Bab 1-3 Fix

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FISHBOWL METHOD TO ENHANCE THE
STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL COMPARING WITH GUIDED SPEAKING

(An Experimental Study at the Eleventh Grade Students of SMKN 3 Blitar in
the Academic Year 2019/2020)
SKRIPSI
OLEH
ULFAH ALIFAH YULIARSO
NIM 150221605568
PEMBIMBING
(1) Dra. Sri Andreani, M.Ed
(2) Dr. Furaidah, M.A
UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MALANG

FAKULTAS SASTRA
PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS
JUNI 2019
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FISHBOWL METHOD TO ENHANCE THE
STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL COMPARING WITH GUIDED SPEAKING
(An Experimental Study at the Eleventh Grade Students of SMKN 3 Blitar in
the Academic Year 2019/2020)
SKRIPSI
diajukan kepada
Universitas Negeri Malang
untuk memenuhi salah satu persyaratan
dalam menyelesaikan program Sarjana
Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
OLEH
ULFAH ALIFAH YULIARSO
NIM 150221605568
UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MALANG

FAKULTAS SASTRA
PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS
JUNI 2019
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Background of the Study
The growth of communication, information, and technologies may lead

people to participate the global era where there are many requirements of high
qualification and skill related to the ability in using some foreign languages.
English is one of the international languages and plays a crucial role in this era.
Nowadays Indonesia also stands in a world that is practically using English in
many aspects of life. The primary function of language is for interaction and
communication. English as one of the international languages in the world should
be mastered by people from many countries in the world to communicate each
other. They may know and understand what they speak communicatively because
of English. Because of the reason, English becomes the first foreign language that
is taught in Indonesia from elementary school up to college.
This study, the researcher uses Speaking skill to enhance the tenth grade
students’ speaking ability by comparing two classes through the Fishbowl method
for the first group and Guided Speaking for the second group. Speaking is one of
the four basic language skills that we have learned. In teaching English speaking,
the English lesson material has been provided by the teacher to the students
through the learning process from the syllabus of the certain school. By giving the
appropriate materials, the students are able to to assimilate it and they will be able
to deliver by using English orally in communication. Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines
that speaking is a language skill that developed in child life, which is produced by
listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned. By mastering speaking
skill, we can communicate with all of the people over the world fluently.
Unfortunately, there are so many factors of how the people cannot master the
speaking skill fluently, such as they always feel anxious while they are speaking
in front of the people, in the stage, or in front of the class; they are too afraid of
making mistakes or afraid to be laughed by the people; they have low self-esteem,
or sometimes they lack of inspirations or ideas to practice their speaking.
SMKN 3 in blitar has already implemented the curriculum 2013 so it make
the old teachers have felt difficulties to follow a new curriculum, so that cannot
motivate the students to be confident in speaking English in front of the public
fluently. According to the information from the English teacher of SMKN 3
Blitar, the biggest problem is the economic background of the students so that
they have less motivation in learning English, that can make the students do not
engaged in its learning. In addition, the lack of a supporting method that can be
affected this problem are still widely founded in various school although the
school already forward all at once. A teaching learning process should be
successful when there is students’ involvement in the classroom activity. The new
learning paradigm should provide widely for the teachers and also the students.
The effectiveness of teaching-learning process insists to be more active than the
teacher. For this reason, the teacher should be creative in creating enjoyable
atmosphere that can stimulate the students to speak actively by giving suitable
method.
In the Syllabus of SMKN 3 Blitar which is related in the curriculum 2013,
it is stated that standard competence that is appropriate for improving the eleventh
grade students’ speaking skill in SMKN 3 Blitar in the Academic Year 2019/2020
are: (3.14) Menganalisis fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan teks
interaksi transaksional lisan dan tulis yang melibatkan tindakan memberi dan
meminta informasi terkait pendapat dan pikiran, sesuai dengan konteks
penggunaannya (Perhatikan unsur kebahasaan I think, I suppose, in my opinion).
(4.14) Menyusun teks interaksi transaksional, lisan dan tulis, pendek dan
sederhana, yang melibatkan tindakan memberi dan meminta informasi terkait
pendapat dan pikiran, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan
unsure kebahasaan yang benar dan sesuai konteks. In order to reach the goals that
the government states in the curriculum, so that the researcher should analyze five
components to improve the students’ speaking skill. They are grammar,
pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.
There are many learning methods to make an amusement activity by teaching
speaking in the classroom. One of the learning methods that can be practiced in
teaching speaking is the Fishbowl method. Silberman (1996:110) explains that the
Fishbowl is a discussion format that some students in inner circle make discussion
and outer circle will listen and observer the topic. Fishbowl is a learning method
to organize discussion group that insists of inside and outside circle that is very
beneficial in speaking class. The students in the inner circle engage in a depth
discussion with a moderator who introduces the topic, while the outer circle listen
the discussion, observation, feedback and suggestions for later. In this learning
method, all chairs in inner circle are filled by people. In inner circle format, a seat
is left vacant for outer circle members who want to join discussion. When this
happen, one member from the inner circle should voluntarily leave the Fishbowl
and free a chair. The discussion can be continued by other participants frequently
entering and leaving the Fiswhbowl. When time runs out, the Fishbowl will be
stopped and the moderator summarize the discussion. Fishbowl is the growing
structure discussion method that is very beneficial for the speaking class
(Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145). Therefore, the Fishbowl is a good way to make the
students be more confident in speaking English.
In this study, the researcher takes review of related literature from the
previous study as comparison entitled “The Effectiveness of Gallery Walk to
Teach Speaking Viewed from The Students’ Self Esteem (An Experimental Study
at the Eleventh Grade Students of SMAN 3 Cilacap in the Academic Year of
2011/2012)” by Hariyati Majiasih, the student of Sebelas Maret University.” This
study is intended to find out the comparison of the effectiveness between Gallery
Walk and Guided Speaking to improve students’ speaking skill. According to this
study, the result said that the Gallery Walk is more effective than the Guided
Speaking to teach speaking for the eleventh grade students’ speaking skill in
SMKN 3 Blitar in the Academic Year 2019/2020. The second previous study
entitled “The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ speaking skill (An
Experimental Study at the Ninth Grade Students of SMPN 2 Ambarawa in the
Academic Year of 2014/2015)” by Dewanti Mulki Rahma, the student of STAIN
Salatiga. This study is conducted to find out the comparison of the effectiveness
between Fishbowl and Lecturing to improve students’ speaking skill. According
to this study, the result said that the the Fishbowl is more significantly effective
than Lecturing to teach speaking for the ninth grade students of SMPN 2
Ambarawa.
This study has similarities and differences from those previous studies above.
The similarity to the first study is on Guided Speaking as the control group. For
the second study has the similarity on Fishbowl method as the experimental
group. Those study above have the same main goal and also dealing with speaking
skill. On the other hand the researcher also finds the differences between the two
previous studies. The differences of those studies above are the subject, the school
level, media and the topic. Accordingly, the effectiveness of Fishbowl Method
and Guided Speaking to enhance the tenth students’ speaking skill of SMKN 3
Blitar is the title decided by the researcher as the follow up the previous
researchers in observing more detail about the improvement of students’ speaking
skill used Fishbowl method.
1.2. The Research Question
Based on the background discussed above, the researcher underlines the

research question as follow “Is the Fishbowl method more effective to enhance
the speaking skill at the tenth grade students of SMKN 3 Blitar than the Guided
Speaking method?”
1.3. The Hypothesis of the Study
Ary, Donald (2010:7) defines that a hypothesis is a statement for describing

relationship among variables that is tentatively assumed to be true. The researcher
puts two categories of hypothesis, they are null hypothesis and alternative
hypothesis. Null hypothesis states a negation of what experimenter predicts and it
states that after the treatment the populations’ means will not be different. In
contrast, an alternative hypothesis stated that the score of treatment group is
significantly higher than the score of control group (Ary, Donald, 2010:93). Based
on the research question above, the researcher underlines the hypothesis of the
study as follow “The researcher puts the null hypothesis (H1) that the Fishbowl
Method is more effective than the Guided Speaking to enhance the eleventh grade
students’ speaking skill in SMKN 3 Blitar in the Academic Year 2019/2020.”
The null hypothesis (H0) of the study stated that “There is no significantly
different between the effectiveness of the Fishbowl and the Guided speaking to
enhance the tenth grade students of SMKN 3 Blitar in the Academic Year
2018/2019.”
1.4. The Delimitation of the Problem
This study was conducted at SMKN 3 Blitar. The subject of the study is the
eleventh grade students of Tata Busana 1 which consists of 32 students. As the
experimental group the teacher will teach them speaking using Fishbowl method.
The control group is the eleventh grade students of Tata Busana 2 which consists
of 32 students and the teacher will teach them speaking using Guided Speaking.
The researcher will use Test in collecting the data. There are two kinds of test,
they are pre-test and post-test. In pre-test the researcher will ask the students to
introduce and to tell about their hobby. Pre-test consists of oral test. Secondly, the
researcher will give post-test to the students after giving material. The researcher
uses the appropriate material for improving the eleventh grade students’ speaking
skill in SMKN 3 Blitar in the Academic Year 2019/2020 based on the standard
competence in curriculum 2013. They are: (3.14) Menganalisis fungsi sosial,
struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan teks interaksi transaksional lisan dan tulis
yang melibatkan tindakan memberi dan meminta informasi terkait pendapat dan
pikiran, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya (Perhatikan unsur kebahasaan I
think, I suppose, in my opinion). (4.14) Menyusun teks interaksi transaksional,
lisan dan tulis, pendek dan sederhana, yang melibatkan tindakan memberi dan
meminta informasi terkait pendapat dan pikiran, dengan memperhatikan fungsi
sosial, struktur teks, dan unsure kebahasaan yang benar dan sesuai konteks. The
type of the post-test is also in the form of oral production test. For experimental
group, the post-test will be administered to investigate the effectiveness of
Fishbowl method to develop the students’ speaking skill by practicing Fishbowl
method directly. Whereas in the control group, the researcher will ask the students
to make conversation about asking and giving direction for two people, after that
the students had to memorize the conversation and the students should practice it
in front of the class. By the end of both of the test, the researcher give the score
for collecting the data. There are five components used to analyze speech
performance. They are grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, and
comprehension.
1.5. The Significance of the Study
This study is formulated as an effort of finding some uses. Generally, The

benefit of this study can contribute usefull information for the next study in
classroom with the similar problem of speaking skill improvement or perhaps
with different skill. This study can contribute the researcher to find out the best
method for teaching speaking. For the English teachers, this study not only can
give additional contribution to English teachers to develop language teaching
method, but also the teachers are able to improve the quality of teaching learning
process. Besides that, the result of this study can contribute the institution to fulfill
the demand of English curriculum. Thus, the students are able to get satisfactory
achievement.
1.6. Definition of Key Terms
1.6.1. Fishbowl
In this study, the researcher use the Fishbowl method to enhance the
eleventh grade students’ speaking skill in SMKN 3 Blitar in the Academic
Year 2019/2020. This method will be taught in experimental group. Fishbowl
is a discussion format that some students engage in a depth discussion in the
inner circle, while the students in the outer circle is able to be listener of the
discussion and critique content, logic, and group interaction. This technique
provides two purposes to make structure in-depth discussion and to give
opportunities for the students to observe group processes in a discussion
setting.
1.6.2. Method
Method is a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or

approaching an instructional objectives in learning process. Method have a
tendency to be planned systematically with the teacher and the students roles
with such features as linguistic, subject-matter objectives, sequencing, and
learning materials. In this study, the researcher use Fishbowl method that will
be compared with Guided Speaking by using the appropriate materials based
on the Standard Competence in Curriculum 2013 for the the eleventh grade
students’ in SMKN 3 Blitar in the Academic Year 2019/2020. This is to know
which one is more effective to teach speaking.
1.6.3. Speaking
Speaking is the process of using the urge of speech to pronounce vocal

symbols in order to share information, knowledge, idea, and opinion to the
other person. In spoken test, either five components are generally recognize
in analyzing the speech process. They are pronunciation, grammar,
vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. So, all of elements are needed to
produce spoken production well and make good communication for us.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. The Previous Study
In this study, the researcher takes review of related literature from two
previous studies as comparison. The researcher uses the first previous study, and
the title is “The Effectiveness of Gallery Walk to Teach Speaking Viewed from
The Students’ Self Esteem (An Experimental Study at the Eleventh Grade Students
of SMAN 3 Cilacap in the Academic Year of 2011/2012)” by Hariyati Majiasih,
the student of Sebelas Maret University in the academic year 2011/2012.” Her
study is intended to find out the implementation of Gallery Walk to improve
students’ speaking skill viewed from The Students’ Self-Esteem. The object of her
research is the Eleventh Grade Students of of SMAN 3 Cilacap in the Academic
Year of 2011/2012. She chooses 64 students as the sample of her research; they
are students of XI Science 4 as experimental group and XI Science 5 as the
control group. In conducting her research she uses experimental study which is
including into descriptive quantitative research. According to her research, she
finds out that The Gallery Walk is more effective than The Guided Speaking to
teach speaking for the eleventh grade students of SMAN 3 Cilacap in the
Academic Year of 2011/2012, the students having high self-esteem have better
speaking ability than those having low self-esteem, and there is an interaction
between teaching techniques and self-esteem in teaching speaking for the eleventh
grade students of of SMAN 3 Cilacap in the Academic Year of 2011/2012. The
title of the second previous study is “The Fishbowl Method to Improve the
Students’ speaking skill (An Experimental Study at the Ninth Grade Students of
SMPN 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015)” by Dewanti Mulki
Rahma, the student of STAIN Salatiga. This study is conducted to find out the
comparison of the effectiveness between Fishbowl and Lecturing to improve
students’ speaking skill. The numbers of sample were 50 students that were
divided into two groups. The first group was experimental group and the second
was control group. The data tested using t-test formula by comparing the mean
score of pre-test and post-test from both classes. Since t-value was higher 8, 511
that t-table 2, 064 with the degree of freedom (df) of 24. Then, it could be
concluded that there was significant difference of T-test between students taught
by lecturing and students taught by Fishbowl method. According to this study, the
result said that the the Fishbowl method improved students’ speaking skill in
Ninth Grade Students of SMPN 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015.
2.2. Fishbowl
2.2.1. The Definition of The Fishbowl Method
Silberman (1996:110) defines that Fishbowl is a discussion format

that some students make discussion circle and other students make listener
circle in around of discussion group. Fishbowl is the growing structure
discussion method that is very useful for the speaking class (Elizabeth, et al.,
2005:145). Based on the above explanations the writer concludes that
Fishbowl method is a way to organize discussion group that contains of inside
and outside circle that is useful in speaking class.
2.2.2. The Concept of The Fishbowl Method
In Fishbowl, an outer circle of students sits around a smaller, inner

circle of students. Students in the inner circle engage in a depth discussion,
while students in the outer circle consider what is being said and how it is
being said. This collaborative technique has also been called Inside outside
Circles. Inner circle students are challenged to participate in a high-level
discussion while the outer circle is able to be listener of the discussion and
critique content, logic, and group interaction. This technique therefore serves
two purposes to provide structure for in-depth discussion and to provide
opportunities for students to model or observe group processes in a discussion
setting (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145-146). The Fishbowl method allows you to
explicitly teach a variety of social skills. It is one way to shine a light on the
specific social 14 skills that can either move a discussion forward or shut it
down. The Fishbowl offers the class an opportunity to closely observe and
learn about social interaction. You can use it in any content area (Chris Opitz,
2008:102)
According to Dutt (1997:143) in an open Fishbowl, one chair is left
empty. In a closed fishbowl, all chairs are filled. The moderator introduces
the topic and the participants start discussing the topic. The audience outside
the Fishbowl listen the discussion. In an open Fishbowl, any member of the
audience can occupy the empty chair and join the Fishbowl at any time.
When this happens, an existing member of the Fishbowl must voluntarily
leave the Fishbowl and free a chair. The discussion continues with
participants frequently entering and leaving the Fishbowl. Depending on how
large audience is, we can have many audience members spending some time
in the Fishbowl and taking part in the discussion. When time runs out, the
Fishbowl is closed and the moderator summarizes the discussion.
Based on the above elaboration, it can be summarized as problem
solving by assisting groups to gather insight about another group. Fishbowl
can be used as a consensus building technique in a planning or problem-
solving process. Another derivate is to have the Fishbowl run for a certain
period. The moderator stops the discussion in the Fishbowl circle and invites
those not in the inner circle to offer their thoughts and comments on what
they are hearing in the inner circle.
2.2.3. Fishbowl as Student-centered Discussion Activity
The teacher arranges the room in a fishbowl, with inner and outer
circles of students, and often assigns a text (section of a textbook or book, a
poem, an article, or a video) to be read or viewed prior to the discussion. The
teacher can generate a set of questions by writing them on slips of paper or
index cards, or students can write questions or comments on cards. Four or
five students sit in the inner fishbowl and begin a discussion using the
questions; only these students can talk. If a student in the outer circle wants to
say something, he or she must get up, tap one of the students in the inner
circle on the shoulder, and take his or her place. Whenever a student is
"tapped out" of the fishbowl, he or she takes a seat in the outer circle and
cannot speak unless he or she returns to the inner fishbowl by tapping another
student out. If students are reluctant to enter the fishbowl, the teacher can
change the rules so that, after a few minutes, the inner group can tap others
into the fishbowl. If students are too quick to jump into the fishbowl (that is,
they do not give their peers a fair amount of time to talk before tapping them
out), the teacher can set a time limit of one, two, or three minutes during
which students cannot be tapped out. Teachers can extend students'
participation by allowing them to generate questions for the discussion.
Fishbowl is a flexible format that can also be used 17 by teachers to model
small-group discussion. (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145). This discussion format
can be used in any subject area classroom in which student-centered
discussion is desired. The writer has used this format in speaking class of the
eleventh grade students’ in SMKN 3 Blitar in the Academic Year 2019/2020.
Used this way, fishbowl discussions place the focus on students' thoughts and
ideas rather than on the teacher’s.
2.2.4. Fishbowl as a Tool for Modeling Discussion
Middle school students are social and know how to talk with one
another; however, teachers usually find small and large-group discussions
about subject matter more challenging to facilitate. Fishbowl can be a vehicle
for modeling and having a meta-discussion about discussion. This is a great
way to model a discussion and talk about what makes for an effective small-
group discussion (Elizabeth, et al.,2005:145). Fishbowl discussions can be
used to model discussions of challenging or controversial material in any
subject area. For example, a biology teacher can use fishbowl at the outset of
a unit on Evolution to help students establish generative and appropriate
boundaries for their discussions about the topic. Similarly, a social studies
teacher can use fishbowl as a way to begin discussions about issues such as
slavery or segregation. Also, fishbowl is a great way tomodel literature circle
or book club discussions in an English language arts class. Fishbowl is a
flexible and powerful tool that can help empower students in discussions
across subject areas (Raphael & McMahon, 1994:120). Based on above
explanation, the writer can summarize that Fishbowl can be a useful
discussion method especially to help students to share their opinion. It also
can be an effectively method when we want to use discussion in the class.
Sometimes we are bored in discussion role so we use creative role in
Fishbowl method to handle bored situation in the class.
2.2.5. The Advantage of The Fishbowl Method
. An advantage of a Fishbowl method is it is stimulates discussion in the

class, provides class interaction, allows students to learn from peers, involves
critical thinking, improves oral and listening skills and provides break from
routines. These reasons have made Fishbowl popular in participatory group
meetings and conference and also we can use it in any content area
2.2.6. The Disadvantages of The Fishbowl Method
Fishbowl has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages

like; it can be a possible conflict among students, it also can false information
may be presented, it may be hard from some to express themselves, it focus
and relevancy of the topic may be altered, it make some may feel
uncomfortable being observed, it makes strong emotions high and also its
observers cannot immediately respond.
2.3. Speaking
2.3.1. The Definition of Speaking
Speaking skill is one thing that should be mastered by the students in

the school. Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a language skill that is
developed in child life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that period
speaking skill is learned. Hornby (1990:1227) defines speaking is make use
of words in an ordinary voice. Bygate says, “Speaking is a skill which
deserves attention every bit as much as literary skills, in both first and second
language. It is the skill which the students are frequently judge. It is also the
vehicle par excellent of social solidarity, of social ranking, of professional
advancement and of business”. It indicates that as one of the language skills,
speaking should get the attention from teachers and learners because it plays
the important role in our society.
2.3.2. Elements of Speaking
Heaton (1990:70) defines speaking is a complex skill requiring the

simultaneous use of a number of different abilities, which often develop at the
different rates. Either four or five components are generally recognized in
analyzing the speech process.
1. Pronunciation (including the segmental features-vowels and consonants,

the stress and intonation patterns)
As stated by Harmer, if students want to be able to speak fluently in

English, they need to be able pronounce phonemes correctly, use appropriate
stress and intonation patterns and speak in connected speech. The speaker
must be able to articulate the words, and create the physical sounds that carry
meaning. At the level of word pronunciation, secondlanguage learners
regularly have problems distinguishing 21 between sounds in the law
language that do not exist in language they already know.
2. Grammar
It is obvious that in order be able to speak foreign language, it is necessary

to know a certain amount of grammar and vocabulary. Grammar is the sounds
and the sound patterns, the basic units of meaning, such as words, and the
rules to combine them to form new sentences. Therefore, grammar is very
important in speaking because if the speakers do not mastering grammar
structure, they cannot speak English well.
3. Vocabulary
As we know, vocabulary is a basic element is language. Vocabulary is

single words, set phrases, variable phrases, phrasal verbs, and idioms. It is
clear that limited vocabulary mastery makes conversation virtually
impossible.
4. Fluency
In simple terms, fluency is the ability to talk freely without too much
stopping or hesitating. Meanwhile, according to Gower et-al, fluency can be
thought of as ‘the ability to keep going when speaking spontaneously. When
speaking fluently students should be able to get the message across with
whatever resources and abilities they have got, regardless of grammatical and
other mistakes.
5. Comprehension
The last speaking element is comprehension. Comprehension is discussed

by both speakers because comprehension can make people getting the
information that they want. Comprehension is defined as the ability to
understand something by a reasonable comprehension of the subject or as the
knowledge of what a situation is really like.
2.3.3. Teaching Speaking English
Brown (2001: 275 -276) states there are seven principles for designing
speaking techniques. They are:
1. Use techniques that cover the spectrum of learner needs, from language
based focus on accuracy to message-based on interaction, meaning, and
fluency.
2. Provide intrinsically motivating techniques.
3. Encourage the use of authentic language in meaningful contexts.
4. Provide appropriate feedback and correction.
5. Capitalize on the natural link between speaking and listening.
6. Give students opportunities to initiate oral communication.
7. Encourage the development of speaking strategies.
From above explanation, we can see that all of principles for designing
speaking techniques are very necessary for us. Since English is included as a
compulsory subject in junior high schools in Indonesia, the learners have the
same need. The need is passing the examinations to move to the next level
and graduate from the school, and the general requirement is the students are
able to speak and hold conversations. From a communicative purpose,
speaking is closely related to listening. The inter action between these two
skills is shown in the conversation. However, there are five components
usually used to analyze speech performance, they are grammar,
pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. The scoring also can
include accuracy, articulation, eye contact, expression, intonation and gesture
of the speaker. The writer uses those speaking scoring rubric to collect data.
2.3.4. Assessments of Speaking
Speaking is complex skill requiring the simultaneous use of different

ability which often develops at different roles. Speaking skill is generally
recognized in analysis of speech processes that are pronunciation, grammar,
vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. According to Brown (2000: 406-
407), there are five categorizes of oral proficiency scoring. It can be seen on
the tables below:
Table 2.1
Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Fluency
Score Category
1
No specific fluency description.
Can handle with confidence but not

with facility most social situations,
2 including introductions and casual
conversations about current events,
as well as work, family and
autobiographical information.
Can discuss particular interests of
3
competence with reasonable ease.
Rarely has to grope for words.
Able to use the language fluently on
all levels normally pertinent to
4
professional needs. Can participate in
any conversation with a high degree
of fluency.
Has complete fluency in the
5 language such that his speech is fully
accepted by educated native
speakers.
Source: Brown, H, Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles, an Interactive

Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Table 2.2
Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Pronunciation
Score Category
Errors in pronunciation are frequent
but can beunderstood by a native
1 peaker used to dealing with
foreigners attempting to speak his
language.
Accent is intelligible though often
2
quite faulty.
Errors never interfere with
understanding and rarely disturb the
3
native speaker. Accent may be
obviously foreign
Errors in pronunciation are quite
4
rare.
Equivalent to and fully accepted by
5
educated native speakers.

Table 2.3
Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Vocabulary
Score Category
Speaking vocabulary inadequate to

1 express anything but the most
elementary needs
Has speaking vocabulary sufficient

2 to express him simply with some
circumlocutions.
Able to speak the language with
sufficient vocabulary to participate
effectively in most formal and
informal conversations on practical,
3
social and professional topics.
Vocabulary is broad enough that he
rarely has to grope
for a word.
Can understand and participate in
any conversation within the range of
4
his experience with a high degree of
precision of vocabulary.
Speech on all level is sufficiently
accepted by educated native speakers
in all its features including breadth of
5
vocabulary and idioms,
colloquialisms, and pertinent cultural
references.

Table 2.4
Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Grammar
Score Category
Errors in grammar are frequent, but
speaker can be understood by a
1 native speaker used to dealing with
foreigners attempting to speak his
language
Can usually handle elementary
constructions quite accurately but
2
does not have thorough or confident
control of the grammar.
Control of grammar is good. Able to
speak the language with sufficient
structural accuracy to participate
3
effectively in most formal and
informal conversations on practical,
social, and professional topics.
Able to use the language accurately
on all levels normally pertinent to
4
professional needs. Errors in
grammar are quite rare.
Equivalent to that of an educated
5
native speaker.

Table 2.5
Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Comprehension
Score Category
Within the scope of his very limited
language experience, can understand
1 simple questions and statements if
delivered with slowed speech,
repetition, or paraphrase
Can get the gist of most
conversations of non-technicalm
2
subjects (i.e., topics that requite no
specialized knowledge).
Comprehension is quite complete at
3
a normal rate of speech.
Can understand any conversation
4
within the range of his experience.
Equivalent to that of an educated
5
native speaker.

However, there are five components usually used to analyze speech

performance, they are grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency and
comprehension. The writer uses those speaking scoring rubric to collect data.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Place and Time of the Study
3.1.1. Place of the Study
The study will be located in SMKN 3 Blitar. The address is in Jalan

Sudanco Supriyadi Nomor 107, Bendogerit, Sananwetan, Kota Blitar, Jawa
Timur 66132.
3.1.2. Time of the Study
This study carried in the eleventh grade students of SMKN 3 Blitar in

the Academic Year 2019/2020. There were some steps in this study:
preparation, implementation, analysis of the data, and report writing. The
details of each activity were as follows:
1) Preparation:
a) 16th July 2019 : Proposal Draft Consultation

b) 16th July 2019 : Instrument Consultation
2) Implementation:
a) 18th June 2019 : Research Permission with School Staf and the teacher
b) 22nd - 29th July 2019: Data Collection
3) Data Analysis : 30th – 31st July 2019

3.2. Method of the Study
The research approach in this study is quantitative study. It means that the
hypothesis of this study will be concluded through various techniques such as:
collecting, describing, and analyzing data collected which are mostly in the form
of numerical data to see if they are supported (Burke, 2014:82). This quantitative
study is also categorized as an quasi-experimental design since it undertakes to
give new treatment to experimental group and maintain control group without
receiving experimental treatment but traditional treatment (Burke, 2014:487).
Over all factors that may affect the result of an experiment. In other words, the
experimental study attemps to examine the influence of one or more variables to
other variables (Nana Syaodih, 2006:57).
Experimental study has some characteristics as follow: (1) manipulation or
treatment of an independent variable; (2) other extraneous variables are
controlled, and (3) effect is observed of the manipulation of the independent
variable on the dependent variable (Ary, 2007:338).
The purpose of this experimental study is constructed to observe the
effectiveness of using the Fisbowl method for teaching English speaking. The
technique of the experimental group is Fishbowl method and the technique of the
control group is a memorizing method.
3.3. Subject of the Study
3.3.1. Population
Population is a large group to a researcher who wants to generalize his

or her sample result (Burke, 2014:346). According to Burke (2000:158)
population is the set of all elements. In line with Burke, Arikunto (2002:108)
says that population is all the individuals of that group.
The population in this study is the eleventh grade students of SMKN 3
Blitar in the academic year 2019/2020. They are grouped into seven classes
where each class consists of 30 students so the total populations are 210
students.
3.3.2. Sample
A sample is a set of eloements taken from a large population according

to certain rules (Burke, 2014:345). Arikunto (2002:109) states that sample is
part of population being researched.
The numbers of sample in this study are 60 students. The sample of this
research come from two classes (A and B class) of eleventh grade students of
SMKN 3 Blitar in the academic year of 2019/2020. They come from middle
and lower economic families. Generally, they has high motivation to learn but
they are shy to show their skill especially in English speaking. They
understand when people spoke in English but they are afraid of someone who
was laughing them and they are afraid to do mistakes. In this study the
researcher would be the observer.
3.3.3. Sampling
Sampling is the way to get sample. According to Burke (2014:343)

sampling is the process of drawing sample from a population. In this study,
the researcher used Cluster Random Sampling for getting sample from the
population. According to Burke (2014:359), cluster random sampling is a
type of sampling in which clusters (a collective type of unit that includes
multiple elements) are randomly selected. In this case, a classroom is a cluster
because it is a collective unit composed of many single units (students). In
short, the researcher select randomly 2 clusters (2 classes) from the large set
of all clusters (7 clusters or 7 classes) in the population and include all the
elements as the sample of this study. By using this method, each individual
has an equal chance of being included in the sample.
The researcher used cluster random sampling because it has some
advantages, such as: it can be used when it is hard or impossible choose a
random sample of individuals, it is often far easier to implement in school,
and it is less time consuming. (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993:139)
3.4. Data Collecting Technique
According to Burke (2014:463-465), the researcher used Pretest-

Posttest Control Group Design in collecting the data. In this design, a group of
participants will be randomly assigned to Exprimental and Control group and they
are pretested on the dependent variable, O. Next, the independent variable, X, is
administered. The last, both of them are posttested on dependent variable, O.
Figure 3.1.
Pre-test and Post-test Design
Source: Johnson, Burke, Larry Christensen. (2014). Educational Research:

Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Fifth Edition. USA: Library of
Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
XT represents the experimental treatment, XC represents the traditional

treatment, and O1 and O2 represent pre-test and post-test. There were two kinds of
test. They were:
3.4.1. Pre-test
Pre-test is managed before treatment that is given to know how far the
students speaking skill especially for the material will be taught by the
researcher as the teacher in this study. Pre-test of this study in on 22th July
2019. The test consisted of oral test. The researcher will ask the students of
experimental group and also control group to introduce and to tell about their
hobby. The researcher give them for about ten minutes to prepare until the
students are ready to come in front of the class to speak up. In this moment,
the researcher will give point for them directly.
3.4.2. Post-test
The researcher will give the post-test to the students after giving the
treatments. The next type of the post-test is also in the form of oral
production test. The experimental group do the post-test on 29th July 2019 at
08.20-09.00 WIB. The test is managed to investigate the effectiveness of the
Fishbowl method can improve the student’s speaking skill. The researcher
will ask the students to discuss about the topic with their friends and after that
they have will give the opinion about that topic through the Fishbowl method.
The control group will also do the post-test. The post-test of the control group
is on 29th July 2019 at 09.20-10.00 WIB. In control group, the researcher will
ask the students to make conversation for two people, after that the students
have to memorize the conversation. If the students have memorized, they
have to come in front of the class to practice. In this moment, the researcher
will give the point for them directly.
3.5. The Instrument of the Study
The instrument of this study is oral production test. The items of the test are a
topic discussion. The researcher will give a topic related in the curriculum 2013, it
is stated that standard competence that is appropriate for improving the eleventh
grade students’ speaking skill in SMKN 3 Blitar in the Academic Year
2019/2020: (3.14) Menganalisis fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur
kebahasaan teks interaksi transaksional lisan dan tulis yang melibatkan tindakan
memberi dan meminta informasi terkait pendapat dan pikiran, sesuai dengan
konteks penggunaannya (Perhatikan unsur kebahasaan I think, I suppose, in my
opinion). (4.14) Menyusun teks interaksi transaksional, lisan dan tulis, pendek
dan sederhana, yang melibatkan tindakan memberi dan meminta informasi terkait
pendapat dan pikiran, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan
unsure kebahasaan yang benar dan sesuai konteks. The students will discuss this
topic through the Fishbowl method and the researcher monitored the students’
utterance. There are five components used to analyze speech performance. They
are grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.
Table 3.1.
SCORING RUBRICS
Content 5 points 4 points 3 points 2 points 1 point

Fluency Quick, Fluently, Fluently Fluently No
fluently, Occasion enough, not good specific
continuous al several enough, fluency
with no hesitatio unnatural many descripti
hesitation n hesitatio unnatural on, not
and clear ns and hesitation complete
searchin utterance
g for s
words
Pronunciation Pronunciat Errors in Require Pronunciat Errors in

ion is pronunci guessing ion has pronunci
excellent ati on are at many ati on are
like native quite rar meaning, problems frequent
speaker accent but can
may be be
obviousl understo
y foreign od by
native
speaker
Vocabulary Very Good, Good No enough Very

good; Use appropri enough, vocabular little
appropriat ate rarely y or vocabula
e and new vocabula have to incorrect ry,
words ry and look for use Vocabul
response a word ary
repeated
Grammar Excellent; Good; Good Many Errors in

No Two or enough; problems grammar
grammatic fewer listener like in are
al errors grammat understa verb forms frequent
ica l nd Errors in but
errors enough basic speaker
structures can be
understo
od by
native
speaker
Comprehensi Understan Understa Understa No enough Confusin

on ding the nding the nding the understand gin
concept concept concept ing the understa
very good good good concept nding the
enough concept
3.6. The Data Respondents
Table 3.2.
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP LIST NAME (soon)
No M/F NIS Complete Name

1
2
3
4
5
6
30
Table 3.3.
CONTROL GROUP LIST NAME (soon)
No M/F NIS Complete Name

1
2
3
4
5
6
30
3.7. Data Analysis
The analysis technique of this study is the dependent T-test also called paired
sample T-test compares the means of two related groups to determine the whether
there is a significantly different between these means. The data from the oral test
is arranged from the highest until the lowest one. The data from the pre-test and
post-test is analyzed to find out the result of the tests are similar or different. Data
analysis was done on 5th August 2019.
To compare the result of the data from pre-test and post-test with the same
subject, the writer will use the “Repeated Measures” statistical test, and the data is
calculated using, as follow:
3.7.1. Mean
a. Pre-test of experimental group
∑ 𝑥1
𝑋1 =
𝑁
b. Pre-test of control group
∑ 𝑥2
𝑋2 =
𝑁
c. Post-test of experimental group
∑ 𝑦1
𝑌1 =
𝑁
d. Post-test of control group
∑ 𝑦2
𝑌2 =
𝑁
3.7.2. Standard Deviation (SDD)
√∑ D2 − (∑ D)2
SDD =
N
∑D = X − Y
∑ D2 = (X − Y)2
SDD = Standard Deviation

X = Score Pre Test
Y = Score Post Test
N = Total of Respondents
3.7.3. Standard Error of Mean Difference (SEMD)
SDD
SEMD =
√N − 1
SEMD = Standard Error of Mean Difference

SDD = Standard Deviation
N = Total of Respondents
3.7.4. t-value (to)
MD
to =
SEMD
The formula of MD is as follow:
∑D
MD =
N
3.7.5. t-table
Df= N – 1
Using level of significance 5 % for two-tailed with level of confidence
95%
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Pre-test Analysis
In previous chapter, it had been explained that the result of this study
analyzed in numeral form. The data described pre-test of eleventh grade students
of SMKN 3 Blitar in the academic year of 2019/2020. In the pre-test, the
treatment for experimental group and control group were similar. The researcher
asked them to write about introducing text and then they practiced in front of the
class by memorizing their text.
Firstly, the researcher prepared list of students’ names that were taken and
their score. Secondly, the researcher clarified interval class, median, mean,
standard deviation and in the end the researcher counted percentage based on
passing students indicating the Fishbowl method improved speaking skill. In the
next action, the researcher decided the table and t-value for significant of the
study. Pre-test’s result of respondents in experimental group was presented as
follows:
Table 4.1.
Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre-test
(Experimental Group)
NIS R F P V G C Total Score

R1 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R2 4 3 4 4 4 19 4
R3 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R4 3 3 4 3 4 17 3
R5 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R6 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R7 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R8 3 3 4 3 4 17 3
R9 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R10 3 3 4 3 4 17 3
R11 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R12 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R13 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R14 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R15 3 4 4 4 3 18 4
R16 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R17 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R18 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R19 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R20 3 3 4 4 3 17 3
R21 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R22 4 4 4 4 3 19 4
R23 3 3 4 3 4 17 3
R24 4 3 4 4 3 18 4
R25 3 3 4 4 4 18 4
R26 4 3 4 4 4 19 4
R27 3 3 3 4 4 17 3
R28 3 4 3 4 3 17 3
R29 4 4 4 3 3 18 4
R30 4 4 4 3 3 18 4
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
Note: Score:
5
R = Respondent
F = Fluency
P = Pronunciation
V = Vocabulary
G = Grammar
C = Comprehension
In the table 4.1. showed score of the respondents’ speaking skill in pre-test of
experimental group. There were 30 respondents in this study before they got the
treatment. The highest score was 4 and the lowest was 3. There we 23 respondents
got score 4, and 7 respondents got score 3.
Table 4.2.
Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre-test
Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 23 77%
Good 70-79 3 7 23%
Fairly Good 60-69 2 0 0%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%
In the table 4.2. showed classification of the respondents’ speaking skill in
pre-test of experimental group. There were 30 respondents in this study before
they got the treatment. There were 7 respondents (23%) got good score, and 23
respondents (77%) got very good score.
Beside that, the researcher also made score of respondents’ speaking skill. It
was elaborated into five scales through table distribution frequency and
percentage. The researcher was classified based on English speaking proficiency;
consist of fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and comprehensibility.
Table 4.3.
Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in
Fluency

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 9 30%
Good 70-79 3 21 70%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%
In the table 4.3. showed frequency distribution and percentage of the

respondents’ speaking skill in fluency. There were 30 respondents in this study.
There were 9 respondents (30%) got score 4, and 21 respondents (70%) got score
3. It can be concluded that fluency was good because there were 70% respondents
got score 3.
Table 4.4.
Pronunciation

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 5 17%
Good 70-79 3 25 83%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

respondents’ speaking skill in pronunciation. There were 30 respondents in this
study. There were 5 respondents (17%) got score 4, and 25 respondents (83%) got
score 3. It can be concluded that pronunciation was good because there were 83%
respondents got score 3.
Table 4.5.
Vocabulary

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 28 93%
Good 70-79 3 2 7%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

respondents’ speaking skill in vocabulary. There were 30 respondents in this
score 3. It can be concluded that vocabulary was very good because there were
93% respondents got score 4.
Table 4.6.
Grammar

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 21 70%
Good 70-79 3 9 30%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

respondents’ speaking skill in grammar. There were 30 respondents in this study.
3. It can be concluded that grammar was very good because there were 70%
Table 4.7.
Comprehension

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 23 77%
Good 70-79 3 7 23%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

respondents’ speaking skill in comprehension. There were 30 respondents in this
score 3. It can be concluded that comprehension was very good because there
were 77% respondents got score 4.
On the other hand result of the control group in pre-test was showed as
followed;
Table 4.8.
Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre-test
(Control Group)

R1 4 3 3 3 4 17 3
R2 4 3 4 4 3 18 4
R3 4 3 3 3 4 17 3
R4 3 3 4 4 3 17 3
R5 4 4 3 3 4 18 4
R6 3 3 4 4 3 17 3
R7 4 4 3 3 4 18 4
R8 3 4 4 4 3 18 4
R9 4 4 3 3 4 18 4
R10 3 3 4 4 3 17 3
R11 4 4 3 3 4 18 4
R12 3 3 4 4 3 17 3
R13 4 3 4 3 3 17 3
R14 3 4 4 4 4 19 4
R15 4 3 4 3 3 17 3
R16 3 4 4 4 4 19 4
R17 4 3 4 3 3 17 3
R18 3 4 4 4 4 19 4
R19 4 4 4 3 3 18 4
R20 3 3 4 4 3 17 3
R21 4 4 3 3 4 18 4
R22 3 3 4 4 3 17 3
R23 4 4 3 3 4 18 4
R24 3 4 4 4 3 18 4
R25 4 4 3 3 4 18 4
R26 3 3 3 4 4 17 3
R27 4 4 3 3 3 17 3
R28 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R29 4 3 3 4 4 18 4
R30 3 4 4 4 4 19 4
Note: Score:
5
R = Respondent
F = Fluency
P = Pronunciation
V = Vocabulary
G = Grammar
C = Comprehension
In the table 4.8. showed score of the respondents’ speaking skill in pre-test of
control group. There were 30 respondents in this study and most of them got good
score. The highest score was 4 and the lowest was 3. There we 17 respondents got
score 4, and 13 respondents got score 3.
Table 4.9.
Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre-test (Control Group)

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 17 57%
Good 70-79 3 13 43%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

pre-test of control group. There were 30 respondents in this study before they got
the treatment. There were 13 respondents (43%) got good score, and 17
respondents (57%) got very good score.
Table 4.10.
Fluency

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 17 57%
Good 70-79 3 13 43%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%
3. It can be concluded that fluency was very good because there were 57%
Table 4.11.
Pronunciation

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 15 50%
Good 70-79 3 15 50%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

study. There were 15 respondents (50%) got score 4, and 15 respondents (50%)
got score 3. It can be concluded that a half of the students got good score and the
other hand, the students got very good score. So that pronunciation was good
enough.
Table 4.12.
Vocabulary

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 18 60%
Good 70-79 3 12 40%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

got score 3. It can be concluded that vocabulary was very good because there were
Table 4.13.
Grammar

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 15 50%
Good 70-79 3 15 50%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

3. It can be concluded that a half of the students got good score and the other
hand, the students got very good score. So that grammar was good enough.
Table 4.14.
Comprehension
Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 16 53%
Good 70-79 3 14 47%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

got score 3. It can be concluded that comprehension was very good because there
4.2. Post-Test Analysis
The writer also listed score of the students in eleventh grade students of
SMKN 3 Blitar that taught using Fishbowl Method for Experimental Group and
using Guided Speaking for Control Group. Post-test result of experimental group
as followed;
Table 4.15.
Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Post-test

R1 5 5 5 4 4 23 5
R2 4 4 5 5 5 23 5
R3 5 5 5 4 4 23 5
R4 4 4 5 5 5 23 5
R5 5 5 5 5 5 25 5
R6 5 5 5 4 4 23 5
R7 4 4 5 5 4 22 4
R8 5 5 5 5 5 25 5
R9 4 4 5 4 4 21 4
R10 5 5 5 5 5 25 5
R11 5 5 5 4 4 23 5
R12 4 4 5 5 4 22 4
R13 5 5 5 4 4 23 5
R14 4 4 5 5 5 23 5
R15 4 4 5 5 4 22 4
R16 5 5 5 5 5 25 5
R17 4 4 5 5 5 23 5
R18 5 5 5 5 5 25 5
R19 5 5 5 5 5 25 5
R20 4 4 5 5 5 23 5
R21 5 5 5 4 4 23 5
R22 4 4 5 5 5 23 5
R23 5 5 5 4 4 23 5
R24 4 4 5 5 5 23 5
R25 5 5 5 5 5 25 5
R26 4 4 4 5 5 22 4
R27 4 4 4 5 5 22 4
R28 5 5 5 4 4 23 5
R29 5 5 5 4 4 23 5
R30 5 5 5 5 5 25 5
Note: Score:
5
R = Respondent
F = Fluency
P = Pronunciation
V = Vocabulary
G = Grammar
C = Comprehension
In the table 4.15. showed score of the respondents’ speaking skill in post-test
of experimental group. There were 30 respondents in this study after they got the
treatment. The result showed that the respondents had improvement progress. The
highest score was 5 and the lowest was 4. There we 24 respondents got score 5,
and 6 respondents got score 4.
Table 4.16.
Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Post-test

Excellent 90-100 5 24 80%
Very Good 80-89 4 6 20%
Good 70-79 3 0 0%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

post-test of experimental group. There were 30 respondents in this study after they
got the treatment. There were 24 respondents (80%) got excellent score, and 6
respondents (20%) got very good score. This meant that there was some
improvement.
Table 4.17.
Fluency

Excellent 90-100 5 17 57%
Very Good 80-89 4 13 43%
Good 70-79 3 0 0%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

4. It can be concluded that fluency was excellent because there were 57%
Table 4.18.
Pronunciation

Excellent 90-100 5 17 57%
Very Good 80-89 4 13 43%
Good 70-79 3 0 0%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

got score 4. It can be concluded that pronunciation was excellent because there
Table 4.19.
Vocabulary

Excellent 90-100 5 28 93%
Very Good 80-89 4 2 7%
Good 70-79 3 0 0%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

score 4. It can be concluded that vocabulary was excellent because there were
Table 4.20.
Grammar

Excellent 90-100 5 20 67%
Very Good 80-89 4 10 33%
Good 70-79 3 0 0%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

4. It can be concluded that grammar was excellent because there were 67%
Table 4.21.
Comprehension

Excellent 90-100 5 17 57%
Very Good 80-89 4 13 43%
Good 70-79 3 0 0%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

got score 4. It can be concluded that comprehension was excellent because there
On the other hand, the result of the control group in post-test taught Guided
Speaking was shown as below;
Table 4.22.
(Control Group)

R1 4 4 4 3 4 19 4
R2 3 3 4 4 3 17 3
R3 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R4 4 3 4 4 3 18 4
R5 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R6 4 3 4 4 4 19 4
R7 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R8 4 3 3 4 3 17 3
R9 4 4 4 3 3 18 4
R10 4 3 5 4 4 20 4
R11 4 3 4 3 3 17 3
R12 4 3 4 4 4 19 4
R13 4 4 4 3 3 18 4
R14 4 3 4 4 4 19 4
R15 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R16 4 4 5 4 4 21 4
R17 4 3 4 3 3 17 3
R18 4 3 4 4 4 19 4
R19 3 4 4 3 3 17 3
R20 4 3 4 4 4 19 4
R21 4 4 4 3 3 18 4
R22 4 3 3 4 3 17 3
R23 4 3 4 3 3 17 3
R24 4 3 4 4 4 19 4
R25 4 3 4 3 3 17 3
R26 4 3 4 4 4 19 4
R27 4 4 4 3 3 18 4
R28 4 3 4 3 3 17 3
R29 3 4 4 4 3 18 4
R30 4 3 3 4 3 17 3
Note: Score:
5
R = Respondent
F = Fluency
P = Pronunciation
V = Vocabulary
G = Grammar
C = Comprehension
In the table 4.22. showed the score of the respondents’ speaking skill in post-
test of control group with Guided Speaking and the result was the students had
good progress even though only a little. The highest score was 4 and the lowest
was 3. There we 20 respondents got score 4, and 10 respondents got score 3.
Besides that, the researcher also made scale classification as followed:
Table 4.23.
Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Post-test (Control Group)

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 20 67%
Good 70-79 3 10 33%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%
post-test of control group. There were 20 respondents (67%) got very good score,
and 10 respondents (33%) got good score. An above table showed that they had
been a little improvement.
Table 4.24.
Fluency

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 27 90%
Good 70-79 3 3 30%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

3. It can be concluded that fluency was very good because there were 90%
Table 4.25.
Pronunciation

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 8 27%
Good 70-79 3 22 73%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

score 3. It can be concluded that pronunciation was good because there were 73%
Table 4.26.
Vocabulary

Excellent 90-100 5 2 7%
Very Good 80-89 4 25 83%
Good 70-79 3 3 10%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

study. There were 2 respondents (7%) got score 5, 25 respondents (83%) got score
4, and 3 respondents (10%) got score 3. It can be concluded that vocabulary was
very good because there were 83% respondents got score 4.
Table 4.27.
Grammar

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 15 50%
Good 70-79 3 15 50%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

3. It can be concluded that a half of the students got good score and the other
hand, the students got very good score. So that grammar was good enough.
Table 4.28.
Comprehension

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 14 47%
Good 70-79 3 16 53%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

got score 3. It can be concluded that comprehension was good because there were
4.3. Pre-Test and Post-Test Calculation
The researcher had made table of pre-test and post-test’s respondents. The
researcher calculated pre-test and post-test’s mean and the standard of significant
is 5%. The researcher did this calculation to know respondents’ significant
improvement. It was shown below:
Table 4.29.
Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and Post-Test
Variable Variable
No. Respondent X1 Y1 D= (X-Y) D2 = (X-Y)2
(Pre-Test) (Post-Test)
1. R1 4 5 -1 1
2. R2 4 5 -1 1
3. R3 4 5 -1 1
4. R4 3 5 -2 4
5. R5 4 5 -1 1
6. R6 4 5 -1 1
7. R7 4 4 0 0
8. R8 3 5 -2 4
9. R9 4 4 0 0
10. R10 3 5 -2 4
11. R11 4 5 -1 1
12. R12 4 4 0 0
13. R13 4 5 -1 1
14. R14 4 5 -1 1
15. R15 4 4 0 0
16. R16 4 5 -1 1
17. R17 4 5 -1 1
18. R18 4 5 -1 1
19. R19 4 5 -1 1
20. R20 3 5 -2 4
21. R21 4 5 -1 1
22. R22 4 5 -1 1
23. R23 3 5 -2 4
24. R24 4 5 -1 1
25. R25 4 5 -1 1
26. R26 4 4 0 0
27. R27 3 4 -1 1
28. R28 3 5 -2 4
29. R29 4 5 -1 1
30. R30 4 5 -1 1
N = 30 ∑ 𝑫= 31 ∑ 𝑫𝟐 = 43
Table 4.30.
(Control Group)
Variable Variable
No. Respondent X2 Y2 D= (X-Y) D2 = (X-Y)2
1. R1 3 4 -1 1
2. R2 4 3 1 1
3. R3 3 4 -1 1
4. R4 3 4 -1 1
5. R5 4 4 0 0
6. R6 3 4 -1 1
7. R7 4 4 0 0
8. R8 4 3 1 1
9. R9 4 4 0 0
10. R10 3 4 -1 1
11. R11 4 3 1 1
12. R12 3 4 -1 1
13. R13 3 4 -1 1
14. R14 4 4 0 0
15. R15 3 4 -1 1
16. R16 4 4 0 0
17. R17 3 3 0 0
18. R18 4 4 0 0
19. R19 4 3 1 1
20. R20 3 4 -1 1
21. R21 4 4 0 0
22. R22 3 3 0 0
23. R23 4 3 1 1
24. R24 4 4 0 0
25. R25 4 3 1 1
26. R26 3 4 -1 1
27. R27 3 4 -1 1
28. R28 4 3 1 1
29. R29 4 4 0 0
30. R30 4 3 1 1
N = 30 ∑ 𝑫= 3 ∑ 𝑫𝟐 = 19
4.3.1. Mean
a. Pre-test of experimental group

∑ 𝑥1
𝑋1 =
𝑁
113
𝑋1 =
30
𝑋1 = 3,77
b. Pre-test of control group

∑ 𝑥2
𝑋2 =
𝑁
107
𝑋2 =
30
𝑋2 = 3,57
c. Post-test of experimental group

∑ 𝑦1
𝑌1 =
𝑁
144
𝑌1 =
30
𝑌1 = 4,8
d. Post-test of control group

∑ 𝑦2
𝑌2 =
𝑁
110
𝑌2 =
30
𝑌2 = 3,7
4.3.2. Experimental Group
According to the data from table 4.29, the researcher calculated

standard deviation of pre-test and post-test of experimental group as
followed:
a. Standard Deviation (𝑺𝑫𝑫 )
√∑ D2 − (∑ D)2
SDD =
N
√43 − (31)2
SDD =
30
SDD = √1,43 − (1,03)2
SDD = √1,43 − 1,0609
SDD = √0,3691
SDD = 0,6076
b. Standard Error of Mean Difference (𝑺𝑬𝑴𝑫 )

SDD
SEMD =
√N − 1
0,6076
SEMD =
√30 − 1
0,6076
SEMD =
√29
0,6076
SEMD =
5,3852
SEMD = 0,1128
c. T-Value (to)
MD
to =
SEMD
∑D
MD =
N
31
MD =
30
MD = 1,03
1,03
to =
0,1128
t o = 9,1312
d. T-Table (tt)
Df = n-1
Df = 30 – 1
Df = 29
the standard of significant is 5% (two-tails)
the t-value for 29 degrees of freedom is 2,0452 for 95% confidence
interval (2-tail with the level of significant (α) 5% = 0,05)
2,0452 ≤ 9,1312
4.3.3. Control Group
According to the data from table 4.30, the writer calculated standard
deviation of pre-test and post-test of control group as followed:
a. Standard Deviation (𝑺𝑫𝑫 )
√∑ D2 − (∑ D)2
SDD =
N
√19 − (3)2
SDD =
30
SDD = √0,63 − (0,1)2
SDD = √0,63 − 0,01
SDD = √0,62
SDD = 0,7874
b. Standard Error of Mean Difference (𝑺𝑬𝑴𝑫 )

SDD
SEMD =
√N − 1
0,7874
SEMD =
√30 − 1
0,7874
SEMD =
√29
0,7874
SEMD =
5,3852
SEMD = 0,1462
c. T-Value (to)
MD
to =
SEMD
∑D
MD =
N
3
MD =
30
MD =
0,1
to =
0,1462
t o = 0,6840
d. T-Table (tt)
Df = n-1
Df = 30 – 1
Df = 29
2,0452 ≥ 0,6840
4.4. Discussion of the Study
In this section, the researcher analyzed the data which had been collected and
then the researcher gave detailed explanation about the result of this study. The
researcher gave a pre-test for respondents in the first meeting of two groups. They
could follow the pre-test well. In the second meeting of our learning process, the
experimental group was taught by Fisbowl Method. In this learning process, they
were more enthusiastic and more interesting. Most of them tried to think critically
and solved the problem about the topic to face their friend’s opinion. On the other
hand, in control group was taught with usual method that was Guided Speaking.
In this case, the average of respondents did not pay attention to the teacher’s
explanation. They got bored because the researcher as the teacher used traditional
method to explain the material. The respondents did not pay attention to other
respondents when they had finished the assignment.
The result in the last meeting was significantly proven that after the
researcher gave them the treatment. The respondents of experimental group were
good enough to speak up than control group in doing post-test. It could be seen
because Fishbowl Method was effective enough as an active method in class. The
respondents were active to speak up, so that they got higher score in post-test than
control group. The result of the study could be seen clearly in the table below;
Table 4.31.
Result of Calculating Research
No. Result Experimental Group Control Group

1. Mean of
a. Pre-test 3,77 3,57
b. Post-test 4,8 3,7
2. Standard Deviation 0,6076 0,7874
3. T-table vs T-value 2,0452 ≤ 9,1312 2,0452 ≥ 0,6840
Based on table 4.31, “tt” standard of significant 5% with degrees of freedom

(df) = 29 got 2,0452 from the above result, the researcher gave interpretation that
ttable (tt) was smaller than tvalue (to) of experimental group and ttable was bigger than
tvalue (to) of control group. Based on paired of sample statistic and the sample test
above, the study indicated that the Null Hypothesis (HO) was rejected and
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) was accepted.
Based on the above calculation, the study of experimental group showed
that ttable (tt) is 2,0452 and tvalue (to) is 9,1312, significant difference of this study
was 7,086. It meant that tvalue (to) was greater than ttable (tt). The researcher could
conclude that Fishbowl method improved students’ speaking skill from significant
level 5% to ttable (tt). The study of control group showed that ttable (tt) was 2,0452
and tvalue (to) is 0,6840. The significant different of the study was 1,3612. It meant
that ttable (tt) was greater than tvalue (to) and it did not improve students speaking
skill from significant level 5% to ttable (tt).
Null Hypothesis is rejected if the mean score in post test was higher than the
score in post-test of control group. The result of this study showed that Null
Hypothesis (HO) was rejected and Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) was accepted, so
the researcher tried to make improvement in students’ speaking skill in control
group. The researcher as the teacher taught control group using Fishbowl method
with giving the similar test. The researcher also did the post-test again for control
group to see significant improvement of them. Post-test was on 29th July 2019.
Table 4.32.
(Control Group with Fishbowl Method)
R1 4 4 5 3 4 20 4
R2 4 3 5 4 4 20 4
R3 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R4 4 4 5 4 4 21 4
R5 4 3 4 3 3 17 3
R6 4 3 5 4 4 20 4
R7 4 4 4 3 3 18 4
R8 4 3 5 4 4 20 4
R9 4 4 4 3 3 18 4
R10 3 3 5 4 4 19 4
R11 4 3 5 3 4 19 4
R12 4 3 5 4 4 20 4
R13 4 4 5 4 4 21 4
R14 4 3 5 4 4 20 4
R15 4 4 4 3 4 19 4
R16 4 3 5 4 4 20 4
R17 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R18 4 3 4 4 4 19 4
R19 4 4 5 3 4 20 4
R20 4 4 5 4 4 21 4
R21 4 4 5 3 4 20 4
R22 4 3 4 4 3 18 4
R23 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R24 4 3 5 4 4 20 4
R25 4 4 4 3 4 19 4
R26 4 3 4 3 3 17 3
R27 4 3 5 3 4 19 4
R28 4 3 5 4 4 4 4
R29 4 3 4 3 4 18 4
R30 4 3 4 3 3 17 3
Note: Score:
5
R = Respondent
F = Fluency
P = Pronunciation
V = Vocabulary
G = Grammar
C = Comprehension
In the table 4.32. there were 30 respondents in this study and the students had
good progress even though only a little. The highest score was 4 and the lowest
was 3. There were 27 respondents got score 4, and 3 respondents got score 3.
Besides that, the writer also made scale classification as follow:
Table 4.33.
Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Post-test

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 27 90%
Good 70-79 3 3 10%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%
In the table 4.33. there were 30 respondents in this study. There were 27
respondents (90%) got very good score, and 3 respondents (10%) got good score.
This meant that there was a little improvement.
Table 4.34.
Fluency

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 29 97%
Good 70-79 3 1 3%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

There were 29 respondents (97%) got score 4, and 1 respondent (3%) got score 3.
It can be concluded that fluency was very good because there were 97%
Table 4.35.
Pronunciation

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 10 33%
Good 70-79 3 20 67%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

got score 3. It can be concluded that pronunciation was good because there were
Table 4.36.
Vocabulary

Excellent 90-100 5 17 57%
Very Good 80-89 4 13 43%
Good 70-79 3 0 0%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

got score 4. It can be concluded that vocabulary was excellent because there were
Table 4.37.
Grammar

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 14 47%
Good 70-79 3 16 53%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

3. It can be concluded that grammar was good because there were 53%
Table 4.38.
Comprehension

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%
Very Good 80-89 4 24 80%
Good 70-79 3 6 20%
Poor ≥59 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%

score 3. It can be concluded that comprehension was very good because there
The researcher had known the respondents’ speaking skill in control group
that was taught by Guided Speaking and by Fishbowl Method. The researcher
made the post-test result point after Guided Speaking as pre-test and also the post-
test result point after they accepted Fishbowl Method in control group. The
researcher calculated pre-test and post-test’s mean and significant standard 5%.
The researcher did this to know respondent’s significant improvement. It was
shown below:
Table 4.39.
Variable X3 Variable Y3
No. Respondent D= (X-Y) D2 = (X-Y)2
1. R1 4 4 0 0
2. R2 3 4 -1 1
3. R3 4 4 0 0
4. R4 4 4 0 0
5. R5 4 3 1 1
6. R6 4 4 0 0
7. R7 4 4 0 0
8. R8 3 4 -1 1
9. R9 4 4 0 0
10. R10 4 4 0 0
11. R11 3 4 -1 1
12. R12 4 4 0 0
13. R13 4 4 0 0
14. R14 4 4 0 0
15. R15 4 4 0 0
16. R16 4 4 0 0
17. R17 3 4 -1 1
18. R18 4 4 0 0
19. R19 3 4 -1 1
20. R20 4 4 0 0
21. R21 4 4 0 0
22. R22 3 4 -1 1
23. R23 3 4 -1 1
24. R24 4 4 0 0
25. R25 3 4 -1 1
26. R26 4 3 1 1
27. R27 4 4 0 0
28. R28 3 4 -1 1
29. R29 4 4 0 0
30. R30 3 3 0 0
N = 30 ∑ 𝐷= 7 ∑ 𝐷2 = 11
4.4.1. Mean
a. Pre-test of control group

∑ 𝑥3
𝑋3 =
𝑁
𝑋3 = 3,7
b. Post-test of control group
∑ 𝑦3
𝑌3 =
𝑁
117
𝑌3 =
30
𝑌3 = 3,9
4.4.2. Standard Deviation (SDD)
√∑ D2 − (∑ D)2
SDD =
N
√11 − (7)2
SDD =
30
SDD = √0,37 − (0,23)2
SDD = √0,37 − 0,0529
SDD = √0,3171
SDD = 0,5631
4.4.3. Standard error of mean difference (SEMD)
SDD
SEMD =
√N − 1
0,5631
SEMD =
√30 − 1
0,5631
SEMD =
√29
0,5631
SEMD =
5,3852
SEMD = 0,1045
4.4.4. T-value (to)
MD
to =
SEMD
∑D
MD =
N
7
MD =
30
MD = 0,23
0,23
to =
0,1045
t o = 2,2009
4.4.5. T-table (tt)
Df = n-1
Df = 30 – 1
Df = 29
2,0452 ≤ 𝟐, 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟗
Respondents of control group were easier to speak up in doing post-test after

accepting Fishbowl Method. It could be seen that Fishbowl Method was an active
method in class. The respondents were more active in learning process. It made
them get higher score in post-test. The result of this study could be seen in the
table below;
Table 4.40.
Result of Calculating Study
Control Group
No. Result Guided Speaking Fishbowl Method

1. Mean of
a. Pre-test 3,57 3,7
b. Post-test 3,7 3,9
2. Standard Deviation 0,7874 0,5631
3. T-table vs T-value 2,0452 ≥ 0,6840 2,0452 ≤ 2,2009
Based on the calculation above, the study of control grup showed that t-table
(tt) was 2,0452 and t-value was 2,2009, significant difference of this study was
0,1557. It meant that t-value (to) was greater than t-table (tt). The writer conclude
that Fishbowl Method improved students’ speaking skill from significant level 5%
to t-table (tt).
From the finding of this study, it could be concluded that using Fishbowl
Method could increase the students’ motivation to improve English speaking skill.
Summarily, speaking skill of the experimental group had proven and Fishbowl
Method could be useful method in improving students’ speaking skill.
Furthermore, the positive finding of this study had been stated in line with
definition of Fishbowl method that “Fishbowl is the growing structure discussion
method that is very useful for the speaking class” (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145).
Based on above statement, Fishbowl was very useful for teaching the speaking
skill. From this experimental study, the researcher could find that the score
calculation of the class who was taught by Fishbowl Method is significantly
higher than the class who was taught by Guided Speaking. Briefly, Fishbowl
Method improved students’ speaking skill and made class more active than others.
CHAPTER V
CLOSURE
5.1. Conclusion
5.2. Suggestions
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bab 1-3 Fix

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bab 1-3 Fix

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FISHBOWL METHOD TO ENHANCE THE

STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL COMPARING WITH GUIDED SPEAKING

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MALANG

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MALANG

1.1. The Background of the Study

The growth of communication, information, and technologies may lead

1.2. The Research Question

Based on the background discussed above, the researcher underlines the

1.3. The Hypothesis of the Study

Ary, Donald (2010:7) defines that a hypothesis is a statement for describing

1.4. The Delimitation of the Problem

1.5. The Significance of the Study

This study is formulated as an effort of finding some uses. Generally, The

1.6. Definition of Key Terms

Method is a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or

Speaking is the process of using the urge of speech to pronounce vocal

2.1. The Previous Study

2.2.1. The Definition of The Fishbowl Method

Silberman (1996:110) defines that Fishbowl is a discussion format

2.2.2. The Concept of The Fishbowl Method

In Fishbowl, an outer circle of students sits around a smaller, inner

2.2.3. Fishbowl as Student-centered Discussion Activity

2.2.4. Fishbowl as a Tool for Modeling Discussion

2.2.5. The Advantage of The Fishbowl Method

. An advantage of a Fishbowl method is it is stimulates discussion in the

2.2.6. The Disadvantages of The Fishbowl Method

Fishbowl has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages

2.3.1. The Definition of Speaking

Speaking skill is one thing that should be mastered by the students in

2.3.2. Elements of Speaking

Heaton (1990:70) defines speaking is a complex skill requiring the

1. Pronunciation (including the segmental features-vowels and consonants,

As stated by Harmer, if students want to be able to speak fluently in

It is obvious that in order be able to speak foreign language, it is necessary

As we know, vocabulary is a basic element is language. Vocabulary is

The last speaking element is comprehension. Comprehension is discussed

2.3.3. Teaching Speaking English

Speaking is complex skill requiring the simultaneous use of different

Can handle with confidence but not

Source: Brown, H, Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles, an Interactive

Source: Brown, H, Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles, an Interactive

Speaking vocabulary inadequate to

Has speaking vocabulary sufficient

Source: Brown, H, Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles, an Interactive

Source: Brown, H, Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles, an Interactive

Source: Brown, H, Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles, an Interactive

However, there are five components usually used to analyze speech

3.1. Place and Time of the Study

3.1.1. Place of the Study

The study will be located in SMKN 3 Blitar. The address is in Jalan

3.1.2. Time of the Study

This study carried in the eleventh grade students of SMKN 3 Blitar in

a) 16th July 2019 : Proposal Draft Consultation

3) Data Analysis : 30th – 31st July 2019

3.3. Subject of the Study

Population is a large group to a researcher who wants to generalize his

A sample is a set of eloements taken from a large population according

Sampling is the way to get sample. According to Burke (2014:343)

3.4. Data Collecting Technique

According to Burke (2014:463-465), the researcher used Pretest-

Source: Johnson, Burke, Larry Christensen. (2014). Educational Research:

XT represents the experimental treatment, XC represents the traditional

3.5. The Instrument of the Study