CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

A. Speaking Skill

Speaking is a skill that must be possessed by every student because speaking is one form

of communication that is commonly used. Koşar & Bedir (2014) explains that improving

learners' speaking ability is an important skill to help them conduct direct communication.

Hornby (2005) states that "Speaking is used to demonstrate that what you are saying is true in

general, to convey ideas, and to converse with someone about something." Speech fluency

necessitates not only knowledge of language features, but also the ability to process information

and language on the spot (Harmer 1992).

Furthermore, Oktaviani (2012) states that Speaking is a two-way process that involves

both the productive and receptive skills of understanding. According to, Brown (2004)

"Speaking is a productive skill that can be directly and empirically observed; however, those

observations are invariably colored by the accuracy and effectiveness of the test-takers' listening

skill, which necessarily undermines the reliability and validity of an oral production test”.

Moreover, Speaking is the most difficult macro skill to assess among the macro skills of

language, meaning that recognizing oral ability is difficult. (Joiner & Jones, 2003).

According to Brown (2004) Type of speaking consist to five type. The first is Imitation

the ability to simply parrot back (imitate) a word, phrase, or possibly a sentence is at one end of a

spectrum of types of speaking performance. While this is a purely phonetic level of oral

production, the criterion performance may include a number of prosodic, lexical, and

grammatical properties of language. We are only concerned with what is commonly referred to
as "pronunciation"; no assumptions are made about the test-ability taker's to understand or

convey meaning, or to participate in an interactive conversation. The only role of listening here

is to store a prompt for a short period of time, just long enough to allow the speaker to retain the

short stretch of language that must be imitated. The second is Intensive a second type of

speaking that is frequently used in assessment contexts is the production of short stretches of oral

language designed to demonstrate competence in a narrow band of grammatical, phrasal, lexical,

or phonological relationships (such as prosodic elements-intonation, stress, rhythm, juncture).

The speaker must be aware of semantic properties in order to respond, but interaction with an

interlocutor or test administrator is minimal at best. Directed response tasks, reading aloud,

sentence and dialogue completion, limited picture-cued tasks including simple sequences, and

translation up to the simple Sentence level are examples of intensive assessment tasks. Third is

Responsive. Interaction and test comprehension are included in responsive assessment tasks, but

at a relatively low level of very short conversations, standard greetings and small talk, simple

requests and comments, and the like.

Fourth is Interactive. The length and complexity of the interaction, which sometimes

includes multiple exchanges and/or multiple participants, distinguishes responsive and

interactive" speaking. Interaction can take one of two forms: transactional language, which is

used to exchange specific information, or interpersonal exchanges, which are used to maintain

social relationships. (In the three dialogues mentioned above, A and B were transactional, while

C was interpersonal.) Oral production in interpersonal exchanges can become pragmatically

complex due to the need to speak in a casual register and use colloquial language, ellipsis, slang,

humor, and other sociolinguistic conventions. The last is extensive (monologue). Speeches, oral

presentations, and story-telling are examples of extensive oral production tasks in which the
opportunity for oral interaction from listeners is either severely limited (possibly to nonverbal

responses) or completely eliminated. Language style is frequently more deliberate (planning is

involved) and "formal" for lengthy tasks, but we cannot rule out certain informal monologues"

such as casually delivered speech (for example, my vacation in the mountains, a recipe for

outstanding pasta primavera, recounting the plot of a novel or movie).

B. Assessing Speaking

Assessment of speaking can be a very judgmental issue, with people tending to compare

native/nonnative speakers based on pronunciation (Luoma, 2004). Moreover, Nunan (1999)

viewed that Speaking requires someone to be linguistically competent in terms of properly

articulating sounds, having a large vocabulary, and mastering structural or grammatical

components. To be able to overcome this, an assessment in speaking is needed, there are several

kinds of speaking assessment. Discussions and conversations with and among students are

difficult to define and even more difficult to score as formal assessment devices. However, as

informal technique of assessing learners, they provide a level of authenticity and spontaneity that

other technique of assessment may not (Brown, 2004).

Discussions may be particularly appropriate tasks for eliciting and observing such

abilities as: first, topic nomination, maintenance, and termination. Second, attention getting,

interrupting, floor holding, control. Third, clarifying, questioning, and paraphrasing. Fourth

comprehension signals (nodding, "uh-huh," "hmm," etc.). Fifth negotiating meaning. Sixth

intonation patterns for pragmatic effect. Seventh kinesics, eye contact, proxemics, body

language. And the last politeness, formality, and other sociolinguistic factors. Assessing
participant performance using scores or checklists (noting appropriate or inappropriate

manifestations of any category) should be carefully designed to fit the objectives of the observed

discussion. Of course, because discussion is an integrative task, it is also advisable to consider

comprehension performance when evaluating learners (Brown 2004).

Assessments are used to the first, diagnose students' learning difficulties, second measure

learning improvements, third motivate student learning, fourth assess students' mastery of

knowledge and skills, fifth evaluate students' ability in the classroom, sixth evaluate the method

of learning, seventh evaluate the effectiveness of learning, and last cultivate discipline in

learning and obeying rules (Dunn, 2004).

C. Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is a learning system in groups directed by the teacher in solving

problems to achieve learning objectives. Moreover, Cooperative learning is a type of learning

model that facilitates group members' learning through group cooperation (Zhang, 2018).

"Cooperative learning is an instructional task design that actively engages students in achieving a

lesson objective through their own efforts and the efforts of members of their small learning

team." (Leighton, 2011, p. 257). Therefore, Teachers must teach students interpersonal skills

such as communication, leadership, trust, decision-making, and conflict resolution in classrooms

where CL is used. (Johnson et al., 2013).

Cooperative learning is a pedagogical practice that has received a great deal of attention

in the last three decades due to a large body of research indicating that students benefit both

academically and socially when they have opportunities to interact with others to achieve shared
goals (Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Lou et al, 1996; Slavin, 1996). Riyanto (2010:267) stated

Cooperative learning is a learning model that is intended to teach both academic and social and

interpersonal skills. According to Arends and Kilcher (2010:306) Cooperative learning is a

teaching model or strategy that is distinguished by cooperative task, goal, and reward structures

and necessitates active student participation in discussion, debate, tutoring, and teamwork.

The four basic principles symbolized by the acronym PIES are the most important tool

we have for understanding the positive impact of cooperative learning (Kagan 2009). PIES

Principles are the fist, Positive interdependence fosters mutual support among students,

establishes peer norms that promote achievement, and increases the frequency and quality of

peer tutoring. Second, individual accountability significantly increases student participation and

motivation to succeed. Third, there is the issue of equal participation. When we equalize

participation, students who would otherwise not participate or participate very little become

engaged. The Last, Simultaneous Interaction When we use simultaneous rather than sequential

structures, the amount of participation per student and our efficiency in teaching and managing

the classroom are greatly increased. (Kagan 2009).

Moreover, Arends (2009) Cooperative learning lessons have the following

characteristics: First, Students work in groups to achieve learning objectives. Second, Teams are

made up of students with high, average, and low academic achievement. Third, whenever

possible, teams should be diverse in terms of race, culture, and gender. Last, Reward systems are

geared toward both the group and the individual.

D. Time Token

Arends (2012:384) states that Time Token is a cooperative learning model in which

students work together to complete cooperative activities and assist one another in understanding

a specific topic. Moreover, Istarani (2011:194) defines The Time Token technique is a structure

that can be used to teach social skills, avoid talking dominance of specific students, or keep

students quiet during class activities. According to Huda (2014:239) Time Token is put students

as subjects by providing democratic teaching techniques. According to (Arends, 2012), Time

Token Arends is cooperative learning where some people dominate the conversation while others

are shy and never say anything. From the statement the Time Token is technique can help to

provide equal opportunities to each student so that no student dominates or students are silent.

E. Steps for Time Token Activity

According to Istarani (2011:194) suggests several steps for the Time Token activity; first,

prepare the time token coupon that will be distributed to the students. Second, arrange the

students' seating to create a discussion format. Third, each student is given a coupon for 30

seconds of speaking time. Fourth, once the student has finished speaking, it must be handed over

to the teacher. One coupon per speaking opportunity. Finally, students who have used up their

coupon have no more opportunity to speak. The opportunity is only available to those who still

have their coupon in hand.

Furthermore Arends (2012) said each student is given a number of tokens, each worth ten

or fifteen seconds of speaking time. A student monitors the interaction and asks talkers to hand

over a token when they have used up the allotted time. When a student has used up all of his or
her tokens, he or she is no longer permitted to speak. This, of course, necessitates that those who

still have tokens participate in the discussion.

F. Related Research

The first journal was written by Riaci Bertty Parlian, Muhammad Kristiawan, Indra

Johari in 2016 with the title “The Effect of Time Token Technique Towards Students’ Speaking

Skill at Science Class at High School 1 Pariaman.” In this journal the researcher wanted to find

out the effect of time token technique on students’ speaking skill science class at High School.

This research was an experiment, which is referred to post-test only design, used to Cluster

random sampling. The researcher used two different techniques, for MIPA 1 using the Time

Token technique while for MIPA 5 using the debate technique. The researchers analyzed the

normality test by using Lilliefors testing for both samples of post-test in experiment and control

class. The result of this research was found that there was a significant effect of time token

technique on students’ speaking skill than students who were taught by debate technique.

The other journal was written by Sholihatul Hamidah Daulay, Maryati Salmiah, and

Zahrina Ulfa in 2019 which entitle “Students’ Speaking Skill through Cooperative Learning

Strategy: Time Token Arends”. This research was written to describe how time token strategy

improve students’ speaking skill. Classroom Action Research was chosen as the research design.

This research was conducted in two cycles which each cycle consisted of planning, acting,

observing, and reflecting. The data were gathered through quantitative and qualitative data. The

result of this research showed that there was improvement in students’ speaking skills.