Analysis of the Observation Checklist ’s Result Test

3.5.5 Post-Test

Post-test was done in last or the fifth meeting. They performed the storytelling based on the flash animation of ―Goldilocks‖ story. I asked them one by one to present the story orally in front of the class. While they were performing their part, I recorded it and took some notes about their speaking performance.

3.6 Procedures of Analyzing the Data

This classroom action research consisted of four phases. Those are planning, actions, observation, and reflection. The purpose was to give a number of activities to the students and to observe the students‘ progress in every activity during the classroom action research. The procedures of analyzing the data were as follows:

3.6.1 Analysis of the Observation Checklist ’s Result

The rubric was adapted from ―The Authenthic Assessment Toolbox‖ created by Jon Mueller 2005. The rubric was an analytic rubric. An analytic rubric articulates levels of performance for each criterion so the teacher can assess studentsperformance on each criterion.There is no right answer as to how many levels of performance there should be for a criterion in an analytic rubric; that will depend on the nature of the task assigned, the criteria being evaluated, the students involved and your purposes and preferences Mueller, 2005:4. The rubric was taken in the form of checklist. The checklist consisted of six items relating to the use of Flash Animations in teaching story retelling. Each option was given score that shows the quality of each indicator. Th e students‘ behaviours was analyzed using scoring scale modified from Mueller 2005:4 which started from 1 up to 4 . The score was ranged from ―1 to 4‖ which was shown in the table below: Table 3.2 Students‘ Behaviors Scoring Explanation Behaviours Score explanation 4 3 2 1 Students‘ attention toward teacher‘s explanation Very High High Medium Low Students‘ activeness in following the discussion in their groups Very High High Medium Low Students‘ activities in asking questions Always Often Sometimes Rarely Students‘ activities in answering questions Always Often Sometimes Rarely Students‘ activities in making notes Always Often Sometimes Rarely Students‘ ability in story retelling Very Good Good Sufficient Insufficient

3.6.2 Test

In this action research, I gave three tests which were pre-test, formative-test, and post-test. I used oral test for each test . The students‘ speaking ability of retelling story was analyzed using rating scale from Harris 1969 and Brown 2004 which measured the pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension. The rating scale of each aspect was started from 1 up to 5. Table 3.3 Rating Scale of Speaking Achievement by Harris and Brown ASPECTS SCORE EXPLANATION Pronunciation 5 Have a few traces of foreign accent. 4 Always intelligible, though one is conscious of a definite accent. 3 Pronunciation problems necessitate concentrated listening and occasionally lead of misunderstanding. 2 Very hard to understand because of pronunciation problems. Most frequently be asked to repeat. 1 Pronunciation problems so severe as to make speech virtually unintelligible. Grammar 5 Makes few if any noticeable errors of grammar or word order. 4 Occasionally makes grammatical andor word order errors which do not, however, obscure meaning. 3 Makes frequent errors of grammar and word order which occasionally obscure meaning. 2 Grammar and word order errors make comprehension difficult. Must often rephrase sentences andor restrict him to basic patterns. 1 Errors in grammar and word order so severe as to make speech virtually unintelligible. Vocabulary 5 Use of vocabulary and idioms is virtually that of a native speaker. 4 Sometimes uses inappropriate terms andor must rephrase ideas because of lexical inadequacies 3 Frequently uses the wrong words; conversation somewhat limited because of inadequate vocabulary. 2 Misuse of words and very limited vocabulary make comprehension quite difficult. 1 Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make conversation virtually impossible. Fluency 5 Speech as fluent and effortless as that of a native speaker. 4 Speed of speech seems to be slightly affected by language problems. 3 Speed and fluency rather strongly affected by language problems. 2 Usually hesitant; often forced into silence by language limitations. 1 Speech is so halting and fragmentary as to make conversation virtually impossible. Comprehension 5 Appears to understand everything without difficulties. 4 Understands nearly everything at normal speed, although occasional repetition may be necessary. 3 Understands most of what is said at slower-than- normal speed with repetition. 2 Has great difficulties following what is said. Can comprehend only ―social conversation‖ spoken slowly and with frequent repetitions. 1 Cannot be said to understand even simple conversational English. This study used a simple formula to analyze the result of the students‘ achievement in speaking in the pre-test and post-test. I followed the criterion issued by the Department of National Education in assessing students‘ success and failure in a classroom‘s teaching learning. The criterion said that students could be said to be successful if they could achieve 65 of the score. Besides, a class also could be said successful if 85 of the members passed the test Depdikbud, 2004:29.The score of the student was counted by using this formula: To find the average of the students‘ test result I used this formula: Which n = the total number of respondents 3.6.2.1 Pre-Test Below were my procedures in analyzing the data from pre-test: 1 I played the recorder which was about students‘ speaking performance on pre- test. I listened to it carefully and repeatedly. Then I scored it based on Brown‘s scoring system and put it in the assessment sheet. 2 I counted the average of the students‘ score in pre-test from each aspect. 3 I also counted the total score for the whole students. 4 Then I classified the students‘ average score using the rating scale from Bloom. 5 And finally I described the students‘ general performance and score in pre- test. 3.6.2.2 Formative-Test I also did the same way in analyzing the data from formative-test; I did the same procedures like the analysis for the data from the pre-test. Then I compared the students‘ average score in formative-test with their average score in pre-test. Finally I described their general performance in formative-test and compared it with their performance in pre-test. 3.6.2.3 Post-Test I did the same procedures in analyzing the post-test average score. Then I compared it with the students‘ score in formative-test and pre-test. I also described the st udents‘ general performance in post-test and compared it with their performance in formative-test and pre-test. Finally, I drew some conclusion about all their performance in pre-test, formative-test, and post-test.

3.7 Interpreting the Data Analysis Results