PDF Skripsi

THESIS

IMPROVING SPEAKING SKILL BY USING CHAIN DRILL TECHNIQUE AT THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMPN I AMLAPURA IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014

MILA JANUAR WIDYANINGSIH

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR UNIVERSITY DENPASAR 2014 i

THESIS

IMPROVING SPEAKING SKILL BY USING CHAIN DRILL TECHNIQUE AT THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMPN I AMLAPURA IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014

MILA JANUAR WIDYANINGSIH NPM. 10.8.03.51.31.2.5.3981

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR UNIVERSITY DENPASAR 2014 ii

PRE-REQUISITE TITLE

IMPROVING SPEAKING SKILL BY USING CHAIN DRILL TECHNIQUE AT THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMPN I AMLAPURA IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014

Thesis As Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Mahasaraswati Denpasar University

MILA JANUAR WIDYANINGSIH NPM 10.8.03.51.31.2.5.3981

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR UNIVERSITY DENPASAR 2014 iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, the researcher would like to express her great-sincere gratitude to the Almighty God, Alloh SWT, the only God, who gives power, strength, blesses and mercies so that this thesis entitle “Improving Speaking Skill by Using Chain Drill Technique at the Eighth Grade Students of SMPN I Amlapura in Academic Year 2013/2014” could finally be completed on the due date. Her tremendous gratitude further goes to her first and second advisor, Nengah Dwi Handayani,S.Pd.,M.Pd. and AA Istri Yudhi Pramawati,SS.,M.Hum. who have already guided her and shared their brilliant ideas for the improvement of the thesis. In addition, she would like to thank their helpful guidance and correction during the writing of the thesis. Moreover, she also wishes to share out her gratefulness to the Headmaster and an English Teacher of SMPN I Amlapura for their permission and of course the eighth grade students of VIII B for their kind assistance during the process of gathering the data needed for the present study. Next, she is also deeply indebted to her parents, Mr. Sonny Sudarsono and Ms. Sumarni, and her brother sisters who have given their prayer, support and motivation so that she is able to complete her study successfully. Finally, she would like to dedicate this thesis to her beloved husband, Alvin Kurniawan, and her lovely daughter, Almira Rahma Maulidya, who have given their prayer, love, affection, fidelity, devotion and tremendous support during the process of writing the thesis. The researcher would not able to finish this thesis without the help of the above mentioned people.

Amlapura,

February 2014

The researcher,

Mila Januar Widyaningsih.

vii

ABSTRACT

Widyaningsih, M. J. (2014). Improving Speaking Skill by Using Chain Drill Technique at the Eighth Grade Students of SMPN I Amlapura in Academic Year 2013/2014. The first Advisor: Nengah Dwi Handayani, S.Pd., M.Pd. and the Second Advisor: AA Istri Yudhi Pramawati, SS., M.Hum.

The undertaking of the present classroom action research was mainly intended to figure out whether or not chain drill technique can improve the subjects’ speaking skill. The subjects of the present study was the eighth grade B students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 that consisted of 35 students, 14 females and 21 males. Based on the result of the pre-test which was carried out in the pre-cycle, it pointed out that the subjects’ ability in describing something or someone orally was categorized insufficient. The total score of pretest was 1852 and the mean score was 52.91. In IR, only 2,85% of the subjects under study reached the standard minimum achievement, where the standard minimum achievement (KKM) in SMPN I Amlapura was 77. The present classroom action research then was carried out by implementing chain drill technique in two-planned cycles, cycle 1 and cycle 2, which each cycle consisted of two sessions. The result of the post-test 1 (R1) obviously showed that there was significant improvement concerning the subjects’ speaking skill in describing something or someone. The total score of post-test 1 was 2460 and the mean was 70.28. In post-test 1, the computation showed that 20% of the subjects under study reached the standard minimum achievement. The scores of Cycle II were “excellent”. The total score of R2 was 2824 and the mean was 80.68. In post-test 2, the computation of the scores showed that 80% of the subjects under study reached the standard minimum achievement, which meant that the study was successful in improving subjects’ speaking skill. This research furthermore showed that there was changing learning behavior as the result of positive responses concerning the technique applied in improving the subjects’ speaking skill. To sum up, the present classroom action study proved that chain drill technique could improve speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014; in addition, the subjects also responded positively the implementation of chain drill technique in speaking activity. Keywords: improving, chain drill technique, speaking skill

viii

TABLE OF CONTENT

COVER...............................................................................................

i

INSIDE COVER..................................................................................

ii

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

iii

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

iv

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

v

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

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................................................

vii

ABSTRACT.........................................................................................

viii

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

ix

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

xi

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

xii

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

xiii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION.......................................................

1

1.1

Background of the study......................................

1

1.2

Research problem................................................

3

1.3

Objectives of the study........................................

4

1.4

Limitation of the study........................................

4

1.5

Significance of the study.......................................

4

1.6

Definition of key terms.........................................

5

CHAPTER II

CHAPTER III

THEORITICAL AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW..............

7

2.1

Theoritical Review.............................................

7

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

7

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

9

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

13

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

15

2.2

Empirical Review..............................................

17

2.3

Hypothesis........................................................

18

RESEARCH METHOD

19

3.1

Subject of The Study..........................................

19

3.2

Research Design.................................................. ix

19

3.3

CHAPTER IV

Research Procedure............................................

23

3.3.1 Planning.................................................

24

3.3.2 Action.....................................................

24

3.3.3 Observation..............................................

25

3.3.4 Reflection.................................................

26

3.4

Research Instrument.............................................

26

3.5

Data Collection....................................................

27

3.6

Data Analysis......................................................

28

3.7

Success Indicator.................................................

30

FINDING AND DISCUSSION 4.1

4.2 CHAPTER V

Finding..............................................................

29

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

29

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

30

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

32

4.1.4 Questionnaire.........................................

34

Discussion........................................................

36

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1

Conclusion.......................................................

38

5.2

Suggestion......................................................

39

REFERENCES...................................................................................

42

APPENDICES..................................................................................

44

x

LIST OF TABLES

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

27

Table 4.1 Tabulation of data showing the subjects’ progressing score in Speaking after the implementation of chain drill technique........... 33

xi

LIST OF GRAPH

Graph 4.1 Depicting the subjects’ progressing achievement in speaking by Using chain drill technique............................................................ 36

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1

Daftar nama siswa kelas VIII B............................

45

Appendix 2

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

46

Appendix 3

The Instruments of pre-test, post-test 1, post-test 2 and questionnaire...............................................

Appendix 4

54

The scores of pre-test, post-test 1, post test 2 and questionnaire..............................................

58

Appendix 5

Surat pengantar penelitian dari kampus...............

62

Appendix 6

Surat keterangan dari SMPN I Amlapura............

63

Appendix 7

Biography......................................................

64

xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study There are four skills in learning English those are listening, speaking, reading and writing. But, the mastery of speaking skills in English is a priority for many second-language or foreign-language learners (Richards, 2008:19). Why it is become the priority? Because english is an international language which is used by all people around the world to communicate with others. From a pragmatic view of language performance, listening and speaking are almost always closely interrelated (Brown, 2003:140). Both cannot be separated. By listening a correct model, students will be able to speak correctly. By creating English atmosphere in the classroom placed teacher as a model, students will accustomed to use english orally to express their mind, feeling, communicate with their friends and teacher and etc, so they will able to use English fluently in daily life. The problems were found when the writer did PPL in SMPN I Amlapura. Students were lazy to speak. When they were asked to speak, they used their first language (native language) rather than using English. It is because they do not accustomed to use English in English class. The students’ difficulties in speaking are caused by the lacked of related vocabularies, low ability in constructing sentences and utterances, and also low motivation to participate in speaking activity caused by shyness and embarrassment in making mistake. The situation was getting worse because teacher’s fault in deciding the material and also teaching technique which made students felt bored and lost interest in the speaking class. Moreover, teacher did not explore students’ 1

2 potential to speak as he did not provide many chances for students to speak because the class was teacher-centered, teacher who talk alot and dominate the class. This type of teaching technique made students lazy to speak. They also could not perform maximally in the speaking test where the Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) score is 77 point for English course but their mean score of daily test was 70; consequently, the students must do remedial phases to pass the test. That was unsatisfactory result for the students that is why they need to be motivated by applaying teaching teachnique which is able to make them enthusiastic and confident in expressing their mind in the target language. For years, experts have totally given their mind in the study of developing techniques and methods to teach English as the second language in order to improve the motivation of the students in learning English. As the result, a variety of English teaching techniques and methods have been found and applied in every level of education. One of them is chain drill, a teaching technique that is created from the Audio Lingual Method firstly applied by Charles Fries (1945) of the University of Michigan (Larsen-Freeman, 2000:35). Teaching speaking by using chain drill technique is started by the teacher. Teacher prepares questions to be asked to the student nearest with the teacher. Chain drill gives students an opportunity to speak their idea individually. The teacher listens and can tell which students are struggling and will need more practice. A chain drill also lets students use the expressions in communication with someone, eventhough the communication is very limited. Then, teacher addresses a questions to the student nearest with her. After that, the first student responds to the teacher’s question. The teacher ask another questions then the first

3 student answers or responds the questions given. The first student understand through teacher’s gestures then he turns to the student sitting beside him and ask questions like teacher asked before. The second student, in turn, says her lines in replay to him (first student). When the second student has finished, she greets and asks questions to the student on the other side of her. This chain continues until all of the students get a chance to ask and answer the questions. The last student directs the greeting and asking questions to the teacher. This kind of technique is really fun and makes students enjoy the lesson. Teaching by using chain drill technique will make students enjoy and understand more the point of the material given, moreover it will improve students’ speaking skill as well. That is why in this research, the writer would use Chain drill Technique to improve speaking skill at the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014.

1.2 Research Problem As already been explained above that the achievement of students in speaking was quite low and it influences their score and also their confidence in using English for communication, the teaching-learning process must be riched by using Chain drill technique as a solution to solve the weaknesses of the students in speaking. So, the problem that is going to be discussed in this study can be formulated as follows: can the speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 be improved using Chain Drill Technique?

4 1.3 Objective of the Study To be able to answer the statement of research question above, the objective of the study is to figure out whether or not Chain Drill Technique can improve speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014. This study was conducted in order to know the students’ confidence, motivation and improvement during the technique applied in speaking class. In addition, the hope of this study is that Chain Drill Technique can be a better way in teaching speaking.

1.4 Limitation of the Study This research is only limited on the use of Chain Drill Technique in improving student’s speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 with the material about describing something or someone.

1.5 Significance of the Study The concern of this research is teaching speaking by using Chain Drill Technique. The use of this research is to know how the technique can overcome the problem faced by the students and an English teacher in improving students’ speaking skill. At the end, this research has significance of the study which is devided into theoretical and practical. Theoretically, this research is expected to support the existing theories and empirical evidences of the working knowledge and principles of English language teaching particularly to the achievement of the students’ speaking skill

5 by using Chain Drill technique. Practically, the study is considered to be practical in its nature that is to provide the educational feedback. For the English teacher, the finding of this study would help teacher in determining the methods and techniques of teaching as the way to create new atmosphere and new habit which can improve student’s motivation and confidence in learning English. For the eighth grade students, the finding of this study would help students in understanding more the material given by the teacher. This finding also hoped can improve student’s motivation and confidence, creating new habit and new atmosphere which will improve their achievement too. For the school, the finding of this study would be able to increase the school’s score which will make it to be the most favourite school among others.

1.6 Definition of Key Terms In order to avoid the misunderstanding of this investigation to the readers, the definition of key terms is used to make it clear in comprehending this study, such as: Improving Speaking skill, Chain Drill Technique and SMPN I Amlapura. 1. Improving Speaking skill Speaking is the activities by which human beings try to express thought, feeling, opinion and to exchange information by using utterances in the form of communication. And speaking skill is the ability to produce words, to express, to state, and to deliver thought, ideas and feeling. Speaking is a tool of communication that is why it is necessary for people to improve their speaking skill in order to have a good communication with others.

6 2. Chain Drill Technique Chain Drill technique is a teaching technique that is created from the Audio Lingual Method firstly applied by Charles Fries (1945) of the University of Michigan. Chain drill gives students an opportunity to say the lines individually. The teacher listens and can tell which students are struggling and will need more practice. A chain drill also lets students use the expressions in communication with someone, eventhough the communication is very limited. This chain continues until all of the students get a chance to ask and answer the questions. 3. SMPN I Amlapura SMPN I Amlapura is the level of junior high school which is located in Ngurah Rai Street Amlapura, Karangasem regency, Bali. SMPN I Amlapura is the favourite school in Karangasem and becomes the place where the research will be conducted.

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Review The theoretical review is used in a scientific study and it should be based on some theoretical background and empirical evidences. On the other hand, it needs as foundation that can guide this scientific study. The background of this study is related to some theoretical which will be discussed as follows:

2.1.1 Speaking Skill According to the Webster College Dictionary (2003:873), to speak means to utter words with the voice; to utter by means of words (speak the truth), to address a gathering, to mention in speech or writing, to carry a meaning as if by speech, to make a natural or characteristic sound, to use in talking. Speak may apply to any articulated sounds ranging from the least to the most coherent. While talk is less technical and less formal and implies a listener and connected discourse or exchange thoughts. On the other hand, speech means the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words. Furthermore, Kushartanti, et al (2005:32) defines speaking as set of voices uttered by one and understood by someone else. In line with these, the researcher conclude that speaking is the verbal communication between people. When two people are engaged in talking to each other, the researcher is sure that they are doing communication. Communication between people is an extremely complex and ever changing phenomenon. There are certain generalizations that we can make

7

8 about the majority of communicative events and these have particular relevance for the learning and teaching process. People do communication for some reasons. Jeremy Harmer (2002:46) stated the reasons as follows: (1) “They want to say something”. What is used here is general way to suggest that the speakers make definite decisions to address other people. Speaking may, of course, be forced upon them, but we can still say that they feel the need to speak, otherwise they would keep silent. (2) “They have some communicative purpose”. Speakers say things because they want something to happen as a result of what they say. They may want to charm their listeners; to give some information, to express pleasure; they may decide to be rude or flatter. To agree or complain. In each of these cases they are interested in achieving this communicative purpose what is important the message they wish to convey and the effect they want it to have. (3) “They select from their language store”. Speakers have an infinite capacity to create new sentences. In order to achieve this communication purpose they will select (from the “store” of language they posses) the language they think is appropriate for this purpose. Of course there will be a desire to communicate on the part of the students and they will also have a communicative purposes. When the students are involved in a drill or in repetition, they will be motivated the need to reach the objective of accuracy. The emphasis is on the form of the language. A teacher should be in creating procedures of teaching in order that the objective is reached.

9 Speaking is an important skill that must be taught in language class. It is widely argued that the success of using a language especially second language and foreign language in real life situation can be determined through speaking. The idea strengthened by Richards, he stated that the mastery of speaking skills in English is a priority for many second-language or foreign-language learners. Consequently, learners often evaluate their success in language learning as well as the effectiveness of their English course on the basis of how much they feel they have improved in their spoken language proficiency (2008:19). English becomes the priority because English is an international language spoken all over the world. That is why some job vacancies often require the job‟s seeker to be able to speak fluently as their main requirement (Norton in Hornberger, 2010:96). According to Thornbury, it is generally acceptable that knowing a language and being able to speak it are not synonymous (2005:1). It means that someone who knows a lot about a language can not be guaranteed to have a good speaking skill in that language. Thornbury also defines speaking as a part of daily life that we take it for granted (2005:1). In other words, in our daily life speaking is an important tool that we use to communicate through the words arrangement that we produce. As been stated above, we knew that mastering speaking skill is the priority in learning a language.

2.1.2 The Elements of speaking To be a good speaker, the ability to produce utterance (utterances) is not enough. There are much linguistics to be mastered by language‟s learners in order to be able to express their feelings and ideas appropriately. Here are the elements of speaking according to Harmer in his book The Practice of English Language

10 Teaching that the speakers have to be competent in speaking skill, those are language features in which contains four points. They are: 

Connected speech. It is the sound‟s modifying in producing utterance when people speak. In which includes modifying (assimilation), omitting (elision), adding (linking), or weakening (through contraction and stress patterning).



Expressive devices. It is the stress and pitch variation in producing utterance in order to convey the truth meaning of the messages meant by the speaker. It includes the variation of the volume and speed of the speech. By using these devices, people will be able to show what and how they feel to whom they are talking to.



Grammar and lexis. People live in different ways, places and environments which is causing a different mind set too. Therefore, teachers need to supply their students with various phrases for different function in their speaking classroom activity. For instance, students will know what expressions they have to use appropriately in different stages of interaction.



Negotiation language. This is the speech clarification. It is the use of language on how to clarify and to show what they means. Sometimes people do not hear or understand what other people‟s saying. Therefore, it is necessary to have an appropriate language of how to clarify in order to avoid missunderstanding between speaker and the listener (Harmer,2001: 267-270). In addition, Harmer concerned with other elements of speaking that is

necessary to be mastered by a successful speaker; those are mental/ social processing and the rapid processing which involves language processing, interaction and information processing.

11 

Language processing. Effective speakers need to be able to process language in their own head and put it into coherent order, so that it comes out in forms that are not only comprehensible, but also convey the meaning that are intended.



Interaction. Most speaking involves interaction with one or more participants. It means that effective speaking also involves a good deal of listening, an understanding of how others felt and a knowledge of how the linguistically to take turns or allow others to do so.



Informations processing. Quite apart from our response to other‟s feelings, we also need to be able to process the information they take us the moment we get it. The longer it takes for „The penny to drop‟, the less effective we are as an instant communicator. However, it should be remembered that this instant response is very culture-specific, and is not prized by speaker in many other language communities. In line with these elements, the researcher concludes that, speaker who

wishes to say anything has to consider two things. First, the language feature by which people know the use of language such as: how to modify the sound and how to use appropriate expression. Second, people also must know how to arrange words into the right order. Therefore, the intended messages are sent. In this case, people not only hope to be understood by someone else solely, but also they have to understand other participant‟s feeling. Here, people are demanded to know when they have to take turn on the conversation and to allow the others to do so. Such those elements mentioned above showed that the speakers must be communicatively competence in the language they use. As it is stated by Walter in

12 her book, about communicative competence that it defines as the ability to use language appropriately in variety of context (Walter, 2008:18) which involves: 

Grammatical Competence. It is a competency that focuses on the accuracy and correctness of using language code such as vocabulary, spelling, grammar, pronunciation and so on in the language skill especially speaking and writing.



Sociolinguistics Competence. It is a competency that focuses on the use of appropriate language in variety social setting. Here, the target language speaker is demanded to know how, where and when the language will be uttered by them in appropriate situation, such as how to invite, how to asking information, how to describe something and etc.



Discourse Competence. It is a competency that focuses on the appropriateness of combining and conecting phrases and sentences in engaging conversation.



Strategic Competence. It is a competency that focuses on manipulation of language in achieving the communication goals. This competency involves the use of both verbal and nonverbal, such as changing the voice tone, using the body language and emphasizing the specific word (Walter, 2008:19). Apparently, it can be seen in following figure about communicative

competence and its elements. Figure: The Elements of Communicative Competence (Walter, 2008:19) Socio-linguistics Competence

Grammatical Competence Communicative Competence Discourse Competence

Strategic Competence

13 From those elements and competencies mentioned above, it can be concluded that to be a good speaker, he or she has to master language elements. On the other hand, it is not enough to have a lot of vocabulary without other knowledge.

2.1.3

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

senior high schools this skill is limited to the ability to conduct a simple conversations on some subject (e.g. expressing regret, gratitude, agreement, offer, certainty, etc.). Among the four skills, speaking skill is a difficult one to assess with precision, because speaking is a complex skill to acquire. In giving scores, there is rating scale developed by H.Douglas Brown. It showed six items generally recognized in analysis of speech process : Grammar, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Fluency, Pronunciation, Task (Brown, 2003:172-173). According to Brown, there are 5 basic types of speaking, those are imitative, intensive, responsive, interactive and extensive (2003:141-142). Imitative is the type of speaking performance which the ability is to simply parrot back (imitate) a word or phrase or possibly a sentence. The examples of imitative assessment tasks given here are: Word repetition task and phonepass test. Intensive is the production of short stretches of oral language designed to demonstrate competence in narrow band of grammatical, phrasal, lexical or phonological relationships (such as prosodic elements-intonation, stress, rhthym, jucture). The examples of intensive assessment tasks include directed response

14 tasks, reading aloud, sentence and dialogue completion; limited picture cued tasks including simple sequences; and translation up to the simple sentence level. Responsive asessment tasks include interaction and test comprehension but at the some what limited level of very short conversations, standart greetings and small talk, simple request and comments and the like. The stimulus is almost always a spoken prompt (in order to preserve authenticity), with perhaps only one or two follow-up questions or retorts. Interactive assessment task has quiet same model in its test with the responsive task, both emphazise the spoken prompt. The difference between responsive and interactive speaking is in the length and complexity of the interaction, which sometimes include multiple exchanges and/or multiple participants. Interactions can take the two forms of transactional language, which has the purpose of exchanging specific information, or interpersonal exchanges which has the purpose of maintaining social relationships. In interpersonal exchanges, oral production can become pragmatically complex with the need of speak in a casual register and use colloquial language, ellipsis, slang, humor and other sociolinguistic conventions. Extensive (monologue) oral production tasks include speeches, oral presentations and story-telling, during which the opportunity for oral interaction from listeners is either highly limited or ruled out altogether. Brown also added there are micro- and macroskills of speaking. The list of speaking skills can be drawn up for the purpose that is to serve as a taxonomy of skills from which you will select one or several that will become the objective(s) of an assessment task. The microskills refer to producing the smaller

15 chunks of language such as phonemes, morphemes, words, collocations and phrasal units. Then the Macroskills imply the speaker‟s focus on the large elements: fluency, discourse, function, style, cohesion, nonverbal communication and strategic options. The micro- and macroskills total roughly 16 different objectives to assess in speaking (Brown, 2003:142). In assessing the tests, the writer followed rating scale developed by H.Douglas Brown (Brown, 2003:172-173). It showed six items that were important to be scored: Grammar, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Fluency, Pronunciation, Task. However, in this study, researcher do not give score on all items showed but creates the scoring rubric to be as simple as possible based on the student‟s ability.

2.1.4

Chain Drill Technique Speaking skill preceded by listening. Through listening, people know

vocabulary they do not know before. Brown strengthened the idea above, he stated that Speaking is a productive skill that can be directly and empirically observed, those observations are invariably colored by the accuracy and effectiveness of a test-taker‟s listening skill, which necessarily compromises the reliability and validity of an oral production test (2003:140). In short, both speaking and listening is integrated. This idea was strengthened by Rost in Hinkel, she stated that listening refers to a complex cognitive process that allows a person to understand spoken language (2005:503). Broadly speaking, speaking skill is influenced by listening skill. Chain Drill Technique integrating both skills, speaking and listening, in learning process. According to Larsen-Freeman (2000:46) we have to use drills if

16 we want the students to be able to speak English communicatively. Furthermore, she explained that drills, as part of audio-lingual method, have been used in teaching speaking. Since the primary goal of the audio-lingual method is to use the target language communicatively, drills are suitable for teaching speaking. Chain Drill itself is a teaching technique that is created from the Audio Lingual Method firstly applied by Charles Fries (1945) of the University of Michigan. And for this reason, it has sometimes been referred to as the „Michigan Method‟ (Larsen-Freeman, 2000:35). A chain drill gets its name from the chain of conversation that forms around the room as students, one-by-one, ask and answer questions of each other (Larsen-Freeman, 2000:48). The rules of chain drill activity are that the activities begun as the teacher greets and asks questions to a particular student (student A). Then student A will respond the questions. After that, student A takes turn to ask another student sitting next to him. This activity will continuously work until the last turn of the last student. At the end, the last student directs greeting and asking questions back to the teacher. A chain drill allows some controlled communication among the students while teacher can check students‟ speech as well. Either teacher or students themselves can correct their friend‟s oral sentences whether they are wellconstructed or not. As the result, any mistakes that probably occur can be corrected directly as soon as possible. Besides, the use of peer student‟s correction will prevent student‟s worrying in making mistake that can

improve their

confidence to try. The use of chain drill can encourage the improvement of students‟ listening and speaking skills. They get listening skill from listening to

17 their friends‟ questions. Therefore, they have to focus on what their friends asking about. Once they can answer the question correctly, it means that they absolutely can understand the question. Moreover, the way they ask questions or answer the questions drives students to practice speaking. This activity makes students accustomed to express their ideas through oral speech. It also creates a new habit to use English in communicating with others that will improve their speaking skill as the result.

2.2 Empirical Review In this section, we can see the two of many researchers that have done their research about “Audio Lingual Teaching as an Alternative Method in Teaching Speaking “ and “Developing Student‟s Ability in Simple Past Tense through Chain Drills”. Here are their researches: According to Anggraeni (2007:6-7), language learning is a habit formation. That is why if the teacher wants students to be able to use english communicatively, teacher must create a new habit in the classroom that is using English as the main language for communication with others. Drills technique as part of audio lingual method is one of the solution in improving student‟s speaking skill. From the result, it could be concluded that the difference was statistically significant. Therefore, based on the computation there was significant difference between teaching speaking after and before using Audio-lingual Method. Teaching speaking after using Audio-lingual Method was more effective than teaching speaking before using Audio-lingual Method. It could be seen by the result of the test where the student‟s score was higher after being given the treatment (Anggraeni, 2007: 63).

18 Other research showed by Abinur (2011). Abinur used CAR in this research. She thought simple past tense through chain drill. This research consisted of two cycles and each cycle consisted of four elements, they were planning, action, observation and reflection. Each cycle was conducted in two meetings, so the researcher conducted this research in four meetings for one month and two weeks. To collect and analyze the data, the researcher used the information from interview, observation and student‟s achievements in pre-test and post-test in order to support the data collected. The result of this data showed that using chain drill in teaching simple past tense in second years of MTSN 17 Jakarta could motivate the students to learn simple past tense and develop their ability in simple past tense. The student‟s responses showed that they were interested to learn simple past tense because they thought that the chain drill technique was interesting. Moreover, the student‟s achievement, based from pretest and

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

teaching simple past tense through chain drills could develop student‟s ability in learning English.

2.3 Hypothesis The hypothesis is useful to give the answer or tentative solution which can help the researcher in finding the result and conclusion of the study. Therefore, in this study the hypothesis can be stated as follows: speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 can be improved by using Chain Drill Technique.

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Subject of the Study The Eighth grade students at SMPN I Amlapura were devided into ten classes. Class VIII B was taken as the subject of the research because based on the interview with the English teacher, students of VIII B got low scores in speaking. There were 35 students in this class, 14 females and 21 males, which was considerably enough to be the purpose of the study. The data of students’ list would be showed completely in the appendix 1. After having the interview with the English teacher of the VIII B class, the researcher got some informations about the problems that were faced by the students in learning English. In addition, a serious problem found was the students’ difficulties in expressing their idea orally. Students got bored in the class and lazy to speak their mind because the teaching learning process which was so monotone and mostly emphasized teacher as the authority in classroom and students as the passive position. That is why students’ achievement in speaking still low so that they need a new teaching teachnique which is fun and can make them enjoy and confident in expressing their mind orally.

3.2

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

Technique and optimalize this technique in improving speaking skill. Globalization era demanded educators to be more professional in their job, otherwise they will be left behind. So, it is important for them to be more creative 19

20 in finding a new kind of methods in teaching process. To support all those things, they have to conduct their own strategy of teaching by doing some kinds of research. Hewitt and Little stated that Action research is a model of professional development that promotes collaborative inquiry, reflection and dialogue. Within the action research process, educators study students’ learning related to their own teaching. It is a process that allows educators to learn about their own instructional practices and continue monitoring the improvement of students’ learning (2005:1). Furthermore, Guskey in Hewitt and Little stated that the idea of action research is that educational problems and issues are best identified and investigated where the action is at the classroom and school level. By integrating research into these settings and engaging those who work at this level in research activities, findings can be applied immediately and problems solved more quickly (2005:1). Within the action research process, teachers may choose to focus their study on one student, a small group of students, a class or several classes, or a whole school. The focus and level of participation among school and district colleagues depended on the level of support, needs, and interests of the teacher(s) and school. Ary, et al (2010:512) also argued that action research has been used in a variety of settings, including schools, hospitals, health clinics, community agencies, government units, and other environments. It could be used to enhance everyday work practices, to resolve specific problems, and to develop special projects and programs.

21 Emily Calhoun in Hewitt and Little described three approaches to action research: individual teacher research, collaborative action research, and schoolwide action research. Eventhough the environments are different, the process of action research remains the same. This process uses data to identify classroom/school problems, creates and implements a plan of action, collects and analyzes data, uses and shares the results, and makes instructional decisions to improve students’ learning continuously (2005:3). According to Hewitt and little, the action research process involved four phases; Identifying a classroom problem, developing and implementing an action research plan, collecting and analyzing data, using and sharing results (2005:2). Another expert such as Kurt Lewin stated that the concept of Action Research design contained of four components; Planning, Acting, Observing and Reflecting (Kusumah and Dwitagama, 2009:20). But actually, both designs above were generally same in their action. From those explanations, it could be concluded that the meaning of classroom action research was a kind of educational research that aimed to increase teaching and learning through problem solving. It tempted to answer questions related to some aspects of educational practice. Here the teacher could reflect on what they have discovered and then apply it to their professional practice.

3.3

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

Cycle II) which every cycle had two sessions. Those two sessions consisted of four activities which had bounding in every activity and they were named:

22 Planning (P), Action (A), Observation (O), and Reflection (R). However, in order to measure the result of pre-existing speaking skill of eighth grade of SMPN I Amlapura, researcher administered Initial Reflection (IR). The mean score of IR would be compared to the corresponding mean score of R and at the end of each session would show the degree of speaking skill’s improvement. There were many kinds of the action research’s designs exist at present. Those are Kurt Lewin’s design, Kemmis and McTaggart’s design, Dave Ebbut design, John Elliot’s design, McKernan’s design and many more. However, here the researcher focused on Kurt Lewin’s design. He was the expert who introduced the action research for the first time. His design became the host and the main basic of other further action research especially classroom action research. The concept of Kurt Lewin’s action research design contains four components those are Planning, Acting, Observing and Reflecting (Kusumah and Dwitagama, 2009:20) which could be showed completely below.

3.3.1 Planning After making sure about the problem of the research, researcher made a preparation before doing an action researcher. The kind of preparation could be seen as follows: (a) The steps and the activities during the research. (b) Preparation for teaching facilities. (c) Preparation for data analysis during the research process. (d) Preparation for all research in order not to make a mistake during the research such as alternative actions to solve the problem of the research.

23 3.3.2 Action Doing an action research was the main cycle of action research. Then was followed by observation, interpretation and also the reflective activities. A researcher must be very careful in practicing the classroom research; he or she had to follow the procedure or action planning during the research. Action reffered to what the researcher really do in the classroom setting during the processes of teaching speaking through chain drill technique which aimed was to solve the problems found. The teaching process started with pre-activities. The teacher as teacher was greeting the students and checking their attendance list. Pre-activities were intended to activate the subjects’ prior knowledge related to the topic which is going to be discussed and practiced. The second phase was whilst-activities. In this phase the researcher carried the main process of teaching speaking through Chain Drill technique. Time allocation for these phase was about 40 minutes. Firstly, teacher delivered some elicited questions about the topic that is going to be learnt. Secondly, the researcher would explain briefly about the rules of chain drill. Then students were given the description’s topic. Thirdly, teacher or researcher asked questions to the student nearest to her, and student respond teacher’s questions. Then, he turned to ask another student sitting next to him. This activity was continuously work until the last turn of the last student. The last student directed greeting and asking questions to the teacher. Last phase was post-activities. Teacher asked students’ difficulties in learning speaking through chain drill technique. Teacher was also asking about what they feel during learning process using chain drill technique. A chain drill

24 allowed some controlled communication among the students while teacher could check students’ speech as well. Either teacher or students themselves could correct their friend’s oral sentences whether they are well-constructed or not. As the result, any mistakes that probably occur could be corrected directly as soon as possible. Besides, the use of peer student’s correction will prevent student’s worrying in making mistake that can improve their confidence to try.

3.3.3 Observation In this step, a researcher had to observe all events or activities during the research. The observation could be classified into three categories: (a) teacher’s talk (b) pupil’s talk (3) silence or confusion. Observation was a usual step when a researcher is observing or assessing the decision of research during teaching learning process as the result of learning interaction among the learners.

3.3.4 Reflection A reflection was an effort to inspect what has or has not been done, what has or has not been resulted after having an alternative action. The result of reflection was used to establish the next steps of the research. In other words, a reflection was the inspection effort on the success or the failure in reaching the temporary purposes in order to determine the alternative steps that are probably made to get the final goals of the research (Hopkins in Anggraeni, 2007:35) After knowing the aims in conducting an action research, the teacher used an action research when he or she finds some problems such as the students have not achieved the target he/she expected during the teaching learning process.

25 As a teacher, he or she has to find out the problem and try to solve it. One way to solve the problem was by conducting an action research. A teacher did a classroom action research and it was conducted in the class, which involved all of the students in the classroom. By doing an action research, teachers might give contribution to her or other teachers as well as to students in general.

3.4 Research Instrument To sustain the validity of the result, the researcher collected data derived from several ways. Those ways were tests and questionnaire. 1. Test In present study, the students were given tests that separated into two tests (pre-test and post-test). The pre-test was administered in order to find out students’ pre-existing speaking skill before the researcher conduct the reserch by applying chain drill technique (X0). Furthermore, the post-test was administered in the end of each session. There were two cycles (cycle 1 and cycle 2) in this step where each cycle consist of two sessions. The last sessions of each cycle, post-test 1(X1) and post-test 2 (X2) would be administered in order to evaluate the effectiveness of chain drill technique in teaching speaking with the material in describing something or someone. Moreover, those tests were given because the result would be easier to be quantified and analyzed by comparing the scores of X0, X1 and X2. The scores of the tests were ranging, depends on the speaking’s scoring rubric. 2. Questionnare The questionnare was conducted to the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura after the completion of cycle II. It was done to get a clear picture of

26 students’ changes in their learning behaviour, their motivation, their achievement when they were taught speaking using chain drill technique. The questionnaire also let students to express their feeling about the teaching technique, chain drill technique, which was applied in the speaking activity.

3.5 Data Collection There were three kinds of instruments used to gather the data of this classroom action study; pre-test, post-tests and questionnaire. Thus, the data that was gathered through administering pre-test, post-tests and questionnaire to the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura, was required to answer the research question that was stated before. The pre-test of IR was administered to the subjects under study to obtain pre-existing speaking skill. In pre-test, the subjects were asked to describe someone orally. Pre-test was used to measure the students’ pre-existing speaking skill or before applying the chain drill technique in teaching speaking.. Post-test or reflection is administered twice (first in cycle I and the second was in cycle II). Furthermore, the questionnaire was administered at the end of cycle II to figure out how far the changes in students’ learning behaviour, their speaking achievement, their feeling and the new habit created in the classroom after implementing chain drill technique in teaching speaking.

3.6 Data Analysis Analysis

means

the

categorizing,

ordering,

manipulating,

and

summarizing of data obtain answers to research questions (Kerlinger in Anggraeni, 2007:56). The purpose of analysis was to reduce data to be intelligible and interpretable so that the relation of research problem could be studied. In

27 scoring the test, the students called out in turn and the researcher tested them by asking the students to describe someone or something orally in front of the class. In giving scores, the researcher followed rating scale developed by H.Douglas Brown (Brown, 2003:172-173). It showed six items that were important to be scored: Grammar, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Fluency, Pronunciation, Task. While in this study, researcher did not give score on all items showed but created the scoring rubric to be as simple as possible because the students’ speaking ability was low. They only asked to construct the drilled answers into a comprehension sentences orally with the material in describing something or someone then perform it in front of the class. Table: Oral Proficiency scoring categories

Point

Comprehension

Grammar

Vocabulary

Fluency

Pronunciation

I

Has very limited Errors in grammar language experience are frequent

Poor of vocabulary’s repertory

Poor of fluency

Errors in pronunciation are frequent

II

Can get the gist of most conversation of non-technical subject

can usually handle elementary construction quite accurately but doesn’t have confident control of grammar

Lack of vocabulary repertory

Less of fluency

Accent is intelligible though often quite faulty

III

Comprehension is tolerable

Control of grammar is tolerable

Tolerable of vocabulary repertory

Tolerable of fluency

Error never interfere with understanding

IV

Comprehension is quite good

Control of grammar is quite good

Have pretty many vocabulary repertory

Able to use language quite fluently

Error in pronunciation are quite rare

V

Comprehension is good

Control of grammar Have a lot of is good vocabulary repertory

Able to use language fluently

error in pronunciation are disappear

28 The score was given by analyzing the students’ performance: Maximum Score=25x4=100

The data was analyzed in percentage as follows:

M=

 fx N

Notes:

M

= Mean score

𝑓𝑥 = sum of the score N

= sum of the individuals

The mean score was used to evaluate the achievement of teaching learning process by using chain drill technique whether it is effective to improve students’ speaking skill or not; besides, the changes of students’ behaviour, students’ achievement and students’ enthusiasm in speaking activity.

3.7

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

I Amlapura, the Standard Minimum Achievement is 77. Therefore, this research will regarded to be successful if the 80% of the research’s subjects under study can pass the minimum score which has been stated above.

CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Finding The finding of the data that have been collected through the present classroom action study of the VIII B students at SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 would be presented in this chapter. The data was collected by three kinds of instrument, they were pre-test, post-test, and questionnaire. Thus, the data was required to answer the research question which gathered by administering pre-test, post-test and questionnaire. Pre-test or IR was administered to obtain their pre existing ability in speaking. In pre-test the subjects were asked to describe their friend who was sitting next to them and then performed their descriptions infront of the class. It was done in order to know the subjects’ speaking ability before the technique was applied. Post-test or R was administered twice, the last sessions of cycle I and cycle II. The post test was given in order to know the improvement of students’ ability in speaking after taught by using Chain Drill Technique. Therefore, there were three sets of raw score showing the subjects’ improvement in speaking. They were pre-test score and post-test score for each cycle (IR, R1, R2). The three sets of scores which were collected could be seen as follows:

4.1.1 Pre-Cycle Pre-cycle or pre-test was conducted before the researcher taught speaking by using chain drill technique to the subject under the study. It was used in order to know the speaking ability of the subjects under study before the technique was

29

30 applied. It was given before the Cycle I begun. This score could be computed in the initial reflection, the subjects or the students described their friend who was sitting next to them and then perform their description in front of the class orally. All of the students followed the Initial Reflection. The scores of pre-test (IR) were collected from 35 subjects under study. The total score of IR was 1852 and the mean score was 52.91. In IR, only 2,85 % of the subjects under study reached the Standart Minimum Achivement score. The details of the scoring rubric could be seen in the Appendix 4. The mean score of IR and the percentage of students who reached the Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) were computed by using the formula below: Mean Score of IR

= =

𝐅𝐱 𝐍 𝟏𝟖𝟓𝟐 𝟑𝟓

= 52.91

Percentage of students who reached KKM = = 4.1.2

sum of the students who reached KKM sum of all students

𝟏 𝟑𝟓

x 100%

x 100% = 2.85%

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

speaking by using chain drill technique. This cycle consisted of two sessions. In the first session the researcher taught speaking by using chain drill technique with the topic about describing bestfriend. Students directly involved in teachinglearning process where the students in chain were drilled questions based on the topic given and answered the questions by their own orally. The chain continued after all students got a chance to give and answer the drilled questions. After that,

31 students were asked to arrange their answers into a good descriptions about their bestfriend and perform it orally in front of the class. Second session started with a new topic in describing someone, where in the first session they were asked to describe their bestfriend but in the second session they were asked to describe their family. Chain drill started from the researcher who proposed drilled questions to the student nearest to her. First student responded the researcher’s questions then continued to ask a friend who was sitting beside her with the same drilled questions which were related with the topic given. This chain continued after all students got a chance to give and answer the drilled questions. After that, students arranged their answers to be a good descriptions about their family and described it in front of the class orally. In this session, the researcher administered the post-test I (R1). The post-test I was used as feedback to carry out the revision to solve the students’ weaknesses which would be done in cycle II. The total score of post-test 1 was 2460 and the mean was 70.28. In post-test 1, the computation showed that 20% of the subjects under study reached the standard minimum achievement. The details of the scoring rubric could be seen in the appendix 4. The mean score of R1 and the percentage of students who reached the Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) were computed by using the formula below: Mean score of R1

= =

𝐅𝐱 𝐍 𝟐𝟒𝟔𝟎 𝟑𝟓

= 70.28

Percentage of students who reached KKM = =

sum of the students who reached KKM sum of all students

𝟕 𝟑𝟓

x 100% = 20%

x 100%

32 4.1.3 Cycle II Cycle II was similar as Cycle I, the researcher taught speaking by using chain drill technique with the same material about describing someone/ something. Actually, the difference was in the topic given. In this cycle, researcher gave students the material about describing things. In the first session, researcher proposed a topic entitled “Describe your favourite fruit” and asked students to perform it in front of the class orally. Chain drill technique was done in this session by proposing some questions which related with the topic given. After all students got a chance to give and answer the drilled questions, they were asked to arrange the descriptions and then describe their favourite fruit in front of the class orally. In the second session, researcher proposed different topic where in this session students were given description topic entitled “Describe your favourite food.” Teaching speaking by using chain drill technique was done here but a bit different with the first session where in this session, researcher fixed students’ mistakes directly while applying the chain drill technique because so much misspronounciation while pronouncing some words. After all students got a chance to give and answer the drilled questions, they were asked to arrange their answers into a good descriptions and then decribe their favourite food in front of the class orally. The scores of Cycle II were “excellent” even some students were still got problem in arranging sentences to be a good descriptions about their favourite food and got problem too in speaking their mind in front of the class. The total score of R2 was 2824 and the mean was 80.68. In post-test 2, the computation of the scores showed that 80% of the subjects under the study reached the standard

33 minimum achievement which meant that this research was successful and regarded to be stopped. The details of the scoring rubric could be seen in the appendix 4. The mean score of R2 and the percentage of students who reached the Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) were computed by using the formula below: Mean score of R2

= =

𝐅𝐱 𝐍 𝟐𝟖𝟐𝟒 𝟑𝟓

= 80.68

Percentage of students who reached KKM = =

sum of the students who reached KKM sum of all students

𝟐𝟖 𝟑𝟓

x 100%

x 100% = 80%

The students’ scores were increased compared with the pre-cycle, cycle 1 and cycle 2 scores which meant that there was an improvement of the students’ achievement in speaking after chain drill technique was applied. The summary of the data analysis were made in order to make the reader easier in understanding and learning the data collected. The summary of data analysis from the Initial Reflection, Cycle I and Cycle II could be seen below: Table 4.1 Tabulation of Data Showing the Subjects’ Progressing Score in Speaking After the Implementation of Chain Drill Technique

Subjects S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7

Pre-Cycle (X0) 48 48 44 64 40 40 44

Post-Test 1(X1) 72 72 72 64 64 64 64

Post-Test 2 (X2) 80 80 80 80 72 68 72

34 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 S30 S31 S32 S33 S34 S35 Total Mean

4.1.4

56 52 48 48 60 80 60 52 40 40 56 44 52 52 44 44 48 52 64 44 52 72 64 48 48 64 64 76 1852 52.91

64 64 64 68 80 92 72 72 68 68 68 64 64 64 64 64 68 64 80 64 68 84 80 68 68 80 72 84 2460 70.28

80 80 80 80 80 96 76 80 80 80 80 80 60 72 72 84 80 80 80 80 84 96 84 80 92 84 96 96 2824 80.68

Questionnaire As mentioned previously, there were some findings about students’

changing behaviour and motivation. Questionnaire was given at the end of cycle 2 in order to collect the data about students’ feeling about learning English especially in the speaking activity by using chain drill technique. Questionnaire

35 was made in Indonesian Language and the students answered the questionnaire based on their own feeling. The data obtained from the questionnaire was computed and discussed in this present classroom action study. The detail of the scores could be seen in the appendix 4. The computation of the comparative percentages for the scores of the items of the questionnaire showing the subjects’ total responses for the item of A, B, C and D was showed as follows: 1. The percentage of item A

=

321 740

x 100%

= 43.38 %

2. The percentage of item B

=

356 740

x 100%

= 48.11%

3. The percentage of item C

=

63 740

x 100%

= 8.51 %

4. The percentage of item D

=

0 740

x 100%

=0%

The result of the analysis of the questionnaire scores showed the comparative percentage of item A was 43.38%, item B was 48.11%, item C was 8.51% and item D was 0%. These findings clearly supported the main finding of the present study. The findings of the present action study in table 4.1 clearly showed that the mean of pre-test scores (X0) obtained by the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 was 52.91. The grand means obtained by the subjects under study for both cycle I (X1) and cycle II (X2) which showed grand figure 70.28 and 80.68 were higher than corresponding pre-test mean score.

36 To make it clear, the rising comparative mean figures of the pre-test (IR) score and post-test (R) scores obtained by the eighth grade students of SMPN 1 Amlapura for cycle I and cycle II could be presented on the graph below: 90

80,68

80

70,28

70 60

52,91

50 40 30 20 10 0 IR

R1

R2

Graph 4.1 Depicting the Subjects’ Progressing Achievement in Speaking by Using Chain Drill Technique in Pre-cycle, Cycle I and Cycle II

4.2 Discussion The data analysis which established the findings of this classroom action study showed that the mean of the pre-test (IR) obtained by the subjects under study in speaking activity was 52.91. This mean figure of IR clearly showed that the ability of the subjects under study was definitely low because the Standard Minimum Achievement of the English subject in SMPN 1 Amlapura was 77. The result of the data analysis of the post-test score in cycle I showed the progress mean figure to 70.28. The mean figure obtained by the subjects in cycle I was clearly much higher than the mean score of IR. The mean score of cycle I showed the obvious improvement of the students’ ability in speaking. The progress in cycle 1 was the result of the revision after the IR data was collected.

37 The result of the data analysis of the post-test scores in cycle II showed the progress mean figure to 80.68. The mean figure obtained by the subjects in cycle II was clearly much higher than the mean score of IR. There was a significant difference between mean figure of cycle I and mean figure of cycle II. This result was awesome. Students said that it was easier to construct the sentences by using drilled questions. It was logical if the grand mean of the reflection score in cycle II was higher than cycle I. The questionnaire percentage figures of the total response of the questionnaire for item A, B, C, and D were 43.38%, 48.11%, 8.51%, and 0%. This figures showed the changing of subject’s positive learning behavior in speaking by using chain drill technique. Students’ speaking skill changed progressively since the chain drill technique was applied. Thus, the speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN 1 Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 improved significantly by using chain drill technique.

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

In this chapter, the researcher presented the conclusion and suggestions based on the previous chapter. It clarified the result of the classroom action research as the answer of the research question whether the speaking skill could be improved or not by using chain drill technique at the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014.

5.1 Conclusion The present classroom action study was conducted to help the students to improve and develop their ability in describing something and someone orally. The main data for the present classroom action study were gathered through administering pre-test (IR) and post-tests (R1 and R2) to the subjects under study. At the end of cycle II, questionnaire was administered in order to know the changing of students’ learning behavior. The grand mean of pre-test was 52.91. The grand mean of the pre-test clearly pointed that the speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura was low, because the minimum score criterion which used by the school was 77. The grand mean of the post-test score for cycle I was 70.28 and 80.68 for cycle II. The findings of the present classroom action study convincingly revealed that teaching speaking by using chain drill technique could effectively improve the low ability of class VIII B’s students of SMPN I Amlapura in speaking activity. This prove was strengthened by the percentages of the

students’ achievement who reached the standard minimum achievement

38

39 scores from the pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2 which were awesome. The students’ percentage who reached the Standart Minimum Achievement (KKM) was 2.85% in pre-test while in post-test1 and post-test2 were increased, 20% and 80%. That was satisfactory result and regarded to be success. Other instrument which was conducted to the subjects under study was a set of questionnaire to measure their changing learning behavior such as motivation, behavior, enthusiasm and their confidence during learning speaking by using chain drill technique. The result of the analysis in questionnaire clearly showed comparatively figures of each item. Item A was positively responded by 43.38 % of students, item B was 48.11 %, item C was 8.51 %, instead no one of the students choosed item D. These findings of the present action study proved the hypothesis of the study that the problems faced by the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura could be satisfactory overcome through teaching speaking by using Chain Drill Technique. It could be concluded that Chain Drill Technique could improve speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014.

5.2 Suggestion Based on the result of the study the researcher would like to suggest the teacher and students of SMPN I Amlapura and for the further researchers. First, the English teachers of the eighth grade students are suggested to teach speaking by implementing chain drill technique in order to make the students interested in learning and became accustomed in speaking their mind. The finding showed that students were interested with chain drill technique in speaking activity. Students’ confidence and speaking ability were also increased while chain drill technique

40 was applied in teaching speaking. Teachers must burn past habit, where native language dominated the speaking activity, and create a new habit in the classroom in order to make students become accustomed in using English for communication. Chain drill technique was one of many teaching techniques in teaching speaking which able to make the lesson became interesting and challenging. The English teachers were also suggested to motivate their students to speak their idea orally, give more chances to the students to be more active and asked them not to be afraid and shy in making mistakes. Moreover, fixing directly when mistakes occured could be the best way in giving students a good model which can motivate them to be better in the future. Giving a positive feedback to the students’ progress also could motivate students and make them become more confident and enthusiastic in speaking their idea. The second suggestion was for the students. They were suggested to motivate themselves to learn English more serious not only during the lesson in the classroom but also outside the classroom as well. As the finding showed that the students’ speaking ability was increase after chain drill technique was applied which gave students more chances and practices to speak their idea spontaneously. As we all know that practice would bring us to be better and more practice would make us to be the best, so keep practicing and never be afraid and shy in making mistake. Thirdly was for the further researchers, the researcher expected that other researchers would do better research related with teaching English by using Chain Drill Technique. This teaching technique was a part or Audio Lingual method which has various drill and repetition techniques that could be applied not only for

41 teaching speaking but also for teaching other skills and components. It was an appropriate technique in teaching speaking based on the finding that students’ scores, motivation, confidence and their speaking skill were improved after the implementation of chain drill technique in teaching-learning process.

REFERENCES

Abinur, Siti Kurnia. (2011). Developing Student’s Ability in Simple Past Tense Through Chain Drills. Unpublished Thesis : Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah. Anggraeni, Purwita. (2007). Audio-lingual Teaching as an Alternative Method in Teaching Speaking. Unpublished Thesis : Semarang State University. Ary, et al. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education. Canada: Nelson Education, Ltd. Brown, H. Douglas. (2003). Language Assessment Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Longman Harmer, Jeremy. (2002). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman. Harmer, Jeremy. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Pearson Education Limited Hewitt, Ralph., and Mary Little. (2005). Leading Action Research in Schools. Florida: University of Central Florida. Hinkel, E. (2005). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Hornberger, N.H., and McKay Sandra L. (2010). Sociolinguistics and Language Education. Great Britain: Short Run Press Ltd. Kushartanti, et al. (2005). Pesona Bahasa; Langkah Awal Memahami Linguistics. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama Kusumah, Wijaya., and Dedi Dwitagama. (2009). Mengenal Tindakan kelas. Jakarta: PT. Indeks. Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. Merriam-Webster. (2003). Webster’s New Explorer College Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts: Federal Street Press. Richards, J. (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

42

43 Thornbury, S. (2002). How to Teach Speaking. Edinburg Gate Harlow Essex England: Pearson Education Limited. Walter, Teresa. (2004). The How-To Handbook Teaching English Language Learners. New York: Pearson Education

44

APPENDIX 1 : DAFTAR NAMA SISWA KELAS VIII B

NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

NIS 13464 13465 13467 13468 13469 13470 13471 13473 13474 13478 13479 13480 13484 13485 13486 13487 13488 13489 13490 13491 13492 13493 13494 13495 13496 13498 13499 13473 13471 13472 13475 13476 13477 13478 13479

SUBJECTS Ade Tri Sukadana Yasa Ade Wijayanti Ni Luh Adi Putra Wardana I Gede Agus Pratama I Gede Agus Satya Juniantara I Gede Agus Setiawan I Wayan Agus Tri Merta D I Komang Ardika Satya Pratama I Gede Ari Aditya I Putu Ayu Siwantari Kadek Cindy Mahartika Putri Ni Komang Dana Wahyu Fernanda I Komang Eka Wiranatha I Gede Nanditharta Deva I Gede Opi Widiantari Ni Kadek Paramadi Ida Bagus Raditya Manuaba Ida Bagus Raditya Yogi Suara I Gede Risma Juniantari Ni Kadek Singarsa Ida Bagus Gede Sri Komalawati Ni Made Sri Widiantari Kari Ni Kadek Suarnata I Wayan Tesya Eka Savitri Ni Putu Widiani Ida Ayu Yogi Hendrawan I Komang Yudha Sugiantara I Kadek Ayu Dwinita Juniari Ni Made Putu Adi Myarsithawan Aprilia Dwiantari Ni Kadek Putu Arianti Ni Luh Arya Dharma Putra I Gede Diah Puspita A Ni Kadek Dian Primantari Ni Putu Winda Apriyanti Ni Putu

45

INITIAL S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 S30 S31 S32 S33 S34 S35

APPENDIX 2 : LESSON PLAN CYCLE 1 & 2 LESSON PLAN CYCLE 1

School

: SMP Negeri I Amlapura

Subject

: Bahasa Inggris

Class/ Semester

: VIII/ I

Skill

: Speaking

Meeting

: 1st and 2nd meeting

A. Standart Competence : Speaking 4. Expressing the meaning of short functional and monolog texts orally, in the form of descriptive and recount to interact with surrounding. B. Basic Competence

: 4.2. Expressing the meaning of simple short monolog in oral accurately, fluently and acceptable to interact with surroundings in the form of descriptive

C. Indicator

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

D. Learning Objective

: 1. When the students are given the topic; Describe your bestfriend, they can describe about their bestfriend orally 2. When the students are given the topic about family, they can describe their family members orally

E. Expected Characters : Communicative, confidence, brave F. Time allocation

: 4x40 menit

G. Learning Material

:

Descriptive Text

A descriptive text is a text that describes the feature of someone, something or a certain place. The generic structure of a descriptive text: - Identification is the part of the paragraph that introduces the thing. - Description is the part of the paragraph that describes the thing. H. Technique

: Chain Drill Technique 46

47 I. Learning Activities

:

First Meeting Pre – Activities (± 9 minutes)

Time

1. Greeting the students

1’

2. Checking the student’s attendance

4’

3. Motivating the students and describing the

2’

material which is going to be learnt generally 4. Stating the learning objective to be achieved

2’

Whilst – Activities (± 70 minutes) Exploration 5. Proposing some rules about the teaching technique

4’

that is going to be applied Elaboration 6. Proposing a topic, bestfriend. 7. Stating questions which are related with the topic, to the student nearest to the teacher, and the 1st student answer the questions given 8. 1st Student continue to give questions to the

62’

student nearest to him/ her and the 2nd student answer the questions 9. Continuing the chain drill until all students get a chance to give and answer the questions. 10. Asking students to arrange the questions-answers into a good sentences of describing about bestfriend and asking some students to perform it infront of the class orally. 11. Checking student’s error and giving suggestions for the next performance

2’

√

X

48 Confirmation 12. Confirming the key concept of the lesson by pointing out the informations in describing

2’

something Post-Activities (± 1 minutes) 13. Giving a new descriptive topic for the next meeting

1’

14. Ending the session

2nd Meeting Pre – Activities (± 9 minutes)

Time

1. Greeting the students

1’

2. Checking the student’s attendance

4’

3. Motivating the students and describing the

2’

material which is going to be learnt generally 4. Stating the learning objective to be achieved

2’

Whilst – Activities (± 69 minutes) Exploration 5. Asking students about the next topic that was

4’

given in the first meeting Elaboration 6. Proposing a topic, family. 7. Teacher giving some questions which are related with the topic in order to help the students arrange their sentences in describing their family. 8. Students starting the chain drill based on the questions that have been proposed and continuing the chain drill untill all students get the chance to ask and answer. 9. Asking students to describe about their family in front of the class orally

60’

√

X

49 10. Giving comment for all performance and giving

3’

suggestions to be better in the future Confirmation 11. Confirming the key concept of the lesson one more time by pointing out the informations in

2’

describing something Post-Activities (± 2 minutes) 2’

12. Ending the session

J. References - Buku LKS Target kelas VIII semester 1 - Kamus K. Assessment Technique: Oral Test Instrument: Performance Instrument: 1. Make a simple description about your bestfriend in 5-7 sentences and perform it in front of the class. 2. Make a simple description about your family in 5-7 sentences and perform it in front of the class

Indicator 1. Describe your

Technique 1. Orally

In Form of

Instrument

---

---

Scoring Rubric

---

bestfriend

2. Describe your family members

2. Orally

50 LESSON PLAN CYCLE 2

School

: SMP Negeri I Amlapura

Subject

: Bahasa Inggris

Class/ Semester

: VIII/ I

Skill

: Speaking

Meeting

: 1st and 2nd meeting

A. Standart Competence : Speaking 4. Expressing the meaning of short functional and monolog texts orally, in the form of descriptive and recount to interact with surrounding. B. Basic Competence

: 4.2. Expressing the meaning of simple short monolog in oral accurately, fluently and acceptable to interact with surroundings in the form of descriptive

C. Indicator

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

D. Learning Objective

: 1. When the students are given the topic; Describe your favourite fruit, they can describe about their favourite fruit orally 2. When the students are given the topic; describe your favourite food, they can describe their favourite food orally

E. Expected Characters : Communicative, confidence, brave F. Time allocation

: 4x40 menit

G. Learning Material

:

Descriptive Text

A descriptive text is a text that describes the feature of someone, something or a certain place. The generic structure of a descriptive text: - Identification is the part of the paragraph that introduces the thing. - Description is the part of the paragraph that describes the thing.

51 H. Technique

: Chain Drill Technique

I. Learning Activities

:

First Meeting Pre – Activities (± 9 minutes)

Time

1. Greeting the students

1’

2. Checking the student’s attendance

4’

3. Motivating the students and describing the

2’

material which is going to be learnt generally 4. Stating the learning objective to be achieved

2’

Whilst – Activities (± 70 minutes) Exploration 5. Proposing elicited questions about topic that is

4’

going to be given Elaboration 6. Proposing a topic, describe your favourite fruit. 7. Stating questions which are related with the topic, to the student nearest to the teacher, and the 1st student answer the questions given 8. 1st Student continue to give questions to the student nearest to him/ her and the 2nd student answer the questions

62’

9. Continuing the chain drill until all students get a chance to give and answer the questions. 10. Asking students to arrange the questions-answers into a good sentences of describing their favourite fruit and asking some students to perform it infront of the class orally. 11. Checking student’s error and giving suggestions for the next performance

2’

√

X

52 Confirmation 12. Confirming the key concept of the lesson by

2’

pointing out the informations in describing something Post-Activities (± 1 minutes) 13. Giving a new descriptive topic for the next meeting 14. Ending the session

1’

2nd Meeting Pre – Activities (± 9 minutes) 1. Greeting the students

Time 1’

2. Checking the student’s attendance

4’

3. Motivating the students and describing the

2’

material which is going to be learnt generally 4. Stating the learning objective to be achieved

2’

Whilst – Activities (± 69 minutes) Exploration 5. Asking students about the next topic that was

4’

given in the first meeting Elaboration 6. Proposing a topic, describe your favourite food. 7. Teacher giving some questions which are related with the topic in order to help the students arrange their sentences in describing their favourite food. 8. Students starting the chain drill based on the questions that have been proposed and continuing the chain drill until all students get the chance to ask and answer. 9. Asking students to describe their favourite food in front of the class orally

60’

√

X

53 10. Giving comment for all performance and giving

3’

suggestions to be better in the future Confirmation 11. Confirming the key concept of the lesson one

2’

more time by pointing out the informations in describing something Post-Activities (± 2 minutes) 2’

12. Ending the session J. References - Buku LKS Target kelas VIII semester 1 - Kamus K. Assessment Technique: Oral Test Instrument: Performance Instrument:

1. Make a simple description about your favourite fruit in 5-7 sentences and perform it in front of the class. 2. Make a simple description about your favourite food in 5-7 sentences and perform it in front of the class Indicator 1. Describe your

Technique

In Form of

1. Orally ---

favourite fruit 2. Describe your

Instrument

2. Orally

Scoring Rubric

---

favourite food Amlapura, January 2014 Researcher Mila januar widyaningsih 10.8.03.51.31.2.5.3981

APPENDIX 3 : Instrument of pre-test, post-test 1, post-test 2 and questionnaire

1. Instrument of pre-test Describe your friend who is sitting next to you, in 5-7 sentences, then perform your descriptions in front of the class orally. 2. Instrument of post-test 1 Describe your family in 5-7 sentences and perform your descriptions in front of the class orally. 3. Instrument of post-test 2 Describe your favourite food in 5-7 sentences and perform your descriptions in front of the class orally. 4. Instrument of questionnaire

KUESIONER

Petunjuk dalam menjawab soal. 

Bacalah pertanyaan dibawah ini secara seksama



Jawablah pertanyaan ini dengan sejujur-jujurnya



Silanglah (X) huruf A,B,C atau D yang menjadi pilihan jawaban anda pada lembar soal yang disediakan



Kerjakan soal-soal dibawah ini secara individu



Kumpulkan lembar soal yang telah dijawab apabila anda telah selesai mengerjakan soal-soal ini

54

55 1. Apakah menurut anda belajar bahasa Inggris dengan Chain Drill Tehnik itu menyenangkan? A. Sangat Menyenangkan B. Menyenangkan C. Biasa-biasa saja D. Kurang menyenangkan 2. Bagaimana kesan anda terhadap Chain Drill tehnik? A. Sangat menarik B. Menarik C. Biasa saja D. Kurang menarik 3. Apakah anda menyukai pembelajaran berbicara dalam Bahasa Inggris dengan menggunakan Chain Drill tehnik? A. Sangat menyukai B. Menyukai C. Biasa-biasa saja D. Kurang menyukai 4. Apakah pembelajaran berbicara dalam Bahasa Inggris melalui Chain Drill tehnik bermanfaat bagi kemampuan belajar anda? A. Sangat bermanfaat B. Bermanfaat C. Biasa-biasa saja D. Kurang bermanfaat

56 5. Apakah situasi pembelajaran melalui tehnik Chain Drill dapat membantu meningkatkan kemampuan anda dalam berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris? A. Sangat membantu B. Membantu C. Biasa-biasa saja D. Kurang membantu 6. Apakah cara pembelajaran berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris melalui tehnik Chain Drill ini membuat anda bersemangat dalam belajar? A. Sangat bersemangat B. Bersemangat C. Cukup bersemangat D. Tidak bersemangat 7. Dengan pembelajaran berbicara melalui tehnik Chain Drill, seberapa besar anda merasa ada kemajuan dalam kemampuan berbicara anda? A. Sangat banyak B. Banyak C. Cukup banyak D. Tidak banyak 8. Apakah dengan belajar menggunakan tehnik Chain Drill, kepercayaan diri anda meningkat dalam mengekspresikan ide-ide yang ada secara oral? A. Sangat meningkat B. meningkat C. Cukup meningkat D. Tidak meningkat

57 9. Apakah dalam pembelajaran melalui tehnik Chain Drill, anda terlibat dalam kegiatan belajar-mengajar di kelas? A. Sangat terlibat B. Terlibat C. Cukup terlibat D. Kurang terlibat 10. Apakah perintah yang disampaikan oleh guru dalam pengajaran menggunakan tehnik Chain Drill mudah dipahami? A. Sangat mudah B. Mudah C. Cukup mudah D. Tidak mudah

APPENDIX 4

No Name

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 S30 S31 S32 S33 S34 S35

:

The scores of pre-test, post-test 1, post-test 2 and questionnaire PRE-TEST SCORES

Comp. Grmmr Vocab Fluenc Pronc Score

3 3 3 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4

2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3

2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 4

3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 2 2 4 3 2 2 4 4 4

58

Total Score (Score x 4) 2 12 48 2 12 48 2 11 44 3 16 64 2 10 40 2 10 40 2 11 44 2 14 56 2 13 52 2 12 48 2 12 48 3 15 60 4 20 80 3 15 60 3 13 52 2 10 40 2 10 40 3 14 56 2 11 44 3 13 52 3 13 52 2 11 44 2 11 44 2 12 48 2 13 52 3 16 64 3 11 44 3 13 52 4 18 72 3 16 64 3 12 48 3 12 48 3 16 64 3 16 64 4 19 76 Total score 1852 Mean score 1852 =52.91 (total score) 35 35

59 POST-TEST I SCORES

No Name

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 S30 S31 S32 S33 S34 S35

Comp. Grmmr Vocab Fluenc Pronc Score

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 5

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4

4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Total Score (Score x 4) 3 18 72 3 18 72 3 18 72 3 16 64 3 16 64 3 16 64 3 16 64 3 16 64 3 16 64 3 16 64 3 17 68 4 20 80 4 23 92 3 18 72 3 18 72 3 17 68 3 17 68 3 17 68 3 16 64 3 16 64 3 16 64 3 16 64 3 16 64 3 17 68 3 16 64 4 20 80 3 16 64 4 17 68 4 21 84 4 20 80 3 17 68 4 19 76 4 20 80 3 18 72 4 21 84 Total score 2460 Mean score 2460 =70.28 (total score) 35 35

60 POST-TEST II SCORES

No Name

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 S30 S31 S32 S33 S34 S35

Comp. Grmmr Vocab Fluenc Pronc Score

5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 5

3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5

Total Score (Score x 4) 4 20 80 3 20 80 3 20 80 4 20 80 3 18 72 3 17 68 3 18 72 3 20 80 3 20 80 4 20 80 4 20 80 4 20 80 5 24 96 3 19 76 3 20 80 4 20 80 3 20 80 3 20 80 3 20 80 3 15 60 3 18 72 4 18 72 4 21 84 3 20 80 3 20 80 4 20 80 4 20 80 4 21 84 5 24 96 4 21 84 4 20 80 4 23 92 4 21 84 5 24 96 4 24 96 Total score 2824 Mean score 2824 =80.68 (total score) 35 35

61 Questionnaire Scores Tabulation of Data Showing the Subjects’ Responses in Learning Speaking by Using Chain Drill Technique Subjects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Total

A B C 9 10 2 12 10 1 6 10 3 18 6 1 9 8 3 3 4 5 3 14 2 6 12 2 3 14 2 0 10 5 9 12 1 15 10 0 15 10 0 3 14 2 9 14 0 18 6 1 6 8 4 18 6 1 18 6 1 6 8 4 6 12 2 12 12 0 15 10 0 9 10 2 3 12 3 3 14 2 3 14 2 9 12 1 9 12 1 3 16 1 3 10 4 18 4 2 6 12 2 18 6 1 18 8 0 321 356 63 Grand Total A + B + C + D (321+356+63) = 740

D -

APPENDIX 7 : BIOGRAPHY

Mila Januar Widyaningsih. She was born on Januari 9th 1985 in Blitar, East java. She was born from the great parents, Drs. Sonny Sudarsono,MM and Sumarni. She started her study when she was six years old in 1st Sananwetan Elementary School (SDN Sananwetan I) in Blitar. When she was in the third grade, her parents moved to another regency, Pacitan regency, for job’s purpose. She continued her study in 1st Pacitan Elementary school (SDN Pacitan I) until her graduation on june 12th 1997. After graduated from an elementary school, she continued her study in 1st Pacitan Junior High School (SLTPN I Pacitan) until her graduation on June 19th 2000. In 2000, her parents moved again for job’s purpose to another place, her father moved to Malang regency while her mother moved to Blitar. She followed her mother moved to Blitar city, her birth place, and continued her study in 2nd Blitar Senior High School (SMUN 2 Blitar). Senior high school time was the greatest time in her life which left happiness and sorrow blended together in her heart. She joined some activities when she studied there, such as group band (she was both guitarist and singer), joined an english club, joined the vocal group and always active in an internal organization in her school. She finished her Senior High study in 2003. In 2004, she joined the UMPTN and succeeded in achieving her greatest desire, study in favourite college in Malang, Brawijaya. She was accepted in Economic Faculty, management department. Unfortunately, she did not success in completing her study there. In 2010, she decided to continue her study and she chose English Education Study Program, The Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Mahasaraswati Denpasar University. There, she found a lot of new things which related with education, language and foreign cultures.

64