Triple P Strategies in Improving Vocational Students English Speaking Skill: An Empirical Study

Ricky Apriyanto, Ari Purnawan

Abstract


This study aims to analyse the effectiveness of the Triple P (Presentation, Practice, Production) strategy in improving vocational school students English speaking skills. The research method used is classroom action research (PTK) with the research subject of DKV class X students at SMK Diponegoro Depok. Data were collected through observation, interviews, and speaking ability tests before and after implementing the Triple P strategy. In addition, students show a positive perception of this method, which motivates them to be more active in learning English. The Triple P (Presentation, Practice, Production) strategy effectively enhances the English-speaking skills of vocational students. This study at SMK Diponegoro Depok shows improvements in fluency, accuracy, pronunciation, and use of descriptive text. Results from pre-and post-tests, observations, and interviews confirm these enhancements. The strategy's relevance lies in its practical benefits for vocational education, addressing students' challenges like limited English exposure. However, the study's focus on one school and student group limits generalizability. Future research should explore broader student populations and technology integration. This study provides a roadmap for implementing Triple P, improving students' employability and professional performance.


Keywords


Triple P Strategy, speaking skills, English, vocational, classroom action research.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ball, S., Kenny, A., & Gardiner, D. (1990). Literacy, politics and the teaching of English. Bringing English to order, 47-86.

Bulan, A., Suryaman, M., & Mardiah, M. (2020). The Process of English Language Teaching in 2013 Curriculum. VELES (Voices of English Language Education Society), 4(1), 86-94.

Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research in Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners. NY: Routledge. Pp. 196.

Chambers, E., & Gregory, M. (2006). Teaching and learning English literature. Sage.

Choo, S. (2004). Investigating Ideology in the Literature curriculum in Singapore. Unpublished master’s thesis. Department of English Language and Literature: National University of Singapore.

Harmer, J. (2008). How to teach English (Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 313-316). Oxford University Press.

Harmer, Jeremy. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Mills, G. E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Prentice-Hall, Inc., One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

Nurgiyantoro, B. (2013). Penilaian Pembelajaran Bahasa Berbasis Kompetensi. Yogyakarta: BPFE-Yogyakarta. Jurnal Basastra, 6(1).

Paiz, J. M., Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., ... & Keck, R. (2013). Welcome to the Purdue OWL. Retrieved September, 14, 2017.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge university press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v12i3.6590

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU) ISSN 2364-5369
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.