skripsib.inggris: IMPROVING SPEAKING MASTERY THROUGH TASK BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING METHOD AT GRADE VIII STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 1 BARUMUN TENGAH KABUPATEN PADANG

Chapter IV

IMPROVING SPEAKING MASTERY THROUGH TASK BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING METHOD AT GRADE VIII STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 1 BARUMUN TENGAH KABUPATEN PADANG LAWAS

CHAPTER IV

RESULT OF THE RESEARCH

After researcher has done the research in SMPN 1 Barumun Tengah, now researcher will describe how the research was done. It discussed about the way to improve students’ speaking mastery by using task based language teaching method at grade VIII of SMPN 1 Barumun Tengah in academic year 2018/2019. The description are as follow:

A. The Data Description

Researcher divided this action research into two cycle. Each cycle consisted of four stages, it is plan, action, observation, and reflection. Researcher described learning process and students’ score of cycle 1 and cycle 2.

1. The First Cycle 1

The first cycle was done at 24^thuntil 31^th of July 2018. In this case, the cycle was conducted for two meetings. In SMP Negeri 1 Barumun Tengah, every meeting was done 80 minutes. It means that the time allocation was 160 minutes. It caused 2 x 80 minutes is 160 minutes. Along the time, teacher explained about describing picture technique. Here, the teacher made the activities and gave the process of improvement students’ speaking mastery in the first cycle as follow:

a. First Meeting

In the first meeting, the teacher found some problems of students learning process. Some students do not ready to study. Furthermore, the learning process consisted of four steps for doing research, such as planning, action, observation, and reflection. It would be explained as follow:

1) Planning

In this step, the researcher prepared the material, determined the topic about expression for asking and giving opinion, prepared the instrument, such as observation note sheet to the collaborator, indicator of speaking score, and students’ achievement.

2) Acting

In this step, the researcher applied Task Based Language Teaching to improve students’ speaking mastery. Then, the researcher greeted the students and ordered them to pray and gave students’ observation note sheet for students.

3) Observing

In this step, When the students were learning by using TBLT, the researcher monitored the steps of students’ activities. It started from the learning materials, time allocation of introduction, explanation, and evaluation. Even though it had been arranged, but there were some students were not ready to study.

Based on the observation note sheet, the students’ activities in teaching learning process will be described as follow:

(1) There were seven students who were not ready to study, they were AAH, AAS, MRW, MAW, MH, RT, and RH.

(2) There were two students Students who made noisy in the classroom, they were MRS, and MAW.

(3) There were two students who sat on the move, they were AP, and WC.

(4) There were two students who felt boring of this lesson, they were DS and RT.

(5) There were four students do not have motivation to Speak, they were DS, MH, NH, and RT.

(6) There were seven students are not able to practice the conversation, they were AAH, DS, MRS, MAW, MH, MS, and RT.

4) Reflecting

In this step, the researcher and the collaborator discussed about the implementation of action, analyzed the finding of observation, reflecting the students’ learning activity to determine the follow up.

b. Second Meeting

After the researcher gave the explaining the material in the first meeting, the researcher came to the class to continue the second meeting to know the students’ achievement in speaking mastery.

The procedures in the second meeting was same as the first meeting. But, in the second meeting the researcher just reviewed the previous material to engage students’ knowledge. Then, the researcher gave a test to students to know their achievement in the first cycle.

c. Students’ Speaking Mastery Score in the First Cycle

The Researcher had found the students’ speaking mastery score the first cycle as the following table below:

Table 3. Students’ speaking score in the First Cycle

No	Name Of Students	Speaking Score					Total	Score (Total x 4)
No	Name Of Students	1	2	3	4	5	Total	Score (Total x 4)
1	AAH	4	3	4	3	2	16	64
2	AAS	4	4	4	4	3	19	76^*
3	APS	3	3	4	4	4	18	72
4	AP	4	4	3	4	3	18	72
5	DS	3	3	2	4	3	15	60
6	ES	3	3	4	4	4	18	72
7	FH	4	4	3	4	4	19	76^*
8	FAT	4	3	4	5	4	19	76^*
9	MRS	3	4	3	4	2	15	60
10	MAW	4	3	3	3	4	16	64
11	MH	3	2	3	3	3	14	56
12	MS	5	4	3	4	4	20	80^*
13	NH	3	4	3	3	3	16	64
14	RT	3	3	3	3	4	16	64
15	RH	4	3	3	4	3	17	68
16	TJ	3	4	3	4	4	17	68
17	WC	5	4	4	4	4	21	84^*
18	YD	4	4	3	4	4	19	76^*
Total Scores		66	62	59	68	62	313	1252
Mean		3.67	3.45	3.39	3.78	3.45	17.39	69.56
Precentage		33.34%

From the table above, the students’ mean score of accent was 3.67, 8 students had ‘foreign accent’ required concentrated listening and mispronunciation, which do not interfere with understanding, 8 students had ‘marked foreign’ accent and occasional mispronunciation which do not interfere with understanding, and 2 students had no conspicuous mispronunciation, but would not be taken for a native speaker. For the problem solving the researcher gave ways in training their pronunciation is not only in school but also in house such as listening English song or English movie to accustom them heard the English word and reading English book ordinary little by little.

Grammar was 3.45, from 18 students in the classroom, 8 students had frequent errors showing some major patterns uncontrolled and causing occasional irritation and misunderstanding, 9 students had occasional errors showing imperfect control of some patterns but or weakness that causes misunderstanding, and 1 student had few errors, with no patterns or failure. Problem faced by the students were difficulty in building words and their grammatical patterns were inaccurate because they have not mastered the grammar. The problem was related to the mastery of tenses or patterns in tenses. Which caused their sentences was uncompleted and their grammar in the sentence was wrong. Students’ mistakes in grammar were in using ‘to be’ in nominal sentence, in using past sentences, in using to be ‘are’, in using arranging sentence. Researcher gave more explanation about the language context that targeted in the next meeting clearly so that they made study more

Vocabulary was 3.39, from 18 students in the classroom, 11 students had choice of words sometimes inaccurate, limitations of vocabulary prevent discussion of some common professional and social topics, 6 students had professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special interest, general vocabulary permits discussion of any non technical subject with some circumlocution, 1 student had professional vocabulary broad and precise, general vocabulary adequate to cope with complex practical problems and varied social situation. Researcher gave tips or methods to memorize vocabularies such as semantic mapping, using pictures, and using key words that could be practiced by them in the school or in the house for solving their vocabulary.

Fluency was 3.78, from 18 students, 5 students had speech is frequently hesitant and jerky, sentence may be left uncompleted, 12 students had speech is occasionally hesitant, with some unevenness caused by rephrasing and grouping for words. 1 student had speech is effortless and smooth, but perceptibly non native speech and evenness. To solve the problem researcher motivated them to train their speaking and to record their speech so that the could know about their ability.

Comprehension was 3.45. from 18 students in the classroom, 6 students had understands careful, some what simplified speech when engaged in a dialogue, but may require considerable repetition and rephrasing, 10 students had understanding quite well normal educated speech when engaged in a dialogue, but requires occasional repetition conversation or rephrasing, 2 students had understanding everything in normal educated conversation expect for very colloquial or low frequency items, or exceptionally rapid or slurred speech. Researcher motivated students to memorize more vocabularies. They did not understand word event it was familiar words because of less in mastering vocabulary and they did not know the meaning of the word.

The students’ achievement in every indicator of speaking in the first cycle could be seen in the following chart.

Chart 1. The Students’ achievement every indicator of speaking in first cycle

Based on the table and chart above, it concluded that the students’ achievement in speaking was law. in the first cycle, there were only six students passed the passing grade (75). The students’ mean score in the first cycle was 69.56 and the percentage was 33,34%. It means that this test result could not fulfill of the criteria of success. It didn’t show improvement. So, the researcher would continue to second cycle. In the next learning, it was needed to overcome students’ motivation to have high speaking mastery. Re-planning of the Task Based Language Teaching in the first cycle, this resolved in the second cycle.

From the score of students, it could be concluded that there were twelve students who did not pass the KKM. There were sis students passed the KKM. and they were categorized into very high category. The classification of students’ scores would describe as the following table:

Table 4. The Classification of Students’ Speaking Skill Scores in First Cycle

No	Classification	Predicate	Total of Students	Precentage
1	0% - 20%	Very Low	-	-
2	21% - 40%	Low	-	-
3	41% - 60%	Enough	3 students	16.6
4	61% - 80%	High	14 students	77.7
5	81% - 100%	Very High	1 students	5.56
Total				100%

After getting students’ speaking scores in the first cycle, the researcher found the students’ achievement were categorized in to good category. It means that, the students who had some problems in speaking in the first cycle were improved and could solve the problem in the second cycle.

2. The Second cycle

The second cycle was done at 7^th until 14^th of August 2018, in second cycle, researcher would described the learning process and the activity of teacher of second cycle.

a. Third Meeting

The procedure of the second cycle was in the following:

1) Planning

2) Acting

In this step, the researcher applied Task Based Language Teaching to improve students’ speaking mastery. it focused on students’ problem in vocabulary. Then, the researcher greeted the students and ordered them to pray and gave students’ observation note sheet for students.

The researcher gave the material and give some examples about the material to students, after that the researcher order to students to make a group. In every group consist 2 person, after that the researcher order the students to make conversation about the topic that have given by the teacher and the last step the researcher order the students to make report about the task and re-report to the teacher and the last the students performance in front of class. The differences method in cycle I and cycle II (third meeting), in cycle I the researcher gave the topic to students to made the conversation about the material but in cycle II the researcher order to students made the dialogue or task based on their idea.

3) Observing

In this step, there was an improvement of students in learning process. Some students who are not ready to study in the first cycle, they had been ready to start the study

Based on the observation note sheet , the students’ activities in teaching learning process will be described as follow:

(1) There were three students are not ready study, they wer ES, MAW, NH.

(2) There were three students who made noisy in the classroom, they were AP, MRS, WC.

(3) There were two students who sat on the move, they were AAH, AAS.

(4) There were three students who felt boring oh this lesson, they were FH, TJ, and YD.

(5) There were only one student are walking around the class, he was RT.

(6) There were only one student who have not full attention when learning speaking, he was MAW

(7) There were three students are not able to practice the conversation, they were AP, DS, and MAW.

4) Reflecting

Based on the observation sheet, the researcher could explain the material better then the previous cycle even though there were some indicators had not been applied well. Thus, to make the students more active in practicing the expressions, the researcher gave the other examples of the material. Then, the researcher evaluated the students and monitored all learning activities.

5) Fourth Meeting

In the fourth meeting, the researcher reviewed the material for a while. It had a purpose to remind the students about the material. Then, to measure students’ achievement the researcher had done the second test.

6) Students’ Speaking Mastery Score in the Second Cycle

Learning in the second cycle was based the re-planning, thus it was found the improvement of students’ speaking mastery and the influencing factors of the students’ speaking mastery. the result of students’ speaking mastery improvement is presented in the following table.

Table 5. Students’ Speaking Score in the Second Cycle

No	Name Of Students	Speaking Score					Total	Score (Total x 4)
No	Name Of Students	1	2	3	4	5	Total	Score (Total x 4)
1	AAH	4	4	4	3	4	20	80
2	AAS	4	5	4	4	3	19	76
3	APS	4	4	5	4	3	20	80
4	AP	5	4	5	4	4	21	84
5	DS	4	4	4	4	3	19	76
6	ES	3	4	4	4	4	19	76
7	FH	4	5	5	4	4	21	84
8	FAT	4	5	5	4	4	21	84
9	MRS	4	4	5	4	3	19	76
10	MAW	4	4	4	3	4	19	76
11	MH	4	4	4	3	3	18	72
12	MS	5	4	5	4	4	21	84
13	NH	4	4	5	4	3	20	80
14	RT	3	4	3	4	4	18	72
15	RH	4	3	4	4	3	17	68
16	TJ	4	3	5	4	4	19	76
17	WC	4	4	5	4	4	21	84
18	YD	4	4	4	4	4	20	80
Total Scores		72	73	80	70	65	352	1402
Mean		4.00	4.06	4.45	3.89	3.61	19.56	77.89
Precentage		83.34%

From the above table, the students’ mean score in accent was 4.00, as result of test in cycle 2, students’ achievement in this indicator was improved. Like what was made in cycle 1, there were three categorized in indicator of accent in cycle 2. There were 2 students categorize low in accent, 14 students categorize enough, and 2 students categorize good.

Grammar was 4.06, as result test in cycle 2 of students’ achievement in this indicator was improved. Like what teacher made test in cycle 1, there were 2 students categorize low, 13 students categorize enough, and 3 students categorize good.

Vocabulary was 4.45, as result test in cycle 2 of students’ achievement in this indicator was improved. Like what teacher made in test in cycle 1, there were three criteria in indicator of vocabulary in cycle 2. There were 1 student categorize low, 8 students categorize enough, and 9 students categorize good.

Fluency was 3.89, as result test in cycle 2 of students’ achievement in this indicator was improved. Like what made test in cycle 1, there were two criteria in indicator of fluency in cycle 2. From 18 students in the classroom, there were 3 students categorize enough and 15 students categorize good.

Comprehension was 3.61, as result test in cycle 2 of students’ achievement in this indicator was improved. Like what made test in cycle 1, there were two criteria in indicator of comprehension in cycle 2. From 18 students in the classroom, there were 7 students categorize enough, and 11 students categorize good.

The students’ achievement in every indicator of speaking in the second cycle could be seen in the following chart:

Chart 2. The Students’ Achievement in Every Indicator speaking in Second Cycle

From the above table and chart, it could be concluded that the students’ achievement in the second cycle was increase. In second cycle, there were only three students did not pass passing grade (75) the mean score in second cycle was 77.89 and the percentage of students’ score in second cycle was 83.34%. students achievement in speaking was categorized well. The students score in the second cycle got improvement from the first cycle. It shown that the first cycle was 69.56 (33.34%) and second cycle was 77.89 (83.34%).

Table 6. The Classification of Students’ Speaking Skill Scores in Second Cycle

No	Classification	Predicate	Total Of Students	Precentage
1	0% - 20%	Very Low	-	-
2	21% - 40%	Low	-	-
3	41% - 60%	Enough	-	-
4	61% - 80%	High	13 students	72.22
5	81% - 100%	Very High	5 students	27.7
Total				100%

After getting students’ speaking scores in the second cycle, the researcher found the students’ achievement were categorized in to good category. It means that, the students who had some problems in speaking in the first cycle were improved and could solve the problem in the second cycle.

B. Comparison of Students’ Achievement in First Cycle and Second Cycle

Based on the observation of students speaking mastery, it can be concluded that students’ speaking mastery had improve by using Task Based Language Teaching method.

After implementing and teaching in the classroom, there is method researcher used to improve students achievement in speaking mastery. researcher divided that into classroom applying and shows that in table below:

Table 7. Action of Teaching in the Classroom

CYCLE I

CYCLE II

1. Planning

· In cycle I, the teacher made the lesson plan that consist of the steps action.

· The teacher prepared rubric scale for testing in speaking.

· The teacher designed procedure of the teaching speaking by task based language teaching.

· The teacher gave the learning material about asking and giving opinion.

· The teacher prepared students’ evaluation in accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

· The teacher prepared the test for the first cycle and time for planning was about 10 minutes.

1. Planning

· In cycle II, the teacher made the lesson plan that consist of the steps action.

· The teacher prepared rubric scale for testing in speaking.

· The teacher designed procedure of the teaching speaking by task based language teaching.

· The teacher gave the learning material about asking and giving opinion.

· The teacher prepared students’ evaluation in accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

· The teacher prepared the test for the first cycle and time for planning was about 10 minutes.

2. Action

· In cycle I, the teacher introduced the procedures of task based language method that would be done by the students in English speaking.

· The teacher prepared the task according to the topic or material of subject.

· The teacher divided students to made the group and the group consist two persons, and then the teacher gave the task about asking and giving opinion to made a conversation about the topic that have given by the teacher. Then students will discussed about it.

· After that the students make a report about the task, and report to the teacher.

· After get it, students performance in front of class.

2. Action

· In cycle I, the teacher introduced the procedures of task based language method that would be done by the students in English speaking.

· The teacher prepared the task according to the topic or material of subject. the teacher ask students about their opinion such as their popular idol, favorite food, about artist, etc. then, the students develop their idea about it, then report to every students’ pair.

· The teacher divided students to made the group and the group consist two persons, but in group cycle II made random than cycle I.

· Then the teacher gave the task about asking and giving opinion to made a conversation about the topic that have given by the teacher. Then students will discussed about it.

· After that the students make a report about the task, and report to the teacher.

· After get it, students performance in front of class.

3. Observation

· In cycle I, the researcher monitored the steps of students’ activities. The students’ activities in teaching learning process will be described:

· There were 7 students were not ready to study. They were AAH, AAS, MRW, MAW, MH, RT, and RH.

· There were 2 students Students who made noisy in the classroom, they were MRS, and MAW.

· There were 2 students who sat on the move, they were AP, and WC.

· There were 2 students who felt boring of this lesson, they were DS and RT.

· There were 4 students do not have motivation to Speak, they were DS, MH, NH, and RT.

· There were 7 students are not able to practice the conversation, they were AAH, DS, MRS, MAW, MH, MS, and RT.

3. Observation

· In cycle I, the researcher monitored the steps of students’ activities. The students’ activities in teaching learning process will be described:

· There were 3 students were not ready to study. They were, ES, , MAW, and NH.

· There were 3 students Students who made noisy in the classroom, they were AP, MRS, and WC.

· There were 3 students who felt boring on this lesson, they were FH, TJ, and YD.

· There were one student are walking around the class, they was RT.

· There were 1 students who have not full attention when learning speaking, he was MAW.

· There were 3 students are not able to practice the conversation, they were AP, DS, and MAW.

4. Reflecting

· In cycle I, the teacher discussed with co-teacher about the progress that using task based language teaching to determined the followed up to activity.

· The teacher told the students that she would note everything that was done by the students. The teacher told the students to be natural when they were speaking, and that would be a reward for the students who active and sportive in the class

· For starting the test, the teacher gave group performance time to test students speaking mastery. to measure students’ speaking skill the teacher gave group performance test about asking and giving opinion about her friends topic. Then, the teacher evaluated the result of their speaking test in the second meeting.

4. Reflecting

· In cycle I, the teacher discussed with co-teacher about the progress that using task based language teaching to determined the followed up to activity.

The result of the test of the first cycle, there was one student got 56 score, two students got 60 score, three students got 64 score, three students got 68 score, three students got 72 score, four students got 76 score, one student got 80 score, and one student got 84 score. It can be concluded that from 18 students at the grade VIII of the first semester of SMA N 1 Barumun Tengah. There were there were six students passed the passing grade 75 score. Meanwhile, there were 12 students did not pass the passing grade 75 score. In analyzing the data of first test, the first step was get the mean score of the class. It was concluded as following:

69.56

Based on the calculation, the mean score of the class in first test was 69.56. It showed that the students’ speaking mastery was categorized into low categories. The first step is to know the percentage of students’ score who passed the passing grade 75 score. It was calculated as following:

P = 33.34%

Then, in the second cycle the researcher calculated the result of second test to know the students’ score improvement from the first test result. There was two students got 68 score, one student got 72 score, seven students got 76 score, three students got 80 score, five students got 84 score.

It can be concluded that from 18 students at the grade VIII of the first semester of SMP N 1 Barumun Tengah. There were 3 students did not pass the passing grade 75 score. Meanwhile, there were 15 students passed the passing grade 75 score. In analyzing the data of second test, the first step was to get the score of the class. It was calculated as following:

Based on the calculation, the mean score of the class in second test was 79.12. It showed that the students’ speaking mastery was categorized into high categories. The second step is to know the percentage of students’ score who passed the passing grade 75 score. It was calculated as following:

P = 83.34%

Based on explanation above, it can be concluded that the mean score and the percentage of the second test the improvement from the first test. in the first test the mean score was 69.56 (33.34%). It was included very low category. The improvement of mean score in second test was 77.89 (83.34%), it was included into high category. the comparison of students’ speaking mastery in each cycle based on their gotten score is shown in the table below:

Table 8. Comparison of Students’ Achievement In Cycle 1 and Cycle 2

No	Name Of Students	Cycle 1 First Test	Cycle 2 Second Test	State
1	AAH	64	80	Improved
2	AAS	76	76	Improved
3	APS	72	80	Improved
4	AP	72	84	Improved
5	DS	60	76	Improved
6	ES	72	76	Improved
7	FH	76	84	Improved
8	FAT	76	84	Improved
9	MRS	60	76	Improved
10	MAW	64	76	Improved
11	MH	56	72	Improved
12	MS	80	84	Improved
13	NH	64	80	Improved
14	RT	64	72	Improved
15	RH	68	68	Improved
16	TJ	68	76	Improved
17	WC	84	84	Improved
18	YD	76	80	Improved
Total Scores		1252	1402	Improved
Mean Score		69.56	77.89	Improved

Based on the table above, students got improvement on their score from the students’ mean score, the first cycle students’ mean score were 69.56 and the second cycle students’ mean score were 77.89. from the students’ percentage, the first cycle, there were six students passed the passing grade (33.34%). The second cycle, there were fifteen students passed the passing grade (83.34%). Te differences showed that there was an improvement of students’ speaking mastery. the differences showed in the following chart:

Chart 3. The Comparative Means Score between Cycle 1 and Cycle 2

So, from the table and charts above that could be concluded the students’ speaking master by using task based language teaching method could improve their speaking ability at grade VIII in first semester of SMP N 1 Barumun Tengah.

To support the data of this result, the researcher showed the result of interview with the students. Since it was their first time speaking using Task Based Language Teaching, the students were enthusiastic and active in speaking by using task based language teaching. As the result interview:

“pas waktu ibu suruh aku berbicara bahasa inggris di depan kelas, takut bu tapi ada di otak ku bu ingin mencoba, dan juga membuat aku semakin sering berbicara bu. (when the teacher order student to speaking English in front of class, she is afraid but in her brain wanted to try, and also made me more often to speaking mam)”.[1]

“setelah ibu ajarkan kami berbicara bahasa inggris, saya jadi lebih suka berbicara bahasa inggris bu, biarpun salah, saya hanya percaya diri aja bu.” (after the teacher teach us speaking English, I become more like to speaking English mam, although it’s wrong, I just self confidence mam)”.[2]

To test the significances, the researcher used t-test for small samples less than 30 students. The table of interpreting the data could be looked from the table below:

Table 9. The Result of Differences Scores Between First Cycle and Second Cycle

No	Name Of Students	Cycle 1 First Test	Cycle 2 Second Test	D = X-Y	⅀D=D-M_D	⅀D²
1	AAH	64	80	16	7.11	50.55
2	AAS	76	80	4	-4.89	23.91
3	APS	72	80	8	-0.89	0.79
4	AP	72	84	12	3.11	9.67
5	DS	60	76	16	7.11	50.55
6	ES	72	76	4	-4.89	23.91
7	FH	76	84	8	-0.89	0.79
8	FAT	76	84	8	-0.89	0.79
9	MRS	60	76	16	7.11	50.55
10	MAW	64	76	12	3.11	9.67
11	MH	56	72^*	16	7.11	50.55
12	MS	80	84	4	-4.89	23.91
13	NH	64	76	12	3.11	9.67
14	RT	64	68^*	4	-4.89	23.91
15	RH	64	68^*	4	-4.89	23.91
16	TJ	68	76	8	-0.89	0.79
17	WC	80	84	4	-4.89	23.91
18	YD	76	80	4	-4.89	23.91
Total Scores		1252	1402	160	-0.02	219,76
Mean Score		69.56	77.89	M_D=8.89	⅀D= -0.001	⅀D²= 12.20
Precentage		33.34%	83.34%

To prove the significances, the researcher used t-test for sample less than 18 students. The procedures of interpreting the data were:

1. Formulating Hypothesis

H= there is significant improvement among students’ speaking test is the cycle 1 and cycle 2

2. Calculating the signification of t₀and t₁ and calculating of the degree of freedom (df) with df = N- 1

3. Looking for level of signification 5% or 1% in t table it can be seen from (df).

4. Comparing the result of t_oand t₁ with the criterion

a. If t_obigger than t_t. So, H is received. It means that there is significant improvement of students’ learning process result.

b. If t_osmaller than t_t.So, H is rejected. It means that there is not significant improvement of students’ learning process result.

5. Making conclusion from the result

To prove the significances, the researcher use t-test for samples less than 18 students. The procedure of interpreting the data were:

8.89

D = Number of differences score between Second Cycle and First Cycle,

= X – Y

18 Students

_D = Standard Deviation from the differences score between First test and Second test.

0.667

SE_{M D}= Standard error from mean of differences

SE_{M D}=

SE_{M D}= 0.19

T_o=

T_o= 46.78

Degrees of freedom (df) = N-1 = 18-1= 17

The calculation result of t_o = 46.78, t_table with df = 17, level of significances in t table 5% is 2.110. it can be know that the result of t_ois bigger than t_t,it is 46.78 2.110. based on the result, it means that there is a significances improvement between students’ speaking learning process result in the first cycle and second cycle.

From analyzes above, the researcher concludes that the mean of first cycle and second cycle is a significantly differences, where mean of second cycle (77.89) is greater than first cycle (69.56). it shows that “Task Based Language Teaching” influenced to improve the students’ speaking skill at grade VIII SMP N 1 Barumun Tengah.

C. Discussion

There are three thesis that researcher used as related findings. Then researcher will explain it. The one purpose of this research is To describe the result improving students’ speaking mastery through task based language teaching method at grade VIII SMPN 1 Barumun Tengah and To know the significant task based language teaching to student’ speaking mastery at grade VIII SMPN 1 Barumun Tengah.

First, Anisyah Ritonga, in her thesis, She found the mean score of experimental class was 71.3 and the mean score of control class was 64.45. the score of experimental was high and the score of control class was low. The researcher found the result of t-test where t₀was higher than t_t. t₀was 3.16 and t_twas 1.664 (3.16>1.664). it means that there was a significant effect of task based language teaching to students’ speaking ability at VIII Grade of MTsN 2 padangsidimpuan where H_awas accepted and H₀was rejected.

Second, Mita Nur Aflah did research about TBLT, She found mean score at the first cycle was 1.50, the second cycle was 2.41 and the third cycle was 3.50. she concluded that TBLT is better method than conventional method to improve speaking skill at Hospitality students’ in Alpha University, Pontianak.

Third, Kesda Taghun, in her thesis, she found pretest was 7.23 and post test was 11.03. this different score indicate that TBLT result in creasing students’ speaking ability significantly.[3] So, TBLT was give significant effect to students’ speaking ability in Thailand.

After analyzing data, the researcher found the improvement students’ speaking ability by using Task Based Language Teaching Method in first cycle and second cycle. It was mean score 69.56 and students passed the KKM 6 person (33.34%) in first cycle, and the mean score of second cycle it was 77.89 and students passed the KKM 15 person (83.34%). The improvement of mean score between the first cycle and second cycle was (50.09%). The minimum mastery criterion (KKM) 75. Furthermore, it can be concluded that by using Task Based Language Teaching Method could improve students’ achievement in speaking mastery at grade VIII-2 SMP Negeri 1 Barumun Tengah.

Based on explanation, it can be concluded that the problem of students’ speaking mastery could be solved immediately by some method, especially by using Task based language teaching method. It could be proven based on this research above that Task Based Language Teaching method could improve students’ score in speaking ability. Furthermore, using interview technique was also proven that there was an improvement in students’ speaking ability achievement. It means that, students’ speaking mastery by using task based language teaching method at grade VIII SMP Negeri 1 Barumun Tengah is satisfaction. It can be seen from the result of data analyze was increase of each cycle that has been gotten mean score 69.56 (33.34%) in first cycle and mean score 77.89 (83.34%) in second cycle.

D. Threats of the Research

There were some aspects that could threats for this research when researcher doing the research. They were:

1. The data in this research were not objective because it needed the description of the mark based on the researcher listening in the students.

2. The tool that used in collecting the result of students’ speaking was uncompleted because the researcher just used recorded. Video or other told were needed to make the mark more subjective and learning process more effective and efficient.

3. In teaching learning process was not running well because the students were less serious and enthusiasm in doing task based language teaching method, some students still used mix language when they don’t know about the vocabulary.

[1] FAT, students in VIII-2 SMP N 1 Barumun Tengah, Private Interview, August 14^th 2018 at 09.30 PM.

[2] WC, students VIII-2 SMP N 1 Barumun Tengah, Private Interview, August 14^th 2018 at 09.30 PM.

[3] Kesda Taghun, Using Task Bsed language Teaching to develop English speaking ability of prathom 6 students pribonprachasan, (Unpublished thesis), (Bangkok: Srinakharinwirot University, 2012), p.38. http:ir.swu.ac.th/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/4172/kesda T.pdf?sequence=1 retrieved on October 17^th 2018 at 09:48 am.

skripsib.inggris

skripsimatematika

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

Chapter IV IMPROVING SPEAKING MASTERY THROUGH TASK BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING METHOD AT GRADE VIII STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 1 BARUMUN TENGAH KABUPATEN PADANG LAWAS

BAB II STUDENTS’ ABILITY IN WRITING RECOUNT TEXT AT GRADE XI MAS THOYIBAH ISLAMIYAH HUTARAJA PALUTA

Report Abuse

Labels