PDF Skripsi

i

THESIS

IMPROVING SPEAKING SKILL BY USING CHAIN

DRILL TECHNIQUE AT THE EIGHTH GRADE

STUDENTS OF SMPN I AMLAPURA IN ACADEMIC

YEAR 2013/2014

MILA JANUAR WIDYANINGSIH

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR UNIVERSITY

DENPASAR

2014

ii

THESIS




YEAR 2013/2014


NPM. 10.8.03.51.31.2.5.3981




DENPASAR

2014

iii

PRE-REQUISITE TITLE




YEAR 2013/2014

Thesis

As Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Education Study Program

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

Mahasaraswati Denpasar University


NPM 10.8.03.51.31.2.5.3981




DENPASAR

2014

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, the researcher would like to express her great-sincere

gratitude to the Almighty God, Alloh SWT, the only God, who gives power,

strength, blesses and mercies so that this thesis entitle Improving Speaking Skill

by Using Chain Drill Technique at the Eighth Grade Students of SMPN I

Amlapura in Academic Year 2013/2014 could finally be completed on the due

date.

Her tremendous gratitude further goes to her first and second advisor,

Nengah Dwi Handayani,S.Pd.,M.Pd. and AA Istri Yudhi Pramawati,SS.,M.Hum.

who have already guided her and shared their brilliant ideas for the improvement

of the thesis. In addition, she would like to thank their helpful guidance and

correction during the writing of the thesis.

Moreover, she also wishes to share out her gratefulness to the

Headmaster and an English Teacher of SMPN I Amlapura for their permission

and of course the eighth grade students of VIII B for their kind assistance during

the process of gathering the data needed for the present study.

Next, she is also deeply indebted to her parents, Mr. Sonny Sudarsono

and Ms. Sumarni, and her brother sisters who have given their prayer, support and

motivation so that she is able to complete her study successfully.

Finally, she would like to dedicate this thesis to her beloved husband,

Alvin Kurniawan, and her lovely daughter, Almira Rahma Maulidya, who have

given their prayer, love, affection, fidelity, devotion and tremendous support

during the process of writing the thesis. The researcher would not able to finish

this thesis without the help of the above mentioned people.

Amlapura, February 2014

The researcher,

Mila Januar Widyaningsih.

viii

ABSTRACT

Widyaningsih, M. J. (2014). Improving Speaking Skill by Using Chain Drill

Technique at the Eighth Grade Students of SMPN I Amlapura in

Academic Year 2013/2014. The first Advisor: Nengah Dwi

Handayani, S.Pd., M.Pd. and the Second Advisor: AA Istri Yudhi

Pramawati, SS., M.Hum.

The undertaking of the present classroom action research was mainly

intended to figure out whether or not chain drill technique can improve the

subjects speaking skill. The subjects of the present study was the eighth grade B students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 that consisted of 35

students, 14 females and 21 males. Based on the result of the pre-test which was

carried out in the pre-cycle, it pointed out that the subjects ability in describing something or someone orally was categorized insufficient. The total score of pre-

test was 1852 and the mean score was 52.91. In IR, only 2,85% of the subjects

under study reached the standard minimum achievement, where the standard

minimum achievement (KKM) in SMPN I Amlapura was 77. The present

classroom action research then was carried out by implementing chain drill

technique in two-planned cycles, cycle 1 and cycle 2, which each cycle consisted

of two sessions. The result of the post-test 1 (R1) obviously showed that there was

significant improvement concerning the subjects speaking skill in describing something or someone. The total score of post-test 1 was 2460 and the mean was

70.28. In post-test 1, the computation showed that 20% of the subjects under study

reached the standard minimum achievement. The scores of Cycle II were

excellent. The total score of R2 was 2824 and the mean was 80.68. In post-test 2, the computation of the scores showed that 80% of the subjects under study

reached the standard minimum achievement, which meant that the study was

successful in improving subjects speaking skill. This research furthermore showed that there was changing learning behavior as the result of positive

responses concerning the technique applied in improving the subjects speaking skill. To sum up, the present classroom action study proved that chain drill

technique could improve speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I

Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014; in addition, the subjects also responded

positively the implementation of chain drill technique in speaking activity.

Keywords: improving, chain drill technique, speaking skill

ix

TABLE OF CONTENT

COVER............................................................................................... i

INSIDE COVER.................................................................................. ii

PRE-REQUISITE TITLE..................................................................... iii

APPROVAL SHEET 1............................................................................ iv

APPROVAL SHEET 2........................................................................... v

STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICITY..................................................... vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................................................ vii

ABSTRACT......................................................................................... viii

TABLE OF CONTENT........................................................................ ix

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................ xi

LIST OF GRAPHS.............................................................................. xii

LIST OF APPENDICES..................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION....................................................... 1

1.1 Background of the study...................................... 1

1.2 Research problem................................................ 3

1.3 Objectives of the study........................................ 4

1.4 Limitation of the study........................................ 4

1.5 Significance of the study....................................... 4

1.6 Definition of key terms......................................... 5

CHAPTER II THEORITICAL AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW.............. 7

2.1 Theoritical Review............................................. 7

2.1.1 Speaking Skill......................................... 7

2.1.2 The Elements of Speaking..................... 9

2.1.3 Assessesing Speaking............................. 13

2.1.4 Chain Drill Technique............................. 15

2.2 Empirical Review.............................................. 17

2.3 Hypothesis........................................................ 18

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 19

3.1 Subject of The Study.......................................... 19

3.2 Research Design.................................................. 19

x

3.3 Research Procedure............................................ 23

3.3.1 Planning................................................. 24

3.3.2 Action..................................................... 24

3.3.3 Observation.............................................. 25

3.3.4 Reflection................................................. 26

3.4 Research Instrument............................................. 26

3.5 Data Collection.................................................... 27

3.6 Data Analysis...................................................... 28

3.7 Success Indicator................................................. 30

CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Finding.............................................................. 29

4.1.1 Pre-cycle................................................ 29

4.1.2 Cycle 1.................................................. 30

4.1.3 Cycle 2................................................... 32

4.1.4 Questionnaire......................................... 34

4.2 Discussion........................................................ 36

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion....................................................... 38

5.2 Suggestion...................................................... 39

REFERENCES................................................................................... 42

APPENDICES.................................................................................. 44

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table of Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories..................................... 27

Table 4.1 Tabulation of data showing the subjects progressing score in

Speaking after the implementation of chain drill technique........... 33

xii

LIST OF GRAPH

Graph 4.1 Depicting the subjects progressing achievement in speaking by

Using chain drill technique............................................................ 36

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Daftar nama siswa kelas VIII B............................ 45

Appendix 2 Lesson Plan of Cycle 1 and Cycle 2...................... 46

Appendix 3 The Instruments of pre-test, post-test 1, post-test 2

and questionnaire............................................... 54

Appendix 4 The scores of pre-test, post-test 1, post test 2

and questionnaire.............................................. 58

Appendix 5 Surat pengantar penelitian dari kampus............... 62

Appendix 6 Surat keterangan dari SMPN I Amlapura............ 63

Appendix 7 Biography...................................................... 64

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

There are four skills in learning English those are listening, speaking,

reading and writing. But, the mastery of speaking skills in English is a priority for

many second-language or foreign-language learners (Richards, 2008:19). Why it

is become the priority? Because english is an international language which is used

by all people around the world to communicate with others. From a pragmatic

view of language performance, listening and speaking are almost always closely

interrelated (Brown, 2003:140). Both cannot be separated. By listening a correct

model, students will be able to speak correctly. By creating English atmosphere in

the classroom placed teacher as a model, students will accustomed to use english

orally to express their mind, feeling, communicate with their friends and teacher

and etc, so they will able to use English fluently in daily life.

The problems were found when the writer did PPL in SMPN I Amlapura.

Students were lazy to speak. When they were asked to speak, they used their first

language (native language) rather than using English. It is because they do not

accustomed to use English in English class. The students difficulties in speaking

are caused by the lacked of related vocabularies, low ability in constructing

sentences and utterances, and also low motivation to participate in speaking

activity caused by shyness and embarrassment in making mistake.

The situation was getting worse because teachers fault in deciding the

material and also teaching technique which made students felt bored and lost

interest in the speaking class. Moreover, teacher did not explore students

2

potential to speak as he did not provide many chances for students to speak

because the class was teacher-centered, teacher who talk alot and dominate the

class. This type of teaching technique made students lazy to speak. They also

could not perform maximally in the speaking test where the Standard Minimum

Achievement (KKM) score is 77 point for English course but their mean score of

daily test was 70; consequently, the students must do remedial phases to pass the

test. That was unsatisfactory result for the students that is why they need to be

motivated by applaying teaching teachnique which is able to make them

enthusiastic and confident in expressing their mind in the target language.

For years, experts have totally given their mind in the study of

developing techniques and methods to teach English as the second language in

order to improve the motivation of the students in learning English. As the result,

a variety of English teaching techniques and methods have been found and

applied in every level of education. One of them is chain drill, a teaching

technique that is created from the Audio Lingual Method firstly applied by

Charles Fries (1945) of the University of Michigan (Larsen-Freeman, 2000:35).

Teaching speaking by using chain drill technique is started by the

teacher. Teacher prepares questions to be asked to the student nearest with the

teacher. Chain drill gives students an opportunity to speak their idea individually.

The teacher listens and can tell which students are struggling and will need more

practice. A chain drill also lets students use the expressions in communication

with someone, eventhough the communication is very limited. Then, teacher

addresses a questions to the student nearest with her. After that, the first student

responds to the teachers question. The teacher ask another questions then the first

3

student answers or responds the questions given. The first student understand

through teachers gestures then he turns to the student sitting beside him and ask

questions like teacher asked before. The second student, in turn, says her lines in

replay to him (first student). When the second student has finished, she greets and

asks questions to the student on the other side of her. This chain continues until all

of the students get a chance to ask and answer the questions. The last student

directs the greeting and asking questions to the teacher.

This kind of technique is really fun and makes students enjoy the lesson.

Teaching by using chain drill technique will make students enjoy and understand

more the point of the material given, moreover it will improve students speaking

skill as well. That is why in this research, the writer would use Chain drill

Technique to improve speaking skill at the eighth grade students of SMPN I

Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014.

1.2 Research Problem

As already been explained above that the achievement of students in

speaking was quite low and it influences their score and also their confidence in

using English for communication, the teaching-learning process must be riched by

using Chain drill technique as a solution to solve the weaknesses of the students in

speaking. So, the problem that is going to be discussed in this study can be

formulated as follows: can the speaking skill of the eighth grade students of

SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 be improved using Chain Drill

Technique?

4

1.3 Objective of the Study

To be able to answer the statement of research question above, the

objective of the study is to figure out whether or not Chain Drill Technique can

improve speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in

academic year 2013/2014. This study was conducted in order to know the

students confidence, motivation and improvement during the technique applied in

speaking class. In addition, the hope of this study is that Chain Drill Technique

can be a better way in teaching speaking.

1.4 Limitation of the Study

This research is only limited on the use of Chain Drill Technique in

improving students speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I

Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 with the material about describing

something or someone.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The concern of this research is teaching speaking by using Chain Drill

Technique. The use of this research is to know how the technique can overcome

the problem faced by the students and an English teacher in improving students

speaking skill. At the end, this research has significance of the study which is

devided into theoretical and practical.

Theoretically, this research is expected to support the existing theories

and empirical evidences of the working knowledge and principles of English

language teaching particularly to the achievement of the students speaking skill

5

by using Chain Drill technique. Practically, the study is considered to be practical

in its nature that is to provide the educational feedback.

For the English teacher, the finding of this study would help teacher in

determining the methods and techniques of teaching as the way to create new

atmosphere and new habit which can improve students motivation and

confidence in learning English.

For the eighth grade students, the finding of this study would help

students in understanding more the material given by the teacher. This finding

also hoped can improve students motivation and confidence, creating new habit

and new atmosphere which will improve their achievement too.

For the school, the finding of this study would be able to increase the

schools score which will make it to be the most favourite school among others.

1.6 Definition of Key Terms

In order to avoid the misunderstanding of this investigation to the

readers, the definition of key terms is used to make it clear in comprehending this

study, such as: Improving Speaking skill, Chain Drill Technique and SMPN I

Amlapura.

1. Improving Speaking skill

Speaking is the activities by which human beings try to express thought,

feeling, opinion and to exchange information by using utterances in the form of

communication. And speaking skill is the ability to produce words, to express, to

state, and to deliver thought, ideas and feeling. Speaking is a tool of

communication that is why it is necessary for people to improve their speaking

skill in order to have a good communication with others.

6

2. Chain Drill Technique

Chain Drill technique is a teaching technique that is created from the

Audio Lingual Method firstly applied by Charles Fries (1945) of the University of

Michigan. Chain drill gives students an opportunity to say the lines individually.

The teacher listens and can tell which students are struggling and will need more

practice. A chain drill also lets students use the expressions in communication

with someone, eventhough the communication is very limited. This chain

continues until all of the students get a chance to ask and answer the questions.

3. SMPN I Amlapura

SMPN I Amlapura is the level of junior high school which is located in

Ngurah Rai Street Amlapura, Karangasem regency, Bali. SMPN I Amlapura is the

favourite school in Karangasem and becomes the place where the research will be

conducted.

7

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Review

The theoretical review is used in a scientific study and it should be based

on some theoretical background and empirical evidences. On the other hand, it

needs as foundation that can guide this scientific study. The background of this

study is related to some theoretical which will be discussed as follows:

2.1.1 Speaking Skill

According to the Webster College Dictionary (2003:873), to speak means

to utter words with the voice; to utter by means of words (speak the truth), to

address a gathering, to mention in speech or writing, to carry a meaning as if by

speech, to make a natural or characteristic sound, to use in talking. Speak may

apply to any articulated sounds ranging from the least to the most coherent. While

talk is less technical and less formal and implies a listener and connected

discourse or exchange thoughts. On the other hand, speech means the

communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words. Furthermore,

Kushartanti, et al (2005:32) defines speaking as set of voices uttered by one and

understood by someone else. In line with these, the researcher conclude that

speaking is the verbal communication between people. When two people are

engaged in talking to each other, the researcher is sure that they are doing

communication. Communication between people is an extremely complex and

ever changing phenomenon. There are certain generalizations that we can make

8

about the majority of communicative events and these have particular relevance

for the learning and teaching process.

People do communication for some reasons. Jeremy Harmer (2002:46)

stated the reasons as follows:

(1) They want to say something. What is used here is general way to

suggest that the speakers make definite decisions to address other people.

Speaking may, of course, be forced upon them, but we can still say that they feel

the need to speak, otherwise they would keep silent.

(2) They have some communicative purpose. Speakers say things

because they want something to happen as a result of what they say. They may

want to charm their listeners; to give some information, to express pleasure; they

may decide to be rude or flatter. To agree or complain. In each of these cases they

are interested in achieving this communicative purpose what is important the

message they wish to convey and the effect they want it to have.

(3) They select from their language store. Speakers have an infinite

capacity to create new sentences. In order to achieve this communication purpose

they will select (from the store of language they posses) the language they think

is appropriate for this purpose.

Of course there will be a desire to communicate on the part of the

students and they will also have a communicative purposes. When the students are

involved in a drill or in repetition, they will be motivated the need to reach the

objective of accuracy. The emphasis is on the form of the language. A teacher

should be in creating procedures of teaching in order that the objective is reached.

9

Speaking is an important skill that must be taught in language class. It is

widely argued that the success of using a language especially second language and

foreign language in real life situation can be determined through speaking. The

idea strengthened by Richards, he stated that the mastery of speaking skills in

English is a priority for many second-language or foreign-language learners.

Consequently, learners often evaluate their success in language learning as well as

the effectiveness of their English course on the basis of how much they feel they

have improved in their spoken language proficiency (2008:19). English becomes

the priority because English is an international language spoken all over the

world. That is why some job vacancies often require the jobs seeker to be able to

speak fluently as their main requirement (Norton in Hornberger, 2010:96).

According to Thornbury, it is generally acceptable that knowing a language and

being able to speak it are not synonymous (2005:1). It means that someone who

knows a lot about a language can not be guaranteed to have a good speaking skill

in that language. Thornbury also defines speaking as a part of daily life that we

take it for granted (2005:1). In other words, in our daily life speaking is an

important tool that we use to communicate through the words arrangement that we

produce. As been stated above, we knew that mastering speaking skill is the

priority in learning a language.

2.1.2 The Elements of speaking

To be a good speaker, the ability to produce utterance (utterances) is not

enough. There are much linguistics to be mastered by languages learners in order

to be able to express their feelings and ideas appropriately. Here are the elements

of speaking according to Harmer in his book The Practice of English Language

10

Teaching that the speakers have to be competent in speaking skill, those are

language features in which contains four points. They are:

Connected speech. It is the sounds modifying in producing utterance when

people speak. In which includes modifying (assimilation), omitting (elision),

adding (linking), or weakening (through contraction and stress patterning).

Expressive devices. It is the stress and pitch variation in producing utterance

in order to convey the truth meaning of the messages meant by the speaker. It

includes the variation of the volume and speed of the speech. By using these

devices, people will be able to show what and how they feel to whom they are

talking to.

Grammar and lexis. People live in different ways, places and environments

which is causing a different mind set too. Therefore, teachers need to supply

their students with various phrases for different function in their speaking

classroom activity. For instance, students will know what expressions they

have to use appropriately in different stages of interaction.

Negotiation language. This is the speech clarification. It is the use of

language on how to clarify and to show what they means. Sometimes people

do not hear or understand what other peoples saying. Therefore, it is

necessary to have an appropriate language of how to clarify in order to avoid

missunderstanding between speaker and the listener (Harmer,2001: 267-270).

In addition, Harmer concerned with other elements of speaking that is

necessary to be mastered by a successful speaker; those are mental/ social

processing and the rapid processing which involves language processing,

interaction and information processing.

11

Language processing. Effective speakers need to be able to process language

in their own head and put it into coherent order, so that it comes out in forms

that are not only comprehensible, but also convey the meaning that are

intended.

Interaction. Most speaking involves interaction with one or more participants.

It means that effective speaking also involves a good deal of listening, an

understanding of how others felt and a knowledge of how the linguistically to

take turns or allow others to do so.

Informations processing. Quite apart from our response to others feelings,

we also need to be able to process the information they take us the moment

we get it. The longer it takes for The penny to drop, the less effective we are

as an instant communicator. However, it should be remembered that this

instant response is very culture-specific, and is not prized by speaker in many

other language communities.

In line with these elements, the researcher concludes that, speaker who

wishes to say anything has to consider two things. First, the language feature by

which people know the use of language such as: how to modify the sound and

how to use appropriate expression. Second, people also must know how to arrange

words into the right order. Therefore, the intended messages are sent. In this case,

people not only hope to be understood by someone else solely, but also they have

to understand other participants feeling. Here, people are demanded to know

when they have to take turn on the conversation and to allow the others to do so.

Such those elements mentioned above showed that the speakers must be

communicatively competence in the language they use. As it is stated by Walter in

12

her book, about communicative competence that it defines as the ability to use

language appropriately in variety of context (Walter, 2008:18) which involves:

Grammatical Competence. It is a competency that focuses on the accuracy

and correctness of using language code such as vocabulary, spelling,

grammar, pronunciation and so on in the language skill especially speaking

and writing.

Sociolinguistics Competence. It is a competency that focuses on the use of

appropriate language in variety social setting. Here, the target language

speaker is demanded to know how, where and when the language will be

uttered by them in appropriate situation, such as how to invite, how to asking

information, how to describe something and etc.

Discourse Competence. It is a competency that focuses on the appropriateness

of combining and conecting phrases and sentences in engaging conversation.

Strategic Competence. It is a competency that focuses on manipulation of

language in achieving the communication goals. This competency involves

the use of both verbal and nonverbal, such as changing the voice tone, using

the body language and emphasizing the specific word (Walter, 2008:19).

Apparently, it can be seen in following figure about communicative

competence and its elements.

Figure: The Elements of Communicative Competence (Walter, 2008:19)

Grammatical

Competence

Socio-linguistics

Competence

Communicative

Competence

Discourse

Competence

Strategic

Competence

13

From those elements and competencies mentioned above, it can be

concluded that to be a good speaker, he or she has to master language elements.

On the other hand, it is not enough to have a lot of vocabulary without other

knowledge.

2.1.3 Assessing Speaking

Speaking skill is the ability to use the language in oral form. In junior and

senior high schools this skill is limited to the ability to conduct a simple

conversations on some subject (e.g. expressing regret, gratitude, agreement, offer,

certainty, etc.). Among the four skills, speaking skill is a difficult one to assess

with precision, because speaking is a complex skill to acquire. In giving scores,

there is rating scale developed by H.Douglas Brown. It showed six items

generally recognized in analysis of speech process : Grammar, Vocabulary,

Comprehension, Fluency, Pronunciation, Task (Brown, 2003:172-173).

According to Brown, there are 5 basic types of speaking, those are

imitative, intensive, responsive, interactive and extensive (2003:141-142).

Imitative is the type of speaking performance which the ability is to

simply parrot back (imitate) a word or phrase or possibly a sentence. The

examples of imitative assessment tasks given here are: Word repetition task and

phonepass test.

Intensive is the production of short stretches of oral language designed to

demonstrate competence in narrow band of grammatical, phrasal, lexical or

phonological relationships (such as prosodic elements-intonation, stress, rhthym,

jucture). The examples of intensive assessment tasks include directed response

14

tasks, reading aloud, sentence and dialogue completion; limited picture cued tasks

including simple sequences; and translation up to the simple sentence level.

Responsive asessment tasks include interaction and test comprehension

but at the some what limited level of very short conversations, standart greetings

and small talk, simple request and comments and the like. The stimulus is almost

always a spoken prompt (in order to preserve authenticity), with perhaps only one

or two follow-up questions or retorts.

Interactive assessment task has quiet same model in its test with the

responsive task, both emphazise the spoken prompt. The difference between

responsive and interactive speaking is in the length and complexity of the

interaction, which sometimes include multiple exchanges and/or multiple

participants. Interactions can take the two forms of transactional language, which

has the purpose of exchanging specific information, or interpersonal exchanges

which has the purpose of maintaining social relationships. In interpersonal

exchanges, oral production can become pragmatically complex with the need of

speak in a casual register and use colloquial language, ellipsis, slang, humor and

other sociolinguistic conventions.

Extensive (monologue) oral production tasks include speeches, oral

presentations and story-telling, during which the opportunity for oral interaction

from listeners is either highly limited or ruled out altogether.

Brown also added there are micro- and macroskills of speaking. The list

of speaking skills can be drawn up for the purpose that is to serve as a taxonomy

of skills from which you will select one or several that will become the

objective(s) of an assessment task. The microskills refer to producing the smaller

15

chunks of language such as phonemes, morphemes, words, collocations and

phrasal units. Then the Macroskills imply the speakers focus on the large

elements: fluency, discourse, function, style, cohesion, nonverbal communication

and strategic options. The micro- and macroskills total roughly 16 different

objectives to assess in speaking (Brown, 2003:142).

In assessing the tests, the writer followed rating scale developed by

H.Douglas Brown (Brown, 2003:172-173). It showed six items that were

important to be scored: Grammar, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Fluency,

Pronunciation, Task. However, in this study, researcher do not give score on all

items showed but creates the scoring rubric to be as simple as possible based on

the students ability.

2.1.4 Chain Drill Technique

Speaking skill preceded by listening. Through listening, people know

vocabulary they do not know before. Brown strengthened the idea above, he

stated that Speaking is a productive skill that can be directly and empirically

observed, those observations are invariably colored by the accuracy and

effectiveness of a test-takers listening skill, which necessarily compromises the

reliability and validity of an oral production test (2003:140). In short, both

speaking and listening is integrated. This idea was strengthened by Rost in Hinkel,

she stated that listening refers to a complex cognitive process that allows a person

to understand spoken language (2005:503). Broadly speaking, speaking skill is

influenced by listening skill.

Chain Drill Technique integrating both skills, speaking and listening, in

learning process. According to Larsen-Freeman (2000:46) we have to use drills if

16

we want the students to be able to speak English communicatively. Furthermore,

she explained that drills, as part of audio-lingual method, have been used in

teaching speaking. Since the primary goal of the audio-lingual method is to use

the target language communicatively, drills are suitable for teaching speaking.

Chain Drill itself is a teaching technique that is created from the Audio Lingual

Method firstly applied by Charles Fries (1945) of the University of Michigan.

And for this reason, it has sometimes been referred to as the Michigan Method

(Larsen-Freeman, 2000:35). A chain drill gets its name from the chain of

conversation that forms around the room as students, one-by-one, ask and answer

questions of each other (Larsen-Freeman, 2000:48).

The rules of chain drill activity are that the activities begun as the teacher

greets and asks questions to a particular student (student A). Then student A will

respond the questions. After that, student A takes turn to ask another student

sitting next to him. This activity will continuously work until the last turn of the

last student. At the end, the last student directs greeting and asking questions back

to the teacher.

A chain drill allows some controlled communication among the students

while teacher can check students speech as well. Either teacher or students

themselves can correct their friends oral sentences whether they are well-

constructed or not. As the result, any mistakes that probably occur can be

corrected directly as soon as possible. Besides, the use of peer students correction

will prevent students worrying in making mistake that can improve their

confidence to try. The use of chain drill can encourage the improvement of

students listening and speaking skills. They get listening skill from listening to

17

their friends questions. Therefore, they have to focus on what their friends asking

about. Once they can answer the question correctly, it means that they absolutely

can understand the question. Moreover, the way they ask questions or answer the

questions drives students to practice speaking. This activity makes students

accustomed to express their ideas through oral speech. It also creates a new habit

to use English in communicating with others that will improve their speaking skill

as the result.

2.2 Empirical Review

In this section, we can see the two of many researchers that have done

their research about Audio Lingual Teaching as an Alternative Method in

Teaching Speaking and Developing Students Ability in Simple Past Tense

through Chain Drills. Here are their researches:

According to Anggraeni (2007:6-7), language learning is a habit

formation. That is why if the teacher wants students to be able to use english

communicatively, teacher must create a new habit in the classroom that is using

English as the main language for communication with others. Drills technique as

part of audio lingual method is one of the solution in improving students

speaking skill. From the result, it could be concluded that the difference was

statistically significant. Therefore, based on the computation there was significant

difference between teaching speaking after and before using Audio-lingual

Method. Teaching speaking after using Audio-lingual Method was more effective

than teaching speaking before using Audio-lingual Method. It could be seen by

the result of the test where the students score was higher after being given the

treatment (Anggraeni, 2007: 63).

18

Other research showed by Abinur (2011). Abinur used CAR in this

research. She thought simple past tense through chain drill. This research

consisted of two cycles and each cycle consisted of four elements, they were

planning, action, observation and reflection. Each cycle was conducted in two

meetings, so the researcher conducted this research in four meetings for one

month and two weeks. To collect and analyze the data, the researcher used the

information from interview, observation and students achievements in pre-test

and post-test in order to support the data collected. The result of this data showed

that using chain drill in teaching simple past tense in second years of MTSN 17

Jakarta could motivate the students to learn simple past tense and develop their

ability in simple past tense. The students responses showed that they were

interested to learn simple past tense because they thought that the chain drill

technique was interesting. Moreover, the students achievement, based from pre-

test and post-test result, showed a significant improvement. In conclusion,

teaching simple past tense through chain drills could develop students ability in

learning English.

2.3 Hypothesis

The hypothesis is useful to give the answer or tentative solution which

can help the researcher in finding the result and conclusion of the study.

Therefore, in this study the hypothesis can be stated as follows: speaking skill of

the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 can

be improved by using Chain Drill Technique.

19

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Subject of the Study

The Eighth grade students at SMPN I Amlapura were devided into ten

classes. Class VIII B was taken as the subject of the research because based on the

interview with the English teacher, students of VIII B got low scores in speaking.

There were 35 students in this class, 14 females and 21 males, which was

considerably enough to be the purpose of the study. The data of students list

would be showed completely in the appendix 1.

After having the interview with the English teacher of the VIII B class,

the researcher got some informations about the problems that were faced by the

students in learning English. In addition, a serious problem found was the

students difficulties in expressing their idea orally. Students got bored in the class

and lazy to speak their mind because the teaching learning process which was so

monotone and mostly emphasized teacher as the authority in classroom and

students as the passive position. That is why students achievement in speaking

still low so that they need a new teaching teachnique which is fun and can make

them enjoy and confident in expressing their mind orally.

3.2 Research Design

The classroom action research was used in this study to apply Chain Drill

Technique and optimalize this technique in improving speaking skill.

Globalization era demanded educators to be more professional in their job,

otherwise they will be left behind. So, it is important for them to be more creative

20

in finding a new kind of methods in teaching process. To support all those things,

they have to conduct their own strategy of teaching by doing some kinds of

research.

Hewitt and Little stated that Action research is a model of professional

development that promotes collaborative inquiry, reflection and dialogue. Within

the action research process, educators study students learning related to their own

teaching. It is a process that allows educators to learn about their own

instructional practices and continue monitoring the improvement of students

learning (2005:1). Furthermore, Guskey in Hewitt and Little stated that the idea of

action research is that educational problems and issues are best identified and

investigated where the action is at the classroom and school level. By integrating

research into these settings and engaging those who work at this level in research

activities, findings can be applied immediately and problems solved more quickly

(2005:1).

Within the action research process, teachers may choose to focus their

study on one student, a small group of students, a class or several classes, or a

whole school. The focus and level of participation among school and district

colleagues depended on the level of support, needs, and interests of the teacher(s)

and school. Ary, et al (2010:512) also argued that action research has been used in

a variety of settings, including schools, hospitals, health clinics, community

agencies, government units, and other environments. It could be used to enhance

everyday work practices, to resolve specific problems, and to develop special

projects and programs.

21

Emily Calhoun in Hewitt and Little described three approaches to action

research: individual teacher research, collaborative action research, and school-

wide action research. Eventhough the environments are different, the process of

action research remains the same. This process uses data to identify

classroom/school problems, creates and implements a plan of action, collects and

analyzes data, uses and shares the results, and makes instructional decisions to

improve students learning continuously (2005:3).

According to Hewitt and little, the action research process involved four

phases; Identifying a classroom problem, developing and implementing an action

research plan, collecting and analyzing data, using and sharing results (2005:2).

Another expert such as Kurt Lewin stated that the concept of Action Research

design contained of four components; Planning, Acting, Observing and Reflecting

(Kusumah and Dwitagama, 2009:20). But actually, both designs above were

generally same in their action.

From those explanations, it could be concluded that the meaning of

classroom action research was a kind of educational research that aimed to

increase teaching and learning through problem solving. It tempted to answer

questions related to some aspects of educational practice. Here the teacher could

reflect on what they have discovered and then apply it to their professional

practice.

3.3 Research Procedure

Classroom Action Research in this study took two cycles (Cycle I and

Cycle II) which every cycle had two sessions. Those two sessions consisted of

four activities which had bounding in every activity and they were named:

22

Planning (P), Action (A), Observation (O), and Reflection (R). However, in order

to measure the result of pre-existing speaking skill of eighth grade of SMPN I

Amlapura, researcher administered Initial Reflection (IR). The mean score of IR

would be compared to the corresponding mean score of R and at the end of each

session would show the degree of speaking skills improvement.

There were many kinds of the action researchs designs exist at

present. Those are Kurt Lewins design, Kemmis and McTaggarts design, Dave

Ebbut design, John Elliots design, McKernans design and many more. However,

here the researcher focused on Kurt Lewins design. He was the expert who

introduced the action research for the first time. His design became the host and

the main basic of other further action research especially classroom action

research. The concept of Kurt Lewins action research design contains four

components those are Planning, Acting, Observing and Reflecting (Kusumah and

Dwitagama, 2009:20) which could be showed completely below.

3.3.1 Planning

After making sure about the problem of the research, researcher made a

preparation before doing an action researcher. The kind of preparation could be

seen as follows:

(a) The steps and the activities during the research.

(b) Preparation for teaching facilities.

(c) Preparation for data analysis during the research process.

(d) Preparation for all research in order not to make a mistake during the research

such as alternative actions to solve the problem of the research.

23

3.3.2 Action

Doing an action research was the main cycle of action research. Then

was followed by observation, interpretation and also the reflective activities. A

researcher must be very careful in practicing the classroom research; he or she had

to follow the procedure or action planning during the research. Action reffered to

what the researcher really do in the classroom setting during the processes of

teaching speaking through chain drill technique which aimed was to solve the

problems found.

The teaching process started with pre-activities. The teacher as teacher

was greeting the students and checking their attendance list. Pre-activities were

intended to activate the subjects prior knowledge related to the topic which is

going to be discussed and practiced. The second phase was whilst-activities. In

this phase the researcher carried the main process of teaching speaking through

Chain Drill technique. Time allocation for these phase was about 40 minutes.

Firstly, teacher delivered some elicited questions about the topic that is going to

be learnt. Secondly, the researcher would explain briefly about the rules of chain

drill. Then students were given the descriptions topic. Thirdly, teacher or

researcher asked questions to the student nearest to her, and student respond

teachers questions. Then, he turned to ask another student sitting next to him.

This activity was continuously work until the last turn of the last student. The last

student directed greeting and asking questions to the teacher.

Last phase was post-activities. Teacher asked students difficulties in

learning speaking through chain drill technique. Teacher was also asking about

what they feel during learning process using chain drill technique. A chain drill

24

allowed some controlled communication among the students while teacher could

check students speech as well. Either teacher or students themselves could

correct their friends oral sentences whether they are well-constructed or not. As

the result, any mistakes that probably occur could be corrected directly as soon as

possible. Besides, the use of peer students correction will prevent students

worrying in making mistake that can improve their confidence to try.

3.3.3 Observation

In this step, a researcher had to observe all events or activities during the

research. The observation could be classified into three categories: (a) teachers

talk (b) pupils talk (3) silence or confusion.

Observation was a usual step when a researcher is observing or assessing

the decision of research during teaching learning process as the result of learning

interaction among the learners.

3.3.4 Reflection

A reflection was an effort to inspect what has or has not been done, what

has or has not been resulted after having an alternative action. The result of

reflection was used to establish the next steps of the research. In other words, a

reflection was the inspection effort on the success or the failure in reaching the

temporary purposes in order to determine the alternative steps that are probably

made to get the final goals of the research (Hopkins in Anggraeni, 2007:35)

After knowing the aims in conducting an action research, the teacher

used an action research when he or she finds some problems such as the students

have not achieved the target he/she expected during the teaching learning process.

25

As a teacher, he or she has to find out the problem and try to solve it. One way to

solve the problem was by conducting an action research. A teacher did a

classroom action research and it was conducted in the class, which involved all of

the students in the classroom. By doing an action research, teachers might give

contribution to her or other teachers as well as to students in general.

3.4 Research Instrument

To sustain the validity of the result, the researcher collected data derived

from several ways. Those ways were tests and questionnaire.

1. Test

In present study, the students were given tests that separated into two

tests (pre-test and post-test). The pre-test was administered in order to find out

students pre-existing speaking skill before the researcher conduct the reserch by

applying chain drill technique (X0). Furthermore, the post-test was administered

in the end of each session. There were two cycles (cycle 1 and cycle 2) in this step

where each cycle consist of two sessions. The last sessions of each cycle, post-test

1(X1) and post-test 2 (X2) would be administered in order to evaluate the

effectiveness of chain drill technique in teaching speaking with the material in

describing something or someone. Moreover, those tests were given because the

result would be easier to be quantified and analyzed by comparing the scores of

X0, X1 and X2. The scores of the tests were ranging, depends on the speakings

scoring rubric.

2. Questionnare

The questionnare was conducted to the eighth grade students of SMPN I

Amlapura after the completion of cycle II. It was done to get a clear picture of

26

students changes in their learning behaviour, their motivation, their achievement

when they were taught speaking using chain drill technique. The questionnaire

also let students to express their feeling about the teaching technique, chain drill

technique, which was applied in the speaking activity.

3.5 Data Collection

There were three kinds of instruments used to gather the data of this

classroom action study; pre-test, post-tests and questionnaire. Thus, the data that

was gathered through administering pre-test, post-tests and questionnaire to the

eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura, was required to answer the research

question that was stated before. The pre-test of IR was administered to the

subjects under study to obtain pre-existing speaking skill. In pre-test, the subjects

were asked to describe someone orally. Pre-test was used to measure the students

pre-existing speaking skill or before applying the chain drill technique in teaching

speaking.. Post-test or reflection is administered twice (first in cycle I and the

second was in cycle II). Furthermore, the questionnaire was administered at the

end of cycle II to figure out how far the changes in students learning behaviour,

their speaking achievement, their feeling and the new habit created in the

classroom after implementing chain drill technique in teaching speaking.

3.6 Data Analysis

Analysis means the categorizing, ordering, manipulating, and

summarizing of data obtain answers to research questions (Kerlinger in

Anggraeni, 2007:56). The purpose of analysis was to reduce data to be intelligible

and interpretable so that the relation of research problem could be studied. In

27

scoring the test, the students called out in turn and the researcher tested them by

asking the students to describe someone or something orally in front of the class.

In giving scores, the researcher followed rating scale developed by

H.Douglas Brown (Brown, 2003:172-173). It showed six items that were

important to be scored: Grammar, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Fluency,

Pronunciation, Task. While in this study, researcher did not give score on all items

showed but created the scoring rubric to be as simple as possible because the

students speaking ability was low. They only asked to construct the drilled

answers into a comprehension sentences orally with the material in describing

something or someone then perform it in front of the class.

Table: Oral Proficiency scoring categories

Point Comprehension Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Pronunciation

I Has very limited language experience

Errors in grammar

are frequent

Poor of

vocabularys repertory

Poor of

fluency

Errors in

pronunciation are

frequent

II Can get the gist of most conversation

of non-technical

subject

can usually handle

elementary

construction quite

accurately but

doesnt have confident control of

grammar

Lack of

vocabulary

repertory

Less of

fluency

Accent is

intelligible though

often quite faulty

III Comprehension is tolerable

Control of grammar

is tolerable

Tolerable of

vocabulary

repertory

Tolerable of

fluency

Error never

interfere with

understanding

IV Comprehension is quite good

Control of grammar

is quite good

Have pretty

many

vocabulary

repertory

Able to use

language quite

fluently

Error in

pronunciation are

quite rare

V Comprehension is good

Control of grammar

is good

Have a lot of

vocabulary

repertory

Able to use

language

fluently

error in

pronunciation are

disappear

28

The score was given by analyzing the students performance:

Maximum Score=25x4=100

The data was analyzed in percentage as follows:

Notes: M = Mean score

= sum of the score

N = sum of the individuals

The mean score was used to evaluate the achievement of teaching

learning process by using chain drill technique whether it is effective to improve

students speaking skill or not; besides, the changes of students behaviour,

students achievement and students enthusiasm in speaking activity.

3.7 Success Indicator

The researcher infered that based on the curriculum that is used in SMPN

I Amlapura, the Standard Minimum Achievement is 77. Therefore, this research

will regarded to be successful if the 80% of the researchs subjects under study

can pass the minimum score which has been stated above.

M =N

fx

29

CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Finding

The finding of the data that have been collected through the present

classroom action study of the VIII B students at SMPN I Amlapura in academic

year 2013/2014 would be presented in this chapter. The data was collected by

three kinds of instrument, they were pre-test, post-test, and questionnaire. Thus,

the data was required to answer the research question which gathered by

administering pre-test, post-test and questionnaire. Pre-test or IR was

administered to obtain their pre existing ability in speaking. In pre-test the

subjects were asked to describe their friend who was sitting next to them and then

performed their descriptions infront of the class. It was done in order to know the

subjects speaking ability before the technique was applied. Post-test or R was

administered twice, the last sessions of cycle I and cycle II. The post test was

given in order to know the improvement of students ability in speaking after

taught by using Chain Drill Technique. Therefore, there were three sets of raw

score showing the subjects improvement in speaking. They were pre-test score

and post-test score for each cycle (IR, R1, R2). The three sets of scores which

were collected could be seen as follows:

4.1.1 Pre-Cycle

Pre-cycle or pre-test was conducted before the researcher taught speaking

by using chain drill technique to the subject under the study. It was used in order

to know the speaking ability of the subjects under study before the technique was

30

applied. It was given before the Cycle I begun. This score could be computed in

the initial reflection, the subjects or the students described their friend who was

sitting next to them and then perform their description in front of the class orally.

All of the students followed the Initial Reflection. The scores of pre-test (IR) were

collected from 35 subjects under study. The total score of IR was 1852 and the

mean score was 52.91. In IR, only 2,85 % of the subjects under study reached the

Standart Minimum Achivement score. The details of the scoring rubric could be

seen in the Appendix 4. The mean score of IR and the percentage of students who

reached the Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) were computed by using the

formula below:

Mean Score of IR =

=

= 52.91

Percentage of students who reached KKM = sum of the students who reached KKM

sum of all studentsx 100%

=

x 100% = 2.85%

4.1.2 Cycle I

In this cycle the researcher carried out the main process of teaching

speaking by using chain drill technique. This cycle consisted of two sessions. In

the first session the researcher taught speaking by using chain drill technique with

the topic about describing bestfriend. Students directly involved in teaching-

learning process where the students in chain were drilled questions based on the

topic given and answered the questions by their own orally. The chain continued

after all students got a chance to give and answer the drilled questions. After that,

31

students were asked to arrange their answers into a good descriptions about their

bestfriend and perform it orally in front of the class.

Second session started with a new topic in describing someone, where in

the first session they were asked to describe their bestfriend but in the second

session they were asked to describe their family. Chain drill started from the

researcher who proposed drilled questions to the student nearest to her. First

student responded the researchers questions then continued to ask a friend who

was sitting beside her with the same drilled questions which were related with the

topic given. This chain continued after all students got a chance to give and

answer the drilled questions. After that, students arranged their answers to be a

good descriptions about their family and described it in front of the class orally. In

this session, the researcher administered the post-test I (R1). The post-test I was

used as feedback to carry out the revision to solve the students weaknesses which

would be done in cycle II. The total score of post-test 1 was 2460 and the mean

was 70.28. In post-test 1, the computation showed that 20% of the subjects under

study reached the standard minimum achievement. The details of the scoring

rubric could be seen in the appendix 4. The mean score of R1 and the percentage

of students who reached the Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) were

computed by using the formula below:

Mean score of R1 =

=

= 70.28



=

x 100% = 20%

32

4.1.3 Cycle II

Cycle II was similar as Cycle I, the researcher taught speaking by using

chain drill technique with the same material about describing someone/

something. Actually, the difference was in the topic given. In this cycle,

researcher gave students the material about describing things. In the first session,

researcher proposed a topic entitled Describe your favourite fruit and asked

students to perform it in front of the class orally. Chain drill technique was done

in this session by proposing some questions which related with the topic given.

After all students got a chance to give and answer the drilled questions, they were

asked to arrange the descriptions and then describe their favourite fruit in front of

the class orally.

In the second session, researcher proposed different topic where in this

session students were given description topic entitled Describe your favourite

food. Teaching speaking by using chain drill technique was done here but a bit

different with the first session where in this session, researcher fixed students

mistakes directly while applying the chain drill technique because so much miss-

pronounciation while pronouncing some words. After all students got a chance to

give and answer the drilled questions, they were asked to arrange their answers

into a good descriptions and then decribe their favourite food in front of the class

orally. The scores of Cycle II were excellent even some students were still got

problem in arranging sentences to be a good descriptions about their favourite

food and got problem too in speaking their mind in front of the class. The total

score of R2 was 2824 and the mean was 80.68. In post-test 2, the computation of

the scores showed that 80% of the subjects under the study reached the standard

33

minimum achievement which meant that this research was successful and

regarded to be stopped. The details of the scoring rubric could be seen in the

appendix 4. The mean score of R2 and the percentage of students who reached the

Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) were computed by using the formula

below:

Mean score of R2 =

=

= 80.68



=

x 100% = 80%

The students scores were increased compared with the pre-cycle, cycle 1

and cycle 2 scores which meant that there was an improvement of the students

achievement in speaking after chain drill technique was applied. The summary of

the data analysis were made in order to make the reader easier in understanding

and learning the data collected. The summary of data analysis from the Initial

Reflection, Cycle I and Cycle II could be seen below:

Table 4.1 Tabulation of Data Showing the Subjects Progressing Score in

Speaking After the Implementation of Chain Drill Technique

Subjects Pre-Cycle (X0) Post-Test 1(X1) Post-Test 2 (X2)

S1 48 72 80

S2 48 72 80

S3 44 72 80

S4 64 64 80

S5 40 64 72

S6 40 64 68

S7 44 64 72

34

4.1.4 Questionnaire

As mentioned previously, there were some findings about students

changing behaviour and motivation. Questionnaire was given at the end of cycle 2

in order to collect the data about students feeling about learning English

especially in the speaking activity by using chain drill technique. Questionnaire

S8 56 64 80

S9 52 64 80

S10 48 64 80

S11 48 68 80

S12 60 80 80

S13 80 92 96

S14 60 72 76

S15 52 72 80

S16 40 68 80

S17 40 68 80

S18 56 68 80

S19 44 64 80

S20 52 64 60

S21 52 64 72

S22 44 64 72

S23 44 64 84

S24 48 68 80

S25 52 64 80

S26 64 80 80

S27 44 64 80

S28 52 68 84

S29 72 84 96

S30 64 80 84

S31 48 68 80

S32 48 68 92

S33 64 80 84

S34 64 72 96

S35 76 84 96

Total 1852 2460 2824

Mean 52.91 70.28 80.68

35

was made in Indonesian Language and the students answered the questionnaire

based on their own feeling. The data obtained from the questionnaire was

computed and discussed in this present classroom action study. The detail of the

scores could be seen in the appendix 4.

The computation of the comparative percentages for the scores of the

items of the questionnaire showing the subjects total responses for the item of A,

B, C and D was showed as follows:

1. The percentage of item A = 321 x 100% = 43.38 % 740

2. The percentage of item B = 356 x 100% = 48.11% 740

3. The percentage of item C = 63 x 100% = 8.51 % 740

4. The percentage of item D = 0 x 100% = 0 % 740

The result of the analysis of the questionnaire scores showed the

comparative percentage of item A was 43.38%, item B was 48.11%, item C was

8.51% and item D was 0%. These findings clearly supported the main finding of

the present study.

The findings of the present action study in table 4.1 clearly showed that

the mean of pre-test scores (X0) obtained by the eighth grade students of SMPN I

Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 was 52.91. The grand means obtained by

the subjects under study for both cycle I (X1) and cycle II (X2) which showed

grand figure 70.28 and 80.68 were higher than corresponding pre-test mean score.

36

To make it clear, the rising comparative mean figures of the pre-test (IR)

score and post-test (R) scores obtained by the eighth grade students of SMPN 1

Amlapura for cycle I and cycle II could be presented on the graph below:

Graph 4.1 Depicting the Subjects Progressing Achievement in Speaking by

Using Chain Drill Technique in Pre-cycle, Cycle I and Cycle II

4.2 Discussion

The data analysis which established the findings of this classroom action

study showed that the mean of the pre-test (IR) obtained by the subjects under

study in speaking activity was 52.91. This mean figure of IR clearly showed that

the ability of the subjects under study was definitely low because the Standard

Minimum Achievement of the English subject in SMPN 1 Amlapura was 77.

The result of the data analysis of the post-test score in cycle I showed the

progress mean figure to 70.28. The mean figure obtained by the subjects in cycle I

was clearly much higher than the mean score of IR. The mean score of cycle I

showed the obvious improvement of the students ability in speaking. The

progress in cycle 1 was the result of the revision after the IR data was collected.

52,91

70,28

80,68

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

IR R1 R2

37

The result of the data analysis of the post-test scores in cycle II showed

the progress mean figure to 80.68. The mean figure obtained by the subjects in

cycle II was clearly much higher than the mean score of IR. There was a

significant difference between mean figure of cycle I and mean figure of cycle II.

This result was awesome. Students said that it was easier to construct the

sentences by using drilled questions. It was logical if the grand mean of the

reflection score in cycle II was higher than cycle I.

The questionnaire percentage figures of the total response of the

questionnaire for item A, B, C, and D were 43.38%, 48.11%, 8.51%, and 0%. This

figures showed the changing of subjects positive learning behavior in speaking

by using chain drill technique.

Students speaking skill changed progressively since the chain drill

technique was applied. Thus, the speaking skill of the eighth grade students of

SMPN 1 Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 improved significantly by using

chain drill technique.

38

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

In this chapter, the researcher presented the conclusion and suggestions

based on the previous chapter. It clarified the result of the classroom action

research as the answer of the research question whether the speaking skill could

be improved or not by using chain drill technique at the eighth grade students of

SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014.

5.1 Conclusion

The present classroom action study was conducted to help the students to

improve and develop their ability in describing something and someone orally.

The main data for the present classroom action study were gathered through

administering pre-test (IR) and post-tests (R1 and R2) to the subjects under study.

At the end of cycle II, questionnaire was administered in order to know the

changing of students learning behavior.

The grand mean of pre-test was 52.91. The grand mean of the pre-test

clearly pointed that the speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I

Amlapura was low, because the minimum score criterion which used by the

school was 77. The grand mean of the post-test score for cycle I was 70.28 and

80.68 for cycle II. The findings of the present classroom action study

convincingly revealed that teaching speaking by using chain drill technique could

effectively improve the low ability of class VIII Bs students of SMPN I

Amlapura in speaking activity. This prove was strengthened by the percentages of

the students achievement who reached the standard minimum achievement

39

scores from the pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2 which were awesome. The

students percentage who reached the Standart Minimum Achievement (KKM)

was 2.85% in pre-test while in post-test1 and post-test2 were increased, 20% and

80%. That was satisfactory result and regarded to be success.

Other instrument which was conducted to the subjects under study was a

set of questionnaire to measure their changing learning behavior such as

motivation, behavior, enthusiasm and their confidence during learning speaking

by using chain drill technique. The result of the analysis in questionnaire clearly

showed comparatively figures of each item. Item A was positively responded by

43.38 % of students, item B was 48.11 %, item C was 8.51 %, instead no one of

the students choosed item D. These findings of the present action study proved the

hypothesis of the study that the problems faced by the eighth grade students of

SMPN I Amlapura could be satisfactory overcome through teaching speaking by

using Chain Drill Technique. It could be concluded that Chain Drill Technique

could improve speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in

academic year 2013/2014.

5.2 Suggestion

Based on the result of the study the researcher would like to suggest the

teacher and students of SMPN I Amlapura and for the further researchers. First,

the English teachers of the eighth grade students are suggested to teach speaking

by implementing chain drill technique in order to make the students interested in

learning and became accustomed in speaking their mind. The finding showed that

students were interested with chain drill technique in speaking activity. Students

confidence and speaking ability were also increased while chain drill technique

40

was applied in teaching speaking. Teachers must burn past habit, where native

language dominated the speaking activity, and create a new habit in the classroom

in order to make students become accustomed in using English for

communication. Chain drill technique was one of many teaching techniques in

teaching speaking which able to make the lesson became interesting and

challenging. The English teachers were also suggested to motivate their students

to speak their idea orally, give more chances to the students to be more active and

asked them not to be afraid and shy in making mistakes. Moreover, fixing directly

when mistakes occured could be the best way in giving students a good model

which can motivate them to be better in the future. Giving a positive feedback to

the students progress also could motivate students and make them become more

confident and enthusiastic in speaking their idea.

The second suggestion was for the students. They were suggested to

motivate themselves to learn English more serious not only during the lesson in

the classroom but also outside the classroom as well. As the finding showed that

the students speaking ability was increase after chain drill technique was applied

which gave students more chances and practices to speak their idea

spontaneously. As we all know that practice would bring us to be better and more

practice would make us to be the best, so keep practicing and never be afraid and

shy in making mistake.

Thirdly was for the further researchers, the researcher expected that other

researchers would do better research related with teaching English by using Chain

Drill Technique. This teaching technique was a part or Audio Lingual method

which has various drill and repetition techniques that could be applied not only for

41

teaching speaking but also for teaching other skills and components. It was an

appropriate technique in teaching speaking based on the finding that students

scores, motivation, confidence and their speaking skill were improved after the

implementation of chain drill technique in teaching-learning process.

42

REFERENCES

Abinur, Siti Kurnia. (2011). Developing Students Ability in Simple Past Tense Through Chain Drills. Unpublished Thesis : Universitas Islam Negeri

Syarif Hidayatullah.

Anggraeni, Purwita. (2007). Audio-lingual Teaching as an Alternative Method in

Teaching Speaking. Unpublished Thesis : Semarang State University.

Ary, et al. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education. Canada: Nelson

Education, Ltd.

Brown, H. Douglas. (2003). Language Assessment Principles and Classroom

Practices. New York: Longman

Harmer, Jeremy. (2002). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:

Longman.

Harmer, Jeremy. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:

Pearson Education Limited

Hewitt, Ralph., and Mary Little. (2005). Leading Action Research in Schools.

Florida: University of Central Florida.

Hinkel, E. (2005). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and

Learning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Hornberger, N.H., and McKay Sandra L. (2010). Sociolinguistics and Language

Education. Great Britain: Short Run Press Ltd.

Kushartanti, et al. (2005). Pesona Bahasa; Langkah Awal Memahami Linguistics.

Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama

Kusumah, Wijaya., and Dedi Dwitagama. (2009). Mengenal Tindakan kelas.

Jakarta: PT. Indeks.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language

Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.

Merriam-Webster. (2003). Websters New Explorer College Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts: Federal Street Press.

Richards, J. (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to Practice.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

43

Thornbury, S. (2002). How to Teach Speaking. Edinburg Gate Harlow Essex

England: Pearson Education Limited.

Walter, Teresa. (2004). The How-To Handbook Teaching English Language

Learners. New York: Pearson Education

45

APPENDIX 1 : DAFTAR NAMA SISWA KELAS VIII B

NO NIS SUBJECTS INITIAL

1 13464 Ade Tri Sukadana Yasa S1

2 13465 Ade Wijayanti Ni Luh S2

3 13467 Adi Putra Wardana I Gede S3

4 13468 Agus Pratama I Gede S4

5 13469 Agus Satya Juniantara I Gede S5

6 13470 Agus Setiawan I Wayan S6

7 13471 Agus Tri Merta D I Komang S7

8 13473 Ardika Satya Pratama I Gede S8

9 13474 Ari Aditya I Putu S9

10 13478 Ayu Siwantari Kadek S10

11 13479 Cindy Mahartika Putri Ni Komang S11

12 13480 Dana Wahyu Fernanda I Komang S12

13 13484 Eka Wiranatha I Gede S13

14 13485 Nanditharta Deva I Gede S14

15 13486 Opi Widiantari Ni Kadek S15

16 13487 Paramadi Ida Bagus S16

17 13488 Raditya Manuaba Ida Bagus S17

18 13489 Raditya Yogi Suara I Gede S18

19 13490 Risma Juniantari Ni Kadek S19

20 13491 Singarsa Ida Bagus Gede S20

21 13492 Sri Komalawati Ni Made S21

22 13493 Sri Widiantari Kari Ni Kadek S22

23 13494 Suarnata I Wayan S23

24 13495 Tesya Eka Savitri Ni Putu S24

25 13496 Widiani Ida Ayu S25

26 13498 Yogi Hendrawan I Komang S26

27 13499 Yudha Sugiantara I Kadek S27

28 13473 Ayu Dwinita Juniari Ni Made S28

29 13471 Putu Adi Myarsithawan S29

30 13472 Aprilia Dwiantari Ni Kadek S30

31 13475 Putu Arianti Ni Luh S31

32 13476 Arya Dharma Putra I Gede S32

33 13477 Diah Puspita A Ni Kadek S33

34 13478 Dian Primantari Ni Putu S34

35 13479 Winda Apriyanti Ni Putu S35

46

APPENDIX 2 : LESSON PLAN CYCLE 1 & 2

LESSON PLAN CYCLE 1

School : SMP Negeri I Amlapura

Subject : Bahasa Inggris

Class/ Semester : VIII/ I

Skill : Speaking

Meeting : 1st and 2nd meeting

A. Standart Competence : Speaking

4. Expressing the meaning of short functional and

monolog texts orally, in the form of descriptive and

recount to interact with surrounding.

B. Basic Competence : 4.2. Expressing the meaning of simple short monolog

in oral accurately, fluently and acceptable to interact

with surroundings in the form of descriptive

C. Indicator : 1. Doing a short monolog in the form of descriptive

D. Learning Objective : 1. When the students are given the topic; Describe

your bestfriend, they can describe about their

bestfriend orally

2. When the students are given the topic about family,

they can describe their family members orally

E. Expected Characters : Communicative, confidence, brave

F. Time allocation : 4x40 menit

G. Learning Material : Descriptive Text

A descriptive text is a text that describes the feature of someone,

something or a certain place.

The generic structure of a descriptive text:

- Identification is the part of the paragraph that introduces the thing.

- Description is the part of the paragraph that describes the thing.

H. Technique : Chain Drill Technique

47

I. Learning Activities :

First Meeting

Pre Activities ( 9 minutes) Time X

1. Greeting the students

2. Checking the students attendance

3. Motivating the students and describing the

material which is going to be learnt generally

4. Stating the learning objective to be achieved

1

4

2

2

Whilst Activities ( 70 minutes)

Exploration

5. Proposing some rules about the teaching technique

that is going to be applied

Elaboration

6. Proposing a topic, bestfriend.

7. Stating questions which are related with the topic,

to the student nearest to the teacher, and the 1st

student answer the questions given

8. 1st Student continue to give questions to the

student nearest to him/ her and the 2nd student

answer the questions

9. Continuing the chain drill until all students get a

chance to give and answer the questions.

10. Asking students to arrange the questions-answers

into a good sentences of describing about

bestfriend and asking some students to perform it

infront of the class orally.

11. Checking students error and giving suggestions

for the next performance

4

62

2

48

Confirmation

12. Confirming the key concept of the lesson by

pointing out the informations in describing

something

2

Post-Activities ( 1 minutes)

13. Giving a new descriptive topic for the next

meeting

14. Ending the session

1

2nd Meeting

Pre Activities ( 9 minutes) Time X

1. Greeting the students

2. Checking the students attendance

3. Motivating the students and describing the

material which is going to be learnt generally

4. Stating the learning objective to be achieved

1

4

2

2

Whilst Activities ( 69 minutes)

Exploration

5. Asking students about the next topic that was

given in the first meeting

Elaboration

6. Proposing a topic, family.

7. Teacher giving some questions which are related

with the topic in order to help the students arrange

their sentences in describing their family.

8. Students starting the chain drill based on the

questions that have been proposed and continuing

the chain drill untill all students get the chance to

ask and answer.

9. Asking students to describe about their family in

front of the class orally

4

60

49

10. Giving comment for all performance and giving

suggestions to be better in the future

Confirmation

11. Confirming the key concept of the lesson one

more time by pointing out the informations in

describing something

3

2

Post-Activities ( 2 minutes)

12. Ending the session

2

J. References

- Buku LKS Target kelas VIII semester 1

- Kamus

K. Assessment

Technique: Oral Test

Instrument: Performance

Instrument:

1. Make a simple description about your bestfriend in 5-7 sentences and

perform it in front of the class.

2. Make a simple description about your family in 5-7 sentences and perform

it in front of the class

Indicator Technique In Form of Instrument

1. Describe your

bestfriend

1. Orally --- ---

2. Describe your

family members

2. Orally

Scoring Rubric ---

50

LESSON PLAN CYCLE 2

School : SMP Negeri I Amlapura

Subject : Bahasa Inggris

Class/ Semester : VIII/ I

Skill : Speaking

Meeting : 1st and 2nd meeting

A. Standart Competence : Speaking

4. Expressing the meaning of short functional and

Documents

PDF Skripsi