first meeting, the researcher taught about describing people. In the second meeting the researcher taught about describing things. The researcher explained about the
useful expressions and vocabularies related to describing people and things. Students worked in pairs and performed their activity in front of the class. Teacher
gave feedbacks on the students’ performances in the end of each role-play. This kind of technique aimed to help students to build topics to talk about, to enrich
their vocabularies, to mind their grammar mastery, and reduce pauses while speaking.
d. Evaluation
Having finished with the action and the observation the researcher made an evaluation. From the evaluation, the researcher concluded that the technique
was appropriate to improve the students’ speaking ability or not. The researcher could repeat the cycle until she found satisfying result. The result was the
students’ speaking ability showed significant improvement. After two meetings were conducted and all pairs performed their
conversations, the researcher could see the improvement in speaking components through speaking rubrics and field notes. The descriptions of the speaking
components are described as follows:
1. Content
In the area of content, six students 75 improved or made progress. Student number 1, student number 2, student number 7 and student number 8
improved from partial completion of the task and mostly appropriate responses PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
yet undeveloped to completion of the task. Student number 4 improved from minimal completion of the task to completion of the task. It means that the
students showed appropriate and adequately developed responses. Student number 3 improved from minimal completion of the task andor frequently inappropriate
responses to partial completion of the task, mostly appropriate responses yet undeveloped.
This technique provided topics to talk about. Nevertheless, the paths or clues in the cued dialogues were very limited and short. When students
performed in front of the class they only spoke in very short conversations. They only made short conversation as what they were supposed to make in the cued-
dialogue. Student 3: excuse me Can you help me?
Student 6: yes, sure. What is that? Student 3: Do you know Amel? I must to see her now.
Student 6: Oh yes, I know. Student 3: Can you tell me
Student 6: She is tall and white skin. She has round face and wavy hair. She is in class two.
Student 3: All right. Thank you. Student 6: you’re welcome.
Meeting 3,
November 5,
2007
2. Comprehensibility
In the area of comprehensibility of speaking four students 50 made progress. Student number 1, student number 2, and student number 5 improved
from mostly comprehensible to comprehensible responses. Student number 6 improved from barely comprehensible to comprehensible responses. It means that
the responses were comprehensible, requiring minimal interpretation on the part of the listener. Since cued-dialogue provided topics to talk and cues to expand the
topics, students could expand the topics and make comprehensible dialogues easier.
3. Fluency
There were three students 37.5 who improved in the area of fluency of speaking. Student number 1, student number 3 and student number 5 improved
from halting speech and uneven with long pauses or incomplete thoughts to choppy speech andor slow with frequent pauses, few or no incomplete thoughts.
Students sometimes used Indonesian in their dialogues to show pauses. For example they said “apa.., ehm.., or eh salah…”
4. Pronunciation
