AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS SPEAKING PERFORMANCE IN CLASS

PRESENTATION
(A Study at the Third Year Students of English Department
STKIP PGRI West Sumatra in 2011/ 2012 Academic Year)
Oleh:
Gusti Melia*)
**) Yulmiati, S.S, M.Pd dan ***) M. Khairi Ikhsan, S.PdI, M.Pd.
Staf Pengajar Program Studi Bahasa Inggris STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat.

ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif untuk menganalisa kinerja berbicara siswa dalam
melakukan presentasi oleh mahasiswa tingkat tiga jurusan bahasa inggris STKIP PGRI Sumatera
Barat. Untuk kerangka analisa, peneliti menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif untuk menjawab
pertanyaan penelitian. Untuk mengumpulkan data, peneliti melakukan observasi di kelas. Data
tersebut dianalisa dengan menggunakan teori yang terdapat pada penelitian ini. Data yang
diperoleh dari kinerja berbicara siswa dikumpulkan, kemudian dikategorikan berdasarkan level
dari kriteria kenerja berbicara. Level dan criteria tersebut dapat dilihat pada skor analitik kinerja
berbicara (Council of Europe, 2001: 28-29). Hasil dari analisa ini menunjukkan bahwa
kebanyakan dari mahasiswa menempati level A1 yaitu level yang paling terbawah pada kinerja
berbicara mahasiswa. Pada kriteria Range, rata-rata mahasiswa menduduki level A1, pada kriteria
Accuracy menduduki level A2, pada kriteria Fluency menduduki level B1, pada kriteria
Interaction menempati level A1, dan pada kriteria Coherence para mahasiswa menduduki level
A1.
Key words: Speaking, Speaking Performance, Class Presentation.
*) Peneliti
**) Pembimbing I
***) Pembimbing II

speaking performance when compared to

their passive knowledge. It can be shown
through preliminary research done by the
researcher for the third year students of
English department at STKIP PGRI West
Sumatra. Those learners were not able to
express their thoughts and opinions
satisfactorily. The students were generally
using more simplified language which did not
match their overall acquired level. The
students were often making mistakes and
slips. Then, the students spoke slowly and
less fluently, making frequent pauses and
thinking of suitable or correct words. Finally,
the students were usually very shy and
hesitant when speaking in front of the class.

INTRODUCTION
Speaking is a communication skill
that enables students to verbalize thoughts
and ideas. As a college student at English
department, the students are expected to
produce English speech sound well. To
achieve that expectation, many lecturers
attempt to provide a classroom performance
activity for the students. In class presentation,
the students have to deliver the subject
material. Beside that the lecturers should
check
several
criteria
of
speaking
performance. However, it is not easy for
students to master all of the criteria of
speaking performance.
One of the most widespread
problems among learners of English
Department is their considerably lower

Based on the problem above, the

researcher wants to research the level of

speaking performance in class presentation

for the third year students in English
department at STKIP PGRI West Sumatra
based on CEF scale. This scale has beneficial
for this research. It has five criteria and six
levels. This scale increases awareness among
educators, engaging them in meaningful
exchanges concerning the teaching, learning,
and assessment of additional language
learning. Then, it assists students to monitor
their language growth.

cultural
rules
appropriate
communicative circumstance.

in

each

Furthermore, speaking can be

observed directly includes accuracy and
effectiveness. Moreover, Brown (2004: 140)
states that speaking is a productive skill that
can be directly and empirically observed. It
indicates that this skill produced a language
which can be observed such as fluency,
pronunciation, grammar, and accuracy
directly by showing performance.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this part, the researcher is going
to discuss about definition of some key
words. They are Speaking, Speaking
Performance
and
Class
Presentation.
According to OMalley and Pierce (1996: 59)
speaking means negotiating intended
meanings and adjusting ones speech to
produce the desired effect on the listener. It
means that oral communication involves the
negotiation of meaning between two or more
persons that is always related to the context
in which it occurs, anticipating the listeners
response and possible misunderstandings,
clarifying ones own and the others
intentions.

Thus, speaking is an oral

communication that expresses the meaning of
words between two or more persons which
can be observed directly. In speaking, the
speaker is not only known about the
competence of speaking but also performance
of speaking so that other people can catch the
idea of the speaker. Because of that speaking
can be the central element of communication
that sends a message from someone to the
other.
In this research, the researcher
introduces speaking performance. There are
some experts define about speaking
performance.
Good
competence
is
accompanied by good performance, as Brown
(2000: 30) defines that performance is the
overtly
observable
and
concrete
manifestation or realization of competence.
This term describes that performance can be
observed by actual doing something. Bad or
good someones competence can be
measured by his or her real performance.

Meanwhile, Cameron (2001: 40)

states that speaking is the active use of
language to express meanings so that other
people can make sense of them. This theory
is a little bit different from the previous
theory because this theory tendency discusses
about sense of listeners. It means that the
language will be communicative if people
can show and construct the meanings well in
order to make the people understand and
comprehension what will be said. Speaking
requires that learners not only know how to
produce specific points of language such as
grammar, pronunciation, or vocabulary
(linguistic competence), but also they
understand when, why, and in what ways to
produce language.

Whereas, Ellis (2003: 13) states that

performance consists of the use of this
grammar in the comprehension and
production of language. Elliss theory sees
performance based on the content of that
performance itself, such as grammar and
language. It is different from Browns theory
that focuses on performance as a concrete
manifestation that can be observed. It
describes that consists of the actual use of
these two types of knowledge in
understanding and producing language.

Moreover, Richard and Renandya

(2002: 210) state that speaking is one of the
central elements of communication. The
theory from Richard and Renandya is also
different from two previous theories. Richard
and Renandya focus on speaking as the
central elements of communication that is the
speaker has an intention to communicate with
another person. This intention makes up the
content of the message. It means that the goal
of teaching speaking should improve
students' communication skills, because only
in that way, students can express themselves
and learn how to follow the social and

In addition, Chomsky in Carlson

(2004: 58) represent that performance is the
specific application of this knowledge in a
speech situation. The theory from Chomsky
is similar with Elliss theory because this
theory discusses about the specific
application of the knowledge in speech
situation. The knowledge in this theory can
be categorized, such as grammar and
language itself. This theory also explains that

performance as a particular act by speech that

attempts to explain how speakers use
language to accomplish intended actions and
how listeners conclude the purpose of the
speakers.

not overload a short presentation with too

many extras, it means too many visual aids,
overhead, etc. distract from students ability in
speaking to make point clearly. Only use
visual aids as critical illustrative material to
support a specific point.

Thus, from all of the definitions of

those experts, it can be said that speaking
performance is how the speakers deliver their
idea to the audience through words and
sentences where their performance in
speaking will show their competence
automatically. The competence is similar
with knowledge that speaker have when do
speaking performance, such as grammar,
fluency, accuracy, size, interaction and
coherence category.

The researcher concludes that class

presentation is an opportunity for the students
to share their ideas about the topic clearly by
show their ability in speaking performance to
make the audience understand about the
material. It can use some ways. They are the
speaker should explain the material clearly.
Next, the speaker or students should keep self
confidence by practicing. Then, the speaker
should memorize the material. After that, the
speaker tries to speak by using time
management. The last, the speaker should
design the ideal material.

The next keyword is class

presentation. Class presentation is a key to
know students comprehension about
materials that will be discussed in a college
education. It is also supported by Ernst
(2005), he asserts in class presentation, the
students will be judged on how well other
people understand the material at the end of
the class, not on how well they understand
the material at the beginning of the class.

RESEARCH METHOD
The research design that was used
by researcher was descriptive qualitative
research. According to Gay and Airasian
(2000: 275), descriptive research is used to
report the way things are. It means that
descriptive research aims to describe the
existing situation in the field systematically
with some facts which is connected and not
just looking for the absolute truth, but
looking for understanding observations. In
addition, Matthews and Kostelis (2011: 84)
state that descriptive research attempts to
answer immediate questions about a current
state of affairs. This statement refers to
current condition that happen in English
department student about their speaking
performance.

Moreover, according to Hamm

(2005: 37), class presentations are an
opportunity for students to demonstrate their
understanding of a topic and to explain it to
an audience. The theory from Hamm is
similar with the previous theory because
Hamm also discusses about the understanding
of the listener about a topic. It is clear that
speaking performance is needed to make the
audience understand about a topic. When the
students are doing presentation, speaking is a
valuable experience for students and develops
their communication skills.

In doing this research, the researcher

had collect the data and observed the
participants naturally by describing it based
on the condition that happened by using
video recording. The researcher did research
toward the third year students of English
Department STKIP PGRI West Sumatra in
2011/2012 Academic year since December
02th, 2013 until December 25th, 2013. After
that, analyzing the data by using video
recording, the researcher analyzed it based on
observation and observation checklist sheet.
It concluded at the final result of the research.
For this research, the researcher attempted to
analyze the level of students speaking
performance in class presentation and
describe students speaking performance in
class presentation.The participants of this
research were the students of English
Department STKIP West Sumatra Padang at

The last, class presentations are

usually fairly short, so the amount of material
presented must be minimized. Here, Hamm
(2005: 38) suggests some tips to developing
class presentation for the students. First, the
presentation should incorporate four basic
elements that is state main point clearly,
explain main point, support main point with
evidence from other sources, conclude or
restate main point. Second, practice with
others, example friends or roommates so that
confidence in class presentation. Third,
speak, do not read, for the third tips it is
required students to show their speaking
performance to the audience about the topic,
not to read the text or notes. Fourth, stay
within the time limit, practice is critical for
staying within the time assigned. Finally, do

the third years that done presentation in

classroom activities. For this research, the
researcher had done sampling. As Gay and
Airasian (2000: 121) state that the sampling
is the process of selecting a number of
individuals for a study in such a way that they
represent the larger group from which they
were selected. In this researcher, the
researcher will use simple random sampling.
As Gay and Airasian (2000: 123) state that
simple random sampling is the process of
selecting a sample in such a way that all
individuals in the defined population have an
equal and independent chance of being
selected for the sample. It means that every
individual has the same probability of being
selected for the sample. It means that every
individual has the same probability of being
selected and selection of one individual in no
way affects selection of another individual.

level, only one student got B1 level, three

students got B2 level, and three students got
C1. Third, for fluency criterion, most of them
got B1 level. There were 30 students.
Students who got A1 level were three
students, students who got A2 level were
only one student, three students got B2 and
three students got C1 level.
The next criterion was interaction.
Most of them placed the level A1 and B1
level. There were 29 students got A1 level
and 11 students got B1 level. Finally, for
coherence most of them got A1 level. There
were 29 students got A1 level, 4 students got
A2 level, 3 students got B1 level, 3 students
got B2 level, and only one student got C1
level.
So, from the result of students
speaking performance, most of the students
got A1 level only three students who got the
proficient level. It indicated that the students
still got the lowest quality in speaking
performance in class presentation. It means
that the student should improve their
speaking by practicing to reach the proficient
level of students speaking performance.

The selection of the participants

based on some procedures. First, the
population is all 400 students of English
Department of STKIP west Sumatra that
were using class presentation. Second, the
desired sample size is 10% of the 400
students As Gay and Airasian (2000: 134)
state that for descriptive research, it is
common to sample 10% of the population,
although this range will change with the size
of the population. The researcher selected the
participants 10% of the 400%. The
participants that researcher were 40 students.
Finally, the researcher observed 40
participants based on the schedule of students
in English Department.

Based on the observation, that was

done by the researcher. The researcher found
that many of students could not manage the
time of presentation such as; they did not
prepare their visual material before doing the
presentation. It made wasting time. Then, for
their speaking performance, the students were
still low in quality of speaking. It can be seen
from the explanation above. Overall, the
students got A1 level. It meant that they were
still low in speaking performance. It was
caused; most of them were focus on
handbook and did not understand about their
material. They only read their handbook
without explained it by their own words. So,
if there was unfamiliar word in the book, the
audience could not catch the idea from the
speaker.

FINDING AND INTERPRETATION

The finding that was found by
researcher through observation indicated that
mostly of the students was placed in A1
position. It caused some factors that
happened with them such as, lack of
vocabulary, did not prepare their material and
did not understand about their material. It
could be seen from their final result of
speaking performance. There were five
criteria and six level of speaking performance
based on CEF scale. First, for range criterion,
from 40 students, there were only three
students who reached a proficient level. On
the other hand most of them got A1 level that
was the lowest level of this scale. There were
thirty students who got A1 level, three
students who got A2 level and only one
student who got B1.

Next, most of the students made

some mistake in grammar and pronunciation.
Furthermore, the researcher appreciated the
students for fluency criteria, because from the
entire criterion that required in CEF scale.
The students were better in fluency although
they still read a handbook. For fluency
criteria, they got B1. It was the highest level
that students got that the other criteria. On the
other hand, most of students could not
interact with the audience. Because, they
focused on memorize their material and also
they could not use their eyes contact well to

Second, for accuracy criterion, most

of students got A2 level. There were 24
students who got A2, nine students got A1

emphasize their idea or material. After that,

when the students tried to explain their
presentation, they could not connect each
sentences by using cohesive and coherence
devices.
It
made
the
presentation
monotonous.

. 2004. Language Assessment:

Principles and Classroom Practices.
San Fransisco: Longman.
Carlson, Marvin. 2004. Performance A
Critical
Introduction.
London:
Routledge.

So,
the
students
speaking
performance in class presentation was still far
from the expectation. Most of the students
did not prepare their presentation well. They
also were seldom to explain their material by
their own words. That was made the audience
make noise and did not pay attention to the
speaker.

Cameron, Lyne. 2001. Teaching Languages

to Young Learners. Trumpington
Street: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, Rod. 2003. The Study of Second
Language
Acquisition.
Great
Clarendon Street: Oxford University
Press.

CONCLUSION
Based on the discussion in the
previous chapter, the findings show that all
students have lowest level for each speaking
criterion, except for fluency criterion. Based
on the observation, the students got A1 level
for range, interaction and coherence criteria.
Meanwhile for accurate criterion, the students
got A2. Then, for the highest criterion is
taken place by fluency criterion, that is B1
level. Overall, the students of English
Department of STKIP PGRI West Sumatra
got A1 level. It means that the students got
the lowest level of speaking performance.
There were only three students who reach the
proficient level (C1) of speaking performance
in class presentation.

Ernst, Michael. 2005. Giving a Technical

Presentation.
http://homes.cs.washington.edu.
Retrieved on March 15th 2013.
ESOL

Gay

So, based on the researchers

research, the researcher hopes that the
students speaking performance in class
presentation will better than before. They
should well prepare, such as prepare their
slide, make a concept and speaking practice.
Because the students of English Department
will be a candidate of teacher for the future, it
is better for them to consider this result and
try to find the good ways to improve and
encourage their speaking. It will be ashamed
if they still get the lowest level for speaking
performance. Besides that, the lecturer should
help the students to encourage students
speaking performance as the suggestions that
researcher explain above or find another
ways in order to increase students speaking
performance.

Course, SQA. 2008. National

Qualifications English for Speakers
of Other Languages (ESOL):
Assessment
of
Speaking
Intermediate
2
and
Higher.
http://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/ES
OLAssessmentofSpeaking.pdf.
Retrieved on March 15th 2013.
and Airasian. 2000. Educational
Research:
Competencies
for
Analysis and Application. New
Jersey: Pearson Education.

Gerrish and Lacey. 2010. The Research

Process in Nursing. Garsington
Road: Blackwell Publishing.
Hamm. Patricia H, Ph. D. 2005. Teaching
and Persuasive Communication:
Class Presentation Skills. Brown
University.
Hawkey, Roger. 2004. A Modular Approach
to Testing English Language Skills:
The Development of the Certificates
in English Language Skills (CELS)
Examinations. Trumpington Street:
Cambridge University Press.
Hornby,

REFERENCES
Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. Principles of
Language Learning and Teaching:
Fourth Edition. San Fransisco:
Longman.

AS. 2000. Oxford Advanced

Learners Dictionary. Sixth Ed. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Hughes, Arthur. 1996. Testing For Language

Teachers.
Trumpington
Street:
Cambridge University Press.

Jamil, Safrun. 2009. The Effect of Anxiety on

Students
Speaking
Skill.
Unpublished Thesis. Padang: STKIP
PGRI West Sumatra.

Second
Language
Speaking.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Juliati, Dheva. 2012. Students Speaking

Performance in Bilingual Class in
English Teaching Learning Process.
Unpublished Thesis. Padang: STKIP
PGRI West Sumatra.
Luoma, Sari. 2004. Assessing Speaking.
Trumpington Street: Cambridge
University Press.
Lusinawati, Lusi. 2010. The Effect of
Students Interest in Learning on
Their Speaking Skill. Unpublished
Thesis. Padang: STKIP PGRI West
Sumatra.
Noonan, Philip. 2010. Basic Skill: Speaking.
http://www.exforsys.com/careercent
er/core-skills/basic-skillspeaking.html. Retrieved on July
21th 2013.
Matthews and Kostelis. 2011. Designing and
Conducting Research in Health and
Human Performance. San Fransisco:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
OMalley, J. Michael and Pierce, Lorraine
Valdez. 1996. Authentic Assessment
for English Language Learners.
New Jersey: Addison Wesley
Publishing Company.
Pawlak, Miroslaw., Ewa Waniek Klimczak
and Jan Majer. 2011. Speaking and
Instucted
Foreign
Language
Acquisition. Great Britain: MPG
Books Group.
Richard, Jack C., and Willy A Renandya.
2002. Methodology in Language
Teaching an Anthology of Current
Practice.
Trumpington
Street:
Cambridge University Press.
Shankar, Prem. 2008. Teaching of English.
New Delhi: S. B. Nangia.
Steinberg, D Danny. Nagata, Hiroshi. Aline,
P David. 2001. Psycholinguistics:
Language, Mind, and World. Second
edt. London: Pearson Education,
Ltd.
Taylor, Lynda. 2011. Examining Speaking:
Research and Practice in Assesing