Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
THESIS
PRE-REQUISITE TITLE
Thesis
As Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Education Study Program
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Mahasaraswati Denpasar University
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Amlapura,
February 2014
The researcher,
vii
ABSTRACT
viii
TABLE OF CONTENT
COVER...............................................................................................
INSIDE COVER..................................................................................
ii
PRE-REQUISITE TITLE.....................................................................
iii
iv
STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICITY.....................................................
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................................................
vii
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................
viii
TABLE OF CONTENT........................................................................
ix
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................
xi
LIST OF GRAPHS..............................................................................
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES.....................................................................
xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION.......................................................
1.1
1.2
Research problem................................................
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III
2.1
Theoritical Review.............................................
13
15
2.2
Empirical Review..............................................
17
2.3
Hypothesis........................................................
18
RESEARCH METHOD
19
3.1
19
3.2
Research Design..................................................
ix
19
3.3
CHAPTER IV
Research Procedure............................................
23
3.3.1 Planning.................................................
24
3.3.2 Action.....................................................
24
3.3.3 Observation..............................................
25
3.3.4 Reflection.................................................
26
3.4
Research Instrument.............................................
26
3.5
Data Collection....................................................
27
3.6
Data Analysis......................................................
28
3.7
Success Indicator.................................................
30
4.2
CHAPTER V
Finding..............................................................
29
4.1.1 Pre-cycle................................................
29
30
32
4.1.4 Questionnaire.........................................
34
Discussion........................................................
36
Conclusion.......................................................
38
5.2
Suggestion......................................................
39
REFERENCES...................................................................................
42
APPENDICES..................................................................................
44
LIST OF TABLES
27
xi
LIST OF GRAPH
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1
45
Appendix 2
46
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
54
58
Appendix 5
62
Appendix 6
63
Appendix 7
Biography......................................................
64
xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
2
potential to speak as he did not provide many chances for students to speak
because the class was teacher-centered, teacher who talk alot and dominate the
class. This type of teaching technique made students lazy to speak. They also
could not perform maximally in the speaking test where the Standard Minimum
Achievement (KKM) score is 77 point for English course but their mean score of
daily test was 70; consequently, the students must do remedial phases to pass the
test. That was unsatisfactory result for the students that is why they need to be
motivated by applaying teaching teachnique which is able to make them
enthusiastic and confident in expressing their mind in the target language.
For years, experts have totally given their mind in the study of
developing techniques and methods to teach English as the second language in
order to improve the motivation of the students in learning English. As the result,
a variety of English teaching techniques and methods have been found and
applied in every level of education. One of them is chain drill, a teaching
technique that is created from the Audio Lingual Method firstly applied by
Charles Fries (1945) of the University of Michigan (Larsen-Freeman, 2000:35).
Teaching speaking by using chain drill technique is started by the
teacher. Teacher prepares questions to be asked to the student nearest with the
teacher. Chain drill gives students an opportunity to speak their idea individually.
The teacher listens and can tell which students are struggling and will need more
practice. A chain drill also lets students use the expressions in communication
with someone, eventhough the communication is very limited. Then, teacher
addresses a questions to the student nearest with her. After that, the first student
responds to the teachers question. The teacher ask another questions then the first
3
student answers or responds the questions given. The first student understand
through teachers gestures then he turns to the student sitting beside him and ask
questions like teacher asked before. The second student, in turn, says her lines in
replay to him (first student). When the second student has finished, she greets and
asks questions to the student on the other side of her. This chain continues until all
of the students get a chance to ask and answer the questions. The last student
directs the greeting and asking questions to the teacher.
This kind of technique is really fun and makes students enjoy the lesson.
Teaching by using chain drill technique will make students enjoy and understand
more the point of the material given, moreover it will improve students speaking
skill as well. That is why in this research, the writer would use Chain drill
Technique to improve speaking skill at the eighth grade students of SMPN I
Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014.
4
1.3 Objective of the Study
To be able to answer the statement of research question above, the
objective of the study is to figure out whether or not Chain Drill Technique can
improve speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in
academic year 2013/2014. This study was conducted in order to know the
students confidence, motivation and improvement during the technique applied in
speaking class. In addition, the hope of this study is that Chain Drill Technique
can be a better way in teaching speaking.
5
by using Chain Drill technique. Practically, the study is considered to be practical
in its nature that is to provide the educational feedback.
For the English teacher, the finding of this study would help teacher in
determining the methods and techniques of teaching as the way to create new
atmosphere and new habit which can improve students motivation and
confidence in learning English.
For the eighth grade students, the finding of this study would help
students in understanding more the material given by the teacher. This finding
also hoped can improve students motivation and confidence, creating new habit
and new atmosphere which will improve their achievement too.
For the school, the finding of this study would be able to increase the
schools score which will make it to be the most favourite school among others.
6
2. Chain Drill Technique
Chain Drill technique is a teaching technique that is created from the
Audio Lingual Method firstly applied by Charles Fries (1945) of the University of
Michigan. Chain drill gives students an opportunity to say the lines individually.
The teacher listens and can tell which students are struggling and will need more
practice. A chain drill also lets students use the expressions in communication
with someone, eventhough the communication is very limited. This chain
continues until all of the students get a chance to ask and answer the questions.
3. SMPN I Amlapura
SMPN I Amlapura is the level of junior high school which is located in
Ngurah Rai Street Amlapura, Karangasem regency, Bali. SMPN I Amlapura is the
favourite school in Karangasem and becomes the place where the research will be
conducted.
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW
8
about the majority of communicative events and these have particular relevance
for the learning and teaching process.
People do communication for some reasons. Jeremy Harmer (2002:46)
stated the reasons as follows:
(1) They want to say something. What is used here is general way to
suggest that the speakers make definite decisions to address other people.
Speaking may, of course, be forced upon them, but we can still say that they feel
the need to speak, otherwise they would keep silent.
(2) They have some communicative purpose. Speakers say things
because they want something to happen as a result of what they say. They may
want to charm their listeners; to give some information, to express pleasure; they
may decide to be rude or flatter. To agree or complain. In each of these cases they
are interested in achieving this communicative purpose what is important the
message they wish to convey and the effect they want it to have.
(3) They select from their language store. Speakers have an infinite
capacity to create new sentences. In order to achieve this communication purpose
they will select (from the store of language they posses) the language they think
is appropriate for this purpose.
Of course there will be a desire to communicate on the part of the
students and they will also have a communicative purposes. When the students are
involved in a drill or in repetition, they will be motivated the need to reach the
objective of accuracy. The emphasis is on the form of the language. A teacher
should be in creating procedures of teaching in order that the objective is reached.
9
Speaking is an important skill that must be taught in language class. It is
widely argued that the success of using a language especially second language and
foreign language in real life situation can be determined through speaking. The
idea strengthened by Richards, he stated that the mastery of speaking skills in
English is a priority for many second-language or foreign-language learners.
Consequently, learners often evaluate their success in language learning as well as
the effectiveness of their English course on the basis of how much they feel they
have improved in their spoken language proficiency (2008:19). English becomes
the priority because English is an international language spoken all over the
world. That is why some job vacancies often require the jobs seeker to be able to
speak fluently as their main requirement (Norton in Hornberger, 2010:96).
According to Thornbury, it is generally acceptable that knowing a language and
being able to speak it are not synonymous (2005:1). It means that someone who
knows a lot about a language can not be guaranteed to have a good speaking skill
in that language. Thornbury also defines speaking as a part of daily life that we
take it for granted (2005:1). In other words, in our daily life speaking is an
important tool that we use to communicate through the words arrangement that we
produce. As been stated above, we knew that mastering speaking skill is the
priority in learning a language.
10
Teaching that the speakers have to be competent in speaking skill, those are
language features in which contains four points. They are:
Grammar and lexis. People live in different ways, places and environments
which is causing a different mind set too. Therefore, teachers need to supply
their students with various phrases for different function in their speaking
classroom activity. For instance, students will know what expressions they
have to use appropriately in different stages of interaction.
11
wishes to say anything has to consider two things. First, the language feature by
which people know the use of language such as: how to modify the sound and
how to use appropriate expression. Second, people also must know how to arrange
words into the right order. Therefore, the intended messages are sent. In this case,
people not only hope to be understood by someone else solely, but also they have
to understand other participants feeling. Here, people are demanded to know
when they have to take turn on the conversation and to allow the others to do so.
Such those elements mentioned above showed that the speakers must be
communicatively competence in the language they use. As it is stated by Walter in
12
her book, about communicative competence that it defines as the ability to use
language appropriately in variety of context (Walter, 2008:18) which involves:
Grammatical
Competence
Communicative
Competence
Discourse
Competence
Strategic
Competence
13
From those elements and competencies mentioned above, it can be
concluded that to be a good speaker, he or she has to master language elements.
On the other hand, it is not enough to have a lot of vocabulary without other
knowledge.
2.1.3
Assessing Speaking
Speaking skill is the ability to use the language in oral form. In junior and
senior high schools this skill is limited to the ability to conduct a simple
conversations on some subject (e.g. expressing regret, gratitude, agreement, offer,
certainty, etc.). Among the four skills, speaking skill is a difficult one to assess
with precision, because speaking is a complex skill to acquire. In giving scores,
there is rating scale developed by H.Douglas Brown. It showed six items
generally recognized in analysis of speech process : Grammar, Vocabulary,
Comprehension, Fluency, Pronunciation, Task (Brown, 2003:172-173).
According to Brown, there are 5 basic types of speaking, those are
imitative, intensive, responsive, interactive and extensive (2003:141-142).
Imitative is the type of speaking performance which the ability is to
simply parrot back (imitate) a word or phrase or possibly a sentence. The
examples of imitative assessment tasks given here are: Word repetition task and
phonepass test.
Intensive is the production of short stretches of oral language designed to
demonstrate competence in narrow band of grammatical, phrasal, lexical or
phonological relationships (such as prosodic elements-intonation, stress, rhthym,
jucture). The examples of intensive assessment tasks include directed response
14
tasks, reading aloud, sentence and dialogue completion; limited picture cued tasks
including simple sequences; and translation up to the simple sentence level.
Responsive asessment tasks include interaction and test comprehension
but at the some what limited level of very short conversations, standart greetings
and small talk, simple request and comments and the like. The stimulus is almost
always a spoken prompt (in order to preserve authenticity), with perhaps only one
or two follow-up questions or retorts.
Interactive assessment task has quiet same model in its test with the
responsive task, both emphazise the spoken prompt. The difference between
responsive and interactive speaking is in the length and complexity of the
interaction, which sometimes include multiple exchanges and/or multiple
participants. Interactions can take the two forms of transactional language, which
has the purpose of exchanging specific information, or interpersonal exchanges
which has the purpose of maintaining social relationships. In interpersonal
exchanges, oral production can become pragmatically complex with the need of
speak in a casual register and use colloquial language, ellipsis, slang, humor and
other sociolinguistic conventions.
Extensive (monologue) oral production tasks include speeches, oral
presentations and story-telling, during which the opportunity for oral interaction
from listeners is either highly limited or ruled out altogether.
Brown also added there are micro- and macroskills of speaking. The list
of speaking skills can be drawn up for the purpose that is to serve as a taxonomy
of skills from which you will select one or several that will become the
objective(s) of an assessment task. The microskills refer to producing the smaller
15
chunks of language such as phonemes, morphemes, words, collocations and
phrasal units. Then the Macroskills imply the speakers focus on the large
elements: fluency, discourse, function, style, cohesion, nonverbal communication
and strategic options. The micro- and macroskills total roughly 16 different
objectives to assess in speaking (Brown, 2003:142).
In assessing the tests, the writer followed rating scale developed by
H.Douglas Brown (Brown, 2003:172-173). It showed six items that were
important to be scored: Grammar, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Fluency,
Pronunciation, Task. However, in this study, researcher do not give score on all
items showed but creates the scoring rubric to be as simple as possible based on
the students ability.
2.1.4
vocabulary they do not know before. Brown strengthened the idea above, he
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 (2003:140). In short, both
speaking and listening is integrated. This idea was strengthened by Rost in Hinkel,
she stated that listening refers to a complex cognitive process that allows a person
to understand spoken language (2005:503). Broadly speaking, speaking skill is
influenced by listening skill.
Chain Drill Technique integrating both skills, speaking and listening, in
learning process. According to Larsen-Freeman (2000:46) we have to use drills if
16
we want the students to be able to speak English communicatively. Furthermore,
she explained that drills, as part of audio-lingual method, have been used in
teaching speaking. Since the primary goal of the audio-lingual method is to use
the target language communicatively, drills are suitable for teaching speaking.
Chain Drill itself is a teaching technique that is created from the Audio Lingual
Method firstly applied by Charles Fries (1945) of the University of Michigan.
And for this reason, it has sometimes been referred to as the Michigan Method
(Larsen-Freeman, 2000:35). A chain drill gets its name from the chain of
conversation that forms around the room as students, one-by-one, ask and answer
questions of each other (Larsen-Freeman, 2000:48).
The rules of chain drill activity are that the activities begun as the teacher
greets and asks questions to a particular student (student A). Then student A will
respond the questions. After that, student A takes turn to ask another student
sitting next to him. This activity will continuously work until the last turn of the
last student. At the end, the last student directs greeting and asking questions back
to the teacher.
A chain drill allows some controlled communication among the students
while teacher can check students speech as well. Either teacher or students
themselves can correct their friends oral sentences whether they are wellconstructed or not. As the result, any mistakes that probably occur can be
corrected directly as soon as possible. Besides, the use of peer students correction
will prevent students worrying in making mistake that can
improve their
confidence to try. The use of chain drill can encourage the improvement of
students listening and speaking skills. They get listening skill from listening to
17
their friends questions. Therefore, they have to focus on what their friends asking
about. Once they can answer the question correctly, it means that they absolutely
can understand the question. Moreover, the way they ask questions or answer the
questions drives students to practice speaking. This activity makes students
accustomed to express their ideas through oral speech. It also creates a new habit
to use English in communicating with others that will improve their speaking skill
as the result.
18
Other research showed by Abinur (2011). Abinur used CAR in this
research. She thought simple past tense through chain drill. This research
consisted of two cycles and each cycle consisted of four elements, they were
planning, action, observation and reflection. Each cycle was conducted in two
meetings, so the researcher conducted this research in four meetings for one
month and two weeks. To collect and analyze the data, the researcher used the
information from interview, observation and students achievements in pre-test
and post-test in order to support the data collected. The result of this data showed
that using chain drill in teaching simple past tense in second years of MTSN 17
Jakarta could motivate the students to learn simple past tense and develop their
ability in simple past tense. The students responses showed that they were
interested to learn simple past tense because they thought that the chain drill
technique was interesting. Moreover, the students achievement, based from pretest and
teaching simple past tense through chain drills could develop students ability in
learning English.
2.3 Hypothesis
The hypothesis is useful to give the answer or tentative solution which
can help the researcher in finding the result and conclusion of the study.
Therefore, in this study the hypothesis can be stated as follows: speaking skill of
the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 can
be improved by using Chain Drill Technique.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
3.2
Research Design
The classroom action research was used in this study to apply Chain Drill
20
in finding a new kind of methods in teaching process. To support all those things,
they have to conduct their own strategy of teaching by doing some kinds of
research.
Hewitt and Little stated that Action research is a model of professional
development that promotes collaborative inquiry, reflection and dialogue. Within
the action research process, educators study students learning related to their own
teaching. It is a process that allows educators to learn about their own
instructional practices and continue monitoring the improvement of students
learning (2005:1). Furthermore, Guskey in Hewitt and Little stated that the idea of
action research is that educational problems and issues are best identified and
investigated where the action is at the classroom and school level. By integrating
research into these settings and engaging those who work at this level in research
activities, findings can be applied immediately and problems solved more quickly
(2005:1).
Within the action research process, teachers may choose to focus their
study on one student, a small group of students, a class or several classes, or a
whole school. The focus and level of participation among school and district
colleagues depended on the level of support, needs, and interests of the teacher(s)
and school. Ary, et al (2010:512) also argued that action research has been used in
a variety of settings, including schools, hospitals, health clinics, community
agencies, government units, and other environments. It could be used to enhance
everyday work practices, to resolve specific problems, and to develop special
projects and programs.
21
Emily Calhoun in Hewitt and Little described three approaches to action
research: individual teacher research, collaborative action research, and schoolwide action research. Eventhough the environments are different, the process of
action research remains the same. This process uses data to identify
classroom/school problems, creates and implements a plan of action, collects and
analyzes data, uses and shares the results, and makes instructional decisions to
improve students learning continuously (2005:3).
According to Hewitt and little, the action research process involved four
phases; Identifying a classroom problem, developing and implementing an action
research plan, collecting and analyzing data, using and sharing results (2005:2).
Another expert such as Kurt Lewin stated that the concept of Action Research
design contained of four components; Planning, Acting, Observing and Reflecting
(Kusumah and Dwitagama, 2009:20). But actually, both designs above were
generally same in their action.
From those explanations, it could be concluded that the meaning of
classroom action research was a kind of educational research that aimed to
increase teaching and learning through problem solving. It tempted to answer
questions related to some aspects of educational practice. Here the teacher could
reflect on what they have discovered and then apply it to their professional
practice.
3.3
Research Procedure
Classroom Action Research in this study took two cycles (Cycle I and
Cycle II) which every cycle had two sessions. Those two sessions consisted of
four activities which had bounding in every activity and they were named:
22
Planning (P), Action (A), Observation (O), and Reflection (R). However, in order
to measure the result of pre-existing speaking skill of eighth grade of SMPN I
Amlapura, researcher administered Initial Reflection (IR). The mean score of IR
would be compared to the corresponding mean score of R and at the end of each
session would show the degree of speaking skills improvement.
There were many kinds of the action researchs designs exist at
present. Those are Kurt Lewins design, Kemmis and McTaggarts design, Dave
Ebbut design, John Elliots design, McKernans design and many more. However,
here the researcher focused on Kurt Lewins design. He was the expert who
introduced the action research for the first time. His design became the host and
the main basic of other further action research especially classroom action
research. The concept of Kurt Lewins action research design contains four
components those are Planning, Acting, Observing and Reflecting (Kusumah and
Dwitagama, 2009:20) which could be showed completely below.
3.3.1 Planning
After making sure about the problem of the research, researcher made a
preparation before doing an action researcher. The kind of preparation could be
seen as follows:
(a) The steps and the activities during the research.
(b) Preparation for teaching facilities.
(c) Preparation for data analysis during the research process.
(d) Preparation for all research in order not to make a mistake during the research
such as alternative actions to solve the problem of the research.
23
3.3.2 Action
Doing an action research was the main cycle of action research. Then
was followed by observation, interpretation and also the reflective activities. A
researcher must be very careful in practicing the classroom research; he or she had
to follow the procedure or action planning during the research. Action reffered to
what the researcher really do in the classroom setting during the processes of
teaching speaking through chain drill technique which aimed was to solve the
problems found.
The teaching process started with pre-activities. The teacher as teacher
was greeting the students and checking their attendance list. Pre-activities were
intended to activate the subjects prior knowledge related to the topic which is
going to be discussed and practiced. The second phase was whilst-activities. In
this phase the researcher carried the main process of teaching speaking through
Chain Drill technique. Time allocation for these phase was about 40 minutes.
Firstly, teacher delivered some elicited questions about the topic that is going to
be learnt. Secondly, the researcher would explain briefly about the rules of chain
drill. Then students were given the descriptions topic. Thirdly, teacher or
researcher asked questions to the student nearest to her, and student respond
teachers questions. Then, he turned to ask another student sitting next to him.
This activity was continuously work until the last turn of the last student. The last
student directed greeting and asking questions to the teacher.
Last phase was post-activities. Teacher asked students difficulties in
learning speaking through chain drill technique. Teacher was also asking about
what they feel during learning process using chain drill technique. A chain drill
24
allowed some controlled communication among the students while teacher could
check students speech as well. Either teacher or students themselves could
correct their friends oral sentences whether they are well-constructed or not. As
the result, any mistakes that probably occur could be corrected directly as soon as
possible. Besides, the use of peer students correction will prevent students
worrying in making mistake that can improve their confidence to try.
3.3.3 Observation
In this step, a researcher had to observe all events or activities during the
research. The observation could be classified into three categories: (a) teachers
talk (b) pupils talk (3) silence or confusion.
Observation was a usual step when a researcher is observing or assessing
the decision of research during teaching learning process as the result of learning
interaction among the learners.
3.3.4 Reflection
A reflection was an effort to inspect what has or has not been done, what
has or has not been resulted after having an alternative action. The result of
reflection was used to establish the next steps of the research. In other words, a
reflection was the inspection effort on the success or the failure in reaching the
temporary purposes in order to determine the alternative steps that are probably
made to get the final goals of the research (Hopkins in Anggraeni, 2007:35)
After knowing the aims in conducting an action research, the teacher
used an action research when he or she finds some problems such as the students
have not achieved the target he/she expected during the teaching learning process.
25
As a teacher, he or she has to find out the problem and try to solve it. One way to
solve the problem was by conducting an action research. A teacher did a
classroom action research and it was conducted in the class, which involved all of
the students in the classroom. By doing an action research, teachers might give
contribution to her or other teachers as well as to students in general.
26
students changes in their learning behaviour, their motivation, their achievement
when they were taught speaking using chain drill technique. The questionnaire
also let students to express their feeling about the teaching technique, chain drill
technique, which was applied in the speaking activity.
means
the
categorizing,
ordering,
manipulating,
and
27
scoring the test, the students called out in turn and the researcher tested them by
asking the students to describe someone or something orally in front of the class.
In giving scores, the researcher followed rating scale developed by
H.Douglas Brown (Brown, 2003:172-173). It showed six items that were
important to be scored: Grammar, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Fluency,
Pronunciation, Task. While in this study, researcher did not give score on all items
showed but created the scoring rubric to be as simple as possible because the
students speaking ability was low. They only asked to construct the drilled
answers into a comprehension sentences orally with the material in describing
something or someone then perform it in front of the class.
Table: Oral Proficiency scoring categories
Point
Comprehension
Grammar
Vocabulary
Fluency
Pronunciation
Poor of
vocabularys
repertory
Poor of
fluency
Errors in
pronunciation are
frequent
II
Lack of
vocabulary
repertory
Less of
fluency
Accent is
intelligible though
often quite faulty
III
Comprehension is
tolerable
Control of grammar
is tolerable
Tolerable of
vocabulary
repertory
Tolerable of
fluency
Error never
interfere with
understanding
IV
Comprehension is
quite good
Control of grammar
is quite good
Have pretty
many
vocabulary
repertory
Able to use
language quite
fluently
Error in
pronunciation are
quite rare
Comprehension is
good
Able to use
language
fluently
error in
pronunciation are
disappear
28
The score was given by analyzing the students performance:
Maximum Score=25x4=100
M=
fx
N
Notes:
= Mean score
3.7
Success Indicator
The researcher infered that based on the curriculum that is used in SMPN
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Finding
The finding of the data that have been collected through the present
classroom action study of the VIII B students at SMPN I Amlapura in academic
year 2013/2014 would be presented in this chapter. The data was collected by
three kinds of instrument, they were pre-test, post-test, and questionnaire. Thus,
the data was required to answer the research question which gathered by
administering pre-test, post-test and questionnaire. Pre-test or IR was
administered to obtain their pre existing ability in speaking. In pre-test the
subjects were asked to describe their friend who was sitting next to them and then
performed their descriptions infront of the class. It was done in order to know the
subjects speaking ability before the technique was applied. Post-test or R was
administered twice, the last sessions of cycle I and cycle II. The post test was
given in order to know the improvement of students ability in speaking after
taught by using Chain Drill Technique. Therefore, there were three sets of raw
score showing the subjects improvement in speaking. They were pre-test score
and post-test score for each cycle (IR, R1, R2). The three sets of scores which
were collected could be seen as follows:
4.1.1 Pre-Cycle
Pre-cycle or pre-test was conducted before the researcher taught speaking
by using chain drill technique to the subject under the study. It was used in order
to know the speaking ability of the subjects under study before the technique was
29
30
applied. It was given before the Cycle I begun. This score could be computed in
the initial reflection, the subjects or the students described their friend who was
sitting next to them and then perform their description in front of the class orally.
All of the students followed the Initial Reflection. The scores of pre-test (IR) were
collected from 35 subjects under study. The total score of IR was 1852 and the
mean score was 52.91. In IR, only 2,85 % of the subjects under study reached the
Standart Minimum Achivement score. The details of the scoring rubric could be
seen in the Appendix 4. The mean score of IR and the percentage of students who
reached the Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) were computed by using the
formula below:
Mean Score of IR
=
=
= 52.91
x 100%
x 100% = 2.85%
Cycle I
In this cycle the researcher carried out the main process of teaching
speaking by using chain drill technique. This cycle consisted of two sessions. In
the first session the researcher taught speaking by using chain drill technique with
the topic about describing bestfriend. Students directly involved in teachinglearning process where the students in chain were drilled questions based on the
topic given and answered the questions by their own orally. The chain continued
after all students got a chance to give and answer the drilled questions. After that,
31
students were asked to arrange their answers into a good descriptions about their
bestfriend and perform it orally in front of the class.
Second session started with a new topic in describing someone, where in
the first session they were asked to describe their bestfriend but in the second
session they were asked to describe their family. Chain drill started from the
researcher who proposed drilled questions to the student nearest to her. First
student responded the researchers questions then continued to ask a friend who
was sitting beside her with the same drilled questions which were related with the
topic given. This chain continued after all students got a chance to give and
answer the drilled questions. After that, students arranged their answers to be a
good descriptions about their family and described it in front of the class orally. In
this session, the researcher administered the post-test I (R1). The post-test I was
used as feedback to carry out the revision to solve the students weaknesses which
would be done in cycle II. The total score of post-test 1 was 2460 and the mean
was 70.28. In post-test 1, the computation showed that 20% of the subjects under
study reached the standard minimum achievement. The details of the scoring
rubric could be seen in the appendix 4. The mean score of R1 and the percentage
of students who reached the Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) were
computed by using the formula below:
Mean score of R1
=
=
= 70.28
x 100% = 20%
x 100%
32
4.1.3 Cycle II
Cycle II was similar as Cycle I, the researcher taught speaking by using
chain drill technique with the same material about describing someone/
something. Actually, the difference was in the topic given. In this cycle,
researcher gave students the material about describing things. In the first session,
researcher proposed a topic entitled Describe your favourite fruit and asked
students to perform it in front of the class orally. Chain drill technique was done
in this session by proposing some questions which related with the topic given.
After all students got a chance to give and answer the drilled questions, they were
asked to arrange the descriptions and then describe their favourite fruit in front of
the class orally.
In the second session, researcher proposed different topic where in this
session students were given description topic entitled Describe your favourite
food. Teaching speaking by using chain drill technique was done here but a bit
different with the first session where in this session, researcher fixed students
mistakes directly while applying the chain drill technique because so much misspronounciation while pronouncing some words. After all students got a chance to
give and answer the drilled questions, they were asked to arrange their answers
into a good descriptions and then decribe their favourite food in front of the class
orally. The scores of Cycle II were excellent even some students were still got
problem in arranging sentences to be a good descriptions about their favourite
food and got problem too in speaking their mind in front of the class. The total
score of R2 was 2824 and the mean was 80.68. In post-test 2, the computation of
the scores showed that 80% of the subjects under the study reached the standard
33
minimum achievement which meant that this research was successful and
regarded to be stopped. The details of the scoring rubric could be seen in the
appendix 4. The mean score of R2 and the percentage of students who reached the
Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) were computed by using the formula
below:
Mean score of R2
=
=
= 80.68
x 100%
x 100% = 80%
The students scores were increased compared with the pre-cycle, cycle 1
and cycle 2 scores which meant that there was an improvement of the students
achievement in speaking after chain drill technique was applied. The summary of
the data analysis were made in order to make the reader easier in understanding
and learning the data collected. The summary of data analysis from the Initial
Reflection, Cycle I and Cycle II could be seen below:
Table 4.1 Tabulation of Data Showing the Subjects Progressing Score in
Speaking After the Implementation of Chain Drill Technique
Subjects
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
Pre-Cycle (X0)
48
48
44
64
40
40
44
Post-Test 1(X1)
72
72
72
64
64
64
64
Post-Test 2 (X2)
80
80
80
80
72
68
72
34
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
Total
Mean
4.1.4
56
52
48
48
60
80
60
52
40
40
56
44
52
52
44
44
48
52
64
44
52
72
64
48
48
64
64
76
1852
52.91
64
64
64
68
80
92
72
72
68
68
68
64
64
64
64
64
68
64
80
64
68
84
80
68
68
80
72
84
2460
70.28
80
80
80
80
80
96
76
80
80
80
80
80
60
72
72
84
80
80
80
80
84
96
84
80
92
84
96
96
2824
80.68
Questionnaire
As mentioned previously, there were some findings about students
changing behaviour and motivation. Questionnaire was given at the end of cycle 2
in order to collect the data about students feeling about learning English
especially in the speaking activity by using chain drill technique. Questionnaire
35
was made in Indonesian Language and the students answered the questionnaire
based on their own feeling. The data obtained from the questionnaire was
computed and discussed in this present classroom action study. The detail of the
scores could be seen in the appendix 4.
The computation of the comparative percentages for the scores of the
items of the questionnaire showing the subjects total responses for the item of A,
B, C and D was showed as follows:
1. The percentage of item A
321
740
x 100%
= 43.38 %
356
740
x 100%
= 48.11%
63
740
x 100%
= 8.51 %
0
740
x 100%
=0%
36
To make it clear, the rising comparative mean figures of the pre-test (IR)
score and post-test (R) scores obtained by the eighth grade students of SMPN 1
Amlapura for cycle I and cycle II could be presented on the graph below:
90
80,68
80
70,28
70
60
52,91
50
40
30
20
10
0
IR
R1
R2
4.2 Discussion
The data analysis which established the findings of this classroom action
study showed that the mean of the pre-test (IR) obtained by the subjects under
study in speaking activity was 52.91. This mean figure of IR clearly showed that
the ability of the subjects under study was definitely low because the Standard
Minimum Achievement of the English subject in SMPN 1 Amlapura was 77.
The result of the data analysis of the post-test score in cycle I showed the
progress mean figure to 70.28. The mean figure obtained by the subjects in cycle I
was clearly much higher than the mean score of IR. The mean score of cycle I
showed the obvious improvement of the students ability in speaking. The
progress in cycle 1 was the result of the revision after the IR data was collected.
37
The result of the data analysis of the post-test scores in cycle II showed
the progress mean figure to 80.68. The mean figure obtained by the subjects in
cycle II was clearly much higher than the mean score of IR. There was a
significant difference between mean figure of cycle I and mean figure of cycle II.
This result was awesome. Students said that it was easier to construct the
sentences by using drilled questions. It was logical if the grand mean of the
reflection score in cycle II was higher than cycle I.
The questionnaire percentage figures of the total response of the
questionnaire for item A, B, C, and D were 43.38%, 48.11%, 8.51%, and 0%. This
figures showed the changing of subjects positive learning behavior in speaking
by using chain drill technique.
Students speaking skill changed progressively since the chain drill
technique was applied. Thus, the speaking skill of the eighth grade students of
SMPN 1 Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 improved significantly by using
chain drill technique.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
The present classroom action study was conducted to help the students to
improve and develop their ability in describing something and someone orally.
The main data for the present classroom action study were gathered through
administering pre-test (IR) and post-tests (R1 and R2) to the subjects under study.
At the end of cycle II, questionnaire was administered in order to know the
changing of students learning behavior.
The grand mean of pre-test was 52.91. The grand mean of the pre-test
clearly pointed that the speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I
Amlapura was low, because the minimum score criterion which used by the
school was 77. The grand mean of the post-test score for cycle I was 70.28 and
80.68 for cycle II. The findings of the present classroom action study
convincingly revealed that teaching speaking by using chain drill technique could
effectively improve the low ability of class VIII Bs students of SMPN I
Amlapura in speaking activity. This prove was strengthened by the percentages of
the
38
39
scores from the pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2 which were awesome. The
students percentage who reached the Standart Minimum Achievement (KKM)
was 2.85% in pre-test while in post-test1 and post-test2 were increased, 20% and
80%. That was satisfactory result and regarded to be success.
Other instrument which was conducted to the subjects under study was a
set of questionnaire to measure their changing learning behavior such as
motivation, behavior, enthusiasm and their confidence during learning speaking
by using chain drill technique. The result of the analysis in questionnaire clearly
showed comparatively figures of each item. Item A was positively responded by
43.38 % of students, item B was 48.11 %, item C was 8.51 %, instead no one of
the students choosed item D. These findings of the present action study proved the
hypothesis of the study that the problems faced by the eighth grade students of
SMPN I Amlapura could be satisfactory overcome through teaching speaking by
using Chain Drill Technique. It could be concluded that Chain Drill Technique
could improve speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in
academic year 2013/2014.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on the result of the study the researcher would like to suggest the
teacher and students of SMPN I Amlapura and for the further researchers. First,
the English teachers of the eighth grade students are suggested to teach speaking
by implementing chain drill technique in order to make the students interested in
learning and became accustomed in speaking their mind. The finding showed that
students were interested with chain drill technique in speaking activity. Students
confidence and speaking ability were also increased while chain drill technique
40
was applied in teaching speaking. Teachers must burn past habit, where native
language dominated the speaking activity, and create a new habit in the classroom
in order to make students become accustomed in using English for
communication. Chain drill technique was one of many teaching techniques in
teaching speaking which able to make the lesson became interesting and
challenging. The English teachers were also suggested to motivate their students
to speak their idea orally, give more chances to the students to be more active and
asked them not to be afraid and shy in making mistakes. Moreover, fixing directly
when mistakes occured could be the best way in giving students a good model
which can motivate them to be better in the future. Giving a positive feedback to
the students progress also could motivate students and make them become more
confident and enthusiastic in speaking their idea.
The second suggestion was for the students. They were suggested to
motivate themselves to learn English more serious not only during the lesson in
the classroom but also outside the classroom as well. As the finding showed that
the students speaking ability was increase after chain drill technique was applied
which gave students more chances and practices to speak their idea
spontaneously. As we all know that practice would bring us to be better and more
practice would make us to be the best, so keep practicing and never be afraid and
shy in making mistake.
Thirdly was for the further researchers, the researcher expected that other
researchers would do better research related with teaching English by using Chain
Drill Technique. This teaching technique was a part or Audio Lingual method
which has various drill and repetition techniques that could be applied not only for
41
teaching speaking but also for teaching other skills and components. It was an
appropriate technique in teaching speaking based on the finding that students
scores, motivation, confidence and their speaking skill were improved after the
implementation of chain drill technique in teaching-learning process.
REFERENCES
Abinur, Siti Kurnia. (2011). Developing Students Ability in Simple Past Tense
Through Chain Drills. Unpublished Thesis : Universitas Islam Negeri
Syarif Hidayatullah.
Anggraeni, Purwita. (2007). Audio-lingual Teaching as an Alternative Method in
Teaching Speaking. Unpublished Thesis : Semarang State University.
Ary, et al. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education. Canada: Nelson
Education, Ltd.
Brown, H. Douglas. (2003). Language Assessment Principles and Classroom
Practices. New York: Longman
Harmer, Jeremy. (2002). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:
Longman.
Harmer, Jeremy. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:
Pearson Education Limited
Hewitt, Ralph., and Mary Little. (2005). Leading Action Research in Schools.
Florida: University of Central Florida.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and
Learning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Hornberger, N.H., and McKay Sandra L. (2010). Sociolinguistics and Language
Education. Great Britain: Short Run Press Ltd.
Kushartanti, et al. (2005). Pesona Bahasa; Langkah Awal Memahami Linguistics.
Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama
Kusumah, Wijaya., and Dedi Dwitagama. (2009). Mengenal Tindakan kelas.
Jakarta: PT. Indeks.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language
Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Merriam-Webster. (2003). Websters New Explorer College Dictionary.
Springfield, Massachusetts: Federal Street Press.
Richards, J. (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to Practice.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
42
43
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to Teach Speaking. Edinburg Gate Harlow Essex
England: Pearson Education Limited.
Walter, Teresa. (2004). The How-To Handbook Teaching English Language
Learners. New York: Pearson Education
44
NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
NIS
13464
13465
13467
13468
13469
13470
13471
13473
13474
13478
13479
13480
13484
13485
13486
13487
13488
13489
13490
13491
13492
13493
13494
13495
13496
13498
13499
13473
13471
13472
13475
13476
13477
13478
13479
SUBJECTS
Ade Tri Sukadana Yasa
Ade Wijayanti Ni Luh
Adi Putra Wardana I Gede
Agus Pratama I Gede
Agus Satya Juniantara I Gede
Agus Setiawan I Wayan
Agus Tri Merta D I Komang
Ardika Satya Pratama I Gede
Ari Aditya I Putu
Ayu Siwantari Kadek
Cindy Mahartika Putri Ni Komang
Dana Wahyu Fernanda I Komang
Eka Wiranatha I Gede
Nanditharta Deva I Gede
Opi Widiantari Ni Kadek
Paramadi Ida Bagus
Raditya Manuaba Ida Bagus
Raditya Yogi Suara I Gede
Risma Juniantari Ni Kadek
Singarsa Ida Bagus Gede
Sri Komalawati Ni Made
Sri Widiantari Kari Ni Kadek
Suarnata I Wayan
Tesya Eka Savitri Ni Putu
Widiani Ida Ayu
Yogi Hendrawan I Komang
Yudha Sugiantara I Kadek
Ayu Dwinita Juniari Ni Made
Putu Adi Myarsithawan
Aprilia Dwiantari Ni Kadek
Putu Arianti Ni Luh
Arya Dharma Putra I Gede
Diah Puspita A Ni Kadek
Dian Primantari Ni Putu
Winda Apriyanti Ni Putu
45
INITIAL
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
School
Subject
: Bahasa Inggris
Class/ Semester
: VIII/ I
Skill
: Speaking
Meeting
C. Indicator
D. Learning Objective
: 4x40 menit
G. Learning Material
Descriptive Text
47
I. Learning Activities
First Meeting
Pre Activities ( 9 minutes)
Time
62
48
Confirmation
12. Confirming the key concept of the lesson by
pointing out the informations in describing
something
Post-Activities ( 1 minutes)
13. Giving a new descriptive topic for the next
meeting
2nd Meeting
Pre Activities ( 9 minutes)
Time
60
49
10. Giving comment for all performance and giving
describing something
Post-Activities ( 2 minutes)
2
J. References
- Buku LKS Target kelas VIII semester 1
- Kamus
K. Assessment
Technique: Oral Test
Instrument: Performance
Instrument:
1. Make a simple description about your bestfriend in 5-7 sentences and
perform it in front of the class.
2. Make a simple description about your family in 5-7 sentences and perform
it in front of the class
Indicator
1. Describe your
Technique
1. Orally
In Form of
Instrument
---
---
Scoring Rubric
---
bestfriend
2. Describe your
family members
2. Orally
50
LESSON PLAN CYCLE 2
School
Subject
: Bahasa Inggris
Class/ Semester
: VIII/ I
Skill
: Speaking
Meeting
C. Indicator
D. Learning Objective
: 4x40 menit
G. Learning Material
Descriptive Text
51
H. Technique
I. Learning Activities
First Meeting
Pre Activities ( 9 minutes)
Time
going to be given
Elaboration
6. Proposing a topic, describe your favourite fruit.
7. Stating questions which are related with the topic,
to the student nearest to the teacher, and the 1st
student answer the questions given
8. 1st Student continue to give questions to the
student nearest to him/ her and the 2nd student
answer the questions
62
52
Confirmation
12. Confirming the key concept of the lesson by
2nd Meeting
Pre Activities ( 9 minutes)
1. Greeting the students
Time
1
60
53
10. Giving comment for all performance and giving
1. Make a simple description about your favourite fruit in 5-7 sentences and
perform it in front of the class.
2. Make a simple description about your favourite food in 5-7 sentences and
perform it in front of the class
Indicator
1. Describe your
Technique
In Form of
1. Orally
---
favourite fruit
2. Describe your
Instrument
2. Orally
Scoring Rubric
---
favourite food
Amlapura, January 2014
Researcher
Mila januar widyaningsih
10.8.03.51.31.2.5.3981
1. Instrument of pre-test
Describe your friend who is sitting next to you, in 5-7 sentences, then perform
your descriptions in front of the class orally.
2. Instrument of post-test 1
Describe your family in 5-7 sentences and perform your descriptions in front of
the class orally.
3. Instrument of post-test 2
Describe your favourite food in 5-7 sentences and perform your descriptions in
front of the class orally.
4. Instrument of questionnaire
KUESIONER
Silanglah (X) huruf A,B,C atau D yang menjadi pilihan jawaban anda
pada lembar soal yang disediakan
Kumpulkan lembar soal yang telah dijawab apabila anda telah selesai
mengerjakan soal-soal ini
54
55
1. Apakah menurut anda belajar bahasa Inggris dengan Chain Drill Tehnik itu
menyenangkan?
A. Sangat Menyenangkan
B. Menyenangkan
C. Biasa-biasa saja
D. Kurang menyenangkan
2. Bagaimana kesan anda terhadap Chain Drill tehnik?
A. Sangat menarik
B. Menarik
C. Biasa saja
D. Kurang menarik
3. Apakah anda menyukai pembelajaran berbicara dalam Bahasa Inggris dengan
menggunakan Chain Drill tehnik?
A. Sangat menyukai
B. Menyukai
C. Biasa-biasa saja
D. Kurang menyukai
4. Apakah pembelajaran berbicara dalam Bahasa Inggris melalui Chain Drill
tehnik bermanfaat bagi kemampuan belajar anda?
A. Sangat bermanfaat
B. Bermanfaat
C. Biasa-biasa saja
D. Kurang bermanfaat
56
5. Apakah situasi pembelajaran melalui tehnik Chain Drill dapat membantu
meningkatkan kemampuan anda dalam berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris?
A. Sangat membantu
B. Membantu
C. Biasa-biasa saja
D. Kurang membantu
6. Apakah cara pembelajaran berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris melalui tehnik Chain
Drill ini membuat anda bersemangat dalam belajar?
A. Sangat bersemangat
B. Bersemangat
C. Cukup bersemangat
D. Tidak bersemangat
7. Dengan pembelajaran berbicara melalui tehnik Chain Drill, seberapa besar anda
merasa ada kemajuan dalam kemampuan berbicara anda?
A. Sangat banyak
B. Banyak
C. Cukup banyak
D. Tidak banyak
8. Apakah dengan belajar menggunakan tehnik Chain Drill, kepercayaan diri anda
meningkat dalam mengekspresikan ide-ide yang ada secara oral?
A. Sangat meningkat
B. meningkat
C. Cukup meningkat
D. Tidak meningkat
57
9. Apakah dalam pembelajaran melalui tehnik Chain Drill, anda terlibat dalam
kegiatan belajar-mengajar di kelas?
A. Sangat terlibat
B. Terlibat
C. Cukup terlibat
D. Kurang terlibat
10. Apakah perintah yang disampaikan oleh guru dalam pengajaran menggunakan
tehnik Chain Drill mudah dipahami?
A. Sangat mudah
B. Mudah
C. Cukup mudah
D. Tidak mudah
APPENDIX 4
No Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
2
2
4
3
2
2
4
4
4
58
Total
Score
(Score x 4)
2
12
48
2
12
48
2
11
44
3
16
64
2
10
40
2
10
40
2
11
44
2
14
56
2
13
52
2
12
48
2
12
48
3
15
60
4
20
80
3
15
60
3
13
52
2
10
40
2
10
40
3
14
56
2
11
44
3
13
52
3
13
52
2
11
44
2
11
44
2
12
48
2
13
52
3
16
64
3
11
44
3
13
52
4
18
72
3
16
64
3
12
48
3
12
48
3
16
64
3
16
64
4
19
76
Total score
1852
Mean score 1852 =52.91
(total score) 35
35
59
POST-TEST I SCORES
No Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Total
Score
(Score x 4)
3
18
72
3
18
72
3
18
72
3
16
64
3
16
64
3
16
64
3
16
64
3
16
64
3
16
64
3
16
64
3
17
68
4
20
80
4
23
92
3
18
72
3
18
72
3
17
68
3
17
68
3
17
68
3
16
64
3
16
64
3
16
64
3
16
64
3
16
64
3
17
68
3
16
64
4
20
80
3
16
64
4
17
68
4
21
84
4
20
80
3
17
68
4
19
76
4
20
80
3
18
72
4
21
84
Total score
2460
Mean score 2460 =70.28
(total score) 35
35
60
POST-TEST II SCORES
No Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
3
4
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
5
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
Total
Score
(Score x 4)
4
20
80
3
20
80
3
20
80
4
20
80
3
18
72
3
17
68
3
18
72
3
20
80
3
20
80
4
20
80
4
20
80
4
20
80
5
24
96
3
19
76
3
20
80
4
20
80
3
20
80
3
20
80
3
20
80
3
15
60
3
18
72
4
18
72
4
21
84
3
20
80
3
20
80
4
20
80
4
20
80
4
21
84
5
24
96
4
21
84
4
20
80
4
23
92
4
21
84
5
24
96
4
24
96
Total score
2824
Mean score 2824 =80.68
(total score) 35
35
61
Questionnaire Scores
Tabulation of Data Showing the Subjects Responses in Learning Speaking by
Using Chain Drill Technique
Subjects
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Total
A
B
C
9
10
2
12
10
1
6
10
3
18
6
1
9
8
3
3
4
5
3
14
2
6
12
2
3
14
2
0
10
5
9
12
1
15
10
0
15
10
0
3
14
2
9
14
0
18
6
1
6
8
4
18
6
1
18
6
1
6
8
4
6
12
2
12
12
0
15
10
0
9
10
2
3
12
3
3
14
2
3
14
2
9
12
1
9
12
1
3
16
1
3
10
4
18
4
2
6
12
2
18
6
1
18
8
0
321
356
63
Grand Total A + B + C + D (321+356+63) = 740
D
-
APPENDIX 7 : BIOGRAPHY
64