179 The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills Dewanti Mulki Rahma SMPN 2 Balikpapan Jl. Telagasari No 67-68, Perkampungan Pelajar Gunung Pasir, Kalimantan Timur. dewantimulki@yahoo.co.id Abstract This study deals with The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skill (An Experimental Study in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015). This research was done to answer the objectives of study, namely (1) to find out the difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015, (2) to find out the significant difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015. This research applied descriptive quantitative method. The objects were Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015, and the analyzing data were students’ speaking skill that was taught by Fishbowl Method. The sample of this research was taken 28% from population. The numbers of sample were 50 students that were divided into 2 groups. The first group was experimental group and the second group was control group. The data tested using t-test formula by comparing the mean score of pre-test and post-test from both classes. The level of significance was set equal or less than 5%. The result of this study showed that t-value 8, 511 was higher than t-table 2, 064 with the degree of freedom (df) of 24. Therefore, it could be concluded that there was significant difference of T-test The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 180 between students taught by lecturing and students taught by Fishbowl method. Since t-value was higher than t-table, it meant that null hypothesis was rejected and alternative hypothesis was accepted. Thus, it could be said that Fishbowl method improved students’ speaking skill in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015 Key words: Fishbowl Method, Improving Students’ Speaking Skill Abstrak Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah Metode Fishbowl untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berbicara siswa (Penelitian Experimental pada siswa kelas sembilan di SMP N 2 Ambarawa pada tahun akademi 2014/2015). Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menjawab tujuan-tujuan penelitian sebagai berikut (1) Menemukan perbedaan antara metode ceramah dan metode Fishbowl pada siswa kelas sembilan di SMP N 2 Ambarawa pada tahun akademi 2014/2015, (2) Menemukan perbedaan yang signifikan antara metode ceramah dan metode Fishbowl pada siswa kelas sembilan di SMP N 2 Ambarawa pada tahun akademi 2014/2015. Penelitian ini mengaplikasikan metode gambaran quantitative. Objek penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas sembilan di SMP N 2 Ambarawa pada tahun akademi 2014/2015, dan analisa datanya adalah kemampuan berbicara siswa yang diajarkan dengan metode Fishbowl. Sampel penelitian ini diambil 28% dari populasi. Jumlah sampel adalah 50 siswa yang dibagi menjadi 2 kelompok. Kelompok pertama adalah grup eksperimen dan kelompok ke-dua adalah grup kontrol. Data diuji menggunakan rumus T-test dengan membandingkan nilai rata-rata pre-test dan post-test kedua kelas. Tingkat signifikan ditetapkan sama atau kurang dari 5%. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa t-value 8,511 lebih besar dari t-table 2,064 dengan df 24. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini bisa disimpulkan bahwa ada perbedaan T-test yang signifikan antara siswa yang diajarkan menggunakan metode ceramah dan metode Fishbowl. Karena t-value lebih besar dari t-table, itu menunjukkan bahwa hipotesa pembatalan ditolak dan hipotesa alternative diterima. Oleh karena itu bisa dikatakan bahawa metode Fishbowl meningkatkan kemampuan berbicara siswa pada siswa kelas sembilan di SMP N 2 Ambarawa pada tahun akademi 2014/2015. Kata Kunci: Metode Fishbowl, Meningkatkan kemampuan berbicara siswa Dewanti Mulki Rahma 181 Introduction The expansion of communication, information, and technologies lead people to join the global era where there are many necessities of high qualification and skills related to the ability in using some foreign languages. One of the international languages is English. English plays an important role in this era. Nowadays the people of Indonesia live in a world that is nearly using English in many aspects of life. Brown (2007: 6) defines that language is a systematic instrument of communicating ideas or feelings by using sounds, gestures, or signs agreed. The primary function of language is for interaction and communication. English as one of the international languages in the world should be mastered by people from many countries in the world to communicate each other. They may know and understand what they speak communicatively because of English. Because of this reason, English becomes the first foreign language that is taught in Indonesia from elementary school up to college. Speaking is one of the four basic language skills popularly known as listening, writing, reading and speaking skills. Teaching English speaking is the process of giving the English lesson, from the teacher to the students based on the material from the syllabus of the certain school, in order that the students are able to absorb it and they will be able to communicate by using English orally. All those skills are supported by some components such as vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, etc. Speaking skill is one thing that should be mastered by the students in the school. Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a language skill that The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 182 is developed in child life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned. The aforementioned factors entail us to master English, especially speaking skill successfully, so we can communicate with all of the people over the world fluently. Unfortunately, there are so many factors as handicap of how people can master speaking skill successfully, such as they never practice to speak English with their friends formally or informally, afraid of making mistakes, or afraid to be laughed by others and do not feel confident, or sometime they seem do not to have ideas in their mind if they are asked to practice their speaking. English is an international language used all over the world. Many people learn to master it because many aspects in modern life cannot be separated from English. Nowadays we can find everything is written in English. As one of the aspects of globalization, English is now considered more and more important. The students’ inability to speak in English is caused by a number of factors. There are eight factors. They are; (1) clustering (2) redundancy (3) reduced forced (4) performance variable (5) colloquial language (6) rate of delivery (7) stress, rhythm and intonation (8) interaction. (Brown: 2000:270) The students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa face those problems mentioned above. According to the information from the English teachers SMP N 2 Ambarawa, the problems are such as the new curriculum in seventh and eight levels so make an old teacher difficult to follow it and the position of Ambarawa is not good enough. Actually Dewanti Mulki Rahma 183 Ambarawa is not a village and it is not a city also so make the education grow up slowly. In addition, the students also want to show other student in the school or members of their family that they can speak some English. For this reason, teacher should use creative teaching methods that encourage students to take part actively in the class. The teaching learning processes have to involve not only teacher and students, but also the students and students. Helping students to solve these problems, the teacher should motivate them and create the most effective way to stimulate them, so they will be interested in practicing their speaking. On the other hand, the teacher should use certain technique to stimulate students to practice their speaking, because good strategy will support them in achieving skill including English skills. Teacher have to teach the material by using good method, good technique and organize teaching-learning process as good as possible, so teaching-learning process can run well. It can make student master English skill, especially in this case speaking skill successfully, because one of the teaching failures is caused by unsuitable method. There are many ways to make a fun activity in teaching speaking in the classroom. Using pictures, cards, and other visual aids usually add a great joy to the class. Fishbowl is one of the methods that can be applied in teaching speaking because fishbowl is one of potential activities that students can aim to arrive at a conclusion, share ideas about an event, or find solution in this activity. However, Fishbowl is related by the third support that is students themselves. Therefore, fishbowl is a way to make students be more confident in speaking English. The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 184 Fishbowl Method Silberman (1996:110) defines that Fishbowl is a discussion format that some students make discussion circle and other students make listener circle in around of discussion group. Fishbowl is the growing structure discussion method that is very useful for the speaking class (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145). Based on the above explanations the writer concludes that Fishbowl method is a way to organize discussion group that contains of inside and outside circle that is useful in speaking class. This method has many variants but the underlying idea is to facilitate learning via discussion. Figure ofThe Arrangement of Fishbowl Source: http://slitoolkit.ohchr.org/data/downloads/fishbowl.pdf The inner circle is given a situation wherein participants discuss and come up with a solution, while the outer circle reserves their observation, feedback and suggestions for later. In another variant, the inner circle can Dewanti Mulki Rahma 185 be given a task to complete, while the outer circle observes. There are many formats that you can adapt while using the Fishbowl method. However, there are 2 common types of Fishbowls: Open Format Fishbowl In this format a few seats in the inner circle are left vacant for members of the outer circle to join. When this happens one member of the inner circle must voluntarily leave. The rules of the discussion have to be set by the facilitator or by the group themselves. Closed Format Fishbowl This technique works well with larger groups. The facilitator can give the inner circle time to discuss an issue. When their time is up the outer circle can come into the inner circle and add their viewpoints. In this structure, you can have participants sitting in concentric circles giving everyone in the classroom an opportunity to contribute (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145). Based on those the above explanations can be concluded that Fishbowl has two formats that are usually used. They are open and closed format circle. Both of them give opportunity of every student to speak and share their opinion in the Fishbowl that is prepared for them. Speaking Speaking skill is one thing that should be mastered by the students in the school. Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 186 language skill that is developed in child life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned. Hornby (1990:1227) defines speaking is make use of words in an ordinary voice. Bygate says, “Speaking is a skill which deserves attention every bit as much as literary skills, in both first and second language. It is the skill which the students are frequently judge. It is also the vehicle par excellent of social solidarity, of social ranking, of professional advancement and of business”. It indicates that as one of the language skills, speaking should get the attention from teachers and learners because it plays the important role in our society. Meanwhile, Donough and Shaw state, “There are some reasons for speaking involved expressing ideas and opinions: expressing a wish or a desire to do something: negotiating and/or solving a particular problem; or establishing and maintaining social relationships and friendship. Besides, fluency, accuracy, and confidence are important goal in speaking”. Therefore, as a language skill, speaking becomes an important component to master by the students as the main tool of verbal communication because it is a way to express ideas and opinions directly what we have in our minds. Based on the above definitions, it can be synthesized that speaking is the process of using the urge of speech to pronounce vocal symbols in order to share the information, knowledge, idea, and opinion to the other person. Moreover, speaking cannot be dissociated from listening aspect, because speaking involves speaking and listener. Dewanti Mulki Rahma 187 Teaching Speaking in Junior High School The subject of this research is ninth grade students at SMP N 2 Ambarawa. Knowing the students’ characteristics is the first step that will help the teacher to help them. It will also help the teacher to prepare the students to help themselves. Students should learn the best strategies to improve their own learning. The important thing is teachers have to involve the students in more indirect learning through communicative speaking activities. They also allow them to use their intellects to learn consciously where this is appropriate. They encourage their students to use their own life experience in the learning process too. As stated in school based curriculum, the purpose of the English subject in junior high schools is to develop communicative competence in spoken and written English through the development of related skills. The learners will be able to support their next study level through the ability of the English communicative competence. Standard of Competence and Basic Competency which the research focus on are the Standard of Content in the English subject, particularly the English speaking lesson to the ninth grade students of the first semester at SMP N 2 Ambarawa. It is also limited to the scope of expressing meanings in a transactional and interpersonal dialogue in the context of daily life. The Standard of Competence and the Basic Competency are presented in the table below: The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 188 The Table of Standard of Competence and the Basic Competency Standard Competence Basic Competence Speaking Expressing meaning in a transactional and interpersonal dialogue in the context of daily life. 3.1 Expressing meaning in a transactional (to get things done) and interpersonal (with social contacts) dialogue by using spoken language accurately, fluently, and appropriately in the context of daily life and including expressions of giving certainty and uncertainty 3.2 Expressing meaning in a transactional (to get things done) and interpersonal (with social contacts) dialogue by using spoken language accurately, fluently, and appropriately in the context of daily life and including expressions of asking repetition, showing attention and giving amazement Hypothesis Ary (2007: 81) defines that the hypothesis presents the writer’s expectations about the relationship between variables within the question. A hypothesis is a specific statement of prediction. It describes in concrete (rather than theoretical) terms what you expect will happen in your study. In this Research, the writer puts a hypothesis that “Fishbowl method and lecturing has similarities to improve students’ speaking skill in the ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015. Dewanti Mulki Rahma 189 Research methodology Place and Time of Research Place of Research The research carried out at SMP N 2 Ambarawa. The address is in Jl. Kartini 1A Ambarawa, Kab. Semarang General Information of SMP N 2 Ambarawa Junior High School 2 Ambarawa is one of the best and favorite junior high school in Ambarawa. The detail of this school described as follows: School Name : SMP NEGERI 2 AMBARAWA No. School Statistic : 201032210066 School Type : A School Address : Jalan Kartini 1A Ambarawa : (Sub district) Ambarawa : ( Regency) Semarang : ( Province) Central Java Phone/HP/Fax : (0298) 591176 / 596760 Email/Web-site : smp2ambarawa@gmail.com / http://www.smpn2ambarawa.com School Status : Negeri The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 190 As the RSBI : SK Direktir Pembinaan SMP, Dirjen Dikdasmen, Kemendiknas Number : 1393 / C3 / TU/2011 on 13th June 2011 Class percentage that have used IT : 100 % Teacher percentages that are S2/S3 : 7,14 % Does School have HOT-SPOT facilities: Yes, It does Historical Building of SMP N 2 Ambarawa Based on SMP N 2 blog, in the late 1976, Ambarawa did not have any junior high school except STN and SKN. Besides that, there was preparation state Junior high School Ambarawa. In 1976, SMP N 1 Ungaran got 12 local dropping that was not possible in Ungaran so based on reference of KDH Semarang regents and approval of Dandim 411 Salatiga, so the building was beside Turangga CETA field (Pangsar Jend. Sudirman field Ambarawa). On 1977, SMP N 1 Ungaran filial Ambarawa that had 4 classes, there was misunderstanding from preparation state SMP Ambarawa. Preparation state SMP Ambarawa thought that new building was for preparation state SMP Ambarawa so preparation state SMP Ambarawa did not receive new students. Finally, there was protest from preparation state SMP Ambarawa’s parents. On 4th April 1977, there was a conference of preparation state SMP Ambarawa’s parents in Kawedanan Dewanti Mulki Rahma 191 veranda Ambarawa that be presented by the chief of Dikmanum Kanwil Central java province that was Drs. Darsono decided that preparation state SMP Ambarawa be integrated in SMP N 1 Ungaran filial Ambarawa and also new building of SMP N 1 Ungaran filial Ambarawa. On 7th June 1977, the government of P and K department gave 4 locals plus furniture and electric installation even though it was not on yet to the head master named Imam Mochtar. On 13th June 1977, there was a movement second and third grade students of preparation state SMP Ambarawa to a new building of SMP N 1 Ungaran filial Ambarawa in Jl. Kartini 1A Ambarawa. Finally, on Friday, 23th October 1981, that was based on decision of Education and Culture cabinet’s letter, number 0220/0/1981, SMP N 1 Ungaran filial Ambarawa to be SMP N 2 Ambarawa. On 1982, the first alumnus was born by Ka Kanwil Depdikbud Central Java province named Drs. Kustijo. Vision and Mission Vision The vision of this school is “Excellent in achievement, virtuous, competent and independent”. The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 192 Mission The missions of this school are: Realizing achieving students in academic and non-academic in national and international level. Realizing students that have faith and piety, polite attitude and polite words. Realizing competent and creative students Realizing competent students in good and correct language Realizing competent students in information technology and communication Realizing discipline and responsible students Method of Research According to Ary (2007:39) there are four different categories developed in classifying educational research: experimental, experimental ex-post facto, descriptive, and historical studies. The framework used in this research is quantitative research. It means the hypotheses of the research will be concluded through various techniques such as: collecting, describing, and analyzing data collected which are mostly on the form of numerical data. The research is also categorized as an experimental study since it attempts to give treatment to experimental group and maintain control over all factors that may Dewanti Mulki Rahma 193 affect the result of an experiment. In other words, the experimental research attempts to investigate the influence of one or more variables to other variables. Experimental research has some characteristics as follows: (1) manipulation or treatment of an independent variable; (2) other extraneous variables are controlled, and (3) effect is observed of the manipulation of the independent variable on the dependent variable (Ary, 2007:338). This experimental research is aimed at observing whether there was the Fishbowl method for teaching speaking. The technique of teaching speaking in the experimental class was Fishbowl method. The B class was used for the control class and A class was used for Fishbowl method. The technique of teaching speaking in the control class was a memorizing method. Research Subject Population Population is a large group to which a researcher wants to generalize his or her sample result (Christensen, 2000:158) According to Burke (2000: 158) population is the set of all elements. It is the large group to which a researcher wants to generalize his or her sample result. In line with Burke, Arikunto (2002: 108) says that population is all the individuals of that group. The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 194 The population in this research was the ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015. They were grouped into seven classes where each class consists of 25 students so the total populations were 175 students. Sample A sample is a set of elements taken from a large population (Christensen, 2000:158). Arikunto (2002:109) states that sample is part of population being researched. Burke (2002: 158) also says that sample that it is a set of elements taken from a larger population according to certain rules. It can be concluded that sample is a small portion of a population assigned according to certain rules. Therefore, sample in this research is taken 28% from population. Therefore, the numbers of sample are 50 students. The sample of this research came from two classes (A and B class) of ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015. The total sample in this research was 50 students. They came from middle and lower economic families. Generally they had high motivation to study but they were shy to show their skill especially in speaking. They understood when someone spoke English but they did not want to use their English in speaking. They were afraid of someone who was laughing them and they were afraid to do mistakes. In this research the researcher would be the observer. Dewanti Mulki Rahma 195 Sampling Sampling is the way to get sample. According to Burke (2000: 183) sampling is the process of drawing sample from a population. In this research, the writer used Cluster Random Sampling for getting sample from the population. According to Burke (2000: 172), cluster random sampling is a type of sampling in which clusters (a collective type of unit that includes multiple elements) are randomly selected. In this case, a classroom is a cluster because it is a collective unit composed of many single units (students). In short, the writer selected randomly 2 clusters (2 classes) from the larger set of all clusters (7 clusters or 7 classes) in the population and included all the elements in the selected clusters as the sample of this research. By using this sampling method, each individual in population had an equal chance of being included in the sample so this sampling method could be used to produce representative samples. The writer used cluster random sampling because it had some advantages, such as: it can be used when it is difficult or impossible to select a random sample of individuals, it is often far easier to implement in schools, and it is frequently less time consuming. Data Collecting Technique The writer used Test in collecting the data. There were two kinds of test. They were: The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 196 Pre test Pre-test was administered before treatment that was given to know how far the students speaking skill especially for the material would be taught by the teacher in this research. Pre-test of this research was on 26th August 2014. The test consisted of oral test. The teacher asked the students to introduce and to tell about their hobby. The teacher gave for about five minutes to prepare and after the students were ready, they must come in front of class to speak. At that time, the researcher gave point for them. Post-test The teacher gave the posttest to the students after giving the treatments. The next type of the posttest was also in the form of oral production test. The experimental group did post-test on 6th September 2014 at 8.20-09.00 WIB. The test was administered to investigate whether the Fishbowl method could improve the students’ speaking skill. The teacher asked the students to discuss about the topic with their friends and after that they had to give opinion about that topic. The control group was also did post-test. The post-test was on 6th September 2014 at 9.20-10.00 WIB. In post-test, the teacher asked the students to make conversation for two people, after that the students had to memorize the conversation. If the students had memorized, they had to come in front of the class to practice. At that time, the researcher gave point for them. Dewanti Mulki Rahma 197 Research Instrument The instrument of this research was oral production test. The items of the test were a topic discussion. The teacher gave a topic and the students discussed it. The writer and teacher monitored the students’ utterance. There were five components used to analyze speech performance. They were grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. Table of Scoring Rubrics Content 5 points 4 points 3 point 2 point 1 point Fluency Quick, fluently, continuous with no hesitation and clear Fluently, Occasiona l hesitation Fluently enough, several unnatural hesitations and searching for words Fluently not good enough, many unnatural hesitation No specific fluency descriptio n, not complete utterances Pronunciati on Pronunciation is excellent like native speaker Errors in pronuncia tion are quite rare Require guessing at meaning, accent may be obviously foreign Pronunciatio n has many problems Errors in pronuncia tion are frequent but can be understoo d by native speaker Vocabulary Very good; Use appropriate and new words Good, appropriat e vocabular y and response Good enough, rarely have to look for a word No enough vocabulary or incorrect use Very little vocabular y Vocabula ry repeated The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 198 Grammar Excellent; No grammatical errors Good; Two or fewer grammati cal errors Good enough; listener understand enough Many problems like in verb forms Errors in basic structures Errors in grammar are frequent but speaker can be understoo d by native speaker Comprehen sion Understanding the concept very good Understan ding the concept good Understan ding the concept good enough No enough understandin g the concept Confusin g in understan ding the concept Data Respondents Table of Experimental Group NO M/F NIS Complete Name 1 F 10692 ADELIA'|ASYA VIRGINIA 2 F 10678 ANNABA’ RAMADHANI 3 L 10668 ARSYALHAAD KAUTSAR G 4 F 10705 CHINTYA DEWI SAFIRA 5 F 10717 DEA AYU FAHRUNNISYA 6 F 10707 DIAH AYU LESTARI 7 F 10725 DIANA AGUSTINA RAHMAN 8 F 10709 DINDA LARASATI 9 F 10741 FARAS FAUZIYAH RAHARANI 10 L 10831 I MADE WISNU BAKTI SAPUTRA 11 L 10757 IBNU IRSYADY 12 F 10760 IKA SAKTI OCTAVIARANI 13 F 10758 IKA SAKTI OCTAVIARINI 14 F 10832 NANDA TASYA SURYA PUSPITA 15 F 10835 NIKEN WIDYASTUTI Dewanti Mulki Rahma 199 16 M 10781 NOVIANDI DWI PAMUNGKAS 17 M 10792 RAKA RIZKY FIRDAUSY 18 M 10793 REYHAN GESANG ALMUAZAM 19 F 10803 SANDRA KILA RAHMAYANTI 20 F 10810 SHAFIRA RAHMADANTI 21 F 10817 WILLIES MELIANA 22 F 10819 WINAR WAHYU W. 23 F 10837 YOSEPHINE FIANTI FEPRIANINGSIH 24 F 10825 YUANITA AULYNING TYAS 25 F 10827 ZINEINE AVIEN RYANAR P Table of Control Group NO M/F NIS Complete Name 1 M 10681 ACHMAD ARIF FANI 2 F 10659 ADINDA PUTRI SHOLIHA 3 M 10664 ADITYA SATRIA PANDU .N. 4 F 10665 AGNES LARASATI MILENIA .P 5 M 10676 AGUNG HERBUDI NUGROHO 6 F 10661 AGUSTINA WULANSARI 7 M 10670 AHMAD B.A 8 M 10687 AHMAD KHOIRUL INSANI 9 F 10682 AINAYA SHAFA MALIKHA 10 F 10666 AISYAH DHILA PUSPITA SARI 11 F 10671 AJENG PRATIWI PUTRI 12 M 10688 ALIF BAGUS PRATAMA 13 M 10662 ALIFIAN TIRTA NATA 14 M 10672 ALVIAN D.D 15 F 10673 AMELLIYANA 16 F 10683 AN NISA WIJAYANTY 17 F 10674 ANANDA LARASATI The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 200 18 F 10677 ANESTI NILA KRISNA 19 M 10689 ANGGER RIZKY ALIFA 20 M 10667 ANGGIT AJI PRASETYO 21 F 10663 ANISA UTAMIYANTI TRI .R 22 F 10679 ANNISA ROSALIN ANINDHITA 23 M 10685 ARDI FIRMANSYAH 24 F 10680 ARLISTA ALIMATUL MUFIDAH Data Analysis The name of analysis technique of this research was quantitative. The data from the oral test was arranged from the highest until the lowest one. The data from the pre-test and post-test was analyzed to find out whether the result of the tests are similar or different. Data analysis was done on 7th September 2014. To compare the result of the data from pre-test and post-test with the same subject, the writer used the Repeated Measures T-Test, and the data was calculated using the product moment formula, as follow: Mean Pre-test of experiment group X1 = Pre-test of control group Dewanti Mulki Rahma 201 X2 = Post-test of experiment group Y1 = Post-test of control group Y2 = Standard deviation (SDD) SDD = ∑D = X-Y ∑D2 = (X-Y)2 SDD = Standard deviation X = Pre Test Y = Post Test N = Total of Respondents Standard error of mean difference (SEMD) SEMD = SDD The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 202 SEMD = Standard error of mean difference SDD = Standard Deviation N = Total of Respondents t-value (to) to = MD SEMD The formula of MD is as follow: MD = ∑ D N Discussion In this section, the writer analyzed the data which had been collected and then described result of this research. In the first meeting of two groups, the teacher gave a pre-test for respondents. They could do the test well. In the second meeting (learning process), control group was taught with a usual method that was lecturing, almost of respondents did not pay attention to the teacher’s explanation. They felt bored because teacher used traditional method to explain the material more over when they had to do the assignment. Most of respondents spoke themselves when they had finished the assignment and they did not pay attention to Dewanti Mulki Rahma 203 other respondents. On the other hand, experiment group was taught by Fishbowl Method. They were more enthusiastic and more interesting in learning process. Most of students tried to think about theme and material to face their friend’s opinion. They really gave attention to other respondents’ speaking. In the last meeting, after treatment was given, respondents of experiment group were easier to speak than control group in doing post-test. It happened because Fishbowl Method could be seen as an active method in class. Respondents were active to speak, so, it made them get higher score in posttest than control group. Result of the research could be seen as the table follows: Table of Result of Calculating Research No Result Experiment Group Control Group 1 Mean of  Pre-test  Post-test 3,8 4,84 3,56 3,8 2 Standard Deviation 0,5987 0,6499 3 T-table vs T-test 2, 0639 <8,5106 2, 0639 >1,8141 Based on table 4.31, “tt” standard of significant 5% with df = 24, got 2, 0639 from the above result, the writer gave interpretation that ttable(tt) was smaller than tvalue (to) of experiment group and ttable(tt) was bigger than tvalue (to) of control group. Based on paired of sample statistic and the above sample test, The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 204 result of this research indicated that null hypothesis was rejected and alternative hypothesis was accepted. Based on the above calculation, research of experimental group showed that tt is 2, 0639 and to is 8, 5106, significant difference of this research was 6, 4467. It meant that towas greater than tt. The writer could conclude that Fishbowl method improved students’ speaking skill from significant level 5% to tt. Research of control group showed that tt was 2, 0639 and to was 1, 8141. The significant difference of research was 0, 2498. It meant that tt was greater than to, and it did not improve students speaking skill from significant level 5% to tt. The result of research showed that null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted, so the writer tried to make improvement in students’ speaking skill in control group. The writer asked teacher to teach control group using Fishbowl method. The teacher taught control group using Fishbowl method on October 18th 2014. The students also did post-test again to see significant improvement of them. Post-test was on October 22th 2014. Respondents of control group were easier to speak in doing post-test after the treatment was accepted. It happened because Fishbowl Method could be seen as an active method in class. Respondents were also active to speak, so, it made them get higher score in post-test. Result of the research could be seen as table followed: Dewanti Mulki Rahma 205 Table of Result of Calculating Research Control Group No Result Lecturing Fishbowl Method 1 Mean of  Pre-test  Post-test 3,56 3,8 3, 8 3, 96 2 Standard Deviation 0,6499 0, 5657 3 T-table vs T-test 2, 0639 >1,8141 2, 0639 <3,463 Based on the above calculation, research of control group showed that tt was 2, 0639 and to was 3, 463, significant difference of this research was 1, 3991. It meant that towas greater than tt. The writer could conclude that Fishbowl Method improved students’ speaking skill from significant level 5% to tt. From the research finding, it could be concluded that using Fishbowl Method could motivate students to improve language learning. Briefly, speaking skill of the experiment group had proven that Fishbowl Method could be useful method in improving students’ speaking skill. In addition, the positive finding of this research was in line with definition of Fishbowl method that “Fishbowl is the growing structure discussion method that is very useful for the speaking class” (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145). Based on above statement, Fishbowl was very useful for the speaking class and from this research, the writer could find that Fishbowl Method improved students’ speaking skill and made class more active than others. The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 206 Conclusion The writer presents the conclusion of this research which is entitled “The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skill (An Experimental Study in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015)”, after conducting the research, presenting the data, analyzing the data and discussing the result in this chapter. Based on the analyzing data in previous chapter can be concluded as follow: It can be seen from the calculation of mean between pre-test and post-test of control group that was taught by lecturing in ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa, in the academic year of 2014/2015. The mean of pre-test of students was 3, 56. It was smaller than the mean of post-test. The mean of post-test of the students was 3, 8. The mean of post-test of the students was higher than the mean of pre-test of the students that were taught by lecturing. The difference of mean between pre-test and post-test of students that were taught by Fishbowl method was 0, 24. It can also be observed that the calculation of mean between pre-test and post-test of students that were taught by Fishbowl Method in ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa, in the academic year of 2014/2015. The mean of pre-test of students was 3, 8. It was smaller than the mean of post-test. The mean of post-test of the students was 4, 84. The mean of post-test of the students was higher than the mean of pre-test of the students that were taught by Fishbowl method. The difference of mean between pre-test and post-test of students that were taught by Fishbowl method was 1, 04. Fishbowl method and lecturing Dewanti Mulki Rahma 207 were difference because mean of Fishbowl method is higher than mean of lecturing. From above analysis, it can be comprehended that the calculation of T-test of control group that was taught by lecturing in ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa, in the academic year of 2014/2015. The hypothesis was tested by using t-test formula by comparing the scores of pre-test and post-test. The result was 1, 814 in t-test of control group. Meanwhile, the critical value for rejecting the null hypothesis at level of significance 5% with degree of freedom (df) 24 was 2, 064. The significant difference of T-test and T-table was 0, 25. It meant that t-value was smaller than critical value (2, 064 >1, 8141). The result showed that there was not significant of T-test of students that was taught by lecturing in ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa, in the academic year of 2014/2015. The Fishbowl Method improved students’ speaking skill in ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa, in the academic year of 2014/2015. The hypothesis was tested by using t-test formula by comparing the scores of pre-test and post-test. The result was 8, 511 in t-test for experimental group. Meanwhile, the critical value for rejecting the null hypothesis at level of significance 5% with degree of freedom (df) 24 was 2, 064. The significant difference of T-test and T-table was 6, 447. It meant that t-value was higher than critical value (8, 511 ≥ 2,064). The result showed that it was very significant in T-test of students that was taught by Fishbowl Method in ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa, in the academic year of 2014/2015. The Fishbowl method is very significant because T-test of Fishbowl method is higher than t-table. The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 208 References Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2002. ProsedurPenelitianSuatuPendekatanPraktik. Jakarta :RinekaCipta. Ary, Donald et al. 2007. Introduction to Research in Education. New York: CBS College Publishing. Barkley, Elizabeth F. et al. 2005. Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty . USA: Jossey -Bass. Brown, H, Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles, an Interactive Approach toLanguage Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Brown, H, Douglas. 2007. PrinsipPembelajarandanPengajaranBahasa. Jakarta: Pearson Education,Inc Christensen,Larry B. 2000. Experimental Methodology. London: Allyn and Bacon Inc. Hornby. 1990.Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary Johnson, Burke. 2000. Educational Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. USA: A Pearson Education Company. Johnson, Burke. 2002. Educational Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Second Edition. USA: A Pearson Education Company. Dewanti Mulki Rahma 209 Silberman, Mel. 1996. Active Learning: 101 Strategies to Teach Any Subject. U.K. A Pearson Education Company. Tarigan, Henry Guntur. 1990. Berbicara Sebagai Suatu Ketrampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa _____. Fishbowl Method of Instruction.Instructional Technique-Group 4.Retrieved Sunday, ‎ 20th‎ July ‎ 2014, ‏ ‎ 8:30:49 PMhttp://slitoolkit.ohchr.org/data/downloads/fishbowl.pdf The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skills 210