Septibera, Septibera (2016) The Use of Drilling Technique to Improve The Sixth Grade Students’ Speaking Ability and Active Participation at Rung Arun Suksa School Krabi, Thailand in The 2015/2016 Academic Year. UNSPECIFIED thesis, UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH JEMBER.
|
Text
ARTICLE.pdf Download (141kB) | Preview |
|
![[img]](http://repository.unmuhjember.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
1. COVER.pdf Download (40kB) |
|
|
Text
8 References.pdf Download (17kB) |
|
|
Text
ABSTRACT.pdf Download (19kB) |
|
|
Text
16 CHAPTER I.pdf Download (30kB) |
|
|
Text
17 CHAPTER II.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (26kB) |
|
|
Text
18 CHAPTER III.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (63kB) |
|
|
Text
19 CHAPTER IV.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (117kB) |
|
|
Text
20 CHAPTER V.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (36kB) |
|
|
Text
21 CHAPTER VI.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (18kB) |
|
|
Text
APPENDIX 1 MATRX.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (32kB) |
|
|
Text
APPENDIX 2 Research Subject.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (16kB) |
Abstract
Speaking has two main functions: transactional (transfer of information) and interactional (maintenance of social relationships). It is the means through which learners can communicate with others to achieve certain goals or to express their opinions. However, many students found speaking as one of the most difficult skills in English. In this case, drilling technique was chosen to solve those problem. The design of this research is classroom action research. The research subject is the sixth grade students at Rung Arun Suksa School that consist of 16 students, 10 males and 6 females. Test and observation are used to obtain the data. In order to calculate the students’ speaking score, Alpha Cronchbach Formula is used. The data is analyzed using formula E = A/N x 100%. Drilling technique improves the students’ speaking ability and active participation in two cycles from M = 57 in Cycle 1 to M = 67 in Cycle 2 and the percentage of students scored ≥ 65 was 28.57% in Cycle 1 to 78.57% in Cycle 2. The observation result from 60.77% students’ activeness in Cycle 1 to 77.29% students’ activeness in Cycle 2. The difference between Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 is the process of drilling. In Cycle 1, the students were drilled without understanding to the material first. It made the students be confused what was drilled by the teacher, so they were not active in the class. In Cycle 2, the students were drilled by focusing on speaking aspects first and introducing material well. Flashcards were provided to help in understanding vocabulary. The students could understand what was drilled by the teacher, it made them more active in the class. Speaking aspects in Cycle 2 such as fluency, pronunciation and vocabulary that should be mastered by the students were better than Cycle 1. It can be concluded that drilling technique could improve the students’ speaking ability and active participation.
| Item Type: | Thesis (UNSPECIFIED) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | drilling technique, speaking ability, active participation |
| Subjects: | 800 Literature and Rhetoric > 825 English Speech |
| Divisions: | Faculty of Teaching and Education Science > Department of English Literature Education (S1) |
| Depositing User: | Hendri Uut Fahrullah |
| Date Deposited: | 25 Apr 2019 02:03 |
| Last Modified: | 05 Nov 2019 02:10 |
| URI: | http://repository.unmuhjember.ac.id/id/eprint/1670 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |