57
vocabulary, the mean score is 2.50. It also shows that most students were not able to use various vocabularies in their speaking. In terms of fluency, the mean score
is 2.69. The result shows that most students were not fluent in their speaking, they still made some repetition and hesitation. Meanwhile, in terms of comprehension,
the mean score is 2.47. It indicates that most students were not able to understand the conversation.
Based on the reflection above, the researcher and the collaborator planned to conduct Cycle II to see the students’ improvement in speaking after the use of
conversational videos again. There were several problems in the teaching and learning process in Cycle I. Some of which were the students had less motivation
on their speaking.
3. Report of Cycle II
The reflection of the previous cycle showed that there was improvement either in terms of comprehensibility, pronunciation, fluency or vocabulary.
However, there were some weaknesses found in the previous cycle. Therefore, the researcher and the collaborator needed to improve the teaching for the next
meeting. They also planned to make more significant improvement of the students’ speaking skill in terms of comprehensibility, pronunciation, fluency and
vocabulary. Dealing with those reasons, the researcher and the collaborator arranged these steps below.
a. Planning
This cycle was designed in three meetings. The lesson plans were well developed by the researcher and the collaborator in order to make the action in
58
Cycle II run well. They also still prepared observation sheets as the instrument of getting data. The following presents the planning of Cycle II.
1 Third Meeting
a The researcher and the collaborator planned to provide dictionaries for all students.
b The researcher and the collaborator planned to give more drilling to the students to improve their pronunciation.
c The researcher and the collaborator planned to show conversational videos which provided with English subtittle and considered more interesting for
the students. d The researcher and the collaborator planned to challenge the students more
by giving them a chance to explore the conversational videos in the group discussion. Here, the teacher did not give them direct explanation as much
as in the previous meeting. She just gave the feedback after the discussion. e The researcher and the collaborator planned to give a reward for the group
discussion that made the best video review.
2 Fourth Meeting
a In this meeting, the researcher and the collaborator planned to review the material for the previous meeting and drilled the students.
b The researcher and the collaborator planned to show a conversational video and made short review with the students.
59
c The researcher and the collaborator planned to give a challenge to the students to make a video dubbing. They explained the procedure to do the
video dubbing. d The researcher and the collaborator planned to review and give feedback to
the students after they finished the video dubbing. e The researcher and the collaborator planned to give a home project to the
students to make role play in groups of four which would be performed in the next meeting.
3 Fifth Meeting
a In this meeting, the researcher and the collaborator planned to ask the students’ difficulties, if any, in recognizing, pronuncing and using the
expressions of asking, giving, and denying information. b The researcher and the collaborator planned to conduct the last scoring by
performing their home project, i. e. role play. b The researcher and the collaborator planned to explain the assessment
criteria to the students. c The researcher and the collaborator planned to give rewards to three groups
for the best play.
b. Action and Observation
