THE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCE THROUGH STUDENTS TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) METHOD AT THE FOURTH SEMESTER

  

THE STUDENTS’ SPEAKI NG PERFORMANCE THROUGH STUDENTS TEAM

ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION ( STAD) METHOD AT THE FOURTH SEMESTER

SUKMAWATI, S.S., M.Pd

  STKIP MEGA REZKY MAKASSAR

  

ABSTRACT

  This study investigated the students’ speaking per for mance thr ough students team achievement division (STAD) method at the fourth semester . It w as conducted to fi nd out: (1) students’ speaki ng per for mance of midwi fe students at STIKES Mega Rezky Makassar , (2). Whether or not the speaking per for mance of the midw ife students at STIKES Mega Rezky Makassar develop thr ough Students Team Achi evement Division (STAD) method. The r esear ch appl ied pr e-exper imental r esear ch design. This r esear ch w as conducted to the four th semester in STIKES Mega Rezky Makassar . The data w er e collected thr ough pr e- test, post-test and questionnai re. . The students’ pr onunciation mean score in post-test 63.45.2 was hi gher than pr e-test 58.40.4. Next, the students’ vocabular y mean scor e in post-test 67.15 w as bigger than pr e-test 62.50. Then, the students’ gr ammar master y mean scor e i n post-test w as 62.90 was differ ent w it h the pr e-test 52.50 . The r esearcher also show s that Students Team Achievement Divison (STAD) method can si gnificantly develop students’ speaking per for mance dealing w ith acceptable pr onunciation, corr ect gr ammar and vocabular y. It was pr oved by val ue of t-test 3.01 w er e gr eater than t-table 2.84

  Keywords: students’ speaki ng, students team achievement divi sion method. 1 .Intr oduction One of the goals in teachi ng English as a for ei gn l anguage i s to be able to speak English.

  Students or Engli sh lear ner can improve their abil ity by star ting basic conver sation that can be held ei ther i n Engli sh meeti ng, school or i nstitution. Besides, they can pr actice thei r abil ity i n social inter action or in the cl assr oom. Speaking ability can ease English lear ner to communicate either w ith for ei gner or with the same English Lear ner s. Widdowson’s idea i n Mar wah (2006) w hen w e acquir e a language w e do not only lear n how to compose and compr ehend cor rect sent ence as i solated li nguistic units of r andom occur r ence, we also lear n how to use sentence appropr iately to achieve a communicative pur pose. Most of students w ho lear ning English w ant to speak fluently, know pronunci ation, gr ammatical patter ns, and vocabular y but the fact (1) the students sti ll lack of vocabul ar y (2) the pronunci ation is effected by dialect of thei r mother tongue, (3) the condition and the situation in the classr oom have not been designed natur ally for speaking (4) and the students sti ll lack the corr ect applicati on of gr ammatical rules, the appr opr iate w or d choice and meaning.

  Based on the descri ption above, the r esearch questions w er e for mulated as the followi ng questions: a. What i s speaking per for mance of midw ife students of STIKES Mega Rezky Makassar ?

  b. Can the speaking per for mance of midw ife st udents of STIKES Mega Rezky Makassar develop thr ough Students Team Achievement Division (STAD) method?

  2. Liter atur e Review Cooper ative lear ning i s pr esentl y used i n schools and univer sities i n ever y par t of the w or ld, in ever y subject ar ea, and w ith ever y age student (Johnson D. and Johnson, R.

  2000:10). In other hand, cooper ative learning requires pupils to wor k together in small gr oups to support each other to i mpr ove their own l earning and that of other s (Jolliffe, Wendy 2007:3). Cooper ative l ear ning emphasi zes on cooperation among students in small gr oup. Then the goals of this method ar e not only academical s compet ence but al so the element of cooper ati on. Ther efor e, cooper ative lear ning i s a set of instr uctional method in w hi ch students do assignment together in a team that acqui re language skill , mostly in speaking. Student teams achi evement divisi on i s devel oped by Robert Slavin and his fri ends at John Hopki n Univer si ty. Accor di ng to Mar w ah (2006) teaching pr ocess of cooper ati ve lear ning according to Students Team Achievement Division (STAD) method as the followi ng:

  1. Class pr esent at ion . The materi al to be lear ned is initially pr esented to the w hole class by the teacher . Ther efor e, he needs to pr epare a topic or a lesson mater i al.

  Since the teacher present s the mat er i al, the students can focus on the presented mater ial , w hil e on the other si de they are concer ning to the w ay he uses the cor r ect gr ammatical patter ns, the appr opr iate w or d choice and its meaning and the appropr iate ( acceptable) pr onunciation

  2. Team. The teacher asks the students to form a t eam w hich is compr i sed of fi ve to si x

  3. Member s. The students w or k in gr oup of a gi ven topic and ar e tr ying to master each question ar ises in the topic. In this case, the teacher informs each member w hi ch assi gnment to be compl eted. After that they ar e w or king i n a group discussion or pai r activi ty, w hil e the task i s finished, the teacher asks once agai n each teams to r eview and make mor e clear about the question ar ise pr eviously 4.

  Quiz.

  The students ar e evaluated via individually quiz. The quiz is based on the mater ial given and that have discussed mor e in team. The quiz assesses i ndividual achievement on the materi al pr esent ed in the class and pr acticed in team. The quiz i s in for ms of asking and answ eri ng questi ons by pointing or i n or der . Here, again the students can lear n how to per for m a good speaki ng accur acy.

  5. Individual impr ovement scor es . The teacher puts the scores on impr ovement fr om pre to post questions scor es. Individual scor es contr ibute to a gr oup scor e, the points contr ibuted to the gr oup are based on a students’ i mpr ovement over previ ous quiz per for mance.

  5. Team r ecognit ion. Lastly, as the learning goes i mpr essed, the teacher uses for ms of social r ecognition and r ewar ds to teams for high w eekly per for mance and hi gh communicative standing pr ovided for individuals w ho per for m excepti onally w ell . The students need to know of pr onunciation, gr ammatical patter ns, and vocabul ar y to speak accur at ely. Therefor e, the researcher investigated the thr ee items i n lear ni ng speaking through Students Team Achievement Division (STAD) method. a. Pr onunciation The r esear cher w ants to know how to pr onounce the sound with mouth dr aw ings that illustr ate how to use the ar ticulator s (l ips,tongue, jaw,and teeth) for each sound (Dale, P

  & Poms, L 2005:8). Pr onunciati on includes the str ess, r hythm, and intonati on within the r ole of ar ticulation in w ords. The utter ances do not flow as like w hat the language lear ner conveys necessar ily, but the utter ances ar e functioned as the r ole of or gan of speech to pr onounce the acceptable ar ticulation of the wor ds. (Mar w ah 2005) b. Grammar Cook (1991:9-11) defined the types of grammar as in the follow ing:

  1. Per spective gr ammar , gr ammar that pr escr ibes w hat peopl e should say. It is the r ules found in school-books, say the war nings against fi nal pr eposition i n sentences.

  2. Tr aditional grammar , concer ns w ith labeli ng sent ences w ith part s of speech.

  Analyzi ng sentences mean labeling the par t s their names and giving r ules that explain ver bally how they may be concer ned.

  3. Structur al gr ammar, concer ned w ith how wor ds go into phr ases st r uctur e. Which shows how some words go together in the sentences and some do not.

  4. Gr ammar as a know ledge, i t is r efer to the native speaker’s know ledge of language.

  Accor ding Sadow ski (2009) there ar e common pr obl ems in facing gr ammar , such as: a. Basic sentence str uctur e. All a sentence needs to be complete is a subj ect and a verb. “He cr ies.” i s an actual complet e sentence. Of cour se, sentences ar e typically much mor e complex than this, but if you pay attention to your subject and ver b and can cl ear ly i dentify each, then you’r e off to a good star t.

  b. Subj ect-ver b agr eement. If you can identify your subject and ver b, then you should have no di fficulty maki ng sur e they agr ee, in tense and in number.

  Examples: Each of the two teams wer e at their best. (was / its) As the innings pr ogressed, the teams play more competitively.

  (played)

  c. Avoid passi ve tense. Typically the passive tense comes into our w ri ting w hen w e don’t have the r ight subj ect at the star t of a sentence.

  Examples: The issue to be discussed by the candidates is social secur ity.

  (The candidates w ill discuss the issue of soci al secur ity.)

  d. Shor t vs. long sentences. The longer your sentences, the more li kely they w ill include grammati cal er ror s. Someti mes w e need long sentences, in which case pr oper punctuation makes all the differ ence. But often w e can divi de sentences into separ ate, shor ter ones and,i n doing so, prevent basic w r iting er r ors. Shor t sentences al so help to avoid fr agments

  (str ings of words w ithout appr opri ate grammat i cal str uctur e, such as a sentence w ithout a subject or ver b). Example: Dur ing the 2004 pr esidential debate t he candidates discussed Iraq and Bush made the point that the w ar has made the w or ld safer while

  Ker r y took issue wi th the w ay the war is being car r ied out made the point that the war has made the w orl d safer . Ker r y took i ssue w ith the w ay the w ar i s being car r i ed out.) e. Cor r ect punctuation. Good w r iting depends on good punctuation. Most common w r iting er ror s occur when commas (and, to a lesser ext ent, semicolons and colons) ar e incor r ectly used. An easy w ay to simplify things is to w r ite in shor ter sent ences ( r epl acing commas w ith per iods at the end of a complete sentence). Otherw i se, w atch for common traps such as separ ating subjects and verbs wi th commas and inappr opr i ately dividing up connecti ng phr ases or “sidebar s” w ith mispl aced commas. Examples: Sally, w anted to run for pr esi dent. (No comma needed) Sal ly, w ho wanted to r un for pr esident didn’t have a chance. (Sally, who w anted to r un for president, didn’t have a chance.)

  c. Vocabular y It is a basic thing to lear n English befor e pr acticing speaki ng. People have to master par t of speech such as noun, verb, adjective, adver b, pr eposition. Students sometimes get a diffi cult to memor i ze all vocabulari es because they seldom pr actice to use them. They must practice mor e to keep on their mind. Harmer (2010) distinguishes t w o types of vocabular y i n the wor ds, active vocabular y and passi ve vocabul ar y. Acti ve vocabul ar y r efer s to vocabular y that students have been taught or lear nt so that it is fami liar w or d for them and they ar e expected to be able to use. Whil e, passive one r efer s to student s w ill r emember w hen they r ead or listen but they pr obably ar e not be able to pr oduce.

  3. Method This resear ch used classr oom action r esear ch. It investigated the affect of usi ng cooperative lear ning in terms of Students Team Achievement Divi si on (STAD) pr ocess to develop the speaking perfor mance of the students. This resear ch employed the pr etest-tr eat ment -posttest design. That w as Students Team Achi evement Divi si on (STAD) pr ocess, it employs in five components namely: Class presentation, team, quiz, individual impr ovement scor e and team r ecognition. That i s aimed at finding out the development of the students speaki ng accur acy w hich dealing w ith acceptable pr onunciation, corr ect gr ammar , and appr opr iate w or d choice.

  The population of the r esear ch w as fourth semest er of midwife students of STIKES Mega Rezky Makassar that consist of thr ee classes. Each class consists of 30 students so the total number of the populati on w as 120 students. The sample of this r esear ch w as t aken tw o classes of the popul ation. It w as taken r andomly by using lotter y so the sample of the r esear ch w as 40 students. One class w as a contr ol gr oup and the last w as an exper imental gr oup.

  3.1 Pr ocedur e of Data Collection Test inter vi ew w as used to examine and assess the students speaking accur acy which deals w ith pr onunciation, grammar , and vocabulary. The fir st step, students w er e given pr e-test both contr ol and exper imental gr oup. Each gr oup for contr ol and exper iment al group was given a topic. They wer e given 15 minutes to discuss about pr egnancy. After that, they w er e i nter view ed. Then, control and exper imental group w er e given tr eat ment. The contr ol gr oup w as given an usual method in the classr oom regularl y. The exper imental gr oup w as th w as conducted 5 meetings. In the 6 meeting, st udents wer e given post-test.

  .

  3.2.Technique of Data Analysis The data of the students’ speaking per for mance using the followi ng pr ocedur e:

  a. Scor ing the students’ test r esult

  b. Tabulati ng the students’ scor es

  c. Classifying the students’ score

  d. Calcul ating the mean scor e of the students’ speaki ng accur acy score

  e. Calculating the test r esult by using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS for Window s 20.0)

  4. Finding and discussion

  1. The Development of the Students’ Speaking Per for mance The appl ication of cooper ative l ear ning thr ough the use of Students Team

  Achievement Division (STAD) method as a one of teaching str ategy in English speaking per for mance could develop the students’ speaking per for mance dealing w ith acceptable pr onunciation, cor r ect gr ammar , and vocabular y master y. As indicated by the significant differ ence betw een the scor es of pr e-test and post-test as show n in the fol low ing table: Table 1 the Fr equency and Per centage of Students’ Pr onunciation i n Pretest

  Contr ol Exper iment Classification Fr equency Percentage (%) Frequency Per centage (%) No.

  1. Excellent - - - -

• 2. Ver y Good - - -
• 3. - Good

  1

  5

  4. Fair ly Good

  2

  10

  3

  15

  5. Fair

  7

  35

  7

  35

  6. Poor

  11

  55

  9

  45 7 7.

• Ver y Poor - -
• 20 100

  20 100 The table above show ed that none of the students got excellent and ver y good both pr e-test of contr ol and exper i ment. Ther e w as 1 student (5%) w ho got good in exper i ment. 11 students (55%) got poor in contr ol and 9 students (45%) in exper iment. Next, 7 students (35%) got fair in contr ol and 7 students (35%) in exper iment. 2 students (10%) got fair ly good in contr ol and 3 students (15%) i n exper iment.

  Table 2 the Fr equency and Per centage of Students’ Pr onunciation i n Posttest Contr ol Exper iment

  Classification Fr equency Percentage (%) Frequency Per centage (%) No.

  1. Excellent - - - -

  2. Ver y Good

  3. Good

  2

  10

  1

  5

  4. Fair ly Good

  3

  15

  7

  35

  6. Poor

  8

  40

  4

  20 7 7.

• Ver y Poor - 20 100

  20 100 The table above show ed that none of the students got excellent and ver y good both pr e-test of contr ol and exper iment. Ther e wer e 2 students (10%) in contr ol and 1 student (5%) in exper iment w ho got good cl assification. 3 students (15%) in contr ol and 7 Students (35%) i n exper iment got fai r ly good. Next, 7 students (35%) in contr ol and 8 students (40%) i n exper iment got fai r . Then, 8 students (40%) in control group and 4 students (20%) i n exper iment got poor classifi cation.

  Table 3 the mean scor e of the students’ pronunci ation in contr ol and experi ment Gr oup Pretest Posttest

  Mean Scor e Standard Mean Scor e Standar d (M) Deviation (SD) Devi ation

  (SD) Contr ol

  54.15

  9.01

  61.00

  8.97 Experi ment

  58.40

  8.46

  63.45

  8.68 The table above show ed that the mean scor e of pr etest in contr ol w as 54.15 and SD w as 9.01 while in experi ment M= 58.40 and SD = 8.46. Next, Contr ol gr oup got M=61.00 and SD =8.97 when doing posttest. In addition, exper iment group got M=63.45 and SD=8.68. Table 4 the Fr equency and Per centage of the st udents’ vocabular y in pr e-test.

  Contr ol Exper iment Classification Fr equency Percentage (%) Frequency Per centage (%) No.

  1. Excellent - - - - 2. Ver y Good

  3. Good

  1

  5

  3

  15

  4. Fair ly Good

  1

  5

  3

  15

  5. Fair

  3

  15

  8

  40

  6. Poor

  14

  70

  6

  30

  5 - 7 7. Ver y Poor 20 100 20 100

• 1

  The tabl e above indicated that none of the students got excel lent and very good both in contr ol and exper i ment. Ther e w as 1 student (5%) who got good and fair ly good i n contr ol w hi le 3 students (15%) w er e i n exper iment gr oup. Then, 3 students (15%) w er e fair in contr ol and 8 students (40%) w er e fai r classifi cation. Next, 14 students (70%) w er e poor and 6 students (30%) w er e in exper i ment gr oup. In contr ol gr oup, r esear cher found 1 student (5%) got ver y poor .

• 5

• 20 100

  Standard Deviation (SD)

  Mean Scor e Standar d Devi ation (SD)

  Contr ol

  53.25

  10.54

  60.25

  9.76 Experi ment

  62.50

  10.19

  67.15

  11.08 The table above show ed that the mean scor e of pr etest in contr ol w as 53.25 and SD w as 10.54 w hile i n experi ment M= 62.50 and SD = 10.19. Next, Contr ol gr oup got M=60.25 and SD =9.76 w hen doing posttest. In addition, exper iment gr oup got M=67.15 and SD=11.08. It means that the students’ gr ammar developed signifi cantly by usi ng cooper ative lear ning i n terms of Students Team Achi evement Division (STAD) method. Table 7 the Fr equency and Per centage of the st udents’ gr ammar i n pr e-test.

  No.

  Fr equency Percentage (%) Frequency Per centage (%) 1.

  Classification Contr ol Exper iment

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6. Excellent Ver y Good Good Fair ly Good Fair Poor

  4

  16

  20

  80

  7

  13

  35

  Mean Scor e (M)

  1 student (5%) good in contr ol and 3 (15%) in exper iment. Fur ther more, 3 students (15%) got fair ly good i n control w hile 7 students (35%) w ere in exper i ment. 9 students (45%) wer e cat egor ized as fair and 7 students (35%) w ere in exper iment gr oup. The last, 7 students (35%) w er e poor in contr ol gr oup and 2 students (10%) w er e in exper i ment one. Table 6 the mean scor e of the students’ vocabular y i n control and exper iment Gr oup Pretest Posttest

  20 100 The table above showed that none of the students got excellent and ver y good in contr ol, but ther e w as 1 student (5%) ver y good in exper i ment group. Researcher found

  9

  No.

  Classification Contr ol Exper iment

  Fr equency Percentage (%) Frequency Per centage (%) 1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6. 7 7.

  Excellent Ver y Good Good Fair ly Good Fair Poor Ver y Poor

  1

  3

  7

  10

  15

  45

  35

  1

  3

  7

  7

  2

  5

  15

  35

  35

  45

  20 100 20 100 The table 7 showed that none of the students got excellent, very good, good even fairl y good in contr ol and exper iment gr oup. Resear cher found 4 student (20%) fair in contr ol and 7 (35%) in exper iment. Further mor e, 16 students (80%) got poor in contr ol w hile 13 students (45%) w ere in exper i ment.

  Table 8 the Fr equency and Per centage of the st udents’ gr ammar i n post-test Contr ol Exper iment

  Classification Fr equency Percentage (%) Frequency Per centage (%) No.

  1.

• Excellent - - 2.
• Ver y Good - -

  3. Good - -

  1

  5

  4. Fair ly Good

  3

  15

  5

  25

  5. Fair

  9

  45

  10

  50

  6. Poor

  8

  40

  4

  20

• 7 7. Ver y Poor - - - 20 100

  20 100 The tabl e 8 show ed that none of the students got excell ent, ver y good and good in contr ol gr oup, but 1 student (5%) was good in exper i ment gr oup. Then, 3 students

  (15%) w ere fai rl y good i n contr ol and 5 (25%) w er e in exper i ment. Fur ther more, 9 students (45%) got fair in control w hile 10 students (50%) w er e i n exper iment. The last, there w er e 8 students (40%) poor in contr ol and 4 students (20%) in exper i ment gr oup. Table 9 the mean scor e of the students’ gr ammar in contr ol and exper i ment Gr oup Pretest Posttest

  Mean Scor e Standard Mean Scor e Standar d (M) Deviation (SD) Devi ation

  (SD) Contr ol

  50.75

  7.12

  57.85

  6.48 Experi ment

  52.50

  7.16

  62.90

  7.05 The table above show ed that the mean scor e of pr etest in contr ol w as 50.75 and SD w as 7.12 while in experi ment M= 52.50 and SD = 7.16. Next, Contr ol gr oup got M=57.85 and SD =6.48 when doing posttest. In addition, exper iment group got M=62.90 and SD=7.05. It means that the students’ vocabular y developed significantly by usi ng cooper ative lear ni ng in ter ms of Students Team Achievement Division (STAD) method. Table 10 The Probability Val ue of T-Test Posttest of the Experi mental and Contr ol gr oups

  Var i able t-test Value t-tab Value Post-test

  3.01

  2.84 level 0.005. The value of t-test w as gr eater than t-table (3.01 > 2.84). It means that, the use of cooper ati ve lear ning in ter ms of Students Team Achievement Division (STAD) method could develop the students’ speaking per for mance of the four th semester of mi dw ifer y students of STIKES Mega Rezky Makassar .

  In this speaking per for mance in ter ms of accur acy deali ng wi th acceptable pr onunciation, cor r ect gr ammar and vocabulary mastery. The r esear cher notes that the students have li ttle pr ior know ledge about gr ammar . It is pr oved by classification of the students’ score, w her e after given tr eatment by usi ng cooper ative lear ning thr ough Students Team Achievement Di vision (STAD) method. The r esear cher found that only 1 student (5%) got good score in vocabulary, 2 students (10%) got good scor e in pr onunciation w hile in gr ammar, ther e w as no one student got good scor e. It is r egar ding w ith Sadow ski (2009) common pr oblem i n facing gr ammar , especial ly in passive, punctuation and subject ver b agr eement.

  5. Conclusion Based on the r esearch fi ndings and discussion in the pr evious chapter, the r esear cher comes to the fol low ing concl usion: a. In analyzing the students’ speaking per for mance, the r esear cher calculates the students’ score in pr e-test and post-test. The r esult of the data analysis show s that the students’ pr onunciation mean score in post -test 63.45 w as higher than pr e-test

  56.40. Next, the students’ vocabular y mean scor e i n post-test 67.15 w as bigger than pre-test 62.50. Then, the students’ grammar mast er y mean scor e in post-test was 62.90 w as differ ent w ith the pr e-test 52.50.

  b. The resear cher also show s that Students Team Achievement Di vison (STAD) method can significantly devel op students’ speaking per for mance dealing w ith acceptable pr onunciation, cor r ect gr ammar and vocabular y. It w as pr oved by value of t-test 3.01 w ere gr eater than t-table 2.8

  BIBLIOGRAPHY Chen, Yu. Hsun. 2011. St r uct ur ing Cooper at ive Lear ning in Teaching English

   Pronunciat ion . Engli sh Language Teachi ng (vol . 4. No. 3. 2011). Retri eved fr om Accessed on 7 t h December 2016.

  Dale,P & Poms, L.2005.English Pr onunciat ion Made Simple. USA: Pear son Education Dar ussalam, Ahmad. 2004. Teaching Reading Skill Thr ough Cooper at ive Lear ning. Thesis publi shed in UIN Makassar .

  Gay, L.R. Mi lls, E.G & Air asian, P. 2006. Educat ional Resear ch: Compet enci es For Analysis and Applicat ion.

  New Jer sey: Per son education, Ine. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. 2000. Cooperat ive lear ning: A Met a-analysis. Retr ieved from Ht t p:/ / Www.Clcr c.Com/ Pages/ Cl-Met hods.Ht ml. Access on 14

  th

  December 2016 London: Paul Chapman Publishi n. Mangka, Jamaluddin. 2005. The Cor r elat ion Bet ween The At t it ude of The St udent s of Islamic

  Senior High Boar ding School Al-Ur wat ul Wut sqaa Bent eng Sidenreng Rappang Toward English and Thei r English Achievement . Thesis published in UIN

  Makassar . Mar w ah.2006. The St udent s’ Speaki ng Per for mance Thr ough Cooper at ive Lear ning. Thesis publi shed in Unismuh Makassar Ri char ds, C.J. & Rodger s, S.T. 2001. Approach as and Met hods in Language Teaching. New

  Yor k: Cambr idge Univer sity Pr ess Saco. 2006. Cooperat ive Lear ning. Retri eved fr om:

  

Accessed on 14 December 20013

  Sugiyono. 2009. Met ode Penilit ian Pendidikan: Pendekatan Kualit at iti f, Kuanlitat i f, dan R&D. Bandung: Pener bit Alfabeta. Sadow ski, Sar ah. 2009. Common Pr oblems w ith Gr ammar . Retr ieved fr om

   ems.pdf