Using Sociodrama in EFL Speaking Class

This paper address the improvement of students' speaking skill through sociodrama method for higher education students. In Indonesia, English is studied as a foreign language from elementary school up to university degree. But, generally speaking, Indonesians' English competency is nothing up to intermediate level. This concern led to action research which uses design Kemmis and Mc. Taggart model and is applied in four steps; they are planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. It illustrates the way in which the result of teaching learning in every cycle. The study examines in detail how students develop their speaking skills when engaging in play. The instruments to collect information were students' test, students' interviews, observation sheets and field notes. The study examines in detail how students develop their speaking activity when engaging in play in every cycle. In cycle 1, students' participation is they establish communication with acceptance criteria, while in cycle 2 and 3 they grow their communication well after the researcher gives additional treatment about the sociodrama-base speaking task. The findings revealed that doing speaking task based on sociodrama were the most frequent activities done by students to develop and practice speaking in the classroom with the additional task in the form of homework and it improved every cycle. This research indicated that the implementation of sociodrama task-based helped the students practice speaking skills a lot and improved their speaking skills on aspects of pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension.


Introduction
The mastery of speaking skills in English is a priority for many second-language or foreign-language learners, (Richards, 2008). This priority makes the speaking skill is very important to be learned as a form to express a thought, feeling, and facts, to understand though, idea and feeling other people and the learners need to develop their speaking skill for their existence. Speaking skills can be obtained through practice. This is also supported by Shastri (2010:70) that speaking skills are developed through exposure and practice. Practice diligently will make someone's speaking skills perfect so that teachers must support and help students to practice a lot in speaking activity.
Harmer (Harmer, 2007) stated that there are three main reasons for getting students to speak in the classroom. Firstly, speaking activities provide rehearsal opportunitieschances to practice real-life speaking in the safety of the classroom. Secondly, speaking tasks in which students try to use any or all of the languages they know provide feedback for both teacher and students. Everyone can see how well they are doing: both how successful they are, and also what language problems they are experiencing. And finally, the more students have opportunities to activate the various elements of the language they have stored in their brains, the more automatic their use of these elements become. As a result, the students gradually become autonomous learners. Speaking practice did continue and the task was given to providing them big opportunities which make the learners are able to develop their speaking skill optimally. Goh (2007) stated that to speak effectively learners need to have a reasonable command of the basic grammar of the target language and a working vocabulary, but language knowledge alone is not sufficient. They must also develop a range of skills in four key areas of speaking competencies are phonological skills, speech function skills, interaction management skills, extended discourse organizations skills. Phonological skills produce accurate sounds of the target language at the phonemic (vowels and consonants) and prosodic (stress and intonation) levels. Speech function skills use spoken words to perform communication functions, such as request, demand, decline, explain, complain, encourage, beg, direct, warn, and agree. Interaction management skills manage face to face interactions by initiating, maintaining, and closing conversation, regulating turn-taking, changing topics and negotiating to mean. Extended discourse organizations skills establish coherence and cohesion in extended discourse by using establish conventions to structure different types of spoken text (e.g. narrative, procedural).
However, the resulting test of recycling of this research shown that English speaking skills of students are still not satisfying. The results show that from 33 students found that students who get score ≥ 70 are 3 students (9.09%) and for those who get score < 70 are 30 students (90.91%). It can be drawn below.

Figure 1. Students' Speaking Score in Precycle
Regarding the data obtained that students' speaking skills are still low. The researcher not only gives a test to the students but also pre-observation in the teaching-learning process. From the two activities above, it can be drawn that the causes of students' speaking skills low are caused by linguistic factors, personality factors, and class activities.
The first is linguistic factors. The causes of students' speaking skills are low related to 5 aspects of speaking they are pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension. For the first pronunciation, students of English Department of STKIP Setia Budhi Rangkasbitung are failed in pronouncing words in phoneme /f/ change into /p/, for example, follow, first, five, foot, focus. Mother's tongue is very dominant used by students whether in the classroom or outside the classroom and the Sundanesse is rather difficult in producing sound /f/. Phoneme /ght/ change into /..g/i, for example right, fight, eight, light, height, might. For the second is vocabulary. Students are not able to produce a conversation optimally because they are lack of vocabularies. The third is grammar. They make some mistakes on tenses, modal auxiliary, gerund, to be. The fourth is fluency. Because their pronunciations are often failed, vocabularies are lack, and many mistakes on grammar make the conversation is not going well. The fifth is comprehension. Many students do not understand when the lecturer gives an explanation and when the question answer is going on they sometimes do not understand with the question, they need to translate into Indonesian. This situation is supported by the result of Mukminatien as cited in Widiati and Cahyono (Widiati & Cahyono, 2006) that students of the English Department have a great number of errors when speaking. The Errors include pronunciation (e.g., words stress and intonation), grammatical accuracy (e.g. tenses, preposition, and sentence construction), vocabulary (e.g. incorrect word choice), fluency (e.g. frequent repair), interactive communication (i.e. difficulties in getting the meaning across or keeping the conversation going). Then Lightbown and Spada as cited in (Gonzalez et al., 2015) explained that speaking in the target language requires more than one mental task at one time like choosing words, pronouncing them, and stringing them together with appropriate grammatical markers. The second is personality factors. Not all students who join speaking 2 class have the courage to speak. Most of them are worried about the atmosphere in the classroom, they are afraid of making mistakes when expressing their thoughts, they are lack of self-confidence and make them only silent in the classroom. Maslow (as cited in McLennan, 2008: 81) states that students can fully engage with the educational process, including participation in the arts, the most basic of their needs must be met. Students must feel safe in the classroom before advanced learning and engagement can take place.
The third is class activities, based on the pre-observation that speaking 2 class focuses on form-based instruction which provides learners with language form which can be practiced and memorized. The activity of this class is teacher-centered with tasks such as telling someone, telling something, describing something individually; include repetition and substitution drills which are essentially used to activate phrases or sentences that learners have understood. This instruction does not provide students with great experience in learning, do not support them to speak in the classroom freely so that this situation does not give many opportunities to improve speaking skills.
The problems found when doing preobservation is also supported by Widiati and Cahyono (Widiati & Cahyono, 2006) which review that the teaching of EFL speaking in an Indonesian context within the broader perspective of ESL/EFL language teaching methodology. Aspect such as a problem in the teaching of EFL speaking, activities commonly performed, materials usually used in EFL speaking class, and assessment of oral English proficiency are discussed. The results show that the problems that Indonesian EFL learners face in developing their speaking performance relate not only to their linguistics and personality factors but also to the type of classroom task provided by the teachers. Additionally, not only of the classroom activities have been designed so as to trigger more spontaneous expressions by students. As for the materials for speaking, they can be prepared either by students based on specific tasks assigned by the teacher or provided by the teacher alone.
Speaking does not cover just knowing the linguistic feature; a linguistic feature of the message expanding oral communication requires more than memorized vocabulary and grammatical comprehension. One of the obstacles of learning speaking is a contradiction between class materials and course so that most of the teachers do not facilitate situations for real practice in speaking; besides the teacher should take into account learners' interest and needs. Learners should take part in oral activities to exchange spontaneously their thought in second language speaking (Derakhshan, Khalili, & Beheshti, 2016). Real practice situation is very needed by students so that the lecturer must support them much in the classroom.
Teaching speaking actively is very complicated. It needs an extra time and energy to think about how to set the classroom activities. Moreover, the class is big. It takes a long time to control them in every speaking activity as casually in speaking activities the students in the classroom will be very noisy. They like to talk by themselves. If the teacher wants to get turn fairly, he/she must have enough time to do, however, the time allocation is very limited. Students who study English as a foreign language usually have limited opportunities to speak English outside the classroom and also limited exposure to English speakers or members of the international community (Boonkit, 2010). This situation experienced by students that they do not have many opportunities in exploring English in the classroom The description of the problems above makes the researcher chooses sociodrama method in the teaching-learning process to give many chances for students to speak English with their friends. Sociodrama is an experiential groupas-a-whole procedure for social exploration and intergroup conflict transformation. Sociodrama may be simply defined as a group method in which common experiences are shared in action (Kellerman, 2007:15). Sosiodrama is a group action method that deals with roles we share with others (Sternberg & Garcia, n.d.). Then Sociodrama is a 47 group action method in which participants act out agreed upon social situations spontaneously. Sociodrama helps people to express their thoughts and feelings, solve problems, and clarify their values (Sternberg & Garcia, n.d.). While (Rich & Cargile, 2004) explained that social drama can occur in the classroom when the relative tranquility of norm-governed social interaction is upset and attempts are subsequently made to establish new, or reestablish old modes of behavior. Participants become empowered by collectively exploring and resolving shared problems. Then (Eckloff, 2006) stated that sociodrama has three primary goals they are enhancing a person's understanding of social situations; increasing understanding of one's or another's roles in a social situation and allowing participants to release their emotions by expressing thoughts and feelings about social situations. From those statements that sociodrama methods hold an important role in giving many experiences for students to explore language with the group by expressing thoughts, feelings, solve problems, and values by considering some aspects to be improved they are pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension.

Research Methods
The research design used is an action research by using Kemmis and McTaggart model which is relevant to students' need. This research consists of four steps they are planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. The subjects of this research are 33 participants who join speaking class. Criteria of success reached when students get a score in ≥ 70 in average score 75 from whole students or 75%. Data collecting techniques are a test. Data source are students of English Education Study Program, the third semester and two collaborators. Data analysis uses a percentage of each cycle taken from every test emphasized on pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension.

Results and Analysis
Students' speaking skills are measured through some aspects; they are pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension.
Data Description on Cycle 1 It can be figured out on this graphic are some students do not pay attention well on lecturer's explanation, some of them are still not serious in practicing dialogue, and some of them are still awkward and shy in doing acting. From this finding, the researcher gives the additional task to the students in the form of homework of drama prepared.
Data Description on Cycle 2 It can be figured out on this graphic From the table and figure above, data show that 1% of students are excellent categories. 60.61% is very good. 36.36% are good. In cycle 2 all is improved but the result has not reached yet the indicator of success. Researcher keeps giving the additional task to the students in the form of homework and continuing to cycle 3. Data Description of Cycle 3 It can be figured out on this graphic Figure 4. Students' Speaking Score From the table and figure above, data show that 1% of students are excellent categories, 78.79% is very good. 18.18% are good. This action is supported by the task in the form of homework. In cycle 3 all is increased as well and an indicator of success has been reached so that this action is stopped. The table below will clarify the test result on each aspect obtained from students' test on precycling, cycle 1, cycle 2, and cycle 3 with range score 1-5. It can be explained that table 4 shows the average score on the precycle is 2.37 which means that students' speaking skills are low. In cycle 2, the average score is 3.66 and show that it is good. And in cycle 3, the average score is 3.79 and it is in a good category as well. The table shows that the aspect of comprehension is the highest score obtained from students. From this table, it indicates that the use of sociodrama applied in speaking class provide students improve and increase their speaking skills.
It can be figured out on this graphic Figure 5. Average Score of Test Result From the figure above it can be explained that there is an improvement significantly on speaking skills in every cycle through communication pattern developed in sociodrama play on aspects pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension.

Analysis
The use of sociodrama method has provided the improvement of learning result on students' speaking skills on aspects pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension. Many students are interested in doing sociodrama when they are joining speaking class. They can minimize fear and shy, and the results are increased well in each cycle. Sociodrama method can motivate students more active and have good participation in teaching and learning process. Making students confident in speaking class strengthen their speaking skills. Implementing sociodrama in a variety of situation in good preparation becomes an effective strategy to minimize anxiety and thus maximum speaking confidence built.
The strength of speaking performance found on the sociodrama play include various topics and variety vocabularies are built by students, they practice pronunciation, they diligently exercise dialogue to speak fluently, and consider to understand the other players in dialogue; however, some weakness is found when they have a conversation in a sociodrama play are as follow.
In vocabulary aspects, there are no mistakes in choosing words when students interact in sociodrama play because of all the vocabularies related to their daily life. In grammar; mistakes done by students commonly are Yes/no question: are you believe that she will return your money today? It must be doing you believe that she will return your money today, The use of So. Oh my god. I am bored here. So I am. It must be Oh my god. I am bored here. So am I, Verb agreement: ok, I agree. It must be I agree. How if we at the cinema? It must be How if we go to the cinema, The use of subjunctive dengan "wish": I wish She come to this city. It must be I wish she came to this city.
In fluency, problems found on their dialog are students often make a pause in a long time, they make repetition on sentences frequently, they are silent and think to memorize dialog made. Because the teaching-learning strategy is created to support students speak a lot and practice a lot either in the classroom or outside the classroom so that their fluency is improved regularly.
Incomprehension; in the beginning, miscommunication always happen among the member of the group but they make effort to use communication strategy by proposing can you repeat, please? I don't understand? I am sorry, I can hear you. By doing this strategy, step by step their comprehension of communication among friends better.
Here is the result about how students pass the criteria of success stated by the researcher. The average score of precycle is 47.39, students who get score ≥ 70 are 3 students (9.09 %) and score < 70 are 30 students (90.91 %). From this result, I do analysis with collaborators to do an action in cycle 1 for speaking class. The average score of cycle 1 is 67.76, students who get score ≥ 70 are 10 students (30.30 %) and score < 70 are 23 students (69.70 %) without task-based. From this result, it can be seen that the result has not reached yet the criteria of success so that the action continues to cycle 2.
The average score of cycle 2 is 72.06, students who get score ≥ 70 are 21 students (63.64 %) and score < 70 are 12 students (36.36%) through task-based. From this result show that students' speaking skills improve well but it has not reached yet the criteria of success. Then the action continued to cycle 3. The average score of cycle 3 is 75.03, students who get score ≥ 70 are 27 students (81.82 %) and score < 70 are 6 students (18.18 %) through task-based as well. From cycle 2 to cycle 3, there is an improvement and the result is bigger that criteria of success so that the action is stopped.

Conclusion
Based on the result and discussion of the research finding that learning speaking can be improved through sociodrama task-based by reaching of criteria of success on the average score is 75.03. Students who taught by sociodrama task-based is better when the learning is in cycle 3. Sociodrama method task-based is an effective way and gives many opportunities for students to learn and use English frequently with the members of the group. The improvements are in pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and comprehension. Students' speaking skills by using sociodrama method after attending the course were higher than the prior to attending the course significantly.