CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Findings
After analyzing the research, it indicated that was an improving of the students’
speaking ability through Debate CUT Method at second grade students of MA DDI Mattoanging Bantaeng.findings consisted of students’ speaking ability and observation result.
1. The Students’ Means Score in Accuracy
The application of Debate CUT Method in improving the students’
speaking ability can be seen on table 4. 1:
Table 4. 1. Students’ Mean Score in Accuracy The Application of Debate CUT Method
Classification
Cycle Mean Score
Cycle I 6.8 Fairly Good
Cycle II 7.8 Good
The table 4.1 above showed the mean score of the students’ Accuracy. In the students’ speaking in the cycle I showed that the mean score of students’ speaking was 6.8. In the cycle II showed that the mean score of students’ speaking was 7.8.
The research findings form the table above, indicates that there was the improvement of the students’ mean score from cycle I to cycle II, where in cycle I the students’ mean score was 6.8, but after evaluation in the cycle II the students’ speaking becomes 7.8.
The data above can also be seen in form of diagram below:
Chart 4.2. Students’ Mean Score in Accuracy
The chart 4.1 above indicated that the mean score in cycle I was 6.8 and then, in the cycle II, the mean score was 7.8. it indicated that the application of Debate CUT Method was significant in improving the students’ speaking ability at the second grade students’ of MA DDI Mattoanging
Table 4. 2. Students’ Mean Score in Fluency The Appilication of Debate CUT Method
Classification
Cycle Mean Score
Cycle I 6.9 Fairly Good
Cycle II 7.9 Good
The table 4.2 above showed the mean score of the students’ fluency. In the cycle I showed that the mean score of the students’ speaking was 6.9. In the cycle II showed that the means score of students’ speaking was 7.9.
The research findings from the table above, indicates that there was the improvement of the students’ mean score from cycle I to cycle II, where in cycle I the students’ means score was 6.9, but after evaluation in cycle II the students, speaking becomes 7
The data above can also seen form of diagram below:
Cycle I Cycle II
Series 1 6.8 7.8
6.8
7.8
6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8
Mean Score
Chart 4.2. Students’ Mean Score in Fluency
The chart 4.2 above indicated that the mean score in I was 6.9, and then, in cycle II the mean score was 7.9. It indicates that the application of Debate CUT Method was significant in improving the students’ speaking ability at the second grade of MA DDI Mattoanging.
2. The Students Mean Score in Speaking Ability
The students application of Debate CUT Method in improving the students’
speaking ability can be seen on table 4.3:
Table 4.3 Sudents’ Mean Score in Speaking Ability The application of Debate CUT Method Classification
Cycle Mean Score
Cycle I 6.9 Fairly Good
Cycle II 7.8 Good
The table 4.3 above showed the mean score of the students’ reading
comprehension. In the cycle I showed that the mean score of students’ speaking was 6.9 in the cycle II showed that the mean score of students’ speaking 7.8.
The research findings from the table above, indicates that there was the
improvement of the students’ mean score from cycle I to cycle cycle II, where in cycle I the students’ mean score was 6.9, but after evaluation in cycle II the students’ speaking becomes 7.8.
Cycle I Cycle II
Series 1 6.9 7.9
6.9
7.9
6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8
Mean Score
The data above can also be seen in from of diagram below:
Chart 4.3 Students’ Mean Score in Speaking ability
The chart 4.3 above indicated that the mean score I was 6.9, and then, I cycle II the mean score was 7.8. it indicated that the application of Debate CUT Method was significant in improving the students’ speaking at second grade students of MA DDI Mattoanging.
3. Scoring Classification
It has been mentioned in the previous chapter that after tabulating and analyzing the students’ score into percentage, then they were classified into seven levels based on Depdikbud classification namely : Excellent, very good, good fair and very poor as can be seen in the following table:
Table 4.4 The Criteria and Percentge of the Students’ Accuracy
No Classification Range
The Application of Debate CUT Cycle I Cycle II
Freq % Freq %
1. Excellent 9.6 - 10 0 0 0 0
2 Very good 8.6 - 9.5 0 0 3 10
3 Good 7.6 - 8.5 5 16.66 4 13.33
4 Fairly good 6.6 – 7.5 8 26.66 10 33.33
5 Fair 5.6 – 6.5 10 33.33 13 43.33
6 Poor 3.6-5.5 7 23.33 0 0
Cycle I Cycle II
Series 1 6.9 7.8
6.9
7.8
6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8
Mean Score
Exclelent Very good Good Fairly good Fair Poor Very poor
Cycle 1 0 0 5 8 10 7 0
cycle 2 0 3 4 10 13 0 0
Column1
0 0
5
8
10
7
0 0
3 4
10
13
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Accuracy
Cycle 1 cycle 2
7 Very poor 0-3.5 0 0 0 0
Total 30 100% 30 100%
The data above can also be showed from the graphic below:
Chart 4.4 Rate Percentage and Frequency
Based on the table and the chart 4.4 above, while in the cycle I there were 5 students (16.66%) got good score, 8 students (26.66%) got fairly score, 10 students (33.33%) got fairscore and 7 studens (23.33%) got poor score.
In the cycle II there were 3 students (10%) got very good score, 4 students (13.33%) got good score, 10 students (33.33%) got fairly score and 13 students (43.33) got fair score.
Table 4.5. The Criteria and Percentage of the Students’ Fluency
No Classification Range
The Application of Debate CUT Cycle I Cycle II
Freq % Freq %
Exclelent Very good Good Fairly good Fair Poor Very poor
Cycle 1 0 0 5 7 12 5 0
cycle 2 0 3 5 12 10 0 0
0 0
5
7
12
5
0 0
3
5
12
10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Flucency
Cycle 1 cycle 2
1 Excellent 9.6-10 0 0 0 0
2 Very good 8.6-9.5 0 0 3 10
3 Good 7.6-8.5 6 20 5 16.66
4 Fair good 6.6-7.5 7 23.33 12 40
5 Fair 5.6-6.5 12 40 10 33.33
6 Poor 3.6-5.5 5 16.66 0 0
7 Very poor 0-3.5 0 0 0 0
Total 30 100% 30 100%
The data above can also be shown from the graphic below:
Chart 4.5 Rate Percentage and Frequency
Based on the table and the chart 4.5 above, While in the cycle I there were 6 students (20%) got good score, 7 students (23.33%) got fairky score, 12 students (40%) got fair and 5 students (16.66) got poor score.
In the cycle II there 3 students (10%) got very good score, 5 students (16.66) got good score, 12 students (40%) got fairly score and 10 students (33.33%) got fair score.
4. Observing Result
The following table showed the students’ participation in learning speaking through Debate CUT Method from cycle I and cycle II.
Table 4.6. The Students’ Participation in Learing Speaking
Cycle
Paticipation
Mean Score 1st (X)
Meeting
2nd Meeting
3rd Meeting
4th Meeting
Cycle I 63.33% 70% 70.83% 71.66% 68.98%
Cycle II 72.5% 74.13% 75% 75% 74.16%
The data above can also shown form graphic below:
Chart 4.6. Students’ Participation
The table and chart 4.6 above showed the students’ participation in learning Speaking through Debate CUT Method. In cycle I in the first meeting. The students’
participation was 63.33%, the second meeting of the students’ participation were 70.83%
and 71.66%. And the mean score of students’ participation in cycle I was 68.95%
The students’ participation in the first meeting of cycle II was 72.5% then the second meeting of the students’ participation was 74.13%, and the third and four meeting of students’ participation are 75% and 75% and the mean score of students’ participation in cycle II was 74.16%.
The research findings from the table above, indicates that there was increase of students’ participation from cycle I to cycle II, where in cycle I the mean score of students’ participation score was 68.95% becomes 74.16% in cycle II