Post on 22-Jan-2021
THE EFFECT OF THINK-PAIR-SHARE STRATEGY
ON STUDENTS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCE
AT SECOND GRADE OF JAUHARUL ISLAM
ISLAMIC JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
MUARO JAMBI
A THESIS
By
RINI SETIA WATI
STUDENT NUMBER TE.130557
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TARBIYAH SCIENCE AND TEACHER TRAINING FACULTY
THE STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
SULTHAN THAHA SAIFUDDIN
JAMBI
2018
THE EFFECT OF THINK-PAIR-SHARE STRATEGY
ON STUDENTS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCE
AT SECOND GRADE OF JAUHARUL ISLAM
ISLAMIC JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
MUARO JAMBI
THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Gain an
Undergraduate Degree (S.1) in English Education
By
RINI SETIA WATI
STUDENT NUMBER TE.130557
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TARBIYAH SCIENCE AND TEACHER TRAINING FACULTY
THE STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
SULTHAN THAHA SAIFUDDIN
JAMBI
2018
iiii
MOTTO
Meaning:
O you who believe! Be careful of (Your duty to) Allah and speak the right word.
(QS. Al-Ahzab: 70)
Artinya :
Hai orang-orang yang beriman, bertakwalah kamu kepada Allah dan Katakanlah
Perkataan yang benar. (QS. Al-Ahzab:70)
Vvi
DEDICATION
Alhamdulillahirobbil’alamin, I can finishing my thesis. I cannot finishing this
thesis without all support, affection and the power to be success without you are:
Thanks for Allah S.W.T
My parents, My beloved father Anto who always give me everlasting love,
guidance, motivation and praying and My beloved mother Murni who have
educated, attitude and affection. I believed without your support and your pray, I
cannot be success.
My youngest brother Muhammad Arif Kurniawan and My youngest sister Annisa
Wulandari That always give me support.
My Future Husband Muhammad Supriyadi, S.Pd who always give me
everlasting love guidance, motivation and praying.
Thanks to The big Family of Nurul Ihsan Islamic Boarding School (Ustadzh
Parmoko, M.Pd and all of the teachers there. Thanks for your kindness May Allah
always belss you all Aamiin…
Thanks to my housemate (Evi Hamidah, Juwairiyah, Wiji Rustarianti, Tritina
Lestari, and Dwika Ristanti) thanks for your help, support and praying for me.
Thanks to the big family of Racana UIN STS Jambi SulthanThaha – Sri Soedewi.
My Beloved Classmate BI Class C 2013, especially my best friends thanks for
your suggestion, helping, sharing and supporting for this thesis.
Thanks to my PPL and KKN group who always accompany me in learning.
Thanks to my beloved friends ( Ponimin, S.Pd, Muncar Winarti, S.Pd, Puji Astuti,
S.Pd, Rika Oktaviani, S.Pd, Rizky Takriyanti, S.Pd, Shadiqatunnisa, Sri Wahyuni,
S.Pd, Riska Yusuf, S.Pd, Yesi Suyanti, S.Pd and for everyone who always carry
with me, may Allah always bless you all, Aamiin…
The beloved Institution, English Education Program UIN STS Jambi.
VVii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
الر حمن الر حيم بسم الله
All praises and great gratitude submitted to Almighty God, Allah SWT
who always gives the gracious mercy and tremendous blessing that has helped the
writer finishing this thesis entitled: “The Effect of Think-Pair-Share Strategy
on Students’ Speaking Performance at Second Grade of Jauharul Islam
Islamic Junior High School Muaro Jambi”
Then peace and salutation always be upon to the most honorable prophet
and messenger Muhammad SAW that have brought human to the world that is
full of science and technology.
This thesis is intended to fulfill of the requirements of academic in order to
obtain the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in the Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher
Training UIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi. The writer is fully aware that in
completing and finishing this thesis has been widely involved those who have
given the contribution, motivation, either morally and materially so that this thesis
can be finished. Therefore, through this column the writer would like to deliver
this thanks and appreciation to:
1. Dr. H. Hadri Hasan MA as Rector of the State Islamic University
Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi.
2. Prof. Dr. H. Suaidi, MA, Ph.D. Dr. Hidayat, M.Pd. and Dr. Hj.
Fadhillah Husen, M.Pd as vice rector’s I, II, and III of State Islamic
University Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi.
3. Dr. Hj. Armida, M.Pd as Dean of the Tarbiyah and Teacher Training
Faculty of the State Islamic University Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi.
4. Dr. H. Lukman Hakim, M.Pd as the first vice Dean of Faculty of
Education and Teacher Training Dr. Zawaki Afdal Jamil, M.Pd as the
second vice Deans of Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, and
Dr. Kemas Imran Rosadi, M.Pd.I as the Third vice Dean of Faculty
Education and Teacher Training.
VViii
5. Amalia Nurhasanah, M.Hum as the chief of English Education
Program. And all of the lecturers of English Education Program who
had give many kind of useful knowledges. Thank you for your fully
guide and support in finishing this thesis
6. Dr. Siti Raudhatul Jannah, M.Pd.I and Hilma Suryani, M.Pd as the first
and second advisor who had guided and assisted the writer in writing
and finishing this thesis. Thank you very much for your good advice
and valuable input.
7. Uyun Nafiah, MS, M.Pd and Alif Rahman Hakim, S.Pd as the raters
for checking the reliability of speaking test made by students.
8. Yusmidar M. Daud, M.Pd.I as the headmaster of MTs Jauharul Islam
Muaro Jambi who has allowed and helped the writer conducted this
research at MTs Jauharul Islam Muaro Jambi. Thanks for your
cooperation and contribution.
9. The students of MTs Jauharul Islam Muaro Jambi for the 8th
grade
students who welcomed the writer into their environment and so
willingly involved in the research. Thanks for your time and help.
Without yours big contributions, the writer would not finish this thesis.
10. My beloved big family of English Education 2013
Jambi, June 2018
The Thesis Writer
ix
ABSTRACT
Nama : Rini Setia Wati
Jurusan : English Education Program
Judul : The Effect of Think-Pair-Share Strategy on Students’
Speaking Performance at Second Grade of Jauharul Islam
Islamic Junior High School Muaro Jambi.
This study aimed to find out the effect of Think-Pair-Share Strategy on students’
speaking performance at second grade of Juahrul Islam Islamic Junior High
School Muaro Jambi. This research was quantitative research. It was conducted by
using quasi experimental design. The subject of this research was 40 students. The
result of the analysis indicated that the score of t-obtained < t-table (-16,616 < -
2,093) and significant 2-tailed < 0,05 (0,000 < 0,05) so that H1 was accepted. It
means, there was significant improvement of students’ speaking performance after
giving the intervention. Next, researcher had computed that the score of t-obtained
< t-table (-2,115 < -2,101) and significant 2-tailed < 0,05 (0,042 < 0,05) so, H1
was accepted. It means, there was significant difference of speaking performance
between the students who were taught using Think-Pair-Share Strategy and those
who were not.
Keywords: Think-Pair-Share Strategy, students’ speaking performance
ABSTRAK
Nama : Rini Setia Wati
Jurusan : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
Judul : Pengaruh Strategi Think-Pair-Share Terhadap Kinerja
Berbicara Siswa Pada Kelas Dua di MTs Jauharul Islam
Muaro Jambi
Penelitian ini betujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh strategi Think-Pair-Share
terhadap kinerja berbicara siswa pada kelas dua di MTs Jauharul Islam Muaro
Jambi. Penelitian ini adalah kuantitatif, yang menggunakan quasi experimental
design. Subjek penelitian ini adalah 40 siswa. Dari hasil analisis peneliti
mengindikasi bahwasannya nilai dari t-hitung < t-table (-16,616 < -2,093) dan
signifikan 2-tailed < 0,05 (0,000 < 0,05) artinya H1 diterimaOleh karena itu, ada
peningkatan yang signifikan setelah intervensi. Selanjutnya, penulis telah
menganalisa nilai t-hitung < t-table (-2,115 < -2,101) dan signifikan 2-tailed <
0,05 (0,042 < 0,05) artinya, H1 diterima. Artinya, ada perbedaan yang signifikan
hasil kinerja berbicara siswa antara yang diajarkan dengan menggunakan Think-
Pair-Share strategi dengan siswa yang tidak.
Kata kunci: Think-Pair-Share Strategy, kinerja berbicara siswa
TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE COVER .............................................................................................. i
RATIFICATION OF THESIS ...................................................................... ii
OFFICIAL NOTE .......................................................................................... iii
ORIGINALITY STATEMENT .................................................................... v
MOTTO .......................................................................................................... vi
DEDICATION ................................................................................................ vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................... viii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... x
ABSTRAK ...................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF APPENDIX .................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF TABLE ........................................................................................... xv
LIST OF FIGURE ......................................................................................... xvi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study .................................................... 1
B. Limitation of the Problem .................................................. 4
C. Formulation of the Problem ............................................... 4
D. The Purpose of Research ................................................... 4
E. The Significant of Research ............................................... 4
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
A. Description of Theory ........................................................ 6
1. Speaking Performance ................................................. 6
2. Think-Pair-Share Strategy ............................................ 9
B. Previous Research Finding ................................................. 10
C. ThingkingFrame Work ....................................................... 11
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Place and time of the research ............................................ 13
B. Research Design ................................................................. 13
C. Population and Sample ...................................................... 14
D. Variable of the Study ......................................................... 14
E. Instrument of the Research ................................................ 15
F. Technique of Collecting the Data ...................................... 16
G. Validity and Reliability Test .............................................. 16
H. Technique of Analyzing the Data ...................................... 17
I. Hypothese ........................................................................... 18
J. Research Schedule ............................................................. 20
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION
A. Finding of The Study ........................................................ 21
1. Descriptive Analysis .................................................... 21
a. The Result of Pre- Test and Post test in Experimental 21
b. The Result of pre-test and post-test Control .......... 23
2. Statistical Analysis of the Test ..................................... 24
a. The Result of Normality......................................... 24
b. The Result Paired Sample T-test of Experimental . 27
c. The Result Paired Sample T-test of Control ......... 28
d. The Result of Independent Sample T-test ............. 30
B. Interpretations .................................................................... 32
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion ......................................................................... 34
B. Suggestion .......................................................................... 34
REFERENCES ............................................................................................
CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................
APPENDICES ............................................................................................
TABLE ............................................................................................
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Scoring Rubric
Appendix 2 Classification of Scoring Grade
Appendix 3 Correlations
Appendix 4 Result of Pre-test in Experimental Group
Appendix 5 Result of Post-test in Experimental Group
Appendix 6 Result of Pre-test in Control Group
Appendix 7 Result of Post-test in Control Group
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Speaking Rubric
Table 3.1 The Pre-test and Post-test Control Group Design
Table 3.2 The Population
Table 3.3 Scoring Criterion
Table 3.4 Research Schedule
Table 4.1 Score Criterion
Table 4.2 One Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test in Experiment Group
Table 4.3 One Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test in Control Group
Table 4.4 Paired Samples Statistic
Table 4.5 Paired Samples Test of Experimental Group
Table 4.6 Paired Samples Statistic
Table 4.7 Paired Samples Test of Control Group
Table 4.8 Group Statistics
Table 4.9 Independent Samples Test
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 4.1 The result of Pre-test in Experimental Group
Figure 4.2 The result of Post-test in Experimental Group
Figure 4.3 The result of Pre-test in Control Group
Figure 4.4 The result of Pre-test in Control Group
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of study
In teaching learning English, Speaking is one of the important skills that
should be learned by the learner. In addition, there are some important elements
should be concerned in learning speaking such as grammar, vocabulary,
pronunciation and the fluency. Grammar and vocabulary will help the learner in
conveying the information correctly. Besides, Pronunciation should be learnt by
learner because it is very important in conveying the meaning of the speaker.
Therefore, speaking skill should be taught more in some substances that related to
communication.
The teaching of EFL speaking in Indonesia has been closely connected
on the concept of communicative competence which is emphasized within the
Communicative Language Teaching (CTL) approach. As this approach values
interaction among students in the process of language learning, classroom
activities have a central role in enabling the students to interact and thus improve
their speaking proficiency. The following section presents reports, either based on
research or classroom practice, on how speaking teaching has been carried out in
Indonesia. The reports, mostly deal with teaching problems, classroom activities,
teaching materials, and assessment. Such reports will provide a glimpse view of
teaching EFL speaking in Indonesia classroom (Bambang Yudi Cahyono, Utami
Widiati, 2011: p.36-37)
Speaking is one of communicative skills that should be mastered by the
students during learning English, especially students of junior high school.
Nevertheless, many students have difficulties in producing the utterances in the
speaking class. Some students still consider that English is a difficult lesson to be
learned at the school. In addition, most of students prefer to keep silent rather than
speaking when the teacher asked the student to practice in the class.
According to Penny Ur (1995: p.121) there are some problems in
speaking activities in the class; one of them is low or uneven participation. Only
2
one participation can talk a little time if he or she is to be heard; and in a large
group, this means that each one will have only very little talking time. This
problem is compounded by the tendency of some learners to dominate, while
others spend very little or not at all.
An issue which has been extensively discussed in the literature concerns
the level of Indonesian learners’ English as a foreign language speaking
proficiency. A number of reports show that Indonesian learners commonly have
not attained a good level of oral English proficiency. For example, Mukminatien
(1999: p.103-114) found that students of English departments have a great number
of errors when speaking. The errors include pronunciation (e.g. word stress and
intonation), grammatical accuracy (e.g. tenses, preposition, and sentence
construction), vocabulary (e.g. incorrect word choice), fluency (e.g. frequent
repair), and interactive communication (e.g. difficulties in getting the meaning
across or keeping the conversation going). Similarly, Ihsan (1999: p.222-234)
found that students are likely to make errors which include the misuse of parts of
speech, syntactical construction, lexical choice, and voice. Both Ihsan’s and
Mukminatien’s research studies supported earlier results of research conducted by
Eviyuliwati (1997: p.55-60) who reported that students had difficulties in using
grammar and in applying new vocabulary items in speaking class. With regards to
the students’ frequent errors in speaking, Mukminatien (1999: p.1-10) suggested
teachers provide their learners with more sufficient input for acquisition in the
classroom and encourage them to use English either in or outside the classroom.
Based on the teaching practice at Jauharul Islam Islamic Junior High
School Muara Jambi the writer had, it was found that the students had several
problems in speaking, such as reluctance, shyness, fear of committing oral
mistakes, besides the students showed poor speaking ability and they lacked peers
or social circles with whom they can explore their speaking potentials.
The English teacher are supposed to be creative in developing their
teaching learning process to create good atmosphere, improve the students’
speaking skill, give the attention on the elements of speaking and make the
English lesson more interest. The success of teaching learning activities is
3
determined by its programs is used bad or good and can give influence toward
learning purposes (Bahri, 2003: p.69)
There are some of strategies that can solve the students’ problem in
learning English, in this study the writer tries to choose Think-Pair-Share strategy
as one of cooperative learning strategies can be applied in speaking class. In
addition, Thinks-Pair-Share strategy is a part of cooperative learning strategy.
Cooperative learning strategy is a method that divides the class member to several
groups and arranges the students to work in a group. According to Slavin (2005:
p.4) cooperative learning refer to various kind of teaching method. There are
students working in groups. The learning processing in groups students can
discussion to exchange ideas and the working together to answer the question and
share to others. According to Isjoni (2011: p.78) Thinks Pair Share strategy is
technique gives students the opportunity to work independently and in
collaboration with others.
Several studies related to Think-Pair-Share strategy for increasing
students’ speaking performance have been conducted by different people.
Sulistiyorini (2011: p.42) was conducted Think Pair Share to Improve Students’
Speaking Ability. This study proved that the implementation of Think Pair Share
the students had a good response because this strategy in simple and very easy and
using this strategy the teacher can improve students’ speaking ability. On the other
hand, Pratiwi (2014: p.40) conducted a research Improving The Eight Grade
Students’ Speaking Skill of SMP Negeri 2 Nasawungu Through Think Pair Share
Strategy. Based on the result of her research proved that the use of think pair share
strategy can improve students speaking skill.
Based on the explanation above, the writer is interested to conduct the
research entitled The Effect of Think-Pair-Share Strategy on Students’
Speaking Performance at Second Grade of Jauharul Islam Islamic Junior
High School Muaro Jambi.
4
B. Limitation of The Problem
In this research, the writer focuses on the applying Think Pair Share
Strategy in speaking performance. The writer limits the research as follows.
1. The research is about the applying of Think Pair Share Strategy
2. The research is focused on the speaking performance
3. The research is conducted to the Second Grade of Jauharul Islam Islamic
Junior High School Muara Jambi. The classes are class VIII 1 and VIII 3
C. Formulation of The Problem
The research problem will be formulated as follows:
1. Is there any significant effect of Think Pair Share Strategy on Students’
speaking performance?
2. Is there any significant difference of speaking performance between students
who are taught by using Think Pair Share and those who are not?
D. The Purpose of Research
The purposes of the research as follows:
1. To find out any effect of Think Pair Share Strategy on students’ speaking
performance.
2. To find out the differences of speaking performance between the students who
are taught by using Think Pair Share and those who are not.
E. The Significant of Research
The significances of the research as follows:
1. For the students
The applying of Think Pair Share Strategy in the teaching and learning
process will surely attract the students’ attention. The students are motivated
to speak as they get new idea from the method that used by researcher and
their speaking performance is improved.
2. For the teacher
5
The benefit of the research is to explore and prove whether the applying of
Think Pair Share Strategy is effective to be applied in teaching speaking so
that the students can improve their English speaking skill optimally. It can
motivate teacher to find the new method or technique which is appropriate in
teaching speaking. It also can encourage the teacher to develop their
capability to improve teaching learning process. In addition the teachers’
capability to conduct the teaching and learning activity is approve as a result
the teaching and learning activity can run well.
3. For the school
The benefits of the research for school are it can increase the students’
achievement and it can develop learning methods which stimulate students’
creativity in speaking.
6
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .
A. Description of Theory
1. Speaking Performance (Variable Y)
In this case, speaking activities is more focus on monolog better than
dialog. Function of speaking as performance happened at speeches, public talks,
public announcements, retell story, telling story and so on. And then, the types of
speaking performances there are six categories. According to Brown, (2004:
p.271) describes six categories of speaking skill area. Those six categories are as
follows.
a. Imitative
This category includes the ability to practice an intonation and focusing on
some particular elements of language form. That is just imitating a word, phrase
or sentence. The important thing here is focusing on pronunciation. The teacher
uses drilling in the teaching learning process. The reason is by using drilling,
students get opportunity to listen and to orally repeat some words.
b. Intensive
This is the students’ speaking performance that is practicing some
phonological and grammatical aspects of language. It usually places students
doing the task in pairs (group work), for example, reading aloud that includes
reading paragraph, reading dialogue with partner in turn, reading information
from chart, etc.
c. Responsive Performance
Includes interaction and test comprehension but at the somewhat limited
level of very short conversation, standard greeting and small talk, simple request
and comments. This is a kind of short replies to teacher or student initiated
questions or comments, giving instructions and directions. Those replies are
usually sufficient and meaningful.
d. Transactional (dialogue)
7
It is carried out for the purpose of conveying or exchanging specific
information. For example here is conversation which is done in pair work.
e. Interpersonal (dialogue)
It is carried out more for the purpose of maintaining social relationship
than for the transmission of facts and information. The forms of interpersonal
speaking performance are interview, role play discussions, conversations and
games.
f. Extensive (monologue)
Teacher gives students extended monologues in the form of oral reports,
summaries, storytelling and short speeches.
According to Screiber (2010: p.4) there are five aspects that were
assessed of speaking. There aspects are (1) Grammar, (2) pronunciation, (3)
vocabulary, (4) Fluency and Comprehension. And referred to as scoring rubric of
speaking.
Table 2.1
Speaking Rubric
Aspect Score
Grammar
Student was difficult to understand and had a hard time
communicating their ideas and responses because of
grammar mistakes.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses
inadequate but often displayed inconsistencies with their
sentence structure and tenses.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses fairly
well but makes mistakes with their tenses, however is able to
correct themselves.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses with
ease in proper sentence structure and tenses.
1
2
3
4
Pronunciation
Student was difficult to understand, quiet in speaking,
8
unclear in pronunciation.
Student was slightly unclear with pronunciation at times, but
generally is fair.
Pronunciation was good and did not interfere with
communication.
Pronunciation was very clear and easy to understand.
1
2
3
4
Vocabulary
Student had inadequate vocabulary words to express his/her
deas properly, which hindered the students in responding.
Student was able to use broad vocabulary words but was
lacking, making him/her repetitive and cannot expandon
his/her ideas.
Student utilized the words learned in class, in an accurate
manner for the situation given.
Rich, precise and impressive usage of vocabulary words
learned in and beyond of class.
1
2
3
4
Fluency
Speech is very slow, stumbling, nervous, and uncertain with
response, except for short or memorized expressions.
Difficult for a listener to understand.
Speech is slow and often hesitant and irregular. Sentences
may be left uncompleted, but the student is able to continue.
Speech is mostly smooth but with some hesitation and
unevenness caused primarily by rephrasing and groping for
words.
Speech is effortless and smooth with speed that comes close
to that of a native speaker.
1
2
3
4
Comprehension
Student had difficulty understanding the topics that were
being conveyed.
Student fairly grasped the topics that were being conveyed.
Student was able to comprehend the topics that were being
discussed
Student was able to comprehend to all of the information in
the topics that were being discussed with ease.
1
2
3
9
4
Based on the theory above, it can be concluded that speaking activities is
more focus on monolog better than dialog. Function of speaking as performance
happened at speeches, public talks, public announcements, retell story, telling
story and so on. And then, the types of speaking performances there are six
categories. Those six categories are imitative, intensive, responsive performance,
transactional (dialogue), interpersonal (dialogue) and extensive. And there are
some points that should be considered in assessing speaking. The students need to
know at least the pronunciation, vocabularies, and language functions that they are
going to use. When the students have been ready and prepared for the activity,
they can use the language appropriately.
2. Think-Pair-Share Strategy (Variable X)
Think-pair-share strategy is a part of cooperative learning strategy.
Cooperative learning strategy is a method that divides the class member to several
groups and arranges the students to work in group. According to Slavin (2005:
p.4) cooperative learning refer to various kind of teaching method. There are
students working in groups. The learning processing in groups students can
discussion to exchange ideas and the working together to answer the question and
share to others.
Think-pair-share is a cooperative learning strategy that can promote and
support higher level thinking. The teacher asks students to think about a specific
topic and pair with another student to discuss their own thinking. And then share
their ideas with the group. According to Isjoni (2011: p.78) think-pair-share
strategy is technique gives students the opportunity to work independently and in
collaboration with others.
Think-pair-share strategy has some advantages. According to Kagan (2000:
p.58) the purposes the benefits of think-pair-share strategy for the students and the
10
teacher. For the teachers, think-pair-share can help them to save time to prepare
the next activities while assigning the students to involve in think-pair-share
activities. Besides, think-pair-share also brings a lot of benefits. During the
activities the students have time to think before answering the question from
teacher. Students also can exchange opinion, answer question and share the
knowledge to each other while working in a group. Furthermore, think-pair-share
involves students to actively participate in the classroom activities which build
their confidence to share ideas.
Infect, there are several steps in implementing think-pair-share. Firstly, the
students are provided with questions or issues or topic to be solved. They are
given time to think to complete the task individually. The next stage is “pair”
stage. After trying to finish the task, the students are paired up. In a group of two
the students discuss about the answer or the solution they find. They then
exchange ideas to find the best solution or answer. During this stage, they can also
learn from each other. At the final stage the pair should share what they have
discussed to the class. Here, the students could learn from the bigger forum. They
could practice their speaking while building up their confidence since they are
required to speak and share what they have.
B. Previous Research Finding
There are some previous studies that relevant to this study:
1. Prawiti (2014) conducted research about Improving the Eight Grade
Students’ Speaking Skill of SMP Negeri 2 Nusawungu Through Think-
Pair-Share Strategy. This study proved that using think-pair-share strategy
can improve student speaking skill. Think-pair-share strategy benefits
students in the areas of peer acceptance, peer support, academic
achievement, self-esteem, and interest in learning and this strategy can
improve students speaking ability.
2. Sulistyorini (2011) conducted research about The Use of Think-Pair-Share
Strategy to Improve Students’ Speaking Ability. Based on the result of
research, the writer mentioned that during the implementation of think-
11
pair-share the students had a good response because this strategy is simple
and very easy. Through this strategy students can exchange ideas to friend.
Besides, by using this strategy the teacher can improve students’ speaking
ability. Using think-pair-share strategy can make students active in process
of teaching learning and students can improve their motivation to learn
with their classmates.
3. Sarah Hediyati Astuti, dkk (2014) conducted a research entitled The Effect
of Think-Pair-Share Strategy and Students’ Motivation Toward Their
Speaking Skill in Descriptive Text at The Seventh Grade of SMPN 2
Baturaja Ogan Komering Ulu (OKU). The result of this study are that
students who are taught by the strategy of think pair share have better
speech on descriptive text than students taught with conventional teaching.
From the result of the previous research, there are some similarities. First,
the using think-pair-share as strategy to solve the problems. Second, the writer has
the similar research design with Sulistyorini’s study and Sarah Hediyati Astuti’s
study that is experimental quantitative design. On the other hand, there are also
the differences. In Pratiwi’s study, she used research design while she uses
experimental design. Then, the object of research and English skills problem are
different.
C. Thinking Framework
Speaking as a part of language skill has to be comprehended by the
students in order to convey many messages and share information and idea to
others. However, the process of speaking really takes more time in order to
accomplish the learning activities. Therefore, a sufficient time for speaking is
needed in order the complete all the speaking process. On the other hand,
compared to teaching speaking in the actual situation, speaking has limited time to
be taught in the junior high school because the allowed to other skills namely,
reading, writing and listening. According to Screiber (2010: p.4) there are five
12
aspects became criteria for the teacher in evaluating students’ speaking so that the
teacher can judge the students’ speaking is good or not. They are:
1. Grammar
2. Pronunciation
3. Vocabulary
4. Fluency
5. Comprehension
To increase the students’ speaking performance the teachers have to be
smart in creates an interesting strategies in increasing students’ motivation and
attractive students’ attention. Therefore, the using of appropriate strategy can
influence students’ speaking performance.
Based on explanation above, the writer tries to choose Think-Pair-Share
as strategy in speaking performance in this study. The writer tries to find the effect
of one variable toward another variable namely independent variable and
dependent variable. Independent variable in this study is Think-Pair-Share
Strategy while dependent variable is speaking performance.
13
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH
A. Place and Time of The Research
The research was conducted at second grade of MTs Jauharul Islam
which is loceted in Jl. Jepang Penyengat Olak Village, Jambi Luar Kota District,
Muaro Jambi Regency. It was carried out on April 2018 – May 2018.
B. Research Design
In this research, the researcher was apply quantitative method which is
quasi experimental design. Experimental research measured the effect of one
manipulated and controlled (independent) variable to another (dependent)
variable, like the effect of different method of teaching to the students’
achievement, the effect of an English training method of teaching to participants’
English skills (Latif, 2015: p.95). Experimental research is a powerful research
method to establish cause-and-effect relationship (Borg, W.R., Gall, M.D. 1989:
p.639) as cited in Latif (2014: p.125)
The researcher examined the differences of the groups. He was given
pretest and posttest to get the differences of them and the result of treatment more
accurate, because the researcher would compare before and after giving the
treatment (Sugiyono, 2015: p.74). The design was only the pretest-posttest control
group design. Cohen et al (2007: p.283) described the design as follow:
Table 3.1 the pretest and posttest control group design.
Experiment
Group O1 X O2
Control
Group O3 – O4
14
Where:
O1 : Pre-test of experimental class
O2 : Post-test of experimental class
O3 : Pre-test of control class
O4 : Post-test of control class
X : Treatment
C. Population and Sample Technique
1. Population
The larger group to which one hopes to apply the result is called the
population ( Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009: p.90). The populations this research are
all of seventh grade students of MTs.S Jauharul Islam Muaro Jambi. The classes
are VIII.1, VIII.2 and VIII.3.
Table 3.2. The Population
No Class Male Female Total
1 VIII.1 20 20
2 VIII.2 18 18
3 VIII.3 10 10 20
Total 28 30 58
2. Sample
Researcher tries to obtain measures from some of the members of the
accessible population in a much smaller number than the accessible population.
The smaller number of the accessible population is called the sample (Latif, 2015:
p.182). In this research, researcher used purposive sampling in which two groups
of sample do not have relationship. The writer chooses the sample because those
samples have the purpose, and make the researcher is easier to collect the data.
The result is VIII.3 as experiment group who would be taught by using Think-
Pair-Share Strategy and VIII.1 as control group. The writer decided the sample
based on their daily score, in which those class had the same starting point and
had the same score in English lesson.
15
D. Variable of the Study
Sudijono (2012: p.36) states that a variable is something that may vary or
differ. This study considers two types of variables; they are dependent and
independent variable. According to Brown (2004: p.10) a dependent variable is
the variable of focus or the central variable on which other variables will act if
there is any relationship. The independent variable is the variable selected by the
writer to determine the relationship with the dependent variable and the variables
of this study are:
X : The Independent Variable (Think-Pair-Share Strategy)
Y : Dependent Variable (Students’ Speaking Performance)
E. Instrument of the Research
1. Speaking Performance ( Variable Y)
a. Conceptual Definitions
Speaking activities is more focus on monolog better than dialog.
Function of speaking as performance happened at speeches, public
talks, public announcements, retell story, telling story and so on. And
then, the types of speaking performances there are six categories. Those
six categories are imitative, intensive, responsive performance,
transactional (dialogue), interpersonal (dialogue) and extensive.
b. Operational Definitions
In this case, speaking activities is more focus on monolog better than
dialog. Function of speaking as performance happened at speeches,
public talks, public announcements, retell story, telling story and so on.
And then, the types of speaking performances there are six categories.
According to Brown, (2004: p.271) describes six categories of speaking
skill area. In this study, speaking refers to students’ speaking
performance in form of monologue. The speaking performance then is
scored by using speaking rubric adopted from Screiber (2010: p.4) there
16
aspects are: (1) Grammar, (2) Pronunciation, (3) Vocabulary, (4)
Fluency and (5) Comprehension.
2. Think-Pair-Share Strategy (Variable X)
a. Conceptual Definitions
Think-pair-share strategy is a part of cooperative learning strategy.
Cooperative learning strategy is a method that divides the class member
to several groups and arranges the students to work in a group. Think-
pair-share is a cooperative learning strategy that can promote and
support higher level thinking.
b. Operational Definitions
Think-pair-share is a collaborative learning strategy in which students
work together to solve a problem or answer a question about an
assigned speaking. This technique requires students to (1) think
individually about a topic or answer to a question (2) discuss the
answer/the task with a partner. And (3) share ideas with other
classmates. Discussing problem with a partner maximize participation,
focus attention and engage students in comprehending the speaking
material.
F. Technique of collecting the data
1. Speaking Test
To collect the data the writer would give a speaking test as the instrument.
The test will be given as pre-test and post-test. The pre-test is aimed at finding
out the prior speaking of the students, while the post-test is aimed at finding
out the students’ speaking performance after treatment is given (teaching
English speaking by using Project Based Learning Instructions). The test will
be graded on the speaking rubric (see appendix 1). The grades will be classified
in the grade category (see appendix 2).
17
G. Validity and Reliability Test
1. Validity
In validity this research used content validity and face validity. The content
validity is used in order to see whether or not the topics of speaking given in
the research in matched with the topics of speaking in first semester. Face
validity is the extent to which a test is subjectively viewed as covering the
concept it purports to measure. It refers to the transparency or relevance of a
test as it appears to test participants.
2. Reliability
Reliability refers to the consistency of the scores obtained how consistent
they are for each individual from one administration of an instrument to
another and from one set of items to another. The degree to which score
obtained with an instrument are consistent measures of whatever the instrument
measures (Fraenkel &\ Wallen, 2009: p.154). The technique that would be used
was inter rater reliability. Inter rater reliability is used to measure the reliability
of instrument that involve two raters for checking the reliability. There was a
lecturer of UIN STS Jambi and a teacher of Alfa Academy involved as the
raters. The result inter rater reliability showed that the reliability of the data
was 0,634 in control group and 0,742 was in experimental group (see appendix
3). It indicated that there was strong relationship of the data.
H. Techniques of analyzing the data
1. Descriptive Analysis
In this step, the writer tried to describe the data of the study by
explaining/exploring the frequencies of the score categories achieved by the
students before and after the treatment. The writer applied the score criterion
by Purwanto (1987: p.103). The analysis also explains the average score,
range, minimum and maximum values of the scores.
18
Table 3.3
Scoring Criterion
No Score Categories
1. 5 – 8 Needs improvement
2. 9 – 12 Satisfactory
3. 13 – 16 Good
4. 17 – 20 Excellent
Source: score criterion by Purwanto (1987: p.103)
2. Statistical Analysis
a. Normality Test
This test was carried out in order to check the whether or not the data
was normal. If the data was normal, the parametric test was used. On the other
hand, if the data was not normal, the non-parametric test was used.
b. T-test
The technique of analyze the data, the writer would employ SPSS
(Social Package for Social Science) program. In this case, the data would be
analyzed by sample t-test. There were two kinds of sample t-test, they were
independent sample t-test and paired sample t-test. Paired sample t-test is
used to see whether or not there is significant improvement of students’
speaking performance before and after the treatment. The independent sample
t-test is used to compare the means of one variable for two groups of cases
(Taniredja, 2014: p.81-83)
19
G. Hypotheses
This research is to answer the questions about the significance different
students’ speaking performance taught by using Think-Pair-Share strategy.
Therefore, writer proposed hypothesis as follows:
Ho : there is no effect of using Think-Pair-Share strategy on students’
speaking performance.
Ha : there is effect of using Think-Pair-Share on Students’
speaking performance.
20
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDING AND INTERPRETATIONS
A. Finding of The Study
The data of students’ speaking test in pre-test and post-test at
experimental and control groups were scored by raters. After the writer got the
data, the writer employed SPSS (statistical product and service solution) version
22 program. In this case, the data were analyzed by using t-test. There are two
kinds of t-test, they are independent sample t-test and paired sample t-test. The
finding include: 1) Descriptive analysis of students’ speaking test, 2) Statistical
analysis of the students’ speaking test.
1. Descriptive Analysis
In this section, the writer explained the frequencies, percentages and
means score of the test, based on the result of test before and after giving the
treatment in both experiment and control groups. The scoring criterion can be
seen in the table 4.1.
Table 4.1
Scoring Criterion
No Score Categories
1. 5 – 8 Needs improvement
2. 9 – 12 Satisfactory
3. 13 – 16 Good
4. 17 – 20 Excellent
Source: score criterion by Purwanto (1987: p.103)
a. Result of Pre-Test and Post Test in Experimental Group
The results of pre-test in experimental group before interventions show that
most of the students’ score were categorized satisfactory. From 20 students, there
were 14 students (70%) could be categorized satisfactory. Meanwhile, the rest 6
students (30%) could be categorized good. The complete calculation can be seen
in appendix (4)
21
Figure 4.1
The Result of Pre-test in Experimental Group
In the post-test, from 20 students there were 3 students (15%) could be
categorized excellent. And then, 16 students (80%) could be categorized good.
Meanwhile, the rest 1 student (5%) could be categorized satisfactory. The
complete calculation can be seen in appendix (5).
Therefore, it can be seen that there was improvement on the students’
speaking performance after the intervention. The high score in pre-test 15 and the
lower score is 11. Beside, before the intervention it can be seen that there were no
students categorized excellent. However, after the intervention there were 3
students categorized excellent.
22
Figure 4.2
The Result of Post-test in Experimental Group
t
b. Result of Pre-Test and Post Test in Control Group
After calculated the pre-test and post-test in experimental group, the writer
also calculated pre-test and post-test in control group. From 20 students there
were 12 students (60%) could be categorized satisfactory. Meanwhile, the rest
8 students (40%) could be categorized good. The complete calculation can be
seen in appendix (6).
Figure 4.3
The Result of Pre-test in Control Group
23
In the post-test, from 20 students there were 14 students (70%) could be
categorized good. Meanwhile, the rest 6 students (30%) could be
categorized satisfactory. In post-test there was improvement on students’
speaking performance. In pre-test still many students got score in
satisfactory categorized. The complete calculation can be seen in appendix
(7).
Figure 4.4
The Result of Post-test in Control Group
The mean score differences between pre-test (12.20) and post-test (13.35) in
control group show that there was improvement on students’ speaking
performance, but the improvement is not big.
2. Statistical Analysis
a. The Result of Normality
This test is carried out in order check whether or not the data is
normally distributed. The normality test was employed by using
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The result of the analysis was presented in
table 4.2
24
Table 4.2.
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test in Experiment Group
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Pre_test Post_test
N 20 20
Normal Parametersa,b
Mean 9.4000 12.3000
Std.
Deviation 2.08124 2.55672
Most Extreme Differences Absolute .149 .147
Positive .149 .147
Negative -.082 -.106
Test Statistic .149 .147
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .200c,d
.200c,d
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
c. Lilliefors Significance Correction.
d. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
In the test, the level of significance was set up at 0,05, the asymp.sig of
pre-test is 0,200 and post-test is 0,200. It means the score are higher than
the level of significance (0,05), or 0,200 > 0,05 and 0,200 > 0,05. It can be
said that the data of pre-test and post-test of experimental are normally
distributed. It means, the parametric test is used. Then, the test of
normality for control group can be seen in the table 4.3
25
Table 4.3.
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test in Control Group
Pre_test Post_test
N 20 20
Normal Parametersa,b
Mean 8.9750 10.8250
Std.
Deviatio
n
1.59337 1.78646
Most Extreme Differences Absolute .180 .122
Positive .180 .122
Negative -.090 -.097
Test Statistic .180 .122
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .090c .200
c,d
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
c. Lilliefors Significance Correction.
d. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
In the test, the level of significance was set up at 0,05, the asymp.sig of
pre-test was 0,090 and post-test was 0,200. It means the score are higher
than level significance (0,05) or 0,090 > 0,05 and 0,200 > 0,05 It can be said
that the data of pre-test and post-test of control group are normally
distributed. It means, the parametric test is used.
The statistical computation on the pre-test and post-test of the
experimental and control group using SPSS (Statistical Product and Service
Solution) version 22 program showed that the distribution of the
experimental and control groups’ scores were not different, the data of pre-
test of experimental and control group were normally distributed, and the
data of post-test of experimental and control group were normally
distributed. So, the data of pre-test and post-test of experimental and control
group were normally distributed. It means a parametric test was used.
26
b. The Result Paired Sample T-test of Experimental Group
This analysis was used to see whether or not there was significant effect
of using Think-Pair-Share strategy on students’ speaking performance.
This test could help the writer to examine the improvement of students’
speaking performance. The result could be seen in the table 4.4 and 4.5
below.
Table 4.4.
Paired Samples Statistics
Table 4.5.
Paired Samples Test of Experimental Group
Paired Differences
t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed) Mean
Std.
Deviati
on
Std.
Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Mean N
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Pair 1 Pre_test 12.15 20 1.226 .274
Post_test 14.70 20 1.625 .363
27
Pair 1 Pre-
test
-
Post
-test -2.550 .686 .153 -2.871 -2.229 -16.616 19 .000
The table 4.4 and 4.5 showed that the experimental group students’
scores in post-test are better, in which the mean score is 14,70 than their
score in pre-test, the mean score was 12,15. In addition, the 2-tailed score
was 0,000 which was lower than significant level = 0,05 (0,000 < 0,05).
Therefore, the calculation of paired t-test sample t-test sowed that there
was a significant difference between pre-test and post-test of experimental
group.
The calculation was carried out in order to know how well the treatment
worked, in terms of pre-test and post-test score for experimental group.
Based on the table above, the score of t-obtained was -16,616 and t-table
was obtained from statistical table of significant level (0,05 : 2 = 0,025)
and df score (n – 1 or 20 – 1 = 19). Finally, the score of t-table was -2,093.
It can be concluded that the score of t-obtained < t-table (-16,616 < -2,093)
and significant 2-tailed < 0,05 (0,000 < 0,05) so that H1 is accepted. It
means, there was significant effect of Think-Pair-Share strategy on
students’ speaking performance.
c. The Result Paired Sample T-test of Control Group
The writer not only analyze in experimental group but also analyze in
control group. The result of paired sample test of control group can be seen
in the table 4.6 and 4.7 below
28
Table 4.6.
Paired Samples Statistics
Table 4.7.
Paired Samples Test of Control Group
Paired Differences
t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed) Mean
Std.
Deviati
on
Std.
Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 Pre-
test
-
Post
-test -1.150 .745 .167 -1.499 -.801 -6.902 19 .000
Mean N
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Pair 1 Pre_test 12.20 20 1.795 .401
Post_test 13.35 20 1.226 .274
29
The table 4.6 and 4.7 showed that the control group students’ scores in
post-test are better, in which the mean score is 13,35 than their score in
pre-test, the mean score was 12,20. In addition, the 2-tailed score was
0,000 which was lower than significant level = 0,05 (0,000 < 0,05).
Therefore, the calculation of paired t-test sample t-test sowed that there
was a significant difference between pre-test and post-test of control
group.
Based on the table above, the score of t-obtained was -6,902 and t-table
was obtained from statistical table of significant level (0,05 : 2 = 0,025)
and df score (n – 1 or 20 – 1 = 19). Finally, the score of t-table was -2,093.
It can be concluded that the score of t-obtained < t-table (-6,902 < -2,093)
and significant 2-tailed < 0,05 (0,000 < 0,05). It means, there was
significant difference between pre-test and post-test of control group.
d. The Result of Independent Sample T-test
This test was used to compare the mean score of speaking performance
between the students who were taught by using Think-Pair-Share strategy
and those who were not. The calculation of independent sample t-test was
used to analyze the score of post-test in experiment and control groups. The
result can be seen in the tables below.
Table 4.8.
Group Statistics
Group N Mean
Std.
Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pre_test Control 20 10.83 1.786 .399
Experiment 20 12.30 2.557 .572
30
Table 4.9.
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
taile
d)
Mean
Differen
ce
Std.
Error
Diffe
rence
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
P
o
s
t
_
t
e
s
t
Equal
variances
assumed 1.121 .296 -2.115 38 .042 -1.475 .697 -2.887 -.063
Equal
variances
not
assumed -2.115 33.981 .042 -1.475 .697 -2.892 -.058
Before the writer compared the mean score of students’ speaking
performance, the writer examines the F-test (homogeneity test). It means, if
the variance is equal variance assumed score is used. Based on the table 4.9
it can be seen that significant of F-test was obtained 0,296. It can be said
that significant > 0,05 (0,296 > 0,05). It can be concluded that the data
between experimental and control had the equal variance. It means, the
equal variance assumed was used.
Next, the writer analyzed the independent sample t-test. In the table 4.13
above, it showed t-obtained of equal variance assumed was -2,115 and t-
31
table was obtained from statistical table on significant level (0,05 : 2 =
0,025) and df score was 33,981. Finally, the score of t-table was -2,101. It
can be concluded that the score of t-obtained < t-table (-2,115 < -2,101) and
significant 2-tailed < 0,05 (0,042 < 0,05) so, H1 is accepted. It means, there
was significant difference of speaking performance between the students
who were taught using Think-Pair-Share strategy and those who were not.
D. Interpretations
The aims of this research were to find out whether or not there was any
significant improvement of students’ speaking performance at the second grade of
Jauharul Islam Islamic Junior High School before and after being taught by using
Think-Pair-Share strategy. Besides, it was to find out whether there was any
significant difference between the students’ speaking performance who were
taught by using Think-Pair-Share strategy and those who were not.
Based on the analysis, there was significant effect of groups who are taught
by using Think-Pair-Share strategy and those who are not. This can be seen from
the pre-test and post-test result in both of groups. The students’ score of pre-test in
experiment class were 70% satisfactory categorized and 30% good categorized.
And the students’ score of post-test were 15% excellent categorized, 80% good
categorized and 5% satisfactory categorized. Meanwhile, the students’ score of
pre-test in control class were 60% satisfactory categorized and 40% good
categorized. And the students’ score of post-test were 70% good categorized and
30% satisfactory categorized. Both experiment and control class learned English
subject two meetings in a week and the students are asked to practice for
arranging the descriptive text in the end of each meeting.
The result of the test showed that students’ score who were not taught by
using Think-Pair-Share strategy in control group improved, but the result of post-
test in control group are lower than the result of post-test in experiment group.
The students in both of groups, most of them get better score than their own test in
32
pre-test. Some students scored better, although they still had some incorrect in
pronunciation, fluency and grammar.
It can be concluded that teaching speaking by using Think-Pair-Share strategy
was effective, it is line with study conducted by Pratiwi (2014). It was found out
that Think-Pair-share strategy benefits students in the areas of pee acceptance,
peer support, academic achievement, self-esteem, and interest in learning and this
strategy can improve students speaking ability. In addition, study conducted by
Sulistiyorini (2011). In her study, it was found out that the students had a good
response because this strategy is simple and very easy and the students’ English
score improved after being taught by using Think-Pair-Share strategy. And the
study conducted by Sarah Hediyati Astuti (2014). It was found that students who
are taught by the strategy of think pair share have better speech on descriptive text
than students taught with conventional teaching.
The students interested and enjoyed learning English by using Think-Pair-
Share strategy. The class become cooperative, because all of the students
participated in these activities. By using Think-Pair-Share strategy, the situation
of learning in the class is better than before. It can be seen on the table of the
students’ speaking score that the students who learn speaking through Think-Pair-
Share strategy shows that the mean score in experimental group is 14,70 and the
mean score in control group is 13,35. They have a significant difference. It means
that there is a significant improvement of using Think-Pair-Share strategy in
teaching speaking.
33
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION .
A. Conclusion
Based on the results of research and discussion, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
There are differences in students’ speaking performance before and after the
intervention by using Think-Pair-Share strategy. Students’ speaking performance
in the class that taught using Think-Pair-Share strategy is better than the class that
taught without using Think-Pair-Share strategy. And there are difference
improvement in pre-test and post-test in experimental group. It can be seen from
the calculation of the t-test, which shows the mean in the experimental group
(12,30) and in the control group (10,83)
B. Suggestions
Based on the results above the writer would like to give some suggestion. For
teachers, it is better to apply Think-Pair-Share strategy as a part of cooperative
learning type. The teachers should also be able to apply a wide variety of learning
models to create a fun learning process to encourage students to learn optimally.
For researchers who wish to continue the results of this research, it is suggested
to apply comparison study to compare Think-Pair-Share strategy and other type of
strategy under cooperative learning type. Moreover, further research investigators
should conduct research to develop strategies, variables, and different indicators
in order to improve the quality of learning in the classroom. The writer also
suggests that then further research could control externous variable by applying
other sampling method. Finally, the writer suggest that further research could
consider teacher’s character as the variable that will effect the result of the study.
34
REFERENCES
Arikunto, S. (2010). Manajemen Penelitian. Jakarta : PT. Rineka Cipta
Astuti,S.H. (2014). The Effect of Think Pair Share Strategy and Students’
Motivation Toward Their Speaking Skill in Descriptive Text at The Seventh
Grade of SMPN 2 Baturaja Ogan Komering Ulu (OKU) South Sumatra
(Vol.2)
Brown, J.D (2004). Understanding Research in Second Language Learning. A
teacher’s guide to statistics and research design: Cambridge University
Press
Cahyono, B.Y. & Widiati,U. (2011). The teaching of English as a Foreign
Language in Indonesia. Malang: First Printing.
Cohen, L., Manion, l., & Marison, K. (2007). Research method in education.
Eviyuliawati, I.(1997). The Teaching of Functional Skill and Communicative
Expression at SMU IKIP Malang Based on thr 1994 English Curriculum
: A Case Study. English Languge Education, 3(1).
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (1993). How to design and evaluate
research in education (Vol. 7). New York: McGraw-Hill Taniredja, T.,
& Mustafidah, H. (2014). Penelitian kuntitatif. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Ihsan, D. (1999). Speaking and Writing Errors Made by Students of English
Education. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 6(3).
Isjoni, (2011) Cooperative Learning Bandung: Alfabeta
Kagan,S.,Kagan,M.& Kagan,L. (2000) Teaching English/Language Arts
Standards Through Cooperative Learning. NY. National Professional
Resources, Inc.
Lajnah Pentaskhihan Mushaf Al-Qur’an. (2014) Al-Qur’an Transliterasi Al-Jadid.
Solo : PT. Tiga Srangkai Pustaka Mandiri
Latief, M. A. (2010). Tanya jawab metode penelitian pembelajaran bahasa.
Malang: PenerbitUniversitasNegeri Malang.
Latief, M. A. (2012). Research methods on language learning: An introduction.
Malang: PenerbitUniversitasNegeri Malang
Mukminatien, N. (1999). The Problem of Developing Speaking Skills: Limitations
35
of Second Language Acquisition in an EFL Classroom. English
Language Education, 5 (1)
Mukminatien, N. (1999). The Premature Use of English Grammar by EFL
Learners. TEFLIN Journal, 10 (1).
Pratiwi, D. (2014) Improving the eighth grade students’ speaking skills of SMPN
2 Nusawungu Through Think Pair Share Strategy
Priyatno, Duwi. (2014) SPSS 22 Pengolah Data Terpraktis. Yogyakarta : CV
Andi Offset
Santoso, Singgih (2015) Menguasai SPSS 22 From Basic To Exprert Skills,
Jakarta : PT Elex Media Komputindo
Schreiber, L.M., Schneller, B.E., & Shibley, L.R. (2010). Deconstructing oral
communication: Competencies for campus-wide assessments. Paper
presented at The 2010 Assessment Institute in Indianapolis through The
Office of Planning and Institutional Improvement. Indiana University-
Purdue University Indianapolis, October 24 –October 26, 2010
Slavin, E.R (2005) Cooperative Learning. Bandung: Nusa Media
Sugiyono. (2015) Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif dan R & D. Bandung:
Alfabeta
Sulistiyorini,Y. (2011) The Use Of Think-Pair-Share Strategy To Improve
Students’ Speaking Ability At Tenth Grade Students Of Sman 1 Karang
Kobar In The Academic Year Of 2010/2011
Tim Penyusun, (2017). Pedoman Penulisan Skripsi 2017 . UIN Sulthan Thaha
SyafudiiSyaifuddin Jambi
Ur, P. (1995). A Course in Language Teaching : Practice anh Theory, Cambridge
: Cambridge University Press
36
APPENDIX 1
Scoring Rubric
Aspect Score
Grammar
Student was difficult to understand and had a hard time
communicating their ideas and responses because of
grammar mistakes.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses
inadequate but often displayed inconsistencies with their
sentence structure and tenses.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses fairly
well but makes mistakes with their tenses, however is able to
correct themselves.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses with
ease in proper sentence structure and tenses.
1
2
3
4
Pronunciation
Student was difficult to understand, quiet in speaking,
unclear in pronunciation.
Student was slightly unclear with pronunciation at times, but
generally is fair.
Pronunciation was good and did not interfere with
communication.
Pronunciation was very clear and easy to understand.
1
2
3
4
Vocabulary
Student had inadequate vocabulary words to express his/her
deas properly, which hindered the students in responding.
Student was able to use broad vocabulary words but was
lacking, making him/her repetitive and cannot expandon
his/her ideas.
Student utilized the words learned in class, in an accurate
manner for the situation given.
Rich, precise and impressive usage of vocabulary words
learned in and beyond of class.
1
2
3
4
Fluency
37
Speech is very slow, stumbling, nervous, and uncertain with
response, except for short or memorized expressions.
Difficult for a listener to understand.
Speech is slow and often hesitant and irregular. Sentences
may be left uncompleted, but the student is able to continue.
Speech is mostly smooth but with some hesitation and
unevenness caused primarily by rephrasing and groping for
words.
Speech is effortless and smooth with speed that comes close
to that of a native speaker.
1
2
3
4
Comprehension
Student had difficulty understanding the topics that were
being conveyed.
Student fairly grasped the topics that were being conveyed.
Student was able to comprehend the topics that were being
discussed
Student was able to comprehend to all of the information in
the topics that were being discussed with ease.
1
2
3
4
Screiber (2010: p.4)
38
APPENDIX 2
Classification of Scoring Grade
Criteria of mastery Grade
5-8 Needs improvement
9-12 Satisfactory
13-16 Good
17-20 Excellent
Purwanto (1987: p.103)
39
APPENDIX 3
Control Group
Correlations
rater1 rater2
Spearman's rho rater1 Correlation
Coefficient 1.000 .634
**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .003
N 20 20
rater2 Correlation
Coefficient .634
** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .
N 20 20
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Experimental Group
Correlations
rater1 rater2
Spearman's rho rater1 Correlation
Coefficient 1.000 .742
**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000
N 20 20
rater2 Correlation
Coefficient .742
** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .
N 20 20
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
40
PRE TEST OF CONTROL
GROUP
POST-TEST OF CONTROL
GROUP
No Students Scrore
1 S1 12
2 S2 14
3 S3 15
4 S4 14
5 S5 13
6 S6 14
7 S7 13
8 S8 13
9 S9 11
10 S10 15
11 S11 13,5
12 S12 11,5
13 S13 15
14 S14 13,5
15 S15 13,5
16 S16 12
17 S17 12
18 S18 12,5
19 S19 12
20 S20 15
No Students Scrore
1 S1 10
2 S2 13
3 S3 12
4 S4 13
5 S5 15
6 S6 13
7 S7 10
8 S8 12
9 S9 15
10 S10 11
11 S11 10
12 S12 11
13 S13 15
14 S14 15
15 S15 13
16 S16 12
17 S17 12
18 S18 10
19 S19 12
20 S20 10
41
PRE TEST OF EXPERIMENT
GROUP
No Students Scrore
1 S1 10,5
2 S2 12
3 S3 12
4 S4 12
5 S5 10,5
6 S6 11
7 S7 15
8 S8 12
9 S9 12
10 S10 12
11 S11 11
12 S12 12
13 S13 11
14 S14 10,5
15 S15 13
16 S16 11
17 S17 13
18 S18 13
19 S19 13
20 S20 15
POST-TEST OF EXPERIMENT
GROUP
No Students Scrore
1 S1 13
2 S2 14
3 S3 16,5
4 S4 13,5
5 S5 13
6 S6 14,5
7 S7 17,5
8 S8 15
9 S9 14,5
10 S10 12
11 S11 15
12 S12 15,5
13 S13 13,5
14 S14 14,5
15 S15 12,5
16 S16 12,5
17 S17 14,5
18 S18 14,5
19 S19 13,5
20 S20 17,5
Kompetensi Inti: 1. Menghayati dan mengamalkan ajaran agama yang dianutnya.
2. Menghargai dan menghayati perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggungjawab, peduli (toleransi, gotong royong), santun, percaya diri, dalam berinteraksi secara efektif
dengan lingkungan sosial dan alam dalam jangkauan pergaulan dan keberadaannya.
3. Memahami pengetahuan (faktual, konseptual, dan prosedural) berdasarkan rasa ingin tahunya tentang Ilmu pengetahuan, teknologi, seni, budaya terkait
fenomena dan kejadian tampak mata.
4. Mencoba, mengolah, dan menyaji dalam ranah konkret (menggunakan, mengurai, merangkai, memodifikasi, dan membuat) dan ranah abstrak (menulis,
membaca, menghitung, menggambar, dan mengarang) sesuai dengan yang dipelajari di sekolah dan sumber lain yang sama dalam sudut pandang/teori.
No.
Kompetensi
Dasar
Materi Pokok
Kegiatan
Pembelajaran
Ranah
Kompetensi
Nilai Semangat Kewirausahaan dan Ekonomi
Kreatif
Penilaian Alokasi Waktu
Sumber Belajar
Jenis
Bentuk Instrumen/ Aktivitas
1.
2.1
2.2
Mensyukuri
kesempatan dapat
mempelajari
bahasa Inggris
sebagai bahasa
pengantar
komunikasi
internasional.
Menghargai
perilaku santun dan
peduli dalam
melaksanakan
komunikasi antar
pribadi dengan guru
dan teman.
Menunjukkan
perilaku jujur,
disiplin, percaya
diri, dan
bertanggung jawab
dalam
melaksanakan
komunikasi
transaksional
dengan guru dan
teman.
He is My
Favourite
Teacher
1. Teacher along with the
students begin the lesson by
praying to God.
2. Teacher gives motivation,
makes a condition of students
to follow the learning, as well
as explaining the learning
objectives
3. Teacher asks students to
practise the dialogue with his/her
friend about idol teacher, cute
pet, lovely house.
4. Teacher asks students to do
some activities and answer
some questions related to idol
teacher, cute pet, lovely house.
5. Teacher explains the
grammar about simple present
tense.
6. Teacher asks students to do
exercise related to the grammar.
Sikap
Sikap
Pengetahuan
dan
Keterampilan
Pengetahuan
Pengetahuan
Pengetahuan
dan
Keterampilan
• Berorientasi
pada tugas dan
hasil
• Kreatif
• Semangat
Penugasan
Pelatihan
• Kegiatan
Mandiri
• Kegiatan
Kelompok
• Kegiatan
Eksplorasi
• Ulangan/
Ulangan
Harian
• Pengamatan,
observasi,
praktikum, dan
aktivitas lainnya.
• Pengamatan,
observasi,
praktikum, dan
aktivitas lainnya.
• Pilihan ganda
dan bentuk
lainnya.
8 X 1 JP • Powerpoint
• Internet
• Majalah
• English Sentence Structure
• Fundamental of English Grammar.
• Buku Bahasa Inggris VII
• Referensi lain yang relevan
No.
Kompetensi
Dasar
Materi Pokok
Kegiatan
Pembelajaran
Ranah
Kompetensi
Nilai Semangat Kewirausahaan dan Ekonomi
Kreatif
Penilaian Alokasi Waktu
Sumber Belajar
Jenis Bentuk
Instrumen/ Aktivitas
2.3
3.7
4.11
\
4.12
4.11
4.12
Menunjukkan perilaku tanggung jawab, peduli, kerjasama, dan cinta damai, dalam melaksanakan komunikasifungsional.Memahami fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan dari teks deskriptif dengan menyatakan dan menanyakan tentang deskripsi orang, binatang, dan benda, sangat pendek dan sederhana, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya. Menangkap makna dalam teks deskriptif lisan dan tulis, sangat pendek dan sederhana. Menyusun teks deskriptif lisan dan tulis, sangat pendek dan sederhana, tentang orang, binatang, dan benda, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan, secara benar dan sesuai konteks.
7. Teacher asks students to
implicate their English skills
in a daily life.
Pengetahuan
dan
Keterampilan
Keterampilan
dan Sikap
Pengetahuan
dan
Keterampilan
Pengetahuan
dan
Keterampilan
Nilai Sikap : • Gemar membaca
• Mandiri
• Rasa ingin tahu
• Religius
• Proaktif
Cakupan Kualifikasi Kemampuan Sikap Pengetahuan Keterampilan
Menerima Mengingat Mengamati
Menjalankan Memahami Menanya
Menghargai Menerapkan Mencoba
Menghayati Menganalisis Menalar
Mengamalkan Mengevaluasi Menyaji
Mencipta
Lesson Plan of Experimental Group
RENCANA PELAKSANAAN PEMBELAJARAN
(RPP)
Satuan Pendidikan : MTs Jauharul Islam Muara Jambi
Mata pelajaran : Bahasa Inggris
Kelas/Semester : VIII 3/ Genap
Materi Pokok : Descriptive Text
Alokasi Waktu : 2 X 40 Menit
A. Kompetensi Inti (KI)
1. Menghargai dan menghayati ajaran agama yang dianutnya
2. Menghargai dan menghayati perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggungjawab,
peduli (toleransi, gotong royong), santun, percaya diri, dalam berinteraksi
secara efektif dengan lingkungan sosial dan alam dalam jangkauan
pergaulan dan keberadaannya.
3. Memahami pengetahuan (faktual, konseptual, dan prosedural)
berdasarkan rasa ingin tahunya tentang ilmu pengetahuan, teknologi, seni,
budaya terkait fenomena dan kejadian tampak mata.
4. Mencoba, mengolah, dan menyaji dalam ranah konkret (menggunakan,
mengurai, merangkai, memodifikasi, dan membuat) dan ranah abstrak
(menulis, membaca, menghitung, menggambar, dan mengarang)sesuai
dengan yang dipelajari di sekolah dan sumber lain yang sama dalam sudut
pandang/teori.
B. Kompetensi Dasar
1. Mensyukuri kesempatan dapat mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai
bahasa pengantar komunikasi internasional.
2.1 Menghargai perilaku santun dan peduli dalam melaksanakan komunikasi antar pribadi
dengan guru dan teman
2.2 Menunjukkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, percaya diri, dan bertanggung jawab
dalam melaksanakan komunikasi transaksional dengan guru dan teman.
2.3 Menunjukkan perilaku tanggung jawab, peduli, kerjasama, dan cinta damai,
dalam melaksanakan komunikasi fungsional.
3.7 Memahami fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan dari teks
deskriptif dengan menyatakan dan menanyakan tentang deskripsi orang, binatang,
dan benda, sangat pendek dan sederhana, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya.
4.11 Menangkap makna dalam teks deskriptif lisan dan tulis, sangat pendek dan
sederhana.
4.12 Menyusun teks deskriptif lisan dan tulis, sangat pendek dan sederhana,
tentang orang, binatang, dan benda, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur
teks, dan unsur kebahasaan, secara benar dan sesuai konteks.
C. Indikator Pencapaian Kompetensi
1. Menunjukkan motivasi untuk mengembangkan kemampuan berbahasa
Inggris.
2. Mengidentifikasi ungkapan yang digunakan untuk mendeskripsikan
orang, hewan, serta benda (rumah).
3. Melakukan percakapan secara interpersonal dengan menggunakan ungkapan
yang digunakan untuk mendeskripsikan orang, hewan, serta benda melalui
kegiatan terintegrasi menyimak-berbicara bahasa Inggris dengan percaya diri.
D. Materi pembelajaran
Descriptive text
1. A description is a text that describe a particular person, place or thing.
2. A description consists of;
Identification
This part identifies a thing / person being described
Description
This part describes parts, qualities and characteristics.
3. An example of desription:
Identification identifies the person being desribed.
I live with my uncle.
Description describes the characteristic.
My uncle is big. He has oval face and handsome. My uncle has black, curly and
short hair. He is 75 kg and 170 cm. His hobbies are playing football and
swimming. My uncle is a great football player, he runs very fast. I love him so
much.
4. A description usually uses the simple present tense and adjective.
Example:
I live with my uncle
My uncle is a great football player.
E. Strategy Pembelajaran
Think-Pair-Share
F. Kegiatan Pembelajaran
Kegiatan Deskripsi Kegiatan Alokasi
Waktu
Pendahuluan Guru membuka pelajaran
Guru memeriksa kehadiran siswa, kesiapan
siswa dalam mengikuti KBM, kerapian dan
posisi tempat duduk
Melakukan brainstorming
Siswa dilibatkan dalam me-review
pelajaran sebelumnya.
Guru mengaitkan mengaitkan materi yang
akan dipelajari siswa dengan penegtahuan
yang telah diketahui oleh siswa
10 menit
Inti Observing
Guru mengajak peserta didik untuk
mengamati gambar pada papan tulis
Menanyakan beberapa hal yang berkenaan
dengan deskripsi orang: tall, short, pointed,
talkative, fat, slim, etc.
Communicating
Peserta didik mempersiapkan ide terkait
topik yang di diskusikan (Think)
Peserta didik bekerja berpasangan dan
berdiskusi dengan pasangannya tentang
topic yang dibahas (Pair)
Peserta didik menyampaikan hasil dari
60 Menit
diskusi mereka (Share)
Experimenting
Dalam bagian ini, guru menjelaskan
penggunaan “simple present tense” dalam
kalimat.
Siswa membuat descriptive text dalam
speaking monologue
Penutup Melakukan refleksi dengan bermain game
Siswa dilibatkan dalam menyimpulkan
pelajaran
Guru menyampaikan topik yang akan
dipelajari pada pertemuan selanjutnya
Guru menutup pelajaran
10 menit
G. Sumber / Media Pembelajaran
Sumber: buku paket siswa, buku When English Rings a Bell untuk
kelas VIII SMP/ MTs
Media: Gambar
H. Penilaian
Scoring rubric of speaking
Aspect Score
Grammar
Student was difficult to understand and had a hard time
communicating their ideas and responses because of
grammar mistakes.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses
inadequate but often displayed inconsistencies with their
sentence structure and tenses.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses fairly
well but makes mistakes with their tenses, however is able to
correct themselves.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses with
ease in proper sentence structure and tenses.
1
2
3
4
Pronunciation
Student was difficult to understand, quiet in speaking,
unclear in pronunciation.
Student was slightly unclear with pronunciation at times, but
generally is fair.
Pronunciation was good and did not interfere with
communication.
Pronunciation was very clear and easy to understand.
1
2
3
4
Vocabulary
Student had inadequate vocabulary words to express his/her
deas properly, which hindered the students in responding.
Student was able to use broad vocabulary words but was
lacking, making him/her repetitive and cannot expandon
his/her ideas.
Student utilized the words learned in class, in an accurate
manner for the situation given.
Rich, precise and impressive usage of vocabulary words
learned in and beyond of class.
1
2
3
4
Fluency
Speech is very slow, stumbling, nervous, and uncertain with
response, except for short or memorized expressions.
Difficult for a listener to understand.
Speech is slow and often hesitant and irregular. Sentences
1
2
may be left uncompleted, but the student is able to continue.
Speech is mostly smooth but with some hesitation and
unevenness caused primarily by rephrasing and groping for
words.
Speech is effortless and smooth with speed that comes close
to that of a native speaker.
3
4
Comprehension
Student had difficulty understanding the topics that were
being conveyed.
Student fairly grasped the topics that were being conveyed.
Student was able to comprehend the topics that were being
discussed
Student was able to comprehend to all of the information in
the topics that were being discussed with ease.
1
2
3
4
Classification of Scoring Grade
Criteria of mastery Grade
5-8 Needs improvement
9-12 Satisfactory
13-16 Good
17-20 Excellent
Mengetahui,
Kepala Sekolah Guru Mata Pelajaran Mahasiswa Peneliti
Yusnidar M. Daud, M. Pd. I Maria Lusi Septriani.W, S.Pd. Rini Setia Wati
NIP.197101021997032002 NIP. NIM.TE.130557
Lesson Plan of Control Group
RENCANA PELAKSANAAN PEMBELAJARAN
(RPP)
Satuan Pendidikan : MTs Jauharul Islam Muara Jambi
Mata pelajaran : Bahasa Inggris
Kelas/Semester : VIII 1/ Genap
Materi Pokok : Descriptive Text
Alokasi Waktu : 2 X 40 Menit
A. Kompetensi Inti (KI)
1. Menghargai dan menghayati ajaran agama yang dianutnya
2. Menghargai dan menghayati perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggungjawab,
peduli (toleransi, gotong royong), santun, percaya diri, dalam berinteraksi
secara efektif dengan lingkungan sosial dan alam dalam jangkauan
pergaulan dan keberadaannya.
3. Memahami pengetahuan (faktual, konseptual, dan prosedural)
berdasarkan rasa ingin tahunya tentang ilmu pengetahuan, teknologi, seni,
budaya terkait fenomena dan kejadian tampak mata.
4. Mencoba, mengolah, dan menyaji dalam ranah konkret (menggunakan,
mengurai, merangkai, memodifikasi, dan membuat) dan ranah abstrak
(menulis, membaca, menghitung, menggambar, dan mengarang)sesuai
dengan yang dipelajari di sekolah dan sumber lain yang sama dalam sudut
pandang/teori.
B. Kompetensi Dasar
1. Mensyukuri kesempatan dapat mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa
pengantar komunikasi internasional.
2.1 Menghargai perilaku santun dan peduli dalam melaksanakan komunikasi antarpribadi
dengan guru dan teman
2.2 Menunjukkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, percaya diri, dan bertanggung jawab
dalam melaksanakan komunikasi transaksional dengan guru dan teman.
2.3 Menunjukkan perilaku tanggung jawab, peduli, kerjasama, dan cinta damai,
dalam melaksanakan komunikasi fungsional.
3.7 Memahami fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan dari teks
deskriptif dengan menyatakan dan menanyakan tentang deskripsi orang, binatang,
dan benda, sangat pendek dan sederhana, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya.
4.11 Menangkap makna dalam teks deskriptif lisan dan tulis, sangat pendek dan
sederhana.
4.12 Menyusun teks deskriptif lisan dan tulis, sangat pendek dan sederhana,
tentang orang, binatang, dan benda, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur
teks, dan unsur kebahasaan, secara benar dan sesuai konteks.
C. Indikator Pencapaian Kompetensi
1. Menunjukkan motivasi untuk mengembangkan kemampuan berbahasa
Inggris.
2. Mengidentifikasi ungkapan yang digunakan untuk mendeskripsikan orang,
hewan, serta benda (rumah).
3. Melakukan percakapan secara interpersonal dengan menggunakan ungkapan
yang digunakan untuk mendeskripsikan orang, hewan, serta benda melalui
kegiatan terintegrasi menyimak-berbicara bahasa Inggris dengan percaya diri.
D. Materi pembelajaran
Descriptive text
A description is a text that describe a particular person, place or thing.
A description consists of;
Identification
This part identifies a thing / person being described
Description
This part describes parts, qualities and characteristics.
An example of desription:
Identification identifies the person being desribed.
I live with my uncle.
Description describes the characteristic.
My uncle is big. He has oval face and handsome. My uncle has black, curly and
short hair. He is 75 kg and 170 cm. His hobbies are playing football and
swimming. My uncle is a great football player, he runs very fast. I love him so
much.
A description usually uses the simple present tense and adjective.
Example:
I live with my uncle
My uncle is a great football player.
E. Metode Pembelajaran
Communicative language learning
F. Kegiatan Pembelajaran
Kegiatan Deskripsi Kegiatan Alokasi
Waktu
Pendahuluan Guru membuka pelajaran
Guru memeriksa kehadiran siswa, kesiapan 10 menit
siswa dalam mengikuti KBM, kerapian dan
posisi tempat duduk
Melakukan brainstorming
Guru mengaitkan mengaitkan materi yang
akan dipelajari siswa dengan penegtahuan
yang telah diketahui oleh siswa
Inti Observing
Guru mengajak untuk meng-Imagine
Pamannya masing-masing
Menanyakan beberapa hal yang berkenaan
dengan deskripsi orang: tall, short, pointed,
talkative, fat, slim, etc.
Communicating
Guru menjelaskan descriptive text
Siswa dikenalkan dengan kosakata yang
berkaitan dengan topik
Guru membimbing siswa dalam menyusun
descriptive text
Guru meminta peserta didik menanyakan
hal-hal yang mereka belum pahami
Experimenting
Dalam bagian ini, guru menjelaskan
penggunaan “simple present tense” dalam
kalimat.
Siswa diminta membuat descriptive text
dalam speaking monologue
60 Menit
Penutup Melakukan refleksi dengan bermain game
Siswa dilibatkan dalam menyimpilkan
pelajaran
Guru menyampaikan topik yang akan
dipelajari pada pertemuan selanjutnya
Guru menutup pelajaran
10 Menit
G. Sumber / Media Pembelajaran
Sumber: buku paket siswa, buku When English Rings a Bell untuk
kelas VII SMP/ MTs
H. Penilaian
Scoring rubric of speaking
Aspect Score
Grammar
Student was difficult to understand and had a hard time
communicating their ideas and responses because of
grammar mistakes.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses
inadequate but often displayed inconsistencies with their
sentence structure and tenses.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses fairly
well but makes mistakes with their tenses, however is able to
correct themselves.
Student was able to express their ideas and responses with
ease in proper sentence structure and tenses.
1
2
3
4
Pronunciation
Student was difficult to understand, quiet in speaking,
unclear in pronunciation.
Student was slightly unclear with pronunciation at times, but
generally is fair.
Pronunciation was good and did not interfere with
communication.
Pronunciation was very clear and easy to understand.
1
2
3
4
Vocabulary
Student had inadequate vocabulary words to express his/her
deas properly, which hindered the students in responding.
Student was able to use broad vocabulary words but was
lacking, making him/her repetitive and cannot expandon
his/her ideas.
Student utilized the words learned in class, in an accurate
manner for the situation given.
1
2
3
4
Rich, precise and impressive usage of vocabulary words
learned in and beyond of class.
Fluency
Speech is very slow, stumbling, nervous, and uncertain with
response, except for short or memorized expressions.
Difficult for a listener to understand.
Speech is slow and often hesitant and irregular. Sentences
may be left uncompleted, but the student is able to continue.
Speech is mostly smooth but with some hesitation and
unevenness caused primarily by rephrasing and groping for
words.
Speech is effortless and smooth with speed that comes close
to that of a native speaker.
1
2
3
4
Comprehension
Student had difficulty understanding the topics that were
being conveyed.
Student fairly grasped the topics that were being conveyed.
Student was able to comprehend the topics that were being
discussed
Student was able to comprehend to all of the information in
the topics that were being discussed with ease.
1
2
3
4
Classification of Scoring Grade
Criteria of mastery Grade
5-8 Needs improvement
9-12 Satisfactory
13-16 Good
17-20 Excellent
Mengetahui,
Kepala Sekolah Guru Mata Pelajaran Mahasiswa Peneliti
Yusnidar M. Daud, M. Pd. I Maria Lusi Septriani.W, S.Pd. Rini Setia Wati
NIP.197101021997032002 NIP. NIM.TE.130557
Instrument
Class :
Date :
Topics : 1. My Mother 3. My Friend
2. My Father 4. My Teacher
Instructions : Express the descriptive text based on the topics above
1. Choose one topic that has been given above!
2. Describe the topic in approximately 2 minutes!
(CURRICULUM VITAE)
Name : RINI SETIA WATI
NIM : TE 130557
Gender : Female
Date of Birth : Sungai Lokan, April 28th 1995
Address : Desa Sungai Lokan, Kec. Sadu, Kab. Tanjung Jabung
Timur
Motto : Man Jadda Wajada`
Identity : College Student
Email : rinisetiawati2804@gmail.com
Contact Person : 0823 774 523 51
Experience in organization:
The Member of Scout Racana Sulthan Thaha – Sri Soedewi UIN STS
Jambi
The Students Unity of English Department (T-SUEDE)
Educational Background:
No Level of Education Address
Year
1. SDN 39/X Sungai Lokan Sungai Lokan, Sadu, Tanjab Tim 2007
2. MTs Pon Pes Nurul Ihsan Tanjung Jabung Timur
Sungai Daun, Lagan Tengah, Geragai, Tanjab Tim 2010
3. MA Pon Pes Nurul Ihsan Tanjung Jabung Timur
Sungai Daun, Lagan Tengah, Geragai, Tanjab Tim 2013
4. UIN STS JAMBI Sei.Duren, Kec.Jaluko, Kab. Muaro Jambi 2018
Jambi, 16 July 2018 Writer
RINI SETIA WATI
NIM. TE 130557