Enhancing the tenth grade of TGSA class students’ speaking ability

by using Round Robin at SMK Negeri 3 Tanjungpinang

in 2016-2017 Academic Year

Jeprianto Simamora
jeprianto.simamora@gmail.com

English Education Study Program

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji

ABSTRACT

English as a foreign language in Indonesia plays an important role in many

aspects in life like education, economy, international relationship, technology,

etc. In Indonesia, English as a foreign language has been teaching to the students

for about nine years or more, started from elementary school level to high school

level. Based on the result of field practice (internship) that conducted, the researcher

found some problems related to English competence at SMK Negeri 3

Tanjungpinang. Speaking ability became the main problem for tenth grade of

TGSA class at SMK Negeri 3 Tanjungpinang. The design of this research is

Classroom Action Research (CAR). The researcher used the model of Action

Research proposed by Kemmis and Mc.Taggart (2000). In conducting the research,

the researcher implemented Round Robin. The quantitative data of this research

were collected from the tests. The actions were carried out on May - June 2017.

In cycle 1, based on the result of implementation of Round Robin, there was a

significant progress. Based on the results of implementation of action in cycle 1,

the researcher found three results including: (1) The enhancement of the students’

speaking ability; (2) The improvement of students’ activeness; and (3) The

students’ response in the questionnaire. In cycle 2, based on the results of teaching-

learning activity of speaking using Round Robin, there was a significant progress.

The researcher found two results including: (1) The enhancement of the students’

speaking ability; (2) The improvement of students’ activeness and motivation. After

doing the research, it can obviously be seen that Round Robin which was applied

in the speaking class successfully enhance the students’ speaking ability.

Keyword: Speaking Ability, CAR, Round Robin, TGSA

INTRODUCTION

English as a foreign language in Indonesia plays an important role in many

aspects in life like education, economy, international relationship, technology,

etc. In senior high school, the teaching of English is to enable the students to achieve

high proficiency in the four skills, i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and writing

according to the literacy level as stated in Law of National Ministry of Education

and Culture No 22 year 2014. Speaking is the productive skill in the oral mode. It

likes the other skills, it is more complicated than it seems at first and involves more

than just pronouncing words. According to Brown (2000: 263), speaking is an

interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving, and

processing information.

Based on the result of field practice (internship) that conducted, the

researcher found some problems related to English competence at SMK Negeri 3

Tanjungpinang. Speaking ability became the main problem for tenth grade students

at SMK Negeri 3 Tanjungpinang.

Referring to the background of the research previously presented, the

objective of the research is to discover how Round Robin can enhance the tenth
grade of TGSA class students’ speaking ability at SMK Negeri 3 Tanjungpinang.

This research can solve the learning problem and can encourage students to learn

English especially in speaking so that they can enhance their speaking ability and

find the interesting teaching and learning process.

METHODOLOGY

The design of this research is Classroom Action Research (CAR). The

approach is only action research when it is collaborative, though it is important to

realise that action research of the group is achieved through the critically examined

action of individual group members. (Kemmis and McTaggart: 1988).

I. Research Design

The researcher used the model of Action Research proposed by Kemmis

and Mc.Taggart. In their adaptation of Action Research to educational problems,

Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) describe the Action Research Spiral as consisting

the following moments: Planning, Acting, Observing, and Reflecting. This research

was conducted in 2 cycles and each cycle consisted of four meetings. The first cycle

was conducted based on the students’ problems that found in pre-observation.

II. Research Instrument

In this research, the researcher as the key of instrument because the

researcher role as well as planners, implementers, data collectors, analyzers of data,

data interpreter and eventually became a reporter of the research.

1. Test

The researcher used speaking ability test. The tests were pre-test and post-

test. According to Arikunto (2010: 193), the test is a series of questions or exercises
and other tools used to measure skills, knowledge, intelligence, abilities, or talents

by individuals or groups.

2. Observation

The observation was used in the preliminary research and during the

implementation of the actions. In the action phases, the observation guideline was

used to observe the implementation of the actions.

3. Interview

In this research, the researcher acted as the interviewer. The researcher

interview the students. Type of interview in this research was Opened-semi-

structured interviews. Gill et al., (2008) define this approach as an interview that

has several key questions which help to define the areas to be explored, but also

allow the researcher the flexibility to pursue an idea in a response in more detail,

this is a medium between structured and unstructured interviews.

4. Field – Note

The researcher used the field-notes as live record and the suported data of

the teaching learning process.

5. Questionnaire

In gaining the data of students’ to respond to the teaching learning

experiences, the researcher used Round Robin. The researcher used the closed –

questionnaire with alternative answers such as strongly agree, agree, neutral,

disagree and strongly disagree.

6. Documentation

The documents used in this research were course overviews, lesson plans,

and classroom materials.

III. Data Collection

The data collected were in the form of qualitative and quantitative data.

The researcher collected the quantitative data in the form of students’ score during

the pre-test and the post-test. The researcher collected the qualitative data through

the observation and interviews in the form of audio file and interview transcript to

validate the students’ respond in the questionnaire. The qualitative data were also

in the form of observation checklists which would be fullfiled by the research

collaborator.

IV. Data Analysis

Data analysis is an important aspect of the reflectivity of action research.

The collected data in this research were analyzed in the form of qualitative and

qualitative data. The qualitative data analysis techniques of the research is based

on Miles and Huberman theory. Qualitative data analysis by Miles and Huberman

(1994) is a comprehensive sourcebook, describing the analysis that is directed at

tracing out lawful and stable relationship among social phenomena, based on the

regularities and sequences.

The validity test were used to get the validity index of items on the

questionnaire. The researcher were adopted the proposed validity index Aiken

(1980; 1985). In this research, the questionnaire was consisted 5 optional answers:

strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree. The researcher were

used the Cronbach’s alpha for realibility test. Cronbach's alpha was developed by

Cronbach's alpha coefficient (1951) as a general measure of the internal

consistency of multi-item scale.

V. Criteria of Action Success

In this research, the researcher were prepared the criterias of success:

1. The indicator of action success based on the students’ speaking ability from

pre-test to post-test show enchancement ≥ 25 %;

2. The percentage of students answer “Agree” or positive answer in the

questionnaire 75%;

3. The Classical percentage of class achieved 75%. (The Law of National

Curriculum 2013).

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

I. Findings

The researcher conducted a pre-test. The pre-test was done before

implementing the teaching and learning process using Round Robin. It was

conducted to reinforce the problems which were stated before. There were five

aspects to score namely pronounciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and

Comprehension or Content.

Table 1. The Average Score of Speaking indicators in pre-test

Speaking Indicator Average Score

Pronounciation 11.93

Vocabulary 11.03

Grammar 11.07

Fluency 11.17

Comprehension 14.17
 Table 2. The mean score of speaking test in pre-test

Point Score

Amount of students 34

Total of students’ score 1781

Mean 59.37

The result showed that most of students had low ability in speaking. The

low ability in speaking could be seen from the low achievement of speaking test.

The scores of the students showed that the worst indicator of speaking was on

vocabulary, grammar.

Table 3. The result of the class percentage in pre-test

Points Score Percentage (%)

The students who reached the 7 23.33

passing grade 71

The students who got under the 23 72.67

passing grade 71

The scores of the class percentage showed that the score was lower than the

minimum mastery criterion or Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM).

To reach the target, the researcher conducted the classroom action research.

Each cycle consisted of a series of steps, namely: planning, action, observing, and

reflecting, and the last was revised the plan. After the treatments in three meetings

were carried out on May 29th, May 30th, May 31st 2017 and the test was done in the

fourth meeting on June 2nd, 2017.

 Cycle 2 had three meetings for treatments carried out on June 6th, June 7th,

June 8th, 2017, and one meeting for the post-test on June 9th, 2017.

Table 4. The mean score of post-test in cycle 1 from two scorer

Point Score

Amount of student 30

The average of total of students’ score 2.147,5

Mean 71.58

Table 5. The students’ post-test average scores based on the speaking indicators

in cycle 1 from the two scorers

Speaking Indicator Average Scores

Pronounciation 13.73

Vocabulary 14.01

Grammar 14.53

Fluency 13.76

Comprehension 15.55

Table 6. The students’ post-test average scores based on the post-test score in cycle 1 from the two

scorers

Explanations Scores

The highest score 77.50

The lowest score 67.50

The average score 71.60

From the table above, it could be concluded that vocabulary and fluency

became the existing problems for the students since the average scores of them were
lower than other speaking indicators in spite of the fact that there was enhancement

on the students’ speaking ability.

Table 7. The result of the statistical account of points score from pre-test to post-test in cycle 1

Points Pre-test Post-test 1

The students who reached the 7 17

passing grade 71

The students who got under the 23 13

passing grade 71

Passing grade 71 71

From the analysis of cycle 1, it could be concluded that first, the result of

cycle 1 could enhanced the students’ achievement in speaking.

Table 8. The result of statistical account students’average score based on the speaking indicators

from pre-test to post-test in cycle 1

Indicators of speaking Pre-Test Post-Test

Pronounciation 11.93 13.73

Vocabulary 11.03 14.01

Grammar 11.07 14.53

Fluency 11.17 13.76

Comprehension 14.17 15.55

After the implementation of the actions, the indicators of speaking were

also enhanced. From the scores above, vocabulary and fluency were still low but

both of them were better than before.

Table 9. The result of statistical account of mean score from pre-test to post-test in cycle 1

Point Pre-Test Post-Test

Mean Score 59.37 71.58

Based on the result of post-test in cycle 1, the mean score was better than before.

The mean score enhanced from pre-test 59.37 to 71.58 in the post-test of cyle 1.

Table 10. The result of student achievement in post-test of cycle 1

Point Score

Pre-Test 59.37

Post-Test in cycle 1 71.58

From the analysis of cycle 1, it could be concluded that the result of cycle 1 could

improved the students’ average score, improved the mean score, and improved the

class percentage. The score of class percentage improved from 23.33% in pre-test

to 46.67% in post-test of cycle 1.

Generally, Round Robin improved the students’ activeness in group

discussion since they had to interact with their friends continually. The activities

helped them to understand the material or topic since they could discuss and share

what they knew with the members of their groups. They felt motivated and more

active to expresing their opinion and joined the discussion actively so it made them

easier to find some ideas. Besides the improved of students’ activeness, the

students’ motivation was improved too. They said that Round Robin was

motivated to enhance their speaking ability. The improvement of students’

activeness and the students’ motivation could be seen in the following table:

Table 11. The result of observation score in the cycle 1

Aspect

Points 1 2 3 4 5 6

Score 290 314 276 276 284 298

Average Score 3,2 3,5 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,3

The researcher distributed the questionnaire to 30 students who joined the class.

The questionnaires consisted of 23 questions. It was conducted on May 3rd, 2017.

Table 12. The statstical result of possitive answer in the questionnaire of cycle 1

Frequency of Total

Aspect Possitive Answer Number Percentage (%)

SA A Respondent

English/Speaking 12 66 90 86,67

Round Robin 36 110 180 81,11

Activeness 12 108 180 66,67

Motivation 21 147 240 70,00

The researcher and his collaborator stated that there were some strengths

and weaknesses from the implementation of actions to the students’ speaking

ability. The results were found during teaching learning process. The strengths

were:

1. The students became more active to speak. The students were confident to

expreesing their opinion. the students were enthusiastic to work in group.

They really worked in the group discussion.

2. The students felt more active because the students were actively involved in

discussion. Therefore, they could interact with his/her partner to complete the

task.

3. The students learned to make good cooperation and interaction with their

partner in group through sharing ideas related to the topic.

4. Round Robin could enhance the students’ speaking ability in exploring or

expressing their ideas.

 However, there were weaknesses found in this part: (1) Most of the students were

still lack of vocabularies and fluency related to exploring or expressing their ideas;

(2) The students had to spent more much time to complete the task; and (3) the

students made noise at the class.

Based on the results of implementation of action in cycle 1, the researcher

found three results including: (1) The enhancement of the students’ speaking

ability; (2) The improvement of students’ activeness; and (3) The students’ response

in the questionnaire. Based on the findings in cycle 1, the researcher and the

collaborator decided to conduct cycle 2. The researcher were agreed to focus on

solving the existing problems. The researcher introduced a different topic in each

meeting in cycle 2. The researcher and explained them a new type of task. In

addition, the process of speaking activity needed a long time especially in creating

a dialog.

Table 13. The mean score of post-test in cycle 2 from two scorer

Point Score

First scorer 72.67

Second sorer 74.13

Mean score 73.40

Table 14. The students’ post-test average scores based on the speaking indicators in cycle 2 from

the two scorers

Speaking Indicator Average Scores

Pronounciation 13.17

Vocabulary 13.98

Grammar 14.33

(Continue)
 (Continued)

Fluency 13.33

Comprehension 18.58

Table 15. The students’ post-test average scores based on the post-test score

in cycle 2 from the two scorers

Explanations Scores

The highest score 80.00

The lowest score 68.00

The average score 79.50

It could be concluded that the result of cycle 2 could enhance the students’

speaking ability. The students who reached the passing grade increased from 7

students to 23 students and those who got under the passing grade decreased from

23 students to 7 students. In summary, it could be shown in the following table:

Table 16. The result of the statistical account of passing grade from pre-test to post-test in cycle 1

and cycle 2

Points Pre-Test Cyle 1 Cycle 2

The students who reached the 7 17 23

passing grade 71

The students who got under the 23 13 7

passing grade 71

Table 17. The result of statistical account students’average score based on the speaking indicators

from post-test in cycle 1 to post-test in cycle 2

Indicators of Speaking Pre-Test Post-Test 2

Pronounciation 11.93 13.17

Vocabulary 11.03 13.98

(Continue)
 (Continued)

Grammar 11.07 14.33

Fluency 11.17 13.33

Comprehension 14.17 18.58

Table 18. The result of statistical account of mean score from post-test in cycle 1

to post-test in cycle 2

Point Pre-Test Post-Test 2

Mean Score 59.37 73.40

Table 19. The result of the statistical account of the passing grade from pre-test to post-test in

cyle 1 and in cycle 2

Points Pre-test Post-test 1 Post-test 2

The students who reached the passing 7 17 23

grade 71

The students who got under the passing 23 13 7

grade 71

Passing grade 71 71 71

Table 20. The result of the class percentage from pre-test to post-test in cycle 2

Points Pre-test (%) Post-test (%)

The students who reached the passing 23.33 76.67

grade

The students who got under the passing 76.67 23.33

grade

From the analysis of results above, it could be concluded that:

 a. The result of implementation of action in the cycle 2 could enhanced the mean

score.

b. There was enhancement in the average score of speaking indicators.

c. The improvement of class percentage.

After the implementation of the actions in cycle 2, the class percentage was

improved. The students had interest and motivation to enhance their speaking

ability. The improvement of the class percentage could be seen from pre-test to

post-test in cycle 2. In the post-test of cycle 2, the class percentage was better than

before.

During the implementation of cycle 2, the activeness observation was

conducted by the collaborator. The students were trained to create a dialog through

Round Robin. The students seemed interested to joined the lesson actively.

Table 21. The result of students’ obsevation in cycle 2

Aspect

Point 1 2 3 4 5 6

Total Score 369 365 322 357 361 329

In Round Robin activity, the students were busy with their task; no one kept silent

in doing task. The effect was improving students’ participation in speaking activity.

In cycle 2, the each pair worked more effectively than in the cycle 1. Therefore,

most of the students said that Round Robin was very interesting and fun for them

in speaking.

After the implementation of the actions in cycle 2, the researcher distributed

the questionnaire to the students. These questionnaire consisted of 23 questions. It

was conducted on Saturday, May 10th, 2017. The result of students’ response in

these questionnaires are elaborated as follow:

Table 22. The result of the aspect of questionnaire in cycle 2

Frequency Of Total

Aspect Possitive Answer Number Percentage (%)

SA A Respondent

English/Speaking 30 53 90 92,22

Round Robin 81 94 180 97,22

Activeness 66 103 180 93,89

Motivation 80 120 240 83,33

After the reflecting in the cyle 2, there was improvement of percentage from the

aspects of the questionnaire than before. The improvement could be seen in the

following table:

Table 23. The statistical of the percentage improvement of possitive answer on the questionnaire

in cycle 1 to cycle 2

Aspect Cycle 1 Cycle 2

English or Speaking 86,67 92,22

Round Robin 81,11 97,22

Students’ Activeness 66,67 93,89

Students’ Motivation 70,00 83,33

After the implementation of actions in the cycle 2, the researcher found that there

was improvement of positive answer than before. The result of students’ response

on the questionnaire in cycle 2 could be seen as follows.

 Table 24. The achievement of the result of questionnaire in cycle 2

Students’ Answer

Point SA A N DA SD

Percentage (%) 37,25 53,62 5,65 0,87 2,61

Based on the description above, it could be concluded that the possitive answer on

the questionnaire in the cycle 2 was 90,87%.

Based on the analysis above, it could be concluded that the improvement of

possitive answer on the questionnaire was 74,20% in cyle 1 to 90,87 % in cylce 2.

The improvement of possitive answer could be seen in the following table:

Table 25. The statistical percentage of the possitive answer on the questionnaire from cycle 1 to

cycle 2

Point Cycle 1 Cycle 2

Possitive Answer 74,20 90,87

II. Discussion

The research found the field problems at the pre-observation stage. The

problems were: the students had low speaking ability, low motivation in learning

English, unconfident to speak in public and also lack of opportunity of speaking

exercise. The researcher concluded that the students’ speaking abilty was became

the main problem. To solve the field problems required some actions. The

researcher implemented Round Robin as the main action to solve the problems. The

implementation of Round Robin in teaching speaking could be enhanced the

students’ speaking ability.

 In the implementation of actions in cycle 1, the researcher found that: (1)

The students enhanced their pronunciation, but sometimes still had

mispronunciations; (2) The students were reduce gramatical mistakes. They became

more aware of their use of grammar; (3) The students were able to completed the

task correctly.

The researcher reflected the implementation of the actions in the cycle 1 and found

the existing problems to be solved in the next cycle. The existing problems were:

(1) The students had still low of vocabularies and; (2) The students did not speak

fluently. Therefore, it required additional action that would be implemented in the

next cycle to solve the existing problems. The implemented the actions based on

the revised plan to solve the existing problems. The researcher sustained the Round

Robin to teach speaking as the main action.

In the implementation of the second cycle the researcher found that there

was enhancemement of the students’ speaking ability. First, the students were

enhaced their vocabularies. Second, the students spoke more fluently. The

enhancement of the students’ speaking ability was also supported by the students’

score. The scores were collected by conducting pre-test and post-test. The mean

score of pre-test is 59.37, while the mean score of post-test is 71.58. Therefore, the

students’ mean score increased 12.21.

After the implementation, the researcher were also found that: (1) The

students became more confident to speak English. They were not reluctant to

express their opinion and give responses to the teacher’s questions. (2) The students

participated more in the speaking activities and got more chance to speak. They

were interested, excited, motivated and enthusiastic to learn by using Round Robin.
 CONCLUSION

The research was conducted to solve the problems related to speaking skills

by using Round Robin. After doing the research, it can obviously be seen that

Round Robin which was applied in the speaking class successfully enhance the

students’ speaking ability. There are some implications due to the result of this

research. Based on the result of the research above, the conclusion could be drawn

into three points as follows:

1. Round Robin could enhance the students’ speaking ability;

2. Round Robin could enhance the students’ activeness and motivation; and

3. There were some strengths and weaknesses of using Round Robin in speaking

class.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiken, Lewis R. (1988). Psychological testing and assessment. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon

______________. (1985). Educational and Psychological Measuremen. Vol 45(1).

1985: 131-142.

Arikunto, S. (Edisi Revisi 2010). Prosedur Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. New York:

Pearson Education Ltd.

Cronbach, L. (1990). Essentials Of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper &

Row
Gill, P. et al., (2008). Methods of Data Collection in Qualitative Research:

Interviews And Focus Groups. Br Dent J, 204(6), pp.291–295.

Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192.

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory Action Research. In N.K.

Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln. Handbook of Qualitative Research 2nd

edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

_____________. (1998). The Action Research Planner. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin

University Press.

_____________. (1988). The Action Research Plan 3rd Ed. Geelong: Deakin

University Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded

Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.