







































  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ SPEAKING FLUENCY  
AT GRADE XI OF MA KMM  KAUMAN PADANG PANJANG 

 
1Annisa Aditya & 2 Hilma Pami Putri 

State Islamic Collage of Bukittinggi, Bukittinggi.12 
 annisaaditya17@gmail.com   

 
 

ABSTRACT 

The purposes of this study were to describe students’ fluency level and to identify students’ 
disfluency factors at MA KMM Kauman Padang Panjang. It employed quantitative research 
method with the class of  grade XI students as the research population. There were 25 
students taken as the research sample selected through purpossive sampling technique. 
The data were collected through speaking test and a set of questionnaire. In the speaking 
test, students were allowed to choose one of five topics provided and were asked to deliver 
short talks for 2 minutes. These short talks were recorded. In addition to the speaking test, 
there were 20 questions with four options as the answers. These questions represented 
five main factors of disfluency such as task with task difficulty, meaning focused, time 
pressure, planning and preparation, and task repetition. The collected data were mainly in 
the form of transcription texts mined from the recordings of the short talks as well as the 
answers from the questionnaire. The results of the study show that students’ fluency level 
at grade XI of MA KMM Kauman Padang Panjang is good (level 3). However, the 
information on disfluency which prevented them to get a higher score were also identified. 
Most of the main disfluency factors were task with task difficulty, meaningfocused, time 
pressure, planning and preparation, and task repetition. 

Keywords: disfluency factors, speaking fluency, Teaching Speaking Skills,.    

 
INTRODUCTION 

 Speaking is the productive oral skill that consists of producing systematic verbal 
utterances to convey meaning (Nunan, 2003 : 48).  On the contrary speaking is oral 
activities developing sound to express idea  and construct the meaning. Because of that, 
students be able to get information and be able to understand the meaning and students be 
able to share the information to others.   

 Speaking is base communication, so it is a skill that most important that people have 
(Fernanda, 2015) . Speaking is one of the aspect language skill that are productive, it means 
a skill that people have to convey ideas, thoughts, and feelings so that ideas that available in 
the mind of the speaker can be understood by others. Speaking also is connected someone 
with others in sharing information.  

 In the development of skill there are two aspects of oral language will be develop; 
accuracy and fluency. Accuracy is the extent to which students’ speech matches what 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
mailto:annisaaditya17@gmail.com


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

people actually say when they use the target language (Nunan, 2003 : 55).  Thus, accuracy 
is control activities to give students’ persuasion and encouragement who focus on mastery 
a language. Fluency is the extent to which speakers use the language quickly and 
confidently, with few hesitations or unnatural pause, false starts, word searches, etc 
(Nunan, 2003 : 55).  Thus, speaking fluency will give students to more practice and use 
English as a tool communication. 

 Nowadays, students life at the time where speaking English as a second language 
fluently are important. In the development of speaking fluency, students must be mastered 
any components of English language. Speaking fluency has known as the pure ability to 
speak spontaneously, fastly and comprehensibly with a number of errors that can divert 
the speakers attention from the speaker’s message. 

 When the researcher did the obseravation toward grade XI of MA KMM Kauman 
Padang Panjang. The researcher found several problems related to speaking fluency. First, 
Students often used such hesitation when they feel hesistant about their speech. When 
students spoke with their friend or in front of the class, they often said hmm, aaaa, and 
uuuu.  It took many times because they difssssficult to express their idea and can not 
explain well about what are going to say. Thus, when the students often said hmm, aaa, and 
uuu during speaking, it caused they cannot express their idea well. 

 Second, Student feel-blocked mind because of they were afraid of making mistake. 
Over much focused on the script made students difficult to speak freely. When students 
spoke in front of class they could not enjoy and they still like remembering something. 
Therefore, they were difficult to speak freely because they only focused on the script. 

 Third, students had difficulties in expressing idea spontaneously because had lack of 
vocabulary. Lack of vocabulary made students pauses too long and did not know what they 
are going to say. It caused they rarely read a book related to English and lack of practice. 
Sometimes, when they difficult to express their ideas and did not know what its vocabulary, 
they choosed alternative way to use code mixing and code switching. Thus, in this case lack 
of vocabulary was affected students to speak fluently because they difficult to expressing 
idea spontaneously.           

 The teachers’ suupport is needed in development of students’ speaking fluency 
(Anggraeni et al., 2020). The support was giving like some activities such as; every Tuesday 
morning, the English teacher asked the student to performed their English talent especially 
on speech. The teacher gave the schedule for every class, the member of the class choosen 5 
students to prepare their performanced. The student would speech in the yard of the 
school and the performance seen by all the students and the teachers.  The students were 
given half an hour to performe their speech and their performance will be assessed by the 
teacher and will be input into skill scores. This activity was carried out to improve speaking 
fluency of the students (Fitriani et al., 2020; Marwati & Syamsudarni, 2020).  

 In learning process, the teachers also asked the students should be mastered on 
these skills especially on speaking. On the other hand, the school also applied a program to 
improve their speaking ability. Its program is English week program students must speak 
English arround the school whether in the classroom, outside, with their friend, their 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

teacher and the staff. Thus, supposed by that program the students have opportunity to 
fluent in speaking. 

 Generally the problem occurs when the students speak to others; the students tried 
to make the hearers uderstand about what they want to say (Salam Mairi, 2016) . The 
students tended to hesitate and fragmentary while speaking. This condition made the 
students speak hesistantly and fragmented, as mean  the frequency of pause filler such as 
“mmm” and “eee” and also the production of disfluency such as repetition, repair and also 
restart.     

 Based on the problem above the researcher expect to conduct the research to know 
How are the level of students’ speaking fluency ? and What are factors students’ disfluency 
in speaking? 

METHODS 

Research Design 

 Research design is the set of methods and procedures used in collecting and 
analyzing the research. In this research, the researcher use the descriptive quantitative. 
Quantitative as a numerical method of describing information or a result of a study and it 
deals with a mathematical calculation to analyze the data and to search out for the result 
(Craswell, 2009). The researcher  used quantitative research to calculate an ability of  
students’ speaking fluency and to find out factors influenced students speaking disfluency. 
The research aims to know the students’ speaking fluency level and factor students’ 
disfluency at grade XI of MA KMM Kauman Padang Panjang. 
Population and Sample 

 The population in this research is all of students at grade XI of MA KMM Kauman 

Padang Panjang to get more information about the students’ speaking fluency and factors 

students’ speaking disfluecy. The total populations are 4 classes. 

Table 1. The Total of Grade XI Students 

No. Class Total Students 

1. XI MIPA 1 26 Students 

2. XI MIPA 2 25 Students 

3. XI IPS 27 Students 

4. XI ITT 27 Students 

Total 105 Students 

Source: Data siswa 2019  

 In this research, the researcher used purposive sampling technique. The researcher 
already choosen XI MIPA 2 with total of students are 25 students to be a sample. The 
researcher choosed XI MIPA 2 class because when the researcher did teaching practice in 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

that school class XI MIPA 2 is more interested and actived while learning English especially 
in speaking. 
 
 

Instrument of the Research 

 The instrument was used in this research were test and questionnaire. Test aims to 
know how students’ speaking fluency level and questionnaire aims to know what are 
factors students’ speaking disfluency. Test requires the students’ short talk to be recorded. 
The test was used by researcher to know the students’ level in speaking fluency. Second, 
the instrument is questionnaire. The researcher used close questionnaire to find the data. 
In this research, the researcher gives questionnare in order to know factors students’ 
speaking disfluency.   

Technique of collecting Data 

 The researcher collected data by using oral test. The researcher explained to the 
students how to do the test. By doing test, the researcher gave five topics to the students. 
Each students choosed one topic that they wanted and delivered a short talk for 2 minutes 
long to be record after 20 minutes preparation and not allowed to bring any helping aids 
like note, picture and so on. 

 Questionnaire contain of 20 questions to know factors of disfluency. The questions 
divided into five indicators; task difficulty, meaning-focused, time pressure, planning and 
preparation and task repetition. In respond to the questionnaire, students indicate 
wheteher she or he  is Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Netral (N),  Disagree (D) and Strongly 
Disagree (SD) about the questions. 

Table2. Level of Speaking Fluency 

Score Level Description 

1-10 0 Disfluent 

11-30 1 Limited fluency. 

31-50 2 Intermediate fluency. 

51-70 3 Good fluency 

71-90 4 Advanced fluency. 

91-100 5 Native-like fluency. 

   Source : Mairi et al (2017)  
 
    Tabel 3. Likert Scale 

Point Value Explanation Average Score 

5 Strongly Agree 4,01-5,00 

4 Agree 3,01-4,00 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

3 Neutral 2,01-3,00 

2 Disagree 1,01-2,00 

1 Strongly Disagree 0,00-1,00 

Source : Mairi et al (2017)  

 After collected the data, the speaking test recorded analysed by four speaking 
fluency measurement which are Speech Rate (SR), Pause Rate (PR), Disfluent Syllable (DS) 
and Mean Length of Run (MLR). The data was calculated by using Stockdale’ theory as 
follow (Stockdale, 2009:5):  
a. Speech Rate (SR) 

SR  =  
Number of Syllable

Times in Second
  × 60 

Speech Rate Score 

SRS= 
Speech rate

230
× 100 

b. Pause Rate (PR) 

PR =  
Total of Pause Time

The Number of Total Pause
 × 100 

Pause Rate Score 

PRS = 100 − (
Total Pause Time

120
× 100 ) 

c. Disfluent Syllable (DS) 

𝐷𝑆 =
The Number of Disfluent Syllable

The Total Number of Syllable 
× 100 

Disfluent Syllable Score 

DFS= 100 − (
Total Number of Disfluent Syllable

230
× 120 ) 

d. The Mean Length of Run (MLR) 

𝑀𝐿𝑅 =
Total Number of Syllables 

Total Number of runs 
 

The data analysed by using computer softwares which are Audacity and Microsoft 

Excel. Then scores of students would categories into 6 level whether Disfluent (D),Limited 

Fluency (LF), Intemediate Fluency (IF), Good Fluency (GF), Advanced Fluency (AF) and 

Native-Like Fluency (NLF). 

 For the questionnare, Likert Scale used to measure the students’ disfluency in 

speaking. In order, to get the mean score of data the researcher used the formula that 

suggested by Sudijono as follow (Sudijono, 2014:80): 

M =
∑𝑥

𝑁
 

  M  : Mean 
  ∑ 𝑥 : Total Score 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

  N : Total Responden 
 

  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

RESULTS 

a. Test  
The data based on the test used to know students’ speaking fluency level. Test had 

given by the students was five topics and they choosed one of the topic to speak. After the 

researcher collected recording of the students, the researcher got the students’ data to be 

analysed. To know the students’ speaking fluency level, the researcher used the table as 

follow: 
      Table 4. The Students’ Speaking Fluency Level Analysis. 

Sample 
Speech 

Rate (SR) 

Pause Rate 

(PR) 

Disfluent 

Syllable 

(DS) 

Mean 

Length of 

Run (MLR) 

Total 

Score 
Level Description 

1 134,0 79,12 10,4 11,82 58,29 3 Good 

2 143,5 81,6 12,9 13,04 55,57 3 Good 

3 178,0 53,84 7,0 29,50 64,50 3 Good 

4 160,4 79,07 10,3 16,37 58,55 3 Good 

5 173,9 73,01 5,6 21,06 64,37 3 Good 

6 149,0 75,97 7,1 16,55 54,35 3 Good 

7 106,7 79,46 11,8 10,00 55,95 3 Good 

8 141,8 60,32 10,9 10,57 57,06 3 Good 

9 118,3 74,44 10,7 10,75 53,17 3 Good 

10 126,3 62,96 15,1 13,76 57,78 3 Good 

11 113,6 62,10 17,2 10,92 53,51 3 Good 

12 114,1 56,40 17,9 10,17 50,12 3 Good 

13 129,5 59,29 16,5 10,41 53,75 3 Good 

14 167,0 47,79 7,2 15,04 59,92 3 Good 

15 162,0 47,46 10,7 20,68 64,59 3 Good 

16 121,6 60,09 12,4 11,21 54,11 3 Good 

17 159,2 54,78 11,5 16,58 59,69 3 Good 

18 122,7 62,44 15,4 11,37 52,94 3 Good 

19 155,4 52,42 11,1 12,7 60,06 3 Good 

20 113,3 45,08 15,1 10,04 53,54 3 Good 

21 123,0 66,94 12,6 11,18 56,18 3 Good 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

22 103,4 52,13 20,8 9,93 49,78 2 Intermediate 

23 104,6 46,37 26,11 9,17 50,28 2 Intermediate 

24 116,4 63,76 14,21 12,00 52,70 3 Good 

25 107,4 62,30 24,84 10,01 50,21 3 Good 

TOTAL 3334,2 1563,63 336,53 334,83 1395,68 
3 Good 

MEAN 133,4 62,55 13,46 13,39 55,83 

It was found that the answer of the first research question seen that most students 
had low speaking fluency level. In fact, the average speaking fluency level of the grade XI of 
MA KMM Kauman Padang Panjang is level 3 or Good with the average 55,83 for the 4 
measurement. In addition, the table showed that there are exactly 23 students in level 3 
(Good) and 2 students in level 2 (Intermediate) from the total 25 students.   

b. Questionnaire. 

 The researcher collect data based on the questionnaire used to identify factors of 
students’ disfluency in speaking. Questionnaire had given by the students, the questions 
consist of five indicators and they gave a checklist on colomn wheteher they Strongly Agree 
(SA), Agree (A), Neutral (N), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD). After the researcher 
collectedthe answer of the students, the researcher got the students’ data to be analyze. To 
identify the students’ factors of students’ disfluency in speaking, the researcher used the 
table as follow: 

Table 5. The Analysis of Disfluency Factors 

Sample 

Difficult 
task 

Meaning 
focused 

Time 
pressure 

Planning and 
preparation 

Task 
repetition 

S D S D S D S D S D 

1 4,25 SA 2,75 N 3,75 A 3,75 A 2,75 N 

2 3,5 A 3,25 A 3,25 A 2,25 N 2,75 N 

3 3,75 A 3,25 A 3,5 A 3 N 3 A 

4 3,5 A 3,5 A 3,25 A 2,5 N 3,25 A 

5 4,25 SA 3,75 A 3 N 2,25 N 2,75 N 

6 3,75 A 2,75 N 4,75 SA 4 A 2,75 N 

7 4 A 3,5 A 4 A 3,5 A 2,50 N 

8 3,5 A 4 A 3 N 2,5 N 3 A 

9 3,75 A 3,25 A 4 A 3,25 A 3 A 

10 3,5 A 2,5 N 3 N 3,5 A 2,50 N 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 
11 4,5 SA 3,25 A 4,75 SA 5 SA 2,75 N 

12 3,5 A 3,75 A 4 A 4,25 SA 3 A 

13 3,75 A 3,5 A 4 A 4 A 4 A 

14 4,25 SA 3,25 A 4 A 5 SA 2,75 N 

15 3,5 A 2,5 N 4,75 SA 4,5 SA 2,25 N 

16 3,75 A 2,75 N 4 A 3,5 A 2,50 N 

17 3,75 A 3,5 A 2,75 N 3,5 A 2,75 N 

18 3,75 A 3 N 3,75 A 3,25 A 3,25 A 

19 4 A 3 N 3 N 3,75 A 2,50 N 

20 3,75 A 2,75 N 3,25 A 3,25 A 3,50 A 

21 4 A 3,25 A 3 N 2,75 N 2,50 N 

22 4,25 SA 3,5 A 4,25 A 5 SA 3 A 

23 4 A 3,5 A 3,75 A 3,75 A 3 A 

24 4,75 SA 2,5 N 4 A 4,5 SA 3 A 

25 3,75 A 3,5 A 3,75 A 3,5 A 2,75 N 

MEAN 3,88 A 3,2 A 3,7 A 3,6 A 2,87 N 

S= Score  D=Description 
SA : Strongly Agree  
A   : Agree  
N   : Neutral  
D   : Disagree  
SD : Strongly Disagree  
 

 It was found that the answer of the second research question seen that most 
students agreed (4) that factors disfluency in speaking are task difficulty, meaning focused, 
time pressure, planning and preperation. The most students’ answered is Neutral (3) it 
mean task repitition is not an important factor to their disfluency. In fact, the average of 
disfluency in speaking  based on five indicators of the grade XI of MA KMM Kauman Padang 
Panjang is Agree (A), such as  task difficulty is 3,88 (A), meaning focused is 3,2 (A), time 
pressure is 3,7 (A), planning and preparation is 3,6 (A) and task repetition is 2,87 (N) . 

DISCUSSION 

This research was to complete two research questions. First how are the level of 
students’ speaking fluency level and second what are factors of students’ disfluency in 
speaking. The researcher also used two instruments test and questionnaire. Test aims to 
know students’ fluency level and questionnaire aims to know factors students’ disfluency in 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

speaking. Based on the data analysis above, the researcher analysed the data used 
Stockdale’s theory to find out students’ speaking fluency level and mean score’ formula to 
find out factors of students’ disfluency in speaking. 

a. Test  
 In this finding, the measurement of students’ speaking fluency level consist of  

speech rate, pause rate, disfluent syllable and the mean length of run. It was found that the 
students’ speaking fluency is level 3 (Good). Jong and Hulstjin in Mairi stated “GOOD 
Fluency Candidate speech has acceptable speed, but may be somewhat uneven. Long 
utterances may exhibit some hesitations; but most words are spoken in continuous 
phrases. There are several repetitions or false starts per utterance. Speech has not too 
many long pauses, and does not sound staccato (51-70)” (Mairi, 2016 : 164). It will be 
discussed below: 

 First, speech rate (SR). From the data on table 4.2, the average of syllable found on 
the research were 133 syllables per minute to the average of normal syllable was 162-230 
syllables. It seen that the students could rounded up 58% of the normal average number of 
the syllable. The students have to cover ground the lack of 42%. Thus, the score of 58 
means mostly the students had good level of speech rate.  

 Second, Pause Rate (PR). It could be seen on figure 4.1 that the pause rate score of 
the students was 63. It means the students had lower score on pause rate. It was not to 
deny the fact that the students who had more pauses and better speaking fluency level. 
Getting score 63 out 100 points is considered not good with more than half of speech was 
filled pauses, errors and repetitions. It conclude that most students were not really fluent 
because the highpause rate.  

 Third, disfluent syllable. According to the data, It was found that students’ disfluent 
syllable rate was actually low. It was only 14%.  It means that most students did not find so 
many difficulties in minimizing the difluent syllable involvement when their speech. It is 
proven by their high disfluent syllable score at 86 points. It is a good accomplishment since 
the students are EFL learner. 

 Fourth, Mean Length of Run. The current mean length of run of the students on the 
speaking showed that the average mean length of runs of those students speech still low. It 
is 13% of the total short talks delivered. It indicates most of students had lower score. 
Mostly, the average score still shows the unexpected number.  

b. Qustionnaire  
 In this finding, it can be seen the second research question is factors of students’ 

speaking disfluency. The questionnaire consisted 20 questions which were divided into five 
indicators task difficulty, meaning focused, time pressure, planning and preparation and 
task repetition. These five indicators will be discussed below: 

  First, task difficulty. This factor  includes several component such as background 
knowledge, lessons, learned, topics and the familiarity of the task to the students’ 
background knowledge. The students’ answered based the statement about task difficulty 
had the result 3,88. Most of the students were agreed about the statement that the task was 
difficult. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

 Second, meaning focused. Speaking test should be meaning focused if it goal to 
measure the students’ fluency in speaking. When the task is not meaning focused, it will not 
help the students to increase their good speaking especially in speaking fluency.  The 
students’ answered toward the statement about meaning focused had result 3,2. Most of 
the students were agreed which meant meaning focused as a part of disfluency factors.  

 Next, time pressure. In this research, the researcher apllied the time pressure to the 
students by limiting 20 minutes to preparation and 1-2 minutes to short talk.  The time 
pressure would encourage the students to perform well. In order to know the result, were 
statement were put in the questionniare. The students answered toward the statement 
about time pressure had result 3,6. Most of the students were agreed which meant the 
students can not perform well without the existance of time pressure.  

 Then, planning and preparation. Planning and preparation is very important to the 
students before performing the task. The students did not get enough time for planning and 
preparation so that they could perform well. It seem based the result planning and 
preparation had  3,7 it meant they were agreed planning and preparation is important in 
students’ speaking fluency. 

 Last, task repetition. This factor includes 4 statements were questioning if  the 
students  can easier to speak about the task that they had ever done previously. The result 
of task repetition had 3,39. This answer meant that they agree to put task repetetion as not 
an important factor to their disfluency. 

CONCLUSION 

 The purposes of this reseach were to described speking fluency level and to 
identified disfluency factors in speaking of grade XI of MA KMM Kauman Padang Panjang. 
This research used two instruments; speaking test and questionnare.  

 Based on data analysis of speaking test, it was found that most student achieved 
level 3 or Good fluency level. However, the data also showed two students were at level 2 
or Intermediate. Therefore, it is believed that the students at grade XI of MA KMM Kauman 
Padang Panjang still needs to be aware and to concern more on how to improve the fluency 
level of those in level 2 or Intermediate. Moreover, it is also necessary to concern about the 
improvement of the students in level 3 or Good. In fact, it was found that disfluent syllable 
and pause rate were highly. The pause rate was the main holders and problems so that the 
students difficult to achieve a higher level. 

 In addition, based on the questionnaire of factors disfluency. It found that most 
students agreed (4) that factors disfluency in speaking are task difficulty, meaning focused, 
time pressure, planning and preperation. The most students’ answer is Neutral (3) of task 
repitition, it means task repitition is not an important factor to their disfluency. Thus, 
implementing the 4 methods which are creating easier task with progressive difficulty, 
giving appropiate time pressure, planning and preparation well and making meaning 
focused task to counter those disfluency factors can be helpful in developing a better 
method of fluency development.  

 Based on the findings of the researcher. There are some suggestions given based on 
this research :  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

1. To the students of grade XI of MA KMM Kauman Padang Panjang the researcher 
suggests them to practice more so that they could improve their speaking fluency. It is 
suggested to develop more materials, create more meaning focused activity, 
progressive task difficluty, and giving more time for the students to plan and prepare 
themselves. This action will help students achieve higher speaking fluency level and 
getting better in their speaking ability. 

2. For the next researcher, it is expected to include more variable like perceived base test 
so there will be more comprehensive study of fluency. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

As a result, the writer want to highly express her sincere gratitude and appreciation to the 
following person for their valuable contributions.  

1. Hilma Pami Putri, M. Pd as advisor for her care, time, attention, guidance, valuable 
advices, suggestion, critics and patience in accomplishing this thesis. Her 
suggestions and contributions are highly appreciated.   

2. All of the lectures who have given their knowledge, ideas, and contributions to the 
completion of this journal and educated his precious things in many fields during his 
study.   

3. The writer also shows thanks to beloved family, especially for my dad and mom 
(Aditya Warman and Syafrida, SE), all of my sisters (Fania Aditya, Afifa Aditya and 
Jihan Aprilda Aditya) who had given their love, pray, and supports to accomplish 
this thesis soon.  

4. The writer also shows thanks to beloved friend Annisa Rahma Nada, Asih Sari 
Ningrum, Nova syafitri, Indah Paramitha, Ari Saputra, Gebi Rahmatia Putry, Sridewi 
Sartika, Serly Dwitina, and Yolanda Putri Asyuthi. Thanks for them support, 
motivate, and give suggestion to finish this study.  

REFERENCES 

Anggraeni, W., Wahibah, & Faqihuddin Assafari, A. (2020). Teachers’ Strategies in Teaching 
Speaking Skills at SMAN 1 Palopo. FOSTER: Journal of English Language 
Teaching, 1(1), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.24256/foster-jelt.v1i1.9 

Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices.
 Longman. New York: Pearson Education. 

Cameron, Lynne. 2001 Teaching Languagt to Young Learners. Cambridge: University  Press. 

Farahani, A. & Kouhpaeenejad, M. (2017). The Relationship between Temporal 
 Measures of Oral Fluency and Ratings of Fluency: A Case of Iranian Advanced EFL 
 Learners. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 
 Volume: 05  Issue: 03 July-September, 2017 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2021 
e-ISSN: 2723-4126 

 

Fernanda, Yogi. 2014. Speaking Activity in The English Literary Classroom. Sumatera  Barat: 
STKIP PGRI Sumbar. 

Fitriani, A., Rustan, & Yahya, A. (2020). Show and Tell Technique in Teaching Speaking 
Skills at SMAN 2 Palopo. FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(2), 98-
113. https://doi.org/10.24256/foster-jelt.v1i2.12 

J., W.,Creswell.2009.Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approach. (Universityod 
Nebraska-Lincoln: Sage. 

Luoma, S. 2004. Assessing Speaking. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Marwati, & Syamsudarni. (2020). Improving Students’ Speaking Skill Through Drama at the 
Eighth Grade of SMPN 9 Palopo. FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1), 
41-54. https://doi.org/10.24256/foster-jelt.v1i1.6 

Nation  and Newton. 2009. Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking.  New York: 
Routledge 

Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. Singapore: McGrawHill. 

Schmidt, R. 1992. Psychological Mechanism Underlying Second Language Fluency. Studies in 
Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Stockdale,  D. Ashley. 2009. Comparing  Perception of Oral Fluency to Objective 
 Measures in the EFL Classroom (Unpublished Thesis). Birmingham: University of 
 Birmingham. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689

