CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section explains the procedure used to gather information about the
speaking skills of English Club members and non-member students. This
methodology describes the research process, including the research approach and
design, data source, data collection technique, data analysis, research sites and
participants, and research schedules.

A. Research Approach and Design

This study uses a quantitative research approach. Creswell (2008) declares
that quantitative research is a method for testing objective theories. Through
analyzing the relationship between variables so that numbered data may be
analyzed using statistical techniques, variables can be measured, often using
instruments. Creswell (2018) explained that in an experimental design, one or more
variables are purposely changed to assess how the change affects one or more
desired outcomes. This study investigates if the English Club program may enhance
students' speaking skills.
This research uses a quasi-experimental study with a pre-test, post-test, and
non-equivalent group design. "Quasi-experimental aims to establish a cause-and-
effect relationship between an independent and dependent variable," says Thomas
(2022). Additionally, Creswell (2018) adds to the assumption that although the
investigator utilizes control and experimental groups in quasi-experiments, the
design may not randomly assign subjects to groups entirely or in part. It is
appropriate for the methodology used in this inquiry.
Furthermore, this study uses a pre-test-post-test non-equivalent group
design. Jhangiani, Chiang, Cuttler, and Leighton (2023: 8.3.1) describe the
explanation. "In the pre-test-post-test non-equivalent group design, there is a
treatment group that gives a pre-test, receives treatment, and then is given a post-
test. However, at the same time, a non-equivalent control group gives a pre-test,

39
does not receive the treatment, and then is given a post-test. The question, then, is
not simply whether participants who receive the treatment improve, but whether
they improve more than participants who do not". The researcher uses this
hypothesis to prove that the English club program improves students' speaking
skills, as follows:

Table 3.1: The Research Design

Subjects Pre-test Treatment Post-test
Treatment Group R1 X R2
Control Group R3 - R4

R1: Pre-test for treatment class

R2: Post-test for treatment class
R3: Pre-test for control class
R4: Post-test for control class
X: Treatment by using English Club Program for treatment class
(Modified from: Campbell and Stanley, 1963)

40
 Figure 3.2 Schema of Research Design

Figure 3.2 shows the method’s interrelationships with the collection of the
results of this study.

B. Data Source
The data sources for this study were the pre-test and post-test results of the
SMP Triyasa Bandung participants. It is used to identify students' initial capabilities
through their speaking abilities to answer the first research question. After that, a
researcher conducts a post-test to assess the results of their speaking ability data in
both the treatment and control groups to answer the second research question.

C. Data Collection Technique

1. Test
In this research, the researcher collects the data by using speaking tests as
the research instrument. The test is used to know the impact of English Club
Program on students’ speaking skill at eight-grade students of SMP Triyasa. Thus,

41
in line with Tavakoli (2012), a test assesses ability, knowledge, or performance. It
indicates that the test can examine the growth of people's talents through a process
to view the achievement outcomes with value. The test is in the form of a speaking
practice, and it is organised according to the content and themes that the researcher
provided.
The test that is used in this research is divided into two sections, a pre-test,
and a post-test. The researcher gives the pre-test to the students at the beginning of
their attendance in courses VIII D and treatment group to determine the students'
prior level of speaking ability. While the researcher gives a treatment to the
treatment class, they will then give the group a post-test.
1. Pre-test
The pre-test uses a speaking test to answer the first research question that
analyzes the class control and treatment with their speaking skills. The material
taken from English Book class 8 (curriculum merdeka). These practice tests'
essence is their construction, application, evaluation, and achieved results.
Pre-test using a constructive test with the following procedures:
a. Give students a topic regarding "Opinions about Movies".
b. Tell students about the sentence structure for expressing an opinion:

English Book class 8, 2017: p.345

Figure 3.3 Sentence structure to express opinion.

c. Words that must be used in conversation are:

- I likes

- I agree/I don't see it this way

42
 - In my opinion/Personally, I think

- Because

d. Give students examples of conversations about expressing an opinion:

English Book class 8, 2017: p.345

Figure 3.4 Example of Expressing Opinion

English Book class 11, 2017: p.20

Figure 3.5 Example of Expressing Opinion

e. Ask students to choose a friend as a partner and make a conversation

dialogue text (minimum five lines each for questions and answers).

f. Ask students to perform and describe the result of the text they made in
pairs.

g. Researcher and the teacher become raters for this oral test.

43
 h. The raters’ analyses of the students’ speaking performance using the
rubric from Harris (1969).

2. Post-test

After giving the treatment to the treatment class, the researcher gives the
post-test to the treatment and control classes. The post-test uses a speaking test
to answer the second research question, analyzing the class control and
treatment with their speaking skills. These practice tests' essence is their
construction, application, evaluation, and achieved results.

Post-test using a constructive test with the following procedures:

a. Give students a topic regarding "Someone I am proud of/ A person I

admire."

b. Tell students about the sentence structure of using adjectives on

descriptive text:

Figure 3.6 Sentence structure to describe people.

(Schell, 2011:5)

44
 Figure 3.7 Sentence structure to describe people.

(Schell, 2011:6)

c. Words that must be used in the text are:

- Greetings' (good morning, good day, good afternoon).

- On this occasion, I will tell you about

- The reason for choosing this person is because

d. Give students examples of descriptive text:

Figure 3.8 Example of Descriptive Text

Namjoon (2018)

45
 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

Figure 3.9 Example of Descriptive Text

(Gershon, 2015:14)

Picture 3.10 Example of Descriptive Text

(Gershon,2015:16)

e. Ask students to make a descriptive text through the topic (minimum

100 words).

46
 f. Ask students to perform the result of the text they made.

g. The researcher and the teacher become raters for this oral test.

h. The raters’ analyses of the students’ speaking performance using the

rubric from Harris (1969).

D. Data Analysis Technique

The process of data analysis consists of two stages. First, the researcher
conducted the pre-test and post-test, assessed using the Harris (1969) score system
test as a guide, and then analyzed the data based on those tests. A T-test is used to
analyze the results of both the pre-test and the post-test. The data will first be
analyzed using the normality and homogeneity test before applying the T-test.

1. Assessing Speaking Skill

Using the Harris score system test as a guide, the researcher assesses the
five categories below:

Student Rater Date Score:

Table 3.2 Oral-English Rating Pronunciation Sheet

a. Pronunciation
Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 5 Has few traces of a foreign accent.

Very Good 4 Always intelligible, though one is conscious

of a definite accent.

Good 3 Pronunciation problems necessitate

concentrated listening and occasionally lead
to misunderstanding.
Average 2 Very hard to understand because of
pronunciation problems. Must frequently be
asked to repeat.

47
Classification Score Criteria

Poor 1 Pronunciation problems are so severe as to

make speech virtually unintelligible.

(Harris, 1969:83-85)

Table 3.3 Oral-English Rating Grammar Sheet

b. Grammar
Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 5 Make a few noticeable errors in grammar or

word order.

Very Good 4 Occasionally makes grammatical or word

order errors that do not, however, obscure
meaning.
Good 3 Makes frequent errors of grammar and word
order that occasionally obscure meaning.

Average 2 Grammar and word order error make.

comprehension difficult. It is often rephrasing
a sentence or restricting to basic patterns.
Poor 1 Errors in grammar and word order are so
severe as to make speech virtually
unintelligible.

(Harris, 1969:83-85)

Table 3.4 Oral-English Rating Vocabulary Sheet

c. Vocabulary
Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 5 Using vocabulary and idioms is virtually that

of a native speaker.

Very Good 4 Sometimes, use inappropriate terms and must

rephrase ideas because of lexical
inadequacies.

48
Classification Score Criteria

Good 3 Frequently uses the wrong words,

conversations somewhat limited because of
inadequate vocabulary.

Average 2 Misuse of words and limited vocabulary make

comprehension quite complicated.

Poor 1 Vocabulary limitations are so extreme as to

make conservation virtually impossible.

(Harris, 1969:83-85)

Table 3.5 Oral-English Rating Fluency Sheet

d. Fluency
Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 5 Speech is as fluent and effort as that of a

native speaker.

Very Good 4 Speech seems to be snidely affected by

language problems.

Good 3 Speed and fluency are rather than strongly

affected by language problems.

Average 2 Usually often forced into silence by language

limitations.

Poor 1 Speech is as halting and fragmented as to

make conversation virtually impossible.

(Harris, 1969:83-85)

49
 Table 3.6 Oral-English Rating Comprehension Sheet

e. Comprehension
Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 5 Appear to understand everything without

difficulty.

Very Good 4 Understands nearly everything at natural

speed, although occasional repetition is
maybe necessary.
Good 3 Understands most of what has been said at a
slower-than-normal speed with repetitions.

Average 2 Have great difficulty following what is said.

Can comprehend only "social conversation"
spoken slowly and with frequent repetitions.
Poor 1 Not to be said to understand even simple
conversational English.

(Harris, 1969:83-85)

Harris (1969) developed a scoring system displayed in the table. It contains

five different criteria for assessing speaking ability. It includes the individual's
pronunciation, grammatical constructions, vocabulary, fluency, and
comprehension. Five is the highest possible score for each of the criteria. On the
other hand, one is the lowest possible score.
The researcher will conduct the speaking test, one English teacher and one
English club instructor. It follows the procedures to analyze the data:

1) R: 𝑆 𝑥 100 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒

𝑁

Mention:

R: The participants speaking grade

S: The sum of the student's speaking points

N: The highest possible score

50
 2. Statistical Data Analysis

The researcher evaluates the results of both the control group and the
treatment group by comparing and analyzing the data. The purpose of this analysis
is to assess whether there is a statistically significant difference in the scores of
students who were placed in the treatment group against those who were placed
in the control group. The analysis of the data took place through four stages.
Normality, homogeneity, the hypothesis, and T-test all contributed to the
formation of this outcome.
The researcher used SPSS version 25 for data analysis. The program known
as SPSS, which stands for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, is a widely
utilised software application designed to facilitate the execution of complex
statistical analyses. During the data analysis process, the researcher executed
several steps. The following items are as follows:

a. Normality Test
The normality test is a test that is done to evaluate whether a group of data
comes from a population with a normal distribution or shapes normal curves. It
can be determined by looking at whether the data shapes normal curves. Before
computing the T-test, the researcher used the normality test to ensure that the data
were consistent. To determine whether the data are distributed normally, a
normality test is performed on them. Normality tests can be carried out in a variety
of different ways, including the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Liliefors, and Chi-Square
methods.
Flowers (2009) proposes the following guidelines for formulating a valid
hypothesis:
1. The null hypothesis (H0) states that if the significance score is more
significant than 0.05, then the data can be considered to follow a normal
distribution.
2. Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) states that a significant score below 0.05

51
 indicates that the data does not follow a normal distribution.

b. Homogeneity Test
Homogeneity test demonstrates that the differences observed in parametric
statistical tests (such as the T Test and ANOVA) are due to differences between
groups, not because of differences within groups. Rosmiati's (2019) decision-
making basis in the Homogeneity test:
• If the value is significant or Sig. <0.05, then the variance of two or more
data population categories is not identical (heterogeneous).
• If Sig.>0.05, then the variance of two or more data population groups is
identical (homogeneous).

c. ANOVA Test
Sawyer (2009) described that ANOVA, or analysis of variance, is a
statistical test used to identify variations in group averages when there is a single
parametric dependent variable and one or more independent variables. Before
carrying out the test, the researcher will explain the ANOVA test criteria as below:
- Sig value. (P Value) < 0.05 means there is a significant difference between
the two groups.
- Real Value. (P Value) > 0.05 means there is no significant difference
between the two groups.

d. T-Test
Researchers analyzed the data using the independent sample t-test. This test,
as defined by Nuryadi, Astuti, Utami, and Budiantara (2017), is used to ascertain
the difference between the means of two independent populations/data sets. In the
opinion of Nuryadi et al. (2017), the requirements for an independent T-test are as
follows:
1. The data must be normally distributed.
2. The two data categories are independent.

52
 3. The linked variables are quantitative and categorical (with only two
categories).

The decision criteria for the sample T-test are as follows:

• If the 2-tailed significance value is higher than 0.05, H0 is accepted, and Ha

is rejected. It indicates no difference in the mean between the treatment and
control classes.
• If the 2-tailed significance value is less than 0.05, H0 is rejected, and Ha is
accepted. It indicates a difference between the treatment and control classes'
means.

E. Research Site and Participants

The location of this research is SMP Triyasa Bandung. The researcher

picked this institution for several reasons. First, this institution serves as a location
for the writer working in fields where the distances are reachable. A researcher
discovered issues with under-motivated students' and a lack of enthusiasm in
English during the fieldwork class. However, it motivates the author to develop
strategies to pique students' interest. Third, after the observation, the English Club
facility was finally available at this school. It indicates that the English Club was
established to solve the students' difficulties in learning English. The English Club
was selected as a variable since the offered curriculum enhances students' speaking
abilities. It is relevant to the study since the researcher attempts to investigate the
students' speaking skills.

Members of the English Club at SMP Triyasa and students in one eighth-
grade class are participants in this study. It consists of around twenty-nine to thirty
students in one class. Sixty-three are English Club members. There were six classes
at level eight, but the investigator only selected one. Thus, the researcher only
selected twenty-nine members of English Club. Students in grade eight were chosen
as participants since they were neither final graders who had very little time to
attend extracurriculars nor new students who incidentally were not interested in

53
participating. The researcher chose the eighth class because it should be simple to
evaluate during the data collection process. Therefore, this research focuses on
exploring the problems students face when developing their speaking skills.

F. Research Schedule

To gather data at each meeting, the researcher designed a research schedule.

Creating this research schedule aims to make the research process more efficient.
The following is the research schedule:

Table 3.7 The Research Schedule of Collecting Data Process

Meetings Day/Date Activities

1st August 23rd, 2023 Collecting an approval letter

2nd August 25th, 2023 Pre-test experimental and control

group

3rd August 26th, 2023 Giving treatment 1

4th September 2nd, 2023 Giving treatment 2

5th September 9th, 2023 Giving treatment 3

6th September 16th, 2023 Giving treatment 4

Giving treatment 5
7th September 30rd, 2023

Post-test control group

8th October 06th, 2023

Post-test experimental group

9th October 07th, 2023

54
 Based on the chart above, the researcher meets with participants eight times
to gather data for the study. At the first meeting, a researcher obtained permission
to conduct this research at the SMP Triyasa. At the second meeting, the researcher
administers a pre-test to students in the treatment and control classes after receiving
approval from the principal and the teacher. In the third, fourth, and fifth meetings,
the researcher will execute the first through third treatments about the appropriate
material. Therefore, the researcher administers a post-test as the last step before
beginning the research process and data analysis.

55