Arief Nur Mustaqim, 2201406598 (2010) A Comparison Between Individual Work and Group Discussion to Improve the Students’ Oral Presentation. (An Experimental Study in Teaching Speaking to Grade XI Students of SMAN 1 Ungaran in the Academic Year of 2009/2010). Under Graduates thesis, Universitas Negeri Semarang.

Preview

PDF (A Comparison Between Individual Work and Group Discussion to Improve the Students’ Oral Presentation. (An Experimental Study in Teaching Speaking to Grade XI Students of SMAN 1 Ungaran in the Academic Year of 2009/2010)) - Published Version Download (157kB) | Preview

Abstract

Mustaqim, Arief Nur. 2010. A Comparison Between Individual Work and Group Discussion to Improve the Students’ Oral Presentation. (An Experimental Study in Teaching Speaking to Grade XI Students of SMAN 1 Ungaran in the Academic Year of 2009/2010).Final Project. English Education. Faculty of Languages and Arts. Semarang State University. Supervisors: I. Drs. Suprapto, M.Hum., II. Drs. Ahmad Sofwan, Ph.D. Keywords: Individual Work. Group Discussion, and Oral Presentation. There are four language skills in the teaching of English: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Speaking is the basic skill for oral communication which means that the skill must be well practiced. Therefore, teachers of English must be creative to make their class interesting for the students. One of the ways to realize this is by choosing the appropriate technique in teaching. There have been many techniques introduced by researchers of teaching methods. In this study, however, I focus on two techniques in teaching speaking especially in delivering oral presentation to Senior High School students. They are Individual Work and Group Discussion Technique. The purpose of the study is to compare the two to know which technique is better for the teaching of speaking. First, I conducted a pre-test in both classes to make sure that both classes are of approximately the same level of speaking proficiency before the treatment was given. It was found that the experimental group (XI science 1) and the control group (XI science 2) are about the same ground, so that I could continue my research. The treatments were done in five class meetings for each group and followed by a post test. This was a quantitative research, in which I compared both groups’ mean scores using t-test. To obtain the result, I employed statistical program for social science (SPSS). From the data analysis it was found that there was a significant difference between the mean scores of the experimental group and those of the control group. The pre-test data analysis shows that the mean score of the experimental group is 68.00 while the mean score of the control group is 68.90. The post-test data analysis shows that the mean score of the experimental group is 77.97 while the mean score of the control group is 72.00. Based on the comparison between and , Ho is accepted, if the is above the and is denied, if the is below the . The of the mean scores of the two classes in post-test is 3.044, while the is 1.67. So, it can be stated that Ho is denied and is accepted (3.044 > 1.67). The same result is shown in the mean scores hypothesis based on the significance value. The significance value of this test is 0.003, thus this value is below 0.05 and therefore the hypothesis is denied. It can be concluded that there is significant difference between the students’ are taught using the group discussion technique with the ones are taught using the individual work technique, where the mean score achievement of the experimental group is higher than the control group in post-test. It means that the group discussion technique gain better achievement than the individual work technique for teaching speaking in delivering oral presentation to Senior High School students. Therefore, it should be much better if teachers of English as well as method analysts and researchers of teaching methods apply the group discussion technique to obtain a better speaking achievement in delivering oral presentation.

Actions (login required)

View Item