IMPLEMENTING TALKING STICK STRATEGY

TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ READING SKILL

ON NARRATIVE TEXT IN HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION
Dhesi Fitria
English Department
Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, Universitas Tidar
yayadhesi@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Fitria, Dhesi. (2023). Implementing Talking Stick Strategy to Improve Students’

Reading Skill on Narrative Text in High School Education. An
Undergraduate Thesis. English Education Department, Faculty of
Education and Teacher Training, Universitas Tidar. Advisor I Moch Malik
Al Firdaus, M.Pd., Advisor II Agnira Rekha, M.Pd.

Keywords: Talking Stick Strategy, reading skill, narrative text

One of the English skills that students have to acquire in learning English is
reading. However, the students have low activeness in the teaching and learning
process, which leads to low students' reading skill. Therefore, the teacher needs an
innovative teaching strategy to contrive the students to be active in the classroom.
One of the strategies that can be implemented is the Talking Stick Strategy. In this
study, Talking Stick was implemented to increase students' reading skill on
narrative text in High School Education.

This study was intended to fulfill two objectives. First, this study was
carried out to know the students' activeness when Talking Strategy was
implemented in reading class narrative text. The second one is to find out how well
Talking Stick improved students' reading skill on narrative text in High School
Education.

The writer conducted Classroom Action Research (CAR). This study was
done in some stages, they are Pre-Cycle, Cycle I, and Cycle II. The subject of this
study was X-3 students of SMAN 1 Candimulyo in the academic year 2022/2023.
The class was chosen as the subject because it has the lowest score average among
the classes. The total of students was 36 and it consists of 12 males and 24 females.
The data collection techniques that were used were test and non-test. In the non-test
technique, there were observations, questionnaires, and documentation. Then the
data were analyzed by qualitative and quantitative techniques.

The result showed a good improvement in students' activeness in narrative

text reading class after the writer implemented Talking Stick Strategy. It was proven
by the result of observation, questionnaire, and documentation. The result of
observation in Pre-Cycle was 50.83%, the observation in Cycle I was 62.50%, and

1
 2

it became 72.77% in Cycle II. The implementation of the Talking Stick Strategy
also made improvements in reading skill. In the Pre-Cycle test, the average reading
skill narrative text score was 64.44. After the Talking Stick Strategy was applied,
the average of student's score in Cycle I test reached 72.91, and it improved to 85
on the Cycle II test. Therefore, there was 20.56% points of the total improvement
from the Pre-Cycle and Cycle II tests.

Based on the results above, the writer concludes that using the Talking Stick
Strategy could improve the students' activeness and significantly improve their
narrative text reading skill. Hence, it is recommended that English teachers apply
Talking Stick Strategy as an alternative media in teaching reading narrative text.

I. INTRODUCTION
In English, students have four skills to be mastered; speaking, listening,
reading, and writing. Reading is one of the essential things in English. Reading is
an activity that requires readers to respond to and interpret a text in light of their
prior knowledge (Spratt, Pulverness, and William, 2005:21). In learning reading,
students in high school education learn various kinds of text, such as report,
descriptive, procedure, recount, and narrative text. Based on the syllabus, narrative
text is one of the materials that teachers give to their students in Senior High School.
There are reasons why the narrative text should be taught in high school
education. First, narrative text can increase students' interest in reading because the
narrative text is made passionately, interestingly, and imaginatively. Besides,
narrative text can grow the students' creative mindset and critical thinking. The
narrative text also helps the students to enhance their reading motivation. The
students will enjoy reading the text and are excited to know what will happen next.
Furthermore, the narrative contains a moral value that students can learn from it
(Havianisa, 2013). The story in the narrative text gives the readers a lesson and tells
about the positive values to be implemented in real life. Therefore, this is relevant
for the students to have good critical thinking and positive attitudes.
However, the condition of teaching and learning narrative reading skill in
SMAN 1 Candimulyo preferred a different expectation. The students of the tenth
grade of SMAN 1 Candimulyo scored less than 67 as the standard of minimum
completeness (KKM). The average score of the tenth graders in class X-3 was less
than KKM; it was 65 and it became the lowest score average among the other
classes. Based on the observation in the field, when English teaching and learning
 3

was conducted in the class, the teaching and learning narrative reading skill were
still passive. The students did not want to give questions, although they had not yet
to understand the material. They also felt less confident in expressing opinions.
They needed more communication with teachers and friends. Another problem was
that the students must be more interested when they joined the reading class because
the strategy used to teach reading could be more varied. In every teaching and
learning activity, the teacher just asked the students to read a text and then answer
the question based on the text without using some strategies. It happened many
times and it made the teaching and learning process monotonous. All the problems
mentioned led to low student learning outcomes.
To overcome the problems above, applying more innovative teaching
strategies was necessary. A strategy was needed to teach reading. Furthermore,
McNamara (2009) states that reading strategy is essential because in addition to
gain the successful comprehension, using reading strategy can also overcome
reading problems and become a better reader. One of the teaching strategies that
could be applied was the Talking Stick Strategy.
Talking Stick Strategy is a teaching strategy with the help of a stick in which
students who hold a stick are required to respond the questions given by the teacher
after they have studied the subject matter and repeated continuously until all
students have a turn to answer questions from the teacher. Talking Stick Strategy is
very suitable as a teaching strategy that teachers can implement in the classroom
because there are some advantages of it, such as; (1) encouraging students to be
more active in the learning process, (2) motivating students to be interested in
following the learning process, and (3) encouraging students to think creatively and
confidently in expressing opinions. Applying the Talking Stick Strategy would
increase student activity and learning outcomes in English lessons, especially
reading skill.
Based on the problems above, to solve them, the writer discussed them
further through classroom action research entitled "Implementing Talking Stick
Strategy to Improve Student's Reading Skill on Narrative Text in High School
Education."
 4

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 English Language Teaching (ELT) in High School Education
A foreign language is only learned during formal education (Oxford and
Shearin, 1994). ELT in high school education means developing the ability to speak
English contextually and acceptably according to students' context, conditions, and
daily situations.
2.2 Reading Skill
Tarigan (2008:7) defines reading as the process performed and used by the
reader to understand author’s message conveying through his words that a reader
can see and know. Reading skill is essential because it can enrich experience and
knowledge. By reading, people can increase their understanding of science and
technology, which is an easy way to get much helpful information.
2.3 Text
According to Carter and McCarthy (2006), a text is a stretch of language,
whether spoken or written, that is semantically and pragmatically coherent in its
real-world context. A text is a product of a particular context in which it is produced
with the specific structures and language features, either written or spoken.
2.4 Narrative Text
According to Rebecca (2003), a narrative text is a text that relates a series
of logically and chronologically related events that are caused or experienced by
factors. Furthermore, she states that a sense of plot, theme, characters, events, and
how they relate is essential for understanding a narrative.
2.5 Students’ Activeness
Students' activeness is one indicator that most affects the learning process
in the class. Students' activeness is essential for teaching and learning (Sinar, 2018).
This is because students’ activeness can affect knowledge since students are the
subject who plan and do the learning (Daryanto & Rahardjo, 2012).
2.6 Teaching Strategy
According to Lawton in Sarode (2018:58), teaching strategy is a generalized
plan for a lesson(s) that includes structure desired learner behaviour in terms of
goals of instructions and an outline of planned tactics necessary to implement the
strategy.
 5

2.7 Talking Stick Strategy

According to Carol Locust in Ramadhan (2010), the Talking Stick is a
method applied with the help of a stick, where students who hold sticks are required
to answer the teacher’s questions after students learn the subject matter.

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The writer implemented classroom action research (CAR) in this study. The
subject of this study was the tenth graders of class X-3 of SMAN 1 Candimulyo in
the academic year 2022/2023. The total of subjects was 36 students, consisting of
14 males and 22 females. The reason for choosing this class was because this class
had the lowest score average. This study was carried out through two cycles. But
before the cycle, there was a Pre-Cycle. The writer had two meetings in each cycle.
Each cycle was made up of planning, action, observation, and reflection. Through
those two cycles, the increase in students' reading skill on narrative text through
Talking Stick Strategy could be observed. The instruments used to collect the data
were non-test in the for of observation, questionnaire, and documentation and test
in the form of ten multiple choices and essays. Data analysis was needed to know
how the students' activeness and how well the Talking Stick Strategy improved
students' reading skill on narrative text. here were two types of data analysis
performed in this classroom action research, which were qualitative technique and
quantitative technique.

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 The Results of the Study
1. Non-Test
a. The Result of Observation

Table 4.1 The Result of Observation in Pre-Cycle

No Behavioural Observation Focus Number of Total Percen

Types Students Students tage
(%)
1. The students' 1. The students pay 18 36 50.00%
activeness in attention to the
 6

listening to teacher's
the teacher's explanation.
explanation 2. The students ask 19 36 52.77%
about the material.
3. The students 17 36 47.22%
comment on the
material.
4. The students 18 36 50.00%
answer the
teacher's
questions.
5. The students 17 36 47.22%
make notes about
the material.
2. The students’ 1. The students are 18 36 50.00%
activeness active in the
during the learning process.
teaching and 2. The students are 17 36 47.22%
learning involved in the
process of the learning process.
narrative text 3. The students can 18 36 50.00%
reading skill understand the
material.
3. The students' 1. The students can 21 36 58.33%
activeness in do the evaluation
doing the sheet.
assignment 2. The students can 20 36 55.55%
given by the finish the task on
teacher time which has
been determined.
SUM 183 360 508.31
%
AVERAGE SCORE 50.83%
CATEGORY Poor

Table 4.1 describes the indicators of students’ activeness that were used to
know students’ activeness in the teaching and learning. There were 18 of 36
students or 50.00% who gave attention to the teacher’s explanation. There were 19
of 36 students who asked about the material. Those who commented about the
material of the lesson were 17 of 36 students or 47.22%. There were 18 of 36
students or 50.00% who answered the teacher’s questions. And 17 or 36 students
or 47.22% of students made notes about the material.
 7

The students’ activeness during the teaching and learning process of the
narrative text reading skill was low. There were 18 or 36 students or 50.00% who
were active in the learning process. The total number of students who were involved
in the learning process were 17 of 36 students or 47.22%. Then, there were 18 or
36 students or 50.00% students who understood the material.

The students' activeness in doing the assignment given by the teacher was
not good enough. There were 21 of 36 students or 58.33% who did the evaluation
sheet. Meanwhile, there were 20 of 36 students or 55.55% who finished the task on
time which has been determined. The observation result in Pre-Cycle could be seen
on the diagram below.

b. The Result of Questionnaire

Table 4.2 The Result of Questionnaire in Pre-Cycle
No. Question Yes No
1. Do you like studying English? 14 22
2. Do you think reading is critical? 21 15
3. Are you interested in reading English? 28 8
4. Is reading in English easy to do? 10 26
5. Do you understand the narrative text? 25 11
6. Do you need help in reading narrative text? 35 1
7. Do you understand the generic structure of the 25 11
narrative text?
8. Do you understand the linguistic feature of 8 28
narrative text?
9. Is learning narrative text difficult? 24 12

Table 4.2 shows that the students had low responses and activeness to follow
the teaching learning process, especially in reading narrative text. There were only
14 of 36 students who liked studying English. There were 21 of 36 students who
thought that reading is critical. The students who were interested in reading English
were 28 of 36 students. Then, there were 10 or 36 students who thought that reading
in English is easy to do. As many as 25 of 36 students understood the narrative text.
There were 35 of 36 students who needed help in reading narrative text. The total
 8

of students who understood the generic structure of the narrative text is 25 of 36

students. At least 8 of 36 students who understood the language feature of narrative
text. And there were 24 of 36 students who thought that learning narrative text is
difficult.
Based on the result, it could be concluded that the students conditions in
Pre-Cycle has not reached the ideal conditions. Th students had low activeness in
teaching learning process. Some of them were not interested in their teacher's
explanation during the teaching learning process on narrative text reading skill. The
result of the above description then encouraged the writer to do the actions in
teaching learning process to increase the students’ activeness on narrative text by
using Talking Stick Strategy in the next cycle that would be Cycle 1.
c. Documentation
In Pre-cycle, most of the students did not pay attention to the teacher’s
explanation. They had low activeness in joining the learning process. The writer
took some photographs during teaching learning process of class X-3 of SMAN 1
Candimulyo. The writer also took the recapitulated questionnaires, recapitulated
students’ scores, and the observation sheet. The recapitulated questionnaires and
observation sheet indicated that the students’ activeness was still low. The
recapitulated students’ scores showed the poor result. The photo documentation and
the other documents can be seen in the appendices.
2. Test
Table 4.3 The Result of Test in Pre-Cycle
No. Category Span Frequency Sum of Percentage Mean
of Score (%) Score
Score
1. Very good 85-100 0 0 0% 2.320
2. Good 70-84 13 940 40.52% 36
3. Fair 60-69 17 1.060 45.68% = 64.44
4. Poor 50-59 6 320 13.80%
5. Very poor <50 0 0 0% Fair
SUM 36 2.320 100% Category

Table 4.3 shows that none of students belongs to very good score. Instead,
there were 6 students belong to Poor Category, 17 students belong to Fair Category,
and 13 students belong to Good Category. The average score of Pre-Cycle test is
 9

64.44 and belongs to Fair Category. However, it has not reached the standard of
minimum completeness which is 67.

4.1.2 The Result of Cycle I

a. Planning
In the planning stage, the writer developed the lesson plan of English subject
for the tenth graders with the topic Narrative Text Reading Skill. The curriculum
used in SMAN 1 Candimulyo was Merdeka Curriculum so there were some
learning goals related to the material narrative text reading skill; a) Students could
identify the context, purpose, main idea, and supporting idea of narrative text. b)
Students could explain narrative text structure and language features. c) Students
could analyze the written and hidden information of narrative text. d) Students
could identify the main idea and the structure organization of narrative text. (Modul
Belajar Praktis Bahasa Inggris Kurikulum Merdeka untuk SMA/MA dan
SMK/MAK Kelas X)
Same with the instrument in the Pre-Cycle, the writer developed the
research instruments in the form of observation sheet, questionnaire sheet, and test
items sheet. The other learning sets prepared included reading text materials entitled
“The Story of a Rainbow.” In this Cycle I, the writer wanted to find out how is the
students’ activeness and the students’ reading skill on narrative text when the
Talking Stick Strategy implemented in reading class narrative text. The target
which the writer wanted to achieve in this Cycle I is that the average of score could
achieve the standard of minimum completeness of 67.
b. Acting
In this stage, the writer conducted the teaching and learning process in one
meeting with the time allotment of 90 minutes. The meeting in Cycle I was done on
April 27th 2023. The class was started at 08.30 a.m. until 10.00 a.m. Based on the
lesson plans that had been designed, this stage was the time to conduct the teaching-
learning process. The Talking Stick Strategy was applied in conducting the class.
Below are some procedures for applying Talking Stick Strategy in the class.
 10

1) Pre-activity
a) The writer greeted the students and asked about the students' condition.
b) The writer checked the students’ attendance list.
c) The writer told the material that they would learn.
2) Main Activity
a) The writer explained the main topic presented in the PowerPoint. The
students then read and learned the materials for ten minutes.
b) The writer instructed the students to close their books and grab a stick.
c) The writer gave the stick to a student.
d) The writer played music while moving the stick from one student to the next
until the song or music ended.
e) The student who received the stick must stand and respond to the writer's
(teacher's) questions. Students who correctly answered the questions
received a reward, but those who did not would not be punished.
f) The stick then rolled again until each student received it and participated in
the learning process.
g) Finally, the writer evaluated the work and reached a conclusion.
1) Post -activity
a) The writer and the students summarized the material that they had learned.
b) The writer gave feedback to the students.
c) The writer gave the students a test.
d) The writer gave a questionnaire.
c. Observing
In this cycle, the writer asked for the help to Mrs. Sulistiyah, S.Pd., the
English teacher as the collaborator in doing the observation when the writer
implemented the Talking Stick Strategy in the classroom. Then the writer observed
and analyzed the data collected after the action of teaching and learning process.
Considering the observer’s observation on teacher and student activities during the
learning process in teaching and learning process, the following data were obtained
in the form of observation, questionnaire, documentation, and test.
 11

1. Non-Test
a. The Result of Observation
The observation was carried out during the teaching and learning process in
SMAN 1 Candimulyo in the school year 2022/2023. In this cycle, the writer asked
for the help to Mrs. Sulistiyah, S.Pd., the English teacher as the collaborator in
doing the observation when the writer implemented Talking Stick Strategy in the
classroom. The result of the observation in Cycle I could be seen as follows.
Table 4.4 The Result of Observation in Cycle 1
No Behavioural Observation Number of Total Percentage
Types Focus Students Students (%)
1. The students' 1. The students 22 36 61.11%
activeness in pay attention to
listening to the teacher's
the teacher's explanation.
explanation 2. The students 21 36 58.33%
ask about the
material.
3. The students 18 36 50.00%
comment on
the material.
4. The students 20 36 55.55%
answer the
teacher's
questions.
5. The students 18 36 50.00%
make notes
about the
material.
2. The students’ 1. The students 20 36 55.55%
activeness are active in the
during the learning
teaching and process.
learning 2. The students 25 36 69.44%
process of the are involved in
narrative text the learning
reading skill process.
3. The students 20 36 55.55%
can understand
the material.
3. The students' 1. The students 28 36 77.77%
activeness in can do the
doing the evaluation
assignment sheet.
 12

given by the 2. The students 33 36 91.66%

teacher can finish the
task on time
which has been
determined.
SUM 225 360 624.96%
AVERAGE SCORE 62.50%
CATEGORY Fair

As can be seen on the table 4.4, there are some improvements of the
students’ activeness in learning narrative text reading skill when the writer was
using Talking Stick Strategy. There were 22 of 36 students or 61.11% who gave
attention to the teacher’s explanation. There were 21 of 36 students or 58.33% who
asked about the material. Those who commented about the material of the lesson
were 18 of 36 students or 50.00%. There were 20 of 36 students or 55.55% who
answered the teacher’s questions. In addition, 18 of 36 students or 50.00% of
students made notes about the material.

The students’ activeness during the teaching and learning process of the
narrative text reading skill improved. There were 20 of 36 students or 55.55% who
were active in the learning process. The total of students who involved in the
learning process was 25 of 36 students or 69.44%. Then, there were 20 or 36
students or 55.55% students who understood the material.

The students' activeness in doing the assignment given by the teacher

increased, higher than in Pre-Cycle. There were 28 of 36 students or 77.77% who
did the evaluation sheet. Meanwhile, there were 33 of 36 students or 91.66% who
finished the task on time which has been determined.
b. The Result of Questionnaire
Table 4.5 The Result of Questionnaire in Cycle I
No. Question Yes No
1. Do you like studying English? 23 13
2. Do you think reading is critical? 36 0
3. Do you think that reading narrative text is 17 19
complex?
 13

4. Does your teacher explain the material clearly? 30 6

5. Are you able to understand the teacher’s 29 7
explanation?
6. Do you want to avoid the teacher's explanation? 14 22
7. Do you like Talking Stick Strategy? 31 5
8. Can you understand the material after the teacher 25 11
uses Talking Stick Strategy?
9. Do you have high activeness after the teacher uses 20 16
Talking Stick Strategy?

Related to the data above, the results of questionnaire increased from Pre-
Cycle. It displays that 23 of 36 students like studying English. There were 36 of 36
students who thought that reading is critical. There were 17 of 36 students who
thought that reading narrative text is complex. Then, there were 30 or 36 students
who answered that the teacher (the writer) explained the material clearly. As many
as 29 of 36 students understood the teacher’s explanation. There were just 14 of 36
students who wanted to avoid the teacher’s explanation. The total of students who
like Talking Stick Strategy is 31 of 36 students. There were 25 of 36 students who
understood the material after the teacher (writer) used Talking Stick Strategy. And
there were 20 of 36 students who had high activeness after the teacher (writer) used
Talking Stick Strategy.
c. Documentation
The situation in teaching learning process during Cycle I was more active
than in Pre-Cycle. The students had higher activeness and joined more learning
activities. Most of them also paid attention to the teacher's explanation, but there
were some who did not.
Photo documentation was used as visual evidence of teaching-learning
process when Talking Stick Strategy was implemented and they did the test activity.
The writer also took the recapitulated questionnaires, recapitulated students’ scores,
and the observation sheet. The recapitulated questionnaires and observation sheet
indicated that the students’ activeness increased from the previous step, which is
Pre-Cycle. The recapitulated students’ scores showed the better result. The photo
documentation and the other documents can be seen in the appendices.
 14

2. Test
Table 4.6 The Result of Test in Cycle I
No. Category Span Frequency Sum of Percentage Mean
of Score (%) Score
Score
1. Very good 85-100 3 255 9.72% 2.625
2. Good 70-84 20 1.545 58.86% 36
3. Fair 60-69 13 825 31.42% = 72.91
4. Poor 50-59 0 0 0%
5. Very poor <50 0 0 0% Good
SUM 36 2.625 100% Category

According to table 4.6, the students who got Very Good Category were only
3 students. Good Category in this cycle were 26 students involved 73.92% students
of the class. There were 7 students belong to Fair Category. The average score was
72.91 or belongs to Good Category. It has also reached the standard of minimum
completeness of 67. However, one of the performance indicators requires at least
75% of the students got the standard of minimum completeness, which means at
least 27 students have to get the the standard of minimum completeness.
Meanwhile, the results of test in this cycle show that appropriately just 23 students
or 63.88% of the students who have reached the minimum achievement criteria of
67 and there are still 13 students or 36.11% of the students who have not achieved
the minimum achievement criteria of 67. Therefore, the writer did the Cycle II.
d. Reflecting
The writer got some problems in controlling the students’ activity. They
were interested in studying English using Talking Stick Strategy but even less
attention in listening to the teacher’s explanation. They were so excited about the
game and their activeness increased than the usual learning, but during the teaching
learning process, some students chatted with others and made noise in the class.
They were also not interested in asking question, while actually they do not
understand about some materials. Therefore, the reflection above should make the
writer to be better in the teaching-learning process in the following cycle.
 15

4.1.3 The Result of Cycle II

The study in Cycle I was continued to the Cycle II in order to

improve the result of Cycle I that still not achieved the second performance
indicators of the study which required at least 75% of the students got the standard
of minimum completeness of 67. The Cycle II was conducted on April 28th until
May 4th 2023. This is the time when the writer implemented the Talking Stick
Strategy for the twice after the writer did the reflection in Cycle I. This cycle
consisted of four stages, they are planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. Here
is the explanation of each stage.
a. Planning
In the planning stage, the writer developed the lesson plan of English subject
for the tenth graders with the topic Narrative Text Reading Skill with the same
learning goals as the previous cycle, but in different topic. Same with the instrument
in the Cycle I, the writer developed the research instruments in the form of
observation sheet, questionnaire sheet, and test items sheet. The other learning sets
prepared included reading text materials entitled “The Legend of Surabaya.” In this
Cycle II, the writer wanted to find out how is the students’ activeness and the
students’ reading skill on narrative text when the Talking Stick Strategy
implemented in reading class narrative text based on the reflection in Cycle I. The
target which the writer wanted to achieve in this Cycle II is that at least 75% of the
students got the standard of minimum completeness of 67.
b. Acting
In this stage, the writer conducted the teaching and learning process in one
meeting with the time allotment of 90 minutes. The meeting in Cycle II was done
on May 4th 2023. The class was started at 08.30 a.m. until 10.00 a.m. Based on the
lesson plans that had been designed, this stage was the time to conduct the teaching-
learning process with the reflection of the previous cycle. For the twice, the Talking
Stick Strategy was applied in conducting the class. Below are some procedures for
applying Talking Stick Strategy in the class.
1) Pre-activity
a) The writer greeted the students and asked about the students' condition.
b) The writer checked the students’ attendance list.
 16

c) The writer told the material that they would learn.

2) Main Activity
a) The writer explained the main topic presented in the PowerPoint.
b) The students then read and learned the materials for ten minutes.
c) The writer instructed the students to close their books and grab a stick.
d) The writer gave the stick to a student.
e) The writer played music while moving the stick from one student to the next
until the song or music ended.
f) The student who received the stick must stand and respond to the writer's
(teacher's) questions. Students who correctly answered the questions
received a reward, but those who did not would not be punished.
g) The stick then rolled again until each student received it and participated in
the learning process.
h) Finally, the writer evaluated the work and reached a conclusion.
3) Post -activity
a) The writer and the students summarized the material that they had learned.
b) The writer gave feedback to the students.
c) The writer gave the students a test.
d) The writer gave a questionnaire.
e) The writer ended the lesson.

The observation was carried out to find out student activity and teacher
activity during the learning process using Talking Stick Strategy. In this cycle, the
writer asked for the help to Mrs. Sulistiyah, S.Pd., the English teacher as the
collaborator in doing the observation when the writer implemented Talking Stick
Strategy in the classroom for the second meeting. Then, the writer took some
photographs to illustrate the students’ activity during the implementation of the
Talking Stick Strategy. The test was also conducted to find out the development of
the students’ reading skill on narrative text of class X-3 of SMAN 1 Candimulyo in
the Academic Year 2022/2023 after implementing Talking Stick Strategy. Then the
writer asked the students to fill the questionnaire in order to get the students’
perception on learning narrative text reading skill with the Talking Stick Strategy.
 17

c. Observing
Observation activity in Cycle II was conducted by observing all activities
during the teaching and learning process using the Talking Stick Strategy and all
data that had ben gotten in the action. In this cycle, the writer also asked for the help
to Mrs. Sulistiyah, S.Pd., the English teacher as the collaborator in doing the
observation when the writer implemented the Talking Stick Strategy in the
classroom. Then the writer observed and analyzed the data collected after the action
of teaching and learning process. Considering the observer’s observation on teacher
and student activities during the learning process in teaching and learning process,
the following data were obtained in the form of observation, questionnaire,
documentation, and test. Based on the action in the Cycle II, the writer got the data
of test and non-test and would be analyzed by qualitative and quantitative data
analysis.
1. Non-Test
a. The Result of Observation
Same with the previous cycle, in this cycle, the writer was helped by the
English teacher as the collaborator in doing the obervation. The collaborator
observed the students’ activeness when the writer implemented Talking Stick
Strategy for the twice. Table 4.7 below presented the result of the observation in
Cycle II.
Table 4.7 The Result of Observation in Cycle II
No Behavioural Observation Focus Number Total Percentage
Types of Students (%)
Students
1. The students' 1. The students pay 25 36 69.44%
activeness in attention to the
listening to teacher's
the teacher's explanation.
explanation 2. The students ask 23 36 63.88%
about the
material.
3. The students 20 36 55.55%
comment on the
material.
4. The students 25 36 69.44%
answer the
 18

teacher's
questions.
5. The students 20 36 55.55%
make notes
about the
material.
2. The students’ 1. The students are 25 36 69.44%
activeness active in the
during the learning process.
teaching and 2. The students are 30 36 83.33%
learning involved in the
process of the learning process.
narrative text 3. The students can 24 36 66.66%
reading skill understand the
material.
3. The students' 1. The students can 35 36 97.22%
activeness in do the evaluation
doing the sheet.
assignment 2. The students can 35 36 97.22%
given by the finish the task on
teacher time which has
been
determined.
SUM 262 360 727.73%
AVERAGE SCORE 72.77%
CATEGORY Good

Table 4.7 shows that the students’ activeness activeness in listening to the
teacher's explanation increased from Cycle I. There were 25 of 36 students or
69.44% who gave attention to the teacher’s explanation. There were 23 of 36
students or 63.88% who asked about the material. Those who commented about the
material of the lesson were 20 of 36 students or 55.55%. There were 25 of 36
students or 69.44% who answered the teacher’s questions. And 20 of 36 students
or 55.55% students made notes about the material.
The students’ activeness during the teaching and learning process of the
narrative text reading skill improved. There were 25 of 36 students or 69.44% who
were active in the learning process. The total of students who were involved in the
learning process were 30 of 36 students or 83.33%. Then, there were 24 or 36
students or 6666% students who understood the material.
 19

The students' activeness in doing the assignment given by the teacher

increased, higher than in Pre-Cycle. There were 35 of 36 students or 97.22% who
did the evaluation sheet. Meanwhile, there were 35 of 36 students or 97.22% who
finished the task on time which has been determined.
Based on the explanation of the observation, it could be verified that 72.77%
of the students behaviour and activeness showed a good participation in teaching
learning process, particularly in reading narrative text. It increased from the
previous result in Cycle I. It indicates that the first performance indicator has been
fulfilled.
b. The Result of Questionnaire
Table 4.8 The Result of Questionnaire in Cycle II
No. Question Yes No
1. Do you like studying English? 25 11
2. Do you think reading is critical? 36 0
3. Do you think that reading narrative text is 17 19
complex?
4. Does your teacher explain the material clearly? 33 3
5. Are you able to understand the teacher’s 30 6
explanation?
6. Do you want to avoid the teacher's explanation? 12 24
7. Do you like Talking Stick Strategy? 33 3
8. Can you understand the material after the teacher 28 8
uses Talking Stick Strategy?
9. Do you have high activeness after the teacher uses 30 6
Talking Stick Strategy?

Related to the data above, the results of questionnaire increased from Cycle
I. It shows that 25 of 36 students like studying English. There were 36 of 36 students
who thought that reading is critical. There were 17 of 36 students who thought that
reading narrative text is complex. Then, there were 33 or 36 students who answered
that the teacher (the writer) explained the material clearly. As many as 30 of 36
students understood the teacher’s explanation. There were just 12 of 36 students
who wanted to avoid the teacher’s explanation. The total of students who like
Talking Stick Strategy is 33 of 36 students. There were 28 of 36 students who
 20

understood the material after the teacher (writer) used Talking Stick Strategy. And
there were 30 of 36 students who had the high activeness after the teacher (writer)
used Talking Stick Strategy.
c. Documentation
The situation in teaching learning process during Cycle II was more active
than in Cycle I. The students had higher activeness and joined more learning
activity. Almost all of them also paid attention to the teacher’s explanation.
Photo documentation was used as visual evidence of teaching learning
process when Talking Stick Strategy was implemented and they did the test activity.
The writer also took the recapitulated questionnaires, recapitulated students’ scores,
and the observation sheet. The recapitulated questionnaires and observation sheet
indicated that the students’ activeness increased from Fair Category into Good
Category. The recapitulated students’ scores showed very good result. The photo
documentation and the other documents can be seen in the appendices.
2. Test
Table 4.9 The Result of Test in Cycle II
No. Category Span Frequency Sum of Percentage Mean
of Score (%) Score
Score
1. Very 85-100 24 2.130 69.61% 3.060
good 36
2. Good 70-84 12 930 30.39% = 85.00
3. Fair 60-69 0 0 0%
4. Poor 50-59 0 0 0% Very
5. Very poor <50 0 0 0% Good
SUM 36 3.060 100% Category

Based on table 4.9, it could be seen that the students who got Very Good
Category were 24 students or 69.61% of the percentage of class. Then, the Good
Category in this cycle were 12 students involved 30.39% students of the class.
There was none of the students belongs to Fair Category, Poor Category, and Very
Poor Category. The average score increased higher into 85.00 or belongs to Very
Good Category. It has also reached the second performance indicator which
requires at least 75% of the students got the the standard of minimum completeness,
which means at least 27 students have to get the the standard of minimum
 21

completeness. The results of test in this cycle show that all students have achieved
the minimum achievement criteria of 67. Therefore, the writer stopped the cycle.
d. Reflecting
Based on the result of the observation, the questionnaire, and the evaluation
test in Cycle II, the students were interested in studying English using Talking Stick
Strategy. Their average score also reached the better score of 85.00. In addition,
there were 36 students or 100% of the students who got the standard of minimum
completeness of 67. It means that the study has fulfilled the second performance
indicator which requires at least 75% of the students got the standard of minimum
completeness of 67, so the writer stopped to give actions until Cycle II.

4.2 Discussion
4.2.1 The Improvement of Students’ Activeness
The writer compared the result of the questionnaire from the Pre-Cycle , Cycle I,
and Cycle II to know the improvement of students’ activeness.

Table 4.10 The Result of Observation in All Cycles

Assessment Average of Score Improvement

Aspect PC C1 CII PC to C1 C1 to C2 PC to CII
Reading Skill 50.83% 62.50% 72.77% 11.67% 10.27% 21.94%
Category Low Fair High

Based on the results of questionnaire in Pre-Cycle, the students’ activeness

was 50.83%. It is possible to conclude that the students’ activeness in reading classs
before implementing Talking Stick Strategy was still low. Many students said that
reading was not critical and they got some difficulties in learning English narrative
text. The result of observation in Pre-Cycle showed that most of students were
passive in teaching learning process. They could not answer the teacher’s questions
well. The writer thought that it was very difficult to attract students’ attention in the
class. This condition happened because the students needed a new strategy to be
implemented in learning narrative text in reading class.
In Cycle I, the writer started to use Talking Stick in teaching learning
process. In this cycle, the result of students’ activeness was 62.50%. It improved by
 22

11.67% from Pre-Cycle. The students started to be active in teaching learning

process. They did not have difficulty understanding the step of the strategy. The
result of questionnaire in Cycle I revealed that the students enjoyed the learning
process when the writer implemented Talking Stick Strategy. Some of them have
understood the material. Then the students could also do and finish the task assigned
by the teacher on time. They could answer the teacher’s questions. However, most
of them could not answer the questions correctly. This condition happened because
some of the students were not careful in reading the text and answering the
questions about the narrative text. They also make noise when the writer explained
the material. The situation of the class was a little bit noisy so the students in the
back row did not listen to the writer’s explanation clearly.
In Cycle II, the result of students’ activeness was 72.77%. It increased by
10.27% from the previous cycle. The result of questionnaire showed that most
students like to study English. They were aware that reading was important to do.
Most of them could understand the material well. It could be seen from the result
of the questionnaire, most of students said that they can understand the narrative
text well after the writer applied Talking Stick Strategy. The students could do and
finish the assignment given by the writer on time. Most of them could also correctly
answer the teacher’s questions because the situation had been conducive. Most of
students gave attention in the learning process. They enjoy narrative text reading
class when the writer applied Talking Stcik Strategy. It indicates that the students
have higher activeness in narrative text reading class by implementing Talking
Stick Strategy.
4.2.2 The Improvement of Students’ Reading Skill on Narrative Text
The writer compared the results of the Pre-Cycle, Cycle I, and Cycle II tests
to determine the improvement of students' narrative text reading skills of class X-3
of SMAN 1 Candimulyo. The improvement can be viewed in the table 4.11
 23

Table 4.11 The Result of Students’ Reading Skill

on Narrative Text in All Cycles
Assessment Average of Score Improvement
Aspect PC C1 CII PC to C1 C1 to C2 PC to CII
Reading Skill 64.44 72.91 85 8.47% 12.09% 20.56%
Category Fair Good Very Good

The table 4.11 shows that the average score of Pre-Cycle were 64.44
belongs to Fair Category. The average score of Cycle I test was 72.91 belongs to
Good Category. It means that there was improvement of the average score of
students’ reading skill on narrative text from Pre-Cycle to Cycle I that was 8.47%
and the students’ score has reached the score 67, as the standard of minimum
completeness. However, there has not been 75% of students who reached the
standard of minimum completeness so Cycle II was conducted. In Cycle II, the
average score was 85 and belongs to Very Good Category. There were also 75% of
the students who passed the standard of minimum completeness in mastering
learning grade at SMAN 1 Candimulyo. Hence, the writer did not conduct Cycle
III. The writer concluded that using Talking Stick Strategy can improve the
narrative text reading skill to the tenth graders of SMAN 1 Candimulyo.

V. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion
Based on data analysis from the Pre-Cycle, Cycle I, and Cycle II tests, the writer
made some conclusions as follows.

1. The use of Talking Stick Strategy can increase the students’ activeness of
class X-3 of SMAN 1 Candimulyo in the school year 2022/2023.
In the Pre-Cycle, the students’ activeness is 50.83%. It means that
the students still have low activeness in reading class narrative text. In Cycle
I, the students’ activeness increased 11.67% becomes 62.50%. In cycle II,
the students’ activeness in reading class narrative text increased 10.27%
becomes 72.77%. Therefore, the students had better activeness and
 24

participation to engage the teaching-learning process with Talking Stick

Strategy.
2. There is a great improvement of the students’ reading skill on narrative text
of class X-3 of SMAN 1 Candimulyo in the school year 2022/2023.
It can be seen that the students’ mean of score in Pre-Cycle is 64.44.
It increased in Cycle I into 72.91. Finally, in Cycle II, the students’ mean of
score becomes 85. The result above shows that the implementation of
Talking Stick Strategy can improve student’s reading skill on narrative text.
The test results of the students in this study improved in each cycle.

5.2 Implication
This study gives implications for some sides. There are three implications
of this study; for the teachers, the students, and the other researchers.
1. For Teachers
a. This study can help the teacher to be more creative in using Talking
Stick Strategy in narrative text reading class.
b. This study can give an information about the effectiveness of
implementing Talking Stick Strategy to increase students’ reading
skill on narrative text.
2. For Students
a. This study can help the students to increase their activeness in
learning English, especially in reading.
b. This study can help the students to be more active in the class and
enjoy the learning process using Talking Stick Strategy .
3. For Other Researchers
a. This study can be used a data or reference for future researchers who
would or were now exploring the impact of the Talking Stick Strategy
in increasing students’ reading skill on narrative text, significantly
improving English skills.
b. This study can help the other researchers to examine a few new
teaching strategy concepts to increase students’ reading skill,
particularly in the setting of EFL (English as a Foreign Language).
 25

5.3 Suggestion
After implementing Talking Stick Strategy in teaching and learning
narrative text reading skill, the writer gave some suggestions in the last report of
the undergraduate thesis. Hopefully, it can be useful.

1. For the English Teachers

a. English teachers should be more creative in using interesting teaching
strategy to increase students’ reading skill on narrative text because
the students would not get bored to read a text.
b. It is better for the English teachers to use Talking Stick Strategy as
an alternative way in teaching narrative text reading skill to the tenth
graders of Senior High School to increase students’ activeness in
narrative text reading class, by giving all opportunity to practice
based on the rule and the instruction. Hence, the teacher can use time
and energy efficiently.
2. For the Students
a. The students have to try to solve their problem in understanding
narrative text reading skill.
b. It will be more effective for the students to apply Talking Stick
Strategy to increase their reading skill on narrative text.
 REFERENCES

Abubaker, F. and H. A. E.-B. (2022). Using Digital Storytelling as a Tool for

Reflection in the Libyan EFL Literature Classroom; English as a Foreign
Language in a New-Found Post-Pandemic World. Hershey, PA: IGI Global
Publisher.
Anderson, M. & Anderson, K. (2003). Text Types in English 2. Macmillan
Education Australia PTY, Ltd.
Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Brown, H. D. (2004a). Language Assessments: Principles and Classroom
Practices. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Brown, H. D. (2004b). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. USA: San
Francisco State University.
Candler, L. (2013). Talking Stick Discussions. Teaching Resources (Milken
Education). (Retrieved on February 1st 2023) https://lauracandler.com
Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English: A
Comprehensive Guide: Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage.
Cambridge: CUP.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approach: Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dimyati, M. and. (1994). Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Depdikbud.
Djamarah, Zain. Aswan. (2016). Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Education Destination Asia. (2022). Secondary/High School Education System in
Indonesia.
(Retrieved on October 20th 2022) http://educationdestinationasia.com
Emilia, E. (2011). Pendekatan Genre-Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris:
Petunjuk untuk Guru. Bandung: Kiblat Buku Utama.
Fajriah, Fajriah. (2017). Improving Teaching Strategies Through Students
Reflections. Jurnal Pendidikan Sukma. Vol.1 (No. 2)
Fitria, N., & Anggraini, D. (2021). The Use Of Talking Stick Method To Improve
Student ’ s Reading Mastery At The Eleventh Grade Students Of SMA Negeri
1 Peukan. Serambi Akademica, 9(6), 1097–1104.
Gerot, L. & P. W. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney:
Antipodean Educational Enterprise.
Giannola, C. (2012). 41 Active Learning Strategies for the Inclusive Classroom,
Grades 6-12: Corwin Publisher.
Grellet. (2004). Developing Reading Skills. Sidney: Cambridge University Press.

26
 27

Grellet. (2010). Developing Reading Skills. New York: Cambridge University

Guilford Press.
Hamalik, Oemar. (2001). Proses Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: PT. Bumi Aksara.
Hammond, Jenny; Burns, Anne; Joyce, Helen; et. al. (1992). English for Social
Purposes: A Handbook for Teachers of Adult Literacy. Sydney: National
Centre for English Language Teaching and Research Macquarie University.
(pp.18-23)
Havianisa, S. (2013). The Use of Narrative Text in Teaching and Learning Reading
Comprehension at the Eighth Grade of MTsN Tamban Academic Year 2012-
2013. Undergraduate Thesis (Unpublished). Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Keguruan.
UIN Antasari Banjarmasin: Banjarmasin.
Huda, M. (2013). Model-Model Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta:
Pustaka Pelajar.
Ihsan, F. (2013). Dasar-Dasar Kependidikan. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.
Isjoni. (2006). Membangun Visi Bersama: Aspek-Aspek Penting dalam Reformasi
Pendidikan. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
Karatay, H. (2007). A Research About Reading Comprehension Skills of Primary
School Preservice Teachers of Turkish. Undergraduate Thesis. (Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation): Gazi University.
Keraf, G. (2010). Argumentasi dan Narasi. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Kosasih, E. (2004). Intisari Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia. Bandung: CV. Bina Ilmu.
Kurniasih, Imas & Sani, B. (2015). Ragam Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran
untuk Peningkatan Profesionalitas Guru. Yogyakarta: Kata Pena.
Learning Point Associates. (2004). A Closer Look at the Five Components of
Effective Reading Instruction: A Review of Scientifically Based Reading
Research for Teachers. Learning Point Associates.
McNamara, D. S. (2009). The Importance of Teaching Reading Strategies.
Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35(2), 34-38.
Marini, S. and K. (2008). Students Center Learning: Kunci Keberhasilan E-
Learning, Makalah Sistem Informasi. Yogyakarta: Informatika.
Meda Yuliani, Janner Simarmata, Siti Saodah Susanti, Eni Mahawati, Rano Indradi
Sudra, Heri Dwiyanto, Edi Irawan, Dewa Putu Yudhi Ardiana, Muttaqin
Muttaqin, I. Y. (2020). Pembelajaran Daring untuk Pendidikan: Teori Dan
Penerapan: Yayasan Kita Menulis.
Meriahna, S. & Indira, A. (2022). The Effect of Self-Talk Strategy on Students'
Speaking Ability for Eleventh Grade of Smk Swasta Swakarya Salapian in
Academic Year 2021/2022. Journal VISION, Vol. XVIII. No.1, XVIII, 16–31.
Mikulecky, B. S. (2008). Identifying Correlation between Reading Strategies
Instruction and L2 Text Comprehension: Pearson Education, Inc.
 28

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded

Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Moats, L. C. (2020). Teaching Reading is Rocket Science. American Educator:
Summer.

Munazar, T.H. (2018). Strategy Guru dalam Meningkatkan Motivasi Belajar

Aqidah Akhlak di Madrasah Aliyah Swasta (MAS) Seunuddon Aceh
Utara. Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan: Universitas Islam Negeri
Ar-Raniry Darussalam: Banda Aceh.

Murtiningsih. (2016). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Talking Stick pada Mata

Pelajaran IPS di Sekolah Dasar. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Jurusan
KSDP- Prodi S1- PGSD Konstelasi Pedndidikan Dan Kebudayaan
Indonesia Di Era Globalisasi, XIV. Universitas Negeri Malang: Malang.

Omrod. (1999). Human Learning (Third Edition). Upper Saddle River: Prentice
Hall.
Oxford, R., & S. (1994). Language Learning Motivation: Expanding The
Theoretical Framework. Modern Language Journal, 78 (1), 12–28.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/329249
Pang S, Elizabeth, Muaka Angaluki, Bernhardt B, Elizabeth, and K. L., & Michael.
(2003). International Academic of Education: Teaching Reading. Paris:
SADAG Bellegarde.
Perry, J. (2001). Outdoor Play: Teaching Strategies with Young Children. New
York and London: Teachers College Press.
Rahardjo, M. and D. (2012). Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Yogyakarta: Gava
Media.
Ramadhan, T. (2010). Talking Stick.
https://tarmizi.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/taking-stick/
Retrieved October 20th, 2022
Rebecca, J. (2003). A Critical Handbook of Children's Literature. Massachusetts:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Rohani, A. (2004). Pengelolaan Pengajaran. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.
Ruddell, M. R. (2005). Teaching Content Reading and Writing, (4th ed.). New
York: John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd.
Rusmilawati. (2020). Narasi Literasi, : Direktorat Pendidikan Masyarakat dan
Pendidikan Khusus–Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini,
Pendidikan Dasar, dan Pendidikan Menengah: Kementerian Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan.
Sao, F. P., Wibowo, A., & Nursalim, N. (2018). The Implementation of Talking
Stick To Improve Students’ Vocabulary Mastery At the Tenth Grade of Sma
 29

Negeri 2 Kabupaten Sorong. INTERACTION: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa,

5(2), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.36232/jurnalpendidikanbahasa.v5i2.185
Sarni. (2018). The Use of Talking Stick To Improve the Students’ Speaking Skill
At the Second Grade of Smkn 9 Pinrang. IAIN Pare-Pare: Pare-Pare.
Sarode, R. D. (2018). Teaching Strategies, Styles and Qualities of a Teacher: A
Review for Valuable Higher Education. International Journal of Scientific
Research, 5(5), 57–62
Sinar. (2018). Metode Active Learning : Upaya Peningkatan Keaktifan dan Hasil
Belajar Siswa. Yogyakarta: Deepublish.
Sullivan, W. R. (2016). Speed Reading Techniques: The Ultimate Collection on
How to Improve Your Reading Speed and Supercharge Your Comprehension:
Createspace Independent Pub.
Tarigan, H. (2008). Membaca Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung:
Angkasa.
Tim Penyusun. 2022. Modul Belajar Praktis Bahasa Inggris Untuk SMA/MA dan
SMK/MAK Kelas X Semester I. Klaten: Viva Pakarindo.
Tompkins, G. et al. (2015). Literacy for the 21st Century : A Balanced Approach.
Melbourne, VIC: Pearson Australia.
Widdowson, H. G. (2000). Critical Practices: On Representations and the
Interpretation of Text. In S. Sarangi, & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and
Social Life. London: Longman.
Yahya, M. (2004). Metodologi Penelitian Riset dan Teori: STIA Bina Banua.
Yusuf, M. (2013). Metodologi Penelitian. Padang: UNP Press.
Yuwono, G. (2005). English Language Teaching in Decentralised Indonesia:
Voices from the Less Privileged Schools. Presented at AARE 2005
International Education Research Conference. University of Sydney: Sydney.