1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

One of the aims of teaching English is to enable the learners to communicate

information effectively in spoken English (Brown and Yule, 1983). So, teaching spoken English

is success if the students can speak fluently.

However, speaking skill is very complex. Many skills must be mastered. It requires not

only pronunciation, intonation, stressing, vocabulary, grammar, and/or structure but also the use

of gestures and some other body movement. In line with this, Widdowson (1985) further

explains that the act of speaking normally in the course of natural communicative interaction

involves not only the use of vocal organs to produce sounds, but also the use of gestures, the

movement of the muscles of the face, and indeed of the whole body.

From the states above, we can see that how hard students to speak English with a

grammatical sentence, good pronunciation, and good gesture if they just speak it in the classroom

to get a good score from the English teacher while in Indonesia, especially in Tolitoli, there are

many kinds of ethnics and mother-tongues that they use in their daily communicative acts.

Another factor that caused students laziness to speak English is their shyness. They do

not have self confidence to communicate in English. So, although they like to study English but

their ability in speaking performance is still bad.

Besides, as speaking is difficult, some effort is required from the teacher because the

teacher is the person who mostly responsible of the learners’ speaking ability in the foreign

2

language (Baso Jabu, 2008:96). The teacher must be creative in teaching speaking, if a speaking

activity loses steam, the teacher may need to jump into Role-Play, ask more discussion

questions, clarify the instructions, or stop an activity that is too difficult or boring.

The teacher must make the students understand that the aim of speaking is

communicating ideas and that does not always require perfect English. In the speaking class, the

teacher must break the silence and get students communicate with any English words they can

use, correct or not, and selectively address errors that block communication.

When the researcher observed the class setting of this study, it was found that many

times the teaching of speaking was only in such a way that require the students to practice

reading the dialogues provided in the textbook without giving the students autonomy to share out

their ideas based on real context as such the representative communicative context as they really

find in their daily life. Therefore this problem should be solved by implementing the more

effective strategy that may assists the students to speak out their ideas.

One of language teaching strategies that may assist the students’ to be able to express

their ideas in their own words is that by implementing Role-Play Strategy. This strategy offers

some strength, such as to increase students’ interest in learning activities, fosters increasing

students’ vocabulary mastery English, helps students developing their skills in oral

communication, enhance students’ satisfaction with their learning experience, increase students’

creativity in express their ideas in their own words, and engage the students to participate.

1.2 Problem Statement

Based on the background above, the researcher formulates one problem statement as

follows:

3

Can the use of Role-Play improve the second year students of SMP Negeri 2 Tolitoli speaking

ability?

1.3 Objective of the Research

This research aims at investigating whether the use of Role-Play can improve the second

year students of SMP Negery 2 Tolitoli speaking ability or not.

1.4 The Significance of the Research

The findings of this research are expected to be meaningful contributions for the English

teachers or readers and especially for the second year students of SMP 2 Tolitoli, in 2009/2010

academic year. It is also expected to be a meaningful contribution for the English teachers in

general.

1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Research

The scope of this research is restricted to the teaching of speaking by implementing Role-

Play strategy to the second year students of SMP Negeri 2 Tolitoli, in 2009/2010 academic year.

Considering the teaching of speaking should take eight meetings for one semester, in this study

the treatment was only done in four meetings.

4

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This part of comprises five main subparts that is considered important in relation to the

focus of the study: motivation, speaking learning theories, cooperative learning, Role-Play

strategy.

2.1 Motivation

According to Houghton Mifflin (1997), motivation is typically defined as the forces that

account for the arousal, selection, direction, and continuation of behavior. In relation to this,

Slavin (1994) also adds that motivation is mentioned as one of the most important components in

learning. It is needed to make the students actively involved in the activity of learning.

Based on the statement above, motivation has important role in learning process. So, a

good teacher should give motivation to his/her students by creating an interesting class

atmosphere.

According to Skinner, supplying the correct answer and being informed by the program

in the correct answer may motivate the students go on the next frame of learning; and as the

students works through the program, the desired terminal behavior is progressively shaped.

Skinner adds that many behavioral learning theorist devised techniques of behavior modification

on the assumption that students are motivated to complete a task by being promised a reward of

some kind.

5

Glasser (1986) argues in control theory in the classroom and The Quality School (1990)

that for people to succeed at life in general, they must first experiences success in one important

aspect of their lives. For the most children, that one important part should be school. However,

the traditional approach to evaluating learning, which emphasizes comparative grading

(commonly called “grading on the curve”), allows only a minority of students to achieve A’s and

B’s and feel successful. The self-worth of the remaining students (who may be quite capable)

suffers, which depresses their motivation to achieve on subsequent classroom tasks (Convington,

1985).

Cooperative goal structures are characterized by students working together to

accomplish shared goals. As it is beneficial for the individual and vice versa, students in

cooperative groups can obtain a desired reward (such as a high grade or a feeling of satisfaction

for a job well done) only if the other students in the other group also obtain the same reward,

cooperative goal structures are characterized by positive interdependence. Also, all groups may

receive the same rewards, provided they meet the teacher criteria for mastery (Johnson et al,

1994; Johnson et al, 1995; Slavin, 1995).

2.2 Speaking Learning Theories

The term “speaking” itself according to Oxford (2000) is being willing to be friendly

towards somebody, especially after an argument. The term of speaking itself, according to Brown

(2001), is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving

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

occurs, including the participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical

environment and the purposes for speaking. It is often spontaneous, open-ended, and evolving.

6

Speaking is used for many different purposes, and each purpose involves different skills.

Each of these different purposes for speaking implies knowledge of the rules that account for

how spoken language reflects the context or situation in which speech occurs. The participants

involved and their specific roles and relationships, and the kind of activity the speakers are

involved in.

Kang discusses a number of factors that needed to be considered in planning a speaking

course. She refers to the influence of age, listening ability, sociocultural knowledge, and

affective factors on the ability to speak a second or foreign language, and introduces the useful

model developed by Canale and Swam to account for the components of speaking.

2.2.1 The Purpose of Speaking

The basic assumption in any oral interaction is that the speakers want to communicate

ideas, feelings, attitudes, and information to the listener. Rivers (1981) explicitly states that

through speaking one expresses emotions, communicates intentions, reacts to other persons and

situations, or influences other human being. Stating opinion clearly in speaking supported by

sufficient reasons will enable the speaker to reach the goal of his/her speech to satisfy others.

The functions of spoken language are interactional and transactional. The primary

intention of the former is to maintain social relationship, whereas that of the latter is to convey

information and ideas. In fact, much of our daily communication remains interactional. Being

able to interact in a language is essential. Therefore, language instruction should provide learners

with opportunities for meaningful communicative behavior about relevant topics by using

learner-learner interaction as the key to teaching language for communication because

“communication derives essentially from interaction” (Rivers, 1987).

7

2.2.2 Students’ Problems in Speaking Participation

Speaking a language is especially difficult for foreign language learners because

effective oral communication requires the ability to use the language appropriately in social

interactions. Diversity in interaction involves not only oral communication, but also

paralinguistic elements of speech such as pitch, stress, and intonation. In addition, nonlinguistic

elements such as gestures and body language/facial expression, and so on may accompany

speech or convey message directly without accompanying speech. In addition, “there is

tremendous variation cross-culturally and cross-linguistically in the specific interpretation of

gestures and body language (Brown, 1994).

The difficulties of speaking, as Brown (2001) stated, are caused by what he calls with

affective factors and interaction effect. Affective factors refer to the learner’s anxiety over the

risk of blurting things out that are wrong, stupid and incomprehensible. The language ego that

informs people “you are what you speak” makes the learners reluctant to be judged by the

listeners.

Furthermore, Ur (1996: 121) cites four problems that comprise: (1) inhibition: worried

about making mistakes, fearful of criticism or losing face, or simply shy of the attention that their

speech attracts, (2) nothing to say: can not think of anything to say, (3) low or uneven

participation: because of the tendency of some learners to dominate, others speak very little or

not at all, and (4) mother tongue use: learner prefers to use mother language than target language

in class.

Of the various problems that could be the cause of the learner’s difficulties in speaking

activities as cited above, it is obvious that the problems come from different factors. Burns and

Joyce (1997), then, try to generalize the factors into three groups, namely: cultural factors,

8

linguistic factors, and psychological or affective factors. They conclude that by reviewing factors

that can affect language learning and by attempting to identify the underlying reasons for

students’ reluctance to speak in class will help teachers to create the most positive environment

for these learners.

To get foreign English language learners to participate or speak is not easy. It needs

creativity of the teacher to create an activity and materials that can provide and motivate them to

speak. In relation to this, Curran in Bowen (1985) suggests to apply a waiting time until the spirit

moves someone to utter a word or phrase or sentence. However, Bowen (1985) argues that

classroom time is too valuable to spend very much of it quietly waiting. Probably, the easiest

way is to ask students to speak, and if necessary tell him what to say. It is so much better than

waiting for an uncertainty.

2.2.3 The Teaching of Speaking Skill

The most important feature of a classroom speaking activity is to provide an authentic

opportunity for the students to get individual meanings across and utilize every area of

knowledge they have in the second or foreign language. They should have the opportunity and be

encouraged to become flexible users of their knowledge, always keeping the communicate goal

in mind (Marianne Celce and Murcia Elite Olshtain, 1984).

To the grade VIII students of Junior High, the teaching of speaking aims to enable the

students to express ideas by using transactional-interpersonal expression, expressing ideas as

responses based on descriptive, recount, and narrative text to interact with their environment.

Allen (1977) claims that students are truly speaking only when they are

generating their own sentences. This implies that the ability to speak is measured by the ability

of the learners to interact with others, expressing themselves orally. Then, if learners are to learn

9

about the form of spoken language as well as to gain practice in using spoken language, teachers

need to provide activities for teaching speaking which focus on both these aspects.

The followings are a few of some possible techniques to teach speaking adopted from

Klippel’s (1984) practical resource book. They are interviews, games, jigsaw tasks, think-pair

and share activities, ranking exercises, discussions, values clarification, problem solving

activities, what if, role-play, and simulations. These techniques enable the learners to learn the

form of the spoken language as well to have a direct classroom practice in communicative

interaction.

The following are other possible techniques to teach speaking adopted from Marianne

Celce and Murcia Elite Olshtain. They are Role-Play, Group Disscussion, Using the Target

Language outside the classroom, Using the learners’ input, Feedback, and Looking at authentic

Speech in the form of Written Transcripts.

Finally, the teaching of spoken language in the classroom is often perceived as a very

difficult task for both the teacher and the students. Most of the teaching materials based on the

communicative approach claim to present “real communication in authentic situation” but are in

fact still heavily based on description of written English (Yule, 1995).

2.2.4 Assessing Speaking Skill

Shohamy (1983) found significance differences in the scores on oral tests that represented

different discourse styles and genres (e.g. an interview versus a reporting task). In another study,

Shohamy, Reves, and Bejarano (1986) found that a test taker’s performance on the interview,

which represent a specific oral discourse style, could not be used to make a valid prediction of

test taker performance on other oral discourse styles such as discussions and oral reports, or of

variety of speech act, as exemplified in Role-Play situation.

10

2.3 Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is a group learning strategy that involves students to work

collaboratively to achieve their aim (Eggen and Kauchak, 1986). The cooperative learning is

arranged in an effort to increase students’ participation, facilitate students to be a leader and

making a decision in group, and giving a chance to the students to interact and study together in

various backgrounds of them.

Cooperative Learning comes from John Dewey and Herbert Thelan (in Ibrahim,2000)

views that state education in the democratic society must be teach the democratic process

directly. Cooperative act seem as a basic of the democracy, and the school seem as the laboratory

to develop democracy act.

2.3.1 Advantages of Cooperative Learning

There are three aims of cooperative learning; they are academic result of study, the

acceptance in the various backgrounds, and developing of social skill (Ibrahim, et al, 2000).

In second or foreign language, theorist purpose several advantages for Cooperative

Learning: increased students talk, more varied talk, a more relaxed atmosphere, greater

motivation, more negotiation of meaning, and increased amounts of comprehensible input

(Liang, Mohan, & Early, 1998; Olsen & Kagan, 1992).

2.4 Role- Play Strategy

According to Gillian Porte (Oxfordn, 1987) Role-Play is any speaking activity when You

either put Yourself into somebody else’s shoes, or when You stay in Your own shoes but put

Yourself into an imaginary situation.

11

2.4.1 Advantages of Role-Play

Jeremy Harmer advocates the use of Role-Play for the following reasons : (1) It is fun

and motivating quitter students get the chance to express themselves in a more forthright way;

(2) The world of classroom is broadened to include the outside world-thus offering a much wider

range of language opportunities. In addition to these reason, students who will at some point

travel to an English-speaking country are given a chance to rehearse their English in a safe

environment. Real situations can be created and students can benefit from the practice.

Next, Gillian Porter Laddouse (1987) also states that if the teacher believes that the

activity will work and the necessary support is provided, it can very successful. However, if the

teacher is not convinced about the validity of Using Role-Play the activity will fall flat on its face

just as you expected it to. He also add that the joy of Role-Play is that students can become

anyone they like for a short time.

Jeremy Harmer (Longman 1989) says that Role-Play can be a lot of fun if you still feel

reluctant to use it in the class. He suggests us begin to integrate it slowly. He says why not

extends an appropriate reading or listening from a course book and turn it into a Role-Play? You

may be pleasantly surprised by the result!

12

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Method and Design

Method and design are the two inseperated parts in a research, however to be more

clear they probably better to be explained separatedly.

3.1.1 Method

This is an experimental research. It aims to find out whether or not the use of Role-Play

can improve student’s speaking performance.

3.1.2 Design

This research involved one group of students with pre-test and post-test design. The

design of this research can be described as follow:

E= T1 X T2

Where :

E = Experiment

T1 = Pre-test

X = Treatment

T2 = Post-test

13

3.2 Variables and Operational Definition

3.2.1 Variable

This research consists of two variables, namely:

- Independent variable is teaching speaking through Role-Play

- Intervening variable is the classroom activities. It refers to the treatments

- Dependent variable is the students speaking

3.2.2 Operational Definition

- Teaching is a process of transferring the knowledge

- Speaking is more than just a way of making conversation; we use spoken language for a

variety of reasons in daily life

- Role-play is an activity when students try to act a dialog and make it like in real situation

3.3 Population and Sample

3.3.1 Population

The population of this research was the second year students of SMP 2 Tolitoli, in

2009/2010 academic year. The population consists of 4 classes, and each class consists of 40

students. Therefore, the total number of population was about 160 students.

3.3.2 Sample

This research applied cluster sampling technique. The researcher took one class as a

sample of this research. Therefore the total number of sample was 40 students.

14

3.4 Instrument of the Research

In this research, the writer used observation, speaking tests, and questionnaire as the

instruments of collecting data. In the observation, the researcher used the materials taken from

the SMP English curriculum.

In the pre-test, the researcher used a script of dialog for assess the students ability in

speaking and the researcher used speaking test assessment by Heaton (1988:100) that consisted

in three aspect, namely : Accuracy, fluency, and comprehensibility.

In the treatment, the researcher used a script of dialog that written by the researcher but

for assess the students ability, the researcher still used the speaking assessment rubric by

Heaton (1988:100).

In the post-test, the researcher used the same dialog as in the pre-test and still used the

speaking assessment rubric proposed by Heaton.

The questionnaire was used to find out the students feeling toward the implementation of

Role-Play strategy in their class.

3.5 Procedure of Data Collection

The procedure in collecting data can be described as follows:

3.5.1 Pre-test

The pre-test intended to know the previous mastery of students in speaking before giving

the treatment. To do the test, a meeting with 80 minutes was allocated.

3.5.2 Treatment

The treatments were given to the students after they had done pre-test. The procedure of

treatment can be described as follows:

15

First, The dialog were distributed to the students; then the students were assigned to ask

the meaning of sentences that they did not understand in the dialog; next, the students were

divided in some pairs, then the students were asked to practice the dialog based on their role.

After that, the researcher made some corrections on each student’s mispronunciation and mis-

stress in speaking activity. Finally, the researcher gave chance to the students to ask some

questions which were not clear for them. The treatments took place for six meetings (6 x 80

minutes).

3.5.3 Post-Test

This test was administered to the students after the treatments. Based on the test result

it is intended to know whether the students have different achievement or not in speaking, after

giving them some treatments, they were tested for about 80 minutes.

6. Technique of Data Analysis

In this research, the data obtained from the instruments result based on three components

of speaking. They are accuracy, fluency, and comprehensibility. Then the researcher tabulated

the data based on the rating score in the scoring of compositions as follows:

Accuracy

5-6 Excellent to very good

3-4 Good to average

1-2 Fair to poor

Fluency

5-6 Excellent to very poor

3-4 Good to average

1-2 Fair to poor

16

Comprehensibility

5-6 Excellent to very poor

3-4 Good to average

1-2 Fair to poor

(Adopted from Heaton, 1988:100)

Before analyzing the data, it is necessary to describe the statistical procedure used to

find out the students’ speaking ability. In the speaking test, the researcher used one type of

speaking test. The students played the dialog provided.

To know the score of each respondent on one type of test, the writer classified them

into fair to poor to very good score based on the rating score above. Then, the students’ score of

each component was found by calculating their total score of every item then divided by the total

number of items.

To analyze the data, the researcher used scale 1-6, scoring rate for each component. The

lower score was 1 and the highest score was 6. This score was found by calculating the three

scores of the speaking components.

To compute the mean score of the students’ ability, the researcher applied the following

formula :

x=∑ xN

Where :

X = Mean score

∑𝒙 = total score of respondent

N = The number of respondent

(L.R. Gay, 1986:298)

17

Then the result of the computation is classified into three classifications as follows:

5-6 classified as excellent to very good

3-4 classified as good to average

1-2 classified as fair to poor

Furthermore, to find out the mean of the differences score of students, the researcher applied the

following formula :

D=∑ DN

Notation :

D = the mean of the difference score

∑ = the sum of differences score

N = the total number of sample

(Gay, 1981:332)

18

While to find out the significance differences between pre-test and post-test, the writer

applied the formula below :

t= X 1−X 2

√ S12

n1+ S 22

n 2−2(r ) S 12

√ n 1+ S 22

√ n 2+¿

❑ ¿

Where:

X1 = The average value of pre-test

X2 = The average value of post-test

n1 = The number of sample of pre-test

n2 = The number of sample of post-test

S1 = Standard of deviation of pre-test

S2 = Standard of deviation of post-test

S12 = Varian of pre-test

S22 = Varian of post-test

r = Correlation with pre-test and post-test

x = (x1-x)

y = (y1-y)

(Sugiyono, 2010: 122)

19

Finally to know the standard deviation between pre-test and post-test, the researcher applied the

following formula:

S2=n ∑ X 2−¿¿

S2 : Standard deviation

X : The sum of convert score

N : The total number of sample

20

CHATER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter consists of two main parts. The first part is the presentation of the findings

of the research and the other part is the discussion of the findings.

4.1 Findings

4.1.1 The Students’ score based on the three Components of Speaking

In this activity, the scores of the students were observed based on three components of

speaking. The data were tabulated by referring to the scoring system adopted from Heaton

(1988:100).

a. Score 5-6 is classified as excellent to very good

b. Score 3-4 is classified as good to average

c. Score 1-2 is classified as fair to poor

Table 1 Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on the Accuracy Components

No. Classification RangeFrequency Percentage

Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test

1. Excellent to very good 5-6 1 16 3,04% 48,48%

2. Good to Average 3-4 30 16 90,90% 48,48%

3. Fair to Poor 1-2 2 1 6,06% 3,04%

Total 33 33 100% 100%

The table above shows that in the pre-test, there was 1 (3,04%) students get excellent to

very good, 30 (90,90%) students get good to average, and 2 (6,06%) students get fair to poor.

21

Therefore the mean score of the students ability in speaking accuracy component is 3,39. It is

classified as good to average.

The result of post-test indicates that there are 16 (48,48%) students get excellent to very

good, 16 (48,48%) students get good to average, and 1 (3,04%) students get fair to poor.

Therefore, the mean score of the students after giving treatment become 4,24. It is classified as

excellent to very good. It is found that there is a significant difference between the results of pre-

test and post-test.

Table 2 Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on Fluency Components

No. Classification RangeFrequency Percentage

Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-TestPost-Test

1. Excellent to very good 5-6 1 14 3,04% 42,42%

2. Good to Average 3-4 29 18 87,87% 54,54%

3. Fair to Poor 1-2 3 1 9,09% 3,04%

Total 33 33 100% 100%

Table 2 above shows that in the pre-test, there are 1 (3,04%) students get excellent

to very good scores, 29 (87,87%) students get good to average score, and 3 (9,09%) students get

fair to poor score. Therefore, the mean score of the students ability in speaking fluency

component in pre-test is 3,30. It is classified as good to average.

The post-test indicates that there are 14 (42,42%) students get excellent to very

good scores, 18 (54,54%) students get good to average scores, and 1 (3,04%) students get fair to

poor score. Therefore, the mean score of the students after giving treatment becomes 4,27. It is

22

classified as excellent to very good. It means that there is a significant difference between the

result of pre-test and post-test.

Table 3 Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on Comprehensibility Components

No. Classification RangeFrequency Percentage

Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test

1. Excellent to very good 5-6 5 9 15,15% 27,27%

2. Good to Average 3-4 25 23 75,75% 69,69%

3. Fair to Poor 1-2 3 1 9,10% 3,04%

Total 33 33 100% 100%

The table 3 above shows that in the pre-test , there are 5 (15,15%) students get excellent

to very good score, 25 (75,75%) students get good to average score, and 3 (9,10) students get fair

to poor scores. Therefore, the mean score of the students’ ability in speaking comprehensibility

component on pre-test is 3,69. It is classified as good to average.

The post-test indicates that there are 9 (27,27%) students get excellent to very good ,

23 (69,69%) students get good to average score, and 1 (3,04%) student gets fair to poor score.

Therefore, the mean score of the students after giving treatment becomes 4,15. It is classified as

good to average. It means that there is a significant difference between the result of pre-test and

post-test.

Table 4 Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on Three Components Observed

No. Classification Range Frequency Percentage

Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test

23

1. Excellent to Very Good 13-18 4 21 12,12% 63,63%

2. Good to Average 7-12 27 11 81,81% 33,33%

3. Fair to Poor 1-6 2 1 6,07% 3,04%

Total 31 100% 100% 100%

From the table above, pre-test shows that there are 4 (12,12%) students got

excellent to very good, 27 (81,81%) students got good to average, and 2 (6,07%) got fair to

poorscore.

The mean score of the students’ speaking ability for three components observed:

Accuracy, fluency, and comprehensibility. The students’ score on pre-test was 10,39 classified as

good to average. The score can be shown below:

X=∑ xN

X=34333

= 10,39

On the table above the post-test shows that there are 21 (63,63%) students get excellent to

very good score, 11 (33,33%) students get good to average, and 1 (3,04%) students gets fair to

poor score.

The mean score of the students’ ability in speaking for three components Accuracy,

Fluency, and Comprehensibility is 12,6. The calculation can be described as follows:

24

X=∑ xN

X=41833

X=12,6

Based on the data above, the writer can conclude that before being given treatments, the

students’ speaking ability is 10,39 classified as good to average score and after they are given the

treatments the students’ speaking ability improved becomes 12,6. It is classified as excellent to

very good score. It means that there is significant difference between the result of pre-test and

post-test.

a. Mean Score and Standard Deviation

Having calculated the result of the students’ pre-test and post-test, the mean score and

standard deviation of the students’ speaking ability are presented in following table:

Table 5 Mean Score and Standard Deviation of the Students’ Pre-test and post-test

Mean Score Standard Deviation

Pretest (X1)

Posttest (X2)

10,39

12,6

2,164

2,33

Table 5 above shows the statistical summary of the students’ mean score and standard

deviation both in pre-test and post-test.

25

The mean score of the students’ pre-test is 10,39 which is classified as good to average

with standard deviation 2,164 and the mean score of the students’ post-test is 12,6 which is

classified as excellent to very good.

b. Test of Significance

To know the level of significance between the pre-test and post-test, the writer used t-

test analysis on the level of significance 0,05 with degree with freedom (df)= n-1, where n=

number of subject (33). The t-test statistical analysis for non independent sample is applied. The

following table shows the result of the t-test calculation:

Variable T-test value T-table value

X1-X2 6,332 1,691

Based on the calculation above, the value of t-test (6,332) was greater than the

value of t-table (1,691).

c. Hypothesis Testing

To find out the degree of freedom (df), the researcher used the following formula:

Df = N-1

Df = 33-1

Df =32

For the level of significance (P) 0,05 and df 33, then the value of t-table is 6,332.

Whereas the value of the t-test was greater than t-table 1,691 (6,332≥ 1,691). It means that the

hypothesis (Ho) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted.

26

4.2 Discussion

Based on the presentation of findings, the researcher presents some interpretations of

findings in order to explain in detail as follows:

a. The Students’ Speaking Ability by Implementing Role-Play

The description of the data collected by implementing Role-Play as explained in the

previous section showed that the students’ ability in speaking is improved. It is supported by the

means score of students on pre-test is 10,39 classified as good to average, and the mean score of

students on post-test is 12,6 classified as excellent to very good classification.

b. The Students’ Speaking Ability Based on the Three Components

The result of the students’ pre-test and post-test based on the three components of

speaking can be described as follows:

One the component of accuracy in the pre-test, there is 1 (3,04%) student gets excellent

to very good score, and most of them 30 (90,90%) get good to average, while the component of

accuracy in the post-test, the data shows that there are 16 (48,48%) students get excellent to very

good score. Therefore, there is a significant difference between the result of pre-test and post-

test. It is proved greater than the mean score on pre-test, namely 12,6.

The component of fluency, 1 (3,04%) student get excellent to very good and most of

them get 29 (87,87%) students get good to average. While the component of fluency in the post-

test, the data show 14 (42,42%) students get excellent to very good and most of them 18

(54,54%) also get good to average score. Therefore, there ias a significant difference between the

result of pre-test, namely 3,30 (good to average classification) improve on post-test 4,15

(excellent to very good classification).

27

The component of comprehensibility, there are 3 (9,10%) students get fair to poor

scores in pre-test. However in the post-test, there is 1 (3,04%) student gets fair to poor score.

Therefore, there is a significant difference between the result of pre-test, namely 3,69 (good to

average classification) improved on post-test 4,15 (excellent to very good).

Seeing the comparison of the students’ pre-test and post-test in each component of

speaking, the researcher can conclude that there was improvement of the students’ ability in

speaking from each component of speaking after presenting materials by implementing Role-

Play.

Therefore, the mean score of the students on pre-test is 10,39 classified as good to

average score and post-test is 12,6 classified into excellent to very good score. It indicates that

the mean score of the students on post-test get higher after presenting treatment material. In other

words, the mean score of the students on pre-test less than post-test.

The standard deviation of the students’ pre-test is 2,164 and post-test ias 2,33. Both of

the standard deviations describe that the distance of each score of the students near one another.

It indicates that their ability in speaking is almost very closed together.

The value of the t-test is greater than t-table (6,332≥1,691). Based on the t-test, the

researcher found that there was significant difference between the result of pre-test and post-test.

In other words, the students’ ability in speaking develop or improve after giving them treatment

materials by implementing Role-Play.

28

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion

Based on the result of the data analysis in the previous chapter, the researcher

would like to conclude that the students’ speaking ability at second year students of SMP Negeri

2 Tolitoli is improved after giving them some treatments by implementing Role-Play. There is a

significant difference between the result of pre-test and post-test, where the mean score of post-

test is 12,6. It is higher than the mean of pre-test, namely 10,39. From the data above, the writer

can draw a conclusion that the second year students of SMP Negeri 2 Tolitoli in academic year

of 2009-2010 have a good ability in speaking by implementing Role-Play.

5.2 Suggestion

The researcher would like to give some suggestions concerning the teaching of speaking

by implementing Role-Play as follows:

a. To improve the students’ speaking ability, the English teacher should give speaking practice

as frequently as possible to enhance students’ competence in speaking.

b. The English teacher should consider the effectiveness of using Role-Play in teaching

speaking.

c. The researcher also suggests to the English teacher to be more creative in teaching speaking.

They can use many different methods and techniques and one of those methods is Role-Play.

29

d. Finally the researcher realizes that this skripsi is still imperfect. However, she really hopes

that this skripsi can give meaningful contribution for the teaching of English as well as

others.

30

REFFERRENCES

Celce Marianne & Olshtain Elite Murcia. 1989. Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gay, L.R.1990. Educational Research. Singapore: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Gillian Porte Ladouse. 1987. Role-Play. (http://www.contentheadright.com.). Downloaded on February 5, 2010.

Goh, C.M.,Christine. 2007. Teaching Speaking in the Classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Harrison Andrew. 1986. A Language Testing Handbook. Hongkong: Macmillan Publisher Ltd.

Jabu Baso. 2008. English Language Testing. Makassar : State University of Makassar.

Jeremy Harmer (Longman 1989). The Practice of English Language Teaching. (http://www.contentheadright.com). Downloaded on February 5,2010.

Luoma Sari. 2005. Assessing Speaking Volume 9, Number 3. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 2010. Motivation. (en. Wikipedia.org./wiki/motivation). Downloaded on February 8, 2010.

31

Appendix 1 Model of Role-Play Sheet

In the Kitchen

Mum : Nigel, close the fridge, please.

Nigel : Yes, mum.

Mum : Tea’s ready. Give me your cups. Are you hungry?

Nigel : Yes, I am. I want some cereal.

Mum : Cereal? Karen, is there any cereal left in the cupboard?

Karen : Yes, there are some cornflakes. Here you are.

Nigel : Thanks. Pass me the milk, please.

Mum : Here’s your milk. Don’t forget the toast. It’s burning.

Karen : Just in time. Butter, mum?

Mum : No, thanks. Pass me the marmalade.

Karen : Jeremy’s hungry too

Nigel : Let’s give him some toast and butter

Mum : Butter? No, let’s give him some milk

32

Appendix 2

TREATMENT

Mum : Vony, close the door, please.

Vony : Yes, mum.

Mum : Are you hungry?

Vony : Yes, I am. I want some bread. Is there any breads in the kitchen Mum?

Mum : Yes, there is some. Let’s go in the kitchen and make some toasts.

Vony : Where’s the bread, mum?

Mum : in the table

Vony : Pass me the butter mum

Mum : Here it is

Vony : Lia’s hungry too

Mum : Let’s give Him some toast

33

Appendix 3

Post-Test

Lia : Open the fridge, please.

Neni : Yes, Lia

Lia : Is there any cheese in the fridge, Lia?

Neni :No, You must buy it in the market.

Lia : How about oranges and egg?

Neni : Oh, there is not oranges and egg here. You also must buy it. Don’t forget some

tomatoes and fish, please.

Lia : Ok! I’ll go to supermarket now. Bye…

Neni : Bye…

34

Appendix 4 Questionaire Tentang Respon Siswa pada Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris dengan strategi Role-Play

Petunjuk

1. Tidak perlu menulis nama atau identitas anda pada lembaran ini!2. Isilah angket ini secara terbuka dan apa adanya. Jawaban anda tidak ada kaitannya

dengan penilaian terhadap mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Apapun jawaban anda tidak menambah atau mengurangi nilai!

3. Berilah tanda √ pada kolom yang teersedia sesuai pilihan anda tanpa pengaruh teman!Keterangan :SS : Sangat SetujuS : SetujuTS : Tidak SetujuSTS : Sangat Tidak Setuju

No. PERNYATAAN SS S TS STS1 2 3 4 5 61 Saya merasa senang belajar dengan strategi Role-Play

2 Saya merasa lebih mudah memahami materi bacaan dengan strategi Role-Play

3

Saya merasa lebih rileks, santai, dan bermain tapi tetap serius dan penuh perhatian mengikuti pembelajaran bahasa Inggris dengan strategi Role-Play

4Saya berpendapat bahwa kemampuan berbahasa Inggris saya akan meningkat dengan strategi Role-Play

5Penerapan strategi Role-Play dapat membantu peningkatan kemampuan seluruh siswa dikelas saya

Persentase jawaban siswa

35

Appendix 5 Rubric for Speaking Performance Assessment

Score Accuracy Fluency Comprehensibility6 Pronunciation is only;

slightly influenced by the mother-tongue. Two or three minor grammatical and lexical errors

Speaks without too great an effort with a fairly wide range of expression. Searches for words occasionally but only one or two unnatural pauses

Easy for listener to understand the speaker’s intention meaning. Very few interruption or clarification required

5 Pronunciation is slightly influenced by the mother-tongue. A few minor grammatical and lexical errors but most utterances are correct

Has to make an effort at times to search for words. Nevertheless, smooth delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural pauses

The speaker’s intention and general meaning are fairly clear. A few interruptions by the listener for the sake of clarification are necessary

4 Pronunciation is still moderately influenced by the mother tongue but no serious phonological errors. A few grammatical and lexical errors but only one or two major errors causing confusion

Although he has make an effort and search for words, there are not too many unnatural pauses. Fairly smooth delivery mostly. Occasionally fragmentary but succeeds in conveying the general meaning. Fair range of expression

Most of what the speaker says is easy to follow. His intention is always clear but several interruptions are necessary to help him to convey the message or to seek clarification

3 Pronunciation is influenced by the mother-tongue but no serious phonological errors. Several grammatical errors, some which cause confusion

Has to make an effort for much of the time. Often has to search for the desired meaning. Rather halting delivery and fragmentary. Range of expression often limited

The listener can understand a lot of what is said, but he must constantly seek clarification. Cannot understand many of the speaker’s more complex or longer sentences

2 Pronunciation seriously influenced by the mother-tongue with errors causing a breakdown in communication. Many “basic” grammatical and lexical errors.

Long pauses while he searches for the desired meaning. Frequently fragmentary and halting delivery. Almost gives up making the effort at times. Limited range of

Only small bits (Even usually short sentences and phrases) can be understood and then with considerable effort by someone who is used listening to the speaker

36

expression 1 Serious pronunciation

errors as well as many “basic” grammatical and lexical errors. No evidence of having mastered any of the language skills and areas practiced in the course

Full of long and unnatural pauses. Very halting and fragmentary delivery. At times gives up making the effort. Very limited range of expression

Hardly anything of what is said can be understood. Even when the listener makes a great effort or interrupts, the speaker is unable to clarify anything he seems to have said

(Adopted by Heaton, 1988:100)

37

Appendix 6

TREATMENT MATERIALS

1st Meeting

- The students are given about Role-Play strategy

- Grouping the students

- Distributing the dialog

- Giving instruction and student’s task

- Giving the students opportunity to ask some questions that are not clear for them

- Ask the students to act the dialog

- Leading students when they find problems

- Doing assessment

2nd Meeting

- Giving explanation to the students about a good acting based on Role-Play strategy

- Ask the students to act the dialog again based on Role-Play strategy

- Leading the students when they found problems

- Doing assessment

3rd Meeting

- Ask the students to make a dialog by their group

- Help the students when they find problems in making the dialog

38

- Ask students to act the dialog by a good intonation, pronunciation, and expression

-Doing assessment

4th Meeting

- Ask the students to memorize their dialog

- Ask the students to act the dialog

- Leading the students when they found problems

- Doing assessment

5th Meeting

- Distribute a dialog to the students

- Giving them an opportunity to ask about the dialog

- Ask them to act the dialog with their group

- Doing assessment

6th Meeting

- Giving the students opportunity to ask some questions that are not clear for them,

especially the process of Role-Play strategy

- Distribute the questionnaire about their response when they learning speaking by using

Role-Play strategy

39

Appendix 7. Data of Pre-Test

No. Name Accuracy Fluency Comprehensibility Score1 A J 4 4 4 122 A L Y 4 4 4 123 A P L 3 3 3 94 C F 4 4 4 125 D S 5 4 5 146 F S L 3 2 2 77 F I 3 4 4 118 F R S 3 3 4 109 H S D 4 3 5 1210 H S I 4 4 4 1211 I S K 1 1 2 412 M G F 3 3 3 913 M L D 4 3 4 1114 M S 4 4 4 1215 M I 2 2 2 616 M A 3 3 4 1017 N A 4 3 4 1118 N E 3 3 4 1019 N H 3 3 3 920 N L 3 4 4 1121 P R S 3 3 3 922 R R 3 4 4 1123 R A 3 3 3 924 R F D 4 3 4 1125 R F K 3 3 3 926 R S K 4 4 5 1327 S K R 3 3 3 928 S K M 4 4 5 1329 T C S 4 5 5 1430 W H Y 3 3 3 931 Y N 4 4 4 1232 Y L 3 3 3 933 Y L N 4 3 4 11

SUM 112 109 122 343

40

Appendix 8 The step of finding the mean score and standard of deviation of Pre-Test

1. Finding the mean score

X=∑ xiN

X=34333

X=10,39

2. Finding the standard deviation

S2 = n ∑ X 2−¿¿

=33.3648−¿¿

= 122595−11764933.32

= 49461056

= √4,6837

S = 2,164

41

Appendix 9 The step finding the interval class of pre-test

1. The first step is finding the highest score and the lowest score to set up the interval, it is:

The highest score was 14

The lowest score was 4

The range of the interval of class (R)

R= the highest score – the lowest score

= 14 – 4

= 10

2. The second step is to set amount the interval of class

K = 1 + 3,3 log N

K = 1 + 3,3 log 33

K = 1 + 3,3 (1,5)

K = 5,95

K = 6

3. The third score is finding the wide of the interval of class (P)

P = R/K

= 10/6

= 1,6. So, P was 2

42

Appendix 10 The data of Post-Test

No. Name Accuracy Fluency Comprehensibility Score1 A J 4 5 4 132 A L Y 5 5 5 153 A P L 4 5 4 134 C F 5 5 5 155 D S 5 5 5 156 F S L 5 4 4 137 F I 4 4 4 128 F R S 3 3 4 109 H S D 4 5 4 1310 H S I 5 4 4 1311 I S K 2 2 2 612 M G F 3 4 4 1113 M L D 5 4 4 1314 M S 4 5 4 1315 M I 3 3 3 916 M A 4 4 3 1117 N A 5 5 5 1518 N E 6 5 6 1719 N H 5 4 5 1420 N L 5 5 5 1521 P R S 5 5 4 1422 R R 5 4 4 1323 R A 3 3 3 924 R F D 3 3 4 1025 R F K 3 4 4 1126 R S K 5 4 4 1327 S K R 3 4 4 1128 S K M 4 4 4 1229 T C S 5 6 6 1730 W H Y 5 5 5 1531 Y N 4 5 4 1332 Y L 4 4 3 11

43

33 Y L N 5 4 4 13SUM 140 141 137 418

Appendix 11 The step of finding the mean score and standard of deviation of post-test

1. Finding the mean score

X=∑ xiN

X=41833

X=12,6

2. Finding the standard deviation

S2 = n ∑ X 2−¿¿

S2 = 33.5470−¿¿

S2= 180510−174724

33.32

S2 = 57861066

S2 = √5,427

S = 2,33

44

Appendix 12. The step finding the interval class of post-test

1. The first step is finding the highest score and the lowest score to set up the interval, it is:

The highest score was 17

The lowest score was 6

The range of the interval of class (R)

R = the highest score – the lowest score

= 17 – 6

= 11

2. The second step is to set up amount the interval of class

K = 1 + 3,3 log N

K = 1 + 3,3 log 33

K = 1 + 3,3 (1,5)

K = 1 + 4,95

K = 5,95

K = 6

3. The third step is finding the wide of the interval of class (P)

P = R/K

= 11/6

= 1,83. So, P was 2

45

Appendix 13. The Normality Analysis Pre-Test

Interval Fo Fh (fo-fh) (fo-fh)2 ¿¿

4-5 1 0,891 0,109 0,01 0,01

6-7 2 4,4649 -2,4649 6,075 1,3606

8-9 9 11,2629 -2,2629 5,120 0,4545

10-11 10 11,2629 -1,2629 1,5949 0,14

12-13 9 4,4649 4,5351 20,567 4,606

14-15 2 0,891 1,109 1,229 1,3793

SUM 33 7,9504

Appendix 14 The Normality Analysis Post-Test

Interval Fo Fh (fo-fh) (fo-fh)2 ¿¿

6-7 1 0,891 0,109 0,01 0,01

8-9 2 4,4649 -2,4649 6,075 1,3606

10-11 7 11,2629 -4,2629 18,1723 1,6

12-13 13 11,2629 1,7371 3,0175 0,26

14-15 8 4,4649 3,5351 12,4969 2,79

16-17 2 0,891 1,109 1,22988 1,380

46

SUM 33 7,4

Appendix 15. Table of correlation with pre-test and post-test

SampleScore

Pre-Test (x)

Score Post-

Test (y)x-x y-y X2 Y2 Xy

1 12 13 1,61 0,4 2,59 0,16 0,6442 12 15 1,61 2,4 2,59 5,76 3,8643 9 13 -1,39 0,4 1,9 0,16 -0,5564 12 15 1,61 2,4 2,59 5,76 3,8645 14 15 3,61 2,4 13,03 5,76 8,6646 7 13 -3,39 0,4 11,49 0,16 -1,3567 11 12 0,61 -0,6 0,37 0,36 -0,3668 10 10 -0,39 -2,6 0,15 6,76 1,0149 12 13 1,61 0,4 2,59 0,16 0,64410 12 13 1,61 0,4 2,59 0,16 0,64411 4 6 -6,39 -6,6 40,83 43,56 42,17412 9 11 -1,39 -1,6 1,93 2,56 2,22413 11 13 0,61 0,4 0,37 0,16 0,24414 12 13 1,61 0,4 2,59 0,16 0,64415 6 9 -4,39 -3,6 19,27 12,96 15,80416 10 11 -0,39 -1,6 0,15 2,56 0,62417 11 15 0,61 2,4 0,37 5,76 1,46418 10 17 -0,39 4,4 0,15 19,36 -1,719 9 14 -1,39 1,4 1,93 1,96 -1,94620 11 15 0,61 2,4 0,37 5,76 1,46421 9 14 -1,39 1,4 1,93 1,96 -1,94622 11 13 0,61 0,4 0,37 0,16 0,24423 9 9 -1,39 -3,6 1,93 12,96 5,00424 11 10 0,61 -2,6 0,37 6,76 -1,58625 9 11 -1,39 -1,6 1,93 2,56 2,22426 13 13 2,61 0,4 6,8 0,16 1,04427 9 11 -1,39 -1,6 1,93 2,56 2,22428 13 12 2,61 -0,6 6,8 0,36 -1,56629 14 17 3,61 4,4 13,03 19,36 15,88430 9 15 -1,39 2,4 1,93 5,76 -3,33631 12 13 1,61 0,4 2,59 0,16 0,644

47

32 9 11 -1,39 -1,6 1,93 2,56 2,22433 11 13 0,61 0,4 0,37 0,16 0,244

SUM 10,39 12,6 149,76 175,48 99,358

Appendix 16. The step to finding the correlation with pre-test (x) and post-test

Rxy= ∑ xy

√ ∑ x2 y2

Rxy= 99,358√ 149,76.175,48

Rxy= 99,358√ 26279,8848

Rxy=99,358162,11

r=0,6

48

The applying of t-test

t= X 1−X 2

√ S12

n1+ S 22

n 2−2(r ) S 12

√ n 1+ S 22

√ n 2+¿

❑ ¿

t= 10,39−12,6

√ 2,1642

33+ 2,3402

33−2(0,6) 2,164❑

√ 33+2,340

√ 33+¿

❑ ¿

t= −2,21

√ 4,6833

+3,4733

−(1,2) 2,1645,74

+ 2,3405,74

❑

t= −2,21

√0,14+0,16− (1,2 ) (0,37 )(0,40)❑

t= −2,21

√0,3−(1,2 )(0,148)❑

t= −2,21

√0,3−0,1776❑

t= −2,21

√0,1224❑

49

t = −2,210,349

= -6,332

TABLE OF CONTENT

HALAMAN JUDUL i

MOTTO ii

PENGESAHAN UJIAN SKRIPSI iii

PENGESAHAN PEMBIMBING iv

ABSTRACT v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

LIST OF CONTENT

LIST OF TABLE

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Problem Statement 2

1.3 Objective of the Research 3

1.4 Scope of the Research 3

50

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Motivation 4

2.2 Speaking Learning Theorist 5

2.2.1The Purpose of Speaking 6

2.2.2 Students’ Problems in Speaking Participation 6

2.2.3 The Teaching of Speaking Skill 8

2.2.4 Assessing Speaking Skill 9

2.3 Cooperative Learning 10

2.3.1 Advantages of Cooperative Learning 10

2.4 Role-Play Strategy 10

2.4.1 Advantages of Role-Play 11

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Method and design 12

3.1.1 Method 12

3.1.2 Design 12

3.2 Variable and Operational Definition 13

3.2.1 Variable 13

3.2.2 Operational Definition 13

3.3 Population and Sample 13

3.3.1 Population 13

3.3.2 Sample 13

51

3.4 Instrument of the Research 14

3.5Procedures of Data Collection 14

3.5.1 Pre-Test 14

3.5.2Treatment 14

3.5.3 Post-Test 15

3.6 Technique of Data Analysis 15

CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Findings 20

4.2 Discussions 20

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion 28

5.2 Suggestion 28

REFFERENCES 30

APPENDICES 31

Appendix 1 Pre-Test 31

Appendix 2 Treatment 32

Appendix 3 Post-Test 33

Appendix 4 Questionnaire 34

Appendix 5 Rubric for Speaking Performance Assessment 35

Appendix 6 Treatment Materials 37

Appendix 7 Data of Pre-Test 39

52

Appendix 8 Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Pre-Test 40

Appendix 9 The Step Finding the Interval Class of Pre-Test 41

Appendix 10 Data of Post-Test 42

Appendix 11 Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Post-Test 43

Appendix 12 The Step Finding the Interval Class of Post-Test 44

Appendix 13 The Normality Analysis Pre-Test 45

Appendix 14 The Normality Analysis Post-Test 45

Appendix 15 The Data of t-Test 46

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ROLE-PLAY STRATEGY

TO IMPROVE STUDENTS SPEAKING PERFORMANCE

(A STUDY AT THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 2 TOLITOLI)

SKRIPSI

Presented to

State University of Madako

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Sarjana in English Language Education

By

Diyenti Rusdin

NIM 40060014

53

UNIVERSITY OF MADAKO

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

SEPTEMBER 2010

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ROLE-PLAY TO

IMPROVE STUDENTS SPEAKING PERFORMANCE

SKRIPSI

OLEH

DIYENTI RUSDIN

NIM 40060014

54

UNIVERSITAS MADAKO

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

2010

This is to certify the Sarjana’s skripsi of

Diyenti Rusdin has been approved by the skripsi

Advisors for further approval by the Board of Examiners.

Tolitoli,……………………………..

Advisor I

Asri, S.Pd

NIP……………………….

Tolitoli,………………………….

Advisor II

Jupriadi, S.Pd

55

NIP……………………..

APPROVAL SHEET

This is to certify that Sarjana’s skripsi of Diyenti Rusdin has been

approved by the Board of Examiners as the requirement for the degree of Sarjana

in English Language Education.

Yamon Sudamara, S.Pd, M.Pd, Chair

Asri, S.Pd, Member

Jupriadi, S.Pd , Member

Acknowledge by Approved by

56

Head English Department Dean, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education

Yamon Sudamara, S.Pd, M.Pd Drs. Abdul Muluk, M.Pd

NIP. 0905116901 NIP. 0911116201

ABSTRACT

Rusdin Diyenti, 2010. The Effectiveness of Role-Play to Improve Students’ Speaking Performance. Skripsi, English Language Education Department FKIP Madako University. Supervisors: (I) Asri, S.Pd, (II) Jupriadi,S.Pd.

This skripsi presents the effectiveness of Role-Play to improve students’ speaking performance at the second year students of SMPN 2 Tolitoli. This study is done since the students’ low speaking ability in speaking skill.

The research design belongs to an experimental one. The study aims at investigating whether Role Play Strategy is effective to improve the students’ speaking performance or not. The instruments of collecting data are test, observation, and questionnaire. The observation is used to find out the data about the process of doing the treatments, the speaking test is used to obtain data in order to find out the effect of the implementation of Role-Play, and the questionnaire is used to elicit the data about the students’ feeling towards the implementation of Role Play Strategy. It is found that : (1) the implementation of Role-Play can improve the students’ interaction and participation in speaking class activities; and (2) Role-Play strategy is one of the strategies that can be implemented in the teaching of English at Junior High School because most of the students feel relax and easier to understand the material.

57

PERNYATAAN KEASLIAN TULISAN

Saya yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:

Nama : Diyenti Rusdin

NIM : 4006 0014

Jurusan/Program Studi : Bahasa Inggris

Fakultas/Program : Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan

Menyatakan dengan sebenarnya bahwa skripsi yang saya tulis ini benar-benar merupakan hasil karya saya sendiri; bukan merupakan pengambil alihan tulisan atau pikiran orang lain yang saya akui sebagai hasil tulisan atau pikiran saya sendiri.

Apabila dikemudian hari terbukti atau dapat dibuktikan skripsi ini hasil jiplakan, maka saya bersedia menerima sanksi akadenik maupun sanksi hukum atas perbuatan tersebut.

Tolitoli,

Yang membuat pernyataan,

Tanda tangan

58

Diyenti Rusdin

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alamin, the writer praises his highest gratitude to Allah SWT who

has given His love, blessing, and mercy to her in completing this skripsi. Salam and salawat are

due to the highly chosen prophet, Muhammad SAW, His families and followers until the end of

the world.

The writer realizes that this skripsi would have never been completed without the

assistance of a number of people. Therefore, the writer would like to express her deepest

appreciation and thanks to those people who have helped in completing this skripsi, especially to

the writer’s beloved parents, Rusdin Godang and Nur Hasanah (Alm) who always pray,

motivate, educate, and provide countless materials during her study.

The writer’s deep appreciation to her first consultant, Asri, S.Pd and her second

consultant, Jupri, S.Pd. They spent much time to give guidance, correction, and suggestion to her

during the process of writing of this skripsi. Next, the greatest thanks also go to Yamon

Sudamara, S.Pd, M.Pd as the Head of English Department of Madako University, and all lectures

and staff of English Education Department of Madako whose names could not be mentioned

one by one for their supporting and appreciation in the writer’s academic process.

59

The writer’s special thanks go to her younger brother Yosep Roybel and younger sister

Triyella Oktabella, who never got bored of giving motivation. The writer would also like to give

appreciation to the second year students of SMP Negeri 2 Tolitoli in academic year of 2009/2010

who have participated well in the research process. The research would not be finished without

their participation.

Many thanks also go to the headmaster, vice headmaster, all teachers, and staff of

SMPN Negeri 2 Tolitoli for their permission, guidance, and help to the writer during her research

experiment in the school. The writer does not forget to give her deepest appreciation to all of her

friends that she cannot mention their names one by one for their motivation and help to the

writer.

May Allah the Almighty God always be with us, Amin.

Tolitoli, Agustus 2010

The writer

60

LIST OF TABLE

Table Page

Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on

Accuracy Component 20

Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on

Fluency Components 21

Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on

Comprehensibility Component 22

Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on

Three Components Observed 23

Mean Score and Standard Deviation of the Students’ Pretest and

Posttest 24