1.
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION This chapter presents the description of data analysis namely; thefinding and discussion of the research. These are to answer the researchquestions, "to what extend can improvisation technique improve the studentsspeaking skill?" and "what factors influence the improvement of studentsspeaking skill by using improvisation technique." Both of these questions areanswered based on the data collected from the observation sheet, filed note,speaking test as well as interview.A. The Description of Data Analysis This classroom action research was conducted to the students ofsemester two at class B of English Education Department of UIN Suska Riau.The number of the students was 32. The class chosen was due to thespeaking difficulties happening to the students. This research was done in threecycles by teaching improvisation technique to improve the students speakingskill; each cycle had four meetings; each meeting with the allocation of time wasin 2 x 45 minutes. Each cycle of this research consisted of four phases; planning,action, observation and reflection_ Before carrying out the research, the researcher a long with thecollaborator gave speaking test to the students to know the base score atthe starting point. The speaking test was assessed based on oral languagescoring rubric in terms of accent, grammar. vocabulary, fluency, andcomprehension.
2.
Here is the result of students test in each indicator displayed as inthe following table: Table 5. The Analysis of the Base Score of the Students Speaking SkillNo Indicator The Number of Students (32) Rating quality/Percentage Very good % Good % Fair % Poor % 1 Accent 0 0 6 16.75 25 18 56.25 2 Grammar 0 0 3 9.38 11 34.38 18 56.25 3 Vocabulary 0 0 0 0 9 28.13 23 71.88 4 Fluency 0 0 5 15.63 12 37.5 15 46.88 5 Comprehensio 0 0 5 15.63 25 19 59.38 n According to the table 5, it shows that the students speaking abilitybefore conducting classroom action research was not good. First in term ofaccent, there were no students categorized in the level of very good, 6students or 16.75% of the students categorized in the level of good, 8students or 25% of the students categorized in the level of fair and 18students or 56.25% of the students categorized in the level of poor. It meansthat the students had difficulty in speaking English in the term of accent, stilldue to their mother tongue influence. Some of them spoke unclearly andmade a lot of repetition. This led to misinterpretation. The level of thestudents speaking skill in the term of accent can be illustrated in the followingfigure:
3.
Figure 3: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill Based on the Base Score in Term of Accent 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Good Good Fair PoorSecond, in term of grammar, there was no student obtaining the level of very good, 3 students or 9.38% of the students who was in the level of good, 11 students or 34.38% of students who were in the level of fair, and 18 students or 66.25% who were in the level of poor. It means that the students made many grammatical mistakes when speaking English such as incomplete sentence,incorrect tenses, and incorrect preposition. It can be illustrated in the figure as follow as: Figure 4: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill Based on the Base Score in Term of Grammar 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Good Good Fair Poor
4.
Third, in term of vocabulary, there were no students obtaining the level ofgood and good, 9 students or 28.13% of the students who was in the level of fairand 23 students or 71.88% of the students who were in the level of poor. Itme;~ns that the students vocabulary when speaking English was poor, such aslack of vocabulary and inappropriate choice of words. The figure can beseen as follow: Figure 5: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill Based on the Base Score in Term of Vocabulary Fourth, in term of fluency, there were no students who were in the level ofvery good, 5 students or 15.63% of students who were in the level of good,12 students or 37.5% of the students who were in the level of fair, and 15students or 46.88% of the students who were in the level of poor. It means thatthe students fluency when speaking English was poor. Their speeches wereshort and they spent much time to think of what to say. The figure can be seenas follow: students or 59.38% of the students who were in the level of poor. Itmeans that the students comprehension about the topic being talked was poor.The figure can be seen as follow:
5.
Figure 6: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill Based on the Base Score in Term of Fluency Finally, in term of comprehension, there are no students who were in the levelof very good, 5 students or 15.63 % of the students who were in the level of good, 8students or 25% of the students who were in the level of fair, and 19 students or59.38% of the students who were in the level of poor. It means that thestudents comprehension about the topic being talked was poor. The figure canbe seen as follow: Figure 7: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill Based on the Base Score in Term of Comprehension Then, the level of students speaking skill before conducting classroomaction research at every indicator can be presented as follows: Speaking Indicators The Average of Base Score Accent Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Comprehension 52 51 .46 54 51 After analyzing the data from the test, the researcher concluded that thelevel of the students speaking skill was poor. The students really had difficultiesin speaking English. It can be seen in the table 2 that all indicators of speakingwere categorized into the level of poor. On the other hand, the teachingtechnique of speaking used by the teacher should be changed in order toimprove the students speaking skill in term of accent, grammar, vocabulary,fluency and comprehension. Therefore, the researcher made plan to use
6.
improvisation technique in teaching speaking done in activities in the first,second, and third cycles. This research actually consisted of three cycles. Each cycle comprisedfour, meetings in which at the end of each cycle, the students were given thespeaking test to know their progress.A.1 The First Cycle At the first meeting of this cycle, the researcher taught speaking tothe students by using improvisations technique and the teaching andlearning activities were observed by the collaborator. The collaboratorobserved the activities by doing observation checklist and taking field notes.Every teaching activity was suited with the procedure of teaching improvisationtechnique. The teacher started teaching the lesson by using management ofinteraction procedure. In this term, there were some activities that happened asin the following: The teacher explained about what improvisation was. Theteacher then wrote out a situation on the white board as an example ofimprovisational situation. To make the students understand about theexplanation, the teacher called for two of the students to act out or dramatizeguided by him. The students then asked the teacher about what they did notunderstand after watching the implementation of improvisational situation.The teacher paired the students at random, and then called each pair todramatize in the front of the class after given a situation. The situation given bythe teacher was "at library. " In term of turn- taking, the students worked in pairto act out the situation without preparation. They also created mimic or facial
7.
expression as well as turn -taking based on the situation they had. The studentslooked not ready to dramatize the students because it was still new for them.They paid attention to their friends performance as model they should do next.The teacher, of course, guided them especially for mistakes of speakingaspects found during their improvisational drama. In negotiation of meaning,the teacher took a note about the students activities in asking, givingopinion, requesting, agreeing or disagreeing, and gesturing based on theirsituation. At the end of this meeting, the teacher had completely asked all pairsto dramatize the improvisational situations and found that the students wereproblematic with their spontaneously improvisational drama marked with a lotof mistakes of grammar and pronunciation. At the second meeting, the teacher did the same things, taught thestudents speaking by using improvisation technique. and the collaborator stillobserved the activities. The teacher commented some weaknesses andmistakes of speaking aspects done by the students in the students firstdrama and gave information to do the correct one to the next improvisationaldrama performance. The situations given in this meeting was "in the classroom."The students directly came to their own pairs. The teacher guided thestudents to give correction on mistakes of aspects of speaking duringdramatizing the situations. The same problems as the first meeting were found,grammatical mistake and accent. At the third meeting, the teacher applied the same things as usual, and thecollaborator did his job, observed teaching and learning activities. The teacherstill informed about the weaknesses of the previous improvisational drama and
8.
warned them to do it carefully. Some of the students complained theirdifficulties of playing out the situations spontaneously. The teacher still guidedand gave correction of mistakes found during drama performance. In this term,the students had looked more serious and careful to play out the situations.The topic given to the students was " In the street. " Based on their dramaperformance, grammar and pronunciation problems were still theirs. At the fourth meeting, the activities were the same as previously doneby the teacher in the first, second, and third meeting. The collaborator keptobserving teaching and learning activities, too. The teacher had given littlepraise for the good progress of improvisational drama performed before. Theteacher still informed the students to be more careful by considering aspectsof speaking in their performance. The students had looked more relaxed inthis situation. The situation dramatized in this meeting was "in the town". Thestudents came to their own pairs. The students looked more careful incomprehending situations before acting out them in front of the class. Theteacher then called each pair to act out in front of the class. In this term, thesame problems were still experienced by the students. At the end of this cycle, the teacher cooperated with the collaboratorto prepare a test to assess the students speaking progress after applyingimprovisation technique. In doing the test, the students were given a topic "atthe restaurant". In this test, the teacher asked the students to gather with theirprevious partners and instructed them to go out of the class. The teacher thencalled each pair to come into the classroom and be given an improvisationalsituation to dramatize it in the front of class. While other pairs waited for their
9.
turn outside. This activity was intended to avoid them to imitate the dramaperformance played by their friends. The teacher recorded their voice in order toassess their speaking skill in each of the speaking indicators. The studentsspeaking skill was assessed by the teacher helped by the collaborator. Below isa table of score obtained from the students test after analyzing and calculatingthe data. Table 7. The Analysis of the Students Speaking Skill in the First CycleNo Indicator The Number of Students (32) Rating quality/Percentage Very good % Good % Fair % Poor % Accent 0 0 7 21.88 8 25 17 53.132 Grammar 0 0 6 18.8 15 46.88 11 34.383 Vocabulary 4 12.5 12 37.5 13 40.63 3 9.384 Fluency 3 9.38 11 34.38 14 43.8 4 12.55 Comprehension 0 0 7 21.88 16 50 9 28.13 The table 7 shows that the students speaking ability in the term of accentwas poor. There were no students who were in the level of very good, 7students or 21.88% of the students were in the level of good, 8 students or25% of the students who were in the level of fair and 17 students or 53.13%of the students who were in the level of poor. It means that the students haddifficulty in the term of accent because their language was influenced by theirmother tongue that can lead to mispronunciation. The level of the studentsspeaking skill in the term of accent can be illustrated in the following figure:
10.
Figure 8: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Accent In the First Cycle 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Good Good Fair Poor In term of grammar, the table 7 above shows that there was no studentobtaining the level of very good, 6 students or 18.8% of the students who werein Me level of good, 15 students or 46.88% of students who were in the level offair, and 11 students or 34.38% who were in the level of poor. It meansthat the students made many grammatical mistakes when speaking English. Itcan be illustrated in the figure as follow as: Figure 9: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Grammar In the First Cycle In term of vocabulary, it shows that there were 4 students or 12.5 % of thents obtaining the level of very good, 12 students or 37.5% of the studentswho were in the level of good, 13 students or 40.63% of the students who werein the level of fair, and 3 students or 9.3 8% of the students who was in thelevel of. It means that the students vocabulary when speaking English was poor.The figure can be seen as follows: Figure 10: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Vocabulary In the First Cycle In term of fluency, it shows that there were 3 students or 9.38 of
11.
the students who was in the level of very good, 1 1 students or 34.38% of thestudents who were in the level of good, 14 students or 43.8% of the studentswho were in the level of fair, and 4 students or 12.5% of the students whowere in the level of poor. It means that the students fluency when speakingEnglish was poor. The figure can be seen as follow: Figure 11: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Fluency In the First Cycle In term of comprehension, it shows that there was no student or who wasin the level of very good and 7 students or 21.88% of students who were inthe level of good, 16 students or 50% of the students who were in the levelof fair, and nine students or 28.13% of the students who were in the levelof poor. It means that the students comprehension about the topic being talkedwas poor. The figure can be seen as follow: Figure 12: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Comprehension in the First Cycle Table 8. The Average of the Score of the Students Speaking Skill In the First CycleThe figure of the score of the students speaking skill can been seen as Figure 13: The Average Score of the Students Speaking Skill In the First Cycle
12.
improvement was made by them. However, it was not satisfied enough yet,especially for terms of accent and grammar. Based on the observation done by the collaborator and the analysis ofthe data in first cycle, some plans should be made as reflection of theactivities. Though, some progress was made by the students after applyingimprovisational drama technique. There were some problems identified inapplying improvisational drama technique during the first cycle, needed somechanges or improvement. The problems were as follows:1. The teacher only gave an example by calling two students to do improvisational drama in front of class.2. Only few persons questioned the teacher when they did not understand about the implementation of improvisational drama situation.3. The students looked unserious to pay attention to their friends applying the situation of improvisational drama4. When the students played out the situational drama, they were not careful with their grammar and pronunciation. Pertaining to the problems in the reflection above, the researchercooperated with the collaborator to make some plans for better teachingimprovement, which focused on the following things:a. Giving an example Collaborator advised the teacher to give more examples, so that thestudents really understood about the technique. Moreover, the technique wasstill new for them.b. Stimulating students to question about what they did not understand
13.
about the implementation of improvisational drama. In order to make the students ready in playing the dramatic situations,the collaborator suggested the researcher to stimulate the students toquestion. The collaborator a long with the researcher needed to motivate thestudents together.c. Giving models of correct pronunciation To give models of correct pronunciation, the teacher repeated the wordsor phrases with correct pronunciation when the students pronounced incorrectwords or phrases. It was done in order to avoid negative effect.d. Reminding the students of grammatical points Before doing improvisational drama performance, the teacher gavethe students brief explanation about the importance of grammatical aspects, sothat the students could control their speech for better conversational drama.A.2 The Second Cycle. At the first meeting of this cycle, the activities were still the same as theprevious cycle. Teacher still followed the procedures of improvisationtechnique, but he focused more based on the reflection of result obtained inprevious cycle. The focuses were on the weaknesses of the students accentand grammar. The teacher gave comment about bad and good act of previousdrama and informed about what to do for next improvisational drama. Thestudents came to their own pairs. Then the teacher called for each pair andgave a situation to them. The students had already known what they should doand they discussed the situation for a moment and then they spontaneously
14.
act out the situation without preparation. The title of the improvisationaldrama was "in parking hall". In doing this drama, they students had lookedmore careful to avoid mistakes done in previous meeting. The teacher tooka note the students drama performance of turn- taking and negotiation ofmeaning as long as they acted out the drama and gave correction on mistakesafter the drama was over. In this meeting, the students still had the sameweaknesses on grammatical errors and mispronunciation. At the second meeting, the teacher still applied improvisation technique inteaching the students speaking without missing any procedures. Accent andgrammar aspects of the students weaknesses still became emphasis in thiscycle as previously mentioned in the reflection. The topic discussed in thismeeting was "at canteen". In this meeting, the teacher was not so active. Hejust gave situation to each pair and asked them to dramatize it. The teacherreminded the students to be careful to dramatize the situation given. Thestudents confidently acted out the situation but they did not look careful to theirgrammar and pronounce words. Most of the students were more motivated indoing this drama. The teacher took a note the students performance based onthe procedures of improvisation technique. The teacher still gave correctionon errors made by the students when they finished their drama. However, theywere still problematic with grammar and accent. At the third meeting, the teacher did the same procedures like the previousmeetings. The topic was "in the front of house". The researcher still focused onaccent and grammar. Most of the students were active in acting out thesituational drama. Some of the students showed their understanding in turn-
15.
taking, facial expression, and gesture in acting out their drama. The teacherlet the students free to make creation to support their drama performance.The teacher still gave correction of mispronunciation and grammatical error afterthey finished their drama performance. The teacher still took a note of thestudents drama performance. Finally, grammar and accent problems stillbelonged to them. At the fourth meeting, the teacher gave the topic "at the theater". Theprocedures of teaching were the same as previous meeting. The teacher asked thestudents do like usual after giving the situation to each pair. The teacher stillreminded the students to be more careful to perform their drama. Since thefocuses of this cycle were accent and grammar, the teacher still repeated thewords with correct pronunciation after they finished their drama. The same casestill happened, grammar and accent mistake. At the end of this cycle, the teacher cooperated with the collaborator toimprovisation technique. In doing the test, the students were given a topic "at thesupermarket". In this test, the teacher still asked the students to gather with theirprevious partners and instructed them to go out of the class. The teacher then calledeach pair to come into the classroom and be given an improvisational situationto dramatize it in the front of class. While other pairs waited for their turn outside.This activity was intended to avoid them to imitate the drama performance played bytheir friends. The teacher recorded the students voices during their improvisationaldrama performance in order to assess their speaking skill in each of the speakingindicators. The students speaking skill was assessed by the teacher helped by thecollaborator. Below is a table of score obtained from the students test after
16.
analyzing and calculating the data. Table 9. The Analysis of the Students Speaking Skill in the Second Cycle Indicator The Number of Students (32) Rating quality/Percentage Very good /° Good % Fair % Poor % 1 Accent 0 8 25 10 31. 25 14 43.8 2 Grammar 0 0 6 18.8 17 53.13 9 28.13 3 Vocabulary 6 18.8 14 43.8 2 37.5 0 0 4 Fluency 6 18.8 14 5 Comprehensio 0 7 21.88 25 78.13 0 nAccording to the table 9, it shows that the students speaking ability inthe term of accent was poor. There were not students getting very good, 8students or 25% of the students were good, 10 students or 31.25% of thestudents who were fair and 14 students or 43.8% of the students who werepoor. It means that the students had difficulty in the term of accent becausetheir language was influenced by their mother tongue that causedmispronunciation. The level of the students speaking skill in the term of accentcan be illustrated in the following figure: Figure 14: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Accent In the Second Cycle
17.
In term of ig;3rnrr;ar_ the e 9 above shows that there were no saideniscl^:ainina tizr% good score, 6 students or 18.8% of the students who were good. 1students or 53.13% of students who were fair, and 9 students or 28.13% ti~-ho v~ erz poor. It means that the students made many grammatical mistakeswhen speaking English. It can be illustrated in the figure as in the following:Figure 15: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Grammar In the Second Cycle In the term of vocabulary, it shows that there were 6 students or 18.8%of the students obtaining very good score, 14 students or 43.8% of the studentswho were good, 12 students or 37.5% of the students who were fair, and nostudent who was poor. It means that the students vocabulary when speakingEnglish was poor. The figure can be seen as follow: Figure 16: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Vocabulary In the Second Cycle In the term of fluency, it shows that there were 6 students or 18.8% ofthe students who were very good, 14 students or 43.8% of the students whowere good, 12 students or 37.5% of the students who were fair, and nostudents who were poor. It means that the students fluency when speakingEnglish was poor. The figure can be seen as in the following:Figure 17: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Fluency In the Second Cycle
18.
In the term of comprehension, it shows that there were no students or whowere very good and 7 students or 21.88% of students who were good, 25students or 78.13% of the students who were fair. There were no students whowere poor. It means that the students comprehension about the topic beingdramatized was poor. The figure can be seen as follow: After having obtained the data from the analysis of the test at the end ofthe second cycle, it can be concluded that the average of students speaking skillwas better than the previous cycle. It was still categorized in the level of fair.Though some improvement was made by the students, it was not satisfactory yet.It can be seen that there was little improvement made especially in terms ofaccent and grammar.
19.
With reference to the observation done by the collaborator and theanalysisof the data in the second cycle, some plans could be made as reflection of theactivities in order to make some changes or improvement of the studentsspeaking skill. The problems in applying improvisation technique during the secondcycle could be identified as in the following: 1. The students were not careful with their pronunciation when they spokeEnglish. 2. The students did not attentively use the grammar in speaking, caused grammatical mistake. Based on the problems, the researcher and the collaborator agreed to planfor better teaching improvement, which focused on the following things: c. Givingmodels of correct pronunciation The teacher still pronounced the correct words or phrases of incorrectpronunciation made by the students when they finished their drama performance. d.Giving information and remaining the importance of grammatical points Before doing improvisational drama, the teacher still gave the students briefinformation and remained the importance of grammatical aspects, so that thestudents could control their speaking when they acted out their dramatic situation.A.3 The Third CycleAt the first meeting, the teacher did the same things and the collaborator did theobservation like usual. The topic was "at office". The students were motivatedto play out the drama. The teacher let the students create more to find theirconfident and spontaneity. The students had looked careful to pronounce words andused grammar. The teacher was not more involved in the students drama
20.
activity. The teacher took a note what happened to the students `drama performance.The result of improvisational drama performed by the students showed that theywere still problematic with their grammar and accent. At the second meeting, the teacher kept using improvisation technique andthe collaborator still observed teaching activities. The teacher gave a situation "atdowntown". The teacher still remained the students to be careful in acting out thedramatic situation. The students had looked careful to pronounce words and usedgrammar. The teacher was not more involved in the students drama activity. Theteacher took a note what happened to the students `drama performance. The resultof improvisational drama performed by the students showed that they were stillproblematic with their grammar and accent. At the third meeting, the same things as previous meetings were done by theteacher and the collaborator. The topic of dramatic situation was "at electronicstore". The domination of the teacher in meeting was little bit. The teacher stillcorrected the wrong pronunciation after the students finished their dramaperformance. The teacher still took a note the students drama performance.Unfortunately, the same case was still found. At the fourth meeting, the teacher and the collaborator still kept doing the same things as before. The teacher gave a situation "at home". The teacher stillremained the students to be careful in acting out the dramatic situation. The students had looked careful to pronounce words and used grammar. The teacher was not more involved in the students drama activity. The teacher took a note what happened to the students `drama performance. The result of improvisational drama performed by the students showed that they were still problematic
21.
with their grammar and accent. At the end of this cycle, the teacher cooperated with the collaboratorto prepare a test in the third cycle to assess the students speaking progressafter applying improvisation technique. In doing the test, the students weregiven a topic "at the clothing store". In this test, the teacher still asked thestudents to gather with their previous partners and instructed them to go out ofthe class. The teacher then called each pair to come into the classroom andbe given an improvisational situation to dramatize it in the front of class.While other pairs waited for their turn outside. This activity was intended toavoid them to imitate the drama performance played by their friends. Theteacher recorded their voice in order to assess their speaking skill in each ofthe speaking indicators. The students speaking skill was assessed by theteacher helped by the collaborator. Below is a table of score obtained fromthe students test after analyzing and calculating the data. Table 11. The Analysis of the Students Speaking Skill in the Third Cycle No Indicator The Number of Students (32) Rating quality/Percentage Very good % Good % Fair % Poor % 1 Accent 0 0 10 31.25 15 48.88 7i 21.88 2 Grammar 6 18.8 9 28.13 16 50 1 31.13 3 Vocabulary 9 28.13 13 40 63 10 31.25 0 0 4 Fluency 11 34.38 12 37 5 9 28.13 0 0 Comprehension 7 21.88 13 40.63 12 37.5 0 0According to the table 11, it shows that the students speaking ability in the termof accent was poor. There were no students who were very good, 10students or 31. 25% of the students were good, I S students or 48.88% of
22.
the students who were fair and 7 students or 21.88% of the students who werepoor. It means that the students had difficulty in the term of accent becausetheir language was influenced by their mother tongue. The level of thestudents speaking skill in the term of accent can be illustrated in the followingfigure:Figure 20: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Accent In the Third Cycle In the term of grammar, the table 11 above shows that there were6 students or 18.8% obtaining very good score, 9 students or 28.13% of thestudents who were good, 16 students or 50% of students who were fair, and 1students or 31.13% who were poor. It means that the students made manygrammatical mistakes when speaking English. It can be illustrated in the figureas follow as: Figure 21: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Grammar in the Third Cycle In the term of vocabulary, it shows that there were 9 students or 28.13%of the students obtaining very good score, 13 students or 40.63% of the studentswho were good, 10 students or 31.25% of the students who were fair, and nostudent who was poor. It means that the students vocabulary when speakingEnglish was poor. The figure can be seen as follow: Figure 22: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of
23.
Vocabulary in the Third Cycle In the term of fluency, it shows that there were I 1 students or 34.38%of the students who were very good, 12 students or 37.5% of the studentswho were good, 9 students or 28.13% of the students who were fair, and nostudents who were poor. It means that the students fluency when speakingEnglish was poor. The figure can be seen as follow:Figure 23: The Rating of the Students Speaking. Skill in Term of Fluency in The Third Cycle In the term of comprehension, it shows that there were 7 studentsor 21.88% of the students who were very good and 13 students or40.63% of students who were good, 12 students or 37.5% of the studentswho were fair and no students who were poor. It means that the studentscomprehension about the topic being talked was poor. The figure can be seenas follow: Figure 24: The Rating of the Students Speaking Skill in Term of Comprehension in the Third Cycle Table 12. The Average of the Score of the Students Speaking Skill In the Third Cycle The Average of Speaking Indicators Students Score Accent Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Comprehension 62 72 79 81 77
24.
Figure 25: The Average Score of the Students Speaking Skill In the Third Cycle After completing the third cycle, the researcher carried out an interview,which the interviewees were the students selected at random by using numberedcard. There were 10 students selected and given the interview. They were askedto tell about their problem using improvisation technique taught to them irn theirclass. The first interviewee told that improvisation technique was goodtechnique that motivated her to speak more and more. Besides leading to agood comprehension and fluency, improvisation technique could increase hervocabulary, grammar and comprehension through the situation given. Before shestudied improvisation technique, she had problems with her self- confidence,grammar and comprehension. The second interviewee explained that improvisation technique was goodtechnique, useful to make students enjoy their speaking. She told that sheimproved her vocabulary and her comprehension when acting out situation ofimprovisational drama. The problems of hers before studying improvisationtechnique, she had problems with grammar and comprehension. The third interviewee clarified that improvisation technique was goodtechnique in teaching speaking enabling him to improve vocabulary,pronunciation and comprehension in analyzing the situation. Before he studiedabout this technique, he had problem with his grammar, and confidence. He felt
25.
the advantages of improvisation technique to their speaking skill havingemerged his self- confidence and the improvement of his grammar. The fourth interviewee described that improvisation technique was goodspeaking technique for the students to speak spontaneously and naturally. Itcould also increase students comprehension in getting ideas to find goodsentences into a dialogue in acting out the situation given to them. Herproblems before studying improvisation technique were grammar andvocabulary. She felt some improvement of speaking skill after studyingimprovisation technique such as vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. The fifth interviewee gave explanation that improvisation technique wasa good technique, made the students like it very much. It not only improved thestudents speaking skill through drama performance but also made the studentsenjoy their studying. She clarified that she got the improvement of her speakingaspects such as pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, andfluency. Before knowing this technique, she said that she had problem withgrammar, pronunciation, and comprehension. She also promised to use thistechnique after being an English teacher. The sixth interviewee stated that improvisation technique is a kind of drama that forced him to speak spontaneously without preparation, indicated that he comprehended the situation into a good with his speaking partner. He could improve his grammar after studying this drama technique. Before studying this improvisation technique, he had problems with his grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary. The seventh interviewee explained that improvisation technique was a
26.
drama technique that could inspire her to get good comprehension and fluency. She clarified that she was able to speak spontaneously without preparation in acting out the situation given. She told that she felt some improvement of all speaking aspects consisting of grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Her speaking problems experienced by her before studying improvisation were grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary. The eighth interviewee gave clarification that improvisation technique was good to help students get many ideas in playing out the drama through the situation given. She informed that the students could increase their comprehension through this drama because they particularly tried to find good dialogue spontaneously. She said that through this improvisation she could improve all speaking aspect such as grammar, Vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, and comprehension. Before studying this technique, she had problem with grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. The ninth interviewee described that improvisation techniquehelped her to improve her grammar. She told that teacher was really helpful inguiding her to correct her mistake not only for grammar but also for otherspeaking aspect mistakes. She felt helped through this improvisation technique,especially for her grammar problems of hers before studying improvisation weregrammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. The tenth interviewee told that improvisation was a good technique thatcan improve the students fluency in speaking English. She also said thatimprovisation was able to make the students speak spontaneously and naturally.She experienced the improvement of her grammar after studying improvisation
27.
technique. She had problems with grammar, pronunciation, and vocabularybefore studying improvisation technique.B. Discussion As clarified previously, this research was carried out in three cycles, eachcycle had four meetings. It was conducted at the students of semester two atclass B of English Education Department of UIN Suska Riau. The class waschosen due to the speaking problems happening to the students. In order toovercome the speaking problems, the researcher as a teacher appliedimprovisation technique to improve the students speaking skill. The purposesof this research were to identify whether Improvisation Technique can betterimprove the students speaking skill and to find out the factors influence theimprovement of students speaking skill. Data analysis done during three cycles, the researcher found thatapplying Improvisation technique could improve the students speaking skill. Itwas supported by the results of the students at the end of each cycle, theobservation checklist, the field notes and the interview.1. The Improvement of Students Speaking Skill From the speaking skill tests given before conducting the classroomaction research and at the end of the first, second, and third cycle, the use ofimprovisation technique was able to improve the students speaking skill. Itwas found that the results of students speaking skill increased in eachcycle. The comparison of the students speaking results in all the tests can bedescribed as in the following: Table 13. The Comparison of the Students Speaking Results in All
28.
Tests Test The Average Scores of Speaking Skill Accent Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Comprehensio Average Pretest 52 51 46 54 n 51 50 Cycle 1 54 57 71 68 59 61 Cycle 11 62 58 76 76 64 67 Cycle 111 62 72 79 81 77 74 Furthermore, the improvement of students speaking skill can also beseen from the figure below:
29.
were still categorized in the rating of fair. In other words, the students speakingskill at the end of the fourth cycle improved, it could reach the category ofgood. In conclusion, the students’ speaking skill having conducted theclassroom action research by improvisation technique achieved betterimprovement. In other words, the indicators of vocabulary, fluency,comprehension, accent and grammar achieved much better improvementcompared with the students speaking skill before carrying out the research.2. The factors Influence the improvement of speaking skill The activities of teaching speaking through improvisation technique havemade a lot of changes toward the improvement of Students speaking skill.Referring to the observation checklists, field notes and interview from the firstcycle up to the third cycle, it can be clarified that the students Could improvetheir pronunciation in speaking English gradually. In term management ofinteraction. the students got good models of speaking accent from the teacher.When they were wrong to pronounce the words, the teacher corrected the words withgood pronunciation done after they finished their improvisational dramaactivities. They could listen and repeat the words with the correct ones. It graduallyimproved their speaking accent. Then, the improvement of grammar in speaking was improved gradually.It was because of reminding the students grammatical points and telling them theimportance of grammar aspect before doing their drama performance. The studentsactually have been studying about grammar since they were still in elementary level,
30.
but when they used it in spoken English, they were not so careful and caused themistake of their grammar. The students could also increase much vocabulary and developed a lot ofideas through the activities of turn- taking. They paid attention to their friendsperformance and got some new vocabulary spoken out by their Friends duringdrama of improvisation in progress. Improvisation technique really led them toenrich their vocabulary and ideas. It was found that the vocabulary made a lot ofimprovement because the students could relate the situational drama to asmany words or phrases in order to activate their prior knowledge. As a result, itenabled the students to speak much. Improvisation technique could also be very helpful to improvethe students fluency looked in turn- taking activity that they got many ideas on thesituations given and spontaneously and naturally spoken out in their improvisationdrama. The students knew what they wanted to do or say and they did not spend muchtime to express their ideas because the students had speaking partners practicingdrama in accordance with their situations. The improvement of comprehension was also experienced b the students,particularly in term negotiation of meaning. The students Could activate theirprior knowledge, showed their mimic. gesture when then acted outimprovisational drama situations. Finally, improvisation technique could not only improve the studentsspeaking skill in terms of accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, andcomprehension but also the students confidence and participation.
31.
C. The Limitation of the research The classroom action research was carried out at the students ofsemester two at class B of English Education Department of UIN Suska Riau. Itaimed at improving the students speaking skill. Based on the research finding,some improvement of speaking skill was made by the students. However, therewere some (imitations and weaknesses found as in the following:a. The findings cannot be generalized to other classes.b. The researcher could not control all mispronunciation spoken by the students, frequently accompanied with the students actions when the drama was still in progress.
32.
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SLIGGESTIONSA. Conclusions Having completed the analysis of the data based on the findings of thisclassroom action research is concluded as follows:1. Improvised drama technique improves the students speaking skill.2. The factors influence the improvement of the students speaking skill as in the following: A. Management of Interaction (teacher model) a. The students are encouraged to develop many ideas when they act out the improvisational drama situations. b. The students feel unworried about making mistakes in grammar when playing out the improvisational drama situations. c. The students have good confidence in communicating their ideas in improvisational drama. d. The speaking class becomes active and enjoyable. B. Turn- taking a. The students are able to broaden their vocabulary as much as possible b. b. The students are able to speak spontaneously and naturally. c. The students can control themselves in speaking when acting out the dramatic situations of improvisation
33.
C. Negotiation of Meaning a. The students can activate their prior knowledge, mimic, gesture when acting out the improvisational drama situations. b. The students have good comprehension and fluency in speaking English.B. Implications Improvised drama technique improve the students speaking skill and influences some factors of the students speaking skill in terms of accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension, and confidence as well. It can be implied that improvised drama technique is very useful in teaching speaking.C. Suggestions Referring to the conclusions and implications of this research. some suggestions can be given as follows: 1. The researcher as an English lecturer should continue using improvised drama technique in teaching speaking class. 2. The other researchers conducting a research related improvised drama technique can use this research finding as relevant research. 3. The English teachers having the same situation and condition can use improvised drama technique in teaching speaking.
Be the first to comment