CHAPTER IINTRODUCTION1.1 Introduction This chapter begins by drawing on the importance of the English language and the importance of English in Indonesian context. The overview of the importance of the speaking skills as the domain of this study is discussed.
This is followed by an explanation on some problems faced by Indonesian students in the speaking skills. Finally, the discussion will explain what needs to be done to overcome the Indonesian students’ problems which leads to the formulation of the research objective in this study. In this chapter, the writer will discuss the background and problem of this study. Next, the writer will also explain the objectives, research questions, and hypotheses. The theoretical framework to explain aspects related to theories or concepts that underlie this study is also discussed. This is followed by the importance of conducting the study. The writer will also discuss the limitation of this study and then explains several operational definitions. The writer will conclude this chapter by writing the summary of the chapter.
We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!
1.2 Background of StudyEducation is an effort to improve the quality of human resources. The Indonesian constitution guarantees the right of every citizen of Indonesia to get an education (Amendment Constitution of 1945, Section 31, verse 1). Education is a conscious and deliberate effort to create an atmosphere of learning and a learning process so that learners are actively developing their potentials and having a spiritual power of religion, self-control, personality, intelligence, noble character, and a lot of skills needed to develop a better quality of human resource in Indonesia (National Education System Law, 2003, No.
20, Section I). Thus, the improvement of education quality must be conducted for the entire system. One of the important subjects which should be developed is the English language. There are several reasons why English language teaching and learning is essential in Indonesia. First, is the impact of globalization because for a country to remain competitive its people need the English language. A country whose citizens are not proficient in English will lag in businesses and trade (Misso ; Maadad, 2016).
This is because English is the lingua franca of most parts of the world (Yahya, 2017). In addition, President Joko Widodo, the Indonesian President who introduced a free-trade between Indonesia and other countries, has made the mastery of the English language important. This economic policy introduced by the President has resulted in the need to master English to compete with the rest of the world. Further, many foreign companies have come to Indonesia and set up their businesses and trading. Since they do their business in English, the mastery of the language amongst the Indonesians is paramount.
Another reason why the Indonesians need to be proficient in the English language is that of employability factor (Handayani, 2016). Due to international free-trade, foreign companies have established their businesses all over Indonesia. The presence of these foreign companies offers Indonesians abundance of job opportunities (Handayani, 2016). However, these companies need their employees to have good English language proficiency (Handayani, 2016). Most of these companies use the result of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) scores to employ their employees.
The lack of English language mastery among Indonesians has resulted in them getting only low paid jobs in these foreign companies (Handayani, 2016). Thus, Indonesians should attain excellent English language proficiency to secure better positions in international companies. Companies need their employees to have excellent English language proficiency to persuade, present and promote their products. When they failed to employ Indonesian employees who are proficient in English, they will turn to human resources from other neighbouring Association of South East Asian Nation (ASEAN) countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philliphines. Some companies went to the extent of employing employees from western countries (Handayani, 2016). As a result, Indonesians will get only the low paid job while their ASEAN counterparts will become managers and directors in the international companies in Indonesia. Based on the reasons above, the English language began to be taught in Indonesian schools. Various curricula and methods have been developed to improve students’ ability in mastering English.
Nevertheless, results show that many Indonesian students are unable to communicate well using the language (Sugeng, 2015). There are various factors which led to their inability to use the language satisfactorily (Mattarima & Hamdan, 2014). First, English in Indonesia is a foreign language, and it is not used by Indonesian in their daily communication (Laudeer, 2010). Most Indonesians feel that the English language is only used in schools or when they meet tourists from a foreign country.
Thus, the Indonesians are not motivated to learn the English language because they are able to conduct their daily life without the use of the language. Second, the New Curriculum 2013 states that English is a compulsory subject only in Junior High School (Nur & Madkur, 2014; Mattarima & Hamdan, 2014). This regulation resulted in many elementary schools not to teach English. These schools regarded English as only an optional and additional subject. As a result, most of the students will only learn English six years before entering university. Another factor which led to the inability of the Indonesian students to be proficient in the language is because English teachers in Junior High School and Senior High School only focus on giving tests as their major goal in English teaching and learning. In addition, the teachers rely excessively on English textbooks and only focus on teaching grammar and sentences structures. (Mattarima & Hamdan, 2014).
These factors have resulted in Senior High School students to have low English language proficiency when they enter the university (Nur & Madkur, 2014).To improve students’ English language skills, some universities have set up Language Development Centre to help the first year students with their English language proficiency. The centre is relevant because this helps students who are not from the English language department to enhance their English language proficiency. For instance, a university in South Kalimantan offers an intensive language course to its students during the first two semesters. The centre helps the students to improve their listening and speaking skills as well as their reading and writing skills. Most experts pointed out among the four skills, the speaking skills are the most important due to some reasons (Horwitz, 2007). First, the speaking skills is used in a person’s daily life. From the time one wakes up until one goes to sleep, he uses the speaking skills to socialise with others (Thornbury, 2009).
Similarly, Tracy and Robles (2013) claim the speaking skills are useful for students to participate in family, school, and workplace communication. In addition, people need the speaking skills in seeking information and to give instructions (Geyse, 2007). Next, the speaking skills are also important because it impacts other language skills. Hughes (2011) states the speaking skills help students to enhance their vocabulary and grammar skills.
In addition, these skills also improve students’ writing skills (Hughes,2011; Thornbury, 2009). The speaking skills further, help students to express their ideas and emotions. Through the speaking skills, they can tell stories, make a request, talk, discuss and show the various functions of a language (Tracy ; Robles, 2013). A claim was also made by McDonough and Shaw (1993) that speaking skills lesson will provide students with a lot of practices in producing sentences for real communication. This means when students learn the speaking skills, it will support their ability to use the language efficiently. For these reasons, it is important for Indonesian teachers to teach their students the speaking skills so that they will become good English language speakers.In this study, the writer proposes to develop Indonesian students’ speaking skills and focus will only be made on the students’ speaking accuracy and fluency. This is because by focusing on accuracy and fluency, it would contribute to reducing the students’ speaking problems (Sugeng, 2015).
In addition, by emphasising equally on students’ speaking accuracy and fluency, this will help students to attain a good English language proficiency. The review of literature show that one technique which can enhance students’ speaking accuracy and fluency is through the Mingle Model (Pollard & Hess, 1997). This technique has been used to enhance students’ speaking skills in countries like China and Russia. This is a model of teaching where a teacher can develop a lot of variety of techniques in teaching. For instance: “Find Someone Who” (Klippel 1984; Geyse, 2007; Thornbury, 2009); “Opinion polls” (Klippel, 1984); “4/3/2 technique” (Nation, 1989); “Questionnaires” (Edge, 1993); “Surveys” (Seymour ; Popova, 2003); “A tea party strategy” (Jonson, 2006); and “Find your match” (Vogt ; Echevarría, 2008). Using the Mingle Model will let the whole class to participate actively in the speaking activities (Borzova, 2014).
No student will be left behind or only sit and watch when two or three of peers practice in front of the class (Darmayenti ; Nofiandri, 2015). The Mingle Model provides students with real-life practice and high-quality speaking activities (Darmayenti ; Nofiadri, 2015). This learning model stresses on the cooperation and collaboration process among students as well as friendly competition amongst them (Ruzieva ; Yuldasheva, 2017; Borzova, 2014). This is in line with the vision of the Ministry of Research Higher Education which states that “The realisation of high-quality education and the ability of science and technology and innovation to support the national and international competition” (http://www.dikti.go.
id/visi-misi-strategi/). This means that the Mingle Model are able to contribute in the development of education quality in Indonesia. In this study, the writer will use the Mingle Model by Darmayenti ; Nofiadri (2015) to enhance students’ speaking skills. This study attempts to examine the effectiveness of the Mingle Model to enhance students’ speaking accuracy and fluency. Hence, the writer proposes to investigate the effectiveness of the model to contribute to the existing body of knowledge.1.
3 Problem Statement In this twenty-first century, Indonesia has become a big trading market for people around the world (Handayani, 2016). A lot of companies for the world over have set up businesses and trading there. These foreign companies need employees who are able to persuade, present, and promote their products. However, due to their lack of the oral communication proficiency (Sugeng, 2015), Indonesians are not able to do their trading effectively. As a result, they tend to get only the low-paid jobs while their ASEAN counterparts will become managers and directors in the international companies in Indonesia. Hence, Indonesian students’ speaking skill is increasingly recognised as a serious concern in English language teaching and learning since the Indonesian students’ success lies in their oral communication or speaking skills (Handayani). The lack of the students’ oral communication skills has been a problem for many years. It is found that most of these students have not mastered their speaking skills.
Hadijah (2014) finds students have problems with grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. While Mufidah (2015) finds the alumni of English language department at a university in South Kalimantan encountered problems during their speaking lessons. Students do not know how to express things in English; they are unable to say things correctly in the language; and they do not know how to participate in a discussion and they do not understand the differences between formal and informal English language.
Echoing this, Sugeng (2015) asserts that the students’ level of speaking accuracy and fluency is extremely low. A considerable amount of literature has been published on the problems involving the speaking skills. Recently, researchers have shown an interest in the Mingle Model and its impact on the speaking skills (Ruzieva ; Yuldasheva, 2017; Darmayenti ; Nofiadri, 2015; Teng ; Wong, 2015; Hakim, 2014; Borzova, 2014). These studies have reported that the Mingle Model had shown that this model impacted students’ speaking skills positively. Literature has shown that the impact of the Mingle Model on students’ speaking skills is too general (Ruzieva ; Yuldasheva, 2017; Darmayenti ; Nofiadri, 2015; Teng ; Wong, 2015; Hakim, 2014; Borzova, 2014).
Until recently, there has been no reliable evidence which showed that the Mingle Model impacted the students’ speaking accuracy and fluency. The lack of information about the effectiveness of the Mingle Model is a gap that should be filled. This raises the writer’s curiosity and desire to find out the effectiveness of the students’ speaking accuracy and fluency at a university in South Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Hence, the objectives of this study are to investigate the effectiveness of the Mingle Model in enhancing English Foreign Language (EFL) students’ speaking accuracy and fluency. Furthermore, an investigation towards the application of the Mingle Model in view of the students is also important. This is because the perception of the students may give further insights to research and practice in English language teaching.
Thus, the next objective of this study is to explore the students’ perception regarding the use of the Mingle Model in enhancing their speaking skills.1.4 Objective of the StudyThis study is conducted to achieve the following objectives:1.4.1 To investigate the Mingle Model by Darmayenti & Nofiadri (2015) to enhance students’ speaking accuracy.1.4.
2 To use the Mingle Model by Darmayenti ; Nofiadri (2015) to enhance students’ speaking fluency.1.4.3 To investigate the students’ perception regarding the effectiveness of Mingle Model by Darmayenti ; Nofiadri (2015) in speaking activities.
1.5 Research QuestionThis study is carried out to answer the following research question:1.5.1 How much does the Mingle Model (Darmayenti ; Nofiadri, 2015) enhance the students’ speaking accuracy?1.5.2 How much does the Mingle Model (Darmayenti & Nofiadri,2015) enhance the students’ speaking fluency?1.5.3 What are the perceptions of the students on the use of the Mingle Model during speaking activities?1.
6 Importance of ResearchThe results of this study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge pertaining to the use of the Mingle Model in promoting the speaking skills among Indonesians students. Other researchers might want to use this model in other settings such as the elementary school, Junior High School, Senior High School, and universities. School teachers and university lectures will also get benefit from this study because the writer will report on the strength and the weaknesses of the Mingle Model. School teachers may want to try out using this model to build their students confidence to speak English.
Since this model offers interesting activities, students may be motivated to participate actively in speaking activities because it will be a worthwhile lesson. The use of the Mingle Model will prepare university students for the working environment. This will enable them to communicate effectively in English and they will be able to persuade, present, and promote the products of their companies when employed by them. Universities’ Language Development Centres may want to equip their lectures with the knowledge of using the Mingle Model so that they can use it in their speaking classes.
By providing students with a lot of speaking activities on different topics, Indonesian university students will be well equipped and they will be able to speak accurately and fluently. This will prepare them for real-life working situations.1.8 Operational Definition1.8.1 Mingle ModelThe Mingle Model is a teaching technique used in foreign language classrooms by having all students to talk from one student to another one within certain time (Borzova, 2014).
In this study, the Mingle Model refers to a teaching model developed by Dermayanti and Nofiandri (2015) where every student should interact with their friends in the class, they will talk to each other for a while, and then move on to speak to another friend.1.8.
2 Mingle ActivityThe Mingle Activity refers to an activity where every student interacts with another student for a minute and then change his partner (Borzova, 2014). In this study, the Mingle Activity refers to every single activity mentioned in the lesson plan carried out to enhance students’ speaking ability.1.8.
3 Speaking FluencySpeaking Fluency is the capacity to communicate without hesitation and pauses that leads to failed comprehensible interaction (Nation, 1989). In this study, speaking fluency refers to the speed, flow, degree of control of language items, and the way language and content interact (Vigoya, 2000).1.8.
4 Speaking AccuracySpeaking Accuracy is the creation of correct examples of language used (Vigoya, 2000). In this study, speaking accuracy refers to the students’ ability to carry out oral communication correctly with minimal pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary errors.1.8.5 Speaking SkillsSpeaking skills refers to the ability to exchange information fluently and accurately.
It also includes the competency to choose appropriate vocabulary and structures in all contexts (Thornbury, 2009). In this study, English speaking skills refer to the students’ performance during the speaking activity in the classroom. 1.8 SummaryThe speaking skills are very important to Indonesian students. They need good speaking skills to deal with globalisation and better position at work.The main problem faced by the Indonesian students is their inability to speak accurately and fluently in English. Studies have shown that the Mingle Model had been used by researchers extensively to promote students’ accuracy and fluency in speaking. This study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness and the perceptions of the students on the use of the Mingle Model in the speaking class.
CHAPTER IILITERATURE REVIEW2.1 IntroductionIt is important that teachers of English as a foreign language consider teaching speaking by providing students with adequate exposure to the language and adequate motivation to communicate using the language. However, teaching students through memorising is not beneficial than providing an ideal circumstance where meaningful interaction takes place (Hughes, 2011). In order to improve students’ speaking skills, the writer will use the Mingle Model by Darmayenti ; Nofiadri (2015). In this chapter, the writer will discuss some relevant issues such as the speaking problems faced by Indonesian undergraduate students.
This chapter will also discuss the independent variable namely the Mingle Model. In this chapter, the writer will discuss on overview, procedures, characteristics, advantages and disadvantages, theories and studies related to the Mingle Model as well as students’ speaking achievement. Finally, the writer will provide a summary highlighting the important points in this chapter.2.2 The Speaking SkillsHorwitz (2007) states that most language educators accept that the mastery of the speaking skills is an essential goal of language learning and teaching. Thornbury (2009) states that from the time one wakes up until one goes to sleep, he uses the speaking skills to socialise with others.
This means that speaking is an activity which is a part of people’s daily life. Echoing the importance of the mastery of the speaking skills, Tracy and Robles (2013) state that the speaking skills are useful for students to participate in family, school and workplace interactions. In addition, Geyse (2007) mentions that speaking is an essential skill. She states that speaking is important to do something, find out information, and give instructions.
When students learn a foreign language, their initial intention is to master the speaking skills. Therefore, English Language Teaching (ELT) teachers should consider the importance of the speaking skills when teaching their students. However, teaching speaking is not an easy job. It is found that speaking is a complicated skill. Thornbury (2009) states that speaking skills take place in real time and it requires spontaneity. He continues that speaking includes fluency and accuracy as an ability to build a verbal or even non-verbal expression.
This shows that the speaking skills is complicated, and it needs several abilities to transfer the speaker’s ideas in an actual time. A quick action is needed for a person to speak cannot edit or revise what he or she had said. Due to this, someone need to plan all words and sentences what will be said in a short time. Thornbury further states that speaking involves an interactive skill to cooperate a management of a speaking turn.2.2.1 Types of the Speaking SkillsBrown and Abeywickrama (2010) divided speaking skills into the micro and macro skills. Thornbury (2009) states that micro skills in speaking are the smallest element of students’ knowledge in speaking which they needed to pay attention to.
The micro skills are the speaking abilities to produce parts of linguistic forms such as phrasal units, words, morphemes, phonemes, and collocations. To speak the English language accurately, students should master rules of every part of the linguistic forms. It means that students should understand the pitch, intonation, and stress. These elements will help students speak the English language easily and effectively.
The macro skills are speaking activities to perform the larger part of linguistic forms such as strategic options, non-verbal communication, cohesion, style, function, discourse, accuracy, and fluency. According to Brown and Abeywickrama (2010), students’ activities should be constructed based on macro skills. In a classroom practice, the teacher can help the students to develop their communicative competence so that they will know how the language system works. The teacher should consider the equivalence between accuracy and fluency achievement because it is the essence of communicative strategies (Sugeng, 2015).Skehan (1998) divides speaking into two aspects: accuracy and fluency. Speaking accuracy is the students’ performance in correct use of the language (Vigoya, 2000). It is similar to Housen and Kuken (2009) who define the speaking accuracy refers to the students’ ability to produce error-free speech.
The errors include both grammatical and lexical deviations from native-speaker norms. Accuracy allows students to use proper grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation.Speaking fluency is the main goal in a language course. The speaking fluency refers to the temporal characteristics of speech, including such aspects as pausing, speed (speech rate), and repair (how often speakers make false starts or self-corrections). The speaking fluency is hard to gain for most language students but contributes to one’s image of fluent speaking.
Identifying and analysing working mechanisms that influence fluency then should be significant for our understanding of the complexities of speaking. It is expected that with good speaking fluency the students are able to speak automatically, fluently, and comprehensibility.Accuracy and fluency are essential to teach the language (Sugeng, 2015).
Both elements can help students to be more communicative in using the language they have. However, a distinction between accuracy and fluency are difficult to be defined (Nation, 2009). Nation finds that an activity designed to bring about an increase in fluency, also resulted in a reduction of errors and an increase in grammatical complexity.Skehan (1998) states a very useful further distinction can be made between accuracy and fluency. Accuracy is measured by the amount of error while fluency is measured by speed of access or production and by the number of hesitations. It is not surprising that developments in accuracy are related to developments in fluency.Vigoya (2002) proposes a procedure in testing students’ speaking performance, some language components proposed to test accuracy and fluency in speaking.
Those components in which we can test accuracy are pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar. Through these three main components, the teacher can test the students’ proficiency in English language. On the other hand, three components in which a teacher can test students’ speaking performance to use the language to communicate effectively and fluently are mechanical skills, language use, and judgement skills.
The mastery of all these language components presented in terms of accurate and fluent features of the language leads students to the last and most important language component which is the comprehension or the ability of the students to decode, transmit, share and negotiate information accurately and fluently. 2.2.2 Problems pertaining to the Speaking SkillsIn EFL context, students in classrooms often avoid speaking due to several problems.
Ur (1996) mentions several problems in teaching speaking. The first problem is the inhibition in which a student is afraid of making an error, avoid criticism or shyness when they want to speak in a classroom activity. Students state they do not want to make mistakes (Sava?ç?, 2014). Inhibition is a student’s internal protection that prevents them from taking part in a communicative interaction as they do not intend to take part in a speaking activity.
Regarding to an Indonesian study, Dewi (2011) asserts that there are elements that lead to Indonesian students inhibition problem in speaking. First, they feel nervous when they speak English because they are afraid of making mistakes in pronunciation. Second, their vocabulary is limited, and they said it is difficult to express their feelings and opinions. Next, they feel too difficult to apply the linguistics knowledge which they have studied in class in real-life conversations. Then, they do not have a partner to speak English outside the class to enhance their speaking skill. As a result, they are not confident to start a conversation in English with others. Having nothing to say is also a problem.
This means students do not know how to express their ideas. Thornbury (2009) explains that students who do not have knowledge on linguistic aspects are not able to produce appropriate expressions. These problems are found among Indonesians students. Mufidah (2015) found this problem in her study on Indonesian university students. She asserts that when the students want to speak they say it incorrectly.
Often the students are incapable of uttering or saying anything in response to their teacher’s comments. Another problem that exist in a classroom activity is that only some students participate in the speaking activity. More often only some students will talk during a speaking activity but the rest of them will be quiet.
They seem to ‘freeze out’ when speaking activities are conducted during the English lesson and just let others speak. In a speaking class, only some students dominate the whole class activity while others talk little or never speak at all (Hughes, 2011). This is also an inhibition problem. Hadijah (2014) found that university students in Indonesia was silent than active because they are shy and they lack confidence.
She suggests that the students’ ability to speak will be enhanced by giving them motivation and interesting materials. Another major problem is that students are inclined to use their first language. According to Harmer (2010), several reasons may cause students use their mother tongue in the speaking activities. Students use their mother tongue to speak on a topic they do not have enough knowledge on. These students also used their mother tongue because it is natural for them to do so. Students who speak the same language prefer to speak using that language since it is easier to express what is on their mind. This happens due to the fact that they do not have the motivation to learn the target language.
Another reason why mother tongue is used in class activities in the activity conducted is at the wrong level (Hughes, 2011). When the language level is too high, students will use their mother tongue. Likewise, if the language level is too easy, they may get bored and also slip back to their own mother tongue. If teachers do not motivate their students to speak in English, the students will automatically use their mother tongue to communicate with their classmates.
In short, the students prefer to use their mother tongue than the target language since their English proficiency are low and they are convenient using their mother tongue to communicate.2.2.
3 Teaching the Speaking SkillsIn order to help students to get better achievement in speaking skills, a teacher should consider factors influence students’ speaking performance. Hughes (2011) states several factors may affect to the speaking skills in the teaching and learning process. The first factor is the condition of the students’ performance. Students performance conditions will impact their speaking outcomes; whether it is successful or a failure (Harmer, 2010). For example, when a student is sick, it is likely he or she will perform badly than when he or she is healthy.
Hughes (2011) argues a lot of affective variables are connected to second language acquisition. This is consistent with Brown (2000) who says one of the important factors in learning a language is the affective condition of the students. Motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety are the three main types of conditions that have been investigated by many researchers.
For instance, the more motivated a student is the better he or she performs in the speaking activity (Putri, 2016; Dewi, 2015; Khosravi et al., 2015; Li, 2014; Choosri ; Intharaksa, 2011). Feedback is also an important aspect in a speaking class. Many students expect their teachers to provide them with a feedback that can motivate them when they carry out a speaking activity. Harmer (2001) states the decisions that instructors adopt towards their students’ performance depend on the stages of the lesson, the tasks, and the kinds of mistakes they make. If teachers directly correct their students, it will interrupt the flow of the conversation and the aim of the speaking task. This is in line with Hughes (2011) who claims if students are always corrected, they will be unmotivated and will be afraid to speak.
Teachers should not always correct their students’ mistakes and give them more support and motivation to speak. The lack of English speaking situations can be another factor leads students fear to speak in class. Every student needs to be involved in a supportive classroom culture (Humphries, Burns, ; Tanaka, 2015).
However, in an EFL classroom, teachers only teach students using drills or simple dialogues and the students’ mother tongue is still used as a medium to convey the materials in an English lesson (Esmail, Ahmed, & Noreen, 2015). Thus, a teacher should provide the class with good activities which will motivate the students to use English inside class and outside the classOther than that, the use of certain strategies can be another factor leads students to silent in classroom activities (Sava?ç?, 2014). Hence, there is a need for EFL teachers to acknowledge the pedagogic knowledges. Shulman (1987) points out a teacher who lacks knowledge in teaching strategies will contribute to the reluctance of the students to take part in speaking activities. Therefore, a teacher needs to explore many strategies which will encourage the students to be active in a classroom activity. Many EFL linguistic teachers agree that students learn to speak a second language by interacting (Borzova, 2014). Cooperative and collaborative learning are appropriate for this purpose.
Teachers need to teach the speaking skills based on real-life situations that require good communication. EFL teachers should create a classroom environment where students have real-life communication, authentic activities, and meaningful assignments that promote speaking. This can happen when students collaborate in groups to achieve a goal or complete a task (Kayi, 2006).Nunan (1996) adds teachers can apply the bottom-up or top-down approach to teach the speaking skills. The bottom-up approach in speaking means teaching speaking begins with the smallest language unit known as the micro-skills. The top-down approach refers to teaching begins with the macro skills in the speaking skills. By using their knowledge of this context, students can understand and use the micro-skills in speaking.2.
3 The Mingle ModelMingle model is an activity that can make the students experience more fun in learning. This model is also known as the Speed Speaking method (Teng & Wong, 2015) and milling activities (Thornbury, 2009). The Mingle Model was first introduced by Pollard and Hess (1997) as a communicative game to help teachers teach with no preparation.
In the classroom, the Mingle Model is a meaningful technique to encourage a discussion, especially with students who are anxious to communicate in class. This model encourages the students to have more confidence to speak in a controlled or private situation and public forum. Students will use the utterances or words as they heard from their earlier partners (Borzova, 2014). As a result, students will get more vocabulary by taking part in the activity.2.3.1 Procedures of The Mingle ModelThe Mingle Model is a model of teaching in which a teacher can develop a lot of varieties of techniques in teaching. Some activities based on the Mingle Model are the ‘Find-Someone-Who’ (Klippel 1984; Geyser, 2007; Thornbury, 2009); ‘Opinion-polls'(Klippel, 1984); ‘4/3/2 technique’ (Nation, 1989); ‘Questionnaires’ (Edge, 1993); ‘Surveys’ (Seymour &Popova 2003); ‘A-tea-party-strategy’ (Jonson, 2006); and ‘Find-your-match’ (Vogt & Echevarría, 2008).
-10477524765Teacher’s deskInterior stationExterior station00Teacher’s deskInterior stationExterior stationFigure 2.2 Mingle Model by Teng & Wong (2015)Darmayenti and Nofiadri (2015) mention the Mingle Model requires a large classroom with movable chairs (stations). Two stations, which are called a couplet are positioned facing one another at intervals around the periphery of the room. One station is for each student in the class. Thus, a typical class of twenty students will have twenty stations arranged as ten couplets. In each couplet, one station is positioned with its back to the wall (the exterior station) and the other station with its back to the centre of the room (the interior station). The students in the exterior stations remain seated in the same station for the duration of the activity.
The students in the interior stations move from their position to other position in the interior statition.Darmayenti and Nofiadri (2015) state that the procedure of the Mingle activities begins by the teacher distributing more or less 20 cards which have a unique question. The activity is started by asking a different student with the same question and getting different responses. They learn through talks.
The activities are conducted by moving and walking, using a card as a medium and using peer and a small group of students (see Appendix B1).It is good for the teacher to assign a specific student for each exterior station as this creates a sense of a fixed group. The teacher instructs the remaining half of the class to find an open interior station. In assigning exterior stations, it is best to alternate more proficient and less proficient students. If all the students in the exterior stations are proficient, then they will always speak with less proficient students in the interior stations (and vice versa). In the event of an odd number of students in the class, there are two options. The first option would add an extra interior station to one couplet so that three students speak together.
When the rotation occurs the students remain in that couplet for two rounds. The other option would be for the teacher to establish himself as an exterior station. This adds excitement to the activity.2.3.2 Characteristics of the Mingle ModelDarmayenti (2014) states nine characteristics of the Mingle Model. They are: (1) the activity begins by listening and then replying the same question for many times; (2) learning through talking; (3) the activity is done by moving around to talk to one another; (4) use cards as media; (5) the activity is done in a group or with a partner; (6) the activity is student-centre; (7) the teacher can be a part of the activity; (8) no teacher intervention; and (9) the activity must be fun.
The characteristic of the Mingle Model can be seen from the teacher’s and students’ roles. Based on teacher’s roles, the characteristics of the model are: (1) the teacher is the one who prepares the students to be ready to study; (2) the teacher observes the students’ ability; (3) and the teacher gives a chance to the winner to present their result in front of their friends. Next, based on students’ roles, there are several characteristics of the Mingle Model. They are: (1) The students have to sit in a semi-circle model (Darmayenti, 2015) or two circles consisting of the interior and exterior stations (Teng ; Wong, 2015); (2) Every student is involved in the interaction, including the shy students; (3) The students repeat several times on the same expression; (4) The students become more attentive and conscientious in class; (5) They become more enthusiastic about practising speaking; (6) The students get information through listening, looking at friends and reading as an input ability; and (7) They move and walk around and speak to one another.
2.3.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Mingle ModelStudents are cautious about talking to others the first time in a group or when the teacher asks them to create a group. For a while, they will be reluctant to speak. Students are always reluctant to communicate, but the Mingle Model always put a new atmosphere in the room to encourage social relationship among the students (Darmayenti, 2015). The Mingle Model refers to one of the cooperative strategies which develop communicative competence, promote team building, and break cultural barriers among students.
It is a good icebreaker activity to promote an attitude of friendship and trust among the students (Borzova, 2014). To encourage students’ group work attitude, the Mingle Model provides a process by motivating students to talk to each other on lesson materials. By providing students with a motivation to convey everything they do. The model helps students to socialise with each other. This means that by talking one on one with the other students in the room, especially the ones they do not understand or do not know well, the model will help students to build a good relationship (Teng & Wong, 2015). Darmayenti and Nofiadri (2015) state that the Mingle Model shown above has advantages and effectiveness in learning the speaking skills. The Mingle Model brings in relaxation and fun for students. The model also provides a friendly competition and keeps students motivated.
These activities promote the motivation of EFL students to take part in the activities. Every student is involved in doing interaction, including the shy ones. They are prompted to spoke.
The mingle activities allow a lot of drills on the same questions or collect new opinions from many students. It contributes to improve students’ vocabulary mastery by repeating the same utterances for many times. The students are able to speak fluently by repeating for several times on the same expressions (Harmer, 2001). Hence, the Mingle Model encourages the speaker to speak accurately and fluently. The model creates real-world situations into the classroom so that the students can use English in a flexible and communicative way. The speaking skills can better improve the students’ fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, and comprehension. There are drawbacks related to the Mingle Model.
In carrying out the Mingle Model, it is better for the teacher to lead the interaction first. After that, the teacher invites the students to do the interaction with one another. Borzova (2014) states that the teacher should give students the opportunity to carry out the interaction meaningfully so that the teacher needs to have a good competence in teaching before using the Mingle Model. The activity needs a clear explanation related to the rules. Hence, the teacher should state the rules clearly to the students when he or she wants to carry out the Mingle Model. This activity includes informing the rules of mingling which include how to do the mingle activity, the duration given and how to win if the Mingle Model used game mode such as “find-someone-who”.
One weakness of the Mingle Model is teachers are not able to control the students in the whole class; whether they are able to speak accurately. Due to this, in Darmayenti & Nofiadri (2015) suggest after doing the Mingle Activity, the students must carry out presentations in front of the class. In the presentation, the teacher can do the corrections and emphasise on the students in terms of accuracy skills.2.3.4 Studies on the Mingle ModelTeng and Wong (2015) claim the Mingle Model is an effective teaching technique in foreign language classrooms. This is supported by Geyse (2007) who states activities in the Mingle Model are easily implemented to almost any scenario in the class.
Borzova (2015) mentions experts introduced several games or activities in the class is based on the Mingle Model, such as: “Find Someone Who” (Klippel 1984; Geyser, 2007; Thornbury, 2009); Opinion polls (Klippel, 1984); 4/3/2 technique (Nation, 1989); Questionnaires (Edge, 1993); Surveys (Seymour & Popova, 2003); “A tea party strategy” (Jonson, 2006); and “Find your match” (Vogt & Echevarría, 2008). One strategy in teaching the speaking skill based on the Mingle Model is ‘Find-Someone-Who’. Klippel (1984), Geyse (2007), and Thornbury (2009) mention the ‘Find-Someone-Who’ strategy is one of the most effective strategies for teaching the speaking skills.
This is in line with a study conducted by Nurhaniyah, Soetjipto, and Hanurawan (2015). They carried out a study to describe the strategy of the Mingle Model, Find-Someone-Who, to enhance students’ motivation to learn social studies for the fifth-grade students. They also investigated the response of the fifth-grade students at an elementary school in East Java on implementing Find-Someone-Who. The study used a qualitative design.
The subjects of this study were 32 fifth-grade students. The findings show that there is an improvement on some aspects such as the ability to overcome the problem in the speaking activity. This study shows the fifth-grade students at an elementary school in East Java enjoyed the Find-Someone-Who strategy. In another study conducted by Kurnia, Degeng, and Soetjipto (2017), the researchers investigated the improvement of students’ self-efficacy and learning outcomes by implementing Find-Someone-Who strategy. This study is a Classroom Action Research involving 24 students of the ninth grade of junior high school in West Kalimantan Province. This study was conducted in two cycles.
The results show the self-efficacy of the ninth grade students can be improved through implementing Find-Someone-Who strategy. Another variation of the Mingle Model is ‘4/3/2 technique’. It has been studied by many researchers. Nation (1989) studied 4/3/2 technique. He examines the improvement of students of English during performing a speaking activity which involves repeating the same unrehearsed talk. Improvements in fluency, grammatical accuracy, and control of the content showed during the short time spent doing the activity, students performed at a level above their normal level of performance.
Nation adds the 4/3/2 technique has three important features-repetition, reducing time, and a change of the audience. As we have seen, these features affect fluency in encouraging a focus on the message while providing an opportunity for monitoring and learning to occur. There are other techniques which make use of some of these features and which may also have the same effects that have been looked at in this paper. The finding is similar to the study by Yang (2014). They investigated the lack of speaking fluency development is important in classroom language teaching. The findings showed both the EFL teachers and students take into account for the effectiveness and achievement of fluency development in speaking.
Based on the data, the researchers suggest the EFL teachers should focus on pedagogical implication and the EFL students have to be engaged in the classroom activity. Such considerations are necessary to be involved in the EFL teaching and learning. Borzova (2014) conducted a study to explain the Mingle Model by using the qualitative descriptive method. She shares suggestions on how to use this model in a classroom.
This study defined the Mingle Model, its procedure, and the Mingle Model itself. Borzova also gives an explanation more on the best way to apply the Mingle Model in classroom activities. Borzova (2014) points out the Mingle Activities refers to an activity where every student interacts with another student for a minute and then change to another partner.
The Mingle Model is like a real-life condition where a student seeks the information from different classmates to exchange information or to find out something. This means the Mingle Model gives a student a chance to repeat the same utterances or information for several times. It will enhance the level of confidence in their English language ability (Borzova, 2014). Therefore, the Mingle Model can be a good technique to facilitate both accuracy and fluency, provided students’ need to paid attention by organising steps in a lesson plan.
The same result was also found in a study by Hakim (2014). He used the Mingle Model to improve the speaking skill of the seventh-grade students. This study was an action research consisted of two cycles. In doing the research, the researcher involved 37 students of Class VII B. The study was carried out in four steps planning, action and observation, reflection. In this research, there were two kinds of data. The first data were qualitative data. To obtain the qualitative data, the researcher used interview.
Meanwhile, the quantitative data were in the form of the students’ test scores obtained by conducting Test-1 at the end of Cycle-1 and Test-2 at the end of Cycle-2. The finding of this study shows the Mingle Model can improve the students’ speaking skill regarding to the students’ speaking scores, the students’ ability improved after the use of the Mingle Model as the teaching aid for the speaking sessions. It can be seen from the students’ scores increased from Cycle-1 to Cycle-2. Besides, the Mingle Model can improve the students’ motivation and participation in the teaching and learning activities of speaking (Hakim).Hilya (2015) also carried out a study on the Mingle Game in improving students’ speaking ability. The design of this research is classroom action research which has four steps, those are planning, implementing, observing, reflecting. The chosen class was an eighth grade consists of 22 students because it has the lowest mean score of speaking test. The speaking test was used to get data about students’ speaking ability, and observation checklist was used to know with the students take part in the teaching-learning process.
This study showed the Mingle Game is able to improve the students’ speaking skills. Teng & Wong (2015) use their own terms, ‘Speed Speaking’, the Mingle Model studied by them in their study. This study is aimed at summarising the main sources of problems in the speaking skills. They claim Speed Speaking (the Mingle Model) is a new method to teach English. The participants of this study are 40 first-year students from business English major comprising 6 males and 34 females between the ages from 19 to 21 years old in a university in China. Ten English teachers took part in this study. All of them have experience on using the speed speaking technique. Instruments used are (1) An open-ended format of a survey questionnaire on main difficulties for EFL students to speak in the English language and the main benefits of applying speed speaking in classroom teaching.
(2) A group discussion with the ten teachers on the application of Speed Speaking is a class that integrates input, output, form, and fluency development. The results show a quantity of related language input is provided, which facilitates students to carry out output tasks. Form-focused instruction promotes a higher level of accuracy in using grammar and vocabulary. Their fluency improved with a drill of useful utterances. In addition, speed speaking enhances students’ relationship inside and outside the classroom. This study shows deeper information on the application of the Mingle Model in class. The finding of this study showed speed speaking provides the teacher with a system from which the teacher can maximise the opportunities of outcomes in their classrooms.
The result above is supported by a study conducted by Darmayenti and Nofiadri (2015) who carried out the study on the Mingle Model in Indonesia. This new model is appropriate for Indonesian university students. Based on their study, implementing the Mingle Model in speaking class showed a significant effect toward students’ skills on speaking. This can be seen in the students’ speaking scores. This suggests to English teachers use the Mingle Model as an alternative model to improve students’ speaking skill. This is in line to Ruzieva & Yuldasheva (2017), who states the Mingle Model is one of the classroom management strategies that offer students to carry out a lot of talking and to increase the quality of communicative competence in English.2.
4 Theoritical FrameworkTwo theories involved in the Mingle Model are the Zone of Proximal Development and the Scaffolding theory developed by Vygotsky (1978). These two theories are explained in the next section.2.4.1 Zone of Proximal DevelopmentThe actual level of development appears from one’s ability to complete the tasks or solve problems independently.
While the level of potential development is visible from one’s ability to complete tasks and solve problems when under adult guidance or when collaborating with their more competent peers. These potential developments are called Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is the gap between what a student can do without help and what he can do with help.
This is a concept developed by Soviet psychologist and social constructivist Lev Vygotsky. According to Vygotsky (1978), a child follows the example of his parents and develops his ability to do a certain task without help or aid. He believes the role of a teacher is to give students the experience or knowledge that exists in their ZPD by encouraging and advancing their individual learning. By emphasising on the ZPD on a social interaction, the development of students will become better. When students do their work at school themselves, their development is likely to be slow. To maximise their progress, the students should work with more skilled friends or teacher who can lead them in solving more complex problems. Vygotsky (1978) explains that learning takes place in two stages.
The first stage occurs when collaborating with others, and the next stage is done individually and the internalisation process takes place. During the interaction process both between teacher-students and among students, the level of students’ competences, knowledges, or skills become better.111696533337500Figure 2.3 Zone of Proximal DevelopmentAccording to Vygotsky (1978), the development of one’s ability can be divided into two levels, the level of actual development (independent performance) and the level of potential development (assisted performance) with the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Based on the concept of the proximal zone, before the internalisation or before potential abilities are formed, the child needs to be assisted in the learning process. Adults or peers who more competent need to help them in various ways such as providing examples, feedback, draw conclusions, discussions in the framework of its ability development. In the Mingle Model, the ZPD is the learning goal of the speaking lesson (Ruzieva & Yuldasheva, 2017).
The level is not too difficult for the low level students and not too easy for the high level students (Borzova, 2014). For example, when a teacher teachs how to give direction, the low level students can learn how to ask for directions and the high level students can learn how to give directions. In a Mingle Activity, the low level students will have a card which is consisted of several questions that they can ask to a high level student. The high level students must be ready to answer whenever the question is addressed to them.
From this strategy, the students will experience the speaking practice better than the traditional peaking technique.2.4.2 ScaffoldingThe concept of scaffolding is related to ZPD. Scaffolding was developed by another sociocultural theory that applied Vygotsky’s ZPD to the educational context (1978). The teacher should give a great deal of support to the students during the early stages of learning. Then the teacher should reduce the aid and give the students an opportunity to take on the greater responsibility as soon as he is able to do it on his own.
The scaffolding is to give a student a large amount of help during the early stages of learning and then reduce the aid and give him or her an opportunity to take on a greater responsibility as soon as he or she is able to do it on his or her own. The teacher’s assistance can be a guide, a warning, a push to break the problem into another form that allows students to be independentScaffolding aims to change the stage of support provided. Although the student remains engaged in active learning, the teacher should help each student activities. In theoretical terms, this means the students work in his or her zone of proximal development and the teacher provides scaffolding for the students.
If a student learns a new something difficult, the teacher may provide full guidance but once the student has understood, the concept the guidance given is reduced so that the students’ may master the skill (Santrock, 2007). As the teaching process gives effect, the more fortunate individuals (mother, teacher or peer group) will customise the guidance stages given following the student’s pursuit. Vygotsky (1978) points out that besides teachers, peers also influence a student’s cognitive development. In addition, cooperative group work seems to accelerate a child’s development. One student can more effectively guide another student through ZPD as they themselves have just gone through that stage. Hence, they can easily see the difficulties faced by other students and provide appropriate scaffolding.Conversation and interaction are important tools during the scaffolding process. The conversation will help students to construct new concepts more systematically and meaningfully with the help of more advanced individuals (example a teacher).
However, Vygotsky states students also do a self-talk. This self-talk helps them design and control their own behaviour. This self-talk is likely to apply to children aged 3 – 7 years onwards and it will develop the talk itself which will be swapped into a verbal selfless communication. This turns into a conscience or impulse of thought. Vygotsky mentions that many self-talked children attain more social skills than children who have less self-talk. When children speak for themselves they use language to control their behaviour and guide their thinking.Learning with peer tutors will help students who are low in receiving lessons from their teachers.
Peer tutor activities for students is an activity rich in experience that is a student’s own needs. Both the teachers and the students will benefit. For the tutor will gain experience while the students will be more creative in receiving the lesson. Advantages of learning with peer tutors can minimise the gap occurs between students with low proficiency with students who have higher proficiency in a class. Their motivation will grow from the cooperation amongst them.
The low proficiency students are motivated in completing the tasks because they are aided by the high proficiency students. Samana (2013) finds that students prefer to consult to their classmates before they turned to their teacher. He stated that students agreed the teacher is a reliable source, and they thought suggestions from the teacher are always correct. When their classmates could not offer them satisfying information, they consult with the teacher at the end. Therefore, they wanted to try by themselves before getting the teacher’s support.
As mention in the ZPD theory above, the Mingle Model is to make students in a workgroup or a peer-tutoring situation, work together. This means a good student is able to teach other students in the activity. One student can more guide another student through ZPD as they themselves have just gone through stage so they can see the difficulties faced by other students and provide proper scaffolding. Since the Mingle Model provides the learning situation where the low proficiency students are with a high proficiency student, they will learn from each other in a lesson. The low proficiency student learns from the high proficiency student and the high proficiency student gets more experience in practising the lesson.
Therefore, based on the ZPD and the scaffolding theories, the Mingle Model is expected to enhance students speaking accuracy and fluency skills. Based on those theories, the process of improvement in the students’ speaking skill used in the Mingle Model is supported by Vygotsky theories because: (1) The class is set in the form of collaborative learning among students so that students can interact with each other to find solutions based on the task which is in the zone of proximal development. (2) The emphasis on the use of scaffolding in teaching so that students increasingly become more responsible for their own learning process. The role of teachers in this study is only as a facilitator of discussion and invites students to think creatively and find a concept in learning (Ruzieva ; Yuldasheva, 2017; Darmayenti ; Nofiadri, 2015; Teng ; Wong, 2015; Hakim, 2014; Borzova, 2014).
At the time of the teaching and learning process, students are given help and support the teacher to learn and solve problems (Borzova, 2014). In this study, it is hoped that the Mingle Model can improve the students’ achievement in the speaking test.704850-57150ZPD(Learning goal)Students’ current speaking levelScaffoldingThe Mingle Model00ZPD(Learning goal)Students’ current speaking levelScaffoldingThe Mingle ModelFigure 2.4 Concept of The Mingle Model in ZPD and Scaffolding theories2.5 SummaryIn this study, the teachers are asked to teach their students by using the Mingle Model. Mingle model is developed by Darmayenti and Nofiadri (2015). The Mingle Model gives learning opportunities to the students collaboratively and cooperatively. The environment of learning through the Mingle Model gives a relaxed, pleasant learning atmosphere in the classrooms to the students.
By using the Mingle Model, it allows the teacher to create a number of activities for students to practice the speaking skills. Students can recycle, refine, and expand their personal experiences. Several previous studies related to The Mingle Model implies that the English teachers have to use the Mingle Model to enhance the quality of teaching the speaking skills in English. According to them, the use of the Mingle Model will be effective to enhance students’ speaking skills. CHAPTER IIIMETHODOLOGY3.
1 IntroductionThis chapter will provide information related to the research methodology. Research methodology is the procedure that is used by the writer from the beginning of the research until the presentation of the result (Fraenkell, Wallen, ; Hyun, 2015). This chapter discusses the research design, respondents, research instrument, the Mingle Model training, data collection procedure, and technique of analysing data.3.
2 Research DesignThe objective of this research is to explore the effectiveness of the Mingle Model in enhancing undergraduates’ speaking skills. More specifically, the study seeks to investigate the effect of the model on the speaking accuracy and fluency of undergraduates at a university in South of Kalimantan. In addition, this study also investigate on the students’ perception while utilising the Mingle Model. In short, the writer will examine effectiveness and students’ perceptions regarding of the Mingle Model to provide a more comprehensive understanding on the usefulness of the model. The objectives above suggest the use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches in collecting and analysing data. A quantitative approach is needed to assess the effectiveness of the Mingle Model while a qualitative approach is needed to examine the students’ perceptions. Therefore, a design that enables the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data will be used.Based on that, a mixed-method design will be used.
Cresswell (2010, p. 5) defines mixed-method design as “a research method which combine or associate qualitative and quantitative data”. The mixed-method initially intruduced by Campbell and Fike (1959, as cited in Creswell, 2010). Creswell and Clark (2007, as cited in Creswell, 2010) argue that researchers nowadays interested in conducting research by using the mixed-method in order to analyse the phenomenon from different method. Hence, the writer will use the mixed-method to obtain a better understanding on the students’ perception towards the Mingle Model and confirm the effectiveness of the model in different way. The design of the present study involved the collection of both quantitative data and qualitative data. However, the research objective one and two are different with the research objective three. The quantitative data will be used to investigate the effectiveness of the Mingle Model, while the qualitative data will support the quantitative data regarding the students’ perception toward the use of the model. Given that the Explanatory Sequential Design by Creswell (2010) is the most appropriate to this study. Creswell (2010) states that many researchers used this strategy to get better perceptions regarding to the implementation of a theory or a model. A concept map is presented (see Figure 3.1 ) to give an overall and graphic view of the structure and elements of the design. 2127251233170Research objectivesQUANTITATIVEEffectiveness of the Mingle model on the speaking accuracy and fluencyIntstruments- Pretest- PosttestQuantitative DataExperimental TreatmentProceduresQualitativeStudents’ perception towards the Mingle ModelIntstruments- InterviewQuantitative DataAdministration of pretestThe Mingle Model Intervention- Administration of posttest- InterviewPhase 1Phase 3Phase 2Analysis and summary of quantitative dataAnalysis and summary of qualitative dataDiscussion and Implication of findingsFigure 3.1 : Concept Map of Research Design00Research objectivesQUANTITATIVEEffectiveness of the Mingle model on the speaking accuracy and fluencyIntstruments- Pretest- PosttestQuantitative DataExperimental TreatmentProceduresQualitativeStudents’ perception towards the Mingle ModelIntstruments- InterviewQuantitative DataAdministration of pretestThe Mingle Model Intervention- Administration of posttest- InterviewPhase 1Phase 3Phase 2Analysis and summary of quantitative dataAnalysis and summary of qualitative dataDiscussion and Implication of findingsFigure 3.1 : Concept Map of Research DesignEssentially, a quasi-experimental method was used to examine the effects of the Mingle Model in an intact class. As can be seen in the concept map, collection of quantitative data through a pretest and a posttest will be carried out before and after the inteventions. The qualitative data will be collected after the interventions through an interview. The interview will be used in eliciting responses from the students pertaining to their perceptions toward the use of the Mingle Model.3.3 Quasi-ExperimentalIn studying the effects of the Mingle Model, this present study employed a quasi-experimental design (Campbell ; Stanley, 1963; Cresswell, 2012; Fraenkell et al., 2015) will be used to investigate the effectiveness of the Mingle Model in an intact class. The quasi-experimental design is relevant because the possibility to randomise exposures to subjects are not allowed by the Language Development Centre. The quasi-experimental design adopted in this study will be the pre and posttest design (Cresswell, 2012). This design will show if the extent in which the intervention will impact the speaking accuracy and fluency. This will be done by analysing the result of the pretest and posttest as well as a questionnaire on the experimental and control groups. 1094740210820Experimental GroupOXOControl GroupOO00Experimental GroupOXOControl GroupOOFigure 3.2 The Nonequivalent Control Group Design(Adapted from Creswell, 2012)note: O: The Speaking test X: The Mingle Model treatmentThis particular design was choosen and deemed appropriate in the present study as it aided in checking the extent of group equivalence through the pretest scores in the absence of random assignment of respondents. The pretest scores were also used for generating gain scores obtained by the students in both the experimental and control groups. Furthermore, the gain scores of both groups will be compared in order to infer the effect of the experimental treatment.3.4 RespondentsThe respondents in this study are Banjarese undergraduates at a university in South Kalimantan, Indonesia. The undergraduates in the university are required to pass the English language courses at the Language Development Centre within two semesters to graduate. This course is provided by the university to improve the proficiency of the undergraduates in the English language. The undergraduates are placed in their classes according to their levels of proficiency. The Language Development Centre will carry out a placement test before the start of the course. The placement test will measure the level of listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills of the students. The total score of the placement test is 100 marks. Based on the results of the placement test, the undergraduates are categorised into three levels: Level A+ (lower beginner Level) are those who score lower than 60 marks; Level A (upper beginner Level) are those who score between 60 to 80 marks, and Level B (intermediate Level) are those who score over 80 marks. Table 3.1Results of the Placement test at the Language Development Centre (October 2017)Level No. of GroupsA+ 36A 65B 13Total 114In this study, the writer will use those who have scored 60 to 80 mark as the respondents. This is because the discussion result with the head of the Language Development Centre resulted a conclusion that those who achieve below 60 mark will not be able to take part in the Mingle Model actively while those who score more than 80 marks are most likely to speak fluently and accurately. Out of the 65 groups who scored between 60–80 mark, the writer will select only two groups to take part in the study. Each group consists of 18 respondents of the experimental and 15 respondents of the control group. One group will be the experimental group while the other will be the control group. The respondents of this study are the second semester undergraduates at the university. They are between 18 to 19 years old. Many of them are from the Islamic Senior High School and Islamic Boarding School in South Kalimantan. Table 3.2 presents the distribution of the respondents:Table 3.2Distribution of the respondents by Groups and GenderExperimental group control group TotalName of Group Group-28 Group-30 Male 5 5 10Female 13 10 23Total 18 15 33Given the information above in Table 3.2, it can be seen that the experimental group and control group were generally similar in many ways. Both of these group will be used in determining the effectiveness of the Mingle Model. However, this study will also conduct an interview to know the students’ perception on the use of the Mingle Model. Hence, the nine students will be choosen as the respondents for the interview. An important criterion is their willingness to cooperate fully with the writer. 3.5 InstrumentsThere are some instruments were be used in this study. During the pretest and posttest, the speaking test (Vigoya, 2000) was be administered to measure the level of respondents’ speaking accuracy and fluency. The Speaking Test is labeled Appendix B1. The accuracy rubric is label Appendix B2 while the fluency rubric is labeled Appendix B3. Next, the experimental group was be taught using the Mingle Model after the pretest. At the end of the interventions, the writer conducted an interview on the respondents.3.5.1 The Speaking TestThe writer will conduct a speaking test to measure the level of the respondents’ speaking accuracy and fluency. The test will be used in the pretest and posttest towards experimental and control groups. The administration of the pretest before the treatment period and in the posttest after the treatment is essential to see if the Mingle Model does enhance the respondents’ speaking accuracy and fluency. This speaking test is a roleplay, and it is adapted from Vigoya (2000). The adaptation of the content in the test is made based on the syllabus provided by the Language Development Centre. Then, there were five English language experts verifed the adaptation of the speaking test for its contents, clarity, language structures and grammar. To prove the accuracy and consistency of the questionnaire in the Indonesian context, the original version of the speaking test was tested on 27 undergraduates from a different group (Group-35) in the Language Development Centre. Members of the group have the same characteristics such as their level of English proficiency, composition of gender, and educational background as the experimental and control group at the Language Development Centre. The correlation coefficient of the test was calculated using Cronbach Alpha Coefficient formula and a score of was recorded 0.74 for the speaking test. The result is considered acceptable for this study. Freankel et al. (2015) states that in the educational field, the instrument is reliable if the level is 0.70 and above. Thus, this instrument is valid and reliable and it can be used in this study.3.5.2 InterviewAn interview was conducted at the end of the experimental treatment. The interview questions were adapted from Goh (2004). The interview is in semi-structured form. It will enable the writer to access respondents’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the Mingle Model in greater detail. The interviewer will be able to obtain the respondents’ perceptions through their answers and thus help them to be clearer and more expansive on the answerer. The total of respondents in this interview are ten respondents. They are seleceted from the 18 students in the experimental group so that they have experienced the Mingle Model. In addition, they are also selected based on their willingness to participate in the interview. Based on the pilot study, the students were allowed to use Banjarese language in the interviews. This ensured that the students will be at ease with a language that they were comfortable with and thus allowed them to articulate their thoughts accurately and effectively. In addition, the five English language experts who verified the speaking test will also be asked to verify the interview questions for its clarity and suitability of the objective in this study.3.5.3 The Mingle Model This section provides information about the treatment that will be received by the experimental group. The objectives of the study is to invesigate the use the Mingle model to enhance the respondents’ speaking accuracy and fluency. This is essential in preparing the respondents for effective English language communication. In this study, the Mingle Model will be carry out for a duration of four weeks (12 meetings). This is because the Language Development Centre policy does not allow the respondents’ to be involved over one month in this study. In addition, the Language Development Centre states that the English language syllabus is to be covered during the interventions. Thus the activities and procedures are adapted from the syllabus and textbook used at the Language Development Centre. The teacher researcher who will teach the respondents will follow the lesson plans which use the Mingle Model. In each meeting, the class will be held for 100 minutes. The lesson plans will be provided by the writer. On the other hand, the teacher who will be teaching the control group will carry out the lesson using the conventional method based on the Teacher Guide prepared by the Language Development Centre. The lesson plans are labeled Appendix E. It consists of three activities. First is the Opening. In the opening activities, the teacher will start the lesson by reciting du’a, check the respondents’ attendance, and inform the respondents about the topic and goals of the lesson of that day. Next, is a main activity. The main activity consists of exploration, elaboration, and confirmation. During the exploration, the teacher will engage the respondents with the topic and explain to them about the material about that will be used. The teacher will also explain the rule of the Mingle Activity. During the elaboration stage, the respondents will carry out the Mingle activity. Table 3.3 will describe the topics and activities which will be used. In the activity, the respondents will talk to each other in pairs to improve their fluency.At the instruction of the teacher they will change their partners with the last partner, they will do the conversation in front of the class. During this part, the teacher will assess the respondents’ accuracy level. Then, the teacher will provide feedbacks to the respondents help them to improve their speaking accuracy. In the closing part, the teacher will reinforce the respondents’ knowledge about what have they learned. The teacher will also repeat the conversation with the respondents. The teacher will then end the lesson accordingly bye.Table 3.3Summary of the Lesson Plans for the Experimental GroupMeeting Topic Activity Detail1 Greeting and Introduction Conversations in the Mingle Model form The respondents will carry out conversation in pairs. Each five minutes they should change their partner2 Greeting and Introduction Role play in the Mingle Model form The teacher will distribute to their respondents a card. This card is consist of three topics. The respondents will carry conversations based on these three topics. They are free to choose whatever topic they want to practice.3 Talking about hobbies Find-someone-who In this activity, respondents will be given a worksheet to do a survey. They will go around the class talk to each respondent and then present the result of their survey.4 Talking about hobbies Role play in the Mingle form The respondents will carry a conversation in pairs using expressions of telling hobby by selecting one of the situations in the card which is provided by the teacher5 Daily Activities Conversations in the Mingle Model form In pairs, respondents will deliver 20 different questions about daily activities. These questions will be divided into “A” and “B”. Some respondents will ask the A questions while the other will as B questions.6 Daily Activities Interview in the Mingle Model form The teacher will distribute one activity handout to each respondent. The teacher will ask her respondents to mingle around to interview. When a classmate answers ‘Yes’, the interviewer should write the classmate’s name and ask for and record additional information.7 Buying and Selling Find-someone-who In this activity, respondents will be given a worksheet to do a survey. They will go around the class talk to each respondent and then present the result of their survey.8 Sport/ adverb of frequency dealing with sport Find-someone-who In this activity, the respondents will ask ‘How often do you…?’ questions and answer will include adverbs and expressions of frequency.9 Sport/ adverb of frequency dealing with sport Find-someone-who The teacher will have the respondents to create their own Find-someone-who list. Then do the similar instruction to the Activity 1.10 Family Conversations in the Mingle Model form After having the idea about the family tree, the respondents will fill the worksheet about family tree based on their identity, then do conversation with their friends in explaining their tree family.11 Family Interview in the Mingle Model form Every respondent will be given a card. Some of the respondents got card A and the rest got card B. The respondents who have card A have to find respondents who have card B. Then they do a conversation more or less five minutes then they change to other respondents. This activity is about 30 minutes, so every respondent will ask six respondents.12 Describing place and location Interview in the Mingle Model form Every respondent will be given a card. Some of the respondents got card A and the rest got card B. The respondents who have card A have to find respondents who have card B. Then they do a conversation more or less five minutes then they change to other respondents. This activity is about 30 minutes, so every respondent will ask six respondents.3.6 Pilot StudyPilot study was carried out with the basic aim of trialling the treatment procedures and the test. Pilot testing of the training and instructional procedures were carried out with first semester students in group Group-35. They have the same characteristics with the experimental and control group such as their English proficiency level, etchnic and school background. In carrying out the pilot test, the writer was given access by the Language Development Centre to do the pilot study for a duration of only three meetings with the condition that the part of the syllabus which was to be covered during that time would still have to be taught. Thus, only about five hours or so could be used in relation to the study. The training modules were tried out with the whole class during the allotted class time. Nonetheless, some volunteers were also asked to do the Mingle Model outside class hours. At the end of the pilot study, the writer asked some students from the 35-Group to do the interview. Based on the pilot study, all of the students requested to answer the interview questions only in Banjarese language. They argued that they were not confident to answer the questions in English as well as Indonesian language. Thus, based on this In addition, this pilot study showed that the teacher researcher was able to carry out the Mingle Model properly. The respondents argued that they were able to understand the procedures of the Mingle Model easily. They also mentioned that the activities were fun and interesting. It indicates that the Mingle Model is ready to be implemented on the actual respondents in the experimental group.Furthermore, the writer also carried out a pilot test on the sudents in the pilot study group. A pilot test on the speaking test intended for use as measures of speaking skills in the actual study. The test were administered towards the Group-35 comprising of 27 students. It is found that the students have a problem when the teacher didn’t give them time to prepare the conversatiowith their partners. Based on it, the teacher should give the students preparation more or less 15 minutes before they performing the speaking test. This will be implemented on the actual group in the speaking test.3.7 The Mingle Model TrainingBefore the Mingle Model technique is carried out, the writer will provide training for the teacher researcher who will help him to conduct the lesson during one week. This teacher will teach in the experimental group. She is chosen based on a few factors. First, She is teaching at the Language Development Centre for more than two years experiences. She possesses a Bachelor in English Education from the Antasari State Islamic University Banjarmasin. At the begining of the training, the writer will give the teacher researcher a sample lesson plan (refer to Appendix E). The writer will explain the activities in the Opening, Main and Closing sections. The writer will also show some videos regarding how to use the Mingle Model in the class. The Mingle Model will be conducted during the Main Stage. When the teacher is certain of the procedures, she will carry out a lesson in Group-33 which is different with the pilot study group but still have similar characterisic towards the respondents in this study. Upon the completion of conducting the lesson, the writer will ask the teacher researcher whether she has questions pertaining to the procedures that have been carried out. In this study, the teacher researcher will only carry out the lesson using the Mingle Model after she is certain of the procedures. The indicators that the teacher researcher is ready to implement the Mingle Model on the experimental group is when she may able to conduct the whole process followed the lesson plans properly. The writer will observe and assess the teacher researcher during the teaching practice at the group-33. Based on that, the teacher researcher will have proper knowledges and competences in order to carry out the Mingle Model in the experimental group.3.7 Data Collection ProcedureA procedure will be followed for data collection. Initially, the writer will meet the Head of the Language Development Centre to get permission to conduct the study and to ask for the profile of the centre. Then, data will be collected three times a week for four weeks (12 meetings). The duration of each leasson between 80 to 100 minutes per session. After training, in providing for the teacher researcher for the experimental group, the teachers in the experimental and control group will administer the speaking test. The writer will ask these teachers for the experimental and control groups to conduct a test to evaluate the respondents. The respondents will carry out the speaking test in pairs. The teachers will ask the respondents to carry out a conversation based on the card that has been prepared by the writer. The respondents will be given 10 minutes to ask questions related to the test before they carry out the activity. Next, the teachers will administer the test. The teachers will divide the respondents into several couples. Next, each couple is given about 5 to7 minutes to do the speaking task. Each session of the group performance will be recorded. After each session, the teachers will test the respondent’s speaking performance using a particular evaluation sheet. The evaluation rubrics for the speaking test is adopted from Vigoya (2000) (refer to Appendix C). It is divided into two main language features: accuracy and fluency, and each one of these features has its corresponding to the language components. The accuracy domain comprises the vocabulary, while the fluency components consist of mechanical skills and judgement skills. Each language component presents five levels of language ability of the learners. E: Excellent (five mark), G: Good (four mark), A: Acceptable (three mark), P: Poor (two mark), and NR: No Response (one mark). All these test records the ability the respondents have. After conducting the pretest (which is the speaking test) the next step is carrying out twelve meetings which consist of the treatments on the experimental group. Each intervention will last approximately 80 to 100 minutes to the whole class, and the intervention will be administered three times a week for four weeks. During the last meeting, the writer will administer the posttest for the experimental and control groups. The posttest is to evaluate the respondents’ performance. The test is the same speaking test which is carried out during the pretest. The period between the pretest and the posttest is one month (similar to the pilot test). The procedure in the pretest will be repeated. The scores obtained in the pre- and posttests will be compared. the pre-test and posttest will be used to collect quantitative data needed to inform the study on the efficacy of the instructional procedures being examined. Furthermore, The qualitative data was collected through the interview. The interviews were conducted one day in May. The interview was given at the end of the interventions. Before the interviews took place, the writer made sure that an empty and available room was set for the interviewer and the interviewees. The writer had informed the teacher researcher about the day the writer wiched to visit the school. The language of the interview was Banjarese since the interviewees articulated a wish to speak in Banjarese. When quoting the students in the results section, the writer translated their responses into English.At the time of the interviews, the writer started by letting the interviewees know about the purpose of the interview and by informing them that their respondention was completely voluntary; they could leave the interview at any time if they wanted to. The writer also inforemed them why they were chosen as interviewees. The interview format was semi structured. The respondents will be interviewed related to their perceptions on the use of the Mingle Model during the interventions. The interview questions are labeled at Appendix C. The writer will record the interview through a smartphone with type is the ZenFone 4. The output of the recording file will be in Mp4 format. Each of the ten interviews took five to fiveteen minutes to perform. All in all, the diagramatic form of the procedure can be seen in Figure 3.2.21209053340Administering The Speaking test The Mingle Model intervention for the Experimental group- Administering The Speaking test- Interview Conventional English speaking lessons for the control group00Administering The Speaking test The Mingle Model intervention for the Experimental group- Administering The Speaking test- Interview Conventional English speaking lessons for the control groupFigure 3.2 The intervention procedure3.8 Technique of Analysing DataThe mixed-method design of the study involved the collection of quantitative and qualitative data through various instruments. This study will investigate the effectiveness of the Mingle Model in enhancing the respondents’ speaking accuracy and fluency. In addition, this study will also investigate the perceptions of the respondents regarding on the use of the Mingle Model in the class. The data collected will be analysed separately. The analysis procedure is described in table 3.4. It provides a general overview of the framework of analysis that is used in this study. The framework is discussed below based on the research questions posed earlier in Chapter 184.108.40.206 Research Question 1RQ-1 How much does the use of the Mingle Model (Darmayenti & Nofiadri, 2015) enhance the respondents’ speaking accuracy skills?Research question 1 is set to investigate the effectiveness of the Mingle Model towards the respondents’ speaking accuracy. In examining the effectiveness of the experimental treatment, quantitative data collected through the pretest and the posttest will be analysed through descriptive and inferential statistics. For the purpose of examining the effect of the experimental treatment, three null hypotheses corresponding to the first research question is proposed. The null hypotheses are as follows:Null HyphothesisH01- There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the experimental group.H02–There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the control group.H03–There is no significant improvement between the mean scores in the speaking test on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the experimental group as compared to the control group.As soon as both the pretest and posttest scores of the respondents in both groups are obtained, appropriate statistical analyses will be applied to the data. Descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations are used to investigate the overall performance of the respondents in both the treatment and control groups. Such an overview of the performance will provide general indications of any improvement between the two test scores in each group and also the test scores between the two groups. Further, for hypotheses testing, the data will be analysed using the paired t-test for the H01 and H02, while the independent t-test will be used to analyse the H03. In sum, these tests are aimed at inferring if the respondents in the experimental group have performed significantly better on the speaking skills test as compared to their counterparts in the control group. To do the hypotheses testing, this study will use the .05 for the level of significance because this level follows the practice in most educational or applied linguistics research (Best ; Khan, 2006). Since the theories and studies related to the Mingle Model show a positive effect (Ruzieva ; Yuldasheva, 2017; Teng ; Wong, 2015; Darmayenti ; Nofiadri, 2015; Hakim, 2014; Borzova, 2014), thus, a positive one-tailed test will be used. 3.8.2 Research Question 2RQ-2 How much does the Mingle Model (Darmayenti ; Nofiadri,2015) enhance the respondents’ speaking fluency skills?Research question 2 is set to investigate the effectiveness of the Mingle Model in enhancing the respondents speaking fluency. Similar to research question 1, the writer will also use pre- and posttest to collect the data. Similar to the first research question, ther three null hypotheses are proposed in corresponding to the second research question. They are as follows:Null HyphothesisH04 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the experimental group.H05 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the control group.H06 – There is no significant improvement between the mean scores in the speaking test to test the respondents’ fluency obtained by the experimental group as compared to the control group.Similar to research question 1, the significant level is 0.05. In this research question, the positive one-tail test will also be used. The descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations will also investigate the overall performance of the respondents in both the experiment and control groups. To test the hyphothesis, the paired t-test will be used to measure the H04 and H05, while independent t-test will measure the H06. 3.8.3 Research Question 3What are the perceptions of the students on the use of the Mingle Model during speaking activities?Answers to research question 3 above involved analysed from interview. For responses to the the open-ended questions, the analysis of the interview will follow the Five-Phased Cycle by Yin (2009). Yin states that in analysing qualitative data, there are (1) Compiling, (2) Disassembling, (3) Reassembling, (4) Interpreting, and (5) Concluding.Figure 3.3 Five Phases of Analysis and their interactions(adopted from Yin, 2009, p. 178)The first phase is Compiling. The writer will sort the notes taken from the interview. Yin (2009) states that the Compiling phase refers to putting the data in certain order. The Second is Disassembling. In this phase, the writer will give label or codes for the data after the compiling phase. Next, is Reassembling phase. After labeling or coding the data, the writer will combine the label or code to get some certain themes. After that, in the interpreting phases, the writer will looking for the themes from all the label or code to get clearly the perceptions of the students’ related to the Mingle Model. Finally, in the Concluding phase, the writer will draw the conclusions from the entire qualitative data. In this phase, Yin mentions that the conclusions should be related to the interpretation in the fourth phase and through it to all of the other phases of the cycle. All in all, these Five-phase cycle will be used to enhance the reliability of the findings to the research question concerned.Table 3.4 Framework of AnalysisResearch Question Instrument Null Hypotheses AnalysisRQ-1 How much does the use of the Mingle Model (Darmayenti & Nofiadri, 2015) enhance the respondents’ speaking accuracy skills? The Speaking Test H01 – There is no significant difference between the mean scores in the speaking test on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group. Independent t-testH02 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the experimental group Paired t-testH03 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the control group Paired t-testH04 – There is no significant improvement between the mean scores in the speaking test on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group. Independent t-testRQ-2 How much does the Mingle Model (Darmayenti ; Nofiadri,2015) enhance the respondents’ speaking fluency skills? H05 – There is no significant difference between the mean scores in the pretest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group. Independent t-testH06 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the experimental group. Paired t-testH07 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the control group. Paired t-testH08 – There is no significant improvement between the mean scores in the posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group. Independent t-testRQ-3 What are the perceptions of the students on the use of the Mingle Model during speaking activities? Interview The Five-Phases Cycles analysis3.9 SummaryThis study is aimed at investigating the effect of the Mingle Model towards respondents’ speaking skills. A pretest-posttest control group design is used as a methodology to answer the research question. The independent variable is the model of teaching namely the Mingle Model. The writer selects two classes, one class is the experimental group while another class is the control group. The study will use the pre and posttest to examine the effectiveness of the Mingle Model. The study will also use the interview to investigate the respondents’ perception on the model.In quantitative data, the results will be calculated and converted into descriptive and inferential data analysis. The descriptive analysis is used to find the mean and standard deviation of the respondents’ scores in speaking skills. Meanwhile, in the inferential statistics, the writer will use the independent and paired t-test when the data met with the parametric data assumption to investigate the significance of the data. In qualitative data, the write adopt the Five-Phases Cycle by Yin (2009) in order to analyse the interview results. Overall, this study will be a valuable addition to the limited literature by investigating the use of the Mingle Model at the language development centre at a university in South of Kalimantan, Indonesia.CHAPTER IVFINDINGS4.1 IntroductionThis chapter presents the results and findings of the study based on the analyses of the data obtained. It is organised based on the three research questions that the study set out to answer. Thus, there are essentially three main sections. The first and second section show the analyses and results of statistical procedures (SPSS version 21) carried out in answering the first and second research questions. The third section presents the findings based on the qualitative data collected. The third section is necessarily longer than the first and second sections due to the detailed descriptions of the findings.4.2 Research Question 1The first research question set was ‘How much does the Mingle Model (Darmayenti & Nofiadri, 2015) enhance the students’ speaking accuracy?’After the students’ speaking performance on the speaking test was graded, their pretest and posttest were scored, the means of both groups were calculated, and the following results were observed.Table 4.1Descriptive analysis of pretest and posttest on speaking accuracyPre test Post testGroup N M SD M SDExperimental 18 71.67 7.071 79.72 7.760Control 15 69.33 5.936 73.00 8.194As was shown in the Table 4.1, the means of two groups, experimental and control groups, are almost the same. Given that, the obtained data were analysed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests to measure the normal distribution. The table 4.2 shows the results of the test.Table 4.2Normality test of pretest results on experimental and control groups speaking accuracyGroup Kolmogorv-Smirnov Shaphiro-Wilk Stat. df Sig. Stat. df Sig.Pretest Experimental .149 17 .200 .952 17 .452Control .167 14 .200 .931 14 .279Posttest Experimental .152 17 .200 .969 17 .779Control .176 14 .200 .960 14 .600Based on the table above, it was found that the significances of Shaphiro-Wilk test of the experimental group were .452 on the pretest and.779 on the postest. Moreover, the significance of Shaphiro-Wilk test of the control group were .279 on the pretest and .692 on the posttest. In addition, the significances of Kalmogorov-Smirnov test of the experimental and control groups were .200 on the pretest and .200 on the postest. Due to the significance of the Shapiro-Wilk and Kalmogorov-Smirnov tests were higher than ; 0.05, the obtained data were normally distributed. Then, the levene test will be carry out to prove that the obtained data were homogeny or not.Table 4.3Homogeneity test of pretest results on experimental and control groups speaking accuracyGroup Levene Statistic Sig.Experimental 2.178 .133Control 3.184 .410Based on the table above, it was found that the significance of the Levene test were .133 for the experimental group and .126 for the control group. Hence, the obtained data were homogen because of the significance were above of ; 0.05. Therefore, the assumptions of the independent t test and paired t test were met.In order to determine comparability of the two groups before the treatments, an independent t-test was used to compare the pretest results in speaking accuracy respectively from both the experimental group and the control group. The first null hypothesis was ‘there is no significant difference between the mean scores in the pretest on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group.’ The table below shows comparisons of pretest results from both groups on the speaking accuracy.Table 4.4Independent t-test of speaking accuracy pretestGroup Mean SD df T Sig. (1-tailed)Experimental 71.67 7.071 31 -1.014 .159Control 69.33 5.936 Fortunately, the t-test result indicates that there was no statistical difference between the groups in speaking accuracy (t(31) = -1.014, Sig. = .159), hence, the null hypothesis was fail to reject. This means that two groups were homogenous. Both groups were performing at the same level and there was no main difference between two groups on the speaking accuracy before the treatment. After four weeks of treatments, the same oral test as a posttest was administered to both groups, and their speaking performance were graded again. Two groups’ posttest scores were gathered and their means and standard deviations were calculated. The control group was taught through a conventional teaching speaking method, but the experimental group recieved treatment; they were taught the speaking skills followed the Mingle Model set by the researcher. After collecting the data, to determine the effect of the Mingle Model on the experimental group and the conventional teaching speaking method on the control group, two separate paired t-tests were used to compare the pretest and post test results of both instructional groups on the speaking accuracy.The second and third null hypotheses were as follows:H02 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the experimental groupH03 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the control group The tables below represent the pre and posttest data from two paired t-tests in the speaking test.Table 4.5Paired t-test on speaking accuracyGroup Mean Std. Deviation df t value Sig. (1-tailed)Experimental Pretest 71.67 7.071 17 -5.300 .000Posttest 79.72 7.760 Control Prestest 69.33 5.936 14 -1.798 .047Posttest 73.00 8.194 The table 4.5 illustrates the improvement between the results of the pretest and posttest for each experimental and control groups. The t-test results indicate there was statistical improvement in the speaking accuracy of either group. The improvement between two means on the pretest and posttest of either group was significant enough to reject the null hypotheses. This means that the Mingle Model and the conventional teaching speaking method improves the Banjarese undergraduates’ speaking accuracy. However, the students in the experimental group increased their speaking accuracy by 8.056 points, while the control group increased by 3.667 points. This finding indicated that the use Mingle Model made slightly gains on the students’ speaking accuracy.Finally, to examine the comparison between the Mingle model and the conventional teaching speaking method, an independent t-test was carried out to compare the posttest results on the speaking accuracy between the experimental and control groups. The fourth null hypothesis was ‘There is no significant improvement between the mean scores in the posttest on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group.’ The results of the independent t-test analysis on the speaking accuracy posttest were illustrate on the table below.Table 4.6Independent t-test of speaking accuracy posttest Group Mean SD df t-value Sig. (1-tailed)Experimental 79.72 7.760 31 -2.416 .011Control 77.00 6.761 The researcher expected a positive directional hypothesis, the test was used one-tailed test at 0.05 level of significance. Table 4.6 illustrates the significance of the independent t-test was .011. Since the significance are below of < 0.05, this means that the improvement between two means was significant enough to reject the null hypothesis and accept the proposed directional hypothesis.These posttest results indicate that both groups made gains in speaking accuracy. In addition, the improvement between the two means were statistically significant. Confidently, the statistical analysis show that the experimental group showed greater growth and had more of a positive effect on speaking accuracy compared the control group.4.3 Research Question 2The second research question set was ‘How much does the Mingle Model (Darmayenti ; Nofiadri, 2015) enhance the students’ speaking fluency?’Regarding this issue, the descriptive statistics for the performances of each of the two groups on the pre-test have been given in the following table.Table 4.7Descriptive analysis of pretest and posttest on speaking fluencyPre test Post testGroup N M SD M SDExperimental 18 74.17 8.090 82.78 8.085Control 15 74.33 7.988 75.33 8.338As illustrated on the table above, the means scores of the experimental and control groups on pretest were almost similar. The means scores on the posttest also show the improvement. However, before running the t-test to check the significant difference between the mean scores of experimental and control group, the data must be checked the normality and homogeinity. In order to see if the obtained data were normally distrubuted, Kalmogorov-Smirnov and Shaphiro-Wilk tests were carried out. The results of the normality test are presented in table 4.8 below.Table 4.8Normality test of experimental and control groupsGroup Kolmogorv-Smirnov Shaphiro-Wilk Stat. df Sig. Stat. df Sig.Pretest Experimental .141 17 .200 .964 17 .689Control .133 14 .200 .973 14 .895Posttest Experimental .164 17 .200 .951 17 .853Control .151 14 .200 .970 14 .447As it is clear from table 4.8, the significances of Shaphiro-Wilk test of the experimental group were .452 on the pretest and .779 on the postest. Moreover, the significance of Shaphiro-Wilk test of the control group were .279 on the pretest and .692 on the posttest. In addition, the significances of Kalmogorov-Smirnov test of the experimental and control groups were .200 on the pretest and.200 on the postest. By referring to the table, the obtained data were normally distrubuted. Then, the levene test will be carry out to prove that the obtained data were homogeny or not.Table 4.9Homogeneity test of pretest results on experimental and control groups speaking fluencyGroup Levene Statistic Sig.Experimental 1.715 .392Control 1.133 .216Based on the table above, it was found that the significance of the Levene test were .392 for the experimental group and .216 for the control group. Hence, the obtained data were homogen because of the significance were above of ; 0.05. Therefore, the assumptions of the independent t-test and paired t-test were met.As the previous procedure, initially, an independent t-test was used to examine whether there was significant differences between the two groups at the pretest. The fifth null hypothesis was ‘there is no significant difference between the mean scores in the pretest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group.’ The results of t-test are presented in table 4.10 below.Table 4.10Independent t-test of speaking fluency pretestGroup Mean SD df t Sig. (1-tailed)Experimental 74.17 8.090 31 .059 .477Control 74.33 7.988 The t-test result indicates that there was no statistical difference between the groups in speaking fluency (t(31) = .059, Sig. = .477). The null hypothesis was fail to reject. It can be said that there is not any significant improvement between the performances of the two groups at the beginning of the study. This means that the two groups indeed belonged to the same speaking fluency performances when this study started.After four weeks of treatments, the same oral test as a posttest was adminitered to both groups, and their speaking performance were graded again. Two groups’ posttest scores were gathered and their means and standard deviations were calculated. The two separate paired t-tests were used to compare the pretest and post test results of both instructional groups on the speaking fluency. The sixth and seventh null hypotheses were as follows:H06 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the experimental group.H07 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the control group.The tables below represent the pre and posttest data from two paired t-tests in speaking test.Table 4.11Paired t-test on speaking fluencyGroup Mean Std. Deviation df t value Sig. (1-tailed)Experimental Pretest 74.17 8.090 17 -.642 .002Posttest 82.78 8.085 Control Prestest 74.33 7.988 14 -3.777 .531Posttest 75.33 8.338 The table 4.11 illustrates the paired t-test results of the pretest and posttest for each experimental and control groups. The paired t-test results indicate there was statistical improvement in the speaking fluency of experimental group (sig. .002), while the control group has no significance improvement (sig. .531) on the pretest and posttest results. The improvement between two means on the pretest and posttest of the experimental group was significant enough to reject the sixth null hypothesis. It means that the Mingle Model improves the Banjarese undergraduates’ speaking fluency. However, the improvement between two means on the pretest and posttest of the control group was no significant enough and it failed to reject the seventh null hypotheses. This means that the conventional teaching speaking strategies did not enhance the Banjarese undergraduates’ speaking fluency significantly. This finding indicated that the use Mingle Model made gains on the students’ speaking fluency better than the conventional teaching speaking method.Finally, to investigate if such an improvement is statistically significant or not, an independent t-test will be carried out. The eighth null hypothesis was ‘there is no significant improvement between the mean scores in the posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group.’ Table 4.12 shows the results of the independent t-test on the posttest of the students’ speaking fluency.Table 4.12Independent t-test of speaking fluency posttestGroup Mean SD df t-value Sig. (1-tailed)Experimental 82.78 8.085 31 -2.597 .007Control 75.33 8.338 As it is clear from the table, the significance of the independent t-test was .007. Therefore, the second research hypothesis of the study can be rejected and it can be concluded that the experimental group had significance improvement. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the Mingle Model has been more effective than the conventional teaching speaking method in enhancing Banjarese undergraduates’ speaking fluency.4.4 Summary of the Quantitative FindingsIn quantitative section, there are two research questions. These research questions were addressed to investigate the effectiveness of the Mingle Model on the Banjarese undergraduates’ speaking accuracy and fluency. There were two groups in this study; an experimental group and a control group. In the experimental group, speaking lessons was taught to the Banjarese undergraduates on the Mingle Model and in the control group, the conventional teaching speaking method was used for the speaking lessons. To investigate the significance of improvement between the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on both experimental and control groups, the researcher employed the independent t-test and paired t-test. Before running the t-test, all the assumptions had to be met. Table 4.13Summary of Statistical AnalysisResearch Question Null Hypotheses FindingRQ-1 How much does the use of the Mingle Model (Darmayenti & Nofiadri, 2015) enhance the respondents’ speaking accuracy skills? H01 – There is no significant difference between the mean scores in the speaking test on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group. Fail to rejectH02 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the experimental group RejectedH03 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the control group RejectedH04 – There is no significant improvement between the mean scores in the speaking test on the respondents’ accuracy obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group. RejectedRQ-2 How much does the Mingle Model (Darmayenti ; Nofiadri,2015) enhance the respondents’ speaking fluency skills? H05 – There is no significant difference between the mean scores in the pretest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group. Fail to rejectH06 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the experimental group. RejectedH07 – There is no significant improvement in the mean scores in the pretest and posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the control group. Fail to RejectH08 – There is no significant improvement between the mean scores in the posttest on the respondents’ fluency obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group. RejectedFor the research question 1, the independent t-test on the pretest shows that there is no significance differences between speaking performance results of the experimental and control groups. Next, the paired t-test show the improvement scores of pretest and posttest of the experimental and control group were significance. This means that the Mingle Model and conventional method had enhanced students’ speaking accuracy. Finally, to examine the improvement between the use of the Mingle Model and the conventional method, the independent t-test was used. The independent t-test shows that the Mingle Model had enhance the students’ speaking accuracy more effective than the conventional method. This findings probe the positive effects of the use the Mingle Model on the speaking accuracy.For the research question 2, the similar procedures were carried out. The independent t-test on the pretest result of the experimental and control group show that the means score of these groups was no significant difference. Then, the paired t-test show that the experimental group had enhance significantly on the students’ speaking flluency, while the control group had no significant improvement on the speaking fluency. At last, the independent t-test indicates that the Mingle Model enhances the students’ speaking fluency effectively better than the control group. These findings also probe the positive results on the use of the Mingle Model on the speaking fluencyIn sum, the students who have used the Mingle Models had performed better in their speaking accuracy and fluency than conventional teaching speaking method. The null hypotheses was thus rejected and hence, the results showed that the students in the experimental group obtained higher speaking accuracy scores than the control group students after the intervention during four weeks.4.5 Research Question 3The third research question set was ‘What are the perceptions of the students on the use of the Mingle Model during speaking activities?’Regarding the third research question, the interview was used in this study on selected students in the experimental groups. The responses in the interview were analysed qualitatively. The ten interviewees were all between the age of eighteen to nineteen. An audio recorder was used to collect data from the interview. The researcher transcribed the interview results, and then checked the transcriptions. Responses during the interviews (see sample interview transcript in Appendix) towards ten students from the experimental group were analysed to see how the students’ perception of using the Mingle Model while speaking. First, the researcher encoded the data and provided specific labels for each response. The responses with similar lables were then clustered to a common cluster. The clusters formed were reviewed and then interpreted.4.5.1 The Perception on the Mingle ModelThe students already implemented the Mingle Model on their speaking activities during 12 meeting. After the treatment, their thought and feeling on the Mingle Model were analysed through their responses on the semi-structured interview. First of all, responses to all students’ comment, the first theme was about how their experience the Mingle Model with their friends. The Mingle Model require cooperation with other students, their opinion regarding this is important. The interview results indicate that most of students agreed that they were at ease in the conversation with friends. For example as these excerpts of what the students’ said:”Doing conversation in the Mingle form, if we talk to other friends we can directly get response” (Susi).”It is better to do conversation (in pair) because a conversation is more comfort in improving speaking skills because we can give feedback each other if my friend or I were doing a mistake” (Rifki).”I feel comfort to speak in pair, if we talk alone we do not know whether or not we speak correctly. There is no one who tell us the correct thing. In a dialog I can do real communication” (Dayat).Furthermore, the interviews on the selected students indicated that they viewed the Mingle Model positively. All of them agreed that in general the Mingle Model had helped them in their speaking skills. It was found out that all the invited students genuinely like this activity because it brings excitement to the class. It feels like an adventure and uncovering a mystery. Students are generally eager to escape their social fiefdoms, to build new bridges, and to interact with new voices. They all regard it as a good centre point from which they can build their skills while making new friends at the same time. Here are three excerpts translated from students’ responses in Banjarese:”It was so easy to do, we were more active, and we have more speaking time” (Syifa). “It was easy because it helped us who do not have good English proficiency skill to speak and make it as a habit” (Winda).”It is easy because initially we cannot speak, after doing a lot of practices we are accustomed to speak” (Resma).Moreover, the students experience that the Mingle Model was full of life. The class condition was so dynamic and lively. The students claimed that the activity let all the students to be active all the time in the speaking activity so that there is no one who left behind and keep silent. This means that all the students were participate in the speaking activity. As claimed by a student that “It is better than we must go in front of the class to speak one by one. When my friend go in front I will only play my smartphone without notice to him or her. However, in this method we are more focus and we do not think to other things, focus to speak and what should be spoken with partners.” (Munawir).The description of data from interview results that the students were interested in using the Mingle Model. The students considered the Mingle Model as an interesting technique in their class. They enjoyed learning speaking through the Mingle Model although it was new for them.Another findings on the interview indicated that all of the students agreed that the Mingle Model is better than other teaching speaking technique. The Mingle Model is so useful and effective to enhance the students’ speaking skills. This model give the students practical experience in carrying out the speaking skills. As argued by a student that “It is better than other activity” (Salvina). As a result, the use of the Mingle Model were confirmed provide positive impact on the students’ speaking skills.4.5.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Mingle ModelAs mentioned earlier, the students went through a few treatment sessions of the use of the Mingle Model in order to enhance their speaking skills. These sessions also involved the students carry out the Mingle Model during 12 meetings. The interviews were conducted on the students to ask their opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of the Mingle Model when doing it in the class.220.127.116.11 Advantages of the Mingle ModelThe third research question is about the students’ perceptions of the Mingle Model. Beside the perception on the use of the Mingle Model generally, the students were also interviewed their perception on the advantages and disadvantages of the model. Based on the interview results, it was clear that the students were agreeable that the Mingle Model was beneficial to them in enhancing their speaking skills. Most of students argued that the Mingle Model provided easy way to do communication and effective time in the speaking activity. In addition, the Mingle Model promote the students’ confidence. It also improved their vocabulary and let them speak automatically. Firstly, the students mentioned that the Mingle Model help them to do the conversation. The Mingle activity is such a practical activity. The students were able to do real communication instead of only listening to the lecturer’s talk. Here some examples of what the students mentioned about the advantages of the Mingle Model.”Yes, in the mingle activity, we do real communication. Before this, we only listen to the lecturer.” (Syifa).”It is very good because we are able to speak face to face like real communication.” (Dayat).Other than that, some students noticed that they were able to speak effectively all the time in the speaking class. The Mingle Model provide well-organised activity where the students may able to use the time efficiently. It is different to other activity where there are possibilities the students keep silent and only watch to the other students do the conversation in front of the class. This means that the Mingle Model positively enhance the students to be more proficient without waste time. Here are the students’ claims regarding this opinion”In other speaking activity, we are asked to go in front one by one to speak, while the rest will do other activity such as play smartphone or chit chat with friends. However, in the Mingle activity, we are to speak full time so that our focus is controlled.” (Munawir).”Make my English was more fluent because the activity does not let us spend 30 minutes for nothing so that we can use 30 minutes optimally.” (Resma).Some of these students had a positive comments on the improvement the vocabulary. They argued that the Mingle Model had improved their vocabulary. Besides that, the more confident students were nonchalant about what others might think about them or their thoughts. For instance, one student commented that “It is easy as exercise in speaking while improve my vocabulary mastery.” (Munawir). When the students do not know the vocabulary, the teacher told them the vocabulary and they used the vocabulary in the Mingle Model. After the activity, they memorise the vocabulary effectively. Here are some excerpts from the students’ comments:”My vocabulary is improved.” (Syifa).” The conversation is repeated frequently so that we know the ideas of the way to speak so that we will not choking up in the front when we are speaking, so I think it is good, I may learn new vocabulary about what my friend had said.” (Munawir).”The benefit is we become more active and get more vocabulary.” (Susi).Other advantages mentioned by the students were actually cited in comparison to carrying out the Mingle Model. For instance, to those who implement the Mingle Model in the class, they will be able to speak fluently. As mentioned by one of the experimental students that “I am able to speak fluently, I am not gu-gu gu-gu anymore, and then my nervous is gone” (Dayat).At this juncture, it should be noted then that what was answered by the students on the interview section show that the Mingle Model lead the students to get a lot of practice and it helped them to improve their speaking skills very well. It also improve their confidence level as well as increase their vocabulary mastery. In this respect, the interview results shows that the speaking accuracy and fluency were enhanced through the use of the Mingle Model and support the finding on the quantitative analyses. This was evidenced through their responses in the interviews. Most of the students agreed that the Mingle Model had helped them to speak better. For example: “Make my speaking more fluent by using the method, it makes my confidence level become improved, because accompany my friends during the conversation and automatically my anxiety is lesser. Therefore, the method is better than other.” (Rifki).”It made me pronounce better, I am able to pronounce the word without read the book, then when the others ask me I can answer without nervous, I may answer the question easily.” (Munawir).All in all, these advantages direct to the positive conclusion on the use of the Mingle Model in the speaking activities. The advantages such as improving vocabulary (as part of the accuracy) and fluency were noted as the confirmation for the quantitative findings. Therefore, these findings indicated that the Mingle Model is effective to be used in the classroom by a teacher.18.104.22.168 Disadvantages of the Mingle ModelNotwithstanding the advantages of the Mingle Model as viewed by the students and presented above, the Mingle Model is not without its problems and disadvantages. Responses by the students indicated the existence of a few problems. In a way, most of the complaints were similar in nature as they revolved around the issue of participation (or rather lack of participation) and cooperation by certain individuals in the group could affect the whole group in carrying out the task required of them. They usually referred to situations when a certain individual in the group “just keep quiet: and did not contribute in giving feedback.””Yes, very nice. However my friend is too shy, while I am too active. So we cannot do conversation freely. Thus, we only do a simple conversation. Before this, my partner is active as well, we do a lot of conversation more than what the card had asked” (Salvina).The Mingle Model raised by most low speaking proficiency students were the unavailability or absence of help when they face comprehension difficulties such as unknown vocabulary and difficult sentences in conversation. Without feedback and help from the teacher, they were often unsure if their use of strategies such as guessing and translation in attempting to resolve those difficulties were appropriate and accurate. Hence, they were also uncertain on what they want to speak were correct. The students’ responses given below are representative of the various responses that conveyed this disadvantage.”If we were helped by the lecturer when we have a problem, we can get the answer directly. However, with friends who were also still learning, we cannot get the answer directly about what we need to talk about on the conversation.” (Rifki).”For example if my friend is not good enough, so it is useless. He or she cannot influence me.” (Munawir).”I have a problem in create a sentence, when my lecturer helped me, I can do it easier.” (Fera).”In a conversation, we still need a teacher to guide us. Sometimes, we don’t know some vocabularies so that without a teacher to help we cannot do the conversation smoothly.” (Dayat).Consequently, there were students who sometimes felt that they were not able to understand the what their friend said or what should they said even if they had utilized strategies thought appropriate but were still at a loss with regards to the meaning conveyed in the speaking activity. Being in such a situation can understandably be a negative experience to the students. This indicated that the Mingle Model required two types of students in the speaking activities. First is the high proficiency students and next is the low proficiency student in order to help each other to enhance their speaking skills level.The high proficiency students will get more time practices while the low proficiency students will get more vocabulary or utterences from the high proficiency students.Nevertheless, most of students claimed that they do not have any idea regarding to the disadvantages of the Mingle Model. Many comments from them who claimed that ‘I do not know’ and ‘there is no disadvantage’ in the interviews. This means that the use of Mingle Model generally is good although there is still negative comment from few students who experience it during 12 meetings.4.6 Summary of the Qualitative findingsThe preceding discussion clearly shows that, from the students’ point of view, The Mingle Model has advantages and disadvantages. Moving on the perception on the effectiveness of the Mingle Model, the students thought that the procedure had effectively helped them improve their speaking skills. Table 4.13Summary of Interview AnalysisResearch question Themes Students’ perceptionRQ-3 What are the perceptions of the students on the use of the Mingle Model during speaking activities? The effectiveness of the Mingle Model – It is easy to do- It provides more practice than silent- The students prefer to speak in pairs- It is claimed that the Mingle Model is more effective than other techniquesAdvantages of the Mingle – It provides easy way to communicate – It may optimise the learning time- It promotes students’ confidence – It promotes students’ fluency- It promotes students’ vocabulary masteryDisadvantages of the Mingle Model – The partner who is not proficient in English cannot help the students to improve their speaking- Few students need time to prepare their speaking- Few students need assist from the teacher during the Mingle ModelThe overall preference for the Mingle Model may be influenced by the many advantages highlighted by the students and discussed earlier. The interview results shows all the students agreed that on the whole the students viewed very positively the procedure of the Mingle Model during speaking activity. Despite some problems faced by a number of students, the Mingle Model was thought to be effective in helping the student improve their speaking skills. Finally, the students’ positive outlook on the procedure was reflected in all of them agreeing that they will continue to use the procedure when they do speaking activity inside or outside classroom.4.7 SummaryUses of the data collected yielded numerous results and findings. Results of the statistical analyses show that the treatment was effective in improving the speaking accuracy and fluency of the students in the experimental group. Analyses of the interviews have also indicate that teaching the students to speak through the Mingle Model has enabled them to speak accurately and fluently. The Mingle Model also enabled the students to build on the confident of the students. As for the students’ perceptions towards the use of the Mingle Model while speaking activity, the feedback given was generally positive. Based on their responses in the interviews, there was consensus that the instructional procedure has been beneficial to them. These results and findings are presented in this chapter together with possible interpretations of the findings. They shall be discussed in the next chapter which shall also conclude the study. CHAPTER VDISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS5.1 IntroductionThis study was designed with the objective of investigating the Mingle Model by Darmayenti & Nofiadri (2015) to enhance students’ speaking accuracy and fluency as well as to investigate the students’ perception regarding the effectiveness of the Mingle Model in speaking activities among Banjarese undergraduates. Given that, to provide a more comprehensive understanding on the effectiveness of the Mingle Model, a mixed method study with the Explanatory Sequential Design was carried out.The Explanatory Sequential Design consist of quantitative and qualitative approach. The quantitative approach has enabled the writer to examine the effects of the Mingle Model on the performances of the students who carry out conversation based on the model. On the other hand, the qualitative approach has provided valuable insights with regards to how the students’ perceptions on the use of the Mingle Model on the speaking activities.The findings presented in Chapter 4 are discussed in this chapter followed by a discussion on what those findings imply to teachers and speaking instructors in the classroom. Moreover, several limitations and recommendation for future research of the study will be described before the report of this study is concluded.5.2 Discussion on FindingsThe data analyses in the present study have yielded various results and findings that have been presented in chapter 4. These results and findings are now organised and discussed under the sub-sections below.5.2.1 Effectiveness of the Mingle ModelOne of the main concerns of this was to investigate the effectiveness of the Mingle Model as an instructional procedure for improving speaking accuracy and fluency. Results of statistical analysis of the data pointed to statistically significant improvement between the performance in speaking test measures of the experimental and the control groups. In addition, the findings on the control group indicated that the conventional teaching speaking method only improved the speaking accuracy, while the speaking fluency was not improved significantly. This indicates that the Mingle Model increased speaking skills in both accuracy and fluency, while the conventional teaching speaking method improved the speaking accuracy only. In other words, the experimental group outperformed the control group on the speaking test. Hence, the Mingle Model had contributed to the improvement of the Banjarese undergraduate speaking accuracy and fluency.This finding supports the use of the Mingle Model in speaking activity as advocated by Oxford (2010), Thornburry (2009), and Ur (1996). Additionally, it corroborates the finding from empirical studies, e.g. Darmayenti & Nofiadri (2015), Teng and Wong (2015), and Borzova (2014) that examined the effects of the Mingle Model on speaking skills. More importantly, the finding provides further evidence on the usefulness of an approach in speaking instruction that the Mingle Model by Darmayenti and Nofiadri (2015). Thus, the empirical results of this present study suggest that the instructional procedure of the Mingle Model in a speaking activity should be considered as a technique in speaking instruction for Banjarese undergraduates.5.2.2 Students’ PerceptionsResponses to the interviews have revealed much about the students’ perceptions on the Mingle Model that they experienced. The majority of the students viewed the Mingle Model positively and that the model had helped them to do speaking better. This was consistent with the speaking test results obtained by the experimental group. This positive finding corroborates the evidence provided in studies by Darmayenti and Nofiadri (2015).Carrying out conversation in pairs when the Mingle Model was seen as advantageous by most but was also sees as disadvantageous by some others. It was perceived as advantageous in that speaking difficulties can be resolved more effectively and collaboratively with help by more proficient peers being near at hand such as assist from the teacher. Furthermore, it was also perceived that one could learn more from each other by listening to how difficulties were tackled while construction meaning from the conversation. Apart from that, few students who prefer to speak alone argue that they need preparation before carrying out the real conversation. That is why they prefer to speak alone to make sure what they are going to say in the conversation activity are fine. 5.3 Pedagogical ImplicationsThe findings of the present study offer several implications for speaking instruction or speaking lessons in Banjarese undergraduates’ contexts. The positive effect of the Mingle Model implies that teachers have a potentially useful instructional technique in guiding Banjarese undergraduates to improve their speaking skills. In other words, teachers should consider this approach to speaking instruction as an additional technique to add to their repertoire of techniques that cater to various types and purpose of speaking. For instance, the task of the Mingle Model during speaking helped the students to be actively engaged with the conversation activity, hence, it may be suitable if the objective of the speaking lesson was to encourage fluent speaking or speaking for leisure.Another implication is that it would be beneficial for teachers to help students view speaking as an interesting activity and that there are various strategies that can be used to enhance their speaking skills. Notwithstanding the importance of promoting such a view, teachers should also give priority to addressing the lack of language resources especially with low proficiency L2 students. As also pointed out by Ur (1996), being equipped with knowledge of (Oxford, 2010; Thornburry, 2009). Additionally, as these factors affect a student’s comfort level, they would inevitably affect also the individual student’s level of participation in the Mingle Model.In addition, teachers can utilize the Mingle Model as an activity that also provides students the opportunity to practice their speaking skills in the target language in an authentic task of discussing the contents of a topic. Therefore, teachers could utilize this technique as an activity that integrates the various language skills.Finally, as with any other instructional procedures that require the use of the Mingle Model as part of the instruction, the underlying assumption is that the teachers themselves are proficient and comfortable in carrying out the Mingle Model. Thus, this implies the need for training teachers to be proficient in the Mingle Model considering the many potential benefits of the Mingle Model in the speaking classroom.5.4 LimitationLike most studies, this study may have its limitation. A full discussion of the Mingle Model lies beyond the scope of this study. First, the limitation is the time constraint. The writer will only be given one month to conduct the study by the Language Development Centre. Carrying out the speaking activities three times a week, for one month might not be enough to test the effectiveness of the Mingle Model. The result might be different if the research is given more time. Therefore, the findings and pedagogical implications discussed so far should be consider on various limitations in the study. Another limitation arose from the employment of the mixed method design of the study itself. The necessary use of recording equipment to collect qualitative data might have reactive effects during administration of the interviews. In other words, the recording might cause the students to be aware that they were being researched and such awareness could pose an external threat to the study to the Hawthorne effect. This possible threat was addressed through the manner in which the instruments were used but may still limit generalisations of the findings.Another limitation pertained to the use of the quasi-experiment in the quantitative aspect of the overall mixed method design. Due to practical constraints, this paper cannot provide a comprehensive review of Indonesian undergraduates for the whole provinces. It would only be generalised towards Banjarese undergraduates in the university where this study is conducted. As Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun (2015) pointed out, due to the inherent nature of quasi-experiments in using non-randomized samples in the experiment, the statistical test results provided confidence that the improvements were real in this set of data only and therefore the results should be integrated cautiously for inferential purposes. In other words, the results most probably was not able to provide enough evidence of causal effects but perhaps provide some support for use of the Mingle Model. Additionally, in the study pertains to the small number of students involved in the quantitative and qualitative parts of the design investigating the effectivenes and students’ perception on the Mingle Model. The decision to examine only two intact classes as experimental and control groups and the selected ten students of experimental group to examine what happened within the group was due to time and other practical constraints. That being the case, as with most process studies, it is difficult to draw strong generalisations based on the limited number of students.Finally, although the Mingle Model is widely used in investigating the speaking process, it does not capture all the strategies employed by the Banjarese undergraduates to enhance their speaking. As such, their thoughts, strategies and whether they had understood or not when any discussion ensued regarding the meaning conveyed in the conversation. Therefore, the list of speaking strategies identified was by no means an exhaustive one or offering a complete view of all the speaking strategies that were actually utilised by the students.5.5 Future ResearchThe present study has provided valuable answers to the questions set earlier on. Nonetheless, based on the findings and limitations discussed above a few suggestions are appropriate as to how future research can further verify the efficacy of the proposed instructional technique. First of all, follow-up studies involving true experimental designs will be needed to determine if the results of this study could be replicated. In the same vein, the studies should also include training regular classroom teachers to implement the Mingle Model in the treatments in the experimental groups.Besides that, these follow-up studies might include testing the instructional procedure with a variety of populations such as students with different language backgrounds, L2 proficiency levels, gender and age. Cohen (2009) pointed out that strategies “do not operate by themselves” but are closely linked to one’s learning styles, personality-related variables, sex, age and ethnic differences. Hence, researchers should also try to identify variables such as those mentioned that may affect the students’ performance since these variables are possible factors in determining how students react to speak in the Mingle Model.There is also the need to examine if there changes in the frequencies of use and the types of speaking strategies that the students use before and after and after the treatment. Such investigations will provide insight with regards to whether students have internalised speaking strategies used by their peers and to what extent during the course of the treatment.5.6 SummaryThe quantitative results of descriptive analysis indicated that the means score of the experimental and control group had improvement on the speaking accuracy and fluency. Serial of t-test analyses revealed that there is significant improvement between the mean scores in the speaking test on the respondents’ accuracy and fluency obtained by the experimental group compared to the control group. The qualitative results indicated that selected students yielded that the Mingle Model provided easy way to communicate in the class and optimise the learning time consumtion. In addition, it also promote students’ confidence, fluency, and vocabulary. However, some other students also mentioned the disadvantages in the implementation of the Mingle model such as their friends were still not proficient, more assist from the teacher, and more time to prepare their speaking before speaking in the conversation with friends. As a conclusion, the Mingle Model by Darmayenti and Nofiadri (2015) has enhanced students’ speaking accuracy and fluency confirmed by the interview results of selected students who experience it. The study implicates that the use of the Mingle Model can enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning the speaking skills.In view of the several limitations discussed earlier, the results and findings of this study should be interpreted cautiously and that generalisations are limited to the scope of the sample, instructional procedures, and research procedures employed. Directions for future research have been suggested to further examine the efficacy of using the Mingle Model in the speaking activity in a classroom. All in all, the present study provides positive indications on the usefulness of the Mingle Model to enhance the students’ speaking accuracy and fluency.