Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
X : mean N : number of students
x : individual score
Then, the writer tries to get the class percentages which pass the the target
score of the minimal mastery level criterion-Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM).
The KKM that must be attained considering speaking subject is 65 (sixty-five)
which is adapted from the school agreement (SMPN 251 Jakarta). It is the
formula:
4
F
P = X 100%
N
P : the class percentage
F : total percentage score
N : number of students
3
Sudjana, Metoda Statistika, (Bandung: PT. Tarsito, 2002), p. 67.
4
Anas Sudijono, Pengantar Statistis Pendidikan, (Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada,
2008), p. 43.
30
The last, the writer analyzes the students speaking score from pre-test up to post-
test. It used to know whether students improve their score or not. She uses the
formula:
y1 y P : percentage of students improvement
P = X 100% y : pre-test result
Y y1 : post-test 1
H. Criteria of the Action Success
Classroom Action Research (CAR) is able to be called successful if it can
exceed the criteria which has been determined. In this study the research will
succeed when there is 75% of students could pass the assessment score 65 based
on the minimal mastery level criterion-Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM)
which is adapted from the school agreement (SMPN 251).
In addition, the success of the action is not only measured with the
achievement students speaking score, but also the role play technique can
motivate the students and they become more actively in learning process. If the
criterion of the action success achieved, it means that the next action of the
Classroom Action Research (CAR) would be stopped, but if this condition has not
been reached yet, the alternative action would be done in the next cycle.
31
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS
A. The Result of Pre Implementation of the Action
1. The Result of Interview
The interview was held on Thursday, January 13
th
2010 started at
15.10 and finished at 16.00. The writer asked to the teacher some
questions which were divided into three categories of question, they are:
the general condition of class, the difficulty in speaking skill, and the
strategy used by the teacher in teaching speaking.
First category discussed the general condition of class especially in
speaking class. The teacher said that the most of students did not like
studying English, because it is difficult lesson and they sometimes gained
low competence in English. The teacher also said that speaking is the
most difficult skill to be learned in VII.2 grade, because most of them
were hardly to pass the target score of the minimal mastery level criterion
(KKM).
Second category is the difficulty in speaking skill. The teacher said
that the students difficulties in speaking lied on pronouncing the word or
sentence, self confidence, and organizing the word into a sentence, and
this caused by less in practice English speaking.
The last category is the strategy used by the teacher in teaching
English speaking. The teacher said that she has never used role play in
teaching the students, she usually teaches speaking by introducing new
32
dialogue to the students, then she reads the dialogue, while the students
repeat it together, and then she give the meaning of the dialogue.
2. The Result of Observation
This observation was conducted in order to know the teaching
learning process directly before implementing the Classroom Action
Research (CAR). Based on the observation notes conducted on Monday,
10
th
January 2011 at 12.30, it was known that in teaching speaking at the
VII-2 grade students of SMPN 251 in the 2010/2011 academic year, the
teacher used dialogue-based learning technique, in which she gave
students dialogue and asked students to read the dialogue and then
perform in the front of the class in pair. In this case, students only read a
dialogue, give it meaning and then perform with their partner. They have
never told the usage of expressions they are practicing. Furthermore,
students have never been given chances to expose their ability to speak
and to develop a more communicative conversation using their own way.
(see appendix 8 for more detail)
The use of strategy like this would be an ongoing problem for
students in learning and understanding oral English usage. Moreover,
students whose vocabulary were limited which unable them to say
anything to communicate. It brings about silent toward student and is
lacking in speaking ability primarily in using expression likely in real
communication.
3. The Result of Questionnaire
The questionnaire was conducted to know the students response in
teaching learning process, the students result of speaking activity, and
the solution of the problem in teaching speaking.
Based on the result of questionnaire before the implementation of
CAR, the writer likes to give some explanations: from the first statement
they are 30 (78.94%) students did not feel satisfied with their score and
only 8 (21.05%) students who feel satisfied. The statement number 2,
33
showed only 10 (26.31%) students who like to learn English speaking
and 28 (73.68%) students did not like to learn English speaking. Relating
to the statement number 3, 30 (78.94%) students did not feel motivated in
learning English speaking, it means that only 8 (21.05%) students who
feel motivated in learning English speaking. In statement number 4, 32
(84.21%) students feel difficult in speaking English and 6 (15.78%)
students feel easy in speaking English. Then, in the statement number 5,
12 (31.57%) students said that the sentences were thought is suitable in
their daily life, and 26 (68.21%) students said the sentences were thought
did not suitable in their daily life. The response for the statement number
6, showed that only 8 (21.05%) students used their opportunity to asked
the question, and 30 (78.94%) students did not use their opportunity to
asked the question. In the statement number 7 to 8, showed that 38
(100%) students did not feel that the teacher gave opportunity to the
students to do an exercise in English speaking especially in giving
interpersonal response, and 38 (100%) students seldom used English
language in speaking class. For the statement number 9 to 10 the students
leave it in the blank because the Classroom Action Research have not
implemented yet. (See appendix for detail result of questioner)
Related to the result of questionnaire, it could be concluded that the
students activity and motivation in learning English speaking is still low,
there also needed to improve the students positive response after the
implementation of the action. Therefore the CAR was done.
4. The Result of Pre Test
The pre-test was conducted on the 17
th
and 20
th
January
2011 to
measure students speaking ability at first, and it was done before
implementing Classroom Action Research.
At pre-test, the students speaking ability was not so good. It could
be seen from the table list here in test speaking evaluation.
34
Table 4.1
The Students Speaking Score of Pre-Test
No Name Pron Grammar Vocab Fluency Compre Score
1 Adinda Chaerunissa 3 2 2 3 2 48
2 Adis Risjayanto 3 2 2 2 2 44
3 Ahmad Rosadi 2 2 2 2 2 40
4 Andreas Vido Novian 2 2 2 2 2 40
5 Apri Yandi Ahmat.S 2 2 2 2 2 40
6 Arief Priambodo 2 2 2 2 2 40
7 Astatantica Belly. S 3 3 4 3 4 68
8 Ayu Randri Vella.W 2 2 2 2 2 40
9 Bagas Pebrianja 2 2 2 2 2 40
10 Baskoro Hary.W 3 2 2 2 2 44
11 Deni Muhammad 2 2 2 2 2 40
12 Dita Ryani 3 2 2 2 2 44
13 Elisa Maharani. R 3 2 2 3 2 48
14 Faisal Erpan. S 2 2 2 2 2 40
15 Gadis Anggia Citra.N 3 4 3 2 4 68
16 Halwiyah Oktavia 2 2 2 2 2 40
17 Hendra Gunawan 2 2 2 2 2 40
18 Humaira Kusuma. A 3 3 3 4 4 68
19 Marhaeni Riska. H 3 3 3 4 4 68
20 Mochamad Rifqi 2 2 2 2 2 40
21 Muchamat Suryanto 2 2 2 2 2 40
22 Muhammad Bramantyo 2 2 2 2 2 40
23 Muhammad Iqbal 2 2 2 2 2 40
24 Nina Richi Karlina 2 2 2 2 2 40
25 Pradini Yuliasari 2 2 2 2 2 40
26 Raynor Maulana 3 4 3 3 4 68
27 Renny Mardiah 3 2 2 2 2 44
28 Rijal Astian Hadly 2 2 2 2 2 40
29 Rizki Pratama. S 2 2 2 2 2 40
68 Rosyid Nur Iman 2 2 2 2 2 40
31 Selly Octaviani 2 2 2 2 2 40
32 Siti Aisah Oktavianti 2 2 2 2 2 40
33 Sulastri Ayu Lestari 2 2 2 2 2 40
34 Vinadwirani Vicom. F 4 4 3 3 4 72
35 Wahyu Saputro 2 2 2 2 2 40
36 Winda Pratiwi 3 3 4 3 4 68
37 Yesi Adila 3 3 4 3 4 68
38 Yudha Ari Setyawan 2 2 2 1 1 32
Total 1772
Student who pass the KKM
35
Based on the data above, the writer highlited the students who
passed KKM (65), and to get the result of pre-test, firstly, the writer
calculated the mean score by employing the formula that has already
been previously pointed out.
X
=
1772
38
X
= 46.63
Next, to know the class percentage that passed the target score of
minimal mastery level criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM)
the writer used the following formula:
P =
F
N
x100%
P =
8
38
x100%
P = 21.05%
Based on the result of pre-test, the data showed that the mean score
of pre-test was 46.63. There were only eight students or 21.05% of
students who got the score passed the minimal mastery level criterion
(KKM).
After analyzing the result of pre-test, it could be concluded that
most of the students at VII-2 class of SMPN 251 had difficulty in
speaking ability. So, it needs to find out the solution to overcome this
problem. Here the writer used Role Play technique in every cycle of
Classroom Action Research to overcome the problem and to develop
students speaking ability.
36
B. The Implementation of the Action
1. Cycle 1
a. Planning
In this phase the writer and the teacher arranged the lesson plan that
included competition standard and selected the appropriate material. The
lesson plan was focused in giving interpersonal response, and there are
two lesson plans in cycle one, the topics are what do you want to be?
and ordering food. These topics discussed about asking and giving
opinion, and asking and giving for service. The writer also prepared role
card, camera, laptop, and field notes.
b. Acting
Acting phase is the implementation of the planning phase that has
been planned by the teacher and the researcher as well. Here, the writer
acted as the teacher who did the action by teaching students at first grade
of SMPN 254 Jakarta used role play technique. The acting in the first
cycle was done on January 24
th
and 27
th
2011. In teaching the lesson, the
researcher used three phase techniques; a technique that contains about
three phases, those are: pre teaching activity, while teaching activity, and
post teaching activity. In this acting, the writer tried to integrate students
to participate in the classroom activities. In detail, the writer presented in
the following action:
First meeting
Asking and giving opinion
Day/date: Monday, January 24
th
2011
i. Pre teaching activity
The writer opens the class by saying greeting and asking students
condition. Besides, she also asked students readiness to learn.
ii. While teaching activity
In the while teaching activity, the writer introduced role play
technique in teaching English by using the topic that has been
37
determined, then the writer gave a dialogue which expressed asking and
giving opinion, after the writer reads the dialogue which repeated by
students together, the writer asked the students to practice the dialogue in
pair, then she give lists new vocabularies for students, after that she
explained the expression asking and giving opinion.
To ensure students understanding of the materials, the writer
trained students by giving a role card, in role card the writer only give a
situation and what the students will be, such as:
- One student become a little sister, and just bought a new T-shirt
yesterday.
- She/he ask opinion to the another student who becomes a big sister
about the new T-shirt.
- The big sister thinks that the T-shirt is nice. It suits on you.
- But, another student who becomes brother come and thinks that the T-
shirt is not good on little sister.
- A little sister sad and ask the reason to brother why he said that?
After the students got a role card the writer asked the students to
make a group, then she gave a time for students to discuss together what
they may say, and next the writer let them all try out the role play
privately, before calling on one or two group to act out in front of the
class.
iii. Post teaching activity.
Before closing the class, firstly the writer asked students difficulties
during the teaching and learning process. If it might there some questions
concerning with the materials, the writer will a bit explain and give the
answer. Some advices were given to students to motivate them to always
practice their English. While to close the class, the teacher closed it by
saying greeting or salam.
38
Second meeting
Asking and giving for service
Day/date: Thursday, January 27
th
2011
i. Pre teaching activity
The writer opens the class by saying greeting and asking students
condition. Besides, she also asks students readiness to learn.
ii. While teaching activity
In this meeting the writer explained the expression asking and
giving service firstly, then she used scripted role play in teaching
learning activity, a scripted role play is about activity in restaurant such
as:
Waitress : good afternoon. Can I help you?
Riki : good afternoon. Yes Id like fried chiken with fries and
coke, please.
Waitress : would you like a regular or large coke?
Riki : regular, please.
Waitress : would you like anything else?
Riki : yes, Id like an ice cream please.
Waitress : what flavour would you like?
Riki : chocolate, please.
Waitress : Ok.
In scripted role play one student played a role as waitress, and the
other one as Riki, after that to ensure the students understanding they
should improve the conversation by using their own word, they could
change a sentence or add a conversation, then the writer asked them to
act out in front of the class.
iii. Post teaching activity.
The writer asked students difficulties of the material during the
learning process. She also gave feedback concerning with the students
work. The last, she closed the class by saying salam.
c. Observing
In observing phase the teacher as an observer observed the
students response, participation, achievement and everything which
39
were found during the teaching and learning process, she also observed
the teachers activity. In order to make this phase real and concrete, the
observer also takes observation note in order to know how far the
technique influence students speaking ability in classroom. Based on the
observation note that has been taken, some of students did not pay
attention to the instruction and the students look like confused in doing a
role play activity. The classroom condition was still uncontrolled yet,
there were still some trouble makers who disturbed the other students
while the learning process was processing. The observer then suggested
the teacher to clarify the instruction, and give more explanation and
example in role play activity, if the teacher still cannot control students,
the observer suggested her to give punishment. (See appendix for detail
result of observation)
d. Reflecting
In this phase the writer and the teacher discussed the strengths and
the weakness of the actions and the first post-test. Based on data that
have been collected and analyzed by the teacher and the researcher, it
was found that students grammar and pronunciation are still low in
speaking, because they are clearly need to practice orally not only in the
form written, the students also still confused to speak English before
they write what they want to say, so the teacher should give more
attention and exercise to the students in order to make them braver and
more confident to speak English, the teacher also needed to improve her
class and time management in teaching. (see appendix 8 )
From the result of first post-test, it showed that only sixteen
students (42.1%) who had passed the target score of the minimal mastery
level criterion (KKM). So, the teacher and the researcher still needed at
least thirteen students (34.21%) who could pass the KKM since the target
of action success was 75% students passed the minimal mastery level
criterion (KKM).
40
Since both the observation and the test result indicated that the
action in first cycle did not achieve the action success yet, so the teacher
and the writer had to move to the next cycle.
2. Cycle 2
a. Planning
The cycle 2 was carried out to solve the problems that had been
found in cycle 1, which were students still low in speaking ability,
especially to speak spontaneously. In this phase the writer and the teacher
arranged the new lesson plan that included competition standard and
selected the appropriate material. There were not significant differences
with the previous lesson plan. The material still related to giving
interpersonal response but the topics are favorite food and our new
teacher and these topic discussed about expressing like and dislike, and
asking and giving clarification.
b. Acting
The action of the cycle 2 was done on February 10
th
, 14
th
2010.
The action was done based on the lesson plan. In cycle two, the writer
would teach students by using the same technique. Here, the writer
wished to have more development of students speaking score than in
previous section.
Here are the actions:
First meeting
Expressing like and dislike
Day/date: Thursday, February 10
th
2011
i. Pree teaching activity
The writer started the class by saying salam, asked students
condition, and asked students favorite food and favorite drink, and a
small discussion was needed to give students opportunities to share their
experience.
41
ii. While teaching activity
Related to the theme that was made, the writer gave the material to
students about expressing like and dislikes such us:
Likes Dislikes
I like/Love.... (Im afraid) I dont like......
I really enjoy... I (really) hate
After the teacher explained expressing like and dislike by using
example to the students. The writer read scripted roles play which is
expressing like and dislike:
Baim : where are you going Febi?
Febi : oh, Im going to the canteen.
Baim : can I join?
Febi : sure. Lets go.
Baim : anyway, whats your favorite food?
Febi : I love fried noodle so much, but I cant stand with fried prawn,
Im allergy. What about you, Baim?
Baim : I see. Well I enjoy vegetables soup and I hate nuts.
After that the writer gave a new vocabulary to the students, and
then the writer asked the students to repeat the dialogue after the writer
read it for them. Next the writer invited two students to perform the
dialogue in front of the class, one student became Baim, and other
student became Febi. It has aim to give the example of dialogue that
could be used for the next activity. However, the writer did not write the
dialogues on the whiteboard in order that the students did not copy the
dialogues.
To ensure the students understanding of the material, the writer
asked them to use their imagination and their ability to create the
dialogue which is expressing like and dislike on their own way, then they
had to act out in front of the class.
iii. Post teaching activity.
Before closing the class, firstly the writer asked students difficulties
during the teaching and learning process. If were some questions
concerning with the materials, the writer would give a bit explanation
42
and the answer. Then the writer called the students name to ensure that
they attended the class. After finishing it, she closed the class by saying
salam.
Second meeting
Asking & giving clarification
Day/date: Monday, February14
th
2011
i. Pre teaching activity
The writer started the lesson by giving warming up to the students
to make them focused on the topic. The writer asked some questions to
motivate students to speak, and that questions were related to the topic.
ii. While teaching activity
In this meeting the writer used unscripted role play, firstly the
writer explained asking and giving clarification by using example in
dialogue which is expressed asking and giving clarification such as:
Baron, Dedi, and Arul are having lunch in the canteen.
Baron : Our new English teacher just came from Cambridge. His
name is Jhonathan.
Arul : Is that right?
Dedi : Yes, that right.
Baron : I heard he is a baseball coach too.
Arul : Really? I dont know how to play baseball.
Dedi : Dont you?
Arul : No, I dont. Maybe I should join the baseball club.
Baron : Yes, I think should.
After that she gave the students the vocabulary items and
expressions related to the material, then the writer, the teacher, and a
volunteer from one of the students performed a dialogue above. After
that the writer gave unscripted role play to the students such as:
Your brother met your favorite actor in the mall.
He told you when he came home.
You didnt believe it and wanted to ask for clarification.
What would both of you say?
43
After the students got unscripted role play the writer asked the
students to make a pair, then she gave a time for students to discuss
together what they may say, and next the writer let them all try out the
role play privately, before calling them to act out in front of the class.
iii. Post teaching activity.
Before closing the class, firstly the teacher asked students
difficulties during the teaching and learning process. If were there some
questions concerning with the materials, the teacher would give a bit
explain and the answer. Then the teacher calls the students name to
ensure that they attend the class. After finishing it, she closed the class by
saying salam.
c. Observing
Generally, there were significant developments of the acting phase
in second cycle. From the observation note that has been taken by the
observer the writer performance in teaching English has implemented the
technique a bit better than in first cycle, she didnt speak too fast
anymore while explaining the material, the management class and time
was good enough. The classroom situation controlling also can be
handled by her, so when students playing a role play, overall students
looked more enthusiastic in doing role play activity than before. The
students also looked braver and more confident to speak English. They
competed to be volunteers when the writer asked them to speak or
answer the questions.
d. Reflecting
From the observation data and the post test result of cycle 2. The
writer and the teacher felt satisfied to the action research result, because
the implementation of role play technique in teaching English especially
teaching speaking showed amount changes than cycle 1. From the result
of post-test 2, it showed that thirty two students (84.21%) who passed the
target score of minimal mastery level criterion (KKM). So, it met the
44
requirement of action success which was 75% students passed the
minimal mastery level criterion (KKM) students in the score of 65.
Beside that based on the observation data, the students were braver,
more confident, easier to understand English speaking, and easier to use
grammatical rules and vocabulary items that they have possessed to
speak English fluently and correctly. Now they also are able to use
language for communication, especially for speaking. When the writer
met the students outside the class, she invited them to speak English with
her, and they were able to respond fluently and correctly, although
sometimes some students still made a few mistakes, such as in using
correct tenses. However, the writer has reached the goal that is the
students are able to use English as a means of communication. So, it
means that the researcher and the teacher didnt need to move to the next
cycle.
The following is the schedule of the Classroom Action Research:
Table 4.2
Schedule of the Research
No Activities
Month and Week
January February March
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
1 Interview
X
2 Observation
X X
3 Instrument
X X
5 Cycle I
X X
6 Cycle II
X X
7 Report
X X X
C. The result of Post-Implementation of the Action
1. The Result of Post Test I
To know the result of students speaking of first post-test we can
see from the table here:
45
Table 4.3
Students 1
st
Post Test Score
No Name Pron Grammar Vocab Fluency Compre Score
1 Adinda Chaerunissa 3 3 3 3 3 60
2 Adis Risjayanto 4 3 3 3 4 68
3 Ahmad Rosadi 3 3 3 3 3 60
4 Andreas Vido Novian 3 2 2 3 3 52
5 Apri Yandi Ahmat.S 3 2 2 3 3 52
6 Arief Priambodo 3 2 2 3 3 52
7 Astatantica Belly. S 3 4 4 4 4 76
8 Ayu Randri Vella.W 3 4 3 3 4 68
9 Bagas Pebrianja 3 2 3 3 2 52
10 Baskoro Hary.W 3 4 3 2 2 56
11 Deni Muhammad 3 3 3 3 3 60
12 Dita Ryani 3 3 3 3 3 60
13 Elisa Maharani. R 4 4 3 3 4 72
14 Faisal Erpan. S 3 2 2 3 3 52
15 Gadis Anggia Citra.N 3 4 4 3 4 72
16 Halwiyah Oktavia 3 3 3 3 3 60
17 Hendra Gunawan 3 3 3 3 3 60
18 Humaira Kusuma. A 3 3 4 3 4 68
19 Marhaeni Riska. H 3 3 3 4 4 68
20 Mochamad Rifqi 3 3 3 3 3 60
21 Muchamat Suryanto 3 3 3 3 3 60
22 Muhammad Bramantyo 3 3 3 3 3 60
23 Muhammad Iqbal 3 3 3 3 3 60
24 Nina Richi Karlina 3 3 3 3 4 64
25 Pradini Yuliasari 3 4 3 3 4 68
26 Raynor Maulana 3 4 4 3 4 72
27 Renny Mardiah 3 4 3 3 4 68
28 Rijal Astian Hadly 3 2 2 3 3 52
29 Rizki Pratama. S 4 3 3 3 4 68
30 Rosyid Nur Iman 3 3 3 4 4 68
31 Selly Octaviani 3 3 3 4 4 68
32 Siti Aisah Oktavianti 4 3 3 4 4 72
33 Sulastri Ayu Lestari 3 4 3 3 4 68
34 Vinadwirani Vicom. F 4 3 4 4 4 76
35 Wahyu Saputro 3 3 2 3 2 52
36 Winda Pratiwi 3 3 3 3 4 64
37 Yesi Adila 3 3 3 3 4 64
38 Yudha Ari Setyawan 3 2 2 2 2 44
Total 2376
Student who pass the KKM
46
From the table above, the writer could calculates the mean of
students score, the percentage of the students who pass the minimal
mastery level criterion (KKM), and the improvement of students score
in speaking from the pre-test to the first post-test.
The mean score derived from the following formula:
X
=
2376
38
X
= 62.52
Then, to know the class percentage that passed the minimal
mastery level criterion Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) the writer
used the following formula:
P =
F
N
x100%
P =
16
38
x100%
P = 42.1%
Finally, to know whether students improve their score or not the
writer used the following formula:
% 100
1
y
y y
% 100
63 . 46
63 . 46 52 . 62
% 07 . 34
So, based on the calculation, the writer knew that the mean of
students at first cycle is 62.52. The improvement of students score of
speaking from pre-test to post-test is 34.07%, and the improvement is
still not enough yet, since the target of action success was 75% passed
the minimal mastery level criterion (KKM) students, here the students
who passed the minimal mastery level criterion (KKM) only sixteen or
42.1%.
47
2. The Result of Post Test II
To know the result of students speaking of second post-test we can
see from the table here:
Table 4.4
Students 2
nd
Post Test Score
No Name Pron Grammar Vocab Fluency Compre Score
1 Adinda Chaerunissa 4 3 4 4 3 72
2 Adis Risjayanto 4 4 3 3 3 68
3 Ahmad Rosadi 4 3 4 3 3 68
4 Andreas Vido Novian 4 3 4 3 3 68
5 Apri Yandi Ahmat.S 3 3 3 2 3 56
6 Arief Priambodo 3 3 3 3 2 56
7 Astatantica Belly. S 4 4 4 4 4 80
8 Ayu Randri Vella.W 4 3 4 3 3 68
9 Bagas Pebrianja 3 3 3 2 2 52
10 Baskoro Hary.W 3 4 3 2 2 56
11 Deni Muhammad 4 3 4 4 3 72
12 Dita Ryani 4 4 4 3 3 72
13 Elisa Maharani. R 4 3 4 3 3 68
14 Faisal Erpan. S 3 3 3 2 2 52
15 Gadis Anggia Citra.N 4 4 4 4 3 76
16 Halwiyah Oktavia 4 4 3 3 3 68
17 Hendra Gunawan 4 4 3 3 4 72
18 Humaira Kusuma. A 4 4 4 4 4 80
19 Marhaeni Riska. H 4 4 4 4 4 80
20 Mochamad Rifqi 4 3 4 4 3 72
21 Muchamat Suryanto 4 4 3 3 3 68
22 Muhammad Bramantyo 4 3 3 3 4 68
23 Muhammad Iqbal 4 4 3 3 3 68
24 Nina Richi Karlina 4 4 4 3 3 72
25 Pradini Yuliasari 4 4 3 3 4 72
26 Raynor Maulana 4 4 4 4 4 80
27 Renny Mardiah 4 4 4 4 4 80
28 Rijal Astian Hadly 3 3 4 3 4 68
29 Rizki Pratama. S 4 4 4 4 3 76
30 Rosyid Nur Iman 3 4 4 3 3 68
31 Selly Octaviani 4 3 4 3 3 68
32 Siti Aisah Oktavianti 4 4 4 3 4 76
33 Sulastri Ayu Lestari 4 4 3 3 3 68
34 Vinadwirani Vicom. F 4 4 4 4 4 80
35 Wahyu Saputro 3 4 3 3 4 68
36 Winda Pratiwi 3 4 4 3 3 68
48
37 Yesi Adila 3 3 4 3 4 68
38 Yudha Ari Setyawan 3 3 3 2 3 56
Total 2628
Student who pass the KKM
At the second cycle of CAR, the writer calculated mean of
students score, the percentage of the students who pass the Minimum
Mastery Criterion (KKM), and the improvement of students score in
speaking from the pre-test to the second post-test.
First, calculating the mean of students in the second post-test result:
X
=
2628
38
= 69.15
Second, the percentage of students who pass the Minimum Mastery
Criterion (KKM):
F
P = X 100%
N
32
P = X 100%
38
= 84.21%
Third, the students score improvement from the pre-test to the
second post-test:
% 100
2
y
y y
% 100
63 . 46
63 . 46 15 . 69
% 29 . 48
From the calculation, the writer found that the mean of the
students second post-test result is 69.15, it also showed that thirty two
students (84.21%) who passed the minimal mastery level criterion
(KKM). Furthermore the whole of students score mean improvement
49
from the pre test to second post-test would be 48.29%. So, it means the
action has met the requirement of action success which was 75% students
passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion (KKM) in the score of 65. In this
case, those scores showed the successful of the classroom action research
toward students of first grade of SMPN 251.
From all the calculation above, the writer could interpret the result
after the implementation of Classroom Action Research from cycle I up
to cycle II. It could be seen from the result of pre-test, post-test I and
post-test II. Here the writer describes the result from pre-test, post-test I
and post-test II through diagram below:
Figure 4.2
Students Score mean improvement
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
pre-test 1st Post-test 2nd Post-test
46.63
62.5
69.15
50
Figure 4.3
Students score class percentage who passed KKM
Before the implementation of role play technique in developing
students speaking ability, the writer gained the data from the result of
pre-test. In the pre-test, the mean score of the class before
implementation the action was 46.63. Furthermore, the writer calculated
the percentage of students speaking score in order to know the students
who pass the KKM. In pre-test, it is could be seen, the percentage which
passed the KKM was about 21.05%. It means there are eight students
who passed the KMM (65) and there are thirty students who get the score
below the KKM.
So, after the writer calculated the result of pre-test, the writer
conducted action research that applying the role play technique in
improving students speaking ability then the writer identified and
calculated the result of post-test 1. The mean score of students in post-
test 1 is 62.52. It means the students improvement was 15.89 (62.52
46.63) or 34.07%. Furthermore, the percentage of student who passed the
KKM is 42.1%. It is showed there were sixteen students who passed the
KKM and there are twenty two students were below the KKM.
0,00%
20,00%
40,00%
60,00%
80,00%
100,00%
pre-test 1st Cycle 2nd Cycle
21.05%
42.1%
84.21%
51
Next, after the writer conducted the cycle 2, she does post-test 2 in
order to know the improvement students speaking ability in cycle 2. The
mean score of students in post-test 2 is 69.15, and the improving
students score from post-test 1 to post-test 2 is 6.63 (69.15-62.52).
Furthermore, it can be seen that the improvement students speaking
ability from pre-test, to post test 2 is 22.52 (69.15- 46.63) or 48.29%.
Then, from the percentage of the students who passed the KKM in post-
test 2 is 84.21%, there were thirty two students who passed the KKM and
six students are below the KKM, so it has met a criterion of the action
success.
3. The Result of Questionnaire
Based on the result of questionnaire after the implementation of
CAR, the writer likes to give some explanations: from the first statement
they are only 6 (15.78%) students did not feel satisfied with their score
and 32 (84.21%) students who feel satisfied. The statement number 2
showed 30 (78.94%) students who like to learn English speaking and 8
(21.05%) students did not like to learn English speaking. Relating to the
statement number 3, only 2 (5.26%) students did not feel motivated in
learning English speaking, it means that 36 (94.73%) students who feel
motivated in learning English speaking. In statement number 4, only 9
(23.68%) students feel difficult in speaking English and 29 (76.31%)
students feel easy in speaking English. Then, in the statement number 5,
36 (94.73%) students said that the sentences were thought is suitable in
their daily life, and 2 (5.26%) students said the sentences were thought
did not suitable in their daily life. The response for the statement number
6 showed that 35 (92.10%) students used their opportunity to ask the
question, and only 3 (7.89%) students did not use their opportunity to ask
the question. In the statement number 7 to 8, showed that 38 (100%)
students feel that the teacher gave opportunity to the students to do an
exercise in English speaking especially in giving interpersonal response,
52
and 38 (100%) students usual used English language in speaking class.
For the statement number 9, 36 (94.73%) students felt their speaking
ability in giving interpersonal response was better than before the
implementation of role play technique, and only 2 (5.26%) students did
not felt better. The last statment showed that 38 (100%) students thinks
role play technique could help the students in learning English speaking.
(See appendix for detail result of questioner)
Related to the result of questionnaire after implementation of role
play activity it can be concluded that most of the students gave a positive
response in their speaking teaching-learning process, so from all the data
above, it shows that applying role play technique can develop students
speaking ability significantly, besides the students also became more
actively in teaching learning process and the writer can stop the cycle.
4. The Result of Interview
Unstructured interview was conducted on Thursday, March 3
rd
2011. This interview did after finishing the second cycle. Based on the
teacher answer within the interview, that the general students conditions
in speaking class during implementing the action were better than before.
In this sense, they looked enthusiast and felt easier to speak using role
play technique. The students participation was good because the activity
in the classroom involved the students. The teacher also said that role
play was a good technique in teaching speaking. It could be an effective
way to help the students speaking. Beside it might be able to develop the
students speaking ability, it also could be an alternative strategy and
could motivate the English teacher to use it. (See appendix for detail
result of interview)
From the explanation above, it could be drawn the general
conclusion from the post interview that the teacher gave a positive
response toward the implementation of role play technique.
53
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the result of data analysis, the writer inferred that teaching
English by using role play can improve students speaking ability. It can be
proved through several data such as; pre-test and post-test. The result of pre-test
shows that the students mean score is only 46.63, and in post-test 1 the students
mean score is 62.52, and in post-test 2 the students mean score is 69.15 with
84.21%, students who passed the KKM, so it was showed the significant
improvement in teaching speaking by using role play technique. Moreover by
implementing role play in teaching speaking the students have chance to be active
and cooperative in speaking activity, role play has various activities that can be
effective to teach students in big class, it is supported from the observation and
questionnaire data.
54
B. Suggestion
The writer would like to give some suggestions for teachers and the
studens. First, that the English teachers could implement the role play technique
as an alternative strategy in teaching speaking. Second, it is recommended that the
students use role play technique as one of their learning strategies to practice and
improve their speaking ability in giving interpersonal response which can be done
in their extracurricular activities.
55
REFERENCES
Arikunto, Suharsismi. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara, 2009.
Byrne, Donn. Teaching Oral English: Longman Handbooks for English Teacher.
Singapore: Longman Groups, 1986.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language.
3rd ed. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 2001.
Clark, Raymond. Language Teaching Techniques. Vermont: Pro Lingua
Associates, 1982.
Cornbleet, Sandra and Ronald Carter. The Language of Speech and Writing.
London: Routledge Publisher, 2001.
Djamarah, Syaiful Bahri dan Aswan Zain, Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: PT
Rineka Cipta, 2006.
Doff, Adrian. Teach English: A Training Course for Teachers trainers
Handbooks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Inc. The British
Council, 1988.
Edge, Julian. Essential of English Language Teaching. New York: Longman,
1993.
Harris, David P. Testing English as a Second Language. Bombay: Tata McGraw-
Hill Publishing Company ltd., 1977.
Hornby, A.S. Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary. 5
th
ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995.
Jo McDonough and Christopher Shaw. Materials and Methods in ELT: Second
Edition A Teachers Guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
Kayi, Hayriye. Teaching Speaking: Activities to Promote Speaking in a Second
Language. Nevada: University of Nevada. Internet TESL Journal, Vol.
XII, No. 11, November 2006.
56
Kusumah, Wijaya and Dedi Dwitagama. Mengenal Penelitian Tindakan Kelas.
Jakarta Barat: PT. Indeks, 2009.
Ladousse, Gillian Porter. Role Play: Resources Books for Teacher Series. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Livingstone, Carol. Role Play in Language Learning. Burnt Mill: Longman Group
Limited, 1983.
Richard , Jack C. and Willy A, Renandya, Methodology in Language Teaching:
an anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2002.
Richards, Jack C. Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York:
Cambridge University Press: 2006.
Richards, Jack C. ed. Teaching in Action: Case Studies from Second Language
Classroom. Virginia: TESOL 1998.
Sudijono, Anas. Pengantar Statistis Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo
Persada, 2008.
Sudjana. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: PT. Tarsito, 2002.
Ur, Penny. A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
Wallace, Michael J. Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Walter, Teresa. Teaching English Language Learners. New York: Pearson
Education, 2004.
Richard, Jack C. Developing Classroom Speaking Activities; From Theory to
Practice, <Http://www.professorjackrichard.com/developing-classoom-
speaking-activities.pdf.> 04 Oktober 2010.
<Http://www.professorjackrichard.com/developing-classoom-speaking-
activities.pdf. >It was retrieved on 04 Oktober 2010.