THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TALKING CHIPS TECNIQUE

AS COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN IMPROVING THE STUDENTS’

SPEAKING ABILITY
(An Experimental Study at Second Grade of SMPN 8 Banda Aceh)

SCRIPT

Submitted in Parcial Fulfillment of the Requirement

for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

By
Cut Rina Yustisia
NIM: 0806102020083
English Language

STUDY PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SYIAH KUALA UNIVERSITY
DARUSSALAM, BANDA ACEH
2014
 The implementation of Talking Chips Technique as Cooerative Learning
in Improving the Students’ Speaking Ability
(An Experimental Study at Second Grade of SMPN 8 Banda Aceh)

SCRIPT

By
Cut Rina Yustisia
NIM. 0806102020083
Study Program

Approved By

First Supervisor Second Supervisor

Dr. Sofyan A. Gani, M.A Muhammad Aulia, S. Pd,M. TESOL

NIP.1906008121986031002 NIP. 19840904 20 1212 1 002

Acknowledged by

Degan of Teacher Training and Lead of Study Program

Education Faculty

Dr. Johan, Si Dr. Drs. Burhanuddin Yasin, M. Ed

NIP. NIP. 19600929 | 98601 | 002
 Study Program of English Language Education
Teacher Training and Education Faculty
Syiah Kuala University

Thesis: “ The implementation of Talking Chips Technique as Cooerative Learning

in Improving the Students’ Speaking Ability ” by Cut Rina Yustisia, Student Number
0806102020083 has been examinated by the Board of examiners for the Degree of Sarjana
Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris on Friday, 27 December 2013 (08.30-09.00) and it is stated: PASS

Board of Examiners
Chairperson/ Member of examiner Panel
Yuliana, [Link], M.A
NIP. 19790713 200604 2 001

Chairperson/ Member of Examiner Panel

Members
1. Dr. Sofyan A. Gani, M.A
NIP. 196008121986031002

Member of Examiner Panel/ First Supervisor

2. Muhammad Aulia, [Link], [Link]

NIP. 19840904 201212 1 002

Member of Examiner Panel/ Second Supervisor

3. Dr. Yunisrina Qismullah, M. Ling

NIP. 19800617 200212 2 003

Member of Examiner Panel

 Surat Pernyataan
(Original Literary Work Declaration)

Saya yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:

Nama : Cut Rina Yustisia

Nomor Induk Siswa : 0806102020083
Program studi : PendidikanBahasaInggris
Judul Skripsi : The implementation of Talking Chips Technique as
Cooerative Learning in Improving the Students’ Speaking
Ability (An Experimental Study at Second Grade of SMPN 8
Banda Aceh)

dengn ini saya menyatakan bahwa tugas Akhir (SKRIPSI) ini merupakan hasil karya tulis ilmiah
saya sendiri, dan bukanlah merupakan karya orang lain yang pernah diajukan untuk memperoleh
gelar sarjana atau dipublikasikan lewat media apapun. Adapun karya atau pendapat lain yang di
kutip, baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung di tulis sesuai dengan kaidah penulisan ilmiah
yang berlaku.

Pernyataan ini dibuat denga penuh tanggungjawab dan saya bersedia menerima segala konsekuensi
apapun sesuai dengan aturan dan hukum yang berlaku bilamana di kemudian hari diketahui bahwa
pernyataan saya tidak benar.

Banda Aceh, 01 July 2013

Cut Rina Yustisia

 Abstract

Name : Cut Rina Yustisia

Student No : 0806102020083
Study Program : English Education
Tutle : The Implementation of Talking ChipsTechnigue As
Cooperative Learning in Improving the Studenis' Speaking
Ability (An Experimenual Study at the Second Grade of SMPN 8
Banda Aceh)

Keywonls: Speaking. Cooperative Leaming, Talking Chips

The tile of this script is “The Implementation of Talking Chips Technigue As Cooperative Learning
in Improving the Studenis Speaking [Link] research population was the students at SMP
Negeri 8 Banda Aceh. The sample of this study were the second grades of junior Ingh school, with
25 studentsin class VII-7. The Objevtive Of this sludy was lo measure the students' mastery after
practice speaking Ihrough Talking Chips techaigue. The design used ia this study wasone group
experimental design. The writer wanted to see wether the talking chips terhnigue a significant or no
sigoificam difference on studenis' achievement in speaking. Pre-test Ireatmeni was conducted at the
beginning and the end of the post-test. The data was analyzed by using t-test to find out the t-score.
Therefone, the altemative hypothesis (Ha) was accepled and null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected. The
cesuli showed that using talking chips techniguemade students motivated in learning speaking. Ii
was also one of Ibe interesung ways for students in developing their speaking skill.
 Acknowlegment

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
All paradise to Allah SWT , the most Merciful and tehe Most Beneficient, who always
protects and blesses our life, and who give me strength, and patience than I can finish this sript. I
would also like to express salutation to our greatest Prophet Muhammad SAW who showed us to
right way in life.
I express my deepest gratitude to Mr. Sofyan A. Gani, M.A and Mr, Muhammad Aulia,
[Link] as my supervisor to their patient, encouragement, many useful suggestion and
corrections for the improvement, and invaluable contribution to this script. Whithout their
contribution, this script will not be finished.
My honorable to Ms. Yuliana, [Link], M.A and Ms. Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf, [Link].,
[Link]. As my examiners, thanks for your time to attend in my examination script.
I also like to extent my deep thanks to the head of the English depertment, Mr. Burhanuddun
Yasin, and all of the lecturers who help and taught me during my academic process.
My heartful thank go to my beloved paarents ([Link] and Nuriaty), my brothers (Emil
Hakim, S.H) my sisters (Cut Ayuna Yustisia,Amd, Keb), (Cut Dahlima Yustisia),(Cut Noni
Maidasia) and my young brother (Rizal Adam) fot their help, love, support and encuouragement
until I finish my study.
In addition, I would never forget to thank all of my friends (GLIRDACIL 2008) and all of
my best friends who have never bored in helping and encouraging me during my study in this
faculty. They deserve my apreciation and thank for their sympathetic altitude, help and support for
me. Finally thank you to all of my best friends, ho have share their time to exchanges ideas in
various discussions during the finishing of this writing. They deserve my apreciation and thanks for
their sympathetic altitude.
My Allah SWT bless them all, amin ya rabbal alamin .

Banda Aceh, 01 July 2013

Cut Rina Yustisia

Table of Contents
1.1 Background of Problem................................................................................................................10
1.2 Problem Formulation...............................................................................................................12
1.3 Research Objective.......................................................................................................................12
1.4 Research Significance..................................................................................................................12
1.5 Research Scope.............................................................................................................................12
1.6 Research Hypothesis....................................................................................................................13
1.7 Operational Defenition.................................................................................................................13
1.7.1 Dependent Variable: Speaking...................................................................................................13
1.7.2 Independent Variable: Cooperative Learning and Talking Chips..............................................14
[Link] Cooperative Learning.............................................................................................................14
[Link] Tatking Chips..........................................................................................................................14
2.1 Cooperative Learning...................................................................................................................15
2.1.1 Definition of Cooperative learning............................................................................................15
2.1.2 The Principles af Cooperative Learning....................................................................................16
2.1.3 The Advantages and the Disadvantages of Cooperative Learning............................................17
2.2 Talking Chips Technique..............................................................................................................18
2.2.1 Definition of Tatking Chips Technique.....................................................................................18
2.2.2 The Implementation of Tatking Chips Technique.....................................................................18
2.3 Speaking Skill...............................................................................................................................19
2.3.1 Definition of Speaking..............................................................................................................19
2.3.2 Characteristics of Speaking.......................................................................................................20
3.1 Research Method..........................................................................................................................21
3.2 Population and Sample.................................................................................................................22
3.3 Research Instrument....................................................................................................................22
3.4 Technique of Data Collection.......................................................................................................22
3.5 Technique of Data Analysis..........................................................................................................23
4.1 Research Result............................................................................................................................26
4.2 Data Analysis................................................................................................................................26
4.1.1 Presentation and Analysis of Data.............................................................................................26
41.2 The Pre-test Score of Experimental Class..................................................................................26
4.1.3 The Post-test Score of Frequency in Post-test Score.................................................................28
4.I.4 Normality Test............................................................................................................................29
4.2.1. Hypothesis Consideration.........................................................................................................32
4.3 Discussion.....................................................................................................................................33
5.1 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................34
 LIST OF TABLE

Page

Table 1: The Distribution Freyuency in post- test score 25

Table 2: The Distribution Freyuency in pre- test score 27

Table 3: Normality test pre-test sludents' score 29

Table 4: Normality test post-tesi students' score 30

 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Leshon Implamantation Plan

Appendix 2: Rubric of speaking skill

Appendix 3: Instrumen Pre-test

Appendix 4: Instrument Post-test

Appendix 5: Pre-test activities

Appendix 6: Post-test activities

Appendix 7: The tabulation data of student's post-test

Appendix 8: The tabulation data of student’s post-test

Appendix 9: Observation shee

 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Problem

English is secon language for Indonesian people, especially for Acehnese people wich is

very important to be mastered by many people in the world because it is used international

language. By mastering English, people can participate in the activity of social interaction and

communication with foreigner. Therefore, the importance of rnastering En glish has gained a lot of

attention from many people in the world. Speaking is an oral communication which involves two or

more people as participant. According to Chaney and Burke (1998:13)speaking is a process of

building and sharing meaning through the used of verbal and no verbal symbols in a variety of

contexts(1).

While another expert, Haubner (1960:5) say that english is essentially speech, and speech is

basically communication by sounds. And according to him, speaking is a skill used by someone in

daily life communication whether at school or outside of the school(2).

In order to master English, there are four English skills that must be mastered, namely

reading, listening, writing, and speaking. Among the four skills it is considered that speaking is the

most important one because by mastering speaking skill, people can converse with others, give

ideas and exchanges information. Nunan (1991:39)(3) said, “To most people, astering the art of

speaking is the single most important aspect of learning a second language or foreign language,

and success is measured in term of the ability to carry out a convertation in the language”

Therefore, it can be concluded that the mastery of speaking skill in English is a priority for many

second-language or foreign-language learners. Consequently, learners often evaluate their success in

language laerning as well as the effectiviness or their English course in the basis of how much they

feel they have improve in their spoken language proficiency.

(4)In speaking, there are two perpose that should be taught for learners, namely

interperrsonal and transactional (Harmer, 2007:343). Harmer than elaborates that interpersonal

means communicating with someone for special perposes, including both establishing and

maintaining social relationship. (5)Rodriques (2000:181) says “the aspects of speaking skill are

mastering sound system, mastering vocabulary, mastering grammatical pattern, and aquiring oral

communicative ability” according to School Based Curriculum (2006), the standart competency for

junior high school student in the second grade is to express meaning in oral transactional and

interpersonal simple short dialogue to interact to the nearest environment (ref.3)(6). Furthermore,

based on the basic competency (ref 3.1)(6). there student are expected to the able to express the

maening af simple transactional and interopersonal dialogue to interact to the nearest environment

orally and to express kind of English expression involving asking, giving, and revusing service,

asking, giving and rejecting things, confessing and denying facts, and asking and giving opinions.

students’difficulties are not only the expressing their ideas, but also in understanding

classmates’ ideas. Seconly only a few student that participated or the turn in speaking activities. As

the teacher becomes the center of the class who speaks mostly during teaching learning while

students just listen to the teacher’s speech, therefore student do not have a chance to express their

ideas to others.

Cooperative learning is belive to encourage students’ participation in class. (7)Kegan (1986)

in (8)Lie (2010:28) said that cooperative learning improves not only students’ participation, but also

academic result. The strong participation and achievment gians among students is emerged from the

cooperative learning reserch was the most important findings. Reserch showed that greater

education is more achieved in cooperative classroom than in traditional classroom.

Based on the observation conducted by the writer during her teaching practice program in

SMPN 8 Darussalam, Banda Aceh, from September-January 2013, it was found the students have
difficulties in mastering speaking skill. In speaking class, there were ocasionally two problems .

First, there are still many students who were unable to speak English well. They were relactent to

speak and practice their English. Especially when the teacher asked them to give opinion in English,

they tended to answer in Indonesian language. It was proven from the score of speaking test which

showed that the score of speaking skill is still lower than the passing grade criteria of the sjcool

which is 65 and their examination still got 45 score in speaking test.

Based on the writer’s observation of the school those problems maybe due to inappropriate

teachung strategy used by teacher in the learning process. As a result, most of second grade students

were not able to achieve the school given criteria of assessment (KKM≥65).

To solve the problems above, a teacher can use mmany strategies to increase the students’

interest in the laerning process. The teacher can use an appropriate technique for improving

students’ ability in speaking skill. One of the technique to help the speaking skill is talking chips

technique (Kagan, 2009)(7).

Talking Chip technique is one of important technique in teaching speaking because it gives

students an apportunity to practice communicating in different social context and different social

rules. It also allows students to be creative and to put themselve to another person’s situation for a

while, tasks can be done in pairs or group. Hence, the writer suggested the use of Talking Chips

technique in teaching speaking. (7)Kagan (2009:8) states that the advantage of using Talking Chips

is that every students is held accountable for participating to develops speaking and listening skills.

1.2 Problem Formulation

Based on the explanation in the background of this research, the writer formulated a

research question as follow:

“Does the implementation of cooperative learning through Talking Chips technique improve the

speaking skill of Junior High School students in second grade?”.

1.3 Research Objective

The objective of this reasearch is to find out whether or not the implementation

of cooperative learning through Talking Chips technique improve the speaking skill of

Junior High School students at the sevond grade of SMP Negeri 8 Banda Aceh.

1.4 Research Significance

The result of this study is expected to give the practical and theoretical

contribution.

Theoretically, the result of this is hoped that is research can be used as a

reference for other cesearchers. Besides. the research result can also used to support

some theories to improve the students’ speaking skill and can add knowledge to

teaching English, especially in teaching speaking.

Practically. 10 give posilive contribution toward English teacher to use various

techniques in teaching English. In order to make students interested, active, and

motivated in the teaching leaming process. For students, it is expected that they can

improve their skill in comprehending speaking skill through Talking Chips strategy and

overcome their obstacles in learning speaking by working together.

1.5 Research Scope

The scope of this study is to teaching speaking by using Talking Chips w

improve the second grade students’ speaking ability, which focuded only in giving

opinion (Standard Competency no. 3.1)(6) at SMPN 8 Banda Aceh.

1.6 Research Hypothesis

(9)Hypotheses can be difined as alternative assumptions or predictions to the issue

discussed but has not yet been proven (Sudjana, 2005:219). Here, the writer used

alternate hypothesis:
 1. Alternative Hypotheses (Ha) : The implementation of cooperative leaming

through Talking Chips improve the students’ speaking ability.

2. Hypothesis Null (Ho) : The implementation of cooperative learning through

Talking Chips do not improve the students’ speaking ability.

1.7 Operational Defenition

It is important to clarify the meanings of some terms or variables of this study to

avoid misunderstanding of the matter. There are some variables related to this operation

to be discussed, namely: cooperative learning, Talking Chips, and speaking.

1.7.1 Dependent Variable: Speaking

According to Hatch and Lazaraton (1991.63)(10), “The dependent variable is the

major variable that will be measured in the research’’. It means that the dependent

variable may be influenced by others variables. So, the dependent variable of this

research is speaking, in which it can be influenced by the model of teaching that the

writer used in giving the treatment.

Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves

producing and receiving and processing information. According to Nunan (2003:48),

speaking consists of competence in sending and receiving messages. He further

explained that speaking consists of producing semantic verbal utterances to covey the

meanig(3). While Huebner (1960:5) added that speaking is a skill used by someone in daily life

communication whether in or outside of the classroom. The skill is acquired

by having much repetitions or drills(2). From these definitions, it can be inferred that

speaking is expressing ideas, opinions. or feelings to others by using words or sounds of

articulation in order to send the meaning to others.

In teaching speaking to students, especially for second year students of junior

high school, some aspects that should be measured are accuracy in pronunciation and/or
grammar, vocabulary usage, Muency, and comprehension.

In this research, the writer scored students’ speaking aspect related to the

material given, thal were asking and giving opinions.

1.7.2 Independent Variable: Cooperative Learning and Talking Chips

[Link] Cooperative Learning

Johnson [Link] (1998) in Grundman (2002:7) stated that cooperative leaming is an

effective insteuctional strategy thal can be used to support the social development of

ESL students in a school setting. Small groups are used so that students work together

to accomplish individual and shared goals.(11)

[Link] Tatking Chips

Talking Chips is one of the techniques in cooperative learning. (7)Kagan (1994) in

(12)Mohammed (2011:73) explains that each member in the team is given two or three

chips (paper clips, buttons, of peas). When one person talks, he/she places one chip in

the center of the table. He/she cannot talk again until everyone has placed his or her

chips at the center of the table.

 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Cooperative Learning

2.1.1 Definition of Cooperative learning

Cooperative learning is an effective instructional strategy that can be used to support the

social development of ESL students in a school setting. According to Burden & Byrd (1999:110)

(13), cooperative learning is a means of grouping students in small and mixed-ability learning

teams, in which teacher prepares the group with prablem to solve or task to perform. Adams &

Hamm (1990) in Lee [Link] (1997:2) say that:

A cooperative learning lesson often begins with some direct instruction

where the teacher presents new material. This is followed by cooperative

groupwork. During the group work, students often take on roles in order to

help them feel responsible for participating and learning. Meanwhile, the

teacher monitors groups to see that they are learning and functioning

smoothly.(12)

Then, Jhonson and Jhonson (1989) in Sausa (2005:188) stated that cooperative

leaming is a particularly effective strategy in classes that have a wide range of students abilities, in

which they are allowed to work in teams and assigned task that match their

ability.

To support the above description, Burden (1999:99) has the same view of

cooperative learning. It is defined as a means of grouping students in small, mixed

ability in a learning team and allow students to work coopemiively in solving problems
or task and to contribute to group effort. Moreover Sharan and Slavin in Robinson

(1991:2) say that:

Cooperative learning is defined as a set of instructional strategies which

employs small teams of pupils to promote peer interaction and cooperation

Jor studying academic subjects. tt refers to classroom techniques in which

stedents work on learning activities in small groups and receive rewards

or recognition based on their group's performance.

In addition, small groups in cooperative learning are used so that students work

together to accomplish individual and shared goals. During cooperative activities,

individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other

group members. Cooperative learning may be contrasted with competitive leaming

where students work against each other to achieve an academic goal that only one or a

few students can attain (Johnson et al in Grundman, 2002:7).(11)

Moreover, (14)Stenlev (2005:35) adds that to ensure maximal opportunities for

interaction, cooperative learning takes place in small teams, often of four students. This

makes pair work possible within the team, and this face-to-face interaction is a very

important element. It is recommended that the teams work together and build exercises

to induce their spirit and motivation in learning.

Hence, cooperative leaming encourages the involvement of all students in the

group work activity lo accomplish a shared goal. In reading activity, the students help one another

to maximize their learning so that their achievements increase, especially in

speaking skill.

2.1.2 The Principles af Cooperative Learning

There are four principles of cooperative learning structure that are taken from
Stenlev (2003:36) they are as the following summaries:

1. Simultaneous interaction.

imultaneous interaction can easily increase the student’s speaking lime tenfold or twenty

fold.

2. Equal participation.

The structures are constructed so thal everyone can contribute equally, with no one being

forgotten.

3. Positive interdependence.

The structures are built up in such a way that the students in a team need each other’s output

if they are to solve the task they have been given. The contribution of each student is a piece

of the total work. This means that everyone has an interest not only in explaining their

knowledge to the others but in extracting knowledge from the others until they have

understood each other.

4. Individual accountability.

Individual accountability gives each student an important role in the interactional pattem.

Individual accountability is also implemented when students are being individually assessed

in various assignments or tests.(14)

Furthermore, (8)Lie (2010:31) devides the principles of cooperative learning into five

categories such as positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face interaction,

communication among group members, and groups evaluation.

Similarly, Jhonson and Johnson (1994) in Burden & Byrd (1999:100) mention five basic

elements of cooperative learning. First positive interdependence, in which students must feel that

they are responsible for their own learning and other members in their group. Second, face-to-face

interaction which means that students must have the opportunity to explain that they are learning

with each other. Third, individual accountability means thal each student must hold accountable for

mastery of the assigned work. Fourth, social skill, in which each student must communicate
effectively, mantain respect among group members. Finally, group processing. Group member must

be assessed to see how well they are working together and how they can improve.(13)

2.1.3 The Advantages and the Disadvantages of Cooperative Learning

(11)Cooperative learning can be used to promote positive social interactions and to create an

appropriate learning environment for ESL students (Grundman, 2002:3). (15)Then, Swango &

Steward (2003:29) point out some advantages of cooperative learning as the following summary:

First, students of higher ability who work with students of lower ability develop emphaty

and people skill while assisting classmates. Second, students of lower ability who work with

students of higher ability are given the chance to be part of a successful academic endeavor, thus

increasing their confidence level. Third. students who work logether will often bounce ideas and

question to one other, and their collective imagination can lead to further questioning and to more

discovery of knowledge.

According to Jhonson & Johnson as quoted by Fitria (2011-19), cooperative leaming is

believed as able to give chance for students to be invalved in discussion, has courage and critical

thinking and is willing to take responsibility of his/her own learning(16). Moreover, Richards

(1996) in Hardi (2009:30) explains the advantages of cooperative learning. First, it reduces the

dominance of the teacher over the class. Second. it increases the amount of student participation in

the class. Third, it increases the opportunities for individual students to practice and use new

features of the target language. Then, it promotes collaboration among learners. Next, it enables the

teacher

lo work more as a facilitator and consultant. Lastly, it can give learners a more active role in

learning.(17)

Whe (1993) as qouted by Grundman (2002:4), illustrated two benefits of cooperative

learning. First, cooperative learning helps ESL students adjust the social and academic demands of

school. Another benefit of cooperative learning is that it helps students to work together effectively.

regardless of their race, language, or personal appearance.(11)

 Thus technique also have some disadvantages. Based on its nature, when all students are

active in talking, thus the classroom will be noisy. This will further lead the teacher to have an

uncontrolled situation of the learning process. Again, this will need the teacher to further understand

on managing a noisy class. She needs to be able to maintain the situation when the noise gets out of

hand.

2.2 Talking Chips Technique

2.2.1 Definition of Tatking Chips Technique

(8)Talking chips is one of the teaching techniques under cooperative learning approach. It is

developed by Kagan in 1992 (Lie, 2010). This technique can be used by teacher in teaching all

subjects and grades. Students study in a small group and each member in the team is given two or

three chips (paper clips, candy. or pens) that will be used as a ticket to speak. Talking Chips make

the value of every one’ contributions tangible and give everyone a chance to speak (Gray, etal.

2010:217). Furthermore, Turville (2008:91) adds that students are given a certain number of chips.

Each time they talk, they must submit theic chips. Kagan (1992) in Mohammed (2011: 73)

explained that:

When one person talks, he/she places one chip in the center of the table.

He/she cannot talk again until everyone has placed his or her chips in the

center of the table. When all the chips have been used and the group still

feels the need to talk, the chips can be retrieved and they can start the

process all over again.(7)

2.2.2 The Implementation of Tatking Chips Technique

The following procedures are the implementation of talking chips technique in speaking

classroom (Lie, 2010:64):

 1. Teacher prepares a case with small chips inside (the chips can be any kind ofgame token, of

a pen, pencil, eraser, slip of paper, or any other tangible item).

2. Each student receives more than one chips.

3. The teacher give an interaction and a topic. In order to speak or give opinion, a teammate

must place his or her chip in the center of the team table.

4. When a student uses all of his or her “Talking Chips”, he or she cannot speak until all

teammates have added to the discussion and placed their chip on the center of the table.

5. When everyone has had a chance to speak, each student collects her or his chips and

continues with the discussion, using “Talking Chips” or start again with a new topic.(8)

2.3 Speaking Skill

2.3.1 Definition of Speaking

Speaking is one of English skills besides listening. Reading, and writing that is taught in any

levels of education. Speaking is very important because by mastering speaking skill, people can

carry out conversation with others, give the ideas and exchange the information with others orally.

According to Haozhang (1997) as quoted by Mohammed (2011: 132), “by enhancing speaking

competence of our students in the oral conmunication classroom, the focus of teaching speaking ts

to improve the oral production of the students. Therefore, language teaching activities in the

classroom should aim at maximizing individual language use”.

Speaking is the first form of language most of us learn, but we are probably unaware of how

we learnt il, or the level and types of skills we possess. We are almost certain not to have been

taught the skills in a formal situation. When we talk, our mind is dealing with large amounts of

information, and it is doing so with remarkable agility, speed and subdety.

Furthermore, Kayi (2006) in Mohammed (2011:132) indicates that today’s world requires

that the goal of teaching speaking should improve students communicative skills so that students

can express themselves and Jearn how to follow the social and cultural rules appropriate in each
communicative circumstance. This can occur when students collaborate in groups to achieve a goal

or to complete a task. He furthermore explained that to the researcher, the most important thing that

teachers of EFL have to concentrate on in classes is to provide opportunities for every student to

participate.

2.3.2 Characteristics of Speaking

There are three characteristics of speaking thal is stated by Cole etal (2007:12). First.

speakers give shape and structure when they talk. Second, speaking takes place in real time and

place, which means speaking is mostly unplanned because it usually happens with litle opportunity

for advance planning or editing. Third, communicating face to face. which means that speaking is

essentially a collaborative and interactive process. It is an exchange. We may fi nish each other's

comments, interrupt, disagree with or extend what is said.

Harmer (2001) in Vilimec (2006:10) notes down that speaking has many different

characteristics including two major categories — accuracy, involving the correct use of vocabulary,

grammar and pronunciation practised through controlled and guided activities, and, fluency,

considered to be ‘the ability to keep going when speaking spontancously.

 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 Research Method

The method of this research is pre-experimental research that is suggested by Knisyk and

Finn (2013:199). The pre-experimental research involves only one group or one round of

observation and the participants are not assigned to groups through random assigment. Since there

are some designs for the pre-experimental research, the writer will use a design called one group

pre-test pos-test design with the following design formulation:

Group Present Treatment Posttest

Experiment 01 X 02

Explanation:

O1 = The students’ score before the experimental treatment given.

X = The expenmental weatment

Q2 = The students’ score alter the experimental treatment given.

By following the writer design, the reseacher conducted three major activities during the

research. First, the researcher evaluated the students speaking ability through pre-test before the

experimental treatment given. In the pre-test, the researcher collected the students’ speaking score

and listed them systematically. After the pre-test given. The researcher conducted an experimental

teaching by using cooperative learning technique through Talking Chips technique.

 During the experimental teaching, the speaking class must be managed based on cooperative

learning roles and the process of teaching and learning activities based on the Talking Chips

technique procedures. After the students learn in experimental leaching. the writer gave post test.

During the post-test, the writer conducted oral test for all students in order to know the students’

speaking ability through their scores’ achievement. Finally, after all data in the form of students’

score in the pre-test and post-test were collected, the researcher analyzed it by using statistical

formula to find out whether there was or no improvement of the studeats speaking ability after the

experimental teaching.

3.2 Population and Sample

The population of this research were the second grade students of SMPN 8 Banda Aceh. The

total numbers of the population were 261 students which were divided in 7 classes. The sample of

this study were the second grades of junior high school, with 25 students in class VIII-7.

Margono (1997; 118) points oul that population are a whole of data to be analyzed it

contains all subjects of interest in a scope and time determined.

3.3 Research Instrument

The research instrument played an important role to collect the data. To get the data for this

research, the writer administrated an oral test in order to know the students speaking ability through

the students’ average score. There were two tests, namely pre-test and post-test. Pre-test was given

before the experimental treatment in order to know the students’ speaking ability before the

experiment designed. Otherwise, post-test was given after the experiment treatment. It was to

measure students ‘speaking ability after she aught them by using Talking Chips technique.

3.4 Technique of Data Collection

The function of data collecting was to determine the result of the research. In this research,

the writer obtained quantitative data in the form of students’ scores through pre-test (before doing
experimental teaching), experiment teaching (treatment) and post-test (after doing experimental

teaching).

The writer was conducted on second grade students (VIII-7) of SMP Negeri 8 Banda Aceh

from Oktober 29th 2013 until November 07th 2013. There were four times of meetings. The first

meeting was for pre-test and the treatment was done from the second to the third. Finally in the last

meeting, students did the post-test. The samples were all of the students in VIII-7 with 25 students,

the teaching activities were carried out every Tuesday and Thursday.

In order to arrange and calculate the dala and to manage it easily and systematically, the

researcher tabulated the data in such a manner. Then in the analyzing the data, the researcher

applied some statistical procedure suggested by Arikunto (2006:56). The steps taken by the writer

were:

1. Pre-test The

writer gave pre-test in the first time meeting before using talking chips technique. in asking

and giving opinion. This was conducted to fied out the students’ speaking ability before

teaching by using the Talking Chips

2. Experimental Teaching (Treatment)

To know and get the relevant data or information about this subject. the writer conducted the

experimental teaching. In this case, the writer conducted the leaching experiment by using

Talking Chips during the treatment and observed the students’ activity and motivation in the

classroom. The writer were conducted Talking Chips technique with different topics (see

Appendix 3).

3. Post-test

The writer gave post-test after treatment was given. The writer prepared a case with small

chips inside. The chips were candy. Each student received two chips. The teacher gave an

interaction and a topic. In order to speak or give opinion, a teammate must place his or her

chip on the center of the team table. Then, when student used all of his or her “Talking
 Chip”, he or she could not speak until all teammates have added to the discussion and placed

their chip on the center of the table. When everyone had a chance to speak. Each student

collected her or bis chips and continued with the discussion, using “Talking Chips” or start

again with a new topic.

3.5 Technique of Data Analysis

After collecting all the data. the researcher analyzed them by using suitable statistical

formula. These formula were taken from Sudjana (2005:67).

1. Mean Score

The mean score is used to find the average score of the whole respondents in the

oral test. f is used to find the students’ average score in pre-test and post-test. It is

computed by dividing the sum of all score by the number of samples. This formula is

taken from Sudjana (2005:95).

x
 fix 1

Where, x = The mean score

fi = Frequency

x1 = The sum of the score

n = The number of sample (students)

s2 = Varians
2. T-Score

Another statistics is T-score formula that is used to test the degree of difference between two

means of the first test (pre-test) and the second test (post-test). T-score is used because the sample is

not large. This formula is taken from Sudjana (2005:67).

x̄− p 0
T=
2
√n

In which: T = The significant difference between two mean

x1 = The mean score of the first test,

x2 = The mean score of the second test,

p0 = KKM

n = The number of sample (students)

s2 = Varians
 CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Research Result

This cbapter discusses about the result of the research, concerning on the application of the

talking chips technigue in improving the students” speaking skill especially in asking and giving

opinions.

4.2 Data Analysis

The writer had conducted a pre-test and post-test. Both pre-test and post-test were given to

the experimental group. Furthermore, the result of the students improvement is showed in this

chapter by the comparison performance between pre-test and post-test score of experimental class

using (t-test).

4.1.1 Presentation and Analysis of Data

In assessing the students” speaking ability, the writer used pretest and postest. In tbe

following section, they show the presentation and analysis of the pretest score af experimental class,

the post-test of experimental class, the result of speaking aspect of the experimental class and the

significance different of both pre-test and post-test.

41.2 The Pre-test Score of Experimental Class

Before using the formula, the writer classified the data: the highest to the lowest score of

pre-test and the highest to the lowest score of post-test as follows:

The lowest to the highest score of pre-test:

10 10 15 15 15 20 20 20

30 30 30 30 30 40 40 45

45 50 50 50 50 55 55 60

60

Based on the students’ score above, the final result of pre-test as the following:

Count the distance = the highest score  the lowest score

= 260  10

= 250

Count the total class interval = 1 + 3.3 log 25

= 5.61 (taken 6)

distance
Count length of class interval =
total interval class

50
= = 8,33 (taken 9)
6
 Table 1. The Distribution Frequency in Pre-Test Score

Frequency Mean

Interval xi2 fi xi ([Link])2

(fi) (xi)
10 – 18 5 14 196 70 980

19 – 27 3 23 529 69 1587

28 – 36 5 32 1024 160 5120

37 – 45 4 41 1681 164 6724

46 – 54 4 50 2500 200 10000

55 – 63 4 59 3481 236 13924

Sum 25 219 9411 899 38335

Based on the table above, the standart devination of student’s pre-test score is 8,33 (9).

x1 
fx 1 1

f 1

899
x1   35,96
25
n  f i xi 
2
2
s1 
nn  1
2
s1 
2538355  8992
2525  1
2 958375  808201
s1 
2524
2 150174
s1 
600
2
s1  250,29
s1  250,29  15,82
4.1.3 The Post-test Score of Frequency in Post-test Score

After the treatment, the writer gave post-test to the students. Post-test was the final test to

measure the ability of students and to see their achievement after they were laught to speak by using

Talking Chips technique. The post-test resull were compared with the pre-test result. The lowest to

the highest score of post-test:

50 50 60 60 60 60 60 65

65 65 65 65 70 70 75 75

75 80 80 80 80 80 80 90

90

Based on the students’ score above, the final result of post-test as the following:

Count the distence = the higest score  the lowest score

= 9050

= 40

Count the total class interval = 1 + 3.3 log 25

= 5.61 (taken 6)

40
Count legth of class interval = =6.66 (taken 7)
6
 Table 2. The Distrubution of Frequency in Post-Test Score

Frequency Mean
Interval x12 fi.x1 fi.x12
(fi) (x1)
50 - 56 2 53 2809 106 5618
57 - 63 5 60 3600 300 18000
64 - 70 7 67 4489 469 31423
71 - 77 3 74 5476 222 16428
78 - 84 6 81 6561 486 39366
85 - 91 2 88 7744 176 15488
Sum 25 423 30679 1759 126323

Based on the table above, the standard deviation of the post-test score is 6.66 (7).

x2 
 fix1

 fi
1759
x2   70,36
25
n fix1   fix1 
2 2
2
s2 
nn  1

s2
2

25126323  1759
2

2525  1
3158075  3094081
2
s2 
2524
2 63994
s2 
600
2
s2  106,66
s2  106,66  10,33

4.I.4 Normality Test

The objectives of normality test was to find out whether the sample chosen was involved

iato Ihe normal distribution or not. In term of countiag the data, it could be seen Irom the students”

pretesi or posttest score. To test the hypothesis. the writer uscd t-test. The hypothesis states as

follows:
 Ha : Oi = Ei (Sampel of nonmal distribution)

H0 : Oi > Ei (Sample of none normal distribution)

The eriteria for proving the hypothesis above is: H a is rejected if x2 ≥ x2(l-a)(k-3) with a = 0,05.

Otherwise H, is accepted. (Sudjana, 2005:273)

Table 4.3 Normality test Pre-test student’s score class VIII-7

Z-score
Border
 x  x 
 1


 s 1 


Class width Width of Expected Observation

Border x of Margin Frequency (Ei) Frequency (O2)

margin

9.5 -1.67 0.4525 5

0.0882 2.205 8
18.5 -1.10 0.3643 6.265 3
0.1624 4.06
27.5 -0.53 0.2019 5
0.2139 5.3475
36.5 0.03 0.012 4
0.2138 5.345
45.5 0.60 0.2258 4
0.1532 3.83 8
54.5 1.17 0.3790 5.8325 4
0.0801 2.0025
63.5 1.74 0.4591

Where:

x  x1
z  score  , with
s1 x  35,96 and si=15,85

Ei=width of margin*the number of data, with n=25

 x 
2
k
Oi  Ei 2
k 1 Ei

x2 
8  6,2562  5  5,34752  4  5,3452  8  5,83252
6,256 5,3475 5,345 5,8325
x  0,480  0,023  0,338  0,805
2

x 2  1,65

In the significance of a=0,05 and degree of freedom dk=(k-3)=4-3=1 it is gained that from

the table chi-kuadrat is x2(0,95)(1)=3,84 , because x2≥x2(k-a)(k-3) with 1,65<3,84. so, Ha this accepted and

indicated that the data provided in the pretest in wich the writer taught by using Talking Chips

technique was in normal distribution.

Table 4.4 Normality the post-test score students’ using Talking Chips

technique

Z-score Border
Width
Class Width Expected Observation
 x  x2  of
 
Border x  s  of Frequency (Ei) Fequency (Oi)
 2 
Margin
Margin
4,95 -2,02 0,4783
0,0684 1,71 2
56,5 -1,34 0,4099 5,8225 7
0,1645 4,1125 5
63,5 -0,66 0,2454
0,2494 6,235 7
70,5 0,01 0,004
0,2455 6,1375 3
77,5 0,69 0,2549
0,1502 3755 6
84,5 1,37 0,4147 5,23 8
0,059 1475 2
91,5 2,05 0,4783

where:
 x  x2
Z  score  , with
s2 x2  69,8 and s2=236,0

Ei= width of Margin*the number of data, with n=25

x 
2
k
Oi  Ei 2
k 1 Ei

x2 
7  5,82252  7  6,2352  3  613752  8  5,232
5,8225 6,235 6,1375 5,23
x  0,24  0,05  1,60  1,47
2

x 2  3,3

In the significance of a= 0,05 and degree of freedom dk =(k — 3)=4- 3=1, is

it gained that from the table chi-kualrat x2 (0,95)(4)=3,84 berause x2≥x2(l-a)(k-3) is 3,36<3,84 then, Ha is

acoepted and imdicated that the data provided in the posi-test scope students in which that the

rescarcher taughit by using Talking Chips terhnigue was in nommal distribution.

4.2.1. Hypothesis Consideration

The hypothesis that the writer would like to proof in this study is:

Ha : μ1=μ2 : The students’ achievement in implementing Talking Chips technigue do not achieve

the KKM.

H0 :μ1 > μ2 : Students’ achievement in implementing Talking Chips technigue achieves the KKM.

The hypothesis above was measured by using t-test, with the gualification of measurement

Ha accepted if t<t1-α and rejected Ho if t in other value. Degree of freedom is (dk)= n-1 with the

opportunity = 1-α. Based on the previous score is x2  70,36 s2  10,33, n  25, 0  65.

With standard significant of α=005 and degree of freedom dk=n-1=25-1=24, from 1 table

distribution, it is gained t(0.95)(24)=1,71. Testing criteria Ha is accepted if t>t 1 - α where gaining 2,59 >

1,71 then H0 is rejected. It can be concluded that the mean score of the post-test was higher than the

mean score of the pre-test.

 Therefore, the writer concluded that the altemative hypothesis (Ha) is acoepted

and null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. In other word, il is clear that the implementation of

Talking Chips technigue is successful and had improved students' speaking skill.

The hypothesis states as follow:

x2   o
t
s2
n
70,36  65
t
10,33
25
5,36
10,33
t
5
5,36
t
2,07
t  2,59

4.3 Discussion

As obtained in the background of study, there were many problems in the teaching and

learning process of speaking skill which caused make students difficult to understand the material

given by the teacher.

After analyzing the data taken from the tests, it was necessary to discuss the result of the

research. The purposes of this research was to analyze whether of Talking Chips technique can

improve students’ speaking ability in speaking (asking and giving opinion) or not. The researcher

found various phenomenon's from the teaching and leaming process. According to Montety

(1987:11) learning to speak the foreign language are more effective to achieve by speaking, active

and creative process than listening, reading, or studying roles of grammar.

Talking Chips technique regulated discussion. ensuring that everyone participated and

everyone contributed. Shy students, low achievers, and less fluent students are encouraged to

participate. Therefore. Talking Chips technique can be used as one of the solutions to improve
students’ speaking ability. This technique had been found to be effective for students , because their

enjoy in learning.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion

After conducting this research at SMP Negeri 8 Banda Acch, the writer would like to draw

some conclusions. Based on the score result, the writer concluded that the students of SMP Negeri 8

Banda Aceh in the second grade faced some problems in speaking skill. First, there were still many

students who were unable to speak English well. They were reluctant to speak and practice their

English, especially when the teacher asked them to give opinion in English, they tended to answer

in Indonesian language. It was proven from the score of speaking test which showed that the score

of speaking skill was still bower than the passing grade criteria of the school which is 65 and their

examination result was 45 in speaking test. As a result, most of the second grade studenls were not

able to achieve the school given criteria of assessment.

To solve the problems above, a teacher can use many strategies lo increase the students’

interest in the learning process. The teacher can use an appropriate technique for improving

students’ ability in speaking skill. One of the techniques to help the speaking skill is the Talking

Chips technique.

Talking Chips technique is one of the important techniques in teaching speaking because it

gives students an opportunity lo practice communicating in different social context and different
sovial roles. It also allows students to be creative and to put themselves in another person’s situation

for a while, the tasks can be done in pairs or in groups. Hence. the writer suggested the use of

Talking Chips technique in teaching speaking. Kagan (2009:8) states that the advantage of using

Talking Chips is that every student is held accountable for participating to develop speaking skills.

According to the result of data analysis taken from the students scores, Talking Chips

technique given good impact of students speaking ability because the students were interested and

enjoyed the material given. The technique used in this research was appropriate for the second

grade students of SMP Negeri 8 Banda Aceh. This technique can be used by teacher in teaching all

subjects and grades. Students study in a small group and each member in the team is given two or

three chips (paper clips. candy, or pens) that will be used as a ticket to speak.

In conclusion, the process of Talking Chips technique in teaching speaking at SMP Negeri 8

Banda Aceh was effective and can be used as one of the solutions to increase students’ speaking

ability. In addition, the process of Talking Chips technique in teaching speaking ability give positive

impact on students’ speaking skill.

5.2 Suggestions

The writer realized that this study is still limited. Therefore, it is recommended to other

researcher to conduct the further analysis on this topic. Here, the researchers proposes some

suggestions in order to get better results in the future.

• Suggestion for the teachers

The writer suggests that English teacher should be creative in the teaching learing process

particularly in increasing students’ speaking ability in speaking (asking and giving opinion). The

teacher should have good strategies in English teaching learning and be able to guide students in

class. Maintain, develop, and learn more about Talking Chips technique to get more effective in

teaching speaking in the classroom.

• Suggestions for the students

 To increase students’ speaking ability in speaking (asking and giving opinion), they need to

broaden their knowledge so that they have a lot of information that can be used in speaking (asking

and giving opinion). Then, the students should have positive altitude during the teaching learning

process, and increase their ability in English. After that, the students should more practice in

speaking. Pay good attention in learning and follow the lesson seriously.

• Suggestions for the Reseachers

For other researchers, the writer suggests to conduct the research in different schools as well

with different level of study (elementary school, senior high school, or even college). Therefore, the

resull may have positive contribution to the implementation of Talking Chips technique in future.

The writer herself should also learn more and increase her ability about educational research and

prepare herself to dedicate her knowledge and skill to teach at school after her graduation. In

addition, she should also learn more and increase her ability about educational research.
 REFERENCES

1. Chaney. A.L. Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K-8. Buston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.;
1998.
2. Huebner. T. Audio Visual Technique in Teaching Foreign Langage. New York: Cambrige
Univercity Press; 1960.
3. Nunan. D. Practical English Language Teaching (International Edition). New York: Mc Graw
Hill; 2003.
4. Harmer J. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Person Education Ltd;
2007.
5. Rodriques M. Perspective of Communication and Communicative Competence. New Delhi:
Conceot Publishing Company; 2000.
6. Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan (BSNP). Standar Isi Untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan
Menengah: Standar Kompetensi dan Kompetensi Dasar. jakarta: Dikti; 2006.
7. Kagan S. Miracel of Active Engagement. San Climante: Kagan Publishing; 2009.
8. Lie A. Cooperative Learning: Mempraktikkan Kooperative Learning di Ruang- ruang Kelas.
Jakarta: PT Grasindo; 2010.
9. Sudjana. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: PT Tarsito; 2015.
10. Hacth, E & Lazaraton A. The Reaserch Manual: Desaign and Statistic for Applied Linguistic.
Buston: Heeinle & Heinle Publisher; 1991.
11. Grundam J. Cooperative Learning in English as A Second Language Classroom. Minnesota:
Hamline University; 2002.
12. Muhammed A. Cooperative Learning and Commuicative Competence. 2011;
13. Burden, P.R., & Byrd D. Method for Effective Teaching. 2nd ed. Needham Height: A viacom
Company; 1999.
14. Stenlive J. Cooperative Learning and Foreign Language Teaching. 2003;(The Compenhagen
Day and Evening Cpllege of Teacher Training).
15. Swango, C.J., & Steweard S. I`m Theaching Middle School Science. USA: NSTA Press;
2003.
16. Fitria S. The Application of Jigsaw and Numbered Head Togatherin Understanding Reading
Test. [Darussalam]: Syiah Kuala; 2011.
17. Richards, D.C., & Rodgers T. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. New
York: Cambrige Univercity Press; 2001.