CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the writer describes the background of the study, the

problem of the study, the objective of the study, the significance of the study, the

hypotheses of the study.

A. Background of the Study

English as an international language is a term used to characterize the

status of as the worlds’ major second language and the commonest language used

for international business, trade, travel, communication, etc. Like the term World

Englishes, the notion of international language recognizes that different norms

exist for the use of English around the world (Richards et.al, 2010 : 196).

In learning English, there are four skills which must be mastered for the

English learners. That consists of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Here,

speaking it is important skill. Speaking is the main skill that has an important role

in language learning because the main purpose of learning foreign language.

Linse (2005: 46) defines that speaking is the productive oral skill. It can be

said that oral is the process of listening about someone talking and oral is the

process of giving respond to what is someone talking. By speaking, the speaker

can deliver the message about a topic to the listener orally and listener gives

feedback. In other word, speaking as social interaction which happens in our

believes. And also speaking is expressing ideas, taught and feeling in oral

language. The writer can express the idea or opinion in conversation.

1
 According to Pollard (2008:18) stated that “in teaching and learning the

teacher has some role. Therefore the function of the teacher in teaching learning

process is as a controller, director, facilitator, moderator, and motivator in

teaching and learning process”.

The writer wanted to improve speaking ability is supported by language

components. So, if the speaker were lacks of knowledge for mastery it make the

speaker faces many problems in their communication. Besides that many teachers

who teach speaking often do not know the method in teaching speaking. The

students get difficulties in understanding the teacher’s explanation and it means

that the teacher may be failed in teaching of students. English teacher should uses

some methods in teaching speaking skill which make the students are interested

and got motivation to speak in the classroom activity.

Cooperative script method is a part of cooperative learning and as a

method of cooperative. Slahl (2002) states that cooperative is the methodology

that guided the interaction of cooperative groups as they complete the designated

test. It means that, in this method the student work with group. One group consist

of two students. The writer concludes of cooperative script is a learning method,

where students work in pair. As speaker and as listener, they change the role who

before as listener be speaker, who before speaker be listener. The writer used a

cooperative script method, because this method very varied, active and create a

joyful learning.

Based on the pre-observation in SMA Negeri 6 OKU, and asking to the

English teacher. The writer found there were a lot problems in teaching speaking

2
English, the students were so difficult to speak English it might come from lack of

vocabulary. Some students did not have self-confidence to speak English in the

classroom because they still had problem with pronunciation, intonation,

grammar, and prefer to keep silent during the teaching and learning process. The

students haven’t idea to talk about English.

From the problem above, the writer was interested to conduct a research

entitled” The Effectiveness of Teaching Speaking by Using Cooperative Script

Method to the Eleventh Grade Students of SMA Negeri 6 OKU.

B. Problem of the Study

1. Limitation of the problem

The problem of the study was limited in the effectiveness of teaching

speaking by using cooperative script method at eleventh grade students of SMA

Negeri 6 OKU. The material focus on retelling a narrative text.

2. Formulation of the Problem

The problem of the study would formulated in the following question:

“was it significantly effective or not to teach speaking by using cooperative script

method at the eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 6 OKU?”

C. Objective of the Study

Based on the problem above, the objective of this study was to find out

whether or not significantly effective to teach speaking by using cooperative

script method to the eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 6 OKU.

D. Significances of the Study

The significances of the study may given contribution on the following parts:

3
1. For the Students

The result of the study could motivate students to increase their ability in

speaking skill and make the students more active using cooperative script method.

2. For the English Teacher

The result of this study may inform the English teacher that using

cooperative script method can be applied as an alternative method in teaching

speaking skill.

3. For the Writer

To the writer herself, the study was improve her English and given her

some experience in conducting and educational research scientifically.

4. For the TEFL

The result of the study could be good contribution to the development of

teaching and learning English as foreign language.

E. Hypotheses of the Study

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2009: 45) the hypothesis is simply put,

a prediction of the possible outcomes of a study. In this study there were two

kinds of hypotheses. Th hypotheses were formulated:

Null Hypothesis (Ho) : There was not significantly effective to use

cooperative script method in teaching speaking to

the eleventh grade students SMA Negeri 6 OKU.

Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): There was significantly effective to use cooperative

script method in teaching speaking to the eleventh

grade students of SMA Negeri 6 OKU.

4
F. Criteria for Testing the Hypotheses

The criteria for testing the hypothesis were:

a. If t-obtained (to) was equal to or more than t-table (tt), so the null hypothesis

(Ho) was unacceptable and alternative hypothesis (Ha) was acceptable: it

meant that there was significantly effective using cooperative script method to

teach speaking skill to the eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 6 OKU.

b. If t-obtained (to) was less than t-table (tt), so the null hypothesis (Ho) was

acceptable and alternative hypothesis (Ha) was unacceptable: it meant that

there was no significantly effective using cooperative script method to teach

speaking skill to the eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 6 OKU.

5
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter the writer describes and discusses about theoritical

farmework, and other previous related study.

A. Theoritical Farmework

1. Concept of Teaching

Teaching is the activities of education or instructing. According to Pollard

(2008:18) stated that “in teaching and learning the teacher has some role.

Therefore the function of the teacher in teaching learning process is as a

controller, director, facilitator, moderator, and motivator in teaching and learning

process”.

According to Brown (2000:7) teaching is showing or helping someone to

learn how to do something, giving instruction, guiding in the study of something,

giving instruction, guiding in the study of something, providing knowledge,

causing to know or understand. It means that teaching is an activity to give or

transfer the knowledge to the students and process to create good condition in

learning process.

Based on the definition above, the writer assumptions that teaching is a

very important role in learning process. Teaching is an interaction between the

learner and teacher in the classroom to give useful knowledge.

6
2. Concept of Speaking

Speaking is one of the four skill. Speaking is one of four skills in teaching

learning process and speaking part in communication. According to Brown

(2004:140), speaking is a productive skill that can be directly and empirically

observed those observations are invariably colored by the accuracy and

effectiveness of a test-taker’s listening skill, which necessarily compromises the

reliability and validity of an oral production test. He explains that there are six

types of classroom speaking performance as follows.

a. Imitative

At one end of a continuum of types of speaking performance is the ability

to simply parrot back (imitate) a word or phrase or possibly a sentence. While this

a purely phonetic level of oral production, a number of prosodic, lexical, and

grammatical properties of language may be included in the criterion performance.

b. Intensive

A second type of speaking frequently employed 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

relationship (such as prosodic elements-intonation, stress, rhythm, juncture).

c. Responsive

Responsive assessment tasks include interaction and test comprehension

but at the somewhat limited level of very short conversation, standard greetings

and small talk, simple requests and comments, and the like.

d. Interactive

7
 Interactive speaker is in the length and complexity of the interaction,

which sometimes includes multiple exchanges or multiple participants. Interaction

can take the two forms of transactional language, which has the purpose of

exchanging specific information, or interpersonal exchanges, which has the

purpose of maintaining social relationship.

e. Extensive (monologue)

Extensive oral production tasks include speeches, oral presentations, and

story-telling, during which the opportunity for oral interaction from listener is

either highly limited (perhaps to nonverbal responses) or ruled out altogether.

According to Pollard (2008:33), speaking is one of the most difficult

aspects for students to master. This hardly surprising when one considers

everything that is involved when speaking: ideas, what to say, language, how to

use grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation as well as listening to and reacting to

the person you are communicating with. Any learner of a foreign language can

confirm how difficult speaking is.

Based on the definition above, the writer has assumption that speaking is

the oral production that using language to make a conversation with other directly.

In speaking, the learner also attention to the aspect which involve in learning

speaking ability they are how to say, how to use grammar, vocabulary, and

pronunciation. So, the speaker and listener have understood each other.

8
3. Concept of Cooperative Script

Slahl (2002) states that cooperative script is the methodology that guided

the interaction of cooperative groups as they complete the designated test. It

means that, in this method the student work with group. One group consist of two

students.

Cooperative script is a method of cooperative learning, the technique is the

students to create a small group or in pairs and students should make a summary

of the material. Cooperative script method is only done two students (it doesn’t

involve whole the class). So, the correction is just only for two students. Based on

definition above, the writer concludes cooperative script method is a learning

method that makes students work in pair. As a speaker and as a listener.

According to O’Donnel and Alison (1999) cooperative scripting is a

learning methodology in which the roles played by the interacting partners and the

processing activities and which they engage are specified.

According Dansereau C.S in Slavin (2006: 259) cited in Wastinih (2013)

stated that “a study method in which students in pairs and take turn orally

summarize a section of material to be learned”. The Scripted Co-operative Dyads

(SCD) model was devised, researched and refined by Dansereau and co-workers

the Texas Christian University Texas. In this system, pairs of students exchange

multiple oral summaries of brief section of textual material.

Based on definition above, cooperative script is joyful learning and with

script can easy to oral speaks by making only a summary, and there is someone to

9
correct in speaking. Cooperative script is part of cooperative learning and makes

students active in class.

According Falchikov (2005:25) Scripted Co-operative Dyads (SCD) stated

that rationale/objectives:

1. To help pairs of students understand new material and relate it to previous

knowledge, using oral summarizing, meta-cognitive activities

(comprehension, error correcting, evaluation) and elaboration activities (use

of imagery or analogy).

2. To practice and improve cooperative interaction.

3. To encourage transfer of meta-cognitive skill to individual learning.

Based on the statement above it is explained that there are some scripts

cooperative goals among which were:

1. Help students to understand the new material that was submitted to the teacher

and to connect with the material prior knowledge, as well as students in

training to orally summarize, and meta-cognitive activities are good to train

collaboration.

2. Students learn and can practice to improve students collaboration in the

classroom.

3. Encourage students to be skilled meta-cognitively which also useful for

individual learning.

10
4. Cooperative Script as a Method of Cooperative Learning

Cooperative script is a part of cooperative learning. Cooperative learning

is a method that used a small group and makes students more active, creative and

fun.

According to Jolliffe (2007:3) stated that the writer could say in essence

cooperative learning requires pupils to work together in small group to support

each other to improve their own learning and that of other. Cooperative learning is

defined as “group learning activities organized so that learning is dependent on

the socially structured exchange of information between learning in groups and

which each learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and is

motivated to increase the learning of other.

Based on statement above, cooperative learning is more important role

English learning. Speaking activities can highly motivated to the students.

Moreover Slavin cited in Darsini (2013) states that “all cooperative learning

methods share the idea that students work together to learn and are responsible for

their teammates’ learning as well as their own”. In addition to the idea of

cooperative work, students team learning method emphasize the use of team goal

and success, which can be achieved only if all member of team learn the objective

being taught. Cooperative learning is defined as group learning activities

organized so that learning is dependent on the socially

According to Davidson (2014), Cooperative learning refers to a set of

instructional methods in which students are encouraged or required to work

together on academic tasks. Cooperative learning methods may be as simple as

11
having students sit together to discuss or help one another with classroom

assignments, or may be quite complex.

Based on statements above, cooperative learning is an interesting and

effective method, because cooperative learning requires students to practice for

mutual cooperation in the group and to find their own knowledge concept.

According to Huda (2013:213) the steps of cooperative script method are

as follows:

1) Teacher divides the students to pair up.

2) Teachers share the discourse/materials for each student to read and create a

summary.

3) Teachers and students who first set acted as a speaker and who will act as

a listener.

4) Speaker read out the summary as complete as possible, by entering the

main ideas in summary. While the audience listened to correct/show the

main ideas that are less comprehensive and help to remember memorize

the main ideas by connecting the previous material or with other material.

5) Exchanging roles, initially as a speaker exchanged into listeners and vice

versa, and do as above.

6) The conclusion students some with teacher.

7) Closing.

5. Procedures of Teaching Speaking by Using Cooperative Script Method

The procedures of teaching speaking by using cooperative script method

that the writer concludes as follow.

12
 a. Pre-activities (15 minutes)

1. The teacher begins the lesson, starts it with greeting, checks attendance list,

and then organizes the classroom.

2. The teacher gave motivation for the students by asking some questions related

to the topic of the lesson (story of ducks and turtle).

 What would you know about the story? Do you likes story?

 What kind of story do you likes?

2. Before teacher gave a story of Duck and Turtle, teacher asked something to

build their interest. For example, what do you know about duck and Turtle

story? (teacher asks to get a respond from students).

b. While-activities (70 minutes)

1. Teacher divided the class into group and makes student’s pair group that

consisted of two students.

2. Teacher explained about narrative text, generic structure, and gave example

3. Teacher gave an example of narrative text“Duck and Turtle”

4. The teacher asked students to read text carefully

Story of Ducks and Turtle

Two ducks who lived in a big lake had a friend who was a turtle. One year there was a very
little rain and the lake began to dry up.
One of the ducks said to the other, “Soon, there will be no water in this Lake. Let’s go and look
for lake.” “Yes, answered the second ducks, “But first let’s say good bye to our friend, the
turtle.”
When they told the turtle they were going to leave, he said, “I’ll die here without any water and
without any friends. Take me with you.”
The Ducks answered, “We can not. We are going to fly, and you have no wings.”
“The turtle thought for a minute and then said, “ Please wait here.”
Then he went away and found a strong, straight stick. He brought it back to his friends, put the
middle of it in his mouth and said, “Now if each of you takes me one end of the stick in his
mouth, you can lift me up and carry me with you.”
13
“That is dangerous,” said the ducks, “If you try to talk while we’re carrying you through the air,
you won’t be able to hold the stick, so you’ll fall down along way and break your shell.” “ All
right”, answered the turtle, “ I promise not to talk while we’re in the air. So the ducks took the
stick and flew away, with the turtle between them.

5. The teacher explained about the story of Ducks and Turtle

6. The teacher showed the content of story with the script and the students

can makes summarize based on what they read or their experienced. It was

helped them to remember their summary by using their own words. Before,

they retold it in front of the claas.

Example of the script Duck and Turtle

Script 1
Long time ago lived two duck and a turtle in big lake. The duck said
that is dangerous, if you try to talk while we are carrying you through
the air. the turtle answered, “I promise not to talk while we’re in the
air. So the ducks took the stick and flew away, with the turtle. When
he opened his mouth, the stick came out of his mouth and the poor
turtle fell to the ground
Script II
One day lived two duck and turtle in a big lake. Then they moved to
somewhere. Duck carrying to fly in the air. You won’t be able to
hold the sticks. So, the duck took of stick and flew away with the
turtle.

7. The teacher asked students wrote again the story by using their own words.

 Teacher required the students to prepare themselves. Here, the students

cooperated with other to practice it in front of class.

 Speaker 1 retold the story and listener was heard the content of story.

8. There were two students in each group as speaker and as a listener alternately.

9. Teacher was recorded the students’ performance by using tape recorder.

14
10. After the students retold the story, teacher gave appreciation for the students,

such by giving a gift or even achievement orally.

c. Post- Activity

1 Teacher asked the students difficulties during the learning process.

2 The teacher and students also gave a conclusion based on the story or topics.

3 Teacher gave homework to the students.

4. The teacher closed the lesson.

B. Previous Related Study

There was previous study which related to this study that was written by

Wastinih (2013), entitled: The Use of Cooperative Script to Increase Students

Speaking Skill at Eighth Grade of SMP Negeri 1 Gegesik. The objective of this

study was to find out whether or not using cooperative script method at Eighth

Grade of SMP Negeri 1 Gegesik. The result of this study showed that there was

significant effective to teach speaking by using cooperative script method. There

were similarities and differences between this study and previous study. The

similarity was both of us deal with cooperative script method. The differences

were in the problem, sample and population. In addition, the research study was

different from Ni Wayan Darsini (2013), entitled “Improving Speaking Skill

through Cooperative Learning Method of the Eighth Grade Students of SMPN 2

Ubud in Academic Year 2012/2013”. The similarity with this research was same

about speaking skill and differencies of method used.

15
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

16
 In this study the writer describes, the method of the study, the operational

definition, the population and sample, the technique for collecting the data,

validity of the test, reliability of the test, and the technique for analyzing the data.

A. Research methodology

This research used experimental design. According to Cohen, et al (2007:

275) states that “classifies experimental method into three design; pre

experimental, quasi experimental and true experimental.

The writer was used pre-experimental design to conduct this research.

That are pre-test and post-test non equivalent design. Pre-experimental design is

research design with the one group pre-test and post-test. (Cohen, et al, 2007:

287-288).

This research presented as follows:

O1 X O2

Where :

O1: Pre Experimental

X : Treatment

O2: Post Experimental

In the diagram, the writer was did three steps that should be done in this

study. The writer used gave pre-test to the students (O 1), and then the writer teach

speaking by using cooperative script method (X), and the last is the writer was

gave post-test to the students to know the effectiveness of method that used (O2).

B. Operational Definition

17
 The title of this research was “the effectiveness of teaching speaking by

using cooperative script method at Eleventh Grade students of SMA Negeri 6

OKU. To avoid misunderstanding, some term used in the titles are defines

operationally teaching speaking and cooperative script method.

a. Teaching is showing or helping someone to learn how to do something,

giving instruction, guiding in the study of something, giving instruction,

guiding in the study of something, providing knowledge.

b. Speaking is expressing ideas, taught and feeling in oral language.

c. Cooperative script method is a method of cooperative learning, the technique

is the students to create a small group or in pairs and students should make a

summary of the material in the teacher give the students orally summarize the

material and with a partner.

C. Research Variables

According to Fraenkel & Wallen (2009: 39) stated that variable is a

concept a noun that stands for variation within a class of objects, such as chair,

gender, eye colour, or running speed. Variable is divided two types, namely are

dependent variable (Y) and independent variable (X). Independent variable is give

influence for another object. Dependent variable is variable get influenced by

independent variable. In this research, the independent variable is cooperative

script method, and dependent variable is students’ speaking skill.

D. Population and Sample

1. Population of the Research

18
 According to Arikunto (2010: 173) population is the whole of the research

subject. So, population is a group or objects research that was analyzed by the

writer. Another definition of population by Fraenkel and Wallen (2009: 90)

population is the larger group to which one hopes to apply the result. In this study,

the population were all students of SMA Negeri 6 OKU at eleventh grade. They

consist of five classes, there were XI IPA I, XI IPA 2, XI IPA 3, XI IPS I, XI IPS

2 the specific of the population describes in the table below: There were five

classes of the eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 6 OKU that can described

in table below :

Table 1 The population of study

No Classes Number of Population

1. XI IPA 1 36
2. XI IPA 2 35
3. XI IPA 3 35
4. XI IPS 1 36
5. XI IPS 2 36

Total Number of Students 178

Source: SMA Negeri 6 OKU

2. Sample of the Research

According to Cohen et, al. (2007 : 100) sample can be defined as a smaller

group or subset of the total population in such a way that the knowledge gained is

representative of the total population (however defined) under study. In other

words, sample is a part of population which will be observed. . In taking the

sample of population the writer used cluster random sampling technique. It is the

way of taking sample from population member randomly without giving the

attention on strata of the population members.

19
 Based on Frankel and Wallen (2009: 95) cluster random sampling is the

selection of groups, or clusters, of subjects rather than individual. The procedures

of randomly selecting of the samples were :

a. The writer wrote each name the classes in five papers.

b. The writer rolled and put and put in cup

c. The writer shaked the cup and the paper that out was sample

d. The writer taken XI IPA.2 class as a sample

Table 2
The sample of the study
No Classes Number of Population
1. XI IPA.2 35
Total Number of Students 35
Source: SMA Negeri 6 OKU

D. Technique for collecting the Data

In collecting the data, the writer used a test. Test is a method of measuring

a person’s ability, knowledge, or performance in given domain (Brown, 2004:3).

The test is in the form of oral test and used recorded by using video camera or

tape recorder. The procedure of collecting the data is as follows:

a. Pre-test

The writer gave pre-test the students to measure students’ speaking skill before

treatment. The purpose is to know students’ basic ability in speaking. In pre-

test, the writer asked students to speak about story of narrative text.

b. Post-test

The writer gave the post-test to the students after giving treatment. The purpose

of this test is to know students speaking achievement after treatment

20
E. Validity and Reliability of the Test

1. Validity of the Test

Validity of the test is aimed at ensuring that scores of the test are

appropriate meaningful and useful. Validity refers to appropriateness, correctness,

meaningfulness, and usefulness of the inferences a researcher make based on the

data they collect (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009: 148).

According to Cohen et, al. (2007: 133) validity is an important key for the

effective research. If a piece of research is invalid then it is worthless. In this

study, the writer used the content validity. A good test can be seen from its

validity in relation to the validity of the test could be seen from the content

validity. Content-related evidence of validity refers to the content and format of

the instrument. The content and format must be consistent with the definition of

the variable and the sample of subjects to be measured.

Table 3
Specification of Test Items

Objective of Indicator Test Format Times Number

Research material of the
test of Items

To know whether The students Retelling a Oral Test 5 1 ite

is it significantly can retell narrative minutes
effective or not to story of text ms
teach speaking narrative text
narrative text by in front of the
using Cooperative class
Script method

2. Reliability of the Test

21
 Reliability is essentially a synonym for consistency and explicability over

time, over instrument and over groups of respondents, Cohen (2007: 146).

Reliability refers to the consistency of the score obtained, how consistent they

were each individual from one administration of an instrument to another and

from one set of item to another (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009: 154).

According to Arikunto (2010: 321), the correlation coefficient could be

used by Rank Order Correlation formula from Spearman. Rank Order Correlation

used to decide the correlation between two parts which have order correlation.

In this research, Rank Order Correlation was relate the correlation between

the students’ score from rater one (R1) and rater two (R2). The formula is as

follow.

Where:

= Rank Order Correlation

D2 = Total Deviation Sequence

N = Number of Students.

Table 4
The interpretation’s Table of r Value
The number of r value Interpretation
0.800-1.00 Very high
0.600-0.800 High
0.400-6.00 Medium
0.200-0.400 Low
0.000-0.200 Very low

22
 In this research, the writer gave the test to non-samples as tried out. It dealt

to know whether or not reliable the instruments test. The writer was choosen XI

IPA 3, the total number of students were 35 students. Try out was administered on

28th October 2015.

The writer was as the first rater and the English teacher as the second rater.

It dealt to know students speaking scores and to compared the result of speaking

scores. Some aspects evaluated by the writer were pronunciation, grammar,

vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. From the tried out instruments, the writer

found the data described in the following table. The result of the tried out test was

described in table 5.

Table 5
The Student’s Score and the Result of Try-Out

Speaking Skill
Total Score Avarage
Pronunci Comprehen
No Name Grammar Vocabulary Fluency
ation sion
R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2
1 AA 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 36 36 36
2 AM 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 40 40 40
3 BP 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 64 68 66
4 BR 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 48 48 48
5 CV 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 48 44 46
6 DA 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 52 48 50
7 DL 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 68 64 66
8 EM 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 32 40 36
9 EMR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 40 40 40
10 EYY 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 56 52 54
11 FWA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 64 60 62
12 ITW 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 48 52 50
13 IKA 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 40 44 42
14 IR 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 52 56 54
15 IW 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 60 64 62
16 LM 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 48 52 50
17 MV 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 52 60 56
18 MA 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 68 68 68
19 MS 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 56 56 56
20 NA 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 48 48 48
21 NPS 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 60 62

23
22 PS 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 60 64 62
23 RST 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 44 48 46
24 RF 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 52 56 54
25 RKW 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 64 64 64
26 RS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 40 40 40
27 SMS 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 52 56 54
28 SR 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 60 60 60
29 SA 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 60 56 58
30 TI 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 48 52 50
31 WW 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 52 52 52
32 YF 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 64 68 66
33 YP 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 44 48 46
34 ZL 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 56 52 54
35 ZY 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 52 60 56
ƩX = 1854
N = 35
ƩX = 52,98

To describe the result of try-out in detail, see the following table 6.

Table 6
The Result of Try-Out

No Students code R1 R2 Score Avarage D D2

1 AA 9 9 36 0 0
2 AM 10 10 40 0 0
3 BP 16 17 66 -1 1
4 BR 12 12 48 0 0
5 CV 12 11 46 1 1
6 DA 13 12 50 1` 1
7 DL 17 16 66 1 1
8 EM 8 10 36 -2 4
9 EMR 10 10 40 0 0
10 EYY 14 13 54 1 1
11 FWA 16 15 62 1 1
12 ITW 12 13 50 -1 1
13 IKA 10 11 42 -1 1
14 IR 13 14 54 -1 1
15 IW 15 16 62 -1 1
16 LM 12 13 50 -1 1
17 MV 13 15 56 -2 4
18 MA 17 17 68 0 0
19 MS 14 14 56 0 0
20 NA 12 12 48 0 0
21 NPS 16 15 62 1 1
22 PS 15 16 62 -1 1
23 RA 11 12 46 -1 1
24 RF 13 14 54 -1 1
25 RKW 16 16 64 0 0
26 RS 10 10 40 0 0
27 SMS 13 14 54 -1 1
28 SR 15 15 60 0 0
24
29 SA 15 14 58 1 1
30 TI 12 13 50 -1 1
31 WW 13 13 52 0 1
32 YF 16 17 66 -1 1
33 YP 11 12 46 -1 1
34 ZL 14 13 54 1 1
35 ZY 13 15 56 -2 4
Total 1854 33

From the calculation above, the writer got reliability index 0,9. It means

that reliability of the test was very high reliability. Based on the result of

reliability coeffiecient of the test was 0,9 concequently it was in high reliability

criteria. It means that the item of the instrument was reliable and can be used as

the instrument to got the data of the research.

Based on the table above the writer made percentage of the score in the

following score distribution of Try-out.

Table 7
Score Distribution of Try-Out
Try-Out
Score Interval Category Frequency Percentage
80> very Good 0 0%
66-79 Good 4 11,42%
56-65 Fair 10 28,58%
25
 46-55 Poor 15 42,86%
<45 Very Poor 6 17,14%
Total 35 100%
Avarage/Mean 52,98
Maximum Score 68
Minimum Score 36

Table 7 showed that in try-out, 6 students (17,14%) got score between <45

in very level bad, 15 students (42,85%) got score between 46-55 in level bad, 10

students (34,28%) got score between 56-65 in level fairy good, 4 students (5,71%)

got score 66-79 in good level and no students (0%) got score 80> in very good

level. To make the score distribution of Try-out was clearer, so could be seen in

chart 1.

Chart 1

Frequency of Try-Out

F. Technique for Analyzing the Data

1. Scoring Criteria

According to Nurgiyantoro (2012: 415) for scoring the students’ speaking

can be used as following table of scale criteria of oral testing which consist of
26
pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. It could be

seen in this table 8.

Table 8
The Table of Speaking Scoring Guide

NO SPEAKING ASSESSMENTS RUBRICS

ASPECT SCORE CRITERIA
1 Pronunciation / 5 There is not lack tongue and almost words
Intonation prononounce correctly.
4 Effect of first language and lack tongue do
not misinterpretation
3 Effect of first language that make other to
listen carefully.
2 Always make some mistake and problem in
comprehending the strong accent, always
doing repetition.
1 Sometimes too difficult to be understood.
2 Grammar 5 Fewer mistakes but not in using pattern.
4 Sometimes make mistake on the pattern but
don’t influence communication.
3 Less careful on using the pattern and interfere
communication.
2 Using basic pattern is not appropriate that
disturb communication.
1 Using incorrect grammar.
3 Vocabulary 5 Using the right and efficiency vocabulary.
4 Using the right vocabulary but too regularly
3 Wrong in using vocabulary and lack of
vocabulary mastery interfere the fluency of
communication.
2 Using limited vocabulary
1 Using incorrect vocabulary in a simple form
of communication.
4 Fluency 5 Almost perfect talking.
4 Sometime the talking is still confused and
grouping words is not appropriate.
3 The talking seen confuse and the sentence is
not complete
2 The talking very slow except to short
sentence.
1 Sometime talking is interrupted or stopped so
the interview is disturbed.
5 Comprehension 5 Understand everything in normal

27
 conversation, except in colloquial.
4 Good comprehending but still need an
explanation and repetition.
3 Good comprehending in several matters.
2 Slowly in comprehending need an explanation
and repetition.
1 Understand a little of the simplest
conversation.
Source: Nurgiyantoro (2012: 415)

The score of speaking skill based on five elements could be compared in

percentage as follows:

a. Pronunciation…………... 20%

b. Loudness……………….. 20%

c. Word Usage……………. 20%

d. Rate…………………….. 20%

e. Comprehension………….. 20%

This highest score of them is five. If the students get (5) five from every

criteria of the test, the total score that they are going to get was (25) twenty five.

Then multiple by four, it equals (100) one hundred. The standard of speaking

scoring guide could be seen as below.

The writer also used score distribution could be seen as below:

Table 9
Score Distribution

No Score Interval Level of Ability

1 ≥ 80 Very Good
2 66 – 79 Good
3 56 – 65 Fair
4 46 – 55 Poor
5 ≤ 45 Very Poor
(sudijono, 2009: 35)

28
2. Matched T-test

After getting the score of pre-test and post test the experimental group, the

writer begin to analyze the score by using SPSS 20 to know the significant the

treatment effect. In knowing the significant differences between the students’

achievement in pre-test and post-test, the matched t-test was applied.

CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND INTERPRETATION

29
 This chapter presents: the finding of the study that consist of the result of

pre-test and post-test, statistical analysis, and the interpretation of the study.

A. Findings

1. The students Score of Pre-test

The main purpose of pre-test was to know the students basic ability in

speaking before the giving treatment. Pre-test was taken in class XI IPA 2 at 5 th

November 2015, with 35 students. The result of pre-test was described in table 9.

Table 9
The Result of Pre-Test

Speaking Skill
Total Avarage
Pronunciati comprehens Score
No Name Grammar Vocabulary Fluency
on ion
R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2
AR 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 32 36 34
1
AB 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 52 48 50
2
ABT 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 40 44 42
3
AS 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 36 36 36
4
CM 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 52 52 52
5
DG 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 64 64 64
6
DMS 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 64 68 66
7
ELA 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 48 40 44
8
EY 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 60 60 60
9
EW 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 44 48 46
10
EYN 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 64 64 64
11
EMN 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 64 68 66
12
FA 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 60 56 58
13

30
 HA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 60 64 62
14
LA 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 52 60 56
15
MD 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 56 52 54
16
ML 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 40 44 42
17
MIA 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 3 64 68 66
18
NA 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 44 56 50
19
NAT 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 64 68 66
20
OA 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 64 68 66
21
PA 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 48 52 50
22
RF 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 64 60 62
23
RMA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 60 64 62
24
RJ 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 44 40 42
25
RMP 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 52 48 50
26
RI 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 44 52 48
27
SAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 40 40 40
28
3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 52 48 50
29 SA
3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 48 48 48
30 TRS
TRL 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 44 48 46
31
WW 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 68 76 72
32
52 52 52
33 YT
3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 64 64 64
34 YS

35 YD
3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 60 56 58

å = 1888
N= 35
=53,94

From the table above, it was know that in pre-test the highest score was 72

and the lowest score was 34 with the mean 53.94. To know the frequency of

students score in pre-test, it could be in table 10.

31
 Table 10
Score Distribution of Pre-Test

Pre-test
Score Interval Category Frequency Percentage
≥80 Very Good 0 0%
66 - 79 Good 6 17,14%
56 - 65 Fair 10 28,58%
46 -55 Poor 12 34,28%
≤ 45 Very Poor 7 20%
Total   35 100%

Based on the table 12 , no students (0%) got score ≥80 in category very

good, 6 students (17,14%) got score between 66-79 in category good, 10 students

(28,58%) got score between 56-65 in category fair, 12 students (34,28%) got

score between 46-55 in category poor, and 7 students (20%) got score ≤4,5 in

category very poor.

Chart 2

Students’ Score in Pre-test

2. The Students Score of Post-test

32
 Post-test was administered on Monday, 19 th November 2015. The purpose

of the post-test to know the significant effectiveness of Cooperative Script

Method in teaching speaking. It was given after the writer was given the

treatment. The result of the post-test could be seen in table 11.

Table 11
The Result of the Post-test

Speaking Skill
Pronunciat Compreh Total score
No Name Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Avarage
ion ension
R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2
1 AR 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 48 52 50
2 AB 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 68 68 68
3 ABT 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 56 60 58
4 AS 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 44 48 46
5 CM 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 60 64 62
6 DG 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 76 76 76
7 DMS 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 68 72 70
8 ELA 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 68 68 68
9 EY 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 60 60 60
10 EW 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 60 56 58
11 EYN 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 64 64 64
12 EMN 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 72 72 72
13 FA 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 68 64 66
14 HA 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 80 80 80
15 LA 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 56 52 54
16 MD 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 56 60 58

17 ML 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 52 48 50

18 MIA 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 72 72 72

19 NA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 60 60 60

33
20 NAT 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 80 80 80

21 OA 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 72 76 74

22 PA 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 64 68 66

23 RF 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 68 68 68
24 RMA 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 64 68 66
25 RJ 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 56 48 52
26 RMP 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 64 60 62
27 RI 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 52 60 56
28 SAL 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 56 52 54
29 SA 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 60 56 58
30 TRS 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 64 68 66
31 TRL 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 64 60 62
32 WW 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 88 88 88
33 YT 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 52 60 56
34 YS 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 72 72 72
35 YD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 80 80 80

å = 2252
N = 35
= 64,34

From the table above, it was found that, score in post test there were some

increase in students score. The highest was 88 and the lowest score was 46 with

the mean of post-test were 64,34. To know the frequency of student’s score in

post-test, it could be seen in table 13.

Table 13
Score Distribution of Post-test
Post-test
Score Interval Category Frequency Percentage
80 > Very Good 4 11,43%
66 - 79 Good 13 37,14%
56 - 65 Fair 12 34,28%
46 -55 Poor 6 17,14%
< 45 Very poor 0 0%
Total 35 100%
Based on the table 13 , 4 students (11,43%) got score ≥80 in category very

good, 13 students (37,14%) got score between 66-79 in category good, 12

students (34,28%) got score between 56-65 in category fair, 5 students (17,14%)

34
got score between 46-55 in category poor, and no students (0%) got score <45 in

category very poor.

Chart 3
Students Score in Post-test

Table 12
Students’ percentages in Pre-test and Post-test

Score Pre-test Post-test

No Category
interval
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
0 4
1 80> Very good 0% 11,43%
6 13
2 66-79 Good 17,14% 37,14%
10 12
3 56 – 65 Fair 28,58% 34,28%
12 6
4 46 – 55 Poor 34,28% 17,14%
7 0
5 ≤ 45 Very Poor 20% 0%
TOTAL 35 100% 35 100%

3. Normality test of the Pre-test and Post-test

To find out whether or not there was a significant differences between the

result of pre-test and post-test, the writer used SPSS 20.

35
 Table 14
Normality Test
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

posttest pretest

N 35 35

Normal Parametersa Mean 64.34 53.94

Std. Deviation 9.780 9.923

Most Extreme Differences Absolute .085 .134

Positive .085 .112

Negative -.060 -.134

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .500 .795

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .964 .552

a. Test distribution is Normal.

b. Calculated from data

Based on table above in column of pre-test, the point of Kolmogrov-

Smirnov Test was 0,795 then the point of Asymp. Sig was 0,552 it was more than

Alpa Point (0.05). So, it meant that the data of the pre-test score in pre-test had a

normal distribution.

Based on the table above in column of post-test, the point of Kolmogrov-

Smirnov Test was 0.500 the the point of Asymp. Sig was 0.964 it was more than

Alpha Point (0.05). So, it meant that the data post-test score in post-test had a

normal distribution.

4. Statistically Analysis of Pre-test and Post-test

To find out whether or not there were significant difference between

before and after treatment in teaching speaking. The writer calculated the result of

pre-test and post-test by using Paired Sample T-Test.

Table 15
Paired Samples Statistics
36
 Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

pretest 53,94 35 9,923 1,677

Pair 1
posttest 64,34 35 9,780 1,653

Based on the table of paired Sample Statistic, the mean score of pretest

was 53.94, the standard deviation 9.923, and the standard error mean was 1.677,

and the mean score of posttest was 64.34, the standard deviation was 9. 780 and

the standard error mean 1.653.

Table 16
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 pretest & posttest 35 ,802 ,000

Based on the table of paired samples correlations, the correlation of

posttest and pretest was 0.802 and it found that the value of sig. = 0.000 less than

the significant level α = (0.05) so, it meant that there was a great correlation

between the score pretest and posttest.

Table 17
Paired Samples Test Table 17

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence tailed)

Deviation Error Interval of the

Mean Difference

Lower Upper

Pair posttest
10,400 6,208 1,049 8,267 12,533 9,911 34 ,000
1 - pretest

37
 Based on the table of paired sample test above, the mean was 10.400, the

standar deviation was 6.208, the standar error was 1.049, then it was found that

the value of tobtained was 9.911 more than ttable= 1,69 with df (N-1) = 34, and the

value of sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000 less than the significant level (α = 0.05).

Based on the explanation above, the writer concluded that Alternative

Hypothesis (Ha) of this research was accepted. It mean that there was

significantly effective to use cooperative script method in speaking skill at the

eleventh grade of SMA Negeri 6 OKU.

b. Interpretation of the Study

From the finding, the writer interpretation it was effective when the

teacher teach speaking by using cooperative script method at the eleventh grade

students of SMA Negeri 6 OKU. In Experimental class before doing a treatment,

the students lazy and bored to speak English. The students had many difficulties

in pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension in speaking

skill. Then after doing a treatment, the students were more active in speak

English. In this study experimental class showed provided the students improve

their knowledge.

Based on the finding showed that after the students are doing treatment by

using cooperative script method in teaching speaking. The writer found that the

students score in post-test more highest than the students score in pretest. In other

words, alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted and null hypothesis (Ho) was

rejected.

38
 Based on explanation above, showed that the students achievement before

and after treatment by using Cooperative Script method in teaching speaking was

different. It means that, Cooperative Script Method was significantly effective to

improve students speaking skill.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

In this chapter, the writer describes the conclusion based on the finding

presented in previous chapter and also the writer gives some suggestion.

A. Conclusion

From the finding of the result discussed in the previous chapter, the writer

concluded that Cooperative Script Method was effective to applied in teaching

speaking especially retelling the story in narrative text. There was significant

different between students’ score in pre-test and post-test.

39
 Therefore t-obtained was higher than t-table. This indicated that Null

Hypothesis (Ho) was rejected and alternative Hypothesis (Ha) was accepted. It

meant that it was significantly effective to use Cooperative Script Method to

improve students speaking skill to the Eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 6

OKU.

B. Suggestion

1. For the English Teacher

English teacher are expected to develop their students in speaking skill by

using Cooperative Script Method in teaching speaking and to make the students

be motivated in learning process.

2. For the Students

The students must develop their knowledge and must have practice their

speaking ability so that your speaking is better.

3. For the Writer

The study improved their English and given her some experience in

conducting educational research scientifically.

4. For the TEFL

The result in the study gave a contribution to the development of teaching

learning English as Foreign Language.

40
 REFERENCES

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu pendekatan praktek. 12th ed.

Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.

Brown, D. (2000). Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey,

NJ: Englewood Cliffs.

Brown, D. (2004). Language Assesment Principles and Classroom Practices.

Longman: Pearson Education. Inc.

Cohen, L., Lawrence M., & Kieth M. (2007). Research Method in Education.
New York: Routledge Falmer.

Darsini,N.W.(2013). Improving Speaking skill through Cooperative Learning

method of the eighth grade students of SMPN 2 Ubud in Academic year
2012/2013. Accessed on July 2015. Retrieved from: http://www. Unmas
Library.ac.id/ up…/of/pdf-skripsi pdf.

41
Davidson,et.al. (2014). Boundary Cross-ing:Cooperative learning, collaborative
learning, and problem based learning. Accessed on September 2015.
Retrieved from : http://Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25 (3&4),
7-55.

Doddy, A. (2012). Developing English Competencies for Senior High School

(SMA/MA). Jakarta: PT. Setia Purna Inves.

Erika, D. (2010). Cooperative Script. Available: Erickbio.wordpress.com.

Fraenkel, R. J., & Wallen, E.N. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research
in Education. United State of America, USA: McGraw-Hill.

Huda,M.(2013). Model-Model Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta:

Pustaka Pelajar.

Jolliffe,W. (2007). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom (Putting it into

Practice). California Sage Publications.

Linse, T. Caroline. (2005) Practical English Language Teaching: Young

Learners. Singapore: Mc. Graw-hill Companies, Inc.

Meng. J. (2010). Cooperative Learning Method in the practice of English

Reading and Speaking. Accessed on July 2015. Retrieved from: Journal
of Language teaching and Reasearch, Vol. 1, No.5,pp.701- 703.

Nurgiyantoro, B. (2012) Penilaian Pembelajaran Bahasa Berbasis Kompetensi

1st edition. Yogyakarta: bpfe- Yogyakarta

O’nell, Angela and Alison. (1999). Cognitive Perspective on Peer Learning.

USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.Publisher.

Pollard, L. (2008). Lucy Pollard’s Guide Teaching English. E-book

Richards, J. & Schmidt,R. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching

Applied Linguistics. (Fourth Edition). London : Pearson Educational
Limited.

Shlal, Gery. (2002). Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Foundation

for CSCL Community. USA.

Sudijono, A. (2012). Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT Raja

Grafindo Persada.

Wastinih. (2013). The Use of Cooperative Script to Increase Students Speaking

Skill at the Eighth Grade of SMP Negeri 1 Gegesik. Accessed on July
42
 2015. Retrieved from : http://ejournal. Unswagati-crb.ac.id/file.php?
file= mahasiswa & id= 587.

TEST INSTRUMENT

Subject : English

Skill : Speaking

School : SMA Negeri 6 OKU

Class/ Semester : XI IPA/1

Instructions :

a. Read the legend of Tangkupan Perahu story and write again the story with

your own words!

b. Please speak loudly and clearly!

43
 INSTRUMENT TEST

Subject :

Skill :

Class :

Name :

Please you retell the story based on the topic “The Legend of Tangkuban Perahu”.

Please speak loudly and clearly!

44