IMPROVING THE STUDENTS’ PRONUNCIATION IN SPEAKING THROUGH

PROSODY PYRAMID METHOD

(AN EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH AT THE TWELFTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA
MUHAMMADIYAH LIMBUNG)

Haslinda

Sulfasyah

Nunung Anugrawati

Abstract

The objective of this research was to enhance the pronunciation of the twelfth grade
students of SMA Muhammadiyah Limbung. This research employed quasi experimental design
which involved two Group classes. The experimental class was taught by using Prosody Pyramid
Method and the Control class was taught by using Non Prosody Pyramid method (Noticing
Reformulation Technique). The instruments of this research was speaking test. The population of
this research was the Twelfth grade students of SMA Muhammadiyah Limbung. This research
took 44 students as the sample. XII IPA 2 as samples in experimental class and XII IPA 1 as
samples in control class. The result of this research showed that the students’ pronunciation
which was taught by using Prosody Pyramid Method is higher than the students which were
taught by using Non Prosody Pyramid Method. It is supported by the mean score of the students
in Experiment Class was 6.636 higher than the mean score of the students in Control Class was
4.614. Therefore, H1 (alternative hypothesis) of this research which said Prosody Pyramid
Method is more effective than Non Prosody Pyramid Method to enhance students’ pronunciation
could be accepted. It means that the use of Prosody Pyramid Method could improve the students’
pronunciation in speaking at class XII IPA 2 of SMA Muhammadiyah Limbung.

Keywords: Prosody Pyramid Method, pronunciation, word stressing, intonation.

INTRODUCTION

In English language teaching, there are four language elements namely: structure,
vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling. Those elements are though in order to develop the
students’ skill in the language learning. One of them should be noticed is pronunciation is
considered difficult element method that can be applied in learning pronunciation. There have
been many differences of opinion over the years about the role of pronunciation in language
teaching and about how best to teach it. The grammar translation method and reading-based
approaches have viewed pronunciation as irrelevant. In the direct method, pronunciation is very
important; however, the methodology is primitive: The teacher is ideally a native or near-native
speaker of the target language presenting pronunciation inductively and correcting through
modelling. In the audio-lingual approach, pronunciation is likewise very important and there is a
great emphasis on the traditional notions of pronunciation, minimal pairs, drills and 102 short
conversations (Celce Murcia and Goodwin 1991: 136).
Pronunciation sometimes makes students feel lazy to learn English. Some students said
English is a hypocrite language because different writing different pronounce, students also feel
bored with the teachers’ way when teaching English because it only concerns in grammar and do
the exercises. Based on the observation, the students’ of twelfth grade at SMA Muhammadiyah
Limbung that speaking ability of students was still lacking, especially in pronunciation. The
teacher of SMA Muhammadiyah Limbung said that the motivation of the students was low.
When the teacher gave oral tests to students, they were afraid to make mistake and sometimes
shy to speak. Considerating this problem, the researcher had an alternative to apply a teaching
method to improve the student pronunciation. The method is Prosody Pyramid method.
Based on the background, the researcher formulated a problem statement as follows:
“Does Prosody Pyramid method improve the students’ ability in pronunciation in terms of word
stressing and intonation at the twelfth grade students of SMA Muhammadiyah Limbung?” and
the objective of this research as formulated as: ‘to find out whether or not Prosody Pyramid
method improves the students’ ability in pronunciation in terms of word stressing and intonation
at the twelfth grade students of SMA Muhammadiyah Limbung.” The result of this research
would be expected to be useful information for many people such as: (1) For students: through
the implementation of Prosody Pyramid in pronunciation expect students to be better. (2) For the
teacher: through the application of Prosody Pyramid can be used as an alternative in improving
students' pronunciation. (3) For Researcher : Prosody Pyramid application can be used as an
exercise in trying that ideas in writing, as well as a material consideration in preparing to plunge
into the world of education. This study uses Prosody Pyramid method in improving
pronunciation of the students. The pronunciation assesment will be focused on word stressing
and intonation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. MATERIALS
1. THE CONCEPT OF PROSODY PYRAMID
Prosody is understood to comprise the 'musical' attributes of speech1auditory
effects such as melody, dynamics, rhythm, tempo and pause - then it is surely no
exaggeration to state the large part of this field has been left untilled by modern structural
linguistics (Kuhlen 2004:1).
Gilbert (2008:10) state that Prosody Pyramid is the English prosodic system can
be illustrated visually with a pyramid shape. The base of the system is the thought group.
This is a group of words that may be a short sentence, a clause, or a phrase within a
longer sentence. Within that base unit, there is a focus word– the most important word in
the thought group. Within the focus word, one syllable is given the main stress. That
syllable functions as the peak of information within the thought group. It is sometimes
called the nucleus, or the peak. The sounds in this syllable must be clear and easily
recognized, because this is the center of meaning of the thought group.
The English prosodic system can be illustrated visually with a pyramid shape. The
base of the system is the thought group. This is a group of words that may be a short
sentence, a clause, or a phrase within a longer sentence. Within that base unit, there is a
focus word that is the most important word in the thought group. Within the focus word,
one syllable is given the main stress. The syllable functions as the peak of information
within the thought group. It is sometime called the nucleus, or the peak.
2. THE CONCEPT OF PRONUNCIATION
Pronunciation is a set of habits of producing sounds. The habit of producing a
sound is acquired by repeating it over and over again and by being corrected when it is
pronounced wrongly. Pronunciation is the art or manner of pronunciation something
 articulate utterance (Webster’s third new international dictionary: 1996). Certainly,
pronunciation cannot be separated from intonation and stress. Pronunciation, intonation,
and stress are largely learned successfully by imitating and repetition. Therefore, the
teachers should have good standards of pronunciation in order that the students can
imitate their teacher in any teaching and learning process, but we cannot expect our
students to sound exactly like an American and Britain and the teacher should introduce
Prosody Pyramid in the classroom in order to give the students opportunities to make a
lot of repetition.
B. METHODS
This research employed quasi experimental design which requires at least two groups.
The variable of this research were Prosody Pyramid Method as independent variable and the
students’ improvement in pronunciation ability as dependent variable. The subject of this
research was chosen by cluster random sampling and involved two classes as the sample of
control and experimental class. The classes were class XII IPA 1 as the control class and class
XII IPA 2 as the experimental class. The numbers of the students of each class was 22 students,
thus the total numbers of the sample was 44 students. In this research, the researcher used a test
as an instrument for collecting the data, that was oral test in dialogue form to get information
about the students’ improvement after teaching and learning process.

DISCUSSION

1. The students’ ability in pre-test and post test between experimental group and control
group
In this students’ ability, the researcher presents the mean score of the students’ pre-
test and post-test between both groups.
Table 4.1. The mean score of students’ pre-test and post-test in term word stressing
between both groups

Experimental Control
Variable
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Word
3.97 7.95 4.82 5.45
Stressing
 Table 4.1 above shows the different students’ word stressing score for both two
groups in pretest and posttest. For Experimental class, the mean score of the students
improved from 3.97 to 7.95. For Control Class, the mean score of the students also
improved from 4.82 to 5.45.

Table 4.2. The mean score of students’ pre-test and post-test in term intonation between
both groups

Experimental Control
Variable
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Intonation 3.88 5.38 4.14 3.68

The tables 4.2 above shows the different students’ intonation scores for both two
groups in pretest and posttest. For Experimental class, the mean score of the students
improved from 3.88 to 5.38. For Control Class, the mean score of the students did not
improve from 4.14 to 3.68.

From the data showed in table 4.1 and 4.2, the pretest of mean score in term word
stressing and intonation of Experimental Class and Control Class was slight different for
the score before giving the treatment. After giving the treatment, the posttest score to
both of the groups showed a difference score of mean score. It means that there was an
improvement in pronunciation between two groups after giving the treatment especially
in experimental group. It proved by the mean score of word stressing of post test in
experimental group is higher than the mean score of posttest in control group (7.95 >
5.45) and mean score of intonation of post test in experimental group is higher than the
mean score of posttest in control group (5.38 > 3.68).

2. Hypothesis testing

The mean score of students’ pre-test and post-test between experimental group
and control group were showed in the following table:

Table 4.3. The mean score of students’ pre-test and post-test between both groups
 Experimental Control
Variable
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Pronunciation 3.93 6.64 4.48 4.61

Table 4.3 above shows that the mean score of students’ pre-test of experimental
class was 3.93 and the mean score of students’ pre-test of control class was 4.48. It can be
concluded that the students’ mean score of experimental class was statistically lower than
control class. While the mean score of students’ post-test of experimental class was 6.64
and the students’ post test of control class was 4.61. It showed that the mean score of
experimental class was higher that control class.

To know the result of t-test, the researcher had used t-test analysis on the level of the
significant (p) 0.05 with the degree of freedom (df) = (N1 + N2) – 2 = (22 + 22) – 2 = 42,
where N1 = number of students (22 students) and N2 = number of students (22 students),
and then the value of t-table was 1.682. The following table showed the result of t- test
calculation.

Table 4.4. The value of t-test

Variable T-test T-table Remark

Significantly
Pronunciation 4.420 1.682
Different

The table above shows that the t-value was 4.420. Based on the data, the t-value
(4.420) > t-table (1.682). In post test, there was a significant difference between two
groups’ score because the t-value was higher than t-table (4.79 > 1.682). It meant that H1
was accepted and H0 was rejected in posttest. In other words, there was a significant
difference of the students’ score between both groups after receiving treatment.
 Based on the data above, it proved that the experimental class with which thought
by applying Prosody Pyramid Method is giving significant improvement to the students’
ability in pronunciation than treated with Noticing Reformulation Technique.

3. Scoring classification of the students’ pre-test and post-test in term stressing words
between experimental group and control group
In this classification, the researcher presents the frequency and percentage of the
students’ pretest and post-test in term stressing words between control group and
experimental group.

Table 4.5. Frequency and percentage of the students’ pretest in term word stressing
between both groups

Range of Experimental Class Control Class

NO Classification
Percentage
F Percentage F Percentage
1. Excellent 9.6 – 10 0 0% 0 0%
2. Very Good 8.6 – 9.5 1 4.54% 0 0%
3. Good 7.6 – 8.5 1 4.54% 1 4.54%
4. Fairly Good 6.6 – 7.5 0 0% 1 4.54%
5. Fair 5.6 – 6.5 0 0% 8 36.36%
6. Poor 3.6 – 5.5 9 40.91% 7 31.82%
7. Very Poor 0 – 3.5 11 50% 5 22.73%
TOTAL 22 100% 22 100%

The table 4.5 shows that most of students’ pretest result in experimental group is
classified as very good, good, poor and very poor category before giving treatment. In
Experimental Group, the data of Pre-test showed that there are 1 student or 4.54% got
very good, 1 student or 4.54% got good classification, 9 students or 40.91% are in poor,
11 students or 50% were classified as very poor. In Control Group, the data of Pre-test
showed that there are 1 student or 4.54% got good, 1 student or 4.54% got fairly good
classification, 8 students or 36.36% got fair classification, 7 students or 31.82% got poor
classification, and 5 students or 22.73% were in very poor classification.
 Based on the result it show the improvement of the students word stressing in
experimental group before giving treatment by using Prosody Pyramid Method than
control group which use Noticing Reformulation Technique. So, it can be concluded that
the mean score of students for both groups is almost same.

Table 4.6. Frequency and percentage of the students’ Post-Test in term words stressing
between Both Groups

Range of Experimental Class Control Class

NO Classification
Percentage
F Percentage F Percentage
1. Excellent 9.6 – 10 5 22.73% 0 0%
2. Very Good 8.6 – 9.5 4 18.18% 0 0%
3. Good 7.6 – 8.5 2 9.09% 2 9.09%
4. Fairly Good 6.6 – 7.5 9 40.91% 2 9.09%
5. Fair 5.6 – 6.5 1 4.54% 8 36.36%
6. Poor 3.6 – 5.5 0 0% 6 27.27%
7. Very Poor 0 – 3.5 1 4.54% 4 18.18%
TOTAL 22 100% 22 100%

The table 4.6 shows that most of students’ post-test result in experimental group are
classified as excellent, very good, good, fairly good, fair and very poor category after
giving treatment. In Experimental Group, the data of Post-test showed that there are 5
students or 22.73% got excellent, 4 students or 18.18% got very good, 2 students or
9.09% got good classification, 9 students or 40.91% are in fairly good classification, 1
student or 4.54% got fair, and 1 student or 4.54% was classified as very poor. In Control
Group, the data of Post-test showed that there are 2 students or 9.09% got good, 2
students or 9.09% got fairly good classification, 8 students or 36.36% got fair
classification, 6 students or 27.27% got poor classification, and 4 students or 18.18%
were in very poor classification.

Based on the result, it show the improvement of the students word stressing in
experimental group after giving treatment by using Prosody Pyramid Method than control
 group which use Noticing Reformulation technique. So, it can be concluded that the
mean score of students for both groups is different.

4. Scoring classification of the students’ pre-test and post-test in term intonation between
experimental group and control group
In this classification, the researcher presents the frequency and percentage of the
students’ pretest and post-test in stressing words between control group and experimental
group.

Table 4.7. Frequency and percentage of the students’ pretest in term intonation between
both groups

Range of Experimental Class Control Class

NO Classification
Percentage
F Percentage F Percentage
1. Excellent 9.6 – 10 0 0% 0 0%
2. Very Good 8.6 – 9.5 0 0% 0 0%
3. Good 7.6 – 8.5 1 4.54% 0 0%
4. Fairly Good 6.6 – 7.5 0 0% 2 9.09%
5. Fair 5.6 – 6.5 4 18.18% 3 13.64%
6. Poor 3.6 – 5.5 8 36.36% 11 50%
7. Very Poor 0 – 3.5 9 40.91% 6 27.27%
TOTAL 22 100% 22 100%

The table 4.7 shows that most of students’ pretest results in experimental group are
classified as good, fair, poor and very poor category before giving treatment. In
Experimental Group, the data of Pre-test showed that there are 1 student or 4.54% got
good, 4 students or 18.18% got fair, 8 students or 36.36% got poor classification, and 9
 students or 40.91% were in very poor classification. In Control Group, 2 students or
9.09% got fairly good, 3 students or 13.64% got fair, 11 students or 50% got poor
classification, and 6 students or 27.27% were in very poor classification.

Based on the result it shows the improvement of the students’ intonation in

experimental group before giving treatment by using Prosody Pyramid Method than
control group which use Noticing Reformulation Technique. So, it can be concluded that
the mean score of students for both groups is almost same.

Table 4.8. Frequency and percentage of the students’ Intonation in Post-Test between
Both Groups

Range of Experimental Class Control Class

NO Classification
Percentage F Percentage F Percentage
1. Excellent 9.6 – 10 0 0% 0 0%
2. Very Good 8.6 – 9.5 0 0% 0 0%
3. Good 7.6 – 8.5 2 0% 0 0%
4. Fairly Good 6.6 – 7.5 1 4.54% 1 4.54%
5. Fair 5.6 – 6.5 8 36.36% 1 4.54%
6. Poor 3.6 – 5.5 9 40.91% 12 54.55%
7. Very Poor 0 – 3.5 2 9.09% 8 36.36%
TOTAL 22 100% 22 100%

The table 4.8 shows that most of students’ post-test result of experimental group are
classified as good, fairly good, fair, poor, and very poor category after giving treatment.
In Experimental Group, the data of Post-test showed that there are 2 students or 9.09%
got good, 1 student or 4.54% got fairly good classification, 8 students or 36.36% got fair
classification, 9 students or 40.91% got poor classification, and 2 students or 9.09% were
in very poor classification. In Control Group, 1 student or 4.54% got fairly good, 1
student or 4.54% got fair, 12 students or 54.55% got poor, and 8 students or 36.36% were
in very poor classification.
 Based on the result, it show the improvement of the students intonation in
experimental group after giving treatment by using Prosody Pyramid Method than control
group which use Noticing Reformulation technique. So, it can be concluded that the
mean score of students for both groups is different.

RESULT

The main objective of the research had been known which treatment (Experimental and
Control class) that was effective to enhance the students’ pronunciation in speaking. In this
research, the result of pretest showed that students’ pronunciation in both groups were in the
same level. Based on this condition, it can be concluded that both groups have equal ability for
treatment. After giving pretest, the researcher used different Procedure in teaching pronunciation.
The students in experimental were taught by using Prosody Pyramid Method, while students in
control group were taught by using Noticing Reformulation Technique. The treatment was
conducted in six meetings.

The posttest was held to measure the enhancement in experimental class and control class
after giving the treatment. The result showed that there was significant difference in using
Prosody Pyramid Method in teaching pronunciation. It proved by the t-test value of the students
which is taught Prosody Pyramid was 4.420 which was higher than t-table value 1.682. The
result of this research was also supported by the previous theory which stated that The Prosody
Pyramid shows the progression from the general to the specific. It begins with a thought group, a
focus word, stress, and finally the peak. A detailed description with each portion of the pyramid
helps the reader become a little more familiar with each focus area (Gilbert, 2008).

Based on the researcher explain previously, the experimental group was taught using
Prosody Pyramid Method was effective. It can be supported by Gilbert (2008:10) stated that
prosody pyramid is the English prosodic system can be illustrated visually with a pyramid shape.
The base of the system is the thought group. This is a group of words that may be a short
sentence, a clause, or a phrase within a longer sentence. All the process of spoken English work
together to make this syllable easy for the listener to notice and recognize.
 Based on result of data analysis the researcher have reported about teaching pronunciation
using prosody pyramid to make teaching and learning process more effective and improve the
students’ pronunciation skill. One of the research about prosody pyramid technique is conducted
by Gilbert (2008), she wanted to know if communicative prosody pyramid can improve students’
pronunciation. Her research was about the concept of implementing the Prosody Pyramid into
curriculum. Gilbert notes that quality repetition is essential for success in this subject. Included is
a figure with references to several researchers who support the reasons for repetition. The study
was a pre-experimental research design since it did not include the use of random assignment.

Based on the findings above and the theory in chapter II, it can be concluded that, using
Prosody Pyramid Method to improve the students’ pronunciation in speaking was effective.
The data shows a very significant different between t-test and t- table, where t-test was higher
than t-table (4.420 > 1.682).

CONCLUSION

Based on the data that the use of Prosody Pyramid Method is effective to assist students’
pronunciation in speaking at the Twelfth Grade Students of SMA Muhammadiyah Limbung. The
improvement of students’ pronunciation can be seen through the statistical analysis that t-test
value that was 4.420, greater than t-table value 1.682. The data shows that the students
pronunciation before and after treatment are significantly different. It was found in students post-
test was higher than pre-test (6.64 > 4.61).
REFERENCES

A.S. Hornby. (2000). Oxford Advanced Learners of Current English. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Broughton, G. 1987. Teaching English as a foreign Language. University of London institute of

education.

Brown, G. 1977. Listening to Spoken English. London, Longman.

Byrne, Donn. 1987. Teaching oral English. Longman publishing group.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Goodwin, J. (1991). Teaching pronunciation. In

M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed., pp.
136-153). New York, NY: Newbury House.

Depdiknas. 2006. Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Jakarta: Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan.

Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting. 2004. Prosody in conversation.

New York: Cambridge University Press

Fikridiyanti. 2014. The Use of Mistake Buster Technique to Improve the Students’ Writing Skill
(A Quasi Experimental Study at the Eight Grade Students of SMPN 33 Makassar).
Skripsi tidak diterbitkan, Makassar: Unismuh Makassar.

Fitriyah. 2010. Using the Talking Stick Method to Improve students pronunciation of the second
students at SMA Negeri Bajeng (Classroom Action Research). Skripsi tidak diterbitkan.
Makassar: Unismuh Makassar.

Fraser, Helen. 2001. Teaching Pronunciation: A Handbook for Teachers and Trainers. New
South Wales Department of Education and Training: Department of Education Training
and Youth Affairs (DYTH).
Gay, L. R. 2006. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. America.
Charles E. Merry Publishing Company.

Gilakjani Abbas Pourhosein., 2012. English Teaching Language: The Significance of

Pronunciation in English Language Teaching, (online),.Vol. 5, No. 4; April 2012 URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n4p96, di akses April 2017).

Gilbert, J. 2005. Catching the Knowledge Wave: the Knowledge Society and the Future of
Education Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

_______. 2008. Teaching Pronunciation Using Prosody Pyramid. Cambridge University press:
United States.
Harmer,J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching: Fourth Edition.
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Hay, C, J. 1970. Teaching of pronunciation a classroom. Guide London Longman.

Hornby, G. 1987. Teaching English as a foreign Language. University of London Institute of

Education.

Kozyrev, J. R. (2005). Sound bites: Pronunciation activities. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Companion website:
http://college.hmco.com/esl/kozyrev/sound_bites/1e/instructors/protected/eval/evaluating.
pdf . Retrieved on April 2017.
Laham, S.M.2011. The name-pronunciation effect: Why people like Mr. Smith more than Mr.
Colquhoun (journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/ locate/jesp, Retrieved on April 2017.)

Merdiani, R. S. 2013. Teaching Pronunciation using Prosody Pyramid at the Eighth Grade of
SMPN 2 Depok Kab. Cirebon. Cirebon: University of Swadaya Bumijati.

Morley, J. 1991. The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other

languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 481-520.

_________. 1994. Multidimensional curriculum design for speech-pronunciation instruction. In

J. Morley (Ed.), Pronunciation Pedagogy and Theory: New Views, New Directions.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL. 64-91.

Purcell, E. and R. Suter (1980) Predictors of pronunciation accuracy: A reexamination.

Language Learning. 30/2, 271-87.

Puspita, Tri Wasis. 2007. Analysis of Students error in English Vowel (Classroom Action
Research). Makassar: Unismuh Makassar.

Ramelan, 2003. English Phonetics. Semarang: IKIP Semarang Press.

Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suter, R. (1976). Predicators of Pronunciation accuracy in second language learning. Language

Learning. 26, 233-53.

Syafei, Anas. 1988. English Pronunciation: Theory and Practice. Jakarta: Departemen
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi Proyek
Pengembangan Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga Kependidikan.

Yangklang, Warisara. 2013. Improving English stress and intonation Pronunciation of the First Year
students of Nakhon Rachasima Rajabhat University through an E-learning. Thailand: Rachasima
Rajabhat University.