CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

  1. A.      Background of the Problem

Speaking is one of English skills that should be acquired by any level of students. As productive skill, speaking skill involves five component of speaking skill. They are pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. In order to make a good communication, the mastery of speaking skills in English is a priority for many second language and foreign language learners and they also need to be able to pronounce phonemes correctly (Brown, 2003; Ricard, 2008; Harmer, 2007).

At Junior High School level, speaking is one of the four basic skills which are taught to the students based on “Curriculum based Educational Level (KTSP) 2006”, as the follow up of the previous curriculum (curriculum based competence). The goal of teaching speaking in junior high school is communicative competence (Department of Education 2004). It means that at the end of teaching and learning process, the students are able to communicate either in spoken or in written form. It can be seen in syllabus of first semester class VIII junior high school about standard competence” Expressing the meanings in short simple transactional and interpersonal conversation and simple monolog text to interact with nearly environment”.  Teaching speaking does not only build the interaction between teacher and students, but also among the students and their environment. Consequently teaching speaking can improve the five components of speaking skill; they are pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension (BNSP 2006).

Moreover, the application of teaching speaking in the classroom should be creative by various teaching techniques and strategies in the classroom. In order to create communicative learning process, appropriate teaching technique can give the students’ opportunity to speak, so that, the teaching process should be able to create students centered. It means that the students are not only as the participants of the activities but more than that, the students become subject in learning process. So the teacher’s task is to be facilitator and monitor in learning process. Besides, the teacher should be able to manage the seating arrangement and media used in teaching process which help teacher to teach in the class room. Then, at the end of learning process, there is evaluation to each skills especially in speaking to see how far the students’ skill in speaking.

However, based on the observation, interview and questionnaires (see appendix 1) on August 2012 at State Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang Kabupaten Solok Selatan at class VIII during the lesson, the teachers had tried to perform communicative language teaching. Unfortunately, the process of teaching speaking was still not effective yet. In addition, the students were less opportunity to speak during the class. It was indicated that the teacher had inappropriate teaching technique in teaching speaking. Moreover, it was different between the result of questionnaire and what the teacher has done about evaluation of students’ speaking skill. It was found that there was not evaluation of students’ speaking skill or other English skills.

Even though the teacher had tried to perform a good teaching speaking process, but it did still not give significant effect on students’ speaking skill yet. The students had low of speaking skill to the five components of speaking skil. The students still pronounced the wrong pronunciation. Moreover, the students still spoke ungrammatically which influence the meaning of speaking. In addition, they had limited vocabulary which makes them only keep silent during the class to whatever they want to ask to the teacher. Then they could not speak fluently. They became difficult to be understood to what they were speaking. In short, the students still had low of speaking skill.

 The students also had lack of ideas to be shared and their willingness to study English. This matter also affect on students’ speaking skill. It can be seen from the grade that they were taken from as the table follow:

Table 1. Students’ Score of Examination 1 of English at Class VIII in First Semester on Academic Year 2012/2013

No.

Class

Number of Students

Mean Score

1

VIII1

34

56,91

2

VIII2

34

55,88

3

VIII3

34

57,21

4

VIII4

35

56,47

5

VIII5

36

58,57

Mean

57,01

Taken from Teacher’ Evaluation Book of Class VIII MTsN Pasir Talang

Based on the all explanation, it can be concluded that the students’ speaking skill is still low. Therefore, new technique should be implemented to help the teacher improve students’ speaking skills. There are many teaching technique that can be involved in the classroom. One of them is Round Robin Interviews technique. Through this technique the students are expected to be involved actively in speaking activity.

As cited in Grasa (2002:337), Judy Gay (1995) uses Round Robin Interview Technique to allow the small group of students to develop ideas on issues by interviewing each other. Moreover, Kagan (2003) also proposed that Round Robin could be used to help in teaching reading and writing or any other curriculum content. The result of some researches also have proposed that teaching English through round robin and interview technique gives positive impact in the way of students’ learning process. One of them was by Rahayu (2010) that Interview technique is an effective technique in teaching speaking because it create interesting atmosphere in the classroom. In addition, Agustiningrum (2011) proved that teaching speaking through Round Robin Technique can improve the students’ speaking skill and the classroom is more cooperative and communicative when this technique is implemented in the classroom. In short, Round Robin Interviews technique can improve the students’ speaking skill.

Therefore, in this research, the writer was interested to conduct the research on title “The Effect of Round Robin Interviews Technique on Students’ Speaking Skill at Class VIII of Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang Kabupaten Solok Selatan”.

 

 

  1. B.       Identification of the Problem

There were some problems happened in teaching and learning process of English in State Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang at class VIII, they were identified as follow:

Firstly, although the teacher has tried to perform a good teaching and learning process of speaking skill, unfortunately it still did not provide significant effect on students’ speaking skill. As the result, the students had low of speaking skill, such as wrong pronunciation, ungrammatically sentences, and limited vocabulary, not fluently in speaking and difficult to understand. Secondly, the students had lack of ideas to share. Thirdly, the students had low of motivation in speaking activity. It makes them to be shy to express something. Finally, all the things above could be happened because the teacher did not use appropriate teaching technique in teaching speaking. As the result, the students were not provided the opportunity to speak totally during the class.

  1. C.      Limitation of the Problem

Based on the several problems, this research was focused on teacher’s teaching technique toward the students’ speaking skill at class VIII of State Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang. So the teacher needs to apply an appropriate technique in teaching speaking. Therefore, the implementation of Round Robin Interviews as an alternative teaching speaking technique is expected to give significant effect on students’ speaking skill at class VIII of State Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang that is related to speaking skills, they are pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.

  1. D.      Formulation of the Problem

This research was conducted in order to answer the following questions:

  1. Does Round Robin Interviews technique give significant effect on students’ speaking skill at class VIII of State Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang Kabupaten Solok Selatan?
  2. What component of students’ speaking skill is affected significantly by using Round Robin Interviews technique at class VIII State Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang Kabupaten Solok Selatan related to pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension?
  3. E.       Purpose of the Research

The purposes of this research are:

  1. To determine whether Round Robin Interviews give significant effect on students’ speaking skill at class VIII of State Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang.
  2. To describe the component of students’ speaking skill after using Round Robin Interviews at class VIII of State Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang related to pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.
  3. F.       Significant of the Research

This research is expected to solve the teacher’s problem through using Round Robin Interviews. This research can be as an alternative teaching speaking technique to improve students’ speaking skill. It is useful for the teacher to create a good teaching and learning atmosphere.

In addition, the result of this research is expected to benefits for, first, English teachers, especially for English teacher at State Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang. The result of this research hopefully will give contribution to teachers can improve their quality of English teaching technique. Second, this technique is also hoped to give contribution on improving the quality of teaching speaking of English as compulsory subject. At last, this research is also expected to contribute in improving education world in order to make the students have communicative competence.

  1. G.      Definition of Key Terms

In this research, researcher used several terms. To avoid misunderstanding of the terms used in this research, the researcher defined them as follows:

Round Robin Interviews   :  a type of technique which allows a small group consist of four or six members which interview each other (Grasa : 2002). The interviewer will make list of questions before interviewing to search information, meanwhile the interviewee make list of information.

Speaking Skill                    :  the ability to express oneself in life situations, or the ability to report acts or situations in precise words, or the ability to converse or to express a sequence ideas fluently related to pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension (Lado: 1961; Hornby: 2000; Brown: 2004)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

  1. A.     Theory 
  2. 1.      Concept of Round Robin Interviews Technique
    1. a.      Definition of Round Robin Interviews Technique

Interview, stated on Ontario Curriculum unit planner (2002: 43), is a conversation or dialogue in which the interviewer seeks to gain information and insights from the person being interviewed. The interview is used to explore ideas and to gain personal and practical information from an expert or a person in the role of an expert. Interviews help to focus on significant information, ideas, or experiences that yield new learning. The interview can teach students how to probe and follow up questions for further understanding.

 

9

 

Moreover, Kayi (2006) states that students can conduct interviews on selecting topics with various people. It is a good idea that the teacher provides a rubric to students so that they know what type of questions they can ask or what path to follow, but students should prepare their own interview questions. Conducting interviews with people gives students a chance to practice their speaking ability not only in class but also outside and helps them becoming socialized. After interviews, each student can present his or her study to the class. Moreover, students can interview each other and “introduce” his or her partner to the class.

Round Robin Interview is a technique that collaborates both of them, either Round Robin Strategy and Interview Technique. Judy Gay (1995) in Grasa (2002: 337) uses round robin interview to allow the small group of students to develop ideas on issues by interviewing each other. After interviews are complete, the themes that emerged in the interviews are assembled.

Based on the explanation, it can be concluded that Round Robin Interviews technique is a type of teaching technique which allows the students in small group consists of four or six member to interview each other in particular, each interviewer will search as many as possible the information about topic given and the interviewee will gather the information.

 

  1. b.      Characteristics of Round Robin Interviews Technique

Based on the explanation above, round Robin Interviews technique in teaching has some characteristics of the activity in the classroom. Dealing with the characteristics of Round Robin Interviews Technique, there are some teacher’s roles in interview (Ontario Curriculum: 2002). In this case the teacher should consider some activity that:

  1. The teacher sets the learning goals with the students;
  2. The teacher  helps students set up appointments for interviews;
  3. The teacher helps students formulate questions;
  4. The teacher helps students clarify the purpose of the interview;
  5. The teacher provides resources, materials, ideas;
  6. The teacher helps students reflect on learning after the interview.
    1. c.       Advantages of Using Round Robin Interviews Technique

This Technique also has several considerations that should be considered by the teacher in speaking activity in order to conduct the students practice. It is not only to improve speaking activity, but also it can explore the students’ mind and ideas to share each other in the interview. There are some benefits of using Interview as follows:

  1. The Round Robin Interviews helps students to learn when they have observed demonstrations of authentic interviews before engaging in them;
  2. It may require teacher assistance in the preparatory stages;
  3. It may be formal or informal;
  4. When conducted in role, requires background research for both the interviewer and those to be interviewed.

On the other side, Round Robin, as Kagan (2003) states that round robin is a turn-taking structure: Each member of a team, in turn, shares orally with the group. This round robin, which is also called the oral taking structure, gives the structures distinct names has a number of advantages, they are:

  1. Students know exactly what to do when the teacher says “Do a Round Robin” or “Turn to your face partner and Rally Table possible explanations for….” 
  2.  The structures are easier to remember for teachers and students. 
  3.  The structure names facilitate communication among teachers. It is far more descriptive to say, “I had the students Rally Robin prime numbers” than it is to say, “I had the students do cooperative learning during math.” When a teacher says “I did a Round Robin naming events from the chapter,” we know just what happened in the classroom. 
  4. The structures become a quantifiable curriculum for teachers. When there is question to a teacher, “Do you know the steps of “Circle the Sage,” the answer is either yes or no; a teacher knows immediately if he/she has mastered that instructional strategy.

 

 

  1. 2.      Concept of Speaking Skill
    1. a.      Definition of Speaking Skill

As a skill in language, speaking is “the process of building and sharing meaning through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, in a variety of contexts” (Chaney, 1998, p. 13 cited in Kayi, 2006). Speaking is a crucial part of second or foreign language learning and teaching. Furthermore, Harris (1974: 81) defines “speaking is a complex skill requiring the simultaneous use of number different abilities which often develop different rates”. Despite its importance, for many years, teaching speaking has been undervalued and English language teachers have continued to teach speaking just as a repetition of drills or memorization of dialogues. In addition, as cited in Ann (1999), speaking (Brown: 1994; 24, Burns and Joyce (1997: 24) is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing the information.

However, today’s world requires that the goal of teaching speaking should improve students’ communicative skills, because, only in that way, students can express themselves and learn how to follow the social and cultural rules appropriate in each communicative circumstance. Moreover, the usage of speaking, there are two which are integrated each other, they are phonological system and the grammatical system of the language. It means that how someone expresses something by using good pronunciation will involve his or her grammatical sentences to be understandable. Harmer (1991:8) stated that speaking happens when two people are engaged in talking to each other. It can be fairly sure that they are doing so far so good reason. Their reasons may be that they want to say something, they have some communication purpose and they select from their language store.

According to Nunan (2003), as cited in Kayi (2006), teaching speaking is to teach students “use the language quickly and confidently with few unnatural pauses, which is called as fluency”. So, to teach speaking, the important thing that the teacher can teach grammar to the students implicitly rather than teach grammar to the students explicitly in order to make the students speak naturally without much thinking about the grammar first.

To support the idea that the students should have communicative competence, Richards (1986:71) shows that, there are four communicative competences as follows:

  1. Grammatical Competence

It refers to the degree to which the language user has mastered the linguistic code. It includes knowledge of vocabulary, rules of pronunciation, spelling, word formation, and sentence structure

  1. Sociolinguistics Competence

It addresses the extent to which grammatical forms can be used or understood appropriately in various contexts to convey specific communicative functions, such as persuading, describing, narrating, and giving commands.

  1. Discourse Competence

It involves the ability to combine the ideas to achieve cohesion in form and coherence in thought. It refers to the interpretation of individual message elements in terms of their interconnectedness and of how meaning is represented in relationship to the entire discourse.

  1. Strategic Competence

It involves the use of verbal and non verbal communication strategies to compensate for gaps in the languages user’s knowledge of the code or for breakdown in communication for other reasons.

Furthermore, in speaking, Burkat (1998) in Trila (2009) states that the language learners need to recognize that speaking involves three areas of knowledge:

  1. Mechanics (pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary): Using the right words in the right order with the correct pronunciation
  2. Functions (transaction and interaction): Knowing when clarity of message is essential (transaction/information exchange) and when precise understanding is not required (interaction/relationship building)
  3. Social and cultural rules and norms (turn taking, rate of speech, length of pauses between speakers, relative roles of participants): Understanding how to take into account who is speaking to whom, in what circumstances, about what, and for what reason. (Burkat,1998 in Trila, 2009)

That’s why, learning English as foreign language is not only a matter of memorizing a different set of names for the things around us, it is also an educational experience. Learning is more effective if the students are actively involved in the process. The degree of learner activity depends, among other things, on the type of the material they are working on.

  1. b.      Component of Speaking Skill

Dealing with the components of speaking, Brown (2003: 157) states, there five components of speaking as follows:

  1. Pronunciation

Pronunciation is the way for students to produce clearer language when they speak. It deals with the phonological process that refers to the component of a grammar made up of the elements and principles that determine how sounds vary and pattern in a language. Pronunciation is the way to speak a language and a way in which a word is pronounced (Hornby: 2000). So, it can be concluded that pronunciation is the way how to produce the sound of word in order to make the communication understandable.

  1. Grammar

The grammar of a language is the description of the ways in which words can change their forms and can combined into sentences in that language ( Harmer, 2001: 12). Besides, it is needed for students to arrange a correct sentence in conversation. If grammar rules are too careless violated, communication may suffer, although, creating a ‘good’ grammar rules is extremely difficult. According to Richard (1986:8) the rule of grammar should to thought only after the students have practiced the grammar point in context that is grammar should be thought inductively. In short, while speaking, someone can construct the rule of word inductively in order to give meaning for all the words.

  1. Vocabulary

One cannot communicate effectively or express their ideas both oral and written form if they do not have sufficient vocabulary. It indicates that the richness of vocabulary will extremely affect one’s ability to speak a language. So, vocabulary means the appropriate diction which is used in communication.

  1. Fluency

Fluency can be defined as the ability to speak fluently and accurately. Fluency in speaking is the aim of many language learners. Signs of fluency include a reasonably fast speed of speaking and only   a small number of pauses and “ums” or “ers”. These signs indicate   that the speaker does not have spend a lot of time searching for the language items needed to express the message (Brown. 1994: 4).

  1. Comprehension

For oral communication certainly requires a subject to respond to speech as well as to initiate it.

  1. c.       Speaking Assessment

As a productive skill, speaking can be empirically and directly observed. The basic problem in assessing speaking is the same as assessing writing skill. It would be set tasks that form a representative sample of population of oral tasks that we expect the candidates to be able to perform. The tasks should elicit behavior with truly represents the candidates’ ability and which can be scored and reliably.

In assessing the students’ speaking skill, some experts have formulated the categories related to the components of speaking. Brown (2004:172-1730) formulates speaking scoring categories into six categories with scale 1-5 such as: grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, pronunciation, and task. Closely the same with Brown, Finocchiaro and Sako (1983:226) rate language proficiency in speaking and understanding English in five categories with scale 0-5 to each category. They are comprehension, pronunciation, grammar and word order, vocabulary, and general speed of speech and sentence length. On the other side, Hughes (1990:111) also rates the speaking ability in five categories which has scale from 1 to 6 point (point 1 represents the lowest and point 6 represents the highest score). They are accent (pronunciation), grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

Based on those three scoring assessment formulators, the researcher then chose the Hughes (1990: 111) assessments with a few adjustments for the junior high school students’ ability on the scores. In this case, there are five components which should be measured in speaking skills; they are pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.

  1. d.      Teaching Speaking at Junior High School

According to Hornby (1995: 37) teaching means giving the instruction to (a person): give a person (knowledge skill, etc). While speaking, means to make use of worlds in an ordinary voice. So, teaching speaking is giving instruction to a person in order to communicate.

Brown (1987:7) also states that “teaching cannot be defined apart from learning”. That is why between teacher and students should have a good relationship in teaching and learning process either in classroom or outside classroom. Therefore, it can be concluded that teaching speaking is the process done by teacher to achieve knowledge, skills, and attitude in learning speaking for the students.

Based on those explanations above, there are some principles for designing speaking techniques stated in Brown’s book “Teaching by Principles” (1994: 268). They are:

  1. Techniques should cover the spectrum of student needs
  2. Technique should be intrinsically motivating
  3. Technique should encourage the use of authentic language in meaningful context
  4. Provide appropriate feedback and correction
  5. Capitalize on the natural link between speaking and listening
  6. Give the students opportunities to initiate oral communication (speaking)
  7. Encourage the development of speaking strategies such as; asking for clarification, asking someone to repeat something, getting someone’s attention, using mime and nonverbal expression to convey meaning, etc.

As cited in Lowry (2009), Balley (2005) also adds that there are some principles of teaching speaking for beginners, they are:

  1. Provide something for the learners to talk about. It means that there are the clear themes that the learners will talk about. So that, it can conduct the practice.
  2. Create opportunities for students to interact by using group work or pair work
  3. Manipulate physical arrangements to promote speaking practice
  4. Plan speaking tasks that involve negotiation for meaning
  5. Design both transactional and interpersonal speaking activities

Personalize the speaking activities whenever possible

The goal of teaching speaking skill is communicative efficiency. Learner should be able to make themselves understood, using their current proficiency to fullest. They should try to avoid confusion in message due to fluency, pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary that applies in each communication situation.

Dealing with definition of teaching speaking, Nunan (2003:54) states that teaching speaking is to teach students to:

  1. Produce the English speech sounds and sound patterns
  2. Use word and sentence stress, intonation patterns and the rhythm of the second language.
  3. Select appropriate words and sentences according to the proper social setting, audience, situation and subject matter.
  4. Organize their thoughts in a meaningful and logical sequence.
  5. Use language as a means of expressing values and judgments.
  6. Use the language quickly and confidently with few unnatural pauses, which are called as fluency.

According to what teaching speaking mean, based on KTSP, Junior high school students in speaking should have ability in the following respects:

  1.  To show the transactional conversation meaning and oral interpersonal as a simple to interact with nearly environment. (e.g. asking for and giving someone’s opinion).
  2. To show the oral functional meaning of the text and simple short monolog descriptive and recount text to interact with nearly environment. (e.g. descriptive text) (BNSP: 2006).

Competence standard that should be reached in teaching and learning speaking skill is to express the various meaning (interpersonal, ideational, textual) in various spoken text which has purpose communicative, generic structure, and certain linguistics.

  1. B.     Implementation of Round Robin Interviews Technique in Teaching Speaking Skill

Dealing with current curriculum and Regulation of Ministry of Education no. 41 on 2007 about process standard for Junior High School, implementation of Round Robin Interviews Technique, Grasa (2002: 337) states that there are several steps of Round Robin Interviews Technique as follows:

  1. The class is divided evenly in to the groups of 4 or 6 people
  2. If there is an odd number of a participant in the class, assign the extra person the task is observing how the process is working in each group. The observer reports back at the conclusion of the interview and class discussion on how well the round robin interview appeared to work.
  3. Write 4 or 6 the different questions related to the general topic under considerations. Thus, if the topic of managing diversity is under consideration, so it can write the different questions.
  4. Assign each member of the group one of the questions. Allow them 4 to 5 minutes to write their own responses to the interview questions they were assigned.
  5. Group members will then interview each other on the questions they were assigned. This is done by pairing people within a group who have different questions. (I.e. individual with question 1 meets with the person who has question 2 while the person while the participant who has question 3 interview the person with the question 4). Allow 6-8 minutes for each to complete the interviews. (I.e. each person ha 3-4 minutes). Every takes note on what is said. Rotate one member of each group clockwise to interview someone to a different question. Do so until everyone discuses each question.
  6. Each person highlights that emerged in the interview they conducted. People assigned the same question in different group then get together to develop overall themes. These are reported back to the class then the instructor solicits additional ideas, comments, and points of clarification.
  7. C.    Relevance Studies

This research is supported by several previous researches as the following; First, a research has been conducted by Kristin Rahayu in Sebelas Maret University, entitled “Improving speaking skill by using Interview (A Classroom Action Research in the Eleventh Grade of SMA Negeri 1 Surakarta in the Academic Year 2009/2010). Second, the same university Nurita Dwi Agustiningrum also has done the research entitled “Improving Students’ Speaking Skill Using Round Robin Technique (A Classroom Action Research conducted in the Second Grade of SMP Negeri 1 Gondang for Academic Year of 2010/2011)”. Both of the research held in classroom action research. The result shows that Interview technique is an effective technique in teaching speaking because it create interesting atmosphere in the classroom. In addition, Agustiningrum proved that teaching speaking through Round Robin Technique can improve the students’ speaking skill and the classroom is more cooperative and communicative when this technique is implemented in the classroom.

  1. D.    Hypothesis

This research is hypothesized that the Round Robin Interview Technique in English teaching and learning process gives significant effect on students’ speaking skill.

  1. E.     Conceptual Framework

This research studies about the effect of round robin interview technique on students’ speaking skill. The problem of this research came from the teacher side and students’ side. It was found that the teacher did not use appropriate teaching speaking technique in the classroom. The students are not provided opportunity to speak totally when class is running. The situation of teaching and learning process seems that only focus on reading and writing, but speaking leave behind. As the result, the students have low speaking skill related to their pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. This satisfactory condition needs an effort to improve the students’ speaking skill. Then the researcher tried to conduct an experiment by implementing Round robin interview technique in this research. Round Robin Interviews technique is a teaching technique which allows the small group to interview each other, and the end of the activity, the students will report the result of their interview in front of the classroom. In this matter, the teacher provides the materials and topics, helps the students to set the aim of interview. Then, at the end of activity the teacher give reflection on students’ result. Finally, this technique was expected to give significant effect on students’ speaking skills.

 

     
   
 
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                 

Figure: 1. Conceptual Framework

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

  1. A.    Research Design

This study was experimental research. Gay (1987) that that an experimental research is a type of research that can test hypotheses to establish cause-effect relation and consist of two groups, they are experiment and control group. Basically, experimental research has three kinds of design: one short time case study, pre test-post test and post test only. In this research, the researcher used pre-test post test control design.

There were two group involved the one is experimental and the other one is control group. Both of groups got the same topic, the same length of time and the same teacher. One group functioned as experimental group that would be treated by speaking round robin interviews technique in improving students’ speaking skill and the control group which treated by teaching technique used in the target school, and target grade exactly, the treatment is given to experimental group about six meetings and also six meetings in control group. 

Design of this research was pre-test post-test control design (Gay: 2000). It can be figured out by the formula below:

Table  2. Design of the Research

Group

Pre test

Treatment

Post test

E

C

O1

O1

X

 

25

 

——

O2

O2

In this case,

E =Experimental Group

C = Control Group

X = Teaching by Round Robin Interviews

O1= students’ score of pre test

O2 = Students’ score of post test

 

  1. B.     Population and Sample
  2. 1.      Population

According to Gay (1987:102), population is the group of interest the researcher, the group to which he or she the result of the study to be generalized. The population of this research was students of Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang Kabupaten Solok Selatan which consist of 5 classes of grade VIII; in this case there were 5 classes that consist of 173 students registered in 2012/2013 academic year. The reason of choosing grade VIII in this research was caused by the students have experience in studying English at Islamic Junior High School, they have studied some materials of English. The population of the students will be shown on the table below:

Table 3. Population of the Research

No.

Class

Male

Female

Total of students

1

VIII1

18

16

34

2

VIII2

16

18

34

3

VIII3

16

18

34

4

VIII4

20

15

35

5

VIII5

18

18

36

Total

88

85

173

From the table above, the population of this research was not Grade IX, because the students of Grade IX would prepare themselves to National Examination, while the students of Grade VIII have knowledge about English at least 1 year in Junior High School.

  1. Sample

According to Gay (1987:101) sampling is the process of reflecting a number of individuals for a study in such way that the individual represent the large group which it is selected. He also states that a good sample is the one that representative of the population from which is selected. In this research, the researcher will chose two classes to be the sample.

In order to get sample, the sample of this research was taken by cluster sampling. According to Gay (1987:110) cluster sampling is sampling in which groups, not individuals are randomly selected that have similar characteristics and in which subjects can be found. To get the representative sample of this research the writer do these steps:

  1. Collect the Examination 1 score data from all students at eighth class
  2. Test of normality

Normality test has an objective to know the population normal or not. Based on analyzed by SPSS 15.0 program all of the groups of population the result of P-value higher than 0.05, it means that the data was normal. (See Appendix 3)

  1. Test of Homogeneous Variances

After doing normality test, then researcher analyzed the homogeneous variation test. This test has an objective as to know the sample homogeny or not, the result could be seen appendix 3.

  1. After getting the class. The sample of this research consisted of two groups: an experimental group and control group. Based on the six classes above, the researcher chose two classes as the sample. In determining experimental group and control group, the researcher used flapping a coin. So class VIII5 was selected to be control class and class VIII4 was selected to be experimental class

Table.4. Sample of Research

Class

Male

Female

Total

VIII5 (Control group)

18

18

36

VIII4  (Experimental group)

20

15

35

Total

38

33

71

  1. C.    Place and Time of Research

This research was held in Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang, which is located in Pasir Talang Muaralabuh, Sungai Pagu District, Kabupaten Solok Selatan. This research was held on academic year 2012/2013 at first semester that was started on September 26th until October 29th 2012.

This research was held in six meetings. At first, the researcher gave the students pre test both of the class, then the researcher taught both of the class room in six meetings. In experimental class, the researcher conducted round robin interviews technique as a treatment and conventional teaching technique was conducted in control class. After giving the treatments or six meetings of the research, the researcher gave post test to both of the classes.

  1. D.    Procedure of Doing Research

Teaching speaking process should be implemented as creative and communicative as possible the speaking since speaking is interactive skill that acquires the teacher and students responses to all the activity. Round robin interviews technique tries to make teaching and learning speaking atmosphere in the class room to be more interactive and communicative.

In this research, the researcher used two classes to conduct the research. They were experimental class and control class. Both of classes were taught by the same material and the same teacher, the same length of time, but different treatment. The experimental group was used Round Robin Interviews in teaching speaking, while the control was used conventional technique.

In the first week of the research, the researcher conducted pre-test to both of the class either experimental class or control class in speaking form. It was aimed to know the students’ speaking skill before giving treatment. The form of the test was interview. After giving the pre-test to both of the class, then the researcher gave treatment to experimental class by round robin interviews technique and conventional technique in control class. This treatment gave in six meetings and the control class was taught in six meetings also. After giving the treatment to both of the class rooms, then the researcher gave post-test to both of the class to know the students’ speaking skill after learning the materials. The result of the post-test became the data that the researcher used to describe the improvement of the student’s speaking skill after the treatment (the implementation of Round Robin Interviews). The following table indicates the procedures that the researcher conducts in teaching speaking process through Genre Based Approach in KTSP, the teaching process will divide into three sessions as follows:

Table 5. The Procedures in Teaching Speaking in the Classroom

Teaching Activities

Experimental Class

Control Class

Pre-teaching activity

 

  1. Greeting
  2. Check attendance
  3. Giving apperception
  4. Giving motivation
  5. Greeting
  6. Check attendance
  7. Giving apperception
  8. Giving motivation
 

Main-teaching Activity

Building Knowledge of the Field (BKOF)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modeling of the Text  (MOT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joint Construction of the Text (JCOT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Construction of the Text (ICOT)

 

Exploration

  1. Teacher gives question based on the topic to build  students background knowledge
  2. Teacher writes the topic on the white board
  3. Teacher focuses on the expressions (i.e. asking for and giving opinion or describing something)

 

Elaboration

  1. The teacher gives the models of dialogue of the expressions
  2. Teacher asks the students what expressions can be expressed to express asking for and giving opinion or describing something
  3. Students read the dialogue in pair
  4. Teacher explains the meaning, difficult words, pronunciation and grammar.
  5. Teacher gives some topics in situation card to the students
  6. Teacher explains about how to interview some one
  7. Teacher asks students to sit in a group 4 or 6 students
  8. Teacher divides the students in to 2 groups of students in a group, the first group as interviewer and the second group as the interviewee.
  9.  Teacher asks the interviewer to make list of questions to get the information from their partner (i.e. asking for opinion or asking for describing something). While the teacher asks the interviewee to make list of information about something, either their opinion or descriptions of something.
  10. The teacher asks the interviewer to interview the interviewee to all the questions, if it is done, the interviewer changes to other interviewee in a group. The interviewers write all their responses.

Confirmation

  1. Each group reports their result of interviews in front of the class room.
  2. Students receive some comments from the teacher.
  3. Teacher emphasizes how to express asking for some one’s opinions and giving opinion or how to ask for descriptions and describe something orally.

Exploration

  1. Teacher gives question based on the topic to build  students background knowledge
  2. Teacher writes the topic on the white board
  3. Teacher focuses on the expressions (i.e. asking for and giving opinion or describing something)

Elaboration

  1. The teacher gives the models of dialogue of the expressions
  2. Teacher asks the students what expressions can be expressed to express asking for and giving opinion or describing something
  3. Students read the dialogue given in pair
  4. Teacher explains the meaning, difficult words, pronunciation and grammar
  5. Teacher gives situation card to the students in pair
  6. Teacher asks students to create dialogue based on situation given
  7. Students read their dialogue in front of the class room

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Confirmation

  1. Teacher ask the students  to perform the dialogue in front of the classroom
  2. Students receive some comments from the teacher.
  3. Teacher emphasizes how to express asking for some one’s opinions and giving opinion or how to ask for descriptions and describe something orally

Post-teaching Activity

 

  1. Review and conclude the lesson
  2. Giving reflection
  3. Giving enrichment home work, every group revise their list of question for interview and their information, teacher asks the students to make a dialogue using the expressions in free situation
  4. Closing the class
  5. Review and conclude the lesson
  6. Giving reflection
  7. Giving enrichment home work, teacher asks the students to make a dialogue using the expressions in free situation
  8. Closing the class
 

Moreover, this research was conducted through some steps as follow: First, the population of the research was class eight of the students of Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang. There are five classes, two classes that were chosen as the sample of  this research, one class as control group and one class as experiment group;  Second, in gaining the sample, the researcher used cluster random sampling; Third, the sample classes (experimental class and control class) were given the pre-test before going treatment and calculated the mean; Fourth, the experimental class was given the treatment in six times by implementing round robin interviews while the control class was without treatment; Fifth, After the treatment, the researcher gave the post-test to the students and calculated mean; Sixth, the results of the test were analyzed by using T-test formula; Seventh, the researcher got the findings, and analyzed the data; Finally, the researcher drew conclusion and purpose suggestions.

  1. E.     Research Instrument

In this research, the researcher used in collecting the data was peaking test. The form of speaking test was oral interview. According to Brown (2004: 167), interview or oral interview is a test administrator and a test taker sit down in a direct face-to-face exchange and proceed through a protocol of questions and directives. Below would be shown blue print of Speaking test for interview:

Table 6. Blue Print of Speaking Test for Interview

No.

Stages

Specifications

Number of Items

Total

1

Warm up

  1. Small talk

1,2,3,4

4

2

Level check

The test-taker…..

  1. Answers wh – questions
  2. Produces a narrative without interruptions
  3. Reads a passage aloud
  4. Tells how to make something or do something
  5. Engages in a brief, controlled, guided role play

5,6,7,8

4

3

Probe

The test-taker……

  1. Responds to interviewer’s questions about something the test taker doesn’t know
  2. Talks about his or her own field of study
  3. Talks about the topic given

9,10,11,12

4

4

Wind-down

  1. Feelings about the interview, further question

13,14,15

3

Total

15

Note: Oral interview content specification is based on Brown(2004 : 169)

Based on the blue print, the researcher created the questions that delegated for all of speaking component. There were 15 questions that should be answered by the students orally (see appendix 4,5). This test took time about 3 up to 5 minutes interview. From this interview, the researcher collected the data and got the students’ speaking score for pre-test to see the basic of students’ speaking skill before learning the materials. After that, the researcher gave different treatments to both of the classes in six meetings. At the end, the researcher gave post-test to the students’ by the same questions and topics as pre-test to both of classes. Then, the researcher gave the score based on the component of speaking skill. They are pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

  1. F.     Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

The test should be valid and reliable. According to Gay (2009: 154) validity is the most important characteristics of a test or measuring instrument can posses. Validity refers to the degree to which a test measures what it is supposed to measures and consequently. In this research, content validity would be applied. It means the content of the test included in syllabus and have been taught to the students. In addition, Brown (2004:22) says that validity is the extent to which inferences made from assessment result are appropriate, meaningful, and useful in terms of the purpose of the assessment.

Dealing with the reliability of the instrument, Brown (2004:20) states that reliability of the test is the consistency of the test score. It means that the students` score will be rather similar if the test is administered in two different occasions. To validate the test and made the test reliable, the researcher tried out to other class VIII at State Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang.

The instrument of speaking test, there were 20 items of questions which was in interview form. The questions were tested the content validity and construct validity. The limitation of minimum coefficient of correlation was looked on satisfied if r = 0.30 (Sugiyono, 2010:178). To make easy the calculation of reliability, it was used SPSS 15.00 Program for Windows.

Below is presented the table of index reliability items of questions:

Table 7. Classification of Reliability Index of Instrument in Speaking Test 

No

Index

Classification

1

0,00-20

Very low

2

0,20-40

Low

3

0,40-60

Average

4

0,60-80

High

5

0,80-100

Very High

Below is presented the result of reliability test of instrument as follows:

Table 8. The Result of Reliability Test of Instrument in Speaking Test (Interview Test)

No.

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Reliability Criterion (r> 0,2000

Item 1

0,457

Reliable

Item 2

0,655

Reliable

Item 3

-0,243

Unreliable

Item 4

0,522

Reliable

Item 5

0,855

Reliable

Item 6

0,824

Reliable

Item 7

0,714

Reliable

Item 8

0,617

Reliable

Item 9

0,877

Reliable

Item 10

-0,156

Unreliable

Item 11

0,720

Reliable

No.

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Reliability Criterion (r> 0,2000

Item 12

0,753

Reliable

Item 13

0,817

Reliable

Item 14

-0,176

Unreliable

Item 15

0,830

Reliable

Item 16

0,691

Reliable

Item 17

0,673

Reliable

Item 18

0,114

Unreliable

Item 19

0,212

Unreliable

Item 20

0,810

Reliable

Based on the table above, it shows that the criteria of reliable is r>2.00. There were five items that were not reliable or under the criteria. The items are number 3, 10, 14, 18 and 19. Therefore, the items of interview test used 15 questions to be interviewed (see appendix 5).

  1. G.    Technique of Collecting Data

The data came from test. Data of the test consisted of students’ scores in pre test and post-test. Pre-test was given before the treatment and post-test was given at the end of the research or after finishing the treatment for six meetings to both of the classes. The test was speaking test formed interview. In both of the test, the students were interviewed by the interviewer one by one.

  1. H.    Scoring Technique

To collect data by using test, the researcher chose one assessment by Hughes (1990: 111-113) for measurements of speaking skill as follows:

 

 

Table 9. The Criteria of Score

No

Speaking Component

Level Description

Score

1

Accent  (Pronunciation)

  1. Pronunciation frequently unintelligible.

0

  1. Frequent gross error and a very heavy accent make understanding difficult, require frequent repetition.

1

  1. “Foreign accent” requires concentrated listening, and mispronunciation lead to occasional misunderstanding and apparent error in grammar or vocabulary.

2

  1. Marked foreign accent” and occasional mispronunciation which do not interfere with understanding.

3

  1. No conspicuous miss pronunciation but would not be taken for native speaker.

4

  1. Native pronunciation with no trace of “foreign accent”.

5

2

Grammar

  1. Grammar almost entirety inaccurate phrases.

0

  1. Constant errors in showing control of very few major Pattern and frequently preventing communication.

1

  1. Frequent errors showing some major pattern uncontrolled and causing occasional irritation and misunderstanding.

2

  1. Occasional errors showing imperfect control of some pattern but no weakness that causes misunderstanding.

3

  1. Few errors with no pattern of failure.

4

  1. No more than two errors during the interview.

5

3

Vocabulary

 

  1. Vocabulary inadequate for even the simplest conversation.

0

  1. Vocabulary limited to basic personal and survival areas (time, food, transportation, family, etc)

1

  1. Choices of words sometimes inaccurate, limitation of vocabulary prevent discussion of some common professional and social topics.

2

  1. Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special interest: general vocabulary permits discussion of any non-teaching subject with some circumlocutions.

3

  1. Professional vocabulary broad and precise: general vocabulary adequate to cope with complex practical problems and varied social situation.

4

  1. Vocabulary apparently as accurate and extensive as that of an educated native speaker.

5

4

Fluency

 

  1. Speech is so halting and fragmentary that conversation is virtually impossible

0

  1. Speech is slow and uneven expect for short or routine sentence.

1

  1. Speech is frequently hesitant and jerky, sentence maybe left uncompleted

2

  1. Speech is effortless and smooth but perceptibly non native in speech and evenness.

3

  1. Speech is effortless and smooth but perceptibly non native in speech and evenness.

4

  1. Speech on all professional and general topics as effortless and smooth as a native speaker.

5

5

Comprehension

 

  1. Understands too little for simplest type of conversation.

0

  1. Understands only slow, very simple speech on common social and touristy topics: require constant repetition and rephrasing.

1

  1. Understand careful, somewhat simplified speech when engage in dialogue but may require considerable repetition and rephrasing.

2

  1. Understanding quite well normal educated speech when engage in a dialogue but requires occasional repetition or rephrasing.

3

  1. Understands everything in normal educated conversation except for very colloquial or low frequently items or exceptionally rapid or slurred speech.

4

  1. Understand everything in both formal and colloquial speech to be expected of an educated native speaker.

5

 

After giving to each aspects of speaking, then the researcher calculated the students’ score by the format of speaking score as follow:

Table 10. Weighting Table

No. of Students

Name

Aspects

Total

(25)

P

(0-5)

G

(0-5)

V

(0-5)

F

(0-5)

C

(0-5)

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note,

P   : Pronunciation                            F     : Fluency

G   :  Grammar                                   C    : Comprehension

V   :  Vocabulary

The highest score        : 25

The lowest score         : 5

 

Then, speaking score will be classified to be the interval as follow:

21 – 25 = very high

16 – 20 = high

11 – 15 = average

6 – 10   = low

0 – 5     = very low

  1. I.       Technique of Data Analysis

This research involved many activities, therefore, various data were needed to be analyzed and described to find the accurate result of the experiment. Students’ speaking would be analyzed by using Hughes assessment which consists of five components such as accent (pronunciation), grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

Technique of data analysis in this research was statistical procedure. It gives an away to analyze the differences between the groups. To analyze the students` score, the researcher used T-test mean a statistical procedure used to determine whether both of groups are in the same ability or not. T-test would be analyzed from students’ speaking score in post-test. T-test formulas develop which is presented as follow:

  1. This formula is applied to decide mean of students` test score in experimental and control group;

(Experimental group)

 

 (Control group)

  1. This formula is use to decide standard deviation of experimental group;

 

  1. This formula is used to decide standard deviation of control group;

 

The formula of T-test is as follows (Sudjana 1996):

 

With:

Where:

t               :    the value of t calculated /observer/ obtained

             :    Mean score of experimental sample

             :    Mean score of control sample

             :    The number of subject of experimental group

             :    The number of subject of control group

             :    Standard deviation of experimental group

             :    Standard deviation of control group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DICUSSIONS

This chapter is going to present the researcher’s finding during the research at class VIII of Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang. The research was started at September 26th 2012 until October 29th 2012. Before teaching in the classroom, the researcher gave pre-test to both of the samples was to find out the students’ speaking skill before learning the materials. The analysis of the collection data was carried out to answer the research problem that was to find out whether using Round Robin Interviews gives significant effect on students’ speaking skill at Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang.

  1. A.  Research Findings

These subtitles present the description of the data and data analysis related to:

  1. 1.      Description of Data

To know the students’ speaking skill whether improve or not, pre-test and post-test were given. This subtitle is presented the description of data that the students got in pre-test and post-test and also the gain score of each group.

 

44

 

Speaking test was given in same question in pre-test and also in post-test. Students’ speaking result was also evaluated by considering five components of speaking based on criteria Hughes (1990: 111-113), they are Accent (Pronunciation), Grammar, Vocabulary, Fluency, and Comprehension.

All the data were analyzed to find out the Mean score (x), Maximum score, Minimum score, Median (Md), Mode, and standard deviation (SD) of pre-test and post-test in experimental class and control class.

  1. a.      Pre-Test

Table below is presented the interval data of the students’ speaking score both of group in pre-test as follows:

Table 11. The Interval Data of Pre Test Score of Control Class and Experimental Class

No.

Interval (Students’ Speaking Score)

Frequency

Percentage

Control

Experiment

Control

Experiment

1

21 to 25

0

0

0%

0%

2

16 to 20

1

1

3%

3%

3

11 to 15

17

11

47%

31%

4

6 to 10

18

23

50%

66%

5

0 to 5

0

0

0%

0%

Total

36

35

100%

100%

From the data above, both of the class got 0% the score in the interval 21 to 25. It means that no one of the student got the score between 21 up to 25. And there was only 1 (3 %) student of the sample got the score from 16 to 20 both of the classes. Then there were 17 (47%) of the students in control class got the score in the interval 11 up to 15. On the other hand, there were 11 (31%) of the students of experimental class got the speaking score in the interval 11 up to 15. In interval of 6 up to 10 score of the students, there were 18 (50%) students got that range of the score. And the experimental class, there were 23 (66%) students got the score between 6 up to 10 interval. At last, nobody got the score from 0 up to 5 points.

The result of pre-test in control and experimental class can be seen by the table below:

Table 12. Pre-Test Score of Control and Experimental Class

Class

N

Lowest Score

Highest Score

Sum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Md

Mo

C

36

7

16

385

10.69

1.969

10.5

9

E

35

8

16

353

10.09

1.652

10

9

Note:

C       : Control Class

E       : Experimental Class

N       : Number of Students

Md    : Median

Mo    : Mode

Based on the table above, the highest score before giving treatment in experimental class is 16 and the highest score in control class is 16. Both of the sample classes got the lowest score 7 points in control group and 8 points in experimental group before giving different treatment to both of the sample classes. Standard deviation of control class is 1.96 and the experimental class is 1.65. The difference also happened in mean of score to both of the samples. Before giving treatment, control class got the mean score is 10.69. The total of score to 36 numbers of students in control class is 385 and the median of the score is 10.5. Then, the score was frequently got by the students in control class is 9. In contrast, the experimental class which consists of 35 numbers of students got the mean score is 10.09 while the total is 353. And the median of the score is 10 and the score was frequently also got by the students is 9. It means that the mean score of the students in control class is more than the mean score of the students in experimental class.

Furthermore, the gain score between mean (10.69), median (10.5) and mode (9) were not higher than the standard deviation (1.96) in control group. Then the gain score between mean score (10.09), median (10), mode (9) were not higher than standard deviation (1.65), therefore, the data was normal (see appendix 7).

  1. Post-Test

After giving the treatment in several times, the students got post-test, the result is going to be presented by the table below in the interval data both of groups as follow:

Table 13. The Interval Data of Post-Test Score of Control Class and Experimental Class

No.

Interval (Students’ Speaking Score)

Frequency

Percentage

Control

Experiment

Control

Experiment

1

21 to 25

0

1

0%

3%

2

16 to 20

8

15

22%

43%

3

11 to 15

24

16

67%

46%

4

6 to 10

4

3

11%

9%

5

0 to 5

0

0

0%

0%

Total

36

36

35

100%

Based on the table above, there was one student (3%) of experimental group got the score from 21 up to 25, but nobody (0%) got the score from 21 up to 25 in control group. In control group, there were 8 students (22%) of the sample got the score in range 16 to 20.  The score from 11 to 15, the number of students got that score was 24 (67%) and in range 6 to 10, the number of students got the score 4 (11%) in control class. On the other hand, in experimental class, there were 15 (43%) students got the score from 16 to 20. In range 11 to 15, the number of students got the score were 16 (46%) students. And there were 3 (9%) students got the score from 11 to 15, and nobody got the score from 0 to 5.

The result of post-test in control class and experimental class could be seen by the table below:

Table 14. Post Test Score of Control and Experimental Class

Class

N

Lowest Score

Highest Score

Sum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Md

Mo

C

36

9

20

479

13.31

2.660

13

12

E

35

10

22

527

15.06

3.343

15

17

Note:

C       : Control Class

E       : Experimental Class

N       : Number of Students

Md    : Median

Mo    : Mode

Based on table above could be seen that differences both of the classes. In control class, after teaching the students by conventional technique, the students got the highest score was 20 and the lowest score is 9. Standard deviation of the class is 2.66. The mean score of the control class was 13.31 and total score of all students was 479 of 36 students of the group. And median of the score was 13 and mode of the score 12 in control class. On the other hand, after giving the treatment round robin interviews technique in experimental class, the highest score was 22 and the lowest score was 10. Standard deviation of this class was 3.34. Based on the score that the students got in the class, the mean score was 15.06, it could be seen that different mean score of both of the class while total score is 527 of 35 students. Then median of the class was 15 and mode of the class was 17.

Furthermore, the gain score between mean (13.31), median (13) and mode (12) were not higher than the standard deviation (2.66) in control group. Then the gain score between mean score (15.06), median (15), mode (17) were not higher than standard deviation (3.34), therefore, the data was normal (see appendix 9).

  1. The Gain Score of Pre-Test and Post-Test

The gain score of pre test and post test in experimental class and class control was analyzed by SPSS 15.00 program (see appendix 11). The result can be seen the table below:

 

 

Table 15. Description of Gain Score

            Descriptions

Experiment

Control

N

Valid

35

36

 

Missing

0

0

Mean

4.97

2.61

Median

6.00

2.00

Mode

6

2

Std. Deviation

2.162

1.536

Minimum

1

-1

Maximum

8

6

Sum

174

94

Based on the table above, the gain score between mean (4.97), median (6.00) and mode (6) in experimental class is not higher that standard deviation (2.16) and the gain score between mean (2.61), median (2.00) and mode (2) in control class is not higher that standard deviation (1.54), therefore the data was normal. The Sum of students’ speaking given treatment by using Round Robin Interviews technique was 174. On the other hand, the control class by using conventional technique was 94. It means that teaching speaking by using Round Robin Interviews give more significant effect on students’ speaking skill (see appendix 11).

  1. 2.      Data Analysis
    1. a.      The Effect of Round Robin Interviews Technique

In order to see the effectiveness of Round Robin Interviews to improve students’ speaking skill rather than conventional technique, the data observed of this research was analyzed by using t-test in the result of students’ post-test both of classes. The result of t-test between mean score of post-test of experimental class and control class showed as follow:

 

Where:

 = 15.06                 = 13.31

n1 = 35                      n2 = 36

S = 2.54                    df = 69

So,                              

 

 

 

 

 

t-table                 = 2.00

t-calculate              = 2.91

t-calculate             > t-table

2.91                 > 2.00

The result of t-test shows that the value of t-calculated was 2.91 while the criteria value of t-table at degree of freedom 69 and the level of significance 0.05 is 2.00. In conclusion, the value of t-calculated is greater that the value of t-table. It means the hypothesis was accepted. So, the hypothesis that teaching speaking by round robin interviews technique to improve students’ speaking skill was more effective than using conventional technique was statically accepted (See Appendix 13).

  1. b.      The Component of Students’ Speaking Skill

To get more explanation about the effect of round robin interviews technique on students’ speaking skill could be seen from the comparison of students’ mean score both experimental and control group in pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension (see also appendix 7 & 9) .

Table below will be presented the comparison of mean score of post-test between experimental class and control class (see also appendix 12). The table is presented as follow:

Table 16. The Calculation of Comparison of Means of Post-test between Experimental Class and Control Class in Term of Pronunciation, Grammar, Vocabulary, Fluency and Comprehension

No.

Aspects/ Components

Experimental Group

Control Class

Difference

 

Got score x 100 score max

 

Got score x 100 score max

 

%

1

Pronunciation

111/35 =

63%

106/36 =

59%

0.23

5%

3.17

2.94

2

Grammar

96/35 =

55%

90/36 =

50%

0.24

5%

2.74

2.50

3

Vocabulary

106/35=

61%

87/36 =

48%

0.61

12%

3.03

2.42

4

Fluency

98/35 =

56%

91/36 =

51%

0.27

5%

2.8

2.53

5

Comprehension

116/35 =

66%

105/36 =

58%

0.40

8%

3.31

2.92

 

Based on the table above could be explained that:

  1. Pronunciation

In control group, the mean score of post-test of the student’ pronunciation was 2.94 (59%). Besides that, the mean score of post-test of students’ pronunciation in experimental group was 3.17 (63%). Both of the groups, the differences were 0.23 (5%).

In this matter, some students got problems in pronouncing the words. How the words could be pronounced by their mother tongue. The students’ pronunciation was influenced by their mother tongue – what language that usually they used – and their listening or knowledgeable about some words description. It means that there is improvement significantly in students’ pronunciation teaching speaking through Round Robin Interviews than conventional technique.

  1. Grammar

In control group, the means score post-test of students’ grammar was 2.50 (50%). On the other hand, in experimental group, the mean score of post-test of students’ grammar was 2.74 (55%). It can be concluded that the experimental group had increased higher than control group (5%).

In addition, based on students’ speaking score (see appendix 12), it showed that the students have the development in their grammar through how they expressed some information.

  1. Vocabulary

In control group, the mean score post-test of students’ vocabulary was 2.42 (48%). In the other class, the mean score post-test of students’ vocabulary in experimental group was 3.03(61%). It could be concluded that the experimental group had increased better than control group 0.61(12%). It also showed that students’ vocabulary improvement in experimental class was the highest improvement from the other components,

In addition, based on the data (see appendix 12) it showed that the students had been developed their knowledge in descriptor of some expressions, word form, and the characteristics of something orally. Since teaching speaking using Round Robin Interviews pushes the students to gather as many as possible the vocabularies to be used in their interviews in group, so this technique give more significant effect than other speaking components. Dealing with the highest significant improvement of speaking components (pronunciation, grammar, fluency and comprehension), vocabulary has improved significantly rather than other speaking components.

  1. Fluency

In control group, the mean score post-test of students’ fluency was 2.53 (51%). In the other class, the mean score post-test of students’ fluency in experimental group was 2.8 (56%). It could be concluded that the experimental group had increased better than control group 0.27 (5%).

In addition, the improvement of students’ fluency involves speed of speech and the length of sentences increased (see appendix 12). It showed that the students still speak in simple word and sometimes they spoke very slowly.

  1. Comprehension

In control group, the mean score post-test of students’ comprehension was 2.92 (58%). In the other class, the mean score pre-test of students’ comprehension in experimental group was 3.31 (66%). It could be concluded that the experimental group had increased better than control group 0.40 (8%).

In addition, based on the students speaking score (see appendix 12) students had had sufficient capability in understanding some questions and spoke understandable.

Based on the explanation above, Round Robin Interviews gave significant effect on students’ speaking skills in aspects, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. The most significant effect by using Round Robin Interviews was on students’ vocabulary (12% differences) and students’ comprehension (8% differences). In addition, students’ pronunciation (5% differences), students’ comprehension (5% differences) and students’ fluency (5% differences) also improved, but not significantly. It was indication that teaching speaking using Round Robin Interviews still gave significant effect on students’ speaking skill especially in students’ speaking component in term vocabulary significantly and followed by comprehension.

  1. B.  Hypothesis Testing

After the scores of pre-test and post-test in experimental group had been analyzed, the value of t-observed was obtained. The value of t-observed then was compare. If the t-calculated was less or equal than t-table at the level of significant 0.05, this was the fact that there was no increasing of the students’ speaking skill between before and after using round robin interviews. It means that the hypothesis was rejected.

Meanwhile if t-calculated was higher than t-table at the level of significant 0.05. It was the fact that there were significant differences between the speaking scores of the students before and after teaching speaking using round robin interviews. So the hypothesis was accepted.

From the calculation of post-test scores of experimental group, it could be seen that t-calculated (2.91) while t-table (2.00) at the level of significant 0.05 (see appendix 13).  In fact, t-calculated was higher than t-table. It can be concluded that the hypothesis was accepted. So it means that “There is a significant effect on students’ speaking skill after using Round Robin Interview Technique”.

  1. C.  Discussion

Round Robin Interviews Technique is a technique that allows the students sit in group and they will interview each other to collect information about some topic given by the teacher. During the activity, this technique can help the students to form their ideas in oral form. In this case, Round Robin Interviews technique allows the students in small group to interact under the teacher control. In addition, Round Robin Interviews can make the students learn and enjoy sharing their ideas in the class. From the data above, it shows that the hypothesis was accepted. It means that teaching speaking using Round robin Interviews technique can improve students’ speaking skill statistically was accepted.

Dealing with interview as the important activity during teaching speaking using Round Robin Interviews, Klippel (1994: 24) states that the success of an interview depends on the skill of interviewer, on her ability to ask right kinds of questions to insist and interpret, and on the willingness to talk on the part of the person being interview. As the result, both of interviewer and interviewee should be able to understand each other. The simple words and the clear utterances are needed during the interview in order to make the interview run well and understandable. Based on the application of Round Robin Interviews, before starting interviews, the students make list of questions to be interviewed for interviewer while the students who sit as interviewee will make some information about the topic. In this case, it can be seen that all students try to gather some information and also new vocabularies are being gathered in the activities. During the activities, the interview can be stopped suddenly because of the member of group do not understand about questions or information. It was indication that students’ vocabulary improved. Thus, students will collect some new vocabularies through asking and answering the questions from their group.

Furthermore, teaching speaking using Round Robin Interviews technique makes the students active in speaking class. In stage, the students ask each other by various questions with some expressions. Firstly, the students will prepare themselves by some questions or information about the topic given. Hence there were interviewer and interviewee, teaching speaking using Round Robin Interviews technique shows that learning process has given the opportunity totally to all the students to speak in English class and makes their creativity to gather the information, as the problem that rally happened to students in English class. They can try to say some words than before which not give that opportunity to students to practice their ability in speaking English. Finally, all students have the same chance to speak through this interview.

In addition, the Round Robin Interviews has been success to give effect the students’ speaking skill significantly. The important thing in applying this technique is how to give the students in turn taking to share their ideas orally, as Kagan’s statement (2003). It refers to the Round Robin its self which conduct in a group.

In this research, the five speaking components should be measured to conduct speaking activity, namely, pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. In this case, the researcher tried to assess all components. The result shows that Round Robin Interviews gave effect on students’ vocabulary significantly (see appendix 12), because the important thing that Round Robin Interviews assists the students to gather as many as possible the information from their group about the topic given. Since, in the activity, the teacher did not pay attention fully on students’ grammar, fluency and pronunciation, so that Round Robin Interviews did not give significant effect as many as on students’ vocabulary.

In addition, Round Robin Interviews also presses on how the students understand and give responses on the questions of interview given by their partner to other students. It means that Round Robin Interviews also gave significant effect on students’ comprehension, although it was not also as many as students’ vocabulary. It showed that the Round Robin Interviews technique is focused on students’ vocabulary, because in the activity while teaching speaking, the students are asked to collect the information as many as possible. In turn-taking part in a team, the students found many unfamiliar vocabularies that they conduct in their interview. As the result, grammar, fluency and pronunciation are the lowest improvement of students’ speaking skill.

This research also had been conducted by other researcher in other ways. The other research has purposed by Rahayu (2010) in Sebelas Maret University on title, “Improving Speaking Skill by Using Interview (A Classroom Action Research in the Eleventh Grade of SMA Negeri 1 Surakarta in the Academic Year 2009/2010). The result of this research is Interview technique is an effective technique in teaching speaking because it create interesting atmosphere in the classroom, and interview technique also can improve the students’ speaking skill. The other research also has been conducted that title was “Improving Students’ speaking skill using Round Robin Technique (a classroom action research conducted in the second grade of SMP Negeri 1 Gondang for academic year of 2010/2011)” by Nurita Dwi Agustiningrum at Sebelas Maret University on 2011. The result of the classroom action research was Round Robin could improve the students’ speaking skill. Agustiningrum proved that the implementation of Round Robin Technique make the classroom become cooperative and communicative.

Based on these result, the writer conducted Round Robin Interviews in improving speaking skill. On contrast with Dwi, she focused on the process of teaching speaking and students’ speaking skill, then the activities was round robin in improving speaking skill, but the researcher focused on determining whether the effect on students’ speaking skill by using Round Robin Interviews technique and what component that was affected significantly related to pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. In this research, it was found that Round Robin Interviews gives significant effect on students’ speaking skill, especially students’ vocabulary significantly.

Although Round Robin Interviews affect the students’ speaking well, but there is nothing is perfect. The researcher found that the weakness that happened when using Round Robin Interviews technique. The weakness is that, if the students do not have the basic ability to construct questions well, so it will take long time for the teacher to teach the students first about how to construct sentences and questions, especially the grammar. In spite of the weakness by using Round Robin interviews, it can be figure out by giving enrichment and students’ works in order to make the students have good grammar, pronunciation and fluency.

Thus, to solve the problem that happened, Round Robin Interviews is an alternative technique which gives the opportunity to the students totally to speak during the classroom and it also create the students’ ideas in order to make the students to have communicative competence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

  1. Conclusions

Based on this research and data which is presented in the previous chapter, it can be seen that using Round Robin Interviews technique gives the students’ speaking skill. Then, it can be concluded that Round Robin Interviews Technique gives effect on the students’ speaking skill significantly especially students’ vocabulary.

Moreover, the data shows that the improvement of each components of speaking significantly by the students achievement. Based on all components, this technique gives effect on students’ vocabulary significantly. It means that success of this study has convinced the teachers and the students to consider the application of this technique to communicative class room activities and interesting atmosphere, especially in teaching speaking.

 

63

 

Furthermore, Round Robin Interviews technique gives the same chance and the opportunity to all the students to express something in English. In this case, the students interview each other naturally. As the result the students are not afraid to express their ideas during teaching and learning process.

Finally, conducting this research in Islamic Junior High School Pasir Talang, absolutely, had several advantages whether for researcher or educational institution, the teacher and also for the students. Doing this research has a big contribution for the researcher in finishing this thesis. But the most important impact for the researcher that it became experiences for the researcher gained by involving directly learning process in the class room.

  1. Suggestions

Since the application of Round Robin Interviews technique gives significant effect on students’ speaking skill, it is suggested that:

  1. It implies that the English teacher, especially at State Junior High School Pasir Talang, have to use Round Robin Interviews technique as an alternative technique in teaching speaking by interesting material and media.
  2. To anticipate the limitation of time for English class and the students’ ability to construct the questions and sentences grammatically for interview, especially in speaking class, the teachers may ask the students to do more exercise at home. And the teacher should be more attractive to make the students active speaking class; it means that the students are allowed to speak English more confident in the class room.
  3. To enlarge the knowledge about various techniques in teaching and learning English, especially in speaking, the teachers and the students may get many resources from the books that were available in the bookstores or libraries. Then, the teacher should prepare interested materials and simple materials that related to the students knowledge which may them to speak more.
  4. To improve the quality of teaching English, especially in applying Round Robin Interviews, the next researchers in the same field can involve a research about applying of Round Robin Interviews technique in teaching speaking skill in classroom action research, in order to see whether this technique can improve students’ speaking skill and other effects in teaching and learning process of English. Finally, the finding of this research hopefully can be the beneficial reference for the next investigator in conducting the better research in future.

.

 

 

 

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout / Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s