CHAPTER IV
THE FINDING AND DISCUSSION
In
this part, the researcher would like to present research findings dealing with
the data analyzed and interpreted which had been taken from pre-test and
post-test of one class. They showed that the students’ score had increased from
pre-test to the post-test of the sample in order to find out whether there was significant
effects in the second semester students’ speaking ability by using Carousel
Brainstorming Feedback.
4.1 The
Finding
This
research was conducted to know the effect of Carousel Brainstorming Feedback
technique in speaking ability of the second semester students of FKIP UIR.
4.1.1 The Presentation of the Data in Pre Test
Pre-test was given in the first
meeting. The purpose of this activity was to determine the early background
skill of students. The test item was about a topic of speaking subject. The
researcher presented the students’ answers on pre-test as follows:
Table
4.1: The Score of Student in Pre-test
|
Sample
|
P
|
G
|
F
|
V
|
Total
|
Mean Score
|
Level
|
|
1
|
50
|
40
|
50
|
40
|
180
|
45
|
Good
|
|
2
|
50
|
50
|
40
|
40
|
180
|
45
|
Good
|
|
3
|
50
|
50
|
60
|
50
|
210
|
52,5
|
Good
|
|
4
|
50
|
40
|
50
|
40
|
180
|
45
|
Good
|
|
5
|
30
|
40
|
40
|
40
|
150
|
37,5
|
Low
|
|
6
|
40
|
40
|
30
|
40
|
150
|
37,5
|
Low
|
|
7
|
40
|
30
|
30
|
40
|
140
|
35
|
Low
|
|
8
|
40
|
40
|
50
|
40
|
150
|
37,5
|
Low
|
|
9
|
40
|
40
|
40
|
40
|
160
|
40
|
Good
|
|
10
|
30
|
40
|
50
|
40
|
160
|
40
|
Good
|
|
11
|
60
|
30
|
30
|
40
|
160
|
40
|
Good
|
|
12
|
40
|
40
|
30
|
40
|
150
|
37,5
|
Low
|
|
13
|
40
|
40
|
30
|
30
|
140
|
35
|
Low
|
|
14
|
50
|
30
|
30
|
40
|
150
|
37,5
|
Low
|
|
15
|
50
|
40
|
50
|
50
|
190
|
47,5
|
Good
|
|
16
|
50
|
50
|
40
|
40
|
180
|
45
|
Good
|
|
17
|
40
|
30
|
40
|
40
|
150
|
37,5
|
Low
|
|
18
|
40
|
40
|
30
|
40
|
150
|
37,5
|
Low
|
|
19
|
40
|
40
|
30
|
40
|
150
|
37,5
|
Low
|
|
20
|
50
|
40
|
40
|
40
|
170
|
42,5
|
Good
|
|
21
|
40
|
40
|
50
|
40
|
170
|
42,5
|
Good
|
|
N=21
|
43,80
|
39,52
|
40
|
40,47
|
153,33
|
855
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From
table 4.1 it was found the qualification of students’ speaking ability that
there were 10 students got low and 11 students got good in speaking. Based on
the table 4.1, it can be seen that students’ pronunciation score was the
highest of all peaking components and the lowest score of students’ speaking
components was grammar. This showed that the majority of students’ speaking
ability was low, then, the total score of pre-test from sample class at the
second semester students of FKIP UIR. The respondents were 21 and total score
of pre-test is (855).
The
mean score of pre-test: X= 
= 
=
40, 71
From
the data above, it showed that mean of pre-test in the class is 40, 71.
Table
4.1.1: The Result of Pre-test
|
Number of Students
|
Score
X1
|
Means
X2
|
Difference
(X1-X2)
|
Difference Squared (X1-X2)2
|
|
1
|
45
|
40,71
|
4,29
|
18,40
|
|
2
|
45
|
40,71
|
4,29
|
18,40
|
|
3
|
52,5
|
40,71
|
11,79
|
139,004
|
|
4
|
45
|
40,71
|
4,29
|
18,40
|
|
5
|
37,5
|
40,71
|
-3,21
|
10,30
|
|
6
|
37,5
|
40,71
|
-3,21
|
10,30
|
|
7
|
35
|
40,71
|
-5,71
|
32,60
|
|
8
|
37,5
|
40,71
|
-3,21
|
10,30
|
|
9
|
40
|
40,71
|
-0,71
|
0,504
|
|
10
|
40
|
40,71
|
-0,71
|
0,504
|
|
11
|
40
|
40,71
|
-0,71
|
0,504
|
|
12
|
37,5
|
40,71
|
-3,21
|
10,30
|
|
13
|
35
|
40,71
|
-5,71
|
32,60
|
|
14
|
37,5
|
40,71
|
-3,21
|
10,30
|
|
15
|
47,5
|
40,71
|
6,79
|
46,10
|
|
16
|
45
|
40,71
|
4,29
|
18,40
|
|
17
|
37,5
|
40,71
|
-3,21
|
10,30
|
|
18
|
37,5
|
40,71
|
-3,21
|
10,30
|
|
19
|
37,5
|
40,71
|
-3,21
|
10,30
|
|
20
|
42,5
|
40,71
|
1,79
|
3,20
|
|
21
|
42,5
|
40,71
|
1,79
|
3,20
|
|
N=21
|
|
|
|
414,22
|
After
finding the mean, the researcher calculated the standards deviation of
pre-test.
Standard Deviation of Pre-test: S = 
S1=
S1=
S1= 
S1=
4, 55
Based
on the analysis above, mean of pre-test is 40, 71 and Standard Deviation is 4,
55
4.1.2
Data
Presentation of Post-test
Table
4.1.2. Table Score of Post-test
|
Sample
|
P
|
G
|
F
|
V
|
Total
|
Mean Score
|
Level
|
|
1
|
60
|
50
|
60
|
50
|
220
|
55
|
Good
|
|
2
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
200
|
50
|
Good
|
|
3
|
60
|
60
|
60
|
50
|
230
|
57,5
|
Good
|
|
4
|
50
|
50
|
60
|
50
|
210
|
52,5
|
Good
|
|
5
|
40
|
40
|
50
|
40
|
170
|
42,5
|
Good
|
|
6
|
50
|
50
|
40
|
45
|
185
|
46,25
|
Good
|
|
7
|
45
|
40
|
40
|
50
|
175
|
41,25
|
Good
|
|
8
|
60
|
50
|
60
|
45
|
215
|
53,75
|
Good
|
|
9
|
40
|
50
|
50
|
50
|
190
|
47,5
|
Good
|
|
10
|
45
|
60
|
60
|
50
|
235
|
58,75
|
Good
|
|
11
|
50
|
45
|
50
|
50
|
195
|
48,75
|
Good
|
|
12
|
50
|
50
|
40
|
50
|
190
|
47,5
|
Good
|
|
13
|
50
|
50
|
60
|
50
|
210
|
52,5
|
Good
|
|
14
|
50
|
45
|
45
|
50
|
190
|
47,5
|
Good
|
|
15
|
60
|
50
|
60
|
50
|
220
|
55
|
Good
|
|
16
|
60
|
60
|
50
|
50
|
220
|
55
|
Good
|
|
17
|
50
|
40
|
45
|
45
|
180
|
45
|
Good
|
|
18
|
50
|
50
|
40
|
60
|
200
|
50
|
Good
|
|
19
|
45
|
45
|
40
|
45
|
175
|
43,75
|
Good
|
|
20
|
50
|
45
|
45
|
50
|
190
|
47,5
|
Good
|
|
21
|
50
|
45
|
55
|
60
|
210
|
52,5
|
Good
|
|
N=21
|
50,71
|
48,80
|
53
|
49,52
|
200,47
|
1005,61
|
|
From
table 4.1.2.1 it was found the qualification of students’ speaking ability that
all students good in speaking. Based on the table above, it can be seen that
students’ pronunciation score was the highest of all speaking components and
the lowest score of students’ speaking components was grammar. This showed that
there was significantly increase of students’ speaking after applying Carousel
Brainstorming Feedback during the treatment. In the pre test the majority of
students’ speaking was low, but after being treated by Carousel Brainstorming Feedback
in teaching and learning process, the majority of students’ speaking increase
in the post test became good, then the total score of post-test from sample
class at the second semester students of FKIP UIR. The respondents were 21 and
total score of pre-test is (1005, 61).
The
mean score of post-test: X2 =
=
=
47,
88
From
the data above, it showed the mean of post-test is 47, 88
Table
4.1.2.1: The Result of Post-test
|
Number of Students
|
Score
X1
|
Mean
X2
|
Difference
(X1-X2)
|
Difference Squared
(X1-X2)2
|
|
1
|
55
|
47,88
|
7,21
|
51,98
|
|
2
|
50
|
47,88
|
2,12
|
4,49
|
|
3
|
57,5
|
47,88
|
9,62
|
92,54
|
|
4
|
52,5
|
47,88
|
4,62
|
21,34
|
|
5
|
42,5
|
47,88
|
-5,38
|
28,94
|
|
6
|
46,25
|
47,88
|
-1,63
|
2,65
|
|
7
|
41,25
|
47,88
|
-6,63
|
43,95
|
|
8
|
53,75
|
47,88
|
5,87
|
34,45
|
|
9
|
47,5
|
47,88
|
-0,38
|
0,144
|
|
10
|
58,75
|
47,88
|
10,87
|
118,15
|
|
11
|
48,75
|
47,88
|
0,87
|
0,756
|
|
12
|
47,5
|
47,88
|
-0,38
|
0,144
|
|
13
|
52,5
|
47,88
|
4,62
|
21,34
|
|
14
|
47,5
|
47,88
|
-0,38
|
0,144
|
|
15
|
55
|
47,88
|
7,21
|
51,98
|
|
16
|
55
|
47,88
|
7,21
|
51,98
|
|
17
|
45
|
47,88
|
-2,88
|
8,29
|
|
18
|
50
|
47,88
|
2,12
|
4,49
|
|
19
|
43,75
|
47,88
|
-4,13
|
17,05
|
|
20
|
47,5
|
47,88
|
-0,38
|
0,144
|
|
21
|
52,5
|
47,88
|
4,62
|
21,34
|
|
N=21
|
|
|
|
570,29
|
After
finding the mean, the researcher calculated the standards deviation of
post-test.
Standard Deviation of Pre-test: S =
S2=
S2=
S2= 
S2=
5, 34
Based
on the analysis above, mean of post-test is 47, 88 and Standard Deviation is 5,
34
4.1.3
Progress
of students’ score of pre-test and post-test
After calculating mean score of
pre-test and post-test of the students. Now, we can see the progress of students’
result in students speaking ability by applying Carousel Brainstorming Feedback.
The progress of the students’ score
can be seen in the following table
Table
4.1.3: The Increase of Students’ Score
|
Test
|
N
|
Mean
|
Increase
|
d.f
|
T-test
|
T-Criteria at 0,05
|
|
Pre-test
|
21
|
40,71
|
7,17=34,14%
|
20
|
4,71
|
2,09
|
|
Post-test
|
21
|
47,88
|
The table shows that the average
score of pre-test is 40,71 and the average score of post-test is 47,88. It
means that there is increase of students’ speaking ability after being taught
by using Carousel Brainstorming Feedback. The progress explains that students’
speaking ability by using Carousel Brainstorming can develop the students’
speaking ability until 7,17=34,14%
Table 4.1.3.1: The Increase of
Students’ Speaking Components
|
N=26
|
Speaking Components
|
Total
|
|||
|
P
|
G
|
F
|
V
|
||
|
Pre-test
|
43,80
|
39,52
|
40
|
40,47
|
163,79
|
|
Post-test
|
50,71
|
48,80
|
53
|
49,52
|
202.03
|
|
Mean Increase
|
6,91
|
9,28
|
13
|
9,05
|
38,24
|
|
Total Increase
|
32,90%
|
44,19%
|
61,90%
|
43,09%
|
182,08
|
The
table showed the increase of students’ score in each speaking component (pronunciation,
grammar, fluency, vocabulary) in pre test and post test. In pronunciation the
increase from pre test to post test is 28,84%, grammar is 34%, fluency is
44,34%, and vocabulary is 39,92%. So, there is effect of Carousel Brainstorming
Feedback towards Students’ Speaking in each speaking component.
Diagram 4.1: Students’ Pre-test
From
the diagram above it can be seen that one of speaking components, pronunciation
is the highest of all. The score is 43, 80 and the lowest of all is grammar.
Its score is 39, 52.
Diagram 4.1.2: Students’ Post-test
From
the diagram above it can be seen that students’ speaking changed. In post-test
their speaking were significantly increase. It is better than pre-test. The
highest score is fluency 53 and the lowest is grammar 48,80. It proved that
Carousel Brainstorming Feedback is effective towards students’ speaking
ability.
Diagram 4.1.3: The Comparison of
Result between Pre-test and Post-test
Beside
tables and figures above, we can see the percentages of the students’ increase
in students’ speaking ability using Carousel Brainstorming Feedback in the
figure of chart as follow:
Diagram 4.1.3.1: Percentages of
Students’ Increase in Speaking
Ability Components
Based
on tables 4.1, figures, and charts above showed that the students’ percentages
in each speaking component from the lowest to the highest. First, from the
table, we can see that the lowest mean score of all is pronunciation component,
students got 43, 80 points in pre-test, it became 50, 71 points in post-test
and then the percentage of the increase is 32,90%. Second, grammar component,
in pre-test students got 39, 52 points and in post-test, it became 48,80 points
then the percentage of the increase is 44,19%. Third, fluency component, it is
the highest mean score of all. Students got 40 points in pre-test. It became 53
points in post-test then the percentage of the increase is 61,90%. Fourth,
Vocabulary component, students got 40,47 points in pre-test. It became 49, 52
points in post-test. The percentage of the increase is 43,09%.
4.2
Discussion
Based
on analyzed of pre-test and post-test. From the calculation above, we can see
the differences of students’ speaking score in pre-test and post-test that the
average score of pre-test is 40,71 points and the average of post-test is 47,88
points. It means the significant
effect of students’ speaking ability after
being taught by using Carousel Brainstorming in teaching. The progress explains
that students’ speaking ability by using Carousel Brainstorming can develop the
students’ speaking ability for 7,17=34,14%.
Since
the score of observed statistic (tobserved) is 4,71 is
greater than the level of significant of 5% (5% of tcalculated) in
level of significant for two tailed is 2,09 so null hypothesis is rejected and
alternative hypothesis accepted. Furthermore, there is significant effect
gained by the students before and after using Carousel Brainstorming
4.3
Hypothesis
Testing
In order to find out whether the
Null Hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis is accepted, firstly we need to
find out the t-test. The researcher calculated of the t-test using formula
below:
T-test = 
=
=
=
=
=
= 
=
It makes no difference whether the
obtained value is positive or negative. Since the distribution is symmetrical,
the minus quantities would be the same (Hatch and Farhady, 1982). So, the
T-test result is 4,71. The degree of freedom of the sample could be calculated
as follow:
Degree of Freedom (d.f):
d.f = N-1
= 21 – 1
= 20
The degree of freedom 20 is at
level at 0.5 and consequently the t-critical 2,09. It means that the value of
t-calculated (4,71) is bigger than the value of table (2,09) at .05 level.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is
accepted. So, there is significant different of using Carousel Brainstorming
Feedback in students’ speaking ability.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
This
study is designed to see the significant effect of Carousel Brainstorming
towards Students’ speaking ability. It aims at finding out how applying
Carousel Brainstorming can be used to see the significant effect towards
speaking ability of second semester students of FKIP, UIR.
The study employed a
quasi experimental research design. The samples of this research were 21 they
are students of second semester FKIP UIR, in the 2014/2015 academic year. This
study was conducted in 4 meetings, following the procedure of pre-test,
treatment, and post-test. The data of this study was obtained through (1) oral
test (speaking) (2) Documentation. They
were taken during the implementation of the action as the exercises.
The findings show that applying
Carousel Brainstorming technique is able to give significant changed towards
speaking. Indicators of speaking are focused on the ability of students in
using correct pronunciation, grammar, fluency and vocabulary. The study also
shows that the activities of applying Carousel Brainstorming Technique towards
speaking ability enable students enhance the quality of speaking in order to
make native and non-native speakers understand each other. In this case, the
key factors that enhance the quality of speaking are also influenced by
familiar topics, student’s basic needs and level. Hence, those factors can be
considered in learning and teaching speaking. The average class score of
students’ speaking ability increased from 40.71 in pre-test became 47.88 in the
post-test. Material, media, classroom activities, classroom management, and
teacher’s technique were also significantly influenced the improvement of
students’ speaking ability.
5.2 Suggestion
Based
on the conclusion above, the researcher would like to offer some suggestion as
follows:
1.
For English teachers
a.
The teachers are
suggested to motivate the students and give the interesting topic more than
before to the students in order that the students are interested or motivation
to learn English.
b.
Giving more exercise
for students to familiarize them speaking to something in English.
c.
The English teacher
must not monotonously apply one teaching method only, but also they should
continually change the teaching methods to see which of these are academically
suitable for their students in learning one of English skill.
d.
The teachers are also suggested
to use Carousel Brainstorming Feedback of way in teaching speaking and it can
be used to improve students’ speaking ability.
2.
For the students
a.
The students are
suggested to pay attention about teacher’s
explanation and be more active in learning so that they can achieve indicator
of learning and then get good result.
b.
The students are
suggested to always do speaking practice by trying to speak to all things in
English to improve their ability in expressing and arguing something.
3.
For Next Researcher
The
researcher hopes this research will give meaningful contribution as reference
for those next researchers who wished to carry out a
research on the same topic of discussion. The researcher
knows that this research is not perfect yet.
So, the other researchers also may develop this research with other problems,
such as different skill, schools, level, and kind of texts.
REFERENCES
Adam, Pascal, and murray 2000, Debating Handbook Cambridge school@googlemail.com
Andi, Stix. 2002. Carousel Brainstorming Feedback Technique.
Brown,
D.J. 1988. Understanding research in
second language learning. University of Hawai at Manoa, Cambridge
University Press.
Brown,
H. D. 1987. Language Teaching : A scheme
for Teacher Education. Oxford University Press.
Brown,
D. H. 2004. Language Assessment:
Principles and Classroom Practices. United States of America: Pearson
Education.
Brown,
H. Douglas. 2000. Principles of Language
Learning and Teaching. Fourth Edition. New York: Longman
Brown,
H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching By
Principles: An Interactive Approach To
Language Pedagogy. San Fransisco: Addisowesley Longman, Iac
Bygate,
M. 2001. Speaking.Oxford University
Press
Chaney,
1998. Teaching Oral Communication.
Boston:
Chaundhery,
1997. Introduction to Engineering
Statistic and Six Sigma Statistical.
Cohen, E.G. (1994) Restructuring
the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups,
Review of Educational Research 64:
1-35.
Dallas,(2005).Teaching Speaking to Students. France
Edge, J. 1993. Essentials of English Language
Teaching.Longman: New York
Florida Curriculum
Framework.1996.Think-PairShare. State
of Florida,
Flowers,
J. C. and Ritz, J. M. 1994. Cooperative
Learning in Technology Education. Monograph of the Virginia Council on
Technology Teacher Education. Old Dominion University. (online),
Folse.
K.S. 2006. The Art of Teaching Speaking:
Research and Pedagogy for ESL/EFL Classroom. Michigan: The Michigan
University Press
Gebhard,
J.G. 1998. Teaching English as a Foreign
or Second Language: A Teacher Self-Development and Methodology Guide.
Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Guzardo
and Barry, (2006:1) Strategic Literacy
Instruction Lesson Design Template.
Harris,
P.D. 1968. Testing English as Second
Language. New York : McGraw Hall Book Company
Hornby. 1995. Teaching speaking Seven
Dials, new edition, 2001.
Harmer, J
(1990) . How to
teach English An Introduction
to the practice of
English Teaching: USA
Harmer, J (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Longman.
Hughes,
1992. International journal of language communication. New York:
Hiebert and Kamil, 2006:3. Teaching Speaking: Activities to Promote Speaking in Second Language. London, England:
Kent,
2001. ‘A Language in Common’ with
additional detail inserted by NASSEA and slightclarification to the wording by
the Kent Minority Communities Achievement Service.
Kayi,
Hayriye. 2006. Teaching Speaking: Activities to Promote Speaking in a Second
Language. University of Nevada. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XII, No.
11, November 2006 (http://iteslj.org/ being accessed on May 20th, 2009)
Lie
2010 Cooperative Learning: Mempraktekkan
Kooperativ eLearning di Ruang-ruang
Kelas
Lipton
and Wellman, (1998:1) Leading Groups:
Effective Strategies for Building. New York.
Morris. 1980. Englishcommunication.London:Longman
Nunan, David ( 1991 ). LanguageTeachingMethodology. Macquarie
Universiry
Nunan,
D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. New
York : Prentice hall
International
Pollard,
2008. Characteristic of successful
speaking.33
Podo. 1995. Teaching Speaking in a Classroom.
Richards, 1985. the context of language teaching.
Cambridge University: 110
Richard, 2002. Activities promoting speaking skills - Cemink's Voices.
Shea,
Gina Iberri. 2009. Using Public Speaking Tasks in English Language Teaching:
Northern Arizona University
Thornbury, S. 2006. How to Teach Speaking.Longman: England
Widdosom.1996.
Speaking Skill .Woodstock, New York:
The Overlook Press, 1952. http;//www.nlcrc.org
