Combining Think-pair-share and Role-play Techniques

for Improving English Speaking Skill

Budiarto

, Yumna Rasyid

, Ninuk Lustyantie

Sekolah Tinggi Bahasa Asing IEC Jakarta, Indonesia

Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia

Keywords: Improving Speaking Skill, Role-Play, Think-Pair-Share, Communicative, Cooperative

Abstract: Teaching English communicatively is highly required, especially in order to increase speaking skill.

However, communicative approach itself is not sufficient if students cannot maximize their learning through

cooperative approach. Therefore, in teaching speaking, the lecturer may apply combined techniques from

the two approaches. Think-pair-share (TPS) and Role-play (RP) were two tehniques implemented to teach

speaking skill at STIBA IEC Jakarta. Based on the previous classroom observation, the students practiced

speaking through RP and had to prepare their script through TPS. RP technique was able to run smoothly

when the students did implement communicative approach through TPS properly. However, the techniques

needed improvement and adaptation to suit the students’ needs. The action research made use of qualitative

method and quantitative method to see the implementation of the techniques and to analyze the students’

progress. At the end of the research, the results indicated that the students scores improved significantly and

they were much better than the previous semester. It can be concluded that RP and TPS are combined

techniques that can increase English speaking skill, provided that the techniques are applied properly.

1 INTRODUCTION

Students majoring in English literaturemay have

problems with speaking skill when they do not use

learning strategies or approaches correctly. For

example, some students at Sekolah Tinggi Bahasa

Asing IEC, Jakarta were not able to increase their

speaking skill because they did not use the right

combination of communicative and cooperative

strategies. It is true that teaching speaking skill

through communicative approach is essential, but it

may fail when students do not apply cooperative

learning strategy. Based on the observation at a

language school in Jakarta, some English Literature

at Sekolah Tinggi Bahasa Asing (STIBA) IEC

Jakarta students taking Speaking 2 did not show

significant progress because activities in the

classroom did not encourage the students to care

when others find difficulties with language

practices.For example, there were around 10 minutes

allocated to complete some practices related to a

topic in RP(role-play), but some students finished

earlier without paying attention to their classmates.

Instead of interacting or helping others, they just

waited. Weak students finished their tasks slowly,

and sometimes they left their tasks unfinished

because they were worried that their answers were

not correct. When students who weregood at

speaking frequently talked to otherswith equal

ability, but they neglected weak students, they would

not create conducive learning environment.

Learning condition became worse when weak

students joined a group just because they wanted to

get the answers, not because they wanted to have

discussion in order to solve a problem or get answers

together. Their dependance seemed to root from

being worried about making mistakes or not having

confidence in using the target language. The

condition was especially noticeable when the teacher

spent his time regulary checking students sitting in

the back rows. The teacher needed to be among the

students to ensure that they not only used the

communicative approach, but also applied

cooperative learning strategy through TPS (Think-

Pair-Share).

Although in Speaking 2 class the teacher used

both communicative approach and cooperative

learning strategy, the teaching techniques needed

more improvement. It was particularly because the

students still did not show good cooperation, and

Budiarto, ., Rasyid, Y. and Lustyantie, N.

Combining Think-pair-share and Role-play Techniques for Improving English Speaking Skill.

DOI: 10.5220/0008994300910101

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Language and Society (ICELS 2019), pages 91-101

ISBN: 978-989-758-405-3

their performance in RP was not satisfactory as a

result. When implemented properly and students

could work together, in fact, RP was considered as a

good technique in teaching speaking because it was

based on communicative approach or strategy. RP

seemed to be interesting for students, but it needed

good preparation and cooperation. In addition, the

preparation seemed to work well, provided that the

students applied cooperative learning strategy

through TPS. The teacher found both techniques

could work well as long as they were implemented

correctly (Sinwongsuwat, 2012). This was the

reason for the teacher to conduct an action

researchto improve the teaching techniques in the

following semester, in Speaking 3 class at STIBA

IEC Jakarta.

Students can have either semi-scripted RP or

non-scripted RP. In semi-scripted RP, students may

read parts of the script while performing RP. It is

done especially for weak students who need the

script when finding difficulties with what to say or

correcting what has been said. Although it can help

them to check their language accuracy, the use of

script should be restricted as it will become

counterproductive when used too frequently.

Whereas non-scripted RP urges students to struggle

using the language. However, students often delay

performing RP when they do not have enough

preparation. Once they perform without a script,

they must be appreciated for their spontaneity (Cho,

2015). Teaching speaking skill with RP is more

effective than teaching with a traditional technique

which focuses on teacher’s explanation. In a

traditional technique, students just wait for teacher’s

explanation, and the teacher’s dominance takes up

most of students’ time to use the language more

intensively (Alzboun, Smadi, and Baniabdelrahman

2017).

Ideally, teacher motivates students to prepare

themselves with the language, so that they can

explore the language and use it by themselves. In

this case, the role of the teacher is as a motivator

and a facilitator for students to use the target

language optimally. It is also essential that at the

beginning of a class, students ask creative

questions for the teacher to answer when they

need information related to a topic that is going to

be discussed.The information will give students

ideas on what to prepare when discussing a topic

(Cooper, 2018).

Lee (2015) statedthat the language used in RP

must be adaptable and applicable to students’

culture as this makes the communication relevant

to their world. Arham, Yassi and Arafah (2016) add

that RP should be relevant with the students’

discplines too. For example, students majoring in

nursing may play a role in a group as a doctor, a

nurse, and a patient. When the topic discussed is

about abortion, for instance, there could be argument

either for or against abotion. The argument shouldbe

based on medication procedure or based on their

social norms, or even based on both of them.

When implemented in Speaking 3 class at

STIBA IEC Jakarta, students dealt with situations in

RP that made them talk about their environment,

their life styles and their cultures. With topics

suitable to their world, they can explore the language

when expressing thoughts and feelings about

themselves more conveniently. Furthermore, it made

communication more genuine than practicing

speaking restricted by language functions and

vocabulary from a text book.

Ning (2011) stated that communicative approach

requires clear instruction and authentic materials

from the very beginning of a program. Although

communicative approach may optimize students’

language skills, being lack of implementing

cooperative learning strategy may inhibit students’

progress. It is particulary because students need to

do many pair and group activities.However, it is

necessary to have small groups instead of the big

ones. For example, in RP, a small group helps weak

students to be more confident. With a smaller group,

students will get more opportunity to use the

language, as long as other members encourage them

to do their best (Nguyen, 2017). Moreover, when

students are the center of classroom activities, the

teacher does not need to give too many explanations

to his students. Too many explanations and

corrections by the teacher will take up too much

time.The students do not have opportunity to use the

target language more intensively if they receive too

many explanations. By giving students autonomy,

the students will gain more time to practice the

language, such as through RP. Making students as

the center of the classroom actitivies not only gives

students autonomy, but also motivates students to

learn more, because the learning condition is not too

rigid or too formal. With informal condition,

students feel comfortable to express their feelings

and thoughts through the target language in groups

(Ahmed and Dakhiel, 2019).

At STIBA IEC in Speaking 2 class, there were

20 students, and they were divided into two groups

consisting of 7 students, and one group consisting of

6 students. It was thought that by having large

groups, students were able to to have more ideas and

develop their language skills, especially speaking

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

skill through TPS and RP. However, it was revealed

that it was not true, and in the following semester, in

Speaking 3 class, there were still 20 students, but

they were divided into smaller groups; 4 students in

each group, so there were 5 groups altogether. With

smaller groups, students’ talking timewas able to

increase when interacting in groups through TPS or

performing RP.

According to Chan (2012), learning autonomy

helps students toimprove both speaking skill and

knowledge through activities in groups, such as RP.

RP is considered as a communicative technique in

teaching speaking because it encourages students to

visualize their language performance through

different characters, and help them to imerse

themselves in more real stituations than just

practicing a conversation from a text book. Magos

and Politi (2008) suggest that RP can trigger

students to talk about their environment more

comfortably. That is why the teacher needs to

introduce topics that are interesting and familiar to

them. By doing so, it will make students speak more

spontaneously.

In learning a language, students need support

from other students in order to succeed. The teacher

needs to motivate his students to learn English

cooperatively. A student’s ability to speak English

communicatively with just few students who can

speak English fluently does not indicate a success in

language learning. If the same students communicate

actively using the target language in every lesson,

weak students will become more passive. For this

reason, the teacherhas to make the students use more

or less the same amount of time to use the language

through cooperative learning. This strategy will

urge the students to maximize their opportunity

using the language without domination by more

proficient students. In cooperative learning strategy

or approach, students need to learn together in order

to get knowledge and language skills, without too

much teacher’s intervention, even when the students

must stick to the syllabus. This requires a suitable

technique that can organize students’ classroom

activities in cooperative learning, and the technique

selected is TPS (Think-Pair-Share), which seems to

work well with RP.TPS makes students enjoy their

learning through various activities. It is true that

students have autonomy to learn by themselves as

the center of activities, but they have responsibility

as anindividual and as a group.

In TPS, students start their tasks with individual

work by thinking about answers or solutions to a

problem. It is important to solve a problem

individually first, because each student must be

responsible to participate and to contribute their

answers or solutions. In order to contribute well,

they must be aware of the problem and try to find

answers by themselves. As soon as they get the

answers, they discuss in pair, and join another pair to

form a group. After that, a group join another group

to make sure that they will find their best solutions.

Finally, some students represent their groups to

share the results of their discussion to the whole

class, so that everybody will get various ideas to

solve a problem, and select the best one (Sharma and

Saarsar, 2018).

It was realized that combined techniques, RP and

TPS in Speaking 2 class could have been improved

in another semester. Therefore, in the current study,

in Speaking 3 class at STIBA IEC Jakarta,the action

research was intended to make the combined

techniques, RP and TPS implemented better.

Hopefully, students’s scores increased significantly

as a result.

TPS can also be triggered through interesting

questions by the teacher. Students must follow some

steps to discuss the questions. First, Students must

think about the answers, second, they discuss in

pairs, and they join another pair to form a group.

Next, a group may join another group to find the

best answers. Finally, some students go to the front

to share the results of their discussion (Arra, Et. al,

2011). By consistently maintaining cooperative

learning strategy in the classroom, students can

accomplish their tasks more successfully. This

strategy can also steadily improve students’

accuracy as long as they use the language optimally

during interaction (Eliasi and Parandani,

2013).Infact, despite shy students, interaction and

reaction in the classroom can be improved through

TPS. In other words, shy students might be willing

to interact and react better in their groups.It is

because during interaction in TPS, they may show

their reaction through their own learning styles.

Besides expressing verbally, showing reaction can

be kinestetically or through gestures or visuall by

showing pictures, for instance. It makes learning

enjoyable an attractive.

As students enjoy their learning, they will get a

lot of information and ideas from TPS, which makes

them feel confident when developing their

conversation through various topics. (Gholami,

Moghaddam, and Attaran, 2014).TPS is very useful

for students because they get more opportunity to

use the language orally during the classroom

interaction (Motaei, 2014).Students can get more

benefits when the oral language practice is through

RP. Some ofthe benefitsof using RP to practice their

Combining Think-pair-share and Role-play Techniques for Improving English Speaking Skill

language is that a conversation in RP is more natural

because the practice is generated through situations

rather than through language functions.

However, practicing over and over again in

groups until students can speak fluently is preferable

than memorizing parts of conversations. Regular

practice requires students to work together through

cooperative learning. This will not work if some

students are impatient or do not care other students

who are slow (Zhou, 2012). It is important to note

that while preparing RP, students focus more on the

whole story than memorizing lines based on certain

characters. If students are familiar with the story

they create, they are urged to improvise or adapt

their lines when they fail to remember the lines they

have written previously. It is not necessary to say

everything exactly as written in a script, because it is

a speaking practice, not a memory practice.Speaking

spontaneously with many mistakes is much better

than speaking accurately because of memorizing,

(Sinwongsuwat, 2012).Ideally, students do not need

to worry about accuracy, because as the intensity of

speaking practices increases, students gradually

manage to improve their accuracy (Ugla, Abidin,

and Abdullah, 2019).

Based on the observation, with better

implementation of tecniques in Speaking 3 class,

students had more autonomy to learn without

teacher’s intervention, either when they worked on

their own, in pairs or in groups. TPS was carried out

especially to prepare students with language skills

through interaction in pairs and in groups. For each

meeting, TPS lasted around 10 minutes and another

80 minutes focused on RP. Through 3 cycles with 16

meetings in total, the combined techniques were able

to improve students’ speaking scores significantly at

the end of program.

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study is to deeply investigate

students’ speaking skill improvement through

combined teaching techniques using TPS and RP.

The discussion in this research comprises; 1) the

process of improving English speaking skill through

TPS and RP as combined techniques, and 2) the

results of improving English speaking skill through

TPS and RP as combined techniques.

The action research on teaching English speaking

skill through TPS and RP as combined techniques

was conducted at STIBA IEC Jakarta in Speaking 3

class from 18 September 2018 to 15 January

2019.The participants in this research were 20

students from English Literature major who took

Speaking 3 class.

The method selected is action research because it

is an ideal method to be implemented while a

teacher wants to improve his or her teaching

techniques, so that students’ scores can increase

significantly. In action research, observation is

required to see the learning process by students. In

addition, a mixed method (a combination of

qualitative and quantitative) is needed. Qualitative

method is used to describe how the process of

teaching technique through TPS andRP (role-play) is

implemented in the classroom. While quantitative

method is used to analyze the results of the learning

process from pre-test to post-test (cycle 3). The

process of obtaining qualitative and quantitative data

can be explained as follows:

1. The source of qualitativeis the decsription of the

teaching and learning processin the classroom,

based on direct observation, interview, and any

notesrelated to action research in the classroom

in order to improve speaking skill through

combined techniquesTPS andRP.

2. The source of quantitative datais from the results

of pre-test, cycle 1 and 2 tests, and cycle 3 test

(post-test) of 20 students at STIBA IEC Jakarta

takingSpeaking 3 from 18 September 2018 to 15

Januari 2019.

3. The procedure of the action research is

through four steps; planning, action,

development, and reflection. The action

research consists of three cycles, and in each

cycles there are five meetings.

Oral test is the main instrument to gather data

about the results of improving speaking skill

through TPS and RP. In order to see the students’

speaking skill, 5 aspects are measured; grammar,

vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, and

pronunciation (Brown and Abeywickrama, 2010).

Testing students’ speaking skill is through RP

because it should be in line with the purpose of

using English to communicate based on situations in

RP. In addition, a collaborator, someone who sits in

to give comments for each cycle isinvolvedHe is in

charge of giving the researcher feed back and

suggestions to improve the combined teaching

techniques, TPS and RP. Finally, the results of all

tests (pre-test, and cycle 1-3 tests) are classified,

interpreted and analyzed.

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

3 RESULTS

In order to meet tests requirement before doing

analysis, normality test and homogenity testwere

done.

3.1 Normality Test

Normality test is done to check whether distribution

of data is normal or not. Through Lilliefors test, the

result indicated that p-value (sig) was above level of

significance 5% (0.05) or distribution of data was

normal, as shown in table 1 below.

Table 1: Normality Test

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-

Smirnov

Shapiro-Wilk

atistic

Sta

tistic

Pre-

test

.09

.88

.02

cycle1

.05

.84

.00

cycle2

.13

.90

.04

Post-

test

cycle3

.06

.91

.08

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Based on Lilliefors’ normality test, statistic value

in pre-test is 0.180 and p-value (Sig)is0,055. In

cycle 1 statistic value is 0.191 and p-value (Sig)

is0.055. In cycle 2 statistic value is 0.170 and p-

value (Sig) is0.131. In cycle 3 statistic value is 0.186

and p-value (Sig) is0.067. Because p-value (Sig) in

all data groups are above alpha value (α = 0.05), it is

concluded that all data groups are distributed

normally.

3. 2 Homogenity Test

Homogenity Test is used to make sure that two or

more groups of data samples are taken from the

same variants or they are homogenous.

The criteria of homogenity test say that if

significance of P value (p) > 0.05, it means that the

data is taken from homogenous population. On the

other hand, if significance of P value (p) < 0.05, it

means that data is taken from population having

different variants or not homogenous.

The result of homogenity test shows that the data

is taken from homogenous population. Table 2

shows the results of homogenity test:

Table 2: Homogenity Test

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

SkorSpeaking

Levene

Statistic

df1

df2

Sig.

.027

.994

Based on levene test, p-value (sig) of levene test

is above p-value from alpha=0,05 (0,994>0,05). We

can conclude that the data is taken from

homogenous population.

3.3 Students’ speaking skill progress

To check, students’ progress in speaking skill, there

should be data from pre-test, cycle1, cycle 2 and

cycle3. By comparing the data, we can see their

average scores and their progress in every cycle. We

can also see which aspects of speaking scores show

improvement. Below isshown table 3 desribing the

average scores.

Table 3. Speaking average scores

Gra

Voca

bular

Compr

ehensio

Flu

enc

Pron

uncia

tion

Spea

king

score

Pre-test

48,9

48,75

48,35

46,

49,8

48,4

cycle1

56,6

56,55

56,35

56,3

56,5

cycle2

65,5

65,6

64,05

64,

65,8

65,0

Post-test

(cycle 3)

72,3

73,7

73,4

73,

73,6

73,3

Table 3 shows upward trend of students’

speaking scores. Overall, the average scores in all

five aspects were not satisfactory in both pre-test

and cycle 1 test. It was an indication that the

implementation of the combined techniques TPS and

RP wereableto increase students’ scores in cycle 1

test. Although the techniques were effective,

giventhe average scores for all 5 aspectswhich were

still below 60, another cycle was needed to optimize

the students’ scores.The test in cycle 2 showed that

all students managed to increase their average scores

to above 60 in all aspects, and in cycle 3, students’

scores reached a peak with students’ average scores

above 70 in all aspects. This could be an indication

Combining Think-pair-share and Role-play Techniques for Improving English Speaking Skill

that the three cycles were the process of improving

students’ average scores steadily.

To ensure that there has been significant

improvement, T test is conducted. One Sample T

test is used test wheter certain scores showed

different results or not within the average scores of a

sample. The T-test, as shown below includes paired

samples statistics, paired samples correlations, and

paired samples test.

Table 4: T-Test

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1

cycle1

56.5800

5.69058

1.27245

Pre-test

48.4600

5.93441

1.32698

Pair 2

cycle2

65.0400

5.80076

1.29709

cycle1

56.5800

5.69058

1.27245

Pair 3

Post-test

cycle3

73.3300

6.09651

1.36322

cycle2

65.0400

5.80076

1.29709

Paired Samples Correlations

Correlation

Sig.

Pair 1

cycle1 & Pre-test

.833

.000

Pair 2

cycle2 & cycle1

.808

.000

Pair 3

Post-test cycle3 &

cycle2

.702

.001

Table 5. Students’ speaking progress from pre-test to

cycle1

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

Sig.

(2-

tailed

)

Mean

Std.

Deviatio

Std.

Error

Mean

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

wer

per

air

cycle

1 -

Pre-

test

8.1200

3.36696

.75288

6.5442

9.69579

10.78

.000

air

cycle

2 -

cycle

8.4600

3.56125

.79632

6.7932

10.1267

10.62

.000

air

Post-

test

cycle

3 -

cycle

8.2900

4.59816

1.0281

6.1380

10.4420

8.063

.000

More explanations are needed to show the

students’ speaking development or progress through

out semester. Below are the the desriptions of

students’ speaking scores in more detail.

Based on paired samples statistics, the average

scores ofpre-test were48.46, and in cycle1, the

average scoreswere56.58. It showed improvement

by 8.12, if we compare between the results of

students’ learning in pre-test with the results in cycle

1, in which t value was 10,785, with t table

(df=19)2.09, and p-value was 0.000. It indicated that

the result of speaking pre-test was not the same with

the result of speaking in cycle1 (μ

≠ μ

), witht

valuehigher than t table, and p-value < 0.005 (0.000

<0.05), which means H

was rejected and

wasaccepted

We can conclude that there was

significant difference between the result of speaking

in pre-test and the result incycle 1, which

significantly showed improvement.

Based on table 5 below, thestudents’ speaking

skill progress from pre-test to cycle 1isdecribed. In

general, it showed significant progress in all aspects.

Grammar, vocabulary, and comprehension increased

by about the same proportion, or by approximately 8

points in each aspect. Fluency rose sharply from 46.

5 to 57 or rose by 10.5 points, which showed the

highest points among other 4 aspects. On the

contrary, pronunciation increased just by 6.55,

which was the lowest points.

Figure 1: Cycle1 – cycle2

Based on paired samples statistics, the average

scores incycle 1 were 56.58, and in cycle 2, the

average scoreswere65.04. It showed improvement

by 8.46, if we compare between the results of

students’ learning in cycle 1 with the results in cycle

2, in which t value was 10.624, with t table (df=19)

2.09, and p-value was 0.000. It indicated that the

48.9

48.75

48.35

46.5

49.8

48.46

56.65

56.55

56.35

56.58

Pre-test

Cycle 1

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

result of speaking in cycle 1 was not the same with

the result of speaking in cycle2 (μ

≠ μ

), witht

valuehigher than t table, and p-value < 0.005 (0.000

<0.05), which means H

was rejected and

wasaccepted

We can conclude that there was

significant difference between the result of speaking

in cycle 1and the result incycle 2, which

significantly showed improvement. The given data

on table 6 below, showsstudents’ speaking skill

progress from cycle 1 to students’ speaking skill

progress cycle 2. In general it shows significant

progress in all aspects.

Figure 2: Students’ speaking progress from cycle 1 to

cycle 2.

By looking at figure 2, we see that tudents’

speaking scores went up from 56.58 to 65.04 points,

or the progress was by 8.46. Pronunciation rose by

9.45, which was the highest point, and vocabulary

was in the second position with progress by 9.09

points. Both grammar and comprehension progress

were almost 9 points. Fluency was at its lowest

progress with improvement by 7.25 points, from 57

to 64.25 points.

Based on paired samples statistics, the average

scores incycle 2 were 65.04, and in cycle 3 (post-

test), the average scoreswere73.30. It showed

improvement by 8.29, if we compare between the

results of students’ learning in cycle 2 with the

results in cycle 3, in which t value was 8.063, with t

table (df=19) 2.09, and p-value was 0.000. It

indicated that the result of speaking in cycle 2 was

not the same with the result of speaking in cycle

3(μ

≠ μ

), witht valuehigher than t table, and p-

value < 0.005 (0.000 <0.05), which means H

was

rejected and H

wasaccepted

We can conclude that

there was significant difference between the result of

speaking in cycle 2and the result incycle 3, which

significantly showed improvement.

Figure 3: Students’ speaking progress from cycle 2 to

cycle 3.

As we can see in table 7 above, the students

managed to improve their speaking scores

significantly in all speaking aspects. Comprehension

and fluency showed exactly the same

progressbecause both scores increased by 9.35.

Pronunciation scoresincreased by8.29, which were

slightly higher than vocabulary, whose increase was

just by 8.1. Unfortunately, grammar scoreswere the

lowest of all because the scores only increased by

6.85. Table 8 briefly presents the students’ speaking

skill progressthrough out semester 3.

Table 8. Summary of the students’ speaking skill progress

for the whole semester (pre-test-post-test).

Speaking skill

aspect

Pre-test

Scores

Post-

test

Scores

Improvement

Grammar

48.9

72.35

23.45

Vocabulary

48.75

73.7

24.65

Compresension

48.35

73.4

25.05

Fluency

46.5

73.6

27.1

Pronunciation

49.8

73.6

23.8

Speaking Skill

48.46

73.33

24.87

It was obvious that the students’ speaking

progress from the beginning to the end of Speaking

3 program increased by 24.87 points. Broken down

into each aspect, fluency showed its highest

improvement by 27.1 points. Vocabulary and

compresension indicated similar progress, with

around 25 points. Grammar showed its lowest points

by 23.45, but pronunciation progress was slightly

higher by 23.8 points.

Based on the discussion of the results, it is clear

that students speaking skill increased steadily from

56.65

56.55

56.35

56.58

65.5

65.6

64.05

64.25

65.8

65.04

Cycle 1

Cycle 2

65.5

65.6

64.05

64.25

65.8

65.04

72.35

73.7

73.4

73.673.6

73.33

Grammar

Vocabulary

Comprehension

Fluency

Pronunciation

Speaking Scores

Cycle 2

Post-test

(Cycle 3)

Combining Think-pair-share and Role-play Techniques for Improving English Speaking Skill

pre-test to post test. In each cycle, there was

significant progress which indicated that TPS and

RP were combined techniques that could

successfully improve speaking skill.

4 DISCUSSION

In cycle 1, the results showed improvement, but the

teaching techniques needed to be improved because

of a number of reasons. First of all, altough it was a

good idea to encourage students to give corrective

feedbacks to each other, those who had trouble with

the mistakes were not given time to make their own

corrections. They felt that they were interrupted

when trying to say things.

Apparently, besides reducing their autonomy to

decide what to say, despite some pauses, their

fluency was also affected by the interruption.

Secondly, because some weak students were not

confident performing their RP without a script or

text, teacher allowed them to bring the text during

RP. In fact, this was counter productive because they

were not able to show their progress. Thirdly, during

RP, other students who had not performed yet, did

not pay attention. Sometimes a group that was

performing RP was disturbed, especially when other

students made a noise.

When all students had performed their RP, the

teacher reviewed the topic in RP to see what they

had learnt from the RP, and asked them to explain.

The teacher also asked whether the RP they had just

performed was relevant to the situations in their life

or not. Finally, as they were not encouraged to

prepare their ideas before RP began, only few of

them were able to respond to the teacher’s questions

confidently. It might contribute to students low

scores in cycle 1. They should have obtained better

scores if the teacher had managed students’

cooperation in groups more effectively and

efficiently through TPS.

Like in cycle 1, in cycle 2, after warming up, the

activities began with TPS, which lasted for 10

minutes. Students were becoming more cooperative

and communicative because the combined

techniques seemed to work more effectively and

efficiently. After receiving comments from a

collaborator and some reflection at the end of cycle

1, teacher fixed the problems and developed them,

so that in cycle one, the implementation of the

combined techniques gave better results. In general,

in cycle 2, the stages in teaching speaking followed

the same procedures, except that there were some

recommendations followed after the collaborator sat

in to give comments.

Apparently, the effects of following up some

recommendations worked well, and students’

performance was better in cycle 2. Weak students

felt that they were motivated to participate and

contribute in their groups through TPS. All members

in groups appreciated weak students to give ideas

despite their grammatical errors. The weak students

would struggle to produce their language. However,

when it was obvious that the weak students were not

able to say anything due to lack of vocabulary or

unable to construct a sentence, other students

assisted them until the weak students were able to

speak more fluently. The weak students thought that

they would be able to speak English better by giving

them time to produce the target language by

themselves, and by being assisted by other members

when they needed them.

The weak students also felt glad because they

were not interrupted anymore. Instead they got

proper assistance from others to keep conversations

in groups going. All students in the classroom

respectd and motivated each other. It showed that

TPS was well implemented because they knew other

students’ problems and cared about them by giving

assisstance appropriately. In cycle 2, the teacher

instructed that everybody was not allowed to bring a

text while performing RP, or their scores would be

deducted. The teacher appreciated their students

peforming RP without a text or script although they

made a lot of mistakes and forgot some parts of their

lines.

During preparation, students not only had to

practice their own lines but also paid attentions to

other students’ lines in RP. Helping each other by

giving corrections or helping with vocabulary

needed could be implemented throughout classroom

activities as long as they were done wisely and

proportionally. Furthermore, by paying attention to

other students’ lines, the other members were able to

give corrections when necessary or help with

something to say when the pauses from the weak

students were too long. It was an indication that they

understood the cooperative learning strategy through

TPS, which could also be implemented in RP as

combined teaching techniques.

Another reason why students performed better in

cycle 2 than in cycle 1 was because while practicing

the conversation in RP, they were encouraged to

make improvisation to the language. In other words,

it was not a problem if something the students said

was not exactly the same as the sentences written in

the text or script. However, they had to follow the

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

situation in RP, so that the story they created was

according to the situation in RP.

In addition, all the students had to pay attention

to another group performing RP. Apparently, routine

activities in RP contributed to students’ better

cooperative learning strategy. As a consequence, all

of them were eager to prepare their comments. Since

all groups respected each other, all students

performed their RP well. All groups were able to

focus on their RP, because other students were

listening attentively, and were ready to give

comments as soon as all students performed RP. It

was a token of attention and respect when students

were willing to give comments and constructive

criticism to others. It made everybody try to do their

best because the RP was regarded as valuable

activities as it became the center of attention in the

classroom.

When the RP was finished students could give

comments about what made one performance in RP

was different from another. On the other hand, the

teacher needed to make sure thatall students

understood the messages carried in RP. He also

asked students to explain why the RP with a

particular situation was relevant to their real real life

or not. Although cycle 2 showed significant

progress, the collaborator noticed that more

improvement was needed during the implementation

of the technique. It was found that a few weak

students were memorizing their lines while

practicing RP although they were not bringing their

text when they performed RP at the front of the

classroom. Their fluency while performing RP

should not have been the results of memorization.

They should have been pushed to explore the

language by themselves without depending on the

text.

Despite of the fact that it was true that a script

was written to prepare RP, the script was intended to

make students familiar with the story based on the

given situations in RP. Therefore, they had better try

to practice many times, and did it over and over

again when they made losts of errors or pauses

during preparation. It was unfair if students could

perform RP well, but during preparation few week

students memorized their script instensively instead

of spending more time practicing the conversations

in RP without text. Teacher should have motivated

weak students to improve their fluency and accuracy

by practicing more frequently than by letting them

memorize the lines. Even only for two or three weak

students, memorizing could not be tolerated because

their fluency and accuracy were too artificial.

In cycle 3, as usual, the speaking class

began with warming up followed by 10 minutes

TPS. All of the students in the classrom felt glad

because as they had always begun each meeting with

TPS, their cooperative learning strategy had helped

them prepare their RP properly. They were

enthusiastic and confident, so that the whole

classroom activities ran smoothly. In cycle 3, they

not only applied TPS properly, but also developed

their friendship. They looked so relaxed because

everybody supported each other. There were neither

dominant students, nor shy students. This helped to

prepare RP, so that they managed to perfom better

than before. They realized that communicative

strategy contributed to better communicative

learning strategy. Each student participated and

contributed to the success of speaking 3 class. As all

of them worked together to keep speaking practices

going, they improved their speaking skills in all five

aspects. As a result, they developed both of their

fluency and accuracy. Furthermore, they not only

managed to optimize their speaking skill through

RP, but also enjoyed the learning environment

developed through TPS.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The combined techniques TPS and RP were proven

to be effective in improving students’ speaking skill

at STIBA IEC Jakarta. Tenminutes TPS before RP

was intended to make students interact by using the

target language, so that they got enough information

and language exposure related to the topic in RP.

The influence of applying TPS is quite positive as

students not only understand how to practice

speaking communicatively, but also know how to

work well by implementing cooperative learning

strategy throughout classroom activities.

During TPS, they were trained with cooperative

strategy. Each individu in group has to be

responsible to contribute their ideas and to solve

problems. In positive inter-dependence, students do

not just wait for other students’ answers, but

everybody must put a lot of effort by thinking

individually to solve a problem before consulting in

pairs and in groups. It gives opportunity to

everybody to contribute optimally in pairs and in

groups if everybody has enough time to struggle

finding answers by themselves first. It allows them

to be more well-equipped with information from a

topic or ideas about solving a problem. Their ideas

will be much more developed as they discuss in

pairs and groups, and then share them to the whole

Combining Think-pair-share and Role-play Techniques for Improving English Speaking Skill

class. As the provision of each topic in TPS is

intentionally always the same with the topic in RP,

results of discussions during TPS seem to make

them more prepared to practice RP.

Because TPS is a technique that encourages

students to apply cooperative learning strategy,

students get accustomed to caring and helping each

other. They support and motivate each other because

they know if everybody feels comfortable with their

learning, they will be able to achieve their goal

together. Nobody is allowed to be dominant. Weak

students are motivated by other students to

participate in conversation.

This especially brings positive results when it

comes to performing RP. It would not be as effective

as we expect if students are applying communicative

learning strategies, but they do not care about weak

students. Weak students should have equal

opportunity to speak English despite having a lot of

grammatical errors. RP might run smoothly by

giving a lot of portion for smart students to speak

and by giving weak students little portion. There

could be few pauses and errors during RP, but it is

unfair for weak students as the smart students

dominate all the conversations in RP.

In contrast, understanding other students’

problems and caring about them by giving

assisstance appropriately is actually the main

responsibility of all the students themselves. The

role of a teacher is to facilitate and motivate students

during the learning process. Ideally, TPS and RP are

combined techniques that make students become the

center of classroom activities. By doing so, teacher’s

intervention is limited. It is also important to note

that students are able to perform their RP well

because they manage to practice intensively through

group work, not through memorizing lines of

conversations in RP.

To sum up, as they work successfully applying

TPS and RP, students will be able to increase their

speaking scores steadily, and they will feel happy

because no body will feel embarrassed of making

mistakes since everybody cares for each other.

Gradually, their friendship will become stronger.

Students will feel glad not only because they can

improve their speaking skill through RP, but also

they can create learning environment that is

comfortable for them as the result of understanding

the principles of communicative learning strategy

from TPS.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, A. Sumaya and Dakhiel, A. Maysoon.

Effectiveness of Learner-Centered Teaching in

Modifying Attitude Towards EFL and Developing

Academic Self-Motivation Among the 12th Grade

Students. English Language Teaching; Vol. 12, No. 4;

2019. Canadian Center of Science and Education. P.

146

Alzboun, K. Bilal, Smadi, M. Oqla, andBaniabdelrahman,

Abdallah. The Effect of RP Strategy on Jordanian EFL

Tenth Grade Students' Speaking Skill. Arab World

English Journal (AWEJ) Volume .8 Number 4

December 2017. P. 131.

Arham R, Yassi, H. Abduland Arafah, Burhanudin. The

Use of Role Play to Improve Teaching Speaking.

International Journal of Scientific and Research

Publications, Volume 6, Issue 3, March 2016. P. 239.

Arra, T. Christopher, et al. Students’ Preferences for

Cooperative Learning Instructional Approaches:

Considerations for College Teachers. Journal of

Research in Education Volume 21, no. 1. 2011. P. 126.

Brown, Douglas. H dan Abeywickrama, Priyanvada,

Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom

Practices, New york: Pearson Education, 2010. Pp.

212-213.

Chan, C.Y, Zenobia. RPing in the problem-based learning

class. Nurse Education in Practice 12 (2012) 21-27.

http://www.elsevier.com/nepr. P. 25

Cho, Bokja. Improving Learners’ Oral Skills through Two

Types of RP. Scenario. Volume 2015 Issue 1. P. 50.

Cooper, Forrest. A Modification of Think Pair Share to

Make it More Learner-Centered by Using Student-

Generated Questions. College Teaching. 2018, Taylor

& Francis Group, LLC. VOL. 66, NO. 1, P. 34

Eliasi, Ali andParandani, A. Kiomars. Output

Collaborative Tasks, Noticing, and Dyadic Learning:

A Case Study of Iranian Advanced EFL Learners' Use

of Multi-Word Verbs. Modern Journal of Language

Teaching Methods (MJLTM). Vol. 3, Issue 3,

September 2013. P. 169.

Lee, Siu-lun. Revisit Role-Playing Activities in Foreign

Language Teaching and Learning: Remodeling

Learners’ Cultural Identity? Electronic Journal of

Foreign Language Teaching. 2015, Vol. 12. P. 356.

Gholami, Valeh, Moghaddam, M. Mostafa, andAttaran,

Atena. Towards an Interactive EFL Class: Using

Active Learning Strategies. Modern Journal of

Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM). Vol.4, Issue

2, June 2014. P. 133.

Magos, Kostas andPoliti, Foteini. The Creative Second

Language Lesson: The Contribution of the RP

Technique to the Teaching of a Second Language in

Immigrant Classes. RELC Vol 39(1). 2008 SAGE

Publications. P.109.

Motaei, Bahman. On the Effect of Cooperative Learning

on General English Achievement of Kermanshah

Islamic Azad University Students. Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014). Elsevier. P. 1254.

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

100

Ning, Huiping. Adapting Cooperative Learning in Tertiary

ELT. ELT Journal Volume 65/1 January 2011. P. 68

Nguyen, K. TThi. How Can RPs Increase Speaking

Participation for the? Working Adult Students? Action

Research. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in

Education (IOSR-JRME). Volume 7, Issue 1 Ver. I

(Jan. - Feb. 2017). P.64.

Sharma, L. Hermant and Saarsar, Priyamvada. TPS

(Think-Pair–Share): An Effective Cooperative

Learning Strategy for Unleashing Discussion in

Classroom Interaction. International Journal of

Research in Social Sciences. Vol. 8 Issue 5(1), May

2018. Pp. 91-92.

Sinwongsuwat, Kemtong. Rethinking Assessment of Thai

EFL Learners’ Speaking Skills. Language Testing in

Asia. Vol 2 (4). October 2012. P. 80

Ugla, L. Raed, Abidin, J.Z. Mohamad, andAbdullah, N.

Mohammed. The influence of proficiency level on the

use and choice of L1/L2 communication strategies

used by Iraqi EFL students. International Journal of

Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) Vol. 8,

No. 1, March 2019. P. 133

Zhou, Hui. Enhancing Non-English Majors’ EFL

Motivation through Cooperative Learning. Procedia

Environmental Sciences 12 (2012). Elsevier. P. 1321

Combining Think-pair-share and Role-play Techniques for Improving English Speaking Skill

101