FINAL ASSIGNMENT OF SEMESTER I

STATISTIC

Steffi Anggia Putri

17178031

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
UNIVERSITAS NEGERI PADANG
2017
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Problem

Speaking is one of the important English skills that must be mastered by

students. It is needed by students to tell his or her ideas, comments and share their

feeling. It also helps them to create an effective communication to other friends

especially in learning process. It is also useful for other skills such as reading,

listening and writing. If the students read a text, they of course have to tell what they

read to their friends and the teacher. Then, it also occurs in listening and writing skill

like they have to respond their teacher in listening or writing activity by telling an

idea or responding a question. So, it can be said that speaking is an important skill to

support learning other English skills.

Especially in junior high school, speaking is included in the English syllabus.

Based on the curriculum 2006, speaking is learnt by the students in mastering

English. Moroever, in curriculum 2006, the students are required to be able to

express the transactional or interpersonal dialogue and short spoken language. In

order to master the requirement of English sylabus, there are some genres that have

to be learned by the students, those are classified into interpersonal and transactional,

functional, and monolog text. The interpersonal text consists of greeting, asking and

giving information and transactional texts are expressing thank, introducing somoene

to another, asking and giving to do something and forbid somoene to do something,

asking and giving, inviting, accepting and rejecting the invitation, Expressing agree
and disagree, asking and giving praise, and asking and giving congratulation. The

fucntional texts consist of greeting card, notice, advertisment, caution, short

dialogue. Moroever, in monolog texts consist of descriptive text, recount text and

procedure text. Based on those components, the students are required to learn those

texts in order to express their speaking skill to continue their next level.

Related to the preliminary research, the researcher found the problems in

teaching and learning speaking of second grade students at SMP N 9 Payakumbuh. It

was found when the reseacher came and recorded the learning and teaching English

process in the classroom. There were some problems in that process. First, the

students got problems in communicating the transactional text. The students could

not express and communicate the transactional text in learning and teaching

speaking. It can be shown from the average score of students speaking transactional

test that they could not reach the standard of English score (75). Then, Many students

also failed in most speaking test such as daily test, mid-term test and final test. It was

shown on the students of final english transactional text score that the students who

could pass the transactional text are only30% of them.

After, the reseacher observed and interviewed the teachers and students at

second grade students of SMP N 9 Payakumbuh, it was found that the students’

problem was in communicating transactional text. Actually, the factors came from

students, teachers and teaching technique used by the teachers during teaching and

learning process.
 The first students’ problem was that they had pronunciation problem. Based on

the technique was used by the teachers in the classroom, students had a little

opportunity to speak, so that, they had a little chance to practice English. Because

of that, the students cannot pronounce the words well. Finally, the students were

fear to speak; they were frightened if the other students laughed them.

The second was that the students had lack of vocabulary. The students could

not share their ideas to the other because they do not have enough vocabulary. In

some cases, when the teachers asked the students to answer a question orally, the

students probably could answer that question, but the students were not able to

answer it in English because they did not have sufficient vocabulary.

The third problem was that the students did not have self confidence in

speaking. Sometimes, if the teachers asked them to speak or to answer a question

orally, the students probably knew the answer, but they were not confident to

answer it. They were afraid to make mistakes.

Then, the next probems came from the teacher his/ her self. First is related to

the techniques used by the teacher in teaching and learning process, for examples:

the teacher asked the students to do a discussion without guiding them to be active in

the classroom. He asked some questions to the students related to the topic and asked

the students to have small group discussion. At the last, students reported their

discussion. A reporting of discussion was told by one student in each meeting. The

teacher did not guide the other students to report the result of discussion. The
technique used also affected speaking learning where the students became passive. In

addition, the teacher did not allow the students to practice English with their friends.

Besides, the teacher was not so active in guiding students and presentation his

material in the classroom. He could not make the students interested in learning

English. While, in Curriculum 2006, the students are required to be active in the

classroom. In short, the students were still passive. For example: when the teacher

asked about their opinion, the students were still shy to give their opinion. After a

few minutes, the students gave his/her opinion by using Indonesian language. So, it

can be said that those activities did not guide the students to be active speakers in

using English.

Related to learning speaking, Sun (2008) says that self confidence is one of the

key to have especially in learning speaking, the students are expected to have self

confident to catch some targets in mastering English. Self confidence, can allow the

students to master English. Therefore, to develop their self confidence, the teacher

has to guide the students to be active in classroom activity. So, self confidence is

needed in learning speaking. It also may help the students to accept some goals based

on the English syllabus.

Based on the problems above, it is important for teachers to guide the students to

be an active speaker. The teachers have to use the various techniques if the variation

techniques in order that the students can be motivated in learning speaking. It also

makes the teaching speaking more comfortable. So, the students can enjoy learning

speaking. Moreover, there are so many techniques for teaching speaking in

 combining English learning process. Teachers can apply some techniques, like role

play, drama, jigsaw, interview, stimulations and the use of talking chips technique.

Since each technique has their own characteristics. Talking chips technique is one of

techniques in teaching speaking. According Gray, et all (2010:217) the advantages of

Talking Chips technique is a recurring challenge in group work in managing

discussions, so that every individual has a chance to contribute and no individuals

dominate the meeting. It will help the students to be active speakers because they

will receive a chip to discuss and confirm their idea. Then, the talking chips

technqiue also helps the students to improve their self confidence. It can be seen

from students’ English learning in sharing and communicating the students’ idea. So

related to phenomena above, the reseacher is interested to do an experimental

research of The Effect of Talking Chips Technique and Students’ Self Confidence on

Students’ Speaking Ability of Transactional Text at the Second Grade Students of

SMP N 9 Payakumbuh in 2015/ 2016 Academic Year.

B. Identification of the Problem

Based on the background of the problem above, there were some problems in

learning and teaching speaking of second grade students at SMP N 9 Payakumbuh.

The first problem came from the students; they had pronunciation problem, they did

not have confidence, and they had lack of vocabulary. Those problems make the

students lazy and fear to speak.

The second problem came from the teacher’s technique in teaching. The

teacher just asked the students to have any discussions related to the topic given
 without guiding the students to practice English conversation. Then it was about the

way teacher’s presenting the materials were not too interesting yet. Most of students

were lazy to express their idea in learning speaking. The last is teaching technique

used by the teacher in teaching and learning process.

From the explanation above, the problems occured because the teacher did not

use the effective speaking technique in order the students are passive and lazy to

speak English. To solve the speaking problems above, the researcher will use

Talking Chips Technique at the Second Grade Students of SMP N 9 Payakumbuh.

C. Limitation of the Problem

From the identification above, the researcher limits the problems on the

technique used by the teacher in teaching speaking and students’ self confidence that

influence their speaking ability. In this case, the research will be limited on the effect

of talking chips technique and students self-confidence on students’ speaking ability

of transactional text at the second grade students of SMP N 9 Payakumbuh.

D. Formulation of the Problem

Related to limitation of the problem above, the researcher formulates the

problem as following question:“Is there any significant effect of teaching speaking

by using talking chips technique and students self confidence on students’ speaking

ability of transactional text at the second grade students of SMP N 9 Payakumbuh.

E. Research Questions

Based on the formulation the problem above, the questions of the research as

follow:
 1. Do the students who are taught by using talking chips technique have better

speaking ability of transactional text than those taught by small group discussion

technique?

2. Do the students with higher self-confidence who are taught by using talking chips

technique have better speaking ability of transactional text than those who are

taught by using small group discussion technique?

3. Do the students with lower self-confidence who are taught by using talking chips

technique of transactional text have better speaking ability than those who are

taught by using small group discussion technique?

4. Is there any interaction between both technique and students’ self-confidence

toward their speaking ability of transactional text?

F. The Purposes of the Research

The purposes of this research are:

1. to find out whether students who are taught by talking chips technique have

better speaking ability of transactional text than those taught by small group

discussion technique.

2. to find out whether students with higher self-confidence who are taught by

talking chips technique have better speaking ability of transactional text than

those taught by small group discussion technique.

3. to find out whether students with lower self-confidence who are taught by

talking chips technique have better speaking ability of transactional text than

those taught by small group discussion technique.

 4. to find out whether there is any interaction between both technique (talking

chips technique and small group discussion technique) and students’ self-

confidence toward their speaking ability of transactional text.

G. Significance of the Study

The result of this research is expected to be beneficial theoretically and

practically. Theoretically, the result of this research is capable of enrich the theories

of teaching and learning speaking especially in understanding of teaching speaking

by using Talking Chips Technique .Practically, it can become an input to determine

the step for teaching and learning of speaking ability by using talking chips

technique. The following are the significant contributions of the reseacrh:

1. For science: the finding of this research will be used as a reference to the

effectiveness of the talking chips technique to improve students’ speaking

ability.

2. For the students: this study is expected to make the students aware about the

importance of speaking. And it also can improve their speaking ability.

3. For the teachers: through the study, it is expected that the teachers will get

some information about speaking and its problems during teaching and

learning process in speaking.

4. For the reseacher: the reseacher will develop and enhance her mastery about

some techniques in teaching speaking.

H. Definition of operational Key Terms

 To avoid misunderstanding, the operational key terms of the research is defined

as followed:

1. Talking chip technique is one of the techniques in teaching speaking where the

students are grouped in which each student receives a chip from the teacher and

then they have to discuss and solve his/ her chip together and confirm the

solution.

2. Students’ speaking ability is the ability obtained by the students in speaking

which is shown by their scores on speaking test.

3. Transactional text refers to do the conversations in dealing about something both

two poeple to get things done.

4. Self-confidence is someone’s belief that she/ he can do something and achieve

what she/he wants to have.

 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

A. The Review of Related Theories

1. Speaking

a. The Nature of Speaking

Speaking is one of the productive skills besides writing. It is needed for

daily life as a tool to transfer the idea each other’s. It also can express

someone’s feeling in changing an idea. Nunan (2003: 48) states that speaking

is the productive aural or oral skill. It consists of producing systematic verbal

utterances to convey meaning. It means that speaking is a skill to produce some

words in spoken language. It will be found in many interactions around the

people. It is also important skill not only to transfer the idea but also to catch

the meaning of the conversation.

Furthermore, speaking is a skill that occurred in each situation. It is also

needed in the communication to share an idea to others. Luoma (2008: 9) states

speaking is as interaction, and as a social and situation-based activity. It is

needed in daily lives that used to each person to share everything and shape

social relationship. It can be said that, speaking is as the skill to shape the

relationship in daily life.

Moreover, According to Ur (2008: 120) says:

“Of all the four skills listening, speaking, reading and writing, speaking
seems intuitively the most important; people who know a language a
referred to as ‘speakers’ of that language, as if speaking included all
 other kinds of knowing; and many if not most foreign language learners
are primarily interested in learning to speak.”
It means that speaking is the main skill in English to help people to know

and learn the other aspects such as writing, reading and listening. For

example, if someone wants to write something, she or he needs an opinion

what she or he wants to write. It is also found in listening skill such as

someone gets information because she or he listen what his or her friends say

to him or her. It is also occurred in reading skill. For example: if someone

reads about something, she or he will talk to his or her friend about an idea

that it is gotten from his or her reading book. It can be talked speaking is main

skill that cannot be separated with other skill.

Speaking is also as a way to someone to share their feeling. According to

Clark and Clark (2002: 223) speaking is fundamentally an instrument act.

Speakers talk in order to have some effect on their listeners.

Based on the explanation above, the reseacher concludes that speaking is

the main skill that used in having an interaction and speaking is the way to

learn the other skills such as listening, reading and writing and it is also as

fundamentally act that found many other interaction. Without speaking, it is

impossible to someone to have a relationship. So, speaking is very important

skill for human life.

b. The Speaking Ability

Brown (2004) states that speaking ability is an interactive process of

constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving and processing

information. Speaking ability is as a way to produce a language in order

someone can master a language. Speaking is also developed other skill such

as listening. Tarigan (1990:4) defines that a speaking is a language that is

developed in child life, which is produced by listening and at the period

speaking is learned.

According to Harris (1979: 84), there are five indicators of speaking

ability, they are:

1) Pronunciation, refers to how well the students can pronounce the words,
2) Grammar, refers to the form of English sentences that are used by the
students when they speak English,
3) Vocabulary refers to the ability of the students to use suitable vocabulary.
4) Fluency, refers to how fluent the students speak is.
5) Comprehension refers to how comprehend the students in speaking.
Those indicators used to assess students’ speaking ability.

In speaking, the students have to be able in communicative competence.

Celce-Murcia (1991: 125) states that communicative competence entails not

solely grammatical accuracy but also knowledge of socio-cultural rules of

appropriateness for ensuring that a communication is understood.

Nunan (2003: 226) argues that communicative competence includes:

1) Knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the language.

2) Knowledge of rules of speaking, example, knowing how to begin and end
conversation, knowing what topic can be talked about in different types
of speech events, knowing which address form should be used with
different person one speaks to and in different situations.
3) Knowing how to use and respond to different types of speech acts such as
requests, apologies, thanks, and invitation.
4) Knowing how to use language appropriately.
Based on the explanation above, it is clearly that, in speaking, the

students have to have knowledge about the structure and vocabulary of the

language, in order to make the listeners understand about what he/she is

talking about. On the other hand, if they do not know what the sufficient

vocabulary, it is difficult for them to share their ideas.

The students also have to know the rules of speaking and how to

respond the speaker. The students should identify with whom they speak or

which topics that they are talking about.

Speaking is used for interaction. Nunan (1999: 228) states that most

interactions can be classified as either transactional or interactional. He also

states that transactional talk is produced in order to get something, or to get

something done. Interactional language is produced for social purposes.

To make the reader more understand about transactional and

interactional, here one example about transactional and interactional.

Example 1:

Student 1: Morning.
Student 2: Morning.
Student 1: How have you been?
Student 2: I have been fine.

Example 2:

Student 1: Can you lend me your pen?

Student 2: Sure. Here you are.
 Based on the example above, it is explained that, the interaction in

example 1 is called interactional because the conversation above just

produced for social purposes. However, in example 2 is called transactional

because the conversation is to get something done, or student 1 just want

student 2 lend his/her pen.

Based on the explanation above, the researcher concludes that speaking

is used to make interaction with the other. Interaction is used for social

purposes in order to interact with other people, and also it is used for getting

something.

c. Transactional Text

Transactional text is a kind of texts that find in the daily conversation.

According to Ene (2013:1) transactional text is the text that you have to do

if you want to get something done, for example : someone needs to speak to

sate seller, he/she has to do some transactional conversations to buy sate. It

can be said that transactional text is the kind of text to have a respons in

dealing about something. Aguswuryanto (2014: 1) also states that

transactional text is a text that relates two poeple/more. It has the aim to get

what we want/ to get things done.

Then, functional text has some functions. Wijayanto and Anatmi

(2013) says that the fuction of transactional text contains that planning,

refusing, threatening, requesting, promosing, ordering/ commanding and

warming. In ordering of commanding is an uttarance which makes the

 hearers to do something, and the thing being ordered or commanded is the

thing that the speaker wants to happen. In order that utterances can be

conveyed properly; the speaker must be superior to or in authority over the

hearer.

Then Agus wuryanto (2014) states that transactional text is kind of

texts that is used to have any relations with others and it has an aim to get

things done. Transactional text can be found at daily activity such as to give

a respond with others and give more informations about something.

So based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that

transactional text refers to have conversations in making transaction both

two poeple to get things done. It can also be found at daily activity to have

some responses to deal about some informations. Here the indicators of

Transactional Text.

Table 1. Indicators of Transactional Text

Topic of Transactional Text Indicators
1. Asking and giving an 1. Create the dialogue based on the
opinion topic of transactional text
2. Expression agree and
disagree 2. Memorize the speech acts with
3. Asking, giving, stress and intonation patter in
invitating, accpeting and simple transactional text
rejecting the invitation
4. Askig and giving 3. Practice the conversation based
congratulating on the topic of transactional text
From : MGMP of English Teachers of SMP Payakumbuh
2. Teaching Speaking

Teaching speaking is important part to do in learning process. According

to Nunan (2003: 48) teaching speaking is sometimes considered a simple

process. For many years in teaching speaking, the teachers just ask the

students to repeat sentences and recite memorized textbook dialogues. But,

now the teachers are required to guide the students to be an active speaker

and the teachers have to make the students to be motivated in English

learning.

Moreover, Teachers also has to manage his/ her classroom well. Ur

(2000: 121) states that there are some ways in managing for teaching

activity such as; 1) use group work, 2) base the activity on easy language, 3)

make a careful choice of topic and task to stimulate interest, 4) give some

instruction or training in discussion skills and 5) keep students speaking the

target language.

In addition, the teachers have to know some implications in teaching

English. Hedge (2000: 271) tells that there some implications for classroom

practice in the teaching of spoken English, they are: 1) talking with students

about spoken English, 2) making accuracy-based practice meaningful, 3)

designing and evaluating fluency-based activities, 4) providing a range and

balance of activities in a course, 5) teaching the pronunciation component of

a course, 6) treating error in the classroom and 7) managing classroom

interaction. So, it means that there are seven implications that can be used

teachers in teaching speaking. Of course, the teachers have to pay attention

about some implications.

 Furthermore, Nunan (2003: 54) states that there are some principles for

teaching speaking, they are: 1) be aware of the differences between second

language and foreign language learning contexts, 2) Give students practice

with both fluency and accuracy, 3) Provide opportunities for students to talk

by using group work or pair work, and limiting teacher talk, 4) Plan

speaking tasks that involve negotiation for meaning, 5) Design classroom

activities that involve guidance and practice in both transactional and

interactional speaking.

Based on explanation above, the resecher concludes that teaching

speaking is not easy job for the teachers. The teachers have to teach the

students begin from how the students pronounce the words, organize the

ideas until they can communicate well. Because of that, of course, the

teachers should use appropriate techniques in teaching speaking.

a. The Use of Talking Chips Technique in Teaching Speaking

There are some procedures that can be done by the teachers in using

this technique from some experts. Sharon (1994:117) states there are two

activities in this technique; they are preparation and the steps. In the

preparation, the teacher has to determine a question or problem for group

discussion. Using poker chips, playing cards or simply gather a sufficient

number of paper clips, pencils, chalks or other available items to serve as

tokens. In the procedure, the teacher divides the students into group

discussion, and then each student receives a chip. Chips contain a problem
that the students have to find out a solution. This activity also will be

limited for them in discussion. So, the students will be excited to solve

their chips. This activity allows the students to get same chance to be

active speaker.

Moroever, Talking chips technique also can help the other skill. Then,

Mills and Cottell in Sharan (1994:118) says that talking chips can help to

build listening and communication skills because students who tend to

“spout off" consider more carefully what they have to say, since it will

require their surrendering a token. The students have to speak and share

his/her idea. It can be said that this technique requires the students to be

active speakers in classroom activity.

Colgon (2010 : 3) states that in teaching speaking, there are some

steps of talking chips technique. It contains three steps as follows: firstly,

prepare a key discussion question or series of questions for the students.

Secondly, forming group and giving each student 3 or 5 chips of some

kind. At least, the students have to comment based on each chips. So,

chips contain a series of question that will be answered by students in a

group.

Then, In talking chips techniques also has some rules that can be

applied by the teachers. George (2008: 59) mentions there are a rule and

some procedures in using the taking chips technique especially for

teaching speaking. The rule allows each student may only speak one time
until all other students have spoken. Then, each student may speak again

once all team members have placed a chip in a center. Meanwhile the

procedure of this technique contains six procedures. Firstly, the class is

divided into groups of 3-6 students, then the teacher hands out 2 chips to

each student. Third, the teacher provides a discussion topic for class/group.

After that, any student may begin the discussion within the group by

pacing his or her chip in the center of team table. Next, the students group

continues to discuss the topic, with each student placing one chip in the

center of the circle/ each group have a time to talk. Finally, when students

have used all the chips, teammates collect their chip and continue the

discussion using the other chips. So, based on the explanation above, there

are six procedures in using talking chips technique.

Richard (2010: 1) also argues that talking chips technique is one of the

interactive techniques to facilitate a classroom or small group discussion

by using talking chips technique. The students are divided into a group.

Then, the students will receive a chip, discuss and share their idea. This

activity has a rule for sharing information as follows; a member may make

a statement, or raise a question only after he or s she has placed his or her

talking chip in the center of the table. So, the students are active in using

this technique in learning speaking.

Kagan (2008: 2) states that the talking chips technique has two

advantages; every student is held accountable for participating and it

develops speaking and listening skills. This technique also has some

description activity. It is begun from each student receives one talking

chip. The chip can be any kind of game token, a pen, pencil, eraser, slip

of paper, or any other tangible item. The students will be given a chip.

Then, they are given an open-ended discussion topic such as where in

the world would you most want to live and why? The other can speak

but they cannot interrupt, they have to practice respectful listening.

Then, the other students also use his/ her chips to ask about something.

It is done until all students use their chips. At least, the students can start

with new topic again. So, based on explanation above, the talking chips

provide the activity that all students can ask and listen respectfully.

At least Wayan (2013 : 1) mentions there are four steps of talking

chips technique. Firstly, the teacher groups the students which consist of

at least four students. Then, the teacher gives the topic discussion. After

that, teacher asks the students to start the discussion by putting the chips

and they speak until they put all the chips that they have. This technique

can have a fun and serious moment at the same time.

So, based on the explanation above, it is clear that the way of

talking chips technique is begun when the students are divided into some

groups. Then, they will be given a chip. A chip can be a question/ topic

to discuss/ puzzle to answer. After that, all students have a same chance

to find the answer and discuss together. At least, they share their idea
 and put the chip on the table. At least, they have to share to other group

their discussion and the other group can comment the discussion.

b. Talking Chips Technique, Self Confidence and Speaking Ability

Wayan (2013 :1 ) states that talking chips technique is one

techniques of cooperative learning which allows all students to speak in

classroom. In this technique, students are given a certain number of

chips (coin, card,etc) to be used as media which limit student’s talking

time. So by using the talking chips technique, the students are allowed

to speak in the classroom.

Millis (1998) also mentions that talking chips can build listening

and communication skills because students who tend to spout off

consider more carefully what they have to say since it will require their

surrendering their token. Reticent students feel encouraged to speak

because the groud rules have created an environment that promotes.

Kagan also (2008) states that talking chips technique is a good

technique to encourage members to particapte. So based on the

explanation from the experts, it can be concluded that talking chips

technique might help the students to speak in the classroom.

In learning speaking of using talking chips technique, the students

have to built their self confidence. Nazzar (2000) states that one of the

ways to build the self confidence is speaking calmly and speak at an

even pace. Sun (2008) also says that self confidence is one of the keys
 to have any English conversation which in learning speaking, the

students are expected to have self confidence to catch some targets in

mastering English.

Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that in

learning speaking, the teachers need a technique to encourage the

students. One of the techniques is talking chips technique. In talking

chips technique, the students get a chip, then they have to participate to

explore their ideas in the learning speaking. At least, in mastering

speaking, the students are expected to have self confidence. It can help

them to catch some targets in learning speaking.

c. Small Group Discussion Technique of Teaching Speaking

Orlish (2013:255) states that small group discussion is one of the

excellent way to facilitate student handling of manipulatives, allowing

the teacher to evaluate students’ motor skills and helping students

understand the relationships between movement for incluse class. Orlish

(2013:225) adds the explanation, in small group discussion, the students

do some activities consist of: (1) each student in a task group can make

significant contributions to the discussion, (2) the students are given the

specific tasks, (3) a task group has clearly defined goals and clearly

identified individual assignments and roles. So, in this technique, the

students are allowed to have any activities to discuss and share their

ideas to other group.

 In small group discussion, Porta (2014:289) adds this technique

allows the students to have a small group to obtain and discuss on a

specific topic, then the students have to answer some questions given by

the teacher. So, this technique can help the students to be active in a

learning process. They are requirement to answer some questions.

Then, Walton (1997) says that small group discussion, is a number

of poeple interacting in a face to face situation. The group generates the

own issues then clarifies the issues to other participants in a group

discussion. So, this technique helps the students to have critical thinking

to get the solutions from some issues given.

Surgenor (2010) states that small group teaching has become more

popular as a means of encouraging the students learning. He adds, there

are some benefits of this technique: (1) motivational context, the students

need to see both learning goals and learning process, (2) learner activity,

students need to be active not pasive, (3) interaction with other, the

students can improve their thinking and (4) a well stuctured knowledge

base, in starting point of new learning, the students should be existing

knowledge and experience.

Based on the expalantion above, it can be concluded that small

group discussion is one of the techniques in teching speaking. In small

group discussion, the students are divided into some group, then they

receive a topic to discuss in group members, then they share their ideas/
 discussion to other group. This teaching technique is currently used by

English teacher at SMP N 9 Payakumbuh during teaching and learning

process, especially in teaching speaking and reading.

3. Assessment of Speaking Ability of Transactional Text

Assessment of speaking ability is used to know whether the students

have passed at a given material and to know their speaking ability. The

students should be able to perform their speaking ability based on the

criteria of speaking test or rubric for oral communication.

There are some kinds of rubric for English speaking test. Valette

(2003: 150) states there are four components of scoring in speaking test.

They are: fluency, quality of communication, amount of communication

and effort to communicate.

Harris (1969:84) states there are five components which should be

considered in testing students’ performance. They are: pronunciation,

grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. The scoring consists

of five levels which show the skill of students’ speaking.

In other way, Brown (2004: 141) states there are five categories that

should be assessed in speaking. They are imitative, intensive, responsive,

interactive, and extensive. Each of them has different scoring scale. Then

Hughes (2003:131) also states that there are five components of speaking

test are accent, grammar, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

 Based on the modify the indicators of rubrics the speaking skill, the

researcher uses the categories of speaking Hughes (2003: 131) and

Harris (1969) and combine it with the speaking transactional text

assessment from English Teachers at SMP N Payakumbuh. Thus, the

scale descriptions in assessing transactional text and speaking

transactional text can be seen in the Table below.

Table 2. The Scoring Rubrics of Transactional Text

Indicators of Speaking Sub Indicators of Speaking

Ability Transactional Text
Pronunciation Related to grammar and voabulary used
Grammar Using simple present tense, using
adverb, using adjective, using modal,
using simple past tense
Vocabulary Words related to the expression used
Fluency Speech to persuade listeners to do what
the thesis recommends
Comprehension Social funtions, using the correct
respond in the conversation

(MGMP of SMP English Teachers Payakumbuh)

Table 3: Scoring Rubrics of Speaking Transactional Text

Rubrics Considered Score

 ronunciation 5 (No conspicuous mispronunciations of
vocabulary used)
4 (Occasional mispronunciations of vocabulary
used which do not interfere with
understanding)
3 (Misspronunciations lead to occasional
misunderstanding and apparent errors in
grammar or vocabulary used
2 ( Frequent grammar errors and heavy accent of
vocabulary used)
1 ( Pronunciation of vocabulary used frequently
unintelligible)

Grammar 5 ( Few errors, with no patterns of failure)

4 ( Occasional errors showing imperfect control
of some patterns)
3 ( Frequent errors showing some major patters
uncontrolled)
2 ( Constant errors showing control of vert few
major patterns)
1 ( Grammar almost entirely inaccurate)
Vocabulary 5 ( Professional vocabulary broad and precise)
4 ( Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss
special interests)
3 ( Choice of words sometimes inaccurate)
2 ( Vocabulary limited to basic personal and
survival areas
1 ( Vocabulary inadequate for even the
simplest conversation
Fluency 5 (Speech to persuade us effortless and smooth)
4 ( Speech to persuade is occasionaly hesitant)
3( Speech to persuade is frequently hesitant and
jerky)
2 ( Sppech to persuade is very slow
1( Speech to persuade is so halting and
fragmentary)
Comprehension 5 (Understand everything in normal educate
4( Understand quite well)
3 (Understand careful)
2 ( Understand slowly)
1 ( Understands too little)
(English Teacher’s Scoring Rubric of Speaking Transactional Text of SMP
Payakumbuh ).
4. Self Confidence
a. The Nature of Self Confidence

Self-confidence is a belief of someone that she/ he wants to get a

succeed. It is a way to him/ her to get some plans in his/ her life. If she/ he

has good self-confidence, she/ he can be easy to have some targets.

Meanwhile, if she/ he has a bad self-confidence, she/he will get some

problems to bring the feature. Lucia (2014: 1) mentions that self-confidence

is the belief in one self and abilities, it describes an internal state made up of

what think and feel about ourselves. So, self-confidence also can measure

someone’ ability in doing something.

Moroever Kima (2013:1) states that the self confidence that comes from

within yourself is based on your own personal assessment of your skills,

abilities and accomplishments. It is also based on your view of how others

access your competencies as the result of their observations of your

behaviours and interactions with you. The someone who has self confidence

can give the opinion to the situation. So, he/ she can not be quiet in a

situation.

Mahatm in Kima (2013: 1) also says that self confidence begins to

energize and stimulate our desire to excel, succeed and accomplish to be more

and to do more. So, it is important indicators to someone to get his/ her

succeed for the future. So, it can be said that a good self confidence is

important for someone ‘life.

 Burton (2000) says that self confidence is the ability to take appropriate

and effective action in any situation, however challengging it appears to you

or others. In self confidence also has some points such as having an ability to

perform something and having much ideas to show to others.

So based on the explanation above, it can be conclude that self

confidence is related to someone’s ability. She/he has a good personality in

all ascpects so it can be easier to get some goals in a life by having a good

self confidence. It also can be benefit for shaping a good quality of someone’s

personality

b. The Characteristics of Self Confidence

Self confidence is an important indicator for someone to get some

targets for his/ her life. Self confidence can bring some effect for someone,

for example: if she/ has a positive self confidence, she/ he can be a good

performer in each situation . Especially to the students, it can help them to

accomplish his/ her real ability and it can help them to be more confidence to

express/give opinion. According to Kima (2013:1) self confidence has three

characteristics; somoene who has self confidence can be seen from his/her

opinions of others, competencies and personal inventory of skills, abilities

and achievements. So, it can be said that he/ she uses his/ her self confidence

to each situation.

Then Copra (2010:1) mentions that the poeple who have a good self

confidence can be shown from their believe to have some purposes, their
ambitious to achieve the goals, sociable in the life and also thinking positive.

It means that, they will get their future to achieve the succeed way.

Iland (2013 :38) also mentions that there are some characteristics of

self confidence; they areattaractive, ambitious, and hard working. Attarative

here refers to they are beatiful in spirit and they are able to let it shile.

Menwhile, ambitious is related to have clear visions of their goals and hard

working mentions to hard efforts to get something. So, there are three

characteristics of self confidence.

In addition Carter (2009:114) also states that self confidence are

assuredness and self-raliance in one’s own abilities, belief in another person’s

trustworthiness or competency and an agrement that information is not to be

divulged, as in the phrase in confidence. So, there are three indicators that

related to the self confidence based on Carter. Those indicators are as the

judgment to know someone’s self confidence.

Then, Burton (2000) mentions there are some indicators of the

characteristics of self confidence such as direction and value, motivation,

emotional stability and positive mind set, self awareness, flexibility in

behaviour. Direction and value refers to someone know what he/she wants.

Motivation relates when someone have a big willingness to do and get his/her

targets. Then, emotional stability is about controlling someone own self in

each situations and positive mind set is about staying optimistic in each

situation and condition. Flexibility of behaviour relates to how control

 someone ability in doing a lerning activity. So, there are six indicators of self

confidence.

So related the explanation above, there are some characteristics of the

self confidence. In this research, the reseacher adopts the teori of self

confidence charateristics from Buton (2000) and Carter (2009). It is because

the teori is simply and easly to understand. It also can be useful for the

reseacher in doing the research. So, the indicator of self confidence can be

shown on the table below:

Table 4. The Indicators of Self Confidence

Indicators of Self Sub indicators No of Items

Confidence
1. Directions of They Talk about future 7,9,10,11,16
values possibilities to encourage bold
dreams. They keep their
expectation high about what is
possible.
2. Motivation Acknowledge all the things they 3,17,19,21
do well.
3. Emotional They encourage their emotions 1,4,18,25
stability from a young age and makes
them happy or not at the end of
each day.
4. Positive mind set They can find the solution in 2,5,12,13,14
each problem.
20,23,24
5. Self awareness They encourage theirself 6,15
proudly of what they are good at
and the same time they have
poeple around them.
6. Flexibility in They show how to break 8,22
behaviour patterns by being spontaneous
doing things in the same time.
Source: Burton (2000)
B. Review the Related Findings
 There are some relevance researches that conducted by the researchers on the

use of talking chips technique. The first research is conducted by Syafyradin (2010)

from Indonesia University of Education entitled The Use of Talking Chips

Technique in Improving Students’ Speaking Achievement. He did the research

about the implementation of Talking Chips Technique at grade X of the Senior High

School in Bandung. This technique was conducted in 3 cycles. Those mean scores

got improvement from cycle 1 until cycle 3. It is assumed that the use of talking

chips technique can improve students’ speaking achievement.

The second, the research was observed by Riki (2013) from Indonesia University

of Education. He investigated that how the Talking Chips Technique can help

students to improve their speaking. This study showed the improvement of students’

speaking achievement from treatment until post test. It was proved by the mean score

pre test and post test. In pre-test, the mean score of fluency was 61.1 and 62.81 for

accuracy. In post-test, the mean score of fluency was 71.451 and accuracy was 74.69.

It indicated that there was significance improvement of students’ speaking in terms

of fluency and accuracy. It means that the use of talking chips technique also can

improve the students speaking skill.

The third research was observed by Purnamantari (2013) with title Teaching

Speaking Ability through Talking Chips Technique of the Eight Grade Students of

SMP N 2 Surakarta. The present classroom action study used of pre test and post test

with descriptive anaysis. The result of data analysis of reflection showed from cycle

1 figure out the increasing mean figured 50.33 and 59.65. Meanwhile the result of
 data analysis of reflection scores from cycle 2 figure out theincreasing mean figures

65.76 and 79.46. these was a different mean figure of 17.78 of two cycles. Those

finding showed that teaching speaking by using the use of talking chips technique

was effectively enough to improve students’ speaking ability at second grade

students of SMP N 2 Surakarta.

Based on the related finding above, it could be concluded that teaching speaking

by the use of taking chips technique was effective.It could be shown the increasing

speaking score in each cycle. So, it means that the use of talking chip technqiue

could improve the students of speaking skill by using classroom action research. In

conclusion,this research will be different to the previous research. The

differenciation is related to the speaking material and research design. Then, the most

of the previous research focuses on Classroom Action Research (CAR) while the

reseacher uses on an experimental research. At least, the researcher conducts the

research about the effect of talking chips technique toward students’ speaking ability

and Students’ Self Confidence at the second grade students of SMP N 9 Payakumbuh

in 2014/ 2015 Academic Year.

C. The Conceptual of Frame Work

In this research, the researcher arranged the conceptual frame work. It was done

for teaching speaking both group, namely experimental group and control group.

Those groups received the different treatment. Experimental group received talking

chips technique and control group received small group discussion technique. In this

conceptual of frame work, the researcher wanted to see some affects. First, the effect
of talking chips technique and small group discussion were for students speaking

ability. Second, the researcher wanted to see the interaction both teaching technique

and students’ self confidence. Third, the researcher wanted to see the students with

high self confidence talking chips technique have better in students’ ability than

those who were taught by using small group discussion. At last, the researcher

wanted to see the students with low self confidence talking chips technique do have

better in students’ ability than those who were taught by using small group

discussion.

The conceptual framework of this research can be described as follows;

TEACHING Talking Chips

TECHNIQUE Technique Students’
Speaking Ability
Small Group
Discussion Technique

Students Self
Confidence

Talking Chips
Technique
High Self
Confidence
Small Group
Discussion

Talking Chips
Technique
 Low Self
Small Group Confidence
Discussion

Figure1. The Scheme of Conceptual Framework

D. Hypotheses

Based on the explanation above, the hypotheses of the research as follows:

First hypothesis:

H0 : the students who are taught by using Talking Chips Technique do not have better

speaking ability of transactional textthan those who are taught bysmall group

discussion technique.

Ha : the students who are taught by using Talking Chips Technique have better

speaking ability of transactional text than those who are taught by small group

discussion technqiue.

Second hypothesis:

H0 : the students with high speaking’ self confidence who are taught by talking chips

technique do not have better speaking ability of transactional text than those who

are taught bysmall group discussion technique.

Ha : the students with high speaking’ self confidence who are taught by talking chips

have better speaking ability of transactional text than those who are taught

bysmall group discussion technqiue.

Third hypothesis:

H0 : the students with low self confidence who are taught by talking chips technique do

not have better speaking ability of transactional textthan those who are taught

bysmall group discussion technique.

Ha : the students with low self confidence who are taught by talking chips technique

have better speaking ability of transactional text than those who are taught by

small group discussion technique.

Fourth hypothesis:

H0 : there is no any interaction between both technique and students’ self confidence

toward students’ speaking ability.

Ha : there is an interaction between both technique and students’ self confidence toward

students’ speaking abiliity.

 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

A. Design of the Research

This research used quasi experimental design to test the hypothesis. As Gay

(1987: 289) says, “a quasi-experimental” occurs when it is not possible for the

researcher to randomly assign subject groups.’ The design involved two samples as

follows experimental group and control group. The experimental group received the

treatment by using talking chips technique, while the control group was treated by

using small group discussion technique that commonly used by the teacher in the

classroom. In this research, the researcher wanted to see the effect of the treatment in

learning speaking. So, it is purposed to compare both teaching technique and

investigate the effect of independent variable and moderation variable (students’ self

confidence ) toward dependent variable (students speaking transactional text).

Post test only design is the design used on both exprimental and control group. In

this research, post test scores was used as primary data to see the effectiveness of the

treatment. Gay (2011:269) states that participants are randomly assigned to at least

two groups, exposed to the different treatments, and posttested. Posttest scores were

compared to determine the effectiveness of the treatment. Then, the design is

discribed on the following the Table below:

Table 5 : The Research Design

Group Treatment Post-test

 R1 X1 O1
R2 X2 O2
Where:

R1 = Experimental group
R2 = Control group
X1 = Treatment of Experimental Group
X2 = Treatment of Control Group
O1 = Posttest of Experimetal Group
O2 = Posttest of Control Group

This research also used the treatment by block design named factorial 2x2

designs. Gay, et al (2011:272) mention that the purpose of the factorial design is to

determine whether the effects of an independent variable are generalizable across all

level or whether the effects are specific to particular level.The design is as followed:

Table 6.The Research Design of Techniques

Treatment : The Talking Chips Small Group
Students’ Self- Confidence Technique DiscussionTechnqiue
(A1) (A2)

High Self-Confidence (B1) B1A1 B1A2

Low Self Confidence (B2) B2A1 B2A2

Notes :
B1A1 : Students with high self-confidence in experimental group of students’ speaking
ability who are taught by using talking chips technique.
B1A2 : Students with high self-confidence in control group of students’ speaking ability
who are taught by using small group discussion technique.
B2A1 : Students with low self-confidence in experimental group of students’ speaking
ability who are taught by using talking chips technique.
B2A2 : Students with low self-confidence in control group of students’ speaking ability
who are taught by using small group discussion technique.
 In the process of teaching, the differences between experimental and control

group were only about the technique used. Both groups were given speaking

transactional text tests; the material and the time allocation of two groups are same.

The treatment was treated to the experimental group by using talking chips

technique, while control group was taught by using small group discussion

technique.

B. Population and Sample

1. Population

According to Gay (2000 : 102) population is the group interest to the

researcher, the group to which she or he would like the result of the study to be

generalizable. Referring to the theory, the population of this research was the

second grade students of SMP N 9 Payakumbuh. The number of the population

was 191students. It consisted of 6 classes. The students’ distribution can be seen

as the following table below

Table7. The Distribution of Second Grade Students of SMP N 9 Payakumbuh

in 2014/ 2015 Academic Year

No. Classes Number of Students

1. VIII.1 32
2. VIII.2 33
3. VIII.3 31
4. VIII.4 31
5. VIII.5 32
6. VIII.6 32
Total 191
 Source: SMP N 9 Payakumbuh

2. Sample

From seven classes of the population, a normality and homogenety test were

important to be done before taking the sample. The test used whether all of the

classrooms in population are representative to be chosen as samples. The formula

used to test normality of the population is Lilliefors formula and homogeneity test

uses Bartlett formula. The normality testing of population was analyzed by using

Liliefors test at the level of significance 0,05. Based on the test, the population

data was normally distributed (see appendix 5). Then, homogeneity testing of

population was tested by using Variance Test of Barlett Testing. From the

caculation, it could be concluded that the data derived from the homogenous

population (see appendix 6).

Then, for choosing the sample, the reseacher used cluster random sampling.

There were some procedures of cluster sampling,(1) six small pieces of papers

containing the name of each class (VIII 1, VIII 2, VIII 3, VIII 4, VIII 5 and VIII 6

) were prepared and rolled it, (2) the small papers were placed into a glass and

shaken them, (3) only two papers were finally taken. At least, the first paper was

VIII 5 as experimental group and second paper was as VIII 6 as control group.

C. Instrumentation

The instrument is the tool to collect the data from the sample. In this research,

there were two instruments that used as follows speaking test and questionnare. The

speaking test was used to measure the students’ speaking ability intrasactional and
 questionnare was used to know the students’ self confidence. The speaking

transactional text was designed at the end of the research for both experimental and

control group and questionnare was conducted from the beginning of the research

until the end of the research.

1. Speaking Test

Speaking test was used to collect the data about students’ speaking

ability in transactional text. In this test, the teacher gave some topics of

speaking transactional text as follows; asking and giving an opinion about food,

asking and giving an opinion about fruit, asking and giving an opinion about boy

band, asking and giving an opinion about part of body and asking and giving an

opinion about job. There were some procedures that the researcher did in

speaking test activity. Firstly, student sat in pair. Secondly, the students chose

some topics from the speaking instrumentation (in Appendix 8). Thirdly, the

students created the dialogue around twenty minutes. At last, the students

performed it in front of classroom. The students had 3 to 5 minutes to perform

the dialogue. Finally, the teacher scored the students’ performance based on the

indicators the rubric scoring of speaking transactional text and recorded the

students’ performance.

` Table 8:Indicators and Sub Indicators of Transactional Text

Indicators of Speaking Sub Indicators of Speaking

Ability Transactional Text
Pronunciation Related to grammar and vocabulary
used
Grammar Using simple present tense, using
adverb, using adjective, using modal,
 using simple past tense
Vocabulary Words related to the expression used
Fluency Speech to persuade listeners to do what
the thesis recommends
Comprehension Social funtions, grammatical patterns,
using the correct respond in
conversation
(MGMP of SMP English Teachers Payakumbuh)

The indicators are grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency and

comprehension. Each scorer gave score on the students oral performance test by

filling of each component of speaking with rating scale 1-5. Then, fixed score of

students speaking ability was obtained from the average score of both scorers.

The reseachers also recorded on the students’ oral performance by using

camera. So, the scorers could play the recording to make sure in giving the

students’ score.

This research adapted speaking rubric from Hughes (2003:131) and the

English Teacher’s Scoring Rubric of Speaking Transactional Text of SMP

Payakumbuh to give the students’ score on speaking test .The instrument of

speaking test was kind of transactional texts and the components of scoring as

relates of five aspects; pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and

comprehension. Then, the researcher also used the indicators of transactional

text based on the rubrics of speaking transactional text asessment from English

Teachers of SMP N Payakumbuh. Finally, both instruments form Hughes

(2003:131) and the indicators of transactional text were modified as follows at

table below as a judgment to give the students’ speaking score.

 Table 9. Rubric Scoring of Speaking Transactional Text

Rubrics Considered Score

Pronunciation 5 (No conspicuous mispronunciations of
vocabulary used)
4 (Occasional mispronunciations of vocabulary
used which do not interfere with
understanding)
3 (Misspronunciations lead to occasional
misunderstanding and apparent errors in
grammar or vocabulary used
2 ( Frequent grammar errors and heavy accent of
vocabulary used)
1 ( Pronunciation of vocabulary used frequently
unintelligible)

Grammar 5 ( Few errors, with no patterns of failure)

4 ( Occasional errors showing imperfect control
of some patterns)
3 ( Frequent errors showing some major patters
uncontrolled)
2 ( Constant errors showing control of vert few
major patterns)
1 ( Grammar almost entirely inaccurate)
Vocabulary 5 ( Professional vocabulary broad and precise)
4 ( Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss
special interests)
3 ( Choice of words sometimes inaccurate)
2 ( Vocabulary limited to basic personal and
survival areas
1 ( Vocabulary inadequate for even the
simplest conversation
Fluency 5 (Speech to persuade us effortless and smooth)
4 ( Speech to persuade is occasionaly hesitant)
3( Speech to persuade is frequently hesitant and
jerky)
2 ( Sppech to persuade is very slow
1( Speech to persuade is so halting and
 fragmentary)
Comprehension 5 (Understand everything in normal educate
4( Understand quite well)
3 (Understand careful)
2 ( Understand only slow)
1 ( Understand too little)
( English Teacher’s Scoring Rubric of Speaking Transactional Text of SMP
Payakumbuh)
Based on the explanation above, each indicator has the higher score is 5,

and the lowest score is 1. Then, To know whether the test instrument of speaking

test valid and realiable, the researcher did the analysis as follow:

a. Validity of the Test

Gay and Airasian (2000: 161) state validity is concerned with the

appropriateness of the interpretation made from the test score. Validity is the

most important characteristics of a test in measuring instrument. In other

words, validity is a test that can measure what to be measured. In this research,

the researcher measured the speaking ability of the students, so the researcher

used performance test to have the validity of the instrument.

The speaking transactional text of the research was arranged based on the

students’ textbooks, so the instrument was assumed to have content validity of

the instrument. The test was administrated at the same time both experimental

and control group. It was assumed to have criterion validity of the instrument.

b. Reliability of the Test

Harris (1969: 14) states reliability is meant the stability of the test score. In

this research, the researcher will use inter-rater reliability. Gay (2009) mentions

that inter-rater reliability refers to the consistency of two or more independent

 scores, rater or observers. It was assumed to get more reliability of the test

score. At least, the score from the first scorer was added with the score from

the second scorer and then the amount of the scorer was divided into two. After

that, it was divided into maximum score and multiplied into 100. Therefore, the

average score was obtained. Finally, the average score was taken as the fixed

score for speaking test.

The formula as follows:

Total score = Score 1 + Score 2

Average score = Total score

x 100
Max score Souces: Depdiknas

2. Questionnaire

In this research, the questionnaire is used to know students’ self

confidence in speaking ability. According to Powel (1998:2) a questionnaire

provides a tool for eliciting information which you can tabulate and discuss. It is

as the major source of information. Hornby (1995:327) also states

questionnairesare a list of questions that are given to the group of people and it is

for getting fact of information. Based on the explanation of chapter 2, the

indicator of self confidence was taken from the characteristics of self confidence

by Burton (2000). They were Direction and value, Motivation,Emotional

stability,Positive mind setself awereness,and flexibility in behaviour. The

indicators and sub indicators of self confidence can be seen at Table below.

Table 10.The Indicator of Self Confidence

Indicators of Self Sub indicators No of Items

Confidence
1. Directions of They Talk about future 7,9,10,11,16
values possibilities to encourage bold
dreams. They keep their
expectation high about what is
possible.
2. Motivation Acknowledge all the things they 3,17,19,21
do well.
3. Emotional They encourage their emotions 1,4,18,25
stability from a young age and makes
them happy or not at the end of
each day.
4. Positive mind set They can find the solution in 2,5,12,13,14
each problem.
20,23,24
5. Self awareness They encourage theirself 6,15
proudly of what they are good at
and the same time they have
poeple around them.
6. Flexibility in They show how to break 8,22
behaviour patterns by being spontaneous
doing things in the same time.
Source: Burton (2000)
Then, the standardized questionnare was taken from Carter (2009: 114).

There are 25 items of questionnare was distributed to the students and they can

choose optional ansewers by crossing the statement with scales of number 1-5.

Then, the score indicator can be seen in the following Table:

Table 11. The Score Indicator for Self Confidence Questionnare

Total Score Criteria

91-100 Exceptionally self confidence
81-90 Very self confidence
71-80 Above average
61-70 Average
51-60 Below average
41-50 Quite lacking in self confidence
31-40 Very lacking in self confidence
Below 30 Extreme lack of self confidence
Source: from Carter(2009:118)

The researcher will do the statistical analysis in order to know validity

and reliability of questionnaires. The procedures as follows:

a. Validity of the questionnaire

The validity of the questionnaire is used to test whether the

questions are designed to measure what should be measured. Correlation

Product Moment formula (Sudijono 1987:2006)is used to measure the

validity of the questionnaire. The formula as follows:

N  XY   X  Y 
rXY 
N  X 2
  X 
2
N  Y 2   Y 2 
Where

rxy= coefficient correlation between x (item score) and y (total item

score) variable
N= number of students
∑x= sum of x
∑y= sum of y
∑x2= square of x
∑y2= square of y
∑xy= total score of cross product x and y
Then, the result from expert judgement was compared bt using the Table of

interpretation from Sudijono (1987:193) as Table below

Table12. Interpretation from Pearson Product Moment Formula

No Range of “r” Interpretation

 Product Moment
(rxy)
1 0.00-0.20
2 0.20-0.40
3 0.40-0.70
4 0.70-0.90
5 0.90-1.00
There is acorrelation between Variable X
and Variable Y, but it is very weak and
low. So, it can be said that thereis no
correlation between variable X and
variable Y.
There is a weak and low correlation
between Variable X and Variable Y
There is a moderate or enough
correlation between Variable X and
Variable Y
There is a strong and high correlation
between Variable X and Variable Y
There is a very strong and high
correlation between Variable X and
Variable Y

After, having items’ validity analysis using teh roduct Moment formula

above on try-out result, it was found that some items are invalid. The result of r

observed for each item was compared with r table by significance level 0,05. If the

result of each r observed is higher than r table(0,335), the item was valid. The

statistical analysis of the test validity can be seen in Appendix 9. The validity testing

summary of questionnare’s try out is discribed in table 11.

Table 13 : Validity testing of Self Confidence Questionnare in Try Out

Variable Accepted Items Deleted Items

Self Confidence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11,13,21,23

12,14, 15,16,17,18,19,

20, 22, 24,25

After comparing the result of rr observed with r table, it was found taht item

number (10,11,13,21,23) were invalid. So the items were deleted.

 b. Reliability of the Questionnaire

Gay (2010) defines reliability is the degree of a test consistently

measures what it should be measured. To measure reliability of the

questionnaires, the researcher use Alpha Cronbach formula:

k ∑ σ2b
r11 = [k−1] [1 − ]
σ2b

(Juliandi 2014:82)

Where:

∑a2 b = Number of item variance

a2 = Sum of total item score
k = Sum of items
R11 = Reliability

Then, the calculation of the reliability scores is classified based

on the reliability categories below:

a. if 0,90 ≤ r11 < 100, very high

b. if 0,70 ≤ r11 < 0,90, high
c. if 0,40 ≤ r11< 0,70, medium
d. if 0,20 ≤ r11< 0,40, low
e. if 0,00 ≤ r11< 0,20, very low
(Arikunto 2010)

Based on the calculation using Cronbach’s Alpha Formula, it was found

that the value of questionnare realibility was 0.82. If the value of r observed

(0.82) was compored with r table (0.355), the value of r observed was higher

than r table, so the instrument was categorized as a realible instrument. When

the result is intrepeted using general description of coefficient correlation 0.82

was categorized as high reliable.

D. Procedure of the Research

The procedures of the research are:

1. Preparation:

a. Defining and formulating the problem of the research.

b. Doing the observation to find out the real situation in the class especially

in learning speaking.

c. Doing the library study in order to find out some theories that related to

the subjects of the research.

d. Formulating the hypotheses of the research.

e. Arranging technique and design of the research.

f. Choosing and stating the sample of the research.

g. Arranging the instrument of the research.

h. Distributing the questionnaire of the research, involves validity and

reliability.

i. Doing the experiment that is followed to both group; experimental group

and control group.

2. Instructional Activities

There were some procedures in this research that was done by the reseacher.

The researcher taught experimental and control group around eight meetings
 differently. The experimental group was taught by using talking chips technique.

Meanwhile, the control group was taught by usingsmall group discussion

technique. Then experimental group was taught by the reseacher while control

group was taught by the English teacher of SMP N 9 Payakumbuh. Both of

groups was taught around eight meetings. At least, the following procedures of

activity was discribed at Appendix 4.

3. Evaluation

At the end of the research, the next steps are:

a. Assigning the post test for both of experimental and control

group.

b. Analyzing the result of post test.

c. Computing the data statically based on the data which is gotten

from the speaking test.

d. Drawing the conclusion which is gotten from the research based

on the validity and reliablity criterion.

e. Computing the final report of the research.

E. Technique of the Data Collection

The result of the students’ speaking test and questionnaire were used to collect

the data. The test was given at the end of the treatment (post test) for both experiment

and control group. The sample from both groups received the same speaking test and

the test recorded. In this research, the data was speaking ability intransactional text

that are obtained after the post test given. Moreover, questionnaire was used to know
 students’ self confidence in speaking. The result of the questionnaire was analyzed in

order to determine students’ self confidence (high or low).

F. Technique of the Data Analysis

After data of speaking ability and data of students’ self confidence were

collected. Then, the data of speaking ability was analyzed by using normality testing,

homogenety testing and hypothesis testing where t-test and analysis of variances.

1. Normality Testing
The normality testing was done to see whether or not the data collected from

both groups are normally distributed. It was analyzed by using Liliefors test. The

steps of Lilliefors test as follow:

a. Making data tabulation

b. Calculate mean score of each group of sample by using the formulation:

M = ∑X
N
Where:
M : mean score
∑X : the sum of all the score
N : total number of participant

c. Calculate Standard Deviation (S) of group sample by using formula

below:

S2 = ∑ Fi ( Xi – )2

N–1

Where:

S2 = Varians sample
Fi = Frequency of Xi
Xi = Students score
N = Number of students
 ∑X = Sum of students score
= Average score

d. Observe Students’ scores X1, X2, …… Xn become standard score Z1,

Z2, …… Zn by using the formula bellow

Where : = average score

S = standard deviation
e. Compute the frequency of F (Zi)= P (Z ≤ Zi) by using list of normal

distribution standard for each score standard

f. Compute proportion of Z1, Z2, ….. Zn which will be smaller than or the

same as Zi. If the proportion is S (Zi), so

g. Compute the difference of F (Zi)- S (Zi) then find the absolute score

h. Take the highest score among the difference of absolute score (Lo)

i. Next, compare Lo with L table based on degree of free (df) 0.05 chosen. Ho

will be accepted if d L0 ≤ L table. It means that the sample comes from

normally distributed population.

j. The normality of each class treatment, the experimental and control

group are compared to L table. The interpretation is that if the L

observed is smaller than L table, the data are normally distributed.

2. Homogenity Testing
 Homogenity testing was done to see whether the data in population and sample

werehomogeneity or not. The homogeneity testing was analyzedby Variance test (F-

test) from Sudjana (1996:249). The formula as follows:

𝑆2
F= 𝑏
𝑆𝑎
𝑘

Where

F = Observed Variance (F observed)

𝑆2
= Highest Variance
𝑏
𝑆𝑎
= Lowest Variance
𝑘

Based on the category of F-test, the data are homogeny if: Fobserved < F table

3. Hypothesis Testing

The average test scores of two groups were compared to determine the

effectiveness of the technique. Hypothesis testing 1 to 3 were computed by using t-

test. The formula as follows:

x1  x 2
t
1 1
S 
n1 n2

Whether:

n1  1S12  n2  1S 22

S
n1  n2  2

(Sudjana, 1996:239)

Where: x1  the average score test result of experimental group

 x2  the average score test result of control group n1 
The number of students in experimental group
n2  The number of students in the control
S  Standard deviation complex
S1  Standard deviation of the experimental group
S 2  Standard deviation of control group
S12  Variance of the experimental group
S 22  Variance deviation of control group

If t observed bigger than t table, it means alternative hypothesis is accepted

and null hypothesis is rejected. In other word, there is a significance of the

research. Meanwhile, if t observedis smaller than t table, null hypothesis is accepted

and alternative hupothesis is rejected. It means there is no significance of the

research. The significance degree is 0,05.

Then, The researcher used two ways ANOVA (Ferguson, 1976: 256) to

test hypothesis 4. Factorial designs used unweighted meansmethod. The steps in

applying unweighted mean method as below:

1) Calculated of harmonic mean from frequence cell.

RC
nh 
1  1  1  1
n11 n12 n21 n22

2) Calculated average each cell from row (motivation) and column (strategy)

X  where r = 1,2 and c = 1,2 , average row( T ) where r =1,2 and

rc r.

average column ( T.c ) where c = 1,2. This research will be used

experimental of Treatment By Blocks 2x2 as below:

 C1 C 2
R1 X 11 X 12 T1. X 1.

R2 X 21 X 22 T2. X 2.
T.1 T.2 T
X .1 X .2 X ..
Note:

R1 = Students who have high self confidence

R2 = Students who have low self confidence
C1 = Teaching and learning process by using Talking Chips
Technique
C 2 =Small Group Discussion technique.
T1. = Total of average value of students who have high self
confidence that are taught by using Talking Chips Technique
andSmall Group Discussion Technique.
T2. = Total of average value of students who have low self confidence that
are taught by using both treatment and students’ self confidence in
learning toward students’ speaking ability.
T.1 = Total of average value of students who have high and low self
confidence that are taught by using Talking Chips Technique.
T.2 = Total of average value of students who have high and low self
confidence that are taught by using Small Group Discussion
Technique.
X 11 = Average value of students who have high self confidence that are
taught by using Talking Chips Technique.
X 12 = Average value of students who have high self confidence that are
taught by using Small Group Discussion Technique.
X 21 = Average value of students who have low self confidence that are
taught by using Talking Chips Technique.
X 22 = Average value of students who have low self confidencethat are
taught by using Small Group Discussion Technique.

To calculate Total Square, it will be used the formula as below:

 Row (self confidence)

1 R T2 
nh   Tr2.  

 C RC 

Column (teaching learning strategy)

1 C T2 
nh   T.c2  

 R RC 

Interaction

 R C
1 R 2 1 C 2 T2 
nh    X rc   Tr.  R  T.c  RC 
2

 C 

Within cell

R C nrc R C
 Trc2 
  X 2
rci    n 
 rc 

Table 14. Analysis of Two Ways Classification

Variety Sum of Square Degrees of Estimate

Freedom

Row (self  1 R 2 T2  R-1 s r2

confidence) nh   Tr .  

 C RC 
Column 1 C T2  C-1 s c2
(teachinglea nh   T.c2  

rning  R RC 
strategy)
Interaction  R C
1 C 2 T 2  src
1 R 2 (R-1)(C-1)
2
nh   X   Tr .   T.c  
2

RC 
rc
 C R

Within Cell R C nrc R C

 Trc2  N  RC sic2
  X rci2     n 
 rc 
 s r2 sc2 s rc2
Fr  2 Fc  2 Frc  2
sic sic sic

Note:
n h = Harmonic Mean
R = Number of Row
C = Number of Column
Tr . = Number of average row to r where r = 1, 2
T.c = Number of average column to c where c = 1, 2
X rc = Average of all values of row and column
T = Number of average value of two groups
Criterion of testing is:

Accepted H0 if tobserved<ttable and rejected H0 if tobserved ≥ ttablewith degrees of

freedom derajat (dk )  n1  n2  2 . It means that if H0 accepted, data of

student’ speaking ability intransactional text have normal distribution or there is

the effect of the use talking chips technique toward the students speaking

transactional text and the students’ self confidence.