53 computers, LCD projectors and speakers was available to support the language
learning. Besides, dictionaries were also provided in the school library.
C. Research Subjects
The subjects of this action research study were the students of grade VIII particularly class VIII E of SMP Negeri 1 Muntilan in the Academic Year
20152016. The class consisted of 23 students. Among those 23 students, there were 14 females and 9 males. Their ages were around 13 to 14 years old.
Most of the students in the class were from Central Java particularly Magelang and Muntilan. All of them were native speakers of Bahasa Indonesia.
They learned English as their foreign language. It meant that there was not much exposure of English in their daily life. However, they needed English as
a means to communicate internationally. Based on the interview I had done, the students were interested in
learning English particularly in speaking. They said that they wanted to be able to speak in English fluently because they needed it in their future work field
and international communication in order for them to develop themselves. Therefore, in this action research study, I facilitated the students to improve
their speaking skill.
D. Time of the Research
The research was conducted from the first week of November 2015 to the second week of February 2016. The reconnaissance was done from the first
54 to the fourth week of November 2016. Meanwhile, the planning to the
reflection of both cycles were done from the first week of December 2015 to the second week of February 2016.
E. Research Instruments
Four kinds of instruments were used to gain the valid data during the research. They were observation checklist, questionnaires, in-depth interview
guidelines, and speaking assessment rubric. The use of these instruments will be elaborated later in this point. Additionally, a camera was used to video tape
the process of the research implementation. Besides, a voice recorder was also used to record the interviews with the students and collaborators.
An observation checklist was used to get the data based on the observation while the process of research was happening. In this instrument,
there was a list of indicators of the expected condition. If the indicators existed, it indicated that the expected condition was met. However, if there were still
some dashes indicating the absence of indicators, it meant that there were some things to be improved in the next cycle in order for the expected condition to
be reached. This instrument was used in the reconnaissance step to observe the teaching and learning process handled by the English teacher and in the
research action and observation step to observe the teaching and learning process I handled. See Appendix C, Observation Checklist
In addition to this, questionnaires were distributed to the students. There were two kinds of questionnaires in the research. The first one was the pre-
55 action questionnaire which revealed the students’ comments toward the
English teaching and learning process they had with their English teacher as well as their expectation on the teaching and learning process. This was
distributed to the students before the research was carried out. Meanwhile, the second questionnaire was the post-action questionnaire which revealed the
students’ comment on the teaching and learning process during the research as well as their opinion toward their speaking skill improvement. This was
distributed to the students at the end of the research. Furthermore, interview guidelines were used to direct the interviews with
the students as well as my collaborators. The interview guidelines to interview the students primarily focused on revealing their comments on the research
implementation and their feeling of how the action research helped them improve their speaking skill. Meanwhile, the interview guidelines to interview
my collaborators primarily focused on revealing their comments on the success of the research implementation, the things to be improved in the research, the
students’ learning behavior change, and of course, the students’ speaking skill improvement.
The last but not least, a speaking assessment rubric was used to assess the students’ speaking skill quantitatively. This rubric was based on O’Malley
and Pierce’s assessment rubric with some modification. It focused on the students’ pronunciation and intonation, vocabulary and expression, speaking
fluency, grammar, and interactive skill. The score of aspect ranged from 1 to 5 with a certain indicator for each score. The highest score i.e. 5 had the most
56 demanding indicator. This instrument was used twice. At the first time, it was
used to get the students’ speaking score before the action implementation.
Meanwhile, at the second time, it was used to get the students’ speaking score
after the action implementation. By doing so, the students’ quantitative score on their speaking performance could be identified.
F. Data Collection Techniques
