 6 The students were more active in speaking class. When the teacher applied Critical Debate Technique in speaking class. 7 The students got new knowledge from both the teacher and the other students in team. commit to user 99 b The weaknesses 1 The students still had poor pronunciation. It was recognized by un appropriate pronunciation spoken by the students. 2 The students still had problem in fluency. 3 The students still had problem in grammar. It was recognized by the grammar used in speaking was not well arrange. 4 The slow students still a little passive. 5 The students still doubt to express their opinion and argument. c Recommendation Based on the weakness happen in cycle 1, it is recommended to do following things in cycle 2: 1 The students should be drilled pronunciation. 2 The students’ grammar should be improved. 3 The students’ fluency should be improved. 4 The students should be given high motivation to support their spirit. 5 The students should be supported not to be worry to make mistake. Give strong motivation.

b. Cycle 2