CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION
A. Research Findings
2. Analysis of the Data
14 Mohammad Zulfikar 70 80
15 Noval Widias 40 60
16 Ramdan Nur Hidayat 55 60
17 Reifa Nur Desta 70 75
18 Retno Tri Astuti 70 80
19 Risky Kurniawan Saputra 55 65
20 Sabrina Khairunnisa 60 60
21 Sade Riski 55 65
22 Saeful Jamil 80 80
23 Safa Nur Fitriani 75 80
24 Slamet Riyadi El-Hanif 60 65
25 Stevano Aurel Azri 60 65
26 Windi Astiwi 70 80
27 Yudi Arif Nugraha 50 60
28 Rafael Bagas Saputra 45 50
. Total 1720 1955
Average 61,4 69,8
Max 80 80
Min 40 50
It can be explained from Table 4.2, the highest pre-test score in the Control class was 80 and the lowest score was 40 with a mean pre-test score of 61,4, while the highest post-test score in the Control class was 80 and the lowest score was 50 with a mean post-test score of 69.8. It is known that the Control class pre-test and post-test rankings had a significant effect on students' speaking skills.
Table 4.3 The Normality Test of Pre-Test Experimental Class and Control Class
Tests of Normality
Class
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statisti
c df Sig.
Statisti
c df Sig.
Result of the Study
Pre-test Experimental Class
,139 28 ,174 ,887 28 ,006
Pre-test Control Class
,135 28 ,200* ,969 28 ,556
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
According to Table 4.3, the significance of the experimental class in the pre-test of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov was 0.174, while the Control class was 0.200. The data were normally distributed if the significance level was greater than or equal to 0.05. Since the significances of both experimental and Control classes are greater than 0.05, it means that the pre-test of experimental and Control class data can be concluded to be normally distributed.
Table 4.4 The Normality Test of Post-Test Experimental Class and Control Class
Tests of Normality
Class
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statisti
c df Sig.
Statisti
c df Sig.
Result of the Study
Post-test Experimental Class
,172 28 ,034 ,927 28 ,051
Post-test Control Class
,170 28 ,037 ,922 28 ,038
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Table 4.4, shows that in the Kolmogorov-Smirnov rows of the two classes in the post-test, the experimental class was 0.34, and the Control class was 0.037. Data found in the experimental class and the Control class was above 0.05. This implies that study information was normally distributed and that using the Fishbowl technique as a treatment was effective for students' speaking ability.
b. The Homogeneity Test
After conducting a normality test to determine whether the data were normally distributed, then a homogeneity test is carried out. The homogeneity of the test was designed to see how similar the experimental and control class samples were. In IBM SPSS Statistics 26 software for window, the Levene statistical method is used to assess the homogeneity test. The following table are the results of the homogeneity test:
Table 4.5 The Homogeneity Test of Pre-Test Experimental Class and Control Class
Test of Homogeneity of Variance Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Result of the Study
Based on Mean 1,871 1 54 ,177
Based on Median 1,368 1 54 ,247
Based on Median and with adjusted df
1,368 1 47,625 ,248
Based on trimmed mean
1,926 1 54 ,171
Table 4.5, above shows that the significance value (sig) of the pre- test between the experimental class and the control class was 0.177.
Otherwise, this data can be proven homogenous if the significance value better than significance α (significance level) was 0.05. It implies
that the pre-test data in the experimental class and the control class is homogeneous because it was bigger than significance α (0.177 > 0.05).
Table 4.6 The Homogeneity Test of Post-Test Experimental Class and Control Class
Test of Homogeneity of Variance Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Result of the Study
Based on Mean 3,114 1 54 ,083
Based on Median 3,120 1 54 ,083
Based on Median and with adjusted df
3,120 1 51,931 ,083
Based on trimmed mean
2,952 1 54 ,092
Table 4.6, above displayed that the significance value (sig) of the post-test between the experimental and control classes was 0.083. This data could be proven homogenous if the significance value higher than significance α (significance level) was 0.05. Then, it implies that the post-test data in the experimental class and the control class is homogeneous because it was higher than significance α (0.083 > 0.05).
c. Research Hypothesis
The next step of calculation was to test the hypothesis after conducting some data analysis procedures that conducted a normality test and homogeneity test, and the data were normally and homogeneously distributed. The data is measured using the t-test in order to test the hypothesis. The purpose of using the t-test is to ensure a significant differences of fishbowl technique in students speaking ability in the experimental class and the control class. Therefore, to test the hypothesis of this study, the IBM SPSS Statistics 26 software for Windows was used and formulated it using the average scores of the experimental and control groups. The significance value or alpha (α)
was determined from the formula that is 0.05 or 5%. Then, the result of the t-test is previewed in the table below:
Table 4.7 The Result of T-Test Calculation Group Statistics
Class N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error Mean Result of the
Study
Post-test
Experimental Class
28 78,75 6,028 1,139 Post-test Control
Class
28 70,00 7,577 1,432
Table 4.7 above, the post-test findings from both the experimental class and the control class were presented. Each class had identical numbers of 28 students, symbolized by N when looking at Table 4.7.
Furthermore, the Mean column showed that the average post-test score came from both the experimental and control classes. According to Table 4.7, the experimental class's mean score was 78.75, while the mean score of the control class was 70.00. Then, it can be said that the experimental class has a higher average score instead of the control class.
Table 4.8 The Result of Independent Sample Test Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2- tailed)
Mean Differe nce
Std.
Error Differe
nce
95%
Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper Result
of the Study
Equal variances assumed
2,289 ,136 4,782 54 ,000 8,750 1,830 5,081 12,419
Equal variances not assumed
4,782 51,40 5
,000 8,750 1,830 5,077 12,423
The consequence of the t-test review of the post-test score of both the experimental class and the control class is presented, according to Table 4.8 above. Equal variance is used in the table to read the result based on the data in Table 4.8 and referred to the significant value of sig α = 0.05. (5%). In SPSS computation, a significance value of 0.00 has been found. It is lower than sig α = 0.05. (5%), it means that the result is significant. Thus, it was concluded that the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted. It means Fishbowl method is effective in teaching speaking ability.