THE USE OF CHORAL DRILL TECHNIQUE TO IMPROVE STUDENTS SPEAKING...

THE USE OF CHORAL DRILL TECHNIQUE

TO IMPROVE STUDENTS SPEAKING SKILLS

(An Experimental Study in Madrasah Tsanawiyah Assalafi

Susukan the Eighth Grade Students in the Academic Years

2016/2017)

A GRADUATING PAPER

Submitted to the Board of Examiners as a partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd.)

English Education Department of Teacher Training and Education

Faculty State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga

By:

DIMAS YUDHA YUWANDA 11310147

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY STATE INSTITUTE FOR ISLAMIC STUDIES (IAIN)

SALATIGA 2017

DECLARATION

In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious and Most Mercifull.

Hereby the writer fully declares that this Graduating Paper is made by the

writer and it is not containing materials writen or has been published by other

people except the information from references and also the writer is capable of

accounting for this Graduating Paper if in future this is can be proved of

containing other’s ideas, or in fact, the writer imitates the others’ graduating

paper.

In addition, the writer really hopes that this declaration can be

understood.

Salatiga, September 8th 2017

The Writer

Dimas Yudha Yuwanda 11310147

MOTTO

Lazy people unconsciously lose chance that is given by God whereas God never

creates something in vain.

“Mario Teguh”

Dedication

This study is dedicated for :

1. Allah SWT

2. Prophet Muhammad SAW

3. My Beloved Father, Mother, Wife, Daughter, Brothers, and also my beloved

sisters

4. My beloved aunt, uncle, and my big family

5. The students of TBI 2010, especially E Class 2010

6. All of my friends

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillahirabbil ‘alamin, thanks to Allah because the writer could

complete this research as one of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana

Pendidikan (S.Pd.) in English Education Department of Teacher Training and

Education Faculty at State Institute for Islamic Studies(IAIN) Salatiga in 2017.

This research would not have been completed without supports, guidance,

advice, and help from individual’s institution. Therefore, the writer would like to

express deep appreciation to:

1. Dr. Rahmat Hariyadi, M.Pd., the Rector of State Institute for Islamic Studies

(STAIN) Salatiga.

2. Suwardi, M.Pd.,the Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of

State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga.

3. Noor Malihah, Ph.D., the Head of the English Education Department

of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga.

4. Ari Setiawan, MM., the consultant of this research. Thank you for

suggestion and recommendation for this research from beginning until the

end.

5. All lecturers of English Education Department, the writer deeply thank you

all for your advice, knowledge, and kindness.

6. All of staffs who help the writer in processing the research administration.

7. All of the librarians who help the writer in finding the research references.

8. All of my friends TBI 2010, especially E, thank you for all the time.

9. All of you who I cannot mention one by one thank you for your support and

kindness.

Salatiga, September 8th 2017

The writer

Dimas Yudha Yuwanda

11310147

ABSTRACT

Yuwanda, Dimas Yudha. 2016. The Use of Choral Drill Technique to Improve the

Students’ Speaking Skills (an Experimental Study of the Eighth Grade Student of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017). A Graduating Paper, English Education Department, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, State Institute for Islamic Studies(IAIN) Salatiga.Consultant: Ari Setiawan, M.M.

Key words: Choral Drill, Speaking.

This study deals with The Use of Choral Drill Technique to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills (An Experimental Study of the Eighth Grade Student of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017). This research was done to answer the problems of study, namely (1) to find out the difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the speaking skill of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017, (2) to find out the significant difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the speaking skill of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017. The framework which is used in this research is quantitative research. The objects were Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017, and the analyzing data were students’ speaking skill that was taught by Choral Drill Technique. The numbers of sample were 53 students that were divided into 2 groups. The first group was experimental group and the second group was control group. The data tested using t-test formula by comparing the mean score of pre-test and post-test from both classes. The level of significance was set equalor less than 5%. The result of this study showed that t-value 8, 796 was higher than t-table 2, 059 with the degree of freedom (df) of 25. Therefore, it could be concluded that there was significant difference of T-test between students taught by lecturing and students taught by Choral Drill Technique. Since t-value was higher than t-table, it meant that null hypothesis was rejected and alternative hypothesis was accepted. Thus, it could be said that Choral Drill Technique improved students’ speaking skill in Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE ....................................................................................................................... i

DECLARATION .................................................................................................... ii

ATTENTIVE COUNSELOR NOTES ................................................................... iii

STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION.....………………………………….……..iv

MOTTO ................................................................................................................... v

DEDICATION ....................................................................................................... vi

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

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………....xi

TABLE OF CONTENT ........................................................................................... x

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study .............................................................................. 1

B. Statements of the Problem ............................................................................ 4

C. Objectives of the Study ................................................................................ 4

D. Limitation of the Study ................................................................................ 5

E. Benefit of the Research................................................................................. 5

F. Hypothesis .................................................................................................... 6

G. Review of Previous Study ............................................................................ 7

H. Clarification of Key Terms .......................................................................... 8

I. Graduating Paper Organization ..................................................................... 9

CHAPTER II: THEORITICAL REVIEW

A. Speaking …………………………………………………………………11

1. The Notion of Speaking ……….…………………………………….11

2. Element of Speaking ……………………………………………….13

3. Classroom Speaking Activity.............................................................15

B. Drill......................……………………………………………………….21

1. Definition………………………………………………………….....21

2. Kinds of Drill………………………………………………………...22

3. Choral Drill………...………………………………………………...25

4. Advantages and Weaknesses………………………………………...26

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Place of the Research..…………………………………………………...27

B. Schedule of the Research...………………………………………………31

C. Research Methodology...…………………………………………………32

1. Type of Research………...…………………………………………...32

2. Population………………………………………………………........33

3. Sample……………………………………………………….............34

4. Data Source………………………………………………………......36

5. Technique of Data Collection………………………………………..36

6. Technique of Data Analysis.………………………………………...38

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

A. Difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the Speaking

Skills in the Second Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the

Academic Year of 2016/2017.......………………...........................……..41

1. Analysis of Pre Test.......………………….....……...................……..41

2. Analysis of Post Test.......………………….....…………....................53

B. Significant difference of T-test between students taught by Lecturing and

students taught by Choral Dril Technique in the eighth grade students of

MTs Assalafi Susukan in the academic year of 2016/2017

...................................………………….....………..…............................65

CHAPTER V : CLOSURE

A. Conclusions………………………………………………………………75

B. Suggestions……………………………………………………...……….78

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIXES

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Fluency …………………...…... 18

Table 2.2 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Pronunciation ……………........ 19

Table 2.3 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Vocabulary ………………….... 19

Table 2.4 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Grammar ……………………... 20

Table 2.5 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Comprehension …………..…... 20

Table 3.1 List of Subjectfor Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi

Susukan……………………….…......................................................... 30

Table 3.2 List of Lists of Teachers MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic

Year of 2016/2017….……………….…..............................................….31

Table 3.3 Schedule of the Research ………………………………....…………..32

Table 3.4 List of Control Class and Experimental Class.………………………..35

Table 4.1 Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre – test (Control Class) …42

Table 4.2 Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test

(Control Class) …...…………………....………………………………...44

Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students’ Speaking

Skill in Fluency……………...…………....…………………………….. 45


Skill in Pronunciation…………………………………………………45


Skill in Vocabulary…………………………....….……………...………46


Skill in Grammar…………………………….……………..........……47


Skill in Comprehension……………...……….………………....…… 47

Table 4.8 Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre – Test

(Experimental Class)…………...………………….....…………………..48

Table 4.9 Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in

Pre – Test (Experimental Class) …...………………....………………….49


Skill in Fluency…………………….....…………..…………....…… 50


Skill in Pronunciation…………………..…..……….……….....…… 51


Skill in Vocabulary……………………………………….……...… 51


Skill in Grammar………………….……………………………….. 52


Skill in Comprehension…………………………………….....…… 53

Table 4.15 Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Post – test (Control Class)..53

Table 4.16 Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Post-Test

(Control Class) ……………………………………………......…………55


Skill in Fluency………………………………………….…..............56


Skill in Pronunciation……………………………………………… 56


Skill in Vocabulary…………………………………………...........…… 57


Skill in Grammar…………………….…………………......……....…… 58


Skill in Comprehension……………….……………………….......….… 58

Table 4.22 Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Post – test

(Experimental Group) …………………….………………….…......…...59

Table 4.23 Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in

Post-Test (Experimental Group) ... ……….……………….…......……...61


Skill in Fluency………………………………………………..….......… 61


Skill in Pronunciation…………….………………………………… ......62


Skill in Vocabulary…………………….……………………………...... 63


Skill in Grammar……………….………………………………...…...... 63


Skill in Comprehension……………………………….……………........ 64

Table 4.29 Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and

Post-Test (Experimental Class) ……………………….........…...……….65

Table 4.30 The Score of Students’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and

Post-test (Control Class)……….………………………......…...….…….66

Table 4.31 Result of Calculating Research ……………………………………...73

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of Study

Nowadays Indonesia becomes one of the country in the world that is

nearly using English in many aspect of life. English plays an important role in

this era because English is one of the international languages. English as one

of the international language should be mastered by people from many

countries that use English as second language or international language for

them. Especially in Indonesia, English is taught from elementary school up to

college.

As a subject in the learning, English has four basic language skill to be

mastered. They are listening, writing, reading and speaking. Acording to

Scrivener (1994: 20) as cited by Sartika (2014) basically, there are four skills

in language learning they are listening, speaking, reading and writing.

Listening and reading are called ‘receptive skills’ (the reader or listener

receives information but does not produce it). Speaking and writing, on the

other hand, are the productive skills.

In this study the writer focused on one of language skills, that is

Speaking skill. It is a part of the productive skill. It is very important to learn

speaking because we need to practice it in our educational environment,

especially in English lesson. Speaking skill is one of skills that should be

mastered by the students in the school. Teaching English speaking is the

process of giving the lesson from the teacher to the students based on the

material from the syllabus of the certain school, in order to the students able

to communicate by using English orally. There are some components that

have to be considered by the teacher in teaching English speaking, they are

vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, etc.

Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a language skill that is

developed in child life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that

period speaking skill is learned.As a productive skill, speaking is the most

difficult one to be mastered. The speakers must enrich their words and try

new words to communicate with other people. In addition, the most people

think that speaking is the most difficult part in foreign language because it is

usage sense involves the manifestation either of the phonological system of

the language.

Most people seem has difficulty to mastering speaking skill

successfully. There are so many factors, such as they never practice to speak

English with their friends, afraid to make the mistakes, or afraid to be

laughed by others and do not feel confident, or sometime they do not know

how to express in suitable vocabulary and many of them are nervous.

The problem above also faced by the students of MTs Assalafi

Susukan. For this reason, teacher should be creative in teaching especially

speaking skill. The teacher has to use the suitable technique that encourage

students to take part actively in the class because in the learning

processes have to involve not only teacher and students, but also the students

and students. On other hand, the teacher must give the motivation to the

students and create the most effective way to stimulate them, so they will be

interested in practicing their speaking and they can solve their problems.

Using the certain technique to stimulate students to practice their

speaking becomes a good strategy to supportthem in achieving skill including

English skill. In here, teacher have to teach the material by using good

method, good technique and organize teaching-learning process well.

Soteaching-learning process able to run well too because the teaching failures

is caused by unsuitable method or technique.

There are many methods or tehcniques to make the activity in teaching

speaking in the classroom more fun. One of them is Choral Drill tehcnique. It

can be applied in teaching speaking because Choral Drill tehcnique is parts of

potential activities that students can be active to show their ability. With a

large group, choral drilling can work quite well. In its most basic form, choral

drilling involves you giving an oral model of a word or phrase and the whole

class repeating it. Choral drilling can be quite a lot of fun, and it can make

some bits of language more memorable (Clandfield and Tennant, 2016).

From the discussion above, the writer tries to find the effective solution

to improve the speaking skill of the student of MTs Assalafi Susukan. The

tehcnique that will be used by the writer is Choral Drill. The objective in this

skill activity is developing students’ competence in learning speaking skill.

Through this activity, the students have the opportunity to develop their

imagination and speak up without considering a set of pattern. The reason

why this study focused on the use of choral drill in learning English because

this technique can give the students new atmosphere in the teaching-learning

process.

Based on the explanation above the writer is interested in makes

Experimental study entitled “The Use of Choral Drill Technique to

Improve Students Speaking Skills (An Experimental Study in MTs

Assalafi Susukan the Eighth Grade Student in the Academic Year

2016/2017)”.

B. Statements of the Problem

Based on the backgrounds discussed above, the writer proposes the

problems as follow:

1. How is the difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the

speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in

the Academic Year of 2016/2017?

2. How is the significant difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill

Techniques to the speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs

Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017?

C. Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study can be stated as related with the problems’

statement. Therefore the objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To find out the difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to

the speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi

Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017.

2. To find out the significant difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill

Techniques to the speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs

Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017.

D. Limitation of the Study

The writer limits the problem on the implementation of Choral Drill

technique in improving students’ speaking skill in the Eighth Grade Students

of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017 because this

study is focused on the improving students’speaking skill. This research only

focuse on the use of Choral Drill technique in teaching speaking and its

effectiveness toward students’ speaking skill.

E. Benefits of the Study

The result of this study is expected to give useful and worthwhile

information for the students, educators, English teachers and English

academicians. The benefits of this study are:

1. Theoretically

a. the result of the research can contribute useful information for the

future classroom research with the similar problem of speaking skill

improvement.

2. Practically

a. For the writer

This study can help the writer to find out the best method for

teaching speaking in English lesson.

b. For the students

This study can increase the students’ interest in English learning,

so it can help them to speak and learn English well.

c. For the English Teacher

This study can give additional contribution to English teachers to

develop language teaching method. The teachers also able to improve

the quality of teaching learning process.

d. For the Institution

The result of this study can give the contribution to the

institution to develop the English language curriculum appropriate

with the students’ need.

F. Hypothesis

Kasiram (2010: 252) stated that hypothesis is temporary assumption

that the researcher used to determine the purpose of his/her research. It

describes in concrete terms what you expect will happen in your study.

In this research, the writer puts a hypothesis that “Choral Drill

technique can improve students’ speaking skill in the Eighth Grade Students

of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017.

G. Review of Previous Study

In order to help the writer conduct and to determine the originality of

this study, the writer takes some previous studies. The previous studies have

their own characteristic and specification on the object of the research.

The first study is conducted by Budiartiningsih Apriliani graduated

from State Institute for Islamic Studies (STAIN) of Salatiga 2013. She wrote

The Use of Role-Play to Improve Speaking Skill of Xf Class of SMK PGRI 2

Salatiga in the Academic Year 2012/2013.The aim of this research is to study

about how to role play can improve speaking skill (a classroom action

research of the XF Class of SMK PGRI 2 SALATIGA in the academic year

of 2012/2013). The methodology of this study is classroom action research.

She found that the students involved actively in teaching learning processes,

they are more enthusiastic and were confident to speak English than before.

The result of this research is, there is an improvement of students’ speaking

comprehension by using “role-play” method.

The second study is conducted by Erna Wahyuningsih graduated from

State Institute for Islamic Studies (STAIN) of Salatiga 2012. She wrote The

Application of Drill Method to Improve Students’ Pronunciation Skill in

Reading Text (A Classroom Action Research in the First Year of SMA

Muhammadiyah Gubug Purwodadi in Academic Year of 2011/2012). The

objectives of her research are the students of SMA Muhammadiyah Gubug in

the first year of academic year 2011/2012. The problem of this research is the

students’pronunciation. This study was done in two cycles in CAR

(Classroom Action Research), each of which consisted of planning, action,

observation and reflection. She collected the data using test, recording

technique, observation and documentation. She analyzed the data by

statistical technique to find the mean of students’ score and counting

percentage of the students’pronunciation skill through reading the dialogue or

pronounce the words. From the founding and data analyze she concluded that

drill method can improve students’ pronunciation skill of the first year in

SMA Muhammadiyah Gubug in the academic year of 2011/2012.

Meanwhile the present study is dealing with the Choral Drill

technique in teaching English speaking. This study is conducting in order to

know the effectiveness of the implementation Choral Drill Technique toward

the students’ speaking skill in the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi

Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017. This study is experimental

research. This study is conducted in order to know whether Choral Drill and

Role Plays Technique which is applied in experimental group is better than

discussion technique which is applied in control group.

H. Clarification of Key Terms

There are some key terms in this study. The writer wants to clarify the

meaning briefly to avoid the mistakes. Some key terms are defined as

describe below:

1. Choral Drill

Drill is a method of teaching technique used for practicing sound

or sentence partners concerned with the fixation of specific association for

automatic recall (Ayoellgin, 2009). The final goal is a more or less

effortless exchange of ideas in real – life conversation. The “Drill” is here

refers to the “Response drill” in teaching grammar.

In its most basic form, choral drilling involves you giving an oral

model of a word or phrase and the whole class repeating it.Choral drilling

can be quite a lot of fun, and it can make some bits of language more

memorable and can work quite well (Clandfield &Tennant).

2. Speaking

Hornby (1990:1227) defines speaking is make use of

words in an ordinary voice.

I. Graduating Paper Organization

This graduating paper consists of five chapters. Each chapter

discusses as follow:

Chapter I is the introduction. It contains Background of the

Study,Statement of the Problems, Objectives of the Study, Limitation of the

Problems, Benefits of the Research, Hypothesis, Definition of Key Terms,

Review of Previous Studies, Outline of the Graduating Paper. Chapter II is

theoretical framework. This chapter discovers the theory which is used by the

writer. It contains Choral Drill Technique and the Definition of Speaking.

Chapter III is the Research Methodology. It deals with General Information

of MTs Assalafi Susukan, Research Methodology, Research Object, Data

Sources, Technique of Data Collection, and Technique of Data Analysis.

Chapter IV presents the Data Analysis which be collected. The writer

presents the data and the result of the pre-test and post-tests both from

experimental and control group. Chapter V is closure. It contains Conclusion

and Suggestion. The last part is References and Appendixes.

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter discover the definitions and theories which are related to the

variables of this study that used by the writer. It contains some materials, they are

the explaination of Speaking and the explanation of Drill. Each of them are

described in the following explaination.

A. Speaking

1. The Notion of Speaking

Speaking skill is the productive skill or usually called oral skill. It

becomes one of the language skills that important to be mastered by the

students in the school. Brown (2004: 140) 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. Speaking consist of producing

systematic verbal utterances to convey meaning between two people or

more. According to Kusnierek (2015, 76) for most people, the ability to

speak a foreign language is synonymous with knowing that language

because speech is for them the basic means of human communication.

As stated by Brown (2001: 34) language is a system for the

expression of meaning, primary function interaction and communication. In

communication and interaction, people need to express their meaning by

producing something to gain the listener understanding. Speaking allow

people to express what they see, feel and think through utterances.

Moreover, speaking described as an interactive process of constructing

meaning that involves producing, receiving and processing information

(Flores in Bailey, 2005: 2).

According to Brown, (2004: 141-142) there are five basic types of

speaking activity, they are:

a. Imitative

The ability to simply parrot back a word, phrase or possibility

a sentence.

b. Intensive

The production of short stretches of oral language designed to

demonstrate competence in a narrow band of grammatical, phrasal,

lexical, or phonological relationship.

c. Responsive

Responsive assessment tasks include interaction and test

comprehension but at the some what limited level of very short

conversation, standard greeting and small talk, simple requests and

comment, and the like.

d. Interactive

The difference between responsive and interactive speaking is in

the length and complexity of the interaction, which sometimes includes

multiple exchanges and/or multiple participants.

e. Extensive (monologue)

Extensive oral production tasks include speeches, oral presentation,

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

listeners is either highly limited (perhaps to nonverbal responses) or

ruled out altogether.

From the above definitions, the writer can conclude that speaking is

expressing ideas, opinions, or feelings to others by using wrods or sounds

of articulation in order to inform, to persuade, and to entertain. Speaking

seems to be one of the most difficult skills because it requires a great deal

of practice and also exposure.

2. Elements of Speaking

According to Harmer (2001: 269-271), there are two elements of

speaking, they are:

a. Language features

Among the elements necessary for spoken production (as opposed to

the production of practice examples in language drills, for example), are

the following:

1) Connected speech

Effective speakers of English need to be able not only to

produce the individual phonemes of English (as in saying I would

have gone) but also to use fluent “connected speech” (as in I’d’ve

gone). In connected speech sounds are modified (assimilation),

omitted (elision), added (linking r), or weakened (through

contractions and stress patterning).

2) Expressive devices

Native speakers of English change the pitch and stress of

particular parts of utterances, vary volume and speed, and show by

other physical and non-verbal (paralinguistic) means how they are

feeling (especially in face-to-face interaction). They allow the

extra expression of emotion and intensity.

3) Lexis and grammar

Spontaneous speech is marked by the use of a number of

common lexical phrases, especially in the performance of certain

language function.

4) Negotiation language

Effective speaking benefits from the negotiatory language

we use to seek clarification and to show the structure of what we

are saying.

b. Mental/social processing

If part of speaker’s productive ability involves the knowledge

of language skills such as those discussed above, success is also

dependent upon the rapid processing skills that talking necessitates.

(Harmer, 2001:270-271)

1) Language processing

Effective speakers need to be able to process language in

their own heads and put it into coherent order so that it comes out

in forms that are not only comprehensible, but also convey the

meanings that are intended. Language processing involves the

retrieval of words and phrases from memory and their assembly

into syntactically and propositionally appropriate sequences.

2) Interacting with others

Most speaking involves interaction with one or more

participants. This means that effective speaking also involves a

good deal of listening, an understanding of how the other

participants are feeling, and a knowledge of how linguistically to

take turns or allow others to do.

3) (On-the-spot) information processing

Quite apart from our response to other’s feelings, we also

need to be able to process the information they tell us the moment

we get it. The longer it takes for “the penny to drop” the less

effective we are as instant communicators.

3. Classroom Speaking Activity

According to Harmer (2001: 271-275), there are many of the

classroom activities which are currently used in teaching and learning

speaking. Those activities that mostly used are:

a. Acting from Script

It is speaking activity where the students are asked to act out

scene from plays and/or their course books or act out from dialogues

they have written themselves and this activity frequently involved them

in coming out to the front of the class or sometimes filming the result.

b. Communication Games

Games is one of speaking activities which can help to create

dynamic, motivating classes by providing relaxed atmosphere,

participate in activities that require them to use what they have been

drill on (Fauziati, 2005: 130). She mentions some games recommended

for speaking activities such as circle chat, games based on the

combination of incongruous ideas (incongruous ideas often produces

a humorous situation like silly answer, confessions, and crazy story),

and games of observation and memory.

c. Discussion

Group discussion may be composed of three to five students.

The main aim of group discussion is to improve fluency, and grammar

is probably best allowed to function as a naturally communicative

context (Fauziati, 2005: 134).

d. Prepared Talks

It is a popular kind of speaking activity where the students make a

presentation on a certain topic chosen by teacher or their own choice.

Prepared talks represent a defined and useful speaker genre, and if

properly organized, can be extremely interesting for the speaker and

listener (Harmer, 2001: 274).

e. Questionnaires

In this activity the students can design questionnaires on any

topic appropriate. As they do so the teacher can act as a resource,

helping them in the designing process. The resultsobtained from

questionnaires can be form the basis for written work, discussions,

or prepared talks (Harmer, 2001: 274).

f. Simulation and Role Play

Students “simulate” a real-life encounter as if they were doing so

in the real world. Simulation and role play can be used to encourage

general oral fluency, or to train students for specific situation (Harmer,

2001: 274). Furthermore, role -play is creating a dramatic situation in

a classroom, or in a part, simply acting out dialogues, but also in part

relabeling objects and people in the room prepare for imaginative role

playing (New- Mark in Fuziati, 2005: 127).

4. Teaching Speaking Skills

Speaking is the most important part of language learning. As a

productive skill, Speaking contributes the ability to communicate in the

target language fluently. For the language teachers, it is essential to pay

more attention in teaching speaking. Teaching speaking should give

students opportunity to produce something by giving more practice to

speak in the target language. Teachers have to provide an interactive

activity to encourage the students to speak actively.

There are many kinds of speaking class activities which can be

applied in the teaching process to improve the students’ speaking skill.

Those activities can give the great contribution toward students’ speaking

skill improvement, because it can help the students to develop their

ability. Moreover, scoring and measure the students’ speaking ability is not

easy to do. According to Brown (2001: 397), Oral production test, unlike

comprehensions, takes time, money and ingenuity to measure. The best

tests of oral proficiency involve a one-on-one tester/ test takes relationship,

live performance, a careful specification of tasks to be accomplished

during the test, and a scoring rubric that is truly descriptive of ability.

Brown (2001: 406-407) stated that there are five categorizes of oral

proficiency scoring, they are Flency, Pronunciation, Vocabulary,

Grammar, and Comprehension. They can be seen on the tables below:

Table 2.1 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories

Fluency

Score Category

1 No specific fluency description. Refer to other

four Language areas for implied level of fluency.

2 Can handle with confidence but not with facility

most social situations, including introductions and

casual conversations about current events, as well

as work, family and autobiographical information.

3 Can discuss particular interests of competence with reasonable ease. Rarely has to grope for words.

4 Able to use the language fluently on all levels

normally pertinent to professional needs. Can

participate in any conversation with a high degree

of fluency.

5 Has complete fluency in the language such that

his speech is fully accepted by educated native

speakers


Pronunciation

Score Category

1 Errors in pronunciation are frequent but can be understood by a native speaker used to dealing with foreigners attempting to speak his language

2 Accent is intelligible though often quite faulty.

3 Errors never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker. Accent may be obviously foreign.

4 Errors in pronunciation are quite rare.

5 Equivalent to and fully accepted by educated native speakers.


Vocabulary

Score Category

1 Speaking vocabulary inadequate to express anything but the most elementary needs.

2 Has speaking vocabulary sufficient to express himself simply with some circumlocutions.

3 Able to speak the language with sufficient vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social and professional topics. Vocabulary is broad enough that he rarely has to grope for a word.

4 Can understand and participate in any conversation within the range of his experience with a high degree of precision of vocabulary.

5 Speech on all level is sufficiently accepted by educated native speakers in all its features including breadth of vocabulary and idioms, colloquialisms, and pertinent cultural references.


Grammar

Score Category

1 Errors in grammar are frequent, but speaker can be understood by a native speaker used to dealing with foreigners attempting to speak his language.

2 Can usually handle elementary constructions quite accurately but does not have thorough or confident control of the grammar.

3 Control of grammar is good. Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social, and professional topics.

4 Able to use the language accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. Errors in grammar are quite rare.

5 Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker.


Comprehension

Score Category

1 Within the scope of his very limited language experience, can understand simple questions and statements if delivered with slowed speech, repetition, or paraphrase.

2 Can get the gist of most conversations of non-technical subjects (i.e., topics that requite no specialized knowledge).

3 Comprehension is quite complete at a normal rate of speech.

4 Can understand any conversation within the range of his experience.

5 Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker.

However, there are five components usually used to analyze speech

performance, they are grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, and

comprehension. The scoring also can include accuracy, articulation, eye

contact, expression, intonation and gesture of the speaker. The writer uses

those speaking scoring rubric to collect data.

B. Drills

1. Definition

Drill is a repeated operation or exercise intended to develop a skill or

an acquaintance with a procedure. It is used best to teach a skill and

memorization. Good teacher supervision is imperative. The main purpose

of drill is the actual doing and experiencing, which is one way

learning takes place (Sharon and Weldon, 1997: 29). Drilling is a technique

that has been used in foreign language classrooms for many years. It was a

key feature of audio-lingual method approaches to language teaching,

which placed emphasis on repeating structural patterns through oral

practice.

Drilling is a technique that is still used by many teachers when

introducing new language items to their students. A drill have two parts,

there are what the students hear (stimulus) and what they has to say

(response). A convenient pair of substitutes are input, refers to the

information supplied to the learner, weather orally or visually and outputto

what the learner has to produce himself (Allen and Campbell, 1972: 121).

From those theories above, the writer makes a conclusion that drilling

is a technique that used in teaching foreign language which emphasis on

repeating structural pattern through oral practice to demonstrate students’

ability in using specific language.

2. Kinds of Drill

According to Haycraft (1978: 36), after presentation and explanation

of the new structure, students may used controlled practice in saying useful

and correct sentence patterns in combination with appropriate vocabulary.

These patterns are known as oral drills. They can be inflexible: students

often seem to master a structure in drilling, but are then incapable of using

it in other contexts. Furthermore, drills have several types in form:

a. The Repetition Drill

The teacher says models (the word or phrases) and the students

repeat it. Example:

Teacher : It didn’t rain, so I needn’t have taken my umbrella

Students : It didn’t rain, so I needn’t have taken my umbrella

b. The Substitution Drill

Substitution drill can used to practice different structures or

vocabulary items (i. e one word or more word change during the drill)

Example:

Teacher : I go to school. He?

Students : He goes to school.

Teacher : They?

Students : They go to school.

c. The Question and Answer Drill

The teacher gives students practice with answering questions. The

students should answer the teacher’s questions very quickly. It is also

possible for the teacher to let the students practice to ask question as

well. This gives students practice with the question pattern. Example:

Teacher : Does he go to school? Yes?

Students : Yes, he does.

Teacher : No?

Students : No, he does not.

d. The Transformation Drill

The teacher gives students a certain kind of sentence pattern, an

affirmation sentence for example. Students are asked to transform this

sentence into a negative sentence. Other examples of transformations

to ask of students are changing a statement into a question, an active

sentence into a passive one, or direct speech into a reported speech.

Example: (positive into negative)

Teacher : I clean the house.

Students : I don’t clean the house.

Teacher : She sings a song.

Students : She doesn’t sing a song.

e. The Chain Drill

The teacher begins the chain by greeting a particular student, or

asking him a question. That student respond, then turns to the students

sitting next to him. The first student greets or asks a question of the

second student and the chain continues. A chain drill allows some

controlled communication, even though it is limited. A chain drill also

gives the teacher an opportunity to check each student’s speech.

Teacher : What is the color of sky?

The color of sky is blue

What the color of banana?

Student A : The color of banana is yellow

What is the color of leaf?

Student B : The color of leaf is green

What is the color of our eyes?

Student C : The color of our eyes is black and white.

f. The Expansion Drill

This drill is used when a long line dialog is giving students

trouble. The teacher breaks down the line into several parts. The

students repeat a part of the sentence, usually the last phrase of the

line. Then following the teacher’s cue, the students expand what they

are repeating part at the end of the sentence (and works backward from

there) to keep the intonation of the line as natural as possible. This also

directs more student attention to the end of the sentence, where new

information typically occurs.

Example:

Teacher : My mother is a doctor.

Students : My mother is a doctor

Teacher : She works in the hospital.

Students : She works in the hospital

Teacher : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital.

Students : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital

Teacher : She take cares the patient.

Students : She take cares the patient

Teacher : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital. She

take cares the patient

Students : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital. She

take cares the patient

3. Choral Drill

According to Clandfield & Tennant, with a large group, choral drilling

can work quite well. In its most basic form, choral drilling involves you

giving an oral model of a word or phrase and the whole class repeating it.

Choral drilling can be quite a lot of fun, and it can make some bits of

language more memorable.

Use choral drilling to practise new words or phrases, especially

phrases that will be useful in a future communicative activity. You can also

do choral drilling for dialogues (first you say and they repeat, then you say

one bit and they say the other, then they do it in two large groups) before

asking students to practice it in pairs together.

4. Advantages and Weaknesses

The advantages and the weaknesses of using Drilling Technique as

follow;

a. The Advantages of Drilling are:

Drilling help our learners memorise language by the teacher’s

control. And the teacher can correct any mistakes that students make

and encourage them to concrete on difficulties at the sometime.

b. The Weaknesses of Drilling

Drilling often make the students not vary creative. In all drills

learners have no or vary little choice over what is said so drills are

form of very controlled practice. The teacher needs to handle the drills,

so that the students are not over used and they don’t go on far too long.

One of the problems about drills is that they are fairly monotonous.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discovers the place, time and research methodology. The first

is about the place. It discusses the General information of MTs Assalafi Susukan,

Historical Background of MTs Assalafi Susukan, Vision and Mission, The

Situation of teaching and learning activities, and The Teachers of that school.

The second is about the time. It talks about when the preparation,

implemantation, analysis the data, and report the result of the research are

conducted by the writer.

The last of this chapter is describes about the research methodology. The

research methodology which is used consists of Type of the research, Population,

Sample, Data Sources, Technique of Data Collection and Technique of Data

Analyzes. The explanation of each point is discussed further into detail

explanation.

A. Place of the Research

This research is located at MTs Assalafi Susukan. The address is

on Jl. Klero-Suruh km. 05, RT. 18/05, Kenteng, Susukan Kab. Semarang.

1. General Information of MTs Assalafi Susukan

Mts Assalafi Susukan is one of the junior high school in

Susukan. The detail of this school is described as follows:

a. School Name : MTs Assalafi Susukan

b. School ID : 121233220008

c. School Type : B

d. School Address : Jl. Klero-Suruh km.05 Susukan

Semarang Reg. Central Java

e. Phone : (0285) 713162209

f. Email : [email protected]

g. School Status : Private School

2. Historical Background of MTs Assalafi Susukan

MTs Assalafi Susukan is one of the private schools which are

organized by an Islamic Educational Committee. There are two levels

of school in a scope; they are MTs Assalafi (Islamic Junior High

School), and SMA/SMK Wirakrama (Islamic Senior High School).

This school was built in 1994. Before it became a private

school, it was an Islamic boarding house with students from many

places. They got some Islamic knowledges such as Fiqh, Aqidah

Akhlaq, Alqur’an Hadis, Arabic, and several knowledges from Islamic

books.

Then, in 1994, the organizers of this boarding house had an

idea to develop it. They thought to create a school inside the boarding

house. So, they discussed this idea. Fortunately, all of them agreed

with this idea. Then, this change was managed soon and they could

begin trying to combine school and boarding house. Since that time,

mailto:[email protected]

those boarding house not only accepted the students whom to live in

there but also the students who want to get knowledge in formal

education or school.

3. Vision and Mission of MTs Assalafi Susukan

a. Vision

The vision of this school is “Actualizing of Islmic

generation, have an akhlaqul karimah, and exellent in achievment

(Terwudnya Generasi Islam yang Islami, Berakhlaqul Karimah dan

Unggul dalam Prestasi)”.

b. Mission

The missions of this school are:

Holding the quality education in reaching the academic and

nonacademic achievment.

Realizing the learning and habituation in learning Qur’an and

the establishment Islamic character.

Improving knowledge and professionalism of education

personel in accordance with the development of education.

Holding a madrasah governance that is effective, efficient, and

accountable.

4. Situation of MTs Assalafi

Teaching and learning process is started at 07.00 a.m. and

finish at 13.30 p.m. except on Friday the lesson ended at 11.00 a.m. It

is 40 minutes for one hour lesson and there are two break times at

09:40 - 09:55 and the second break at 11.55 - 12.10. As an Islamic

school, there are many subjects that should be learn by the students. In

total, there are 15 subjects in this school. The following table is the

lists of subjects taught in eighth grade students of MTs Assalafi

Susukan:

Table 3.1

The List of Subjects for Eighth Grade Students of MTs

Assalafi Susukan

No Subject 1. Mathematic 2. Indonesian 3. English 4. Javanese 5. Natural Science 6. IT 7. Art and Culture 8. Al Quran and Hadist 9. Fiqh 10. Akidah Akhlak 11. Arabic 12. History of Islamic Culture 13. Civic Education 14. Counseling 15. Social Science

5. The Teachers of MTs Assalafi Susukan

In this school there are 19 teachers. They teach different

subject. Those subjects divided into 15 subjects. The lists of teacher in

MTs Assalafi Susukan in the academic year of 2016/2017 can be seen

on the table 3.2 below:

Table 3.2

Lists of Teachers MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year

of 2016/2017

No. Name Subject

1. KH. M. Thoha, S.Pd Quran Hadis 2. Drs. Ahmad Hasuna Indonesian 3. Ahmad Jamsuki, S.Ag Fiqh 4. Dra. Dwi Astuti Social Science 5. Tamami, S.PdI Aqidah Akhlaq 6. Aminudin Asrori, S.Ag History of Islamic Culture 7. Syamsul Hadi, S.Ag Sport 8. Nur Istiqomah, S.PdI English 9. Nur Habib, S.Kom IT 10. Rini Fatmawati, S.Pd Mathematic 11. Abdul Nurkolis, S.Pd Javanese 12. Ngatiyatun, S.Pd Natural Science 13. Oktarina Sekti Cahyani, S.Pd Civic Education 14. Siti Zumaroh, S.PdI English 15. Siti Robiatun, S.Pd Art and Culture 16. Eva Yuliana, S.Pd Natural Scinence 17. Najib Syaifullah, S.PdI Arabic 18. Fathiyatul Mubayyinah, S.Pd Indonesian 19. Taufiq Riza Mathematic

B. Schedule of the Research

This research is conducted in MTs Assalafi Susukan in the

academic year of 2016/2017. There are some steps that the writer did to

conduct this research, they are preparation, implementation, analysis the

data, report the result of the research. Those steps described briefly in the

table 3.3:

Table 3.3

Schedule of the Research

Step Date and Time Activities

Preparation

January, 29th 2016 Proposal Draft Consultation

March, 21th 2016 Application for Research Permission

July, 18th 2016 Research Permission August, 1st 2016 observation

Implemantion/collecting

data

August, 8th 2016 07.00 – 08.20

Pre-Test and Teaching and Learning Proses

August, 9th 2016 07.00 – 08.20

Pre-Test and Teaching and Learning Proses using Choral Drill and Role Play Technique

August,11th 2016 07.00 – 08.20

Teaching and Learning Proses

August,11th 2016 09.40 – 11.15

Teaching and Learning Proses using Choral Drill and Role Play Technique

August, 15th 2016 07.00 – 08.20

Post-Test

August, 16th 2016 07.00 – 08.20

Post-Test

Analysis of Data

August, 21th 2016

Analysis the data that was collected

Research Report

September, 2016 Reporting the result of the research

C. Research Methodology

1. Type of Research

To conduct this research, the writer uses true experimental

research to find out the effectiveness of the implementation Choral

Drill toward students’ speaking skill. Dantes (2012: 96) states that

True Experimental Research is one of the experimental research

designs. The characteristics of this design is there is randomization ( R

), whether in the individual choosing as a subject, individual placing in

a group, or giving treatment toward group.

The true experimental research design applied in this research

is randomized control group pretest-posttest, in which the writer

chooses experiment and control group accurately through random

sampling technique, because of the limitation of the subjects. In this

experimental design, the writer evaluates the experimental class before

and after given a treatment. Meanwhile, the other class stand as control

class and isolated from the treatment. In other word, control class is

not given any treatment. The research is also categorized as an

experimental study since it attempts to give treatment to experimental

group and maintain control over all factors that may affect the result of

an experiment.

The framework used in this research is quantitative research.

It means the hypotheses of the research will be concluded through

various techniques such as: collecting, describing, and analyzing data

collected which are mostly on the form of numerical data. In other

words, the experimental research attempts to investigate the influence

of one or more variables to other variables (Syaodih, 2006: 57)

2. Population

Kasiram (2010: 257) argued that Population is defined as

overall object of research target. In line him, Arikunto (2002: 108) says

that population is all the individuals of that group.The population of

this research is the eighth grade students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in

the academic year of 2016/2017. There are 3 classes and each class

consists of 25 students.

3. Sample

According to Arikunto (2002: 109), sample is part of

population being researched. In addition, Hasan (2002:85) stated that

sample is the part of representative population which is investigated

and it should reflect the characteristics of the population.

The sample of this research is two classes in the eighth grade

students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the academic year of 2016/2017.

It chosen purposely using Random sampling. Random sampling is a

sampling technique that is used without any particular consideration.

The writer chooses two classes, the first class is experimental

class and the other is control class. The writer chooses 8-A class as the

control group and 8-B as the experimental group. Actually the writer

doesn’t know about the students’ speaking skill before. There are 27

students in 8-A class and 26 in 8-B Class. The experimental class is

given treatment using Choral Drill technique and the control class is

not given any treatment.

The data respondents in this research presented on the table 3.4

below:

Table 3.4

List of Control Class and Experimental Class

No.

Name

No.

Name

Control Class Experimental Class

1 A.A.Z. 1 A.D.S.

2 A.M. 2 D.D.A.

3 A.I.M. 3 F.A.S.C.

4 A.H. 4 F.R.

5 A.HU. 5 F.A.S.

6 D.S. 6 H.K.S.

7 F.G. 7 H.A.M.

8 I.S. 8 K.N.

9 M.I.M.A. 9 Klf.

10 M.G.A. 10 L.K.

11 M.M.A. 11 L.S.A.

12 M.R. 12 M.M.N

13 M.S.A. 13 M.A.K.N.

14 N.S.A. 14 M.I.

15 O.S.M. 15 M.G.

16 P.Y.L. 16 N.R.

17 R.C.F. 17 R.N.

18 S.M. 18 R.F.

19 S.K.F. 19 R.A.

20 S.I. 20 S.H.

21 S.M. 21 S.A.

22 S.C. 22 S.M.

23 S.P. 23 S.R.K.

24 T.A.R. 24 S.L.O.

25 U.I. 25 V.W.S.

26 U.A. 26 Z.N.A.

27 U.N.

4. Data Sources

Arikunto (2010: 172) described that data source is subject where

the data acquired. Moleong (1998) in Arikunto (2010:22) also states

that data sources of quantitative research are presented in spoken or

written accurately. The writer uses the data sources both from primary

and secondary data. The primary data sources of this research are taken

from students test during pre-test and post-test both from experimental

and control class. The secondary data of this research is taken from the

writer’s observation in the class while the research is conducted and

from other sources that suporting this research.

5. Technique of Data Collection

In order to get the data, the writer uses tests, documentation

and observation, each describes as follows:

a. Test

In order to collect the data, the writer gives tests which

consist of pre-test and post-test after the treatment.

1) Pre-test

Pre-test is given before the research is conducted. It is

given to both experimental group and control group. Pre-test is

administrated to know the students’ speaking ability overall.

2) Treatment

After giving pre-test, the experimental group is given

treatment by using Choral Drill Technique to teach speaking

meanwhile the control group is taught using discussion

technique.

3) Post-test

In the end, the writer gives post-test to both groups

experimental and control group. Post-test is administrated to

know whether there is significant difference before and after

the treatment.

b. Observation

The writer also observes the students while they are

studying in the class. The writer do this to help the writer in

analyzing the data. The writer observes the eighth grade students

of MTs Assalafi Susukan after the research permission accepted on

July, 18th 2016 until the research is conducted on August, 8th 2016.

It is intended to know how well they understand the material and

their speaking ability.

c. Documentation

The writer also uses documentation as the method of

collecting the data in this research. According to Arikunto

(2010:274) documentation is a method used to find the data

related, by using book, transcript, newspaper, magazine, ancient

inscription, notes of a meeting, agenda, etc. The documentation is

done by taking the picture while the writer taught the control and

experimental class. The writer also collects some documents by

asking the staff administration related to the school’s profile. It is

intended to collect the document related to the object and place of

this research.

6. Technique of Data Analysis

To analyze the result of the data from pre-test and post-test, the

writer uses the following steps:

a. Scoring the students’ test

In this step, the writer scores the result from the pre-test and

post-test from experimental group and control group. The writer

uses 1-5 point scale to measure the students’ oral speech.

b. Calculate the Result of the test

After scoring the students’ test, the writer calculated the

data using t-test to determine whether there is significant difference

before and after the treatment both from experimental and control

groups. If the mean improve, it is suggested that students’ speaking

skill also improve. The steps to calculate the data described as

follows:

1) Calculate the mean (M) from each group using the following

formula:

Mean = ��

�

2) Calculate the standard deviation from difference (SDD)

SDD = �∑��(∑�)�

�

∑D = X-Y

∑D2 = (X-Y)2

SDD = Standard deviation

X = Pre Test

Y = Post Test

N = Total of Respondents

3) Standard error of mean difference (SEMD)

SEMD = SD D

√N − 1

SEMD = Standard error of mean difference

SDD = Standard Deviation

N = Total of Respondents

4) t-value (to)

to = MD

SEMD

The formula of MD is as follow:

MD = ∑ D

N

Criteria of hypothesis accepted describes as follows:

�� ≥ �� = Reject Null hypothesis

��< �� = Receive Null Hypothesis

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the writer presented the data and the analysis from the

result of pre-test and post-test both from experimental and control groups the

eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Assalafi Susukan in the academic

year of 2016/2017. In previous chapter, it had been explained that result of this

research is analyzed in numeral form.

The writer collected the data from 53 respondents. They came from the

eighth grade students. They consisted of 27 respondents of control class who was

taught without technique and 26 respondents of experimental class who was

taught using Choral Drill technique. This chapter discovered the problems in

chapter I they are; the difference between of lecturing and Choral Drill technique

to the students’ speaking skill and the significant difference between of lecturing

and Choral Drill technique to the speaking skill.

To answer those questions, the writer made list of students’ names that

were taken and their score. Then, the writer clarified interval class, median, mean,

standard deviation and finally counted the percentage. In the next step, the writer

determined the table t-value for significant of the research.

A. Difference between of lecturing and Choral Drill technique to the

speaking skill in the Second Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in

the Academic Year of 2016/2017.

1. Analysis of Pre-test

Based on description in previous chapter, the researchers made

scores of the respondent in pre-test. The students’ score was counted using

the formula below;

Score = ��

�

By using the above formula the writer got the decimal numbers, so

the writer made decimal numbers become rounded number. If the decimal

point less than five then it will be lost, but if the decimal point more than

five then it will be 1 point. Example: 3.3 become 3; 3.6 become 4 and so

on.

Table 4.1 Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre – test

(Control Class)

R F P V G C Total Score

R1 2 2 2 2 2 10 2

R2 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R3 2 3 2 2 2 11 2

R4 1 2 2 2 1 8 2

R5 2 3 3 2 2 12 2

R6 2 2 3 2 2 11 2

R7 1 2 2 2 2 9 2

R8 2 2 2 3 3 12 2

R9 2 2 3 2 2 11 2

R10 1 2 2 2 1 8 2

R11 1 2 2 2 1 8 2

R12 2 2 2 3 3 12 2

R13 2 3 2 3 2 12 2

R14 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R15 2 2 3 3 3 13 3

R16 3 3 4 3 2 15 3

R17 3 3 3 3 2 14 3

R18 3 3 4 4 3 17 3

R19 3 3 4 3 3 16 3

R20 2 3 2 3 3 13 3

R21 2 2 3 3 3 13 3

R22 2 2 3 3 3 13 3

R23 2 2 2 2 2 10 2

R24 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R25 2 2 3 3 3 13 3

R26 2 1 2 1 2 8 2

R27 2 1 2 2 2 9 2

Note:

Score= ��

�R = Respondent

F = Fluency

P = Pronunciation

V = Vocabulary

G = Grammar

C = Comprehension

The table 4.1 showed score of respondents’ speaking skill in pre –

test of control group. There were 27 respondents in this research before

accepted the treatment and all respondents got unexpected score. The

highest score was 3 with 12 respondents and the lowest was 2 with 15

respondents.

Table 4.2 Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test

(Control Class)

Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages

Excellent 23-25 5 0 0%

Very Good 18-22 4 0 0%

Good 13-17 3 12 44%

Fairly Good 8-12 2 15 56%

Poor ≤7 1 0 0%

Total 27 100%

The percentage was counted using this formula: ��

� X 100%

The table 4.2 showed classification of respondents ‘speaking skill

in pre-test of control group. There were 27 respondents in this research

before they accepted treatment. From all of respondents, there were 12

respondents (44%) got good score, and 15 respondents (56%) got fairly

good.

Beside it, the writer also made score of respondents’ speaking skill

that before accepted treatment by using Choral Drill technique. It was

elaborated into five scales through table distribution frequency and

percentage. The score was classified based on English speaking

proficiency; consist of fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and

comprehensibility.

Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents’ Speaking

Skill in Fluency



Very Good 18-22 4 0 0%

Good 13-17 3 7 26%


Poor ≤7 1 4 15%

Total 27 100%

The table 4.3 showed frequency distribution and percentage of

respondents’ speaking skill in fluency. Total respondents were 27

respondents (100%). There were 7 respondents (26%) got score 3, and 16

respondents (59%) got score 2, and 4 respondents (15%) got score 1. It can

be concluded that fluency was fairly good because there were 59%

respondents got score 2.

Table 4.4 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents’ Speaking Skill

in Pronunciation



Very Good 18-22 4 0 0%

Good 13-17 3 11 41%


Poor ≤7 1 2 7%

Total 27 100%

In the table 4.4 showed frequency distribution and percentage of

respondents’ speaking skill in pronunciation. Total respondents were 27

respondents (100%). There were 11 respondents (41%) got score 3, 14

respondents (52%) got score 2, and 2 respondents (7%) got score 1. It can

be concluded that pronunciation was fairly good because there were 52%



Skill in Vocabulary



Very Good 18-22 4 3 11%

Good 13-17 3 11 41%


Poor ≤7 1 0 0%

Total 27 100%

The table 4.5 showed frequency distribution and percentage of

respondents’ speaking skill in vocabulary. Total respondents were 27

respondents (100%). There were 3 (11%) respondents got score 4, 11

(41%) respondents got 3, and 13 (48%) respondents got 2. It can be

concluded that vocabulary was good because there were 11% got score 4

and 41% respondents got score 3.


Skill in Grammar



Very Good 18-22 4 1 4%

Good 13-17 3 14 51%


Poor ≤7 1 1 4%

Total 27 100%

Table 4.6 showed frequency distribution and percentage of

respondents’ speaking skill in grammar. Total respondents were 27


respondents (51%) got score 3, 11 (41%) respondents got 2, and 1 (4%)

respondents got score 1. It can be concluded that grammar was good

because there were 51% respondents got score 3.


Skill in Comprehension



Very Good 18-22 4 0 0%

Good 13-17 3 12 44%


Poor 5-7 1 3 12%

Total 27 100%


respondents’ speaking skill in comprehension. Total respondents were 20

respondents (100%). There were 12 (44%) respondents got score 3, 12

(44%) respondents got score 2, and 3 (12%) got 1. It can be concluded that

comprehension was fairly good because there were 44% and 11% of the

respondents got score <3.

On the other hand result of the experiment class in pre-test was

showed as followed;

Table 4.8 Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre – Test

(Experimental Class)


R1 1 2 2 2 1 8 2

R2 2 2 2 2 2 10 2

R3 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R4 2 2 2 2 2 10 2

R5 1 2 2 2 2 9 2

R6 2 2 3 2 2 11 2

R7 3 3 3 3 2 14 3

R8 2 2 2 2 2 10 2

R9 2 3 3 3 3 14 3

R10 3 4 3 3 4 17 3

R11 2 3 2 2 3 12 2

R12 2 1 2 2 2 9 2

R13 2 2 3 3 2 12 2

R14 1 2 2 1 2 8 2

R15 3 3 3 2 3 14 3

R16 2 2 2 2 2 10 2

R17 2 2 3 3 3 13 2

R18 3 2 2 2 2 11 2

R19 1 2 2 2 1 8 2

R20 2 2 2 2 2 10 2

R21 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R22 3 4 4 3 3 17 3

R23 3 3 3 2 3 14 3

R24 3 3 4 3 4 17 3

R25 2 3 2 3 2 12 2

R26 3 3 4 3 3 16 3

Note: Score= ��

�

R = Respondent

F = Fluency

P = Pronunciation

V = Vocabulary

G = Grammar

C = Comprehension

Based on the above table, there were 26 respondents in this

research and some students got good score. The highest score was 3 and

the lowest score was 2. There were 10 respondents got score 3 and 16


Table 4.9 Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre – Test




Very Good 18-22 4 0 0%

Good 13-17 3 10 38%


Poor ≤7 1 0 0%

Total 26 100%

Table 4.9 showed classification of respondents’ speaking skill of

experimental class in pre-test. Total respondents were 26 respondents

(100%). From all of respondents, there were 10 respondents (38%) got

score 3 and 16 (62%) respondents got score 2.

Besides, the researchers also made score of respondents’ speaking

skill of experimental class in pre-test. It was elaborated into five scales

through table distribution frequency and percentage. The writer classified

it based on English speaking fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar

and comprehension.


Skill in Fluency



Very Good 18-22 4 0 0%

Good 13-17 3 10 39%


Poor ≤7 1 4 15%

Total 25 100%




respondents (46%) got score 2, and 4 respondents (15%) got score 1. The

rating of the fluency was fairly good.


Skill in Pronunciation



Very Good 18-22 4 2 8%

Good 13-17 3 10 38%


Poor ≤7 1 1 4%

Total 26 100%


respondents’ speaking skill in pronunciation. Total respondents were 26


respondents (38%) got 3, 13 (50%) respondents got score 2, and 1 (4%)

respondents gote score 1. It can be concluded that pronunciation was fairly

good because there were 50% got rating 2 and 4% got 1.


Skill in Vocabulary



Very Good 18-22 4 3 12%

Good 13-17 3 10 38%


Poor ≤7 1 0 0%

Total 23 100%


respondents’ speaking skill in vocabulary. Total respondents were 26


respondents (38%) got score 3, and 13 respondents got score 2. It can be

concluded that vocabulary was good because there were 12% respondents

got score 4 and 38% respondents got score 3.


Skill in Grammar



Very Good 18-22 4 0 0%

Good 13-17 3 11 42%


Poor ≤7 1 1 4%

Total 26 100%




respondents (54%) got score 3, and 1 respondent (4%) got score 1. It can

be concluded that grammar was fairly good because there were 54%



Skill in Comprehension



Very Good 18-22 4 2 8%

Good 13-17 3 9 34%


Poor ≤7 1 2 8%

Total 26 100%


respondents’ speaking skill in comprehension. Total respondents were 26


respondents (34%) got score 3, 13 respondents (50%) got score 2, and 2

respondent (8%) got score 1. It can be concluded that comprehension was

fairly good because there were 50% respondents got score 2 and 8% got

score 1.

2. Post-Test Analysis

The writer also listed score of the students in eighth grade students

of MTs Assalafi Susukan. Post-test result of control group as followed:

Table 4.15

Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Post – test

(Control Class)


R1 2 2 3 2 3 12 2

R2 3 3 4 3 3 16 3

R3 2 3 2 3 2 12 2

R4 2 2 3 2 2 11 2

R5 2 2 3 3 2 12 2

R6 2 3 3 2 2 12 2

R7 2 3 3 2 2 12 2

R8 2 3 3 2 2 12 2

R9 3 2 3 2 2 12 2

R10 2 3 3 3 2 13 3

R11 2 2 3 2 2 11 2

R12 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R13 2 3 2 4 3 14 3

R14 3 4 3 3 3 16 3

R15 2 2 3 3 3 13 3

R16 3 3 4 3 3 16 3

R17 4 3 3 3 3 16 3

R18 3 3 4 4 3 17 3

R19 3 4 4 3 3 17 3

R20 2 3 2 3 4 14 3

R21 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R22 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R23 2 3 3 2 2 12 2

R24 3 3 4 3 4 17 3

R25 2 3 4 3 3 15 3

R26 2 2 2 2 3 11 2

R27 2 2 3 3 2 12 2

Note: Score: ��

�

R = Respondent

F = Fluency

P = Pronunciation

V = Vocabulary

G = Grammar

C = Comprehension


research without the treatment and the result was the students had good

progress even though only a little. The highest score was 4 and the lowest

score was 2. There was 1 respondent got score 4 and 8 respondents got

score 2. Besides that, the writer also made scale classification as followed:

Table 4.16

Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Post-Test

(Control Class)



Very Good 18-22 4 1 4%

Good 13-17 3 18 67%


Poor ≤7 1 0 0%

Total 27 100%

In table 4.16, there were 27 respondents in this research.

From all of respondents, there are 1 respondent (4%) got very good

score, 18 respondents (67%) got good score and 8 respondents

(29%) got fairly good score. The above table showed that they had

been a little improvement.

Beside it, the writer also made score of students’ speaking

skill who was without Coral Drill technique. It was elaborated into

five scales through table distribution frequency and the percentage.

The writer classified based on English speaking proficiency;

consist of fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and

comprehension.

Table 4.17

Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents’

Speaking Skill in Fluency



Very Good 18-22 4 1 4%

Good 13-17 3 10 37%


Poor ≤7 1 0 0%

Total 27 100%

Table 4.17 showed frequency of the distribution and

percentage of respondents’ speaking skill in fluency. Total

respondents were 27 respondents (100%). There were 1

respondents (4%) got score 4, 10 respondents (37%) got score 3,

and 16 respondents (59%) got score 2. It can be concluded that

fluency was fairly good because there were 59% respondents got

score 2.

Table 4.18

Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Students’ Speaking




Very Good 18-22 4 2 7%

Good 13-17 3 17 63%


Poor ≤7 1 0 0%

Total 27 100%


respondents’ speaking skill in pronunciation. Total respondents

were 27 respondents (100%). There were 2 respondents (7%) got

score 4, 17 respondents (63%) got score 3, and 8 respondents

(30%) got score 2. It can be concluded that pronunciation was good


Table 4.19


Speaking Skill in Vocabulary



Very Good 18-22 4 6 22%

Good 13-17 3 17 63%


Poor ≤7 1 0 0%

Total 27 100%


respondents’ speaking skill in vocabulary. Total respondents were

27 respondents (100%). There were 6 respondents (22%) got score

4, 17 respondents (63%) got score 3, and 4 respondents (15%) got

score 2. It can be concluded that vocabulary was good because

there were 63% respondents got score 3.

Table 4.20


Speaking Skill in Grammar



Very Good 18-22 4 2 7%

Good 13-17 3 16 60%


Poor ≤7 1 0 0%

Total 27 100%



respondents (100%). There were 2 respondents (7%) got score 4,

16 respondents (60%) got score 3, and 9 respondents (33%) got

score 2. It can be concluded that grammar was good because there

were 60% respondents got score 3.

Table 4.21


Speaking Skill in Comprehension



Very Good 18-22 4 3 11%

Good 13-17 3 13 48%


Poor ≤7 1 0 0%

Total 27 100%


respondents’ speaking skill in comprehension. Total respondents

were 27 respondents (100%). there were 3 respondents (11%) got

score 4, 13 respondents (48%) got score 3, and 11 respondents

(41%) got score 2. It can be concluded that comprehension was

good because there were 48% respondents got score 3.

On the other hand result of the experimental group with

Choral Drill and Role Play technique was shown below:

Table 4.22

Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Post – test

(Experimental Group)


R1 2 3 3 3 2 13 3

R2 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R3 4 4 4 4 4 20 4

R4 3 3 4 4 3 17 3

R5 2 3 3 3 4 15 3

R6 4 3 4 3 3 17 3

R7 3 4 3 4 4 18 4

R8 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R9 3 4 3 4 4 18 4

R10 4 4 4 4 4 20 4

R11 3 4 4 3 4 18 4

R12 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R13 3 3 4 4 3 17 3

R14 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R15 4 3 4 3 4 18 4

R16 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R17 3 3 4 4 4 18 4

R18 4 3 3 3 3 16 3

R19 3 3 3 3 2 14 3

R20 3 3 3 3 3 15 3

R21 4 4 4 4 4 20 4

R22 4 5 5 4 4 22 4

R23 4 3 4 3 3 17 3

R24 4 4 4 4 4 20 4

R25 3 4 3 3 3 13 3

R26 4 3 4 3 4 18 4

Note: Score: ��

�

R = Respondent

F = Fluency

P = Pronunciation

V = Vocabulary

G = Grammar

C = Comprehension


research who were treated by using Choral Drill and Role Play.

The result was the students had good progress. The highest score

was 4 and the lowest score was 3. There were 11 respondents got

score 4 and 15 respondents got score 3. Besides that, the writer also

made scale classification as followed;

Table 4.23

Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Post-Test

(Experimental Group)



Very Good 18-22 4 11 42%

Good 13-17 3 15 58%


Poor ≤ 7 1 0 0%

Total 26 100%

In table 4.23, there were 26 respondents in this research.

From all of respondents, there were 11 respondents (42%) got very

good score and 15 respondents (58%) got good score. The above

table showed that they had good improvement.

Beside it, the writer also made score of students’ speaking skill

who were treated by using Choral Drill and Role Play. It was elaborated

into five scales through table distribution frequency and the percentage.

The writer classified based on English speaking proficiency; consist of

fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and comprehension.

Table 4.24 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents’

Speaking Skill in Fluency



Very Good 18-22 4 10 38%

Good 13-17 3 14 54%


Poor ≤ 7 1 0 0%

Total 26 100%



respondents (100%). There were 10 respondents (38 %) got score

4, 14 respondents (54%) got score 3, and 2 respondents (8%) got

score 2. It can be concluded that fluency was very good because

there were 38 % respondents got score 4 and 54% respondents got

score 3.

Table 4.25

Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Students’ Speaking




Very Good 18-22 4 8 31%

Good 13-17 3 17 65 %


Poor ≤ 7 1 0 0%

Total 26 100%


respondents’ speaking skill in pronunciation. Total respondents

were 26 respondents (100%). There were 1 respondent (4%) got

score 5. There were 8 respondents (31%) got score 4. There were

17 respondents (65%) got score 3. It can be concluded that

pronunciation was good because there were 65% respondents got

score 3.

Table 4.26


Speaking Skill in Vocabulary



Very Good 18-22 4 12 46%

Good 13-17 3 13 50%


Poor ≤ 7 1 0 0%

Total 26 100%


respondents’ speaking skill in vocabulary. Total respondents were

26 respondents (100%). There were 1 respondents (8%) got score

5. There were 12 respondents (46%) got score 4. There were 13

respondents (50%) got score 3. It can be concluded that vocabulary

was very good because there were 50% respondents got score 4.

Table 4.27


Speaking Skill in Grammar



Very Good 18-22 4 10 38%

Good 13-17 3 16 62%


Poor ≤ 7 1 0 0%

Total 26 100%



respondents (100%). There were 10 respondents (38%) got score

and 16 respondents (62%) got score 3. It can be concluded that

grammar was good because there were 62 % respondents got score

3.

Table 4.28


Speaking Skill in Comprehension



Very Good 18-22 4 12 46%

Good 13-17 3 12 46%


Poor ≤ 7 1 0 0%

Total 26 100%


respondents’ speaking skill in comprehension. Total respondents

were 26 respondents (100%). there were 12 respondents (46%) got

score 4, 12 respondents (46%) got score 3, 2 respondents (8%) got

score 2. It can be concluded that comprehension was very good


B. Significant Difference of T-test between students taught by Lecturing and

students taught by Choral Drill Technique to the Speaking Skill in the

Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of

2016/2017

The writer had made table of pre-test and post-test’s respondents. The

writer also calculated pre-test and post-test’s mean and significant standard

5%. The writer did this calculation to know respondents’ significant

improvement. It was shown below:

Table 4.29

Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and Post-Test


No. Respondent Variable X1 (Pre-Test)

Variable Y1 (Post-Test)

D=(X-Y) D2=(X-

Y)2

1 R1 2 3 -1 1

2 R2 2 3 -1 1

3 R3 3 4 -1 1

4 R4 2 3 -1 1

5 R5 2 3 -1 1

6 R6 2 3 -1 1

7 R7 3 4 -1 1

8 R8 2 3 -1 1

9 R9 3 4 -1 1

10 R10 3 4 -1 1

11 R11 2 4 -2 4

12 R12 2 3 -1 1

13 R13 2 3 -1 1

14 R14 2 3 -1 1

15 R15 3 4 -1 1

16 R16 2 3 -1 1

17 R17 2 4 -2 4

18 R18 2 3 -1 1

19 R19 2 3 -1 1

20 R20 2 3 -1 1

21 R21 3 4 -1 1

22 R22 3 4 -1 1

23 R23 3 3 0 0

24 R24 3 4 -1 1

25 R25 2 3 -1 1

26 R26 3 4 -1 1

N= 26

∑D= 27 ∑D2= 31

Table 4.30

Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and Post-Test

(Control Class)

No. Respondent Variable X2 (Pre-Test)

Variable Y2 (Post-Test)

D=(X-Y) D2=(X-Y)2

1 R1 2 2 0 0

2 R2 3 3 0 0

3 R3 2 2 0 0

4 R4 2 2 0 0

5 R5 2 2 0 0

6 R6 2 2 0 0

7 R7 2 2 0 0

8 R8 2 2 0 0

9 R9 2 2 0 0

10 R10 2 3 -1 1

11 R11 2 2 0 0

12 R12 2 3 -1 1

13 R13 2 3 -1 1

14 R14 3 3 0 0

15 R15 3 3 0 0

16 R16 3 3 0 0

17 R17 3 3 0 0

18 R18 3 3 0 0

19 R19 3 3 0 0

20 R20 3 3 0 0

21 R21 3 3 0 0

22 R22 3 3 0 0

23 R23 2 2 0 0

24 R24 3 3 0 0

25 R25 3 3 0 0

26 R26 2 2 0 0

27 R27 2 2 0 0

N= 27

∑D= 3 ∑D2= 3

1. Mean

a. Pre-test of experimental class

X1 = N

x 1

X 1= 62 26

X 1= 2,385

b. Pre-test of control class

X2 =N

x 2

X2 = 27

66

X2 = 2,444

c. Post-test of experimental class

Y1 = N

y 1

Y1 = 26

89

Y1 = 3,423

d. Post-test of control class

Y2 =N

y2

Y2 = 27

69

Y2 = 2,556

2. Experimental Class

According to the data from table 4.29, the writer calculated

standard deviation of pre-test and post-test of experimental class as

follow:

a. Standard deviation (SDD)

SDD = �∑��(∑�)�

�

= ��(��)�)

��

= �1,19 − (1,02)�)

=√1,39 − 1,04

= �0,35

= 0,592

b. Standard error of mean difference (SEMD)

SEMD = SD D

√N − 1

= 0, 592

√26 − 1

= 0, 592

√25

= 0, 592 5

= 0, 118

c. t-value (to)

to = MD SEMD

The formula of MD as followed:

MD = ∑ D N

= 27 26

= 1,038

to = MD SEMD

= 1,038 0,118

= 8,796

d. t-table ( tt)

Df = n-1

Df = 26 – 1

= 25

3. Control Group

According to the data from table 4.30, the writer also calculated

standard deviation of pre-test and post-test of control group as followed:

a. Standard deviation (SDD)

SDD = �∑��(∑�)�

�

= ��(�)�)

��

=�0,11 − (0,11)�)

=√0, 11 − 0, 0121

= √0,98

= 0,31

b. Standard error of mean difference (SEMD)

2, 059≤ 8,796

SEMD = SD D

√N − 1

= 0, 31

√27 − 1 = 0, 31

√26

= 0, 31 5, 09

= 0, 06

c. t-value (to)

to = MD

SEMD

The formula of MD as followed:

MD = ∑ D

N

= 3

27

= 0, 111

to = MD

SEMD

= 0, 111

0, 06

= 1,850

d. t-table ( tt)

Df = n-1

Df = 27– 1

= 26

2, 055>1, 850

In this section, the writer analyzed the data which had been

collected and then described the result of this research. In the first meeting

of two groups, the teacher gave a pre-test for respondents. Pre-test was

administered before treatment that was given to know how far the

students speaking skill especially for the material would be taught by

the teacher in this research. At that time, the writer gave point for them.

In the next meeting (learning process), control group was taught

with a usual method that was lecturing, almost of respondents did not pay

attention to the teacher’s explanation. They felt bored because teacher used

traditional method to explain the material more over when they had to do

the assignment. Most of respondents spoke themselves when they had

finished the assignment and they did not pay attention to other

respondents. On the other hand, experiment group was taught by Choral

Drill technique. They were more interesting in learning process. Most of

students tried to think about theme and material to face their friend’s

opinion. They really gave attention to other respondents’ speaking.

In the last meeting, after treatment was given, respondents of

experiment group were easier to speak than control group in doing post-

test. It happened because Choral Drill technique could be seen as an

interesting technique in the class. Respondents were active to speak, so, it

made them get higher score in post-test than control group. Result of the

research could be seen as the table follows:

Table 4.31

Result of Calculating Research

No Result Experiment Group Control Group

1 Mean of

a. Pre-test

b. Post-test

2,385

3,423

2,444

2,556

2 Standard Deviation 0,592 0,31

3 T-table vs T-test 2, 059≤ 8,796 2, 055>1,850

Based on table 4.31, “tt” standard of significant 5% with df = 25,

got 2, 059 from the above result, the writer gave interpretation that ttable(tt)

was smaller than tvalue (to) of experiment group and ttable(tt) was bigger than

tvalue (to) of control group. Based on paired of sample statistic and the

above sample test, result of this research indicated that null hypothesis was

rejected and alternative hypothesis was accepted.

Based on the above calculation, research of experimental group

showed that tt is 2, 059 and to is 8,796, significant difference of this

research was 6, 737. It meant that to was greater than tt. The writer could

conclude that Choral Drill technique improved students’ speaking skill

from significant level 5% to tt. Research of control group showed that tt

was 2, 055 and to was 1, 850. The significant difference of research was 0,

205. It meant that tt was lower than to, and it did not improve students

speaking skill from significant level 5% to tt.

From the research finding, it could be concluded that using Choral

Drill technique could motivate students to improve language learning. The

way to teach intermediate learners such senior high school students should

be designed interactively in order to make the students develop their

confidence and critical thinking. The topic for teaching and learning also

should be considered as well to gain the students’ interest and motivation.

Based on the calculation and the above analysis, it can be inferred

that students in experimental group have higher speaking ability after

given treatment using Choral Drill technique than students in control

group who are taught using discussion technique. In short, it can be said

that using Choral Drill technique is better than discussion technique to

help the students improving their speaking ability in the eighth grade

students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTs) Assalafi Susukan.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

After conducting the research, presenting the data, analyzing the

data and discussing the result, in this chapter the writer presents the

conclusion of this research which is entitled “The Use of Choral Drill

Technique to Improve The Students’ Speaking Skills (An Experimental

Study of the Eighth Grade Student of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Assalafi

Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017)”. Based on the analyzing

data in previous chapter can be concluded as follows:

1. There is a difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to

the speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi

Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017

Based on the calculation and the analysis, it can be inferred that

students in experimental group have higher speaking ability after given

treatment using Choral Drill Techniquesthan students in control group

who are taught using Lecturing Techniques. In short, it can be said that

using Choral Drill Technique is better than Lecturing Techniques to

help the students improving their speaking ability of the eighth grade

students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTs) Assalafi Susukan.

2. There is significant difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill

Techniques to the speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of

MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017

The significant difference of mean between students taught by

lecturing and students taught by Choral Drill Technique in the eighth

grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah AssalafiSusukan in the

academic year of 2016/2017. It showed control group that was taught

by Lecturing in the eighth grade, the mean of pre-test of students was 2,

444. It was smaller than the mean of post-test. The mean of post-test of

the students was 2,556. The mean of post-test of the students was

higher than the mean of pre-test of the students that were taught by

lecturing. The significant difference of mean between pre-test and post-

test of students that were taught by lecturing was 0, 1. The result

showed that there was significant of mean between pre-test and post-

test of students that were taught by lecturing in the eighth grade

students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah AssalafiSusukan in the academic

year of 2016/2017.

The calculation also showed the mean between pre-test and

post-test of students that were taught by Choral Drill Techniquein the

eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah AssalafiSusukan in the

academic year of 2016/2017. The mean of pre-test of students was 2,

385. It was smaller than the mean of post-test. The mean of post-test of

the students was 3, 423. The mean of post-test of the students was

higher than the mean of pre-test of the students that were taught by

Chorall Drill Technique. The significant difference of mean between

pre-test and post-test of students that were taught by Chorall Drill

Technique was 1,038. The result showed that it was very significant of

mean between pre-test and post-test of students that were taught by

Chorall Drill Technique in the eighth grade students of Madrasah

Tsanawiyah AssalafiSusukan in the academic year of 2016/2017.

The calculation of T-test of control group that was taught by

lecturing in the eighth grade students ofMadrasah Tsanawiyah

AssalafiSusukan in the academic year of 2016/2017 was showed in the

Chapter IV. The hypothesis was tested by using t-test formula by

comparing the scores of pre-test and post-test. The result was 1,850 in t-

test of control group. Meanwhile, the critical value for rejecting the null

hypothesis at level of significance 5% with degree of freedom (df) 26

was 2, 055. The significant difference of T-test and T-table was 0, 205.

It meant that t-value was smaller than critical value (2, 055>1, 850).

The result showed that there was not significant of T-test of students

that was taught by lecturing in the eighth grade students ofMadrasah


Therefore, it could be concluded that null hypothesis (Ho) was accepted

and alternative hypothesis (Ha) was rejected.

The Choral Drill Technique improved the students’ speaking

skill in the eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah

AssalafiSusukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. The hypothesis

was tested by using t-test formula by comparing the scores of pre-test

and post-test. The result was 8,796 in t-test for experimental group.

Meanwhile, the critical value for rejecting the null hypothesis at level of

significance 5% with degree of freedom (df) 25 was 2, 059. The

significant difference of T-test and T-table was 6,737. It meant that t-

value was higher than critical value (8,796 ≥ 2,059). The result showed

that it was very significant in T-test of students that was taught by

Choral Drill Technique in the eighth grade students of Madrasah


Therefore, it could be concluded that null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected

and alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted.

B. Suggestions

Based on the findings, there are some suggestions which are

addressed to the teachers, students, and other writers.

1. For the teachers

a. The teachers are suggested to apply Choral Drill Technique in the

learning process as one of ways to improve the students’ speaking

skill in English.

b. Teachers have to be more creative and innovative in using various

kind of interesting teaching medium which accompanies the

materials.

2. For students

a. Students are suggested to apply Chorall Drill technique in

speaking.

b. Students are suggested to speak more by applying the medium so

they will be more skillful in speaking.

3. For other researchers

The writerconsiders that his research is not the only topic that

is studied. The result of the study merely confirms the hypothesis, but

it does not prove that something absolutely true at all the time. Thus,

the research needs considerable improvement of thought for further

research studies.

The writer hopes that the findings of this study will be

employed as starting point of the future research studies on similar

topics. There are also still many other teaching method that could be

studied for the improvement of speaking skill so that they can be

applied in the class.

REFERENCES

Allen, Harold B and Campbell, Rusell N. (1972). Teaching English as a Second Language. United Stated of America: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company

Apriliani, Budiartiningsih. (2013). The Use of Role-Play to Improve Speaking

Skill of Xf Class of SMK PGRI 2 Salatiga in the Academic Year 2012/2013. Graduating Paper.

Arikunto, Suharsimi. (2002). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik.

Jakarta : Rineka Cipta.

Arikunto, Suharsimi. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta

Ayoeellgin.(2009). Drilling Teaching. Retrieved Monday, January 25th 2016,

Time 14:26 pm at http://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology/ask-the experts/methodology-questions/methodology-teaching-large classes/154297.article.

Bailey, Kathelen M. & Nunan, David. (2005). Practical English Language

Teaching Speaking. New York: Mc Graw Hill. Brown, H, Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles, an Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Brown, H, Douglas. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom

Practices. New York: Longman. Clandfield, Lindsay.,& Tennant, Adrian. Methodology: teaching large classes.

Retrieved at http://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology/ask-the-

experts/methodology-questions/methodology-teaching-large-

classes/154297.article Monday, January 25th 2016, Time 14:26 pm

Dantes, Nyoman. (2012). Metode Penelitian. Yogyakarta: Andi. Fauziati, Endang. (2005). Teaching of English As a Foreign Language (TEFL).

Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press. Gangel, Kenneth O. (2005). Teaching Through Role playing. Retrieved at

https://bible.org/seriespage/3-teaching-through-role-playing Monday, January 25th 2016, Time 14:26 pm.

Harmer, Jeremy. (2001). How to Teach English. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson

Education Limited.

http://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology/ask-the experts/methodology-questions/methodology-teaching-large classes/154297.article



http://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology/ask-the-experts/methodology-questions/methodology-teaching-large-classes/154297.article



Haycraft, John. (1978). An Introduction to English Language Teaching. England:

Longman Group Ltd. Hornby. (1984).Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary Kasiram, Muh. (2010). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif-Kuantitatif. Malang: UIN

–Maliki Press.

Kusnierek, Anna. (2015). Developing students’ speaking skills through role play. World Scientific News 1 (2015) 73-111

Limbu, Prem. (2012). Role Play Strategy. Retrieved at

http://eprogressiveportfolio.blogspot.co.id/2012/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html , Monday, January 25th 2016, Time 14:26 pm.

Sartika, Endang. (2014).The Effectiveness of Round Table Technique to Improve

Students’ Speaking Skill in the First Grade Students of SMA N 3 Salatiga in the Academic Year of 2013/2014. Graduating Paper.

Scrivener, Jim. (1994). Learning Teaching. Jordan Hill: Oxford Ltd. Sharon, Zenger K and Weldon. (1997). 57 Ways to Teach. Los Angeles: Crescent

Publication.

Syaodih, Nana. (2006). Metode Penelitian Tindakan. Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya.

Tarigan, Henry Guntur. (1990). Berbicara Sebagai Suatu Ketrampilan Berbahasa.

Bandung: Angkasa.

Wahyuningsih, Erna. (2012). The Application of Drill Method to Improve Students’ Pronunciation Skill in Reading Text (A Classroom Action Research in the First Year of SMA Muhammadiyah Gubug Purwodadi in Academic Year of 2011/2012). Graduating Paper.

http://eprogressiveportfolio.blogspot.co.id/2012/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html

http://eprogressiveportfolio.blogspot.co.id/2012/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html

APPENNDIXES

CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal data :

Name : Dimas Yudha Yuwanda

NIM : 113 10 147

DoB : Kab. Semarang , March 17th 1992

Telp : +6285 713 200 956

Education :

1999-2004 : Program Primary School (SD N)

2004-2007 : Program Islamic Junior High School (MTs N) Salatiga.

2007-2010 : Program Senior High School (SMK N) 1 Tengaran, Kab.

Semarang.

2010-2017 : English Educational Faculty of State Institute for Islamic

Studies (STAIN) Salatiga.

Tengaran , September 8th 2017

Dimas Yudha Yuwanda

Photos During The Research

THE USE OF CHORAL DRILL TECHNIQUE TO IMPROVE STUDENTS SPEAKING...

Documents

Transcript of THE USE OF CHORAL DRILL TECHNIQUE TO IMPROVE STUDENTS SPEAKING...