chapter ii literature review - portal...
TRANSCRIPT
9
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter contains some theories which support the research. It is
divided into seven main parts: The Definitions of Speaking, Fishbowl Technique,
Small-group Discussion Technique, Self-efficacy, Review of Related Studies,
Rationale, and Hypothesis. Four aspects of speaking are explained in this chapter,
they are Definitions of Speaking, the Aspect of Speaking, Microskills and
Macroskills of Speaking, and Speaking Assessment. In addition, Fishbowl and
Small-group Discussion techniques are elaborated based on the definitions, the
steps to implement the techniques, and the advantages and disadvantages of both
techniques. At last, the elaboration of self-efficacy includes the definitions, roles,
sources, and strategies to improve self-efficacy.
A. Speaking
1. The Definitions of Speaking
Turk (2003: 10) defines speaking as a form of communication between
human beings which provides direct access from one mind to another. Speaking is
considered as a process of giving direct access across minds because of its manner
of production. Spoken language is produced in limited time and under a face-to-
face interaction. A spoken interaction requires the speakers to make immediate
response to each other which makes a direct access of idea.
According to Nunan (1999: 228), speaking is a way to verbally
communicate for mostly interpersonal and somewhat transactional purposes. In
interpersonal conversation, language is used to work and maintain relationship.
Meanwhile, transactional communication is used to get things done, for example
asking for something, bargaining, asking for help, etc.
Speaking is a productive skill that involves the ability to communicate
with other people which is carried out in a real-time process which demands
learners’ abilities to plan, process, and produce language (Khatib and Maroof,
2014: 99). In addition, Florez in Bailey (2005: 2) defines speaking as an
10
interactive process of constructing meaning that involves the activities of
producing, receiving, and processing information. To do an interaction in
speaking, after information is received, it is processed to produce language which
is comprehensible to hearer.
Furthermore, according to Byrne (1997: 8), speaking is a two-way
process of communication done by speakers and listeners which involves the
productive skill of speaking and the receptive skill of understanding. As two-way
communication, the ability of speaking is measured by how well the language is
produced by speakers, in manners of pronunciation, grammar, fluency, etc.
Moreover, the ability of listening is measured by how well a listener comprehend
or understand the information, as everyone has two roles in two-ways
communication, as a listener and a speaker.
In summary, speaking is one of language skills that is used to do verbal
communication for interpersonal and transactional purposes. It requires the
abilities to produce, receive, and process information to communicate with other
people. There are some indicators of speaking, they are grammar, vocabulary,
comprehension, pronunciation, and fluency.
2. Microskills and Macroskills of Speaking
There should be pedagogical principles included in teaching speaking.
The principles will be a guideline to make speaking activities. The activities can
be organized in relevant to micro and macro skills of speaking. Microskills refer
to details that serve as a taxonomy of skills. Then, the taxonomy skills can be used
to decide objectives of assessment or tasks, because they contain the levels of
difficulties which depend on the students’ stage and context. Brown (2010: 142)
elaborates the micro-skills into some points, and they are presented in the
following:
1. Producing differences between English phonemes and allophonic variants.
2. Producing chunks of language of different lengths.
3. Producing English stress patterns, words in stressed and unstressed positions,
rhythmic structure, and intonation contours.
11
4. Producing reduced forms of words and phrases.
5. Using adequate number of lexical units (words) to accomplish pragmatic
purposes.
6. Producing fluent speech at different rates of delivery.
7. Monitoring one’s own oral production and use various strategic devices, such
as; pauses, fillers, self-corrections, backtracking to enhance the clarity of the
message.
8. Using grammatical word classes (Noun, Verbs, Adjectives, etc.), language
system (e.g., Tense, Agreement, and Pluralization), word order, patterns,
rules, and elliptical forms.
9. Producing speech in natural constituents: in appropriate phrases, pause
groups, breathe groups, and sentence constituents.
10. Expressing a specific meaning in different grammatical forms.
11. Using cohesive devices in spoken discourse.
On the other hand, macroskills are more complex than microskills.
Macroskills contain broader aspects of speaking skill. As cited from Brown (2010:
142), there are five skills that belong to macroskills of speaking. They are
presented as follows.
1. Accomplishing communicative functions of speaking according to situations,
participants, and goals appropriately.
2. Using appropriate styles, registers, implicature, redundancies, pragmatic
conventions, conversation rules, floor-keeping and yielding, interrupting, and
other sociolinguistic features in face-to-face conversations.
3. Conveying links and connections between events and communicate such
relations as focal and peripheral ideas, events and feeling, new information and
given information, generalization and exemplification.
4. Convey facial features, kinesics, body language, and other non-verbal cues
along with verbal language.
5. Developing and using battery of speaking strategies, such as emphasizing key
words, rephrasing, providing a context for interpreting the meaning of words,
12
appealing for help, and accurately assessing how well your interlocutor is
understanding you.
3. The Aspects of Speaking
In English second language and foreign language classes, speaking is one
of major skills that should be acquired well. Being able to speak is important,
speaking is considered as the heart of literacy (Grugeon, et al., 2005: 1). Being
literate means able to read and write, and one of the ways to access literacy is
through oracy. Furthermore, the ability to speak is used to acquire the ability to
read and write. It shows how important speaking skill is to learning process.In
learning speaking there are some aspect to be focused on. Teachers make use of
the aspects of speaking as indicators in teaching and evaluating students’
speaking. Some aspects of speaking proposed by experts are discussed in this part.
Brown and Yule in Richards (2008: 22) summarize the main features of
speaking as interaction, it is speech which (1) has a primarily social function, (2)
reflects role relationships, (3) reflects speaker’s identity, (4) may be formal and
casual, (5) uses conversational conventions, (6) reflects degrees of politeness, (7)
employs many generic words, (8) uses many generic words, (9) uses
conversational register, and (10) is jointly constructed. Meanwhile, Luoma in
Richards (2008: 19) proposes some specific features of peaking, the features are
elaborated as follows.
a. Composed of idea units which are conjoined in short phrases and clauses.
b. May be planned or unplanned.
c. Employs more vague or generic words than written language.
d. Contains of fixed phrases, fillers, and hesitation markers.
e. Has slips and errors reflecting inline processing.
f. Involves reciprocity since interactions are jointly constructed
g. Shows variation of formal and casual speeches.
h. Reflects speaker roles, speaking purpose, and contexts.
Nation and Newton (2008: 2) propose four components of speaking that
students need to achieve. The components are fluent control of sounds
13
(pronunciation), spelling, vocabulary, and grammar. In addition, Thornbury
(2005: 116) states that speaking skill is much more than the oral production of
grammar or vocabulary items. Speaking should as well be focused on fluency and
some other skills. Generally, speaking should cover the aspects of fluency and
accuracy which covers grammar. However, it will be sufficient if the students can
achieve the ability to communicate intelligibly across a limited range of genres,
contexts, and topics. The aspects of speaking given by Thornbury (2005: 116) are
presented as follows.
a. Spoken grammars, such as heads, tails, ellipsis, discourse markers, etc.
b. Pronunciation features, such as stress, intonation, rhythm, and chunking.
c. Communication strategies, such as paraphrasing, appealing for help, formulaic
language, etc.
d. Conversational routines and gambit, such as openings, closings, interrupting,
changing topics, etc.
e. Conversational rules and structures, such as turn-taking, adjacency pairs, and
the co-operative principle.
f. Speech acts, such as inviting, requesting, complimenting, etc.
g. Registers, such as formal language vs informal language.
h. Scripts, such as service encounters, greetings, and requesting.
i. Genres, such as telling stories and jokes, making a speech, and interviews.
j. Situations, such as at a ticket office, at the bank, in a restaurant, etc.
k. Cultural factors, such as politeness, taboo topics, use gestures, etc.
Brown (2001: 267) proposes two main goals of speaking, the first is
related to accuracy. It deals with clarity, articulation, grammar of the speech. The
aspect of accuracy also covers the phonological details of language or
pronunciation. The second goal is related to fluency, it how the natural flow of
speech in comprehensibility. Then, it is stated that fluency and accuracy are both
important factors in speaking. Fluency can be an initial goal in language teaching,
while accuracy can be achieved by focusing on teaching the elements of
phonology, grammar, and discourse in students’ speaking output. In other words,
14
there are five aspects of speaking to be analyzed, they are pronunciation, fluency,
vocabulary use, grammar, and comprehensibility.
Moreover, Harris (1969: 84) proposes some aspects of speaking skill.
There are five aspects of speaking, namely pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary,
fluency, and comprehension. Those aspects are similar to the ones proposed by
Brown (2001: 267).
Then, Ur (1996: 135) states that speaking scales contain two aspects
namely fluency and accuracy (vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation). Besides,
Weir (2005: 196) proposes five aspects in speaking skill called fluency,
pronunciation, vocabulary, grammatical accuracy, and interactional strategies.
Furthermore, speaking aspects proposed by some experts are compared and
analyzed in a table. The table below shows the different aspects of speaking based
on some experts.
Table 2. 1 The Aspects of Speaking
Nation and
Newton
(2008: 2)
Brown
(2001: 267)
Harris
(1969: 84)
Ur
(1996: 135)
Thornbury
(2005:
116)
Weir
(2005: 196)
Pronunciation Pronunciation Pronunciation Pronunciation Pronunciation
Vocabulary Vocabulary Vocabulary Vocabulary Vocabulary
Grammar Grammar Grammar Grammar Grammar Grammar
Fluency Fluency Fluency Fluency Fluency
Comprehension Comprehension
Accuracy Accuracy
Spelling
Interactional
Strategy
By putting the aspects of speaking in the table, indicators of speaking can
be identified well. Accuracy is commonly included in the aspects of grammar.
Based on the table above, it can be indicated that the aspects which are frequently
used are pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension.
Pronunciation deals with articulatory competence which covers the
ability of producing correct stress, rhythm, and intonation, Brown (2001: 283).
Thus, to be able to pronounce words correctly, students need to pay attention to
the words stress, rhythm, and intonation. Moreover, pronunciation is one of the
keys to accomplish communicative competence, since native speakers frequently
15
identify the non-native like use of stress, rhythm, and intonation as the indicators
of intelligibility and a strong marker of accent.
Vocabulary is related to students’ ability to express their idea in correct
words. The students who are in an advanced class manage to communicatively
effective using of sets of words (Thornbury, 2005: 36). It indicates that the way
words are chosen in speaking determines the effectiveness of communication.
Grammar knowledge for speaking purposes consists largely of those
grammar system that favor rapid real-time speech production because speaking is
spontaneous activity. Students need to learn how to produce effective complex
construction grammar in speaking. However, in construction should relate to
spoken form than written form because both are typically different.
It is commonly believed that fluency has something to do with speech
speed. However, fluency also deals with pausing, pausing is equally important to
speed. There are some features of fluency given by Thornbury (2005: 8), they are:
(1) pauses may be long but not frequent; (2) pauses are usually filled; (3) pauses
occur at meaningful transition points; and (4) there are long runs of syllables and
words between pauses.
Furthermore, comprehension, another aspects of speaking, is closely
related to the ability to understand meaning of utterances when they are delivered
by others. The last aspect is interactional strategy, it deals with the use of
strategies in discussion, such as initiating the discussion, asking for clarification,
asking for clarification, expanding topic, turn-taking and concluding the
discussion. This aspect gives clear description to evaluate the discussion activity.
In conclusion, to create a successful speaking teaching learning process,
students need to achieve the indicators of speaking. Focusing on the research
conducted by the researcher, the indicators of speaking skill stated by Brown
(2001: 267) are chosen to be used as guidelines to do the discussion based on
Fishbowl and Small-group Discussion techniques. The indicators are
pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension.
16
4. Speaking Assessments
Speaking is a productive skill, so it can be directly and empirically
observed. The observation is done to the responses given by test-takers, the
response is given by tester giving stimulus. The stimulus is expected to elicit and
output in the form of spoken responses. Furthermore, the stimulus must be in
specific form to elicit specific performance which is in line with the objectives of
learning. Brown (2001: 141) proposes five categories of speaking performance
assessment, they are imitative, intensive, responsive, interactive, and extensive.
Below are the explanation of each types of speaking tasks.
a. Imitative
It is clear that the term imitative task comes from the word “imitate” which
means “repeat”. In imitative speaking task, the speaking performance deals
with phonetic level of oral production and lexical and grammar properties of
language. It focus only pronunciation, and the ability to understand and convey
meaning is simply diminished. Test-takers have to imitate or repeat a word, a
phrase, or a sentence.
b. Intensive
In this task, the test-takers elicit a particular grammatical form or
transformation of a sentence. This task is clearly mechanical since it only
requires minimal processing of meaning in order to produce correct
grammatical outputs (sentences) without considering the communicative aspect
of speaking. Test-takers are expected to produce short stretches of oral
language to demonstrate response that deals with competences at the level of
grammatical, phrasal, lexical, or phonological relationship with prosodic
elements of intonation, stress, rhythm, and juncture. There are five tasks that
can be used at the intensive level. They are Directed-Response Tasks, Read-
Aloud Tasks, Sentence/Dialogue Completion Tasks and Oral Questionnaire,
Picture-Cued Tasks, and Translation of Limited Stretches of Discourse.
c. Responsive
Responsive tasks include brief interactions between the test-takers and an
interlocutor. The tester gives simple request, comments, or questions to
17
stimulate test-takers to produce limited length of utterances in interaction.
There are three types of tasks that can be used at responsive level. They are
Question and Answer, Giving Instructions and Directions, and Paraphrasing.
d. Interactive
Interactive speaking deals with tasks that involve relatively long stretches of
interactive discourse, such as: interviews, role play, discussions, and games.
This kind of test requires interaction among the test-takers and an interlocutor,
and the tester. Interactive speaking tasks contain employ more complex and
longer interaction than the tasks in responsive level. Test-takers are expected to
interact with transactional and interpersonal exchanges.
e. Extensive
Extensive oral production tasks require test-takers to produce maximum
elaborated response in the form of monologue with limited interaction. The
tasks include complex and long stretches of discourse. Extensive tasks can be
done in oral presentation, story-telling, and translation of extended prose.
In addition, according to Nation and Newton (2009: 171), there are two
main aspects for assessing speaking. The first is the way in which the person
being tested in encouraged to speak, it includes the activity of being interviewed,
describing something, and being involved in a discussion. The second aspect is in
the way in the speakers’ performances assessed, it includes the rating scale,
communicative result, and assigning marks for the parts of an outcome. The ways
speaking assessed based on the aspects are presented below.
a. Interview and Scales
Every student is interviewed individually. The interviewer does not need to
follow a set of series of questions but it is best to keep at least part of each
interview as similar as possible. The interviews are scored on rating scales
from one to five for each fluency, intelligibility, grammatical correctness,
richness of language and overall impression.
b. Group Oral Exams
The class is divided into groups of four to five students. Then, they are given a
card with a topic and a few questions to think about. After a few minutes, the
18
groups need to discuss the topic. Two observers grade each learners using a set
of scales. Instead of discussion, role plays partly scripted dialogues, and partly
improvised plays can be used.
c. Dycoms (Spilt Information)
The class is divided into two equal number of groups, group A and B. Both
groups are given to a sheet with fifty items. Then, the learners in each group
describe their items to each other and decide if they are the same or different.
This activity focuses on measuring students’ communicative skills.
d. Describe and Draw
Each student is given pictures which they have to describe so that their partners
as the examiner can draw it. Score is given for describing each part of the
picture correctly with specific marks assigned for each part.
e. Conversational Cloze
Students are given transcripts of a conversation. Every seventh word is omitted
from the transcript. The students have to write in the missing words. This kind
of task does not involve any listening or speaking by learners. Therefore, it
includes lack of diagnostic information, poor face validity, problems in
interpreting scores, and the “washback” effect.
f. Multiple-choice Speaking Tests
Students are given written multiple-choice items to answer. This task does not
require the students to speak at all.
g. Imitation
Students are asked to listen to tape-recorded sentences of different lengths and
repeat them, this task usually uses a large number of sentences. The sentences
produced by the students is judged as being correct and incorrect. The correct
one is imitated without any errors.
h. Role Plays
Students are asked to act out based on given situation. After the role play, the
examiner scores the learners performance on a set of scales. The format for
testing speaking will depend on a range of factors including the proficiency
19
level of learners, their experience, the reason of testing, and how well the
format satisfies the requirement of reliability, validity, and practicality.
After divining the certain tasks used in to assess speaking, teachers need to
employ specific scoring rubric to assess students speaking. A scoring rubric
contains a set of criteria to evaluate students’ competence in performing speaking.
The criteria of speaking performance is distributed into some values. Each value is
used to determine students score in performing speaking tasks. The following
tables are the scoring rubrics given by some experts.
Table 2.2 The Scale of Oral Testing Criteria by Ur (1991: 135)
Score Accuracy Score Fluency
1 Little or no language produced 1 Little or no communication
2 Poor vocabulary, mistakes in
basic grammar, may have very
strong foreign accent
2 Very hesitant and brief
utterances, sometimes difficult
to understand
3 Adequate but not rich
vocabulary, makes obvious
grammar mistakes, slight
foreign accent
3 Gets ideas across, but hesitantly
and briefly
4 Good range of vocabulary,
occasional grammar slips, slight
foreign accent
4 Effective communication in
short turns
5 Wide vocabulary appropriately
used, virtually no grammar
mistakes, native like or slight
foreign accent
5 Easy and effective
communication, uses long turns
TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 10:____
Table 2.3 The Analytical Speaking Criteria by Weir (2005: 195)
No Aspects Score Description
1 Fluency 4 Generally natural delivery, only occasional halting
when searching for appropriate words/expressions.
3 The student hesitates and repeats himself at times
but can generally maintain a flow of speech,
although he/she may need an occasional prompt.
2 Speech is slow and hesitant. Maintains speech in a
passive manner and needs regular prompt.
1 The student speaks so little that no ‘fluent’ speech
20
can be said to occur.
2 Pronunciation 4 Occasional errors of pronunciation a few
inconsistencies of rhythm, intonation and
pronunciation but comprehension is not impeded.
3 Rhythm, intonation and pronunciation require more
careful listening; some more errors of pronunciation
which may occasionally lead to incomprehension.
2 Comprehension suffers due to frequent errors in
rhythm, intonation and pronunciation.
1 Words are unintelligible.
3 Vocabulary 4 Effective use of vocabulary for the task with few
inappropriacies.
3 For the most part, effective use of vocabulary for the
task with some examples of inappropriacy.
2 Limited use of vocabulary with frequent
inappropriacies.
1 Inappropriate and inadequate vocabulary.
4 Grammatical
Accuracy
4 Very few grammatical errors evident.
3 Some errors in use of sentence structures and
grammatical forms but these do not interfere with
comprehension.
2 Speech is broken and distorted by frequent errors.
1 Unable to construct comprehensible sentences.
5 Interactional
Strategies,
4 Interacts effectively and readily participates and
follows the discussion.
3 Use of interactive strategies is generally adequate
but at times experiences some difficulty in
maintaining interaction consistently.
2 Show ineffective interaction and seldom develop an
interaction.
1 Understanding and interaction are minimal.
Table 2.4 The Scoring Criteria of Speaking by Brown (2010: 172)
No Aspects Score Description
1 Grammar 1 Errors in grammar are frequent, but speaker can be
understood by a native speaker used to dealing
with foreigners attempting to speak his language.
2 Can usually handle elementary construction quite
accurately but does not have thorough or confident
control of the grammar.
3 Control of grammar is good. Able to speak the
21
language with sufficient structural accuracy to
participate effectively in most formal and informal
conversations on practical, social, and professional
topics.
4 Able to use the language accurately on all levels
normally pertinent to professional needs. Errors in
grammar are quite rare.
5 Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker.
2 Vocabulary 1 Speaking vocabulary inadequate to express
anything but the most elementary needs.
2 Has speaking vocabulary sufficient to express
himself simply with some circumlocutions
3 Able to speak the language with sufficient
vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal
and informal conversations on practical, social, and
professional topics. Vocabulary is broad enough
that he rarely has to grope for a word.
4 Can understand and participate in any conversation
within the range of his experience with a degree of
precision of vocabulary.
5 Speech on all levels is fully by educated native
speakers in all its features including breadth of
vocabulary and idioms, colloquialism, and
pertinent cultural references
3 Content
1 Within the scope of his very limited language
experience, can understand simple questions and
statements if delivered with slowed speech,
repetition, and paraphrase.
2 Can get the gist of most conversations of non-
technical subjects (i.e., topics that requires no
specialized knowledge)
3 Comprehension is quite complete at a normal rate
of speech.
4 Can understand any conversation within the range
of his experience.
5 Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker.
4 Fluency 1 (No specific fluency description. Refer to other
four language areas for implied level of fluency.)
2 Can handle with confidence but not with facility
most social situations, including introductions and
casual conversations about current events, as well
as work, family, and autobiographical information.
3 Can discuss particular interest of competence with
reasonable ease. Rarely has to grope for words.
4 Able to use the language fluently on all levels
22
normally pertinent to professional needs. Can
participate in any conversation within the range of
this experience with a high degree of fluency.
5 Has complete fluency in the language such that his
speech is fully accepted by educated native
speakers.
5 Pronunciation 1 Errors in pronunciation are frequent but can be
understood by a native speaker used to dealing
with foreigners attempting to speak his language.
2 Accent is intelligible though often quite faulty,
3 Errors never interfere with understanding and
rarely disturb the native speaker. Accent may be
obviously foreign.
4 Errors in pronunciation are quite rare.
5 Equivalent to and fully accepted by educated native
speakers.
In assessing speaking, teachers may implement some tasks which are
related to the ways speaking are performed, namely; imitative, intensive,
responsive, interactive, and extensive. In addition, in evaluating the speaking
performance, this research adapt a scoring rubric proposed by Brown (2010: 172),
the rubric is chosen because it presents clear description of speaking performance
which is suitable with the aspects of speaking focused on this research. The
scoring rubric by Brown (2010: 172) consists of grammar, vocabulary,
comprehension, fluency, pronunciation. The adaption of the scoring rubric is
presented in the following.
Table 2.5. The Scoring Rubric Used in the Study
No Aspects Score Description
1 Grammar
1-3 Errors in grammar are frequent, but speaker can
be understood by a native speaker used to
dealing with foreigners attempting to speak his
language.
4-6 Can usually handle elementary construction quite
accurately but does not have thorough or
confident control of the grammar.
7-9 Control of grammar is good. Able to speak the
language with sufficient structural accuracy to
23
participate effectively in most formal and
informal conversations on practical, social, and
professional topics.
10-12 Able to use the language accurately on all levels
normally pertinent to professional needs. Errors
in grammar are quite rare.
13-15 Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker.
2 Vocabulary
1-3 Speaking vocabulary inadequate to express
anything but the most elementary needs.
4-6 Has speaking vocabulary sufficient to express
himself simply with some circumlocutions
7-9 Able to speak the language with sufficient
vocabulary to participate effectively in most
formal and informal conversations on practical,
social, and professional topics. Vocabulary is
broad enough that he rarely has to grope for a
word.
10-12 Can understand and participate in any
conversation within the range of his experience
with a degree of precision of vocabulary.
13-15 Speech on all levels is fully by educated native
speakers in all its features including breadth of
vocabulary and idioms, colloquialism, and
pertinent cultural references.
3 Comprehension 1-5 Within the scope of his very limited language
experience, can understand simple questions and
statements if delivered with slowed speech,
repetition, and paraphrase.
6-10 Can get the gist of most conversations of non-
technical subjects (i.e., topics that requires no
specialized knowledge)
11-15 Comprehension is quite complete at a normal
rate of speech.
16-20 Can understand any conversation within the
range of his experience.
21-25 Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker.
4 Fluency
1-4 (No specific fluency description. Refer to other
four language areas for implied level of fluency.)
5-8 Can handle with confidence but not with facility
most social situations, including introductions
and casual conversations about current events, as
well as work, family, and autobiographical
information.
9-12 Can discuss particular interest of competence
with reasonable ease. Rarely has to grope for
words.
24
B. Fishbowl Technique
1. The Definitions of Fishbowl Technique
Discussion technique is one of the most common techniques used in
English classrooms. Many teachers are familiar to the techniques and most of
them have successfully managed discussion in the class. However, the best
discussion is held by the best teacher who knows how to take advantage of the
students’ concerns, and turn it into a discussion in English. Therefore, it is useful
to have a specific technique to setting up a discussion. One of the discussion
techniques is Fishbowl. (Larson, 1999: 125) defines Fishbowl as a discussion
technique that can enrich understanding of particular topics through exchanges of
students’ point of view and participation in speaking. Brozo, et al.. (2007: 1)
states that Fishbowl is a strategy that involves one group of students looking at
another smaller group of students in a manner of watching fish through the clear
glass of an aquarium. The inner group carries on a conversation about the issue or
topic while outer group listens and prepares questions and comments for the
discussion. The roles are frequently rotated to ensure all students play an active
part in discussing, listening, and questioning.
13-16 Able to use the language fluently on all levels
normally pertinent to professional needs. Can
participate in any conversation within the range
of this experience with a high degree of fluency.
17-20 Has complete fluency in the language such that
his speech is fully accepted by educated native
speakers.
5 Pronunciation 1-5 Errors in pronunciation are frequent but can be
understood by a native speaker used to dealing
with foreigners attempting to speak his language.
6-10 Accent is intelligible though often quite faulty,
11-15 Errors never interfere with understanding and
rarely disturb the native speaker. Accent may be
obviously foreign.
16-20 Errors in pronunciation are quite rare.
21-25 Equivalent to and fully accepted by educated
native speakers.
Adapted from Brown (2010: 172)
25
Taylor (2007: 54) defines Fishbowl as a way to organize a medium to
large group discussion that promotes student engagement. The technique takes its
name from the way the seats in classrooms are organized with an inner circle and
outer circle, similar to a Fishbowl. The graphic below shows the way seats are
arranged in a Fishbowl discussion.
Figure 2.1 Fishbowl Seating Arrangement
The technique can be used in any subject in which student-centered
discussion is desired. Although it is a student-centered technique, teachers have
significant role in the class in managing the flow of discussion. By implementing
this kind of technique, the active and less active students are expected to give an
equal contribution to discussion. Equal contribution is needed since some classes
are accustomed to classical class management in which the students’ participation
is generally decided by the teachers. It is the teachers who decide what to talk and
the ones who talk by pointing at specific student to answer questions or give
opinion. As a result, there are only few students having contribution to the
teaching learning process. Therefore, the students who contribute are the active
ones because the less active students are hardly recognized. Fishbowl technique is
expected to help teachers in managing classes which compose largely of students
Taken from: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/fishbowls
26
with varied characteristics. The active and less active students have the same role
in the class discussion.
In summary, Fishbowl technique is one of discussion techniques that
requires all the students in a classroom having discussion about a specific issue. It
divides the class into two groups which are called as inner and outer circles. The
students who sit at the inner circle discuss a specific topic, while the students at
the outer circle observe the discussion.
2. The Steps to Implement Fishbowl Technique
As stated above, teachers may use various technique in setting up class
discussion. Fishbowl is one of the techniques, it can be used in small to large
classes. The technique is quite different from the classical class discussion in
which students are grouped in groups of four or five and given various topic for
discussion. Fishbowl demands all students to talk about a topic, each student has
equal position to talk and give response to other students’ opinion. This setting of
Fishbowl gives students opportunities to closely observe, take note, and give
response to someone’s opinion. There are some steps to conduct Fishbowl, the
first set of steps is suggested by Taylor (2007: 55). They are presented as follows.
a. The teacher arranges the room in a Fishbowl, with inner and outer circles of
students.
b. The teacher generates a set of questions by writing them on slips of paper or
index cards, or students can write questions or comments on cards, or students
can write questions or comments on cards.
c. Four or five students sit in the inner circle of the Fishbowl and begin discussion
about the questions. Only the students who sit in inner circle can talk, if a
student in the outer circle wants to say something, he or she must get up, tap
one of the students in the inner circle on the shoulder, and take his or her place.
d. Whenever a student is tapped out of the Fishbowl, he or she takes a seat in the
outer circle and cannot speak unless he or she returns to the inner Fishbowl by
tapping another student out.
27
e. If the students are reluctant to enter the Fishbowl, the teacher can change the
rules so that, after a few minutes, the inner group can tap others into the
Fishbowl.
f. The teacher sets a time limit of one, two or three minutes during which
students cannot be tapped out.
In addition, Surgernor (2010) argues that Fishbowl is useful for managing
students who tend to dominate groups, since it gives them opportunity to be the
center of attention for a period of time. Then, after period of time they can change
role to become the outer circle or observer. In the meantime, the less active
students may contributes actively to the discussion when they are seated in the
inner circle. It is believed that Fishbowl can be effective to teach quite large
groups. Surgernor (2010) suggests a set of steps to conduct discussion using
Fishbowl technique. They are presented in the following.
a. The teacher asks for a small group of students up to half of the class to sit in
the inner circle. The other students should sit in the outer circle and become the
observers.
b. The teacher gives the inner circle students a topic to be discussed.
c. The teacher needs to make sure that the topic given to the inner circle is
sufficiently simple to give the confidence to get started.
d. Some students will find it difficult to be the focus of all eyes and ears, so it
may be necessary to avoid point at certain students to take the center stage.
Therefore, a ‘tag wrestling’ version with those who want to join in gently
tapping the shoulder of someone in the inner circle if they want to replace the
position/role and chance of talking.
e. The teacher gives task to the outer circle students/observer to ensure that they
actively participate in the discussion. The teacher may ask them to determine
the issues or conclusion identified by the inner group.
After reviewing some stages to implement Fishbowl technique in the
classroom, the research will focus on following Brozo, et al. (2007: 2).
28
Table 2.6 The Steps to Implement Fishbowl Discussion
No Activities
1
The teacher tells the focus for class discussion. The more controversial
the issue to be discussed, the greater level of students’ engagement to the
discussion.
2 The teacher asks students to look for information related to the issue. The
students may take notes in advance about what they are going to say.
3 The teacher demonstrates the format and expectations of a Fishbowl
discussion, arranging the seats by asking four or five students to sit in the
inner circle.
4 The teacher gets the discussion started by telling the other students to sit
in outer circle and talk among themselves about the ideas and opinions.
5 The teacher tells the other to stop talking and start to listen carefully to
their classmates in the inner circle. Outer circle students are allowed to
take notes and prepare questions to be shared afterwards.
6 The teacher gets involved if the discussion stops or to ensure all students
in the inner circle are contributing and taking turns.
7 When the inner circle students finish or stop talking, the teacher may ask
other students to make comments on the discussion they observed and/or
ask further questions to the students.
8 The teacher choses other group of students and continue to Fishbowl
process until each student has had the opportunity to be in inner circle,
and understand the topic clearly.
Adapted from Brozo, et al. (2007: 2)
3. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Fishbowl Technique
There are some advantages of implementing Fishbowl in classroom. In
specific, this technique is implemented in high school classroom in this research.
Generally, high school students know how to talk with each other, however
teachers usually find problem in facilitating large group discussion. Fishbowl can
be a means for modelling the discussion of challenging and controversial material
in any subject area. For example, in a biology class, Fishbowl can be used at the
outset of a unit on Evolution to help students establish generative and appropriate
boundaries for their discussions about the topic. Similarly, a social studies teacher
can use Fishbowl as a way to begin discussion about issues such as slavery or
segregation.
Yee (2001: 1) states that the implementation of Fishbowl involves four
components of learning, they are presented as follows:
29
a. Deep Listening
The outer circle students listen carefully to each statement given by the
students in the inner circle. They have to give full attention to the inner circle
group. At the same time, they may take notes and write down some points to be
asked or suggested when they change roles in the next discussion session.
b. Critical Thinking
Both inner and outer circles students are given time to think before producing
ideas. The inner circle students need to construct their idea or opinion about the
given topic while the outer circle students are responsible to ask questions,
suggestion, and ask for clarification.
c. Critical Questioning
There should be conversation between students of inner and outer circles.
Thus, question and answer activity should be maintained, and the students need
to learn turn-taking.
d. Thoughtful Responding
The students are expected to observe, discover, and analyze each other group
ideas and speaking performance.
Furthermore, Fishbowl is a great way to motivate students to participate
in active and comprehensive discussions. This technique enhances the students’
motivation and engagement which foster comprehension of diverse learner
(Taylor, 2007: 58). In addition, Alverman in Brozo, et al. (2007: 1) states that
Fishbowl can enrich understanding of disciplinary topics through exchange of
multiple viewpoints and enlist the participation of every student because each
student has role in teaching learning process, and they are responsible to give
contribution to the discussion. Then, Opitz (2008: 1) explains that Fishbowl
allows us to explicitly teach a variety of social skills. It offers the class an
opportunity to closely observe and learn about social interactions with many
content area focuses. It means that Fishbowl cannot only be used in speaking class
but it can also be used in other classes, such as literature and science in which
students are demanded to share their ideas about specific topics.
30
Flor et al. (2013: 25) argues that Fishbowl technique can be easily liked
because of the process the discussion goes. However without preparation of
defining topic and choosing selection of references, the start of the discussion
would be much more difficult. It is true that the discussion may go well because
all the students may contribute but it can be hard for the students if they are not
familiar to the topic. Moreover, references about the topic should be prepared well
before conducting the discussion.
In conclusion, Fishbowl technique is an effective technique that can be
implemented in a large range of subject area. It gives students equal opportunities
to participate in discussion. Then, it motivates students to do critical thinking
about an object, because it demands the students to think before presenting their
ideas. Moreover, Fishbowl can be used to set up a discussion where there are
different abilities among the student. However, this technique does not give
autonomy to students in the discussion, the teacher manages the roles of each
speaker should be, what topic to be discussed, and how much they should talk in
the discussion. Moreover, the students and the teacher need to prepare really well
with the topic and references before conducting the discussion.
C. Small-group Discussion
1. The Definitions of Small-group Discussion
Small-group work in EFL classrooms has been largely acquired as an
effective strategy in the development of students’ communicative competence.
Small-group Discussion is a situation in which students generally work together in
face-to-face groups engaging in discussion and assisting one another in
understanding (Meng, 2009: 220). It requires relatively small number of
participants, five participants is an ideal number. Harmer (2012: 166) states that
Small-group Discussion is a discussion conducted in small-groups around five
students that provokes greater involvement and participation than larger groups.
The group is small enough for real interpersonal interaction, but it is not too small
that members are over reliant to each individual.
31
Furthermore, Henning (2008: 16) argues that Small-group Discussion is
an effort to make students contribute to class discussions in a manner that would
prevent side discussion taking place during the whole class discussion. The
students are grouped, and guided with questions directing the Small-group
Discussion. This technique is believed to improve students’ excitement during the
class.
Brewer (1997: 22) defines Small-group Discussion as a discussion that
allows students to share ideas in group discussion among students. A Small-group
Discussion follows democratic guidelines and allows everyone to contribute many
ideas for others to discuss. Moreover, Brewer argues that the main purpose of
Small-group Discussion is to contribute and circulate information on a particular
topic and analyze and evaluate the information for supported evidence in order to
reach an agreement on general conclusions.
In summary, Small-group Discussion can be defined as a discussion
technique that requires relatively small number of participants. Five is an ideal
number for each group in a class. This technique allows students to change ideas
and information in a way that increases interactions among students and
participation during teaching learning process which lead to general conclusion
for the certain topic.
2. The Steps to Implement Small-group Discussion Technique
The implementation of Small-group Discussion may be varied based on
the purpose of the lesson. However, techniques, would make the students
contribute to the class discussion in a manner that making side discussion taking
place during the whole class discussion. There are some sets of steps to conduct
discussion, the first is came from Thornbury (2005: 102). They are presented in
the following.
a. The teacher prepares in advance sets of cards (one for each group) on which
are written statements relating to a pre-selected topic.
b. In their groups, one student takes the first card, reads it aloud, and they then
discus it for as long as they need, before taking the next card, and so on.
32
c. If a particular statement does not interest them, they can move on the next
cards.
d. The object is not necessarily to discuss all the statements, the teacher may limit
what point to end the activity.
e. The groups prepare summaries of the main points that should come up.
f. The summaries can be used to open up the discussion to the whole class.
g. The students do discussion in groups.
Small-group teaching requires advance preparation to ensure that the
content and materials are clear enough to be understood. Tann in Galton and
Williamson (2005: 25) proposes three steps in conducting group work discussion.
They are orientation, development, and conclusion. The explanation of each step
is presented in the following.
a. Orientation, this stage involves students in such tasks as defining problems,
interpreting the task, and setting limits on the discussion.
b. Development, it involves brainstorming activity in which students generated
ideas and evolved reasoning strategies.
c. Conclusion/concluding stage, it is marked with increasing acceptance of each
other’s ideas and more progressive focusing on specific strategies necessary for
a successful resolution of the topic of discussion.
After reviewing some references focusing on how to conduct Small-
group Discussion, this research will employ a set of steps that are recommended
by Brewer (1997: 23). The steps are chosen because it is clear and condensed,
although it presents the teachers’ activities only. There are three main activities
done in managing the Small-group Discussion, they are introduction, directing the
discussion, and summarizing the discussion. The steps are explained in details as
follows.
Table 2.7 The Steps to Implement Small-group Discussion
No Activities
1 Introduction
The teacher introduces a topic which all of the students familiar with. If
they have background knowledge of the topic, they have a basis for
discussion and each of them will have something to contribute. By doing
so, the discussion will move on its way with many avenues of thought to
33
explore. The introduction involves four parts.
- Instructional Objective. An instructional objective should be
given to the participants at the beginning of the discussion.
- Purpose. The teacher should explain why the groups will be
discussing the chosen topic.
- Relationship. The teacher need to explain how information given
fits with what has already been learned or what will be learned.
- Advanced Organizer. It is some sort of attention-grabber that
attracts students’ interest. Many discussion topic fail because the
students are not drawn into the discussion at the beginning.
The teacher may have to help the students understand how Small-group
Discussion works to help them to make the most of their time. Students
may have to do a little research beforehand to get acquainted with the
selected topic.
2 Directing the Discussion
The teacher is in charge of directing the discussion to get it started.
He/she may ask the students if they have questions about the topic at
hand. Then, the students are asked to recall and share personal events that
have happened in their lives that are related to the topic chosen.
As the teacher directs the discussion, he/she should decide whether or not
the students spend too much time on insignificant points. The teacher
needs to keep control of the discussion, yet not dominate it. He/she
should try to enter in the discussions only when necessary in order to
avoid having the discussion centered on the teacher.
3 Summarizing the Discussion
The teacher asks a member of each group to report the discussion result
in front of the class. Correction in grammar and pronunciation is provided
by the teacher.
Then, the teacher needs to summarize to make sure that students
understand what has been discussed. Making sure that students have same
line of thought is essential at the end of the discussion. Basically,
summarizing is helpful for clearing up confusion, covering main points,
ending a discussion, and conveying consensus.
Adapted from Brewer (1997: 23)
3. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Small-group Discussion
Many teachers agree that discussion will enhance students’ participation
and interaction. As stated above, a successful group discussion should go through
certain stages, an orientation stage, a development stage, and a concluding stage.
However, the five-grouped participant discussion creates problem for the teacher
who teaches at a large classroom, especially in facilitating the discussion. It takes
much times organizing seats and managing the classroom. The problem comes
34
when all the roles are not managed well. Harmer (2012: 166) proposes a number
of advantages and disadvantages of students’ group-work activities.
Harmer (2012: 166) mentions five advantages of small-group activities,
they are presented below.
1) Increasing the number of talking opportunities for individual students.
2) Increasing the number of different opinion and varied contributions.
3) Encouraging broader skills of cooperation and negotiation. Teachers can
manage the students to evaluate each other’s performance both positively and
negatively where in a bigger group a natural tendency for self-effacement made
this less likely.
4) Promoting learners autonomy by allowing students to make their own decisions
in the group without being told what to do by the teachers.
5) Allowing some students choose their level of participation more readily than in
a whole-class or pair-wok situation.
In addition, Harmer (2012: 166) elaborates four disadvantages of small-
group activities. They are presented in the following.
1) It is likely to be noisy (though not necessarily as loud as pair-work can be).
Some teachers feel that they lose control, and the whole class feeling which has
been painstakingly built up may dissipate when the class is split into smaller
entities.
2) Not all students enjoy it since they would prefer to be focus of the teacher’s
attention rather than working with their peers. Sometimes students find
themselves in uncongenial groups and wish they could be somewhere else.
3) Individuals may fall into group roles of becoming fossilized, so that some are
passive whereas others may dominate.
4) Groups can take longer time to be organized, beginning and ending group-work
activities, especially where people move around the class, can take time and be
chaotic.
In addition, Brewer (1997: 23) states that Small-group Discussion serves
intellectual, emotional, and social purpose. In the aspect of intellectual, discussion
helps students become aware of diversity of opinions on an issue. Students will be
35
exposed to many possibilities, and they have to think about it. The students also
need to think the difference between fact and opinion and thus they must practice
the listening skill too. In the aspect of emotional, students may have some sort of
personal involvement in the issue they are discussing, making it important for
them. Students may want the others to realize that their opinions matter, and once
the group responds to the idea, each student retains a feeling of self-worth. By
doing so, students build affective quality which improves self-confidence and self-
belonging. Socially, Small-group Discussion builds sense of cohesion and trust
with one another. Discussion groups are a field in which differences in opinion,
race, gender, and participation should be accepted and celebrated. The discussion
will help students’ interpersonal skills and confidence about expressing idea and
information.
However, it seems that behavior of the students at each stage could be
distinguished by particular roles that they played in the process. Thornbury (2005:
114) describes students as either leaders, active participant, willing followers or
saboteurs in a grouped discussion. The key characteristics of students who have a
leader role is the dominant behavior. They are the one who organize the task by
defining the problem, identifying the goal or sub-goal and setting targets. They
initiate ideas and suggestion, raise questions and challenge statements and
assertions in ways that enabled the discussion to move forward. This role is
characterized by the ability to stimulate negotiation behavior as active
participants.
Willing followers are characterized by good-natured support of the
discussion. They act as a gatekeeper who might, for example, suggest turn taking
so that momentum was maintained and every member of the group was able to
contribute. They would be encouraging and conciliatory when different responses
were given by several group members and often they relieved tension in the group
through jokes.
The last role is saboteurs. This role is characterized with non-cooperative
behavior with slightly negative and destructive actions. For example, a student
would attack or reject outright all suggestion made by other students. They often
36
held back progress in the group by raising problems or stressing difficulties. At
times, such students might withdraw from the group interaction and refuse to
participate or exhibit destructive behavior which then prevented other group
members from doing the task.
4. The Differences between Fishbowl and Small-group Discussion
Techniques
Table 2.8 The Comparison Table of the Techniques
Aspects Fishbowl Technique Small-group Discussion
Technique
Definition Fishbowl is a way to organize a
medium to large group
discussion that promotes student
engagement. The technique takes
its name from the way the seats
in classrooms are organized with
an inner circle and and outer
circle, similar to a fishbowl
(Taylor, 2007: 54).
Small-group Discussion as a
discussion that allows
students to share ideas for
group discussion among
students. It follows
democratic guidelines and
allows everyone to contribute
many ideas for others to
discuss (Brewer, 1997: 22).
Time Efficient More Time Consuming
Orientation High Self-efficacy Low Self-efficacy
Teachers’
Role
• The teacher has to manage the
students’ role in discussion.
• Problems and solutions come
from the teacher and students.
• The teacher enters in the
discussions only when it is
necessary.
• The teacher helps only in
introducing the topic and
summarizing.
Student’
Role
All students have the same
chance to express their ideas.
Active students may
dominate the discussion.
Effects Students’ participation can be
efficiently managed.
Students’ participation is
difficult to be managed.
Strengths • It facilitates the
implementation of deep
listening, critical thinking,
critical questioning, and
thoughtful responding.
• It gives students equal
opportunities to participate in
a discussion.
• It increases the number of
talking opportunities for
individual students.
• It promotes learners
autonomy by allowing
students to make their own
decisions in the group
without being told what to
do by the teachers.
37
Weaknesses • It limits students’ autonomy in
performing in a discussion
• The class is likely to be
noisy
• Some students become
more passive since
probably the others
dominate.
• Groups take longer to be
organized
Fishbowl and Small-group Discussion are basically techniques for
conducting a classroom discussion. Both techniques are student-centered
techniques in which the teaching learning process are aimed at developing the
students’ autonomy, but in Fishbowl technique the teacher has bigger roles. The
teacher has to manage students’ role in the class, he/she in charge in selecting who
to talk and what to talk. Meanwhile, in Small-group Discussion the teacher enters
in the discussions only when necessary in order to avoid having the discussion
centered on the teacher. As a result, the role of the students in the Small-group
Discussion cannot be managed well, students who are active may dominate the
discussion while the shy and less active students do not have any contribution to
the discussion. Thus, Fishbowl technique tries to control the participations of both
active and less active students, and all of them can express their idea about
specific topic and practice their speaking.
Furthermore, in the aspect of topic flow, students will stay on topic since
the teacher manages the discussion. In contrary, there are possibilities that the
discussion is out of topic, because there are many groups to work with in the
Small-group Discussion class. In addition, it can be unmanageable. At last, in the
aspect of self-efficacy, Small-group Discussion provides peer modelling shown by
students to each other during the discussion which can enhance student’ self-
efficacy directly. Meanwhile, Fishbowl provides the adult and peer modelling.
The teacher gives adult model in target language while managing the discussion
and giving information. The students give model of presenting idea and using
target language to each other.
38
A. Self-efficacy
1. The Definitions of Self-efficacy
Students’ self-belief about their learning is playing significant role in
their achievement in learning. When a student believes that she can do a given
task, she will make effort to perform the task well. On the other hand, another
student may also doubt her own capabilities to do the task, therefore she will
perform less effort to accomplish the task. The concept of personal judgement or
personal belief in accomplishing tasks is called self-efficacy. Pajares (2000) as
cited from Haddad and Taleb (2015: 879) argues that people who have high
confidence in their capabilities advance to perform difficult tasks and perceive
them as challenges to be accomplished perfectly rather than as threats to be
avoided.
Bandura as cited from Moulding et al. (2013: 61) states that self-efficacy
is personal belief about one’s capabilities to learn or perform actions at designated
levels. According to Zimmerman (2000: 83), self-efficacy is the amount of
someone’s certainty about performing a given task. Furthermore, Ellias and
MacDonals as cited from Honicke and Broadbent (2015: 64) define self-efficacy
as learners’ judgement about one’s ability to successfully attain educational goals.
Self-efficacy and outcome expectation are closely related to each other,
and both have great role in learning achievement. However, self-efficacy plays
larger role because the types of outcomes people anticipate depend largely on
their judgments of how well they will be able to perform in a given situation. Self-
efficacy is measured by the amount of one’s certainty about performing a given
task. Self-efficacy focuses on performance capabilities rather than on personal
qualities. In other words, self-efficacy has nothing to do with physical or
psychological characteristics of the students. It deals with students’ self-certainty
in performing a given task. It is in line with the definition given by Bandura
(1977), that self-efficacy is personal judgment of one’s capabilities to organize
and execute courses of action to attain designated goals, and the person needs to
assess its level, generality, and strength across activities and context. In addition,
Lunenburg (2011: 1) defines self-efficacy as people’s abilities to achieve specific
39
tasks that they prefer to learn and the goals they set for themselves. Self-efficacy
affects motivation, performance, and learning because people tend to learn and
accomplish task they see themselves successful in.
In summary, self-efficacy is a belief about capabilities to do certain action
at a designated level in order to accomplish a certain task. Students with high level
of self-efficacy show greater effort and persists longer in accomplishing a certain
task. Students with low level of self-efficacy usually doubt their own capabilities
and show lack of self-confidence in learning. Self-efficacy has important role in
language teaching learning because the level of self-efficacy refers to students’
dependence in dealing with difficulty of a particular task.
2. Self-efficacy in Speaking
Speaking is one of language productive skills that requires students to
perform speech in limited time. Students are demanded to monitor what they say
and determine whether it matches their idea. Thus, it is commonly difficult for
EFL students to master speaking skill.
To master speaking skill, students need to have adequate grammar and
vocabulary, correct pronunciation, appropriate fluency, and good comprehension.
However, students do not only have to master the indicators, they also need to
have abilities to plan, process, and produce the language to accomplish speaking
tasks. Kim and Lorshbach (2005) as cited from Khatib and Maarof (2015: 99)
believe that students with high self-efficacy perform speaking better than those
who have low self-efficacy. Those who have high self-efficacy tend to perform
confidently and show higher interest in accomplishing speaking tasks. They
actively involve and speak more in the classroom.
Speaking performance is also affected by students’ motivation. Students
need to have motivation to interact with others in English to improve their
communicative competence, therefore they can master speaking skill. Hsieh and
Schallert (2008) as cited from Rahayu and Jacobson (2015: 4) suggest that self-
efficacy highly influence students’ motivation in performing speaking tasks.
When the students feel motivated, they show greater willingness to talk in
40
English. Self-efficacy directly influences the students’ speech duration and
proportion. Students who have high level of self-efficacy tend to speak more than
those who have low self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy affects students’ confidence in performing speaking tasks,
since speaking involves the activities plan, process, and produce language in
limited time. During the speaking activities, students need to be able to reduce
anxiety to perform well. In addition, self-efficacy influences students’ motivation
to perform speaking tasks. Students need to have motivation to practice English in
order to master the language.
3. The Sources of Self-efficacy
As stated above, self-efficacy is closely related to motivation in learning,
especially in performing speaking task. The ways self-efficacy affecting learning
can be seen in the ways students performing specific task. Students with high self-
efficacy are likely to exert effort in the face of difficulty and persist at a task when
they have the requisite skills. They are also more cognitively engaged in learning
when task is perceived as difficult and effortful. Furthermore, they are less
cognitively engaged in easy tasks.
Bandura in Moulding et al. (2000: 61) identifies four sources of self-
efficacy, they are enactive attainment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion,
and psychological state. Enactive attainment is related to personal successes or
accomplishment of the individuals, sometimes referred as authentic mastery
experience. It is considered as the most powerful source of self-efficacy. Then,
vicarious experience happens when one observes people similar to oneself
succeeding at the target task. Verbal persuasion is the next source of self-efficacy,
it occurs when people is told by others that he or she possesses the capabilities to
succeed at the target task. Teachers’ feedback and supports are believed to have
impact on students’ efficacy. Then, the self-efficacy gets higher when it closely
follows a successful mastery experience of the material taught. The last is
psychological state, it is an awareness of the emotional and physical response
41
while attempting the given task. This factor is generally related to students’ stress,
fatigue, and mood when attempting to do task.
In line with the explanation above, Zimmerman (2000: 88) states that
self-efficacy, as a cognitive belief, are influenced by four types of experiences.
They are enactive attainment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and
psychological states. Enactive attainment is the most influential sources of self-
efficacy because the students’ predict the result of action in performing task by
referring to the past attainment. Then, vicarious experience is made by a student
by doing comparison to model given by teachers or other students. By observing
the model, the student may feel more efficacious in performing tasks. Verbal
persuasion is said as having the least influences among the sources of self-efficacy
because the effect given by this factor is not directly witnessed and the way it is
affecting self-efficacy depends on the credibility of the persuader. The last is
psychological state; fatigue, stress, and other emotions contribute in the way
students’ beliefs in performing well in a task. Therefore, self-efficacy is assumed
to be responsive to changes in personal context and outcomes, whether
experienced directly, vicariously, verbally, or psychologically.
Moreover, the above concept is in line with the explanation given by
Schunk (1995: 112), it is stated that self-efficacy is affected by some factors. They
are personal qualities, prior experience, social support, and personal and
situational influences. First, personal qualities deal with students’ prior abilities
and attitudes. Second, prior experience is one of internal factors of self-efficacy,
when a student had experienced successes in performing a certain task, his/her
sense of efficacy may be developed. However, when it is a failure, the self-
efficacy may be low. Third, social support, such as teachers’ and parents’
encouragement and positive feedback can enhance self-efficacy. Fourth, personal
influence, this factor deals with individual psychological indexes, such as heart
rate and sweating. The last is situational influences that deals with teachers’
reward and feedback. The figure below shows how some source influencing self-
efficacy.
42
Figure 2.2 Factors Influencing Self-efficacy
Table 2.9 The Sources of Self-efficacy
Moulding et al.
(2000: 61)
Zimmerman (2000: 88) Schunk (1995: 112)
Enactive attainment Enactive attainment Personal qualities
Vicarious experience Vicarious experience Prior experience
Verbal persuasion Verbal persuasion Social support
Psychological state Psychological states Personal influences
Situational influences
According to some experts, there are four aspects of self-efficacy, called
enactive attainment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and psychological
state. Each source of self-efficacy contributes in someone’ self-efficacy quality.
Based on discussion above, the quality self-efficacy in the academic field can be
clearly seen in its role in improving students’ learning motivation.
4. The Aspects of Self Efficacy
Self-efficacy is an important influence on motivation and achievement in
performing in a given task (Schunk, 2012: 148). In the aspect of motivation,
students with high level of self-efficacy solve more task problems correctly and
choose to rework more problems they missed than those with low self-efficacy.
Regardless of the ability level, self-efficacy gives impact on students’ motivation
when performing task. Moreover, in the aspect of achievement, self-efficacy
Adopted from Schunk (1995: 113)
PERSONAL
QUALITIES
PRIOR
EXPERIENCE
SOCIAL
SUPPORT
SELF-
EFFICACY
PERSONAL
INFLUENCES
SITUATIONAL
INFLUENCES
MOTIVATION
SELF-
EFFICACY
TASK
ENGAGEMENT
43
influences the perception of achievement outcomes, choices of activities, efforts,
and persistence.
The perception of achievement outcomes is largely influenced by self-
efficacy. The perception of outcomes raises self-efficacy and sustain motivation.
When students work on a task, they get perception on how the task will be
accomplished. Their perception is largely affected by their self-efficacy, students
with positive perception of achievement outcomes. They will work well and strive
to attain desired outcomes because they work toward outcomes they find self-
satisfying (Schunk, 2012: 160).
Moreover, the choice of activities, effort, and persistence in learning are
influenced by self-efficacy. According to Solomon (1984) as cited from Schunk
(2012: 148) students with high self-efficacy are more likely to be cognitively
engaged in learning when the task is perceived as difficult but less likely to be
effortful and less cognitively engaged when the task deemed easy. In other words,
the difficult tasks are chosen by the high self-efficacious students to exert their
effort. Then, quantity and quality of effort shown by high self-efficacious students
is linked with their cognitive competence. Furthermore, they can persist longer in
completing the difficult task than the less efficacious students.
According to Zimmerman (2000: 86), self-efficacy influences academic
motivation in terms of choice of activities, level of effort, persistence, and
emotional reactions. Students with high level of self-efficacy generally participate
more readily, work harder, persist longer, and have fewer adverse emotional
reactions when they find difficulties than those who doubt their capabilities. In the
term of choice of activities, students with high level of self-efficacy can solve
difficult and challenging tasks more readily than those who have low self-
efficacy. Furthermore, based on some evidences, self-efficacious students have
positive mental effort and better achievement during learning difficult material.
Self-efficacy influences students’ persistence in learning directly and
indirectly. The direct effect is related to the effect of self-efficacy in methods and
motivation accomplishing specific tasks. Meanwhile, the indirect effect deals with
students’ persistence in acquiring skills in longer term of study. The last effect is
44
on students’ emotional reactions. Students’ belief about their capabilities to
manage academic task demands can influence them emotionally by decreasing
their stress, anxiety, and depression.
Table 2. 10 The Aspects of Self-efficacy
Pajares, 1996, 1997; Schunk & Pajares,
2005 as cited from Schunk (2012: 147)
Zimmerman (2000: 89)
Perception of Achievement Outcomes
Choice of Activity Choice of Activity
Effort Effort
Persistence Persistence
Emotional Reactions
Based on above elaboration, it can be stated that self-efficacy is closely
related to students’ motivation and confidence to do a certain action to accomplish
a given task. Students’ motivation is shown in the perception of achievement
outcomes, choice of activity, effort, and persistence shown during learning. Then,
the students’ confidence is shown in the way emotion is managed during learning.
Self-efficacious students usually perform confidently when accomplishing a given
task especially in a speaking task because they can control their stress, depression,
and anxiety. In addition, there are five aspects of self-efficacy used in this
research, they are perception of achievement outcomes, choice of activity, effort,
persistence, and emotional reactions.
Based on the aspects of self-efficacy, the indicators of self-efficacy are
constructed. The indicators can show how all the aspects of self-efficacy influence
students’ behavior and characteristics. The table below shows the aspects and
indicators of self-efficacy.
Table 2.11 The Indicators of Self-efficacy
No The Aspects References Indicators
1 Perception of
Achievement
Outcomes
- Pajares, 1996,
1997; Schunk &
Pajares, 2005 as
cited from Schunk
(2012: 147)
- Having desired goals to be
achieved
- Working towards self-satisfying
outcomes.
2 Choice of Activity - Zimmerman (2000:
89)
- Pajares, 1996,
1997; Schunk &
- Solving difficult tasks confidently
- Ready to solve challenging tasks
- Predicting the ways to solve
certain tasks
45
Pajares, 2005) as
cited from Schunk
(2012: 147)
- Showing intrinsic interest in
performing tasks
- Showing preserve in solving
difficult tasks
3 Effort - Zimmerman (2000:
89)
- Pajares, 1996,
1997; Schunk &
Pajares, 2005) as
cited from Schunk
(2012: 147)
- Interested to solve difficult tasks
- Having high rate solutions to task
problems
- Feeling motivated to solve difficult
tasks
- Performing confidently in any
given tasks
4 Persistence - Zimmerman (2000:
89)
- Pajares, 1996,
1997; Schunk &
Pajares, 2005) as
cited from Schunk
(2012: 147)
- Having specific learning method
- Knowing what, how and when to
learn
- Believing that they can finish any
tasks
- Encountering no problem in
acquiring language
5 Emotional
Reactions - Zimmerman (2000:
89)
- Showing ability to manage stress
in learning
- Showing ability to decreasing
anxiety in performing given tasks
- Showing ability to avoid
depression in learning.
B. Review of Related Studies
There are many studies conducted in the area of teaching learning
techniques especially in context of Fishbowl and Small-group Discussion
techniques. Dominicus Yabarmase (2012) conducted a research entitled
“Fishbowl Strategy: An Effective Way to Improve Students’ Speaking Ability”. It
is a Collaborative Action Research done in a high school which implementing
Fishbowl technique. This study was conducted at SMA Xaverius Ambon with
thirty students of the tenth grade. With the consideration of the current curriculum
and students’ needs, Fishbowl technique was used. The research reveals that there
was an improvement in the students’ speaking skills after implementing Fishbowl.
It is stated that all of the students had improved because each of them had more
chances to express their idea related to the topic given by the teacher. Moreover,
Fishbowl technique provided students the roles of “Fish” and “Bowl” which gave
them equal chance to speak in the class.
46
A thesis entitled “The Effectiveness of Fishbowl to Teach Reading
Viewed from Students’ Self-Confidence (An Experimental Study at the Eight
Grade Students of MTs, Muallimin NY Pancor in the Academic Year of
2010/2011)” tried to reveal whether or not Fishbowl as teaching technique was
more effective to teach reading than Translation method. The research was
conducted in 2011 by H. Hamdan. The result of the experimental study showed
that Fishbowl was more effective than translation method to teach reading to
students who had high self-confidence. On the other hand, translation method is
more effective to teach reading to students who had low self-confidence.
In the context of group-discussion technique, Sovenda Septa Hastoyo
conducted a research in 2010. The research is entitled “Improving Students’
Speaking Competence through Small-group Discussion”. The subjects of the
research are the fifth grade students of MI AL Islam Grobogan Surakarta. The
study was aimed at finding out how a Small-group Discussion could improve
students’ speaking competence and other problems arose during the teaching
learning process. The study was initiated by identifying problems by doing
observation, conducting test, and conducting interview. Then, the researcher
planned the action by deciding the topic and material, implemented the action,
observed/monitored the action, reflected the result of observation, and revised the
plan. The study found that Small-group Discussion can improve students’
speaking competence. There was quite significant increase of the students’ scores,
the mean score of the pre-test was 5.9, while the pre-test mean score was 6.7. The
study concludes that Small-group Discussion gives students opportunities to speak
more during the teaching learning process.
In addition, Esti Ratih conducted a classroom action research entitled
“The Use of Small-group Discussion to Improve Students’ Speaking Skill (A
Classroom Action Research in the Tenth Grade of SMA N 8 Surakarta in the
Academic Year 2012/2013)”. The study was aimed at identifying whether or not
Small-group Discussion improves students’ speaking skill. The result showed the
improvements of students’ speaking ability and classroom situation. The students
speaking ability improved in the ways of stating content of speech, performing
47
acceptable pronunciation, producing utterances by using correct grammar, using
appropriate vocabulary to express ideas, and speaking fluently. On the other hand,
classroom situation became calmer, full of students attention, etc. Small-group
Discussion was proven to help increasing students’ speaking skill.
Furthermore, in the field of self-efficacy, a research has been conducted
by Puji Rahayu and Michael J. Jacobson from University of Sidney. The title of
the research is “Speaking Self-efficacy and English as a Foreign Language:
Learning Processes in a Multiuser virtual Environment”. The study tried to reveal
the relationship between speaking self-efficacy and English speaking skill
development in a case study. The participants of the research were four learners of
Universitas Islam Indonesia. The results of the study showed that participants
improved their speaking self-efficacy through enactive mastery experience, verbal
persuasion, and physical and affective states.
The next study is published by Canadian Center of Science and
Education, Vol. 5, No. 11; 2012. ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750. The title of
the study is “Self-efficacy in Second/Foreign Language Learning Contexts”. It
was conducted by Saeid Raoofi, Bee Hoon Tan, and Swee Heng Chan from
Department of English, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication,
University Putra Malaya. There were two main purposes of the study; exploring to
what extent self-efficacy has been explored in the field of second language
learning and finding out what factors affect learners’ self-efficacy beliefs in
learning a foreign/second language. The research employed synthetic techniques
to collect a thorough collection of current research on self-efficacy. By using
certain database search engine, the data uploaded from the year of 2003 to 2012
were collected. The study concluded that self-efficacy had appeared as one of the
most influential independent variables on learners’ performance and achievement
within second language learning contexts of classroom interaction. Self-efficacy
plays a vital role in stimulating students to exert the required effort in performing
a specific task when students have experienced previous success in the specific
task, most studies showed a significant relationship between self-efficacy and
other variables, but no one explained causal relationship between self-efficacy and
48
other variables. Most of the studies assessed learners’ self-efficacy beliefs in a
short term period, they have not examined long-term influences.
The studies above are related to Fishbowl technique, Small-group
Discussion technique, and self-efficacy. The first and second studies are related to
Fishbowl technique, the third and fourth studies deal with Small-group Discussion
technique, and the two last studies have something to do with students’ self-
efficacy. Those six studies use qualitative and quantitative approaches in the form
of collaborative action research, case study, and experimental research. However,
a study focusing on three aspects: Fishbowl technique, Small-group Discussion
technique, and students’ self-efficacy in a quantitative study has not found yet.
Furthermore, the study conducted by Puji Rahayu and Michael J.
Jacobson from University of Sidney which entitled “Speaking Self-efficacy and
English as a Foreign Language: Learning Processes in a Multiuser Virtual
Environment” gives the most contribution in this research since the study explores
the correlation between students’ self-efficacy and English speaking skill. The
result of the study has become the main reference to comprehend the relationship
between speaking and self-efficacy.
F. Rationale
1. The difference between Fishbowl and Small-group Discussion techniques
to teach speaking
Speaking is an oral activity in which words are produced in the form of
speech. There are at least five aspects of speaking, namely pronunciation,
vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension. Each aspect is contributing in
the speaking competence. In developing each aspect of speaking skill, teachers
need to implement effective and appropriate teaching techniques in the classroom.
Fishbowl and Small-group Discussion techniques are believed to be give more
contribution in teaching learning process of speaking than the technique used in
the research classes.
Fishbowl is a strategy to organize a medium to large group discussion
that promotes student engagement. The technique takes its name from the way the
49
seats in classrooms are organized with an inner circle and outer circle, similar to a
Fishbowl. The technique can be used in any subject in which student-centered
discussion is desired. Although it is a student-centered technique, teachers have
significant role in the class in managing the flow of discussion. By implementing
this kind of technique, the active and less active students are expected to give an
equal contribution to discussion. It is needed since as always the students who
contribute in class discussions are the active ones because the less active students
are hardly expressing the idea. Fishbowl technique is expected to help teachers in
managing the class with student with varied characteristics. The active and less
active students have the same role in the class discussion.
Meanwhile, Small-group Discussion is a strategy to make students
perform discussion in groups. The students are grouped, and then guided to
initiate a discussion by giving questions related to the chosen topic. This condition
will help students, especially the ones who are usually shy to speak to manage
their anxiety during speaking because they have to perform in smaller groups. In
addition, the students are given opportunity to manage the discussion by
themselves. Teachers join the discussion only when it is necessary, for example to
present the chosen topic and summarize the discussions. However, implementing
this technique is considered to be difficult since organizing many groups takes
longer time. The class is likely to be noisy, and some students may become more
passive since the others are dominating.
By giving consideration to above elaboration, it is assumed that Fishbowl
discussion technique is more effective than Small-group Discussion to teach
speaking. It gives students equal opportunities to participate in discussion.
Moreover, it provides the teacher easier access to control students’ discussion.
2. The difference between students who have high self-efficacy and low self-
efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to personal beliefs about one’s capabilities to learn or
perform actions at designated levels. Students with high self-efficacy usually
participate more eagerly in teaching learning process because self-efficacy affects
50
effort expenditure, persistence, and choice of activities in learning. Students with
high level of self-efficacy solve more problems correctly and choose to rework
more problems they missed and tend to try enhancing their own motivation to
learn in the form of engaging themselves to tasks as they have more effort in
studying. They will cope with difficulty by showing effort and persistence. They
tend to perform confidently and show higher interest in accomplishing speaking
tasks. They will actively involve and speak more in a discussion.
On the other hand, students with low level of self-efficacy doubt their
own capabilities in performing given tasks. Speaking involves the activities plan,
process, and produce language in very limited time, it can be categorized as
spontaneous activity. Especially during speaking activities, students need to be
able to reduce anxiety to perform well. Lack of self-efficacy will result on
performing in lesser proportion and accuracy than those who have high self-
efficacy.
There is an indication that students who have high level of self-efficacy
are able to plan, process, and produce language well. Meanwhile, students with
low level of self-efficacy are not able manage their anxiety which can affect their
speaking performance in given task. Based on the explanation above, it is
assumed that students with high level of self-efficacy can perform better in
speaking tasks than those who have low self-efficacy.
3. The interaction between the teaching techniques and self-efficacy
Teaching technique is a specific type of teaching learning activity
implemented in classrooms. Teachers need to implement valuable teaching
technique in order to improve students’ language skill. They are expected to
choose the teaching technique that suit students’ needs and characteristics to
improve speaking skill effectively. The effectiveness of teaching techniques can
be measured from its impact on students’ speaking skill. The more effective the
teaching technique is, the more successful the learning will be.
Fishbowl technique is suitable for students who have high self-efficacy.
It facilitates students who have high self-efficacy to master speaking skill. Their
51
abilities to maintain effort and persistence in accomplishing speaking tasks can
facilitate them in performing well in whole-class discussion. They can actively
participate in the discussion and express their idea through questions-answers
process in front of the class. Furthermore, they are given chance to speak as
observers who are able to give comments on the discussion and other’s
performance. Therefore, Fishbowl technique will allow students who have high
self-efficacy to perform better in speaking tasks since they are given opportunity
to develop their speaking skill in by activating their ability to do deep listening,
critical thinking, critical questioning, and thoughtful responding.
On the other hand, it is assumed that students with low self-efficacy are
suitable to learn speaking in Small-group Discussion. Students who have lack of
self-efficacy tend to have smaller amount of effort and persistence in learning.
They are not used to set perception about learning achievement and tend to choose
activities which are not challenging. In addition, they do not have the capability to
set the goal of learning, reduce stress, depression, and anxiety in speaking. The
discussion process in Small-group Discussion technique allows students who have
low self-efficacy to perform speaking in less-stressful situation because they only
need to share opinion in their groups. As stated above, this technique allows some
students to choose their level of participation more readily than in a whole-class
discussion. Furthermore, this technique provides students with opportunity to
evolve their self-efficacy through peer-modeling. Peer modeling is believed to be
one of the sources of self-efficacy, since students’ self-efficacy may improve
when they are looking at others’ success in performing tasks.
In summary, it is believed that Fishbowl technique is effective to be used
to teach students with high level of self-efficacy. Meanwhile, Small-group
Discussion is more effective to be used to teach students with low level of self-
efficacy. In conclusion, it is assumed that there is an interaction between teaching
techniques and self-efficacy in teaching speaking.
52
G. Hypothesis of the Study
Based on review of related literature and rationale, the hypothesis can be
formulated as follows:
1. Fishbowl technique is more effective than Small-group Discussion technique to
teach speaking to the eleventh grade students of SMA N 1 Mejayan in the
academic year of 2015/2016.
2. The students who have high self-efficacy have better speaking skill than those
who have low self-efficacy of the eleventh grade of SMA N 1 Mejayan in the
academic year of 2015/2016.
3. There is an interaction between teaching techniques and self-efficacy to teach
speaking to the eleventh grade students of SMA N 1 Mejayan in the academic
year of 2015/2016.