1 IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILITY THROUGH TWO STAY – TWO STRAY OF FPBS IKIP MATARAM Dedi Sumarsono (dedi_aqil@yahoo.com) Abdul Kadir Bagis Faculty of Language and Art Education (FPBS) Institute of Teacher Training and Education (IKIP) Mataram ABSTRACT This research is aimed at knowing whether students‟ speaking ability can be improved by using Two Stay - Two Stray and what are the strengths and weaknesses of Two Stay - Two Stray in teaching speaking in the second semester students of FPBS IKIP Mataram in the academic years of 2013/2014. This research uses Classroom Action Research (CAR) which is taken from Kemmis and McTanggart‟s design; it consists of 2 cycles. Every cycle consists of four phases those are: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. The subject of this research is the students in II d of FPBS IKIP Mataram. Field note, questionnaire, and test are used in collecting the data. There are three tests used in this research, they are: pre-test, post-test 1, and post-test 2 with the standard of students‟ successful was 65. The findings of the research showed that (1) The students‟ speaking ability improved; (2) Related to the field note results showed that the students were more confident and enthusiast in speaking. It can be seen from their participation in the class, in the conversation, and their performance in group work; and (3) Related to the questionnaire result, it is proved that the response of the students toward Two Stay – Two Stray in teaching speaking is 96%. Based on all those findings, it can be concluded that the application of Two Stay - Two Stray can improve the students‟ speaking ability. Key words: Fan-N-Pick Technique and Teaching Speaking. 2 A. Introduction Speaking as one out of the four English skills plays an important role in mastering the English language itself. As a skill, speaking is the most used skill by the students rather than the three others namely reading, listening, and writing. According to Richards (2008: 19) learners consequently or are often evaluated their success in language learning as well as the effectiveness of their English course on the basis of how much they feel they have improved in their spoken language proficiency. From this statement it indicated that most language learners regard speaking ability as the measure of knowing a language. Speaking is also a crucial part of the second language teaching and learning. However, today‟s world requires that the goal of teaching speaking should improve students‟ communicative skills actively and as a result they can express themselves and learn how to use the language. The misleading in teaching speaking could cause fatal problems during the classroom teaching and learning process. It will make them bored even since the class begins; they become afraid to talk and even shy to talk to other even to the teacher which can cause them not to know how to express their ideas orally. Nowadays, many teachers agree that students should learn to speak the second language by interacting to others. On this case, students should master several speaking components such as: comprehension, pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and fluency. In brief, English teachers should be creative in developing their teaching and learning process, to create a good atmosphere, to improve the students speaking skill, to pay attention to the speaking components done by the students and to make the English lesson more exiting. Even though one of the learning objectives of English language above is directed to improve the student speaking ability, it may affect the classroom teaching and learning process. It can be seen by the low level of student‟s speaking skill in FPBS IKIP Mataram. The experiences of the writer as one of the graduated students from FPBS IKIP Mataram found that only few students could use English well, some of them could not speak well in English and even some others could not speak in English at all. It could be seen from the way the students express their idea during the teaching and learning process. The students still mix or switch the language. For example “yesterday I go to Jakarta bersama dengan orang tua saya”. Another example is that the students were still confused when the teacher asked them in English and say “maaf, saya tidak mengerti, bisa bapak ulangi”, etc. There are many factors that can cause the students to have low 3 speaking achievements. It could be caused by the internal and external factors. Motivation, interest, intelligence, self-confidence and self- esteem are the examples of the internal factors. Meanwhile, economic background, teaching and learning materials, teachers‟ method and performance including their teaching styles are the examples of the external factors. Method used by the teacher in the classroom teaching is often assumed as the external factor that causes the student‟s speaking problem. According to Mackey (1965: 138) the method used by teacher has often been said to be the cause of success or failure in language learning for it is ultimately the method that determines either what or either how of language instructions. Based on the observation above, it can be assumed that the audio- lingual method is the method used by the teacher in FPBS IKIP Mataram. It could be seen from several teaching techniques implemented in speaking classroom teaching. The teacher often applied the drill techniques in presenting the material before practicing the conversation on the English text book. Also, the students were encouraged to memorize the dialogue in pair and then they performed it in front of the class. Besides, the teacher seemed to be the center in teaching and learning process and the students just received what they taught. From that matter of facts, it is clearly seen that the method used by the teacher (audio-lingual method) became the causes of students speaking problems. Even though, this assumption needs to be approved through this research. Actually it‟s not easy to teach language skills especially speaking without using suitable method, because a large number of methods are based on the ideas of how languages are learned. Therefore, the research is done in order to know the effectiveness of the method used in teaching speaking. There are many methods of language teaching that may be selected for the teaching of speaking skill. One of the appropriate methods in developing speaking skill is cooperative learning two stay two stray model. According to Knight (1999: 3) cooperative learning is learning mediated by students rather than the instructor. In cooperative learning, students work in groups to teach themselves content being covered. Teachers can utilize a variety of learning structures while providing cooperative learning. The two stay two stray model from its origin name “one stray” adapted from Kagan (1994) expands on the basic principles of cooperative learning where the students work and share together in group. It gives the opportunity to the entire group to share their information and findings to other group available. The group 4 formations consist of 4 persons each, within the process two of them will stay in the group and two other will stray around the groups to share and find the information. These activities also ensure that each learner within the group has a specific role, and that if each learner does not fulfill his/her role, the group effort fails to meet its overall objective. According to Kagan & Kagan in Brody (1998: 112) simply placing students in a group and telling them to work together on some curriculum problem without providing a structure for the students to work within is group work. Cooperative learning itself has its own historical background when it is implemented in the University. According to Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1994 in Morgan & Keitz (2010: 2) cooperative learning in college classes has its roots in the theories of social interdependence, cognitive-development and behavioral learning. Some research provides strong evidence that cooperative learning result in greater effort to achieve, more positive interpersonal relationships, and greater psychological health than competitive or individualistic learning efforts. This model of cooperative learning has never been done before in FPBS IKIP Mataram. B. Theoretical Foundation Like other English language skill with their own components, there are some components of speaking skill, namely: grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, and comprehension (Brown, 2004: 172). The following are the description of those components. 1. Grammar Grammar is one of the important components in speaking. It is a language aspect that relates whether or not the speaker is able to use the correct form of the language he learns. Ur (1991: 75) states that grammar is sometimes defined as the way words are put together to make correct sentences and speak in the target language (English) by using good, correct sentences. Sentences are made of combination of words using the appropriate grammar which makes the sentences meaningful. The use of grammar shows whether or not the speaker uses the correct forms of the target language. If the speaker ignores the correct use of grammar, the listener will find many difficulties in understanding his sentences. Briefly, the mastery of grammar is important to make good sentences which support the speaking to be understandable so the listener can understand the ideas or the messages easily. 2. Vocabulary In learning a new language, vocabulary is very important. Richards and Rodger (1999: 32) state that vocabulary is one of the most important aspects of foreign language learning. The vocabulary is 5 considered as the most important factor in the foreign language learning. Vocabulary refers to the mastery of the new words, the meaning, and the usage. Improving the vocabulary can be done by making the list of the new words or by consulting the dictionary or by finding the synonym and the antonym. Mastering a large number of vocabularies is very beneficial for the speaker. The speaker can use his vocabulary to express his ideas or messages using various words or phrases or sentences. Without good mastery of vocabulary, it is impossible that the speaker can speak fluently and accurately in the target language. 3. Pronunciation The aim of learning pronunciation is to help the speaker to be able to pronounce the words, phrases, or sentences accurately. A Consideration of learners‟ pronunciation errors and of how these can inhibit successful communication is a useful basis on which to assess why it is important to deal with pronunciation in the classroom. When a learner says, for example, soap in a situation such as a restaurant where they should have said soup the inaccurate production of a phoneme can lead to misunderstanding. A learner who consistently mispronounces a range of phonemes can be extremely difficult for a speaker from another language community to understand. This can be very frustrating for the learner who may have a good command of grammar and lexis but have difficulty in understanding and being understood by a native speaker (Kelly, 2000: 11). 4. Fluency More fluent speakers tend to speak more and their phrases are longer. Louma (2004: 88-89) states that fluency is a thorny issue in assessing speaking. This is partly because the word „fluency‟ has a general meaning, as in „she is fluent in five languages‟ and a technical meaning when applied linguists use it to characterize a learner‟s speech. However, even in technical terminology, fluency can be used in a range of senses. The narrowest definitions only include a few features, typically pausing, hesitations and speech rate, whereas the broadest uses are virtually synonymous with „speaking proficiency‟. Definitions of fluency often include references to flow or smoothness, rate of speech, absence of excessive pausing, absence of disturbing hesitation markers, length of utterances, and connectedness. These characterizations are complex, however, because they are not simply descriptions of a speaker‟s speech but also of a listener‟s perception of it. To illustrate this, in the phrase „excessive pausing‟, the pausing is a feature of a learner‟s speech, while the excessiveness is based on a listener‟s judgment. 6 5. Comprehension Comprehension is a test to find out how well students understand written or spoken language and the ability to understand completely and be aware of the situation, facts, etc. According to Swain in Nation & Newton (2009: 115) the comprehension approach suggests that speaking should not be encouraged until learners have substantial receptive experience and knowledge of the language system. Some researchers, however, argue that the knowledge that is needed to speak will not come unless the learners are “pushed” to speak. C. Research Method The method used in this study was Classroom Action Research (CAR) method which was derived from the root an action research. Because it occurs in the classroom frame, it was called CAR. This research was held from November, 1 st 2013 up to May, 27 th 2014,This research was conducted at second semester students of FPBS IKIP Mataram in the academic years of 2013/2014 The researcher uses classroom action research Kemmis and Mc Taggart model, which consist of four steps namely: Planning, a c t i o n , o b s e r v a t i o n , a n d reflection. Improvement of the problem in this research was brought by a series of cycles. The subject of this study was the students in II d class of FPBS IKIP Mataram in the academic years of 2013/2014. The number of students consists of 40 (forty) students. There were 28 (twenty eight) females and 12 (twelve) males. It was chosen based upon the researcher‟s observation at that class proving that they were not enthusiastic and not courage enough to involve in the speaking learning process. They were encountered with the hesitance of practicing the material as well as the drilling conducted by the teacher in the learning process. In the other words, the students have the problems with their confidence. Therefore, they could not cope with the class material. That is why they need an appropriate strategy to help them improve their speaking. There are four phases of this research: a. Planning: The researcher and collaborator made some planning based on the finding of preliminary study. The following activities in this action planning were deciding to practice test, making lesson plan, preparing material, student‟s worksheet, and instrument of post-test, media, and determining criteria of success. Besides, before teaching and learning process was conducted, the researcher would did training for the teacher as the observer, to make sure that he/she understood with the technique that researcher used. b. Acting In this phase, both the researcher and teacher collaborate to carry out the planned action. In implementing the action, the researcher acted as the English teacher. Meanwhile the collaborator acted as the observer who observes class condition and all activities that happened in the teaching and learning process. c. Observing When the a c t i o n phase, the collaborator also observed the teaching learning process by using Fan-N-Pick technique. When observing, the collaborator observed all of activities in the classroom by 7 using field note to write down it. d. Reflecting Researcher analyzed the data collecting and summarizes it. So if the average score of students did not achieve the indicator of success, it would be continued to the next cycle. D. Technique of Data Analysis Technique of collecting the data in this research using qualitative data and quantitative data. The qualitative data consists of field notes. Meanwhile, the quantitative data used questionnaire, pre-test and post-test (Suharsimi, 2010: 127).In analyzing the numerical data, first the researcher tried to get the average of students‟ speaking skill per action within one cycle. It was used to know how well students‟ score as a whole on speaking skill. It used the formula (Sudjana, 2002: 67): Where: = Mean X = Individual Score N = Number of students Besides analyzing the result of the test and observing the activity during classroom Action Research, the researcher also used questionnaire to find out students‟ response toward Fan-N-Pick technique in speaking. In analyzing the students‟ response, the researcher used formula: P= Where: P = the percentage F = frequency of the percentage is being calculated N = number of cases Based on the school agreement between the researcher and the teacher, classroom action research could be called successful if it could exceed the criteria that had been determined, that is when there is 75 ℅ of students could achieve the target score (Kusumah and Dwitagama, 2009: 53). It means that during CAR students had to achieve the target score of KKM 65 of speaking test started from the pre- test until the post-test in the cycle. E. Finding and Discussion The result of this research was discussed on the basis of relevant theories under the study of the use of Two Stay – Two Stray improve students speaking ability at II d of FPBS IKIP Mataram in the academic years of 2013/2014. Based on the findings, it was proved that teaching speaking using Two Stay – Two Stray improved students‟ speaking ability. The mean score of students score in pre-test 54.3 while the mean score in cycle I 60.6 and the mean score in cycle II was 66.6. That was increasing score every step. So it could be categorized success. This study had succeeded in two cycles; therefore the researcher did not need to continue to the next cycle. The questionnaire and field note showed that the students‟ quality of learning activity in the class was 8 improved day by day. They felt enjoy and enthusiasm during the teaching and learning process. And also all students active to ask and answer the question coming from the researcher and their friends. The students‟ personal response through the questionnaire indicates that the students were motivated to speak English because all the activities of the Two Stay – Two Stray method involved and forced all students to speak. In other, the students‟ response that this method was enjoyable improved their speaking. The next steps was discussion or sharing of solving problem in group work that very involved and forced students to speak, furthermore all students had to speak although at first meeting they were still confused to explore their grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, comprehension and fluency but day by day they were accustomed to this method so their speaking ability improved. From the statement above, it showed that using of Two Stay – Two Stray not only improved students‟ speaking ability at II d of FPBS IKIP Mataram in the academic years of 2013/2014 but also enhance actively their involvement in the teaching and learning process. F. Conclusion and Suggestion Based on the research conducted in II d class of FPBS IKIP Mataram in the academic years of 2013/2014, the researcher concluded that Two Stay – Two Stray technique can improve students‟ speaking ability showed by the score they get. Furthermore, from the students‟ response toward the teaching and learning activity during CAR, it is proved that the response of the students toward Two Stay – Two Stray technique in teaching speaking is 100% that means it falls into very strong category. It can be seen their answer in the questionnaire, they are very agree if Two Stay – Two tray makes them more creative, enthusiastic, and enjoy in speaking. Moreover, t h e f i e l d n o t e showed that the students seemed braver and more confident in speaking. It proven by their participation in the classroom when they played Fan-N-Pick, discussions in group work, perform in the front of the teacher when they gave a test, their grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, pronunciation, fluency and feeling confident about speaking. The researcher would like to give some suggestions to be considered by English teacher as follows: Two Stay – Two Stray technique would be very helpful to improve students‟ ability in speaking, so the teacher needs to maintain using Two Stay – Two Stray technique as alternative technique of the teaching .The teacher should give clear explanation, control the students‟ activities, and instruction in directing him students using Two Stay – Two Stray. 9 REFERENCES Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2010. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas, Jakarta: Bumi Aksara. Brody, Celeste M. 1998. Professional Development for Cooperative Learning: Issues and Approaches. State University of New York Press. Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment, Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education Kelly, Gerald. 2000. How to Teach Pronunciation. Pearson Educated Limited England. Knight, Jim. 2009. Cooperative Learning Instructional Coaching. The Kansas Coaching Project. Louma, Sari. 2004. Assessing Speaking. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mackey, William F. 1966. Language Teaching Analysis, London: Longman, Green and Co. Ltd. Morgan, Bobbette M. and Keitz, Ruth A. Cooperative Learning In Higher Education: Comparison Of Hispanic And Non-Hispanic Graduate Student Reflections On Group Exams For Group Grades. National Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal Volume 7, Number 1, 2010. Nation, I. S. P. & Newton J. 2009. Teaching ESL EFL Listening and Speaking. New York: Routledge. Richards, Jack C. 2008: Teaching Listening and Speaking From Theory to Practice. USA: Cambridge University Press. Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers T. S. 1999. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sudjana. 2002. Metode Statistika. Bandung: P.T. Tarsito. Sudijono, Anas. 2008. Pengantar Statistis Pendidikan. Jakarta: P.T. Raja Grafindo Persada. Ur, Penny. 1991. A Course in Language Teaching, Practice and Theory. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.