The Comparative Study in Teaching Speaking Through Story Telling
and Discussion
Eka Agustina
STKIP of Nurul Huda Sukaraja OKU Timur Sumatera Selatan
Keywords: Teaching, Speaking, Discussion and Storytelling.
Abstract: The aim of the present research was to find out is there any significant difference in speaking achievement
between the students taught by using discussion and those are taught by using story telling. Experimental
method was used to conduct this research. The result of data analysis showed that the implementation of
discussion is more effective to use in teaching speaking than story telling. It is proved that there was any
significant different score between post-test of discussion and post-test of storytelling in both of
experimental class. The average score of discussion in first experimental class was 20.80 and than the
average score of storytelling in the second experimental class was 17.89. In addition, the value of t-obtained
was 7.10, while the value of t-table in level of significance 5% (df 64) was 2.00. Based on the findings
above, it could be concluded that the use of discussion method in teaching speaking enable the students to
get better score and motivation on learning speaking. It means that the use of discussion in teaching
speaking could improve the students’ mastery in speaking.
1 INTRODUCTION
In learning English, there are four skills which must
be mastered for the English learner. They are
listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Among
them speaking is the most important skill.
Speaking is expressing ideas, taught and felling
in oral language. Good speaking ability is eventually
supported by language components such as
vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. To
improve speaking ability is supported by the mastery
above. So, if the speaker lacks of knowledge for that
mastery it make speaker faces many problems in
their communication. Beside that many teachers who
teach speaking often does not know the method in
teaching speaking. And then the student also lack of
confident to speak because they are afraid to make
mistake. It is the job of English teacher to use some
methods in teaching speaking skill which make the
students interested and motivated to speak in the
classroom activity.
There are many kinds of methods that can be
used by English teachers when they teach speaking.
Those methods are discussion, conversation, drama,
dialogue pairs, and story telling. Each of those
methods has each weakness and strangeness.
Discussion method is one of teaching speaking
method when the English students want to deliver
their opinion or question to respond about some
problem. This method also builds students’ thinking
to think about the solution of the problem. The other
method is story telling. If in the discussion method,
the students must deliver their opinion, so they must
have a good knowledge. While, in this method
students must has a good competence in acting, it
means that the story teller try to make their voice
almost the same with characteristics in that story.
Based on the researcher observation in SMK
Negeri I Buay Pemuka Bangsa Raja, English teacher
have used conversation method in teaching speaking
skill. They asked to the student to practice some
dialogues which available in their handout book or
that have been prepared by them. The English
teachers also practiced some expressions in their
material, for example some expressions which used
in thanking. The teacher read that expressions and
followed by all the students.
2 TEORITICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Concept of speaking
Setiyadi (2006) states that listening and speaking
come first, and reading and writing come later. This
622
Agustina, E.
The Comparative Study in Teaching Speaking Through Stor y Telling and Discussion.
DOI: 10.5220/0007172106220627
In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference
on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017) - Literacy, Culture, and Technology in Language Pedagogy and Use, pages 622-627
ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

assumption seems to be inspired by the process of a
child who learns his/her mother tongue. According
to Siahaan (2008), speaking is a productive language
skill. It is a mental process. This means that it is a
psychological process by which a speaker puts a
mental concept into some linguistics form, such as
word, phrases, and sentences used to convey a
message to a listener. Pollard (2008) states that
speaking is one of the most difficult aspects for
students to master. This is hardly surprising when
one considers everything that is involved when
speaking: ideas, what to say, language, how to use
grammar and vocabulary, pronunciation as well as
listening to and reacting to the person
communicating with.
So, based on the theory above the writer can
conclude, speaking means that the second process of
language learning where used to convey the message
orally into linguistics form such as word, utterances,
phrases, and sentences to the listener.
According to Artanti (2009) there are several
factors which can influence ability in using English
language they are: vocabulary, pronounciation,
listening, grammar, and braving in using English
language.
2.2 Concept of Teaching Speaking
There are two key elements to remember when
planning and setting up speaking activities, which
are language use and preparation.
2.3 Concept of Discussion
Discussion is one of formal activity in speaking.
Because, the theme that we talk focus to the material
(Solahudin, 2008, p.92)
According to Baker (2005, p.84), discussion
involves several elements of democratic. Discussion
also different with talk, because in discussion the
students given free chance to develop their idea.
2.4 The Concept of Story Telling
According to Hill (2008, p.105), story-telling is
completely different from reading aloud. There are
no pictures or text to focus on, props such as puppets
or a toy may make a brief appearance, but just as it
was in times gone by, the art is the telling.
Storytelling is a task shared by storyteller and
story listeners,- it is the interaction of the two that
makes a story come to life.
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research used quasi-experimental study.
According to Cohen (2005, p. 214) quasi
experimental study is compromise design, an apt
description when applied to much educational
research where the random selection or random
assignment of schools of classroom is quite
impracticable. In this design there are two
experimental groups which both of them gave pre-
test and post-test design. Those of group also
received treatments. The sample of this research are
administration class of SMK Negeri 1 Buay Pemuka
Bangsa Raja. Each of class consists of 33 students.
Sample taken by using cluster random sample.
In collecting data, researcher used test. In this
research there were two tests, which are: pre-test and
post-test. As in analyzing the data, researcher used
the following formula:
 
 
1
1
2
2



 
n
D
n
D
SD
(1)
1
1
1
1


N
SD
SE
m
(2)
2
2
1
2
21
MM
MM
SESESE 

(3)
21
21
MM
SE
MM
t



(Sudijono, 2008:305)
(4)
Where:
SD
:
standard deviation
D
:
Differences
N
:
the number of the students
SEM1
:
standard error for the first
experimental class
SEM1-M2
:
standard error for the first and
second experimental class
T
:
t-obtained (Fraenkel, Wallen and
Hyun, 1993)
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 The Students’ Score in the Pre-test
and Post-test in the First
Experimental Class through
Discussion
In the first experimental through discussion method,
the average of pre-test in discussion method was
18.62, and post-test score’s was 20.80. The total
score of the pre-test of discussion was 614.5 while in
post-test was 686.5 (see table 1).
The Comparative Study in Teaching Speaking Through Story Telling and Discussion
623

Table 1: The students’ score of pre-test and post-test in the first experimental class through discussion method.
NO
Students’
Initial Name
Post-test in the first
experimental class (x
1
)
Pre-test in the first
experimental class (x
2
)
Differences
(D) (x
1
-x
2
)
Differences squared
(D
2
) (x
1
-x
2
)
2
1.
ARN
19.5
14
5.5
30.25
2.
AA
15
15
0
0
3.
AM
14.5
14.5
0
0
4.
DV
23.5
20
3.5
12.25
5.
DLA
18
18
0
0
6.
DKS
17.5
12.5
5
25
7.
EO
19
18
1
1
8.
EMS
23
21.5
1.5
2.25
9.
EOY
15.5
15.5
0
0
10.
HS
23.5
20
3.5
12.25
11.
IYM
25
21
4
16
12.
LF
24
20
4
16
13.
LSR
20.5
20
0.5
0.25
14.
MS
15.5
14.5
1
1
15.
MT
18
12
6
36
16.
MR
23.5
22
1.5
2.25
17.
MA
17.5
17.5
0
0
18.
MH
23
23
0
0
19.
NW
25
20.5
4.5
20.25
20.
NK
15.5
15.5
0
0
21.
NA
22.5
22.5
0
0
22.
NQ
25
22.5
2.5
6.25
23.
PJ
24.5
21.5
3
9
24.
RS
25
22.5
2.5
6.25
25.
RA
24
20
4
16
26.
RO
24
20.5
3.5
12.25
27.
SA
20.5
19
1.5
2.25
28.
SF
25
21.5
3.5
12.5
29.
SM
24
20.5
3.5
12.25
30.
SH
25
23
2
4
31.
VDA
20
18
2
4
32.
YN
15
14.5
0.5
0.25
33.
YW
18
14
4
16
∑ =686.5
∑ =614.5
∑=74
∑=275.5
Total (∑x)
1301
Mean (M
1
)
19.71
From table 1, the standard deviation of the
students in the first experimental class (SD1) was
calculated by using the following formula.
 
 
1
1
2
2



 
n
D
n
D
SD
 
 
133
74
33
1
5.275
2



  
32
547603.05.275 

32
28.1645.275 

475.3
86.1
From the calculation of SD
1,
the researcher got
the standard deviation of the students’ score in the
first experimental class was 1.86. So, it would be
found the mean of the standard error (SE
M1
) by using
the following formula.
1
1
1
1


N
SD
SE
m
133
86.1


32
86.1

32.0
4.2 The Students’ Score in the Pre-test
and Post-test in the Second
Experimental Class through Story
Telling
The average of pre-test in story telling method was
16.19, and in post test score was 17.98. The total
score of the pre-test of story telling was 534.5 while
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
624

in post-test was 593.5. The table below will give detail information about that score (see table 2).
Table 2: The students’ score of pre-test and post-test in the second experimental class through story telling method.
No
Students’
Initial Name
Post-test in the first
experimental class (y
2
)
Post-test in the first
experimental class (y
1
)
Differences
(D) (y
2
-y
1
)
Differences squared
(D
2
) (y
2
-y
1
)
2
1.
ATW
14
13.5
0.5
0.25
2.
AS
15.5
13.5
2
4
3.
AFD
14.5
13
1.5
2.25
4.
DSF
20.5
17.5
3
9
5.
DA
17.5
16
1.5
2.25
6.
EEP
12
12
0
0
7.
FM
17.5
15.5
2
4
8.
FY
20.5
19.5
1
1
9.
HMK
14.5
14
0.5
0.25
10.
HR
20
18
2
4
11.
IRW
20.5
18
2.5
6.25
12.
LL
20
18
2
4
13.
MGLSA
20
19.5
0.5
0.25
14.
ME
14
14
0
0
15.
MA
12.5
11
1.5
2.25
16.
NL
21.5
19.5
2
4
17.
NV
17.5
12.5
5
25
18.
OK
22.5
19
3.5
12.25
19.
PR
20
17.5
2.5
6.25
20.
PAH
15
14
1
1
21.
PH
22
22
0
0
22.
RP
22
18
4
16
23.
RA
21.5
18.5
3
9
24.
RW
22
19
3
9
25.
SR
20
18.5
1.5
2.25
26.
SL
20.5
19.5
1
1
27.
SAS
17.5
16
1.5
2.25
28.
SNS
17.5
17
0.5
0.25
29.
TMP
18
16
2
4
30.
WL
18
17
1
1
31.
YPS
16
12.5
3.5
12.25
32.
YES
14.5
12.5
2
4
33.
YP
14
12.5
1.5
2.25
593.5
534.5
59
151.5
Total
1127.5
Mean
17.08
To know the standard deviation of the students’
score in the second experimental class.
 
 
1
1
2
2



 
n
D
n
D
SD
 
 
133
59
33
1
5.151
2



  
32
348103.05.151 

32
43.1045.151 

426363.1
19.1
While in the second calculation
,
the researcher
got the standard deviation of the students’ score in
the second experimental class was 1.19. So, it would
be found the mean of the standard error (SE
M1
) by
using the following formula.
1
1
1
1


N
SD
SE
M
133
19.1


32
19.1

65.5
19.1

21.0
The Comparative Study in Teaching Speaking Through Story Telling and Discussion
625

4.3 Data Analysis of Matched t-test
Formula Between The Students’
Score in the First Experimental and
The Students’ Score in Second
Experimental Class
Based on the students’ score in the pre-test and the
post-test those of method above, the researcher
calculated the matched t-test to find out there was
any significant difference in speaking achievement
between the students taught by using discussion and
those are taught by using story telling to the eleventh
grade student of SMK Negeri 1 Buay Pemuka
Bangsa Raja (see table 3).
Table 3: The result of pre-test and post test in the first experimental class through discussion and the result of
pre-test and post-test in the second experimental class through story telling method.
NO
Students’ Code
Post-test (D)
Pre-test (D)
Students’ Code
Post Test (S)
Pre-test (S)
1.
ARN
19.5
14
ATW
14
13.5
2.
AA
15
15
AS
15.5
13.5
3.
AM
14.5
14.5
AFD
14.5
13
4.
DV
23.5
20
DSF
20.5
17.5
5.
DLA
18
18
DA
17.5
16
6.
DKS
17.5
12.5
EEP
12
12
7.
EO
19
18
FM
17.5
15.5
8.
EMS
23
21.5
FY
20.5
19.5
9.
EOY
15.5
15.5
HMK
14.5
14
10.
HS
23.5
20
HR
20
18
11.
IYM
25
21
IRW
20.5
18
12.
LF
24
20
LL
20
18
13.
LSR
20.5
20
MGLSA
20
19.5
14.
MS
15.5
14.5
ME
14
14
15.
MT
18
12
MA
12.5
11
16.
MR
23.5
22
NL
21.5
19.5
17.
MA
17.5
17.5
NV
17.5
12.5
18.
MH
23
23
OK
22.5
19
19.
NW
25
20.5
PR
20
17.5
20.
NK
15.5
15.5
PAH
15
14
21.
NA
22.5
22.5
PH
22
22
22.
NQ
25
22.5
RP
22
18
23.
PJ
24.5
21.5
RA
21.5
18.5
24.
RS
25
22.5
RW
22
19
25.
RA
24
20
SR
20
18.5
26.
RO
24
20.5
SL
20.5
19.5
27.
SA
20.5
19
SAS
17.5
16
28.
SF
25
21.5
SNS
17.5
17
29.
SM
24
20.5
TMP
18
16
30.
SH
25
23
WL
18
17
31.
VDA
20
18
YPS
16
12.5
32.
YN
15
14.5
YES
14.5
12.5
33.
YW
18
14
YP
14
12.5
Total
∑ =686.5
∑ =614.5
593.5
534.5
Mean
20.80
18.62
17.98
16.19
M
1
19.71
M
2
17.08
Table 3 shows that by using the students’ score
that they got from the pre-test and post-test both of
method, the researcher found that the result of the
matched t-test of discussion in experimental class
and story telling in experimental class was 7.10. The
value of t-table for df = 66 in level of significance 5
% is 2.00. So it could be concluded than t
o
more than
t
t
(t
o
> t
t
) ; 7.10>2.0, it means that there was a
difference between the students’ average score of
discussion score in first experimental class and
students’ average score of story-telling in second
experimental class.
To calculate the standard error was obtained by
using the following formula.
2
2
1
2
21
MM
MM
SESESE 

   
22
21.032.0 
04.010.0 
14.0
37.0
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
626

To calculated the t-obtained the researcher use
the following formula.
21
21
MM
SE
MM
t



37.0
08.1771.19 

37.0
08.1771.19 

37.0
63.2

10.7
Based on the result of the investigation, it was
found that the students’ average score in the first
experimental class through discussion method. In the
pre-test of discussion were 18.62 the highest was 23
reached by two students while the lowest score was
12 reached by one student. And post test score was
20.80 the highest score was 25 reached by five
students. And then, the lowest score was 14.5
reached by one student.
Beside the average score of second experimental
class through story telling. In the pre-test of story
telling were 16.19 the highest score was 22 reached
by one student. And post test score was 17.98 the
highest score was 22.5 reached by one student.
While, the lowest score was 12 reached by one
student.
In addition, the researcher got 7.10 as t obtained.
While, the value of t-table for df = 64 in level of
significance 5 % is 2.00. So it could be concluded
than t
o
more than t
t
(t
o
> t
t
) ; 7.10>2.00, it means that
there was significant difference speaking
achievement between the students’ taught by using
discussion and those are taught by using story telling
method.
5 CONCLUSION
Calculation above showed that the students’ average
score in the first experimental class through
discussion higher than the students’ average score in
second experimental class. It means that discussion
method was more effective applied in teaching
speaking than story telling especially to the eleventh
grade students of SMK Negeri I Buay Pemuka
Bangsa Raja.
REFERENCES
Artanti, N.R., 2009. Ngomong Inggris gak pake mikir.
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Widyatama
Baker, E., 2005. Teknik mengajar secara sistematis.
Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta
Cohen, L., 2005. Research method and education. New
York, NY: London and New York.
Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E. and Hyun, H.H., 1993. How
to design and evaluate research in education (Vol.
7). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hill, S., 2008. Developing early literacy: assessment and
teaching. Australia: Eleanor Curtain
Pollard’s, L., 2008. Guide to teaching English.
Setiyadi, B., 2006. Teaching English as a Foreign
Language. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu
Siahaan. S., 2008. Issues in Linguistics. YogYakarta:
Graha Ilmu
Sudijono, A., 2008. Pengantar Statistika Pendidikan.
Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada
Solahudin, M., 2008. Kiat-kiat Praktis Belajar Speaking.
Jogjakarta:Diva Press.
The Comparative Study in Teaching Speaking Through Story Telling and Discussion
627