THE USE OF CHORAL DRILL TECHNIQUE TO IMPROVE STUDENTS SPEAKING SKILLS

THE USE OF CHORAL DRILL TECHNIQUE TO IMPROVE STUDENTS SPEAKING SKILLS (An Experimental Study in Madrasah Tsanawiyah Assalafi Susukan the Eighth Grade Students in the Academic Years 2016/2017) A GRADUATING PAPER Submitted to the Board of Examiners as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd.) English Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga By: DIMAS YUDHA YUWANDA 11310147 ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY STATE INSTITUTE FOR ISLAMIC STUDIES (IAIN) SALATIGA 2017

DECLARATION In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious and Most Mercifull. Hereby the writer fully declares that this Graduating Paper is made by the writer and it is not containing materials writen or has been published by other people except the information from references and also the writer is capable of accounting for this Graduating Paper if in future this is can be proved of containing other s ideas, or in fact, the writer imitates the others graduating paper. In addition, the writer really hopes that this declaration can be understood. Salatiga, September 8 th 2017 The Writer Dimas Yudha Yuwanda 11310147

MOTTO Lazy people unconsciously lose chance that is given by God whereas God never creates something in vain. Mario Teguh

Dedication This study is dedicated for : 1. Allah SWT 2. Prophet Muhammad SAW 3. My Beloved Father, Mother, Wife, Daughter, Brothers, and also my beloved sisters 4. My beloved aunt, uncle, and my big family 5. The students of TBI 2010, especially E Class 2010 6. All of my friends

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Alhamdulillahirabbil alamin, thanks to Allah because the writer could complete this research as one of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd.) in English Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty at State Institute for Islamic Studies(IAIN) Salatiga in 2017. This research would not have been completed without supports, guidance, advice, and help from individual s institution. Therefore, the writer would like to express deep appreciation to: 1. Dr. Rahmat Hariyadi, M.Pd., the Rector of State Institute for Islamic Studies (STAIN) Salatiga. 2. Suwardi, M.Pd.,the Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga. 3. Noor Malihah, Ph.D., the Head of the English Education Department of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga. 4. Ari Setiawan, MM., the consultant of this research. Thank you for suggestion and recommendation for this research from beginning until the end. 5. All lecturers of English Education Department, the writer deeply thank you all for your advice, knowledge, and kindness. 6. All of staffs who help the writer in processing the research administration.

7. All of the librarians who help the writer in finding the research references. 8. All of my friends TBI 2010, especially E, thank you for all the time. 9. All of you who I cannot mention one by one thank you for your support and kindness. Salatiga, September 8 th 2017 The writer Dimas Yudha Yuwanda 11310147

ABSTRACT Yuwanda, Dimas Yudha. 2016. The Use of Choral Drill Technique to Improve the Students Speaking Skills (an Experimental Study of the Eighth Grade Student of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017). A Graduating Paper, English Education Department, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, State Institute for Islamic Studies(IAIN) Salatiga.Consultant: Ari Setiawan, M.M. Key words: Choral Drill, Speaking. This study deals with The Use of Choral Drill Technique to Improve the Students Speaking Skills (An Experimental Study of the Eighth Grade Student of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017). This research was done to answer the problems of study, namely (1) to find out the difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the speaking skill of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017, (2) to find out the significant difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the speaking skill of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017. The framework which is used in this research is quantitative research. The objects were Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017, and the analyzing data were students speaking skill that was taught by Choral Drill Technique. The numbers of sample were 53 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 equalor less than 5%. The result of this study showed that t-value 8, 796 was higher than t-table 2, 059 with the degree of freedom (df) of 25. Therefore, it could be concluded that there was significant difference of T-test between students taught by lecturing and students taught by Choral Drill Technique. 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 Choral Drill Technique improved students speaking skill in Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE... i DECLARATION... ii ATTENTIVE COUNSELOR NOTES... iii STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION......iv MOTTO... v DEDICATION... vi ACKNOWLEDGMENT... vii ABSTRACT...xi TABLE OF CONTENT... x LIST OF TABLES... xiii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study... 1 B. Statements of the Problem... 4 C. Objectives of the Study... 4 D. Limitation of the Study... 5 E. Benefit of the Research... 5 F. Hypothesis... 6

G. Review of Previous Study... 7 H. Clarification of Key Terms... 8 I. Graduating Paper Organization... 9 CHAPTER II: THEORITICAL REVIEW A. Speaking 11 1. The Notion of Speaking..11 2. Element of Speaking.13 3. Classroom Speaking Activity...15 B. Drill....21 1. Definition...21 2. Kinds of Drill...22 3. Choral Drill......25 4. Advantages and Weaknesses...26 CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Place of the Research.....27 B. Schedule of the Research... 31 C. Research Methodology... 32 1. Type of Research......32 2. Population...33 3. Sample...34

4. Data Source...36 5. Technique of Data Collection..36 6. Technique of Data Analysis....38 CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION A. Difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the Speaking Skills in the Second Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017........41 1. Analysis of Pre Test...........41 2. Analysis of Post Test.........53 B. Significant difference of T-test between students taught by Lecturing and students taught by Choral Dril Technique in the eighth grade students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the academic year of 2016/2017...........65 CHAPTER V : CLOSURE A. Conclusions 75 B. Suggestions....78 BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIXES

List of Tables Table 2.1 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Fluency...... 18 Table 2.2 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Pronunciation... 19 Table 2.3 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Vocabulary... 19 Table 2.4 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Grammar... 20 Table 2.5 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Comprehension..... 20 Table 3.1 List of Subjectfor Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan.... 30 Table 3.2 List of Lists of Teachers MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017......31 Table 3.3 Schedule of the Research.....32 Table 3.4 List of Control Class and Experimental Class...35 Table 4.1 Score of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pre test (Control Class) 42 Table 4.2 Classification of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pre-Test (Control Class).........44 Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Fluency........ 45 Table 4.4 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Pronunciation 45 Table 4.5 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Vocabulary....... 46 Table 4.6 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Grammar.... 47

Table 4.7 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Comprehension....... 47 Table 4.8 Score of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pre Test (Experimental Class)........48 Table 4.9 Classification of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pre Test (Experimental Class).......49 Table 4.10 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Fluency........ 50 Table 4.11 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Pronunciation........ 51 Table 4.12 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Vocabulary.... 51 Table 4.13 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Grammar... 52 Table 4.14 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Comprehension... 53 Table 4.15 Score of Respondents Speaking Skill in Post test (Control Class)..53 Table 4.16 Classification of Respondents Speaking Skill in Post-Test (Control Class)... 55 Table 4.17 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Fluency....56 Table 4.18 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Pronunciation 56

Table 4.19 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Vocabulary... 57 Table 4.20 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Grammar....... 58 Table 4.21 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Comprehension..... 58 Table 4.22 Score of Respondents Speaking Skill in Post test (Experimental Group)........59 Table 4.23 Classification of Respondents Speaking Skill in Post-Test (Experimental Group)...........61 Table 4.24 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Fluency..... 61 Table 4.25 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Pronunciation....62 Table 4.26 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Vocabulary.... 63 Table 4.27 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Grammar....... 63 Table 4.28 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the Students Speaking Skill in Comprehension.... 64 Table 4.29 Score of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and Post-Test (Experimental Class).......65

Table 4.30 The Score of Students Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and Post-test (Control Class).........66 Table 4.31 Result of Calculating Research...73

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of Study Nowadays Indonesia becomes one of the country in the world that is nearly using English in many aspect of life. English plays an important role in this era because English is one of the international languages. English as one of the international language should be mastered by people from many countries that use English as second language or international language for them. Especially in Indonesia, English is taught from elementary school up to college. As a subject in the learning, English has four basic language skill to be mastered. They are listening, writing, reading and speaking. Acording to Scrivener (1994: 20) as cited by Sartika (2014) basically, there are four skills in language learning they are listening, speaking, reading and writing. Listening and reading are called receptive skills (the reader or listener receives information but does not produce it). Speaking and writing, on the other hand, are the productive skills. In this study the writer focused on one of language skills, that is Speaking skill. It is a part of the productive skill. It is very important to learn speaking because we need to practice it in our educational environment, especially in English lesson. Speaking skill is one of skills that should be mastered by the students in the school. Teaching English speaking is the

process of giving the lesson from the teacher to the students based on the material from the syllabus of the certain school, in order to the students able to communicate by using English orally. There are some components that have to be considered by the teacher in teaching English speaking, they are vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, etc. Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a language skill that is developed in child life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned.as a productive skill, speaking is the most difficult one to be mastered. The speakers must enrich their words and try new words to communicate with other people. In addition, the most people think that speaking is the most difficult part in foreign language because it is usage sense involves the manifestation either of the phonological system of the language. Most people seem has difficulty to mastering speaking skill successfully. There are so many factors, such as they never practice to speak English with their friends, afraid to make the mistakes, or afraid to be laughed by others and do not feel confident, or sometime they do not know how to express in suitable vocabulary and many of them are nervous. The problem above also faced by the students of MTs Assalafi Susukan. For this reason, teacher should be creative in teaching especially speaking skill. The teacher has to use the suitable technique that encourage students to take part actively in the class because in the learning processes have to involve not only teacher and students, but also the students

and students. On other hand, the teacher must give the motivation to the students and create the most effective way to stimulate them, so they will be interested in practicing their speaking and they can solve their problems. Using the certain technique to stimulate students to practice their speaking becomes a good strategy to supportthem in achieving skill including English skill. In here, teacher have to teach the material by using good method, good technique and organize teaching-learning process well. Soteaching-learning process able to run well too because the teaching failures is caused by unsuitable method or technique. There are many methods or tehcniques to make the activity in teaching speaking in the classroom more fun. One of them is Choral Drill tehcnique. It can be applied in teaching speaking because Choral Drill tehcnique is parts of potential activities that students can be active to show their ability. With a large group, choral drilling can work quite well. In its most basic form, choral drilling involves you giving an oral model of a word or phrase and the whole class repeating it. Choral drilling can be quite a lot of fun, and it can make some bits of language more memorable (Clandfield and Tennant, 2016). From the discussion above, the writer tries to find the effective solution to improve the speaking skill of the student of MTs Assalafi Susukan. The tehcnique that will be used by the writer is Choral Drill. The objective in this skill activity is developing students competence in learning speaking skill. Through this activity, the students have the opportunity to develop their imagination and speak up without considering a set of pattern. The reason

why this study focused on the use of choral drill in learning English because this technique can give the students new atmosphere in the teaching-learning process. Based on the explanation above the writer is interested in makes Experimental study entitled The Use of Choral Drill Technique to Improve Students Speaking Skills (An Experimental Study in MTs Assalafi Susukan the Eighth Grade Student in the Academic Year 2016/2017). B. Statements of the Problem Based on the backgrounds discussed above, the writer proposes the problems as follow: 1. How is the difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017? 2. How is the significant difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017? C. Objectives of the Study The objectives of the study can be stated as related with the problems statement. Therefore the objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To find out the difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017. 2. To find out the significant difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017. D. Limitation of the Study The writer limits the problem on the implementation of Choral Drill technique in improving students speaking skill in the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017 because this study is focused on the improving students speaking skill. This research only focuse on the use of Choral Drill technique in teaching speaking and its effectiveness toward students speaking skill. E. Benefits of the Study The result of this study is expected to give useful and worthwhile information for the students, educators, English teachers and English academicians. The benefits of this study are: 1. Theoretically a. the result of the research can contribute useful information for the future classroom research with the similar problem of speaking skill improvement.

2. Practically a. For the writer This study can help the writer to find out the best method for teaching speaking in English lesson. b. For the students This study can increase the students interest in English learning, so it can help them to speak and learn English well. c. For the English Teacher This study can give additional contribution to English teachers to develop language teaching method. The teachers also able to improve the quality of teaching learning process. d. For the Institution The result of this study can give the contribution to the institution to develop the English language curriculum appropriate with the students need. F. Hypothesis Kasiram (2010: 252) stated that hypothesis is temporary assumption that the researcher used to determine the purpose of his/her research. It describes in concrete terms what you expect will happen in your study. In this research, the writer puts a hypothesis that Choral Drill technique can improve students speaking skill in the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017.

G. Review of Previous Study In order to help the writer conduct and to determine the originality of this study, the writer takes some previous studies. The previous studies have their own characteristic and specification on the object of the research. The first study is conducted by Budiartiningsih Apriliani graduated from State Institute for Islamic Studies (STAIN) of Salatiga 2013. She wrote The Use of Role-Play to Improve Speaking Skill of Xf Class of SMK PGRI 2 Salatiga in the Academic Year 2012/2013.The aim of this research is to study about how to role play can improve speaking skill (a classroom action research of the XF Class of SMK PGRI 2 SALATIGA in the academic year of 2012/2013). The methodology of this study is classroom action research. She found that the students involved actively in teaching learning processes, they are more enthusiastic and were confident to speak English than before. The result of this research is, there is an improvement of students speaking comprehension by using role-play method. The second study is conducted by Erna Wahyuningsih graduated from State Institute for Islamic Studies (STAIN) of Salatiga 2012. She wrote The Application of Drill Method to Improve Students Pronunciation Skill in Reading Text (A Classroom Action Research in the First Year of SMA Muhammadiyah Gubug Purwodadi in Academic Year of 2011/2012). The objectives of her research are the students of SMA Muhammadiyah Gubug in the first year of academic year 2011/2012. The problem of this research is the students pronunciation. This study was done in two cycles in CAR

(Classroom Action Research), each of which consisted of planning, action, observation and reflection. She collected the data using test, recording technique, observation and documentation. She analyzed the data by statistical technique to find the mean of students score and counting percentage of the students pronunciation skill through reading the dialogue or pronounce the words. From the founding and data analyze she concluded that drill method can improve students pronunciation skill of the first year in SMA Muhammadiyah Gubug in the academic year of 2011/2012. Meanwhile the present study is dealing with the Choral Drill technique in teaching English speaking. This study is conducting in order to know the effectiveness of the implementation Choral Drill Technique toward the students speaking skill in the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017. This study is experimental research. This study is conducted in order to know whether Choral Drill and Role Plays Technique which is applied in experimental group is better than discussion technique which is applied in control group. H. Clarification of Key Terms There are some key terms in this study. The writer wants to clarify the meaning briefly to avoid the mistakes. Some key terms are defined as describe below:

1. Choral Drill Drill is a method of teaching technique used for practicing sound or sentence partners concerned with the fixation of specific association for automatic recall (Ayoellgin, 2009). The final goal is a more or less effortless exchange of ideas in real life conversation. The Drill is here refers to the Response drill in teaching grammar. In its most basic form, choral drilling involves you giving an oral model of a word or phrase and the whole class repeating it.choral drilling can be quite a lot of fun, and it can make some bits of language more memorable and can work quite well (Clandfield &Tennant). 2. Speaking Hornby (1990:1227) defines speaking is make use of words in an ordinary voice. I. Graduating Paper Organization This graduating paper consists of five chapters. Each chapter discusses as follow: Chapter I is the introduction. It contains Background of the Study,Statement of the Problems, Objectives of the Study, Limitation of the Problems, Benefits of the Research, Hypothesis, Definition of Key Terms, Review of Previous Studies, Outline of the Graduating Paper. Chapter II is theoretical framework. This chapter discovers the theory which is used by the writer. It contains Choral Drill Technique and the Definition of Speaking.

Chapter III is the Research Methodology. It deals with General Information of MTs Assalafi Susukan, Research Methodology, Research Object, Data Sources, Technique of Data Collection, and Technique of Data Analysis. Chapter IV presents the Data Analysis which be collected. The writer presents the data and the result of the pre-test and post-tests both from experimental and control group. Chapter V is closure. It contains Conclusion and Suggestion. The last part is References and Appendixes.

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This chapter discover the definitions and theories which are related to the variables of this study that used by the writer. It contains some materials, they are the explaination of Speaking and the explanation of Drill. Each of them are described in the following explaination. A. Speaking 1. The Notion of Speaking Speaking skill is the productive skill or usually called oral skill. It becomes one of the language skills that important to be mastered by the students in the school. Brown (2004: 140) stated that Speaking is a productive skill that can be directly and empirically observed, those observations are invariably colored by the accuracy and effectiveness of a test-takers listening skill, which necessarily compromises the reliability and validity of an oral production test. Speaking consist of producing systematic verbal utterances to convey meaning between two people or more. According to Kusnierek (2015, 76) for most people, the ability to speak a foreign language is synonymous with knowing that language because speech is for them the basic means of human communication. As stated by Brown (2001: 34) language is a system for the expression of meaning, primary function interaction and communication. In communication and interaction, people need to express their meaning by

producing something to gain the listener understanding. Speaking allow people to express what they see, feel and think through utterances. Moreover, speaking described as an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving and processing information (Flores in Bailey, 2005: 2). According to Brown, (2004: 141-142) there are five basic types of speaking activity, they are: a. Imitative The ability to simply parrot back a word, phrase or possibility a sentence. b. Intensive The production of short stretches of oral language designed to demonstrate competence in a narrow band of grammatical, phrasal, lexical, or phonological relationship. c. Responsive Responsive assessment tasks include interaction and test comprehension but at the some what limited level of very short conversation, standard greeting and small talk, simple requests and comment, and the like. d. Interactive The difference between responsive and interactive speaking is in the length and complexity of the interaction, which sometimes includes multiple exchanges and/or multiple participants.

e. Extensive (monologue) Extensive oral production tasks include speeches, oral presentation, and story-telling, during which the opportunity for oral interaction from listeners is either highly limited (perhaps to nonverbal responses) or ruled out altogether. From the above definitions, the writer can conclude that speaking is expressing ideas, opinions, or feelings to others by using wrods or sounds of articulation in order to inform, to persuade, and to entertain. Speaking seems to be one of the most difficult skills because it requires a great deal of practice and also exposure. 2. Elements of Speaking According to Harmer (2001: 269-271), there are two elements of speaking, they are: a. Language features Among the elements necessary for spoken production (as opposed to the production of practice examples in language drills, for example), are the following: 1) Connected speech Effective speakers of English need to be able not only to produce the individual phonemes of English (as in saying I would have gone) but also to use fluent connected speech (as in I d ve gone). In connected speech sounds are modified (assimilation),

omitted (elision), added (linking r), or weakened (through contractions and stress patterning). 2) Expressive devices Native speakers of English change the pitch and stress of particular parts of utterances, vary volume and speed, and show by other physical and non-verbal (paralinguistic) means how they are feeling (especially in face-to-face interaction). They allow the extra expression of emotion and intensity. 3) Lexis and grammar Spontaneous speech is marked by the use of a number of common lexical phrases, especially in the performance of certain language function. 4) Negotiation language Effective speaking benefits from the negotiatory language we use to seek clarification and to show the structure of what we are saying. b. Mental/social processing If part of speaker s productive ability involves the knowledge of language skills such as those discussed above, success is also dependent upon the rapid processing skills that talking necessitates. (Harmer, 2001:270-271)

1) Language processing Effective speakers need to be able to process language in their own heads and put it into coherent order so that it comes out in forms that are not only comprehensible, but also convey the meanings that are intended. Language processing involves the retrieval of words and phrases from memory and their assembly into syntactically and propositionally appropriate sequences. 2) Interacting with others Most speaking involves interaction with one or more participants. This means that effective speaking also involves a good deal of listening, an understanding of how the other participants are feeling, and a knowledge of how linguistically to take turns or allow others to do. 3) (On-the-spot) information processing Quite apart from our response to other s feelings, we also need to be able to process the information they tell us the moment we get it. The longer it takes for the penny to drop the less effective we are as instant communicators. 3. Classroom Speaking Activity According to Harmer (2001: 271-275), there are many of the classroom activities which are currently used in teaching and learning speaking. Those activities that mostly used are:

a. Acting from Script It is speaking activity where the students are asked to act out scene from plays and/or their course books or act out from dialogues they have written themselves and this activity frequently involved them in coming out to the front of the class or sometimes filming the result. b. Communication Games Games is one of speaking activities which can help to create dynamic, motivating classes by providing relaxed atmosphere, participate in activities that require them to use what they have been drill on (Fauziati, 2005: 130). She mentions some games recommended for speaking activities such as circle chat, games based on the combination of incongruous ideas (incongruous ideas often produces a humorous situation like silly answer, confessions, and crazy story), and games of observation and memory. c. Discussion Group discussion may be composed of three to five students. The main aim of group discussion is to improve fluency, and grammar is probably best allowed to function as a naturally communicative context (Fauziati, 2005: 134). d. Prepared Talks It is a popular kind of speaking activity where the students make a presentation on a certain topic chosen by teacher or their own choice. Prepared talks represent a defined and useful speaker genre, and if

properly organized, can be extremely interesting for the speaker and listener (Harmer, 2001: 274). e. Questionnaires In this activity the students can design questionnaires on any topic appropriate. As they do so the teacher can act as a resource, helping them in the designing process. The resultsobtained from questionnaires can be form the basis for written work, discussions, or prepared talks (Harmer, 2001: 274). f. Simulation and Role Play Students simulate a real-life encounter as if they were doing so in the real world. Simulation and role play can be used to encourage general oral fluency, or to train students for specific situation (Harmer, 2001: 274). Furthermore, role -play is creating a dramatic situation in a classroom, or in a part, simply acting out dialogues, but also in part relabeling objects and people in the room prepare for imaginative role playing (New- Mark in Fuziati, 2005: 127). 4. Teaching Speaking Skills Speaking is the most important part of language learning. As a productive skill, Speaking contributes the ability to communicate in the target language fluently. For the language teachers, it is essential to pay more attention in teaching speaking. Teaching speaking should give students opportunity to produce something by giving more practice to

speak in the target language. Teachers have to provide an interactive activity to encourage the students to speak actively. There are many kinds of speaking class activities which can be applied in the teaching process to improve the students speaking skill. Those activities can give the great contribution toward students speaking skill improvement, because it can help the students to develop their ability. Moreover, scoring and measure the students speaking ability is not easy to do. According to Brown (2001: 397), Oral production test, unlike comprehensions, takes time, money and ingenuity to measure. The best tests of oral proficiency involve a one-on-one tester/ test takes relationship, live performance, a careful specification of tasks to be accomplished during the test, and a scoring rubric that is truly descriptive of ability. Brown (2001: 406-407) stated that there are five categorizes of oral proficiency scoring, they are Flency, Pronunciation, Vocabulary, Grammar, and Comprehension. They can be seen on the tables below: Table 2.1 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Fluency Score Category 1 No specific fluency description. Refer to other four Language areas for implied level of fluency. 2 Can handle with confidence but not with facility most social situations, including introductions and casual conversations about current events, as well as work, family and autobiographical information.

3 Can discuss particular interests of competence with reasonable ease. Rarely has to grope for words. 4 Able to use the language fluently on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. Can participate in any conversation with a high degree of fluency. 5 Has complete fluency in the language such that his speech is fully accepted by educated native speakers Table 2.2 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Pronunciation Score Category 1 Errors in pronunciation are frequent but can be understood by a native speaker used to dealing with foreigners attempting to speak his language 2 Accent is intelligible though often quite faulty. 3 Errors never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker. Accent may be obviously foreign. 4 Errors in pronunciation are quite rare. 5 Equivalent to and fully accepted by educated native speakers. Table 2.3 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Vocabulary Score Category 1 Speaking vocabulary inadequate to express anything but the most elementary needs. 2 Has speaking vocabulary sufficient to express himself simply with some circumlocutions. 3 Able to speak the language with sufficient vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social and professional topics. Vocabulary is broad enough that he rarely has to grope for a word.

4 Can understand and participate in any conversation within the range of his experience with a high degree of precision of vocabulary. 5 Speech on all level is sufficiently accepted by educated native speakers in all its features including breadth of vocabulary and idioms, colloquialisms, and pertinent cultural references. Table 2.4 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Grammar Score Category 1 Errors in grammar are frequent, but speaker can be understood by a native speaker used to dealing with foreigners attempting to speak his language. 2 Can usually handle elementary constructions quite accurately but does not have thorough or confident control of the grammar. 3 Control of grammar is good. Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social, and professional topics. 4 Able to use the language accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. Errors in grammar are quite rare. 5 Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker. Table 2.5 Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Comprehension Score Category 1 Within the scope of his very limited language experience, can understand simple questions and statements if delivered with slowed speech, repetition, or paraphrase. 2 Can get the gist of most conversations of nontechnical subjects (i.e., topics that requite no specialized knowledge). 3 Comprehension is quite complete at a normal rate of speech.

4 Can understand any conversation within the range of his experience. 5 Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker. However, there are five components usually used to analyze speech performance, they are grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. The scoring also can include accuracy, articulation, eye contact, expression, intonation and gesture of the speaker. The writer uses those speaking scoring rubric to collect data. B. Drills 1. Definition Drill is a repeated operation or exercise intended to develop a skill or an acquaintance with a procedure. It is used best to teach a skill and memorization. Good teacher supervision is imperative. The main purpose of drill is the actual doing and experiencing, which is one way learning takes place (Sharon and Weldon, 1997: 29). Drilling is a technique that has been used in foreign language classrooms for many years. It was a key feature of audio-lingual method approaches to language teaching, which placed emphasis on repeating structural patterns through oral practice. Drilling is a technique that is still used by many teachers when introducing new language items to their students. A drill have two parts, there are what the students hear (stimulus) and what they has to say (response). A convenient pair of substitutes are input, refers to the

information supplied to the learner, weather orally or visually and outputto what the learner has to produce himself (Allen and Campbell, 1972: 121). From those theories above, the writer makes a conclusion that drilling is a technique that used in teaching foreign language which emphasis on repeating structural pattern through oral practice to demonstrate students ability in using specific language. 2. Kinds of Drill According to Haycraft (1978: 36), after presentation and explanation of the new structure, students may used controlled practice in saying useful and correct sentence patterns in combination with appropriate vocabulary. These patterns are known as oral drills. They can be inflexible: students often seem to master a structure in drilling, but are then incapable of using it in other contexts. Furthermore, drills have several types in form: a. The Repetition Drill The teacher says models (the word or phrases) and the students repeat it. Example: Teacher : It didn t rain, so I needn t have taken my umbrella Students : It didn t rain, so I needn t have taken my umbrella b. The Substitution Drill Substitution drill can used to practice different structures or vocabulary items (i. e one word or more word change during the drill) Example: Teacher : I go to school. He?

Students : He goes to school. Teacher : They? Students : They go to school. c. The Question and Answer Drill The teacher gives students practice with answering questions. The students should answer the teacher s questions very quickly. It is also possible for the teacher to let the students practice to ask question as well. This gives students practice with the question pattern. Example: Teacher : Does he go to school? Yes? Students : Yes, he does. Teacher : No? Students : No, he does not. d. The Transformation Drill The teacher gives students a certain kind of sentence pattern, an affirmation sentence for example. Students are asked to transform this sentence into a negative sentence. Other examples of transformations to ask of students are changing a statement into a question, an active sentence into a passive one, or direct speech into a reported speech. Example: (positive into negative) Teacher : I clean the house. Students : I don t clean the house. Teacher : She sings a song.

Students : She doesn t sing a song. e. The Chain Drill The teacher begins the chain by greeting a particular student, or asking him a question. That student respond, then turns to the students sitting next to him. The first student greets or asks a question of the second student and the chain continues. A chain drill allows some controlled communication, even though it is limited. A chain drill also gives the teacher an opportunity to check each student s speech. Teacher : What is the color of sky? The color of sky is blue What the color of banana? Student A : The color of banana is yellow What is the color of leaf? Student B : The color of leaf is green What is the color of our eyes? Student C : The color of our eyes is black and white. f. The Expansion Drill This drill is used when a long line dialog is giving students trouble. The teacher breaks down the line into several parts. The students repeat a part of the sentence, usually the last phrase of the line. Then following the teacher s cue, the students expand what they are repeating part at the end of the sentence (and works backward from there) to keep the intonation of the line as natural as possible. This also

directs more student attention to the end of the sentence, where new information typically occurs. Example: Teacher : My mother is a doctor. Students : My mother is a doctor Teacher : She works in the hospital. Students : She works in the hospital Teacher : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital. Students : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital Teacher : She take cares the patient. Students : She take cares the patient Teacher : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital. She take cares the patient Students : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital. She take cares the patient 3. Choral Drill According to Clandfield & Tennant, with a large group, choral drilling can work quite well. In its most basic form, choral drilling involves you giving an oral model of a word or phrase and the whole class repeating it. Choral drilling can be quite a lot of fun, and it can make some bits of language more memorable. Use choral drilling to practise new words or phrases, especially phrases that will be useful in a future communicative activity. You can also

do choral drilling for dialogues (first you say and they repeat, then you say one bit and they say the other, then they do it in two large groups) before asking students to practice it in pairs together. 4. Advantages and Weaknesses The advantages and the weaknesses of using Drilling Technique as follow; a. The Advantages of Drilling are: Drilling help our learners memorise language by the teacher s control. And the teacher can correct any mistakes that students make and encourage them to concrete on difficulties at the sometime. b. The Weaknesses of Drilling Drilling often make the students not vary creative. In all drills learners have no or vary little choice over what is said so drills are form of very controlled practice. The teacher needs to handle the drills, so that the students are not over used and they don t go on far too long. One of the problems about drills is that they are fairly monotonous.

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter discovers the place, time and research methodology. The first is about the place. It discusses the General information of MTs Assalafi Susukan, Historical Background of MTs Assalafi Susukan, Vision and Mission, The Situation of teaching and learning activities, and The Teachers of that school. The second is about the time. It talks about when the preparation, implemantation, analysis the data, and report the result of the research are conducted by the writer. The last of this chapter is describes about the research methodology. The research methodology which is used consists of Type of the research, Population, Sample, Data Sources, Technique of Data Collection and Technique of Data Analyzes. The explanation of each point is discussed further into detail explanation. A. Place of the Research This research is located at MTs Assalafi Susukan. The address is on Jl. Klero-Suruh km. 05, RT. 18/05, Kenteng, Susukan Kab. Semarang. 1. General Information of MTs Assalafi Susukan Mts Assalafi Susukan is one of the junior high school in Susukan. The detail of this school is described as follows:

a. School Name : MTs Assalafi Susukan b. School ID : 121233220008 c. School Type : B d. School Address : Jl. Klero-Suruh km.05 Susukan Semarang Reg. Central Java e. Phone : (0285) 713162209 f. Email : assalafi_susukan@yahoo.com g. School Status : Private School 2. Historical Background of MTs Assalafi Susukan MTs Assalafi Susukan is one of the private schools which are organized by an Islamic Educational Committee. There are two levels of school in a scope; they are MTs Assalafi (Islamic Junior High School), and SMA/SMK Wirakrama (Islamic Senior High School). This school was built in 1994. Before it became a private school, it was an Islamic boarding house with students from many places. They got some Islamic knowledges such as Fiqh, Aqidah Akhlaq, Alqur an Hadis, Arabic, and several knowledges from Islamic books. Then, in 1994, the organizers of this boarding house had an idea to develop it. They thought to create a school inside the boarding house. So, they discussed this idea. Fortunately, all of them agreed with this idea. Then, this change was managed soon and they could begin trying to combine school and boarding house. Since that time,

those boarding house not only accepted the students whom to live in there but also the students who want to get knowledge in formal education or school. 3. Vision and Mission of MTs Assalafi Susukan a. Vision The vision of this school is Actualizing of Islmic generation, have an akhlaqul karimah, and exellent in achievment (Terwudnya Generasi Islam yang Islami, Berakhlaqul Karimah dan Unggul dalam Prestasi). b. Mission The missions of this school are: Holding the quality education in reaching the academic and nonacademic achievment. Realizing the learning and habituation in learning Qur an and the establishment Islamic character. Improving knowledge and professionalism of education personel in accordance with the development of education. Holding a madrasah governance that is effective, efficient, and accountable. 4. Situation of MTs Assalafi Teaching and learning process is started at 07.00 a.m. and finish at 13.30 p.m. except on Friday the lesson ended at 11.00 a.m. It is 40 minutes for one hour lesson and there are two break times at

09:40-09:55 and the second break at 11.55-12.10. As an Islamic school, there are many subjects that should be learn by the students. In total, there are 15 subjects in this school. The following table is the lists of subjects taught in eighth grade students of MTs Assalafi Susukan: Table 3.1 The List of Subjects for Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan No Subject 1. Mathematic 2. Indonesian 3. English 4. Javanese 5. Natural Science 6. IT 7. Art and Culture 8. Al Quran and Hadist 9. Fiqh 10. Akidah Akhlak 11. Arabic 12. History of Islamic Culture 13. Civic Education 14. Counseling 15. Social Science 5. The Teachers of MTs Assalafi Susukan In this school there are 19 teachers. They teach different subject. Those subjects divided into 15 subjects. The lists of teacher in MTs Assalafi Susukan in the academic year of 2016/2017 can be seen on the table 3.2 below:

Table 3.2 Lists of Teachers MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017 No. Name Subject 1. KH. M. Thoha, S.Pd Quran Hadis 2. Drs. Ahmad Hasuna Indonesian 3. Ahmad Jamsuki, S.Ag Fiqh 4. Dra. Dwi Astuti Social Science 5. Tamami, S.PdI Aqidah Akhlaq 6. Aminudin Asrori, S.Ag History of Islamic Culture 7. Syamsul Hadi, S.Ag Sport 8. Nur Istiqomah, S.PdI English 9. Nur Habib, S.Kom IT 10. Rini Fatmawati, S.Pd Mathematic 11. Abdul Nurkolis, S.Pd Javanese 12. Ngatiyatun, S.Pd Natural Science 13. Oktarina Sekti Cahyani, S.Pd Civic Education 14. Siti Zumaroh, S.PdI English 15. Siti Robiatun, S.Pd Art and Culture 16. Eva Yuliana, S.Pd Natural Scinence 17. Najib Syaifullah, S.PdI Arabic 18. Fathiyatul Mubayyinah, S.Pd Indonesian 19. Taufiq Riza Mathematic B. Schedule of the Research This research is conducted in MTs Assalafi Susukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. There are some steps that the writer did to conduct this research, they are preparation, implementation, analysis the data, report the result of the research. Those steps described briefly in the table 3.3:

Table 3.3 Schedule of the Research Step Date and Time Activities January, 29 th 2016 Proposal Draft Consultation Preparation Implemantion /collecting data Analysis of Data Research Report March, 21 th 2016 July, 18 th 2016 August, 1 st 2016 August, 8 th 2016 07.00 08.20 August, 9 th 2016 07.00 08.20 August,11 th 2016 07.00 08.20 August,11 th 2016 09.40 11.15 August, 15 th 2016 07.00 08.20 August, 16 th 2016 07.00 08.20 August, 21 th 2016 September, 2016 Application for Research Permission Research Permission observation Pre-Test and Teaching and Learning Proses Pre-Test and Teaching and Learning Proses using Choral Drill and Role Play Technique Teaching and Learning Proses Teaching and Learning Proses using Choral Drill and Role Play Technique Post-Test Post-Test Analysis the data that was collected Reporting the result of the research C. Research Methodology 1. Type of Research To conduct this research, the writer uses true experimental research to find out the effectiveness of the implementation Choral Drill toward students speaking skill. Dantes (2012: 96) states that True Experimental Research is one of the experimental research

designs. The characteristics of this design is there is randomization ( R ), whether in the individual choosing as a subject, individual placing in a group, or giving treatment toward group. The true experimental research design applied in this research is randomized control group pretest-posttest, in which the writer chooses experiment and control group accurately through random sampling technique, because of the limitation of the subjects. In this experimental design, the writer evaluates the experimental class before and after given a treatment. Meanwhile, the other class stand as control class and isolated from the treatment. In other word, control class is not given any treatment. 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 affect the result of an experiment. 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. In other words, the experimental research attempts to investigate the influence of one or more variables to other variables (Syaodih, 2006: 57) 2. Population Kasiram (2010: 257) argued that Population is defined as overall object of research target. In line him, Arikunto (2002: 108) says

that population is all the individuals of that group.the population of this research is the eighth grade students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. There are 3 classes and each class consists of 25 students. 3. Sample According to Arikunto (2002: 109), sample is part of population being researched. In addition, Hasan (2002:85) stated that sample is the part of representative population which is investigated and it should reflect the characteristics of the population. The sample of this research is two classes in the eighth grade students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. It chosen purposely using Random sampling. Random sampling is a sampling technique that is used without any particular consideration. The writer chooses two classes, the first class is experimental class and the other is control class. The writer chooses 8-A class as the control group and 8-B as the experimental group. Actually the writer doesn t know about the students speaking skill before. There are 27 students in 8-A class and 26 in 8-B Class. The experimental class is given treatment using Choral Drill technique and the control class is not given any treatment. The data respondents in this research presented on the table 3.4 below:

Table 3.4 List of Control Class and Experimental Class No. Name Control Class No. Name Experimental Class 1 A.A.Z. 1 A.D.S. 2 A.M. 2 D.D.A. 3 A.I.M. 3 F.A.S.C. 4 A.H. 4 F.R. 5 A.HU. 5 F.A.S. 6 D.S. 6 H.K.S. 7 F.G. 7 H.A.M. 8 I.S. 8 K.N. 9 M.I.M.A. 9 Klf. 10 M.G.A. 10 L.K. 11 M.M.A. 11 L.S.A. 12 M.R. 12 M.M.N 13 M.S.A. 13 M.A.K.N. 14 N.S.A. 14 M.I. 15 O.S.M. 15 M.G. 16 P.Y.L. 16 N.R. 17 R.C.F. 17 R.N. 18 S.M. 18 R.F. 19 S.K.F. 19 R.A. 20 S.I. 20 S.H. 21 S.M. 21 S.A. 22 S.C. 22 S.M. 23 S.P. 23 S.R.K. 24 T.A.R. 24 S.L.O. 25 U.I. 25 V.W.S. 26 U.A. 26 Z.N.A. 27 U.N.

4. Data Sources Arikunto (2010: 172) described that data source is subject where the data acquired. Moleong (1998) in Arikunto (2010:22) also states that data sources of quantitative research are presented in spoken or written accurately. The writer uses the data sources both from primary and secondary data. The primary data sources of this research are taken from students test during pre-test and post-test both from experimental and control class. The secondary data of this research is taken from the writer s observation in the class while the research is conducted and from other sources that suporting this research. 5. Technique of Data Collection In order to get the data, the writer uses tests, documentation and observation, each describes as follows: a. Test In order to collect the data, the writer gives tests which consist of pre-test and post-test after the treatment. 1) Pre-test Pre-test is given before the research is conducted. It is given to both experimental group and control group. Pre-test is administrated to know the students speaking ability overall. 2) Treatment After giving pre-test, the experimental group is given treatment by using Choral Drill Technique to teach speaking

meanwhile the control group is taught using discussion technique. 3) Post-test In the end, the writer gives post-test to both groups experimental and control group. Post-test is administrated to know whether there is significant difference before and after the treatment. b. Observation The writer also observes the students while they are studying in the class. The writer do this to help the writer in analyzing the data. The writer observes the eighth grade students of MTs Assalafi Susukan after the research permission accepted on July, 18 th 2016 until the research is conducted on August, 8 th 2016. It is intended to know how well they understand the material and their speaking ability. c. Documentation The writer also uses documentation as the method of collecting the data in this research. According to Arikunto (2010:274) documentation is a method used to find the data related, by using book, transcript, newspaper, magazine, ancient inscription, notes of a meeting, agenda, etc. The documentation is done by taking the picture while the writer taught the control and experimental class. The writer also collects some documents by

asking the staff administration related to the school s profile. It is intended to collect the document related to the object and place of this research. 6. Technique of Data Analysis To analyze the result of the data from pre-test and post-test, the writer uses the following steps: a. Scoring the students test In this step, the writer scores the result from the pre-test and post-test from experimental group and control group. The writer uses 1-5 point scale to measure the students oral speech. b. Calculate the Result of the test After scoring the students test, the writer calculated the data using t-test to determine whether there is significant difference before and after the treatment both from experimental and control groups. If the mean improve, it is suggested that students speaking skill also improve. The steps to calculate the data described as follows: 1) Calculate the mean (M) from each group using the following formula: Mean =

2) Calculate the standard deviation from difference (SD D ) SD D = ( ) D = X-Y D 2 = (X-Y) 2 SD D = Standard deviation X = Pre Test Y = Post Test N = Total of Respondents 3) Standard error of mean difference (SE MD ) SE MD = SD D N 1 SE MD = Standard error of mean difference SD D = Standard Deviation N = Total of Respondents

4) t-value (t o ) t o = MD SE MD The formula of MD is as follow: MD = D N Criteria of hypothesis accepted describes as follows: = Reject Null hypothesis < = Receive Null Hypothesis

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION In this chapter, the writer presented the data and the analysis from the result of pre-test and post-test both from experimental and control groups the eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Assalafi Susukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. In previous chapter, it had been explained that result of this research is analyzed in numeral form. The writer collected the data from 53 respondents. They came from the eighth grade students. They consisted of 27 respondents of control class who was taught without technique and 26 respondents of experimental class who was taught using Choral Drill technique. This chapter discovered the problems in chapter I they are; the difference between of lecturing and Choral Drill technique to the students speaking skill and the significant difference between of lecturing and Choral Drill technique to the speaking skill. To answer those questions, the writer made list of students names that were taken and their score. Then, the writer clarified interval class, median, mean, standard deviation and finally counted the percentage. In the next step, the writer determined the table t-value for significant of the research.

A. Difference between of lecturing and Choral Drill technique to the speaking skill in the Second Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017. 1. Analysis of Pre-test Based on description in previous chapter, the researchers made scores of the respondent in pre-test. The students score was counted using the formula below; Score = By using the above formula the writer got the decimal numbers, so the writer made decimal numbers become rounded number. If the decimal point less than five then it will be lost, but if the decimal point more than five then it will be 1 point. Example: 3.3 become 3; 3.6 become 4 and so on. Table 4.1 Score of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pre test (Control Class) R F P V G C Total Score R1 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 R2 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R3 2 3 2 2 2 11 2 R4 1 2 2 2 1 8 2 R5 2 3 3 2 2 12 2 R6 2 2 3 2 2 11 2 R7 1 2 2 2 2 9 2 R8 2 2 2 3 3 12 2 R9 2 2 3 2 2 11 2 R10 1 2 2 2 1 8 2 R11 1 2 2 2 1 8 2

R12 2 2 2 3 3 12 2 R13 2 3 2 3 2 12 2 R14 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R15 2 2 3 3 3 13 3 R16 3 3 4 3 2 15 3 R17 3 3 3 3 2 14 3 R18 3 3 4 4 3 17 3 R19 3 3 4 3 3 16 3 R20 2 3 2 3 3 13 3 R21 2 2 3 3 3 13 3 R22 2 2 3 3 3 13 3 R23 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 R24 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R25 2 2 3 3 3 13 3 R26 2 1 2 1 2 8 2 R27 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 Note: Score= R = Respondent F P V G C = Fluency = Pronunciation = Vocabulary = Grammar = Comprehension The table 4.1 showed score of respondents speaking skill in pre test of control group. There were 27 respondents in this research before accepted the treatment and all respondents got unexpected score. The

highest score was 3 with 12 respondents and the lowest was 2 with 15 respondents. Table 4.2 Classification of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pre-Test (Control Class) Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 0 0% Good 13-17 3 12 44% Fairly Good 8-12 2 15 56% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 27 100% The percentage was counted using this formula: X 100% The table 4.2 showed classification of respondents speaking skill in pre-test of control group. There were 27 respondents in this research before they accepted treatment. From all of respondents, there were 12 respondents (44%) got good score, and 15 respondents (56%) got fairly good. Beside it, the writer also made score of respondents speaking skill that before accepted treatment by using Choral Drill technique. It was elaborated into five scales through table distribution frequency and percentage. The score was classified based on English speaking proficiency; consist of fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and comprehensibility.

Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Fluency Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 0 0% Good 13-17 3 7 26% Fairly Good 8-12 2 16 59% Poor 7 1 4 15% Total 27 100% The table 4.3 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in fluency. Total respondents were 27 respondents (100%). There were 7 respondents (26%) got score 3, and 16 respondents (59%) got score 2, and 4 respondents (15%) got score 1. It can be concluded that fluency was fairly good because there were 59% respondents got score 2. Table 4.4 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pronunciation Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 0 0% Good 13-17 3 11 41% Fairly Good 8-12 2 14 52% Poor 7 1 2 7% Total 27 100%

In the table 4.4 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in pronunciation. Total respondents were 27 respondents (100%). There were 11 respondents (41%) got score 3, 14 respondents (52%) got score 2, and 2 respondents (7%) got score 1. It can be concluded that pronunciation was fairly good because there were 52% respondents got score 2. Table 4.5 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Vocabulary Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 3 11% Good 13-17 3 11 41% Fairly Good 8-12 2 13 48% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 27 100% The table 4.5 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in vocabulary. Total respondents were 27 respondents (100%). There were 3 (11%) respondents got score 4, 11 (41%) respondents got 3, and 13 (48%) respondents got 2. It can be concluded that vocabulary was good because there were 11% got score 4 and 41% respondents got score 3.

Table 4.6 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Grammar Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 1 4% Good 13-17 3 14 51% Fairly Good 8-12 2 11 41% Poor 7 1 1 4% Total 27 100% Table 4.6 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in grammar. Total respondents were 27 respondents (100%). There were 1 respondents (4%) got score 4, 14 respondents (51%) got score 3, 11 (41%) respondents got 2, and 1 (4%) respondents got score 1. It can be concluded that grammar was good because there were 51% respondents got score 3. Table 4.7 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Comprehension Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 0 0% Good 13-17 3 12 44% Fairly Good 8-12 2 12 44% Poor 5-7 1 3 12% Total 27 100% Table 4.7 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in comprehension. Total respondents were 20

respondents (100%). There were 12 (44%) respondents got score 3, 12 (44%) respondents got score 2, and 3 (12%) got 1. It can be concluded that comprehension was fairly good because there were 44% and 11% of the respondents got score <3. On the other hand result of the experiment class in pre-test was showed as followed; Table 4.8 Score of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pre Test (Experimental Class) R F P V G C Total Score R1 1 2 2 2 1 8 2 R2 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 R3 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R4 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 R5 1 2 2 2 2 9 2 R6 2 2 3 2 2 11 2 R7 3 3 3 3 2 14 3 R8 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 R9 2 3 3 3 3 14 3 R10 3 4 3 3 4 17 3 R11 2 3 2 2 3 12 2 R12 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 R13 2 2 3 3 2 12 2 R14 1 2 2 1 2 8 2 R15 3 3 3 2 3 14 3 R16 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 R17 2 2 3 3 3 13 2 R18 3 2 2 2 2 11 2 R19 1 2 2 2 1 8 2 R20 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 R21 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R22 3 4 4 3 3 17 3 R23 3 3 3 2 3 14 3

R24 3 3 4 3 4 17 3 R25 2 3 2 3 2 12 2 R26 3 3 4 3 3 16 3 Note: Score= R F P V G C = Respondent = Fluency = Pronunciation = Vocabulary = Grammar = Comprehension Based on the above table, there were 26 respondents in this research and some students got good score. The highest score was 3 and the lowest score was 2. There were 10 respondents got score 3 and 16 respondents got score 2. Table 4.9 Classification of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pre Test (Experimental Class) Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 0 0% Good 13-17 3 10 38% Fairly Good 8-12 2 16 62% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 26 100%

Table 4.9 showed classification of respondents speaking skill of experimental class in pre-test. Total respondents were 26 respondents (100%). From all of respondents, there were 10 respondents (38%) got score 3 and 16 (62%) respondents got score 2. Besides, the researchers also made score of respondents speaking skill of experimental class in pre-test. It was elaborated into five scales through table distribution frequency and percentage. The writer classified it based on English speaking fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and comprehension. Table 4.10 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Fluency Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 0 0% Good 13-17 3 10 39% Fairly Good 8-12 2 12 46% Poor 7 1 4 15% Total 25 100% Table 4.10 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in fluency. Total respondents were 26 respondents (100%). There were 10 respondents (39%) got score 3, 12 respondents (46%) got score 2, and 4 respondents (15%) got score 1. The rating of the fluency was fairly good.

Table 4.11 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pronunciation Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 2 8% Good 13-17 3 10 38% Fairly Good 8-12 2 13 50% Poor 7 1 1 4% Total 26 100% Table 4.11 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in pronunciation. Total respondents were 26 respondents (100%). There were 2 respondents (10%) got score 4, 10 respondents (38%) got 3, 13 (50%) respondents got score 2, and 1 (4%) respondents gote score 1. It can be concluded that pronunciation was fairly good because there were 50% got rating 2 and 4% got 1. Table 4.12 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Vocabulary Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 3 12% Good 13-17 3 10 38% Fairly Good 8-12 2 13 50% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 23 100%

Table 4.12 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in vocabulary. Total respondents were 26 respondents (100%). There were 3 respondents (12%) got score 4, 10 respondents (38%) got score 3, and 13 respondents got score 2. It can be concluded that vocabulary was good because there were 12% respondents got score 4 and 38% respondents got score 3. Table 4.13 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Grammar Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 0 0% Good 13-17 3 11 42% Fairly Good 8-12 2 14 54% Poor 7 1 1 4% Total 26 100% Table 4.13 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in grammar. Total respondents were 26 respondents (100%). There were 11 respondents (42%) got score 3, 14 respondents (54%) got score 3, and 1 respondent (4%) got score 1. It can be concluded that grammar was fairly good because there were 54% respondents got score 2.

Table 4.14 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Comprehension Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 2 8% Good 13-17 3 9 34% Fairly Good 8-12 2 13 50% Poor 7 1 2 8% Total 26 100% Table 4.14 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in comprehension. Total respondents were 26 respondents (100%). There were 2 respondents (8%) got score 4, 9 respondents (34%) got score 3, 13 respondents (50%) got score 2, and 2 respondent (8%) got score 1. It can be concluded that comprehension was fairly good because there were 50% respondents got score 2 and 8% got score 1. 2. Post-Test Analysis The writer also listed score of the students in eighth grade students of MTs Assalafi Susukan. Post-test result of control group as followed: Table 4.15 Score of Respondents Speaking Skill in Post test (Control Class) R F P V G C Total Score

R1 2 2 3 2 3 12 2 R2 3 3 4 3 3 16 3 R3 2 3 2 3 2 12 2 R4 2 2 3 2 2 11 2 R5 2 2 3 3 2 12 2 R6 2 3 3 2 2 12 2 R7 2 3 3 2 2 12 2 R8 2 3 3 2 2 12 2 R9 3 2 3 2 2 12 2 R10 2 3 3 3 2 13 3 R11 2 2 3 2 2 11 2 R12 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R13 2 3 2 4 3 14 3 R14 3 4 3 3 3 16 3 R15 2 2 3 3 3 13 3 R16 3 3 4 3 3 16 3 R17 4 3 3 3 3 16 3 R18 3 3 4 4 3 17 3 R19 3 4 4 3 3 17 3 R20 2 3 2 3 4 14 3 R21 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R22 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R23 2 3 3 2 2 12 2 R24 3 3 4 3 4 17 3 R25 2 3 4 3 3 15 3 R26 2 2 2 2 3 11 2 R27 2 2 3 3 2 12 2 Note: Score: R F P V = Respondent = Fluency = Pronunciation = Vocabulary

G C = Grammar = Comprehension Based on the above table, there were 27 respondents in this research without the treatment and the result was the students had good progress even though only a little. The highest score was 4 and the lowest score was 2. There was 1 respondent got score 4 and 8 respondents got score 2. Besides that, the writer also made scale classification as followed: Table 4.16 Classification of Respondents Speaking Skill in Post-Test (Control Class) Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 1 4% Good 13-17 3 18 67% Fairly Good 8-12 2 8 29% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 27 100% In table 4.16, there were 27 respondents in this research. From all of respondents, there are 1 respondent (4%) got very good score, 18 respondents (67%) got good score and 8 respondents (29%) got fairly good score. The above table showed that they had been a little improvement. Beside it, the writer also made score of students speaking skill who was without Coral Drill technique. It was elaborated into five scales through table distribution frequency and the percentage.

The writer classified based on English speaking proficiency; consist of fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and comprehension. Table 4.17 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Fluency Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 1 4% Good 13-17 3 10 37% Fairly Good 8-12 2 16 59% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 27 100% Table 4.17 showed frequency of the distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in fluency. Total respondents were 27 respondents (100%). There were 1 respondents (4%) got score 4, 10 respondents (37%) got score 3, and 16 respondents (59%) got score 2. It can be concluded that fluency was fairly good because there were 59% respondents got score 2. Table 4.18 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Students Speaking Skill in Pronunciation Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages

Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 2 7% Good 13-17 3 17 63% Fairly Good 8-12 2 8 30% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 27 100% Table 4.18 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in pronunciation. Total respondents were 27 respondents (100%). There were 2 respondents (7%) got score 4, 17 respondents (63%) got score 3, and 8 respondents (30%) got score 2. It can be concluded that pronunciation was good because there were 63% respondents got score 3. Table 4.19 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Vocabulary Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 6 22% Good 13-17 3 17 63% Fairly Good 8-12 2 4 15% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 27 100% Table 4.19 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in vocabulary. Total respondents were 27 respondents (100%). There were 6 respondents (22%) got score 4, 17 respondents (63%) got score 3, and 4 respondents (15%) got

score 2. It can be concluded that vocabulary was good because there were 63% respondents got score 3. Table 4.20 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Grammar Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 2 7% Good 13-17 3 16 60% Fairly Good 8-12 2 9 33% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 27 100% Table 4.20 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in grammar. Total respondents were 27 respondents (100%). There were 2 respondents (7%) got score 4, 16 respondents (60%) got score 3, and 9 respondents (33%) got score 2. It can be concluded that grammar was good because there were 60% respondents got score 3. Table 4.21 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Comprehension Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 3 11% Good 13-17 3 13 48% Fairly Good 8-12 2 11 41% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 27 100%

Table 4.21 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in comprehension. Total respondents were 27 respondents (100%). there were 3 respondents (11%) got score 4, 13 respondents (48%) got score 3, and 11 respondents (41%) got score 2. It can be concluded that comprehension was good because there were 48% respondents got score 3. On the other hand result of the experimental group with Choral Drill and Role Play technique was shown below: Table 4.22 Score of Respondents Speaking Skill in Post test (Experimental Group) R F P V G C Total Score R1 2 3 3 3 2 13 3 R2 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R3 4 4 4 4 4 20 4 R4 3 3 4 4 3 17 3 R5 2 3 3 3 4 15 3 R6 4 3 4 3 3 17 3 R7 3 4 3 4 4 18 4 R8 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R9 3 4 3 4 4 18 4 R10 4 4 4 4 4 20 4 R11 3 4 4 3 4 18 4 R12 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R13 3 3 4 4 3 17 3 R14 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R15 4 3 4 3 4 18 4 R16 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R17 3 3 4 4 4 18 4 R18 4 3 3 3 3 16 3

R19 3 3 3 3 2 14 3 R20 3 3 3 3 3 15 3 R21 4 4 4 4 4 20 4 R22 4 5 5 4 4 22 4 R23 4 3 4 3 3 17 3 R24 4 4 4 4 4 20 4 R25 3 4 3 3 3 13 3 R26 4 3 4 3 4 18 4 Note: Score: R F P V G C = Respondent = Fluency = Pronunciation = Vocabulary = Grammar = Comprehension Based on the above table, there were 26 respondents in this research who were treated by using Choral Drill and Role Play. The result was the students had good progress. The highest score was 4 and the lowest score was 3. There were 11 respondents got score 4 and 15 respondents got score 3. Besides that, the writer also made scale classification as followed;

Table 4.23 Classification of Respondents Speaking Skill in Post-Test (Experimental Group) Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 11 42% Good 13-17 3 15 58% Fairly Good 8-12 2 0 0% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 26 100% In table 4.23, there were 26 respondents in this research. From all of respondents, there were 11 respondents (42%) got very good score and 15 respondents (58%) got good score. The above table showed that they had good improvement. Beside it, the writer also made score of students speaking skill who were treated by using Choral Drill and Role Play. It was elaborated into five scales through table distribution frequency and the percentage. The writer classified based on English speaking proficiency; consist of fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and comprehension. Table 4.24 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Fluency Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 10 38% Good 13-17 3 14 54% Fairly Good 8-12 2 2 8% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 26 100%

Table 4.24 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in fluency. Total respondents were 26 respondents (100%). There were 10 respondents (38 %) got score 4, 14 respondents (54%) got score 3, and 2 respondents (8%) got score 2. It can be concluded that fluency was very good because there were 38 % respondents got score 4 and 54% respondents got score 3. Table 4.25 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Students Speaking Skill in Pronunciation Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 1 4% Very Good 18-22 4 8 31% Good 13-17 3 17 65 % Fairly Good 8-12 2 0 0% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 26 100% Table 4.25 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in pronunciation. Total respondents were 26 respondents (100%). There were 1 respondent (4%) got score 5. There were 8 respondents (31%) got score 4. There were 17 respondents (65%) got score 3. It can be concluded that pronunciation was good because there were 65% respondents got score 3.

Table 4.26 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Vocabulary Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 1 4% Very Good 18-22 4 12 46% Good 13-17 3 13 50% Fairly Good 8-12 2 0 0% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 26 100% Table 4.26 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in vocabulary. Total respondents were 26 respondents (100%). There were 1 respondents (8%) got score 5. There were 12 respondents (46%) got score 4. There were 13 respondents (50%) got score 3. It can be concluded that vocabulary was very good because there were 50% respondents got score 4. Table 4.27 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Grammar Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 10 38% Good 13-17 3 16 62% Fairly Good 8-12 2 0 0% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 26 100%

Table 4.27 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in grammar. Total respondents were 26 respondents (100%). There were 10 respondents (38%) got score and 16 respondents (62%) got score 3. It can be concluded that grammar was good because there were 62 % respondents got score 3. Table 4.28 Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents Speaking Skill in Comprehension Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages Excellent 23-25 5 0 0% Very Good 18-22 4 12 46% Good 13-17 3 12 46% Fairly Good 8-12 2 2 8% Poor 7 1 0 0% Total 26 100% Table 4.28 showed frequency distribution and percentage of respondents speaking skill in comprehension. Total respondents were 26 respondents (100%). there were 12 respondents (46%) got score 4, 12 respondents (46%) got score 3, 2 respondents (8%) got score 2. It can be concluded that comprehension was very good because there were 46% respondents got score 4.

B. Significant Difference of T-test between students taught by Lecturing and students taught by Choral Drill Technique to the Speaking Skill in the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017 The writer had made table of pre-test and post-test s respondents. The writer also calculated pre-test and post-test s mean and significant standard 5%. The writer did this calculation to know respondents significant improvement. It was shown below: Table 4.29 Score of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and Post-Test (Experimental Class) No. Respondent Variable X1 (Pre-Test) Variable Y1 (Post-Test) D=(X-Y) D 2 =(X- Y) 2 1 R1 2 3-1 1 2 R2 2 3-1 1 3 R3 3 4-1 1 4 R4 2 3-1 1 5 R5 2 3-1 1 6 R6 2 3-1 1 7 R7 3 4-1 1 8 R8 2 3-1 1 9 R9 3 4-1 1 10 R10 3 4-1 1 11 R11 2 4-2 4 12 R12 2 3-1 1 13 R13 2 3-1 1 14 R14 2 3-1 1

15 R15 3 4-1 1 16 R16 2 3-1 1 17 R17 2 4-2 4 18 R18 2 3-1 1 19 R19 2 3-1 1 20 R20 2 3-1 1 21 R21 3 4-1 1 22 R22 3 4-1 1 23 R23 3 3 0 0 24 R24 3 4-1 1 25 R25 2 3-1 1 26 R26 3 4-1 1 N= 26 D= 27 D 2 = 31 Table 4.30 Score of Respondents Speaking Skill in Pre-Test and Post-Test (Control Class) No. Respondent Variable X2 Variable Y2 (Pre-Test) (Post-Test) D=(X-Y) D 2 =(X-Y) 2 1 R1 2 2 0 0 2 R2 3 3 0 0 3 R3 2 2 0 0 4 R4 2 2 0 0 5 R5 2 2 0 0 6 R6 2 2 0 0 7 R7 2 2 0 0 8 R8 2 2 0 0 9 R9 2 2 0 0 10 R10 2 3-1 1 11 R11 2 2 0 0 12 R12 2 3-1 1 13 R13 2 3-1 1

14 R14 3 3 0 0 15 R15 3 3 0 0 16 R16 3 3 0 0 17 R17 3 3 0 0 18 R18 3 3 0 0 19 R19 3 3 0 0 20 R20 3 3 0 0 21 R21 3 3 0 0 22 R22 3 3 0 0 23 R23 2 2 0 0 24 R24 3 3 0 0 25 R25 3 3 0 0 26 R26 2 2 0 0 27 R27 2 2 0 0 N= 27 D= 3 D 2 = 3 1. Mean a. Pre-test of experimental class X1 = x1 N X 1= 62 26 X 1= 2,385 b. Pre-test of control class X2 = x2 N 66 X2 = 27 X2 = 2,444

c. Post-test of experimental class Y1 = y1 N 89 Y1 = 26 Y1 = 3,423 d. Post-test of control class Y2 = y2 N 69 Y2 = 27 Y2 = 2,556 2. Experimental Class According to the data from table 4.29, the writer calculated standard deviation of pre-test and post-test of experimental class as follow: a. Standard deviation (SD D ) SD D = = ( ) ( ) ) = 1,19 (1,02) ) = 1,39 1,04 = 0,35 = 0,592

b. Standard error of mean difference (SE MD ) SE MD = SD D N 1 = 0, 592 26 1 = 0, 592 25 = 0, 592 5 = 0, 118 c. t-value (t o ) t o = MD SE MD The formula of MD as followed: MD = D N = 27 26 = 1,038 t o = MD SE MD = 1,038 0,118 = 8,796

d. t-table ( t t ) Df = n-1 Df = 26 1 = 25 2, 059 8,796 3. Control Group According to the data from table 4.30, the writer also calculated standard deviation of pre-test and post-test of control group as followed: a. Standard deviation (SDD) SD D = ( ) = ( ) ) = 0,11 (0,11) ) = 0, 11 0, 0121 = 0,98 = 0,31 b. Standard error of mean difference (SE MD )

SE MD = SD D N 1 c. t-value (t o ) t o = MD = 0, 31 27 1 = 0, 31 26 = 0, 31 5, 09 = 0, 06 SE MD The formula of MD as followed: MD = D N = 3 27 = 0, 111 t o = MD SE MD = 0, 111 0, 06 = 1,850 d. t-table ( t t ) Df = n-1

Df = 27 1 = 26 2, 055>1, 850 In this section, the writer analyzed the data which had been collected and then described the result of this research. In the first meeting of two groups, the teacher gave a pre-test for respondents. 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. At that time, the writer gave point for them. In the next 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 other respondents. On the other hand, experiment group was taught by Choral Drill technique. They were 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 Choral Drill technique could be seen as an interesting technique in the class. Respondents were active to speak, so, it made them get higher score in post-test than control group. Result of the research could be seen as the table follows: Table 4.31 Result of Calculating Research No Result Experiment Group Control Group 1 Mean of a. Pre-test b. Post-test 2,385 3,423 2,444 2,556 2 Standard Deviation 0,592 0,31 3 T-table vs T-test 2, 059 8,796 2, 055>1,850 Based on table 4.31, t t standard of significant 5% with df = 25, got 2, 059 from the above result, the writer gave interpretation that t table (t t ) was smaller than t value (t o ) of experiment group and t table (t t ) was bigger than t value (t o ) of control group. Based on paired of sample statistic and the above sample test, 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 t t is 2, 059 and t o is 8,796, significant difference of this research was 6, 737. It meant that t o was greater than t t. The writer could conclude that Choral Drill technique improved students speaking skill from significant level 5% to t t. Research of control group showed that t t

was 2, 055 and t o was 1, 850. The significant difference of research was 0, 205. It meant that t t was lower than t o, and it did not improve students speaking skill from significant level 5% to t t. From the research finding, it could be concluded that using Choral Drill technique could motivate students to improve language learning. The way to teach intermediate learners such senior high school students should be designed interactively in order to make the students develop their confidence and critical thinking. The topic for teaching and learning also should be considered as well to gain the students interest and motivation. Based on the calculation and the above analysis, it can be inferred that students in experimental group have higher speaking ability after given treatment using Choral Drill technique than students in control group who are taught using discussion technique. In short, it can be said that using Choral Drill technique is better than discussion technique to help the students improving their speaking ability in the eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTs) Assalafi Susukan.

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion After conducting the research, presenting the data, analyzing the data and discussing the result, in this chapter the writer presents the conclusion of this research which is entitled The Use of Choral Drill Technique to Improve The Students Speaking Skills (An Experimental Study of the Eighth Grade Student of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017). Based on the analyzing data in previous chapter can be concluded as follows: 1. There is a difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017 Based on the calculation and the analysis, it can be inferred that students in experimental group have higher speaking ability after given treatment using Choral Drill Techniquesthan students in control group who are taught using Lecturing Techniques. In short, it can be said that using Choral Drill Technique is better than Lecturing Techniques to help the students improving their speaking ability of the eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTs) Assalafi Susukan.

2. There is significant difference of Lecturing and Choral Drill Techniques to the speaking skills of the Eighth Grade Students of MTs Assalafi Susukan in the Academic Year of 2016/2017 The significant difference of mean between students taught by lecturing and students taught by Choral Drill Technique in the eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah AssalafiSusukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. It showed control group that was taught by Lecturing in the eighth grade, the mean of pre-test of students was 2, 444. It was smaller than the mean of post-test. The mean of post-test of the students was 2,556. 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 significant difference of mean between pre-test and posttest of students that were taught by lecturing was 0, 1. The result showed that there was significant of mean between pre-test and posttest of students that were taught by lecturing in the eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah AssalafiSusukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. The calculation also showed the mean between pre-test and post-test of students that were taught by Choral Drill Techniquein the eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah AssalafiSusukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. The mean of pre-test of students was 2, 385. It was smaller than the mean of post-test. The mean of post-test of the students was 3, 423. The mean of post-test of the students was

higher than the mean of pre-test of the students that were taught by Chorall Drill Technique. The significant difference of mean between pre-test and post-test of students that were taught by Chorall Drill Technique was 1,038. The result showed that it was very significant of mean between pre-test and post-test of students that were taught by Chorall Drill Technique in the eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah AssalafiSusukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. The calculation of T-test of control group that was taught by lecturing in the eighth grade students ofmadrasah Tsanawiyah AssalafiSusukan in the academic year of 2016/2017 was showed in the Chapter IV. The hypothesis was tested by using t-test formula by comparing the scores of pre-test and post-test. The result was 1,850 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) 26 was 2, 055. The significant difference of T-test and T-table was 0, 205. It meant that t-value was smaller than critical value (2, 055>1, 850). The result showed that there was not significant of T-test of students that was taught by lecturing in the eighth grade students ofmadrasah Tsanawiyah AssalafiSusukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. Therefore, it could be concluded that null hypothesis (Ho) was accepted and alternative hypothesis (Ha) was rejected. The Choral Drill Technique improved the students speaking skill in the eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah

AssalafiSusukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. The hypothesis was tested by using t-test formula by comparing the scores of pre-test and post-test. The result was 8,796 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) 25 was 2, 059. The significant difference of T-test and T-table was 6,737. It meant that t- value was higher than critical value (8,796 2,059). The result showed that it was very significant in T-test of students that was taught by Choral Drill Technique in the eighth grade students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah AssalafiSusukan in the academic year of 2016/2017. Therefore, it could be concluded that null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted. B. Suggestions Based on the findings, there are some suggestions which are addressed to the teachers, students, and other writers. 1. For the teachers a. The teachers are suggested to apply Choral Drill Technique in the learning process as one of ways to improve the students speaking skill in English. b. Teachers have to be more creative and innovative in using various kind of interesting teaching medium which accompanies the materials.

2. For students a. Students are suggested to apply Chorall Drill technique in speaking. b. Students are suggested to speak more by applying the medium so they will be more skillful in speaking. 3. For other researchers The writerconsiders that his research is not the only topic that is studied. The result of the study merely confirms the hypothesis, but it does not prove that something absolutely true at all the time. Thus, the research needs considerable improvement of thought for further research studies. The writer hopes that the findings of this study will be employed as starting point of the future research studies on similar topics. There are also still many other teaching method that could be studied for the improvement of speaking skill so that they can be applied in the class.

REFERENCES Allen, Harold B and Campbell, Rusell N. (1972). Teaching English as a Second Language. United Stated of America: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company Apriliani, Budiartiningsih. (2013). The Use of Role-Play to Improve Speaking Skill of Xf Class of SMK PGRI 2 Salatiga in the Academic Year 2012/2013. Graduating Paper. Arikunto, Suharsimi. (2002). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta : Rineka Cipta. Arikunto, Suharsimi. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta Ayoeellgin.(2009). Drilling Teaching. Retrieved Monday, January 25 th 2016, Time 14:26 pm at http://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology/ask-the experts/methodology-questions/methodology-teaching-large classes/154297.article. Bailey, Kathelen M. & Nunan, David. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching Speaking. New York: Mc Graw Hill. Brown, H, Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles, an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Brown, H, Douglas. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Longman. Clandfield, Lindsay.,& Tennant, Adrian. Methodology: teaching large classes. Retrieved at http://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology/ask-theexperts/methodology-questions/methodology-teaching-largeclasses/154297.article Monday, January 25 th 2016, Time 14:26 pm Dantes, Nyoman. (2012). Metode Penelitian. Yogyakarta: Andi. Fauziati, Endang. (2005). Teaching of English As a Foreign Language (TEFL). Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press. Gangel, Kenneth O. (2005). Teaching Through Role playing. Retrieved at https://bible.org/seriespage/3-teaching-through-role-playing Monday, January 25 th 2016, Time 14:26 pm. Harmer, Jeremy. (2001). How to Teach English. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited.

Haycraft, John. (1978). An Introduction to English Language Teaching. England: Longman Group Ltd. Hornby. (1984).Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary Kasiram, Muh. (2010). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif-Kuantitatif. Malang: UIN Maliki Press. Kusnierek, Anna. (2015). Developing students speaking skills through role play. World Scientific News 1 (2015) 73-111 Limbu, Prem. (2012). Role Play Strategy. Retrieved at http://eprogressiveportfolio.blogspot.co.id/2012/06/normal-0-false-falsefalse-en-us-x-none.html, Monday, January 25 th 2016, Time 14:26 pm. Sartika, Endang. (2014).The Effectiveness of Round Table Technique to Improve Students Speaking Skill in the First Grade Students of SMA N 3 Salatiga in the Academic Year of 2013/2014. Graduating Paper. Scrivener, Jim. (1994). Learning Teaching. Jordan Hill: Oxford Ltd. Sharon, Zenger K and Weldon. (1997). 57 Ways to Teach. Los Angeles: Crescent Publication. Syaodih, Nana. (2006). Metode Penelitian Tindakan. Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya. Tarigan, Henry Guntur. (1990). Berbicara Sebagai Suatu Ketrampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa. Wahyuningsih, Erna. (2012). The Application of Drill Method to Improve Students Pronunciation Skill in Reading Text (A Classroom Action Research in the First Year of SMA Muhammadiyah Gubug Purwodadi in Academic Year of 2011/2012). Graduating Paper.

APPENNDIXES

CURRICULUM VITAE Personal data : Name : Dimas Yudha Yuwanda NIM : 113 10 147 DoB : Kab. Semarang, March 17 th 1992 Telp : +6285 713 200 956 Education : 1999-2004 : Program Primary School (SD N) 2004-2007 : Program Islamic Junior High School (MTs N) Salatiga. 2007-2010 : Program Senior High School (SMK N) 1 Tengaran, Kab. Semarang. 2010-2017 : English Educational Faculty of State Institute for Islamic Studies (STAIN) Salatiga. Tengaran, September 8 th 2017 Dimas Yudha Yuwanda

Photos During The Research