84

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter deals with the findings of this research and the discussions of the

findings. The findings presented in this part consists of the data obtained through test

of speaking and questionnaire in order to find out the speaking skill and the students’

interest of the students of Lakidende University toward strategies-based instruction.

Otherwise, the discussion presents the descriptions of the students’ speaking

achievement, arguments and further interpretation of the findings.

A. Findings

The findings of the research deal with students’ achievement in speaking

which cover students’ accuracy, fluency, and comprehensibility and students’

interest. Students’ speaking achievement is described in four parts namely the

frequency and percentage of the students’ speaking achievement, the mean score and

standard deviation of students’ speaking achievement, the overall students’ speaking

achievement and test of significance. Then, it is continued with students’ interest

toward strategies-based instruction.

1. Students’ Speaking Skills

This part explains about the result description of the research through the

scoring classification of pretests and posttests on components of speaking skills i.e.

accuracy, fluency, and comprehensibility to see the frequency and percentage of

 85

students’ score. It also explains the main score and standard deviation, and t-test

result to see the difference between pretest and posttest.

a. Scoring Classification of the Students’ Pretest and Posttest

In this part, researcher presented the students’ pretest and posttest scores in

term of accuracy, fluency, and comprehensibility to see it frequency and percentage.

1) The Students’ Accuracy Achievement in Pretest and Posttest

The frequency score and the percentage of the students’ accuracy in

Experimental group and Control Group can be seen in the table 4.1 as follows:

Table 4.1 The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Achievement in Term of
Accuracy in Experimental Group and Control Group in Pretest
Experimental Group Control Group
Range of score Classification F % F %
85-100 Very good 0 0 0 0
76-84 Good 2 6.7 5 16.7
66-75 Average 8 26.7 4 13.3
56-65 Poor 0 0 0 0
≤56 Very poor 20 66.7 21 70
Total 30 100 30 100

Table 4.1 illustrates that most of the students in experimental and control

group were categorized in very poor or low category. The percentage of pretest

categorized as very poor achiever was 20 students (66.7 percent) in experimental

group and 21 students (70.0 percent) in control group. Meanwhile, 8 students in

experimental (26.7 percent) and 4 students in control group were categorized in

average category. Then good achiever was only 2 students (6.7 percent) in
 86

experimental group and 5 students (16.7 percent) in control group. The percentage in

pretests shows that the low achievers were bigger than high achievers. It indicated

that the students’ speaking skill in term of accuracy is still needed to be improved.

The frequency score and the percentage of the students’ accuracy in posttest

both Experimental group and Control Group can be seen in the table 4.2 as follows:

Table 4.2 The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Achievement in Term of
Accuracy in Experimental Group and Control Group in Posttest

Experimental Group Control Group

Range of score Classification F % F %
85-100 Very good 0 0 0 0
76-84 Good 10 33.3 5 16.7
66-75 Average 13 43.3 7 23.3
56-65 Poor 0 0 0 0
≤56 Very poor 7 13 18 60
Total 30 100 30 100

Table 4.2 illustrates that most of the students in experimental group after the

treatment were in categorized in average category while control group were still in

very poor category. The percentage of posttest in experimental group categorized as

good achiever was 10 students (33.3 percent), average achiever was13students (43.3

percent) and 7 students were still in very poor category (43.3 percent) while in control

group 5 students were categorized in good category (16.7 percent), 7 students belong

to average category (23.3 percent) and 18 students were categorized in very poor

category (60 percent).

 87

As it has stated above that after tabulating the frequency and the percentage of

the students’ score, the researcher calculated the mean score and the standard

deviation of the students’ score in experimental and control Group. Tables 4.3

showed the mean score and standard deviation of the experimental and control group.

Table 4.3 The Mean Score and Standard Deviation of the Students’ Pretest and
Posttest in term of Accuracy.
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Experimental
Pretest 50.55 30 16.07 2.93
Posttest
68.33 30 12.64 2.30

Control
Pretest 53.33 30 17.17 3.13
Posttest
59.44 30 12.89 2.35

The mean score and standard deviation were shown difference in pretest and

posttest. The result of data analysis in table 4.3 illustrates that the mean score of

pretest and posttest were different after giving the treatment. This means that there is

an improvement after giving the treatment. The table showed that the mean score of

the students’ pretest in experimental group was 50.55 and standard deviation was

16.07; and in posttest was 68.33 and standard deviation was 6.50. Meanwhile, the

mean score of the students’ pretest in control group was 53.33 and standard deviation

was 17.17; and in posttest the mean score was 59.44 and standard deviation was

12.89. The mean score of both pretest and posttest were different after the treatment
 88

executed. It means that the mean score of posttest is higher than pretest (68.33 >

50.55) and (59.44> 53.33).

The result of data analysis of students’ improvement in pretest and posttest of

both experimental and control groups in term of accuracy are described in figure 4.1.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Experimental Pretest Posttest Control Pretest Posttest
 89

Figure 4.1 Students’ Speaking Achievement in Experimental and Control

Groups in term of Accuracy

2) The Students’ Fluency Achievement in Pretest and Posttest

The frequency score and the percentage of the students’ fluency in

experimental and control group can be seen in the table 4.4.

Table 4.4 The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Achievement in Term of
Fluency in Experimental Group and Control Group in Pretest
Experimental Group Control Group
Range of score Classification F % F %
85-100 Very good 0 0 0 0
76-84 Good 2 6.6 0 0
66-75 Average 5 16.7 8 26.7
56-65 Poor 0 0 0 0
≤56 Very poor 23 76.7 22 73.3
Total 30 100 30 100

Table 4.4 illustrates that most of the students in experimental and control

group were categorized in very poor category. The table shows that in experimental

group 23 students were categorized in very poor category (76.7 percent), 5 students

were in average category (16.7 percent) and 2 students were categorized in good

category (6.7 percent). In control group 22 students were in very poor category (73.3

percent) and 8 students were in average category (26.7 percent). Then it can be seen
 90

that the students in very poor category were bigger than others categories. It indicated

that the students’ speaking skill in term of fluency is still needed to be improved.

The frequency score and the percentage of the students’ fluency in posttest

both experimental group and control group can be seen in the table 4.5.

Table 4.5 The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Achievement in Term of
Fluency in Experimental Group and Control Group in Posttest
Experimental Group Control Group
Range of score Classification F % F %
85-100 Very good 0 0 0 0
76-84 Good 7 23.3 3 10
66-75 Average 17 56.7 7 23.3
56-65 Poor 0 0 0 0
≤56 Very poor 6 20 20 66.7
Total 30 100 30 100

Table 4.5 illustrates that most of the students in experimental group were

categorized in average category and control group were still in very poor category.

The result of the posttest in term of fluency shows that students in experimental group

belong to three categories, 7 students were categorized in good category (23.3

percent), 17 students were categorized in average category (56.7 percent) and 6

students were in categorized in very poor category (20 percent). While in control
 91

group showed that only 3 students were categorized in good category (10 percent), 7

students were categorized in good category (23.3 percent) and 20 students were

categorized in very poor category (66.6 percent).

In the table 4.6 the researcher presents the mean score and standard deviation

of the students’ pretest and posttest in term of fluency.

Table 4.6 The Mean Score and Standard Deviation of the Students’ Pretest and
Posttest in term of Fluency.
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Experimental
Pretest 48.88 30 15.12 2.76
Posttest
67.22 30 11.14 2.03

Control
Pretest 46.11 30 14.30 2.61
Posttest
56.66 30 12.06 2.20

The mean score and standard deviation were shown difference in pretest and

posttest. In table 4.6 illustrates the main score of pretest and posttest were different

after giving the treatment. This means that there is an improvement after giving the

treatment. The table shows that the mean score of the students’ pretest in

experimental groupwas 48.88 and standard deviation was 15.12; and in posttest was

67.22and standard deviation was 11.14. The mean score of the students’ pretest in
 92

control group was 46.11 and standard deviation was 14.30; and in posttest was

56.66and standard deviation was 12.06. The mean score of both pretest and posttest

were different after the treatment executed. It means that the main score of posttest is

higher than pretest (67.22>48.88) and (56.66>46.11).

The result of data analysis of students’ improvement in pretest and posttest of

both experimental and control groups in term of fluency are described in the figure

4.2.

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Experimental Pretest Posttest Control Pretest Posttest
 93

Figure 4.2 Students’ Speaking Achievement in Experimental and Control

Groups in term of Fluency

3) The Students’ Comprehensibility Achievement in Pretest and Posttest

The frequency score and the percentage of the students’ comprehensibility in

pretest in experimental and control group can be seen in the table 4.7.

Table 4.7 The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Achievement in Term of
Comprehensibility in Experimental Group and Control Group.
Experimental Group Control Group
Range of score Classification F % F %
85-100 Very good 0 0 0 0
76-84 Good 4 13.3 4 13.3
66-75 Average 8 26.7 6 20
56-65 Poor 0 0 0 0
≤56 Very poor 18 60 20 66.7
Total 30 100 30 100

Table 4.7 illustrates that most of the students in experimental and control

group were categorized in very poor category. The table shows that in experimental

group 18 students were categorized in very poor category (60percent), 8students were

categorized in average category (26.7 percent) and 4 students were categorized in

good category (13.3 percent); in control group shows that 20 students were

categorized in very poor category (66.7 percent), 6 students were in average category

(20 percent) and 4 students were in good category (13.3 percent).

 94

The frequency score and the percentage of the students’ ccomprehensibility in

posttest both experimental and control groups can be seen in table 4.8.

Table 4.8 The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Achievement in Term of
Comprehensibility in Experimental Group and Control Group
Experimental Group Control Group
Range of score Classification F % F %
85-100 Very good 1 3.3 0 0
76-84 Good 15 50 7 23.3
66-75 Average 13 43.3 9 66.7
56-65 Poor 0 0 0 0
≤56 Very poor 1 3.3 14 46.7
Total 30 100 30 100

Table 4.8 illustrates that in experimental group a student was categorized in

very good category (3.3 percent), 15 students were categorized in good category (50

percent), 13 students were categorized in average category (43.3 percent) and a

student was categorized in very poor category (3.3 percent). While in control group

the data result of data analysis shows that the categories were range in three

categories. Seven students were categorized in good category (23.3 percent), 9

students were categorized in average category (66.67 percent) and 14 students were

categorized in very poor category (46.7 percent).

In the table 4.9 the researcher presented the mean score and standard deviation

of the students’ pretest and posttest.

Table 4.9 The Mean Score and Standard Deviation of the Students’ Pretest and
Posttest in term of Comprehensibility.
 95

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Experimental
Pretest 55.55 30 15.98 2.91
Posttest
75.55 30 10.47 1.91

Control
Pretest 51.66 30 17.69 3.23
Posttest
62.77 30 13.61 2.48

The mean score and standard deviation were shown difference in pretest and

posttest. Table 4.9 illustrates the mean score of pretest and posttest was different after

giving the treatment. This means that there is an improvement after giving the

treatment. The table shows that the mean score of the students’ pretest in

experimental group was 55.55and standard deviation was 15.98; and in posttest

was75.55 and standard deviation was 10.47. Meanwhile, the mean score of the

students’ pretest in control group was 51.66 and standard deviation 17.69; and in

posttest was 62.77 and standard deviation 13.61. The mean score of both pretest and

posttest were different after the treatment executed. It means that the main score of

posttest is higher than pretest (75.55>55.55) and (62.77>51.66).

The students’ improvement in pretest and posttest of both experimental and

control group in term of comprehensibility are showed in the figure 4.3.

 96

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Experimental Pretest Posttest Control Pretest Posttest

Figure 4.3 Students’ Speaking Achievement in Experimental and Control

Groups in term of Comprehensibility

4) The Students’ Speaking Achievement

The researcher presents the mean score and standard deviation of the students’

speaking achivement in pretest and posttest for experimental and control group in the

table 4.10.
 97

Table 4.10 Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Speaking Achievement

in Pretest

Experimental Group Control Group

Range of score Classification F % F %
85-100 Very good 0 0 0 0
76-84 Good 3 10 3 10
66-75 Average 4 13.3 3 10
56-65 Poor 8 26.7 6 20
≤56 Very poor 15 50 18 60
Total 30 100 30 100

The table 4.10 shows that most of the students in experimental and control

group were in very poor category. The students who were categorized in very poor

category in experimental group were 15 students (50 percent), 8 students were

categorized in poor category (26.7 percent), 4 students were categorized in average

category (13.3 percent) and 3 students were categorized in good category (10

percent), while in control group, the sum frequency of students were categorized in

very poor category were 18 students (60 percent), 6 students were categorized in poor

category (20 percent), 3 students were categorized in average category (10 percent)

and 3 students were categorized in good category (10 percent).

 98

Based on the frequency of both experimental and control group shows that

very poor category was dominated by students. It signifies that both of the groups still

need to be improved.

Table 4.11 Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Speaking Achievement

in Posttest

Experimental Group Control Group

Range of score Classification F % F %
85-100 Very good 1 3.3 0 0
76-84 Good 9 30 6 20
66-75 Average 12 40 3 10
56-65 Poor 6 20 7 23.3
≤56 Very poor 1 3.3 14 46.7
Total 30 100 30 100

The table 4.11 shows that the students’ speaking achievement in experimental

and control group got improvement after the treatment. In experimental group the

table shows that a student was categorized in very good category, 9 students were

categorized in good category (30 percent), 12 students were categorized in average

category (40 percent), 6 students were categorized in poor category and only a

student was categorized in very poor category. In control group the frequency of the

students’ categories also changes even not too significant. The students categorized as

good category were 6 students (20 percent), average category were 3 students (10

percent), poor category were 7 students (23.3 percent) and very poor category were

14 students (46.7 percent).

 99

The distribution of the score of the students’ speaking achievement for

experimental and control group in posttest shows the difference from the pretest.

After conducting the treatment, both of the groups shows an improvement but in

experimental group was higher achievement than control group.

The researcher presents the mean score and standard deviation of the students’

speaking achievement in pretest and posttest for experimental group as shown in the

table 4.12.

Table 4.12 Mean Score and standard deviation of the students’ speaking
achievement in pretest and posttest

Group Mean Standard deviation

Experimental group 51.66 14.89

Pretest
Control group 50.36 15.15

Posttes Experimental group 70.37 10.45

t Control group 59.63 12.02

The table 4.12 shows the difference of mean score and standard deviation in

pretest and posttest to the both of the groups. The result of data analysis shows that

the mean score of experimental group and control group was mostly in the same score

before giving the treatment. After conducting the treatment, the score of the posttest

of experimental and control group shows the different score of mean score. It means

that there was an improvement after conducting the treatment. The table 4.12 shows

that the mean score of the students’ pretest of experimental group was 51.66 and the

standard deviation was 14.89, while in the control group, the mean score of the
 100

students’ pretest was 50.36 and the standard deviation was 15.15. The mean score of

the students’ posttest of experimental group after the treatment was 70.37 with the

standard deviation was 10.45, and the mean score of the students’ posttest of control

group was 59.63 with the standard deviation was 12.02. It shows that the mean score

of experimental group is higher than control group (70.37>59.63).

The result of the students’ improvement in experimental and control group

can be described in the figure 4.4.

70.37
59.07
51.66 50.36

Figure 4.4 Students’ Speaking Achievement in Experimental and Control

Groups

b. Test of Significance (t-Test)

The hypotheses were tested by using inferential analysis. In this case, the

researcher used t-test (testing of significance) or paired samples test for independent
 101

sample test, that is, a test to know the significance of difference between the result of

students’ mean scores in all mean score of pretests and posttests.

Assuming that the level of significance (α) = 0.05, the only thing which is

needed; the degree of freedom (df) = N-2=58. Below are the t-test results in pretest

and posttest of experimental and control group in term of accuracy, fluency, and

comprehensibility.

Table 4.13 The Probability Value of t-Test of the Experimental and Control Group
Achievement
Experimental Group t 2 Tailed (α) Remarks
Value
Pretest and Posttest 11.624 0.00 0.05 Significantly
Different
Control Group t 2 Tailed (α) Remarks
Value
Pretest and Posttest 9.897 0.00 0.05 Significantly
Different

Table 4.13 shows the probability value of t-test of the experimental and

control group achievement. In experimental group, the result of data anlysis showed

that there were significant difference between pretest and posttest where the

probability value (0.00) is smaller than the level of significance at t-table (0.05). It

can be drawn that the probability value was smaller than α (0.00<0.05). It indicated

that alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted and the null hypothesis (H0) was

rejected. In control group the result of analysis of pretest and posttest also showed

that there was significant difference between pretest and posttest result. The result of
 102

data analysis showed that the probability value (0.00) is smaller than the level of

significance at t-table (0.05) or it can be said that the probability value was smaller

than α (0.00<0.05). It indicated that the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted and

the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected.

Table 4.14 The Probability Value of t-Test of the Experimental and Control Group
Achievement in Pretest and Posttest
t 2 Tailed (α) Remarks
Value

Experimental and 0.33 0.74 0.05 No Different

Control Group Pretest
Experimental and 3.74 0.00 0.05 Significantly
Control Group Posttest Different

The result of data analysis in table 4.14 shows the result t-table value is higher

than probability value with α (0.05). It shows that there were no different between

pretest in experimental and control group. It indicated that the alternative hypothesis

(H1) was rejected and the null hypothesis (H 0) was accepted. In the other words, there

was no significant difference between the students speaking ability both groups,

experimental and control group before treatment.

While the result of data analysis on posttest of control and experimental group

showed that the probability value was smaller than α (0.00<0.05). It indicated that the

alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted and the null hypothesis (H 0) was rejected. It

means that the application of strategies-based instruction improves the students’

speaking skill.
 103

The researcher concludes that the data of posttest as the final result gave

significant improvement. It can be summarized that the use of strategies-based

instruction was able to give greater contribution in teaching speaking. In the other

word the use of strategies-based instruction in teaching speaking was effective.

B. Discussion

This section discusses the interpretation of the findings based on the result of

statistical analysis and the description of data gained. It consists of two parts,

students’ speaking skill and students’ interest.

1. Students’ Speaking Skill

Based on the findings above, the comparison of the improvement of students’

achievement of experimental and control group can be proved by analyzing the

posttest result. The result shows that the mean score of the students’ posttest both the

groups increased after giving the treatment. It can be seen through the mean score of

the students’ pretest was 51.66 becoming 70.37 for the experimental group, while the

students’ pretest for control group was 50.36 becoming 59.63, in this case, both of the

groups improved after giving a treatment. But the result of the posttest in

experimental group was higher than the control group (70.37>59.63). The result of

the posttest indicated that the use of strategies-based instruction give significant

progress toward students’ achievement.

 104

Comparing with the students pretest and posttest, the result of the pretest for

the both of the groups, experimental and control group were almost the same level.

The mean score of pretest of experimental group was 51.66 while in control group

was 50.36. After calculating the t-test, the result show that both of the groups of

almost in the same level. It can be proven from the value of P-value or sig. (2-tailed)

that shows that P-value or sig. (2-tailed) is higher than α (0.74 > 0.05). The mean

score of the posttest of experimental group was 70.37 while in control group was

59.63. The value of P-value or sig. (2-tailed) that shows that P-value or sig. (2-tailed)

is smaller than α (0.00> 0.05). It is supported by Gay (2006: 358) stated that there is

significant difference between pretest and posttest if the P-value or sig. (2-tailed) is

less than or equal to α (0.05).

In addition, the score between pretest and posttest of experimental group was

51.66<70.37. The students’ achievement increased about 18.71. It indicates that there

is a significant progress before and after treatment by using strategies-based

instruction. While, the pretest and posttest score of control group was 50.36 < 59.63.

It means that the students’ achievement increased about 8.71. It could be stated the

score of the two groups got progress, but the experimental class was higher than the

control group.

After seeing the result of data analysis, the researcher found that the value of P-

value or sig. (2-tailed) shows that p-value is smaller than α (0.00<0.05), where the p-

value (0.00) at the level of significance (0.05) and the degree of freedom 58. It

indicated that the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted and, of course, the null
 105

hypothesis (H0) was rejected. It shows that the use of strategies-based instruction

significantly affects students’ achievement. It was concluded that the use of

strategies-based instruction was able to give greater contribution in teaching and

learning process. In strategies-based instruction the researcher provided strategy

instruction for students by integrating learning strategies in learning speaking into

language tasks with various techniques in teaching speaking.

In this research, the researcher taught students learning strategies in learning

speaking explicitly, and implicitly integrated into everyday class material (Cohen et

al, 1995: 5). In the beginning of the research, the first meeting, the researcher

explicitly taught students about learning strategies in learning speaking. And during

treatments for 5 meetings the researcher implicitly asked the students to apply the

learning strategies in learning speaking by applying the steps in strategies-based

instruction that proposed by Cohen and Weaver (2005: 114-116). As the result of the

treatment it showed that the mean score of students’ posttest in experimental group is

improved significantly if compared with the control group (70.37>59.63). It was also

proved by the significance test that show the value of P-value or sig. (2-tailed) that p-

value is smaller than α (0.00<0.05), where the p-value (0.00) at the level of

significance (0.05) and the degree of freedom 29. It indicated that the alternative

hypothesis (H1) was accepted and, of course, the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected.

As stated before, there are three items that researcher try to find out, they are

accuracy (68.33), fluency (67.22), and comprehensibility (75.55). The highest score

was comprehensibility. Comprehensibility deals with the awareness of the overall

 106

meaning conveyed by the speaker without need of too much attention in the

individual linguistic and paralinguistic features in the speech signals. Therefore,

comprehensibility refers to the general meaning of the speech delivered. The

researcher assumed that the improvement of students’ speaking skill in term of

comprehensibility, relating to the students’ ability to take in the sounds uttered by

speakers and use them to construct an interpretation of what they think the speaker

intended to convey (Harris, 1974: 81).

Burn and Joyce (1997) state that speaking is an interactive process of

constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing

information. Its form and meaning are dependent on the context in which it occurs,

including the participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical

environment, an acceptable level of language, and the purpose for speaking.In fact,

the researcher also found problems in speaking activities when conducted the

treatments. The problems were like stated by Ur (1996: 121). They are inhibition, in

which students are often inhibited about trying to say things in a foreign language in

the classroom, worried about making mistakes, fearful of criticism or losing face, or

simply shy of the attention that their speech attracts; nothing to say in which students

complain that they cannot think of anything to say; low or uneven participation in

which the tendency of some learners to dominate, while, others speak very little or

not at all; and mother tongue use.

When conducted treatments, the researcher tried to motivate students to apply

learning strategies in speaking when they speak. As the purpose of strategies-based

 107

instruction, the activities are designed to raise awareness about strategies, to train

students in strategy use, to give them opportunities to practice strategy use and to

encourage them to personalize these strategies for themselves. The researcher also

prompted students to choose their own strategies and do so spontaneously, without

prompting from the language teacher (Cohen, 2005). In strategies-based instruction

students should be given the opportunity to understand not only what they can learn

in the language classroom, but also how they can learn the language they are studying

effectively and efficiently. The final result of strategies-based instruction was

students were expected to improve their speaking skills in term of accuracy, fluency,

and comprehensibility. Besides that this approach aims to assist students in becoming

more effective in their efforts to learn and use the target language.

The implication of strategies-based instruction in improving speaking skill

enhances the students’ achievement in speaking. But although the score of students’

posttest improved, it did not mean that they speak without any deficiencies and

mistakes. Here are some common mistakes made by students.

a. The Students’ Speaking Skills in Term of Accuracy

The result of data analysis shows that the use of strategies-based instruction can

improve students’ speaking skill in term of accuracy. It can be seen from the result of

posttest was higher than in the pretest (68.33>50.55). However, it can not be denied

that students made some mistakes during the research. The mistakes that the students

made were exemplified in the following description.

1) Mispronunciation
 108

Pronunciation is the way in which a language is spoken, the way in which a

word is pronounced, the way a person speaks the words of language. Correct

pronunciation is the pronunciation that almost same with the native speaker and

correct based on the phonological. Pronunciation was one of difficult problems faced

by students. Some mistakes that the students made when pronouncing English words

are as follows:

For example:

a) Curtain /‘kǝrtǝn/ become /kɅrten/

b) Picture /’pikcǝr/ become /pikcur/

c) Because /bi’kɔz/ become /bikaus/

2) Grammatical error

Mastering grammar knowledge will help one in speaking English, because he

will know how to arrange word in sentence, what tense will be used, how to use

appropriate utterance. Gautam (1988: 34) states that the quality of students’ speaking

ability will be better if they have a good structure. The most grammatical errors the

students made:

a) The misuse of singular and plural nouns

For example:

“…The shows is very entertaining…”

It should be “…The shows are very entertaining…” or “The show is

very entertaining…”

b) The misuse of verb form after modals

 109

For example:

“…I can to give them advice..”

It should be “…I can give them advice…”

b. The Students’ Speaking Skills in Term of Fluency

The result of data analysis shows that the use of strategies-based instruction can

improve students’ speaking skill in term of accuracy. It can be seen from the result of

posttest was higher then in the pretest (67.22>48.88).

Fluency refers to be able to communicate the ideas without thinking too much

about the things to say or having to stop. Richard and Rodger (2001: 90) state that

fluency is ability to produce written or spoken language easily. This indicates that

spoken language is produced naturally with hurtles.

From the data analysis of mean score show that fluency got the lowest score in

posttest if compared with accuracy and comprehensibility. The researcher assumed

that students’ fluency was influenced by the students’ lack of vocabulary. Another

reason is students did not mastery grammar. That’s made students made too many

pauses, halting, and repeating words several times.

Here some examples of students’ inhibition in speaking:

1) Unnatural pause. It is a pause the speaker makes when he wants to say

something but he loses of words or of the though he wants to express.

For example:

“..okey..I think..ee..I think…the television shows in Trans 7…is..eh..are

very good..”
 110

2) Repeating words. It is a word that the speaker almost all the time repeats

the same word to get what he says.

For example:

“..if my friend borrows money from me..I think..ee…I will ask..I

ask..ee..to return..to return,,my money..hehe..”

c. The Students’ Speaking Skill in Term of Comprehensibility.

The result of data analysis shows that the use of strategies-based instruction can

improve students’ speaking skill in term of accuracy. It can be seen from the result of

posttest was higher than in the pretest (75.55>55.55). Comprehensibility deals with

the awareness of the overall meaning conveyed by the speaker without the need of

too much attention in the individual linguistic and paralinguistic features in the

speech signal. Therefore, comprehensibility refers to the general meaning of the

speech delivered. Here the researcher presents the example of how the students

convey the general meaning of their utterances.

1) The speaker’s intention and general meaning are fair clear. A few

interruptions by the listener for the sake of clarification are necessary

For example:

“…My living room has medium size..ee..andit has white

color..mm..thereare..there are mm..sofa..mm..tv..carpet..e..matras, a

clock..mm..laptopand..mm..bucket (unclear utterances). I

always..mm..My family and I always spent time and actually…”

 111

Here, the researcher needs to clarify what the students mean by

“bucket”. And from all the extract transcribed, the researcher found that

the researcher just needs few interruptions to seek for clarification from

the students.

2) The listener can understand a lot of what is said, but he must constantly

seek clarification. Cannot understand and then with considerable effort

by someone who is used to listening to the speaker.

For example:

Mm,,,the first ee,,TVRI ,,,Because I,,because,,becauseprogram

(uncleared utterance) the showis,,isone of program (uncleared

utterances) for our students,,how how,,,(uncleared utterance, researcher

tried to understand what the student’ said )ee,,,for how about

information ee,,science,,and,,and,,politics,,budaya,,culture and

eitc,hehe,,(the researcher here seek clarification what the speaker said

and clarified the student’ utterance).

After the treatment, the students’ speaking skill improved. Then it is

concluded that strategies-based instruction improved students’ speaking skill. This

research in line with others research on strategies-based instruction field. The

researches on strategies-based instruction have been done by many researchers. Atik

(2006) on his research entitled “The Effect of Strategies-Based Instruction on

Speaking Skills of High School Students” found those students’ speaking skills
 112

improved after being taught through strategies-based instruction). Other research

came from Nakatani (2005). She conducted a research entitled “The effects of

Awareness-Raising Training on Oral Communication Strategy Use. She found that

the participants in the strategy training group significantly improved their oral

proficiency test scores and increased general awareness of communication strategies

used. The next research was done by Sujatha (2007). On his research entitled

“Developing Speaking Skills through Interaction Strategy Training”, he found that

training resulted in a significant use of interaction strategies, and in more effective

interaction between group members. Another research on strategies-based instruction

was conducted by Tezi (2003). He tried to find “The Effects of Strategies-Based

Instruction on Learner’s speaking performance”. The result of the research reported

that strategies-based instruction can improve students’ speaking skill and it could also

be inferred that learners’ awareness of where and how to use strategies was increased.

Therefore, it is concluded that strategies-based instruction can improve

students’ speaking skills in term of accuracy, fluency, and comprehensibility. The

researcher also assumed that the use of strategies-based instruction not only improves

students’ speaking skill but also students’ awareness of strategies use. As stated by

Oxford that strategies are important for two reasons. In the first place, strategies are

tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing

communicative competence. Secondly, learners who have developed appropriate

learning strategies have greater self-confidence and learn more effectively (1990: 1).

2. Students’ Interest
 113

The result of the research shows that most of students are interested in learning

English especially for speaking skills by strategies-based instruction. This is based on

table 4.14 showing that 21 students feel strongly agree and 9 students feel agree to the

most of statement related to students’ interest toward strategies-based instruction in

learning English especially in teaching speaking. It is indicated that teaching English

especially for speaking skills by using strategies-based instruction can increase the

students’ interest in learning English.

The interest of the students can be also shown from the mean score of the

students’ interest toward strategies-based instruction. The mean score of the students’

interest was 89.6 with the standard deviation 5.94 which was categorized as very high

interest with the interval score 85-100.

During teaching and learning process, students gave serious attention,

participated well in speaking class activities, asked lecturer if need help and

cooperated with peer. After noticing the finding and discussion above, it indicated

that the use of strategies-based instruction can improve the students’ speaking skills

and make them interest in learning English especially speaking skills. In the

researcher mind, there are some reasons why the use of strategies-based instruction

can improve the students’ speaking skills and it is interesting because in strategies-

based instruction speaking strategies were taught to students. This supported by

Nunan (1999: 171) that states knowledge of strategies is important, because the

greater awareness you have of what you are doing, if you are conscious of the
 114

processes underlying the learning that you are involved in, then learning will be more

effective.