GRADUATING PAPER Submitted to the Board Examiners as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan Islam (S.Pd.I) In English Ministry of Education Faculty

  

THE FISHBOWL METHOD TO IMPROVE

THE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL

(An Experimental Study in Ninth Grade Students of

SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015)

  

GRADUATING PAPER

Submitted to the Board Examiners as a Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan Islam (S.Pd.I)

In English Ministry of Education Faculty

  

BY:

DEWANTI MULKI RAHMA

113 10 151

  

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FACULTY

STATE ISLAMIC STUDIES INSTITUTE (STAIN) SALATIGA

  

DECLARATION

In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious and Most Mercifull.

  Hereby the writer fully declares that this Graduating Paper is made by the writer and it is not containing materils writen or has been published by other people except the information from references and also the writer is capable of accounting for this Graduating Paper if in future this is can be proved of containing other’s ideas, or in fact, the writer imitates the others’ graduating paper.

  In addition, the writer really hopes that this declaration can be understood for all human being.

  st

  Salatiga, October 31 , 2014 Writer

  Dewanti Mulki Rahma NIM. 113 10 151

  

Motto

When we have creation, we shouldn’t enjoy by ourselves, it will be

better if our environments can also enjoy it.

  

Muhammad Kalend Osen

The only way to do great work is to love what you do

  

Steve Jobs

  

Dedication

  This research is dedicated for

  

My Beloved Father, Mother, Brother, and also My Two Beloved Sisters

  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

  Alhamdulillahirabbil ‘alamin, thanks to Allah because the writer could complete this research as one of the requirements for getting Educational Islamic Studies (S,Pd.I) in English Department of Educational Faculty of State Islamic Studies Institute (STAIN) of Salatiga in 2014.

  This research would not have been completed without supports, guidance, advice, and help from indivi dual’s institution. Therefore, the writer would like to express deep appreciation to:

  1. Dr. Rahmat Hariyadi, M.Pd., as the Head of State Institute for Islamic Studies of Salatiga.

  2. Rr. Dewi Wahyu Mustikasari, M.Pd., as the Head of English Department.

  3. Mashlihatul Umami, M.A, as my Academic Counselor thanks for your support and guidance.

  4. Rr. Dewi Wahyu Mustikasari, M.Pd., as the consultant of this research thanks for suggestion and recommendation for this research from beginning until the end.

  5. All lecturers of English Department, thanks to you all for your advice, knowledge, and kindness.

  6. All of staffs who help the writer in processing the research administration.

  7. All of the librarians who help the writer in finding the research references.

  8. My teacher counselor of SMP N 2 Ambarawa Mrs. S. Wahyuningsih S.Pd, thank you for your kindness, help, guidance and advice.

  9. All members of SMP N 2 Ambarawa, thank you for giving me opportunity.

  10. My family who always support and advise me.

  The writer also says “Thank you very much” to all of friends whom struggle for this completing the graduating paper. Finally, this graduating paper is expected to be able to provide useful knowledge and information to the readers.

  st

  Salatiga, October 31 , 2014 The writer

  Dewanti Mulki Rahma 113 10 151

  

ABSTRACT

  This study deals with The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’

  Speaking Skill (An Experimental Study in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015). This research was done to answer the objectives of study, namely (1) to find out the difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015, (2) to find out the significant difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015. This research applied descriptive quantitative method. The objects were Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015, and the analyzing data were students’ speaking skill that was taught by Fishbowl Method. The sample of this research was taken 28% from population. The numbers of sample were 50 students that were divided into 2 groups. The first group was experimental group and the second group was control group. The data tested using t-test formula by comparing the mean score of pre-test and post-test from both classes. The level of significance was set equal or less than 5%. The result of this study showed that t-value 8, 511 was higher than t-table 2, 064 with the degree of freedom (df) of 24. Therefore, it could be concluded that there was significant difference of T-test between students taught by lecturing and students taught by Fishbowl method. Since t-value was higher than t-table, it meant that null hypothesis was rejected and alternative hypothesis was accepted. Thus, it could be said that Fishbowl method improved students’ speaking skill in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015

  Key words

  : Fishbowl Method, Improving Students’ Speaking Skill

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TITLE ...................................................................................................................... I DECLARATION .................................................................................................... II ATTENTIVE COUNSELOR NOTES.................................................................. III CERTIFICATION PAGE ..................................................................................... IV MOTTO .................................................................................................................. V DEDICATION ..................................................................................................... VI ACKNOWLEDGMENT ..................................................................................... VII ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... IX TABLE OF CONTENT .......................................................................................... X LIST OF FIGURE ............................................................................................. XIII LIST OF TABLE .............................................................................................. XIV

  CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Research ...................................................... 1 B. Statement of the Problems ......................................................... 4 C. Objectives of Research............................................................... 4 D. Limitation of the Problem .......................................................... 5 E. Benefits of the Research ............................................................ 5

  G. Terms Clarification .................................................................... 6

  H. Paper Outline ............................................................................. 7

  CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Previews Researches .................................................................. 9 B. Fishbowl ................................................................................... 11

  1. Definition of Fishbowl Method ......................................... 13

  2. Concept of Fishbowl Method ............................................. 13

  3. Fishbowl as a student-centered discussion activity ........... 16

  4. Fishbowl as a tool for modelling discussion ...................... 17

  5. Advantages of Fishbowl Method ....................................... 18

  6. Disadvantages of Fishbowl Method ................................... 18

  C. Speaking ................................................................................... 19

  1. Definition of Speaking ...................................................... 19

  2. Elements of Speaking ........................................................ 20

  3. Types of Classroom Speaking Performance ...................... 22

  4. Classroom Speaking Activities .......................................... 25

  5. Teaching Speaking Skill .................................................... 28

  6. Assessments of Speaking ................................................... 29

  7. Teaching Speaking in Junior High School ......................... 34

  CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Place and Time of Research .................................................... 37 B. Method of Research ................................................................. 41

  D. Data Collecting Technique....................................................... 44

  E. Research Instrument ................................................................. 45

  F. Data Respondents ..................................................................... 47

  G. Data Analysis ........................................................................... 49

  CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS A. Pre-Test Analysis ..................................................................... 52 B. Post-Test Analysis ................................................................... 64 C. Pre-Test and Post-Test Calculation .......................................... 76 D. Discussion ................................................................................ 82 CHAPTER V : CLOSURE A. Conclusions .............................................................................. 95 B. Suggestions .............................................................................. 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES

  

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 2.1 Arrangement of Fishbowl ..................................................................... 12

  

LIST OF TABLE

Table 2.1 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Fluency........................................ 30Table 2.2 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Pronunciation .............................. 31Table 2.3 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Vocabulary .................................. 31Table 2.4 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Grammar ..................................... 32Table 2.5 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Comprehension ........................... 33Table 2.6 Standard of Competence and Basic Competency .................................. 35Table 3.1 Scoring Rubrics ...................................................................................... 46Table 3.2 Experimental Group ............................................................................... 47Table 3.3 Control Group ........................................................................................ 48

  Table 4.1 Score of Students’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test (Experimental Group) ....................................................... 75

Table 4.2 Clasification of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test (Experimental Group) ....................................................... 77

Table 4.3 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Fluency (Experimental Group) ............................................... 78

Table 4.4 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Pronunciation (Experimental Group) ...................................... 79

Table 4.5 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Fluency (Control Group) ......................................................... 84

Table 4.14 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Grammar (Control Group) ...................................................... 86

Table 4.13 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Vocabulary (Control Group) ................................................... 86

Table 4.12 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Pronunciation (Control Group) ............................................... 85

Table 4.11 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage ofTable 4.10 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Vocabulary (Experimental Group) .......................................... 80

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test (Control Group) ................................................................. 83

Table 4.9 Clasification of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Pre Test (Control Group) .......... 81

Table 4.8 Score of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Comprehension (Experimental Group) ................................... 80

Table 4.7 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Grammar (Experimental Group) ............................................. 80

Table 4.6 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Comprehension (Control Group) ............................................ 86

  Table 4.15 Score of Students’ Speaking Skill in Post-Test (Experimental Group) ...................................................... 87

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Grammar (Experimental Group) ............................................. 92

Table 4.24 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Post-Test (Control Group) ............................................................... 89

Table 4.23 Clasification of

  Score of Students’ Speaking Skill in Post-Test (Control Group) ............................................................... 87

  Skill in Comprehension (Experimental Group) ................................... 92 Table 4.22

Table 4.21 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of Students’ SpeakingTable 4.20 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage ofTable 4.16 Clasification of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Vocabulary (Experimental Group) .......................................... 92

Table 4.19 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Pronunciation (Experimental Group) ...................................... 91

Table 4.18 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Fluency (Experimental Group) ............................................... 90

Table 4.17 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Post-Test (Experimental Group) ...................................................... 89

  Students’ Speaking

Table 4.25 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Pronunciation (Control Group) ............................................... 91

Table 4.26 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Vocabulary (Control Group) ................................................... 92

Table 4.27 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Grammar (Control Group) ...................................................... 92

Table 4.28 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Comprehension (Control Group) ............................................ 92

  Table 4.29 Score of Students’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and Post-Test (Experimental Group) ................................ 93

  Table 4.30 Score of Students’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and Post-Test (Control Group) .......................................... 93

Table 4.31 Result of Calculating Research ............................................................ 93

  Table 4.32 Score of Students’ Speaking Skill in Post-Test (Control Group with Fishbowl Method) .......................... 87

Table 4.33 Clasification of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Post-Test (Control Group with Fishbowl Method) .......................... 89

Table 4.34 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Fluency (Control Group with Fishbowl Method) ................... 90

Table 4.35 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Pronunciation (Control Group with Fishbowl Method) .......... 91

Table 4.36 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Vocabulary (Control Group with Fishbowl Method).............. 92

Table 4.37 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Grammar (Control Group with Fishbowl Method) ................. 92

Table 4.38 Frequency Disctribution and Percentage of

  Students’ Speaking Skill in Comprehension (Control Group with Fishbowl Method) ....... 92

  Table 4.39 Score of Students’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and Post-Test (Control Group with Fishbowl Method) ... 93

Table 4.40 Result of Calculating Research

  (Control Group with Fishbowl Method)............................................. 93

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of Research The expansion of communication, information, and technologies

  lead people to join the global era where there are many necessities of high qualification and skill related to the ability in using some foreign languages. One of the international languages is English. English plays an important role in this era. Nowadays Indonesia also lives in a world that is nearly using English in many aspects of life.

  Brown (2007: 6) defines that language is a systematic instrument of communicating ideas or feelings by using sounds, gestures, or signs agreed. The primary function of language is for interaction and communication. English as one of the international languages in the world should be mastered by people from many countries in the world to communicate each other. They may know and understand what they speak communicatively because of English. Because of the reason, English becomes the first foreign language that is taught in Indonesia from elementary school up to college.

  Speaking is one of the four basic language skills: listening, writing, reading and speaking. Teaching English speaking is the process of giving the English lesson, from the teacher to the students based on the material from the syllabus of the certain school, in order that the students are able to absorb it and they will be able to communicate by using English orally. All those skills are supported by some components such as vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, etc. Speaking skill is one thing that should be mastered by the students in the school. Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a language skill that is developed in child life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned.

  Above factors, entail us to master English, especially speaking skill successfully, so we can communicate with all of the people over the world fluently. Unfortunately, there are so many factors as handicap of how people can master speaking skill successfully, such as they never practice to speak English with their friends formally or informally, afraid of making mistakes, or afraid to be laughed by others and do not feel confident, or sometime they seem do not to have ideas in their mind if they are asked to practice their speaking.

  The students’ inability to speak in English is caused by a number of factors. There are eight factors. They are; (1) clustering (2) redundancy (3) reduced forced (4) performance variable (5) colloquial language (6) rate of delivery (7) stress, rhythm and intonation (8) interaction. (Brown: 2000:270)

  Actually not only the general people have that problem but also the students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa have those problems. According to the information from the English teachers SMP N 2 Ambarawa, the problems are such as the new curriculum in seventh and eight levels so make an old teacher difficult to follow it and the position of Ambarawa is not good enough. Actually Ambarawa is not a village and it is not a city also so make the education grow up slowly. In addition, the students also want to show other student in the school or members of their family that they can speak some English. For this reason, teacher should use creative teaching methods that encourage students to take part actively in the class. The teaching learning processes have to involve not only teacher and students, but also the students and students.

  Helping students to solve these problems, the teacher should motivate them and create the most effective way to stimulate them, so they will be interested in practicing their speaking. On other hand, the teacher should use certain technique to stimulate students to practice their speaking, because good strategy will support them in achieving skill including English skill. Teacher have to teach the material by using good method, good technique and organize teaching-learning process as good as possible, so teaching-learning process can run well. It can make student master English skill, especially in this case speaking skill successfully, because one of the teaching failures is caused by unsuitable method.

  There are many ways to make a fun activity in teaching speaking in the classroom. Using pictures, cards, and other visual aids usually add a great joy to the class. Fishbowl is one of the methods that can be applied in teaching speaking because fishbowl is one of potential activities that students can aim to arrive at a conclusion, share ideas about an event, or find solution in this activity. However, Fishbowl is related by the third support that is students themselves. Therefore, fishbowl is a way to make students be more confident in speaking English.

  B. Statement of the Problems

  Based on the backgrounds discussed above, the writer underlines the problems as follow:

  1. How is the difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method to the speaking skill in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015?

  2. How is the significant difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method to the speaking skill in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015?

  C. Objectives of the Research

  The objectives of the research can be stated as related with the problems’ statement. Therefore the objectives of the research are as follows:

  1. To find out the difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015.

  2. To find out the significant difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015.

  D. Limitation of Problem This research conducts at SMP N 2 Ambarawa. The population of this research is the ninth grade students at SMP N 2 Ambarawa. There are two classes that are the subject of this research.

E. Benefits of the Research

  This research is formulated as an effort of finding some uses. The uses of this research are:

  1. Theoretically, the result of the research can contribute useful information for the future classroom research with the similar problem of speaking skill improvement.

  2. Practically

  a. For the researcher This research can contribute the researcher to help to find out the best method for teaching speaking.

  b. For the students This research can add the students’ interest in English learning, so it can help them to speak and learn English. c. For the English Teacher This research not only can give additional contribution to English teachers to develop language teaching method, but also the teachers are able to improve the quality of teaching learning process.

  d. For the Institution The result of the research can contribute the institution to fulfill the demand of English curriculum. Thus students are able to get satisfactory achievement

F. Hypothesis

  Ary (2007: 81) defines that the hypothesis presents the writer ’s expectations about the relationship between variables within the question. A hypothesis is a specific statement of prediction. It describes in concrete (rather than theoretical) terms what you expect will happen in your study.

  In this Research, the writer puts a hypothesis that “Fishbowl method and lecturing has similarities to improve students’ speaking skill in the ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015.

G. Terms Clarification

  1. Fishbowl Silberman (1996:110) defines that Fishbowl is a discussion format that some students make discussion circle and other students make

  2. Method Brown (2000:16) defines that method is a generalized set of classroom specifications for accomplishing linguistic objectives. Method tends to be concerned primary with teacher and students roles and behaviors and secondarily with such features as linguistic and subject- matter objectives, sequencing, and materials.

  3. Speaking Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a language skill that is developed in child life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned.

H. Paper Outline

  This research is divided into five chapters. Each chapter explains different matters in line with the topic that is discussed. Chapter I is introduction. It consists of the background of the research, statement of the problems, objectives of the research, limitation of the problem, benefits of the research, hypothesis, and term clarification. Chapter II deals with the review of theoretical framework. It consists of previous researches, Fishbowl Method; which consists of the definition of Fishbowl Method, concept of Fishbowl Method, Fishbowl as a student-centered discussion activity, Fishbowl as a tool for modeling discussion, advantages of Fishbowl method and disadvantages of Fishbowl elements of Speaking, types of classroom speaking performance, classroom speaking activities, teaching speaking skill, the assessment of speaking and teaching speaking skill in junior high school. Chapter

  III presents research methodology, which consists of place and time of the research, research design, population, samples and sampling, technique of collecting data and technique of data analysis. Chapter

  IV presents the data analysis which has been collected. The writer presents pre-test analysis, post-test analysis, pre-test and post-test calculation and discussion. Chapter V is closure that contains conclusion and suggestion that writer makes from the findings .

CHAPTER II REVEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Previous Researches In this research, the researcher takes review of related literature

  from the other research as comparison. The researcher uses the other research, and the title is

  “The Effectiveness of Fishbowl to Teach Reading Viewed from students’ Self-Confidence (An Experimental Study at the Eight Grade Students of MTs. Mu'allimin NW Pancor in the Academic Year of 2010-2011)

  ” by H. Hamdan, the students of Sebelas Maret

  University in the academic year 2011/2012. ”. His research is intended to find out the implementation of Fishbowl to improve students’ reading skill. The object of her research is the Eight Grade Students of MTs.

  Mu'allimin NW Pancor in the Academic Year of 2010-2011. He chooses 60 students as the sample of his research; they are students of VIII A as experimental group and VIII C as the control group. In conducting his research he uses experimental study which is including into descriptive quantitative research. According to her research, she finds out that Fishbowl is more effective than translation to teach reading for the eighth grade students of MTs. Mu’alimin NW Pancor in the academic year of 2010-2011, the students having high self-confidence have better reading ability than those having low self-confidence, and there is an interaction between teaching techniques and self-confidence to teach reading for the eighth grade students of MTs. Mu'allimin NW Pancor in the academic year of 2010-2011 The second previous research is conducted by Sugiarti (2011), the

  English department student of STAIN Salatiga with his graduating paper entitled “The Experimental Study of Improving Speaking Skill through

  

Socio Drama at Second Year Students of MAN Blora in the Academic Year

of 2010/2011

  ”. Her research is intended to find out the implementation of socio drama to impr ove students’ speaking skill. The object of her research is the second year students of Man Blora in the academic year 2010/2011.

  There are 200 students and she chooses 74 students as the sample of her research, they are students of XI IPA 1 as experimental group and XI IPA 2 as the control group. In conducting her research she uses experimental study which is including into descriptive quantitative research. According to her research, she finds out that socio drama can improve students’ speaking skill with the different significant 5 %.

  This research has similarities and differences from those previous researchers above. The similarities to the first study are on Fishbowl method. The second study is only dealing with speaking skill. On the other hand the writer also finds the differences between the present research and the two previous researches. The differences from the first research are the sample and the main goal of research. The sample of research is eight grade students of MTs. Mu'allimin NW Pancor in the academic year of 2010-2011and the main goal of research is dealing in reading skill that is viewed from students’ self-confidence. Then, the differences to the second research are also in the sample and method. The sample of research is second year students of MAN Blora in the academic year of 2010/2011 and Socio Drama as the method that is used in this research.

  The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skill (An

  Experimental Study in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa, in the Academic Year of 2014/2015) is the title decided by the research as the follow up of the previous researches in analyzing more detail about the improvement of students’ speaking skill used Fishbowl method.

B. Fishbowl

1. Definition of Fishbowl

  Silberman (1996:110) defines that Fishbowl is a discussion format that some students make discussion circle and other students make listener circle in around of discussion group. Fishbowl is the growing structure discussion method that is very useful for the speaking class (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145).

  Based on the above explanations the writer concludes that Fishbowl method is a way to organize discussion group that contains of inside and outside circle that is useful in speaking class.

  This method has many variants but the underlying idea is to facilitate learning via discussion.

Figure 2.1 The Arrangement of Fishbowl

  Source The inner circle is given a situation wherein participants discuss and come up with a solution, while the outer circle reserves their observation, feedback and suggestions for later. In another variant, the inner circle can be given a task to complete, while the outer circle observes. There are many formats that you can adapt while using the Fishbowl method. However, there are 2 common types of Fishbowls:

  a. Open Format Fishbowl In this format a few seats in the inner circle are left vacant for members of the outer circle to join. When this happens one member of the inner circle must voluntarily leave. The rules of the discussion have to be set by the facilitator or by the group themselves.

  b. Closed Format Fishbowl This technique works well with larger groups. The facilitator can give the inner circle time to discuss an issue. and add their viewpoints. In this structure, you can have participants sitting in concentric circles giving everyone in the classroom an opportunity to contribute (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145).

  Based on those the above explanations can be concluded that Fishbowl has two formats that are usually used. They are open and closed format circle. Both of them give opportunity of every student to speak and share their opinion in the Fishbowl that is prepared for them.

3. Concept of Fishbowl

  In Fishbowl, an outer circle of students sits around a smaller, inner circle of students. Students in the inner circle engage in a depth discussion, while students in the outer circle consider what is being said and how it is being said. This collaborative technique has also been called Inside outside Circles. Inner circle students are challenged to participate in a high-level discussion while the outer circle is able to be listener of the discussion and critique content, logic, and group interaction. This technique therefore serves two purposes to provide structure for in-depth discussion and to provide opportunities for students to model or observe group processes in a discussion setting (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145-146)

  The Fishbowl method allows you to explicitly teach a variety of social skills. It is one way to shine a light on the specific social skills that can either move a discussion forward or shut it down. The Fishbowl offers the class an opportunity to closely observe and learn about social interaction. You can use it in any content area (Chris Opitz, 2008:102)

  According to Dutt (1997:143) in an open Fishbowl, one chair is left empty. In a closed fishbowl, all chairs are filled. The moderator introduces the topic and the participants start discussing the topic. The audience outside the Fishbowl listen the discussion. In an open Fishbowl, any member of the audience can occupy the empty chair and join the Fishbowl at any time. When this happens, an existing member of the Fishbowl must voluntarily leave the Fishbowl and free a chair. The discussion continues with participants frequently entering and leaving the Fishbowl. Depending on how large audience is, we can have many audience members spending some time in the Fishbowl and taking part in the discussion. When time runs out, the Fishbowl is closed and the moderator summarizes the discussion.

  Other variations and extensions and extensions to implement Fishbowl are as follows:

  a. Instead of one large Fishbowl, consider multiple small Fishbowls of four to six students with two or three students in each of the inner or outer circles. b. After the initial Fishbowl discussion, ask students to switch places, with the outer circle assuming the inner circle role, and vice versa.

  c. Allow students from the outer circle to join the inner circle by tapping a student on the shoulder and exchanging places with him or her. This is a fun strategy for creating enthusiasm, and it keeps more students active and engaged. Be aware, though, that some students, some culture and religious are not comfortable with being touched, so consider as an alternative telling students who wish to join or exit a group to simply raise their hands, or give an entry/exit token such as a slip of paper.

  d. Have students perform a task, such as solving a problem or learning a new skill, instead of discussing an issue. (Elizabeth, et al.,2005:149) Based on the above elaboration, it can be summarized as problem solving by assisting groups to gather insight about another group. Fishbowl can be used as a consensus building technique in a planning or problem-solving process. Another derivate is to have the Fishbowl run for a certain period. The moderator stops the discussion in the Fishbowl circle and invites those not in the inner circle to offer their thoughts and comments on what they are hearing in the inner circle.

4. Fishbowl as a student-centered discussion activity

  The teacher arranges the room in a fishbowl, with inner and outer circles of students, and often assigns a text (section of a textbook or book, a poem, an article, or a video) to be read or viewed prior to the discussion. The teacher can generate a set of questions by writing them on slips of paper or index cards, or students can write questions or comments on cards. Four or five students sit in the inner fishbowl and begin a discussion using the questions; only these students can talk. If a student in the outer circle wants to say something, he or she must get up, tap one of the students in the inner circle on the shoulder, and take his or her place. Whenever a student is "tapped out" of the fishbowl, he or she takes a seat in the outer circle and cannot speak unless he or she returns to the inner fishbowl by tapping another student out. If students are reluctant to enter the fishbowl, the teacher can change the rules so that, after a few minutes, the inner group can tap others into the fishbowl. If students are too quick to jump into the fishbowl (that is, they do not give their peers a fair amount of time to talk before tapping them out), the teacher can set a time limit of one, two, or three minutes during which students cannot be tapped out. Teachers can extend students' participation by allowing them to generate questions for the discussion. Fishbowl is a flexible format that can also be used by teachers to model small-group discussion. (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145).

  This discussion format can be used in any subject area classroom in which student-centered discussion is desired. The writer has used this format in speaking class of Ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015. Used this way, fishbowl discussions place the focus on students' thoughts and ideas rather than on the teacher’s.

5. Fishbowl as a tool for modeling discussion

  Middle school students are social and know how to talk with one another; however, teachers usually find small and large-group discussions about subject matter more challenging to facilitate. Fishbowl can be a vehicle for modeling and having a meta-discussion about discussion. This is a great way to model a discussion and talk about what makes for an effective small-group discussion (Elizabeth, et al.,2005:145).

  Fishbowl discussions can be used to model discussions of challenging or controversial material in any subject area. For example, a biology teacher can use fishbowl at the outset of a unit on Evolution to help students establish generative and appropriate boundaries for their discussions about the topic. Similarly, a social studies teacher can use fishbowl as a way to begin discussions about issues such as slavery or segregation. Also, fishbowl is a great way to model literature circle or book club discussions in an English language arts class. Fishbowl is a flexible and powerful tool that can help empower students in discussions across subject areas (Raphael & McMahon, 1994:120).

  Based on above explanation, the writer can summarize that Fishbowl can be a useful discussion method especially to help students to share their opinion. It also can be an effectively method when we want to use discussion in the class. Sometimes we are bored in discussion role so we use creative role in Fishbowl method to handle bored situation in the class.

  6. Advantages of Fishbowl Method

  An advantage of a Fishbowl method is it is stimulates discussion in the class, provides class interaction, allows students to learn from peers, involves critical thinking, improves oral and listening skills and provides break from routines. These reasons have made Fishbowl popular in participatory group meetings and conference and also we can use it in any content area.

  7. Disadvantages of Fishbowl Method

  Fishbowl has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages like; it can be a possible conflict among students, it also can false information may be presented, it may be hard from some to express themselves, it focus and relevancy of the topic may be altered, it make some may feel uncomfortable being observed, it makes strong emotions high and also its observers cannot immediately respond

C. Speaking

1. Definition of Speaking

  Speaking skill is one thing that should be mastered by the students in the school. Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a language skill that is developed in child life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned. Hornby (1990:1227) defines speaking is make use of words in an ordinary voice.

  Bygate says, “Speaking is a skill which deserves attention every bit as much as literary skills, in both first and second language. It is the skill which the students are frequently judge. It is also the vehicle par excellent of social solidarity, of social ranking, of professional advancement and of business”. It indicates that as one of the language skills, speaking should get the attention from teachers and learners because it plays the important role in our society.

  Meanwhile, Donough and Shaw state, “There are some reasons for speaking involved expressing ideas and opinions: expressing a wish or a desire to do something: negotiating and/or solving a particular problem; or establishing and maintaining social relationships and friendship. Besides, fluency, accuracy, and confidence are important goal in speaking”. Therefore, as a language skill, speaking becomes an important component to master by the students as the main tool of verbal communication because it is a way to express ideas and opinions directly what we have in our minds.

  Based on the above definitions, it can be synthesized that speaking is the process of using the urge of speech to pronounce vocal symbols in order to share the information, knowledge, idea, and opinion to the other person. Moreover, speaking cannot be dissociated from listening aspect, because speaking involves speaking and listener.

2. Elements of Speaking

  Heaton (1990:70) defines speaking is a complex skill requiring the simultaneous use of a number of different abilities, which often develop at the different rates. Either four or five components are generally recognized in analyzing the speech process.

  1) Pronunciation (including the segmental features-vowels and consonants, the stress and intonation patterns) As stated by Harmer, if students want to be able to speak fluently in English, they need to be able pronounce phonemes correctly, use appropriate stress and intonation patterns and speak in connected speech. The speaker must be able to articulate the words, and create the physical sounds that carry meaning. At the level of word pronunciation, second language learners regularly have problems distinguishing between sounds in the law language that do not exist in language they already know.

  2) Grammar It is obvious that in order be able to speak foreign language, it is necessary to know a certain amount of grammar and vocabulary. Grammar is the sounds and the sound patterns, the basic units of meaning, such as words, and the rules to combine them to form new sentences. Therefore, grammar is very important in speaking because if the speakers do not mastering grammar structure, they cannot speak English well. 3) Vocabulary As we know, vocabulary is a basic element is language.

  Vocabulary is single words, set phrases, variable phrases, phrasal verbs, and idioms. It is clear that limited vocabulary mastery makes conversation virtually impossible. 4) Fluency