CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the description of data analysis namely; the

finding and discussion of the research. These are to answer the research

questions, "to what extend can improvisation technique improve the students'

speaking skill?" and "what factors influence the improvement of students'

speaking skill by using improvisation technique." Both of these questions are

answered based on the data collected from the observation sheet, filed note,

speaking test as well as interview.

A. The Description of Data Analysis

This classroom action research was conducted to the students of

semester two at class B of English Education Department of UIN Suska Riau.

The number of the students was 32. The class chosen was due to the

speaking difficulties happening to the students. This research was done in three

cycles by teaching improvisation technique to improve the students' speaking

skill; each cycle had four meetings; each meeting with the allocation of time was

in 2 x 45 minutes. Each cycle of this research consisted of four phases; planning,

action, observation and reflection_

Before carrying out the research, the researcher a long with the

collaborator gave speaking test to the students to know the base score at

the starting point. The speaking test was assessed based on oral language

scoring rubric in terms of accent, grammar. vocabulary, fluency, and

comprehension.

Here is the result of students' test in each indicator displayed as in

the following table:

Table 5. The Analysis of the Base Score of the Students' Speaking Skill

No Indicator The Number of Students (32)

Rating quality/PercentageVery good % Good % Fair % Poor %

1 Accent 0 0 6 16.75 25 18 56.252 Grammar 0 0 3 9.38 11 34.38 18 56.253 Vocabulary 0 0 0 0 9 28.13 23 71.884 Fluency 0 0 5 15.63 12 37.5 15 46.885 Comprehensio

n

0 0 5 15.63 25 19 59.38 '

According to the table 5, it shows that the students' speaking ability

before conducting classroom action research was not good. First in term of

accent, there were no students categorized in the level of very good, 6

students or 16.75% of the students categorized in the level of good, 8

students or 25% of the students categorized in the level of fair and 18

students or 56.25% of the students categorized in the level of poor. It means

that the students had difficulty in speaking English in the term of accent, still

due to their mother tongue influence. Some of them spoke unclearly and

made a lot of repetition. This led to misinterpretation. The level of the

students' speaking skill in the term of accent can be illustrated in the following

figure:

Figure 3: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill Based on the Base Score in Term of Accent

Second, in term of grammar, there was no student obtaining the level of very good,

3 students or 9.38% of the students who was in the level of good, 11 students or

34.38% of students who were in the level of fair, and 18 students or 66.25%

who were in the level of poor. It means that the students made many

grammatical mistakes when speaking English such as incomplete sentence,

incorrect tenses, and incorrect preposition. It can be illustrated in the figure as

follow as:

Figure 4: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill Based on the Base Score in Term of Grammar

Very Good Good Fair Poor

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Very Good Good Fair Poor

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Third, in term of vocabulary, there were no students obtaining the level of

good and good, 9 students or 28.13% of the students who was in the level of fair

and 23 students or 71.88% of the students who were in the level of poor. It

me;~ns that the students' vocabulary when speaking English was poor, such as

lack of vocabulary and inappropriate choice of words. The figure can be

seen as follow:

Figure 5: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill Based on the Base Score in Term of Vocabulary

Fourth, in term of fluency, there were no students who were in the level of

very good, 5 students or 15.63% of students who were in the level of good,

12 students or 37.5% of the students who were in the level of fair, and 15

students or 46.88% of the students who were in the level of poor. It means that

the students' fluency when speaking English was poor. Their speeches were

short and they spent much time to think of what to say. The figure can be seen

as follow: students or 59.38% of the students who were in the level of poor. It

means that the students' comprehension about the topic being talked was poor.

The figure can be seen as follow:

Figure 6: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill Based on the Base Score in Term of Fluency

Finally, in term of comprehension, there are no students who were in the level

of very good, 5 students or 15.63 % of the students who were in the level of good, 8

students or 25% of the students who were in the level of fair, and 19 students or

59.38% of the students who were in the level of poor. It means that the

students' comprehension about the topic being talked was poor. The figure can

be seen as follow:

Figure 7: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill Based on the Base Score in Term of Comprehension

Then, the level of students speaking skill before conducting classroom

action research at every indicator can be presented as follows:

The Average ofSpeaking Indicators

Base Score Accent Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Comprehension52 51 .46 54 51

After analyzing the data from the test, the researcher concluded that the

level of the students' speaking skill was poor. The students really had difficulties

in speaking English. It can be seen in the table 2 that all indicators of speaking

were categorized into the level of poor. On the other hand, the teaching

technique of speaking used by the teacher should be changed in order to

improve the students' speaking skill in term of accent, grammar, vocabulary,

fluency and comprehension. Therefore, the researcher made plan to use

improvisation technique in teaching speaking done in activities in the first,

second, and third cycles.

This research actually consisted of three cycles. Each cycle comprised

four, meetings in which at the end of each cycle, the students were given the

speaking test to know their progress.

A.1 The First Cycle

At the first meeting of this cycle, the researcher taught speaking to

the students by using improvisations technique and the teaching and

learning activities were observed by the collaborator. The collaborator

observed the activities by doing observation checklist and taking field notes.

Every teaching activity was suited with the procedure of teaching improvisation

technique. The teacher started teaching the lesson by using management of

interaction procedure. In this term, there were some activities that happened as

in the following: The teacher explained about what improvisation was. The

teacher then wrote out a situation on the white board as an example of

improvisational situation. To make the students understand about the

explanation, the teacher called for two of the students to act out or dramatize

guided by him. The students then asked the teacher about what they did not

understand after watching the implementation of improvisational situation.

The teacher paired the students at random, and then called each pair to

dramatize in the front of the class after given a situation. The situation given by

the teacher was "at library. " In term of turn- taking, the students worked in pair

to act out the situation without preparation. They also created mimic or facial

expression as well as turn -taking based on the situation they had. The students

looked not ready to dramatize the students because it was still new for them.

They paid attention to their friends' performance as model they should do next.

The teacher, of course, guided them especially for mistakes of speaking

aspects found during their improvisational drama. In negotiation of meaning,

the teacher took a note about the students' activities in asking, giving

opinion, requesting, agreeing or disagreeing, and gesturing based on their

situation. At the end of this meeting, the teacher had completely asked all pairs

to dramatize the improvisational situations and found that the students were

problematic with their spontaneously improvisational drama marked with a lot

of mistakes of grammar and pronunciation.

At the second meeting, the teacher did the same things, taught the

students speaking by using improvisation technique. and the collaborator still

observed the activities. The teacher commented some weaknesses and

mistakes of speaking aspects done by the students in the students' first

drama and gave information to do the correct one to the next improvisational

drama performance. The situations given in this meeting was "in the classroom."

The students directly came to their own pairs. The teacher guided the

students to give correction on mistakes of aspects of speaking during

dramatizing the situations. The same problems as the first meeting were found,

grammatical mistake and accent.

At the third meeting, the teacher applied the same things as usual, and the

collaborator did his job, observed teaching and learning activities. The teacher

still informed about the weaknesses of the previous improvisational drama and

warned them to do it carefully. Some of the students complained their

difficulties of playing out the situations spontaneously. The teacher still guided

and gave correction of mistakes found during drama performance. In this term,

the students had looked more serious and careful to play out the situations.

The topic given to the students was " In the street. " Based on their drama

performance, grammar and pronunciation problems were still theirs.

At the fourth meeting, the activities were the same as previously done

by the teacher in the first, second, and third meeting. The collaborator kept

observing teaching and learning activities, too. The teacher had given little

praise for the good progress of improvisational drama performed before. The

teacher still informed the students to be more careful by considering aspects

of speaking in their performance. The students had looked more relaxed in

this situation. The situation dramatized in this meeting was "in the town". The

students came to their own pairs. The students looked more careful in

comprehending situations before acting out them in front of the class. The

teacher then called each pair to act out in front of the class. In this term, the

same problems were still experienced by the students.

At the end of this cycle, the teacher cooperated with the collaborator

to prepare a test to assess the students' speaking progress after applying

improvisation technique. In doing the test, the students were given a topic "at

the restaurant". In this test, the teacher asked the students to gather with their

previous partners and instructed them to go out of the class. The teacher then

called each pair to come into the classroom and be given an improvisational

situation to dramatize it in the front of class. While other pairs waited for their

turn outside. This activity was intended to avoid them to imitate the drama

performance played by their friends. The teacher recorded their voice in order to

assess their speaking skill in each of the speaking indicators. The students'

speaking skill was assessed by the teacher helped by the collaborator. Below is

a table of score obtained from the students' test after analyzing and calculating

the data.

Table 7. The Analysis of the Students' Speaking Skill in the First Cycle

No Indicator The Number of Students (32)Rating quality/Percentage

Very good % Good % Fair % Poor %Accent 0 0 7 21.88 8 25 17 53.13

2 Grammar 0 0 6 18.8 15 46.88 11 34.383 Vocabulary 4 12.5 12 37.5 13 40.63 3 9.384 Fluency 3 9.38 11 34.38 14 43.8 4 12.55 Comprehension 0 0 7 21.88 16 50 9 28.13

The table 7 shows that the students' speaking ability in the term of accent

was poor. There were no students who were in the level of very good, 7

students or 21.88% of the students were in the level of good, 8 students or

25% of the students who were in the level of fair and 17 students or 53.13%

of the students who were in the level of poor. It means that the students had

difficulty in the term of accent because their language was influenced by their

mother tongue that can lead to mispronunciation. The level of the students'

speaking skill in the term of accent can be illustrated in the following figure:

Figure 8: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of Accent In the First Cycle

In term of grammar, the table 7 above shows that there was no student

obtaining the level of very good, 6 students or 18.8% of the students who were

in Me level of good, 15 students or 46.88% of students who were in the level of

fair, and 11 students or 34.38% who were in the level of poor. It means

that the students made many grammatical mistakes when speaking English. It

can be illustrated in the figure as follow as:

Figure 9: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of Grammar In the First Cycle

In term of vocabulary, it shows that there were 4 students or 12.5 % of the

nts obtaining the level of very good, 12 students or 37.5% of the students

who were in the level of good, 13 students or 40.63% of the students who were

in the level of fair, and 3 students or 9.3 8% of the students who was in the

level of. It means that the students' vocabulary when speaking English was poor.

The figure can be seen as follows:

Figure 10: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of Vocabulary In the First Cycle

In term of fluency, it shows that there were 3 students or 9.38 of

Very Good Good Fair Poor

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

the students who was in the level of very good, 1 1 students or 34.38% of the

students who were in the level of good, 14 students or 43.8% of the students

who were in the level of fair, and 4 students or 12.5% of the students who

were in the level of poor. It means that the students' fluency when speaking

English was poor. The figure can be seen as follow:

Figure 11: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of Fluency In the First Cycle

In term of comprehension, it shows that there was no student or who was

in the level of very good and 7 students or 21.88% of students who were in

the level of good, 16 students or 50% of the students who were in the level

of fair, and nine students or 28.13% of the students who were in the level

of poor. It means that the students' comprehension about the topic being talked

was poor. The figure can be seen as follow:

Figure 12: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of Comprehension in the First Cycle

Table 8. The Average of the Score of the Students' Speaking SkillIn the First Cycle

The figure of the score of the students' speaking skill can been seen as

Figure 13: The Average Score of the Students' Speaking SkillIn the First Cycle

improvement was made by them. However, it was not satisfied enough yet,

especially for terms of accent and grammar.

Based on the observation done by the collaborator and the analysis of

the data in first cycle, some plans should be made as reflection of the

activities. Though, some progress was made by the students after applying

improvisational drama technique. There were some problems identified in

applying improvisational drama technique during the first cycle, needed some

changes or improvement. The problems were as follows:

1. The teacher only gave an example by calling two students to do

improvisational drama in front of class.

2. Only few persons questioned the teacher when they did not understand

about the implementation of improvisational drama situation.

3. The students looked unserious to pay attention to their friends applying the

situation of improvisational drama

4. When the students played out the situational drama, they were not careful

with their grammar and pronunciation.

Pertaining to the problems in the reflection above, the researcher

cooperated with the collaborator to make some plans for better teaching

improvement, which focused on the following things:

a. Giving an example

Collaborator advised the teacher to give more examples, so that the

students really understood about the technique. Moreover, the technique was

still new for them.

b. Stimulating students to question about what they did not understand

about the implementation of improvisational drama.

In order to make the students ready in playing the dramatic situations,

the collaborator suggested the researcher to stimulate the students to

question. The collaborator a long with the researcher needed to motivate the

students together.

c. Giving models of correct pronunciation

To give models of correct pronunciation, the teacher repeated the words

or phrases with correct pronunciation when the students pronounced incorrect

words or phrases. It was done in order to avoid negative effect.

d. Reminding the students of grammatical points

Before doing improvisational drama performance, the teacher gave

the students brief explanation about the importance of grammatical aspects, so

that the students could control their speech for better conversational drama.

A.2 The Second Cycle.

At the first meeting of this cycle, the activities were still the same as the

previous cycle. Teacher still followed the procedures of improvisation

technique, but he focused more based on the reflection of result obtained in

previous cycle. The focuses were on the weaknesses of the students' accent

and grammar. The teacher gave comment about bad and good act of previous

drama and informed about what to do for next improvisational drama. The

students came to their own pairs. Then the teacher called for each pair and

gave a situation to them. The students had already known what they should do

and they discussed the situation for a moment and then they spontaneously

act out the situation without preparation. The title of the improvisational

drama was "in parking hall". In doing this drama, they students had looked

more careful to avoid mistakes done in previous meeting. The teacher took

a note the students' drama performance of turn- taking and negotiation of

meaning as long as they acted out the drama and gave correction on mistakes

after the drama was over. In this meeting, the students still had the same

weaknesses on grammatical errors and mispronunciation.

At the second meeting, the teacher still applied improvisation technique in

teaching the students' speaking without missing any procedures. Accent and

grammar aspects of the students' weaknesses still became emphasis in this

cycle as previously mentioned in the reflection. The topic discussed in this

meeting was "at canteen". In this meeting, the teacher was not so active. He

just gave situation to each pair and asked them to dramatize it. The teacher

reminded the students to be careful to dramatize the situation given. The

students confidently acted out the situation but they did not look careful to their

grammar and pronounce words. Most of the students were more motivated in

doing this drama. The teacher took a note the students' performance based on

the procedures of improvisation technique. The teacher still gave correction

on errors made by the students when they finished their drama. However, they

were still problematic with grammar and accent.

At the third meeting, the teacher did the same procedures like the previous

meetings. The topic was "in the front of house". The researcher still focused on

accent and grammar. Most of the students were active in acting out the

situational drama. Some of the students showed their understanding in turn-

taking, facial expression, and gesture in acting out their drama. The teacher

let the students free to make creation to support their drama performance.

The teacher still gave correction of mispronunciation and grammatical error after

they finished their drama performance. The teacher still took a note of the

student's drama performance. Finally, grammar and accent problems still

belonged to them.

At the fourth meeting, the teacher gave the topic "at the theater". The

procedures of teaching were the same as previous meeting. The teacher asked the

students do like usual after giving the situation to each pair. The teacher still

reminded the students to be more careful to perform their drama. Since the

focuses of this cycle were accent and grammar, the teacher still repeated the

words with correct pronunciation after they finished their drama. The same case

still happened, grammar and accent mistake.

At the end of this cycle, the teacher cooperated with the collaborator to

improvisation technique. In doing the test, the students were given a topic "at the

supermarket". In this test, the teacher still asked the students to gather with their

previous partners and instructed them to go out of the class. The teacher then called

each pair to come into the classroom and be given an improvisational situation

to dramatize it in the front of class. While other pairs waited for their turn outside.

This activity was intended to avoid them to imitate the drama performance played by

their friends. The teacher recorded the students' voices during their improvisational

drama performance in order to assess their speaking skill in each of the speaking

indicators. The students' speaking skill was assessed by the teacher helped by the

collaborator. Below is a table of score obtained from the students' test after

analyzing and calculating the data.

Table 9. The Analysis of the Students' Speaking Skill in the Second Cycle

Indicator The Number of Students (32)

Rating quality/PercentageVery good /° Good % Fair % Poor %

1 Accent 0 8 25 10 31. 25 14 43.82 Grammar 0 0 6 18.8 17 53.13 9 28.133 Vocabulary 6 18.8 14 43.8 2 37.5 0 04 Fluency 6 18.8 145 Comprehensio

n

0 7 21.88 25 78.13 0

According to the table 9, it shows that the students' speaking ability in

the term of accent was poor. There were not students getting very good, 8

students or 25% of the students were good, 10 students or 31.25% of the

students who were fair and 14 students or 43.8% of the students who were

poor. It means that the students had difficulty in the term of accent because

their language was influenced by their mother tongue that caused

mispronunciation. The level of the students' speaking skill in the term of accent

can be illustrated in the following figure:

Figure 14: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of Accent In the Second Cycle

In term of ig;3rnrr;ar_ the e 9 above shows that there were no saidenis

cl^:ainina tizr% good score, 6 students or 18.8% of the students who were good. 1'

students or 53.13% of students who were fair, and 9 students or 28.13% ti~-

ho v~ erz poor. It means that the students made many grammatical mistakes

when speaking English. It can be illustrated in the figure as in the following:

Figure 15: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of Grammar

In the Second Cycle

In the term of vocabulary, it shows that there were 6 students or 18.8%

of the students obtaining very good score, 14 students or 43.8% of the students

who were good, 12 students or 37.5% of the students who were fair, and no

student who was poor. It means that the students' vocabulary when speaking

English was poor. The figure can be seen as follow:

Figure 16: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of

Vocabulary

In the Second Cycle

In the term of fluency, it shows that there were 6 students or 18.8% of

the students who were very good, 14 students or 43.8% of the students who

were good, 12 students or 37.5% of the students who were fair, and no

students who were poor. It means that the students' fluency when speaking

English was poor. The figure can be seen as in the following:

Figure 17: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of Fluency

In the Second Cycle

In the term of comprehension, it shows that there were no students or who

were very good and 7 students or 21.88% of students who were good, 25

students or 78.13% of the students who were fair. There were no students who

were poor. It means that the students' comprehension about the topic being

dramatized was poor. The figure can be seen as follow:

After having obtained the data from the analysis of the test at the end of

the second cycle, it can be concluded that the average of students' speaking skill

was better than the previous cycle. It was still categorized in the level of fair.

Though some improvement was made by the students, it was not satisfactory yet.

It can be seen that there was little improvement made especially in terms of

accent and grammar.

With reference to the observation done by the collaborator and the'analysis

of the data in the second cycle, some plans could be made as reflection of the

activities in order to make some changes or improvement of the students'

speaking skill. The problems in applying improvisation technique during the second

cycle could be identified as in the following:

1. The students were not careful with their pronunciation when they

spokeEnglish.

2. The students did not attentively use the grammar in speaking, caused

grammatical mistake.

Based on the problems, the researcher and the collaborator agreed to plan

for better teaching improvement, which focused on the following things: c. Giving

models of correct pronunciation

The teacher still pronounced the correct words or phrases of incorrect

pronunciation made by the students when they finished their drama performance. d.

Giving information and remaining the importance of grammatical points

Before doing improvisational drama, the teacher still gave the students brief

information and remained the importance of grammatical aspects, so that the

students could control their speaking when they acted out their dramatic situation.

A.3 The Third Cycle

At the first meeting, the teacher did the same things and the collaborator did the

observation like usual. The topic was "at office". The students were motivated

to play out the drama. The teacher let the students create more to find their

confident and spontaneity. The students had looked careful to pronounce words and

used grammar. The teacher was not more involved in the students' drama

activity. The teacher took a note what happened to the students `drama performance.

The result of improvisational drama performed by the students showed that they

were still problematic with their grammar and accent.

At the second meeting, the teacher kept using improvisation technique and

the collaborator still observed teaching activities. The teacher gave a situation "at

downtown". The teacher still remained the students to be careful in acting out the

dramatic situation. The students had looked careful to pronounce words and used

grammar. The teacher was not more involved in the students' drama activity. The

teacher took a note what happened to the students `drama performance. The result

of improvisational drama performed by the students showed that they were still

problematic with their grammar and accent.

At the third meeting, the same things as previous meetings were done by the

teacher and the collaborator. The topic of dramatic situation was "at electronic

store". The domination of the teacher in meeting was little bit. The teacher still

corrected the wrong pronunciation after the students finished their drama

performance. The teacher still took a note the students' drama performance.

Unfortunately, the same case was still found.

At the fourth meeting, the teacher and the collaborator still kept doing the same

things as before. The teacher gave a situation "at home". The teacher still

remained the students to be careful in acting out the dramatic situation. The students

had looked careful to pronounce words and used grammar. The teacher was not

more involved in the students' drama activity. The teacher took a note what

happened to the students `drama performance. The result of improvisational

drama performed by the students showed that they were still problematic

with their grammar and accent.

At the end of this cycle, the teacher cooperated with the collaborator

to prepare a test in the third cycle to assess the students' speaking progress

after applying improvisation technique. In doing the test, the students were

given a topic "at the clothing store". In this test, the teacher still asked the

students to gather with their previous partners and instructed them to go out of

the class. The teacher then called each pair to come into the classroom and

be given an improvisational situation to dramatize it in the front of class.

While other pairs waited for their turn outside. This activity was intended to

avoid them to imitate the drama performance played by their friends. The

teacher recorded their voice in order to assess their speaking skill in each of

the speaking indicators. The students' speaking skill was assessed by the

teacher helped by the collaborator. Below is a table of score obtained from

the students' test after analyzing and calculating the data.

Table 11. The Analysis of the Students' Speaking Skill in the Third Cycle

No Indicator The Number of Students (32)

Rating quality/PercentageVery good % Good % Fair % Poor %

1 Accent 0 0 10 31.25 15 48.88 7i 21.882 Grammar 6 18.8 9 28.13 16 50 1 31.133 Vocabulary 9 28.13 13 40 63 10 31.25 0 04 Fluency 11 34.38 12 37 5 9 28.13 0 0

Comprehension 7 21.88 13 40.63 12 37.5 0 0

According to the table 11, it shows that the students' speaking ability in the term

of accent was poor. There were no students who were very good, 10

students or 31. 25% of the students were good, I S students or 48.88% of

the students who were fair and 7 students or 21.88% of the students who were

poor. It means that the students had difficulty in the term of accent because

their language was influenced by their mother tongue. The level of the

students' speaking skill in the term of accent can be illustrated in the following

figure:

Figure 20: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of Accent

In the Third Cycle

In the term of grammar, the table 11 above shows that there were

6 students or 18.8% obtaining very good score, 9 students or 28.13% of the

students who were good, 16 students or 50% of students who were fair, and 1

students or 31.13% who were poor. It means that the students made many

grammatical mistakes when speaking English. It can be illustrated in the figure

as follow as:

Figure 21: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of

Grammar

in the Third Cycle

In the term of vocabulary, it shows that there were 9 students or 28.13%

of the students obtaining very good score, 13 students or 40.63% of the students

who were good, 10 students or 31.25% of the students who were fair, and no

student who was poor. It means that the students' vocabulary when speaking

English was poor. The figure can be seen as follow:

Figure 22: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of

Vocabulary

in the Third Cycle

In the term of fluency, it shows that there were I 1 students or 34.38%

of the students who were very good, 12 students or 37.5% of the students

who were good, 9 students or 28.13% of the students who were fair, and no

students who were poor. It means that the students' fluency when speaking

English was poor. The figure can be seen as follow:

Figure 23: The Rating of the Students' Speaking. Skill in Term of Fluency

in

The Third Cycle

In the term of comprehension, it shows that there were 7 students

or 21.88% of the students who were very good and 13 students or

40.63% of students who were good, 12 students or 37.5% of the students

who were fair and no students who were poor. It means that the students'

comprehension about the topic being talked was poor. The figure can be seen

as follow:

Figure 24: The Rating of the Students' Speaking Skill in Term of

Comprehension in the Third Cycle

Table 12. The Average of the Score of the Students' Speaking Skill

In the Third Cycle

The Average of Speaking Indicators

Students' Score Accent Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Comprehension62 72 79 81 77

Figure 25: The Average Score of the Students' Speaking Skill In the Third

Cycle

After completing the third cycle, the researcher carried out an interview,

which the interviewees were the students selected at random by using numbered

card. There were 10 students selected and given the interview. They were asked

to tell about their problem using improvisation technique taught to them irn their

class.

The first interviewee told that improvisation technique was good

technique that motivated her to speak more and more. Besides leading to a

good comprehension and fluency, improvisation technique could increase her

vocabulary, grammar and comprehension through the situation given. Before she

studied improvisation technique, she had problems with her self- confidence,

grammar and comprehension.

The second interviewee explained that improvisation technique was good

technique, useful to make students enjoy their speaking. She told that she

improved her vocabulary and her comprehension when acting out situation of

improvisational drama. The problems of hers before studying improvisation

technique, she had problems with grammar and comprehension.

The third interviewee clarified that improvisation technique was good

technique in teaching speaking enabling him to improve vocabulary,

pronunciation and comprehension in analyzing the situation. Before he studied

about this technique, he had problem with his grammar, and confidence. He felt

the advantages of improvisation technique to their speaking skill having

emerged his self- confidence and the improvement of his grammar.

The fourth interviewee described that improvisation technique was good

speaking technique for the students to speak spontaneously and naturally. It

could also increase students' comprehension in getting ideas to find good

sentences into a dialogue in acting out the situation given to them. Her

problems before studying improvisation technique were grammar and

vocabulary. She felt some improvement of speaking skill after studying

improvisation technique such as vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation.

The fifth interviewee gave explanation that improvisation technique was

a good technique, made the students like it very much. It not only improved the

students' speaking skill through drama performance but also made the students

enjoy their studying. She clarified that she got the improvement of her speaking

aspects such as pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, and

fluency. Before knowing this technique, she said that she had problem with

grammar, pronunciation, and comprehension. She also promised to use this

technique after being an English teacher.

The sixth interviewee stated that improvisation technique is a kind of drama

that forced him to speak spontaneously without preparation, indicated that he

comprehended the situation into a good with his speaking partner. He could

improve his grammar after studying this drama technique. Before studying

this improvisation technique, he had problems with his grammar,

pronunciation, vocabulary.

The seventh interviewee explained that improvisation technique was a

drama technique that could inspire her to get good comprehension and fluency.

She clarified that she was able to speak spontaneously without preparation

in acting out the situation given. She told that she felt some improvement

of all speaking aspects consisting of grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary,

fluency, and comprehension. Her speaking problems experienced by her

before studying improvisation were grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary.

The eighth interviewee gave clarification that improvisation technique

was good to help students get many ideas in playing out the drama through the

situation given. She informed that the students could increase their

comprehension through this drama because they particularly tried to find

good dialogue spontaneously. She said that through this improvisation she

could improve all speaking aspect such as grammar, Vocabulary,

pronunciation, fluency, and comprehension. Before studying this technique,

she had problem with grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation.

The ninth interviewee described that improvisation technique

helped her to improve her grammar. She told that teacher was really helpful in

guiding her to correct her mistake not only for grammar but also for other

speaking aspect mistakes. She felt helped through this improvisation technique,

especially for her grammar problems of hers before studying improvisation were

grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation.

The tenth interviewee told that improvisation was a good technique that

can improve the student's fluency in speaking English. She also said that

improvisation was able to make the students speak spontaneously and naturally.

She experienced the improvement of her grammar after studying improvisation

technique. She had problems with grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary

before studying improvisation technique.

B. Discussion

As clarified previously, this research was carried out in three cycles, each

cycle had four meetings. It was conducted at the students of semester two at

class B of English Education Department of UIN Suska Riau. The class was

chosen due to the speaking problems happening to the students. In order to

overcome the speaking problems, the researcher as a teacher applied

improvisation technique to improve the students' speaking skill. The purposes

of this research were to identify whether Improvisation Technique can better

improve the students' speaking skill and to find out the factors influence the

improvement of students' speaking skill.

Data analysis done during three cycles, the researcher found that

applying Improvisation technique could improve the students' speaking skill. It

was supported by the results of the students at the end of each cycle, the

observation checklist, the field notes and the interview.

1. The Improvement of Students' Speaking Skill

From the speaking skill tests given before conducting the classroom

action research and at the end of the first, second, and third cycle, the use of

improvisation technique was able to improve the students' speaking skill. It

was found that the results of students' speaking skill increased in each

cycle. The comparison of the students' speaking results in all the tests can be

described as in the following:

Table 13. The Comparison of the Students' Speaking Results in All Tests

Test The Average Scores of Speaking Skill

Accent Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Comprehensio

n

Average

Pretest 52 51 46 54 51 50

Cycle 1 54 57 71 68 59 61

Cycle 11 62 58 76 76 64 67

Cycle 111 62 72 79 81 77 74

Furthermore, the improvement of students' speaking skill can also be

seen from the figure below:

were still categorized in the rating of fair. In other words, the students' speaking

skill at the end of the fourth cycle improved, it could reach the category of

good.

In conclusion, the students’ speaking skill having conducted the

classroom action research by improvisation technique achieved better

improvement. In other words, the indicators of vocabulary, fluency,

comprehension, accent and grammar achieved much better improvement

compared with the students speaking skill before carrying out the research.

2. The factors Influence the improvement of speaking skill

The activities of teaching speaking through improvisation technique have

made a lot of changes toward the improvement of Students' speaking skill.

Referring to the observation checklists, field notes and interview from the first

cycle up to the third cycle, it can be clarified that the students Could improve

their pronunciation in speaking English gradually. In term management of

interaction. the students got good models of speaking accent from the teacher.

When they were wrong to pronounce the words, the teacher corrected the words with

good pronunciation done after they finished their improvisational drama

activities. They could listen and repeat the words with the correct ones. It gradually

improved their speaking accent.

Then, the improvement of grammar in speaking was improved gradually.

It was because of reminding the students grammatical points and telling them the

importance of grammar aspect before doing their drama performance. The students

actually have been studying about grammar since they were still in elementary level,

but when they used it in spoken English, they were not so careful and caused the

mistake of their grammar.

The students could also increase much vocabulary and developed a lot of

ideas through the activities of turn- taking. They paid attention to their friends'

performance and got some new vocabulary spoken out by their Friends during

drama of improvisation in progress. Improvisation technique really led them to

enrich their vocabulary and ideas. It was found that the vocabulary made a lot of

improvement because the students could relate the situational drama to as

many words or phrases in order to activate their prior knowledge. As a result, it

enabled the students to speak much.

Improvisation technique could also be very helpful to improve

the students' fluency looked in turn- taking activity that they got many ideas on the

situations given and spontaneously and naturally spoken out in their improvisation

drama. The students knew what they wanted to do or say and they did not spend much

time to express their ideas because the students had speaking partners practicing

drama in accordance with their situations.

The improvement of comprehension was also experienced b\ the students,

particularly in term negotiation of meaning. The students Could activate their

prior knowledge, showed their mimic. gesture when then acted out

improvisational drama situations.

Finally, improvisation technique could not only improve the students'

speaking skill in terms of accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and

comprehension but also the students' confidence and participation.

C. The Limitation of the research

The classroom action research was carried out at the students of

semester two at class B of English Education Department of UIN Suska Riau. It

aimed at improving the students speaking skill. Based on the research finding,

some improvement of speaking skill was made by the students. However, there

were some (imitations and weaknesses found as in the following:

a. The findings cannot be generalized to other classes.

b. The researcher could not control all mispronunciation spoken by the

students, frequently accompanied with the students' actions when the drama

was still in progress.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SLIGGESTIONS

A. Conclusions

Having completed the analysis of the data based on the findings of this

classroom action research is concluded as follows:

1. Improvised drama technique improves the students' speaking skill.

2. The factors influence the improvement of the students' speaking skill as in

the following:

A. Management of Interaction (teacher model)

a. The students are encouraged to develop many ideas when they act out

the improvisational drama situations.

b. The students feel unworried about making mistakes in grammar when

playing out the improvisational drama situations.

c. The students have good confidence in communicating their ideas in

improvisational drama.

d. The speaking class becomes active and enjoyable.

B. Turn- taking

a. The students are able to broaden their vocabulary as much as possible b.

b. The students are able to speak spontaneously and naturally.

c. The students can control themselves in speaking when acting out the

dramatic situations of improvisation

C. Negotiation of Meaning

a. The students can activate their prior knowledge, mimic, gesture when

acting out the improvisational drama situations.

b. The students have good comprehension and fluency in speaking

English.

B. Implications

Improvised drama technique improve the students' speaking skill and

influences some factors of the students' speaking skill in terms of

accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension, and confidence

as well. It can be implied that improvised drama technique is very useful in

teaching speaking.

C. Suggestions

Referring to the conclusions and implications of this research. some

suggestions can be given as follows:

1. The researcher as an English lecturer should continue using improvised

drama technique in teaching speaking class.

2. The other researchers conducting a research related improvised drama

technique can use this research finding as relevant research.

3. The English teachers having the same situation and condition can use

improvised drama technique in teaching speaking.