COOPERATIVE LEARNING APPROACH AND PROJECT-

BASED LEARNING FOR TEACHING SPEAKING SKILLS

A RESEARCH PAPER

Submitted to the English Education Study Program

Language Education Faculty of IKIP Siliwangi
in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
for the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

By
IMAM FAUZAN NUGRAHA
Student’s ID. 15220318

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION
IKIP SILIWANGI
2019

i
 APPROVAL SHEET

THE USE OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING APPROACH AND

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’
SPEAKING SKILLS

By

Imam Fauzan Nugraha

Student’s ID. 15220318

Approved by:

Supervisor I, Supervisor II,

Dasep Suprijadi, S. Pd., M. Pd Yana, S.Pd., M.Hum

NIDN. 0416107103 NIDN. 0402088101

Acknowledged by:

Head of English Education

Study Program,

Yana, S. Pd., M. Hum

NIDN. 0402088101

ii
 STATEMENT

I hereby certify that this research paper entitled “Cooperative Learning

Approach and Project-Based Learning for Teaching Speaking Skills” is

my own work. I am fully aware that I have cited statements, theories, and

ideas from other sources and they are stated and acknowledged properly.

Cimahi, June 2019

Imam Fauzan Nugraha

iii
 ABSTRACT

This research investigated the use of cooperative learning approach and project-based
learning for teaching speaking skills in one of senior high schools in Cimahi, West
Java. The objectives of this research were to figure out; (1) students’ improvement in
speaking skills using cooperative learning and project-based learning. (2) the
implementations of cooperative learning approach and project-based learning. (3)
students’ difficulties in speaking skills. This research used quantitative method
employing a quasi-experimental design. The quasi-experimental design was carried
out to two classes of eleventh grade consisting of Experimental and Control classes
using an Independent t-test design. This research involved 35 students of
experimental class and 35 students of control class. The data were collected by using
three types of instruments including pretest and posttest, observation, and interview.
Pretest and posttest were conducted to both experimental and control classes; students
were given the same instructions and scored by using the same scoring rubric to
figure out the students’ improvement in speaking skills. Observation was conducted
to both the experimental and control classes to figure out the implementations of
cooperative learning approach and project-based learning. Interview was also
conducted to nine students of experimental class and nine students of control class in
order to figure out the students’ difficulties in speaking English. The results of this
research were in the following findings; (1) the independent samples t-test on posttest
scores analysis showed that the significant value was 0.000 which was lower than the
level of significance (0.05) therefore, null hypothesis was rejected. From the test, it
could be concluded that there was significant difference between cooperative learning
approach and project-based learning in improving students’ speaking skill. (2) the
observation checklist showed that the implementations of cooperative learning
approach and project-based learning had facilitated students in speaking English. (3)
the interview session showed that common difficulties faced by the students were
lack of vocabulary, followed by lack of grammar and structure, and pronunciation
knowledge. In addition, lack of self-confidence; being shy and afraid was also
difficulty faced by the students. Further, this research suggested English teachers and
other researchers to apply cooperative learning approach or project-based learning for
teaching speaking skills.

Keywords: Cooperative Learning Approach, Project-Based Learning, teaching

speaking.

iv
 PREFACE

Assalamu’alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamiin, All Praises Be to ALLAH SWT, The Lord of

the Worlds, for all blessings, mercies, health, and opportunity given to the

researcher in order to finish this research paper entitled “Cooperative Learning

Approach and Project-Based Learning for Teaching Speaking Skills”

This research paper is submitted to the English Education Study Program,

Language Education Faculty of IKIP Siliwangi in Partial Fulfillment of

Requirements for the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree.

After doing a great effort, the researcher finally completed this research

paper. However, the researcher realizes that there are still many shortcomings

in this paper. Therefore, the researcher enthusiastically welcomes to any

constructive suggestions and criticism. The researcher hopes that this paper

will be useful to the English Education Study Program and the teachers of

English Education.

Cimahi, June 2019

Imam Fauzan Nugraha

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Bismillahirrohmaanirrohiim,

Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamiin, All Praises Be to ALLAH SWT, The Lord of

the Worlds, for all blessings, mercies, health, and opportunity given to the

researcher in order to finish this research paper entitled “Cooperative Learning

Approach and Project-Based Learning for Teaching Speaking Skills”. Peace

Be Upon Prophet Muhammad SAW, the great leader who has brought us from

the darkness to the brightness. The researcher is sure that this research paper

would not be completed without helps, supports, suggestions, and motivations

from many people. Thus, the researcher would like to express his deepest

gratitude to all of those who had helped, supported, suggested, and motivated

him during the process of writing this research paper. This goes to:

1. Dr. H. Heris Hendriana, M. Pd. as the Rector of IKIP Siliwangi;

2. Yana, S. Pd., M. Hum. as the Head of English Education Study Program

of IKIP Siliwangi and also as the second Supervisor who has spent his

valuable time in guiding and correcting this research paper;

3. Acep Haryudin, M. Pd. as the Secretary of English Education Study

Program of IKIP Siliwangi;

4. Dasep Suprijadi, S. Pd., M. Pd. as the first Supervisor who has spent his

valuable time in guiding and correcting this research paper;

vi
5. All lecturers and staffs in IKIP Siliwangi for giving knowledge, insight,

advice, suggest, inspiration, motivation, and information about everything

especially related to this research paper until he finished this research

paper;

6. His beloved parents, the late Bapak Bahrudin and the late Ibu Tumaenah

who always become motivations for the researcher to finish this research

paper;

7. His beloved sisters and brothers who always support and pray for the

researcher to finish this research paper;

8. All of his friends in A3, A2, A1 Reguler 2015 for the supports and helps in

finishing this research paper;

9. And to all people who cannot be mentioned here one by one, who helped

and supported the researcher to finish this research paper.

vii
 MOTTO

“You can’t see light in your future, but you can make light for your future”

(Imam Fauzan Nugraha, 2019)

“For indeed, with hardship [will be] ease. Indeed, with hardship [will be]

ease. So when you have finished [your duties], then stand up [for worship].

And to your Lord direct [your] longing.”

(QS. Al-Insyirah, 5-8)

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER ..................................................................................................... i
APPROVAL SHEET ............................................................................... ii
STATEMENT ........................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................. iv
PREFACE ................................................................................................. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................... vi
MOTTO .................................................................................................... viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. xii
LIST OF APPENDICES.......................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Research ................................................................ 1
B. Research Questions and Hypothesis .................................................... 4
C. Objectives of the Research ................................................................... 5
D. Scope of the Research .......................................................................... 6
E. Significances of the Research .............................................................. 6
F. Definition of Key Terms ...................................................................... 7
G. Organization of the Research ............................................................... 8

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A. Notion of Cooperative Learning Approach.......................................... 10
1. Definition of Cooperative Learning Approach ................................ 10
2. Types of Cooperative Learning Approach ...................................... 12
3. Definition of Jigsaw Technique ....................................................... 13
4. Procedures of Jigsaw Technique ..................................................... 15
5. Advantages and Disadvantages of Cooperative Learning
Approach ......................................................................................... 16
B. Notion of Project-Based Learning ....................................................... 19
1. Definition of Project-Based Learning.............................................. 19
2. Procedures of Project-Based Learning ............................................ 21
3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Project-Based Learning ............ 27
C. Notion of Speaking .............................................................................. 30
1. Definition of Speaking..................................................................... 30
2. Elements of Speaking ...................................................................... 32
3. Types of Classroom Speaking Performance .................................... 34

ix
 4. Principles of Teaching Speaking ..................................................... 36
5. Classroom Speaking Activities ........................................................ 38
6. Difficulties in Learning Speaking.................................................... 41
D. Previous Studies ................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Method ................................................................................. 50
B. Research Design ................................................................................... 50
C. Research Instruments ........................................................................... 53
D. Population and Sample......................................................................... 59
E. Data Collection Technique ................................................................... 59
F. Data Analysis Technique ..................................................................... 60
G. Research Procedures ............................................................................ 64
H. Research Schedules .............................................................................. 66
I. Validity and Reliability ........................................................................ 67

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Results .................................................................................................. 69
1. Statistical Results............................................................................. 69
a. Descriptive Statistics ................................................................. 72
b. Analysis of Pretest Scores ......................................................... 73
c. Analysis of Posttest Scores ........................................................ 77
2. The Implementation of Cooperative Learning Approach and
Project-Based Learning ................................................................... 81
a. The Implementation of Cooperative Learning Approach by
using Jigsaw as a Technique in Teaching Speaking Skills ........ 82
b. The Implementation of Project-Based Learning by using
Poster as a Project in Teaching Speaking Skills ........................ 91
3. Students’ Difficulties in Speaking English ...................................... 100
B. Discussions ........................................................................................... 102

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

A. Conclusions .......................................................................................... 107
B. Suggestions .......................................................................................... 108

REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 110

APPENDICES
AUTOBIOGRAPHY

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The Processes and Roles of Project-Based Learning ................. 23

Table 3.1 Quasi-Experimental Design ....................................................... 51
Table 3.2 Quasi-Experimental Design ....................................................... 52
Table 3.3 Speaking Rubric ......................................................................... 54
Table 3.4 The Observation Checklist on Students’ Activities ................... 57
Table 3.5 The Interpretation of N-Gain ..................................................... 63
Table 3.6 Research Schedules Activities ................................................... 67
Table 4.1 Students’ Speaking Scores ......................................................... 70
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Speaking Scores .................. 72
Table 4.3 The Result of Normality Test of Distribution on Pretest
Scores ......................................................................................................... 74
Table 4.4 The Result of Homogeneity Test of Variance on Pretest
Scores ......................................................................................................... 75
Table 4.5 The Result of Independent Samples Test on Pretest Scores ...... 77
Table 4.6 The Result of Normality Test of Distribution on Posttest
Scores ......................................................................................................... 78
Table 4.7 The Result of Homogeneity Test of Variance on Posttest
Scores ......................................................................................................... 79
Table 4.8 The Result of Independent Samples Test on Posttest Scores ..... 81

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Project-Based Learning Procedures .......................................... 24

Figure 4.1 Pre-Activity and Organizing Groups ........................................ 83
Figure 4.2 Students Discuss the Material in Home Group ......................... 83
Figure 4.3 Students Discuss the Material in Expert Group ........................ 84
Figure 4.4 Students Teach and Share the Material in Home Group .......... 85
Figure 4.5 The Representative of each Group Presents and Shares the
Material ...................................................................................................... 85
Figure 4.6 Students and Researcher Concluded the Process of Teaching and
Learning ..................................................................................................... 86
Figure 4.7 Pre-Activity, Organizing Groups, and Selecting Topic ............ 92
Figure 4.8 Planning and Arranging the Projects ........................................ 93
Figure 4.9 Planning and Arranging the Schedule ...................................... 93
Figure 4.10 Finishing the Projects ............................................................. 94
Figure 4.11 Presenting the Projects ............................................................ 95
Figure 4.12 Evaluating the Projects ........................................................... 95

xii
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. The Decree of Research Paper Supervisors

Appendix B. Supervision Card
Appendix C. Research Permission Letter from Faculty of Language Education
Appendix D. Research Official Statement from SMA Negeri 4 Cimahi
Appendix E. Syllabus
Appendix F. Lesson Plan of Experimental Class
Appendix G. Lesson Plan of Control Class
Appendix H. The Result of Validity and Reliability
Appendix I. Pretest and Posttest Instruments
1. Pretest Instrument
2. Posttest Instrument
Appendix J. Observation Checklist Result of Experimental Class
1. Observation Checklist Result in Meeting 1
2. Observation Checklist Result in Meeting 2
3. Observation Checklist Result in Meeting 3
4. Observation Checklist Result in Meeting 4
5. Observation Checklist Result in Meeting 5
Appendix K. Observation Checklist Result of Control Class
1. Observation Checklist Result in Meeting 1
2. Observation Checklist Result in Meeting 2
3. Observation Checklist Result in Meeting 3
4. Observation Checklist Result in Meeting 4
5. Observation Checklist Result in Meeting 5
Appendix L. Interview Transcripts
1. Interview Transcript of Experimental Class
2. Interview Transcript of Control Class

xiii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a general explanation on some fundamental reasons of

the research, consisting of the background of the research, research questions

and hypotheses, objectives of the research, scope of the research, significances

of the research, definition of key terms, and organization of the research.

A. Background of the Research

In Indonesia, current education system uses 2013 Curriculum. According to

BSNP, (2006) Curriculum is a set of plans and rules about goals, contents, and

learning materials as well as the way of using it as guidance for

implementation of learning activities that is aimed at a specific goal of

National Education Standardized Institution (in Apsari 2016:1). From the

statement above, curriculum is the main factor in organizing the education,

especially in Indonesia. The 2013 Curriculum emphasizes the development of

a balance between spiritual and social attitudes, knowledge, and skills, and

applying them in various situations in the school and community

(Permendikbud No 59, 2014; taken from Khasanah, 2015:19). Therefore,

through 2013 Curriculum, students are given opportunity to develop their

spiritual and social attitudes, knowledge, and skills especially in students’

speaking skill.

1
 2

The teaching of speaking skill has become an important thing in the

teaching of English as a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL) context. In

Indonesia, English is considered as a foreign language since it is not widely

spoken or used in students’ daily lives. A foreign language is one not widely

used in the learners’ immediate social context (Saville-Troike, 2006:4). Even

though English is still a foreign language in Indonesia, the teaching of

speaking is important because many students want to be able to speak in

English for communicative purpose. It is also conducted since English has

become one of International Languages.

Besides the fact that English is one of International Languages, having an

ability to speak in English is necessary. Speaking is one of the skills in

English besides listening, reading, and writing. Speaking is considered as the

hardest skill compared to listening, reading, and writing. Many people feel

that speaking a new language is harder than reading, listening and writing

(Nunan, 2003:48). This is the problem faced by students that speaking is hard

to be implemented. Nunan also stated that there are two reasons why many

people including students feel that speaking is way harder. First, speaking

happens in a real time. Since it is in a real time, the listener is waiting for the

speaker to speak right. Second, the process of speaking cannot be edited or

revised like the process of writing.

The teaching speaking methods, strategies, approaches, and techniques in

English as a foreign language classroom have been studied and applied in

order to anticipate the problems. One of the ways in promoting speaking and
 3

social interactions among students is cooperative learning (Soleimani and

Khosravi, 2018; Ning, 2011). Cooperative learning has started since 1970s, it

has now developed into a very popular learning (Warsono & Hariyanto,

2017:159). Some experts who have developed cooperative learning are

Johnson & Johnson, Elliot Aronson, Robert Slavin, Elizabeth Cohen, and

Spencer Kagan. Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, (1994) taken from Soleimani

and Khosravi (2018) stated that cooperative learning is a teaching strategy in

which small groups (4-6), each with students of different levels of ability, use

a variety of learning activities to improve their own and each other’s learning,

while the teacher coaches the process of teaching and learning. In line with the

statement above, cooperative learning is a learning group with the number of

learners with the idea of 4-6 people among its members. It motivates students

to help each other in order to achieve learning objectives. Bern and Erickson

(2001:5) in Devany (2015) stated that cooperative learning is a learning

strategy that organizes learning using small learning groups in which students

work together to achieve the goal of learning. Therefore, cooperative learning

can be an alternative way in a teaching and learning process to improve

students’ speaking skills.

Meanwhile, Project-based learning is also believed as an alternative way in

teaching and learning process to improve students’ speaking skills. Project-

based learning was introduced from Seymour Papert’s theory of

constructionism (Warsono & Hariyanto 2017). Papert’s theory of

constructionism assumed that the learning process could effectively happen if

 4

students got actively involved in making and producing a real physical

creation which can be presented in the real world.

According to Permendikbud (No. 58, 2014), project-based learning is a

teaching model in the scientific based approach which is recommended in the

recent trend of teaching and learning English of 2013 Curriculum. A Project-

based learning is the teaching and learning model that organizes learning

process around projects (Thomas, 2000). In line with the statement above,

Klein, (2009:8) stated that project-based learning is the instructional strategy

of empowering students to pursue content knowledge on their own and

demonstrate their new understanding through a variety of presentation modes

Based on the explanation mentioned above, the researcher tried to figure

out the use of cooperative learning and 2013 curriculum which is project-

based learning for teaching speaking skills. The researcher also figured out the

implementation of cooperative learning and project-based learning and

students’ difficulties in speaking English skills.

B. Research Questions and Hypothesis

1. Research Questions

This research is conducted in order to investigate these following questions:

a. Is there any significant difference between students who are taught by

using Cooperative Learning Approach and those who are taught by using

Project-Based Learning in improving students’ speaking skills?

 5

b. How are the implementations of cooperative learning approach and

project-based learning approach?

c. What are students’ difficulties in speaking English?

2. Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the outcome of the research

(Hatch and Farhady, 1982:85). Sugiyono (2009:64) taken from Habibah

(2016:33) stated that the research that formulates hypothesis is the research in

which use quantitative method. In addition, Best (1981) stated that hypothesis

limits the focus of the investigation to a defined target and determines what

observation will be made. Thus, the hypothesis of this research is:

H0: There is no significant difference between cooperative learning approach

and project-based learning in improving students’ speaking skill.

C. Objectives of the Research

The research is intended to investigate:

1. Significant difference between students who are taught by using

Cooperative Learning Approach and those who are taught by using

Project-Based Learning in improving students’ speaking skills

2. The implementation of cooperative learning approach and project-based

learning; and

3. Students’ difficulties in speaking English.

 6

D. Scope of the Research

As the problems stated above, and to make the research more focus, the

researcher used cooperative learning approach adapting jigsaw as the

technique implemented in experimental class and project-based learning

implemented in control class.

E. Significances of the Research

The researcher believes that this research would be beneficial for pedagogical,

theoretical, and practical use.

1. Pedagogically, the teacher as the facilitator in the class needs more

activities to make students get actively engaged in the teaching and

learning process. The teacher can use some activities which can make

students active and enjoy the class. Cooperative learning approach through

Jigsaw technique and project-based learning can be the way to stimulate

students in the classroom.

2. Theoretically, since the theoretical information is available here, this can

also be beneficial for other researchers to find meaningfully theoretical

information about cooperative learning approach and project-based

learning.

3. Practically, it can be beneficial for other teachers and researchers in facing

the problem of students’ speaking skill.

 7

F. Definition of Key Terms

1. Speaking Skills

Speaking is one of four skills in English. Speaking is a productive skill that

has an important role in communication.

2. Cooperative Learning Approach

Cooperative learning approach is an approach which stimulates students to get

involved in the process of teaching and learning. This activity can include

group work and interactions. Through this approach, students are given

opportunity to speak a lot in the classroom

3. Jigsaw Technique

Jigsaw is one of cooperative learning approaches. This technique will make

students active in the classroom. This technique is conducted by grouping

students into several groups and then students move to other group to discuss

a particular material.

4. Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning is an approach where the students are given a task that

is related to making a project. This project can include the making of poster,

video, speech, poetry, drama and so forth.

 8

G. Organization of the Research

The paper of this research is organized as follows:

1. Chapter I: Introduction

This chapter presents a general explanation on some fundamental reasons of

the paper, consisting of the background of the research, research questions and

hypotheses, objectives of the research, scope of the research, significances of

the research, definition of key terms, and organization of the research.

2. Chapter II: Review of the Literature

This chapter elaborates the theoretical concept of cooperative learning,

project-based learning, and speaking. It also provides several literatures

regarding the previous studies.

3. Chapter III: Research Methodology

This section presents the methodology of the research which covers: research

method, research design, research instruments, population and sample, data

collection technique, data analysis technique, research procedures, research

schedule, and validity and reliability.

4. Chapter IV: Results and Discussions

This chapter presents the explanation about the results study toward the use of

cooperative learning approach and project-based learning for teaching

speaking skills.
 9

5. Chapter V: Conclusions and Suggestions

This chapter draws the conclusions of the research and several suggestions for

English teachers, students and other researchers who try to conduct similar

research related to the use of cooperative learning approach and project-based

learning for teaching speaking skills.

 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter elaborates the theoretical concept of cooperative learning,

project-based learning, and speaking. It also provides several literatures

regarding the previous studies. These review of the literature and previous

studies are very useful to guide each step of the data collection process to

answer the research questions.

A. Notion of Cooperative Learning Approach

In this part, the researcher explains about the definition of cooperative

learning approach, types of cooperative learning approach, definition of jigsaw

technique in cooperative learning approach, procedure of jigsaw technique in

cooperative learning approach, and advantages and disadvantages of

cooperative learning approach.

1. Definition of Cooperative Learning Approach

There are various definitions for cooperative learning approach. Johnson,

Johnson and Holubec (1993) stated that cooperative learning is a structured

use of small groups in classrooms to direct teaching and make learners benefit

from each other’s learning. They stated that:

Cooperative learning is group learning activity organized so that learning

is dependent on the socially structured exchange of information between
learners in groups and in which each learner held accountable for his or

10
 11

her own learning and motivated to increase the learning of others (as cited
in Richards & Rodgers, 2001:192).
In other words, cooperative learning is a teaching strategy in which small

groups (4-6), each with students of different levels of ability, use a variety of

learning activities to improve their own and each other’s learning, while the

teacher coaches the process (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1994) as cited in

Soleimani and Khosravi (2018).

Cooperative learning approach is an important part in the process of

teaching and learning. Cooperative learning has many advantages. Jacobsen,

Enggen, & Kauchak (2009:230) argue that cooperative learning is a learning

strategy involving students to collaboratively cooperate in reaching the goal. It

belongs to a teaching and learning process engaging small groups which

enable students to cooperate to maximize somebody’s own learning and

other’s (Jonhson, David W., Jonhson, Roger T., and Hulubec, Edythe

Jonhnson, 2010:4; cited in Darmuki, et. al., 2017).

In addition, most writers (e.g., Slavin, 1983, 1990, 1995; Johnson &

Johnson, 1989, 1994) as cited in Killen (1998:82) agree that there are two

essential components in all cooperative learning methods: a cooperative task

(which is a feature of most group work), and a cooperative inventive structure

(which is unique to cooperative learning). In other words, students work on a

task in group of two or more that they are encouraged and motivated to help

one another to learn rather than being in competition with one another.
 12

Students are dependent upon the efforts of one another to achieve success and

are held accountable for that learning as a group and as individuals.

2. Types of Cooperative Learning Approach

There are various types of cooperative learning activities which are used in

teaching a variety of matters to enhance learners‟ skills and abilities such as,

Think/ Pair/ Share, Jigsaw, Round Table, and Group Investigation.

a. Think/Pair/Share (TPS)

The first type of cooperative learning is commonly known as think/pair/share

or TPS. TPS is implemented in which students think about a topic provided by

the teacher, pair up with another student to discuss it, and then share their

thoughts with the whole class (Grundman, 2002; as cited in Sijali, 2015). In

line with the statement above, Sumarsih & Sanjaya, 2013 stated that TPS is

found to significantly improve students’ achievement.

b. Jigsaw

According to Crandall (1999) Jigsaw is one of the most known cooperative

learning activities which are frequently used to create a real ‘information gap’

in the classroom and encourage classroom communication.

Jigsaw is another cooperative learning approach that can be effectively

applied in teaching language (Sijali, 2015). It was first designed by Aronson

and his colleagues in the 1970s and later redefined by Slavin (1995). In this

activity, students are divided into heterogeneous home groups and given a
 13

particular aspect of a topic to study and explore; the groups are then

reconfigured into new groups so that members from each group share their

learning with other groups (Ning, 2010; cited in Sijali, 2015).

c. Round Table

According to Kagan (2009) in round table each member in the group takes the

turn and then writes it down in a sheet of paper and passes this sheet of paper

around the table so that each member in the group will have his own turn to

make his contribution.

d. Group Investigation

Group investigation is applied in which learners in their teams determine a

general topic and subtopics for investigation, plan for the investigation, carry

out the investigation through interaction and interpretation with their teacher,

teammates and other teams, and present their findings after which an

evaluation session is launched (Aicha, 2012; cited in Sijali 2015).

In this research, the researcher used Jigsaw as one of the types in

cooperative learning approach in improving students’ speaking skills.

3. Definition of Jigsaw Technique in Cooperative Learning Approach

Jigsaw is one of the cooperative learning approaches. Jigsaw technique is

group work technique for learning and participating in the following group

learning activities method.

 14

Jigsaw technique is a special form of information gap in which each

member of a group is given some specific information and the goal is to pool

all information to achieve some objectives (Brown, 2001:179). According to

Kagan & Kagan (2009:172), Jigsaw was firstly developed at the national

training labs as teambuilding activities. The activity is conducted by giving

each student some of the information necessary to solve a problem; they have

to cooperate to be successful.

The jigsaw learning technique divides the class into groups and breaks

tasks into pieces into groups, such that groups complete different parts of the

process of learning (Slavin, 1995; cited in Wang, 2017). In this activity,

students are divided into heterogeneous home groups and given a particular

aspect of a topic to study and explore; the groups are then reconfigured into

new groups so that members from each group share their learning with other

groups (Ning, 2010; cited in Sijali, 2015). In line with the statement above,

Slavin (1990) as cited in Killen (1998:98) supported that jigsaw can be started

by having each student read all the materials they are to learn. Each student is

then assigned a particular aspect of the materials on which they are to become

the expert. Students meet in the expert groups to study the materials in depth

and then return to their home teams to teach one another. At an appropriate

time the students are given individual quizzes.

 15

4. Procedures of Jigsaw Technique in Cooperative Learning Approach

The procedures in implementing project-based learning were divided into

several steps. These following steps were used for implementing the jigsaw

technique class adapted from Alamri, (2018) and Holliday, (2000:8). These

following steps are as follows:

Step 1: Formation of home groups and topic distribution: The teacher

assigned the speaking materials for each speaking class and divided each

speaking topic into five to six parts; each member of the jigsaw group (that

will be defined later as home group) was told in advance about a different part

of the speaking class topic and was assigned responsibility for it. Each home

group member was given a printed sheet containing guided questions or

instructions asking the students to search for some key information and

knowledge. To encourage cooperation rather than competition, the students

were encouraged to cooperate in collecting information through reading,

research and discussion regarding their parts of the speaking topic.

Step 2: Expert groups: Each expert group was required to have a leader, who

was chosen in terms of their ability level to handle the tasks. During the first

minutes of each class, each member of the jigsaw group was required to join

other members assigned to the same segment or part to form temporary expert

groups. The expert group members were guided to address questions and

discuss the main points of the specific segment or part, and to lead their peers

to review their allotted material with other “experts”.

 16

Step 3: Home groups: The students were instructed to join their particular

home groups so that they could teach the concepts to each other. Students

were directed to take turns clarifying the concepts they had covered. Likewise,

the other students were told to propose questions to enable as much

knowledge as possible to be shared during the allocated time.

Step 4: Teacher’s monitoring: Usually, the group leader handled the tasks,

except if any group (expert or home) was experiencing trouble, in which case

the teacher would make an appropriate intervention. The teacher also observed

the learners and took some notes for each class.

Step 5: Class discussion: The jigsaw groups shared the results of their

experience with other classmates in the class and the teacher commented on

the cooperative speaking class. The entire class participated in some oral

activities regarding the concepts covered.

Step 6: Assessment: Based on the nature of speaking skills as an interactive

and social process, the assessment was delivered to the students. The speaking

assessment sessions were held weekly at the end of each topic and in a one-to-

many setting (namely an oral presentation). The assessments of speaking skill

included an assessment of fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, and

comprehension.

5. Advantages and Disadvantages of Cooperative Learning Approach

Cooperative learning has many advantages according to some experts and

researchers. Karli and Yuliariatningsih (2002:72) in Hosnan (2014:262) as

 17

cited in Devany (2015) mentioned the advantages of cooperative learning are

as follows:

a. Can involve students actively in developing the knowledge, attitudes, and

skills in teaching and learning atmosphere that is open and democratic.

b. Can develop a variety of potential self-actualization that has been owned

by students.

c. Can develop and obtain a wide range of attitudes, values, and social skills

to be applied in life and society.

d. Students are not only as objects of study, but also as subjects of study

because students can become peer tutor for other students.

e. Students train to cooperate, because not only the material being studied,

but also the demands to develop their own potentials optimally for the

success of a group.

f. Provide opportunities for students to learn and acquire knowledge needed

to understand directly, so that what is learned is more meaningful to them.

Cooperative learning methods and main elements have contributed to a large

extent in the development of students’ productions and level of achievements.

Therefore, cooperative learning possesses various advantages as identified by

(Zhang, 2010). Cooperative leaning:

a. Provides the chances of input and output: Cooperative language

learning creates acceptable and interactive contexts in which students can

listen to each other and work on certain issues (problem solving).

 18

Cooperative language learning enables students to acquire comprehensible

input and output and the processes of negotiation.

b. Creates effective climate: with their group members, students have the

opportunity to practice and rehearse their answers before producing them

in front of the whole class as a solution to reduce anxiety and fear.

c. Increases a variety of language functions: Cooperative learning allows

students to produce language with functions including suggesting,

requesting and other functions. Working in cooperative learning groups

may promote students “discourse management” in order to ensure chances

for language learning.

d. Fosters learner responsibility and independence: Cooperative learning

main concern is to make each student a stronger individual through

working cooperatively. Cooperative learning, therefore, tries to highlight

the individual accountability.

However, there are some disadvantages of cooperative learning approach,

for example many students do not like working in cooperative groups

(Maldonado, Banoy, Quinche, 2011). The students do not like to show their

limited knowledge to other students.. In addition, students who have higher

level of skills may try to take the control of any activity, and students who

have lower level of confidence may find it hard to share answers. And for the

teachers, the problem may be the situation in the classrooms, because of the

number of the students some teachers worry that the noise may be higher than

the normal during cooperative learning activities. In addition, when students

 19

are working in their groups, could be difficult for the teacher to get the class’

attention.

Cooperative learning approach seems to be a good and appropriate method

by which teachers can achieve both academic and social objectives

simultaneously (Maldonado, Banoy, Quinche, 2011). In fact, cooperative

learning approach can create supportive environments that enable students to

succeed academically, and get actively engaged in the process of teaching and

learning because students feel more confidence working in small groups at the

same time they strengthen their knowledge and their self-confidence.

B. Notion of Project-Based Learning

In this part, the researcher explains about the definition of project-based

learning, procedures of project-based learning, and advantages and

disadvantages of project-based learning.

1. Definition of Project-Based Learning

There are various definitions for project-based learning. The definition of

project-based learning could be best described after the definition of project.

According to (Thomas, 2000) project is defined as complex tasks based on

problems encountered by students, conducted in certain periods of time and

culminated in realistic products that might be in form of presentation,

exhibition, publication, etc. In line with the statement above (Kasíková, 2001:

49) a project is a specific kind of a learning task, in which pupils are allowed

to choose a topic and direction of its investigation. (in Abubakar, 2015). In

 20

line with the statement mentioned above (Petty, 1996: 213) a project is a task

or a series of tasks that pupils should fulfill, mostly individually but

sometimes in groups. Pupils can often decide themselves how, where, when

and in what order they will do the tasks. (in Abubakar, 2015). Meanwhile,

Project-based Learning is the instructional strategy of empowering students to

pursue content knowledge on their own and demonstrate their new

understanding through a variety of presentation modes (Klein, 2009:8).

In other words, project-based learning (PjBL) is a student-centered

pedagogy in which students learn about a subject through the experience of

problem solving. Students learn both thinking strategies and domain

knowledge. The goals of PBL are to help students develop flexible

knowledge, effective problem solving skills, self-directed learning, effective

collaboration skills and intrinsic motivation. Problem-based learning is a form

of learning activity (Barrows, 2001; as cited in Dewi, 2016).

According to Thomas (2000), Project-Based Learning is a learning model

that provides an opportunity for students to actively participate in making a

project within the group or individual work to improve English language

skills, especially in speaking skills (ability to speak). As cited in Ichsan,

Apriliaswati, and Rosnija (2016).

According to Marisah & Robiasih (2017) the implementation of Project-

based learning can be done at four stages. The four stages are speculation,
 21

designing the project activities, conducting the project activities, and

evaluation.

2. Procedures of Project-Based Learning

There are many experts showing the stages of project-based learning.

Fragoulis & Tsiplakides (2009: 113) conducts four stages in doing project

based learning. They are:

Stage 1: Speculation

This stage includes choice of project topic and sensitization about it, aiming at

arousing interest and developing acclimate conductive to speculation and

investigation that will lead smoothly to the research process. Topic is chosen

after a dialogue among all members of the group, and the teacher. The initial

stimulus may emerge from the curriculum, or after a discussion about a

contemporary local or wider topic of interest, or from reading a newspaper or

magazine article.

Stage 2: Designing the project activities

This stage includes formation of groups and assigning of roles, decisions

concerning methodology, sources of information, activities that will take

place, and places outside the classroom that students will visit. The better

organized and more analytical the structuring of the activities, the easier and

faster the research will be conducted.

 22

Stage 3: Conducting the project activities

At this stage the groups implement the activities designed in the previous

stage. Students gather information, process and categorize it. If deemed

necessary, there may be intervals of information and feedback, in which

students discuss issues related with cooperation among group members,

problems of personal relations, and possible changes in group composition.

The next phase is synthesis and processing of information gathered. The final

products are displayed in the school or the wider community, and become a

stimulus for thought and action for other students, teachers and local

community. The project moves away from school and becomes social

intervention, connecting the school with the community and real life.

Stage 4: Evaluation

Evaluation refers to the assessment of the activities from participants and

discussion about whether the initial aims and goals have been achieved,

implementation of the process, and final products (Brinia, 2006:82).

Evaluation also entails assessment of the experience at individual and group

level, identification of errors and problems, but also appraisal of the rich

cognitive and experiential material gathered. Evaluation includes evaluation

from others, as well as self-evaluation.

Korkmaz and Kapten in Bas (2008: 5) as cited in Yunyta (2017:26) evaluated

the project based learning in context of six steps. The processes and roles in

these steps have been shown below:

 23

Table 2.1

The Processes and Roles of Project-Based Learning

Application Process Things that will be done

A Stating the subject and sub- Students explore the resource and in
subject, organizing the groups order to create a frame for the
project they state questions
B Groups create project Group members make a project plan
C Application of the project group members are organized and
analyze the data and information
D Planning of the presentation Group members define the essential
points in their presentation and then
decide on how to present the project
E Making the presentation Presentation can be made in any
places
F Evaluation Students share the feedback of
everyone on their project. Both the
students and the teacher share the
project(s) with everyone

In Addition, Han & Battacharya (2014) as cited in Affandi (2015:28)

propose a figure showing the stages in the implementation of Project-Based

Learning. This figure consists of three steps of Project-Based Learning,

planning, creating, and processing. The following figure shows Project-Based

Learning procedures proposed by Han & Battacharya (2014).

 24

Figure 2.1

Project-Based Learning Procedures

Creating
Planning - Developing
- Choosing the thought and Processing
Topic documentation - Reflecting
- Searching - Coordinating & - Follow Up
Resources presenting

The framework above shows the procedures in implementing Project-

Based Learning starting from planning where teacher and students discuss and

choosing the topic, searching resources, and organizing the project. The next

step is creating. It covers several activities such as developing the ideas and

documenting. The last is processing. In this step, teacher and students can

reflect the process of the project and follow it up.

By adapting several stages above, here the researcher formulates the stages

of project based learning in teaching speaking. They are:

a. Organizing groups and selecting topic

The teacher decides and divides students into six groups consisting of five to

six students. Students are then informed to make project learning. A project

should reflect the interest and concerns of the students; projects typically

involve topics from the syllabus that have goals and standards to be achieved

in the process of teaching and learning. As a teacher and students talk about
 25

projects and get to know each other, current topic and issues may become

appropriate topics for project learning. The teacher gives brainstorm and asks

students about the following topics that will be discussed in project learning.

Then, the teacher identifies learning objectives that could be met through the

project and aligns the learning objectives to those standards.

b. Planning and arranging the projects

Once a group is organized and a topic is selected, students are asked to work

together to plan the project, conduct research to find information related to the

topic given, list stuff that are needed, and develop their product. The teacher

also explains about the rules in preparing and finishing the projects. After the

discussion, it is agreed that students will make a poster project based on each

topic given by the teacher

c. Planning and arranging the schedules

Both teacher and students discuss the rules and schedules in preparing the

project learning. The schedules consist of the day and date that the students

will perform or present the poster project in front of the class.

d. Finishing the projects

In finishing the projects information related to the project learning may be

needed in this process. Information can vary widely depending on the project.

It can include going to the library, researching on the internet, interviewing

 26

people, gathering materials, etc. The teacher monitors all of the groups during

the project in finishing their project.

e. Presenting the projects

In this stage student can practice their ability to be a good speaker and get the

feedback from their friends, groups, and the teacher. Each group takes its

finished product and presents the product of their project in front of the class.

During this stage, students become aware of the ways their presentations meet

the criteria of assessment. The teacher observes how they are presenting their

projects. It can become a stimulus for thought and action for other students.

This stage also drives them to practice oral language.

f. Evaluating the process and projects

Other groups and the teacher evaluate the process, projects and presentations

together. In this stage, the students learn how to evaluate and assess the

projects made by other students by giving their opinion and advice to each

other. After that, it is the time for the teacher to give feedback and advice. The

students can learn and discuss about the components of a good speaker

(pronunciation, fluency, comprehension, grammar, and vocabulary). The

evaluation includes evaluation from others, and teacher’s evaluation.

 27

3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Project-Based Learning

Fragoulis (2009) and Bell (2010) as cited in Abubakar (2015) stated that there

are many benefits of implementing project-based learning in teaching English

as Foreign Language. Project-based learning;

a. gives contextual and meaningful learning for students.

b. can create optimal environment to practice speaking English.

c. can also make students actively engage in project learning.

d. enhances the students‟ interest, motivation, engagement, and enjoyment.

e. promotes social learning that can enhance collaborative skills.

Meanwhile, the advantages of project-based learning are also proposed by

other experts. Railsback (2002: 9-10) and Ivanova (2009- 14) as cited in

Yunyta (2017:31-34), stated that the advantages of project based learning are:

a. Project work is student centered

Students have a significant voice in selecting the content areas and nature of

the project that they do. There are considerable focuses on students

understanding what it is they are doing, why it is important, and how they will

be assessed.

b. Preparing children for the workplace

Students are exposed to a wide range of skills and competencies such as

collaboration, project planning, decision making, and time management.

 28

c. Increasing motivation

Project work is potentially motivating, stimulating, empowering and

challenging. Teachers often note improvement in attendance, more class

participation, and greater willingness to do homework.

d. Connecting learning at school with reality

The students retain more knowledge and skills when they are engaged in

stimulating projects. With projects, the students use higher order thinking

skills rather than memorizing facts in an isolated context without a connection

to how and where they are used in real world.

e. Providing collaborative opportunities to construct knowledge

Project work is cooperative rather than competitive. Collaborative learning

allows students to bounce ideas off each other, voice their own opinions, and

negotiate solutions, all skills that will be necessary in the workplace.

f. Increasing social and communication skills

Students will learn how to communicate with other people in their group when

they are doing a certain project. It will automatically increase their social and

communication skill because they have to interact with different people who

have different ideas and point of view.

 29

g. Increasing problem solving skills

There could be some problems or misunderstanding among members of the

group. They are demanded to solve their own problem.

h. Enabling students to make and see connections between disciplines each

students has his/ her responsibility in finishing a project. It means that they

have to do what group has told them to do.

i. Providing opportunities to contribute to their school or community

One kind of contributions can be the product they have made. Project work

culminates in an end product that can shared with others and giving the project

a real purpose.

j. Increasing self-esteem

Students take pride in accomplishing something that has value outside the

classroom.

k. Allowing students to use their individual learning strengths and diverse

approaches to learning. Project work leads to the authentic integration of skills

and processing of information from varied source, mirroring real life tasks.

l. Providing a practical, real world way to learn to use technology.

m. Project work focuses on content learning rather than on specific language

targets.
 30

Meanwhile, Ivanova (2009: 21) as cited in Yunyta (2017:38) stated that the

disadvantages of project based learning are as follows:

a. The learners use their own language

b. Some of learners do nothing

c. The groups work as different speeds

d. The students has lack of enthusiasm

e. The learners fail to see the value in project work

f. There is mismatch in expectations between learners and teachers.

C. Notion of Speaking

In this part, the researcher explains about the definition of speaking, elements

of speaking, types of classroom speaking performance, principles of teaching

speaking, classroom speaking activities, and difficulties in learning speaking

1. Definition of Speaking

In a language classroom, especially English language classroom, speaking is

one of the four skills that should be taught and practiced. The obligation of

language English classroom is to enable the students to communicate in

English. Speaking as one of four language skills consists of some sets of tasks

in order to come up with a satisfactory result. It is used for many purposes, for

example a casual conversation, social contact, discussion over a topic,

expressing and sharing ideas (Richards & Renandy, 2002, in Ghasemi and
 31

Baradaran, 2018). Therefore, speaking is not simply about making or

producing sound. The previous statement is supported by Carter (2001:17)

stating that speaking is not just making sound. Birds, animals, babies, can

make sound and though it may be communication of sorts, it is not speaking.

Moreover, Brown (2004) stated that speaking is the person’s product of

creative construction of linguistic strings. In other words, speaking is a

productive skill in which the speaker makes choices of lexicon, structure and

discourse that are observed and interpreted by the listener. Furthermore,

Thornbury (2005) defined that speaking is a natural integral part of the

person’s daily life. In other words, it is an activity which is carried out by both

ordinary and specialized people to do their basic functions according to their

specific needs. Attempting to illustrate the process of speaking fluently in

foreign language, it can be claimed that speaking is a complex skill that

involves in addition to the knowledge of vocabulary, grammar and

pronunciation a command of skills and another type of knowledge.

Moreover, according to Bailey & Nunan (2005:2), speaking is a part of

productive skill in English Language Teaching. It consists of producing

systematic verbal utterance to convey meaning. In line with the statement

above, Harmer (1998:95) stated that speaking is an interactive process of

constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving, and processing

information.
 32

2. Elements of Speaking

As one of the important skill in English, speaking is considered more difficult

than other skills by the students. It is due to many elements or components to

be mastered in order for the students to have perfect speaking. The indication

of speaking can be inferred by considering the elements of speaking proposed

by some experts. Some elements should be recognized by language learners in

speaking, namely:

a. Pronunciation

Pronunciation is difficult component in learning speaking skill. According to

Lado (1964:70), pronunciation is the use of a sound system in speaking and

listening. Here, pronunciation is merely treated as the act that happens in

speaking and listening. To support the statement above, Harris (1969:81-82)

stated that pronunciation itself is defined as the way in which a word is

pronounced.

b. Grammar

Brown (2001:362) stated that grammar is the system of rules governing the

conventional arrangement and relationship of words in a sentence. Meanwhile,

Harris (1969:81-82) defined that grammar as a rule in language for

constructing and combining sentences.

 33

c. Vocabulary

Harris (1969:81-82) defined that vocabulary is the basic knowledge to be

owned by language learners. In line with the previous statement, Richards &

Rodgers (2001:255) argued that vocabulary is the core component of language

proficiency and provides much of the basis for how well learners speak, listen,

read, and write.

d. Fluency

Harris (1969:81-82) defined that fluency is quality or condition of person to

speak a language easily and well. Adequate preparation before delivering a

speech increases fluency, as ideas are organized ahead of time and can be

effectively presented. Meanwhile, Hornby (1974:330) defined that fluency as

the quality of being able to speak smoothly and easily.

e. Comprehension

Comprehension is the last element of speaking. Comprehension is defined as

the ability to understand something by reasonable comprehension of the

subject or as the knowledge of what a situation is really like. Harris (1969:81-

82) stated that comprehension refers to the understanding of language

including comprehending what the speaker says.

 34

3. Types of Classroom Speaking Performance

Brown (2004:271) described six categories of speaking skill area. Those six

categories are as follows:

a. Imitative

This category includes the ability to practice an intonation and focusing on

some particular elements of language form. That is just imitating a word,

phrase or sentence. The important thing here is focusing on pronunciation.

The teacher uses drilling in the teaching learning process. The reason is by

using drilling, the students get opportunity to listen and to orally repeat some

words.

b. Intensive

This is the students’ speaking performance that is practicing some

phonological and grammatical aspects of language. It usually places students

doing the task in pairs (group work), for example, reading aloud that includes

reading paragraph, reading dialogue with partner in turn, reading the

instructions, etc.

c. Responsive

Responsive performance includes interaction and test comprehension but at

the somewhat limited level of very short conversation, standard greeting and

small talk, simple request and comments. This is a kind of short replies to
 35

teacher or student-initiated questions or comments, giving instructions and

directions. Those replies are usually sufficient and meaningful.

d. Transactional (dialogue)

It is carried out for the purpose of conveying or exchanging specific

information. It is an extended form of responsive language. Dialogues

conducted for the purpose of information exchange, such as information-

gathering interviews, role plays, or debates. It is carried out for the purpose of

conveying or exchanging specific information. For example the conversation

which is done in pair work.

e. Interpersonal (dialogue)

Interpersonal dialogue carried out more for the purpose of maintaining social

relationships, such as personal interviews or casual conversation role plays. It

is carried out more for the purpose of maintaining social relationships than for

the transmission of facts and information. The forms of interpersonal speaking

performance are interview, role play, discussions, conversations and games.

f. Extensive (monologue)

Students at intermediate to advanced levels are called on to give extended

monologues in the form of oral reports, summaries, or perhaps short speeches.

Here, the register is more formal and deliberative. These monologues can be

planned or impromptu. Teacher gives students extended monologues in the

form of oral reports, summaries, and storytelling and short speeches.

 36

4. Principles of Teaching Speaking

Teaching is a process of transferring or transmitting knowledge from teachers

to learners. It is supported by “How teaching is conceptualized – as the

transmission of knowledge from teachers to learners, or as the provision of

opportunities for learners to discover and construct knowledge for themselves”

(Hall, 2011:7). In line with the statement above, Brown (2000:7) defined that

teaching is showing or helping someone to learn how to do something, giving

instructions, guiding in the study of something, providing with the knowledge,

causing to know or understand. Thus, the teacher teaches the students in order

to give instruction for students to do, know, and understand something.

Teaching speaking which is oriented towards communicative competence

is conducted in order to develop students’ skill to communicate with other

people. According to Fauziati (2010:15), teaching speaking should be figured

as central in foreign language pedagogy. The goal of teaching speaking is

communicative efficiency. It means that the students should be able to make

themselves understood in the process of teaching and learning.

Furthermore, Fauziati (2010:16) added that teaching foreign language is

no longer acceptable when focuses only on form since meaning is paramount.

In addition, the goal of foreign language teaching is to develop communicative

competence. To support the statement above, Brown (1987:8) stated that

teaching is guiding and facilitating learning, enabling the learner to learn,

setting the condition for learning. The understanding of how the learner learns
 37

will automatically determine teacher’s philosophy of condition, teaching style,

approach, methods, and classroom techniques.

The statements above show that teaching is not only delivering or

transferring knowledge or information from teachers to the students, but it also

needs approach, methods, and techniques. The teacher must be able to decide

what techniques or methods which can be used to teach subject to reach the

goals (Yunyta, 2017:12).

Meanwhile, there is a theory stated that teaching speaking is principle

which influences the decision in teaching speaking. Bailey & Nunan

(2005:36) stated that there are three principles which can influence and inform

teacher’s decisions in teaching speaking to beginning and fast learners. The

three principles are described below:

a. Provide something for learners to talk about

When people choose to speak, it is usually about something. They want

something, or they find a topic or incident interesting and want to comment on

it. They wish to share ideas or emotions. There are usually some

communicative needs that move people to talk.

b. Create opportunities for students to interact

Creating opportunities for students to interact can be conducted by using

group work in order to improve learners’ motivation and it can also promote

choice, independence, creativity, and realism. Pair work and group work also
 38

provide feedback to the learner from sources other than the teacher. Pair work,

as the name suggests, involves two students working together to complete task

or exercise using the target language. group work is three or more students

working together.

c. Manipulate physical arrangement to promote speaking practice

Changing the physical environment can encourage speaking activities, partly

because it partially alters the power structure of the traditional English

classroom. Here are some ways with the seating and other aspects for the

environment to encourage speaking. Firstly, the inside-outside circle is a

technique for giving students the chance to repeat a conversation or interview

with several new people, in order to build fluency and confidence. Secondly,

tango seating is a simple seating arrangement designed to force people to use

oral communication during information gap tasks that involve drawing,

pictures, following maps, or creating designs or structure from verbal

descriptions. Thirdly, the cocktail party technique is a quick way to get

students talking to new partners and to break up the routine of sitting during

language lessons.

5. Classroom Speaking Activities

Effective teaching speaking should be characterized by using meaningful and

different classroom activities. Teachers of speaking class have to consider the

appropriate activity as a way to develop students’ speaking skills. There are

 39

several activities that would contribute in the improvement of students’

speaking skills as: role play, discussions/debates, games, and presentation.

a. Role Play

Role play is one of the typical activities for the practice of real world

communications. In achieving real world communications, role play can be

conducted by creating dramatic situation in a classroom, or in a part, simply

by acting out dialogues, but also in part relabeling objects and people in the

room to prepare imaginative role playing (New-Mark, 1966). The situation

can be part of problems that students will likely encounter, including meeting

a doctor, arranging an appointment with others, or doing a business trip with a

tourist guide, etc.

b. Discussions/Debates

According to Kayi (2006) discussion can be held for various reasons. The

students may aim to arrive at a conclusion, share ideas about an event, or find

solutions in their discussion groups. Before the discussion, it is essential that

the purpose of the discussion activity is set by the teacher. In this way, the

discussion points are relevant to this purpose, so that students do not spend

their time chatting with each other about irrelevant things. For example,

students can become involved in agree/disagree discussions. In this type of

discussions, the teacher can form groups of students, preferably four or five in

each group, and provide controversial sentences like “people learn best when

they read vs. people learn best when they travel”. Then each group works on
 40

their topic for a given time period, and presents their opinions to the class. It is

essential that the speaking should be equally divided among group members.

At the end, the class decides on the winning group who defended the idea in

the best way.

Meanwhile, Thornbury, (2005) stated that formal debates/discussions

could be implemented in form of cards for instance, the teacher can write

statements related to pre- selected topics and let students discuss them for a

period of time, afterward, students should provide a summary of the main

points. Furthermore, Lackman (n.d) adds that debates and group discussions

are suitable alternatives to get students to use certain “discourse markers”,

particularly those for adding information and contrasting with what has just

been said.

c. Games

Hornby (1995:553) stated that game is an activity or a sport with rules in

which people or terms compete against each other. In addition, Khan (1991)

stated that games are activities done based on the certain rule.

d. Story Telling

According to Kayi (2006) story telling can be conducted by summarizing a

tale or story that students heard from somebody beforehand, or they may

create their own stories to tell their classmates. Story telling fosters creative

thinking. It also helps students express ideas in the format of beginning,

 41

development, and ending, including the characters and setting a story has to

have. Students also can tell riddles or jokes.

6. Difficulties in Learning Speaking

When students learning speaking English, there are many factors or problems

faced. It happens because for some students, speaking is the most difficult

skill in English. According to Zhang (2009) speaking remains the most

difficult skill to master for the majority of English learners, and they are still

incompetent in communicating orally in English.

Meanwhile Ur (1996) as cited in Al Hosni (2014), stated that there are

many factors that cause difficulty in speaking, and they are as follows:

1. Inhibition. Students are worried about making mistakes, fearful of criticism,

or simply shy.

2. Nothing to say. Students have no motive to express themselves.

3. Low or uneven participation. Only one participant can talk at a time

because of large classes and the tendency of some learners to dominate, while

others speak very little or not at all.

4. Mother-tongue use. Learners who share the same mother tongue tend to use

it because it is easier and because learners feel less exposed if they are

speaking their mother tongue.

 42

The reason that might also cause student’s difficulties is because they have

less motivation in learning English. Nauli (2014) as cited in Tama (2017:14)

stated that there are three parts of difficulties in speaking English. They are

cultural difficulties, English difficulties and communication problem. Nuraini

(2013) as cited in Tama (2017:15) indicated that the main challenges factor

that English teacher faced in teaching are academic factors they are students

demotivating and low students’ basic English ability. Speaking in English is

not easy for students, because students must study hard in order to achieve

fluent and good comprehension to speak therefore the students must master

the elements of speaking: pronunciations, grammar, vocabulary, fluency,

comprehension and they must have willingness to learn speaking. Moreover,

Chen (2009) found that students’ common difficulties are they were not

confident, limited fluency and limited vocabulary.

Furthermore, Rabab’ah (2005:15) figured out that there are many factors

in speaking English difficulties. Some of these factors are related to the

learners themselves, the teaching strategies, the curriculum, and the

environment. For example, many learners lack the necessary vocabulary to get

their meaning across, and consequently, they cannot keep the interaction

going. Inadequate strategic competence and communication competence can

be another reason as well for not being able to keep the interaction going.

In some journals and researches, there are difficulties or problems faced by

students when learning speaking English. Hetrakul (1995:76) taken from

Tama (2017:15) stated that the problem which is often faced by the students is
 43

about pronunciation. They felt difficult to pronounce certain words because in

English, between pronunciation and writing are different. Kelly (2000:11)

stated that a learner who consistently mispronounces a range of phonemes can

be extremely difficult for a speaker from another language community to

understand. This can be very frustrating for the learner who may have a good

command of grammar and lexis but have difficulty in understanding and being

understood by native speaker.

Hetrakul (1995:76) taken from Tama (2017:15) stated that students need to

master a lot of vocabulary, because by mastering many words, they would

study way of speaking easily. Sometimes, students felt difficult when they

were learning because they had limited vocabulary. Nirana (2015) cited in

Tama (2017:17) found that the difficulties which students faced were English

translation, pronunciation, vocabulary, speaking. In addition, the majority of

the students admitted that they have difficulties in translation and vocabulary.

Therefore, lack or limited vocabulary can also make students difficult in

learning speaking English.

Being lack of self-confidence might also be faced by students. Chang &

Cho (2003) taken from Tama (2017: 19) stated that the demotivating factors in

English language learning could be threats to self-worth, general and specific

anxiety of language, and lack of self-determination. Being lack of self-

confidence could lead to being shy. Students who are shy will face difficulties

building their self-confidences in speaking. It causes students to be afraid of

making mistakes, and afraid of being mocked by other students.

 44

D. Previous Studies

In relation with the previous studies, here the researcher provides some

research related to the use of cooperative learning approach and project-based

learning in order to both teach and improve students’ speaking skills. The

studies are elaborated below.

The first study related to this research was from Sari, Setiyadi, & Hasan

(2012) entitled “The Implementation of Jigsaw Technique in English

Speaking Class at the Second Grade Students of SMAN 2 Bandar

Lampung”. The objectives of this research are to improve (1) students’

speaking ability, (2) Students’ speaking activity, and (3) the quality of

teacher’s performance. The subject of this research is the second grade

students of SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung, class XI IPS 1. The research was an

action research in order to improve students’ speaking ability by using Jigsaw

Technique in English speaking class.

The result of the research shows that Jigsaw Technique improves the

students’ speaking ability. There were two indicators that were used in this

research, i.e. learning product and learning process. In term of learning

product, in cycle 1, students’ average speaking score was 61,80 and in cycle 2,

it was 67,05. Meanwhile, the researcher also found that there were some

students who could not comprehend the text because the students lacked of

vocabulary in the first cycle. Moreover, some students did not focus and they

looked so nervous. This was due to the condition during the class. In the
 45

second cycle, all of the students could comprehend the text well and focus on

the activities. They became more active in speaking class because the students

were given different style of Jigsaw Technique in the second cycle. In this

cycle, the students were given a fun moving activity which helped the students

enjoy the learning process.

The second study was from Alamri (2018) entitled “The Effect of Using

the Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Technique on Saudi EFL Students’

Speaking Skills”. This study was a quasi-experimental study aimed to

investigate the effect of the jigsaw cooperative learning (CL) technique on the

performance of Saudi English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ in

speaking skills and on promoting the students’ appropriate practice of

vocabulary, accuracy, fluency and pronunciation during oral tasks. The study

was conducted to 28 female students studying at Prince Megren University.

The participants were assigned in two small size language classes and

randomly specified as a control group (N=13) and a jigsaw group (N=15).

Data was collected through a rubric designed to assess speaking.

The results of the study showed that there were statistically significant

differences in terms of Saudi EFL female students’ overall performance in

speaking skills in favor of the jigsaw group. The results also showed that the

participants in the jigsaw group outperformed those of the control group in the

speaking competencies: vocabulary, accuracy, fluency, and pronunciation.

 46

The third study was from Darmuki, Andayani, Nurkamto, Saddhono,

(2018), entitled “The Development and Evaluation of Speaking Learning

Model by Cooperative Approach”. This research aimed at evaluating the

effectiveness of cooperative-based SLM viewed from the development of

student’s speaking ability and its effectiveness on speaking activity. This

mixed method study combined evaluative descriptive and experimental

designs. The population was the first semester students from Department of

Indonesian Language and Letter Education. The data from speaking test were

analyzed by t-test in which normality and homogeneity tests were conducted

previously. Statistically, both speaking ability scores were different because F-

calculation was 11.380 while F-table was 3.91 at the significance level = 0.05.

The researchers finally concluded that cooperative learning approach was

more effective than the conventional one in improving the speaking ability of

students at Department of Indonesian Language and Letter Education.

Cooperative approach is proven to be effective in reaching the learning

objectives. By cooperative approach, the students get easy in speaking which

finally can improve them to speak better.

Furthermore, the fourth study was from Abubakar (2015), entitled

“Improving the Second Year Students’ Speaking Ability Through

Project-Based Learning (PBL) at MTsN Model Makassar”. This research

was conducted to the second year students of MTsN Model Makassar in

academic year 2014-2015. The subjects of this research consisted of thirty

seven students. The objective of this research was to improve the students‟
 47

speaking ability through Project Based Learning (PBL). The researcher used

Classroom Action Research (CAR) as the research method. The researcher

conducted two cycles; each cycle consisted of three meetings

In the research, the researcher finally concluded that the students’ speaking

ability at the second year students of MTsN Model Makassar tends to be

improved after applying project based learning (PBL) as a method.

The fifth study was from Ichsan, Apriliaswati, Rosnija (2016) entitled

“Improving Students Speaking Skill Through Project-Based Learning”.

This research was conducted to the eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 3

Sintang in academic year 2015/2016. The aim of this research was to find out

how well the use of Project-based learning in improving students’ speaking

skill. In conducting this research, the writer used Classroom Action Research

as the method of research. The writer observed the improvement of students’

speaking skill by collecting the data through observation and measurement

technique. This research was implemented to 36 eleventh grade students of

SMA Negeri 3 Sintang.

The researchers stated that form the findings it can be shown that there

was an improvement on students’ speaking skill through project-based

learning particularly in accuracy and fluency. In the first cycle, the students’

mean score was 74.44. In the second cycle, the students’ mean score was

78.06. Students’ score in third cycle was 81.04.

 48

The researchers finally concluded that the implementation of Project-

Based Learning is applicable method in the language learning process. It has

been proved that the students’ skill in speaking was improved in every cycle.

Based on the research finding, they concluded that The Project-based learning

improves students’ speaking skills, accuracy and fluency.

The last study was conducted by Dewi (2016), entitled “Project Based

Learning Techniques to Improve Speaking Skills”. The researcher used

Classroom Action Research in order to describe the application of the Project

Based Learning (PBL) technique through group work in teaching English

especially for a speaking class in two cycles. Each cycle consisted of three

meetings. The research was done in six major steps: preliminary preparations,

planning, acting, observing, reflecting, and evaluating of the results of the

teaching-learning speaking process.

The result from the first cycle was that the score for the researcher’s

participation at the end of the first cycle was 73%, which is categorized as

good; while after the second cycle the score was 90%, which is categorized as

very good. With regard to the students’ participation, the percentage score

after the first cycle was 70%, which is in the middle category. This increased

significantly after the second cycle to 81% in the good category. Furthermore,

the students’ improvement in speaking skills can be proved by comparing the

results from the pre-tests and the post-tests. Their average score pre-teaching

was 67, and post-teaching after the first cycle it rose to 71. Moreover, after the

second cycle the students’ post-test result increased to 79.

 49

Through this research, the researcher finally stated that the application of

the project-based learning could improve the students’ speaking achievement.

And the result from the students’ responses toward project-based learning, she

also stated the students had positive responses in their speaking class.

From the relevant previous studies above, the researcher gains some

information related to the research, especially which are related to the main

variables of the research. Those previous studies can help the researcher to

apply the research by which the researcher can be more focus on the teaching

speaking by using cooperative learning approach and project-based learning.

The researcher conducts the research which can help the teacher and the

students in order to choose which approach could be done in the teaching

speaking.
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, several points regarding the methodology of the research are

elaborated. It covers research method, research design, research instruments,

population and sample, data collection technique, data analysis technique,

research procedures, research schedule, and validity and reliability.

A. Research Method

According to Singh (2007:99) method is a style of conducting a research work

which is determined by nature of the problem.

In conducting this research, the quantitative research method was applied

since the researcher used test to collect numerical data. The numerical data

were from students’ pretest and posttest scores. According to Brown

(2001:13) quantitative method is the numerical representation and

manipulation of observation for the purposes of describing and explaining the

phenomena that those observations reflect.

B. Research Design

Sugiyono (2008: 106) stated that there are four experimental designs; there are

pre-experimental, true-experimental, quasi-experimental and factorial designs

(as cited in Robbani, 2017:49). In relation to the explanation mentioned above,

the researcher used a quasi-experimental design. According to Creswell

50
 51

(2014:170) a quasi-experimental design is the design where the researcher

uses control and experimental groups but does not randomly assigned

participants to group. Moreover, McMillan and Schumacher (2001:32) stated

that the purpose of quasi-experimental is to determine cause and effect – and

there is direct manipulation of conditions. In line with the statements above,

Nunan (1992:41) stated that quasi-experimental design has both pre- and

posttest and experimental and control groups, but no random assignments for

subjects.

Furthermore, Hatch and Farhady (1982:24) as cited in Habibah (2016:31)

stated,

By using quasi-experimental design, we control as many variables

as we can and also limit the kind of interpretations we make about
cause-effect relationship and hedge the power of our generalization
statements.

The formula of the research:

Table 3.1

Quasi-Experimental Design

G1 T1 X T2
G2 T1 - T2
(Adapted from Hatch and Farhady, 1982)

Notes:

G1 : The experimental class

 52

G2 : The control class

T1 : Pretest

X : Treatments

T2 : Posttest

Therefore, there were two groups/classes taken in this research. The first

class was an experimental class and the second class was a control class. The

experimental class was given cooperative learning approach and control class

was given the common approach in 2013 Curriculum which is project-based

learning. The table below is a quasi-experimental design developed by

Creswell (2012:310).

Table 3.2

Quasi-Experimental Design

Pre and Posttest Design

Select Control Group Pretest No Treatment Posttest

Select Experimental Pretest Experimental Posttest

Group Treatment

(Adapted from Creswell, 2012:310)

 53

C. Research Instruments

In conducting this research, the researcher used three instruments consisting

of: tests, observation, and interview.

1. Test

In this research, the test was given to experimental class and control class in

the form of pretest and posttest. The tests were conducted in the form of oral

test with the subject of the research. The students were asked to explain a

picture and the students were given the time to give their opinion about the

picture. Time allotment for doing the test was five minutes for each student.

The pre-test was given to experimental class and control class in the first

meeting. The posttest was given to experimental class after the treatment

finished; the posttest was given to control class after the project making

finished.

In order to assess students’ speaking skills, a scoring rubric was adapted

based on the scoring guides proposed by Student Oral Language Observations

Matrix (SOLOM) that was originally developed by the San Jose Area

Bilingual Consortium (Also cited in Gustary, 2016:52) consisting of

Comprehension, Fluency, Vocabulary, Pronunciation and Grammar. The

speaking rubric used in this research is described in the table below.

 54

Table 3.3

Speaking Rubric

SOLOM Teacher Observation

Students Oral Language Observation Matrix
Student’s Name: Grade:
Aspects Score Explanation
1 Cannot be said to understand even simple conversation.
C
2 Has great difficulty following what is said. Can
O
M comprehend only social conversation spoken slowly
P
and with frequent repetitions.
R
E 3 Understands most of what is said at slower-than-normal
H
E speed with repetitions.
N 4 Understands nearly everything at normal speech.
S
I Although occasional repetition may be necessary.
O 5 Understands everyday conversation and normal
N
classroom discussions.
1 Speech so halting and fragmentary as to make
conversation virtually impossible
2 Usually hesitant: often forced into silence by language
limitations
F 3 Speech in everyday conversation and classroom
L discussion frequently disrupted by the student's search
U for the correct manner of expression
E 4 Speech in everyday conversation and classroom
N discussions generally fluent, with occasional lapses
C while the student searches for the correct manner of
Y expression.
5 Speech in everyday conversation and classroom
discussions fluent and effortless; approximating that of
 55

a native speaker
1 Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make
V conversation virtually impossible
O 2 Misuse of words and very limited: comprehension quite
C
A difficult
B 3 Student frequently uses wrong words: conversation
U somewhat limited because of inadequate vocabulary.
L
4 Student occasionally uses inappropriate terms and/or
A
R must rephrase ideas because of lexical inadequacies
Y 5 Use of vocabulary and idioms approximate that of a
native speaker
1 Pronunciation problems so severe as to make speech
virtually unintelligible.
P
R 2 Very hard to understand because of pronunciation
O problems. Must frequently repeat in order to make
N him/herself understood.
U
3 Pronunciation problems necessitate concentration on
N
C the part of the listener and occasionally lead to
I misunderstanding.
A
4 Always intelligible, although the listener is conscious of
T
I a definite accent and occasional inappropriate
O intonation patterns.
N
5 Pronunciation and intonation approximate that of a
native speaker.
1 Errors in grammar and word order so severe as to make
speech virtually unintelligible.
G 2 Grammar and word order errors make comprehension
R difficult. Must often rephrase and/or restrict him/herself
A
M to basic patterns.
M 3 Makes frequent errors of grammar and word order that
 56

A occasionally obscure meaning.

R 4 Occasionally makes grammatical and/or word order
errors that do not obscure meaning.
5 Grammar and word order approximate that of a native
speaker.

2. Observation

An observation is used to look at what is going on around the participant

(Heigham & Crocker, 2009). In addition, the benefit of conducting

observation is to obtain a more accurate indication of the subject’s activities

(Fraenkel, et al., 2012). The observation used in this research was adapted

from Dewi, (2016) & Faqih, (2017). There are five scales for 13 statements.

The scales are 1 (absolutely negative comment), 2 (negative comment), 3

(neutral), 4 (positive comment), 5 (absolutely positive comment). The

researcher applied the mean score from the observation checklist. Ary et al.

(1979) taken from Dewi, (2016), stated that the mean is the sum of all the

scores in a distribution divided by the number of cases. The mean score was

then times by 100% to help the researcher interpret the result easily. The

percentage of mean score formula and observation checklist are presented as

follows:
 57

Table 3.4

The Observation Checklist on Students’ Activities

No. Activities Statements Scale Comment

1 2 3 4 5
1 Pre- The students are ready
Activity to follow the lesson.
2 The students respond
to the teacher’s
greeting
3 The students look
attentive in following
the process of
teaching and learning
4 The students answer
teacher’s question
related to the material
5 Main The students pay
Activity attention to the
teacher’s explanation.
6 The students follow
the teacher’s
instruction
7 The students are
active in the learning
activity
8 The students ask
question related to the
material
 58

9 The students are

excited about the
lesson
10 The students can
speak fluently
11 The students can
answer the teacher’s
question in English
12 Post- The students conclude
Activity the lesson
13 Classroo Cooperative Learning
m overall Approach or Project-
condition Based Learning
makes the students
active in the learning
activity

3. Interview

Interview is data collection method in which a researcher and participant

engage in a conversation focused on questions related to a research study.

These questions usually ask participants for their thoughts, opinions,

perspectives, or descriptions of specific experience (Kaswan, 2013:37, taken

from Pangesti 2016).

The researcher conducted interview by asking an open-ended interview.

This interview was conducted in order to ease the researcher in gaining the

information related to students’ difficulties in speaking English.

 59

D. Population and Sample

McMillan (2001:169) stated that “population as a group of elements or cases,

whether individuals, objects, or event, that conform to specific criteria and to

which we intend to generate the result of the research”. Therefore, the

population of this research was all of students of Grade 11 in a Senior High

School in Cimahi.

The chosen sample is conducted to efficiently provide estimates of what is

true for a population from a smaller group of subjects (McMillan and

Schumacher, 2001:170). Therefore, Creswell (2014) suggested that it is useful

to select a random sample, in which each individual in the population has an

equal probability of being selected (a systematic or probabilistic sample). With

randomization, a representative sample from a population provides the ability

to generalize to a population.

This research took the population which was the 11th grade students of one

Senior High School in Cimahi and the samples selected were the class of 11

IPA 5 and 11 IPA 6. The researcher took class 11 IPA 5 as the experimental

class and class 11 IPA 6 as the control class. The total of sample was 70

students, 35 students from 11 IPA 5 and 35 students from 11 IPA 6.

E. Data Collection Technique

Data were collected through pretest and posttest, observation, and interviews.

The results of the pretest and posttest score of improvement by using

cooperative learning approach to experimental class and project-based

 60

learning to control class, the researcher used data result of student pretest and

posttest scores before and after the treatment in order to measure students’

achievement, while classroom observation were real during teaching process

by monitoring students’ enthusiasm, behavior, response and activity in

learning process.. In the interview, researcher wanted to figure out students’

difficulties in speaking English skills.

F. Data Analysis Technique

The analysis of the data was conducted after assembling the collected data

such as pretest, posttest, observations, and interview.

1. Pretest and Posttest Data Analysis

This research conducted the pretest and the posttest to both of the

experimental class and control class in order to figure out students’ initial

skills and to know whether or not students’ speaking skills were improved by

using cooperative learning approach and project-based learning.

The pre-test and post-test were statistically analyzed by using several steps

for the t-test computation by using SPSS 22 for Windows. Before the t-test

computation, analysis of normality test of distribution and homogeneity test of

variance were conducted. If the scores were statistically distributed, t-test

could be conducted. These tests are elaborated below.

 61

a. Normality Test of Distribution

Analysis of normality test of distribution was used to find out the pretest and

posttest scores of experimental and control classes whether the scores were

normally distributed or not. To analyze the normality of distribution, either

Kolmogrov-Smirnov or Shapiro-Wilk formula in SPSS 22 for Windows was

used. The hypotheses for the normality test of distribution are as follows:

H0: the data gained are normally distributed

Ha: the data gained are not normally distributed

The criteria of the test are:

If the Sig. value ≥ 0.05, H0 is accepted

If the Sig. value < 0.05, H0 is rejected

b. Homogeneity of Variance

The analysis of homogeneity of variance was conducted to figure out the

variance of the pretests and posttest of experimental and control classes

whether the scores were homogeneous or not. To analyze homogeneity of

variance, Levene Test formula was used in SPSS 22 for Windows. The

hypotheses for the normality test of distribution are as follows:

H0: the data gained are homogenous

Ha: the data gained are not homogeneous

 62

The criteria of the test are:

If the Sig. value ≥ 0.05, H0 is accepted

If the Sig. value < 0.05, H0 is rejected

c. The Independent Samples T-test

The analysis of Independent Samples T-test was conducted to find out the

means of posttest of experimental and control classes whether there is

significant difference or not. T-test formula in SPSS 22 for Windows was

used. The hypotheses for the normality test of distribution are as follows:

H0 = There is no significant difference between cooperative learning

approach and project-based learning in improving students’ speaking skill.

Ha = There is significant difference between cooperative learning approach

and project-based learning in improving students’ speaking skill.

The criteria of the test are:

If the Sig. value ≥ 0.05, H0 is accepted

If the Sig. value < 0.05, H0 is rejected

d. N-Gain Calculation

N-Gain calculation was used to find out the improvement of students’

speaking skills after the treatment. Sadikin, Suprijadi, & Kaswan, (2019:153-

154), stated that N-Gain calculation can be used for the researcher as another
 63

alternative way in order to answer the question of how much improvement

that students achieve after the treatments. The formula of N-Gain calculation

is as follows:

The interpretation of N-Gain is described in the table below.

Table 3.5

The Interpretation of N-GAIN (Normal Score Improvement)

SCALE INTERPRETATION
0.0 – 0.30 Low
0.31 – 0.70 Moderate
0.71 – 1.00 High

After gaining the data of N-Gain, normality test of distribution and

homogeneity test of variance were then conducted. If the gained data are

normally distributed and homogenous, therefore, independent samples-test can

be conducted in order to test the hypotheses of this research.

2. Observation

The data from observation was in the form of observation checklist, audio or

video recording. The observation checklist and field notes were then analyzed

and categorized to gain information related to the research question about the
 64

students’ activities related to the use of cooperative learning approach and

project-based learning in process of teaching and learning.

3. Interview

The interview session was conducted in the last day of the research. The

interview was conducted by asking students by using interview form related to

students’ difficulties in speaking English.

G. Research Procedures

In conducting the research procedures, the researcher used the following steps:

1. Preparation Step

The preparation step consists of:

a. Determining the sample and population of the research

The population of the research is the 11th grade students of one senior high

school in Cimahi. 11th grade students were chosen because Opinion and

Thoughts are their material in this semester. It was chosen two classes out of 5

classes of science classes. The experimental and control classes consisted of

35 students each.

b. Preparing the Pretest Materials

In this research, the pretest was conducted to measure students five abilities;

comprehension, fluency, vocabularies, pronunciation, and grammar. By

looking at the syllabus used by the teacher of the sample classes, speaking
 65

material could be taken into the speaking test to see students’ achievements.

The speaking material consisted of cases that could lead the students to give

their opinion and thoughts.

2. Implementation Step

The Implementation step consists of:

a. Conducting the Pretest

The pretest was conducted to measure students’ initial skills before treatment.

The students in experimental and control classes were assigned to give their

opinion and thoughts related to the cases they have chosen. Five aspects of

assessment were evaluated, consisting of comprehension, fluency,

vocabularies, pronunciation, and grammar. The time was allocated for about

90 minutes.

b. Giving Treatments

In giving the treatments, 6 times allocation was conducted to each

experimental and control class. Each treatment was conducted for 90 minutes

consisting of procedures of teaching speaking through cooperative learning

approach and project-based learning. Cooperative learning approach was

implemented in experimental class while the Project-based learning was

assigned for the other group. The topics were taken from the issues that most

students commonly faced.

 66

3. Evaluation Step

The evaluation step consists of:

a. Conducting the Posttest

In this step, the posttest was conducted after they were given the treatment in

order to see the improvement of students’ speaking skills. The students were

assigned to give their opinion and thoughts related to the cases they have

chosen. The posttest was conducted in 90 minutes to measure whether there

was a significant improvement of students’ speaking skills in terms of

comprehension, fluency, vocabularies, pronunciation, and grammar.

b. Analyzing the Test Result (Pretest and Posttest)

After the researcher scored the pretest and posttest, the data were then

analyzed by using SPSS 22 software for Windows. It was used to figure out

the means of pretest, posttest, and the significance of the improvement.

H. Research Schedule

As the research procedures mentioned above, the schedules of this research

also consist of three activities, they are preparation, implementation, and

evaluation. This research took eight meetings to both experimental and control

classes. Those meetings were divided into two meetings of pretest and posttest

and six meetings of treatments. The preparation step started from December

2018 to January 2019. The implementation step started from January to March
 67

2019. And the evaluation conducted in March 2019. The following table

illustrates how the three steps were scheduled.

Table 3.6

Research Schedule Activities

No. Activities Months (2018-2019)

December January February March

1 Preparation

2 Implementation

3 Evaluation

I. Validity and Reliability

In relation to the validity and reliability, the pretest and posttest scores of both

experimental and control class were analyzed to figure out the validity and

reliability of the test raters/stakeholders. The validity and reliability of this

research are elaborated below.

1. Validity

Validity is conducted in order to figure out whether or not the test stakeholder

measures what should be measured. Sadikin, Suprijadi, & Kaswan, (2019:81)

stated that there are three types of validity; (1) content validity, (2) criterion

validity, (3) construct validity. In this research, the researcher used construct

validity because the researcher used speaking rubric as the instrument in order
 68

to test students’ speaking skills. Construct validity is a slightly more complex

issue related to the internal structure of the instrument and the concept which

will be measured. Moreover, the speaking rubric used in this research consists

of comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar.

Therefore, construct validity can be conducted in order to ensure that the test

stakeholder uses, for example, the pronunciation factor that is thought to

measure pronunciation really measures that factor (Sadikin, Suprijadi, &

Kaswan, (2019:83).

2. Reliability

Hatch and Farhady (1982) taken from Setiawan (2016) stated that the

reliability of a test can be defined as the extent to which a test produces

consistent result when it administered under similar condition. In addition,

there are several ways to estimate reliability (Sadikin, Suprijadi, & Kaswan,

(2019:89); (1) test-retest, (2) parallel test, (3) internal consistency, (4) inter-

rater reliability. In order to measure the reliability and to minimize the

subjectivity of the research, inter-rater reliability was selected because the

researcher became the rater and one other rater was also asked to analyze the

students’ speaking skills. In this case, the first rater was the researcher and the

second rater was the other researcher at the similar research site.
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the results and discussions of the research. The result of

this chapter is divided into three parts according to the three research

questions about the effect of cooperative learning approach and project-based

learning in improving students’ speaking skills to answer the first research

question, the implementation of cooperative learning approach and project-

based learning to answer the second research question, and students’

difficulties in speaking English skills to answer the last research question.

A. Results

1. Statistical Results

This section involves the students’ spoken tests: pretest and posttest. These

tests were conducted to both experimental class and control class in order to

figure out students’ initial speaking skills and the improvement of students’

speaking skills. Both in the pretest and posttest, students were required to

choose one of the pictures (see Appendix I) and they were asked to describe

and give their opinion orally about the picture that they have chosen in front of

the class.

Moreover, the researcher also conducted several stages to measure

students’ test results. Firstly, the researcher used speaking rubric from Student

Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) to analyze student’ answers in

69
 70

speaking tests. Secondly, another speaking rater was asked to measure

student’s speaking skills in order to avoid or minimize subjectivity of the

research. Then, the results of pretest, posttest and n-gain scores were

statistically analyzed by using SPSS 22 for Windows. The data of students’

speaking scores are presented in the table below.

Table 4.1

Students’ Speaking Scores

Experimental Class Control Class

No. Students
Pretest Posttest N-Gain Pretest Posttest N-Gain

1 1 46 62 0.2963 40 66 0.4333

2 2 38 54 0.2581 38 58 0.3226

3 3 42 60 0.3103 48 62 0.2692

4 4 42 62 0.3448 44 56 0.2143

5 5 40 58 0.3 34 42 0.1212

6 6 46 66 0.3704 56 70 0.3182

7 7 44 62 0.3214 42 46 0.069

8 8 44 64 0.3571 70 80 0.0667

9 9 48 64 0.3077 42 48 0.1034

10 10 46 68 0.4074 34 40 0.0909

11 11 34 50 0.2424 24 42 0.2368

12 12 58 66 0.1905 46 62 0.2963
 71

13 13 34 56 0.3333 38 46 0.129

14 14 30 46 0.2286 38 58 0.3226

15 15 58 64 0.1429 44 52 0.1429

16 16 38 58 0.3226 44 52 0.1429

17 17 40 58 0.3 40 42 0.0333

18 18 28 50 0.3056 24 48 0.3158

19 19 58 74 0.381 58 64 0.1429

20 20 62 82 0.5263 30 44 0.2

21 21 32 54 0.3235 50 68 0.36

22 22 42 62 0.3448 28 48 0.2778

23 23 64 80 0.4444 32 50 0.2647

24 24 52 70 0.375 42 50 0.1379

25 25 38 64 0.4194 42 50 0.1379

26 26 54 78 0.5217 34 44 0.1515

27 27 42 58 0.2759 44 64 0.3571

28 28 42 60 0.3103 46 52 0.1111

29 29 42 64 0.3793 34 42 0.1212

30 30 36 66 0.4688 62 72 0.3158

31 31 46 62 0.2963 38 52 0.2258

32 32 38 66 0.4516 48 58 0.1923

33 33 40 62 0.3667 40 52 0.2

34 34 32 52 0.2941 42 54 0.2069
 72

35 35 32 50 0.2647 38 54 0.2581

Total 1508 2172 11.783 1454 1888 7.2895

Mean 43.086 62.0571 0.3367 41.543 53.9429 0.2083

The gained data of the students’ speaking scores above were from

experimental class and control class. The descriptive statistics, analysis of

pretest scores, analysis of posttest scores, and n-gain calculation from the

experimental class and control class are elaborated below.

a. Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics of students’ speaking scores in experimental class

and control class are presented as follows:

Table 4.2

Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Speaking Scores

Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Range Min Max Sum Mean Deviation Variance
Pretest
35 36 28 64 1508 43.09 9.144 83.610
Exp.
Posttest
35 36 46 82 2172 62.06 8.282 68.585
Exp.
N-Gain
35 .383 .143 .526 11.783 .33666 .083717 .007
Exp.
Pretest
35 46 24 70 1454 41.54 9.775 95.550
Cont.
Posttest
35 40 40 80 1888 53.94 9.780 95.644
Cont.
N-Gain
35 .400 .033 .433 7.289 .20827 .098867 .010
Cont.
Valid N
35
(listwise)
*Exp. = Experimental Class *Cont. = Control Class
 73

Table 4.2 indicates that the mean of students’ pretest scores in

experimental class is 43.09 and the mean of students’ pretest scores in control

class is 41.54. It can be concluded form the table that the mean of students’

pretest scores in both classes is not too different. Furthermore, the table

presents that the mean of students’ posttest scores in experimental class is

62.06 and the mean of students’ posttest scores in control class is 53.94. It can

be concluded form the table that the mean of students’ posttest scores in both

classes is slightly different. Furthermore, the mean of N-Gain score of

experimental class is classified as moderate improvement, while the mean of

N-Gain score of control class is classified as low improvement. Therefore,

from N-Gain score, the improvement of N-gain score of experimental class is

better than the one in control class.

b. Analysis of Pretest Scores

The pretest was undertaken to each class at the beginning of the treatments.

This pretest was conducted in order to figure out the students’ initial speaking

skills before the teaching and learning process was conducted. The normality

test of distribution, homogeneity test of variance and independent samples t-

test of the students’ pretest scores from the experimental class and control

class are shown below.

1) Normality Test of Distribution on Pretest Scores

This research used Shapiro-Wilk with the level of significance α = 0.05 in

order to calculate the normality test of distribution. The hypotheses of this test

are:
 74

H0: the data gained are normally distributed

Ha: the data gained are not normally distributed

The criteria of the test are:

If the Sig. value ≥ 0.05, H0 is accepted

If the Sig. value < 0.05, H0 is rejected

The result of normality test of distribution is presented in the table below.

Table 4.3

The Result of Normality Test of Distribution on Pretest Scores

Tests of Normality
Shapiro-Wilk
Class Statistic df Sig.
PRETEST EXPERIMENT .944 35 .074
SCORES CONTROL .947 35 .094
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

The table 4.3 shows that the significant value (Sig.) of the pretest scores of

experimental class is 0.074 and the significant value (Sig.) of the pretest scores

of control class is 0.094. Both of the significant values (Sig.) are higher than

the level of significance (0.05). It can be concluded that the null hypothesis is

accepted and alternative hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, the data gained of

students’ pretest scores are normally distributed.

 75

2) Homogeneity Test of Variance on Pretest Scores

In calculating the homogeneity test of variance, this research used Levene

Statistic with the level of significance α = 0.05. The hypotheses of this test

are:

H0: the variance of the experimental class and control class is

homogeneous

Ha: the variance of the experimental class and control class is not

homogeneous

The criteria of the test are:

If the Sig. value ≥ 0.05, H0 is accepted

If the Sig. value < 0.05, H0 is rejected

The result of homogeneity test of variance is presented in the following

table.

Table 4.4

The Result of Homogeneity Test of Variance on Pretest Scores

Test of Homogeneity of Variance

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
PRETEST Based on Mean
.000 1 68 .983
SCORES
 76

The table 4.4 implies that the significant value (Sig.) of the homogeneity

test of variance is 0.983, which is higher than the level of significance (0.05).

It can be concluded that null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, the variance of

the experimental class and control class is homogeneous.

3) The Independent Samples T-Test on Pretest Scores

The independent samples t-test on pretest scores can be conducted because the

pretest scores are normally distributed and homogenous. The data were then

calculated using t-test formula to find out the means of pretest scores between

experimental and control class. This test uses the level of significant α = 0.05

and the following hypotheses are as follows:

H0: μ1 = μ2: there is no difference in the mean score of students’ initial

speaking skills who are taught by using cooperative learning approach and

project-based learning.

Ha: μ1 ≠ μ2: there is difference in the mean score of students’ initial

speaking skills who are taught by using cooperative learning approach and

project-based learning.

The criteria of the test are:

If the Sig. value ≥ 0.05, H0 is accepted

If the Sig. value < 0.05, H0 is rejected

The result of independent t-test is presented in the following table.

 77

Table 4.5

The Result of Independent Samples Test on Pretest Scores

Independent Samples Test

Levene’s Test for t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-tailed)
PRETEST E.v.a. .000 .983 .682 68 .498
SCORES E.v.n.a. .682 67.699 .498
*E.v.a. = Equal variances assumed. *E.v.n.a. = Equal variances not assumed

The table 4.5 presents that the significant value (Sig. 2-tailed) is 0.498

which is higher than the level of significance (0.05). Therefore, the null

hypothesis is accepted. It can be concluded that there is no difference in the

mean score of students’ initial speaking skills who are taught by using

cooperative learning approach and project-based learning.

c. Analysis of Posttest Scores

The posttest was given after the last meeting of the treatments. This posttest

was conducted in order to find out whether there is significant different

between students’ speaking skills in experimental class and students’ speaking

skills in control class. The normality test of distribution, homogeneity test of

variance and independent samples t-test of the students’ posttest scores from

the experimental class and control class are presented below.

 78

1) Normality Test of Distribution on Posttest Scores

This research used Shapiro-Wilk with the level of significance α = 0.05 in

order to calculate the normality test of distribution. The hypotheses of this test

are:

H0: the data gained are normally distributed

Ha: the data gained are not normally distributed

The criteria of the test are:

If the Sig. value ≥ 0.05, H0 is accepted

If the Sig. value < 0.05, H0 is rejected

The result of normality test of distribution is presented in the table below.

Table 4.6

The Result of Normality Test of Distribution on Posttest Scores

Tests of Normality
Shapiro-Wilk
Class Statistic df Sig.
POSTTEST EXPERIMENT .957 35 .186
SCORES CONTROL .945 35 .078
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

The table 4.6 implies that the significant value (Sig.) of posttest scores in

experimental class is 0.186 and the significant value (Sig.) of posttest scores in

control class is 0.078. Both of the significant values (Sig.) are higher than the

level of significance (0.05). It can be concluded that the null hypothesis is

accepted and alternative hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, the data gained of

students’ posttest scores are normally distributed.

 79

2) Homogeneity Test of Variance on Posttest Scores

In calculating the homogeneity test of variance, this research used Levene

Statistic with the level of significance α = 0.05. The hypotheses of this test

are:

H0: the variance of posttest scores of the experimental class and control

class is homogeneous

Ha: the variance of posttest scores of the experimental class and control

class is not homogeneous

The criteria of the test are:

If the Sig. value ≥ 0.05, H0 is accepted

If the Sig. value < 0.05, H0 is rejected

The result of homogeneity test of variance is presented in the following

table.

Table 4.7

The Result of Homogeneity Test of Variance on Posttest Scores

Test of Homogeneity of Variance

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
POSTTEST Based on Mean
1.793 1 68 .185
SCORES

Table 4.7 reveals that the significant value (Sig.) of the homogeneity test

of variance is 0.185, which is higher than the level of significance (0.05). It

 80

can be concluded that null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, the variance of

posttest scores of the experimental class and control class is homogeneous.

3) Independent Samples T-Test on Posttest Scores

After the normality test of distribution and homogeneity test of variance had

been analyzed, the gained data were then calculated by using t-test formula in

order to find out the means of posttest scores between experimental class and

control class. This test uses the level of significance α = 0.05 and the

following hypothesis is as follows:

H0: μ1 = μ2: There is no significant difference between cooperative

learning approach and project-based learning in improving students’

speaking skill

The criteria of the test are:

If the Sig. value ≥ 0.05, H0 is accepted

If the Sig. value < 0.05, H0 is rejected

The result of independent t-test is presented in the following table.

 81

Table 4.8

The Result of Independent Samples Test on Posttest Scores

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-tailed)
POSTTEST E.v.a. 1.793 .185 3.746 68 .000
SCORES E.v.n.a. 3.746 66.203 .000
*E.v.a. = Equal variances assumed. *E.v.n.a. = Equal variances not assumed

The table 4.8 presents that the significant value Sig. (2-tailed) is 0.000 and

if it is divided by two the sig value is 0.000 which is lower than the level of

significance (0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. It can be

concluded that there is significant difference between cooperative learning

approach and project-based learning in improving students’ speaking skills.

2. The Implementation of Cooperative Learning Approach and Project-

Based Learning

In respect to the research questions, observation was conducted to answer the

second research question. This research found that the implementation of

cooperative learning approach and project-based learning in teaching speaking

skills had facilitated students to improve their speaking skills. The two classes

were served as the experimental class and control class where cooperative

learning approach was implemented in experimental class and project-based

learning was implemented in control class. Both English and Indonesian

 82

languages were used as the medium of instruction since it is assumed that they

have not acquired enough skill to understand full English. By doing so,

students will learn English faster and understand the material easily (Yana &

Nugraha, 2019). The implementations of cooperative learning approach and

project-based learning in teaching speaking skills are elaborated in the

following section.

a. The Implementation of Cooperative Learning Approach by using

Jigsaw as Technique in Teaching Speaking Skills

In this research, the steps of jigsaw technique in cooperative learning approach

were in line with the steps conducted by Alamri (2018), Sahin (2010), Slavin

(1995), and Wang (2009). The whole meetings of the treatment were done by

the researcher. Here, the researcher acted as a teacher. The researcher also

asked another college student in order to observe students’ activities in the

classroom.

Firstly, the teaching and learning process was started by organizing the

students, praying, and checking students’ attendance. After that, the researcher

explained the competencies that would be achieved by the students about

asking and giving opinion and thoughts. The researcher also explained about

jigsaw technique that would be used in the process of teaching and learning.

The students were then divided into 6 groups.

 83

Figure 4.1

Pre-Activity and Organizing Groups

Secondly, after the groups have been organized, the researcher explained

that the groups were considered as home groups. In home group stage, the

researcher gave students material and task related to the topic in order for the

students to express their opinion and thoughts. In addition, they were asked to

divide the members and decide which of them who had to discuss about each

material and task.

Figure 4.2

Students Discuss the Material in Home Group

 84

Thirdly, the students were separated from their home groups and joint the

new groups which were considered as expert groups. These expert groups

consisted of the students of home groups which were given the same task of

material. Students in the expert groups learned and discussed the same task

attentively. These expert groups really helped the students because they could

discuss and share the same topic that they had got.

Figure 4.3

Students Discuss the Material in Expert Group

Fourthly, the students were asked to return to their home groups to share

what they had learned to the rest of the students in the home group. They

shared and taught other students in home groups. The researcher ensured that

each student got their turn.

 85

Figure 4.4

Students Teach and Share the Material in Home Group

Afterwards, the researcher asked one student of the member of each home

group to present and share the information that they had discussed in front of

the class. The other groups were asked to pay attention to the presenting

groups.

Figure 4.5

The Representative of each Group Presents and Shares the Material

Finally, the students helped by the researcher concluded the process of

teaching and learning. From the conclusion, students felt that this technique

really helped them in the process of teaching and learning especially their
 86

speaking skills. Students’ knowledge and confidence were improved. They

were engaged in the process of teaching and learning by asking questions and

sharing ideas or opinion.

Figure 4.6

Students and Researcher Concluded the Process of Teaching and

Learning

Further explanation about the result of observation checklist in each

meeting is elaborated in the section below in order to support the statistical

result. This section is elaborated since there is also a different progress in

terms of students’ activities in the process of teaching and learning by using

cooperative learning approach (see Appendix J). The observation checklist

provides five scales for 13 statements. From these five scales and 13

statements, the researcher wants to elaborate the percentage of mean score

from the observation checklist. The highest percentage of mean score is 100%

and lowest percentage of mean score is 20%. The result of observation

 87

checklist from the first meeting until the last meeting of experimental class is

as follows:

a. First Meeting

The first meeting was conducted in January 17th, 2019. The observation

checklist of the first meeting showed that the percentage of the mean score of

students’ activities is 55.3% (see Appendix J1). In this meeting, the students

were not completely ready to follow the lesson. Some of the students looked

attentive in following the process of teaching and learning, but there were

students still playing on their gadgets. To open the class learning, the

researcher asked the students related to their initial knowledge, two of the

students answered this question. When the researcher explained about Jigsaw

technique, they were not completely interested in following the instruction. In

relation to the students’ activeness, there were only some students who were

active in the learning activity. Because the students were still confused about

Jigsaw technique, they were not completely excited in following the lesson.

However, only a few students could answer the researcher’s question in

English. From this situation, only a few students spoke fluently. In the end of

the activity, only a few students concluded the lesson in Indonesian Language.

They were still not confident in using English. In conclusion, in the first

meeting, the students were not completely active in the learning activity

because they might be still confused with this technique.

 88

b. Second Meeting

The second meeting was conducted in January 24th, 2019. The observation

checklist of the second meeting showed that the percentage of the mean score

of students’ activities has improved compared to the first meeting, which is

69.2% (see Appendix J2). In this meeting, most of the students ready to follow

the lesson. The students were excited in responding the researcher’s greeting.

Some of the students looked attentive in following the process of teaching and

learning. Most of the students paid attention to the researcher’s explanation

and instruction. In relation to the students’ activeness, the students’ activeness

and confidence increased because they had mastered the rules and materials.

The students were excited about the lesson because they had mastered the

material and rules. They didn’t feel sleepy during the learning activities. In

terms of their speaking skills, most of the students were still stammering when

they explained things in English. Many of the students still answered in

Indonesian language when the researcher asked them in English. In the end of

the activity, only a few students concluded the lesson in Indonesian Language

and English. In conclusion, most of the students were active in the learning

activity because they felt that they had mastered the rules and materials or

topics.

c. Third Meeting

The third meeting was conducted in January 31st, 2019. The observation

checklist of the third meeting showed that the percentage of the mean score of
 89

students’ activities has improved compared to the previous meeting, which is

75.3% (see Appendix J3). In this meeting, all of the students were ready to

start the lesson. Some of the students act attentively in following the process

of teaching and learning. The researcher explained about the topics that would

be discussed in the meeting. The students followed the instruction better than

last meeting. In relation to the students’ activeness, the students were active in

discussing the given topics and they were trying to search from other sources.

The students were excited about the lesson and tried to do their best in order to

be the best group in class. In terms of their speaking skills, the students’

speaking skills improved. The students always tried to speak in English even

though it was hard for them to speak in English. In the end of the activity,

some of the students concluded the lesson in Indonesian Language and

English. In conclusion, most of the students felt helped by using jigsaw

technique because they could gather opinion from other students and share

their opinion.

d. Fourth Meeting

The fourth meeting was held in February 7th, 2019. The observation checklist

of this meeting showed that the percentage of the mean score of students’

activities has improved compared to the previous meeting, which is 87.6%

(see Appendix J4). All of the students were ready to start the lesson. They sat

silently and neatly when the researcher entered the class. They had organized

themselves sitting with their own home groups. It was totally different from

the previous meeting. The students were active in discussing the given topics,
 90

dividing the group members and they were trying to ask other students and

search from other sources. The students were excited to express their opinions

and thoughts related to the topic in front of the class. In terms of their

speaking skills, the students showed their confidence when they were

expressing their opinions and thoughts in front of the class or inside their own

groups. Some of the students could answer the researcher’s question in

English. In the end of the activity, some of the students concluded the lesson

in Indonesian Language and English. In conclusion, Jigsaw technique helped

the students because the students could can opinion from other students and

they could share their opinion.

e. Fifth Meeting

The fifth meeting was held in February 14th, 2019. The observation checklist

of this meeting showed that the percentage of the mean score of students’

activities has better improvement compared to the previous meeting, which is

95.3% (see Appendix J5). In this meeting, all of the students were ready to

start the lesson. The students sat silently and neatly on their chairs when the

teacher enters the classroom. The students looked attentive when the

researcher came. All of the students paid attention to the explanation and

followed the instruction very well. The students were active in discussing the

given topics, dividing the group members and they were trying to ask other

students and search from other sources. The students were excited to express

their opinions and thoughts related to the topic in front of the class. In terms of
 91

their speaking skills, the students showed their confidence when they were

expressing their opinions and thoughts in front of the class or inside their own

groups. Some of the students could answer the researcher’s question in

English. In the end of the activity, some students concluded the lesson in

English by raising their hand to express what they felt during the learning

activity. In conclusion, Jigsaw technique helped the student very much. The

students could practice speaking by expressing and teaching their opinion to

other students both in their own groups and in front of the class.

b. The Implementation of Project-Based Learning by using Poster as a

Project in Teaching Speaking Skill

This section presents the observation results of the use of project-based

learning in teaching speaking skills in control class. The steps of project-based

learning were in line with the steps adapted from Fragoulis & Tsiplakides

(2009) and Yunyta (2017). The steps are organizing groups and selecting

topic, planning and arranging the projects, planning and arranging the

schedules, finishing the projects, presenting the projects, and evaluating the

projects. The whole meetings of the treatment were done by the researcher.

Here, the researcher acted as a teacher. The researcher also asked another

college student in order to observe students’ activities in the classroom.

Firstly, the teaching and learning process was started by organizing the

students, praying, and checking students’ attendance. After that, the researcher

explained the competencies that would be achieved by the students about

 92

asking and giving opinion and thoughts. The researcher also explained about

project-based learning that would be used in the process of teaching and

learning. The students were then divided into 6 groups. After that, the

researcher as well as the students discussed about the topics.

Figure 4.7

Pre-activity, Organizing Groups, and Selecting Topics

Secondly, after organizing the groups and selecting the topics were then

informed to make project learning. Both teacher and students discussed about

what project that would be done by the students. Poster project was then

considered to be the project for the whole meetings. The researcher as well as

the students divided each topic into each group. The students were then asked

to discuss the job of each member in the group and decide the sources and

materials that would be needed in the project.

 93

Figure 4.8

Planning and Arranging the Projects

Thirdly, both teacher and students discussed the rules and schedules in

preparing the project learning. The researcher asked a leader from each group

to come forward to take their turn in terms of what day and date that the group

would perform or present the poster project in front of the class. The time of

the turns were finally agreed by the researcher and all of the students.

Figure 4.9

Planning and Arranging the Schedules

Fourthly, after each group got their turn, the researcher helped the students

in finishing their poster project. The students in a group prepared things or

 94

material that would be needed in poster project. The students were given

chance to ask questions related to making and finishing the poster project. The

researcher kept monitoring each group in the process of teaching and learning

in terms of making and finishing the poster project.

Figure 4.10

Finishing the Projects

Fifthly, students in groups performing and presenting their poster project

in front of the class. There were six groups with six different topics given. The

students explained about the explanation, the reasons and purpose of the topic

and the bad and positive impacts of the topics. In this process, the students

tried to express their opinion and thoughts about the topics they were

presenting. While the group presented in front of the class, other students, who

were not presenting, were asked to take notes of some important points

explained by the presenting groups. It was conducted in order for them to still

focus and pay attention to the presenting groups.

 95

Figure 4.11

Presenting the Projects

Lastly, both the researcher and students evaluated the process, projects and

presentations together. In this process, the students learned how to evaluate

and assess the projects made by other students by giving their opinions and

advices to each other. After that, it was the time for the researcher to give

feedback and advice to the whole groups and presentations.

Figure 4.12

Evaluating the Projects

 96

Further explanation about the result of observation checklist in each

meeting is elaborated in the section below. This section is elaborated since

there is also a different progress in terms of students’ activities in the process

of teaching and learning by using project-based learning (see Appendix K).

The observation checklist provides five scales for 13 statements. From these

five scales and 13 statements, the researcher wants to elaborate the percentage

of mean score from the observation checklist. The highest percentage of mean

score is 100% and lowest percentage of mean score is 20%. The result of

observation checklist from the first meeting until the last meeting of control

class is elaborated as follows:

a. First Meeting

The first meeting was conducted in January 17th, 2019. The observation

checklist of the first meeting showed that the percentage of the mean score of

students’ activities is 50.7% (see Appendix K1). The students were not

completely ready to follow the lesson. A few students looked attentive in

following the process of teaching and learning while less of them were still

playing on their gadgets and talking to their friends. They were not completely

interested in following the instruction. In relation to the students’ activeness,

there were only a few students who were active in the learning activity. Some

of them were still reluctant and busy with their own business. The students

were not completely excited about the material given by the researcher. In

terms of their speaking skills, most of the students used Indonesian language

rather than English. In the end of the learning and teaching process, only one
 97

student could conclude the material today and what would be discussed the

next meeting. In conclusion, some of the students were still reluctant and they

tended to rely on other member in planning the poster project, because some

of them worked, and some of them did nothing.

b. Second Meeting

The second meeting was conducted in January 24th, 2019. The observation

checklist of the second meeting showed that the percentage of the mean score

of students’ activities has a slight improvement compared to the first meeting,

which is 53.8% (see Appendix K2). A few students sat on their chairs

discussing the project, but some of them were talking to each other, playing

their gadgets, and out of the classroom. Otherwise, only a few students looked

attentive in following the process of teaching and learning but less of them

were still playing on their gadgets and talking to their friends. Some of the

students were following the teacher’s instruction in order for them to prepare

the things needed in making the poster project. In relation to the students’

activeness, there were only a few students who were active in the learning

activity. Some of them did nothing because they felt that their friends had

done the poster. Some of the students were active by preparing their poster

project, but some of them were doing nothing. In terms of their speaking

skills, most of the students still used Indonesian language rather than English.

In the end of the learning and teaching process, only one student could

conclude the material today and what would be discussed on the next meeting.

In conclusion, some of the students were still reluctant and they tended to rely
 98

on other member in planning and finishing the poster project, because some of

them worked, and some of them did nothing.

c. Third Meeting

The third meeting was conducted in January 31st, 2019. The observation

checklist of the third meeting showed that the percentage of the mean score of

students’ activities has improved compared to the second meeting, which is

63% (see Appendix K3). The students sat on their chairs when the teacher

entered the class, but some of them are still out of the class. Most of the

students looked attentive in following the process of teaching and learning.

Some of the students followed the researcher’s instruction in order for them to

present the poster in a good presentation. In relation to the students’

activeness, some of the students paid attention carefully to the presenting

groups. In terms of their speaking skills, most of the students used Indonesian

language rather than English. In the end of the learning and teaching process,

several students could conclude the material and express their opinion about

the groups that had presented in front of the class. In conclusion, some of the

students were active and excited because they were trying to make a good

poster and presentation. But some of them were still reluctant and did nothing.

d. Fourth Meeting

The fourth meeting was conducted in February 7th, 2019. The observation

checklist of this meeting showed that the percentage of the mean score of

students’ activities has improved compared to the previous meeting, which is

 99

69.2% (see Appendix K4). The students sat on their chairs when the

researcher entered the class. Most of the students looked attentive in following

the process of teaching and learning but a few of them were still reluctant.

Some of the students were following the researcher’ instruction in order for

them to present the poster in a good presentation, and some of them were

preparing to take notes to point out important thing coming from the

presenting group. In relation to the students’ activeness, some of the students

paid attention carefully to the presenting groups, they took notes in terms of

important points, but some of them were still busy with their own business. In

terms of their speaking skills, most of the students used Indonesian language

rather than English. In the end of the learning and teaching process, several

students could conclude the material today and express their opinion about the

groups that had presented in front of the class. In conclusion, project-based

learning made students active and excited because they were trying to make a

good poster and presentation. But some of them were still reluctant and did

nothing.

e. Fifth Meeting

The fifth meeting was conducted in February 14th, 2019. The observation

checklist of this meeting showed that the percentage of the mean score of

students’ activities has improved compared to the previous meeting, which is

75.3% (see Appendix K5). The observation checklist of the fourth meeting

showed that the students were ready to follow the lesson. The students sat on

their chairs neatly and silently when the researcher entered the class. Most of
 100

the students looked attentive in following the process of teaching and learning.

In relation to the students’ activeness, most of the students were active by

sharing their opinion and feedback related to the groups’ presentation. The

students asked the researcher about the topic that they were confused in. Only

a few students were excited about the lesson because not all of the students

worked for the group. In terms of their speaking skills, most of the students

still used Indonesian language, and they were stammering when speaking in

English. In the end of the learning and teaching process, several students could

conclude the material today and express their opinion about the process of

teaching and learning. In conclusion, project-based learning made students

active and excited because they were trying to make a good poster and

presentation. It also made them think critically about the topics they had got.

Meanwhile some of them were still reluctant and did nothing because they

thought that their friends had done it for them.

3. Students’ Difficulties in Speaking English

In relation to the last research question, the researcher conducted the interview

in order to find out students’ difficulties in speaking English. There were 9

students of experimental class and 9 students of control class being

interviewed. The researcher conducted the interview to 3 students of higher

achievers, 3 students of middle achievers, and 3 students of lower achievers

from each of the class.

 101

The result of the interview showed that the first common difficulty faced

by the students was their limited knowledge of vocabulary. The second

common difficulty faced by the students was their limited knowledge of

grammar and structure. The third common difficulty faced by the students

according to the interview is their limited knowledge of pronunciation.

According to Dash, (2013) problem of speaking refers to knowledge of

communicative competence that consists of student’s linguistic knowledge

such as grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. These difficulties would also

affect their comprehension and fluency.

Furthermore, there are also other difficulties faced by the students. Being

nervous, worried, lack of confidence, and afraid of making mistakes are other

difficulties faced by some students. The result revealed that many of the

participants had inhibitions about speaking that impaired their ability to speak

English. These students worried too much about making mistakes and had a

fear that people would laugh at them if they failed to speak English correctly.

This can also happen because the personality of the students itself as shy

students. Floriasti (2013) as cited in Tama (2017:41) stated that the problem of

students often faced in speaking related student’s personality such as being

shy, anxiety, emotion, attitude, students motivation, speaking material.

 102

B. Discussions

This section presents the discussions based on the results of the research. This

section is then divided into three categories based on the research questions in

this research.

1. Statistical Results

Based on the gained data from the results of the research, the data of pretest

scores of experimental and control classes were calculated by using normality

test of distribution. This normality test of distribution showed that the data of

pretest scores of experimental and control classes were normally distributed,

therefore this calculation could proceed to the homogeneity test of variance in

order to know that the data were homogeny or not. The result of homogeneity

test of variance showed that the pretest scores of experimental and control

classes were homogeneous. Since the data were normally distributed and

homogeneous, the calculation of the independent samples t-test could be

conducted. The independent samples t-test of pretest scores indicates that the

significant value Sig. (2-tailed) is 0.498 which is higher than the level of

significance (0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. It can be

concluded that there is no difference in the mean score of students’ initial

speaking skills who are taught by using cooperative learning approach and

project-based learning.

The data of posttest scores of experimental and control classes were also

calculated using normality test of distribution. This normality test of

 103

distribution showed that the data of posttest scores of experimental and control

classes were normally distributed, therefore this calculation could proceed to

the homogeneity test of variance in order to know that the data were

homogeneous or not. The result of homogeneity test of variance revealed that

the posttest scores of experimental and control class were homogeneous. Since

the data were normally distributed and homogeneous, the calculation of the t-

test could be conducted. The independent samples t-test of posttest scores

indicates that the significant value Sig. (2-tailed) is 0.000 which is lower than

the level of significance (0.05). This situation is opposite with the previous

case. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is

accepted. In conclusion, there is significant difference between cooperative

learning approach and project-based learning in improving students’ speaking

skills.

2. The Implementation of Cooperative Learning Approach and Project-

Based Learning

Based on the results found in this research, the implementation of cooperative

learning approach and project based learning had improved students’ active

participation in the process of teaching and learning. It also improves their

speaking skills. In this research, the researcher conducted cooperative learning

approach to experimental class and project-based learning to control class.

In experimental class, the steps of Jigsaw technique were in line with the

steps conducted by Alamri (2018), Sahin (2010), Slavin (1995), and Wang
 104

(2009). Starting from pre-activity and dividing groups, home groups’ stage,

expert groups’ stage, return to home groups’ stage, presenting the information,

and evaluation.

From the observation checklist of experimental class, it showed that

students’ activeness and participation increased in each meeting. This is

proved by the percentage of mean score of students’ activities from the first

meeting until the last meeting; (1) the first meeting scored 55.3%, (2) the

second meeting scored 69.2%, (3) the third meeting scored 75.3%, (4) the

fourth meeting scored 87.6%, and (5) the last meeting scored 95.3%. The

overall percentage of mean score of students’ activities in experimental class

is 76.6%. It can be concluded that jigsaw technique is effective in improving

the students’ speaking skills.

Meanwhile, in control class, the steps of project-based learning were in

line with the steps adapted from Fragoulis & Tsiplakides (2009) and Yunyta

(2017). The steps are organizing groups and selecting topic, planning and

arranging the projects, planning and arranging the schedules, finishing the

projects, presenting the projects, and evaluating the projects.

From the observation checklist of control class, it showed that students’

activeness and participation increased in each meeting, even though the

increasing was not that better than the students in experimental class. The

percentages of mean score of students’ activities from the first meeting until

the last meeting are; (1) the first meeting scored 50.7%, (2) the second
 105

meeting scored 53.8%, (3) the third meeting scored 63%, (4) the fourth

meeting scored 69.2%, and (5) the last meeting scored 75.3%. The overall

percentage of mean score of students’ activities in experimental class is

62.4%. It can be concluded that project-based learning was slightly effective

in improving the students’ speaking skills.

From the explanation mentioned above, both cooperative learning

approach and project-based learning were effective in teaching and improving

students’ speaking skills. But the students of experimental class achieved

more improvement than the students of control class. It can be seen from the

learning activity of cooperative learning where the students are always trained

to speak in each meeting of the treatment but the students of control class are

only trained to speak when they are performing.

3. Students’ Difficulties in Speaking English

Based on the results found in this research, the common difficulties faced by

the students in speaking English are lack of vocabulary, limited knowledge of

grammar, and limited knowledge of pronunciation. This is supported by Dash

(2013) stating that problem of speaking refers to knowledge of communicative

competence that consists of student’s linguistic knowledge such as grammar,

vocabulary and pronunciation.

Besides those three common difficulties, being nervous, worried, lack of

confidence, and afraid of making mistakes are also difficulties faced by the

students, because the personality of the students itself as shy students. Floriasti
 106

(2013) taken from Tama (2017:41) stated that the problem of students often

faced in speaking related student’s personality such as being shy, anxiety,

emotion, attitude, students motivation, speaking material. Moreover, Ur

(1996) stated inhibition can happen in terms of how students are worried of

making mistakes, fearful of criticism, or simply shy.

 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter explains conclusions and suggestions related to the use of

cooperative learning approach and project-based learning for teaching

speaking skills. The conclusions are drawn from results and discussion

presented in the previous chapter and the suggestions are intended to teachers

and future researchers.

A. Conclusions

This section comes up with conclusions based on results and discussions in the

previous chapter. Based on the results and discussions presented in the

previous chapter, the researcher would like to summarize some conclusion as

follow:

1. There is significant difference between students who are taught by using

cooperative learning approach and project based learning in improving

students’ speaking skills. In addition, students of experimental class

achieve more improvement than the students of control class in terms of

speaking skills.

2. The implementations of cooperative learning approach and project based

learning have improved students’ active participation in the process of

teaching and learning, it also improves their speaking skills.

107
 108

3. Students have difficulties in vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation

knowledge, and it will also affect to their comprehension and fluency.

They also have difficulties with their confidence, the students are afraid of

making mistakes when they speak in English. They also feel nervous and

worried when they speak in English.

B. Suggestions

This part provides suggestions for English teachers, students, and future

researchers.

1. For the English Teachers

It is suggested to the English teachers to use cooperative learning approach or

project-based learning in the process of teaching and learning especially in

speaking activities. It is because the use of cooperative learning approach or

project-based learning can improve students’ motivation to speak in English.

However, it is better for the teacher to consider the time allocation especially

if the teacher wants to implement the project-based learning. The teachers

should manage the time appropriately because both cooperative learning and

project-based learning need a good time allocation. Moreover, putting games

in the process of teaching and learning is also appropriate in order to increase

students’ interest.

2. For the Students

The researcher suggests that it is better for the students to solve their problem

in learning English, for example, by bringing a dictionary, reading English

 109

books or articles, watching English movies or listening to English songs to

overcome their vocabulary and pronunciation problems. They may also

practice speaking in daily life with their teachers or friends in order to practice

their grammar use and speaking skills. Moreover, the students have to be

confident to speak English.

3. For the Future Researchers

The researcher also suggests to future researchers to use either cooperative

learning approach or project-based learning since these two approaches have

good effect toward the process of teaching and learning especially in speaking

class. Besides, the future researchers also have to manage the time properly if

they want to use these two approaches.

 REFERENCES

Abubakar, M. S. (2015). Improving the Second Year Students' Speaking

Ability through Project-Based Learning (PBL) At MTSN Model
Makassar. ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research
Journal), 1(2), 216-228.

Affandi, A. (2015). The Effectiveness of Project-Based Learning and

Problem-Based Learning on EFL Tertiary Level Students’ Writing
Achievement. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia: Bandung.

Al Hosni, S. (2014). Speaking Difficulties Encountered by Young EFL

Learners. International Journal on Studies in English Language and
Literature (IJSELL), 2(6), 22-30.

Al-Tamimi, N. O. M., & Attamimi, R. A. (2014). Effectiveness of cooperative

learning in enhancing speaking skills and attitudes towards learning
English. International Journal of Linguistics, 6(4), 27.

Alamri, H. R. H. (2018). The Effect of Using the Jigsaw Cooperative Learning

Technique on Saudi EFL Students’ Speaking Skills. Journal of
Education and Practice, 9(6), 65-77

Apsari, Y. (2016). English Curriculum Analysis. Cimahi: STKIP Siliwangi

Press.

Bailey, Kathelen & Nunan. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching

Speaking. New York: Mc Graw Hill

Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language Learning and Teaching. (2nd

Edition). London: Printice-Hall inc.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by Principles an Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy Second Edition. Pearson Education.

110
 111

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to

Language Teaching. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to

Language Teaching. New York: Addison Wesley Longman

Chen, W. D. (2009). A pilot study of some ROCMA cadets' difficulties in

English speaking. WHAMPOA-An Interdisciplinary Journal, 57, 119-
126.

Crandall, J. (1999). Cooperative Language Learning and Affective Factors. In

J. Arnold (eds.), Affect in language learning (pp.226-244).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research Planning, Conducting, and

Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th Edition).
Boston: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and

Mixed Method Approaches. (4th Edition). London: SAGE
Publications.

Darmuki, A., Andayani, Nurkamto, J., & Saddhono, K. (2018). The

Development and Evaluation of Speaking Learning Model by
Cooperative Approach. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2),
115-128.

Dash, B. (2013). Language Skill : VSRD International Journal of Technical

and Non-Technical Research.

Devany. (2015). Teaching Speaking Through Cooperative Learning Method at

the Seventh Grade Students of SMP Wiyata Bhakti Cimahi (A
Research Paper). STKIP Siliwangi: Cimahi.
 112

Devi, A. P. (2016). Using Cooperative Learning in Teaching Critical Thinking

in Reading. (A Thesis). School of Postgraduate Studies, Universitas
Pendidikan Indonesia: Bandung.

Dewi, E. C. (2016). The Implementation of Jigsaw method to Develop Better

Learning Activity for Improving Reading Competence in SMP St.
Vincentius Sedayu. (A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis). Sanata Dharma
University: Yogyakarta

Dewi, H. (2016). Project Based Learning Techniques to improve speaking

skills. English Education Journal, 7(3), 341-359.

Fauziati, E. (2010). Teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL).

Retrieved from https://publikasiilmiah.ums.ac.id

Faqih, D. (2017). The Use of Role Play in Speaking Activities for the 8 th Grade
Students of SMP Negeri 1 Sleman. (A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis).
Sanata Dharma University: Yogyakarta

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. (2012). How to Design and

Evaluate Research in Education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.

Fragoulis, I., & Tsiplakides, I. (2009). Project-Based Learning in the Teaching

of English as a Foreign Language in Greek Primary Schools: From
Theory to Practice. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 113-119.

Ghasemi, Z. & Baradaran, A. (2018). The Comparative Effect of Student

Team-Achievement Division and Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition on EFL Learners’ Speaking Complexity. (pp 67-72).
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature
Vol.7, No. 3, 2018.

Gustary, D. T. (2016). The Use of Cooperative Learning in Developing

Students’ Speaking Skills (A Mixed-Method Study at a Vocational
 113

High School in Cimahi). (A Thesis). Post Graduate School,

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.

Habibah. (2016). The Effectiveness of “Diagnostic Learning Log” in Teaching

Recount Text (A Research Paper).

Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English Language Teaching: Language in Action.

London: Routledge.

Harris, D. P. (1969). Testing English as a Second Language. New York: Mc.

Graw-Hill Inc.

Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. (1982). Research Design and Statistics for Applied
Linguistics. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publisher.

Hornby, A. S. (1974). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford:

University Press.

Hornby, A. S. (1995). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current

English. London: Oxford University Press.

Holliday D. C. (2000). The Development of Jigsaw IV in a Secondary Social

Studies Classroom. Paper presented at the 2000 Midwest Educational
Research Association (MWERA) Annual Conference in Chicago, IL.
Huang CY (2000).

Ichsan, M. H., Apriliaswati, R., & Rosnija, E. Improving Students Speaking

Skill Through Project-based Learning. Jurnal Pendidikan dan
Pembelajaran, 6(2).

Jacobs, G. M. & Hall, S. (2002). Implementing Cooperative Learning. In

Gustary, D. T. (2016). The Use of Cooperative Learning in
Developing Students’ Speaking Skills (A Mixed-Method Study at a
Vocational High School in Cimahi). (A Thesis). Post Graduate
School, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.
 114

Johnson, Johnson, Holubec & Roy. (1984). Circles of learning: cooperation in

the classroom, 1-89.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning:

Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report, 4. Retrieved from http:
www.ce.umn.edu/~smith/docs/NDTLCL5.doc

Jones, A. K., & Jones, L. J. (2008). Making cooperative learning work in the
college classroom: An application of the ‘Five Pillars’ of cooperative
learning to post-secondary instruction. The Journal of Effective
Teaching, 8(2), 61-67. Retrieved from
http://www.niagara.edu/assets/assets/cctl/documents/

Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan Cooperative Learning. CA: Kagan
Publishing.

Kayi, H. (2006). Teaching speaking: Activities to promote speaking in a

second language. TESOL, 11(12), 1-6.

Kelly, G. (2000). How to Teach Pronunciation. England: Pearson Longman

Education

Keser, H. & Karahoca, D. (2010). Designing A Project Management E-Course

By Using Project-Based Learning. Procedia Social and behavioral
Sciences 2 (2010) 5744-5754. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com

Khasanah, I. N. (2015). The implementation of 2013 curriculum by the

English teacher and its barriers (a case study at the 10th grade of
SMA N 1 Rembang in 2014/2015 academic year) (Doctoral
dissertation, UIN Walisongo).

Killen, R. (1998). Effective Teaching Strategies: Lessons from Research and

Practice (2nd Ed). Katoomba, NSW: Social Science Press
 115

Klein, Joel I, et al. (2009). Project-Based Learning: Inspiring Middle School

Students to Engage in Deep and Active Learning. New York: NYC
Dept. of Education.

Lado. (1961). Language Testing: The Teacher’s Book. London: Longman

group Ltd

Lucena, R. J., & San Jose, A. E. (2016). Co-operative learning in enhancing

the speaking skills of students: A Phenomenological
approach. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary
Research, 3(2), 67-71.

Maldonado, I. M. P., Banoy, L. M. R., & Quinche, E. S. (2011). Role Of

Cooperative Learning Strategies In The Development Of 5th Graders‟
Speaking Skills At George Washington School. Bogota: Universidad
De La Salle.

Marisah, A., & Robiasih, R. H. (2017). The Implementation of Project-Based

Learning To Improve Vocational Students’ Speaking Skills. Journal
of English Language And Language Teaching (JELLT), 1(2), 27-32.

McMillan, J. H. and Schumacher. (2001). Research in Education: A

Conceptual Introduction. New York: Longman.

Ning, H. (2011). Adapting cooperative learning in tertiary ELT. ELT Journal,

65 (1), 60-70.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. New York:

McGraw-Hill

Pangesti, Tika W. (2016). An Analysis of Code Mixing by English Teachers in

the Process of Teaching English. Cimahi: STKIP Siliwangi Press.
 116

Rabab’ah, G. (2005). Communication Problems Facing Arab Learners of

English. Journal of Language and Learning, 3(1), ISSN 1740-4983

Richards, J. C. & T. S, Rodgers. (1986). Approaches and Methods in

Language Teaching (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Richards, J. C. & T. S, Rodgers. (2001). Approaches and Methods in

Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Robbani, F. (2017). The Effectiveness of Jigsaw Technique to Teach Students’

Reading Comprehension at the Eighth Grade Students Of MTs N
Gondang In The Academic Year 2015/2016. (Thesis, IAIN Surakarta).

Sahin, A. (2010). Effects of Jigsaw II technique on academic achievement and

attitudes to written expression course. Educational Research and
Reviews, 5(12), 777-787.

Sari, D. M., Setiyadi, B., & Hasan, H. (2012). The Implementation of Jigsaw
Technique in English Speaking Class at the Second Grade Students of
SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung. U-JET, 1(1).

Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Setiawan, W. (2016). A Project-Based EFL Learning: Integrating Four

Language Skills. A Thesis.

Sijali, K. K. (2015). Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning For Improving

Learners’ Proficiency Level of English Language in Secondary Level
Education in Nepal. Journal of NELTA, 20(1-2), 13.

Singh. (2007). Quantitative Social Research Methods. New Delhi: Sage

Publications Pvt Ltd.
 117

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice

(2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Soleimani, H., & Khosravi, A. G. The Effect of Kagan's Cooperative

Structures on Speaking Skill of Iranian EFL Learners. International
Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 6(1). 20-31.

Sumarsih, M. P., & Sanjaya, D. (2013). TPS As An Effective Technique To

Enhance The Students’ achievement On Writing Descriptive
Text. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 106-113.

Thomas, J.W. (2000). A Review of Research on PBL. California: The

Autodesk Foundation.

Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking (J. Harmer. ed.). Pearson:

Longman.

Tama, A. T. (2017). Students' Difficulties in Learning English Speaking Skill

at SMA N 5 Jambi. A Thesis. Universitas Jambi.

Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and
communication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference?
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89.

Wang, T. (2009). Applying Slavin’s Cooperative Learning Techniques to a

College EFL Conversation Class. The Journal of Human Resource
and Adult Learning, 5(1). 112-120.

Wang, W. (2017). Improving Students' Oral Skills Through A Cooperative

Learning Approach To Teaching Chinese College English.
https://dspace.library.uvic.ca//handle/1828/8724

Yana, Y., & Nugraha, I. F. (2019). Students’ Perception on the Use of Code-
Switching in English Classroom. PROJECT (Professional Journal of
English Education), 2(2), 67-73.
 118

Yunyta, E. (2017). The Effectiveness of Using Project Based Learning to

Teach Students’ Speaking Skill (An Experimental Research On The
Tenth Grade Students Of Man 3 Sragen). A Thesis. The State Islamic
Institute Of Surakarta.

Zhang, S. (2009). The role of input, interaction, and output in the

developmentof oral fluency. English Language Teaching,2(4),91–
100.

Zhang, Y. (2010). Cooperative Language Learning and Foreign Language

Learning and Teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
Vol. 1, No. 1, January 2010
APPENDICES