the effectiveness of communicative group activity …/the... · the effectiveness of communicative...

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id

commit to user

i

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATIVE GROUP ACTIVITY IN

TEACHING SPEAKING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ RISK TAKING

(An Experimental Study in the Second Semester Students of STKIP-PGRI

Pontianak in the Academic Year of 2011/2012)

A Thesis

By:

Citra Kusumaningsih

NIM: S891008013

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

GRADUATE SCHOOL

SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY

SURAKARTA

2012


commit to user

ii


commit to user

iii


commit to user

iv

PRONOUNCEMENT

This is to certify I myself write this thesis entitled The Effectiveness of

Communicative Group Activity in Teaching Speaking Viewed from Students’ Risk Taking

(An Experimental Study at the Second Semester Students of STKIP PGRI Pontianak in

Academic Year of 2011/2012). It is not plagiarized or made by others. Anything

related to other’s work is written in quotation, the source of which is listed on the

bibliography. If then this pronouncement proves incorrect, I am ready to accept any

academic punishment, including the withdrawal or cancellation of my academic

degree.

Surakarta, 2012

CITRA KUSUMANINGSIH S891008013


commit to user

v

ABSTRACT

Citra Kusumaningsih, S891008013. 2012. The Effectiveness of Communicative Group Activity in Teaching Speaking Viewed from Students’ Risk Taking (An Experimental Study at the Second Semester Students of STKIP PGRI Pontianak in Academic Year of 2011/2012). Thesis, English Education, Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University.

The research aims at knowing: (1) whether Communicative Group Activity is more effective than Guided Conversation Activity in teaching speaking at the second semester students of STKIP-PGRI Pontianak in the academic year of 2011/2012; (2) whether English speaking skill of the students having high risk taking is better than students having low risk-taking; and (3) whether there is an interaction between teaching techniques and students’ risk taking in teaching speaking. This research is an experimental study. The population is all of the second semester students of STKIP PGRI Pontianak. The sample was taken by using cluster random sampling technique and it yields two classes: class B as the experimental group and class C as the control group in which each consists of 30 students for the sample of the study. The instruments used to collect the data are a test on speaking skill and a questionnaire on risk taking. The data were analyzed using ANOVA with .95 level of significance and Tuckey. Liliefors is used to find out the normality of the data, while Bartlett’s test is used to find out the homogeneity of the data. The results of the hypotheses testing show that: (1) Communicative Group Activity is more effective than Guided Conversation Activity to teach speaking; (2) Students who have high risk taking have better speaking skill than those who have low risk taking; and (3) that there is an interaction between teaching techniques and risk taking in teaching speaking. In other words, it can be said that the effect of teaching techniques on the students’ speaking skill depends on the students’ risk taking. Students who have high risk taking are more appropriate to be taught using the Communicative Group Activity, while the students who have low risk taking are more appropriate to be taught using the Guided Conversation Activity. From the results above, this research implies that teaching techniques have a strong influence on students’ speaking skill. The application of Communicative Group Activity gives greater effect than Guided Conversation Activity in teaching speaking. It can be seen that the students are encouraged to be actively involved in every learning speaking activities. In order to get maximum result and effect on students’ speaking skill, the writer suggests English teachers to apply communicative group technique by considering students’ psychological aspects especially their risk taking.


commit to user

vi

MOTTO

You have to endure the caterpillars,

if you want to see great butterflies

(Antoine De Saint)


commit to user

vii

DEDICATION

With deep profound love, this thesis is devoted to her beloved parents, husband, and her little angel inside, “the inspiration to reach great heights”. Thank you.


commit to user

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise is to Allah,

Lord of the Universe; for His great blessing, guidance, and spiritual force, finally

the writer can accomplish writing this thesis as a partial fulfillment for achieving

the master degree in English education. The writer would like to deliver her

appreciation and gratitude to everyone who gives support and motivation to the

writer in accomplishing this thesis, especially to:

1. The Director of Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta,

for giving the writer approval to write this thesis.

2. Dr. Abdul Asib, M.Pd., the Head of English Education Department of

Graduate School and as the second consultant, for his valuable suggestion,

guidance, patience and support in completing this thesis

3. Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd., as the first consultant, for his guidance, patience,

suggestions, and critical remarks in refining this thesis.

4. Prof. Dr. H. Samion AR, M.Pd., the Head of STKIP PGRI Pontianak, for

the permission to conduct the research in the institution.

5. Her beloved parents, parents in law, and her big family for their endless

prayer, love, and support.

6. The piece of heart, her great husband, Mas Adi for the patience, love, care,

forgiveness, understanding, and encouragement in every single second.

The writer realizes that this thesis is far from being perfect. Therefore, any

criticisms and suggestions from the readers are welcome in order to make

improvement. Hopefully this thesis will give benefit to the readers.

Surakarta, 2012

CKN


commit to user

ix

TABLE OF CONTENT

COVER ......................................................................................................................i

APPROVAL PAGE . ................................................................................................ii

LEGALIZATION OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS.....................................iii

PRONOUNCEMENT ...............................................................................................iv

ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................v

MOTTO......................................................................................................................vi

DEDICATION ...........................................................................................................vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...........................................................................................viii

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

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

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................xii

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

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study.................................................1 B. Problem Identification. ....................................................6 C. Problem Limitation. .........................................................7 D. Problem Statement...........................................................7 E. Objectives of the Study. ...................................................8 F. Benefit of the Study. ........................................................8

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Review of Speaking 1. Definitions of Speaking . ...........................................10 2. Components of Speaking Skill . .................................12 3. Factors Causing Students’ Speaking Difficulties. .....13 4. Types of Speaking Performance. ................................15 5. Characteristics of Successful Speaking activity ........17 6. Assesment in Teaching Speaking ...............................17 7. Micro and Macroskill of Speaking .............................18 8. Activities in Teaching Speaking .................................21

B. Review of Communicative Group Activity 1. Definitions of Communicative Group Activity. .......22 2. Procedure of Communicative Group Activity. .........25 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Communicative

Group Activity. ...........................................................27


commit to user

x

C. Review of Guided Conversation Activity 1. Definitions of Guided Conversation Activity. ..........27 2. Procedure of Guided Conversation Activity. .............30 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Guided Conversation Activity. ................................................31

D. Review of Risk Taking 1. Definitions of Risk Taking..........................................32 2. Types of Risk Taking. .................................................37 3. Elements of Risk Taking. ............................................38 4. Factors Influence Students’ Risk Taking ...................39 5. Strategies of Encouraging Students’ Risk Taking .....40

E. Review of Related Research ...........................................42

F. Rationale ..........................................................................45

F. Hypothesis . ......................................................................51

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. The Setting and Time of the Research 1. The Setting of the Research. .......................................52 2. The Time of the Research. ..........................................53

B. The Research Method ......................................................54

C. The Population, Sample, and Sampling Technique 1. Population ....................................................................56 2. Sample ..........................................................................56 3. Sampling ......................................................................56

D. The Technique of Collecting the Data . .........................57

E. The Technique of Analyzing the Data . ..........................62

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. Data Description. .............................................................69 B. Data Analysis. ..................................................................82 C. Testing Hypothesis. .........................................................86 B. Discussion. .......................................................................92

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion. ......................................................................100 B. Implication. ......................................................................101 C. Suggestion. .......................................................................103

BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................106

APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................109


commit to user

xi

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Time Schedule of the Research . ........................................................................53

3.2 Research Design of ANOVA 2 x 2. ...................................................................54

3.3 Summary of a 2 x 2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance. ....................................65

4.1 Frequency Distribution of Data A1. ..................................................................72

4.2 Frequency Distribution of Data A2 . .................................................................73

4.3 Frequency Distribution of Data B1....................................................................75

4.4 Frequency Distribution of Data B2....................................................................76

4.5 Frequency Distribution of Data A1B1. ..............................................................77




4.9 Summary of Normality . .....................................................................................85

4.10 Result of Homogeneity. ....................................................................................85

4.11 Result of Multifactor Analysis of Variance 2 x 2. ..........................................86

4.12 Mean of Scores. .................................................................................................87

4.13 Result of Tuckey Test. ......................................................................................88


commit to user

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

4.1 Histogram and Polygon of Data A1...................................................................72

4.2 Histogram and Polygon of Data A2...................................................................74

4.3 Histogram and Polygon of Data B1 . .................................................................74

4.4 Histogram and Polygon of Data B2. ..................................................................75

4.5 Histogram and Polygon of Data A1B1. .............................................................76





commit to user

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 : Research Instrument

Appendix 1.1 : Lesson Plan of Experimental Class (CGA). .................................110

Appendix 1.2 : Lesson Plan of Control Class (GCA). ...........................................151

Appendix 1.3 : Speaking test ...................................................................................198

Appendix 1.4 : Blue Print of Risk Taking Questionnaire(1) .................................201

Appendix 1.5 : Risk Taking Questionnaire (before try out). .................................203

Appendix 1.6 : Validity of Risk Taking Questionnaire (before try out) ...............206

Appendix 1.7 : Blue Print of Risk Taking Questionnaire (2). ...............................211

Appendix 1.8 : Risk Taking Questionnaire (after being try out). ..........................212

Appendix 1.9 : Validity of Risk Taking Questionnaire (after being try out)........215

Appendix 1.10: Reliability of Risk Taking Questionnaire .....................................219

Appendix 1.11: Readibility of Speaking Test..........................................................223

Appendix 2 : Result of the Research

Appendix 2.1 : The Score of Students’ Speaking Test and Risk Taking

Questionnaire. .................................................................................225

Appendix 2.2 : Descriptive Analysis of the Data. ..................................................232

Appendix 2.3 : Normality and Homogeneity. ........................................................240

Appendix 2.4 : Multifactor Analysis of Variance 2 x 2. ........................................249

Appendix 2.5 : Tuckey Test. ....................................................................................251


commit to user

xiv

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

According to Ur (1996: 120) all of the four skills (listening, speaking,

reading, and writing), speaking seems intuitively the most important. It also

becomes a crucial part of second and foreign language learning and teaching, because

it consists of producing and conveying meaningful ideas and message systematically

to the interlocutor. In addition, Nunan (2003: 48) defines speaking as productive

aural/oral skill. I t consists of producing systematic verbal utterances to

convey meaning.

The ability to speak English well in a foreign language clearly and efficiently

contributes to the success of the learner in academic and success later in every phase

of life. It facilitates the students to learn the other skills. The goal of learning speaking

skill is to enable students to use language in communication well which is covering

at least five components of speaking skill concerning with comprehension, grammar,

vocabulary, pronunciation, and fluency (Brown, 2004: 172). Speaking skill should

be taught and practiced continously in language classroom.

In fact, this is hardly surprising when any foreign language learner considers

everything that is involved in speaking is difficult: ideas, how to say a language, how

to use gramar and vocabulary, pronunciation as well as listening and reacting to the

person you are communicating with (Pollard, 2008: 33). Additionally, some students

in Asian classes tend to be passive students in speaking class, as asserted by Brice &


commit to user

xv

Roseberry Mackibbin, and Lim in Chou, Ye-Lin (2004: 2): “Some Asian students are

not inclined to express opinions in class; some appear conservative and

uncomfortable, and seldom ask questions that they do not understand”.

It does not seem to be different from the one in Indonesia, which is one of the

Asian countries that has similar charaterictics to the Asian countries. Indonesian

government supports the spirit of having the ability of speaking English by

facilitating education with curriculum that includes English speaking skill in every

educational level. English is taught in elementary school starting from the 4th grade

and classified as a compulsory subject for junior and high, even it becomes one of the

basic subjects to be passed within Ujian Akhir Nasional (National Examination).

Accordingly, it can be assumed that Indonesian students have been studying English

including speaking for about 10 years.

However, even though the students officially study English in formal schools

for quite a long time, many of them still have some problems in speaking. They

indeed receive many speaking materials from their teacher, but after they

graduate,many of them cannot speak well. Further, students seem to have no

motivation to speak in class because of their psychological barrier such as being

afraid of making mistakes, being laughed by their friends, and being afraid of sharing

their own ideas.

Speaking as a media of expressing ideas must be used frequently in order to

improve speaking skill. It is impossible that students can improve their speaking skill

if they seldom use in every single chance until it becomes a habit. Despite its

condition, it is essential that English teachers pay great attention to the efficient and

effective teaching strategy that is employed in order to improve students’ speaking


commit to user

xvi

skill.

For many years, teaching speaking has been undervalued and English

language teachers have continued to teach speaking using traditional approach such as

a repetition of drills or memorization and practice the conversation in front of the

class. However, todays’ world requires some strategies to reach the goal of teaching

speaking to improve students' communicative skills, because, in that way, students

can express themselves and learn how to follow the social and cultural rules

appropriately in each communicative circumstance.

Fundamentally, there are important factors related to establishing an

appropriate physical and psychological atmosphere in the class. For teachers, to be

creative in choosing what activities are appropriate for the learners can create good

physical atmosphere. Teachers must be dedicated to the belief that oral

communication is important for learning and be willing to arrange class activity so

that talk between students in large and small groups is convenient.

Then, the psychological atmosphere would be one in which students feel

comfortable and take increasing responsibility for their own learning. Psychological

atmosphere has significant impacts on students’ English learning effectiveness.

Therefore, it is necessary for English teachers to control the change of the class

atmosphere factors and the interaction between them so as to create a harmonious

English learning class and thus to promote the healthy development of both teachers

and students’ personality.

At present, there is variety of strategy from different teaching technique which

had been proven by some experts as the effective technique for teaching speaking

skill. Communicative group activity from communicative approach and guided


commit to user

xvii

conversation activity from traditional approach are the examples. These activities are

able to be applied in teaching the second semester students of STKIP PGRI Pontianak

related to the phenomenon of the Asian students that has been stated above.

Communicative group activity is communicative activity in teaching and

learning where students practice their English with other students in groups. The

activity seems more real than memorizing and acting out a conversation. According to

Harmer (1991: 45), communicative activities are those which exhibit the characteristic

end of continuum. Students are involved in activities that give them both the desire to

communicate and a purpose which involves them in a varied use of language. Such

activities are vital in language classroom since the students can do their best to use the

language as individuals.

It can be said that this activity gives a chance for students to practice and share

their ideas by communicating with others. Furthermore, Parrish (2006: 103) states a

variety of ways you can promote this kind of purposeful communication, among

others are: (1) picture stories; (2) game; (3) group discussion; (4) problem-posing

activities; (5) role-play,etc.

On the other hand, guided conversation activity is the activity that is often

used by many teachers to teach speaking. The teacher dominates to control practice

stage of speaking class activities so that students have the opportunity to accurately try

out what they have learned. Guided conversation activity helps students automatic

responses using a specific formulaic expression or structure.

Guided conversation activity can be used in teaching-learning speaking

because they provide practice of small and manageable chunks of language. These

help to build confidence and automatic use of structures and expressions that have


commit to user

xviii

been arranged. This activities involve the teacher simply talking with the students,

without any plan for teaching students about how to converse in English.

However, It should be known by the teachers that their students have different

personality or individual differences that affect the students’ different learning

achievement. Risk taking, another variable of individual differences, is defined as

eagerness to try something novel and different without putting the primary focus on

success or failure regardless of embarrassment in learning (Brown, 2001: 63). These

individual differences are the reflections of people personality and they affect many

aspects of people’s life, learning included (Ely, 1989: 228).

Psychologically, risk taking is also one of three crucial factors of language

learning. According to Skehan (1989: 34) they are: intelligence, risk taking ability,

and extroversion/introversion.

Based on the ideas above, the writer is interested in knowing the reality

empirically. Thus, the researcher is interested in conducting a research entitled: “The

Effectiveness of Communicative Group Activity in Teaching Speaking Viewed from

Students’ Risk Taking (An Experimental Study in the Second Semester Students of

STKIP PGRI, Pontianak, in the Academic Year of 2011/2012).”


commit to user

xix

B. Problem Identification

1. Why is it difficult for the students to learn speaking?

2. Which activity is suitable for the second semester students of STKIP PGRI

Pontianak who have low risk taking and high risk taking to teach speaking?

3. How can Communicative Group Activitiy help the students to speak English well?

4. How can Guided Conversation Activity help students to speak English well?

5. How can the students with high risk taking get better speaking skill than students

with low risk taking?

C. Problem Limitation

Questions arisen from problem identifications will be limited to the problems which

are supposed to influence students’ speaking skill; they are the teaching techniques

(Communicative Group Activity and Guided Conversation Activity) and students’ Risk

Taking.

D. Problem Statement

From the background of the study, problem identification, and problem limitation,

there are three problems that are formulated:

1. Is Communicative Group Activity more effective than Guided Conversation

Activity in teaching speaking at the second semester students of STKIP PGRI

Pontianak in the academic year of 2011/2012?

2. Do the students having high risk taking have better speaking skill than those

having low risk taking at the second semester students of STKIP-PGRI Pontianak

in the academic year of 2011/2012?

3. Is there any interaction between teaching techniques and the students’ risk taking

in teaching speaking?


commit to user

xx

E. Objectives of the Study

The objective of the study is to find out:

1. Whether Communicative Group Activity is more effective than Guided

Conversation Activity in teaching speaking at the second semester students of

STKIP PGRI Pontianak in the academic year of 2011/2012.

2. Whether English speaking skill of the students having high risk taking is better than

students having low risk taking.

3. Whether there is an interaction between teaching techniques and the students’ risk

taking in teaching speaking.

F. Benefit of the Study

1. For teachers

The teachers can use appropriate activities for teaching learning activities to

the students who have high and low risk taking. The teacher encourages the

students who have low risk taking to speak the language target as well,

besides encouraging the students who have high risk taking. Because the

activities provide the students to be able to achieve some skills in teaching

learning process, by using these activities the teacher creates the

relationship of the students to the others.

2. For students

This research findings will improve their speaking skill. Moreover, the students

will improve the speaking skill. The students not only use the skill in the classroom

but also in the workplace and at home.


commit to user

xxi

3. For other researchers

The result of the study can be used as a reference and guidance in conducting a

research in the future.

4. For the theoritical benefits

Theoretically, the finding of this research will add input of teaching of English as

Foreign Language. This study may also serve as additionally references in

langauge teaching.


commit to user

xxii

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A scientific framework needs some theories that support the fundamental

thought. In accordance with the topic which will be discussed in the thesis, this

chapter presents theoritical descriptions underlying the research, rationale, and

hypotheses.

A. Review of Speaking

1. Definitions of Speaking

Speaking is one of the four macro skills necessary for effective

communication in any language, particularly when speakers are not using their

mother tongue. As English is universally used as a means of communication,

especially in the internet world, English speaking skill should be developed

along with the other skills so that these integrated skills will enhance

communication achievement both with native speakers of English and other

members of the international community.

While reading and listening are considered to be the two receptive skills

in language learning and use, writing and speaking are the other two productive

skills necessary to be integrated in the development of effective

communication. Zhang, Yun (2009: 32) states that all of the four English skills,

speaking seems to be the most important skill required for communication. It


commit to user

xxiii

means that speaking skill usually creates a number of benefits for both speakers

and business organizations. For example, effective speaking skill result in

achievements during ceremonial speaking activities, job training activities, job

interviews, and many other business purposes.

Many language learners regard speaking skill as the measure of

knowing a language. These learners define fluency of speaking skill as the

ability to converse with others, much more than the ability to read, write, or

comprehend oral language. They regard speaking as the most important skill

they can acquire, and they assess their progress in terms of their

accomplishments in spoken communication (Burkart, 1998: 2). Fauziati (2002:

126) describes that as a part of communication, speaking is regarded more

representing what the speaker wants to say. In short, speaking is the ability to

perform the linguistics knowledge in actual communication.

In addition, Nunan (2003: 48) defines speaking as productive

aural/oral skill. It consists of producing systematic verbal utterances

to convey meaning. Then, Thornburry (2005: 8) also defines speaking as a

speech production that becomes a part of daily activities which involve

interaction. Furthermore, Pollard (2008: 33) states that speaking is one of the

most difficult aspects for students to master. This is hardly surprising when one

considers everything that is involved when speaking: ideas, what to say,

language, how to use grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation as well as

listening to and reacting to the person you are communicating with. Any

learner of a foreign language can confirm how difficult speaking is.


commit to user

xxiv

According to Canale and Swain in Nashash (2007: 27) speaking skill is

the ability to use EFL for communication focusing on meaning rather than

form i.e. the student is able to express himself and to convey his ideas.

Speaking skill consists of a cluster of sub-skills such as organization, grammar,

pronunciation, etc. Meanwhile, Tarigan (1985: 21) defines speaking as the

capability to articulate the sound expressing and delivering thought, opinion,

and wish. In short, the writer can infer that speaking is the ability to make use

of words as the language to express oneself in an ordinary voice. The ability

functions to express our ideas, feeling, thoughts, and need orally (Hornby,

1995: 826).

2. Components of Speaking Skill

Generally, there are at least four components of speaking skill, they are

comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and fluency :

a. Comprehension

Oral communication certainly requires a subject to respond to speech as

well as to intiate it.

b. Grammar

It is needed for students to arrange a correct sentence in conversation. It

is in line with explanation suggested by Heaton (1978: 5) about

students’ ability to manipulate structure and to distinguish appropriate

grammatical form in appropriate ones. The utility of grammar is also to

learn the correct way to gain expertise in a language in oral and written

form.


commit to user

xxv

c. Vocabulary

One cannot communicate effectively or express their ideas both orally

and in written form if they do not have sufficient vocabulary. So,

vocabulary means the appropriate diction which is used in

communication.

d. Pronunciation

Pronunciation is the way students produce clearer language when they

speak. It deals with the phonological process that refers to the

component of a grammar made up of the elements and principles that

determine how sounds vary and pattern in a language.

e. Fluency

Fluency can be defined as the ability to speak fluently and accurately.

Fluency in speaking is the aim of many language learners. Signs of

fluency include a reasonably fast speed of speaking and only a small

number of pauses and”ums” or “ers”. These signs indicate that the

speaker does not have to spend a lot of time searching for the language

items needed to express the message (Brown, 1997:4).

3. Factors Causing Students’ Speaking Difficulties

What makes speaking difficult? This question looks simple, however

recognizing and identifying the answers for this question will lead us into

the successful teaching of the speaking skill. In other words, English

teachers should at least know what factors cause speaking difficulties for


commit to user

xxvi

students in order to achieve the goal of teaching speaking. According to

Brown (2001: 270) the leading factors causing oral performance seem easy

and in some cases difficulties for students basically constitute a number of

its special characteristics of spoken language which need to be taken into

note. As a result, English teachers must pay attention to the causative factors

claimed above. A number of the spoken language characteristics identified

as the causative factors of difficulties for oral performance that are required

to be taken into consideration are clustering, redundancy, reduced forms,

performance variables, colloquial language, rate of delivery, stress, rhythm,

and intonation, as well as interaction.

The first characteristic of the spoken language required to be carefully

watched is clustering. Fluent speech is phrasal, not word by word. learners

can organize their output both cognitively and physically (in breath groups)

through such clustering.

Another spoken language characteristic that needs to be taken into

account is redundancy. The speaker’s opportunity in making meaning more

obvious can be done by making the redundancy of language. Students can

take an advantage from using this feature of spoken language.

The third characteristic of spoken language affecting speaking

difficulties constitutes reduced forms. Usually some problems in teaching

spoken English derive from elisions, contractions, and reduced vowels.

Furthermore, performance variables are also counted as one of the

factors causing speaking difficulties. In using spoken language, the process


commit to user

xxvii

of thinking while you are speaking creates opportunities to a particular

number of performance hesitations, corrections, pauses, as well as

backtrackings. Learners can actually be trained about the ways to hesitate or

pause. For example, in English our “thinking time” is not silent; we insert

certain “fillers” such as uh, um, well, like,I mean, you know, etc.

The next spoken language characteristic required to be considered is

colloquial language. Make sure your students are reasonably well

acquainted with the words, idioms, and phrases of colloquial language and

they get practice in producing these forms.

After that, the causative factor of speaking difficulties is rate of

delivery. One of the teacher tasks in teaching spoken English is to help

learners reach an acceptable speed along with other attributes of fluency.

Stress, rhythm, and intonation are also viewed as other factors causing

speaking difficulties. The stress-timed rhythm of spoken English and its

intonation patterns convey important messages.

Finally, the last factor is interaction. Learning to produce waves of

language in a vacuum-without interlocutors-would rob speaking skill of its

richest component: the creativity of conversational negotiation (Brown,

2001: 270).

4. Types of Speaking Performance

The types of speaking performance in the classroom are the categories

applied to the kinds of oral production that students are expected to carry

out in the classroom. According to Brown (2001: 271), there are six


commit to user

xxviii

categories applied in the classroom, those are: (a) imitative is the ability to

simply parrot back (imitative) a word or phrase or possibly a sentence. It is

carried out not for the purpose of meaningful interaction, but for focusing on

some particular element of language from; (b) intensive is the production of

short stretches of oral language designed to demonstrate competence in a

narrow band of grammatical, phrasal, lexical, and phonological relationship

(such as prosodic elements–intonation, stress, rhythm, juncture). Intensive

speaking can be self-initiated or it can even form part of some pair work

activity, where students are “going over” certain form of language; (c)

responsive is a good deal of student speech in the classroom which include

interaction of very short conversations. Short replies to teacher or student-

initiated questions or comments are responsive speaking as well. These

replies are usually sufficient and do not extend into dialogue; (d)

transactional (dialogue) is carried out for the purpose of conveying or

exchanging specific information, it is an extended form of responsive

language; (e) interpersonal (dialogue) is carried out more for purpose of

maintaining social relationship than the transmission of fact and

information. Transactional and interpersonal can be classified into

interactive speaking; (f) extensive speaking (monologue) is giving extended

monologue in the form of oral reports, summaries, or perhaps short

speeches. The type is usually performed by intermediate to advanced level.

These monologues can be planned or impromptu.


commit to user

xxix

5. Characteristics of Successful Speaking Activity

Teaching speaking activity can be called success when some

characteristics of successful speaking activity enable to be achieved by the

students. According to Ur (1996: 120), those characteristics are: (a) students

talk a lot, in which students as much as possible of the period of time are

allotted into the activity, it is in fact occupied by students talk of the target

language; (b) participation is even. It means when the classroom discussion

is not dominated by minority talkative participants, all students get a chance

to speak, and the contributions are fairly even distributed; (c) motivation is

high. Students are eager to speak, because they are interested the topic and

have something new to say. In other word, they would like to contribute to

achieving a task objective; and (d) language is an acceptable level. Students

express themselves in utterances that are relevant, easily comprehensive to

each other, and an acceptable level of language accuracy.

6. Assesment in Teaching Speaking

Ur states that oral testing is “when testing proficiency of students we

may simply interview them and assess their responses; or use other

techniques like role-play, group discussion between students, monologue,

picture description, and so on (1996: 133). Then, Brown (2004: 140) also

describes more specific types of testing speaking. Testing on speaking is

productive skill that can be directly and empirically observed, those

observations are invariably colored by the accuracy, effect, and validity of


commit to user

xxx

an oral production test. He points out the three important issues as teacher

sets out to design task for assessing or testing speaking, those are: (a) no

speaking task is capable of isolating the single skill of oral production.

Concurrent involvement of the addition performance of aural

comprehension, and possibly reading, is usually necessary; (b) eliciting the

specific criterion teachers have designated for task can be tricky because

beyond the word level, spoken language offers a number of productive

options to test-takers. Make sure your elicitation prompt achieves its aims as

closely as possible; (c) because of two characteristics above of oral

production assessment, it is important to carefully specify scoring

procedures for a response so that ultimately teachers achieve as high a

reliability index as possible.

7. Micro and Macroskill of Speaking

Micro skills refer to producing the smaller chunk of the language such

as phonemes, morphemes, words, collocation, and phrasal units. Then, the

macro skills imply the speakers’ focus on the larger elements: fluency,

discourse, function, style, cohesion, nonverbal communication, and strategic

options.

a. Micro skills

1) Produce differences among English phonemes and allophonic

variants.

2) Produce chunk of language in different lengths.


commit to user

xxxi

3) Produce English stress patterns, word in stressed and unstressed

position, rhythmic structure, and intonation contours.

4) Produce reduce forms or words or phrases.

5) Use an adequate number of lexical units (words) to accomplish

pragmatic purposes.

6) Produce fluent speech at different rate of deliveries.

7) Monitor one’s own oral production and use various strategies

devices – pauses, fillers, self – correction, backtracking – to

enhance the clarity of the message.

8) Use the grammatical words classes (noun, verbs, etc), systems

(e.g., tense, agreement, pluralization), word order, patterns, rules

and elliptical forms.

9) Produce speech in natural constituents: in appropriate phrase,

pause groups, and sentence constituents.

10) Express a particular meaning in different grammatical forms.

11) Use cohesive device in spoken discourse.

b. Macro skills

1) Appropriately accomplish communicative function according to

the situations, participants, and goals.

2) Use appropriates styles, register, implicature, redundancies,

pragmatic conventions, conversation rules, floor – keeping, and

yielding, interrupting, and other sociolinguistics features in face

– to – face conversation.


commit to user

xxxii

3) Convey links and connections between event and

communicative such relations as focal and peripheral ideas,

events and feeling, new information and given information,

generalization, and other nonverbal cues.

4) Convey facial features, kinestetics, body language, and other

non – verbal cues along with verbal language.

5) Develop and use battery of peaking strategies, such as

emphasizing key words, rephrasing, providing a context for

interpreting the meaning of words, appealing for help, and

accurately assessing how well your interlocutor id

understanding you (Brown, 2004: 142).

Based on the descriptions of speaking theories which are stated by

some experts, the researcher concludes that speaking is a creative process; an

active interaction between speaker and listener that involves thoughts and

feeling. Then, speaking as the productive oral skill involves several aspects:

grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, and content of idea to interact

or communicate with others.

8. Activities in Teaching Speaking

According to Harmer (2004: 271) many of the speaking activities which are

currently in use for learning language teaching can be inferred as follows:

1. Acting from script is classroom speaking activity that provides students to

act out dialogue that students have written or dialogue from their course-

books in front of the class. When chooosing who should come out to the


commit to user

xxxiii

front of the class, the teacher needs to be careful not to choose the shyest

students first.

2. Communication games are classroom speaking activities that are persuade

the students to provoke communication between students frequently depend

on information gap, so that one learner has to talk to a partner in order to

solve a puzzle, draw a picture (describe and draw), put things in the right

order (describe and arrange), find similarities and differences between

pictures.

3. Discussion in classroom speaking activities which support the students who

are reluctant to give an opinion in front of the whole class, particularly if

they cannot think of anything to say and are not, any way, confident of the

language they might use to say it. One of the best ways to encourage

discussion is to provide activities which force students to reach a decision or

consencus, often a result of choosing between specific alternatives.

4. Prepared talk is a popular kind of activity in classroom speaking activities

where students makes a presentation on a topic of their own choice. Such

talks are not designed for informal spontaneous conversation, because they

are prepared, they are more ‘writing-like’ than a script. However, if

possible, students should speak from notes rather than from a script.

5. Questionnaires are useful classroom speaking activities, because by being

pre-planned, they ensure that both questioner and respondent have

something to say each other. Thus depend upon how tightly designed they

are, they may well encourage the natural use of certain repetitive language


commit to user

xxxiv

patterns, and thus be situated in the middle of our communication

continuum. The result obtained from questionnaires form the basis for

written works discussion or prepared talk.

6. Simulation and role play are classroom speaking activities which students

simulated a real life encounter (such as a business meeting, an encounter in

an aero plan cabin, or an interview) as if they were doing so in the real

world. Simulation and role play can be used to encourage general oral

fluency or to train students for specific purpose.

B. Review of Communicative Group Activity

1. Definitions of Communicative Group Activity

Communicative Group Activity is an activity of teaching speaking by

designing students into various groups to conduct the communicative

activities or projects. There are some communicative group activities can be

used in teaching speaking such as picture differences, describing pictures,

discussion, role play, information gap, and debate.

According to Harmer (1991: 45), communicative activities are those

which exhibit the characteristic end of continuum. Students are involved in

activities that give them both the desire to communicate and a purpose which

involves them in a varied use of language. Such activities are vital in

language classroom since the students can do their best to use the language as

individuals.

Brumfit , Johnson and Littlewood (1981: 17) formulate the elements in

some communicative group practices, however. One such element might be


commit to user

xxxv

described as the communication principle: Activities that involve real

communication promote learning. A second element is the task principle:

Activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks

promote learning. A third element is the meaningfulness principle: Language

that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning process.

Communicative group activity is in line with cooperative learning. The

reason is all the activities must be done in a group, as group work. Group

work assumes an alternative way of learning: by expressing and exploring

ideas and experiences in a cooperative atmosphere.The concept of group

work, to some extent, in which students generally work together in face-to-

face groups engaging in discussion and assisting one another in understanding

is not something new. Porter in Meng (2009: 219) presents five pedagogical

arguments for the use of group work in second language learning concerning

the potential of group work for increasing the quantity of language practice

opportunities, for improving the quality of student talks, for individualizing

instruction, for creating a positive affective climate in the classroom, and for

increasing student motivation.

Brown (2001: 43) offers the following six interconnected characteristics

as a description of communicative activity:

a. Classroom goals are focused on all of the components (grammatical,

discourse, functional, sociolinguistic, and strategic) of communicative

competence. Goals therefore must intertwine the organizational aspects

of language with the pragmatic.


commit to user

xxxvi

b. Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic,

authentic, and functional use of language for meaningful purposes.

Organizational language forms are not central focus, but rather aspect

of language that enables the learner to accomplish those purposes.

c. Fluency and accuracy are seen as the complementary principle

underlying communicative techniques. At times fluency may have to

take on more important than accuracy in order to keep learners

meaningfully engaged in language use.

d. Students in communicative class ultimately have to use the language,

productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts outside the

classrooms. Its task must therefore equip students with the skills

necessary for communication in those contexts.

e. Students are given opportunities to focus on their own learning process

through an understanding of their own styles of learning and through

the development of appropriate strategies for autonomous learning.

f. The role of the teacher is that facilitator and guide, not all-knowing

bestowed of knowledge. Students are therefore encouraged to construct

meaning through genuin linguistic interaction with others.

2. Procedures of Communicative Group Activities

a. Opening

Teacher introduces one topic/material of speaking for the students to

practice their speaking through communicative activity.


commit to user

xxxvii

b. Main Activity

1) Teacher applies communicative group activity for students practicing

their speaking.

a) Have the class stand up and arrange the chairs or tables so the

students can sit together in small groups. You might consider

manipulating the groups to ensure a "talker" is placed with those

who might not be so outgoing. Also, be sure to stress the

importance of answering in a complete sentence before starting.

b) Once the groups have been arranged, a team captain is selected.

Students often are reluctant to volunteer so you might do this

yourself. I have found students enjoy being chosen even if they

initially seem hesitant. The team captain chooses who picks up

the first topic sheet.

c) The game begins by placing the topic sheets placed in a pile on

the table or the team captain's desk. A student (chosen by the

captain) picks a sheet from the pile and reads the topic. The

student then gives an opinion on what was read.

d) After the student has expressed a view point, he or she asks others

in the group to offer their thoughts on the subject. If no one

volunteers, a student is then picked by the person who read the

question. That student can either offer an opinion or elect to

choose a new subject from the pile of topic sheets.


commit to user

xxxviii

e) While the students are working, circulate about the room,

listening to be sure they are speaking in complete sentences or

helping those who seem stuck on a question. The groups

continue working until everyone has chosen a topic sheet or the

allotted time for the exercise has expired (Coughlin, 2006: 1).

2) Teacher evaluates students speaking skill.

c. Closing

Teacher reviews the topic and closes the meeting.

3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Communicative Group Activity

a. Advantages of communicative group activity

1) They can learn from hearing the language used by other members of

the group

2) They will produce a greater amount of language than they would use

in teacher-fronted activities

3) Their motivational level is likely to increase

4) They will have the chance to develop fluency (Richard, 2001: 18).

b. Disadvantages of communicative group activity

Some teachers are afraid of group work, they feel they will lose

control or students will just use their native language, they cannot monitor

all groups at once, and so they are shy away from it (Brown, 2001: 181).


commit to user

xxxix

C. Review of Guided Conversation Activity

1. Definitions of Guided Conversation Activity

Guided conversation activity is different from the communicative

group activity. It is a two-way dialogue style of teaching for introducing

new grammatical structures. Activity for teaching and practicing speaking

can be arranged along a continuum from totally scripted speech, to guided

output by the learners, to completely novel, self-directed output. More

guided and controlled activities are needed because their oral production

generally consists of isolated words and learned phrases within very

predictable areas of need (Allen and Valette, 1977: 89).

In a guided conversation, the students are given a framework to build

their sentences, but the actual choice of what they will say is left up to them;

at least in part. Teachers can make guided conversation using a one-sided

script and elicit the students speaking by letting them respond appropriately

in the context (Allen and Valette, 1977: 90). In addition, in this activity,

grammar structures are introduced through short model dialogues, but there

is always a clear focus on a particular grammatical structure. As a result, the

grammar is highlighted. Accurate pronunciation and grammar, ability to

respond quickly and accurately in speech situations, knowledge of sufficient

vocabulary to use with grammar patterns are some prominent objectives of

this guided conversation activity (Erton, 2006: 77).

The three goals of Guided Conversation Activity are the following:


commit to user

xl

a. Develop a relationship. This is as simple as asking a question about

the child’s interest when you meet him.

b. Find out what she knows about a given topic so you can address her

learning needs.

c. Guide the child’s learning through activities and Q&A

d. Students will become familiar with the process; thus lowering the

affective filter

e. Students need a structured approach to oral conversation in order to

develop communication skills (Nurhayati, Supriyanti, and Triastuti,

2008: 28).

The principles of Guided Conversation Activity are the following:

a. Speak, not Read, the Conversation

When doing the exercises, students should practice speaking to each

other, rather than reading to each other. Even though students will

need to refer to the text to be able to practice the conversations, they

should not read the lines word by word. Rather, they should scan a

full line and then look up from the book and speak the line to the

other person.

b. Intonation and gesture

Throughout, you should use the book to teach proper intonation and

gesture. Students should be encouraged to truly act out the dialogs in

a strong and confident voice.


commit to user

xli

c. Student-Centered Practice

Use of the texts should be as student-centered as possible. Modeling

by the teacher should be efficient and economical, but students

should have every opportunity to model for each other when they are

capable of doing so.

d. Vocabulary in Context

Vocabulary can and should be effectively taught in the context of the

conversation being practiced. Spending time drilling vocabulary in

isolation only if it is absolutely essential.

e. No “Grammar Talk”

The purpose of the texts is to engage students in active

communication that gets them to use the language according to

grammatical rules (Molinsky, 2002: 7).

2. Procedures of Guided Conversation Activity

a. Opening

Teacher introduces one topic/material of speaking for the students to

practice their speaking.

b. Main Activity

1) Teacher applies guided conversation class activity for students

practicing their speaking.

a) Students first hear a model conversation (either read by the

teacher or on tape) containing key structures that are the focus of

the lesson.


commit to user

xlii

b) Present the model.

Students repeat each line of the conversation, individually and in

full-class choral repetition. The teacher pays attention to

pronunciation, intonation, and fluency. Correction of mistakes of

pronunciation or grammar is direct and immediate. The

conversation is memorized gradually, line by line. A line may be

broken down into several phrases if necessary.

c) Set the Scene. Have students open their books and look at the

dialogue. Ask if there are any questions, and check

understanding of new vocabulary.

d) Group Choral Repetition. The conversation is read aloud in

chorus, one half saying one speaker’s part and the other half

responding.

e) The conversation is adapted to the students’ interest or situation,

through changing certain key words or phrases. This is acted out

by the students. Encourage the students to look up their books

throughout this phase. (Students can of course refer to their

books when necessary).

f) Follow-up activities may take place in the language laboratory,

where further conversation and drill work is carried out

(Molinsky, 2002: 2).


commit to user

xliii

2) Teacher evaluates students’ speaking skill.

c. Closing

Teacher reviews the topic and closes the meeting.

3. Advantages and Disadvatages of Guided Conversation Activity

a. Advantages of Guided Conversation Activity are:

1) A teacher can reach a large number of students

2) Convey a large amount of material in short time

3) Teacher has complete control

b. Disadvantages of Guided Conversation Activity are:

1) Little opportunity to question teacher (often one way

communication)

2) Little or even no feedback regarding the effectiveness of the

learning

3) Students are often passive (Malawi Institute of Education, 2004: 3).

D. Review of Risk Taking

1. Definitions of Risk Taking

Skehan (1989: 5) considers three crucial factors of language learning.

They are: Intelligence, Risk taking ability, and Extroversion /introversion.

Jonassen and Grabowski (1993: 3) state those who may be regarded as

high risk takers in life are not in any way deterred in English classes for

them to learn by nature verbally active. They also indicate to be the more


commit to user

xliv

cautious person, the prospect of making a mistake and exposing oneself to

ridicule represents shame and social embarrassment.

Risk taking is an impulse to take a decision concerning something

new and different, without putting the primary focus on success or failure,

but learning as the reward of risk taking. In this sense, risk taking is an

opportunity learners have to share their ideas and be actively involved in

class discussions without thinking about the failure (Young, 2010: 6).

Furthermore, Rubin (1975; cited in Beebe, 1983: 46) states guessing is part

of risk taking, and he defines risk taking as making a decision when the

outcome is uncertain and the prospect of failure is there.

This also can be termed (risk taking), according to Brown,”risk

taking refers to the learners’ ability to “gamble” a bit, to be willing to try out

hunches about the language and take the risks of being wrong, then,

interaction requires the risk of failing to produce intended meaning, of

failing to interpret intended meaning, of being laughed at, of being shunned

or rejected. The rewards, of course, are great and worth the risks” (2001:

166).

In other words, risk-taking is a crucial interactive process to learn a

language in the ESL/EFL classroom. Therefore, if a language learner

interacts with the teacher, automatically he/she can acquire a foreign

language without any difficulty.

Then, Brown also defines, “The key to risk taking is a peak

performance strategy which is not simply in taking the risks. It is in learning


commit to user

xlv

from your ‘failures’. When you risk a new technique in the classroom, try a

new approach to a difficult student, or make a frank comment to a

supervisor, you must be willing to accept possible ‘failure’ in your attempt.

Then, you assess all the facets of that failure and turn it into an experience

that teaches you something about how to calculate the next risk” (2001:

428). In this case, it is essential to accept the fiasco and internalize it as the

learning experience. Afterward, language learners can master that language

gradually.

A more comprehensive definition of risk taking is from Ely (1986:

7) stating “language class risk-taking refers to an individuals’ tendency to

assume risk in using the L2 in the second language class”. The definition

implies that risk taking involves four dimensions: a lack of hesitancy about

using a newly encountered linguistic element; a willingness to use complex

or difficult linguistic elements; a tolerance of possible incorrectness while

using the language; and an inclination to practice a new element silently

before speaking it aloud.

Risk taking also has been pointed as a situation where an individual

has to make a decision involving choice between alternatives of different

desirability; the outcome of the choice is uncertain; there is a possibility of

failure (Beebe, 1983: 12).

Rubin and Bebee cited in Stephen Luft (2007: 16) identify the

following four relate risk-taking: a) being willing to appear foolish in order

to communicate and get the message across; b) using the language when not


commit to user

xlvi

required to do so; c) being comfortable with uncertainty ; d) willing to make

mistakes in order to learn and comunicate.

Risk taking is one of the personality factors that is believed to foster

language learning. A good language learner as suggested by Rubin (1975:

50) is the one who likes to take risks and initiate conversations. Risk taking

as suggested by Scovel (2000: 1) can be one of psychological factors

that may be an affective variable of the emotions that influence the way

in which we learn languages.

The concept of risk taking is interrelated with the idea of self-

confidence, as learners who believe in their abilities will tend to take more

risks and venture outside their comfort zone. There are two competing ideas

in second language acqusition research; on the one hand, there is the claim

that high risk taking in second language speaking circumstances has a

positive effect on second language proficiency (Ely, 1986: 8), as these

learners will not have inhibitions to try out or practice words or expressions

they are not completely sure of. On the other hand, there is the claim that

successful second language learners are moderate or calculated risk takers

who would experiment only with words or expressions they have learned

(Beebe, 1983: 5), as they prefer to be in control of their learning process and

do not want to risk being laughed at or sounding foolish.

In other words, risk taking is an ability of being eager to try out new

information intelligently regardless of embarrassment that is not only an


commit to user

xlvii

affective domain in personality factors but also one of the important parts in

learning second language.

The relevance of risk taking to language learning can be explained in

part by noting Beebes’ (1983: 39) observation that” you take a risk every

time you open your mouth in a foreign language, or...in any learning

situation where you are called on to perform”. The kinds of risks involved

include looking ridiculous, feeling frustrated, not being able to care for

oneself, alienation, and loss of identity (Beebe, 1983: 40). In a language

classroom setting, other risks are involved, including receiving a bad grade,

a reproach from the teacher, a smirk from a classmate, or some kind of self-

inflicted punishment or embarrassment (Beebe, 1983: 40)

Self-esteem seems to be closely connected to a risk-taking factor:

when those foolish mistakes are made, a person with high global self-

esteem is not daunted by the possible consequences of being laughed at.

Beebe (1983: 41) noted that fossilization, or the relatively permanent

incorporation of certain patterns of errors, may be due to a lack of

willingness to take risks. It is safe to stay within patterns that accomplish the

desired function even though there may be some errors in those patterns.

Therefore, passive students may fall behind other active students

because of their language ego and general self-esteem. But, if the teachers

give them proper encouragement to increase their self-confidence, they

would like to learn a language without fear of being wrong when they try to

guess the new information they get.


commit to user

xlviii

Risk taking is a crucial interactive process to learn a language in the

class.Therefore, if a language learner interacts with the teacher, he or she

can acquire a foreign language without much difficulty as already

mentioned, what needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that

although risk taking is a personality factor, it also primarily depends upon

the situation. Therefore, language teachers can encourage an optimal level

of risk taking by controlling the class environment. The feedback given to

the students can also be argued as a means for controlling the class

environment.

2. Types of Risk Taking

There are five categories of risks. They are intellectual risks, social risks,

emotional risks, physical risks, and spiritual risks. These five categories are

not mutually exclusive. Indeed, it is possible that a particular activity might

present more than one category of risk.

a. Intellectual risks may include taking an advanced class; letting

classmates know you are smart; skipping a grade; challenging the status

quo.

b. Social risks may include spending time with a different peer group;

being in a class in which you do not know anyone; going to a party

alone; speaking publicly.


commit to user

xlix

c. Emotional risks involve making yourself vulnerable. Examples may

include expressing your anger with someone in authority; letting

others know that you are frightened or nervous; or telling someone

you love them.

d. Physical risks tend to be more obvious. Bungee jumping comes to

mind immediately. But for some intellectually or academically

talented children, participating in physical education may be a risk.

Learning a new sport, seeing a doctor, running seven miles when you

have always run three, and taking a dance class are other examples of

physical risks.

e. Spiritual risks seem to be less clearly defined because they are so

personal. Activities that involve spiritual risk-taking are often

emotional and/or social risks as well. Believing in something beyond

yourself is an example (Neihart, 2008: 3).

3. Elements of Risk Taking

The following component elements of risk taking include both

biopsychosocial factors and environmental factors that can be considered

predisposing factors to risk taking. Whether or not predisposing factors lead

to risky choices and behavior depends largely upon the social and cultural

context where the choice is made (Irwin, 1993: 3).

The component elements are:

a. High sensation seeking tendency

b. Developmental propensity toward risk-taking


commit to user

l

c. Spontaneity/impulsivity

d. A decision maker

e. Aggressiveness

f. Cognitive factors, i.e., cognitive biases

g. Lack of knowledge of consequences

h. Gender

i. Age

j. Self-esteem

k. Social transitions, i.e., school transitions

l. Race/ethnicity

m. Socioeconomic Status; poverty

n. Family factors, i.e., parenting behavior and style

o. Peer behaviors/influences

p. Community/neighborhood variables

4. Factors Influencing Students’ Risk Taking

Young (1999: 31) states for analytical purposes, factors influencing risk

taking in classroom can be devided into two categories – internal and

external factors. Internal factors are those that originate within the learner

himself or herself. Internal factors consist of personal and affective factors

related to learners’ risk taking. They include age, gender, personality,

motivation, self-esteem, and anxiety.

On the other hand, external factors are those that originate from outside

learners. This category includes lerners’ learning environment and learners’


commit to user

li

cultural beliefs or practices, learning situation (e.g., teachers’ attitude,

teaching styles) and other course-related factors (e.g., class size, classroom

activity).

Risk taking is treated as “learner’s initiative or voluntary participation”.

Bang found four major factors that facilitated risk taking and four major

factors that were debilitating to risk taking. Major facilitating factors are

pair/small class group activities; sufficient preparation for class; positive

attitude in learning; and strong motivation. Major debilitating factors are

cultural beliefs or practices; instructors’ attitude and teaching style; anxiety;

and limited opportunities due to large class size (Bang, 1999: 144).

Furthermore, Beebe (1983: 7) operationally defined risk taking in terms

of a number of factors, among them, number of attempts to use particular

grammatical structures, avoidance, amount of talk, and amount of

information volunteering.

In the conclusion, risk taking is one of qualities in the affective domain

of the personality factors that derive from learners’ subjective experience,

such as motivation, attitude, self-esteem, and anxiety. Then, other factors

that originate outside of the learners are learning situation, teaching style,

and classroom activity associated with success in language learning.

5. Strategies for Encouraging Students’ Risk Taking

Ideally, students should feel comfortable enough about class assesments

that they feel free to take risks and make mistakes. Only under these


commit to user

lii

circumstances will students tackle the challenging tasks that can maximize

their learning and cognitive development.

When teachers give students proper encouragement to increase their

self-confidence, they would like to learn language without fear of being

wrong when they try to guess the new information they have gotten.

Johannessen (2003: 5) proposes the following methods in order to give them

confidence to learn:

a. Break instruction into small steps and provide short activities, chosen

and sequenced by the teacher.

b. Cover material thoroughly and at a moderate pace, give plenty of

practice, immediate clear feedback,and specific praise.

c. Have students work as a whole class so that the teacher can supervise.

Avoid individualized, self-paced, or independent work.

d. Maintain a level of difficulty that guarantees high rates of success.

e. Ask convergent questions- one correct answer.

f. Make sure to call on everyone, and stay with a student until a question

is answered.

g. Avoid interruptions, open-ended questions, and nonacademic

conversations.

Based on the various definition, types, factors, elements, and strategies

of risk taking above, the writer can formulate that students’ risk taking in

learning spoken English is an active oral participation or involvement such


commit to user

liii

as raising questions, responding to the teachers’ or other students’ questions,

and making comments during the class activities.

In spoken language class, then, risk taking may be gained since it could

provide learners with opportunities to say what they want to say. In other

word, risk taking behavior can be related to the necessity and desirability of

communicating ones’ thoughts in a language class. Students who strongly

wish to communicate their own ideas perceive a greater gain than those who

are unwilling to take risks.

The key points of students’ risk taking to accomplish the goal on

speaking a language is learners’ initiative includes: a) Seeking for

opportunities to practice; b) Being a decision maker; c) Tolerance of

possible incorrectness in using the language; d) and tryng out hunches about

new things.

E. Review of Related Research

There have been many researchers conducting researches on language

teaching that give benefit for other researchers in doing different research.

Combs and Bourne in Kennedy (2007) conducted a research entitled

“In-Class Debates (Communicative Language Teaching): Fertile Ground for

Active Learning and the Cultivation of Critical Thinking and Oral

Communication skills”. In this research, they stated that students learn in

diverse ways; therefore, instructors must utilize a wide variety of instructional

strategies. Students benefit when instructors use instructional strategies that

promote active engagement. In-class debates cultivates the active engagement


commit to user

liv

of students, yet participation in debates is often limited to studnets involved in

debate teams. The benefits of using in-class debates as an instructional strategy

also include mastery of the content and the development of critical thinking

skill, emphaty, and oral communication skills. In debate the students learn

more effectively by actively analyzing, discussing, and applying content in

meaningful ways rather than by passively absorbing. Therefore, students when

instructors utilize instructional strategies that promote active engagement. In

addition to critical thinking skills, debates also demand the development of oral

communication skills, which are vital for success in most careers.

In addition, Asassfeh (2011) conducted a quantitative research entitled

“Communicative Language Teaching in an EFL Context: Learners’ Attitude

and Perceived Implementation/ a thesis Jordan University” which addresses

1525 Jordanian EFL school learners’ attitude and perceives the implementation

of traditional from focused (FFI) instruction and communicative meaning-

oriented instruction (MOI) in teaching English. The result shows that students’

preferences associated with MOI were significantly higher than those

associated with FFI. These result indicate clearly that there is a tendency

among Jordanian students toward developing their communicative competence.

This trend may reflect the increasing awareness among Jordanian learners that

they need not only to understand but also to communicate English so that they

can improve their country in term of economy, cross-cultural communication,

and international relation.


commit to user

lv

Other research was also conducted by Coughlin (2006), in his research

entitled “ Communicative Group Activity to Teach Speaking”./ TESL Journal.

Vol. 12, No. 4, April 2006 reveals that this activity is designed to focus on

students’ communication in a classroom environment. Meanwhile, the major

objectives are to encourage students to communicate in a small group setting.

This helps students studying English more practically.

In line with the previous researches, Meng in 1999 conducted a study

entitled Encourage Learners in the Large Class to Speak English in Group

Work. This study explores some useful speaking activities that can be adapted

in group work in some way to suit Chinese learners. In summary of this study,

with the application of learner-centered instruction mode to college English

teaching and the implementation of group work in large class, more and more

learners will be highly motivated, be exposed to authentic language, have

chances to participate in discussion or speaking activities in groups, and

become relatively fluent and successful in terms of message communication. In

addition, several change will unavoidable occur. The teacher’s role will change

from a lecturer to a guide leading learners through the different processes of

meaning-focused input, language-focused learning, meaning-focused output

and fluency development, a referee standing in the way of chaos, directing

confusion towards productive conversation, a monitor controlling groups to

free exchange of information.

Woodrow in 2009 did another research entitled “Anxiety and Speaking

English as Second Language”. One of the goals of his study is to find whether


commit to user

lvi

there is relationship between speaking performance and second language

anxiety. He states that the anxiety in the second language speaking has a

debilitating effect on the oral performance of speakers of English as a second

language speaking anxiety. He concludes that enxiety is clearly issue in

language learning and has a debilitating effect on spekaing English for some

students. This support the writers’ study. Communicative group activity is a

kind of teaching technique which can be used by the teacher to minimize

students’ anxiety. Because the students will often get turns to speak in front of

their friends.

There are also some researcher that bolster the significance of risk

taking in learning language, particularly, English language. Ghoorchaei and

Kassaian conducted a research entitled “the Relationship between Risk-Taking,

Fluency, and Accuracy in the English Speech of Iranian EFL

Students”./Iranian EFL Journal. Volume 3. March 2009. In this journal, they

investigated whether risk taking was related to speaking fluency and

grammatical accuracy of Iranian students. The result shows that there was not a

statistically significant relationship between risk taking and speaking fluency.

However, there was a statistically significant relationship between the

grammatical accuracy and risk taking in speaking.


commit to user

lvii

F. Rationale

1. The difference between Communicative Group Activity and Guided

Conversation Activity in Teaching Speaking

Communicative Group activity from Communicative Language

Teaching Approach is to be found in the changes in the British language

teaching tradition dating from the1960s. Communicative Group activity also

places great emphasis on helping students use the target language in a variety

of contexts and places great emphasis on learning language functions.

Communicative group activity has real purposes: to find information, break

down barriers, talk about self, and learn about the culture.

This activity gives students big opportunities to create their own ideas

to speak. It means that the students will be more active and creative in

speaking class activity. They are also motivated and challanged to find

information and give their own opinion to the others. It also encourages the

students to have self-confidence in delivering, performing, and presenting

what they want to say with others. Communicative group activity is learner-

centered instruction.

There will be many activities which can be done by the students and

variety of teaching techniques created by teacher in the classroom. The

students will be very active, busy, and challanged in their speaking class.

They work in group and unconsciously they can learn from their friends.

Working in group makes them feel confident because they take part in doing


commit to user

lviii

their speaking activity and encourages them to express their ideas among

other friends. It is such an interactive class.

On the other hand, guided conversation activity are traditional teaching

style. As students have already been in school for at least 12 years by the

time they enter university, they have become accustomed to this language

teaching style, which is dominated by teacher-centered, book-centered

approach, and emphasis on rote memory.

The students are not free enough to explore their own ideas because the

ideas are much supplied by the teacher. It means that teachers will provide

model dialogue as vehicles for introducing new grammatical structure as

stimuli students to speak English. Students will not be active and busy

thinking what they want to say. Students also are not given sufficient practice

with the grammar, thereby the acquisition process will be slow.

Even though this activity may provide examples of contextualized use

of language and the most basic and pervasive of human interaction, carrying

on the conversation in English can also be difficult for learners, because there

are many things they need to attend to at the same time when they are

learning.

Considering the differences, the writer assumes that communicative

group activity that covers more various activities such as generating, sharing,

and expanding students’ ideas as well as developing topics can make the

process of teaching speaking enjoyable because it will make students active,

busy, and creative. This technique offers students opportunity to create the


commit to user

lix

desire to communicate and share their own ideas. This also provides many

activities such as producing a greater number of language by thinking what to

say, discussing cooperatively, and sharing it with the others. Thus,

communicative group activitity is more effective than guided conversation

activity in teaching speaking.

2. The Difference in Speaking Achievement between The Students Having

High Risk Taking and Low Risk Taking.

Each student has different personality in language learning that can

affect his/her achievement. One of the crucial personality factors is risk-

taking. Students who have high risk taking will be very enthusiatic in learning

other languages and their parts, no matter what kinds of techniques the

teachers use. They will be encouraged if the teacher offers a chance to them

to involve actively in learning process. They are motivated to learn and they

develop a sense of self-confidence in learning. They are more actively

involved in speaking class. Moreover, this student will also deem themselves

as language learner in the class by being eager and brave to try out new

information and explore their own ideas.

They are also brave to interact with others in the speaking class activity

without putting the primary focus on success or failure. Thus, the students

who have high risk taking will yield positive result in language learning. Risk

taking will lead students to engage in the cumulative learning activities that

lead in turn to longer-term success. Risk takers tend to rehearse. They tolerate


commit to user

lx

vagueness, and are not worried about using difficult things and getting them

wrong. Then, they do not hesitate to take risks.

Meanwhile, the students who have low risk taking are the students who

have problem with fear of making a mistake, so that they tend to be more

passive and do not want to show up their capability. When they make a

mistake, they are daunted by the possible consequences of being laughed at.

Because of lack of willingness to take risks, they will choose to feel

safe by staying within patterns that accomplish the desired function

eventhough there may be some errors in those patterns. Therefore, those

students may fall behind other active students because their language ego,

confidence, and general self-esteem. They will become unsuccessful language

learners.

Based on short explanation above, the writer assumes that students who

have high risk taking will have better speaking skill than those who have low

risk taking.

3. The Interaction between Teaching Technique and The Students’ Risk Taking

in Teaching Speaking.

It has been a general concept that the success of teaching and learning

process is determined by many factors such as teaching technique and

students’ risk taking. Teaching technique that is used by a teacher in class

will influence the learning process and the students’ output. So, when the

teachers select the teaching techniques, they should be careful to find out the

appropriate teaching technique in a certain class, because every class has


commit to user

lxi

different students’ characteristic. To teach speaking class, the teacher can use

communicative group activity. Communicative group activity is more

appropriate to teach speaking. This technique will put the teacher not only as

facilitator, but also as organizer, and consultant for the students engage in

doing activity in speaking class.

This technique also gives students opportunity to be more active,

creative, and feels free in exploring their own ideas or capacities in their

mind. This technique will be used very effectively for the students who have

high risk taking, because the technique is not only concerned with students’

academic achievement, but also students’ risk taking to study English,

students’ activities, and students’ motivation to practice inside and outside the

class.

Theoretically, risk taking contributes a lot to the students’ improvement

in learning process, including speaking skill. If the students have a high risk

taking, they will be more active to participate in speaking class activities.

Thus, it can be concluded that communicative group activity is more effective

than guided conversation activity to teach speaking to students who have low

risk taking.

On the other hand, guided conversation activity does not give many

opportunities for students to be free and creative to explore their speaking

skill. Teacher is the supplier of ideas to the students. This technique does not

promote students’creativity, thinking, and exploring the language. The

students depend on the teacher as the centrality. This technique will be more


commit to user

lxii

effective if it is used for the students who have low risk taking. They can

correct directly when they make mistakes, then, they tend to be learners who

need guidance, modelling, and support in their learning process. They depend

on their community, in this case, their teacher, to develop their cognitive

domain. So, the learners need to be taught using guided conversation activity

to improve their speaking skill. Thereby, it can be concluded that guided

conversation activity is more effective than communicative group activity to

teach speaking to students who have low risk taking.

Based on the description above, the writer assumes that there is an

interaction between teaching techniques and risk taking in teaching speaking.

G. Hypothesis

After discussing the theoritical review and rationale, the hypotheses of the

study are:

1. Communicative group activity is more effective than guided conversation

activity in teaching speaking at the second semester students of STKIP

PGRI Pontianak in the academic year of 2011/2012.

2. Students with high risk taking have better speaking skill than students with

low risk taking at the second semester students of STKIP PGRI Pontianak in

the academic year of 2011/2012.

3. There is interaction between teaching techniques and the students’ risk

taking in teaching speaking at the second semester students of STKIP PGRI

Pontianak in the academic year of 2011/2012.


commit to user

lxiii

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLGY

In this chapter, the writer explains the research methodology including: (1) the

setting and time of the research; (2) the type of the research; (3) the population, sample,

and sampling of the research; (4) the technique of collecting data; and (5) the technique of

analyzing data.

A. The Setting and Time of the Research

1. The Setting of the Research

The research was conducted at the second semester students of English

Department in STKIP PGRI Pontianak which is located at Jl. Ilham No. 45

Pontianak. The office is located in the suburb of Pontianak city. It has nice

atmosphere to learn because it is far away from a noisy place.

The facilities in the campuss to support the teaching and learning activities

are library and computer language laboratory. In addition, there are

extracurricular activities, such as English club, debate, and newsletter. There

are sixteen classes in the campus for English Department which consist of four

classes for each of grades or years. Then, there are approximately about 30

students for each class.


commit to user

lxiv

2. The Time of the Research

In this research, the experimental research was conducted for a year from

June 2011 up to June 2012. The schedules are as follows:

Table 3.1

Time Schedule of the Research

No Activity

Time Schedule

Jun

‘11

Des

‘11

Jan

‘12

Feb

‘12

Mar

‘12

Apr

‘12

May

‘12

Jun

‘12

1 Designing research proposal √ √

2 Seminar on research proposal √

3 Developing research instrument √

4 Doing the experiment and collecting

data √ √

5 Writing research Report √ √ √

6 Submitting Research Report √


commit to user

lxv

B. The Research Method

The research method that used in this research was experimental study.

Fraenkel and Wallen (1997: 97) explain that “the basic concept of experimental

research is something that is used to determine its effect”. There are two variables in

this research: independent variables are communicative group activity and guided

conversation activity, and risk taking. And then, the dependent variable is speaking

skill.

The research was executed with factorial design 2x2 and its factors consist of

teaching techniques and risk taking. Donald (1989: 249) defines that a factorial design

is one in which two or more variables are manipulated simultaneously in order to

study the independent effect of each variable on the dependent variable as well as the

effect due to interactions among the several variables.

The research design can be viewed from the table below (Ngadiso, 2006:

19):

Table 3.2

Research Design of ANOVA 2x2

Teaching Techniques (A)

Ss’ Risk Taking (B)

Communicative Group Activity

(A1)

Guided Conversation Activity (A2)

High (B1) A1B1 A2B1

Low (B2) A1B2 A2B2


commit to user

lxvi

Note:

Independent variable : teaching techniques (Communicative Group Activity and

(Guided Conversation Activity)

Experimental group : the class taught by Communicative Group Activity

Control group : the class taught by Guided Conversation Activity

Dependent variable : speaking skill

Moderator variable : students’ Risk Taking

Where:

A1 : the scores of speaking test of experimental class which is taught by using

Communicative Group Activity

A2 : the scores of speaking test of control class which is taught by using Guided

Conversation Activity

B1 : the scores of speaking test of students having high Risk Taking

B2 : the scores of speaking test of students having low Risk Taking

A1B1 : the scores of speaking test of students having high Risk Taking who are

taught by using Communicative Group Activity.

A1B2 : the scores of speaking test of students having low Risk Taking who are

taught by using Communicative Group Activity.


commit to user

lxvii

A2B1 : the scores of speaking test of students having high Risk Taking who are

taught by using Guided Conversation Activity.

A2B2 : the scores of speaking test of students having low Risk Taking who are

taught by using Guided Conversation Activity.

C. The Population, Sample, and Sampling of the Research

1. Population

Arikunto (2002: 108) states that “population is overall subjects of the

research.” Furthermore, Sugiyono (2006: 117) implies that population consists

of subjects or objects which have certain characteristics selected through

certain way. In this case, the research took second semester of English

Department students of STKIP-PGRI Pontianak in which consisted of four

classes as the population. There were approximately about 30 students for each

class.

2. Sample

For this research, there were two classes as the sample. The first class was

used as the experimental group that was taught by using communicative group

activity and the other one was a control group that was taught by using guided

conversation activity. Based on the student’s risk taking, median used to

devide both experimental class and control class into two groups (high and low

risk taking)


commit to user

lxviii

3. Sampling

Sampling is the technique used to get sample (Sutrisno Hadi, 1986: 222). It

means that sampling is a way to take sample from population. The sampling

technique used by the researcher was cluster random sampling. Cluster random

sampling (Singh, 2006: 89) is used to select a group as a whole.

In this research, the first step in sampling was to define the population.

Afterwards, a sample or representative group of the population was taken

randomly as respondents. Then, the sample was classified into experimental

group and the other as control group by using lottery.

Therefore, they were four groups: (a) students having high risk taking who

were taught by using Communicative Group Activity; (b) students having high

risk taking who were taught by using Guided Conversation Activity; (c)

students having low risk taking who were taught by using Communicative

Group Activity; and (d) students having low risk taking who were taught by

using Guided Conversation Activity.

D. The Technique of Collecting Data

In collecting the data, the researcher used two kinds of instruments, i.e. the

questionnaire and test. The questionnaire was used to reveal the students’ risk

taking. Based on the data obtained, the students from both experimental and control

group were classified into students with high risk taking and the ones with low risk

taking.

The risk taking questionnaire was tried out before it had been used to know

the risk taking of experimental and control group. It aimed for getting information

dealing with the characteristics of the questionnaire. A good questionnaire must


commit to user

lxix

guarantee the validity and reliability of the result as the aspects of accuracy of the

instrument.

The formula of validity and reliability of the questionnaire test are as follows

(Ngadiso, 2006: 2):

1. Validity

ê平= ∑铺腮铺搔瞬试∑铺腮潜守试铺搔潜守 where

1) rit = coefficient of validity

2) xx tiå = total of item variance

3) åxi 2

= total of all variance item

4) åxt 2

= total variance

in which:

nxs t

t

å= 22

The analysis result of the computation ro is compared to rt, if ro > rt the

items are valid

In this research, there were 40 items of Risk Taking Test. After trying the

items out, the researcher analyzed the validity of the test. The result of validity

computation showed that there were 28 valid items. Finally, the researcher used 28

valid items as an instrument for testing students’ risk taking.


commit to user

lxx

2. Reliability

÷÷÷

ø

ö

ççç

è

æ-

-= å

2

2

11 t

ikk

s

s

kk

r

Where:

kkr = coefficient of reliability

k = total of valid items

åsi

2

= total variance of all items

åst

2 = total variance

The analysis result of the computation ro is compared to rt, if ro > rt the

instrument is reliable.

In the reliability computation, the researcher found that the coefficient of

reliability of risk taking questionnaire is 0.900. it is higher than r-table for N = 30

at level of significance (0.361). It means that the wuestionnaire is reliable

To get the data of students speaking skill, the researcher used speaking test.

The technique of the test were role play and oral presentation. Before

administering a test to the students, the researcher firstly checked the readibility of


commit to user

lxxi

the instrument. Readibility is defined as reading ease. To know the readibility of

the speaking test, the researcher, firstly, tried out to the students who were not the

members of experimental or control group to read and understand the meaning of

the instruction of the speaking test. By cheking the readibility level, the researcher

knew whether the instruction was too simple or too complex for the readers.

Furthermore, in assesing the students speaking test, the researcher took one of the

lecturers in the campus as an inter-rater to keep the validity of speaking result.

To score the students speaking test, the researcher used analytical scoring

rubric. Analytic scoring may be more appropriately called analytic assesment in

order to capture its closed association with classroom language instruction than

formal testing. Weir (1998: 147) designs an analitycal scale for oral test that

specifies five major categories and a description of four different levels in each

category.

a. Fluency

1) Utterances halting, fragmentary and incoherent

2) Utterances hesitant and often incomplete except in a few stock remark and

responses

3) Sign of developing attempts at using cohesive devices, especially

conjunction

4) Utterances, whilst occasionally, are characterized by an evenness and flow

hindered, very occasionally, by grouping, rehrasing and circumlocutions.

Inter-sentential connectors are used effectively as fillers.


commit to user

lxxii

b. Grammar

1) Unable to function in the spoken langauge; almost all grammatical patterns

inaccurate, except for a few stock phrases

2) Syntax is fragmanted and there are frequent grammatical inaccuracies;

some patterns maybe mastered but speech maybe characterized by a

telegraphic style and confusion of structural elements.

3) Some grammatical inaccuracies; developing a control of major patterns,

but sometimes unable to sustain coherence in longer utterances

4) Almost no grammatical inaccuracies; occasional imperfect control of a few

patterns.

c. Vocabulary

1) Vocabulary is adequate even for the most basic parts of the intended

communication

2) Vocabulary limited to that necessary to express simple elemantary needs;

inadequacy of vocabulary restrict topic of interaction to the most basic;

perhaps frequent lexical in accuarcies and/or excessive repetition.

3) Some misunderstanding may arise through lexical inadequacy or

inaccuracy; hesitation and circumlocution are frequent, through there are

signs of developing active vocabulary.

4) Almost no inadequacies or inaccuracies in vocabulary for the task

d. Pronunciation

1) Severe and constant rhytm, intonation and pronunciation problems cause

almost complete unintelligibiity


commit to user

lxxiii

2) Strong inference from L1 in rhytm, intonation and pronunciation;

understanding is difficult, and achieved only after frequent repetition

3) Rhytm, intonation and pronunciation require concentrated listening, but

only occasional misundertsanding is caused or repetition required

4) Articulation is reasonably comprehensible to native speaker; there may be

a mark “foreign accent” but all most no understanding is caused and

repetition required only infrequetly.

e. Content of idea

1) Response irrelevant to the task set; totally inadequate response

2) Response of limited relevance to the task set; possibly major gap and/or

pointless repetition

3) Response for the most part relevant to the task set, though there maybe

some gaps or redundancy

4) Relevant and adequate response to the task set.

E. The Technique of Analyzing Data

The data were collected to examine the effects of teaching techniques in this

research based on the score of the oral speaking test. The data were arranged and

classified into some categories to make the frequency distribution table, histogram,

and polygons. After knowing the histogram and polygon, it was continued to analyze

the normality and homogeneity of the data as follows:

1. Normality of the data

1) s = Ú∑铺潜呛纵Ʃ阮邹潜叁坡能囊

2) z1= 撇能撇呻魄

3) F(z1)=0.5-(TableE)


commit to user

lxxiv

4) s(z1) = 囊坡

5) Lo = F(z1)-s(z1)

2. Data Homogeneity

1) s12=

∑撇前潜呛纵Ʃ阮前邹潜叁坡能囊

2) s22=

∑撇潜潜呛纵Ʃ阮潜邹潜叁坡能囊

3) s32=

∑撇遣潜呛纵Ʃ阮遣邹潜叁坡能囊

4) s42=

∑撇浅潜呛纵Ʃ阮浅邹潜叁坡能囊

5) s2={Ʃ(ni-1)si2/Ʃ (ni-1)}

6) logs2 = …

7) B =( logs2)Ʃ(ni-1)

8) x2 = (In10){B – Ʃ (ni-1)logsi2}

3. Hypothesis test

a. The researcher used ANOVA (2X2) to analyze the data as follows:

1) The total sum of squares:

( )

å å å-=N

XXx t

tt

2

22

2) The sum of squares within groups.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

NX

nX

nX

nX

nX

x tb

2

4

24

3

23

2

22

1

212 -+++=å

3) The sum of squares within groups:

å å å-= 222btw xxx


commit to user

lxxv

4) The between-columns sum of scores:

( ) ( ) ( )

N

X

n

X

n

Xx t

c

c

c

cbc

2

2

2

2

1

2

12 åååå -+=

5) The between-rows sum of scores:

( ) ( ) ( )

N

X

n

X

n

Xx t

r

r

r

rbr

2

2

2

2

1

2

12 åååå -+=

6) The sum of squares interaction:

( )å å åå +-= 222int brbcb xxxx

7) The number of degrees of freedom associated with each

scores of variation:

df for between-columns sum of squares = C – 1

df for between-rows sum of squares = R – 1

df for interaction = (C – 1) (R – 1)

df for between-groups sum of squares = G – 1

df for within-groups sum of squares = ( )å -1n

df for total sum of squares = N – 1


commit to user

lxxvi

where

C = the number of columns

R = the number of rows

G = the number of groups

N = the number of subjects in all groups

n = the number of subjects in one group

Table 3.3

Summary of a 2 x 2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance

Source of variance SS Df MS (MS = ǥǥ焦交) Fo Ft(0,5) Ft(0,1)

Between Columns

Between rows

Columns by rows (interaction)

Between groups

Within groups

Total

b. The Tuckey Test

Tuckey’s test is done to look for 0q which is found by comparing

the difference between the means by the square root of the ratio of

the within group variation and sample size. The general formula is

as follows :


commit to user

lxxvii

1) Comparing two means from two groups (A1 and A2)

Communicative Group Activity is compared to Guided

Conversation Activity (between columns)

nnceErrorVaria

XXq

cc 21 -=

2) Comparing two means from two groups (B1 and B2)

Students having high risk taking is compared to students having

low risk taking (between rows)

nnceErrorVaria

XXq

rr 21 -=

3) Comparing two means between A1B1 and A2B1


Conversation Activity for students having high risk taking

nnceErrorVaria

XXq

rcrc 2111 -=

4) Comparing two means between A1B2 and A2B2


Conversation Activity for students having low risk taking


commit to user

lxxviii

nnceErrorVaria

XXq

rcrc 2221 -=

or

nnceErrorVaria

XXq

rcrc 2212 -=

The analysis result of the computation 0q is compared to tq , if

tqq >0 , the difference is significant; and to know which one

was better, the means are compared.

c. Statistical Hypotheses

In this research, the researcher proposed three

hypotheses. These hypotheses were based on the formulation of the

problems. They were:

1) The difference between Communicative Group Activity (Ǘ囊) and

Guided Conversation Activity (Ǘ挠) to teach speaking for the

students.

a. 寡泼:幌霹前= 幌霹潜 Note: Ho means that there is no difference between

Communicative Group Activity (A1) and Guided

Conversation Activity (A2) to teach speaking for the

students.

b. 寡频:幌霹前> 幌霹潜


commit to user

lxxix

Note: Ha means that Communicative Group Activity is more

effective than Guided Conversation Activity to teach

speaking for the students.

2) The difference between students who have high risk taking (g囊)

and those who have low risk taking (g挠).

Note:

a. 寡泼:幌批前= 幌批潜 Note: Ho means that there is no difference between students

who have high risk taking (B1) and students who have

low risk taking (B2).

b. 寡频:幌批前> 幌批潜 Note: Ha means that the students who have high risk taking

(B1) have better speaking skill than the students who

have low risk taking (B2).

3) Interaction between the teaching techniques used (Communicative

Group Activity and Guided Conversation Activity) (A) and risk

taking (B) in teaching speaking for the students.

a. 寡泼:Ǘng = 0

Note: Ho means that there is no interaction between the

teaching techniques used (Communicative Group

Activity and Guided Conversation Activity) (A) and

risk taking (B) in teaching speaking for the students


commit to user

lxxx

b. 寡频:Ǘng > 0

Note: Ha means that there is an interaction between the

teaching techniques used (Communicative Group

Activity and Guided Conversation Activity) (A) and

risk taking (B) in teaching speaking for the students.


commit to user

lxxxi

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The data gained from a research field which are analyzed to get the

clear conclusion. The steps that are taken can be classified as the following

steps: (1) Data description; (2) Data analysis; (3) Testing Hypotheses; and

(4) Discussion. These four steps can be classified clearly as follows:

A. Data Description

For analyzing the data, first of all the researcher evaluated the

results of the students’ speaking test by giving some scores based on the

scoring rubric of speaking. In evaluating the students’ speaking test, the

researcher did it with her partner (inter-rater) to avoid the subjectivity factor

in giving the scores. Next, the scores from each evaluator were combined

and then they were divided by two. The average results are the data to be

analyzed. For the experimental class, the highest score is 87 and the lowest

score is 50. For the control class, the highest score is 82 and the lowest score

is 48.

After collecting the data from the experimental group and control

group in the form of scores, then the researcher ranked the students’

scores based on the students’ highest risk taking to the lowest ones.

After that, the researcher classified them into some categories to make the

table of frequency distribution, finally analyzed them using ANOVA or


commit to user

lxxxii

analysis of variance. The frequency distribution is divided into 8 groups. The

first group is the students who are taught using communicat ive group

act ivity (A1); the second group is those who are taught using guided

conversation activity (A2); the third group is those having high risk

taking towards English (B1); the fourth group is those having low risk taking

towards English (B2); the fifth group is those having high risk taking who

are taught using communicative group activity (A1B1); the sixth group is

those having low risk taking who are taught using communicative group

activity (A1B2); the seventh group is those having high risk taking who are

taught using guided conversation activity (A2B1); and the last group is those

having low risk taking who are taught using guided conversation activity

(A2B2).

The followings are the frequency distribution tables, histograms, and

the polygons of students’ scores:

1. The students who are taught using communicative group activity (A1)

The students’ scores are: 87, 85, 85, 85, 84,81, 79, 79, 79, 78, 78, 76,

75, 75, 75, 74, 70, 70, 68, 65, 64, 64, 63, 63, 58, 53, 53, 52, 52, and 50.

Based on the calculation result of scores of the students who are taught

using communicative group activity, the highest score achieved by the

student is 87 and the lowest score is 50, so the range (r) is 37. The number

of classes used is 6, and the class width (interval) used is 8. The mean is

70.83, the mode is 78.07, the median is 74.22 and the standard deviation is

11.13.


commit to user

lxxxiii

Then, the frequency distribution, histogram, and polygon can be seen

in the following table and figure:

Table 4.1 Frequency distribution A1

Class Limit Class Boundaries Mid Point Tally Frequency Percentage

50 – 57 49.5 - 57.5 53.5 IIII 5 17%

58 – 65 57.5 - 65.5 61.5 IIII I 6 20%

66 – 73 65.5 - 73.5 69.5 III 3 10%

74 – 81 73.5 - 81.5 77.5 IIII IIII I 11 37%

82 – 89 81.5 - 89.5 85.5 IIII 5 17%

90 – 97 89.5 - 97.5 93.5 0 0%

30 100%


commit to user

lxxxiv

Figure 4.1

Polygon and Histogram of A1

2. The students who are taught using guided conversation activity (A2)

The students’ scores are: 82, 80, 80, 79, 77, 77, 75, 75, 74, 73, 73,

70, 68, 68, 66, 65, 63, 63, 62, 62, 60, 55, 54, 52, 52, 50, 49, 48, and 48.

Based on the calculation result of scores of the students who are taught

using guided conversation activity, the highest score achieved by the

student is 82 and the lowest score is 48, so the range (r) is 34. The number

of classes used is 6, and the class width (interval) used is 7. The mean is

65.70, the mode is 67.50, the median is 66.75 and the standard deviation is

10.13.

Then, the frequency distribution, histogram, and polygon can be seen

in the following table and figure:

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Freq

uenc

y

Class Boundaries

49.5 57.5 65.5 73.5 81.5 89.5 97.5


commit to user

lxxxv

Table 4.2 Frequency distribution A2

Class limit Class Boundaries Mid Point Tally Frequency Percentage

48 - 54 47.5 - 54.5 51 IIII II 7 23%

55 - 61 54.5 - 61.5 58 II 2 7%

62 - 68 61.5 - 68.5 65 IIII III 8 27%

69 - 75 68.5 - 75.5 72 IIII II 7 23%

76 - 82 75.5 - 82.5 79 IIII I 6 20%

83 - 88 82.5 - 88.5 85 0 0%

30 100%

Figure 4.2 Polygon and Histogram of A2

0123456789

Freq

uenc

y

Class Boundaries

47.5 54.5 61.5 68.5 75.5 82.5 88.5


commit to user

lxxxvi

3. The students having high risk taking (B1)

The students’ scores are: 87, 85, 85, 85, 84,80, 79, 79, 79, 78, 78, 76,

75, 75, 75, 74, 73, 73, 70, 68, 65, 63, 62, 62, 60, 54, 52, 50, 48, and 48.

Based on the calculation result of scores of the students having high risk

taking, the highest score achieved by the student is 87 and the lowest score

is 48, so the range (r) is 39. The number of classes used is 6, and the class

width (interval) used is 8. The mean is 70.17, the mode is 76.3, the median

is 73.5 and the standard deviation is 11.18. Then, the frequency

distribution, histogram, and polygon can be seen in the following table and

figure:

Table 4.3 Frequency distribution B1


48 – 55 47.5 - 55.5 51.5 IIII 5 17%

56 – 63 55.5 - 63.5 59.5 IIII 4 13%

64 - 71 63.5 - 71.5 67.5 III 3 10%

72 - 79 71.5 - 79.5 75.5 IIII IIII II 12 40%

80 - 87 79.5 - 87.5 83.5 IIII I 6 20%

88 - 95 87.5 - 95.5 91.5 0 0%

30 100%


commit to user

lxxxvii

Figure 4.3 Polygon and Histogram of B1

4. The students having low risk taking (B2)

The students’ scores are: 82, 81, 80, 79, 77, 77, 75, 75, 75, 74, 70, 70,

68, 68, 66, 65, 64, 64, 63, 63, 63, 58, 55, 53, 53, 53, 52, 52, 50, and 49.

Based on the calculation result of scores of the students having low risk

taking, the highest score achieved by the student is 82 and the lowest score

is 49, so the range (r) is 33. The number of classes used is 6, and the class

width (interval) used is 7. The mean is 66.23, the mode is 67.59, the

median is 67.16 and the standard deviation is 10.31. Then, the frequency

distribution, histogram, and polygon can be seen in the following table and

figure:

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Freq

uenc

y

Class Boundaries

47.5 55.5 63.5 71.5 79.5 87.5 95.5


commit to user

lxxxviii

Table 4.4 Frequency distribution B2

Class limit

Limit

Class Boundaries

Mid Point

Midpoint

Tally

Tally

Frequency

Frequency

Percentage

Percentage 49 - 55 48.5 - 55.5 52 IIII III 8 27%

56 - 62 55.5 - 62.5 59 I 1 3%

63 - 69 62.5 - 69.5 66 IIII IIII 9 30%

70 - 76 69.5 - 76.5 73 IIII I 6 20%

77 - 83 76.5 - 83.5 80 IIII I 6 20%

84 - 90 83.5 - 90.5 87 0 0%

30 100%

Figure 4.4 Polygon and Histogram of B2

0123456789

10

Freq

uenc

y

Class Boundaries

48.5 55.5 62.5 69.5 76.5 83.5 90.5


commit to user

lxxxix

5. The students having high risk taking who are taught using communicative

group activity (A1B1)


75, 75, 74, and 68. Based on the calculation result of scores of the students

having high risk taking who are taught using communicative group activity,

the highest score achieved by the student is 87 and the lowest score is 68,

so the range (r) is 19. The number of classes used is 5, and the class width

(interval) used is 4. The mean is 78.83, the mode is 76.83, the median is

77.83 and the standard deviation is 5.38. Then, the frequency distribution,

histogram, and polygon can be seen in the following table and figure:

Table 4.5 Frequency distribution (A1B1)


68 - 71 67.5 - 71.5 69.5 I 1 7%

72 - 75 71.5 - 75.5 73.5 III 3 20%

76 - 79 75.5 - 79.5 77.5 IIII I 6 40%

80 - 83 79.5 - 83.5 81.5 0 0%

84 - 87 83.5 - 87.5 85.5 IIII 5 33%

15 100%


commit to user

xc

Figure 4.5 Polygon and Histogram of (A1B1)

6. The students having low risk taking who are taught using communicative

group activity (A1B2)



having low risk taking who are taught using communicative group activity,






0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Freq

uenc

y

Class Boundaries

67.5 71.5 75.5 79.5 83.5 87.5


commit to user

xci



50 – 56 49.5 - 56.5 53 IIII 5 33%

57 – 63 56.5 - 63.5 60 III 3 20%

64 – 70 63.5 - 70.5 67 IIII 5 33%

71 – 77 70.5 - 77.5 74 I 1 7%

78 – 84 77.5 - 84.5 81 I 1 7%

15 100%


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Freq

uenc

y

Class Boundaries

49.5 56.5 63.5 70.5 77.5 84.5


commit to user

xcii

7. The students having high risk taking who are taught using guided

conversation activity (A2B1)



having high risk taking who are taught using guided conversation activity,








48 - 54 47.5 - 54.5 51 IIII 5 33%

55 - 61 54.5 - 61.5 58 I 1 7%

62 - 68 61.5 - 68.5 65 IIII 4 27%

69 - 75 68.5 - 75.5 72 IIII 4 27%

76 - 82 75.5 - 82.5 79 I 1 7%

15 100%


commit to user

xciii


8. The students having low risk taking who are taught using guided

conversation activity (A2B2)



having low risk taking who are taught using guided conversation, the

highest score achieved by the student is 81 and the lowest score is 49, so

the range (r) is 32. The number of classes used is 5, and the class width

(interval) used is 7. The mean is 69.27, the mode is 82.50, the median is 72

and the standard deviation is 9.59. Then, the frequency distribution,


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Freq

uenc

y

Class Boundaries

47.5 54.5 61.5 68.5 75.5 82.5


commit to user

xciv


Class Limit

Limit

Class Boundaries

Mid Point

Midpoint

Tally

Tally

Frequency

Frequency

Percentage

Percentage 49 - 55 48.5 - 55.5 52 III 3 20%

56 - 62 55.5 - 62.5 59 0 0%

63 - 69 62.5 - 69.5 66 IIII 4 27%

70 - 76 69.5 - 76.5 73 III 3 20%

77 - 83 76.5 - 83.5 80 IIII 5 33%

15 100%

Figure 4.8

Polygon and Histogram of (A2B2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Freq

uenc

y

Class Boundaries

48.5 55.5 62.5 69.5 76.5 83.5


commit to user

xcv

B. Data Analysis

1. Normality Test

a. Normality test of scores of the students who are taught using

communicative group activity (A1)

Based on the calculation result scores of the students who are

taught using communicative group activity, the highest value of Lo

(L obtained) is 0.11. From the table of critical value of Liliefors test

with the students’ number (N) = 30 at the significance level α = 0.05,

the score of Lt is 0.161. Because Lo is lower than Lt or Lo (0.11) < Lt

(0.161), it can be concluded that the data are in normal distribution.

b. Normality test of scores of the students who are taught using guided

conversation activity (A2)

Based on the calculation result scores of the students who are

taught using guided conversation activity, the highest value of Lo (L

obtained) is 0.08. From the table of critical value of Liliefors test with

the students’ number (N) = 30 at the significance level α = 0.05, the

score of Lt is 0.161. Because Lo is lower than Lt or Lo (0.08) < Lt

(0.161), it can be concluded that the data are in normal distribution

c. Normality test of scores of the students having high risk taking (B1)

Based on the calculation result scores of the students having

high risk taking, the highest value of Lo (L obtained) is 0.11. From the

table of critical value of Liliefors test with the students’ number (N) =

30 at the significance level α = 0.05, the score of Lt is 0.161. Because


commit to user

xcvi

Lo is lower than Lt or Lo (0.11) < Lt (0.161), it can be concluded that

the data are in normal distribution

d. Normality test of scores of the students having low risk taking (B2)

Based on the calculation result scores of the students low risk

taking, the highest value of Lo (L obtained) is 0.09. From the table of

critical value of Liliefors test with the students’ number (N) = 30 at

the significance level α = 0.05, the score of Lt is 0.161. Because Lo is

lower than Lt or Lo (0.09) < Lt (0.161), it can be concluded that the

data are in normal distribution.

e. Normality test of scores of the students having high risk taking who

are taught using communicative group activity (A1B1)


high risk taking who are taught using communicative group activity,

the highest value of Lo (L obtained) is 0.09. From the table of critical

value of Liliefors test with the students’ number (N) = 15 at the

significance level α = 0.05, the score of Lt is 0.220. Because Lo is



f. Normality test of scores of the students having low risk taking who

are taught using communicative group activity (A1B2)


low risk taking who are taught using communicative group activity,

the highest value of Lo (L obtained) is 0.03. From the table of critical


commit to user

xcvii





g. Normality test of scores of the students having high risk taking who

are taught guided conversation activity (A2B1)


high risk taking who are taught using guided conversation activity, the

highest value of Lo (L obtained) is 0.04. From the table of critical





h. Normality test of scores of the students having low risk taking who

are taught using guided conversation activity (A2B1)


low risk taking who are taught using guided conversation activity, the

highest value of Lo (L obtained) is 0.14. From the table of critical






commit to user

xcviii

Table 4.9 Summary of Normality Test

No. Data No. of Sample (Lo) (Lt) (α) Status 1. A1 30 0.11 0.161 0.05 Normal 2. A2 30 0.08 0.161 0.05 Normal 3. B1 30 0.11 0.161 0.05 Normal 4. B2 30 0.09 0.161 0.05 Normal 5. A1B1 15 0.09 0.220 0.05 Normal 6. A1B2 15 0.03 0.220 0.05 Normal 7. A2B1 15 0.04 0.220 0.05 Normal 8. A2B2 15 0.14 0.220 0.05 Normal

2. Homogeneity Test

Homegeneity was conducted to know whether or not the data

homogenous. The data can be said as homogenous if χú2 is lower than χ疟2 (0.05). The result of the data analysis is as follows:

Table 4.10 Summary of Homogeneity Test

Sample Df 1/df s12 Log s1

2 (df)log s1

2 1 14 0.07 27.55 1.44 20.16 2 14 0.07 85.6 1.93 27.05 3 14 0.07 107.95 2.033 28.46 4 14 0.07 110.38 2.042 28.60

56 0.28

104.28


commit to user

xcix

Based on the data homogeneity test above, it can be seen that the score of χú2 is 7.24. From the table of Chi-Square distribution with the

significance level α = 0,05, the score of χ疟2 0.95(3) is 7.815. Because χú2

(7.24) is lower than χ疟2 0.95(3) (7.815) or χú2 (7.24) < χ疟2 0.95(3) (7.815).

It can be concluded that the data are homogenous.

C. Testing Hypothesis

The calculation of data which is conducted by using Multifactor Analysis

of Variance (ANOVA) 2 x 2 is done after the result of normality and

homogeneity test are calculated and fulfilled. In ANOVA, Ho is rejected if Fo

is higher than Ft (Fo > Ft) which also means that there is a significant

difference and interaction.

Furthermore, to test the significant difference of each mean, the researcher

uses Tuckey test. To know which one is better, the mean scores of the group

are compared. The 2 x 2 ANOVA test can be seen as follows:

Table 4.11 Summary of a 2 x 2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance

Source of Variance SS df MS Fo Ft₍₀.₀₅₎ Between columns (Technique) 350.42 1 350.412 4.23 4.00 Between rows (Risk Taking) 370.02 1 370.02 4.46

Columns by rows (Interaction) 2148.02 1 2148.02 25.92

Between groups 2868.45 3 956.15 11.54 Within groups 4640.80 56 82.87

Total 7509.25 59


commit to user

c

Table 4.12 Mean Scores

A1 A2

B1 79.13 62.33 70.73 B2 62.20 69.33 65.77

70.67 65.83

From the computation result of ANOVA test, it can be concluded that:

1. The score of Fo betwen columns is 4.23 and the score of Ft at the level of

significance α = 0.05 is 4.00. Because Fo > Ft or Fo (4.23) is higher than Ft

(4.00), the difference between columns is significant. In other words,

there is significant difference on students’ speaking skill between those

who are taught using communicative group activity and those who are

taught using guided conversation activity. It means that Ho which states

that communicative group activity does not differ significantly from

guided conversation activity in their effect on students speaking

achivement in the experiment is rejected. Based on the calculation of the

mean score, the mean score of the students who are taught using

communicative group activity (70.67) is higher than that of those who are

taught using guided conversation activity (65.83). Thus, it can be

concluded that communicative group activity is more effective than

guided conversation activity to teach speaking.


commit to user

ci

2. The score of Fo betwen rows is 4.46 and the score of Ft at the level of

significance α = 0.05 is 4.00. Because Fo > Ft or Fo (4.46) is higher than Ft

(4.00), the difference between rows is significant. In other words, there is

significant difference on students’ speaking skill between those who have

high risk taking and low risk taking. It means that Ho which states that

students who have high risk taking do not differ from students who have

low risk taking in their effect on students’ speaking achievement in the

experiment is rejected. Based on the calculation of the mean score, the

mean score of the students who have high risk taking (70.73) is higher

than that of those who are taught using guided conversation class activity

(65.77). Thus, it can be concluded that the students who have high risk

taking have better speaking skill than those who have low risk taking.

3. The score of Fo betwen columns by rows is 25.92 and the score of Ft at

the level of significance α = 0.05 is 4.00. Because Fo > Ft or Fo (25.92) is

higher than Ft (4.00), there is interaction between teching techniques and

students’ risk taking. It means that Ho which states that there is no

interaction between the two variables, teaching techniques and students’

risk taking is rejected.

In other words, it can be said that the effect of teaching techniques on the

students speaking skill depends on the students’ of risk taking.


commit to user

cii

Furthermore, the researcher uses Tuckey test to see the difference of

each mean. The following is the result of analysis of the data using

Tuckey test:

Table 4.13 Summary of Tuckey

No Data Sample qo qt A Status

1 A1 and A2 60 4.11 2.83 0.05 Significant

2 B1 and B2 60 4.22 2.83 0.05 Significant

3 A1B1and A2B1 30 10.10 2.89 0.05 Significant

4 A1B2and A2B2 30 4.29 2.89 0.05 Significant

Based on the table above, it can be known that:

1. The score of qo between columns is 4.11 and the score of qt of

Tuckey’s table at the level of significance α = 0.05 is 2.83. Because

qo > qt or qo (4.11) is higher than qt (2.83), it can be concluded that

there is a significant difference on the students’ speaking skill

between those who are taught using communicative group activity

and those who are taught using guided conversation activity.

Meanwhile, based on the calculation result, the mean of the students

who are taught using communicative group activity (70.67) is higher

than that of those who are taught using guided conversation activity

(65.83), it can be concluded that communicative group activity is

more effective than guided conversation activity to teach speaking.


commit to user

ciii

2. The score of qo between rows is 4.22 and the score of qt of Tuckey’s

table at the level of significance α = 0.05 is 2.83. Because qo > qt or

qo (4.22) is higher than qt (2.83), it can be concluded that there is a

significant difference on the students’ speaking skill between those

who have high risk taking and those who have low risk taking. Based

on the calculation result, the mean of the students who have high risk

taking (70.73) is higher than that of those who have low risk taking

(65.77), it can be concluded that the students who have high risk

taking have better speaking skill than those who have low risk taking.

3. The score of qo between cells A1B1and A2B1 is 10.10 and the score of

qt of Tuckey’s table at the level of significance α = 0.05 is 2.89.

Because qo > qt or qo (10.10) is higher than qt (2.89), it can be

concluded that there is a significant difference on the students’

speaking skill of the students having high risk taking between those

who are taught using communicative group activity and those who

are taught using guided conversation activity. Meanwhile , the mean

score of A1B1 (79.13) is higher than A2B1 (62.33), it can be

concluded that communicative group activity is more effective than

guided conversation activity to teach speaking for the students who

have high risk taking.


commit to user

civ

4. The score of qo between cells A1B2 and A2 B2 is 4.29 and the score of

qt of Tuckey’s table at the level of significance α = 0.05 is 2.89.

Because qo > qt or qo (4.29) is higher than qt (2.89), it can be

concluded that there is a significant difference on the students’

speaking skill of the students having low risk taking between those

who are taught using communicative group activity and those who

are taught using guided conversation activity. Meanwhile, the mean

score of A1B2 (62.20) is lower than A2B2 (69.33), it can be

concluded that guided conversation activity is more effective than

communicative group activity to teach speaking for the students who

have low risk taking.

5. Based on the result of point 3 and 4, that is communicative group

activity is more effective than guided conversation activity to teach

speaking for the students who have high risk taking and guided

conversation activity is more effective than communicative group

activity to teach speaking for the students who have low risk taking,

therefore it can be concluded that there is interaction between the

teaching techniques and students’ risk taking in teaching speaking.


commit to user

cv

D. Discussion

Based on the calculation result of testing hypotheses, it can be

explained as follows:

1. Communicative group activity is more effective than guided conversation

activity to teach speaking

The result of the first hypotheses test shows that communicative

group activity is more effective than guided conversation activity in

teaching speaking. Communicative group activity is one of techniques to

teach speaking to make the students are interested in learning. It also

serves some activities which help the students to speak well, develop their

speaking skill, and make the students as the center of the activities.

Communicative group activity is also in line with cooperative learning.

Donnyei (1997: 487) states that cooperative learning is the instructional

use of small groups in order to achieve common learning goals via

cooperation.

Communicative group activity can create free atmosphere in the

class. So, it increases students’ participation in speaking class. Ur (1999:

120) states that there are four criteria of successful speaking activities,

namely (a) learners talk a lot; (b) participation is even; (c) motivation is

high; and (d) language is within students’ proficiency level.


commit to user

cvi

Then, Littlewood (1981: 17) states that students’ participation

improved because the students found that the class learning is related to

this objective and helps them to achieve this objective with increasing

success.

Guided conversation activity is another technique to teach speaking

which makes students become dependent. It uses dialogues as the main

form of language presentation and as the main training technique. The

students wait for the teachers’ instruction and guidance in the speaking

class. This is in line with the characteristics of guided conversation stated

by Allen and Valette (1977: 211) test in a guided conversation, learning to

speak a second language is a lengthy process. First, students must learn

carefully, repeat models, and imitate the teacher. They may memorize

basic sentences to gain confidence in their ability to speak the second

language. They may practice sentences and do oral drills. In guided

conversation class activity there is no real communication is taking place.

Molinsky (1996: 3) states that this practice may allow students to

memorize target grammar structures but offer no relevant context,

therefore having little meaning for the learner. Thus, the speaking activity

is monotonous because of the restricted chance which is given to them.

They tend to become the passive learners. Therefore, communicative

group activity is more effective than guided conversation to teach

speaking.


commit to user

cvii

2. The the students who have high risk taking have better speaking skill than

those who have low risk taking

The result of the second hypotheses test shows that students having

high risk taking have better speaking skill than students having low risk

taking. It is strengthened by the relevant opinion by Liu (2008: 3) states

that with a more risk taking, students tended to be more sociable in

English. Students having high risk taking make an accurate guesses, are

more successful than those who have low risk taking.

In addition, Brown (2000: 7) considers high risk taking as a positive

characteristic which could enhance learning language. Therefore, the

students having high risk taking would like to take part enthusiastically

when the teacher offers them to involve actively in learning process.

According to Bang (1999: 3), risk taking is fundamental in language

learning especially in speaking activities. It is vital to achieve success in

language learning because it helps the students to increase their

communicative skills. They are not afraid to make a mistake or an error

when they express their ideas related to the topic which is given, because

they consider it as a part of learning for getting success.

In addition, Bang (1999: 5) also states that risk taking is an impulse

to take a decision about something new and different, without putting

focus on success or failure, but learning as the reward of risk taking.


commit to user

cviii

It is strengthened by the relevant research conducted by Bang (1999:

5) which reveals that all participants (100%) demonstrated an optimistic

opinion of risk taking, associated with more English ability and said that

risk taking gives an opportunity to prove and confirm to check the

precision gained in oral practice, to learn new phrases and to express the

learners’ suggestions and opinions in class.

On the contrary, the students with low risk taking tend to choose

feeling safe, without being worried about the mistake. Students with low

risk taking tend to be passive to improve their study. It is a fear for

them to express their opinion. They feel anxious or any kinds of pressure

in learning process. According to Li fu (2012: 117) in her study, many

students’ risk taking in the EFL classes are relatively low because of the

anxieties that they have when they speak English or when they are asked

to express off the cuff. That is why, this makes the achievement of

students having low risk taking tend to be lower than students having high

risk taking.

3. Interaction between teaching techniques and students’ risk taking in

teaching speaking

The result of the third hypotheses test show that there is an

interaction between two variables, students’ risk taking and teaching

techniques in teaching speaking. In other words, the effect of teaching

techniques on students speaking skill also depends on the students’ risk

taking.


commit to user

cix

In communicative group activity, the students are encouraged and

motivated to be active students. They are given several task and projects

related to the material which has given in the class. They are also given

chances to elaborate the materials based on their knowledge. In

conducting class activities, the students are free to explore their ideas and

they have opportunity to speak up without being afraid of making

mistake.

According to Brumfit (1984: 78), group work is often considered an

essential feature of communicative language teaching. It can promote

students’ practice, students’ confidence, the quality of their talk, their

motivation, and positive class atmosphere.

Because the students having high risk taking are well motivated,

they will want to get more involved in teaching and learning process. It is

supposed by Young (1999: 13) tests in language learning, especially in

learning spoken English, risk taking behavior is an active oral

participation or involvement such as raising questions, responding to the

teachers’ or other students’ questions, and making comments during the

class activities. Students who strongly wish to communicate their own

ideas perceive a greater gain than those who are unwilling to take risks.

In addition, Rulon and McCreary (1986: 7) state more negotiation of

meaning (e.g., confirmation checks, clarification requests) takes place in

pair or small group activities than the teacher-fronted activities.


commit to user

cx

In other words, it can be said that those having high risk taking will

be better motivated and confidence in learning. For that reason, they must

have many more position in teaching and learning process than the

teacher. The students view themselves as learners in the process of

learning and look forward to learning.

By using communicative group activity, the students having high

risk taking can encourage themselves in the learning process to speak up

better in the speaking class, they can feel enjoy and being fun joining the

activities given by the teacher. So, it can be concluded that

communicative group activity is more effective to teach speaking for

students having high risk taking.

On the contrary, guided conversation activity does not give chance

the students to explore their speaking ability, because the materials have

been restricted by the teacher. The materials are prepared and the

teachers only drill them to the students in the class. Errors try to be

avoided as much as possible, so that the teacher plans for what are going

to be conversed. The students are not confident in speaking and they are

afraid to take a risks. It is stated by Richard and Rodgers (1993: 51) that

the best foreign language learning is basically a process of mechanical

habit formation. Good habits are formed by giving correct response

rather than by making mistakes.


commit to user

cxi

The students having low risk taking who do not encourage

themselves in learning will be comfortable when they are in such

situation. They might not be interested to be an active students in

learning activities. According to Liu and Jackson (2011: 35) in numerous

SL/FL learning situations, learners, especially Asian learners, have been

observed that they are keep silent in language class, rarely respond to

teachers’ questions, or actively take part in class interactions. These

behaviors are frequently interpreted as a lack of motivation, low

proficiency in target language, peer pressure, fear of losing face, lack of

confidence, fear of making mistake, and so on. That passive participation

in class activities negatively affects the students performance in English,

especially oral English.

Allwright, Brumfit and Johnson (1981: 2) strengthen those

statements with the research finding which reveals that there is a

constructive alternative to the teacher-centered technique which is

limited primarily to mechanical manipulation of utterances and thus only

involves a low risk taking situation. There is very little risk in mere

repetition and mindless manipulation based on habit, and there is no gain,

accordingly, in that learners are not allowed to talk about what they want

to communicate.


commit to user

cxii

Thus, it can be concluded that the students having low risk taking is

more effective if they are taught by using guided conversation activity.

The students having low risk taking is less effective if they are

taught by communicative group activity, because they tend to feel

reluctant, shy, and not comfortable to speak up. They always feel afraid if

they make mistake. On the other hand, students having high risk taking

get bored easily with guided conversation because they cannot express

themselves and they do not have enough opportunity to speak. Therefore,

it can be concluded that there is interaction between teaching techniques

and students’ risk taking in teaching speaking.


commit to user

cxiii

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

Based on the result of the data analysis which is presented in chapter

IV, the findings of the research are:

1. Using communicative group activity is more effective than guided

conversation activity in teaching speaking to the second semester

students of STKIP PGRI Pontianak.

2. The speaking skill of students’ having high risk taking is better than

that of those having low risk taking in learning English.

3. There is interaction between teaching techniques and students risk

taking in teaching speaking. The communicative group activity is

effective for the students having high risk taking and guided

conversation activity is effective for the students having low risk

taking.

Based on the findings, it can be concluded that using communicative

group activity is an effective teaching technique used to teach speaking skill

of the students of STKIP PGRI Pontianak, especially for the second semester

students of STKIP PGRI Pontianak. Moreover, it has also been proved that

there is interaction between teaching techiques and students’ risk taking.


commit to user

cxiv

It can be seen from the research result which shows that communicative

group activity is more effective for the students having high risk taking and

guided conversation activity is more effective for the students having low risk

taking.

B. Implication

The research findings imply that the use of both teaching techniques in

teaching speaking plays decent contribution. Communicative group activity

affects the students’ speaking skill especially for those having high risk taking

towards English, this technique offers a communicative class atmosphere

which encourages the students to get active and involved. It helps those having

high risk taking to explore their thoughts and competences. It occurs in the

field of research in which students having high risk taking who are taught by

using this teaching technique are triggered to do all assignments well and take

a part enthusiastically. They are interested when they get involved in

communication with their friends. As result, the students having high risk

taking have much more chances to explore and share their speaking skill

beyond the class learning activity. This certainly helps them to be a successful

language learners


commit to user

cxv

This findings show that both teaching techniques play important part in

teaching speaking for certain condition. There are many conditions that can be

identified by the teachers to apply certain teaching teachnique, one of them is

by considering students’ psychological aspects, in this case the students’ risk

taking.

It would be a work for clever teachers to recognize whether or not their

students have high risk taking in order to decide which approach will be used.

The teacher can use communicative group activity as one of teaching

techniques that can help the teaching and learning process run well. It changes

the class into students-centered class. The roles of teacher in communicative

group activity are a language facilitator and guide. Teacher helps students

who have problems by interacting with them in class.

In communicative group activity, the students are able to share and

explore their ideas, so that it will motivate the learners to speak up, because it

attracts their interest and helps them get new ideas and acquire information

from others. The use of communicative group activity in the teaching and

learning process is very important. Various activities can change the

atmosphere of speaking class and it can be a bridge for those having high

risk taking to explore their thoughts and competence. The students are more

relaxed being a risk takers who talk a lot to practice speaking without

worrying about making mistakes. They can enhance their confidence to

speak English, so that they want to participate and involve during the

activities enthusiastically with much more changes. This certainly helps


commit to user

cxvi

them to be a successful language learners.

Another teaching technique is guided conversation activity. This

technique can help the students having low risk taking. The students having

low risk taking will be comfortable when learning because of having no

anxiety of any kinds of pressure and challenges.

C. Suggestion

It is necessary to have other investigations as follow up to the research

which has been done. Replication of the similar study will reinforce the

findings. Some suggestions for teachers, students, and future researchers can

be listed as follows:

1. For the teachers

a. For teachers’ preparation in teaching and learning, teacher sholud be

able to know the students characteristic and their psychological aspect to

apply the appropriate teaching technique in his or her class. The

appropriate teaching technique can make the students enjoy their class

and the learning process is not boring. When the learning process is

enjoyable, the purpose of teaching and learning will be gained. Surely,

it is one of the objectives of teachers in teaching. Teachers must

be clever in choosing the techniques for the teaching and learning

process in the classroom.


commit to user

cxvii

b. Teachers should be creative and innovative to select and use good

materials and appropriate teaching techniques for the students.

2. For the students

a. Students should eliminate their fear to speak English and change their

attitude about speaking skill. Making mistakes is a part of learning

progress and students should not concern about mistakes.

b. Students should realize that speaking is not difficult, there are many

ways to be able to speak, as long as they want to practice regularly.

c. Students should realize that they have potentials to be good students in

speaking. They should know that there are many opportunities of self-

development in speaking.

d. Students should pay attention more to vocabulary and grammar. They

will know that many words and good grammatical sentence can help

them to speak English well.

3. For other researcher

a. Other researchers who are interested in conducting similar research

should pay attention in choosing the technique which is able to fulfill

the objective of speaking skill both of fluency and accuracy.

b. Communicative group activity and guided conversation class activity are

just two of the teaching techniques to help students improve their

speaking skill viewed from students’ risk taking as one of psychological

aspect in learning. The findings of this research can be used as a starting

point to apply further research in the same field.

the effectiveness of communicative group activity …/the... · the effectiveness of communicative...

Documents