A. Description of the Data 1. The result of Pre-Test of the Experiment Class - The Effect Of Peer Correction And Teacher Written Feedback On The Paragraph Writing Ability At The Third Semester Students Of English Study Program Of STAIN Palangka Raya - Dig

(1)

CHAPTER IV RESULT OF THE STUDY

In this chapter, the researcher presented the data which had been collected from the research in the field of study which consists of description of the data, result of data analysis, and interpretations.

A. Description of the Data

1. The result of Pre-Test of the Experiment Class

The Pre-Test at the experiment class had been conducted in class C with the number of student was 16 students. The Pre-test scores of class were presented in table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Pre-Test scores of Experimental class

NO Students’ Initial Names Pre-Test

1 A ₄₆

2 BL ₅₄

3 DR ₅₃

4 DSW ₄₀

5 ES ₅₄

6 FF ₃₁

7 LAR ₄₇

8 MR ₆₇

9 N ₅₄

10 N ₄₆

11 RH ₅₅

12 RAA ₄₉

13 SP ₂₈

14 SW ₃₈

15 UJ ₃₆

16 YSS ₃₂

Highest Score ₇₄

Lowest Score ₂₉

(2)

Based on the calculation result scores of pre test the highest score was 67 and the lowest one was 28. To determine the range of score, the class interval, and interval of temporary, the writer calculated using formula as follows:

The Highest Score (H) = 67 The Lowest Score (L) = 28

The Range of Score I = H – L + 1 = 67 – 28 + 1 = 40

The Class Interval (K) = 1 + (3.3) x Log n = 1 + (3.3) x Log 16

= 1 + (3.3) x 1.2041199827 = 1 + 3.9735959429

= 4.9735959429 = 5

Interval of Temporary (I) =

5 40



K R

= 8

(3)

3 ₃

The Frequency Distribution of the Pre test Score of the Experiment Class

Table 4.2 The Frequency Distribution of the Pre Test Scores of the Experiment Class

Figure 4.1 The Frequency Distribution of the Pre test Score of the Experiment Class

2. The result of Post-Test score of the Experiment Class

(4)

Table 4.3Post-Test scores of Experimental class

NO Students’ Initial Names Post-Test

1 A ₆₄

2 BL ₇₃

3 DR ₈₀

4 DSW ₇₀

5 ES ₆₉

6 FF ₆₉

7 LAR ₇₃

8 MR ₇₈

9 N ₆₉

10 N ₇₁

11 RH ₆₂

12 RAA ₇₂

13 SP ₆₃

14 SW ₆₉

15 UJ ₇₈

16 YSS ₆₆

Highest Score ₈₀

Lowest Score ₆₂

Based on the calculation result scores of post test, the highest score was 80 and the lowest score was 62. To determine the range of score, the class interval, and interval of temporary, the writer calculated using formula as follows:

The Highest Score (H) = 80 The Lowest Score (L) = 62

The Range of Score I = H – L + 1 = 80 – 62 + 1 = 19

(5)

= 1 + (3.3) x Log 16

So, the range of score was 18, the class interval was 5, and interval of temporary was 4. Then it was presented using frequency distribution in the following table:

Table 4.4 The Frequency Distribution of the Post Test Scores of the Experiment Class

(6)

3. Scores of students who are taught using Peer Correction Techniques

NO Students’ Initial Names PC_1 PC_2

1 A 69 72

The Frequency Distribution of the Post test Score of the Experiment Class

(7)

Mean 62.25 67.0625

Based on the calculation result of scores of the students who are taught using peer correction, the highest score achieved by students in the first meeting was 78 and the lowest score was 35. The range was 44, from the student’s number (N) 16. From the calculation result of statistic, the mean score achieved by students was 62.25. In the last meeting of peer correction, the highest score achieved by students was 78 and the lowest one was 39. The range was 40, from the student’s number (N) 16. From the calculation result of statistic, the mean score achieved by students was 67.0625.

4. Scores of students who are taught using Teacher Written Feedback Techniques

NO Students’ Initial Names TWF_1 TWF_2

1 A ₆₈ ₇₄

2 BL ₆₇ ₇₀

3 DR ₇₅ ₇₅

4 DSW ₆₃ ₆₆

5 ES ₆₁ ₆₆

6 FF ₅₅ ₅₅

7 LAR ₇₀ ₇₆

8 MR ₇₇ ₇₈

9 N ₆₀ ₆₃

10 N ₆₀ ₆₅

11 RH ₅₇ ₆₁

12 RAA ₆₃ ₆₈

13 SP ₇₃ ₇₆

14 SW ₇₄ ₇₆

15 UJ ₇₁ ₈₀

16 YSS ₅₀ ₇₇

Highest Score ₇₇ ₈₀

(8)

Total 994 1049

Mean 62.25 70.375

Based on the calculation result of scores of the students who are taught using teacher written feedback, the highest score achieved by students in the first meeting was 77 and the lowest score was 50. The range was 28, from the student’s number (N) 16. From the calculation result of statistic, the mean

score achieved by students was 62.25. In the last meeting of teacher written feedback, the highest score achieved by students was 80 and the lowest one was 55. The range was 26, from the student’s number (N) 16. From the calculation result of statistic, the mean score achieved by students was 70.375.

B. Result of Data Analysis

1. The difference between the result of pre-test and post-test

(9)

16 YSS ₃₂ ₆₆ ₃₄ _6,0625 _36,75390625

∑X1=

730

∑X2=

1126

∑d=

396 ∑ X2d = 1513

t =

√

N (N-1) Where:

Md : mean of the difference pre-test and post-test (post test – pre test) xd : deviation of each subject (d-Md)

∑ X2

d : sum of squared deviations N : total the subject on sample d.b : N-1

Md =

=

= 24. 75

t =

√

=

√

=

N (N-1) 16 x 15 tvalue =5.6911591786

Based on the manual calculating, the tvalue was 5.6911591786. Then it was consulted with ttable with df= (N-1) and level of significance ttable 0.05 = 2.13. Because tvalue = 5.6911591786was higher than ttable= 2.13 It meant that both of pre-test and post-test were significant.

2. Normality and Homogeneity Test

(10)

distribution or not.

a. Normality test of Pre-Test

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Pre_Test

N 16

Normal Parametersa,,b Mean 45.63

Std. Deviation 10.695 Most Extreme

Differences

Absolute .139

Positive .128

Negative -.139

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .556

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .917

Based on the calculation used SPSS program, the dvalue of pre-test was 0.139. From the table of critical value of Kolmogrov-Smirnov test with the student’s number (N) = 16 at the significance level α= 0.05,

the score of dtable was 0.327. Because dvalue was lower than dtable (0.139 < 0.327), it could be concluded that the data was in normal distribution.

b. Normality test of Post- Test

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Post_Test

N 16

Normal Parametersa,,b Mean 70.38

Std. Deviation 5.277

Most Extreme Differences

Absolute .147

Positive .122

Negative -.147

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .589

(11)

Based on the calculation used SPSS program, the dvalue of post-test was 0.147. From the table of critical value of Kolmogrov-Smirnov test with the student’s number (N) = 16 at the significance level α= 0.05,

the score of dtable was 0.327. Because dvalue was lower than dtable (0.147< 0.327), it could be concluded that the data was in normal distribution.

c. Homogeneity Test

Homogeneity test was conducted to know whether data are homogeneous or not.

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances Dependent Variable:Post_Test

F df1 df2 Sig.

.979 12 3 .583

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.

Based on the result of homogeneity test, the fvalue was 0.979 and the significant value was 0.583. The data are homogeneous if the significant value is higher than significance level α= 0.05. Because thesignificant value (0.583) was higher than significance level α= 0.05, it could be concluded that the data were homogeneous.

3. Testing Hypotheses

(12)

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

PC_1 62.25 10.063 16

TWF_1 65.25 7.853 16

TWF_2 70.38 7.191 16

PC_2 67.06 10.063 16

In table 4.5 showed the mean of peer correction were 62.25 in the first period and 67.06 in the second period and mean of teacher written feedback were 65.25 in the first period and 70.38 in the second period.

Table 4.6Multivariate Testsb

In Multivariate Tests showed the Fvalueof Peer Correction was 20.058 with the significant level was 0.000, the Fvalueof Teacher Written Feedback was 11.396 with the significant level was 0.004 and the FvalueofPeer

Effect Value F

Hypothe

sis df Error df Sig. PC Pillai's Trace .572 20.058a 1.000 15.000 .000

Wilks' Lambda .428 20.058a 1.000 15.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 1.337 20.058a 1.000 15.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 1.337 20.058a 1.000 15.000 .000 TWF Pillai's Trace .432 11.396a 1.000 15.000 .004 Wilks' Lambda .568 11.396a 1.000 15.000 .004 Hotelling's Trace .760 11.396a 1.000 15.000 .004 Roy's Largest Root .760 11.396a 1.000 15.000 .004 PC *

TWF

(13)

Correction and Teacher Written Feedback was 22.781 with the significant level was 0.000.

Table 4.7Mauchly's Test of Sphericityb

Within

Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix.

a. To adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests were displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table. b. Design: Intercept

Within Subjects Design: PC + TWF + PC * TWF

The result of Mauchly’s test showed that the values of df was 0 and the significant values was -, so the researcher need to correct thevalues for this, but not for the treatments themselves.The researcher needed to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests were displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Table 4.8Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Source

1122.250 1 1122.250 20.058 .000

Greenhouse-Geisser

1122.250 1.000 1122.250 20.058 .000 Huynh-Feldt 1122.250 1.000 1122.250 20.058 .000 Lower-bound 1122.250 1.000 1122.250 20.058 .000 Error(PC) Sphericity

Assumed

(14)

Greenhouse-Geisser

839.250 15.000 55.950 Huynh-Feldt 839.250 15.000 55.950 Lower-bound 839.250 15.000 55.950

TWF Sphericity

Assumed

390.063 1 390.063 11.396 .004

Greenhouse-Geisser

390.063 1.000 390.063 11.396 .004 Huynh-Feldt 390.063 1.000 390.063 11.396 .004 Lower-bound 390.063 1.000 390.063 11.396 .004 Error(TWF) Sphericity

Assumed

513.438 15 34.229

Greenhouse-Geisser

513.438 15.000 34.229 Huynh-Feldt 513.438 15.000 34.229 Lower-bound 513.438 15.000 34.229 PC * TWF Sphericity

Assumed

1105.563 1 1105.563 22.781 .000

Greenhouse-Geisser

1105.563 1.000 1105.563 22.781 .000 Huynh-Feldt 1105.563 1.000 1105.563 22.781 .000 Lower-bound 1105.563 1.000 1105.563 22.781 .000 Error(PC*TWF) Sphericity

Assumed

727.938 15 48.529

Greenhouse-Geisser

727.938 15.000 48.529 Huynh-Feldt 727.938 15.000 48.529 Lower-bound 727.938 15.000 48.529

(15)

researcher used the Greenhouse-Geisser corrected values as these were the most conservative.

Table 4.9 Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts

Source

PC TWF

Type III Sum of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.