34
Day, Date Activities Description
interviewed D, and B interviewed C
Tuesday, 15th Nov 2022
The fourth treatment
- The researcher explained the material - Conducted a Three-Step-Interview Technique
- The researcher was divided students into 4 group, which is A, B, C, and D.
- Each group was activity plans for the New Year’s celebration.
- Each member conducted interviews in pairs with other group members. A interviewed B, and C interviewed D
Wednesday, 16th Nov
2022 Posttest
- The Experimental class was held at 01.00-02.00, and the Control Class was held at 08.30-09.30.
- The researcher asked students to explain their plans for the weekend, whether they wanted to go somewhere or stay at home and what activities they would do.
- Each students has 2 minutes to answer the question, and it is answered orally
researcher assessed students' speaking achievement by using oral scoring rubric adapted from the book H Douglas Brown. The researcher used two raters in assessing students' speaking achievement, the researcher engaged the English teacher to help the researcher of the speaking assessment.
1. The Data of Pre-Test and Post-test Score of Experimental Class
In this section, the researcher presented the Data of the Pre-test in X2 as the Experimental Class. The class consisted of 33 students, and for the student’s speaking score in the pre-test of Experimental Class as follow:
Table 4.2
The Scoring of the Pre-Test in the Experimental Class61
Name Rater 1 Rater 2 Average
of score
Total score total Score
AHK 10 40 9 36 38
AHMA 6 24 6 24 24
AS 7 28 7 28 28
AMS 10 40 9 36 38
AS 6 24 5 20 22
CNH 8 32 7 28 30
DDPS 8 32 9 36 34
HA 7 28 7 28 28
JA 10 40 9 36 38
KL 6 24 7 28 26
LAA 6 24 6 24 24
MNA 10 40 9 36 38
MFBP 8 32 8 32 32
MAA 7 32 9 36 34
MS 6 24 6 24 24
MFRR 5 20 6 24 22
61 Excel 2013
36
MMC 8 32 7 28 30
MA 7 32 9 36 34
MSH 6 24 7 28 26
MSJ 8 32 7 28 30
MAG 8 32 8 32 32
MDA 10 40 9 36 38
NA 10 40 9 36 38
NA 9 36 8 32 34
PDF 8 40 9 36 38
RI 5 20 5 20 20
RAI 9 36 8 32 34
RM 7 28 6 24 26
RES 5 20 6 24 22
SNIL 10 40 9 36 38
SN 8 32 8 32 32
TA 9 36 9 36 36
ZS 8 32 8 32 32
It can be seen table above, the highest average score was 38, and the lowest average score was 20. It can be seen that students in experimental class still have a low speaking achievement.
Next, the Post-test score of the Experimental Class were distributed in the following table to measure the students speaking achievement after conducting the treatment by Three-Step-Interview Technique.
Table 4.3
The Scoring of the Post-Test in the Experimental Class62
Name Rater 1 Rater 2 Average
of score
Total Score Total Score
AHK 23 92 23 92 92
AHMA 19 76 18 72 74
AS 20 80 21 84 82
AMS 21 84 21 84 84
62 Excel 2013
Name Rater 1 Rater 2 Average of score
Total Score Total Score
AS 19 76 20 80 78
CNH 21 84 21 84 84
DDPS 21 84 20 80 82
HA 19 76 19 76 76
JA 19 76 18 72 74
KL 22 88 21 84 86
LAA 20 80 19 76 78
MNA 23 92 22 88 90
MFBP 20 80 19 76 78
MAA 19 76 19 76 76
MS 21 84 20 80 82
MFRR 20 80 21 84 82
MMC 21 84 21 84 84
MA 20 80 19 76 78
MSH 23 92 22 88 90
MSJ 17 68 18 72 70
MAG 20 80 19 76 78
MDA 21 84 21 84 84
NA 22 88 21 84 86
NA 21 84 20 80 82
PDF 19 76 19 76 76
RI 20 80 20 80 80
RAI 22 88 21 84 86
RM 22 88 21 84 86
RES 17 68 18 72 70
SNIL 20 80 21 84 82
SN 18 72 17 68 70
TA 19 76 19 76 76
ZS 17 68 18 72 70
It can be seen table above, the highest average score was 92, and the lowest average score was 70. It can be seen that students in experimental class had high speaking achievement after treatment.
38
2. The result of Pre-Test and Post-Test Score Control Class
In this section, the researcher presented the Data of the Pre-test in X1 as the Control Class. The class consisted of 32 students, and for the student’s speaking score in the pre-test of Control Class as follow:
Table 4.4
The Scoring of the Pre-Test in the Control Class63
Name Rater 1 Rater 2 Average
of score
Total Score Total Score
AN 9 36 8 32 34
ADP 9 36 8 32 34
ANH 7 28 7 28 28
ANA 10 40 9 36 38
AER 7 28 7 28 28
CSP 5 20 5 20 20
CAP 7 28 7 28 28
DK 7 28 8 32 30
DWS 5 20 6 24 22
ER 10 40 10 40 40
EA 9 36 10 40 38
IR 10 40 9 36 38
LGP 6 24 6 24 24
MYA 7 28 8 32 30
MHS 5 20 6 24 22
MIM 9 36 8 32 34
MNKA 10 40 9 36 38
MY 5 20 6 24 22
MZF 8 32 7 28 30
NK 10 40 10 40 40
NNS 7 28 7 28 28
NPA 7 28 7 28 28
NR 9 36 8 32 34
NB 5 20 5 20 20
NKA 6 24 6 24 24
63 Excel 2013
Name Rater 1 Rater 2 Average of score
Total Score Total Score
PF 10 40 9 36 38
RAN 8 32 8 32 32
SMS 6 24 6 24 24
SNA 8 32 7 28 30
SWD 5 20 6 24 22
TEN 5 20 6 24 22
ZR 6 24 7 28 26
It can be seen table above, the highest average score was 38, and the lowest average score was 20. It can be seen that students in control class still have a low speaking achievement.
Next, the Post-test score of Control Class were distributed in the following table to measure the students speaking achievement after taught except using Three-Step-Interview Technique (Dialogue Memorize).
Table 4.5
The Scoring of the Post-Test in the Control Class64
Name Rater 1 Rater 2 Average
of score
Total Score Total Score
AN 20 80 19 76 78
ADP 19 76 19 76 76
ANH 18 72 18 72 72
ANA 18 72 19 76 74
AER 17 68 18 72 70
CSP 20 80 19 76 78
CAP 18 72 18 72 72
DK 16 64 17 68 66
DWS 18 72 17 68 70
ER 19 76 18 72 74
EA 17 68 17 68 68
IR 18 72 19 76 74
LGP 18 72 19 76 74
64 Excel 2013
40
Name Rater 1 Rater 2 Average
of score
Total Score Total Score
MYA 19 76 18 72 74
MHS 18 72 19 76 74
MIM 16 64 17 68 66
MNKA 20 80 19 76 78
MY 15 60 16 64 62
MZF 16 64 17 68 66
NK 17 68 16 64 66
NNS 16 64 15 60 62
NPA 17 68 17 68 68
NR 18 72 17 68 70
NB 17 68 17 68 68
NKA 17 68 16 64 66
PF 18 72 17 68 70
RAN 18 72 18 72 72
SMS 16 64 16 64 64
SNA 17 68 17 68 68
SWD 15 60 16 64 62
TEN 20 80 18 72 76
ZR 19 76 19 76 76
It can be seen table above, the highest average score was 78, and the lowest average score was 62. It can be seen that students in the Control class still have a medium speaking achievement.
C. Analysis and Hypothesis Testing 1. Analysis
The researcher took data from two classes, namely the experimental class and the control class, before comparing the values of the Experimental Class and the Control Class the researcher conducted a normality test and homogeneity test. Researchers conducted a Normality Test to analyze whether the data from the two classes were normally
distributed or not. Researchers conducted a normality test with SPSS 26 with the following results:
Table 4.6 The Normality Test65
Tests of Normality
Kelas
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Nilai Tes Speaking Achievement
Pre-Test Experiment (Three-Step-Interview
Technique)
.132 33 .154 .912 33 .011
Post-Test Experiment (Three-Step-Interview
Technique)
.135 33 .131 .960 33 .267
Pre-Test Control (Dialogue Memorize)
.127 32 .200* .928 32 .035
Post-Test Control (Dialogue Memorize)
.144 32 .089 .947 32 .117
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
The data can be said normally distribution if Sig > 0.05, and not normally distribution if Sig < 0.05. Based on the data collected, it showed that sig value of pre-test in Experiemental Class and Control Class was 0.154 and 0.200, it means that the data of pre-test in both classes were normally distribution because 0.154 > 0.05 and 0.200 > 0.05. Moreover the post-test in Experimental and Control class showed that sig value was 0.131 and 0.89, it means that the data of post-test in both classes were normally distribution because 0.131 > 0.05 and 0.89 > 0.05,
Next the Homogenity Test. The researcher conducted the Homogenity Test with IBM SPSS 26 with the following result:
65 IBM SPSS 26 Version
42
Table 5.7
The Homogeneity Test66
Test of Homogeneity of Variance
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Hasil post-test Based on Mean 1.283 1 63 .262
Based on Median .946 1 63 .334
Based on Median and with adjusted df
.946 1 55.274 .335
Based on trimmed mean 1.281 1 63 .262
Based on table above the significant value on the post-test of the Experimental and Control class was 0.262, it means that Experiment Class and Control class have the same variant or homogeneity because, 0.262 >
0.05.
2. Hypothesis Testing
Analyzing the data collected was done to find out the comparison between the experimental and the control Class as the hypothesis testing.
The comparison of the value was seen from the data obtained through the pre-test and post-test. The researcher used the formula of Analysis of Covariance (Ancova) to value compared between two classes was Experimental and Control Class. ANCOVA testing used to find out whether or not there is a significant effect of using Three-Step-Interview Technique on speaking achievement. Hypothesis testing is formulated with the criteria for rejection or acception. The researcher conducted Ancova test with IBM SPSS 26.
66 IBM SPSS 26 Version
a. Ho was rejected and Ha was accepted if Sign < 0.05 it means that there is significant effect of using Three-Step-Interview Technique on speaking achievement.
b. Ho was accepted and Ha was rejected if Sign > 0.05 it means that there is no significant effect of using Three-Step-Interview Technique on speaking achievement. The sample result of hyphotesis testing was presented follow:
Table 4.8
Analysis of Covariance (Ancova) Test67 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Hasil Tes Speaking Achievement
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model 1601.221a 2 800.611 27.605 .000 .471
Intercept 12132.750 1 12132.750 418.333 .000 .871
pretest 58.621 1 58.621 2.021 .160 .032
Kelas 1457.041 1 1457.041 50.238 .000 .448
Error 1798.163 62 29.003
Total 372784.000 65
Corrected Total 3399.385 64 a. R Squared = .471 (Adjusted R Squared = .454)
The result above showed that Sig 0.00 < 0.05, it means that Ho was rejected and Ha was accepted and partial eta squared showed 0.448, it means that the difference between Experimental class and control class was 44,8%. Therefore, there was a significant effect of using Three-Step-Interview Technique on speaking achievement for the Tenth grade of SMK Manba’ul Hikmah Pulo-Tempeh-Lumajang.
67 IBM SPSS 26 Versions
44