DEVELOPING STUDENTS' SPEAKING ABILITY THROUGH STORYTELLING.

(1)

Page

APPROVAL PAGE………. i

DECLARATION………. ii

PREFACE………. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……… iv

ABSTRACT……….. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS………. vi

LIST OF TABLES………. ix

LIST OF APPENDICES……… x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1Background of the Study……… 1

1.2Research Questions……… 5

1.3Purpose of the Study………... 5

1.4Significant of the Study……… 6

1.5Definition of Key Terms………... 6

1.6Scope of the Study……….. 7

1.7Thesis Organization………. 7

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2. 1The Nature of Speaking... 9

2.2 The Importance of Speaking in Language Learning………....….. 10

2.2.1 The Problem in Teaching Speaking Skill………. 12

2.2.2 The Classroom Speaking Activities………. 15

2.3 Storytelling………. 21

2.3.1 Types of Stories……… 22

2.3.2 How to Apply the Storytelling………. 26

2.3.3 The Advantages of Storytelling……… 28

2.4 Storytelling for Speaking Skills……….. 31

2.5 Related Studies……… 33

2.6 Syntheses………. 35

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Page 3.1 Research Design………. 36

3.2 Research Site……….. 37

3.3Population and Sample………. 38

3.3.1 Population………. 38

(2)

3.4.1 Material……… 39

3.4.1.1 Material for Treatment………. 39

3.4.1.2 Material for Pre-test and Post-test……… 40

3.4.2 Teaching Procedures……… 40

3.5 Research Instruments………. 42

3.6 Variable and Hypotheses……… 45

3.7 Research Procedure……… 46

3.8 Data Collection Technique………. 47

3.8.1 Tests……….. 47

3.8.1.1 Pre-test……… 47

3.8.1.2 Post-test……….. 47

3.8.2 Questionnaire……… 47

3.8.3 Interview………... 48

3.9 Data Analysis……….. 49

3.9.1 Score Data Analysis of the Test………... 49

3.9.2 Questionnaire……… 54

3.9.3 Interview……….. 55

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1Findings……….. 56

4.1.1 The Effect of the Use of Storytelling Technique in Teaching Speaking... 56

4.1.1.1Pre-test Scores of Experimental and Control Group.……….. 57

4.1.1.2Post-test Scores of Experimental and Control Group….………... 58

4.1.2 The Students’ Attitudes towards the Implementation of the Storytelling technique in teaching Speaking ………... 60

4.1.2.1Data from Questionnaires………... 61

4.1.2.1.1 The Students’ Attitudes toward the Use of Story in English………. 61

4.1.2.1.2 The Students’ Attitudes toward the Effects of the Story……….... 61

4.1.2.1.3 The Students’ Attitudes toward the Implementation of Storytelling Technique………... 62

4.1.2.1Data from Students Interview………... 63

4.2 Discussions………. 68

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS Page 5.1 Conclusions……… 75

5.2 Suggestions……… 76

(3)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Speaking is one of the language skills which is important for second language learners to be developed. Furthermore, “the mastery of speaking skill in English is a priority for many second-language or foreign language learners” (Richards, 1990: 19).

Due to the important role of English in the global era, in Depdiknas (2006), the Indonesian government explicitly emphasizes that the purpose of teaching and learning of English in Indonesia is to make the students do something with English. According to the Standard of Competence for the speaking skills, junior high school students are expected to be able to express meaningful ideas for both simple transactional (to get something done or get the information) and interpersonal (to get in touch with others for social purposes) communication to interact with people in their nearest environment.

Depdiknas (2006) stated that the scope of the teaching English at SMP level covers 1) the ability to comprehend and/or produce oral and/or written texts which are realized in an integrative way in the four language skills, i.e. listening, speaking, reading, and writing to achieve functional literacy level, 2) the ability to comprehend and create short functional texts, and monologues, and also essays in the forms of procedure, descriptive, recount, narrative, and report, and 3) the development of

(4)

communicative competence which includes linguistic competence dealing with the knowledge of the language (grammar, vocabulary, and phonology), socio cultural competence which relates with the use of language utterance acceptably in society, strategic competence which deals with how to overcome problems which arise in the process of communication, and discourse competence which deals with the ability to construct or interpret a text based on a given context.

The objective in the speaking skill is high, so it is not easy to achieve. The teachers and students face some difficulties in the teaching and learning of speaking. Based on the observation in teaching-learning activity before the investigation, it was found that the unsatisfactory condition was provoked by the monotonous teaching technique used by the teacher. Also, the classroom activities tended to be teacher-centered. The students were passive in the teaching-learning process. This phenomenon above seems to be a problem that should be overcome by teachers because they are involved directly in the teaching-learning process and they are the determinant factors who control the students’ success in learning.

Related to the problems above, it can be said that in the EFL classroom, teachers should try to develop speaking activities. The teachers should help their students by providing written texts to be learned to enrich their knowledge. The teacher should create a good learning situation in making the students happy, interested, and motivated in learning English. The motivation of learning the language can be enhanced by

(5)

creating good media, conducive situations, creative activities, in which the students will be actively engaged in the learning process.

There are many techniques that can be applied in teaching speaking such as, having a dialogue, playing games, singing songs, story-telling, oral reporting, role-playing, small group discussion, and debates. Looking at the subject of this study, that is the second-year students, the story-telling technique was used because it is a technique or an approach in teaching language. Storytelling can be an enjoyable tool for practicing both listening skills and verbal expression (Forest, 2000: 2 cited in Fitria). _{Activities in}

listening or reading a story can be matched with speaking by telling or retelling the story with student’s own words.

Jennings (1992: 8) and Brumfit and Johnson (1979 in Mixon and Temu, 2006: 14) state that through story-telling, students with various language abilities find a non-threatening medium to participate. Reading or telling a story in class is a way to learn a new language. Through story-telling individuals can learn to express themselves and make sense of the external world.

According to the 2006 Standard of Content, there are five genres that must be taught to the junior high school students. They are descriptive, procedure, recount, report, and narrative. Story is a part of narrative text. Storytelling is a technique to perform narrative text to tell a story and entertain the audience using spoken or written language. It is told by a story teller or narrator.

(6)

Storytelling is a good means of developing speaking skills. According to Wendlin (in Farris, 1991: 130), engaging students in storytelling activities develops communication skills and encourages shared learning experiences. Telling stories enhances oral language and sharpens listening. Thornbury also states that storytelling is a universal function of language and one of the main ingredients of casual conversation (2005: 95). By using storytelling students can practice listening and speaking skill in a fun and interactive way. When the teacher tells stories to students, he/she communicates with them, entertains them, and passes on information.

Telling stories is a good way to combine instruction and entertainment. Stories are an effective tool for language teaching (Malkina, 1995: 1 cited in Fitria). Children usually love stories. While listening to stories, children develop a sense of structure that will later help them to understand the more complex stories of literature (Pedersen, 1995: 2 cited in Fitria). By using storytelling the teacher can create an atmosphere in which the students can learn English and get entertainment.

Previous studies on the storytelling technique show that the use of story in the classroom can increase the students’ interest in learning English. A study conducted by Ningtyas (2006) found that storytelling can increase the interest of the fifth grade of Elementary School students in learning English. Related to the use of story, Rachmajanti (1999) found that teaching items transformed into stories were easy and interesting to

(7)

follow. Rahmana (2002) found that the combination of a story and pictures can stimulate the students’ interest in learning English.

Based on the advantages of using storytelling in motivating students and getting them more interested in speaking as reported by previous researchers above, this present study was intended to see the effect of the storytelling in teaching speaking.

1.2 Research Question

The main focus in this research was to develop students’ speaking ability through storytelling. The research questions that would be answered through this experiment were as follows:

1 What is the effect of the use of storytelling technique in teaching speaking?

2 What are the students’ attitudes toward the implementation of the storytelling technique in teaching speaking?

1.3Purpose of the Study

In relation to the problem of the study above, this study was intended to find out:

1. The effect of storytelling technique in teaching speaking.

2. Students’ attitudes toward the implementation of the storytelling technique in teaching speaking.

(8)

1.4Significant of the Study

The study is expected to contribute to the English teachers, headmasters and other researchers. For the English teachers, the finding of this study can give them an alternative way or technique in English teaching to improve the speaking ability of the students and enhance their motivation. For the headmasters, the finding of this study will give them sight in order to provide teachers some facilities to develop appropriate techniques that can be applied in teaching-learning activities. For other researchers this finding is also expected to be reinforcing reference in carrying out a study in a similar field.

1.5Definition of Key Terms

To avoid misinterpretation and misunderstanding on the content of the study, it is important to give clear definitions on the terms used in this thesis.

• Storytelling is the art of orally sharing a story or experience with an audience; usually face to face (Berman, 2006). In this study, storytelling is a technique or the art of using language in which the teacher presents a story orally in front of the students and also the students do the same thing in front of their fellow classmates.

• Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning involving producing, receiving, and processing information (Brown, 2001). In this study, speaking is the

(9)

ability to produce or express a story in terms of the content orally using the target language including the performance in delivering the story.

1.6Scope of the Study

This study was focused on the implementation of the teaching of speaking using storytelling to improve speaking skill of the second year students in Bandung. The story materials were selected from fables. The story was presented with picture.

1.7Thesis Organization

This thesis consists of five chapters presented as follows:

1. Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter presents the background of the study, research question, purpose of the study, the significant of the study, research methodology, definition of key terms, and thesis organization.

2. Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

This chapter elaborates relevant theories that underpinned this study. The theories deal theory with the nature of speaking, the importance of speaking in language learning, storytelling, storytelling for speaking skills, and related studies.

(10)

3. Chapter 3: Research Methodology

This chapter covers the research methodology of this study that covers research question, research design, research site, participants, data collection technique, and data analysis.

4. Chapter 4: Findings and Discussions

This chapter presents the finding and discussion the data obtained in the study. 5. Chapter 5: Conclusions and Suggestions

This chapter highlights the conclusions of the finding of this study and presents some suggestions for further study and teachers’ professional development.

(11)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter focuses on the process of conducting the research. These include Research Design, Research Site, Research Participants, Research Instruments, Research Procedure, Data Collection Technique, and Data Analysis.

3.1 Research Design

The design of the research was a quasi-experimental, a type of research design which includes experimental and control groups without random sampling (Hatch and Lazarraton, 1991). It was conducted in order to find out the significance of using story-telling technique to improve the students’ speaking ability by analyzing the result of the tests as quasi-experimental design (Hatch and Farhady, 1982; Hatch and Lazaraton, 1994; Dornyei, 2007). In sum, this quasi-experimental design was used to test the Null-Hypothesis (H0); there is no difference in speaking

ability between the experimental and control group and both groups were from the same populations. Storytelling technique was used in teaching the experimental group, while control group was taught by using conventional technique. To support the data from the treatment, the questionnaire and interview were also employed in this study to see the attitudes from the students after being taught using storytelling technique.

(12)

In this study, there were two groups of grade VIII of a Madrasah Tsanawiyah. One group was given the experimental treatment while the other did not (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 22 and Fraenkle and Wallen, 2007: 273). Both of groups’ speaking ability was tested using the storytelling test. In the treatment activity, the experimental group was taught by using storytelling technique, while the control group was taught normally by using conventional technique. The treatment was conducted in six meetings, each lasted for 90 minutes. After the treatment has been done, the posttest was given to both the experimental and control groups.

In order to support the validity of the research, the questionnaires and interviewed were administered at the end of the program. The questionnaires and interviewed were used to get the data of students’ attitudes toward the use of storytelling in teaching speaking in the classroom to answer the second research question. The attitudes covered the students’ feelings toward the implementation of storytelling technique and the effects of the story and the technique to their knowledge improvement and speaking skill.

3.2 Research Site

This study was conducted at a Madrasah Tsanawiyah in Bandung. The school has 12 classes. There are 5 classes of VII grade, 5 classes of VIII grade and 5 classes of IX grade. The number of students for each class is 32 students. The reason of choosing this school is considering the accessibility of the researcher to carry out the

(13)

research. Convenience factor should be taken into consideration to support the researcher to carry out the research (Alwasilah, 2009).

3.3 Population and Sample

3.3.1 Population

Population can be defined as a group to whom the results of the study are generalized (see Fraenkel and Wallen, 2007: 93). Based on the focus of the study, the population of this research was the students of a MTs in grade VIII. The students were taken as the population since speaking (narrative) can be found at the grade eight in the draft of curriculum 2006.

3.3.2 Sample

The sample of this study was taken from the sample through purposive sampling which sample was taken based on certain consideration, as Fraenkle and Wallen (2007: 100) state that “on occasion, based on previous knowledge of a population and the specific purpose of the research, investigators use personal judgment to select a sample. Researchers assume they can use their knowledge of the population to judge whether or not a particular sample will be representative”. Two of the classes from the VIII grade were chosen as the sample. The total number of the students from the two classes was 64 students. From those two classes, one class was chosen as the experimental group and another class was chosen as the control group. Two classes were chosen to be an experimental and control group based on

(14)

the result of the summative test of the last semester. These two classes had similar achievements. To keep their privacy and confidential real identities, their names were disguised.

3.4 Materials and Teaching Procedures

3.4.1 Materials

3.4.1.1 Material for Treatment

Hutchinson and Waters (1987: 108) categorize some elements in designing materials. First, input, it can be a text, dialogue, video recording, diagram or any others. Second, content focus, language is used as a mean of conveying information and feelings about something. Third, language focus, it is to enable the learners to use language, how it works and practices putting it back together again. The last, task, learners use the content and language knowledge they have built up through the unit. Regarding these, the materials were designed related to those elements which were arranged in the lesson plan.

The materials used to gather the data in this study were the materials to conduct a treatment in the form of lesson plan. The materials for the experimental class and the control class were the same. They were taken from internet.

Two stories were used for six meetings to both the experimental and control group of this study. The stories were retrieved from internet. They were chosen on the basis of topic, length and the interest of the students.

(15)

3.4.1.2 Materials for Pre-test and Post-test

Both pre-test and post-test were in series of pictures form a natural basis for narration (Hughes, 2003). These were used since the students were tested to check their speaking ability in telling the story based on the pictures given. The tests were held in 90 minutes.The pre-test was given in the first meeting in order to find out the starting point of the students’ speaking ability before the treatments were conducted. Meanwhile, the post-test term was conducted at the end of the teaching learning process in order to find out the effect of the use of the storytelling technique to the students’ speaking ability.

3.4.2 Teaching Procedures

The teaching speaking procedure for the experimental and control groups were carried out in the same procedure by using pre-activities, whilst-activities and post-activities. The main activities were begun with the teacher’s presentation and ended with individual task for each student (see lesson plans for experimental and control groups in Appendices 1 and 2).

Although both the experimental and control groups got the same procedures, each group were treated with different teaching methods. The experimental group was taught by using the storytelling technique and the control group was taught by using conventional technique.

(16)

Reading activities ware implemented to both experimental and control groups before they move to speaking activities. The following table shows a brief sample of classroom activities for experimental and control groups.

Table 3.1

The Sample of Teaching Procedures N o Experimental Group (Storytelling Technique) Control Group (Conventional Technique) 1 Pre activities

• The T greets the students.

• The T asks something about the story that had been discussed in previous meeting.

• The T tells the objective of the lesson and explains the activity that Ss will do.

• The T and the O still divide Ss into 8 groups, each of which consists of 4 persons.

Pre activities

• The T greets the students.

• The T asks something about the story that had been discussed in previous meeting.

• The T tells the objective of the lesson and explains the activity that Ss will do.

• The T and the O still divide Ss into 8 groups, each of which consists of 4 persons. 2

Whilst activities

• The T presents a song which related to the topic

• The T and the O sing the song together to get the Ss relax and set a good atmosphere.

• The T tells the story in front of the class.

• The T does questions and answer with the students related to her performance.

• The T encourages and asks the Ss in each group to tell the story in turn (practice in small group), but before that they rehearse alone.

• The T gives the Ss opportunity to ask something related to their activity.

Whilst activities

• The T asks the Ss to discuss the story to identify the generic structure of the narrative text.

• The T asks questions. For example, the questions are:

- What is the title of this story? - Who is/are the characters? - Where did it happen? - When did it happen?

- What happened to the main characters? - What are the events?

- How was the ending? sad/happy? Etc

• The T gives the Ss opportunity to ask something related to their activity. 3

Post activities

• The T asks the students how they find about the activity and their Experience toward the activity.

• The T encourages and gives advice to develop their motivation and confidence.

• The T gives the Ss time to prepare themselves or act out the story.

• The T asks students to practice the story again at home and explains that they will perform a story individual in front of the class.

Post activities

• The T asks the students how they find about the activity and their Experience toward the activity.

• The T asks the students to find another story and identify the generic structure.

(17)

3.5 Research Instruments

Fraenkle and Wallen (2007: 113) defined instrumentation as the whole process of preparing to collect data in a research. There were three kinds of instruments which were employed in this research. They were recording, speaking test, questionnaire, and interview.

The score of the students’ tests were used to know the effectiveness of storytelling technique to improve students’ speaking ability. They were collected through speaking test, pretest and posttest which were conducted to both experimental and control groups. The speaking test for pretest had similar level of validity, reliability, and level of difficulty with the speaking test for posttest. The scoring system used in the test was adapted from Hadley, 2001 (Cited in Razak, 2009). It was in the form of rubrics for speaking ability testing which covered Communication, Accuracy, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Pronunciation.

The questionnaire and interview were conducted to obtain data or information about the students’ response to the implementation of the technique. Before the instruments were administered, the validity and reliability were done.

Scarvia et al (1975) as cited in Arikunto (2007) stated that a test is valid if it measures what it has to be measured. To obtain a valid result, this study employed logical validity test in which the test was arranged based on the careful reasoning and in the line with the teaching objective (Arikunto, 2007). Since the study

(18)

conducted to measure the speaking ability, the test was in the form of oral test. The advisors were also asked to look at the content and format of the instrument and judge whether or not it is appropriate (Fraenkle and Wallen, 2007). In terms of the reliability of the test, the interrater reliability was used in which raters are required to make judgments on the language produced by the students. Interrater reliability is essentially a variation of the equivalent forms type of reliability in that the scores are usually produced by two raters and a correlation coefficient is calculated between them (Brown J.D., 1988 cited in Razak, 2009). The English teacher at the school was asked to be a rater accompanying the researcher in giving scores to the oral interview test. The scores of the two raters then be calculated using correlation analysis.

The try out of the instrument was done on September 20th 2011 to class VIII B which has equal ability to the class VIII C and VIII E as subjects of the study. The process of scoring was done by the researcher and the English teacher in the school as the interrater to make sure that the score results were objective. The score result was calculated using Correlation Analysis (Pearson Product Moment). The result of the computation using Correlation Analysis is shown in the following table.

(19)

Table 3.2

Correlation Analysis of Pre-test Try Out Correlations

Yetty Izur

Yetty Pearson Correlation 1 .958**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

Izur Pearson Correlation .958** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Explanation:

On the metric Correlation table, the correlation coefficient value between the score from the first rater and the second rater is high (0.958).

Table 3.3

Correlation Analysis of the Post-test Try Out Correlations

Yetty Izur

Yetty Pearson Correlation 1 .942**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

Izur Pearson Correlation .942** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Explanation:

On the metric Correlation table, the correlation coefficient value between the score from the first rater and the second rater is high (0.942).

(20)

The questionnaires and interview were also validated by consulting to the expert to have logical validity and it can be stated to be valid, i.e. they are understandable by many other people (Newman, 2003). And for the interview, the advisors were also asked to look at the content and format of the instrument and judge whether or not it is appropriate (Fraenkle and Wallen, 2007). In terms of reliability, the questionnaires were analyzed for their internal consistency. For the affective measurement and performance test scored using more than two choices like Likert-Scales.

3.6 Variable and hypotheses

The characteristics of this study including the variabels and hypotheses are shown in the following table:

Table 3.4

The Characteristics of the Study

Null Hypothesis (Ho) There is no difference between speaking ability of experiment and control groups.

Research Hypothesis (Hi) There is a significant difference between speaking ability of experimental and control groups.

Significant Level 0.01; two-tailed

Design Pre-test – post-test control group design

Dependent Variable Speaking ability

Measurement Score (interval)

Independent Variabel Storytelling

Measurement 1. Treatment to the experimental group

2. Treatment to the control group Statistical Procedure Independent t-test

(21)

Some procedure were arranged to make the study runs in a well organized way. The first, the try-out of the instrument was done to test its validity and reliability of the test items. Second, the pretest was given to both experimental and control groups. The results of the test were collected and analyzed as the preliminary data about the students’ speaking ability. Third, both the experimental group and the control group got a treatment. However, they got different treatment. The experimental group got Storytelling technique for their speaking. The control group got the conventional one. The conventional means, the teacher teach the story using the usual way of teaching speaking conducted in the classroom. Fourth, the posttest was given to the experimental and control groups to find out whether both groups make different result or not. Fifth, the questionnaire and interview were conducted to the experimental group.

Table 3.5

The Description of Research Procedure

N o

Date/Meeting Materials for Treatment Time Alocation

(minutes)

Experimental Group Control Group

1 September, 20th,2011 Conducting Try-out 2 x 45

2 October, 3th, 2011 Pre-test 2 X 45

3 October, 4th,2011 Meeting 1

Lion and Mouse (Reading Session)

2 X 45 4 October, 10th,2011

Meeting 2

Lion and Mouse (Grouping Storytelling)

Lion and Mouse 2 X 45

5 October, 11th,2011

Meeting 3 Lion and monse

(Individual Storytelling)

Lion and Mouse 2 X 45

6 October, 17rd,2011 Meeting 4

Little Mermaid (Reading Session)

2 X 45 7 October, 18th,2011

Meeting 5 Little Mermaid

(Grouping Storytelling)

Little Mermaid 2 X 45

8 October, 24th,2011 Meeting 6

Little Mermaid (Individual Storytelling)

Little Mermaid 2 X 45

9 October, 25th,2011 Post-test 2 X 45

(22)

3.8 Data collection technique

Several data collection techniques were employed to this research to obtain deep and comprehensive analysis;

3.8.1 Recording

Recording was used to record the students’ voice when they tell a story in the test. The researcher used a tape recorder or another kind of recorder like MP4. It was done to make the students’ utterances in the speaking test –telling a story individually– easy to be analyzed and contrasted to the scoring rubric.

3.8.1 Tests

The tests were conducted to participants to find out their improvement in speaking ability statistically.

3.8.1.1Pre-test

The pre-test was conducted to identify the initial skill of the students in speaking. It was given to both experimental and control group at the first meeting before the treatment given. The test was in the form of oral test.

3.8.1.2Post-test

The post-test was principally conducted similarly as the pre-test. It was used to measure the effectiveness of storytelling technique in improving students’ speaking ability. It was given after the treatment has been done.

(23)

3.8.2 Questionnaire

The questionnaire was conducted to obtain data or information about the students’ attitudes toward the implementation of the technique to answer the second research question. The questionnaire consisted of 11 close questions which covered 3 aspects; they were the students’ feelings toward the use of story in English, the effects of the story and the implementation of storytelling technique to their knowledge improvement and speaking skill. The questionnaires were written in Bahasa Indonesia to avoid misunderstanding of students. The form of the questionnaire was Likert Scale with the options of Strongly Agree, Agree, Uncertain, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. At the end of the questionnaire, an open-ended questionnaire was also provided for the students to write about their comments on the technique which were not covered by the close-ended questionnaire.

The questionnaire consisted of 11 statements. The statements covered three issues: the first issue was on the students’ feeling toward reading the story (statements number 1-2), the second issue was on the students’ feeling of the usefulness of story (statements number 3- 5), and the third issue was on the students’ feeling to the implementation of the technique (statements number 6-11). In addition, an open-ended questionnaire asked the students to give suggestion or opinion about the implementation of the technique.

(24)

3.8.3 Interview

The interview also conducted to obtain comprehensive data along with triangulating the data taken. This interview revealed the students’ attitudes toward the implementation of the storytelling in teaching speaking. The interview items were open-ended questions using semi-structured interviews, in which had aim to reveal specific information which could be compared and contrasted with information gained from the test and questionnaire (Dawson, 2009). In this case, face-to-face or to-one interviews (Cresswell, 1994: 150) were conducted. A one-to-one interview was done after the questionnaires had been already answered by the respondents. The interview was in the form of informal conversation to the students. The interview was done at school. The interview was conducted in order to support the data to answer the second research question.

3.9 Data Analysis

The results of this study were based on the recording, tests, questionnaires and interview.

3.9.1 Recording

The recording of the students’ voice in telling the story tests were scored based on the speaking score rubrics.

3.9.2 Score Data Analysis of the Tests

This quantitative analysis was used to see whether this technique was effective to improve students in speaking ability. There were two tests (pre- and

(25)

post-tests) that were applied. Since this research employed with quasi-experimental design, the result of pre-test was used to seek the homogeneity of participants using t-test (Hatch and Farhady, 1982; Hatch and Lazaraton, 1994; Dornyei, 2007) to compare means of pre-test score to seek whether the participants is homogeny or not. While the result of post-test was compared to seek the significant different between two groups or it is known as intact group design (Hatch and Farhady, 1982; Arikunto, 1993; Hatch and Lazaraton, 1994; Dornyei, 2007). The schematic representation of this design is

( )

Where G1 is experimental group, G2 is control group, x is treatment and T1 is

post-test

The post-test score was analyzed using two-tailed another t-test to seek the significance of the program by testing the Null-hypothesis that has been presented above, since t-test aims to compare two means of different groups (Hatch and Farhady, 1982; Hatch and Lazaraton, 1994; Dornyei, 2007).

The interrater was used to make sure that the scoring in speaking test was objective. The score results from two raters in both tests, pre-test and post-test, were calculated using Correlation Analysis (Pearson Product Moment). The results of the computation using Correlation Analysis are shown in the following table:

(26)

Table 3.6

Correlation Analysis of Control Group Pre-test Correlations

Yetty Izur

Yetty Pearson Correlation 1 .984**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

Izur Pearson Correlation .984** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Explanation:

On the metric Correlation table, the correlation coefficient value between the score from the first rater and the second rater is high (0.984).

Table 3.7

Correlation Analysis of Pre-test Experimental Group Correlations

Yetty Izur

Yetty Pearson Correlation 1 .963**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

Izur Pearson Correlation .963** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Explanation:

On the metric Correlation table, the correlation coefficient value between the score from the first rater and the second rater is high (0.963).

(27)

Table 3.8

Correlation analysis of Post-test Control Group Correlations

Yetty Izur

Yetty Pearson Correlation 1 .995**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

izur Pearson Correlation .995** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Explanation:

On the metric Correlation table, the correlation coefficient value between the score from the first rater and the second rater is high (0.995).

Table 3.9

Correlation Analysis of Post-test Experimental Group Correlations

Yetty Izur

Yetty Pearson Correlation 1 .988**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

Izur Pearson Correlation .988** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 32 32

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Explanation:

On the metric Correlation table, the correlation coefficient value between the score from the first rater and the second rater is high (0.988).

(28)

Since the results of the correlation computation were significant, so the scoring was objective.

The procedure compared the means of the experimental and control groups to find out their significant difference. If any, there might be a possibility that the means score of the two groups are different. The significant difference can be seen after the t-value has been obtained. The formula is:

tobs = Difference between two sample means

Standard error of differences between means

)

( _e _c

S c e observe x x x x − − = with

(

)

2 2

1 

    +       = − n Sc n Se x x

s e c

While S_e is obtained from: Se =

1 2 −

∑

N Xe

While S_cis obtained from: Sc =

1 2 −

∑

N Xc

Explanation : e : Means score of experimental group

c : Means score of control group

s( e

-

c) : Standard error of differences between

means

Se : Standard deviation of experimental group

Sc : Standard deviation of control group

The statistical analysis was used to compare the performance of both the students of experimental and control groups and to find out whether the means of the groups are truly different. It was intended to see if there was an influence of using storytelling in teaching speaking. Meanwhile, after the tobserved was found, the

(29)

following step was to consult the value against the t-critical value in the t distribution table and to find out the degree of freedom with the formula df = (n1 – 1 + n2 – 1) (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 112).

The hypotheses testing was conducted to see whether Ho is accepted or

rejected. Hatch and Farhady (1982) argue that the test alternative hypotheses (H1)

will be accepted if:

a. Mean of pre-test score is higher than that of pre-test score of the two classes b. Mean of pre-test score of the experimental class is not different from that the

control class.

c. Mean of post-test score of experimental class is higher than that of the control class.

To test null hypotheses (Ho), there are also some considerations should be fulfilled. It will be received if:

a. There is no significant difference between mean of the post-test score and pre-test score either of the experimental and control class.

b. There is no significant difference between mean of pre-test score of the two classes.

c. There is no significant difference between mean of post-test score of the two classes.

(30)

3.9.3 Questionnaire

The close questions data from questionnaires were analyzed by calculating it in percentage using frequency base with the following formula:

Number of students choosing certain option

Total number of the students (32) ,100 %

The data from open-ended questions were analyzed qualitatively. They were transcribed and summarized based on the classification.

3.9.4 Interview

The interview data was recorded and transcribed to be analyzed using coding and categorizing (Heigham and Croker, 2009). This type of data analysis made as sense of data by systematically looking through it, clustering or grouping similar idea and labeling them. After being transcribed and categorized, the data were presented in the discussion to explore students’ attitudes toward the implementation of the storytelling technique in teaching speaking.

(31)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This last chapter presents the conclusions and suggestions drawn from the research findings and discussion in the previous chapter. The chapter is divided into two parts, the first is conclusions and the second is suggestions.

5.1 Conclusions

This research aimed to discover: (1) the effect of the use of the storytelling technique in teaching speaking; and (2) the students’ attitudes toward the implementation of the storytelling technique in teaching speaking in the classroom. The data was collected from tests (pre- and post-test), questionnaires and interview.

Regarding to the first question, the data gained from the independent t-test, it showed that there was a significant difference between the post-test of students in the experimental group, who were taught by using storytelling technique, and that of students in the control group, who were taught by using the conventional technique. It can be concluded that the storytelling technique in teaching speaking has a significant effect in developing students’ speaking ability.

In terms of students’ attitudes toward the implementation of storytelling technique in teaching speaking in the classroom, the data from the questionnaires and interview showed that they have highly positive attitudes to the use of storytelling

(32)

technique in teaching speaking. They liked this technique rather than the technique that they got previously because they felt that it was interesting and made them enjoy the teaching and learning process. Furthermore, the students felt that storytelling activity could create fun and enjoyable environment in the classroom, so they would not get bored and it could entertain them which could motivate them to learn more. The storytelling technique was very useful in speaking class. It could help them to develop their speaking ability and increase the students’ confidence in speaking which helped the student to expressing their ideas and feeling easier. Finally, all these indicate that implementing storytelling technique is worth implementing by teachers in their classrooms.

5.2 Suggestions

As the completion of this research, the following suggestions can be given:

First, it is suggested that the teachers implement storytelling as one of techniques in teaching English, especially in speaking class, because it give benefits to the students’ performance. It is expected that teachers intending to implement storytelling should be creative in finding story for the students to attract the students’ attention and interests in speaking.

Second, for further exploration, future researchers can extend the investigation on storytelling technique by providing more samples from different settings and contexts. They can also explore the potential difficulties faced by the

(33)

teachers and the students involved in the implementation of the storytelling technique. Moreover, the questionnaire in this study did not cover the learning background experience. It is important to be asked because it influences the students’ ability. So, the further researchers should include that aspect in the questionnaire to make the study become more significant.

(34)

REFERENCES

Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. 2009. Pokoknya Kualitatif. Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT. Dunia Pustaka Jaya.

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 1993. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek, Edisi Revisi II. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Arikunto, S. 2002. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Bina Aksara.

Berman, M. 2006. The Art of Storytelling, (Online), (Developing Teacher.com, accessed on April 7th, 2010).

Bing, P. C., & Gaffrey, K. 2003. Arts Resource Handbook: Activities for Students with Disabilities. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Brewster, Ellis & Girard. 2003. The primary English teacher’s guide. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. (2nd ed). New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.

Burns, A. & Joyce, H. 1999. Focus on Speaking. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR). Sydney: Macquarie.

Celce, M. & Murcia. 2001. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (3rd ed). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Cooper, P. J., & Saxby. 1994. The Power of the Story. South Melbourne: Palgrave Macmilan Australia Pty. Ltd.

Cruz, T. C. 2001. Enhancing Literacy through the Techniques of

Storytelling,(Online), http://www.asha.org/about/publications/leader- online/archieves/2001/storytelling.htm, retrieved April 14th 2010.

Daniels, H. 2002. Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in Book Clubs and Reading Groups. Portland: Stenhouse.

Davies, A. 2006. Storytelling in the Classroom: Enhancing Traditional Oral Skills for Teachers and Pupils. California: SAGE.

(35)

Dawson, C. 2009. Introduction to Research Methods: A Practical Guide for Anyone undertaking a Research Project. Oxford: How To Books Ltd.

Depdiknas. 2006. Regulation of Minister of National Education. Indonesian Republic No. 22 Year 2006, Content Standard for Primary and Second Year at English Subject. Jakarta.

Dornyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Farris, P. J. 1993. Language Arts: A Process Approach. Illinois: Brown & Bechmark Publishers.

Fitria. 2009. Improving Students’ Listening Skills through Storytelling. Unpublished Thesis. Malang: Faculty of Letters, State University of Malang.

Fraenkle, J. R., and Wallen, N. E. (2007). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Sixth Edition. Singapore: MacGraw Hill Inc.

Gebhard, J. G. 2000. Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Gere, J. 1999. By word of mouth: A storytelling guide for classroom. Honolulu: Pasific Resources for Education and Learning.

Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. (3rd ed). Essex: Pearson Education.

Hatch and Farhady. 1982. Research Design and Statistic for Applied Linguistics. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publisher, Inc.

Hatch and Lazaraton. 1994. The Research Manual; Design and Statistic for Applied Linguistics. Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Haven, K. F. 2000. Super Simple Storytelling : a Can-Do Guide foe Every Classroom Everyday. Greenwood: a Division Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Heigham, J. & Croker, R. 2009. Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmilllan.

Hughes, A. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers: Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jalongo, M. R. 1992. Early Childhood Language Arts. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

(36)

Jianing. 2007. Storytelling in the EFL Speaking Classroom. (Online). (http: //iteslj.org /Techniques/Jianing-Storytelling.html, accessed on April, 17th, 2010).

Katherine, L. 2001. A Project Approach to Language Learning. Canada: Pembroke Publishers.

Leong, D. 2008. Once upon a time; Using storytelling activities in the ESL/EFL classroom. SFSU TESOL Conference.

Malkina, N. 1995. Storytelling in Early Language Teaching. English Teaching Forum, 33 (1): 38-40.

McKay, H., & Dudley, B. 1996. Types of Story. (Online),

(http://www.Australianstorytelling.htm, accesed on April, 12th, 2010).

Mixon, M. & Temu, P. 2006. First Road to Learning: Language through Stories. English Teaching Forum. 43 (2): 14-17.

Newman, W. L. 2003. Social Research Method. Boston: Pearson Education.

Ningtyas, F. 2006. Using Visual Media in Storytelling Technique to Increase the Interest of the Fifth Grade Students of SDN Banjararum III in Learning English. Unpublished Thesis. Malang: Faculty of Letters, State University of Malang.

Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. New York: Prentice Hall International.

Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Hong Kong: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Rahmajanti, S. 1999. Promoting the Mastery of Language Components through the Mode of Reading Adapted Stories to Elementary School Aged Learners. Unpublished Thesis. Malang: Postgraduate Program, State University of Malang.

Rahmana, E. Y. 2002. Using Big Books to Arouse the Interest of the Elmentary School Students in Learning English. Unpublished Sarjana Thesis. Malang: Faculty of Letters, State University of Malang.

Razak, Y. A.2009. Developing Students’ Speaking Ability Through the Provisions of Activities in Accordance with Their Learning Styles. Unpublished Thesis. Bandung: Postgraduate Program, Indonesia University of Education.

(37)

Richard, J. C.2008. Teaching Listening and Speaking: From Theory to Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press

Richards, J. C. and Renandya W. A. (Eds.). 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roney, R. C. 2001. The Story Performance Book. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc Publishers.

Strauss, K. 2006. Tales with Tails: Storytelling the Wonders of the Natural World. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Susanti, E. R. 2004. Using Big Books to Encourage the Fifth Grade of Elementary School Students’ Participation in English Classes at SDN Penjagaan 1 Bangkalan. Unpublished Sarjana Thesis. Malang: Faculty of Letters. State University of Malang.

Thomas, M. 2003. Blending Qualitative and Quantitative. California:Vorwin Press,Inc

Thornbury, S. 2005. How to Teach Speaking. Essex: Stenton Associates.

Tompkins, G. E., & Hoskisson, K. 1995. Language Arts: Content and Teaching Strategies. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Ur. P. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wiehardt, G. 2007. Definition of story. fictionwriting.about.com/od/glossary /g/story.htm (Accessed on March, 12th 2010)