IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL THROUGH CONTENTBASED INSTRUCTION (CBI) Widya Astuty Buton Universitas Iqra Buru, Maluku
[email protected] Riki Bugis Universitas Iqra Buru, Maluku
[email protected] Azwan Universitas Iqra Buru, Maluku
[email protected] Abstract: The objectives of this research were to find out the use of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) improve the students’ English speaking skill at the Tenth Grade of SMA Negeri Sawa and to find out the use of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) can make the students’ interest in learning speaking. In this research, the researcher used preexperiment design. The research was conducted at the Tenth grade of SMA Negeri Sawa. The sample of the research consists of 23 students. The instruments were a speaking test and questionnaire. The data obtain from the test were tabulated and analyzed into percentage and t-test. The result of t-test 21.314 and t-table 1,717 the level of significance α = 0.05 and the degree of freedom (df) = 23, where N1 – 1 = 22 the result of the data analyzed shows there is significant different between pre-test and post test. The students also interest to use Content-Based Instruction (CBI). It proves by the result of questionnaire 70,22. Based on the result, the researcher concluded that Content-Based Instruction (CBI) can improve the students speaking skill and the students’ interest to use Content-Based Instruction (CBI) in learning process. Keyword: Content-Based Instruction (CBI), Speaking Skill
INTRODUCTION Speaking is one of the four language skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking). It is the means through which learners can communicate with others toachieve certain goals or to express their opinions, intentions, hopes and viewpoints. In addition, people who know a language are referred to as ‘speakers’of that language. Furthermore, in almost any setting, speaking is the most frequently used of language skill. As Rivers (1981) argues, speaking is used twice asmuch as reading and writing in our communication. This the teacher should employ an interested strategy and create a medium which can motivate the students in learning English. The researcher conducted her preliminary study at SMA Negeri Sawa at X1 grade. In this study, the researcher has collected data through observation. From the data, the researcher found some problems in speaking class that came from two side, they were the students’ and the teacher’s side. First, from students’ side,
the students have problem with pronunciation and vocabulary. It happened because they lack of practice speaking in study, and memorize the vocabulary. Those made students get difficulties to improve their speaking. Second, from the teacher’s side, the teacher did not have a good media to teach students, in learning teacher just process of teaching without using interesting media, that made students feel bored to study. Finally, the students could not increase their speaking in English. From those problems found above, the researcher conclude that ContentBased Instruction (CBI) can make students more interesting and motivate in learning English, because it is simple to use. So, they can improve their speaking easily. Based on the explanation above, the researcher interest to conduct a research about “Improving Students’ Speaking Skill Through Content-Based Instruction (CBI) at the Tenth Grade of SMA Negeri Sawa” REVIEW OF LITERATURE According to Chaney in Susanti (2007: 6), speaking is the process of building and sharing meaning through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, in a variety of context. According to Grognet A.G (136:1997) Speaking is one of the skills that have to be mastered by students in learning English. Speaking is an essential tool for communicating. Based on the meaning above, the researcher concludes that speaking is a process to building and sharing meaning that have to be mastered by students in learning English. There are four components of speaking skill introduced by Heaton in Tahir (2012: 98), they are; accuracy, fluency, comprehensibility, and content. Accuracy in speaking means when someone can produce correct sentences in pronunciation, grammar and word choice so it can be understood. There are three components of accuracy. They are pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. Stovall in Asni in Tahir (2012: 98) defined fluency as the ability to converse with others much more than the ability to read, write or comprehend oral language. In Longman dictionary, fluency s defined as the features that give speech the qualities of being natural and normal. Meanwhile Simon and Schuster in Amin in Tahir (2012 : 98) defined fluency as :(1) The quality of flowing, smoothness, freedom from harshness,(2) The ability to write or to speak easily, smoothly, expressively, readiness or smoothness of speech. Comprehensibility is the process of understanding of the utterances sent by the speaker done by the listener. Also comprehensibility in speaking means that people can understand what we say and we can understand what they say. Harmer (in Tahir2012: 99) says that if two people want to make communication to each other, they have to speak because they have different information. If there is a ‘gap’ between them, it is not a good communication if the people still confuse with what they say. According to Richard and Roger (2001: 204), Content-Based Instruction (CBI) refers to an approach to second language teaching in which teaching is organized around the content or information that students will acquire, rather than around a linguistic or other type of syllabus. Furthermore, Krahnke (1987:65) defines Content-Based Instruction (CBI) astheteaching of content or information in the language being learned with little or
2
no direct orexplicit effort to teaching the language itself separately from the content being taught. Moreover, Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989: 2)offered thedefinition of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) as “the integration of particular content with language-teaching aims”.The activities in Content-Based Instruction (CBI) class are centered around the content being taught and students are expected to learn the content by using the target language. Stewart (2008:12)statesthat the proponents of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) argue that language is most effectively learned in the context of relevant and meaningful content. Based on the meaning above, the researcher concludes that using Content-Based Instruction (CBI) is effective to apply in the teaching speaking because it made the students more fun and interest to study, so they can improve their speaking. METHOD The writers used pre-experiment design to find out the result of a certain technique. Best in Sigh (2006: 134) has defined experiment that “Experiment research is the description and analysis of what will be or what will occur, under careful controlled condition” and one group pre-test and post-test of this research. The research did an experiment is a single group or a class only. The population of this research is the tenth grade of SMA Negeri Sawa in academic year 2016/2017. The total of the population is 48 students. The researcher used one class in this research and the sample is X1 grade where thereare 23 samples of this research. In this research, the research used several instrument which is consisted of two instruments such as test and questionnaire. The researcher uses pre-test and post-test to assess students’ speaking skill. The test are aimed to measure the students’ progress and result of teaching learning activities. Data on students’ speaking and questionnaire were collected in line with the instrument (test and questionnaire), it were scoring, calculating the mean score and standard deviation use the following procedure. To score the students’ speaking pronunciation and vocabulary based on the students’ answer from the test (pre-test and post-test) and then the test will beanalyzed using following criteria level. FINDINGS The researcher used pretest and posttest to see the improvement of students’ speaking through Content-Based Instruction (CBI). a. The students’ frequency and percentage in pretest and posttest The frequency and percentage of the students’ in pretest and posttest through content-based instruction can see in the table below. Table 1. The frequency and percentage of the students in pretest and posttest Pretest Posttest Range of Classification Score F % F % 86 – 100 Excellent 0 0 0 0 71 – 85 Very Good 0 0 4 17.4 56 – 70 Good 0 0 12 52.2 41 – 55 Average 6 26.1 7 30.4 26 – 40 Poor 12 52.2 0 0
3
≤ - 25
Very Poor Total
5 23
21.7 100
0 23
0 100
In the table above, shows the percentage of pretest, very poor is 21.7% (5 students), poor is 52.2% (12 students) and average is 26.1% (6 students). Based on the percentage in pretest, it shows that many students in low category. While in posttest, shows that the students after the treatment, the percentage was higher than pretest. Average is 30.4% (7 students), good is 52.2% (12 students) and very good is 17.4% (4 students). It means there was the different between pretest and posttest. Figure 1. Students’ speaking of pronunciation and vocabulary in pretest and posttest 70
63.87 59.52
60 50 40
36.7 33.22
Pronunciation Vocabulary
30 20 10 0 Pretest
Posttest
In the figure shows above that pronunciation and vocabulary in posttest are higher than in pretest. It means that there were significant different between pretest and posttest before and after treatment used Content-based Instruction (CBI). b. The mean score, standard deviation and standard error mean of students’ speaking Table 2. The mean score standard deviation of students’ speaking achievement Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pretest 34.91 23 8.31 1.73 Posttest 61.57 23 10.59 2.20 The main score and standard deviation shows the difference in pretest and posttest. The data based on the computation using SPSS 20.0. The data in table 4.2 shows the main score of pretest and posttest was different. This means that there was an improvement after giving the treatment. The table also shows the main score of the students’ pretest was 34.91, standard deviation was 8.31 and standard error mean was 1.73 and in posttest was 61.57, standard deviation was 10.59 and standard error mean was 2.20. The main score of both pretest and
4
posttest were different after the treatment. It means the main score of posttest higher than pretest (61.57>34.91). The data of the students’ improvement in pretest and posttest are described in following figure. Figure 2. Mean Score in Pretest and Posttest 70
61.57
60 50 40
34.91
30 20
10 0 Pretest
Posttest
c. Test of Significance (T-test) Assuming that the level of significance (α) = 0,05, the only thing which is need, the degree of freedom (df) = 23, where N1 – 1 = 22 is 1,717. The result of computed t-test in SPSS is 21.314 and it is more than 1,717, it means that Alternative Hypothesis (H1) is accepted and Null Hypothesis (H0) is rejected. Table 3. The t-test of the students’ pronunciation and vocabulary in speaking achievement in pretest and posttest Pronunciation 2 Tailed (α) T Remarks & Vocabulary Value Pretest and Significantly 21.314 .000 0,05 Posttest different DISCUSSION In this discussion section the researcher presents the interpretation of the students’ pronunciation and vocabulary in speaking results of pretest and posttest and also the students’ score in questionnaire. There are 5 questions that the researcher used in pretest and posttest to know the pronunciation and vocabulary of the students’ speaking. The results of the students’ speaking score were below: • Pretest ➢ Pronunciation : There were 5 students got 3 score, 13 students got 2 score and 5 students got 1 score. ➢ Vocabulary : There were 5 students got 3 score and 18 students got 2 score. • Posttest
5
➢ Pronuciation : There were 2 students got 5 score, 9 students got 4 score and 12 students got 3 score. ➢ Vocabulary : There were 4 students got 5 score, 11 students got 4 score and 8 students got 3 score. (see on appendix 3) From the data above the researcher used SPSS version 20.0 to found out the main score in pretest and posttest of the students’ speaking, where the result shows that the main score of posttest was 61.57 higher than pretest was 34.91. It means there was improvement used Content-Based Instruction (CBI) of pronunciation and vocabulary in students’ speaking. There were some problems that the researcher found in students’ speaking were below: a. Missed pronunciation Pronunciation is one of the important components that a good english speaker uses when someone express their ideas in an interaction in order to have a good communication. Besides that, according to Carter in Tahir (2012: 150), states that pronunciation is the manner of uttering words with referring to the pattern of accent choice of phonemes, novel quality, and syllable lenght employed be distinguished from articulation, which refers to production of individual sounds. Some mistakes that the students made when pronouncing english words are presented below: 1.Tighteen (taiteen) → (tigtin) 2. Certainly (se:tnti) → (certainli) 3. Careful (keafl) → (karful) 4. Screw (skru:) → (skrew) 5. Sure (so:(r)) → (sur) 6. Objection (eb’djeksn) → (objektion) 7. All (o:l) → (al) 8. Peel (pi:l) → (pel) 9. Wash (wos) → (was) 10. Potatoes (pa’teitaus) → (potatoes) The data shows above that the students got difficult in pronunciation where there were many missed pronunciation. b. The inappropriate word choice The inappropriate use of english words is the words that the students use, because of wrong diction anf wrong class of words, the students’ mistake in word choice are as follow: 1. Don’t peel the potatoes before you brush them. Should be → Don’t peel the potatoes beforeyou wash them. 2. Open door please. Should be → Open the door please. The students made some mistake, it happened because they lack of vocabulary. CONCLUSION Based on the research, the researcher can conclude that: 1) The use of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) in teaching speaking can improve the students’
6
skill in pronunciation and vocabulary. It proved by mean score of posttest’s result (61.57) was higher than pretest’s result (34.91). 2) The use of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) in teaching speaking made the students interest to learning English. It proved by mean score of students interest is 70.22. Based on the conclusion above, the researcher addresses the suggestion as following: 1) The researcher suggested implementing Content-Based Instruction (CBI) in teaching speaking as a medium to improve the students’ pronunciation and vocabulary. 2) The researcher suggested for the teacher to use Content-Based Instruction (CBI) in teaching speaking, because it is enjoyable and made the students more relax. 3) The researcher recommended to the next researcher to find out new media to teaching English, in order to make the students interest to study. References Abd El Fattah Torky, 2006.The Effectiveness of a Task-Based Instruction Program in Developing the English Language Speaking Skills of Secondary Stage Students.Kairo: Unpublised thesis. Ain Shams University. AyuRainaMufida, et al. November 2013. The effect of Content-Based Instruction and Task-Based Language Teaching on the Second Semester Students’ Speaking Skill and Students’ Speaking Motivation of English Department Islamic University Indragiri. Padang. Journal English Language Teaching (ELT).Volume 1.Nomor 3. Bin Tahir, S. Z. (2012). Teaching English as World Language: Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris. Jakarta: Media Pustaka Qalam. Bin Tahir, S. Z. (2015). Multilingual Education in Pesantren Context. Yogyakarta: Deepublish. Bin Tahir, S. Z. (2015). Improving Students’ Speaking Skill through Voice Chat at University of Iqra Buru. Journal of Modern Education Review, 5(3), 296-306. Bin Tahir, S. Z. (2013). Penggunaan Facebook Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Menulis Teks Deskriptif Mahasiswa Fkip Jurusan Bahasa Inggris Di Universitas Iqra Buru. Jurnal Prospek. Vol. 15(1). 68-76. Bin-Tahir, S. Z. (2014). Improving Students’ Writing Skill through Facebook at University of Iqra Buru and Tadulako University. Conference Presentation. Bin-Tahir, S. Z. (2010). English Teaching Methods at Pesantren IMMIM of Makassar. Jupiter Journal. Vol. 10(1). 34-43. Bin Tahir, S. Z. (2013). Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris–Teaching English as World Language. Jakarta: Media Pustaka Qalam. Bin-Tahir, S. Z. (2013). Improving Students' Writing Narrative Text through Facebook. Jurnal Prospek. ISSN: 0852-8780 Vol. 10, 2013. Brignton, D. M., M. A Snow, et al. 1989.Content based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House. Bygate, Martin. 1987. Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Celce-Murcia, M. (ed). 2001. Teachingenglish as a second or foreign language, 3 rd edition. Boston, M. A: Heinle and Heinle.
7
Harmer,
Jeremy, 2002.The Practice of English Language Teaching.Harlow:Longman. Harmer, Jeremy. 2004. How to teach English. (13thed.). Kuala Lumpur : Longman. Hedge, Tricia. 2008. Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hornby. 1990. Oxford Advance Learner`s Dictionary. New York : Oxford University Press. Nagarija. 1996. English language testing: Approach, Method, Techniques. Orient Longman Private Limited. Madsen Harold S. 1984. Technique in testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lyster, Roy. 2007. Learning and teaching language through content: a counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins B. V. Paulston, et al. 1985. Teaching English as a second language: technique and procedures. Cambrige : Winthroppublisher, Inc. Tahir, Saidna, Z, Bin, 2012. Teaching English as a World Language. Jakarta: Qalam Media Pustaka. Tahir, B., & Zulfiqar, S. (2015). Multilingual Behavior of Pesantren IMMIM Students in Makassar. Asian EFL Journal, 86, 45-64. Tahir, S. Z. A. B. (2015). Improving Students’ Speaking Skill through Yahoo Messenger at University of Iqra Buru. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(3), 174-181. Tahir, S. Z. B. (2012). Redefining Terms of Teaching and Learning Strategy, Method, Approach, Technique, and Model. Public lecture on Microteaching at English Education Department of University of Iqra Buru, November 01st 2012.
2007. “Language skill”. Retrived Juni 6 2007 http:/kids source.com/asha/letstalk33html. Stryker, et al. 1997.Content-based instruction in foreign language education:: models and methods. Washington D. C: Georgetown Unversity Press. Zulfiqar, S. (2013). Teaching Speaking through Yahoo Messenger. Jakarta: Media Pustaka Qalam. Polsky,
8
