THE USE OF JIGSAW TECHNIQUE IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ ABILITY IN WRITING A DESCRIPTIVE TEXT
(A Quasi-Experimental Research at One Senior High School in West Bandung)
A Research Paper
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
Retna Oktaviani Zahra (0906011)
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
2013
The Use of Jigsaw Technique in Improving Students’ Ability in Writing a Descriptive Text
(A Quasi-Experimental Research at One Senior High School in West Bandung)
A Research Paper
By
Retna Oktaviani Zahra
0906011
Main Supervisor Co-supervisor
Prof. Dr. Nenden Sri Lengkanawati, M.Pd. Muhammad Handi Gunawan, M.Pd.
NIP 195111241985032001 NIP 197301132009121002
Head of Department of English Education
Faculty of Language and Arts Education
Indonesia University of Education
Prof. Dr. Didi Suherdi, M.Ed.
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby state that this study entitled “The Use of Jigsaw Technique in Improving Students’ Ability in Writing aDescriptive Text” is my own work. I truly said that I quoted some statements and ideas from many sources. All of the quotations are
properly acknowledged.
Bandung, November 2013
The Use of Jigsaw Technique in Improving Students’ Ability in Writing a Descriptive Text
(A Quasi-Experimental Research at One Senior High School in West Bandung)
ABSTRACT
Retna Oktaviani Zahra
0906011
Main supervisor: Prof. Dr. Nenden Sri Lengkanawati, M.Pd.
Co-supervisor : Muhammad Handi Gunawan, M.Pd.
This research was aimed at investigating whether there is any improvement of students’ writing ability in writing a descriptive text by the implementation of Jigsaw technique and discover students’ response to the use of Jigsaw technique in teaching writing descriptive text. This research employed quantitative method in the forms of quasi-experimental design. This quantitative research involved two classes of tenth grade at one senior high school in West Bandung in which one class was assigned as the experimental group and the other one was assigned as the control group. The instruments used were pretest, posttest, and questionnaire of attitudes towards the Jigsaw technique. The posttest scores of the two groups were compared by using Independent t-test. The results showed the significance value was lower than the significance level which was 0.043 < 0.05. It meant that the Jigsaw technique improved students’ ability in writing a descriptive text. Based on students’ attitudes toward the use of Jigsaw technique, the findings indicated that most of students rated the used technique moderately positive. Nearly all of students agreed that Jigsaw technique is able to improve their writing skill, advance their grammatical mastery, increase their vocabulary mastery, expand their creative thinking, and improve their presentation skill as well as their confidence.
ABSTRAK
TABLE OF CONTENT
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
PREFACE ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ABSTRACT ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TABLE OF CONTENT ...1
LIST OF TABLES ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF CHARTS ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF APPENDIX ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER I ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
INTRODUCTION ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1 Background ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2 Research Questions of Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3 The Aims of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.4 Scope of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.5 Significance of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.6 Clarification of Key Terms ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.7 Organization of Paper ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER II ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1 Writing Theory ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.1 Definition of Writing ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.3 The Writing Process ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.4 Effective Writing... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.5 The Challenges in Learning Writing for EFL Students ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2 Writing Descriptive Text ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.1 Definition of Descriptive Text ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.2 Generic Structure of Descriptive Text ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.3 Language Features of Descriptive Text ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3 Cooperative Learning ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.1 Definition of Cooperative Learning . Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.2 Elements of Cooperative Learning .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.3 Cooperative Learning in Learning Writing .... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4 Definition of Jigsaw ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4.1 Advantages of Jigsaw Technique ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4.2 Jigsaw Technique Procedure in Teaching Writing Descriptive Text ……….. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.5 Related Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER III ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1 Research Design ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1.1 Variable ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1.2 Hypothesis ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3 Data Collection ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3.1 Research Instrument ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3.2 Research Procedure ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4 Data Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4.1 Scoring Technique ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Scoring Aspects ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4.2 Data Analysis on Pilot Test ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4.3 Data Analysis on Pretest and Posttest ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER IV ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
FINDING AND DISCUSSION ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1 Findings ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.1 Findings from the Pilot Test ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.2 Findings from the Pretest Score Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.3 Findings from the Posttest Score Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.4 Findings from Questionnaire ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2 Discussions ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER V ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.1 Conclusion ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 Suggestions ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
REFERENCES ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides background of the research, research questions, aims of the
study, scope of the study, significance of the study, clarification of the key terms,
and organization of the research.
1.1Background
Many people know that writing plays the important role in English
language education. Moreover, Raimes (1983) stated that learners of foreign
language have to communicate with each other in writing. It is clearly explained
that writing is also very important in social life.
As stated in school based curriculum (KTSP), teaching English in High
School is aimed at developing students‟ communication skill both in oral or
written skill in order to achieve the level of informational. In another word, the
high school students are expected to comprehend and create the various functional
text, monologue, and essay in form of procedure, descriptive, recount, narrative,
report, news item, analytical exposition, hortatory exposition, spoof, explanation,
discussion, review, and public speaking.
Based on the observation that the writer has done at one Senior High
School in Bandung, the English teacher only explained the materials in the
exercise book and asked the students to do the exercises. Those methods do not
give more chances for the students to explore their knowledge in teaching and
learning process, because the center of teaching and learning process itself was
the teacher or commonly said as teacher-centered. The technique that the teacher
implemented in the class somehow contributes to the students‟ less motivation in
learning English especially in writing skill. This kind of phenomenon also turns to
be one of those obstacles that make the students are difficult in mastering writing
skill. The argument was also supported by Silva (1993) as cited in Brown (2007)
that the L2 writers do less planning, are less fluent (use fewer words), less
Considering the difficulties and the complexities in writing, learning
writing is the most avoided skill among other skill subjects in English. Writing is
the most complicated than other language skills because learners are expected to
express their ideas clearly and efficiently in writing form. It was also supported by
Tangpermpoon (2008) which stated that writing is considered as the most difficult
skill for language learners because they need to have a certain amount of L2
background knowledge about the rhetorical organizations, appropriate language
use or specific lexicon which they want to communicate with their readers. In
fact, learning writing has been proved to give advantages for students in term of
enhancing their language learning strategies that currently has become a great
concern of many experts in the movement of combining reading-writing
instructions. Furthermore, the students‟ ability in writing the text need to be
improved since in the higher educational program, the ability of writing is really
needed. Foong (1999) claimed that learning to write is important and useful for
language and rhetorical practice for communication, and as a discovery as well as
cognitive process.
Teaching writing skill to non-native students is a very challenging task for
the teachers, because developing this skill takes a long time to see the
improvement. It is the teachers‟ duty to help their students in coping with the
obstacles in the learning process. This study is one of the efforts that the
researcher made to solve the problem of learning writing discovered in her short
teaching experience and her observation. Hence, the writer considers that the
Jigsaw technique is appropriate to use in improving students‟ writing ability
especially in writing descriptive text. According to Aronson (2000), technique or
cooperative structure commonly used in high school is Jigsaw technique, because
it is considered as the efficient way to learn the material in peers. The technique
essentially consists of breaking down a large topic into a number of small topics,
with the production of an „expert sheet‟ prepared by the teacher. Each student is
instructed to read an expert sheet, then those who have the same expert sheet
move from their home group into a separate expert group where they then discuss
their home group, and teach all their home group members about the topic that
they are now expert in. Finally the groups are assessed, and individual grades are
given.
The Jigsaw technique facilitates students‟ interaction in the class which
enables the students to value each other as contributors (Aronson, 2000). The
students have already had the capability to get the knowledge and ready to share.
The students are able to get new knowledge from working together with their
friend as a team work. They can share knowledge with others. Thus, this
technique is also less threatening for many students, and it can increase the
amount of students‟ participation in the classroom.
The research was done by Agustina (2001) with the title “The Role of
Jigsaw Technique in Improving Students‟ Reading Comprehension Skill at SMPN
3 Pasuruan” showed a good result. There was not a significant difference between
the pretest and post-test in the control group. According to the result, the Jigsaw
technique was able to improve students‟ reading comprehension skill. Agustina
also suggested the other researchers to do the similar research using Jigsaw
technique, but with different skill like writing and speaking. Therefore, this
research will experiment Jigsaw technique in improving students‟ writing skill at
one High School in West Bandung.
1.2Research Questions of Study
This study was carried out to answer the following questions.
1. Does the implementation of Jigsaw technique improve students‟ writing
skill in writing a descriptive text?
2. What are the students‟ responses to the use of Jigsaw technique in teaching
writing a descriptive text?
1.3The Aims of the Study The aims of the study were,
1. to find out whether the implementation of Jigsaw technique improves
2. to describe the students‟ responses to the use of Jigsaw technique in
teaching writing a descriptive text.
1.4Scope of the Study
The study focused on the implementation of Jigsaw technique in teaching
writing a descriptive text in order to improve students‟ writing skill in the first
grade at one Senior High School in west Bandung and discovered students‟
responses toward the use of the implementation of Jigsaw technique in teaching
writing a descriptive text. Two classes were taken as the samples; one of them has
the function as the experimental group and the other one as the control group.
1.5Significance of the Study
Besides for the researcher‟s own purpose, this study was intended to give
some contributions for the teachers, the students, and further researcher. This
research is expected to be very useful for the teachers in helping them to teach
writing descriptive text. Hopefully, this study also is able to stimulate teachers‟
creativity in creating the material for teaching English writing. Meanwhile, for the
students, the technique and the media used hopefully are able to contribute in
enhancing their motivation in learning writing a descriptive text and making them
are easier in comprehending the materials, hence they were motivated to improve
their English writing skill. For the other researchers, this study is expected to be
used as an additional source especially for those who conduct a research in term
of teaching descriptive text to improve students‟ writing skill.
1.6Clarification of Key Terms
This research consists of several related terms that will be very helpful for
the readers to comprehend the general purposes of the research. In order to avoid
unnecessary misunderstanding, there are some terms that need to be clarified in
this study as follow:
1. Jigsaw technique is an efficient way to learn the course material in a
cooperative learning style in which encourages listening, writing,
engagement, and empathy by giving each member of the group an
together as a team to accomplish a common goal. The successful of a team
depends on the cooperation among each of members. There is no student
can succeed completely unless everyone works well together as a team.
This "cooperation by design" facilitates interaction among all students in
the class, leading them to value each other as contributors to their common
task where its strategy places great emphasis on cooperation and shared
responsibility within groups (Aronson, 2000). This means the Jigsaw
strategy effectively increases the involvement of each student in the
activity.
2. Writing is the product of thinking, drafting, and revising procedures that
requires specialized skills (Brown, 2001). Writing is a tool for expressing
critical thinking, reasoning, discovering, creating, and sharing of ideas and
knowledge, and it allows writers to present those ideas, feelings, and
cultural knowledge through various kinds of writing strategies (Smith,
1990, Villimil, 1991, and Wells, 1986 cited in Gooden Jones &
Carrasquillo, 1998).
3. Descriptive text is a kind of text that describes a particular person, place,
or thing (Gerot,1995 p. 208). It also has the generic structure which is
summarized as follows:
(1) Identification which identifies phenomenon to be described
(2) Description that describes parts, qualities, characteristics.
(3) The linguistic feature occurs in this text is focused on specific
participants, the use of attributive and identifying process, the frequent use
of epithets and classifier in nominal groups, and the use of simple present
tense.
1.7Organization of Paper
The organization of paper consists of five chapters. Chapter one is
introduction to this study of the use of Jigsaw technique in improving students‟
study, purpose of research, research questions, clarification of terms, literature
review, research methodology, and organization of paper.
Chapter two is theoretical foundation, which provides the theories of
writing especially descriptive text and the media from the experts and the findings
of previous studies in relevant to the study.
Chapter three is research methodology that describes source of the
research, technique of data collections, and data analysis.
Chapter four is finding and discussion; this chapter describes the result of
instrument analysis, such as pretest data analysis, post-test data analysis, and the
data from the interview, and the interpretation of the finding from the research.
And the last chapter is conclusion which describes the result of the study
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Chapter three elaborates the methodology in conducting this study. This
chapter provides four main parts of the investigation which are research design,
data collection technique, research procedures, and data analysis technique.
3.1 Research Design
This quantitative research is aimed at investigating whether there is any
improvement of students’ writing ability in writing a descriptive text by the
implementation of Jigsaw technique. Besides, there is an intention to discover the
students’ responses to the use Jigsaw technique in teaching writing descriptive
text. This study used quasi experimental design. According to the statement of
National Center for Technology Innovation (2003), quasi-experimental study is
typical true experimental research which includes pre-posttest design, the
experimental group and the control group but it uses nonrandom study of
participants.
This research conducted the project in the experimental and in the control
group in which the experimental group was taught using the Jigsaw technique
while the control group was taught using the conventional technique. This
research employed pretest and posttest, which were given to both the experimental
group and the control group. The writer conducted the pretest in order to know the
students’ writing ability before they got the treatment. After the pretest was
conducted, the treatment which was the Jigsaw technique was implemented in
teaching a descriptive text to the students in the experimental group. Then, the
researcher conducted the posttest, to discover whether or not there was any
improvement in students’ skill in writing descriptive text after they got the
EG T1 X1 X2 X3 X4 T2
CG T3 - - - - T4
Description :
EG : Experimental Group
CG : Control Group
T1 : Pretest which aims to discover students’ writing ability before the
treatments were given.
T2 : Posttest which aims to discover students’ writing ability after the
treatments were given.
T3 : Pretest which aims to discover students’ writing ability in the
control group.
T4 : Posttest which aims to discover students’ writing ability in the
control group.
X (1, 2, 3, 4): The treatments (four times) which used Jigsaw technique in
teaching writing descriptive text.
In order to discover the students’ responses to the use of Jigsaw technique
in teaching writing descriptive text, the implementation of the action was also
followed by conducting questionnaire for those students in the experimental
group.
3.1.1 Variable
Variable can be defined as an attribute of a person or an object which has
its own specific variation. In research, variables can be categorized as dependent
and independent variables. The independent variable is the variable which is
selected, manipulated, and measured by the researcher. Meanwhile, the dependent
determine the effect of the independent variable (Hatch and Farhady, 1982, pp.
13-15). The independent variable of the research is Jigsaw technique, while the
dependent variable is students’ writing scores.
3.1.2 Hypothesis
Hypothesis is the proposition which arises from and consistent with the
theory, and then it is tested by using experimental research (Coolidge, 2006, p. 9).
Furthermore, the hypothesis of this study was in the form of null hypothesis (H0)
and alternative hypothesis (HA). Therefore, the hypotheses of this study are as
follows:
H0 = There is no significance difference between students’ post-test scores
in the experimental group and students’ post-test scores in the control
group.
HA= There is a significance difference between students’ post-test scores
in the experimental group and students’ post-test scores in the control
group.
If the result of the test shows that teaching writing a descriptive text using
Jigsaw technique does not improve students’ writing skill at one Senior High
School in West Bandung, it means that Ho (Null Hypothesis) is accepted. Yet, if
the result shows that teaching writing a descriptive text using Jigsaw technique
improves students’ writing skill at one Senior High School in West Bandung, null
hypothesis (H0) is rejected, and alternative hypothesis (HA) is accepted.
3.2 Population and Sample
Population, as defined by Best & Khan (1995, p. 13), is a group of people
that have one or more characteristics in common that become the researcher’s
interest to investigate, while samples are a small part of a population that was
The population of the research was the first grader of one senior high
school in West Bandung, whereas the samples were only two classes, those were
X IPA 1 as the experimental group and X IPS 3 as the control group.
3.3 Data Collection
3.3.1 Research Instrument
This quasi-experimental research employed two instruments to collect the
data. The data were collected to answer research questions of this study.The first
instrument was the test which was divided into pretest and posttest. Both pretest
and posttest were conducted to get students’ writing score that were analyzed to
discover whether or not the Jigsaw technique is effective in teaching writing a
descriptive text. The pretest was given to both the experimental and the control
group which was meant to discover students’ writing skill before they got
treatment by the implementation of Jigsaw technique.
After conducting the pretest, the experimental group was given the
treatment which consisted of four meetings. In every meeting, students had to
write a descriptive text based on the discussed topic.
The posttest was given to both experimental and control groups. The
posttest was given after the treatments to discover whether or not there was a
significant improvement of students’ writing skill in writing a descriptive text.
Then, the students’ score of pretest and posttest were computed by using SPSS 20
and the result was interpreted by the researcher.
The data were also collected through conducting the questionnaire. This
section was only conducted in the experimental group in order to discover
students’ attitude, opinion and perspective about the use of Jigsaw technique in
teaching writing descriptive text. Milne (1999) stated that questionnaire is more
objective rather than interview because the responses are gathered in standardized
way; moreover it is relatively quick to collect information using the questionnaire.
The pretest and posttest were the essential instruments in this study,
therefore the validity of those instruments had been ensured. Validity refers to the
makes (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2012). Face validity and content validity are two
kinds of validity that should be owned by pretest and posttest items. A test with
face validity should contain understandable instructions on how to do the test as
expected by the test makers. Content validity is contained in a test when the test
accurately measures what is supposed to be measured (Hughes, 2005). In order to
check whether or not the two kinds of validity have been possessed by the pretest
and posttest items, a pilot test was conducted before the real tests. As cited in
Creswell’s study (1994) pilot test is important to examine the validity of
instrument and then revise it into the correct one. The pilot test was given to some
students who have equal English mastery. Those students came from different
classes which were not assigned as the experimental and the control groups.
3.3.2 Research Procedure
3.3.2.1 Lesson Planning
Before conducting the treatment, the researcher prepared teaching material
related to descriptive text that would be needed during the treatment. The
researcher elaborated the topics that were suitable for writing descriptive text.
Furthermore, the researcher also managed the teaching procedures by measuring
the time allotment, exploring students’ condition and checking availability of
facility.
3.3.2.2 Testing the Validity of the Pretest and Post-test through the Pilot Test The pretest and posttest is valid to be tested to the students if the face
validity and content validity are possessed by the tests. In order to find out
whether or not both pretest and posttest have face and content validity, the test can
be checked through administering the pilot test. The pilot test of the study was
conducted before giving the pretest. The test was given to five students in the
same school. The students were given the test and they were asked to do the test
based on the instruction that was provided in the test item. If the students were
confused when they were doing the test, it meant that the test was not face valid.
Therefore, if this happened, the students should be asked about the confusing
be said to have face validity. On the other hand, to check whether or not the test
had a content validity, the students’ works in the test were examined. If the
students’ works performed the particular language skills that were expected to be
measured in the test, it meant that the test owned the content validity. After the
test items were proved to have the two kinds of validity, the items were
administered to students in the pretest and posttest.
3.3.2.3 Administering Pretest
The pretest was administered by using the written test. Both the
experimental and control groups were asked to compose a descriptive text based
on the given theme and instruction. The students’ works would be assessed using
the scoring rubric that was proposed by Brown (1994).
3.3.2.4 Conducting the Treatment
The treatment was only carried out in the experimental group, while the
conventional method was implemented in the control group. Although, the
methods were different but the teaching materials were similar. The given
treatment was in the form of applying the Jigsaw technique to assist students in
writing descriptive text. The treatments were carried out in four times. The design
of the lesson plan was based on the standard competence and the basic syllabus of
the school which was developed by the teacher.
3.3.2.5 Administering Posttest
The posttest was administered both to the experimental and control group
after the treatment process was done to the experimental group. The obtained
score of posttest would be used as a final comparison to determine whether or not
there was any significant difference between students’ achievement in
experimental and control groups.
3.3.2.6 Administering Questionnaire
In order to discover the students’ responses to the use of the new method,
the questionnaire was given to all students in experimental group. Milne (1999)
responses are gathered in standardized way, moreover it is relatively quick to
collect information using the questionnaire. The questionnaire was delivered to
the students after the posttest in the same day.
3.4 Data Analysis
3.4.1 Scoring Technique
Clear criteria in assessing students’ works is needed in order to generate
valid scores. Qualifying this need, the scoring rubric that was proposed by Brown
(1994) was adapted in this study. The rubric that was used to evaluate students’
written works in this study covers some aspects that absolutely must be contained
in every written works, such as content, vocabulary, generic structures and
language features. The point of each criterion ranges from 1 to 5, in which the
maximum score is 20. However, the score range was changed for the sake of the
easiness in calculating the obtained score. Each point of each criterion ranges
from 1 to 25, in which the maximum score is 100. The criterion of every aspect is
[image:22.595.107.518.294.756.2]elaborated in the following table.
Table 3.1
Scoring Aspects
Aspects Score Criteria
Content 1 The content is not relevant with the topic at all.
2 There are many confusing things; many contents are not relevant with the topics so that the meaning cannot be easily comprehended.
3 The content that is not relevant still exist but it is understandable and it is not too bad.
4 There are several words that are used irrelevantly but do not influence the intended meaning.
5 The topic and the content are very relevant.
Vocabulary 1 Poor and irrelevant words; they do not fit the sentences meaning related to the topic and the situation given.
2 There are still many words used inappropriately.
however they do not have any variation yet.
4 The words are generally relevant with the situation and have
enough variation, but sometimes there are inappropriate words which do not change the meaning of the sentence.
5 The words used are selected and have variation, they are relevant with the situation and condition so the meaning make sense.
Generic structure
1 The generic structure of the content is very bad and it does not consist of orientation and resolution
2 Many disorderliness are found in the content of writing, but those are not confusing to be read.
3 The generic structure of the writing is neither too good nor too bad.
4 The generic structure of the writing is in good order, but this is actually not too principle.
5 Every part of the writing is in good order, either in orientation, complication or resolution.
Language features
1 There are many irrelevant uses in descriptive languages, many
errors in verb, tense and linking words.
2 There are some irrelevant uses in descriptive languages, some
errors in using verb, tense and linking words.
3 There are a little bit irrelevant uses in descriptive languages, but do not change the whole meaning. Generally, it is still accepted.
4 Generally accurate in using the descriptive languages, verb, tense, and linking words.
5 No errors in using the descriptive languages, verb, tense, and linking words.
(Brown, 1994)
3.4.2 Data Analysis on Pilot Test
The pilot test of the study was conducted before giving the pretest. The
students were given the test and they were asked to do the test based on the
instruction that was provided in the test item. If the students were confused when
they were doing the test, it meant that the test had not reached face validity.
Therefore, if this happened, the students should be asked about the confusing
proved to have face validity. Then, the students’ works were examined to figure out whether or not the test possessed content validity. If some students’ works
performed the particular language skill expected to be measured in the test, it
meant that the test owned the content validity. After the test item is proved to have
the two kinds of validity, the item was administered to students in the pretest and
posttest.
3.4.3 Data Analysis on Pretest and Posttest
After the pretest in experimental group was conducted, the next step was
analyzing the result by using the independent t-test. The use of independent t-test
in analyzing the pretest result was aimed to prove that both groups were
equivalent. Independent t-test is a tool to determine whether or not there is a
significant difference between the means of two independent samples (Fraenkel
and Wallen, 2012). The equivalence of both groups was the requirement to
calculate the independent t-test of both groups’ posttest which was aimed to
discover the effectiveness of the implementation the new teaching technique.
After both groups were proved to be equivalent, the next step was calculating both
groups’ posttest scores by using the independent t-test which was aimed to find
out the effectiveness of the implementation of Jigsaw technique as the new
teaching technique.
3.4.3.1Normal Distribution Test
Kolmogrov-Smirnov’s formula was used to investigate the normality
distribution through SPSS 20 for Windows. There are three steps in conducting
the normal distribution test, those are setting the null hypothesis (H0) at the alpha
level, analyzing the normality distribution by using Kolmogrov-Smirnov’s
formula, and interpreting the result. In this case, the alpha level was set at 0.05
(two-tailed test). Interpreting the result means testing the hypothesis, therefore if
the significance level > 0.05, then the null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. It can be
said that the distribution of data is normal. In contrast, if significance level < 0.05,
then the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected which means that the distribution of the
3.4.3.2Homogeneity of Variance
In order to find out the homogeneity of variance, this study used Levene’s
formula from SPSS 20 for Windows. There are three steps that are covered in this
formula. First is setting the null hypothesis (H0) at the alpha level. The alpha level
was set at 0.05. The next step is analyzing the homogeneity variance by using
Levene’s formula in SPSS 20 for Windows. And the last step is comparing the
result with alpha level. If the Levene’s score > 0.05, then the null hypothesis (H0)
is accepted which means the score of both groups (experimental and control
group) are homogeneous or approximately equal. In contrast, if the Levene’s
score < 0.05, the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected which means the score of both
groups (experimental and control group) are not homogeneous or not equal.
3.4.3.3Independent t-test
The independent group t-test is used to analyze a causative relationship
between the independent variable which is treatment and the dependent variable
that is measured on both groups (Coolidge, 2006). Independent t-test was also
used to investigate and compare the difference of mean between the experimental
and control group. There are three steps in conducting independent t-test. First is
setting the null hypothesis (H0) at the alpha level. The alpha level was set at 0.05.
Second is analyzing and calculating the independent t-test by using SPSS 20 for
windows. The last step is comparing the result with the significance level. If the
result > 0.05, then the null hypothesis (H0) is accepted which means there is no
significant difference of mean between experimental and control group. In
contrast, if the result < 0.05, then the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected which means
there is a significant difference of mean between experimental and control group.
3.4.3.4Dependent t-test
The dependent t-test was used to analyze the difference between two
groups’ means in experimental group in which the participants in both groups are
related to each other in some ways. The dependent variable is assumed to have
normal distribution. It can be said that the variance of the two groups must be
In this study, the dependent sample test was analyzed by using
computation SPSS 20 by comparing the significance value with the level of
significance to test the hypothesis. If the result is more than the level of
significance, then the null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. It means that there is no
significant difference between pretest and post-test in experimental and control
group. Otherwise, if the result is less than the level of significance the null
hypothesis is rejected. It can be concluded that there is significance difference
between the two mean of experimental and control groups.
3.4.3.5 The Calculation of Effect Size
In this research, the effect size was also used in order to find out how far
independent variable affects the dependent variable (Coolidge, 2006). After
[image:26.595.114.513.242.592.2]calculating the effect size, then its value is compared and analyzed by using the
table scale. The scale is as follow:
Table 3.2
The Scale of Effect Size
Effect Size r value
Small
Medium
Large
0.100
0.243
0.371
(Coolidge, 2006)
3.4.3.5 Data Analysis on the Questionnaire
In order to analyze the data that were obtained from the questionnaire
session, the data were analyzed by using Likert’s scale. Likert’s scale is a
psychometric scale primarily used to obtain participant’s preferences with a
statement or set of statements. The participants are instructed to specify their level
of agreement with a given statement by employing an ordinal scale. The writer
used the formula percentage to analyze the questionnaire data. Then, the data are
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
In this chapter, various findings of the research are described together, and
some theoretical as well as practical implications of these findings are suggested.
5.1 Conclusion
This research focused on the implementation of Jigsaw technique in
teaching writing descriptive texts to ten-graders. The purpose of this study was to
investigate whether or not the new technique had improved students’ scores when
compared with the control group. Furthermore, this study also aimed to discover
the students’ response to the implementation of Jigsaw technique in teaching
writing.
The research findings suggested that the Jigsaw technique was effective in improving students’ writing scores. The result from independent t-test on post-test showed that there was a significant different between the posttest means of the
experimental group and those who were in the control group. The result found out
that the significant value is bigger than r critical. Therefore, the null hypothesis
was rejected. It meant that the treatment was given to experimental is significant to improve students’ writing skill.
The result of dependent t-test presented that the significance two-tailed is
lower than r critical. Thus, null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. It means that the
treatment which was given to experimental was significant to improve students’
writing skill.
In addition, the computation of the effect size showed that r obtained value
belongs to a medium effect size which means that Jigsaw technique is effective to
be implemented in teaching writing descriptive text.
Moreover, the Jigsaw technique was found to be potential to provide better
learning when compared with the conventional method. This was proved by the
obtained data from questionnaire. Nearly all of students agreed that Jigsaw
mastery, increase their vocabulary mastery, expand their creative thinking, and
improve their presentation skill as well as their confidence. Nevertheless, Jigsaw technique had not covered all the students’ need and condition since the technique was found out to be still unable to deal with all those students’ entire writing problem.
5.2 Suggestions
There are several suggestions proposed for the next study in the similar
field as the present research. First, the technique would be very suitable to be
implemented in the medium and small class in which the students come from
different racial and ethnic. Second, it would be better if each expert group consists
of only four or five students with combination of high-motivated and
low-motivated students, so that the divided responsibility for each student within
group would be fair and there are no students who can neglect their responsibility.
Moreover, during the discussion session, all of students in each expert group can
participate to utter what’s on their mind considering the given time is limited.
Third, more guidance from teacher is needed to be given so that the
high-motivated students can help the low-high-motivated students to comprehend the
learning materials better. Fourth, the teacher in the new technique should give
more motivation and direction to the low-motivated students in each team. Fifth,
the time available to complete the task in expert group should be enough to allow
students for discussing the subject matter and the time available for the home
group should be enough to give a chance for each group member to present what
REFERENCES
Adeyemi, D. A. (2008). The gender factor in composition writing with the use of
the cooperative and the individualized approaches at a Junior Secondary
School in Botswana. Retrieved from:
http://www.literacy.unisa.edu.au/JEE/Papers/JEEVol8No1/Paper%201.pdf
Aronson, E. (2000). Jigsaw Classroom. Retrieved from: http://www.jigsaw.org/
Aronson, E. (n.d). Jigsaw Basics. Retrieved from:
http://www.jigsaw.org/pdf/basics.pdf
Bertram, D. (2007). “Likert Scale, are the meaning of life : 1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neither 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree.”. Retrieved from:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&
cad=rja&ved=0CF8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoincare.matf.bg.ac.rs
%2F~kristina%2Ftopicdanelikert.pdf&ei=sxtrUq26GsXDrAf73IDgBg&us
g=AFQjCNEvpDDEfq1y1QWRpphZATYKY1KTWg&sig2=ddRwJXpPq
Bu84DYjx9KlzA&bvm=bv.55123115,d.bmk
Best, J.W., & Khan, J.V. (1995). Research in education (7th ed.). New Delhi:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Carroll, D. W. (1986). Use of the Jigsaw Technique in Laboratory and Discussion
Carroll, E. (2007). Individual and Group Contingencies in Cooperative Learning
at the Collegiate Level. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(3), 298-306.
Cohen, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
Coolidge, F. L. (2006). Statistics: A Gentle Introduction. London: Sage.
Crider, J. (2000). On Teaching Writing. Harrisonburg: Christian Light
Publication, Inc.
Depdiknas. (2006). Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Media
Makmur Mandiri.
Farhady, H. A. (1982). Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics.
Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Foong, K. P. (1999). Teaching Writing: A Look at Purposes, Writing Tasks, and
Implications. The English Teacher, 28, 2-5.
Fraenkel J.R. and Wallen, N. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Garita, C. O and Lizondo L. B. (2010). Use Write: Useful Writing Techniques to
Improve High-School Students' Descriptive Writing. Retrieved from:
http://www.revistas.una.ac.cr/index.php/letras/article/download/3889/3733
Gerot, L and P. Wignell. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney:
Gerd Stabler.
Gerot, L. (1995). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Antipodean
Educational Enterprise.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Pearson
Heny, A. (2011). Advantages and Disadvantages of Jigsaw. Retrieved from:
http://www.Jigsaw/advantagesanddisadvantages/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-Jigsaw.htm.
Hughes, A. (2005). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Innovation, N. C. (2003). Quasi Experimental Study. Retrieved from:
www.nationaltechcenter.org/index.php/products/at-research-matter/quasi-experimental-study.html.
Ismail, S. and Maasum, T. (2009). The Effect of Cooperative Learning in
Enhancing Writing Performance. Retrieved from:
http://pkukmweb.ukm.my/~solls09/Proceeding/PDF/Shafini.pdf.
Jacobs, G. M. (2006). Connections between Cooperative Learning and Second
Language Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ODXJM8dEcj0J:
www.academia.edu/3548002/Connections_between_cooperative_learning
_and_second_language_teaching_and_learning+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&
client=firefox-a
Johnson, R. T. and Johnson, D. W. (1994). An Overview of Cooperative
Learning. Retrieved from:
http://teachers.henrico.k12.va.us/staffdev/mcdonald_j/downloads/21st/com
m/BenefitsOfCL/OverviewOfCoopLrng_Benefits.html
Jolliffe, W. (2007). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom: Putting it into
Practice. SAGE.
Kagan, S. (2002). Kagan structures for English Language Learners. ESL
Kessler, C. (1992). Jigsaw Integrating Language and Content. Retrieved from:
Knapp, P. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar, Technologies for Teaching and
Assesing Writing. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd.
Langan, John. (2010). College Writing Skills with Readings. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lombardo, A. (2010). Purpose for Writing. Retrieved from:
http://www.slideboom.com/presentations/47137/SPI-0701.3.1-pURPOSE-FOR-Writing
Milne, J. (1999). Questionnaires: Advantages and Disadvantages. Retrieved from:
http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/cookbook/info_questionnaires/
Mogey, N. (2007). "So You Want to Use a Likert Scale?". Learning Technology
Dissemination Initiative.
No name. Cooperative Learning and Second Language Teaching. (n.d).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nudee, Nakamol; Chatupote, Monta and Teo, Adisa. (2010). Cooperative
Learning and Writing Ability Improvement. The 2nd International
Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences.
Nuwary, E. M. (2010). The Use of Jigsaw III Method To Improve The Ability of
the Second Year Students Of SMP Negeri 20 Pekanbaru In Writing
Descriptive Texts. Retrieved from:
repository.unri.ac.id/bitstream/123456789/1283/1/journal.pdf
Oluwadiya, A. (1992). Some Prewriting Techniques for Students Writer. English
Teaching Forum 30, 12-15.
Perkins, D. V. (2001). A “Jigsaw Classroom” Technique for Undergraduate
Perkins, D. V. and Tagler, M. J. (n.d). Jigsaw Classroom. Retrieved from:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Perkins%2C+David+V.+%2
6+Tagler%2C+Michael+J.+%28n.d%29.+Jigsaw+Classroom&source=
web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fteachps
ych.org%2Febooks%2Fpse2011%2Fvol1%2F39.%2520Jigsaw.pdf&ei=W
fsNUYXnJumYiAfo0YDICA&.
Raimes, A. (1983). Technique in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Sean. (2009). Writing with Purpose. Retrieved from:
http://collectiveinkwell.com/writing-with-purpose/
Sharan, S. (1999). Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods. Westport: Greenwood Press
Slavin, R. E. (1983). Psychological Bulletin Vol. 94, No. 3, 431.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice. NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Sugiyono. (2009). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan: Pendekatan Kualitatif,
Kuantitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Tangpermoon, T. (2008). Integrated Approaches to Improve Students Writing
skills for English Major Students. ABAC Journal Vol 28 No. 2, 1-9.
Wichadee, S. (2004). The Effects of Cooperative Learning on English Reading
Skills and Attitudes of the First-Year Students at Bangkok University.
Bangkok
Xiaoshuang, Z. (2011). Applying Cooperative Learning To English Teaching For
English As A Foreign Language (Efl) Students. Retrieved from:
http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/52407/Zhou,%20Xiaos
