Improving the Students’ Speaking Ability through Information Gap Technique (A Classroom Action Research at the Second Grade Students of SMP Negeri 35 Makassar)

ABSTRACT

RESKY EKAWATY BAHAR, 2011. Improving the Students’ Speaking Ability through Information Gap Technique (A Classroom Action Research at the Second Grade Students of SMP Negeri 35 Makassar). Guided by Kaimuddin and Nur Qalbi.

The study aims to find out the Improvement of the Students’ Speaking through Information Gap Technique at SMP Negeri 35 Makassar. The problem statements of the study are 1). How is the improvement of the students’ pronunciation through information gap technique. 2). How is the improvement of the students’ vocabulary through information gap technique.

The writer used A Class Action Research (CAR). The researcher had conducted two cycles, where each cycle consists of four meetings. It employed speaking test as instrument. The subject of this research was 34 students in class VIII.1. The researcher took real data from the school to know the students’ speaking ability. 

 The results of the student's speaking ability test in cycle 1 and cycle 2 had significantly different.  There was a better increase gained by students at the end of action in second cycle. The researcher found that the use of information gap technique could improve the students’ speaking ability and after evaluation in cycles I and II, the means scores increased from 6.54 in the first cycle to 7.19 in the second one which was categorized fairly good. It can be stated that there is significant improvement of the students’ speaking ability at the second grade students in class VIII.1 of SMP Negeri 35 Makassar by implemented of information gap technique. From the test, we can see that the students’ score after get the information gap technique is higher than before. It means that the information gap technique can improve the students’ speaking ability.

iii 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Almost all countries have used English as a compulsory subject at schools. The national education has decided that English as an international language taught in Indonesian schools. It is learned, started from primary schools up to university. People realize that teaching English at these levels are very essential and need much concern. So, English teacher has to always keep on figuring out effective techniques, method, and approaches in teaching English.

There are four skills in learning English they are listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Speaking is an important aspect in language learning. By speaking, we can convey information and ideas, and maintain social relationship by communicating with others. In addition, a large percentage of the world’s language learners study English in order to be able to communicate fluently. It is strengthened by British Council’s report (1998) which states that more than two billion people use English to communicate. Some people often think that the ability to speak a language is the product of language learning. They assumed that speaking is a crucial part of language learning process. Many language learners regard speaking ability as the measure of knowing a language. That is why the main purpose of language learning is to develop proficiency in speaking and communicative efficiency.

They regard speaking as the most important skill they can acquire and asses their progress in terms of their accomplishments in spoken communication. On the contrary, for most people, speaking is the most difficult part when they learn a foreign language. There are many obstacles in mastering English. For people who wants to be competent in communicating with English, they must change and expand identity as she or he learns the culture, social, and even political factors of English, that needed to speak appropriately with a new

‘voice’, it is as Englishman (Hughes, 2002 in Fitriana 2004:1).

According to Stevick (in Fauziati, 2002: 126) speaking refers to the gap between linguistic expertise and teaching methodology. Linguistic expertise concerns with language structure and language content. Teaching speaking is not like listening, reading, and writing. It needs habit formation because it is a real communication. Speaking needs practicing as often as possible. It is not writing or reading but it must be practiced directly in full expression.

The Information Gap is a kind of structured output activities. These are like completing a task by obtaining missing information, conveying telephone message, and expressing an opinion. It sets up practicing on specific items of language. It is more like drills than real communication. Structured output activities lead the students to practice specific features of language and brief sentence, not in extended discourse. It can form an effective bridge between instructor modeling and communicative output because they are partly authentic and partly artificial. By Information Gap, the teacher is able to improve the student’s speaking ability because it is an interesting technique to apply in classroom. The students become comfortable to speak everything. The teacher only gives simple explanation about the activity and reviews the vocabulary needed for the activity. The students get opportunity to develop their communicate competence more freely.

There are many problems in teaching speaking. First, the students always do the mistake in grammar and pronunciation aspect. Basically, they only speak English. They do not pay attention to the sentence structure and correct pronunciation. Second, the students are afraid of making mistake in speaking English. It indicates that the students have limited vocabulary. Third, the teacher only gives materials, like completing, reading dialogue and written from handbook. And the last, the teacher dominantly teaches the students using Indonesian so it can not increase the students’ speaking ability.

Based on the problems above, the writer uses an alternative study Information Gap Technique to overcome the problems. The writer is interested to apply this technique so that the writer will conduct the research entitled

“Improving Students’ Speaking Ability through Information Gap to the

Second Year Students in Smp Negeri 35 Makassar”.

B.     Problem statement

By looking over the background earlier, the writer formulates the research problems as follows:

1.      How is the improvement of the students’ pronunciation through

Information Gap Technique?

2.      How is the improvement of the students’ vocabulary through Information

Gap Technique?

C.    Objective of the study

The objectives of the study are to:

1.      Find out how the improvement of the speaking pronunciation through information gap technique.

2.      Find out how the improvement of the students’ vocabulary through information gap technique.

D.    Significance of the study

The writer expects that other researchers and readers can take the benefits of implementation of Information Gap Technique.

1.      Theoretical Benefits

This study contributes to the science of linguistic especially language teaching. Also it gives contribution in teaching English especially teaching speaking.

2.      Practical Benefits

There are same practical benefits:

a.    The result will help the students in learning speaking using Information Gap Technique.

b.   The finding of this research can be used as reference for readers who conduct a research in teaching English.

c.    The result can be a tool of reflection for the teacher.

E.     Scope of the study

The writer limits the scope of this study to the use of information gap technique to improve students’ speaking ability. It focused on students’ speaking pronunciation that covers (vowel, consonant) and vocabulary that covers (noun, verb) at the second grade students in SMP Negeri 35 Makassar. These items are chosen because those are very important to be identified by the researcher to improve the role of information gap technique in motivating and overcoming the students’ problems in learning speaking in English language.

 

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

A.    Research Design

Before doing the cycle, the researcher gave the diagnostic test to know the students’ speaking at the second grade students in SMP Negeri 35 Makassar.

This research followed the work principals of classroom action research (CAR) that contains of four stages; they were: Planning, Implementation of Action, Observation, and Reflection. This research was held around two cycles. They were first and second cycle and each cycle was the series of activities which had closed relationship. Where, the realization of the second cycle was continued and repaired from the first cycle.

B.     Research Subject

The  Subject  of  this  action  research  was  the  second  grade  students  of  class  VIII.1  at  SMP  Negeri  35  Makassar  in  2010/2011 Academic  year.  The  number  of  population  consists  of  34  students  that were  26  women  and  8  men.

C.    Research Variables and Indicators        

1.      Variables

Remembering  that  variable  is  one of the very important elements 

of    research,    the    research    used   two   kinds of   variable.  Those   are   dependent   variable   and    independent   variable.

a.       The    dependent    variables    are    the    students’    improvement           in    speaking    ability    in    terms     of     pronunciation    (vowel   and    consonant)   and   vocabulary   (noun   and   verb).

b.      The independent variable is information gap technique as a method to teach speaking at the second grade students of SMP Negeri 35 Makassar.

2.      Indicators

The indicators of this research are:

a.       The indicators of the students’ pronunciation were vowel and

consonant.

b.      The indicators of the students’ vocabulary were noun and verb.

D.    Research Procedures

Thus  technique  used  in  this  research  was  a  classroom  action research  method  (CAR)  it  had  stages  those  are:  Planning,  Action,

Observation,  Evaluation  or  Reflection.

This   research   was   held   around   two   cycles.   They   are   first          and  second  cycle  and  each  cycle  is  the  series  of  activity                   which   has  close   relationship.  Where,   the   realization   of   the   second   cycle   is   continuing   and   repairing   from   the   first   cycle.

 

Planning

Reflection

Reflection

Action

Cycle I

The scheme of Classroom Action Research

1. Cycle 1

a. Planning

1)      Prepared material about speaking that was given to the students.

2)      Made lesson planning based on the curriculum, and arrange material of lesson planning and it should based on the Information Gap Technique in learning speaking.

3)      Made the observation paper for observe the condition of learning process.

4)      Arrange the test to know the increasing of the result study after they studied through guessing games technique.

b.      Action

1)      Teacher discussed about giving information.

2)      The students tried to speak with their chair mate.

3)      Teacher explained about giving information with information gap technique.

4)      Students formed some group.

5)      Teacher gave a picture to the each group.

6)      Teacher choosed a member of each group to be a conveyor of information.

7)      Conveyors of information had to find information about the picture from the other group. Researcher only gave some minutes to each person.

8)      Each conveyor of information back to their group to convey the information they get. They discussed the information and write the answer on the sheet answer.

9)      These activities repeated until all of member in each group ever become a conveyor of information.

10)  The teacher asked opinion from every group about the activity that had done, discuss and conclude it.

11)  The teacher said greeting before class finish.

c.       Observation

Basically, in the observation phase the research observing by using observation sheet that had made. Things observation as follow:

1)      Students’ present.

2)      Students’ active in learning process.

3)      The students’ respond of the material.

Beside that the researcher make an important note about the students’ activity in every meeting, and doing evaluation in the last meeting to measure the improvement of the students’ ability.

d.      Reflection

Reflection aim to see the result of the first cycle action process, to analyzed and concluded the activity in the first cycle. After collecting the data, the researcher evaluated the teaching-learning process. Then, the researcher reflected herself by seeing the result of the observation, whether the teaching learning process of speaking using simulation technique was good to implied in teaching learning process or not. If the first plan was unsuccessful, the researcher should made the next plan (re planning) to got a good result.

2. Cycle 2

It was like cycle I, cycle II also consisted of planning, action, observation and reflection as follows:

a. Planning

1)      Continued the activities that have been done in first cycle.

2)      Repair the weakness in the first cycle.

3)      Made planning again in the scenario earning process from the

result of cycle I reflection.

4)      Action research repair.

b.      Action

In this stage, action is done to increase the result based on the cycle reflection I. the stages done are the same with the previous cycle that was to said, to done increasing vocabulary of the applied teaching method. As a guessing games method:

1)      Teacher discussed about giving information.

2)      The students tried to speak with their chair mate.

3)      Teacher explained about giving information with information gap technique.

4)      Students formed some group.

5)      Teacher gave a picture to the each group.

6)      Teacher choosed a member of each group to be a conveyor of information.

7)      Conveyors of information had to find information about the picture from the other group. Researcher only gave some minutes to each person.

8)      Each conveyor of information back to their group to convey the information they get. They discussed the information and write the answer on the sheet answer.

9)      These activities repeated until all of member in each group ever become a conveyor of information.

10)  The teacher asked opinion from every group about the activity that 

had done, discuss and conclude it.  

11)  The teacher said greeting before class finish.

c.       Observation

In this phase, the researcher did:

1)      Taking observation toward the application of simulation technique.

2)      Observing the students’ improvement in speaking ability, especially the students’ pronunciation and vocabulary.

3)      Doing evaluation to know the students’ improvement after using

information gap technique.

d.      Reflection

After collecting the data, the researcher evaluated the teachinglearning process. Then, did reflection by seeing the result of the observation, whether the teaching learning process of speaking using information gap technique reached success criteria based on the test result of second action. From the result of the research, the researcher could draw conclusion that information gap technique could improve the students’ speaking ability.

E.     Research Instrument

The researcher chooses two instruments to obtain the data, they were:

1.      Observation Sheet

Observation sheet aim to found out the students’ data about their presence and activeness in learning process.

2.      Speaking Test

Test aims to get information about students’ speaking improvement

after teaching and learning process by using information gap technique.

F.     Data Collection

The technique of data collection did in this research as follows:

1.      Observing; it aims to found out the students’ participation during the

teaching and learning process.

2.      Test; it aims to know the improvement of the students’ ability in speaking especially for pronunciation and vocabulary in learning English.

The Assessment of Speaking Pronunciation:

a)      Vowel

Classification	Score	Criteria
Excellent	9.6 – 10	They speak effectively and excellent in using vowel
Very good	8.6 – 9.5	They speak effectively and very good in using vowel
Good	7.6 – 8.5	They speak effectively and good in using vowel
Fairly good	6.6 – 7.5	They speak sometimes hasty but fairly good in using vowel
Fair	5.6 – 6.5	They speak sometimes hasty, fair in using vowel
Poor	3.6 – 5.5	They speak hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in using vowel
Very poor	0.0 – 3.5	They speak very hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in using vowel and little or no communication

                 (Layman in Sura, 2010)

b)      Consonant

Classification	Score	Criteria
Excellent	9.6 – 10	They speak effectively and excellent in using consonant
Very good	8.6 – 9.5	They speak effectively and very good in using consonant
Good	7.6 – 8.5	They speak effectively and good in using consonant
Fairly good	6.6 – 7.5	They speak sometimes hasty but fairly good in using consonant
Fair	5.6 – 6.5	They speak sometimes hasty, fair in using consonant
Poor	3.6 – 5.5	They speak hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in using consonant
Very poor	0.0 – 3.5	They speak very hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in using consonant and little or no communication

                                              (Layman in Sura, 2010)

The Assessment of Speaking Vocabulary:

a)      Noun

Classification	Score	Criteria
Excellent	9.6 – 10	Their speaking is very understandable and high of using noun
Very good	8.6 – 9.5	Their speaking is very understandable and very good of using noun
Good	7.6 – 8.5	They speak effectively and good in using noun
Fairly good	6.6 – 7.5	They speak sometimes hasty but fairly good in using noun
Fair	5.6 – 6.5	They speak sometimes hasty, fair in using noun
Poor	3.6 – 5.5	They speak hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in using noun
Very poor	0.0 – 3.5	They speak very hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in using noun and little or no communication

                                                          (Layman in Sura, 2010)

b)      Verb

Classification	Score	Criteria
Excellent	9.6 – 10	Their speaking is very understandable and high of using verb
Very good	8.6 – 9.5	Their speaking is very understandable and very good of using verb
Good	7.6 – 8.5	They speak effectively and good in using verb
Fairly good	6.6 – 7.5	They speak sometimes hasty but fairly good in using verb
Fair	5.6 – 6.5	They speak sometimes hasty, fair in using verb
Poor	3.6 – 5.5	They speak hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in using verb
Very poor	0.0 – 3.5	They speak very hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in using verb and little or no communication

                                                                      (Layman in Sura, 2010)

G. Data Analysis

1.      Calculating the mean score of the students’ speaking test by using the following formula:

            X   =   ∑x                         N

Where:

	X =	The mean score
	∑x =	The total raw score
	N =	The number of students

(Gay, 1981:331)

2.      To classify the students’ score, there were seven classification which used as follows:

9, 6 – 10          as excellent

8, 6 – 9, 5        as very good

7, 6 – 8, 5	as good
6, 6 – 7, 5	as fairly good
5, 6 – 6, 5	as fairly
4, 6 – 5, 5	as poor
0     – 3, 5	as very poor

(Direktorat Pendidikan, 1999)

3.      To calculate the percentage of the students’ score, the formula which was used as follows:

       F

P = --- x 100

       N

Notation:         P          : Rate Percentage

                        F          : Frequency of the Correct Answer

                        N         : The Total Number of Students

                                                                                    (Sudjana, 1999)

4.      Scoring participation

P          =	FQ  x 100
Where:	4 x N
P	= Percentage
FQ	= Sum of all the student’s score
N	= Total students

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

 This chapter consists of findings of the research and its discussion. The findings of the research present the result of the improvement of the students’ speaking ability that covers the students’ speaking pronunciation and the students’ speaking vocabulary, and the discussion of the research covers further explanation of the findings.

A. The Findings

1. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Pronunciation

The application of information gap technique in improving the students’ speaking pronunciation is dealing with vowel (VOW) and consonant (CON). The improvement of the students’ speaking pronunciation dealing with vowel and consonant can be seen clearly in the following table:

Table 1: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Pronunciation

	Students’ Speaking Pronunciation						Improvement
	D – Test		Cycle I		Cycle II		DT→CI	CI→CII
	VOW	CON	VOW	CON	VOW	CON	%	%
𝑋	195.5	198.5	216.5	221	234	241	0.62 6.20%	0.58 5.80%
N	34		34		3 4
X	5.75	5.84	6.34	6.50	6.88	7.09
X	5.80		6.42		7.00

The table above indicates that there is improvement of the students’ speaking pronunciation from D-Test to cycle I and cycle II, where in D-Test the students’ mean score achievement in speaking pronunciation is 5.80, but after evaluation in cycle I the students’ speaking pronunciation becomes 6.42, so the improvement of students’ speaking pronunciation achievement from D-Test to cycle I is 0.62 (6.20%). There is also a significant improvement of students speaking pronunciation from cycle I to cycle II, where the students’ speaking pronunciation in cycle I is 6.42 and in cycle II is 7.00. So the improvement of students’          speaking pronunciation achievement from cycle I to cycle II is 0.58 (5.80%).

 In the table above also indicates that the indicators of students’ speaking pronunciation improve significantly where in D-Test, the students’ vowel achievement is 5.75, but after evaluation in cycle I, the students’ achievement in vowel becomes 6.34 and in cycle II becomes

6.88. The students’ consonant achievement also improves from D-Test to cycle I namely 5.84 to 6.50 and in cycle II is 7.09. The table shows that there is a significant improvement of students’ speaking pronunciation after taking an action in cycle I and cycle II through the application of information gap technique.

            To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking pronunciation, the following chart is presented:

Figure 1: The Improvement of the Students’ Pronunciation

 The chart above shows the improvement of the students’ pronunciation in cycle II is higher that is 7.00 than cycle I that is 6.42 and D-Test that is 5.80. It also shows that the result of D-Test is the lowest achievement. After evaluation in cycle I and cycle II, there is a significant improvement  of  the  students’  pronunciation  that  shown  clearly  in  the chart  after  taking  an  action  in  cycle  through  information  gap technique.

2. The Improvement of the Students’ Vocabulary

The application of information gap technique in improving the students’ vocabulary is dealing with noun (N) and verb (V). The improvement of the students’ vocabulary dealing with noun and verb can be seen clearly in the following table:

Table 2: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Vocabulary

	Students’ Speaking Vocabulary						Improvement
	D – Test		Cycle I		Cycle II		DT→CI	CI→CII
	N	V	N	V	N	V	%	%
𝑋	205	196	238	213	271	231	0.75 7.50%	0.71 7.10%
N	3 4		34		3 4
X	6.00	5.76	7.00	6.26	7.97	6.76
X	5.88		6.63		7.34

The table above indicates that there is improvement of the students’ speaking vocabulary from D-Test to cycle I and cycle II, where in D-Test the students’ mean score achievement in speaking vocabulary is

5.88, but after evaluation in cycle I the students’ speaking vocabulary becomes 6.63, so the improvement of students’ speaking pronunciation achievement from D-Test to cycle I is 0.75 (7.50%). There is also a significant improvement of students speaking vocabulary from cycle I to cycle II, where the students’ speaking vocabulary in cycle I is 6.63 and in cycle II is 7.34. So the improvement of students’ speaking vocabulary achievement from cycle I to cycle II is 0.71 (7.10%).

 In the table above also indicates that the indicators of students’ speaking vocabulary improve significantly where in D-Test, the students’ noun achievement is 6.00, but after evaluation in cycle I, the students’ achievement in noun becomes 7.00 and in cycle II becomes 7.97. The students’ verb achievement also improves from D-Test to cycle I namely

5.76 to 6.26 and in cycle II is 6.76. The table shows that there is a significant improvement of students’ vocabulary after taking an action in cycle  I  and  cycle  II  through  the  application  of  information  gap technique.

 To see clearly the improvement of the students’ vocabulary, the following chart is presented:

Figure 2: The Improvement of the Students’ Vocabulary

The chart above shows the improvement of the students’

vocabulary in cycle II is higher that is 7.34 than cycle I that is 6.63 and DTest that is 5.88. It also shows that the result of D-Test is the lowest achievement. After evaluation in cycle I and cycle II, there is a significant improvement of the students’ vocabulary that shown clearly in the chart after taking an action in cycle through information gap technique.

3. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability

The  application   of   information   gap   technique   in   improving 

students’ speaking ability is dealing with pronunciation (PRO) and vocabulary (VOC). The improvement of the students’ speaking ability that dealing with pronunciation and vocabulary can be seen clearly in the following table:

Table 3: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability

	Students’ Speaking Ability						Improvement
	D – Test		Cycle I		Cycle II		DT→CI	CI→CII
	PRO	VOC	PRO	VOC	PRO	VOC	%	%
𝑋	197	200.5	218.8	225.5	237.5	251	0.96 9.60%	0.65 6.50%
N	3 4		34		3 4
X	5.79	5,90	6.44	6.63	6.99	7.38
X	5.85		6.54		7.19

            The table above indicates that there is improvement of the

students’ speaking ability from D-Test to cycle I and cycle II, where in DTest the students’ mean score achievement in speaking ability is 5.85, but after evaluation in cycle I the students’ speaking ability becomes 6.54, so the improvement of students’ speaking pronunciation achievement from D-Test to cycle I is 0.96 (9.60%). There is also a significant improvement of students speaking ability from cycle I to cycle II, where the students’ speaking ability in cycle I is 6.54 and in cycle II is 7.19. So the improvement of students’ speaking ability achievement from cycle I to cycle II is 0.65 (6.50%).

 In the table above also indicates that the indicators of students’ speaking ability improve significantly where in D-Test, the students’ pronunciation achievement is 5.79, but after evaluation in cycle I, the students’ achievement in pronunciation becomes 6.44 and in cycle II becomes 6.99. The students’ vocabulary achievement also improves from D-Test to cycle I namely 5.90 to 6.63 and in cycle II is 7.38. The table shows that there is a significant improvement of students’ speaking ability after taking an action in cycle I and cycle II through the application of information gap technique.

            To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking vocabulary, the following chart is presented:

Figure 3: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability

The chart above shows the improvement of the students’ speaking

ability in cycle II is higher that is 7.19 than cycle I that is 6.54 and D-Test that is 5.85. It also shows that the result of D-Test is the lowest achievement. After evaluation in cycle I and cycle II, there is a significant improvement of the students’ speaking ability that shown clearly in the chart after taking an action in cycle through information gap technique.

4. The Result of the Students’ Activeness in Teaching and           Learning Process

The result of observation of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process toward the application of information gap technique in improving the students’ speaking ability at the second year students of SMP Negeri 35 Makassar in class VIII-1 which is conducted in 2 cycles during 8 meetings is taken by the observer through observation sheet. It can be seen clearly through the following table:

Table 4: The Observation Result of the Students’ Activeness in Teaching and Learning Process

C Y C L E	The Students’ Activeness				Average Score	CI→CII
	1st Meeting	2nd Meeting	3rd Meeting	4th Meeting
I	72.06%	73.53%	74.26%	75.00%	73.71%	12.69%
II	82.35%	84.56%	88.24%	90.44%	86.40%

 The result above is formulated based on the technique of data analysis and the students’ scores that are collected through observation sheet. From the table above shows that in cycle I the students’ activeness in each meeting improves significantly. It can be seen clearly in table that the students’ activeness in the fourth meeting is higher than first, second and the third meeting. Where the first meeting in cycle I, the students’ activeness is 72.06% improves to 73.53% in the second meeting, and then students’ activeness in the third meeting is 74.26% improves to 75.00% in the fourth meeting. So the average of the students’ activeness in          cycle I is 73.71%.

 In cycle II the students’ activeness in each meeting improves significantly too. Where in the first meeting in cycle II the students’ activeness is 82.35% improves to 84.56% in the second meeting, and then students’ activeness in the third meeting is 88.24% improves to 90.44% in the fourth meeting. So the average of the students’ activeness in cycle II is 86.40%, and the improvement of the students’ activeness from cycle I to cycle II is 12.69%. Then, the result is presented in the chart below that shows the average of students’ activeness in the first cycle and                the second cycle.

Figure 4: The Improvement of the Students’ Activeness

The chart above shows that there is improvement of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process where in cycle I that is 73.71% lower   than   cycle   II,   but   after   conducting   cycle   II,   the   students’     activeness in learning process becomes 86.40%.

B. Discussion

In this part, discussion deals with the interpretation of findings derived from the result of findings about the observation result of the students’ speaking ability in terms of pronunciation (vowel and consonant), vocabulary

(noun and verb) and the observation result of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process by using information gap technique.

1. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Pronunciation dealing with Vowel and Consonant

a. Vowel

The application of information gap technique in improving the students’ speaking pronunciation in terms of vowel can be seen the difference by considering the result of the students’ Diagnostic Test and the students’ achievement after taking action in cycle I and II through the application of information gap technique (IGT).

Table 5: The Percentage of the Students’ Vowel in Speaking

No.	Classification	Score	Non IGT		The Application of IGT
			D-Test		Cycle I		Cycle II
			Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%
1.	Excellent	9.6-10	0	0	0	0	0	0
2.	Very Good	8.6-9.5	0	0	0	0	3	9%
3.	Good	7.6-8.5	0	0	0	0	4	12%
4.	Fairly Good	6.6-7.5	4	12%	8	24%	13	38%
5.	Fair	5.6-6.5	14	41%	26	76%	14	41%
6.	Poor	3.6-5.5	16	47%	0	0	0	0
7.	Very Poor	0.0-3.5	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total			34	100	34	100	34	100

The table above shows that the percentage of the students’ vowel in speaking Diagnostic Test indicates that 4 students (12%) get fairly good, 14 students (41%) get fair, 16 students (47%) get poor and none of students for the other classification.

After taking action in cycle I by using information gap technique, the percentage of the students’ vowel is 8 students (24%) get fairly good, 26 students (76%) get fair and none of the students for the other classification and then, in cycle II, the percentage of the students’ vowel in speaking is 3 students (9%) get very good, 4 students (12%) get good, 13 students (38%) get fairly good, 14 students (41%) get fair and none of the students for the other

classification.

To know the percentage of the students’ achievement in vowel clearly, following chart is presented:

Figure 5: The Improvement of the Students’ Vowel

The chart above shows that the result of the students’ speaking pronunciation in terms of vowel. After applying information gap technique in cycle II, the result of students’ vowel is higher than D-

Test and cycle I where the students’ vowel achievement in cycle II is 9% categorized as very good, 12% categorized as good, 38% fairly good and 41% fair. But the D-Test is the lowest where the students’ vowel achievement is 12% categorized as fairly good, 41% categorized as fair, and 47% poor.

b. Consonant

The application of information gap technique in improving the students’ speaking pronunciation in terms of consonant can be seen the difference by considering the result of the students’ Diagnostic Test and the students’ achievement after taking action in cycles through the application of information gap technique.

Table 6: The Percentage of the Students’ Consonant in Speaking

No.	Classification	Score	Non IGT		The Application of IGT
			D-Test		Cycle I		Cycle II
			Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%
1.	Excellent	9.6-10	0	0	0	0	0	0
2.	Very Good	8.6-9.5	0	0	0	0	3	9%
3.	Good	7.6-8.5	0	0	1	3%	7	21%
4.	Fairly Good	6.6-7.5	2	6%	8	23%	14	41%
5.	Fair	5.6-6.5	18	53%	25	74%	10	29%
6.	Poor	3.6-5.5	14	41%	0	0	0	0
7.	Very Poor	0.0-3.5	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Total		34	100	34	100	34	100

The table above shows that the percentage of the students’ consonant in speaking Diagnostic Test indicates that 2 students (6%) get fairly good, 18 students (53%) get fair, 14 students (41%) get poor and none of students for the other classification.

After taking action in cycle I by using information gap technique, the percentage of the students’ consonant is 1 student (3%) gets good, 8 students (23%) get fairly good, 25 students (74%) get fair, and none of the students for the other classification.

In cycle II, the percentage of the students’ consonant in speaking is 3 students (9%) get very good, 7 students (21%) get good, 14 students (41%) get fairly good, 10 students (29%) get fair and none of the students for the other classification.

To see the percentage of the improvement of the students’

consonant in speaking pronunciation, look at the following chart:

Figure 6: The Improvement of the Students’ Consonant

The chart above shows that the result of the students’ pronunciation in terms of consonant. After applying information gap technique in cycle II, the result of students’ consonant is higher than

D-Test and cycle I where the students’ consonant achievement in cycle II is 9% categorized as very good, 21% categorized as good, 41% fairly good and 29% fair. But the D-Test is the lowest where the students’ consonant achievement is 6% categorized as fairly good, 53% categorized as fair, and 41% poor.

2. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Vocabulary dealing with Noun and Verb

a. Noun

The application of information gap technique in improving the students’ speaking vocabulary in terms of noun can be seen the difference clearly by considering the result of the students’ observation data and the students’ knowledge after taking action in cycle through

the application of information gap technique (IGT).

Table 7: The Percentage of the Students’ Noun in Speaking

No.	Classification	Score	Non IGT		The Application of IGT
			D-Test		Cycle I		Cycle II
			Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%
1.	Excellent	9.6-10	0	0	0	0	0	0
2.	Very Good	8.6-9.5	0	0	0	0	11	32%
3.	Good	7.6-8.5	0	0	4	12%	13	38%
4.	Fairly Good	6.6-7.5	8	24%	14	41%	8	24%
5.	Fair	5.6-6.5	12	35%	16	47%	2	6%
6.	Poor	3.6-5.5	14	41%	0	0	0	0
7.	Very Poor	0.0-3.5	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Total		34	100	34	100	34	100

The table above shows that the percentage of the students’ noun in speaking Diagnostic Test indicates that 8 students (24%) get fairly good, 12 students (35%) get fair, 14 students (41%) get poor and none of students for the other classification.

After taking action in cycle I by using information gap technique, the percentage of the students’ noun is 4 students (12%) get good, 14 students (41%) get fairly good, 16 students (47%) get fair, and none of the students for the other classification.

In cycle II, the percentage of the students’ noun in speaking is 11 students (32%) get very good, 13 students (38%) get good, 8 students (24%) get fairly good, 2 students (6%) get fair and none of the students for the other classification.

To see the percentage of the improvement of the students’ noun in speaking vocabulary, look at the following chart:

Figure 7: The Improvement of the Students’ Noun

The chart above shows that the result of the students’ vocabulary in terms of noun. After applying information gap technique in cycle II, the result of students’ noun is higher than D-Test and   cycle I where the students’ noun achievement in cycle II is 32% categorized as very good, 38% categorized as good, 24% fairly good and 6% fair. But the D-Test is the lowest where the students’ noun achievement is 24% categorized as fairly good, 35% categorized as fair, and 41% poor.

b. Verb

The application of information gap technique in improving the students’ speaking vocabulary in terms of verb can be seen the difference clearly by considering the result of the students’ Diagnostic

Test and result of the students’ test in cycle I and II.

Table 8: The Percentage of the Students’ Verb in Speaking

No.	Classification	Score	Non IGT		The Application of IGT
			D-Test		Cycle I		Cycle II
			Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%
1.	Excellent	9.6-10	0	0	0	0	0	0
2.	Very Good	8.6-9.5	0	0	0	0	2	6%
3.	Good	7.6-8.5	0	0	2	6%	3	9%
4.	Fairly Good	6.6-7.5	2	6%	2	6%	15	44%
5.	Fair	5.6-6.5	18	53%	30	88%	14	41%
6.	Poor	3.6-5.5	14	41%	0	0	0	0
7.	Very Poor	0.0-3.5	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Total		34	100	34	100	34	100

The table above shows that the percentage of the students’ verb in speaking Diagnostic Test indicates that 2 students (6%) get fairly good, 18 students (53%) get fair, 14 students (41%) get poor and none of students for the other classification.

After   taking   action   in  cycle  I   by  using  information   gap 

technique, the percentage of the students’ verb is 2 students (6%) get good, 2 students (6%) get fairly good, 30 students (88%) get fair, and none of the students for the other classification.

In cycle II, the percentage of the students’ verb in speaking is 2 students (6%) get very good, 3 students (9%) get good, 15 students (44%) get fairly good, 14 students (41%) get fair and none of the students for the other classification.

To see the percentage of the improvement of the students’ verb in speaking vocabulary, look at the following chart:

Figure 8: The Improvement of the Students’ Verb

The chart above shows that the result of the students’ vocabulary in terms of verb. After applying information gap technique in cycle II, the result of students’ verb is higher than D-Test and cycle I where the students’ verb achievement in cycle II is 6% categorized as very good, 9% categorized as good, 44% fairly good and 41% fair. But the D-Test is the lowest where the students’ verb achievement is 6% categorized as fairly good, 53% categorized as fair, and 41% poor.

3.      The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability dealing with Students’ Speaking Pronunciation and Students’ Speaking

Vocabulary

The result of the data analysis through the speaking test shows that the students’ speaking ability in terms of pronunciation and vocabulary improved significantly. It is indicated by the mean score of result of the students’ D-Test is 5.84 it is classified as fair achievement. It is also same with the mean score of the students’ speaking test in cycle I that is 6.53 that is classified as fair, then in cycle II there is improvement that is 7.18 and it is classified as fairly good. Those scores are gotten from speaking pronunciation and speaking vocabulary.

4.      The Result of the Students’ Activeness Observation

The result of students’ observation in teaching and learning process improved significantly through the application of information gap technique in improving the students’ speaking ability. It is proved by the improvement of the mean score of the students’ activeness in cycle I namely 73.71% (seventy three point seventy one percent) become 86.40%

(eighty six point forty percent) in cycle II.