chapter iv.docx

7/21/2019 CHAPTER IV.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-ivdocx-56da2cae9f151 1/15

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter deals with research description, pre-test and post-test finding,

normality of test, homogeneity of test, comparing the result of two test by t test, and

discussion of the research finding.

A. Research Description

In this chapter, the researcher presents the analysis of the result of

experimental study that had been conducted in SMPN Madiun in the academic

year of !"#$%!"#. The research was started from No&ember until 'ecember

!"#$.

The (III ) and (III * students became the sample of this study. The

students of (III ) were the experimental group and the students of (III * were

the control ones. Those classes could play cooperati&ely in the teaching and

learning process.

This study was aimed to in&estigate the significance difference on the

students+ comprehending in recount and descripti&e text for those were taught by

using film as teaching media for experimental class and were taught by using

songs as teaching media for control group. This research, there were three main

acti&ities, pretest, treatments, and posttest. Those acti&ities were done on fourth

meetings because the limited time which gi&en by the teacher and the material

were explained before by the teacher, so the researcher ga&e pretest, re&iew the

material briefly, explained the strategy and ga&e posttest. The pretest was held at

#



the first meeting. The treatments conducted in the second and third meetings. The

last was posttest which held to measure the students+ comprehending of recount

and descripti&e text after getting the treatments.

In this research implementation, firstly the students in the experiment and

control groups were gi&en pretest. Then, they were gi&en treatments. The

experimental group got a treatment by using films as teaching media. n the other

hand, the control group was taught by using songs as teaching media. There were

$# students in control group and $$ students in experimental group who oined in

this acti&ity. In the first meeting, the researcher made a re&iew the material of

recount and descripti&e text briefly then the students were conducted in group and

the researcher discussed and ga&e example about the film media for experimental

group and song media for control group. In the last meeting of treatment, the

researcher made se&eral groups and the groups were gi&en the passage of recount

and descripti&e text and the /uestions related to the text and analy0ed the text. The

process of post-test was similar with the pretest. The students of both

experimental and control groups were gi&en writing test. The posttest in this study

had a purpose to measure the students+ writing achie&ement after getting

treatments. The students did their posttest through writing test.

1. Pre-test Finin!

a. The Distri"#tion o$ Pretest Score

The pretest was conducted on the first meeting. There were $$ students of

(III ) as the experimental group and $# students of (III * as the control group

oined the test. The purpose of this test was to 1now the initial condition of the

students+ achie&ement in writing recount text. In this test, the students were as1ed

!



to doing write the recount text. The time for students doing the pre-test was "

minutes. The a&erage score on the pretest of the experimental group was 2,23

and the control group was 4,3. The following is a table which shows the

distribution of pretest score in experimental and control groups. 5re/uency is the

number of the students in one inter&al. Percentage is the number of students in

one inter&al di&ided to the total number of the students and timed #""6. To show

the achie&ement of the score by the students, distribution of the scores is

described in fre/uency and percentage as follows7

Table .#. The 'istribution of Pretest Score of 8xperimental and 9ontrol *roups

Inter%a&E'peri(enta& Gro#p Contro& Gro#p

Fre)#enc* Percenta!e Fre)#enc* Percenta!e

2" : 2$ # $." # $.!

4 : 43 " "." " "."

4! : 4; 2 !.! #3.

2 : 4# # !. 3 !3."

: 4 #!.# 4 !!." : $ #2.! 2 !;.2

< $$ #""6 $# #""6

There were six polygons to present the result of pretest score. 8ach polygon

described the amount percentage of students in each inter&al. The graphic of the

pretest result can be seen as follows7

$



2" - 2$ 4 - 43 4! - 4; 2 - 4# - 4 " - $

"

;

#"

#;

!"

!;

$"

$;

"

;

;"

3

0

24

42

12

18

3

0

19

29

23

26

Experimental Group Control Group

Score Test

Percentage

5igure .#. The 'istribution of Pre-test Score of 8xperimental and 9ontrol

*oups

5rom the table and chart abo&e, it could be seen, that the higher percentage

in the control group was !36 in inter&al 2-4#, and the total fre/uency was 3 of

$# students. The lowest percentage in the control group was "6 in inter&al 4-43

and the total fre/uency was " of $# students. Meanwhile, the higher percentage in

experimental group was !,6 in inter&al 2-4# and the fre/uency was # of $$

students. The lowest percentage in the experimental group was "6 in inter&al 4-

43 and the fre/uency was " of $# students.

". Ho(o!eneit* o$ the E'peri(enta& an Contro& Gro#p

)fter ta1ing the pretest, the homogeneity of the two groups was analy0ed.

The homogeneity test was conducted to find out whether the groups+ were similar

on their 8nglish writing achie&ement or not. =omogeneity was to 1now that both

two classes are homogeneous. It was important because the similarity of both



obects would influence the test result. If both classes are not homogenous, the

treatment also cannot be conducted because both classes do not ha&e same ability

in writing recount text achie&ement.

The homogeneity of pretest of both experimental and control groups was

computed as follows7

5 > c

e

V

V

> ;,"$

,4"$

5 > ",3$$

The result was consulted with the &alue of 5 table with df (e > ?n# @ n!A : !

> ?$$ @ $#A : ! > !, from 5 table obtained 5 table > $,#; ?5 TableA. Because 5count >

".3$$ C 5table > $,#;, so =o is accepted, so the sample &ariance of students+ writing

s1ill scores test of students who are taught using film media ?experimental groupA

and that is taught using song media ?control groupA are homogeneous. It was

concluded based on the students+ writing ability between the experimental group

and the control group on the pretest where the 5 &alue was lower than the 5table

that was $,#; compared with ",3$$ as the 5 table. By 1nowing the result of

homogeneity test, the researcher concluded that the two groups were homogeny so

that the research could be continued on those two groups as the obects of the

study ?see )ppendix 4A.

c. Nor(a&it* o$ the E'peri(enta& Gro#p

The normality of the data was analy0ed as well as the homogeneity. )fter

finishing the process of the pretest data gathering, the normality should be

;



chec1ed in order to 1now if the data could be analy0ed. Normality was counted to

1now that all scores are normal. If the scores are not normal, the treatment cannot

be conducted because they do not ha&e same a&erage in writing achie&ement

ability.

Based on the data of pretest of the experimental group, the normality was

analy0ed. The computation, D!count was #3,## and DE?FA ?d1A>D! ?;6A ?!A >

$,44$. The result showed that the data was normal because D!count #3,## C

$,44$ then pretest score for the experimental group was said to be normally

distributed. The complete computation can be seen in )ppendix .

. Nor(a&it* o$ the Contro& Gro#p

Based on the computation, D!count was $$,#4. Then, the pretest results of

the control group were consulted with critical &alue of DE?FA ?d1A with F > ".";

and d1>!, whose result was $,44$. Since the &alue of DE?FA?d1A of pretest of the

control group were lower than $,44$, the data were considered to be normally

distributed. The complete computation can be seen in appendix .

+. Posttest Finin!

The posttest was conducted for control class and experimental class. There

were $$ students of experimental group and $# students of control group oined

this test. The posttest in this study had a purpose to measure the students+ writing

achie&ement after getting treatments. The students did the posttest through writing

test. The process of post-test was similar with the pretest the students of both

experimental and control groups were gi&en writing recount text test. The test

spent about " minutes.



5rom the result, the students+ a&erage scores were analy0ed. The a&erage

score of the experimental group was 4;,;3 and the control group was 4,##. ?see

)ppendix 3A. Below was the table of the students+ distribution score on the

posttest.

Table .!. The 'istribution of Postest Score of 8xperimental and 9ontrol *roups

Inter%a&E'peri(enta& Gro#p Contro& Gro#p

Fre)#enc* Percenta!e Fre)#enc* Percenta!e

2; : 22 ! ." # $.!$

2# : 2 " "."" " ".""44 : 2" #! $.$ 4 !!.;2

4$ : 4 ## $$.$$ ## $;.2

3 : 4! 4 !#.!# ## $;.2

; : 2 # $."$ # $.!$

< $$ #""6 $# #""6

There were six polygons to present the result of posttest score. 8ach

polygon described the amount percentage of students in each inter&al. The graphic

of the posttest result can be seen as follows7

2; - 22 2# - 2 44 - 2" 4$ - 4 3 - 4! ; - 2

"

;

#"

#;

!"

!;

$"

$;

"

;

;"

6

0

3633

21

33

0

23

35 35

3

Experimental Group Control Group

Score Test

Percentage

5igure .!. The 'istribution of Post-test Score of 8xperimental and 9ontrol

*oups

4



5rom the chart abo&e, it could be seen, that the higher percentage in the

control group was $;,2 6 in inter&al 4$-4 and 3-4!, and the total fre/uency

was ## of $# students. The lowest percentage in the control group was "6 in

inter&al 2#-2, and the total fre/uency was " of $# students. Meanwhile, the

higher percentage in experimental group was $,$6 in inter&al 44-2" and the

fre/uency was #! of $" students. The lowest percentage in the experimental group

was "6 in inter&al 2#-2 and the fre/uency was " of $" students. In sum, from the

result of posttest, the students of experimental group got good grades in inter&al

44-2" whereas the students of control group only got the good grades in inter&al

4$-4 and 3-4!. It means that the treatment by using film as teaching writing

media in experimental group more effecti&e that the treatment by using song

media in control group.

,. The A%era!e o$ Res#&t Test

)fter all the tests were executed, the two tests were compared. The students

did the pretest and the post test well. In this research, the different /uestions of the

pretest and posttest were used, since the purpose of this research was to analy0e

the significance different on pretest and posttest of the two groups. The study

gained some data from the students+ pretest and posttest. The following chart

presented the result of writing pretest and posttest on the experimental and control

groups.

2



8xperiment al *roup 9ont rol *roup

"

#"

!"

$"

"

;"

"

4"

2"

3"

#""

68.89 67.69

75.59 74.11

Pretest Postest

AverageTest

Average

5igure .$ The )&erage of Griting )chie&ement Pre-test and Post-test on

the 8xperimental and 9ontrol *roups

)fter analy0ing the two results between the pretest and posttest, it was

found that the mean of the pretest achie&ed by the students in experimental group

who were taught by using film as teaching media was 2,23. Meanwhile, the

mean of the posttest of the same group was 4;,;3. So, the percentage of the

students+ impro&ement of this group was ,346. In a rather simpler obser&ation, it

can be concluded that there was a significant impro&ement between the pretest

and the posttest+s scores achie&ed by the students of experimental group. The

control group who were taught with song as teaching media was also showed the

impro&ement. The mean score of the control group was 4,3 for the pretest and

4,## for the posttest. There was less impro&ement in this group than the

experimental one, it was only ,446.

The difference of the posttest+s mean score between the experimental and

the control group was ",!. Het, it needed ad&anced process to pro&e whether the

3



difference was significance or not. It would be pro&en by the t-test, test of

significancy, in further discussion. The result of pretest and post-test table was

pro&ided in order to see the impro&ement of each indi&idual in pretest and

posttest.

In general, almost all of the students made impro&ement in their writing

achie&ement of recount text after the treatment. It was pro&en that the students+

achie&ement of the posttest was higher that of the pretest.

. Data Ana&*sis Res#&ts

The researcher uses t test to analy0e the data of writing s1ill achie&ed by the

eighth grade students+ writing s1ill of SMPN Madiun in the academic year of

!"#$%!"# who ha&e been taught using films and taught using songs. This sub-

chapter would be discussed the T-Test of posttest and gain difference of

experimental and control groups.

)fter getting all the scores, the computation was made. The first way to

1now the significant difference of the experiment could be seen through the

difference of the means of the two groups. The following formula was used to get

the means7

Mx > N

fxΣ

and My > N

fyΣ

In which,

Mx 7 the mean of the experimental group

x 7 the sum of all scores of the experimental group

My 7 the mean of the control group

4"



y 7 the sum of all scores of the control group

N 7 the number of the subect sample

#. the mean of the pretest of the experimental group

Mx > $$

;,!!4$

> 2,23

!. the mean of the pretest of the control group

My > $#

;,!"32

> 4,3

$. the mean of the posttest of the experimental group

Mx > $$

;,!3

> 4;,;3

. the mean of the posttest of the control group

My > $#

;,!!34

> 4,##

Based on the computation abo&e, the difference a&erage score between the

experimental group and the control group was appeared. n the experimental

group, the a&erage score of the pretest was 2,23 and the posttest was 4;,;3. 5rom

those scores, the difference of the a&erage score between the pretest and the

posttest on the experimental group was ,4. Ghile, on the control group, the

a&erage score of the pretest was 4,3 and the posttest was 4,##. The difference

a&erage of the score between those tests was .!. It means that the difference

a&erage score on the experimental group was higher than in the control group. In

4#



conclusion, there was good impro&ement of the experimental group+s achie&ement

after they recei&ed the treatment by using film as media in teaching writing

recount text.

1. T-Test of Post-test of Experimental and Control Group

5rom the 1nown data, then we calculated the result of posttest from the

experimental and control group as follows7

!

A#?A#?

!#

!

!!

!

##

−+

−+−

=nn

S nS n

S

S > !$#$$

$",!#4A#$#?3;;,!!A#$$?

−+

−+−

> !

;#3;,4!! +

>!!!,!2

> #,3#

5urther t test is calculated by using the formula7

!#

!#

"##

nnS

x xt

+

−=

t 0 > $#

#

$$

#3#,#

23,2;3,4;

+

−

> $#

#

$$

#3#,#

4,

+

>4$,$

4,

> #,434

4!



By using a significance le&el ?FA > ;6 and the &alue of df > !, from n# @

n! : ! > $$ @ $# : ! > !, it is obtained t table &alue > #,4#.

Based on the criteria that7 =" is reected if tcount J t table and =" is accepted if

tcount C ttable. The tcount &alue > #,434 J ttable > #,4#. So, it can be concluded that ="

is reected and =# is accepted. Thus, based on criteria established, hypothesis that

states KThere is a significant difference of writing s1ill achie&ed by the eighth

grade students+ writing s1ill of SMPN Madiun in the academic year of

!"#$%!"# who ha&e been taught using films from those taught using songsL is

accepted.

. Disc#ssion of the Research Findings

The mean difference between pretest and posttest of the experimental and

the control group were computed to 1now whether the impro&ement of each group

was significant or not. In this study, the computation showed that the mean

difference between the experimental group and the control group was significant.

5rom the result of the pre-test, it can be found that the mean score of the

pre-test of experimental group was 2,23 and the control group was 4,3. The

result of post test of experimental group was 4;,;3 while the control group gained

the score into 4,##. Based on the score, it can be seen that the score of

experimental group was higher than the control group. The result of the t - test of

mean difference was #,434 and t - table was #,4#. Based on the computation

abo&e, it could be seen that t -&alue J t -table. The hypothesis that KThere is a

significant difference of writing s1ill achie&ed by the eighth grade students+

4$



writing s1ill of SMPN Madiun in the academic year of !"#$%!"# who ha&e

been taught using films from those taught using songsL was accepted.

Based on the tests conducted, it was pro&ed that the use of film as teaching

media is effecti&e as a strategy to impro&e teaching writing achie&ement of

recount text to the eighth grade students+ writing s1ill of SMPN Madiun in the

academic year of !"#$%!"#.

The use of film as teaching media made the writing and learning acti&ity

more effecti&e and being &aried. The students of experimental group who taught

by using film as teaching media loo1ed more attracti&e and acti&e during the

treatment gi&en by the writer than the control group which taught by song. The

students of experimental group applied the film as a teaching media when they did

the posttest. So, the result of their posttest was higher than their pretest. 5inally,

film as teaching media ma1es the students more moti&ated in learning easier to

grasp the lesson. It can be concluded that in this study, the use of film as teaching

media in teaching writing of recount text was effecti&e of the eighth grade

students+ writing s1ill of SMPN Madiun in the academic year of !"#$%!"#.

5ilms is one of the &isual aids that can be used in a writing class. It ma1es

lessons more fun. It can also be used to create situation for writing classes more

clearly, that the students ha&e big enthusiasm in teaching learning process in

writing class. Mo&ies or films can also teach people about history, science, human

beha&ior and any other subects. Some mo&ies combine entertainment with

instruction, ma1es the learning process more enoyable. Most films ha&e

accompanying sound. The functions of film are to educate, entertain, enlighten

4



and inspire the audiences, and in this case the writer tried to use films in the

teaching and learning writing process. The writer thought that film can also be

used as an alternati&e method in teaching writing, because the student will get a

new experience in their class that is /uite different from their daily experience in

their class, and for the teacher a film can be used as an alternati&e method in

teaching that is suitable with their classroom situation.

4;

chapter iv.docx

Documents