CHAPTER IV CLOSING

A.

Conclusions

Based on the result from analyzed and testing hypothesis in the Chapter

IIl, it

wlls

concluded

that the using

Communicative Language

Leaming in

teaching speaking

ability did not give significant effect to the

student,s score

in

SMU Muhammadiyah Kasongan. It was proved by the result

ofthe

student's score. The score result

of

speaking

ability

by using Communicative Language Leaming showed that the mean

of

pre test was 38.00 and the mean

of

posttest was 55.50. From both means, there was different score that

was

17.5.

tt

meant that after the students had been taught by using

CLL

in teaching speaking ability, the score increased

until

17.5.

Based on the hypothesis test, the score

oft

from the test result calculation

for

tt s

(t

) was 2.17. ^Based on the level significant 0.05 (5%) with d.f or d. b (Nr+N2) - 2

=(7 +7)-2=

12,1666 was 2.18. Since

ttt(L)

^< t"djb:2.17 < 2.1g. Because trcst(to)

from the result was, lower than 1666.

This

indicated that the Alternative Hypothesis

(Ha)

stating that Communicative Language Leaming gave significant effect

of

the students' score in speaking

ability

of the third year students al SMU Muhammadiyah Kasongan was rejected. Meanwhile, the

Null

Hypothesis

(Ho)

stating that teaching speaking used Communicative Language Leaming

did

not give significant effect _to the third year students at SMU Muhammadiyah Kasongan was accepted.

Therefore, based

on

the conclusion above

it

meant that

the

student

did

not influenced

by

Communicative _Language

Leaming. It was

recommended

that

the students

should be

improved

their ability in

speaking

and they

should

be

often practiced

their ability in

speaking

not only in the

classroom

but also in the

real

64

CHAPTER IV

result

of test was lower

than

t-table, it

meant

Null

Hypothesis

(Ho)

stating that teaching speaking

ability

used Communicative Language

Leaming did not

give

significant effect to the

^students

score at the third ^year students at

^SMU

Muhammadiyah Kasongan was ^accepted.

D.

Dlscusslon

The result

of

analysis showed that Communicative Language Leaming

did

not

give significant

effect

to the

students' score

in

speaking

ability of the third

^year

students

at SMU

Muhammadiyah

of

^Kasongan.

Meanwhile, after the

data was calculated using

t

test

it

was found that the score

of

t-test was lower than t-table at 0.05

of

level significance (t-test

= l.

¹⁷

^< t-table:2. l8).

Neither because

of

t-test

(to) from

the result was lower than t-table.

This

indicated that the

Null

Hypothesis (Ho) stating that Communicative Language Leaming did not give

sigrificant

effect to

the students' score in speaking ability of the third ^year

^students

at

SMU Muhammadiyah Kasongan

was

accepted.

It

^meant

that

teaching speaking

ability using

Communicative Language Learning

did not give significant effect of

the student's score at SMA Muhammadiyah Kasongan.

The Alternative

Hypothesis

(Ha)

stating

that

teaching speaking

ability

using Communicative Language Leaming gave effect to the students score at the third year students at SMU Muhammadiyah Kasongan was rejected.

65

situation. Moreover, the students should be master vocabulary to support their

ability in

speaking. For

the

English teacher, they can used any variance method

to

^teach

English especially in speaking as long ^as appropriate to the students' situation.

B.

Suggestions

The writer would like to

propose

the following

suggestion

that

hopefully would be great to use for the third year students at

SMU

Muhammadiyah Kasongan, as follows:

l.

The students should improved their

ability in

speaking and they should be often practiced their

ability

in speaking

skill

not only in their classroom but also in the real situation. It was recommended that they had to refine their other

skill

such as

the master vocabulary and pronunciation. Moreover, the students should do more speaking

skill

exercise

ifthey

wanted to improve their speaking achievement.

2.

The teacher should be given any variance method

for

the students

in

teaching leaming process especially in English; it was useful for the student, ^so they not be bored in leaming English.

'-l,fe ^Yewces

ar^

REFERENCES

Arikunto, 5., Manajemen Penelitian. Jakarta : PT. Rineka

Cipta

^1999.

Prosedur Penelitian

Suotu Pendekatan Praldek- Jakarta

: PT.

Asdi Mahastya, 2002.

Dasar-Dasqr Evaluasi Pendidikaa Jakarta : Bumi Aksara, ^{2001 .}

Azies, F. dan Alwasilah,

Pengajaran Bahasa

Komunikttif Teori dan

Praktek.

Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya, 1996.

Brown, H. D'

^{Language Learning}

and

Teaching

Fourth Edition.

San Fransisco State University : Addision Wesley Longman, inc, 2000.

Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogt Second

Edition San

Fransisco

State University : Addison

Wesley Longman, inc, 2000.

Echols, John M and

Hassan

Shadily, Kazns

Indonesio

Inggris, lakarlz:

PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 1996.

Kamus lnggris Indonesia, lakarta: PT Gramedia ^Pustaka Utama, ¹⁹⁹⁶ Fauziati,

E,

Teaching English as Foreign Innguage. Surakarta; Muh.

Amir

^Press,

2002.

Homby, As, Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current Ezglt'sfr, New

York

: Oxford University Press, 1995

Nazir,M.,

Metode Penelitian. Jaka(a : Ghalia Indonesia, 2003.

Norland, Deborah L and Terry

Pruett-Said,

A

Kaleidoscope

of Models

and Strategies

for

Teaching English to

Speakcrs of Other

Langutges.

London: Teacher Idea ^Press, 2006.

Prasetyo,

B. and Lina M. J.,

Metode Penelitian

Kruntitatif.

Jakarta

: PT.

Raja Grafindo Persada, 2005.

I1mu,2006.

Sudarwati,

M. TH

dan Eudia

Grace,

Look Ahead ,

An

English Cource

For

Senior High School, Jakarta: Erlangga, 2007.

Suharto,

C. Suan

Pengantar Metodologi Penelitian

dalam

Pendidikan Bahasa.

Jakarta

:

Departemen Pendidikan

dan

Kebudayaan,

Direktoral

Jendral Pendidikan

Tinggi.

Proyek Pengembangan Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga Kependidikan, 1988.

STAIN

Palangka Raya, Pedomon Penulisan

Sbipsi

Palangka

Raya :

STAIN Palangka Raya Press, 2007.

Zumakhsin dan

Yulia M,

^Progress;

a

Contextual Approach

to

Learning English For Senior High School,

Jakata:

Ganeca Exact. 2007.

ara

aaa

LLst of epewdLoes

f ⁷

NO

Validity

Test Notes

Coeflicient Criteria

Indexes

Criteria

I 0.52 Fair Valid 0.80 Easy

2 0.39 poor Valid 0.50 Fair

3 0.51 Fair Valid 0.90 Easy

4 0.54 Fair Valid 0.40 Fair

5 0.83 HiCh Valid 0.80 Easy

0.23 Poor Valid 0.50 Fair

7 0.60 Fair Valid 0.90 Easy

8. Hich Valid 0.50 Fair

9 Hich Valid 0.80 Easy

t0. 0.20 Poor Valid 0.50 Fair

I

l.

0.24 Poor Valid 0.50 Fair

t2. 0.53 Fair Valid

Diff

t3. 0.83 Hich Valid 0.80 Easy

14. 0.41 Fair Valid 0.30

Diff

15. 0.79 High Valid 0.60 Fair

16. 0.49 Fair Valid 0.60 Fair

17. 0.83 Hish Valid 0.80 Easy

18. 0.39 poor Valid 0.50 Fair

19. 0.83 Hich Valid 0.60 Fair

20 0.44 Fair Valid Fair

The Level of the

Dilficulties

6.

0.73 0.83

0.30

I

I

0.40

APPENDIX

2