CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to use Multiple Stay-Stray (MSS) to increase the participation

of the eleventh graders in SMAN 10 Malang in speaking activities. This chapter covers

some important points dealing with the background of the study, the research problem,

the theoretical framework, the significance of the research, the scope and the

delimitation of the study and definition of the key terms.

1.1 Background of the Study

Speaking is one of the basic skills that should be mastered in learning English.

People frequently share knowledge, ideas, or opinion orally in their daily life.

Speaking ability deals with some aspects such accuracy, fluency and frequency

(Gower, Philips, & Walter, 1995). We can see someone’s ability to speak from his/her

fluency in speaking English. Fluency is one of the aspects in the speaking that should

be achieved by learners when they learn to speak. Another important aspect in

speaking is frequency. We can see learners’ fluency when they learn a new language

indirectly from their frequency of speaking (Stuart, 1989)

In Indonesian context, students have been taught English since they are in

junior high school and for some since they are in elementary school. Even so, many

students are not confident enough to speak in English to their friends or classmates.

The curriculum of secondary school grade XI based on the regulation issued by

Ministry of Education number 69 year 2013 (Permendikbud No. 69 Tahun 2013) states

that the objective or the basic competences that must be achieved in learning

1
 2

English by the eleventh graders, especially in speaking, are that students are able to

give and offer an advice, express and ask about opinions and thoughts, states and

inquire about scientific factual texts about people, animals, objects, and natural and

social phenomena of the subjects they learn. By looking at the basic competences, we

can conclude that the main goal of learning English especially in speaking for grade

XI in secondary school is students are able to express their thoughts; also, they are

able to ask about other people’s thoughts and ideas.

However, although students have learnt English since they are in elementary

schools or junior high schools, the researcher found there were many students who

still have problem in speaking English. Based on the preliminary study at SMAN 10

Malang in XI MIPA 5C3 class, most of the students in the class could not get

engaged in speaking activities easily. Most of them tended to be quiet in the class.

They were unable to express their opinion easily. They rarely asked question to the

teacher. The active students frequently asked questions to the teacher, answered the

teacher's question and often expressed their opinion. For example, when the teacher

asked the students questions such as what they know about biography to the students,

only three students (NV, PJ and DF) who raised their hands to answer the teacher’s

question. Then, the teacher asked another question but this time the teacher called

students’ name who frequently kept silent in class. Two of them answered the

question correctly but some others could not do it easily. They answered the

questions in English and Indonesian. At the end of the lesson, the teacher asked the

students whether they have anything to ask. Only two students asked the teacher and

gave some comments and opinion about the lesson. Thus, it can be concluded that

the problem with most of students in the class is students’ low participation.
 3

We also can see that the class was teacher-centered, and the teacher still

dominated the learning process. Teacher asked the question to the students and the

students answer the teacher’s question. It was mostly from the teacher to the students

and from the students to the teacher. The interaction rarely happened among the

students. The teacher talked a lot and did not gave the students enough opportunity

to practice their language.

Thus, the situation of teaching and learning process did not help the students

to develop their speaking skill because the class was teacher centered. The situation

was made worse by the fact that the allocation of time provided for English

according to Permendikbud No. 69 year 2013, 2013:9 was only 2x45 minutes per

week for all four skils.

Therefore, it is very important for the teacher to design a learning and

teaching process that can provide more opportunities for the students to speak. The

teacher should minimize the teacher’s talk during the learning and teaching process.

Brown (2001) states that teacher should not occupy most of the class hour because

students need enough opportunity to talk. Therefore, it will be better to promote

student-student interaction where students can share and discuss their ideas with

their peers to give themselves more opportunities to speak and practice their

language. Harmer (2001) states that to foster communicative outputs, learners should

be engaged in communicative activities (p.49). It means that the teacher’s

intervention should be designed in such a way so that the teacher could give more

opportunities to students to express themselves.

Teacher needs to apply an appropriate technique in order to achieve the

objective of teaching speaking and to make students more engaged in the learning

process because teacher is one of the elements that determine the students’ success.
 4

One of the ways to minimize teacher-centeredness and to increase interaction among

students that can give them a lot of opportunity to speak is by using cooperative

learning. Cooperative learning requires an active role among students and the

presence of a teacher to create communication and interaction that allow students to

speak. By sharing ideas with their friends or even with their teacher, they can enrich

their knowledge about the topic discussed and also practice their speaking skills.

One of the structures in cooperative learning that is suitable to increase

students’ participation is Two Stay Two Stray (TSTS). TSTS is one of the

cooperative learning instructional strategies or structures proposed by Kagan (2009).

Two Stay Two Stray is a learning strategy that gives a chance for a group to share

the result and information to other groups. According to Lie (2002:60-61) in TSTS

technique the student should actively cooperate with their friends to do their task. In

groups of four students, after discussing and understanding the material, two students

will leave their group to visit the other group. Then two students will stay in the

group to share the result and information from their group’s material to the guests.

After that, the guest will come back to their own group to report what they have got

from their visits. Then, the group will discuss the result of their task.

There are several previous studies conducted and focused on the use of Two

Stay Two Stray to increase students’ participation. For some cases, Two Stay Two

Stray technique has been modified into One Stay Two Stray. For example, Dimyati

(2011) in her thesis used One Stay Two Stray (OSTS) technique in managing class-

discussion in speaking class of grade VII of junior high school at SMPN 13

Semarang. The result showed that the implementation of OSTS could help students

increase their interest and willingness of being in the class. The students felt happy

and enjoyed the teaching learning activities.

 5

Another study conducted by Munawaroh (2015) shows that Two Stay Two

Stray technique succeeded in increasing the students’ participation in the English

speaking class. The research findings show that the participation of the students of

grade IX J of SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta improved through the implementation of

Two Stay Two Stray technique.

In addition to that, Sukmayati (2016) indicates that using Two Stay Two

Stray technique can improve students’ reading comprehension and promoting

students to be involved actively in group discussions. The technique has successfully

increase students’ participation which shows that most of the students were very

active and enthusiastic in following the teaching and learning process when the TS-

TS strategy was implemented.

Considering the result of using Two Stay Two Stray technique can increase

students’ participation, the researcher decided to use similar technique with Two

Stay Two Stray to increase participation of the students in XI MIPA 5C3 class. In

this study, the researcher used TSTS strategy which was modified into Multiple

Stay-Stray (MSS). In MSS, students will experience multiple times of being the host

(stay) and being the guests (stray). The multiple times of being a host and guests can

make students experience repetition in listening and speaking in the learning

activities which can make students have more chance to maximize their listening and

speaking skill. It also can increase students’ participation because all students can

possibly be involved in the learning interactions.

1.2 Research Problem

Referring to the background of the study, the researcher formulates the

problem of the study as follows.

 6

How can Multiple Stay-Stray technique increase the participation of the students at

XI MIPA 5C3 class in SMAN 10 Malang in the speaking activity?

1.3 `Theoretical Framework

This section presents theoretical framework on cooperative learning, Two

Stay Two Stray strategy, and Multiple Stay-Stray strategy.

1.3.1 Cooperative Language Learning

Basically, cooperative learning is a way to conduct classroom instruction.

Johnson (2000) said that cooperative learning is actually a generic term that refers to

numerous methods for organizing and conducting classroom instruction. Yan Zhang

(2010) emphasized that cooperative learning refers to a systematic instructional

method in which students work together in small groups to accomplish shared

learning goals. In addition to that, Arends (2007:5) defines cooperative learning as a

teaching approach in which students are encouraged and expected to complete the

assigned tasks together, and they have to coordinate their efforts in order to

accomplish the tasks. From those definitions, it can be concluded that cooperative

learning is a way to organize instruction and the organization will involve the

students in teamwork, which students can work together as a team to solve a problem

or topic given. According to Kagan (2009) brains are more engaged during social

interaction than when listening to a lecture or doing solo learning activities.

Cooperative learning includes social interaction over content, and literally the brains

in cooperative learning classroom are more engaged.

One of the strategies introduced in cooperative learning approach is Two

Stay Two Stray (henceforth: TS-TS) which is developed from Kagan One Stay Two
 7

Stray. Istarani (2012:202) clarifies that in Two Stay Two Stray classrooms, students

work together in groups twice; in their own group and in the other groups. Each

member of the groups has responsibility to win the competition in order to get group

reward. This reward is received based on individual contribution to their home

group, (Huda, 2011:129). TS-TS will work well if students have a product or

information to share. It also gives students experience in gathering information and

reporting back to their teammates. TS-TS strategy essentially is a group discussion

model. Each member of group has its own responsibilities (two students become

‘strayers’ and other two students become ‘stayers’). According to Crawford (2005)

TS-TS offers a low threat forum where students can exchange ideas and build social

skills such as asking probing questions. In this activity, the students are encouraged

to contribute their ideas and opinion to their group and other groups.

1.3.2 Kagan Structure: One Stay Two Stray

One Stay Two Stray (also known as Two Stay Two Stray (TSTS) or One

Stay Three Stray (OSTS)) is one of the cooperative learning instructional strategies

or structures that proposed by Spencer Kagan. One Stay Two Stray is a learning

strategy that gives a chance for a group discussion to share the result and information

to other groups. This is done by visiting each other group and share information. The

One Stay Two Stray strategy which is developed by Spencer Kagan in 2009 and

usually used with Number Head Together.

The OSTS gives a chance for students to share information with other

groups. It is different with because most of recent teaching learning activities which

is commonly based on individual works. Student works by himself and he does not
 8

allow to cheat other students’ work. On the other hand, in fact, human beings are

always depending on each other.

Coffey (1997) mentions some benefits One Stay Two Stray strategy. Some of

them are students acquire better understanding of topic or teaching material because

they get information from both his own group and other groups and the activity

makes all students in the groups engage in the discussion.

In addition to that, Lie (2007) also emphasized that the benefit of Two Stay Two

Stray or One Stay Two Stray technique are providing opportunities for students to

create creativity in communicating with their friends, students will become more

active, the tendency of student learning becomes more meaningful and increase the

interest and learning achievement

1.3.3 Multiple Stay-Stray stratgey

Multiple Stay-Stray (MSS) technique is a technique proposed by Furaidah

(2016). In this research, the researcher adapted it to be sophisticated technique and to

solve the problem in XI MIPA 5C3 class to increase the participation of the students.

Actually, MSS technique has the similar concept with Two Stay Two Stray (TSTS)

by Kagan. It is called Multiple Stay-Stray technique because when using this

technique, the students will experience several times of being ‘stay’ to present their

material to their friends and several times of being ‘stray’ to listen other group

presentation. In this technique, students will be divided into several group consist of

4-5 people, and there will be one material that will be presented by 2 groups. 2

people in one group will ‘stay’ to explain their material to other people from another

group who comes as a guest to their group. Then, the rest member will ‘stray’ and

move to another group to become a guest and they will listen other group’s
 9

explanation. This activity will occur several times and the member of the group who

stay and stray will be changed constantly. By doing this, the researcher believes

there will be a repetition in the activity that will make students learn from other

people mistakes, learn new vocabulary and also the students will experience

reinforcement in particular materials. It is because they explain the material several

times to their friends and they also listen the same materials from their friends.

Practicing a language for many times with a repetition is believed to assist learners to

master a language better especially in speaking. By doing repetition, learners will

learn and practice to speak more often and it will give a beneficial impact on

performance especially on their fluency.

Bygate (1996) argues for the value of task repetition. In his study, 11

participants orally retold a video story and then retold the same story 10 weeks later.

After reviewing participants’ comments, he argued that task repetition has a

beneficial impact on performance, with the repeated performance producing a more

syntactic engagement. Gass, et al. (1999) demonstrates that task repetition results in

improvement in overall proficiency. Besides, by using Multiple Stay-Stray technique

students will learn in a smaller group and it will make them to be less anxious

because they only speak to several people in one group. It will be different if they

speak in front of the class with fully attention from their classmates.

Therefore, the researcher believe that the MSS is appropriate strategy to

increase students’ participation. By using MSS, students will learn in a smaller scope

of learning environment, which is a group discussion so they will have less fear or

less anxiety in delivering their ideas to their friends. Surjosuseno (2011:144) reports

that in ‘one stays the rest stray’ technique, almost all students followed the lesson

with full of enthusiasm and spirit. The students found that the lesson was interesting
 10

and fun. They did not have difficulties when they did the test having the actions with

the comfortable and relaxing situation of learning in which they could learn in a

small group, and consequently they achieved higher score. The technique is also

useful to vary the activity in the classroom in order to avoid boredom. By using this

technique, the researcher believe that it will help students to enhance their fluency

and also their participation in speaking activities. It will also can increase students’

participation in classroom especially in speaking activities and makes all students in

the groups engage in the discussion. MSS strategy can give the students’ chance to

experience the repetition in the learning process and also it can give the students

more chance to become more active in group discussion. They can express their

ideas more often without worrying about making mistakes, also students will have

more chance to speak and to deliver their ideas several times to their friends.

Considering Multiple Stay-Stray technique students are required to discuss

something in the form of a group, so it can also increase the students’ social skill and

also makes students respect for other’s opinions and perspectives because they

interact with other people even if it is just their friends.

1.4 Significance of the Research

Practically, the result of this study is expected to be beneficial for the teacher

and the future researcher.

By doing this research, the researcher expects that the teacher will be able to

implement this strategy during the lesson in teaching speaking and expected to

provide important information in the form of strategy and technique to overcome

students’ problems in speaking skill.

 11

For further researchers, the result of this study aimed to give such a

background description about the use of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy in increasing

the students’ participation of Eleventh graders in XI MIPA 5C3 class. This study

also aimed to be a reference to the further researchers in conducting further research

related in cooperative learning.

1.5 Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The study is a Classroom Action Research (CAR) that focused on increasing

the participation of 11th graders in XI MIPA 5C3 class in classroom activity by using

Multiple Stay-Stray technique. The students’ achievement is not included in this

paper so the delimitation of the study only focused on increasing the participation of

the students in the classroom.

1.6 Definition of Key Terms

To avoid misunderstanding, the researcher provides the definition of key

terms as follows.

a. Students active participation means students’ take part actively in the learning

process in several forms such as students’ answers to the teacher’s or other

student’s question orally, students ask question to the teacher or other student if

they do not understand about something, students give their opinion, state their

suggestions and express their feeling orally about something, and students

responds to the teacher’s instruction.

b. Multiple Stay-Stray is a learning strategy that gives a chance for students to

experience multiple times of being a host (presenter) to present information and

 12

multiple times of being visitors to listen to the presentation of other groups,

which can make students more engage in the learning process.

 13

CHAPTER II

RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter discusses the research design, the role of researcher, the research

setting, the research subject, the source of the data, and the research procedure.

2.1 Research Design

The design of the study is Classroom Action Research (CAR). Burn (2009:2)

states that one of the main aims of CAR is to identify a problematic situation or issue

that the participant, who may include teachers, students, are considered worth

looking into more deeply and systematically. Collaborative CAR was chosen to

cover the observation due to the number of students. The researcher was assisted by

the class teacher and one of researcher’s friend as observers since it might be

difficult to perform the whole process of CAR by the teacher alone (Allwright,

1993).

The design of classroom action research used in this study is a cyclical

process adapted from Kemmis and McTaggart (1998:50) which consists of

some cycles, each consisting of four stages, i.e. planning, implementing, observing

and reflecting. It starts with planning the action and preparing the action to solve the

problem. The next stage is implementing the action in which the researcher carries

out the plan. This stage followed by observing. In the observing stage, the data about

the students’ participation are collected. After the data are collected, the next stage is

reflecting. In this stage, the data are analyzed to find out whether the objective of the

research achieved or not.

13
 14

Next Cycle Planning the Action

- Designing lesson plan

- Creating and compiling including materials
and media
Report Revised - Setting the criteria of success
- Preparing instrument

YES NO Implementing the Action

- Presenting general overview about the

approach, technique and material
selected.
Can the solution solve the
- Teaching material real-time using the MSS
problem?
strategy.
-

Observation
Reflection
- Conducting authentic instrument
- Analyzing the data from the
- Collecting data with checklist, field notes,
students active
questionnaire and interview carried out
participation checklist and
by the researcher and the observers.
comments from observers
-
using observation checlist
- Teaching material real-time using the MSS
- questionnaire and
Figure 2.1 Design
strategy.
interview carried out byofthe
CAR adapted from Kemmis and Mc Taggart (1988)
-
researcher and the
In CAR, the cycle is repeated until the criteria of success is reached. If the criteria of
observers.
-
success are reached in Cycle 1, the researcher does not have to continue the Cycle 2.
- Teaching material real-time
However,
usingifthe
theMSS
criteria of success are not reached in Cycle 1, the researcher needs to
strategy.
-
continue to the next cycle until the criteria of success are reached.

2.2 The Role of the Researcher

The researcher played role as temporary English teacher during the CAR.

Moreover, the classroom teacher became an observer as well as classroom teacher in

which she would be able to do both ‘reflect-in-action’ where she did reflection
 15

during learning process and ‘reflect-on-action’ where she did the reflection after the

lesson better as suggested by Schon (1983). To have valid data, one other

researcher’s partner played role as additional observer since the researcher could not

observe students’ active participation of all the students at the same time due to the

number of the students.

2.3 Research Setting and Research Subject

This study was conducted in SMAN 10 Malang at Jalan Danau Grati no 1

Sawojajar. SMAN 10 Malang was the school where the researcher did her internship.

The researcher taught in XI MIPA 5C3 class and the student in this class were taken

as the subjects of this study. There were 30 students with the proportion of 18 girls

and 12 boys. While doing her internship, the researcher found some problems in XI

MIPA 5C3 class, i.e. lack of ability in speaking performance and students’ low

participation in the class. Of 30 students in the class, 26 students were passive and 4

students were active participants. These four students always participated actively in

the class by asking question, answering question and discussing the topic assigned

by the teacher in a group. The passive students almost never took part in the

classroom activities, especially in speaking. They just kept silent and only answered

the teacher’s question when they were asked to.

2.4 Research Procedure

As stated in figure 2.1, each cycle of the CAR consists of four steps: (1)

planning the action, (2) implementing the action, (3) observing the action, and (4)

reflecting.
 16

2.4.1 Planning

This planning stage consists of three parts, i.e. designing the lesson plan,

setting the criteria of success and preparing instruments.

2.4.1.1 Designing Lesson Plan

The lesson plan is prepared by the researcher in collaboration with the

teacher. It is constructed based on the recent curriculum and divided into 10 parts,

i.e. standard of competence, basic competence, indicator, learning objectives,

material and media, method or technique, teaching and learning activity, assessment,

and source. (See Appendix 2A)

2.4.1.2 Setting the Criteria of Success

The criteria of success were set to determine whether or not the

implementation of MSS strategy was successful. The criteria of success in this study

was emphasized on students’ active participation in speaking activity as follows:

60% of the students comply at least with 4 of 5 indicators with minimum 2

frequencies per indicators of students’ active participation, i.e. students’ answers the

teacher’s or other student question orally, students ask question to the teacher or

other student if she/he does not understand about something, students give her/his

opinion, states her/his suggestion and express his/her feeling orally about something,

students involve in the group activity/discussion, and students supportively responds

to the teacher’s instruction.. Observation in this study classified as success using

scoring rubric which is adapted from Harris (1969).

Table 2.1 Criteria of Success, Data, Source of Data and Instrument

Criteria of Success Data Source of Instrument

Data
 17

1. At least 60% of The students’ Students Observation sheet

the students frequency of
performed at least 4 classroom
of 5 indicators with participation
a minimum of 2
frequencies per
indicator.
2. The frequency of The students’ Students The observation sheet
each indicators frequency in of students’ active
increased classroom participation
participation

2.4.1.3 Preparing Instruments

The researcher used four instruments to collect the data. They are observation

sheet, field notes, interview guide and questionnaire.

2.4.1.3.1 Observation sheet

Observation sheet was used to gather the information dealing with the

teaching and learning process in the class. It was used to record the students’ active

participation during the activity. The researcher used adaptation of the observation

sheet of students’ active participation proposed by Lestari (2014). (See Appendix 3)

2.4.1.3.2 Field Notes

Field notes were taken during the implementation and observation stages to

gather the data which could not be covered by the observation sheet. The data were

important information dealing with the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray

strategy. (See Appendix 4)

2.4.1.3.3 Interview Guide

In order to find out more information needed to implement MSS strategy, a

set of interview was developed as another source of behavioristic data. It was given
 18

to the English teacher to know the teacher response toward the implementation of

MSS strategy. The interview type was in the form of informal conversation which

were characterized as being responsive to individual respondent and dealing with

topics as they arise in the conversation. (See Appendix 5)

2.4.1.3.4 Questionnaire

The questionnaire was used to get data about what the students

experienced during the learning process and how they felt about the Multiple Stay-

Stray strategy. The questionnaire was distributed in the end of the implementation.

The researcher used three closed-ended questions and open-ended questions types.

The close-ended questions are accompanied with four possible answers from which

the students could choose. In open- ended questions the students were required to

state their opinion on what they experienced in the class during the learning process.

(See Appendix 6)

2.4.1.3.5 Video Recorder

The video recorder was used to record the activity during the

implementation of MSS strategy. The video recorder aimed to ensure the reliability

of the observation checklist. The observers took the video of the activity using

camera. The researcher transformed some piece of the video into photographs. (See

Appendix 7)

2.4.2 Implementing

After the planning stage, the researcher continues to implement the action. The

MSS strategy was implemented in one cycle consisting three meetings.

 19

The first meeting was focused on the explanation of the materials and the topic

which is factual report. The second meeting was concerned on introducing the

students with MSS strategy and the implementation of MSS strategy.The third

meeting was concerned on the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy in the

group discussion.

The implementation followed the planning action. Before implementing the

action, the researcher prepared a video recorder to cover the class situation during

the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy. While doing the implementation

of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy, the researcher evaluated the students’ active

participation, the researcher made a field notes to gather the data that could not be

covered in the observation sheet and the recording video during the learning process.

2.4.3 Observing

In observation stages, the researcher collected data about students’ active

participation. The observation of the research was conducted through several

instrument i.e. observation sheet and field notes, interview, questionnaire and video

recording.

The observation sheet was used to see the students’ active participation during

the classroom activity. The researcher collaborated with English teacher and one

researcher’s partner who acted as observer used observation sheet to record the

students’ participation during the implementation of MSS strategy.

The field note was used to collect the data that are not recorded in the

observation sheet. The field note may include subjective impressions of the

researcher.
 20

The researcher used questionnaire to know the students’ experience during

and the students’ opinion towards the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray

strategy. The questionnaire was distributed after the implementation of MSS

strategy. The researcher also used interview guide to know the teacher’s opinion

toward the implementation of MSS strategy.

To ensure the data in observation sheet, the researcher used video recording to

record all the activity during the implementation of MSS strategy.

2.4.4 Reflecting

Reflecting is the final stage in CAR. In this stage researcher analyzed the data

to determine whether or not the MSS strategy can help the students to improve their

active participation in speaking activity.

The data from all the observation instruments were collected, including

observation sheet, field notes, interview, questionnaire and video recording. After

that, the categorizing of the data within each instrument was conducted to see

whether they met the criteria of success or not.

The data from observation sheet would be analyzed based on the frequencies

of each categories. They would be considered as active student if they can performed

at least 4 of 5 categories with minimum 2 frequencies in the observation sheet. Then,

the percentage of the students who participate actively would be as follows:

The number of students who participate actively

𝑥 100%
The total number of students

After analyzing the data from the observation sheet, the researcher then

analyzed the field notes and the video recording to ensure the data found in the

observation sheet. Meanwhile, the commentary data such as questionnaires and

 21

interview guide were sorted to summarize the students and the teacher’s opinion

toward the implementation of MSS strategy.

Then, the researcher compared the data from one instrument to others was

conducted to see whether the data gather the same result or not. The last step is

interpreting the whole data to see whether they answered the problems by relating

them to criteria of success. If the statistical data in the first cycle did not met the

criteria of success, the researcher would revise the solution proposed and went to the

second cycle.
22
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH FINDINGS

This chapter covers the research findings that are related to the students’

active participation and students’ response toward the use of Multiple Stay-Stray

strategy in the learning and teaching activity. The findings were gained from the

observation sheet, questionnaire, and field notes. The observation sheet provided

figure the students active participation based on five categories during the

implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy. Questionnaire contained information

about the students’ response and opinion toward the implementation of Multiple

Stay-Stray strategy and field notes become an additional instrument to record

students’ active participation during the teaching and learning process. The findings

of this study were presented in two parts, i.e. cycle applied: Cycle 1 and Cycle 2.

3.1 Cycle 1

Cycle 1 consisted of planning, implementing, observing and reflecting stages.

In planning stages, the researcher prepared the lesson plan (see appendix 2A),

materials and observation sheet (see Appendix 3A). In this teaching and learning

process, the researcher who acted as a teacher implemented Multiple Stay-Stray as a

strategy to stimulate students’ active participation. The researcher had prepared the

material which were power point presentation, several text of factual report,

vocabulary card and comprehension questions. The observation sheet was used to

collect data about the students’ active participation during the teaching and learning

activity.

The implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy in cycle 1 was conducted

in three meetings which were done on February 8th, 15th and 22nd 2017. The

23
 24

implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy followed by the lesson plan designed

(see Apeendix 2A).

In the observing stages, the researcher collaborated with the class teacher and

was helped by a researcher’s friend who acted as the observer to observe the

students’ active participation during the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray

strategy and recorded the findings on the observation sheet (see Appendix 3A) and

field notes (see Appendix 4A).

3.1.1 Findings on the Students’ Active Participation

The data of the students’ active participation were gained by using an

observation sheet used by the researcher, collaborative teacher and another observer.

There were three data from the observation sheet; the observation sheet done by the

teacher (see Appendix 3B), observation sheet done by the researcher as a practical

teacher (see Appendix 3C) and the observation sheet done by other researcher (see

Appendix 3D). The data were analyzed based on the five categories of the students’

active participation.

Based on the data gained from the observation sheet, the researcher could

identify the students’ active participation during the implementation of the Multiple

Stay-Stray strategy. From the analysis of the students’ active participation, it was

found that there were some students who did not participate in class as seen in Table

3.1 below:

Table 3.1 The Average of Students’ Active Participation in the Implementation

of Multiple Stay-Stray Strategy in the Cycle 1

No Note Categories Total

1 2 3 4 5
1 The number of 24 22 12 10 14 54.6%
students who 80% 73.3% 40% 33.3% 46.67%
meet the criteria
of success
 25

2 The number of 6 8 18 20 16 45.3%

students who 20% 26.67% 60%% 66.67% 53.3%
does not meet
the criteria of
success

Categories:
1. Student answers the teacher’s or other students’ question orally
2. Student asks question to the teacher’s or other students orally
3. Student responds to the teacher’s instruction (verbal and non-verbal)
4. Student gives his/her opinion about something orally
5. Student states his/her suggestion orally

In term of answering the teacher or other students’ question orally, there were

80% students who actively answer the questions. Only few students were answering

the teacher’s question when the teacher conducted question and answer session after

explanation. However, during the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy,

the researcher found that many students are able to answer the question from other

students and the number of students who answers questions during the teaching and

learning process also increased.

In term of asking question to the teacher or other students, there were found

73.3% students who had courage to ask something that they did not understand.

Most students were asking when they had difficulties in understanding their friends

explanation but ironically the researcher found that the students rarely asked to the

teacher when they had difficulties related to the teacher explanation. In term of

responding to the teacher’s instruction, there were found 40% students who

responded to the teacher’s instruction. The researcher found that most of students

had good understanding about the instruction given by the researcher although the

researcher should explain the instruction many times with slower speed of speaking

to make the students clearly understand.

 26

In term of giving opinion, there were 33.3% of the students who had courage

to give and express their opinion. Most of students mostly gave their opinion by

giving comment on their friend’s presentation and expressing their feeling about

their friend’s presentation. The researcher still found that many students still felts

shy to express their opinion and their feeling toward something.

In term of stating suggestion, there were 46.67% of the students who had

courage to state their suggestion about their classmates’s presentation. The

researcher still found most of students felt shy to state their suggestion toward other

group’s presentation. Students who stated their suggestion mostly suggest their

friend to make presentation media more attractive so that the audience will be more

excited to listen the presentation. Some student also suggest their friend to look at

the audience and make an eye contact while present their topic because it will make

the audience feel value.

3.1.2 Findings on the Students’ Response on the Implementation of Multiple

Stay-Stray

In the end of the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray in cycle 1, the

researcher distributed questionnaire to the students on February 22nd 2017. The

questionnaire consisted of 7 activity that the students done during the

implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy. (see Appendix This part aimed to

give a confirmation to the result of the observation sheet. The result of this

questionnaire will be analyzed and categorize according to the categories in the

observation sheet. The students were asked to answer the questionnaire by give a tick

(√) sign in each activity that they already done during the group discussion. From

the result of the questionnaire there were 30 students (100%) did a presentation

during the learning and teaching activity. It because in the Multiple Stay-Stray all
 27

students will have the same chance to do a presentation. The second activity is

asking to the teacher or to other students. There were 23 students (76.67%) asked

question to the teacher or to other students. The third activity is answering question

from teacher or other students. There were 27 students (90%) who answer question

from the teacher or other students.

The fourth activity is giving a suggestion to other students. The result showed

there were 16 students (53.3%) give a suggestion to their friends. The fifth activity is

arrange the flow of the group discussion. There were only 8 students did a role as a

leader to take control of the flow in the group discussion. The sixth activity is just

listen to the presentation. There were 7 students who only listened to their friends’

presentation. The seventh activity is when the students feel bored and did nothing.

There were 1 students who feel bored during the group discussion.

From the result of the questionnaire, it could be concluded that the Multiple

Stay-Stray strategy was interesting and fun strategy to be applied in the teaching and

learning activity especially in-group discussion. It also could improve the students’

active participation. Finally, the students agreed that a creative story game was

useful for them and it was expected to be applied in the next teaching and learning

activity.

3.1.2 Reflection

Based on the result of the analysis in Cycle 1, it is concluded that the study

was not completely successful, as the criteria of success had not been achieved yet.

The implementation of this strategy was considered successful if 60% of the

students fulfilled at least four of the five categories of students’ active participation

in the teaching and learning process with minimum 2 frequencies per categories. The

data obtained from the observation sheet shows that 54.6% students participated
 28

actively in the class in the Cycle 1 (see Table 3.1). By looking at this data, it means

that the percentage did not meet the criteria of success yet.

Based on the result of observation sheet, the researcher and the collaborative

teacher thought that the students could not pass the criteria of success because of

some possibility. The first possibility dealt with the way of the researcher teaching.

From the note of the observer, the researcher spoke too fast and sometimes the

researcher gave unclear instruction that make some miscommunication between

students and the researcher. In the first meeting the researcher had explained the

material and gave the students assignment to make a presentation media. In the next

meeting, the students were not ready yet with the presentation because they had not

made the presentation media. This problem appeared due to their misunderstanding

on the teacher’s instruction. To cope the problem, the researcher asked students to

make the presentation media on that time while the researcher and the teacher

assessed their active participation in-group work while the students make their

presentation media. Another possibility dealt with the material given to be the

subject of presentation in the cycle one. The teacher only gave the students 2

different topic that should be presented by several groups. There were 7 group and

there were 3-4 groups with the same topic. It made the students comprehend the

topic well however it also made the students bored because they learnt the same

things 3-4 times.

Based on those reason, the researcher and the collaborative teacher did some

improvement in cycle 2. First, the researcher had to change the way researcher

delivering the instruction which should be done step by step and not too fast so that

the students can get the instruction clearly. Second, the researcher would give more

additional topics as a presentation material so there will be various material to be

 29

presented in the teaching and learning activity so that the students can explore more

information from their friends.

Considering the result of the observation sheet in the cycle 1, the researcher

also did an informal interview to the students who did not met the criteria yet. The

researcher did this because the researcher wanted to know their personal opinion

about the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy and the weakness of the

implementation. From the interview the researcher can conclude that students who

did not met the criteria of success felt bored during the implementation of MSS

strategy because of there were only two topics to be discussed by 7 groups. The

students said that they already know the topic from another group before and it made

them lazy to participate in the next group with the same topic.

3.2 Cycle Two

The researcher conducted the second cycle because the criteria of success had

not been achieved in the first cycle. The data collection of cycle two was carried out

from February 24th , March 1st and March 3rd. Cycle two consisted of planning,

implementing, observing and reflecting stages. Same as cycle one, in planning stage

the researcher had designed the lesson plan. The researcher also prepared some

material because in cycle two the researcher explained new topic. The researcher had

prepared power point presentation, vocabulary card, several text about hortatory

exposition and comprehension question. The observation sheet was also employed to

know the students’ active participation.

In implementing Multiple Stay-Stray strategy, the researcher who acted as he

practical teacher followed the lesson plan designed (see Appendix 2B). During the

implementation, the researcher, other researcher and the teacher who acted as the

observer filled the observation sheet for observing students’ active participation.
 30

In observing stage, the researcher collaborated with the teacher and other

researcher to observe the improvement of the students’ active participation in

teaching and learning activity. The following is the finding of cycle two which

contain the data collected from the observation sheet (see Appendix 3E, Appendix

3F and Appendix 3G) gathered from the researcher and the observers (the class

teacher and other researcher) and the field notes (see Appendix 4B).

3.2.1 Findings of the Students’ Active Participation

The findings in Cycle 1 did not fulfil the criteria of success, so the researcher

and the collaborative teacher conducted Cycle 2. The data of the students’ active

participation in cycle two were gained from the observation sheet. There were three

data from the observation sheet; the observation sheet done by the teacher (see

Appendix 3B), observation sheet done by the researcher as a practical teacher (see

Appendix 3C) and the observation sheet done by other researcher (see Appendix

3D). The data were analyzed based on the five categories of the students’ active

participation as if in cycle 1. From the analysis of the students’ active participation, it

was found that there were some students who did not participate in class as seen in

Table 3.2 below:

Table 3.2 The Average of Students’ Active Participation in the Implementation

of Multiple Stay-Stray Strategy in the Cycle 2

No Note Categories Total

1 2 3 4 5
1 The number of 28 25 23 21 19 77.3%
students who 93.3% 83.3% 76.6% 70% 63.3%
meet the criteria
of success
2 The number of 2 5 7 9 11 22.7%
students who 6.67% 16.6% 23.3% 30% 36.6%
does not meet
the criteria of
success
Categories:
 31

1. Student answers the teacher’s or other students’ question orally

2. Student asks question to the teacher’s or other students orally
3. Student supportively responds to the teacher’s instruction.
4. Student gives his/her opinion about something orally
5. Student states his/her suggestion orally

In term of answering the teacher or other students’ question orally, there were

found 93.3% students who were actively answer the questions. From the percentage,

we can see that in cycle two the number of students who answer the teacher or other

students’ question increased. The researcher still found only few students were

answering the teacher’s question when the teacher conducted questioning session

after explanation. However, when the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray

strategy, the researcher found that many students are able to answer the question

from other students and the number of students who answer questions during the

teaching and learning process also increased.

In term of asking question to the teacher or other students, there were found

83.3% students who had courage to ask something that they did not understand.

From the percentage, we also can see there is an improvement of the number of

students who wanted to ask question. Most students were asking when they had

difficulties in understanding their friends’ explanation but the researcher still found

that the students rarely ask to the teacher when they had difficulties or problem from

the teacher explanation.

In term of responding to the teacher’s instruction, there were found 76.6%

students who supportively responded to the teacher’s instruction. The researcher

found that most of students had good understanding to the instruction given by the

researcher although the researcher needs to explain the instruction many times with

slower speed of speaking to make the students clearly understood.

 32

In term of giving opinion, there were found 70% students who had courage to

give and express their opinion. Likely, it was also the significant improvement of the

number of students who had courage to state their opinion in group discussion and

presentation session. Most of students were mostly giving their opinion throughout

giving their personal thought based on the topic which presented by their friend if

they have different opinion. Also, students are giving comment on their friend’s

presentation and expressing their feeling about their friend’s presentation.

In term of stating suggestion, there were found 63.3% students who had

courage to state their suggestion to their friend’s presentation. The result also

indicated that the number of students who had courage to give their suggestion.

Students who stated their suggestion mostly suggest alternative way to solve a

problem in the topic presented by their friends. For example, in one group presented

a topic about ‘why we need online transportation’. After the group has been

presented their opinion towards the topic, other students who listen their presentation

give some suggestion such as “maybe we should try to make angkot online so that

we can find angkot easier”. Students also gave suggestion to their friend to make

more attractive presentation media so that the audience will be more excited to listen

the presentation. Some student also suggest their friend to look at the audience and

make an eye contact while present their topic because it will make the audience feel

value.

Based on the observation checklist in the Cycle 2, almost all students

participated actively during the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy. The

total average percentage of cycle 2 also indicated there was improvement in the

students’ active participation in each categories in cycle 2. The improvement could

be seen in figure 3.1 below:

 33

30

25

20

15

10

0
Answer Ask Question Respond Give Opinion Give Suggestion
Question Teacher

Cycle 1 Cycle 2

3.2.2 Reflection

The reflection of cycle two was done similar to the reflection in cycle one.

The reflection was focused on improvement of the students’ active participation in

cycle two by using the result of observation sheet and field notes. The

implementation of this strategy was considered successful if 60% of the students

fulfilled at least four of the five categories of students’ active participation in the

teaching and learning process. The data obtained from the observation sheet in cycle

2 shows that 77.3% students has participated actively in the class and met the criteria

of success (see Table 3.2). Since the strategy had met the criteria of success, the

researcher and the teacher did not need to revise the strategy and continue to the next

cycle.

3.2.3 Findings of Students’ Response

The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part consisted of three

questions which covered the information about the students’ opinion whether or not
 34

the use of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy was important to be applied. There are four

options in every question that the students can choose (close-ended) such as in

question number 1 there were 4 options such as sangat menarik, menarik, biasa, dan

membosankan. In question number two there were 4 options such as sangat suka,

suka, biasa, and membosankan. In question number three there were 4 options also

such as sering, cukup, jarang, and tidak pernah. Also, in the first part of the

questionnaire the students have to state their reason (open-ended). The questionnaire

was distributed after the cycle two had been done. There were 30 students who filled

out the questionnaire.

The first question was about the students’ opinion toward the implementation

of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy in group discussion. The result first question showed

that 15 students (50%) chose the option A which is sangat menarik that indicated

students really interested with the strategy. There were 13 students (43.3%) chose the

option B which is menarik and there were 2 students (6.6%) chose the option C

which is biasa which is indicated that the students not really satisfied with the

implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy.

The second question was about the students’ opinion whether or not the

students like the Multiple Stay-Stray strategy. The result of the second question

showed that 13 students (43.3%) chose the option A which is sangat suka that

indicated the students really like the strategy. There were 14 students (46.6%) chose

the option B which is suka that indicated the students like the strategy. There were 2

students (6.6%) chose the option C which is biasa that indicated the students not

really like the strategy and there were 1 student chose the option D which is

membosankan that indicated the student did not like the strategy.
 35

The third question was about how often the students participated during the

implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy. The result of the third question

showed that 23 students (76.6%) chose the option A which is sering that indicated

the students often participated in the group discussion and there were 7 students

(23.3%) chose option B which is cukup that indicated the students has been

participated enough in the group discussion.

The students also stated their opinion about the implementation of Multiple

Stay-Stray strategy. The students mostly said that the Multiple Stay-Stray strategy is

something new for them and it is very interesting. Multiple Stay-Stray is also a fun

strategy to make students understand the topic better. The students also said that it

because the repetition in the Multiple Stay-Stray that made them listen and speak the

topic several times so it will make the students remember and understand the topic

better. Some students also said Multiple Stay-Stray strategy reduced their nervous

when they presented the topic and the strategy made the students more active in

group discussion and they expected to use this strategy in the next learning and

teaching activity.

The second part of the questionnaire consisted of 7 activity that the students

done during the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy. This part aimed to

give a confirmation to the result of the observation sheet. The result of this

questionnaire will be analyzed and categorize according to the categories in the

observation sheet. The first questions belongs to the fourth category, the second

question belongs to the second category, the third question belongs to the first

category, the fourth question belongs to the fifth category and the fifth question

belongs to the third category. For the sixth and seventh question will not categorized
 36

because, it was only an additional option for students if they did nothing during the

group discussion.

The students need to give a thick (√) sign that indicated activity that they

have done during the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy. The first

activity is students did a presentation based on the topic given. From the result of the

questionnaire there were 30 students (100%) did a presentation during the learning

and teaching activity. It because in the Multiple Stay-Stray all students will have the

same chance to do a presentation. The second activity is asking to the teacher or to

other students. There were 26 students (86.67%) asked question to the teacher or to

other students. The third activity is answering question from teacher or other

students. There were 30 students (100%) who answer question from the teacher or

other students.

The fourth activity is giving a suggestion to other students. The result showed

there were 16 students (53.3%) give a suggestion to their friends. The fifth activity is

arrange the flow of the group discussion. There were only 8 students did a role as a

leader to take control of the flow in the group discussion. The sixth activity is just

listen to the presentation. There were 7 students who only listened to their friends’

presentation. The seventh activity is when the students feel bored and did nothing.

There were 1 students who feel bored during the group discussion.

From the result of the questionnaire in the end of the research, it could be

concluded that the Multiple Stay-Stray strategy was interesting and fun strategy to be

applied in the teaching and learning activity especially in-group discussion. It also

could improve the students’ active participation. Finally, the students agreed that a

creative story game was useful for them and it was expected to be applied in the next

teaching and learning activity.

 37

3.2.4 Findings on the Teacher’s Response

The interview was conducted after the implementation of Multiple Stay-Stray

strategy on Saturday, March 4th 2017. The researcher asked the English teacher

about the implementation of the action. The teacher said that Multiple Stay-Stray

technique is something new for the students and it is a good strategy to be applied in

the teaching and learning activity. The strategy is good because it was combined

with group work and presentation. The strategy is also good because it stimulated the

students active participation in the form of presentation, asking question, answer

question, and giving their opinion in fun ways. The students were enjoyed the

activity and learned something in such a fun way. In the teacher’s opinion, the

students were more active in participating the teaching and learning activity when

this strategy implemented. It was also proven by the result of the observation sheet.

In conclusion, by using Multiple Stay-Stray strategy, the students’ active

participation can be improved. Students enjoyed the lesson and participated actively

in the learning and teaching activity. The research findings showed that there is an

improvement on students’ active participation on speaking. The improvement might

be caused by using the Multiple Stay-Stray strategy in the teaching and learning

process. Thus, Multiple Stay-Stray strategy can solve the problems found in XI

MIPA 5C3 class at SMAN 10 Malang in terms of increasing the students’ active

participation.

3.3 Discussion

This chapter presented the discussion on the findings of the study. Based on

the findings, the use of Multiple Stay-Stray strategy increased the students’

participation during the teaching and learning activity. After analyzing the data on

the implementation of MSS strategy, the researcher found there was improvement on
 38

the students’ active participation. Most of the students (77.3%) could pass the criteria

of success and it was indicated that this strategy was success and did not nedd

another cycle to revise this strategy again.

During the implementation of this strategy, the students were increasingly

active in the learning and teaching process, it might cause by the strategy used. As

Coffey (1997) states some benefits of One Stay Two Stray (modified into Multiple

Stay-Stray) strategy. Some of them are students acquire better understanding of topic

or teaching material because they get information from both his own group and other

groups and the activity makes all students in the groups engage in the discussion. In

addition to that, Lie (2007) also emphasized that the benefit of Two Stay Two Stray

or One Stay Two Stray technique are providing opportunities for students to create

creativity in communicating with their friends, students will become more active, the

tendency of student learning becomes more meaningful and increase the interest and

learning achievement.

There are two stages in the teaching and learning process in applying MSS

strategy. The first stage was group work. The group work was done by the students

during the implementation of MSS strategy. According to Brown (2007:225-226),

there are some advantages of group work to work on English language classroom

such as: (1) group work generates interactive language; (2) group work offers an

embracing affective climate; (3) Group work promotes learner responsibility and

autonomy; and (4) group work is a step toward individualizing instruction. It means

that group work gave many benefits to the students. Likely, there were four benefits

of the group work based on the research finding. First, the group work makes a

communicative and interactive condition in discussion by giving opinion, giving

suggestion, ask questions and answer questions. Second, group work helps the
 39

students to be more cooperative and responsible in doing their task. Third, group

work is a completed listening and speaking activity. Fourth, group work can be

implemented for many students in any learning and teaching activities and any level

of students. Thus, group work helped the students to improve their active

participation because they can contribute a lot when they work in group work.

The second stage was presentation. The students in the third meeting in cycle

1 and the second and third meeting in cycle 2 did the presentation. In this stage, there

were some activities among the students. The students would take part as presenters

and visitors. The presenter presented their topic discussed in group work and the

visitor listened to their presentation. When the students did the presentation session,

they could give comments, give suggestion, ask question and answer some question

given. Therefore, they would participate actively during the presentation.

The students’ active participation from the first meeting of cycle 1 until the

third meeting of cycle 2 was increased. Multiple Stay-Stray strategy that the

researcher implemented in the class could help the students to be more active in

class. Multiple Stay-Stray that combined with group work and presentation could

help the students to increase their participation. Fachurarzy (2011:60-61) classified

the characteristic of students-active are asking questions, expressing ideas, and

questioning other ideas. In this study, the students’ active participation classified into

five categories, i.e. ask question, answer question, respond to the teacher’s

instruction, give opinion and give suggestion.

According to the findings of the students’ active participation from cycle 1

and cycle 2 (see Table 3.1 and 3.2), it shows that the students’ active participation

was increased. In cycle 1, 54.6% of students participated actively in class (see Table

3.1). The implementation of MSS strategy in cycle 1 had not met the criteria of
 40

success yet compared with the criteria of success set by the researcher that the

implementation of this strategy was considered successful if 60% of the students

fulfilled 4 of five categories of students active participation in class. Based on the

result of the findings, the students mostly participate in term of asking question,

answering question and respond to the teacher’s instruction. They rarely stated their

opinion and gave their suggestion.

Based on the informal interview conducted by the researcher to the students

who had not pass the criteria of success it can be concluded that they did not

participate actively in class because of they were bored. There were only 2 different

topics that should be presented by 7 groups. The students said that it was so boring

because they heard the same presentation more than once. Actually, the strength of

Multiple Stay-Stray is the repetition during the implementation. It could make

students better in remembering the material because it was presented more than

once. As Bygate (1996) argues for the value of task repetition. In his study, 11

participants orally retold a video story and then retold the same story 10 weeks later.

After reviewing participants’ comments, he argued that task repetition has a

beneficial impact on performance, with the repeated performance producing more

engagement.

Considering the result of the interview, the researcher then revised the

number of the topic for the cycle 2. There are four different topics that should be

presented by 7 groups in cycle 2. Based on the result of observation sheet, there were

77.3% of the students participated actively in class (see Table 3.2) in cycle 2. The

students became more aware of the researcher’s explanation and more active in

giving their opinion towards the topic. The percentage was increased and it had met

the criteria of success. The increasing of students’ active participation was the effect
 41

of the implementation of MSS strategy with some various topic such as why we need

social media, why online transportation, why people do bullying and why we need

culture exchange, which is the topic, was so interesting for the students. They can

give their opinion and their suggestion a lot in cycle 2. We can see that from the

improvement of the percentage of categories 4 and 5, which are giving pinion and

giving suggestion. Each categories had pass the criteria of success in cycle 2. The

students percentage can be seen in Table 3.2 and the students improvement during

the implementation of MSS strategy in cycle 1 and cycle 2 can be seen from figure

3.3.

Next, the result of the questionnaire and interview distributed in the end of

the cycle confirmed the appropriateness of using MSS strategy to increase the

students’ participation. The result of the questionnaire and interview was analyzed to

get a conclusion about students’ attitude. The questionnaire that had been given to

the students can be seen in Appendix 5A, the teacher’s interview can be seen in

Appendix 5B and the students’ interview can be seen in Appendix 5C. The

researcher found that the students liked the strategy.

They liked the strategy because this strategy was fun and it did not make the

students bored. The strategy also reduced the students’ anxiety in presented the topic.

The strategy also made them have better understanding toward the material because

it explained more than once. The students said that the strategy was a new way to

learn and they hope this strategy can be implemented continually.

In summary, after referring to the discussion above, through the

implementation of MSS strategy the students’ active participation in speaking based

on the five categories was really improved. It means that MSS strategy gave positive

impact toward the students’ active participation in speaking. The students enjoyed
 42

the lesson and participated actively in teaching and learning activity so that the MSS

strategy can be one recommended activity to enhance the students’ active

participation.
 43

REFERENCES

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: a development theory for higher

education. Journal of College Student Development., 40, 518-529.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy (2nd Ed).New York: Pearson Education.

Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A. Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for

Practitioners. New York: Routledge.

Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of Task Repetition: Appraising the Developing Language

of Learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in

Language Teaching (pp.136–146).Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.

Dimyati, Mahfudh. 2011. The Implementation of Kagan Structure: One Stay Two

Stray in Managing Class-Discussion in Speaking Class of grade VII of Junior

High School. Semarang: Unpublished Thesis. State University of Semarang

Fachrurrazy. 2014 Teaching English as a Foreign Language for Teachers in

Indonesia. Malang: State University of Malang Press.

Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J. & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999). The

Effects of Task Repetition on Linguistic Output. Language Learning, 49:

549−581.

Harmer, J. 2010. The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th edition). United

Kingdom: Cambridge

Hughes, R. 2002. Teaching and Researching Speaking. London: Longman.

 44

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom

anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125‐132.

Kagan, Spencer. 2009. Kagan Cooperative Learning. California: Kagan Publishing

Kayi, H. 2006. Teaching Speaking: Activities to Promote Speaking in a Second

Language. Online at http://unr.edu/homepage/hayriyek [accessed on 27

October 2016]

Kemmis, S. &McTaggart, R. 1988. The Action Research Planner (3rd Ed). Victoria:

Deakin University Press.

Latief, M.A. 2012 Research Method on Language Learning: An Introduction.

Malang: UM Press

Lestari, DheaIntan. 2014. Using Two Stay Two Stray Method to Increase the

Speaking Ability in Procedure Text of the First Year Students of SMPN 6

Tambang. Riau: Unpublished Thesis. Riau University

Sari, Dwi Kartika. 2014. Using One-Stay-Two-Stray Technique to Improve the Eight

Graders’ Reading Comprehension Skill in SMP Negeri 5 Malang. Malang:

Unpublished Thesis. State University of Malang

Siti Maziha Mustapha, Nik Suryani Nik Abd. Rahman &Melor Md. Yunus. (2010a).

Perceptions towards classroom participation: a case study of Malaysian

undergraduate students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 7(C), 113-

121.

Surjosuseno, T.T. 2011. The Effect One Stray the Rest Stay and Lockstep Technique

on the Enhancement of Student’ Reading Achievement. Canaplin Journal,

(Online) (http://ejournal.upi.edu), retrieved on October 6th 2016

 45

Tatar, S. (2005b). Why keep silent? The classroom participation experiences of non-

native-English-speaking students. Language and Intercultural Communication.

5(3&4), 284-293.

Zhang, Y. 2010. Cooperative Language Learning and Foreign Language Learning

and Teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.

88-83.
 46

Table of Contents
CHAPTER I................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the Study.......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Problem .................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 6