7 The Effect of Team Pair Solo Strategy on The Speaking Skill of The Eleventh Year Students at Ma An-Nur Sampang

By.

Miftah Fariduddin

Firman Parlindungan

ABSTRACT

This research study was aimed to know whether there is significant difference on the students’ speaking skill between the students who are taught by using Team Pair Solo strategy and who are taught by conventional teaching or not. To achieve this purpose, the researcher applied quasi-experimental, non-randomized pre-test and post-test design; The sample chosen were two IPS classes, as the sample of the research, which contains 85 students from the population of all second year students at MA An-Nur Sampang. The instruments used to collect data were pre-test and post-test which were made in performance test in which the students had their presentation in front of the class. The collected data were analyzed by using analysis of covariance. The result of the study showed that there was a significant difference between the students` Speaking skill who was taught by using Team Pair Solo strategy and who was taught by using conventional teaching strategy. It was proven from the F critical with df 1/83 at the level of significance 0.01 was 6.96 and F value was 16.75. It meant that the experimental group got better result than the control group. Moreover, the final average score of experimental group was 70.83; whereas the control group was 68.14. The difference was particularly stated based on the distinctive ability, teaching and learning procedures and the classroom activities.

 

Key words: Effect, Team Pair Solo, Speaking Skill.

 

A. Introducation

Speaking as one of the language skills is considered very important to be improved in the teaching and learning process because speaking plays an essential role in facilitating the students to master the English proficiency. Today’s world required that the goal of teaching speaking should improve students’ communicative skills in which students can express themselves and learn how to use a language appropriately.

As the researcher knew in the real life, it is difficult for the students to apply conversation or speaking using English because they do not master aspects of the speaking.  They cannot speak well because they are lack of vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar knowledge and also because of their psychological problem like their poor self-confidence to speak in foreign language.

Speaking is the process of building and sharing meaning through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, in a variety of contexts. (Chaney, 1998) in Kay, (2006). Speaking is a crucial part of second language learning and teaching. Despite its importance, for many years, teaching speaking has been undervalued and English language teachers have continued to teach speaking just as a repetition of drills or memorization of dialogues. However, today’s world requires that the goal of teaching speaking should improve students’ communicative skills, because, only in that way, students can express themselves and learn how to follow the social and cultural rules appropriate in each communicative circumstance. (Kay, 2006).

In teaching speaking there are some principles. The first is helping students to overcome their initial reluctance to speak up, give encouragement, provide opportunity, and start from something simple. The second is asking students to talk about what they want to talk. The third is asking students to talk about what they are able to talk. The fourth is providing appropriate feedback. The fifth is combining speaking with listening and reading. The last is incorporating the teaching of speech acts in teaching speaking. (Reis, 2003).

There is a strategy that is in line with the principles above; Team Pair Solo strategy. This strategy is a cooperative discussion strategy that provides structure in the classroom. Students do problems as a team, then a partner, and finally on their own. It is designed to motivate students to tackle and succeed at problems which initially are beyond their ability. It is based on a simple notion of mediated learning. Students can do more things with help (mediation) than they do alone. (Kagan, 2011).

A research that ever had been done by Beyhan Schurman at the department English Language Studies Unit (DELSU) in Atilim University, Team Pair Solo strategy gave much positive effects for the students. Students integrated what they have learned from the teacher into what they have learned from fellow group members.  Mostly students work together, first in group then as a pair, and provide each other  with support, encouragement, and assistance each other in completing assignment, held each other accountable in their efforts to learn, they learn each other, and ensure all member members making good academic progress. They shared ideas, enhance their skills, and improve their social skill.

Moreover, the researcher knew that the teacher of MA An-Nur Sampang applied a conventional strategy. At the first time, the teacher gives pre activities and gives topic. The teacher explains how to speak well in a few minute. After that the teacher gives opportunity for the students to practice speaking. The teacher orders the students to imitate the rules to speak and the teacher gives chance for students to ask about the topic. And the last the teacher provides questions for students to answer. Unfortunately, the teaching and learning process tend to be useless although the teacher has provided activities obligating the learners to be active specially in solving a problem. Therefore, the researcher interested in applying new teaching strategy.

The problems that the researcher investigates are comparison between using Team Pair Solo strategy and conventional teaching strategy in teaching English Speaking at MA An-Nur Sampang. The problem was formulated “is there any significant difference in students` speaking skills between those who are taught by using Team Pair Solo strategy and those who are taught by using conventional teaching strategy?”. The hypothesis of this study was there was a significant difference in students` speaking skill between those who are taught by using Team Pair Solo strategy and those who are taught by using conventional teaching strategy.

In this study, the researcher has two major variables; the variables are Team Pair Solo strategy as independent variable and speaking skill as dependent variable. The subject chosen was the eleventh grade students at MA An-Nur Sampang. About the limitation, Team Pair Solo strategy is not popular in teaching and learning activities in Sampang especially desa Kembang Jeruk, so the researcher thinks that it was difficult to be conducted. Another weakness to conduct this research was because students of MA An-Nur Sampang accustomed with conventional teaching strategy and the background is Islamic boarding house (Pesantren) that tends to give more priority on Islamic background of the school religious subject and Arabic than English.

 

B. Research Design

In this case, the researcher used quasi-experimental non-randomized design as the research design to prove the hypothesis. The design was used because it was impossible for the researcher to interrupt the schedule of the class and to reorganize the class for the research purpose. The design is illustrated as in the table below.

Table 1.1: Research Design

 

Notes:

E          : Experimental Group

C         : Control Group

Y         : Pre-test

X         : Post-test

From the design above, the pre-test score was analyzed to determine whether the means and standard deviation of the two groups differ significantly. If the score for the two groups on the pre-test are not equivalent, then the analysis of covariance technique is used.

B.1 Subject of The Study

The populations in this research were the eleventh year students taking English subject at MA An-Nur Sampang which consist of 119 students from three classes. One class was IPA class, and two classes were IPS 1 and IPS 2. In this research, the researcher took all IPS classes as the sample of the research which contains 85 students. The sample was non-randomized design. IPS I was the control group and IPS II was experimental group. To make clear, see the table below.

Table 1.2: Population and Sample

DEPARTMENT	CLASS	NUMBER OF THE STUDENTS
Exact Science	IPA	34
Social Science	IPS I	43
	IPS II	42
Total		119

 

B.2 Instrument

The research instruments that used for this study were the test of pre-test and post-test for both experimental group and control group. The test made was performance test in which the students had their presentation in front of the class. The test of pre-test was about “GLOBAL WARMING” and post-test was about “CORRUPTION”. Students discussed about the topic in group. After discussion, every student in group presented the result of discussion based on the instruction. It was about one of the generic structure of the text, main idea, language features, social function, and their opinion about the text in 5 minutes.

 

 

B. Data Collection

The data for this research were collected from the scores of the pre-test and post-test. In order to know whether using Team Pair Solo strategy had differences of effectiveness than using conventional strategy in the teaching speaking English at MA An-Nur Sampang. The researcher only analyzed the content validity of the test instrument based on four aspects pronunciation/intonation, grammar, vocabulary, and fluency. And the scores gain from both pre-test and posttest were compared. The rubric of collecting scores from four aspects above:

 

Table 1.3: Rubric of Collecting Scores

(5)Very Good

(4)Good

(3)Fair

(2)Poor (1)TotalPronunciation/Intonation      Grammar      Vocabulary      Fluency      TOTAL

 

a. Pronunciation and Intonation

5.   The pronunciation and intonation are so clear.

4.   The pronunciation and intonation are clear but there are few mistakes.

3.   The pronunciation and intonation are little bit unclear and obscure the meaning.

2.   The pronunciation and intonation are unclear and vanish some meanings.

1.   The pronunciation and intonation cannot reveal the meaning.

b. Grammar

5.   The grammar is correct and easy to understand the meaning.

4.   The grammar sometimes is incorrect but it does not obscure the meaning.

3.   The grammar sometimes is incorrect and obscures the meaning.

2.   The grammar is incorrect and difficult to understand.

1.   The grammar is incorrect and tends to be silent.

c. Vocabulary

5.   The vocabulary is correct and easy to understand the meaning.

4.   The vocabulary sometimes is inappropriate but it does not obscure the meaning.

3.   The vocabulary is inappropriate and obscures the meaning.

2.   The vocabulary is inappropriate and difficult to understand the meaning.

1.   The vocabulary is difficult to produce.

d. Fluency

5.   The speech is fluent and effortless.

4.   The speech seems to be slightly affected by language problems.

3.   The speech is rather strongly affected by language problems.

2.   The speech is usually hesitant.

1.   The speech is halting.

 

Score Maximum           :  20

Scoring skill                  :  Students’ score =                              x 100

 

 

B.4 Procedures of Team Pair Solo Strategy

The experimental group was given a treatment. The treatment here used Team Pair Solo Strategy. The procedures of Team Pair Solo Strategy are:

1. Students work as a team to solve a problem. The team work activities in group consist of 4 or 5 students.
2. The teacher explains what to do in group.
3. The topic is given by the teacher to the students in team.
4. Each group starts to discuss, after having the topic.
5. Students are engaged, through the use of quick discussion about the topic based on the instruction, and then students present a result of discussion.
6. The teams break into pairs and students work on either the same problem.
7. They discuss in pair, develop and select the controlling ideas, and present the result of the discussion.
8. The pairs break up and the students work individually and perform the result of discussion.
9. Student expresses the result of discussion and conclusion in front of the class.

Figure 1.4: Procedures of Team Pair Solo Strategy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.5 Procedures of Conventional Teaching

The control group was taught by using conventional teaching strategy. The procedures of conventional teaching strategy based on the researchers’ experience are:

1. The teacher gives pre-activities.
2. The teacher gives the topic.
3. The teacher sometimes has the students to make a team of discussion.
4. The teacher explains how to speak well.
5. The teacher gives opportunity for students to practice speaking.
6. The teacher orders the students to imitate the rules to speak.
7. The teacher gives chance for students to ask about the topic.
8. The teacher provides questions for students to answer.

 

C. Data Analysis

Data analysis that the researcher used to determine the effectiveness of using Team Pair Solo strategy applied to the experimental group achieving better is speaking skill than using conventional strategy for the control group.  The scores from both pre-test and post-test are analyzed using analysis of covariance

The steps of analyzing the result are:

1. The researcher examines the scores of both pre-test and post-test of two group; experimental group and control group.
2. The researcher sums up the scores of the test ( ∑X ) each of them are divided by number of subjects (N) to find out the means symbolized by (X)
3. The researcher squared the different score of every student in each group, then it is found the sum up of the squaring symbolized by ( ∑ X2)
4. The researcher analyzed the comparison of dependent variable data to ANCOVA in order to get value of SSt, SSw, SSb, MSb and MSw by using formula:

SSt :

SSb :

SSw : SSt-SSb

MSb :

MSw :

1. The researcher analyze the correlation between covariate variable data and dependent variable and each group by using formula as follow:

r:

1. The researcher adjusted the finding result of the no 4 from ANCOVA to lose an influence of covariate variable on dependent variable by using formula as follow:

SS`t : SSt (1-rt

SS`w : SSw (1-rw

rw :

SS`b : SS`t-SS`w

MS`b :

MS`w :

1. The researcher tests the hypothesis at the level of 0.01 and 0.05 by looking the critical value table to know whether the hypothesis is accepted or not.

 

D. Findings and Discussion

The result of pre-test scores of the experimental group and the control group were presented in appendix 3 and 4. After analyzing the data, the researcher found that the average score of each group was different. The pre-test score of experimental group was 65.71 and control group was 64.77.

To answer the research problem as mentioned in the previous chapter whether teaching English by using Team Pair Solo strategy had a significant effect on the eleventh year students` speaking skill, an analysis post-test score was done to know the significant difference related to the implementation of Team Pair Solo strategy and conventional teaching for both experimental group and control group.

From the data analysis above, the researcher found the difference average score between two groups. The experimental group got 70.83 whereas, the control group got 68.14 as their initial scores were not equivalent, the analysis of covariance was applied to analyze the data as this study used quasi-experimental non-randomized pre-test and post-test design.

 

Table 1.5: The summary of computation for Quasi-experimental design

 

Notes   :           Y = Pre-Test                            X = Post-Test

 

The findings reported in this chapter were based on the analysis of data and the procedures of data collection described in the previous chapter. The researcher applied the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to analyze the data. There were several steps of ANCOVA explained in the preceding chapter. The first step was an analysis of ANOVA presented as follow:

1. SSt             = –

= 412975-410223.82

= 2751.18

1. SSb            =  +

= +

=

=210729.17 + 199648.84 – 410223.82

= 410378.01 – 410223.82

= 154.19

1. SSw           =  SSt-SSb

= 2751.18 – 154.19

= 2596.99

1. MSb                      =

=

=

1. MSw   =

=         = 31.29

From the result of ANOVA above, it was found that the value of sum of squares deviation of each score from the grand mean (SSt) was 2751.18. The sum of squares between groups (SSb) was 154.19. The sum squares within groups (SSw) was 2596.99. The mean square between groups (MSb) was 154.19. The mean square within group (MSw) was 31.29.

Then the next step was the analysis of correlation. It was the correlation analysis between covariate data variable and dependent variable for the entire subject (rt) and each group (rk). The complete analysis was done below:

 

Sx1                 = = = = = 5.59       SY1                = = = = = 5.67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The result showed that the value of (rt) was 0.92, the value of (rk) which was grouped in (r1) was 0.96 and (r2) was 0.90.

Then the researcher put in the values of SSt, SSw, SSb, MSw, and MSb from ANNOVA by losing the influence of covariate variable on dependent variable with the following calculation:

1.         SS`t     = SSt (1-rt²)

= 2751.18 (1- 0.92²)

= 2751.18 (1- 0.8464)

 

Rw       = = =

= (2751.18) . (0.1536)

= 422.58

2.         SS`w   = SS`w (1-rw²)

= 2596.99 (1- 0.93²)

= 2596.99 (1- 0.8649)

= (2596.99) . (0.1351)

=350.85

3.         SS`b    = SS`t-SS`w

= 422.58 – 350.85

= 71.73

4.         MS`b   =

=

= 71.73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The findings were that the value of SS`t was 422.58, the value of SS`w was 350.85, the value of SS`b was 71.73, the value of MS`w was 4.28, and the value of MS`b was 71.73.

The last step was testing the hypothesis. From several calculations above, it was known that the value of F was 16.75. After checking out in the table, it was found that F critical with df  83 at 0.05 level of significance was 3.58 and at 0.01 level of significance was 6.96. Thus F ratio is higher at level of significant 0.01. The analysis of covariance with pretest as covariate was listed below:

Table 1.6: Summary of ANCOVA with pretest as covariate

 SS`DfMS`FLevel of significanceBetween group71.73171.7316.750.01Within group350.85834.28 Total

 

Based on what had been stated above, the researcher concluded that there was a significant difference on the students` speaking skill who are taught by using Team Pair Solo strategy and those who are taught by using conventional teaching strategy.          It means that the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. From the explanation above, it could be said that teaching English speaking by using Team Pair Solo strategy is more effective than teaching English speaking by using conventional teaching strategy.

The finding showed that there was a significant difference on the speaking skill between students who were taught by using Team Pair Solo strategy and who were taught by using conventional teaching strategy. It was proven by the significance different of students mean scores of pre-test and post-test. The average score of pre-test shows that the average scores of control group was 64.77; the average scores of experimental group was 65.71. And also it might be related to the students` initial differences in the two groups. Those were the differences on the students` ability based on the pretest scores.

Another reason was the different procedures used in teaching speaking English as it had been mentioned in the previous chapter. The experimental group used student centered approach, in other words the control group was treated with teacher centered approach. The researcher had given same material to both control and experimental group, but it is different in the procedure of teaching. The materials given in the handbook of Lembar Keja Siswa (LKS), and some supplementary materials. In the experimental group, the activities were made based on the materials given and some other sources by involving students in the exciting and interesting activity.

During the process of the study, the researcher knew that the procedures used in the experimental group could run smoothly. It was shown by the students` desire to study more about speaking although in the first meeting they felt ashamed to build up their self confidence. On the other hand, the procedures in the control group were assumed to be boring and out of date activities. Some of the students were bored, sleepy, lazy and lost of consentration in the middle of studying because the main attention was directed on the teacher`s explanation. Unfortunately, the students could not develop or increase their learning interest in learning speaking English. Those happened because their activities controlled and dictated by the teacher so they could not improve their learning activities in free.

In Team Pair Solo strategy learning process, students were provided with authentic texts that obliged them to share and communicate one each other. In this case, the students were put in team and the team group given a topic discussion in same topic, but different discussion and improvisation. They were told that they were not allowed to cheat and look at each other’s discussion, but they had to find out their own argument related to the topic discussion. In this kind of activity, the students should share each other, be more active, argumentative, and solutive.

While in the control group, the learning activities in the process of studying, the students were focused on the topics given in the book and directed toward the researcher`s explanation. Even though there was a dialog activity, it was still seemed that the students of control group were less enthusiastic. There were little students who were engaged to the learning process and became dominant participant. Unfortunately, the rest were passive students.

Finally, the finding showed that both group had significant difference. It could be said that experimental group was better than control group. The fact was known from the materials and activities used in experimental group that support students desire to speak English. Meanwhile, It was really different from the activities of control group that could not fulfill their need, as most of the attention was mainly organized to the teacher`s model; moreover, the emphasis was on students` memorization, drills and practice of speaking. The fact, the researcher summed up that teaching English using Team Pair Solo strategy was effective for the following reason. A cooperative learning strategy is where students interact with a team, and then partners, to share information.

In addition to these reason, Team Pair Solo is effective as interested activities, because Team Pair Solo strategy is a versatile and simple technique for improving students’ learning comprehension. It gives students time to think about an answer and activates prior knowledge. Team Pair Solo enhances students’ oral communication skills as they discuss their ideas with one another. This strategy helps students become active participants in learning and can include reading as a way of organizing thoughts generated from discussions.

 

E. Conclusion

As stated in the previous chapter, the researcher is interested in investigating whether or not there is a significant difference in students` speaking skill between those who are taught by using Team Pair Solo strategy and those who are taught by using conventional teaching strategy at MA An-Nur Sampang. To answer this research problem, the researcher presented the result in the following section.

The first is related to the students` scores for both experimental and control group. The students’ scores of both experimental and control group, having obtained from the finding, the researcher found that the average of pre-test score in experimental group was 65.71 and in control group was 64.77. The other way, the average of post-test score in experimental group was 70.83 and in control group was 68.14. After the researcher analyzed post-test scores by using ANCOVA, it was founded that the value of F was 16.75. However, F critical with df 83 at 0.01 level of significance was 6.96. It means that F value was higher than F critical.

Based on the hypothesis testing, it is clearly known that there there was a significant difference in students` speaking skill between those who are taught by using Team Pair Solo strategy and those who are taught by using conventional teaching strategy at MA An-Nur Sampang.

All the reason above, shows us that teaching speaking English by using Team Pair Solo strategy is effective to be applied or used in the teaching and learning process in MA An-Nur Sampang specially, and it is possible also implemented in other institution whether in senior high school even in junior high school commonly. In conclusion, Team Pair Solo was considered the best way of teaching speaking English compared to other methods like situational language teaching and total Phsycal respons.

 

F. Suggestion

In making sure of the good intention and attention to the education in Indonesia. Here is about the teaching strategy, the researcher provides suggestions for the English teacher, next researcher and education department.

The English teacher should use Team Pair Solo strategy in order to get better achievement as proven from the result of this study. Then the teacher should choose the appropiate supplementary materials related to the topic of teaching english and vary the activities to have students`  become more active in learning. In making variation of the activities, the teacher can improve from the original one combine with the new one that is about Team Pair Solo. For example in Team Process, the teacher may create the process become more interesting by having unique way like let the students have their own ideas in free allthough they think out of context, then, a few minutes after that teacher ask students to correlate their ideas result in their mind with the real thing happen, in this case is related to the main topic discussion.

Next suggestions is directed toward for future researcher. First, in relation to the application of similar research approach, he or she should conduct a longer time of study in order to deepen the treatment and achieve better in speaking English achievement, besides that he or she should do the reseach intensively so that the result can be reliable, valid and accuntable. Then, for the future researchers who will investigate further about Team Pair Solo strategy, he or she should enlarge his or her understanding about Team Pair Solo strategy and vary the supplementary materials correlated to its classroom activities.

The last suggestions is specially directed toward for Department of Education Affairs. As we know that education department is the government institution that runs in managing system in this country. The researcher suggests to Department of Education Affairs to improve the quality of the teacher because the teacher is the most important aspect that affect the quality of the students. By conducting the training program or workshop for the teacher and giving the new interesting strategies that appropriate with the advanced of era. Such us: cooperative learning strategy, problem based learning and so on.

 

References

Ano. Kouchi. 2011. (Online) an Article: Fluency and Accuracy in the Spoken English of Japanese High School Learners.Waseda University. (www.paaljapan.org/ resources/proceedings/PAAL8/pdf/pdf002.pdf). Assessed on 21^st May 2011. 19.20 wib.

Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan. 2006. Panduan Penulisan Skripsi. Malang. Universitas Islam Malang.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2003. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Malaysia: Oxford Illustrators Ltd.

Jacobs, Lucy Cheser, Razavieh, Asghar. 1979. Introduction to Research in Education.Library of Cataloging in Publication Data: United State of America.

Jacobs, George, M, Lee, Gan, Siowck and, Ball, Jessica.1997. Cooperative Learning. SEAMEO: Singapore.

Kagan. 2011. (Online). Schoolinsites. (http://images.schoolinsites.com/SiSFiles/ Schools/TN/GreenevilleCity/GreenevilleHigh/Uploads/DocumentsCategories/Documents/Kagan.pdf). Accessed on 17^th Februari 2011. 20.31 wib.

Kayi. Hayriye. 2006. (Online)  An article: Teaching Speaking activities to Promote Speaking in Second Language. University of Nevada. (http://iteslj.org/ Techniques/Kayi-TeachingSpeaking.html). Accessed on 14^th January 2011. 09.59 wib.

Nunan, David. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Heinle and Heinle Publishers: Massachusetts.

Mistar, Junaidi. 2007. Handout: Statistic for Language Teaching Studies. Unpublished. Malang: English Department of Unisma.

Richards. Jack, C and Rodgers, Theodore S. 2001. Approach and Teaching Methods in Language Teaching. Cambrige University Press: UK. London.

Sari, Vicka, Mulya. 2008. (Online) Inproving Students’ Speaking Mastery Using Information Gap at the Second Year of SMPN 3 Kebakramat Karanganyar in 2007/2008 Academic Year. Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/52764640/9/Principles-of-Teaching-Speaking#.          Accessed on 11^st May 2011. 06.07 wib).

Schurman, Beyhan. 2011. (Online) A Research:“The Write Stuff”: Guding Written Assignments from Start to Finish. Delsu Atilim University. (http://library. atilim.edu.tr/kurumsal/pdfs/elt2/PinarBeyhanShurman.pdf) Accessed on 17^th Februari 2011. 20.45 wib.

Slavin, Robert, E. 2009. Cooperative Learning Theory, Riset, and Praktik. Nusamedia: Bandung.

Syah, Supian. 2009. The Effect of TPS (Team Pair Share) Strategy on the English Achievement of the Eleventh Year Students at Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 2 Batu. Unpublished Thesis. FKIP UNISMA.

Sugiyanto. 2010. Model-Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Yuma Pustaka: Surakarta.

Ur, Penny. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory. Cambridge University Press: Australia.

Wiersama, William. 1991. Research Method in Education: an Introduction. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: United State of America.