TEACHING SPEAKING USING THE INFORMATION GAP TECHNIQUE By Dew Sartka * Unversty of Syah Kuala, Banda Aceh ABSTRACT Ths study was amed at fndng out f there would be a sgnfcant dfference n achevement between students who were taught speakng usng the Informaton Gap technque and those who were taught speakng by conventonal methods, and fndng out whch speakng sub sklls would be most mproved by usng the Informaton Gap technque wth eghth grade students at Islamc boardng school SMP IT Daruzzahdn, Aceh Besar. It employed a true expermental desgn n whch there were two classes; one the expermental group (EG) and the other the control group (CG) that each had 30 students. The data was collected through quanttatve and qualtatve methods. The quanttatve data was obtaned from the results of the pre-tests and post-tests of the students speakng. The qualtatve data was obtaned from the results of the students speakng profcency mprovement. The results of the quanttatve data showed that the mean of the post-test scores of the expermental group was 8 whle the mean of the post-test scores of the control group was 70. T-test result of the t-test was 4.68 whle the results showed that the students taught by usng the nformaton gap technque acheved sgnfcantly better performances than those who were taught speakng by usng the conventonal method. Meanwhle, the data analyss from the students speakng profcency showed that the students speakng profcency had mproved by more than 0% for all fve aspects: pronuncaton, grammar, lexcal, speaker s ntentons, and general meanng. Thus t was shown that the expermental group acheved a sgnfcant mprovement n ther speakng profcency. Key words: Speakng, Informaton Gap Technque. * Correspondng author: elrsalahdarussalam@yahoo.com 73
ENGLISH EDUCATION JOURNAL (EEJ), 7(3), 73-85, July 016 INTRODUCTION Speakng s one of the mportant sklls n Englsh language learnng. Students learn Englsh n order to be able to speak, to use the language for communcatng ether wth ther peers or wth other Englsh language speakers. They not only need to learn grammar, vocabulary and collocaton but they also have be able to use Englsh language n everyday communcaton. As Hornby (1995: 86) has sad, speakng s the ablty to orally express our deas, feelngs, thoughts, and needs. Whle Clark and Clark (1997: 3) have defned speakng as bascally an nstrument for actng. They further added that speakers talk n order to have some effect on ther lsteners, to assert thngs, to change ther state of knowledge, to ask questons, to get people to provde them wth nformaton, to request thngs and to get people to do thngs for them. Ths refers to oral profcency and t s very smlar to the noton of communcatve competence. Based on both the Competency Based Currculum (KBK) and the School Based Currculum (KTSP), the am of teachng speakng s to tran the students to be able to express meanngful and contextual communcatve sklls n real lfe stuatons. Accordng to the School Based Currculum (KTSP) for junor hgh schools, the students are expected to be able to express transactonal and nterpersonal messages or spoken monologues and communcatons n such genres as narratve, procedural, spoof/ recount, report, news tem, descrptve, anecdotal, exposton, dscusson, commentary and revew (Depdknas, 004: ). Based on the researcher s observatons, there were several factors resultng n the falure of students n tests of speakng Englsh at SMP IT Daruzzahdn. Frstly, the teacher stll mplemented a conventonal method for teachng Englsh. The teacher usually asked the students to create and memorze dalogues wthout gvng them enough tme to practce together and to take part n speakng actvtes. Secondly, the students were less nterested n speakng. Ths was because the teacher taught them wthout varaton. The teacher rarely used any dfferent technques n teachng. The teacher dd not select Englsh teachng materals based on the student s needs and nterests, because she apparently lacked deas. As a result, the average score of the students n speakng Englsh was only 60. Thrdly,the students dd not fnd that the language they were learnng was purposeful and meanngful for ther daly lves. They learned t only to memorze the pattern or content but they could not 74
Teachng Speakng Usng the Informaton Gap Technque (D. Sartka) connect t to any context. Actually, a great part of a teacher s job s to provde the contexts. The more the students are able to connect the academc lessons to some context, the more meanng they can derve from the lesson. Fnally, most of the students felt anxous tryng to use ther Englsh language because they dd not know how to express t correctly. Related to ths problem, Brown (1994: 5) has stated that one of the obstacles n learnng to speak EFL s the anxety generated over the rsks of blurtng thngs out that could be consdered wrong, stupd, or ncomprehensble. From ths, we can conclude that some students do not want to speak because they are afrad of makng mstakes. Many students are fearful of beng poorly judged by ther frends. For that reason, n mprovng students speakng abltes, a teacher should always co-operate wth all of the students n her class. Good students can also make a contrbuton by co-operatng wth ther frends to help them n organzng ther thoughts n a meanngful and logcal sequence and usng them as a means of expresson. A good learner should learn the use of the rght words together wth the usng the language rules and learnng approprate collocatons. Burns and Joyce (1997: 31) have stated that speakers must be able to antcpate and then produce expected patterns of dscourse (e collocatons) for many specfc stuatons. Regardng the problem above, the researcher suggests that an effectve technque to use n order to mprove the speakng sklls of students s called the Informaton gap technque. Harmer (004: 4) has stated that the Informaton gap technque wll assst students to reduce ther anxety and to feel comfortable to express ther deas n communcatng n the target language. It s beleved that learnng Englsh speakng usng the Informaton gap technque wll help to motvate them to speak. LITERATURE REVIEW Speakng Speakng s an actve process of negotatng meanng and of usng socal knowledge of the stuaton, the topc and the other speakers (Burns and Joyce, 1997: 50). Further, Nunan (1999: 14) has defned speakng as an nteractve process of constructng meanng that nvolves producng, recevng, and processng nformaton receved orally. Accordng to the 004 Competency Based Currculum, speakng 75
ENGLISH EDUCATION JOURNAL (EEJ), 7(3), 73-85, July 016 refers to the ablty to speak effectvely n dfferent contexts to gve nformaton, to express deas and feelngs, as well as to buld socal relatonshps n the form of actvtes whch are varous n nature, nteractve, and nterestng. The ablty to speak means the capablty to be nvolved n the process of exchangng or negotatng meanng n oral form. Consequently, there s a real reason for askng questons or gvng nformaton n a speakng actvty. In other words, n the context of speakng sklls, the teacher must provde the students wth the reason for speakng whch wll requre them to express ther deas and to exchange nformaton. The goal of teachng speakng sklls s communcatve effcency. Learners should be able to make themselves understood, usng ther current profcency to the fullest. They should try to avod confuson n the message due to faulty pronuncaton, grammar, or vocabulary, and to observe the socal and cultural rules that are appled n each communcaton stuaton. In more specfc contexts, the purpose of teachng speakng sklls accordng to the Competency Based Currculum for senor hgh schools s to enable the students to speak based on the gven stuaton to create ther own utterances, to descrbe ther world, to provde the students wth the ablty to gve nformaton, to express deas and to buld relatonshps wth oral communcatons. Further, the students are expected to be able to nterpret the content of varous oral texts and respond to them wth nteractve and nterestng actvtes. The teachng of speakng wll enable students to realze ther progress or maturty n thnkng. The teachng of speakng s vtal to the act of expressng oneself so as to be understood by others. In addton, we are wtnessng n our lfe that no ntenton meets expected responses, except when t s spoken. The teachng of speakng conveys the sense of exposng the students to express ther thoughts, deas, and feelngs. It s consdered mportant n terms of the teachng of language, snce t can brng the students to thnk creatvely and through speakng they can express what they are thnkng about. Ur (1996: 10) states that the classroom actvtes that develop the ablty of learners to express ther deas through speech should be consdered an mportant component of a language course. Lado (1964: 11) states that language s ntmately ted to man's feelngs and actvtes. It s bound wth natonalty, relgon, and feelngs of self. An ndvdual can express her feelngs well by learnng from others how to express them. Ctzens can communcate ther 76
Teachng Speakng Usng the Informaton Gap Technque (D. Sartka) ntentons by usng the language of ther naton. Pastors, prests, clergymen, and theologans can delver speeches to ther audences by frstly learnng how to speak well. All of these notons are amed at replyng to the queston askng for the reasons why the teachng of speakng s mportant and should be mplemented. The Informaton Gap Technque The Informaton Gap Technque s a useful actvty n a speakng class. In an nformaton gap actvty, one person has certan nformaton that must be shared wth others n order to solve a problem, gather nformaton or make a decson (Neu & Reeser, 1997). These types of actvtes are extremely effectve n an L classroom. They gve every student the opportunty to speak n the target language for an extended perod of tme and students naturally produce more speech than they would normally otherwse do. In addton, speakng wth peers s less ntmdatng than presentng n front of the entre class and beng evaluated. Another advantage of Informaton gap actvtes s that students are forced to speak to other students n order to accomplsh ther tasks. Both Neu and Reeser (1997) and Ur (1996) lst the characterstcs of a successful nformaton gap speakng actvty va: (1) Learners talk a lot. As much as possble of the perod of tme allotted to the actvty s n fact occuped by learners talkng. () Partcpaton s even. Classroom dscusson s not domnated by a mnorty of talkatve partcpants: all get a chance to speak, and contrbutons are farly evenly dstrbuted. (3) Language s of an acceptable level. Learners express themselves n utterances that are relevant, easly comprehensble to each other, and of an acceptable level of language accuracy. Informaton gap actvtes fulfll all of the above crtera. The teacher smply explans the actvty and revews the vocabulary needed for the actvty. Students are then on ther own to complete ther tasks. Each partcpant must play an mportant role because the task cannot be accomplshed wthout everyone s partcpaton. Many Informaton gap actvtes are hghly motvatonal because of the nature of the varous tasks. Actvtes that requre the solvng of a problem or a mystery are especally effectve. Teachers should know whether an actvty s of an acceptable level of dffculty for students. If students are suffcently prepared for the actvty, the level of language accuracy wll be acceptable. Informaton gap actvtes can also renforce vocabulary and 77
ENGLISH EDUCATION JOURNAL (EEJ), 7(3), 73-85, July 016 a varety of grammatcal structures taught n the class. They allow students to use lngustc forms and functons n a communcatve way. These actvtes brng the language to lfe for students; they can use the buldng blocks of language teachng to speak n the target language. Another type of nformaton gap actvty s a communcatve drll, that s one n whch the type of response s controlled but the student provdes hs or her own content or nformaton (Rchards, Platt, and Platt, 199: 3). In communcatve drll the teacher controls the learners prmary speech by ensurng that they produce short utterances. Here are three suggestons: (a) Practcal stuatons, the students can practce requestng and provdng nformaton n stuatons such as askng for drectons n a cty and orderng meals n a restaurant. For example, after mechancally drllng the queston answer pattern where s? It s. and prepostons of locaton, students work n pars, wth one askng for drectons to a specfc locaton and the other gvng drectons. (b) Guessng Games, the students can do guessng actvtes n pars or groups. There are many varatons. For example, one student chooses a famous person, and the other asks yes-no questons untl the dentty of the person s determned. Or, one student draws a pcture of a frut or an object and turns t over on her desk; her partners must then guess what the tem s by askng questons Do you have a? etc.etc. untl the correct answer s found. Another varaton s the teacher provdes a short, ncomplete story plot for students to dscuss and guess the way t ends. For example: the teacher reveals the answer to only one student; the rest of the class must guess the answer by askng that students questons about the plot that can be answered only wth yes, no, or rrelevant. (c) True Answers are unlke typcal substtuton drlls, these questons are related to the lves of the students. For example, after modelng a sentence, such as my father s a doctor, the teacher asks students to construct smlar sentences, n ths case, truthfully statng the occupaton of someone n ther famly. If the class s nosy, the teacher can ask: what are you talkng about?, why are you not lstenng?, or what are you laughng at? RESEARCH METHOD Data Analyss for Test Some statstcal formulae were used n examnng the frst research problem, they were to obtan the mean, standard devaton, and t- test. 78
Teachng Speakng Usng the Informaton Gap Technque (D. Sartka) Before the data was analyzed by usng t-test, t had to be examned for normalty and homogenety frst. The steps used n analyzng the data were as follows: Mean The mean s used to nvestgate the average score of the students. Sudjana (00: 67) uses the formula for the mean as follows: Mean = x = f n x In whch: x n = Mean f x = The amount of frequency multpled by mdpont of the nterval class = The number of sample Standard Devaton The next step s determnng the standard devaton whch s used n order to nvestgate the varablty whch s most often reported n research (Sudjana, 00: 94). The formula s: s = n f x n n 1 f x In whch: S = Standard devaton f x Dstrbuton frequency x n = The mean of the value = The number of sample T-test To fnd out f there s a sgnfcant dfference between the two means of both groups that s the control and the expermental class, the t-test s used (Sudjana, 00: 39). 79
ENGLISH EDUCATION JOURNAL (EEJ), 7(3), 73-85, July 016 In whch: x Mean score of the groups s Standard devaton n = Number of sample To prove the hypothess, the scores of both the EG and the CG are compared by usng the t-test. In ths case, the level of sgnfcance degree α=0.05 s used to determne the t-table wth the degree of freedom (df) = n+n = 58. The crtera for the hypotheses s that f t-test < t-table, Ho should be accepted. On the other hand, f t-test > t-table, Ha should be accepted. Analyss for Speakng Profcency of Students In order to answer the second research problem that s to descrbe the students mprovement n ther speakng profcency after usng the Informaton gap technque n the EG, the percentage formula was used as mentoned n Sudjana (199: 50); ths formula s as follows: P= x 100% In whch: P = Percentage F = Frequency of results n = Total number of samples 100 = Constant value FINDINGS Table 1 shows the scores from the tests of the EG and the CG. Table 1. The Raw Scores of the Expermental and Control Groups. Expermental Class Control Class No Sample Score Score Sample Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test 1 Student 1 75 80 Student 1 45 60 Student 45 70 Student 65 70 3 Student 3 50 80 Student 3 55 65 4 Student 4 50 80 Student 4 60 65 5 Student 5 70 90 Student 5 40 60 6 Student 6 65 80 Student 6 55 60 7 Student 7 40 65 Student 7 70 90 8 Student 8 60 80 Student 8 60 75 80
Teachng Speakng Usng the Informaton Gap Technque (D. Sartka) Table 1 contnued 9 Student 9 50 85 Student 9 65 80 10 Student 10 40 65 Student 10 65 70 11 Student 11 70 90 Student 11 45 65 1 Student 1 45 85 Student 1 60 65 13 Student 13 70 90 Student 13 65 70 14 Student 14 75 85 Student 14 40 65 15 Student 15 70 85 Student 15 55 60 16 Student 16 60 90 Student 16 60 55 17 Student 17 65 90 Student 17 70 90 18 Student 18 65 90 Student 18 70 80 19 Student 19 50 80 Student 19 70 85 0 Student 0 50 55 Student 0 55 80 1 Student 1 60 85 Student 1 50 60 Student 65 85 Student 60 80 3 Student 3 75 90 Student 3 45 80 4 Student 4 60 75 Student 4 70 80 5 Student 5 50 85 Student 5 65 65 6 Student 6 45 75 Student 6 40 55 7 Student 7 65 85 Student 7 45 85 8 Student 8 55 90 Student 8 45 55 9 Student 9 75 90 Student 9 65 65 30 Student 30 65 75 Student 30 35 55 Table shows the summary of pre-test results from both groups. Table. Summary of the Results from the Pre-tests for the EG and CG. Expermental s t test df α t table Control gab Group Group N 30 30 x 59.3 56.3.8 1.06 58 0.05.00 s 11.95 117.13 s 11.04 10.8 The summary from the results of the post-tests for the EG and the CG s presented n Table 3. Table 3. Summary of the Post-test Results from both the EG and CG. Expermental s t test df Α t table Control gab Class Class N 30 30 x 81.7 69.7.56 4.68 58 0.05.00 s 78.16 118.85 s 8.8 10.9 81
ENGLISH EDUCATION JOURNAL (EEJ), 7(3), 73-85, July 016 The summary of the pared tests of the pre-test and the post-test results for the EG are n Table 4. Table 4. The Summary of the Pared Tests of the Pre-test and the Posttest Results for the EG. t test df Α t table Group I Pre-test-Post-test of Expermental Group Pre Post N 30 30 x 59.3 81.7 D.3 S d 8.98 13.63 9 0.05.045 The summary of the pared test of the pre-test and the post-test results from the CG are presented n Table 5. Table 5. The Results of Par Sample Pre-test and Post test from the CG. t test df Α t table Group I Pre-test-Post-test of Expermental Group Pre Post N 30 30 x 56.3 69.7 D 13.3 S d 10.11 7, 9 0.05.045 Furthermore, Fgure 1 summarzes the EG students results n the fve aspects of speakng profcency vz: pronuncaton, grammar, lexcal, speakers ntentons and general meanng. For pronuncaton, the EG got 55 % n the pre-test and 79 % n the post-test. For grammar, they got 54% and 74% n pre-test and post-test. For lexcal, the EG got 58 % n the pre-test and 87% n the post-test. Next, they got 53% n the pre-test and 68% n the post-test for speaker s ntentons. Fnally, for general meanng, the EG got 60% n ther pre-test and 85% n ther post-test. Thus, the EG had a better performance n mprovng ther speakng profcency than the CG snce ther average mprovement n all fve aspects of profcency was 3%. 8
Teachng Speakng Usng the Informaton Gap Technque (D. Sartka) Fgure 1. The Speakng Profcency of the EG by Speakng Aspects. Next, Fgure summarzes the CG students results n the fve aspects vz: pronouncaton, grammar, lexcal, speakers ntentons and general meanng. For pronuncaton, the CG got 5 % n the pre-test and 64 % n the post-test. For grammar, the CG got 47% and 58% n the pre-test and the post-test. For lexcal, the CG got 55 % n the pretest and 74% n the post-test. Next, the CG got 58% n pre test and 79% n post-test for speakers ntentons. Fnally, the CG got 57% n pre-test and 83% n post-test n general meanng. It can be concluded that there was a far progresson n the CG speakng scores snce all fve aspects ncreased on average by 18%. Fgure. The Speakng Profcency of the CG by Speakng Aspects. 83
ENGLISH EDUCATION JOURNAL (EEJ), 7(3), 73-85, July 016 From the t-test analyss, the EG and the CG were smlar n terms of ther ntal ablty n speakng n the pre-tests. The same procedure was done to see the sgnfcance of the dfference n the means of the posttest scores. The mean of the post-test scores of the EG was 8 whle that of the CG was 70. The result of the t-test showed that the dfference between the two means was sgnfcant thus the students taught usng the Informaton gap technque acheved sgnfcantly better scores n speakng than those who were taught usng the conventonal technque. Ths means that ths technque trans the students to work together actvely by askng questons and sharng nformaton wth ther partners. CONCLUSIONS From the data analyss above, four man conclusons can be drawn about what has been found out about the use of the Informaton Gap Technque for teachng speakng, they are: (1) the students who were taught usng the Informaton Gap technque got better results n speakng compared to those who were taught by the conventonal technque, () the EG made sgnfcant mprovement n all fve aspects of speakng: pronuncaton, grammar, lexcal, speaker s ntentons, and general meanng. These man ponts are elaborated below. Frst, the fndngs showed that the students who were taught by usng the Informaton Gap technque got better results n speakng compared to those who were taught by the use of the conventonal technque. Second, the fndngs reveal that there was a postve progresson of students speakng profcency n all fve aspects vz: pronuncaton, grammar, lexcal, speaker s ntentons, and general meanng. Ths can be seen from the mprovement n the aspect of speakng after beng taught usng the nformaton gap technque. The frst aspect, pronuncaton, ncreased 4%, the second aspect, grammar, rose 0%, next lexcal grew 9%, speaker s ntentons also rose 15%, and the last aspect, general meanng, ncreased 5%. In concluson, from all aspects of speakng profcency, the lexcal aspect ncreased the most wth 9% and all 5 aspects ncreased 3% on average. REFERENCES Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speakng. Sydney: Natonal Center for Englsh Language Teachng and Research. 84
Teachng Speakng Usng the Informaton Gap Technque (D. Sartka) Brown, H. D. (1994). Language assessments prncples and classroom practce. New York: Longman. Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1997). Psychology and language: An ntroducton to psycholngustcs. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovch Publshers. Depdknas. (004). Standard kompetency mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggrs SMP [Standard of competence for Englsh n Junor Hgh Schools]. Jakarta: Departemen Penddkan Nasonal. Harmer, J. (004). Teachng Englsh as a second or foregn language. Boston: Newbury House. Hornby, A. S. (1995). Oxford advanced learner s dctonary (5 th Ed.). London: Oxford Unversty Press. Lado, R. (1964). Language teachn: A scentfc approach. New York: Mc.Graw-Hll. Neu, H., & Reeser, T. W. (1997). Parle-mounpeu!: Informaton Gap actvtes for begnnng French classes. Boston: Henle & Henle. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teachng and learnng. Boston: Henle and Henle. Rchards, J. C., Platt, J. T., & Platt, H. K. (199). Longman dctonary of language teachng and appled lngustcs. Essex: Longman. Sudjana. (199). Metode statstka (Eds ke-5). Bandung: Tarsto. Sudjana. (00). Metoda statstka. Bandung: Tarsto. Ur, P. (1996). A course n language teachng: Practce and theory. Cambrdge: Cambrdge Unversty Press. 85