See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325110682

IMPROVING STUDENTS' SPEAKING SKILL THROUGH CONTENT-BASED

INSTRUCTION (CBI)

Article · November 2015

CITATIONS READS

15 2,584

2 authors, including:

Riki Bugis
Universitas Iqra Buru
37 PUBLICATIONS   252 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

English Teaching View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Riki Bugis on 13 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL THROUGH CONTENT-
BASED INSTRUCTION (CBI)

Widya Astuty Buton

Universitas Iqra Buru, Maluku
widyauniqbu@gmail.com

Riki Bugis
Universitas Iqra Buru, Maluku
rikibugisuniqbu@gmail.com

Azwan
Universitas Iqra Buru, Maluku
azwanuniqbu@gmail.com

Abstract: The objectives of this research were to find out the use of Content-Based
Instruction (CBI) improve the students’ English speaking skill at the Tenth Grade of
SMA Negeri Sawa and to find out the use of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) can make
the students’ interest in learning speaking. In this research, the researcher used pre-
experiment design. The research was conducted at the Tenth grade of SMA Negeri Sawa.
The sample of the research consists of 23 students. The instruments were a speaking test
and questionnaire. The data obtain from the test were tabulated and analyzed into
percentage and t-test. The result of t-test 21.314 and t-table 1,717 the level of significance
α = 0.05 and the degree of freedom (df) = 23, where N1 – 1 = 22 the result of the data
analyzed shows there is significant different between pre-test and post test. The students
also interest to use Content-Based Instruction (CBI). It proves by the result of
questionnaire 70,22. Based on the result, the researcher concluded that Content-Based
Instruction (CBI) can improve the students speaking skill and the students’ interest to use
Content-Based Instruction (CBI) in learning process.
Keyword: Content-Based Instruction (CBI), Speaking Skill

INTRODUCTION

Speaking is one of the four language skills (reading, writing, listening and
speaking). It is the means through which learners can communicate with others
toachieve certain goals or to express their opinions, intentions, hopes and
viewpoints. In addition, people who know a language are referred to as
‘speakers’of that language. Furthermore, in almost any setting, speaking is the
most frequently used of language skill. As Rivers (1981) argues, speaking is used
twice asmuch as reading and writing in our communication. This the teacher
should employ an interested strategy and create a medium which can motivate the
students in learning English.
The researcher conducted her preliminary study at SMA Negeri Sawa at X1
grade. In this study, the researcher has collected data through observation. From
the data, the researcher found some problems in speaking class that came from
two side, they were the students’ and the teacher’s side. First, from students’ side,
the students have problem with pronunciation and vocabulary. It happened
because they lack of practice speaking in study, and memorize the vocabulary.
Those made students get difficulties to improve their speaking.
Second, from the teacher’s side, the teacher did not have a good media to
teach students, in learning teacher just process of teaching without using
interesting media, that made students feel bored to study. Finally, the students
could not increase their speaking in English.
From those problems found above, the researcher conclude that Content-
Based Instruction (CBI) can make students more interesting and motivate in
learning English, because it is simple to use. So, they can improve their speaking
easily. Based on the explanation above, the researcher interest to conduct a
research about “Improving Students’ Speaking Skill Through Content-Based
Instruction (CBI) at the Tenth Grade of SMA Negeri Sawa”

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
According to Chaney in Susanti (2007: 6), speaking is the process of building
and sharing meaning through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, in a
variety of context. According to Grognet A.G (136:1997) Speaking is one of the
skills that have to be mastered by students in learning English. Speaking is an
essential tool for communicating.
Based on the meaning above, the researcher concludes that speaking is a
process to building and sharing meaning that have to be mastered by students in
learning English.
There are four components of speaking skill introduced by Heaton in Tahir
(2012: 98), they are; accuracy, fluency, comprehensibility, and content.
Accuracy in speaking means when someone can produce correct sentences in
pronunciation, grammar and word choice so it can be understood. There are three
components of accuracy. They are pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar.
Stovall in Asni in Tahir (2012: 98) defined fluency as the ability to converse with
others much more than the ability to read, write or comprehend oral language. In
Longman dictionary, fluency s defined as the features that give speech the
qualities of being natural and normal. Meanwhile Simon and Schuster in Amin in
Tahir (2012 : 98) defined fluency as :(1) The quality of flowing, smoothness,
freedom from harshness,(2) The ability to write or to speak easily, smoothly,
expressively, readiness or smoothness of speech.
Comprehensibility is the process of understanding of the utterances sent by
the speaker done by the listener. Also comprehensibility in speaking means that
people can understand what we say and we can understand what they say. Harmer
(in Tahir2012: 99) says that if two people want to make communication to each
other, they have to speak because they have different information. If there is a
‘gap’ between them, it is not a good communication if the people still confuse
with what they say.
According to Richard and Roger (2001: 204), Content-Based Instruction
(CBI) refers to an approach to second language teaching in which teaching is
organized around the content or information that students will acquire, rather than
around a linguistic or other type of syllabus.
Furthermore, Krahnke (1987:65) defines Content-Based Instruction (CBI)
astheteaching of content or information in the language being learned with little or

2
no direct orexplicit effort to teaching the language itself separately from the
content being taught. Moreover, Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989: 2)offered
thedefinition of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) as “the integration of particular
content with language-teaching aims”.The activities in Content-Based Instruction
(CBI) class are centered around the content being taught and students are expected
to learn the content by using the target language.
Stewart (2008:12)statesthat the proponents of Content-Based Instruction
(CBI) argue that language is most effectively learned in the context of relevant
and meaningful content. Based on the meaning above, the researcher concludes
that using Content-Based Instruction (CBI) is effective to apply in the teaching
speaking because it made the students more fun and interest to study, so they can
improve their speaking.

METHOD
The writers used pre-experiment design to find out the result of a certain
technique. Best in Sigh (2006: 134) has defined experiment that “Experiment
research is the description and analysis of what will be or what will occur, under
careful controlled condition” and one group pre-test and post-test of this research.
The research did an experiment is a single group or a class only.
The population of this research is the tenth grade of SMA Negeri Sawa in
academic year 2016/2017. The total of the population is 48 students. The
researcher used one class in this research and the sample is X1 grade where
thereare 23 samples of this research. In this research, the research used several
instrument which is consisted of two instruments such as test and questionnaire.
The researcher uses pre-test and post-test to assess students’ speaking skill. The
test are aimed to measure the students’ progress and result of teaching learning
activities.
Data on students’ speaking and questionnaire were collected in line with the
instrument (test and questionnaire), it were scoring, calculating the mean score
and standard deviation use the following procedure. To score the students’
speaking pronunciation and vocabulary based on the students’ answer from the
test (pre-test and post-test) and then the test will beanalyzed using following
criteria level.

FINDINGS
The researcher used pretest and posttest to see the improvement of students’
speaking through Content-Based Instruction (CBI).
a. The students’ frequency and percentage in pretest and posttest
The frequency and percentage of the students’ in pretest and posttest
through content-based instruction can see in the table below.
Table 1. The frequency and percentage of the students in pretest and posttest
Range of Pretest Posttest
Classification
Score F % F %
86 – 100 Excellent 0 0 0 0
71 – 85 Very Good 0 0 4 17.4
56 – 70 Good 0 0 12 52.2
41 – 55 Average 6 26.1 7 30.4
26 – 40 Poor 12 52.2 0 0

3
 ≤ - 25 Very Poor 5 21.7 0 0
Total 23 100 23 100

In the table above, shows the percentage of pretest, very poor is 21.7% (5
students), poor is 52.2% (12 students) and average is 26.1% (6 students). Based
on the percentage in pretest, it shows that many students in low category. While in
posttest, shows that the students after the treatment, the percentage was higher
than pretest. Average is 30.4% (7 students), good is 52.2% (12 students) and very
good is 17.4% (4 students). It means there was the different between pretest and
posttest.
Figure 1. Students’ speaking of pronunciation and vocabulary in pretest
and posttest

70 63.87
59.52
60

50

40 36.7
33.22 Pronunciation

30 Vocabulary

20

10

0
Pretest Posttest

In the figure shows above that pronunciation and vocabulary in posttest

are higher than in pretest. It means that there were significant different between
pretest and posttest before and after treatment used Content-based Instruction
(CBI).
b. The mean score, standard deviation and standard error mean of students’
speaking
Table 2. The mean score standard deviation of students’ speaking achievement
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Pretest 34.91 23 8.31 1.73
Posttest 61.57 23 10.59 2.20
The main score and standard deviation shows the difference in pretest and
posttest. The data based on the computation using SPSS 20.0. The data in table
4.2 shows the main score of pretest and posttest was different. This means that
there was an improvement after giving the treatment. The table also shows the
main score of the students’ pretest was 34.91, standard deviation was 8.31 and
standard error mean was 1.73 and in posttest was 61.57, standard deviation was
10.59 and standard error mean was 2.20. The main score of both pretest and

4
posttest were different after the treatment. It means the main score of posttest
higher than pretest (61.57>34.91).
The data of the students’ improvement in pretest and posttest are described
in following figure.
Figure 2. Mean Score in Pretest and Posttest

70
61.57
60

50

40 34.91

30

20

10

0
Pretest Posttest

c. Test of Significance (T-test)

Assuming that the level of significance (α) = 0,05, the only thing which is
need, the degree of freedom (df) = 23, where N1 – 1 = 22 is 1,717. The result of
computed t-test in SPSS is 21.314 and it is more than 1,717, it means that
Alternative Hypothesis (H1) is accepted and Null Hypothesis (H0) is rejected.
Table 3. The t-test of the students’ pronunciation and vocabulary in speaking
achievement in pretest and posttest
Pronunciation 2 Tailed
T (α) Remarks
& Vocabulary Value
Pretest and Significantly
21.314 .000 0,05
Posttest different

DISCUSSION
In this discussion section the researcher presents the interpretation of the
students’ pronunciation and vocabulary in speaking results of pretest and posttest
and also the students’ score in questionnaire.
There are 5 questions that the researcher used in pretest and posttest to
know the pronunciation and vocabulary of the students’ speaking. The results of
the students’ speaking score were below:
• Pretest
➢ Pronunciation : There were 5 students got 3 score, 13 students got
2 score and 5 students got 1 score.
➢ Vocabulary : There were 5 students got 3 score and 18 students
got 2 score.
• Posttest

5
 ➢ Pronuciation : There were 2 students got 5 score, 9 students got 4
score and 12 students got 3 score.
➢ Vocabulary : There were 4 students got 5 score, 11 students got
4 score and 8 students got 3 score.
(see on appendix 3)
From the data above the researcher used SPSS version 20.0 to found out
the main score in pretest and posttest of the students’ speaking, where the result
shows that the main score of posttest was 61.57 higher than pretest was 34.91. It
means there was improvement used Content-Based Instruction (CBI) of
pronunciation and vocabulary in students’ speaking.
There were some problems that the researcher found in students’ speaking were
below:
a. Missed pronunciation
Pronunciation is one of the important components that a good english
speaker uses when someone express their ideas in an interaction in order to have a
good communication.
Besides that, according to Carter in Tahir (2012: 150), states that
pronunciation is the manner of uttering words with referring to the pattern of
accent choice of phonemes, novel quality, and syllable lenght employed be
distinguished from articulation, which refers to production of individual sounds.
Some mistakes that the students made when pronouncing english words
are presented below:
1.Tighteen (taiteen) → (tigtin)
2. Certainly (se:tnti) → (certainli)
3. Careful (keafl) → (karful)
4. Screw (skru:) → (skrew)
5. Sure (so:(r)) → (sur)
6. Objection (eb’djeksn) → (objektion)
7. All (o:l) → (al)
8. Peel (pi:l) → (pel)
9. Wash (wos) → (was)
10. Potatoes (pa’teitaus) → (potatoes)
The data shows above that the students got difficult in pronunciation
where there were many missed pronunciation.
b. The inappropriate word choice
The inappropriate use of english words is the words that the students use,
because of wrong diction anf wrong class of words, the students’ mistake in word
choice are as follow:
1. Don’t peel the potatoes before you brush them.
Should be → Don’t peel the potatoes beforeyou wash them.
2. Open door please.
Should be → Open the door please.
The students made some mistake, it happened because they lack of
vocabulary.

CONCLUSION
Based on the research, the researcher can conclude that: 1) The use of
Content-Based Instruction (CBI) in teaching speaking can improve the students’

6
skill in pronunciation and vocabulary. It proved by mean score of posttest’s result
(61.57) was higher than pretest’s result (34.91). 2) The use of Content-Based
Instruction (CBI) in teaching speaking made the students interest to learning
English. It proved by mean score of students interest is 70.22.
Based on the conclusion above, the researcher addresses the suggestion as
following: 1) The researcher suggested implementing Content-Based Instruction
(CBI) in teaching speaking as a medium to improve the students’ pronunciation
and vocabulary. 2) The researcher suggested for the teacher to use Content-Based
Instruction (CBI) in teaching speaking, because it is enjoyable and made the
students more relax. 3) The researcher recommended to the next researcher to find
out new media to teaching English, in order to make the students interest to study.

References

Abd El Fattah Torky, 2006.The Effectiveness of a Task-Based Instruction

Program in Developing the English Language Speaking Skills of
Secondary Stage Students.Kairo: Unpublised thesis. Ain Shams
University.
AyuRainaMufida, et al. November 2013. The effect of Content-Based Instruction
and Task-Based Language Teaching on the Second Semester Students’
Speaking Skill and Students’ Speaking Motivation of English
Department Islamic University Indragiri. Padang. Journal English
Language Teaching (ELT).Volume 1.Nomor 3.
Bin Tahir, S. Z. (2012). Teaching English as World Language: Pengajaran
Bahasa Inggris. Jakarta: Media Pustaka Qalam.
Bin Tahir, S. Z. (2015). Multilingual Education in Pesantren Context. Yogyakarta:
Deepublish.
Bin Tahir, S. Z. (2015). Improving Students’ Speaking Skill through Voice Chat
at University of Iqra Buru. Journal of Modern Education Review, 5(3),
296-306.
Bin Tahir, S. Z. (2013). Penggunaan Facebook Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan
Menulis Teks Deskriptif Mahasiswa Fkip Jurusan Bahasa Inggris Di
Universitas Iqra Buru. Jurnal Prospek. Vol. 15(1). 68-76.
Bin-Tahir, S. Z. (2014). Improving Students’ Writing Skill through Facebook at
University of Iqra Buru and Tadulako University. Conference
Presentation.
Bin-Tahir, S. Z. (2010). English Teaching Methods at Pesantren IMMIM of
Makassar. Jupiter Journal. Vol. 10(1). 34-43.
Bin Tahir, S. Z. (2013). Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris–Teaching English as World
Language. Jakarta: Media Pustaka Qalam.
Bin-Tahir, S. Z. (2013). Improving Students' Writing Narrative Text through
Facebook. Jurnal Prospek. ISSN: 0852-8780 Vol. 10, 2013.
Brignton, D. M., M. A Snow, et al. 1989.Content based second language
instruction. New York: Newbury House.
Bygate, Martin. 1987. Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (ed). 2001. Teachingenglish as a second or foreign language, 3
rd edition. Boston, M. A: Heinle and Heinle.

7
 Harmer, Jeremy, 2002.The Practice of English Language
Teaching.Harlow:Longman.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2004. How to teach English. (13thed.). Kuala Lumpur :
Longman.
Hedge, Tricia. 2008. Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hornby. 1990. Oxford Advance Learner`s Dictionary. New York : Oxford
University Press.
Nagarija. 1996. English language testing: Approach, Method, Techniques. Orient
Longman Private Limited.
Madsen Harold S. 1984. Technique in testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyster, Roy. 2007. Learning and teaching language through content: a
counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins B. V.
Paulston, et al. 1985. Teaching English as a second language: technique and
procedures. Cambrige : Winthroppublisher, Inc.
Tahir, Saidna, Z, Bin, 2012. Teaching English as a World Language. Jakarta:
Qalam Media Pustaka.
Tahir, B., & Zulfiqar, S. (2015). Multilingual Behavior of Pesantren IMMIM
Students in Makassar. Asian EFL Journal, 86, 45-64.
Tahir, S. Z. A. B. (2015). Improving Students’ Speaking Skill through Yahoo
Messenger at University of Iqra Buru. International Journal of
Language and Linguistics, 3(3), 174-181.
Tahir, S. Z. B. (2012). Redefining Terms of Teaching and Learning Strategy,
Method, Approach, Technique, and Model. Public lecture on
Microteaching at English Education Department of University of Iqra Buru,
November 01st 2012.
Polsky, 2007. “Language skill”. Retrived Juni 6 2007 http:/kids
source.com/asha/letstalk33html.
Stryker, et al. 1997.Content-based instruction in foreign language education::
models and methods. Washington D. C: Georgetown Unversity Press.
Zulfiqar, S. (2013). Teaching Speaking through Yahoo Messenger. Jakarta: Media
Pustaka Qalam.

View publication stats