THE USE OF M-U-F FRAMEWORK IN IMPROVING SPEAKING ABILITY OF YOUNG LEARNERS.

A Research Paper

Submitted to English Education Department of FPBS UPI as Partial Fulfillment for the Requirement of Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

By

Indah Hermyati

0906540

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

IMPROVING SPEAKING ABILITY OF YOUNG

LEARNERS

Oleh Indah Hermyati

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana Pendidikan pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sen

© Indah Hermyati 2014 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Oktober 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian, dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dari penulis.

THE USE OF M-U-F FRAMEWORK IN IMPROVING SPEAKING

ABILITY OF YOUNG LEARNERS

A RESEARCH PAPER

BY

INDAH HERMYATI

0906540

APPROVED BY:

Main Supervisor Co-Supervisor

Pupung Purnawarman, M. S. Ed., Ph. D. Muhammad Handi Gunawan, M.Pd.

NIP 196810131998031001 NIP 197301132009121002

Head of English Education Department

Faculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

Prof. Dr. Didi Suherdi, M. Ed.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

ABSTRACT

This research was purposed to investigate whether there is any improvement of

students’ speaking skill by the implementation of M-U-F framework and discover

students’ response to the use of M-U-F framework in teaching speaking to young learner. This research employed quantitative method. This quantitative research involved two classes of fourth grade at elementary school in Tasikmalaya in which one class was assigned as the experimental group and the other one was the control group. The instruments used were pretest, posttest, and questionnaire. The posttest scores of the two groups were compared by using Independent t-test. The results showed the significance value was lower than the significance level which was 0.000 < 0.05. It meant that M-U-F framework improved students’ speaking skill.

Keywords: M-U-F framework, young learner, EFL, speaking skill

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menginvestigasi apakah ada peningkatan dari kemampuan berbicara siswa dengan menggunakan M-U-F framework dan menelaah respon dari siswa tentang penggunaan M-U-F framework dalam pembelajaran berbicara pada siswa kanak-kanak. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode kuantitatif. Penelitian kuantitatif ini menyediakan dua kelas dari kelas 4 sekolah dasar di Tasikmalaya yang mana satu kelas sebagai kelas eksperimental dan yang satunya lagi kelas kontrol. Instrumen penelitian yang digunakan yaitu pretest, posttest, dan kuesioner. Nilai posttest dari kedua kelas dihitung menggunakan perhitungan Independent t-test. Hasil perhitungan menunjukan bahwa nilai signifikansinya lebih rendah dari level signifikansinya yaitu 0.000 < 0.05. itu berarti bahwa M-U-F framework telah meningkatkan kemampuan berbicara siswa.

Kata kunci: M-U-F framework, siswa kanak-kanak, bahasa inggris dalam konteks bahasa asing, kemampuan berbicara

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a general description about this paper. It contains research background, research questions, scope of study, limitation of study, purpose of research, significance of study, clarification of terms and organization of research.

1.1 Research Background

English has been a primary need because it is used by people to communicate with other people from different countries. In order to makeagood communication, people have to master the four important basic language skills which are listening, speaking, reading, and writing. By considering this need, English as foreign language has been taught since the early age, which is since elementary school.

Linguistics professor Dr. Susan Curtiss, in Curtan and Dahlberg (2004), says that good language learning is in earlier age and the amount of new languages to be introduced to the young learners does not matter. They can learn as many spoken as long as they are allowed to hear the language systematically and regularly at the same time. Children just have this capacity.

According to Curtan and Dahlberg (2004), the main factor to build foreign language proficiency is the time for learning the language. They state that when language learning begins earlier, it can go on longer and provide more practice and experience, leading ultimately to greater fluency and effectiveness. The fluency and the efectiveness can be assess when they use verbal communication.

Verbal communication is one of the common ways that is used by people to communicate each other. From that statement, speaking ability in language learning is an important basic skill to be able to communicate in a target language. Speaking becomes one of the skills that are suggested to be taught first. As stated

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

by Pinter (2006), speaking is important to be emphasized in teaching English to young learners. In line with that, children need to say a word before they can read and children need to read a word before they can write. Based on that statement, speaking is the foundation skill to develop other language skills.

Speaking English fluently and accurately would be a challenge for the language learners especially to young learners, because in speaking, they have to think about the meaning and speak in the same time. They also should control what they are talking. Sometimes, they should correct any mistake they made as the planning for what they are going to say next (Pinter, 2006).

Unfortunately, most of students in elementary school find an obstacle in speaking English. It is because grammar-translation method is still used in the class. In fact, this teaching method is not suitable for young learners.

. One thing that prevents children from learning language is when they feel uncomfortable in the class. They find difficulty to understand the theoretical concepts of grammar rules of a language. Besides, because of their short attention spans, children cannot concentrate to the activities in long durations. Consequently, boredom makes children not interested in learning language. Another important reason for children to prevent learning a language is excessive correction by the teacher. Findings of a research which was conducted by Ara (2009) shows that some of these traditional educational practices in classroom teaching may have the effect of preventing rather than helping children to learn well.

Grammar-translation method, which is categorized as the “traditional

method” does not involve students’ opportunities as the active learners to use language that they have learnt. As the concequence, they become passive learners and reluctant to speak English. Grammar-translation method also put emphasis on the grammar translation and grammar accuracy without providing contextual and meaningful learning methods. That traditional method focuses on grammatical rules as the basis for translating from the foreign to the native language, memorizing vocabulary, translating the texts, and doing written exercises (Brown, 2007). However, young learners need learning a language that provides

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

contextual and meaningful activity. As proposed by Moon (2005), children learn language through meaning. They are also interested in meaning and function of a new language which they can find in meaningful activities, such as playing games, telling stories, and singing songs (Pinter, 2006).

Based on the point of view that has been mentioned above, finding an appropriate method is one of the essential factors in language teaching and learning. Harmer (2007) argues that the teachers need to try to match the activities they take into lessons for the students they are teaching. The learning methods should be effective and interesting for young learners By contextual and meaningful learning, students can get the motivation which is important to help them learn the new language better.

M-U-F, which is an abbreviation for meaning-use-form, is a framework that is proposed by Moon (2005) to support teaching English in child-friendly way. This framework is developed in primary level where English is functioned as a foreign language. The framework consists of three steps which are meaning, use, and form In terms of meaning, students are given a new language in the appropriate context. In terms of use, students are given opportunities to practice the new languagethatthey have already known. Lastly, in terms of form, teachers help students to be aware of language patter that they have learnt before.

Since the focus of the language teaching is on increasing the students’

confidence in speaking students need opportunities to try out the new language. Students cannot speak English well without having more practice and much time to use that spoken language. The existence of M-U-F framework in this study is to help the students to involve in active-learning activities with the correct grammatical pattern especially in speaking skill. Because of this reason a framework suggested by Janey Moon (2008) can be used as a reference. The framework has five important elements to be applied in developing lesson plans. The elements are Topic, Activities, Language Focus, Situation and Sequence. They are known as TAFLSS (Damayanti, 2009). It hopefully can help the students to improve their speaking skill in terms of grammar.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

1.2 Research Questions

Based on the backgroundof the study that has been exlpained above, the problem that is investigated in this study can be formulated as follows:

 How does M-U-F framework help the students to improve their speaking ability?

 What is/are the students’ response(s) toward M-U-F framework to improve their speaking ability?

1.3 Scope of Study

This study focused on the use of M-U-F framework in improving speaking ability of young learners in the fourth grade at elementary school in Tasikmalaya and discovered students’ responses toward the new method in teaching speaking. Two classes were taken as the samples; one of them has the function as the experimental group and the other one as the control group.

1.4 Limitation of Study

Many kinds of variations of framework can be used in teaching speaking skill. The study will focus on the applying M-U-F framework in teaching speaking in fourth grade of elementary school students’ level.

1.5 Purpose of Research

This study is conducted to investigate whether the use of M-U-F

framework is effective to improve the students’ speaking ability. In addition, the

students’ responses toward the use of M-U-F framework to improve speaking ability of young learners are revealed.

1.6 Significance of Study

There is an expectation that, this study can give contribution to the English learning area. This study is a study in investigating whether M-U-F framework is effective to improve speaking ability of young learners in one elementary school in Tasikmalaya. In relation to the practical benefit, this study and its finding can be useful for the writer and readers in building the knowledge to improve students speaking skill through active learning in classroom. The result of this study is

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

expected to enrich the literature on teaching speaking. Moreover, this study can be a reference for those who want to conduct a similar research.

1.7 Clarification of Terms

There are several terms that need to be clarified to avoid misuderstanding and misinterpretation of the terms that are used in this paper:

 Children-friendly way: the way of teaching that is in line with the way children learn and suitable with their characteristics (Philips, 1993)

 Young learner: children between 7-12 years old (Cameron, 2001)

 Speaking:a tool to express message in order the listeners can understand the material that the speakers talking about and to find out whether the speaker or the listener can adjust to the situation when he is delivering his idea (Brown, 2001)

 M-U-F framework: a child-friendly method to teach English to young learner (Primary Innovation Module, British Council, 2008). It focuses on meaning, use, and form.

1.8 Organization of Research

This study is organized into five chapters. There are introduction, theoretical foundation, research methodology, findings and discussion, and conclusion and suggestion.

Chapter 1 Introduction

This chapter focuses on the introduction of research that introduces research background, research questions, purpose of research, significance of study, clarification of terms and organization of research.

Chapter 2 Theoretical Foundation

This chapter provides some theories and literature that are related to the study. It discusses theories and relevant studies about young learners (definition of young learners, characteristics of young learners, and learning stages of young

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

learner), teaching speaking in EFL, teaching English to young learners, teaching speaking to young learners, M-U-F framework, and related study.

Chapter 3 Research Methodology

This chapter describes the methodology that is used in this research. It contains research method, research procedure, data collection, and data analysis.

Chapter 4 Findings and Discussion

This chapter presents the result of the study and discusses findings of the study from data collection.

Chapter 5 Conclusion and Suggestion

This chapter describes a conclusion of the study and provides some suggestions as a contribution to other language learning and research.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides research method, hypothesis, data collection, the procedures of conducting the research, and data analysis. Research method consists of research design, variable, hypothesis, population, sample, and data collection instruments. In data collection, there are research instrument and research procedure. The last is data analysis. In the data analysis, there are scoring technique, data analysis on pilot test, data analysis on pre-test and post-test, and data analysis of questionnaire.

3.1 Research Method

3.1.1 Research Design

This study is an experimental research that used quantitative method naturally in order to find the objective of the study. Geoffrey (2006) conveys that experimental research is used to test the hypothesis to find out the cause-effect relationship between two variables. The research design is quasi-experimental because this study had a little control over the allocation of the treatment or other factors being studied. Table 3.1 presents the research design of this study:

Table 3.1

Sample Pre-test Treatments Post-test

1 2 3 4

Experimental Group Se1 T T T T Se2 Control Group Sc1 - - - - Sc2

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

Notes:

Se1: pretest for the experimental group Sc1: pretest for the control group Se2: posttest for the experimental group Sc2: posttest for the control group

T: Treatment (giving some activities to students related to MUF Framework) From the table above, two classes were selected in this study, one class as the experimental group and one class as the control. Both of the groups got the pretest and posttest. Before giving posttest, the treatment was given to the experimental group. After the data was collected from pretest and posttest, it was compared to investigate its significance.

3.1.2 Variables

Variable is a characteristic of an individual or an organization that a researcher can measure or observe and varies among individuals or organizations study (Creswell, 2012). There are variables in this study, which were dependent variable and independent variable. Dependent variable is an attribute that is dependent which get the effect from independent variable (Hatch & Farhady, 1982). Dependent variable is achievement score of a test or students’ learning outcome (Creswell, 2012). Independent variable is an attribute that influences the outcome or dependent variable. In this study, the dependent variable is speaking scores of young learners and the independent variable is MUF framework.

3.1.3 Hypothesis

Hypothesis is a tentative statement about the result of the study (Hatch & Farhady, 1982). In anotherstatement, hypothesis is a prediction of some sort regarding the possible outcomes of the research (Coolidge, 2000). Two hypotheses of the study were formulated as follows:

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

- There is no significant difference in mean adjustment between pretest and posttest (null hypothesis). It means that there is no difference in mean between variables in this study, which were dependent variable and independent variable.

- There is a significant difference in mean adjustment between pretest and posttest (alternative hypothesis). It means that there is a difference in mean between variables in this study, which were dependent variable and independent variable.

3.1.4 Population and Sample

According to Creswell (2012), population is a large group of objects or subjects with specific qualities and characteristics which becomes the researcher’s interest to investigate and finally to get a conclusion. The population of this study was fourth grade students from one elementary school in Tasikmalaya. From the population, two classes were chosen as the samples. The first class was IVA as the control group which consisted of 20 students. This group was not given the treatment. The second class was IVB as the experimental class which was given the treatment (using MUF Framework). Fourth level students were chosen as the sample because at this level English was started to be taught to the students. In addition, IVA and IVB had the same level in English competence.

3.2 Data Collection

3.2.1 Research Instruments

Instruments were needed to gather the data from the sample which was going to be analysed to answer the research questions. Two instruments were used in this study. There were speaking tests for pretest and posttest and questionnaire.

3.2.1.1 Speaking Test

Speaking tests were used to measure the students’ speaking ability in

describing things related to the topic which were colours, clothes and occupations. Even though MUF framework was focused on grammar, but in this context, speaking skill was the main focused of study. It means that grammar was a part of speaking skill. The other aspects in assessing speaking skill were fluency,

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and accuracy. These criteria were available to be applying in both groups.

Speaking tests were conducted two times. The first was in the pre-test and the second was in the post-test. The test was assesed by two raters, who are reseacher and the English teacher. The score of both speaking tests were analysed by using T-test for assessing the effectiveness of using MUF Framework.

3.2.1.2 Pretest and Posttest

Pretest was administered in both groups to get the initial difference between both groups which have similar level of speaking before they got treatment by the use of MUF framework.

After conducting the pretest, the experimental group was given the treatment that was the use of MUF framework. The treatment was given in four meetings. In every meeting, students had to speak up based on the discussed topic to get participation score.

The posttest was given to both experimental and control groups. The posttest was given after the treatments to discover whether there was a significant

improvement of students’ speaking skill. Then, the students’ score of pretest and

posttest were computed by using SPSS 20 then the result was interpreted.

3.2.1.3 Questionnaire

The data was also collected by conducting the questionnaire. This section was only conducted in the experimental group in order to discover the students’ attitude, opinion, and perspective about the learning process from the first until the last meeting. Milne (1999) says that questionnaire is more objective than the interview because the responses are gathered in standardized way; moreover it is relatively quick to collect information by using the questionnaire.

3.3 Research Procedure

3.3.1.1 Lesson Planning

The researcher prepared teaching material before the treatment was held that would be needed during the treatment. The researcher elaborated the topics

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

that were suitable with the aspects needed. Furthermore, the researcher also managed the teaching procedures by measuring the time allotment, exploring

students’ condition and checking facility that the school has to provide learning

process.

3.3.1.2 Administering the Pilot Test

Before the pretest and posttest were conducted, the speaking test was pilot-tested first. Pilot test is a procedure in which a researcher makes changes in an instrument based on the result or feedback from a small number of individuals who complete and evaluate the instrument (Creswell, 2012). The pilot test was used to find out the weaknesses of the test and create the opportunities of the test (pretest and posttest) for experimental and control group.

The sample of pilot test was taken from fifth graders from another elementary school in Tasikmalaya. Ten students were chosen as the sample of pilot test. The students were asked to have conversation in pairs.

The students were given the test and they were asked to do the test based on the instruction from the researcher. If the students were confused when they were doing the test or they could not understand the instruction, it means that the test was not face valid. If this condition happened, the students should be asked about the instruction or on what part of the instruction they could not understand. When the unclear instruction had been fixed, the test item could be said to have face validity. On the other hand, the students were tested in order to check whether the test had content validity. If there were some students performed the particular language aspects and expressionwhich wereexpected to be measured in the test, it means that the test has content validity. After the pilot test was proved, the test was given to the students in the pretest and posttest.

3.3.1.3 Administering Pretest

The pretest was administered before the treatment was conducted to measure the students’ level of speaking. Both experimental and control groups were given speaking test based on the prepared topic. It was given to class IV A

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

as the control group and class IV B as the experimental group on October 22, 2013.

3.3.1.4 Conducting the Treatment

The treatment was given to the experimental class. The treatment was given in four meetings by using UF Framework as a treatment in teaching English to young learners. A lesson plan was prepared by researcher for each meeting which was able to support the English learning process.

During the treatment, the learning process used MUF Framework which consists of the main aspects, which are meaning, use, and form that should be provided in each meeting. There were three topics were colours, clothes, and occupations.

Table 3.2 shows the treatment schedules:

Table 3.2

No. Date Topic

1 October 31, 2013 Colours 2 November 7, 2013 Clothes 3 November 14, 2013 Occupations 4 November 21, 2013 Review

In order to get the clear description about MUF framework, a brief description of implementation of the method which was used in both classes was given below:

3.3.1.5 The Description of Grammar-Translation Method Implementation in Control Group

The conventional way, in this case was Grammar-Translation Method, was given to the control group in the learning process. This method was also called classical method. Classical method focuses on grammatical rules as the basis for translating from the foreign to the native language, memorizing vocabulary, translating the texts, and doing written exercises (Brown, 2000). The teacher did

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

not use learning media that had been used in experimental class. She just focused on the textbook. In the first stage, she wrote some words and their meanings in the blackboard. Next, the students were asked to read the word aloud and they had to memorize words and each meanings. After that, she gave a chance to the students to write down the material that they have learnt.

3.3.1.6 The Description of MUF Framework Implementation in Experimental Group

In the beginning of the learning process, the researcher had prepared a lot of media such as puppet, pictures, and song. Before the material was delivered to the students, the class was started by making some rules that should be obeyed by the students and also the researcher.

As has been stated before, the first stage of MUF framework is meaning. At meaning stage, the researcher prepared a contextual learning around the class to be presented the meaning of the language. The topic in the first meeting was colours. Before listing colours, the researcher explained the expression of asking for the colours by showing some media and also using song and story.

At the second stage, which is use stage, the students were given the opportunities to use the language that they have learnt. On this stage, the researcher asked the students to work in pairs. After that, the researcher pointed some students to act out the story.

On the form stage, teacher gave exercise to the students to gain the awareness of the language form of the sentences. After they did the exercise, the

students and the researcher discussed the result of the students’ exercise. 3.3.1.7 Administering Posttest

The posttest was given to the experimental and control group after giving the whole treatments to the experimental group. The obtained score of posttest would be calculated as a final comparison to find out whether there was any significant difference between the students’ achievement in experimental and control groups.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

3.3.1.8 Administering Questionnaire

The questionnaire was given to all of the students in experimental group in

order to discover the students’ responses toward the new method that have been

used by the researcher. Questionnaire items could be open or closed-ended (Nunan, 1992). The questionnaire that had been used in this research was closed-ended questionnaire. The researcher had to determine options of the responses or answers. The questionnaire was administered after the posttest were delivered to the students on the same day.

3.4 Data Analysis

3.4.1.1 Scoring Technique

Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) was used to assess the speaking skill of the students in the pretest and posttest. SOLOM is a rating scale that teachers can use to assess their students’ command of oral language on the basis of what they observe on a continual basis in a variety of situations, such as class discussions, playground interactions, encounters between classes (San Jose Unified School District (2010). “Student Oral Language Observation Matrix

(SOLOM”), Para 2). The teacher matches a student's language performance in a five mains, they are listening comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, grammar, and pronunciation - to descriptions on a five-point scale for each.

The score and criteria of SOLOM are represented as follows:

Assessment Criteria of Comprehension

Score Criteria

1 Cannot be said to understand even simple conversation.

2 Has great difficulty following what is said. Can comprehend only social conversation spoken slowly and with frequent repetitions.

3 Understands most of what is said at slower-than-normal speed with repetitions.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

repetition may be necessary.

5 Understands everyday conversation and normal classroom discussions.

Assessment Criteria of Fluency

Score Criteria

1 Speech so halting and fragmentary as to make conversation virtually impossible.

2 Usually hesitant: often forced into silence by language limitations. 3 Speech in everyday conversation and classroom discussion frequently

disrupted by the student's search for the correct manner of expression 4 Speech in everyday conversation and classroom discussions generally

fluent, with occasional lapses while the student searches for the correct manner of expression.

5 Speech in everyday conversation and classroom discussions fluent and effortless; approximating that of a native speaker.

Assessment Criteria of Vocabulary

Score Criteria

1 Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make conversation virtually impossible.

2 Misuse of words and very limited: comprehension quite difficult.

3 Student frequently uses wrong words: conversation somewhat limited because of inadequate vocabulary.

4 Student occasionally uses inappropriate terms and/or must rephrase ideas because of lexical inadequacies.

5 Use of vocabulary and idioms approximate that of a native speaker.

Assessment Criteria of Pronunciation

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

1 Pronunciation problems so severe as to make speech virtually unintelligible.

2 Very hard to understand because of pronunciation problems. Must frequently repeat in order to make him/herself understood.

3 Pronunciation problems necessitate concentration on the part of the listener and occasionally lead to misunderstanding.

4 Always intelligible, although the listener is conscious of a definite accent and occasional inappropriate intonation patterns.

5 Pronunciation and intonation approximate that of a native speaker.

Assessment Criteria of Grammar

Score Criteria

1 Errors in grammar and word order so severe as to make speech virtually unintelligible.

2 Grammar and word order errors make comprehension difficult. Must often rephrase and/or restrict him/herself to basic patterns.

3 Makes frequent errors of grammar and word order that occasionally obscure meaning.

4 Occasionally makes grammatical and/or word order errors that do not obscure meaning.

5 Grammar and word order approximate that of a native speaker.

3.4.1.2 Data Analysis on Pilot Test

The pilot test was conducted before giving the pretest. The students were given the test based on the instruction from the researcher. If the students were confused or did not understand about the instruction when they were doing the test, it means that the test was not face valid. If this condition happened, the researcher would ask the students about which part of instruction that made them confused. When the students performed the expected language focus it means that the test was content valid. After the test items were proved to have face validity

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

and content validity, the items were given to the students in the pretest and posttest.

3.4.1.3 Inter-rater Reliability

Inter-rater reliability is used to examine the agreement between two people which are raters or observers on the assignment of categories of a categorical variable. It is an important measure in determining how well an implementation of some coding or measurement system works (Texasoft, 1998, Inter-rater reliability (Kappa) using SPSS, para. 1).

A statistical measure of inter-rater reliability is Cohen’s Kappa which ranges generally from 0 to 1.0 although negative numbers are possible where large numbers mean better reliability, values near or less than zero suggest that agreement is attributable to chance alone. The interpretation of the obtained data is given in the following table:

Table 3.3

Cohen’s Kappa Statistical Measure of Inter-rater Reliability

Kappa Interpretation

< 0 Poor agreement 0.0 – 0.20 Slight agreement 0.21 – 0.40 Fair agreement 0.41 – 0.60 Moderate agreement 0.61 – 0.80 Substantial agreement 0.81 – 1.00 Almost perfect agreement

(Landis & Koch, 1977) in Texasoft, 1998

3.4.1.4 Data Analysis on Pretest and Posttest

After the pretest was conducted in experimental group, the next part was analysing and calculating the result using the Independent t-test. The use of

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

Independent t-test in analysing pretest result was designed to prove that both groups were similar. Fraenkel and Wallen (1990) state that Independent t-test is a tool to determine whether there is a significant difference between the means of two independent samples. The equivalence of both groups was the requirement to conduct the Independent t-test for both groups’ posttest which is used to determine the effectiveness of the implementation of the treatment. After the

equivalent of both groups were verified, the next step was calculating posttest’s

scores of both groups by using the Independent t-test which was aimed to find out the effectiveness of the implementation M-U-F framework

3.4.1.5 Normal Distribution Test

In investigating the normal distribution, the researcher used

Kolmogrov-Smirnov’s formula through IBM SPSS Statistics 20 for Windows. There are three

steps in conducting the normal distribution which are setting the null hypothesis (H0) in the alpha level, analysing the normally distribution with

Kolmogrov-Smirnov’s formula, and explaining the result. In this case the alpha level is 0.05,

which is two-tailed test. Explaining the result means testing the hypothesis, thus if the significance level > 0.05, then t he null hypothesis (H₀) is accepted which means

the distribution of data is normal. On the other side, if significance level < 0.05, the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected which means the distribution of the data is not

normal.

3.4.1.6 Homogeneity of Variance

This study used Levene’s formula from IBM SPSS Statistics 20 for

windows to find out the homogeneity of variance. There are three steps in employing this formula. First is setting the null hypothesis (H0) in the alpha level.

The alpha level was set at 0.05. The second is analysing the homogeneity variance

with Levene’s formula in IBM SPSS Statistics 20 for Windows. The last step is

comparing the result with alpha level. If the Levene’s score > 0.05, then the null

hypothesis (H0) is accepted. It means that the score of experimental and control

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

hypothesis (H0) is rejected. It means that the score of experimental and control

group are not homogeneous.

3.4.1.7 Independent t-test

Coolidge (2000) states that the Independent t-test is used to analyse a connective relationship between the independent variable which is treatment and the dependent variable that is measured on both groups. Independent t-test is also used to find out the difference mean between two groups. There are three steps in

conducting Independent t-test. First is setting the null hypothesis (H0) in the alpha

level. The alpha level was set at 0.05. Second is calculating and analysing the Independent t-test by IBM SPSS Statistics 20 for Windows. The last is comparing the result with the significance level. If the result > 0.05, the null hypothesis (H0)

is accepted which means there is no significant difference between experimental and control group. In other side, if the result < 0.05, the null hypothesis (H0) is

rejected which means that there is the significant difference of mean between both groups.

3.4.1.8 Dependent t-test

The Dependent t-test was used to find the difference between two groups’ means in experimental group in which the participants in both groups were related to each other in some ways. The dependent variable was expected to have normal distribution and the variance of the two groups should be homogenous.

In this study, the dependent sample test was analysed using computation

IBM SPSS Statistics 20 for Windows by comparing the significance value with the level of significance to test the hypothesis. If the result is more than the level of significance in which the result >0.05 the null hypothesis (H0) is accepted which

means there is no significant differences between pretest and posttest in experimental and control group. On the other hand, if the result is less than the level of significance in which the result <0.05 the null hypothesis is rejected, and it can be concluded that there is a significance difference between the two mean of experimental and control group.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

3.4.1.9 The Calculation of Effect Size

The effect size was used to determine how far the effect of independent variable upon the dependent variable (Coolidge, 2000). If the treatment worked as

detected by a large different between two groups’ mean, it means that there was a

large effect size. But, if the difference between both groups’ mean is small, it means there is small effect size.

3.4.1.10 Data Analysis on the Questionnaire

The data from the questionnaire session was analysed by using Likert’s

scale to analyse the obtained data. Likert’s scale is a psychometric scale to

primarily used to find participant’s preferences with a statement or set of

statements. The researcher used the percentage formula to analyse the

questionnaire’s data. Then, the data was explained based on the frequency of the

students’ answer. Concluding remark

This chapter has already conveyed the research method that was used in this study, which was designing the lesson plan, administering the pilot test, administering pretest, giving the treatment, administering posttest, and administering questionnaire which have already been explained specifically in Research Procedure. The setting and participants of this study were also mentioned in this chapter.

The next chapter exposes the findings of this study and also the discussion. Findings convey the data that were gained by using the data collection tools, while Discussion connects the findings with the related theories and previous studies and how the interpretations can get answers for the research questions.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

This chapter consists of two main parts, those are findings and discussions. The findings are divided into four parts, which are the pilot test score analysis, the pretest score analysis, the posttest score analysis, and the research findings of questionnaire. Those findings are then analysed and interpreted in the discussion part.

Findings

4.1 Improvement of the students’ speaking skill by using M-U-F framework

4.1.1 Findings from the pretest score analysis

The means and standard deviations of the pretest scores are displayed in appendix 2. The table shows that the mean for the experimental group is 9,75, while the mean for the control group is 9,60. In order to prove that the two means of both groups were not significantly different, Independent t-test was implemented. Before t-test was implemented, the pretest scores of both experimental and control groups must be approximately normal and homogeneous. Therefore, the calculation of the normal distribution and

homogeneity of variance test was implemented to the two groups’ scores.

4.1.1.1 The result of the normal distribution test

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was employed to check whether the pretest scores of both groups are normally distributed. From the table that can be seen in appendix 2, the results show that Z score at the experimental pretest is 0.670 and Z

score at the control pretest is 0.558. The significance value of experimental (0.760) is higher than the level of significance (0.05). Equally, the significance value of control group (0.814) is higher than the level of significance (0.05). It can be concluded that (H0) null hypothesis was accepted. In other words, both groups’

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

4.1.1.2 The result of the homogeneity of variance test

The homogeneity of variance test was accomplished after the normal distribution test was conducted. Levene’s statistics in IBM SPSS Statistics 20 for Windows was used to analyse the homogeneity of variance of control and

experimental group’s pretest score. The result is shown on appendix 2.

From the SPSS output results, it represents that the Levene’s test is 1.022.

It is higher than the level of significance, 0.05 (1.022 > 0.05). Therefore, the (H0)

null hypothesis was accepted. It can be said that the variances of the control and experimental groups are homogeneous or equal.

4.1.1.3 The result of the Independent t-test

The Independent t-test was implemented to see whether there is a significant difference between the scores of experimental and control group pretest. The hypotheses that were established in this analysis were in the form of null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. Null hypothesis indicates that the means of two groups are not significantly different, while alternative hypothesis indicates that the means of two groups are significantly different.

Based on the statistical analysis that is illustrated in the Table 4.4 in appendix 2, it can be explained that the significance value of means in both groups for equal variances assumed is 0,876. It is more than level of significance 0.05 (0,876 > 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis (H0) was accepted. In other

words, the means of the two groups are not significantly different.

4.1.1.4 The result of inter-rater reliability

Based on the statistical analysis that is illustrated in chapter three, it can be explained that the scores of both rater are substantial agreement for the

experimental group’s pretest and moderate agreement for control group’s pretest.

It is shown from the result of Cohen’s Kappa Statistical Measure value that is

0,663. The value is in substantial agreement range (0,61 - 0,80). For the control group, the value is in moderate agreement range (0,41 – 0,60).

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

4.1.2 Findings from the posttest score analysis

The posttest scores were analyzed to see whether there is any improvement in the students’ final scores after the treatment was given to them. The Table 4.5 in appendix 2 shows the result of the posttest from the statistical computation.

The Table 4.5 shows that the mean of the experimental group is 17,775, while the mean for the control group is 12,800. It is directly stated that the means of the experimental and the control group are different. It can be seen that the means from both experimental and control groups from the posttest scores are different. However, to prove whether the means of both groups are significantly different, the Independent t-test was implemented. Before the Independent t-test

was implemented to the both groups’ posttest means, the posttest scores of both

groups should be approximately normal and homogeneous. Therefore, the normal distribution test and homogeneity of variance test were calculated to find the means of the experimental and the control group posttest. Furthermore, the effect size was calculated in order to discover the effect of the independent variable which is the M-U-F framework upon the dependent variable which is the students’ speaking score.

4.1.2.1 The Result of the Normal Distribution Test

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in SPSS 20 for windows was applied to check whether the posttest scores of both groups were normally distributed. The result is presented in the table on appendix 2.

From the table on appendix 2, the result shows that Z score on the experimental group’s posttest is 0.160 and Z score on the control group’s pretest is 0.125. The significance value of the experimental group’s posttest (0.731) is higher than the level of significance (0.05). Similarly, the significance value of the control group’s posttest (0.943) is higher than the level of significance (0.05). It is clear that (H0) null hypothesis was accepted. In other words, both groups’ score

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

4.1.2.2 The result of the homogeneity of variance test

Levene’s statistics in IBM SPSS Statistics 20 for Windows was used to

analyze the homogeneity of variance of control and experimental group posttest score. The result is presented in appendix 2.

From the calculation data on appendix 2, it represents that the result of

Levene’s test is 1.201. The significance value is 0,280. It is bigger than the level

of significance which is 0.05 (0,280 > 0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis (H0) is

accepted. It can be concluded that the variances of the control and experimental groups are homogeneous or equal.

4.1.2.3 The result of the independent t-test

The Independent t-test was implemented to see whether there is a significant difference between the posttest scores of the experimental and the control group. The hypotheses that were established in this analysis were in the form of null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. Null hypothesis indicates that the means of two groups are not significantly different, while alternative hypothesis indicates that the means of two groups are significantly different. The result is shown in the appendix 2.

Based on the statistical analysis that is illustrated in the Table 4.8 in appendix 2. It can be explained that the significance value of means in both groups for equal variances assumed is 0,000. It is lower than level of significance 0.05 (0,000 < 0.05). It also shows that tobt (7.018) is higher than tcrit (1,686).

Therefore, the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. In other words, the means of the

two groups are significantly different. It means that the treatment which was implemented in the experimental group, significantly improved the students’ speaking skill.

4.1.2.4 The result of inter-rater reliability

The result of inter-rater reliability for posttest scores can be explained that the scores of both raters are substantial agreement for the experimental group’s

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

those are 0,704 and 0,601. The value is in substantial agreement range (0,61 - 0,80). For the control group, the value is same, which is in substantial agreement range.

4.1.2.5 The result of the effect size calculation

The calculation of effect size was conducted to prove the influence of the independent variable upon the dependent variable and to discover how efficient the treatment worked. The calculation was performed manually by using the formula that was developed by Coolidge (2000). The data were taken from the calculation of Independent t-test on posttest in which the tobt is 6,477 and the df is

38. After the data was calculated, the result shows that r value is 0.525. The converting r value into the effect size table, the obtained value shows medium effect size.

4.1.2.6 The Result of the Dependent t-test

The paired t-test was used to analyze the difference between the means of pre-test and post-test in experimental group. The result of the data calculation is statistically shown on appendix 2.

The result shows that the mean of experimental pretest scores is 9,750 with standard error is 0,726, while the mean of posttest scores is 17,775 with standard error is 0,434. Furthermore, the significance of correlation value from the pretest and the posttest is presented on appendix 2.

From the obtained data, it is found that the significance of correlation value from the pretest and the posttest is 0.000. It is lower than 0.05. Thus, (H0)

null hypothesis was rejected because there is a significance difference between pretest scores and posttest scores. It means that the data of the pretest and the posttest are dependent.

4.1.3 The differences between experimental and control groups’ pretest and posttest

Based on statistical analysis that is explained in the previous parts, it can be explained that the pretest score of experimental and control group has less

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

differences. For experimental group’s score are 9.60 and control groups’ score

9.75. It just has 0.05 score of differences. The illustration of the score is shown below.

Chart 4.1

Different from pretest score, the experimental and control groups’ posttest

has high difference. The mean of experimental group is 17.775 while control group is 12.800. It is directly stated that the score of both groups are different. The illustration of the score is shown below.

Chart 4.2

1 6 11 16

Pretest

Experimental group

Control group

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Post test

Experimental group

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

4.1.4 The difference between pretest and post test experimental and control group

The chart below was created to see whether there are any improvement in

the students’ posttest score after the treatment was given. As shown in the chart,

there are some improvements between pretest and posttest score even the improvement is not significant. There are 9.75 for pretest score and 12.800 for posttest score.

Chart 4.3

In the other side, the significant improvement is shown in the experimental group. After the researcher give them some treatments, the posttest score was significantly improve. There are 9.60 for pretest score and 17.775 for posttest score. The illustration chart is shown below.

Chart 4.4

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Control group

Pretest

Posttest

0 5 10 15 20

Experimentsl group

Pretest

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

4.2 The students’ response(s) toward M-U-F framework to improve their speaking ability

The questionnaire was conducted in the experimental class after the post-test was given in the same day. Each item of the questionnaires was proposed to investigate the effect of using MUF Framework in improving speaking ability. The questionnaire consisted of six questions which were divided into three categories. Those are the students’ responses to speaking in English context,

students’ responses to the advantages of using MUF Framework to improve students’ speaking skill, and students’ responses to the use of MUF which was

implemented in teaching speaking. The obtained data can be seen in the chart 4.5

– 4.:

Chart 4.5

Statement 1

From the chart 4.1 above, it displays that nearly all of students (55%) in experimental group agreed that they like learning speaking. There were 30% of students strongly agreed with the first statement. In other opinion, there were 15 % of all students disagreed and none of students strongly disagreed with the statement. As the result, most of the students agreed that they like English lesson especially learning speaking.

Saya menyukai pembelajaran

berbicara bahasa inggris

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

Chart 4.6 Statement 2

Second, from the chart 4.2 above, 65% of all students answered agree and 25% of the students answered strongly agree. In contrast, there were none of students who answered strongly disagreed, and only 10 % of students who answered disagree with the statement.

Chart 4.7 Statement 3

As can be seen in the chart above, it shows that nearly all of the students in the experimental class felt that the media which is given by teacher is really helpful in helping students to comprehend the material. In detail, there were 45% of the students agreed and 50% of the students strongly agreed with the statement. There

Saya sering mengalami kesulitan dalam

berbicara bahasa inggris

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Media yang diberikan membantu saya

lebih mudah memahami materi yang

diajarkan

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

were only 10% of the students who felt that the media which is given by teacher

didn’t give much effort in helping them to comprehend the material.

Chart 4.8 Statement 4

As showed in the chart 4.4, 55% of all the students and 45% of the students chose to agree and strongly agree with the statement which said that

Jigsaw technique helped students in improving students’ vocabulary mastery.

None of them who stated disagreed and strongly disagreed.

Chart 4.9 Statement 5

As showed in the chart 4.5, most of the students chose to agree and strongly agree with the statement which says that the activities which are given by teacher in the

classroom improve students’ speaking skill. It was proven by the high percentage

Pembelajaran yang disuguhkan membantu

menambah kosakata dalam bahasa inggris

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Kegiatan belajar yang dilakukan di kelas

meningkatkan kemampuan siswa dalam

berbicara bahasa inggris.

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

for agree and strongly agree responses which reach 45% for agree and 30% for strongly agree. Only 15% of the students chose to disagree and the rest 10% of the students chose to strongly disagree with the statement.

Chart 4.10 Statement 6

From the chart 4.6, it displays that 40% of the students in experimental group agreed and 55% of the students strongly agree that it was easier for them to comprehend the material by using the implementation of M-U-F framework rather than the conventional technique (just listen to the teacher explanation) in the learning and teaching process. In contrast, there are 10% of the students disagreed with the statement. As the result, most of the students agreed that they liked English lesson.

Discussions

The statistical calculation of the posttest scores showed that the use of M-U-F framework was effective to improve students’ scores in speaking. This was proved by the mean of the experimental group which was quite higher than the scores of the control group in which the mean of experimental group was 17.775 while the mean of control group was 12,800. The two means were obvious significantly different, as also proved by the result of the Independent t-test.

Lebih mudah memahami materi dengan menggunakan game, story, song, dan lain-lain dibandingkan hanya

mendengarkan guru menjelaskan materi dan siswa hanya mendengarkan

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

Furthermore, the result of the Dependent t-test and the effect size test

strengthened the conclusion that the treatments worked for improving students’

achievement in speaking. Thus, it can be stated that the null hypothesis was rejected.

The obtained data from the findings proved that students were able to speak better. The students were found out of being able to express their ideas and speak more than they had done before the study was carried out. The implementation of M-U-F framework gave certain advantages. First, it contains some joyful technique that make student feel enjoy and fun during learning English. They can get the material from the explanation by the teacher who used some media in delivering the material. By using attractive media, teacher can get

the students’ attention. Moon (2005), states that the children attention span is

fairly short and their concentration is easily distracted. If the teacher cannot provide the activity that students need and want, then it will be hard to teacher to

get students’ attention.

Second, this framework consists of “meaning” step. In term of meaning,

the learning process presented in the meaningful and contextual way, based on what learner need and the situation related to children real life. Contrast with grammar-translation method implemented in control group, teacher was taught and delivered the material without context. In the control group, students did not have enough opportunity to practice the language. As stated by Pinter (2006), young learner can learn best when they have enjoy and fun the lesson if they can work out the message from contextual and meaningful activity. In every treatment given by teacher, it included the context to present the meaning. In addition, the difficulty in creating contexts as supported in delivering the material is a challenge to teachers. As mentioned in chapter 2, children focus on meaning, not on explanation of abstract concept, like sentence patterns (Moon, 2008). It also needs to be highlighted that teaching a language is not to memorize sentence, patterns, and vocabularies, but to use and combine them so they can make a good speaking product.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

Last, this framework can draw the students’ attention to the grammatical

form. As stated before in chapter 2, the last stage of M-U-F framework is Form. In this stage, children are taught how to understand the language form naturally based on the context without just memorized the language pattern or form. In this step, even the focus is delivering and explaining the form of language, teacher should deliver it with the communicative and meaningful explanation in order to help students to understand and participate in the activities.

The use of M-U-F framework increased the interaction among the students. This framework also enabled them to correct each other. It was indicated

from the students’ participation during the whole process which instructed them to

work groups. Basically, all the given tasks would never be done and their speaking skill would never be improved if the students did not participate during the whole process.

From the questionnaire, students show their curiosity in learning the new method that the researcher uses. It is shown in the calculation of the questionnaire that most of them like the way the researcher teach them, because the researcher teach them how to understand the material with child-friendly ways based on students characteristic and their learning style named multiple intelligences that stated by Gardner’s theory (as cited in Pinter, 2005 and adapted from Allyn & Bacon, 2002) that there are eight learning styles of children named multiple intelligences.

From the first question, 55% of students in experimental group were enjoy during learning process. When people are interested in one activity, they tend to be more active and dedicated in conducting that activity. As Crow and Crow (2012) stated that interest encourages person to give attention to people, things or activities .As happened to the students in the experimental group, most of them were likely enjoyed the process of learning speaking. It is because the teacher facilitated their learning activity, in which each student was necessary to be an active and participants.

For the second question, the finding was that most of the students perceived that they often found difficulties in speaking English. It was difficult for

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

them to express their idea clearly in speaking English. It happens because of the different structure or grammatical sentences between their mother tongue and English. It was because they have to think and speak in the same time. They do not have a silent time to think. It was also difficult for them to speak since they only had limited vocabularies.

Third, most of them feel that they can get the new material easily when they are introduced to the new method that providing attractive media. They all agreed that the media which are given by teacher give much effort in helping them to comprehend the material.

The findings in question number four, it is obviously seen that all of students admitted that their vocabularies mastery were improved due to the implementation of M-U-F framework during the teaching and learning process. During the implementation of the treatment, the students were showed some pictures. Actually, it would be easier for students to get the clear visualization about the vocabulary. As the result, the repetition caused the students remembered the vocabularies easily. The next findings strengthened that the use of M-U-F framework was successful. It means that M-U-F framework had successfully

improved the students’ speaking skill of young learners. For the last question, the

students strongly agree that it was easier for them to comprehend the material by using the implementation of M-U-F framework rather than the conventional technique (just listen to the teacher explanation) in the learning and teaching process.

Concluding remark

This chapter has revealed the findings of this study and also its discussion. Findings show that the use of M-U-F framework was effective to improve

students’ scores in speaking. The two means were obvious significantly different,

as also proved by the result of the Independent t-test. Furthermore, the result of the Dependent t-test and the effect size test strengthened the conclusion that the

treatments worked for improving students’ achievement in speaking. Thus, it can

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

students show their interest to the way the researcher teaches them. They like learning by using the new method than the previous method that their teacher is used.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

In this chapter, various findings of the research are described together. Also, some theoretical as well as practical implications of these findings are suggested.

5.1 Conclusions

This research focused on the use of Meaning Use Form framework in improving speaking ability of young learner in fourth-graders. The purpose of this study was to find out whether the MUF Framework had improved the students’ scores when compared with the control group. Furthermore, this study also aimed

to discover the students’ response to the implementation of MUF framework in teaching speaking.

Findings of this research suggest that the MUF Framework is effective in improving the students’ speaking scores. The result from Independent t-test on posttest shows that there is a significant difference between the posttest means of the experimental group and those who were in the control group. The result finds out that the significant value is bigger than r critical. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected It means that the treatment that was given to the

experimental group is significant to improve the students’ speaking skill.

The result of Dependent t-test presents that the significance two-tailed is lower than r critical. Thus, null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. It means that the

treatment which was given to the experimental group was significant to improve the students’ speaking skill. In addition, the computation of the effect size shows that r obtained value belongs to a medium effect size which means that MUF framework is effective to be implemented in teaching speaking to young learners.

Moreover, the MUF Framework is found to be potential to provide better learning when compared with the conventional method which is Grammar- Translation Method. This is proved by the obtained data from questionnaire. Nearly all of the students agree that by using attractive media they are able to

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

improve their speaking skill, increase their vocabulary mastery, and improve their self-confidence in learning language especially in speaking. However, MUF framework does not cover all of the students’ need since this framework was found out to be still unable to deal with all those students’ entire speaking problem.

5.2 Suggestions

There are several suggestions to be proposed for next studies in the similar field as the present research. First, the framework would be very suitable to be implemented in the medium and small class, as the result, all students can participate in the learning activity. Second, more guidance from teacher is needed. Consequently, the high-motivated students can help the low-motivated students to comprehend the learning materials better. Third, in applying the new technique, teacher should give more motivation and direction to the low-motivated students in each team. Fourth, the time allocation from each activity should be planned carefully. It should cover all of the planned activities and students’ participation.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

REFERENCES

Ara, S. (2009). The use of songs, rhymes, and games. The Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics: Vol. 2. Unpublished.

Arikan, Arda. (2011). Effectiveness of using games in teaching grammar to young learners. Retrieved on February 20, 2014, from http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr

Broughton, Geoffrey, C. Brumfit, R. Flavell, P. Hill, & A. Pincas. (2003).

Teaching english as foreign language. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principle: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Brown, G. (1977). Listening to spoken english. Longman.

Cakir, A. 1999. Musical activities for young learners of EFL. The Internet TESL Journal, 5. Retrieved on February 20, 2014, from http://www.iteslj.org/Lessons/Cakir MusicalActivities.html

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching english to young learners. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Coolidge, F. L. (2000). Statistics: a gentle introduction. London: SAGE Publication

Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

Curtain, H. and Dahlberg, C. A. (2004). Languages and children: making the match: new languages for young learners, grades k-8. Third edition. New York: Longman

Damayanti, I.L, A.B. Muslim, dan I. Nurlaelawati. (2008). Analisis relevansi mata kuliah english for young learners dengan kebutuhan pembelajaran bahasa inggris di sekolah dasar. UPI: Penelitian hibah pembinaan.

Gay, L. R., E. M. Geoffrey, P. Airsian. (2006). Educational research: competencies for analysis and applications (eight edition). Los Angles: Pearson

Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of english language teaching. Cambridge: Longman.

Harmer, J. (2007). English language teaching. UK: Ashford Colour Press. Hatch, E. Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics: for applied.

Houghton Mifflin Company. (2000). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition). America: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kranzler, G. And Moursund, J. (1999). Statistics for the terrified. Second edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

Lewis, G. & G. Bedson. 1999. Games for children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Linse, C.T. 2005. Young learners. New York: MGraw Hill.

Loukia, N. (2006). Teaching young learners through stories: the development of a handy parallel syllabus.

McCloske, Mary Lou. 2002. Seven instructional principles for teaching young learners of english. tesol symposium, san diego. Available

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

http://home.comcast.net/~educoatlanta/Handouts05/McCloskey_TESOL_ Symposium02.pdf accessed on 29 September 2013

McCallum, G. P. (1980). 101 word games: for students of english as a second or foreign language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McKey, Penny.(2006). Assessing young language learners. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McKay, H and Tom, A. (1999). Teaching adult second language learners. Cambridge University Press.

Milne, J. (1999). Questionnaires: advantages and disadvantages. Retrieved from: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/cookbook/info_questionnaires/

Moon, J. (2005). Children learning english. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Limited.

Moon, J. 2008. Primary innovation module. UK: British Council.

Morrow, K. 1983. Principles of communication methodology. In Johnson, K. and Morrow, K. Communication in the Classroom: Application and Methods for A Communicative Approach. Longman House, Burnt Mill, Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE, England: Longman Group Limited.

No name. Learning and developing through interactions. Retrieved from (httpwww.ncca.bizaistearpdfsguidelines_enginteractions_eng.pdf)

Nunan, D. (1992). Research method in language learning. United State of America: Cambridge University Press.

Paul, D. 2003. Teaching english to children in asia. Hong Kong: Longman. Philips, S. (1993). Young learners. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: oxford university press.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

San Jose Unified School District (2010). Student oral language observation matrix (SOLOM). Retrieved September 12, 2013, from http://www.mc3edsupport.org/community/knowledgebases/student-oral-language-observation-matrix-solom-1061.html

Scott, W. A, & Yteberg, L. H. (2004). Teaching english to children. USA: Longman Inc.

Slattery, M., & Willis, J. (2001). English for primary teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sukarno. (2008). Teaching english to young learners and factors to consider in designing the materials. Jurnal Ekonomi & Pendidikan, Volume 5 Nomor 1. Yogyakarta.

TexaSoft. (1998). Interrater reliability (kappa) using SPSS. Retrieved May 25, 2014, from

http://www.stattutorials.com/SPSS/TUTORIAL-SPSS-Interrater-Reliability-Kappa.htm

Wortham, S. C. (2005). Assessment in early childhood: fourth edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

THE USE OF M-U-F FRAMEWORK IN IMPROVING SPEAKING ABILITY OF YOUNG LEARNERS Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |perpustakaan.upi.edu

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

In this chapter, various findings of the research are described together. Also, some theoretical as well as practical implications of these findings are suggested.

5.1 Conclusions

This research focused on the use of Meaning Use Form framework in improving speaking ability of young learner in fourth-graders. The purpose of this study was to find out whether the MUF Framework had improved the students’ scores when compared with the control group. Furthermore, this study also aimed

to discover the students’ response to the implementation of MUF framework in teaching speaking.

Findings of this research suggest that the MUF Framework is effective in improving the students’ speaking scores. The result from Independent t-test on posttest shows that there is a significant difference between the posttest means of the experimental group and those who were in the control group. The result finds out that the significant value is bigger than r critical. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected It means that the treatment that was given to the

experimental group is significant to improve the students’ speaking skill.

The result of Dependent t-test presents that the significance two-tailed is lower than r critical. Thus, null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. It means that the

treatment which was given to the experimental group was significant to improve the students’ speaking skill. In addition, the computation of the effect size shows that r obtained value belongs to a medium effect size which means that MUF framework is effective to be implemented in teaching speaking to young learners.

Moreover, the MUF Framework is found to be potential to provide better learning when compared with the conventional method which is Grammar- Translation Method. This is proved by the obtained data from questionnaire. Nearly all of the students agree that by using attractive media they are able to

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

THE USE OF M-U-F FRAMEWORK IN IMPROVING SPEAKING ABILITY OF YOUNG LEARNERS Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |perpustakaan.upi.edu

improve their speaking skill, increase their vocabulary mastery, and improve their self-confidence in learning language especially in speaking. However, MUF framework does not cover all of the students’ need since this framework was found out to be still unable to deal with all those students’ entire speaking problem.

5.2 Suggestions

There are several suggestions to be proposed for next studies in the similar field as the present research. First, the framework would be very suitable to be implemented in the medium and small class, as the result, all students can participate in the learning activity. Second, more guidance from teacher is needed. Consequently, the high-motivated students can help the low-motivated students to comprehend the learning materials better. Third, in applying the new technique, teacher should give more motivation and direction to the low-motivated students in each team. Fourth, the time allocation from each activity should be planned carefully. It should cover all of the planned activities and students’ participation.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

THE USE OF M-U-F FRAMEWORK IN IMPROVING SPEAKING ABILITY OF YOUNG LEARNERS Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |perpustakaan.upi.edu

58

REFERENCES

Ara, S. (2009). The use of songs, rhymes, and games. The Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics: Vol. 2. Unpublished.

Arikan, Arda. (2011). Effectiveness of using games in teaching grammar to young

learners. Retrieved on February 20, 2014, from

http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr

Broughton, Geoffrey, C. Brumfit, R. Flavell, P. Hill, & A. Pincas. (2003).

Teaching english as foreign language. New York: Routledge & Kegan

Paul Ltd.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principle: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An interactive approach to

language pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Brown, G. (1977). Listening to spoken english. Longman.

Cakir, A. 1999. Musical activities for young learners of EFL. The Internet TESL

Journal, 5. Retrieved on February 20, 2014, from

http://www.iteslj.org/Lessons/Cakir MusicalActivities.html

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching english to young learners. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Coolidge, F. L. (2000). Statistics: a gentle introduction. London: SAGE Publication

Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research planning, conducting, and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

THE USE OF M-U-F FRAMEWORK IN IMPROVING SPEAKING ABILITY OF YOUNG LEARNERS Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |perpustakaan.upi.edu

59

Curtain, H. and Dahlberg, C. A. (2004). Languages and children: making the

match: new languages for young learners, grades k-8. Third edition. New

York: Longman

Damayanti, I.L, A.B. Muslim, dan I. Nurlaelawati. (2008). Analisis relevansi mata kuliah english for young learners dengan kebutuhan pembelajaran

bahasa inggris di sekolah dasar. UPI: Penelitian hibah pembinaan.

Gay, L. R., E. M. Geoffrey, P. Airsian. (2006). Educational research:

competencies for analysis and applications (eight edition). Los Angles:

Pearson

Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of english language teaching. Cambridge: Longman.

Harmer, J. (2007). English language teaching. UK: Ashford Colour Press. Hatch, E. Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics: for applied.

Houghton Mifflin Company. (2000). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition). America: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kranzler, G. And Moursund, J. (1999). Statistics for the terrified. Second edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

Lewis, G. & G. Bedson. 1999. Games for children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Linse, C.T. 2005. Young learners. New York: MGraw Hill.

Loukia, N. (2006). Teaching young learners through stories: the development of a handy parallel syllabus.

McCloske, Mary Lou. 2002. Seven instructional principles for teaching young

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

THE USE OF M-U-F FRAMEWORK IN IMPROVING SPEAKING ABILITY OF YOUNG LEARNERS Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |perpustakaan.upi.edu

60

http://home.comcast.net/~educoatlanta/Handouts05/McCloskey_TESOL_

Symposium02.pdf accessed on 29 September 2013

McCallum, G. P. (1980). 101 word games: for students of english as a second or

foreign language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McKey, Penny.(2006). Assessing young language learners. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McKay, H and Tom, A. (1999). Teaching adult second language learners. Cambridge University Press.

Milne, J. (1999). Questionnaires: advantages and disadvantages. Retrieved from: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/cookbook/info_questionnaires/

Moon, J. (2005). Children learning english. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Limited.

Moon, J. 2008. Primary innovation module. UK: British Council.

Morrow, K. 1983. Principles of communication methodology. In Johnson, K. and Morrow, K. Communication in the Classroom: Application and Methods

for A Communicative Approach. Longman House, Burnt Mill, Harlow,

Essex CM20 2JE, England: Longman Group Limited.

No name. Learning and developing through interactions. Retrieved from (httpwww.ncca.bizaistearpdfsguidelines_enginteractions_eng.pdf)

Nunan, D. (1992). Research method in language learning. United State of America: Cambridge University Press.

Paul, D. 2003. Teaching english to children in asia. Hong Kong: Longman. Philips, S. (1993). Young learners. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: oxford university press.

Indah Hermyati, 2014.

THE USE OF M-U-F FRAMEWORK IN IMPROVING SPEAKING ABILITY OF YOUNG LEARNERS Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |perpustakaan.upi.edu

61

San Jose Unified School District (2010). Student oral language observation

matrix (SOLOM). Retrieved September 12, 2013, from

http://www.mc3edsupport.org/community/knowledgebases/student-oral-language-observation-matrix-solom-1061.html

Scott, W. A, & Yteberg, L. H. (2004). Teaching english to children. USA: Longman Inc.

Slattery, M., & Willis, J. (2001). English for primary teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sukarno. (2008). Teaching english to young learners and factors to consider in

designing the materials. Jurnal Ekonomi & Pendidikan, Volume 5 Nomor

1. Yogyakarta.

TexaSoft. (1998). Interrater reliability (kappa)

using SPSS. Retrieved May 25, 2014, from

http://www.stattutorials.com/SPSS/TUTORIAL-SPSS-Interrater-Reliability-Kappa.htm

Wortham, S. C. (2005). Assessment in early childhood: fourth edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.