CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
G. Data Analysis Technique
2. Data Analysis
2. Data Analysis
34
N = Number of the students
4) Determining standard deviation score of Variable Y, with the formula:
SDy= √∑
SDy = Standard deviation score of Variable Y Σ = Sun of squared gained score (Variable Y) N = Number of the students
5) Determining Standard Error Mean of Variable X, with formula:
SEMx=
√
SEMX = Standard Error Mean Variable X SD x = Standard deviation of Variable X N = Number of the students
6) Determining Standard Error Mean of Variable Y, with formula:
SEMy = √ SEMY = Standard Error Mean Variable Y SDy = Standard deviation of Variable Y N = Number of the students
7) Determining Standard Error Mean of Difference Mean of variable X and Mean of Variable Y, with the formula:
= √
SEMX-MY = Standard error of differences mean of variable X and mean variable Y
SEM = Sum of squared of standard error mean variable X SEM = Sum of squared of standard error mean variable Y 8) Determining t0 with the formula:
t0 = t observation
MX = Mean variable X MY = Mean variable Y
SEMX-MY = Standard error of differences mean of variable X and mean variable Y
9) Determining t-table in significant level 5% and 1% with df.
df = (N1 + N2) – 2 df = Degree of freedom
N1 = Number of the students (control class) N2 = Number of the students (experiment class b. Formulation of the Effect Size
To assure whether the effect size of the technique were strong, therefore, the writer adopted Cohen‘s formulation as follows:10
d= (mean of Group A – Mean of group B) pooled Standard Deviation
Pooled Standard Deviation =
(Standard deviation of group1 + Standard deviation of group 2) 2
After obtaining the results, they can be interpreted based on the criteria: a – n 0–0.20 = weak effect
0.21–0.50 = modest effect 0.51–1.00 = moderate effect
>1.00 = strong effect
10 Daniel Mujis, Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS, (London: Sage, 2004), pp. 136—137.
36
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION
This chapter, the writer presents the result of the given test to both experimental and controlled class. Furthermore, the result test will be analyzed in order to get the empirical evidence of the use of Story Skeleton Model to foster learners‘ writing in recount text at the eighth grade learners of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Al Falah in academic year 2017/2018.
A. Research Finding 1. Description of the Data
Tests are the primary data of this research. The writer describes the data from students‘ pre-test and post-test. It will be described as the data of both experimental class and controlled class. The test results of both classes are presented below.
Table 4.1
Score of Pre-test of Experimental Class and Controlled Class
No Experimental
Class Pre Test
Controlled
Class Pre Test
1 Student 1 71 Student 1 68
2 Student 2 72 Student 2 61
3 Student 3 62 Student 3 60
4 Student 4 61 Student 4 70
5 Student 5 66 Student 5 67
6 Student 6 80 Student 6 60
7 Student 7 65 Student 7 69
8 Student 8 68 Student 8 72
9 Student 9 85 Student 9 69
10 Student 10 72 Student 10 71
No Experimental
Class Pre Test
Controlled
Class Pre Test
11 Student 11 64 Student 11 68
12 Student 12 75 Student 12 75
13 Student 13 63 Student 13 87
14 Student 14 60 Student 14 63
15 Student 15 63 Student 15 69
16 Student 16 58 Student 16 71
17 Student 17 57 Student 17 75
18 Student 18 58 Student 18 62
19 Student 19 71 Student 19 69
20 Student 20 77 Student 20 61
21 Student 21 70 Student 21 66
22 Student 22 61 Student 22 72
23 Student 23 59 Student 23 68
24 Student 24 58 Student 24 67
25 Student 25 70 Student 25 63
SUM 1666 1703
MEAN 66.64 68.12
MAX 85 87
MIN 57 60
The table of 4.1 shown that the highest score on pre-test of experimental class was 85 and the lowest score was 57 with the mean score was 66.64. On the other side, the highest score on pre-test of controlled class was 87 and the lowest score was 60 with the mean score was 68.12.
38
Table 4.2
Score of Post-test of Experimental Class and Controlled Class
No Experimental Class
Post Test Controlled Class
Post Test
1 Student 1 76 Student 1 78
2 Student 2 79 Student 2 70
3 Student 3 77 Student 3 61
4 Student 4 74 Student 4 71
5 Student 5 75 Student 5 74
6 Student 6 90 Student 6 65
7 Student 7 77 Student 7 65
8 Student 8 80 Student 8 75
9 Student 9 88 Student 9 76
10 Student 10 79 Student 10 66
11 Student 11 75 Student 11 79
12 Student 12 72 Student 12 80
13 Student 13 73 Student 13 89
14 Student 14 71 Student 14 63
15 Student 15 75 Student 15 75
16 Student 16 70 Student 16 76
17 Student 17 69 Student 17 77
18 Student 18 68 Student 18 68
19 Student 19 79 Student 19 74
20 Student 20 75 Student 20 65
21 Student 21 87 Student 21 74
No Experimental Class
Post Test Controlled Class
Post Test
22 Student 22 71 Student 22 79
23 Student 23 72 Student 23 74
24 Student 24 77 Student 24 73
25 Student 25 74 Student 25 69
SUM 1903 1816
MEAN 76.12 72.64
MAX 90 89
MIN 68 61
The table of 4.2 shown that the highest score on post-test of experimental class was 90 and the lowest score was 68 with the mean score was 76.12. On the other side, the highest score on pre-test of controlled class was 89 and the lowest score was 61 with the mean score was 72.64
Table 4.3
Score of Gained Score of Experimental Class and Controlled Class
No Experimental Class
Gained Score
Controlled Class
Gained Score
1 Student 1 5 Student 1 10
2 Student 2 7 Student 2 9
3 Student 3 15 Student 3 1
4 Student 4 13 Student 4 1
5 Student 5 9 Student 5 7
6 Student 6 10 Student 6 5
7 Student 7 12 Student 7 -4
40
No Experimental Class
Gained Score
Controlled Class
Gained Score
8 Student 8 12 Student 8 3
9 Student 9 3 Student 9 7
10 Student 10 7 Student 10 -5
11 Student 11 11 Student 11 11
12 Student 12 -3 Student 12 5
13 Student 13 10 Student 13 2
14 Student 14 11 Student 14 0
15 Student 15 12 Student 15 6
16 Student 16 12 Student 16 5
17 Student 17 12 Student 17 2
18 Student 18 10 Student 18 6
19 Student 19 8 Student 19 5
20 Student 20 -2 Student 20 4
21 Student 21 17 Student 21 8
22 Student 22 10 Student 22 7
23 Student 23 13 Student 23 6
24 Student 24 19 Student 24 6
25 Student 25 4 Student 25 6
SUM 237 113
MEAN 9.48 4.52
MAX 19 11
MIN -3 -5
The table of 4.3 shown that the highest score on gained score of experimental class was 19 and the lowest score was -3 with the mean score was 9.48. On the other side, the highest score on gained score of controlled class was 11 and the lowest score was -5 with the mean score was 4.52.
2. Data Analysis a. T Test
The collected data will be analyzed to examine the hypothesis by using t- test. A hypothesis test was done to see whether or not there was a significant difference in the result of post-test after the treatment was conducted. The result will indicate the effectiveness of the use Story Skeleton Model to foster learners‘
writing of recount text. Hypothesis test in this research was done by using t-test formula with significance level 0,05 in some steps as follows:
Group Statistics
CLASS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
POSTTEST
EXPERIMENTCLASS 25 76.12 5.637 1.127
CONTROLCLASS 25 72.48 6.545 1.309
Table 4.4
The Result of T Test Calculation
Based on the data from the table 4.7 above, it showed that the result of post-test in both experimental and controlled class. Each class had a similar total of students which is 25. The table showed that the mean score of the controlled class is 72,48 meanwhile the mean score of the experimental class is 76,12. It is proved that the mean score of the experimental class was higher than the mean score of controlled class.
42
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. T Df Sig. (2- tailed)
Mean Differen
ce
Std.
Error Differen
ce
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper
POST TEST
Equal variances assumed
.771 .384 2.04 2
48 .047 3.480 1.704 .054 6.906
Equal variances not assumed
2.04 2
47.2 12
.047 3.480 1.704 .052 6.908
Table 4.5
The Result of Independent Samples Test of Post Test
From the data of Independent Sample Test in the table 4.8 showed the statistical hypothesis of this study. Since that the data of the population was distributed normally, the tcount of the Equal variances assumed was 2,042 with the Sig. (2tailed) 0.047. It means that the score is lower than the determined significance value 0.050. As the result, it can be seen that 0.042 < 0.05 means that null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted. As a result, it can be stated there is an effect of using Story Skeleton Model on Learners‘ Writing of recount text.
Then, the data was analyzed by using t-test. The manual calculation of t- test was described by following process:
Table 4.6 Calculation of T Test
Student X Y X-MX Y-MY (X-MX)² (Y-MY)²
1 4 10 -5.48 5.48 30.03 30.03
2 7 9 -2.48 4.48 6.15 20.07
3 15 1 5.52 -3.52 30.47 12.39
4 13 1 3.52 -3.52 12.39 12.39
5 9 7 -0.48 2.48 0.23 6.15
Student X Y X-MX Y-MY (X-MX)² (Y-MY)²
6 10 5 0.52 0.48 0.27 0.23
7 12 -4 2.52 -8.52 6.35 72.59
8 12 3 2.52 -1.52 6.35 2.31
9 3 7 -6.48 2.48 41.99 6.15
10 7 -5 -2.48 -9.52 6.15 90.63
11 11 11 1.52 6.48 2.31 41.99
12 -3 5 -12.48 0.48 155.75 0.23
13 10 2 0.52 -2.52 0.27 6.35
14 11 0 1.52 -4.52 2.31 20.43
15 12 6 2.52 1.48 6.35 2.19
16 12 5 2.52 0.48 6.35 0.23
17 12 2 2.52 -2.52 6.35 6.35
18 10 6 0.52 1.48 0.27 2.19
19 8 5 -1.48 0.48 2.19 0.23
20 -2 4 -11.48 -0.52 131.79 0.27
21 17 8 7.52 3.48 56.55 12.11
22 10 7 0.52 2.48 0.27 6.15
23 13 6 3.52 1.48 12.39 2.19
24 20 6 10.52 1.48 110.67 2.19
25 4 6 -5.48 1.48 30.03 2.19
SUM 237 113 664.24 358.24
MEAN 9.48 4.52 26.57 14.33
MIN -3 11
MAX 20 -5
1) Determine mean of Variable X with formula:
M1 = ∑ = = 9,48
2) Determine mean of Variable Y with Formula:
M2 = ∑
=
= 4,52
3) Determine Standard Deviation of Variable X with Formula:
SD1= √∑
= √ =√ = 5,15
4) Determine Standard Deviation of Variable Y with formula:
SD2= √∑
= √
=√ = 3,78
44
5) Determine Standard Error Mean Variable X with formula:
SEM1 =
√ =
√ =
√ = = 1.07
6) Determine Standard Error Mean Variable Y with formula:
SEM2 =
√ =
√ = √ = = 0.78
7) Determine standard error of difference of mean of variable X and Y:
= √
= √
= √ 0,60
=√
= 1,54
8) Determining to:
to =
= = = 3.22
9) Determining ttable in significant level 5%, with degree of freedom:
df = (N1 + N2) – 2
= (25+25) - 2
= 48
The value of df is 58 at degrees of significance 5% (0.05). It means the Ttable is 2.000. Furthermore, the hypothesis was tested based on the statistical hypotheses as follows;
Ha = to > tt
= 3.22 > 2.01
From the calculation above, writer assumed that Hα was accepted means ―Story Skeleton Model is effective to foster learners‘ writin of recount text..
The result from calculating the data is to= 3,22 and tt= 2.000. It means, to higher than tt in significant 5%. So, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.
b. Formulation of The Effect Size
The researcher adopted Cohen‘s formula to measure whether the effect size of the media was strong. The Cohen‘s formula as follows:51
d =
Pooled Standard Deviation:
In which:
Mean of group A (experimental class) = 76.12 Mean of group B (control class) = 72.64 Standard deviation of group 1 (experimental class) = 5,15 Standard deviation of group 2 (control class) = 3,78 Pooled Standard Deviation:
=
d =
d =
d =
d = 0,78
The result could be interpreted based on these criteria below:
0-0.20 is weak effect, 0.21-0.50 is a modest effect, 0.51-1.00 is a moderate effect, and > 1.00 is a strong effect.
51 Daniel Mujis, Doing Quantitative Research in Education, (London: Sage Publications, 2004), pp. 136 – 139
46
Based on the criteria of the effect size level, it could be concluded that the result of the effect size calculation of this research was modest effect. It can be seen from the d score was 0,78. It means that the use of Story Skeleton Model has modest effect to foster learners‘ writing of recount text..
This research was intended to know the answer the formulated question:
―Is story skeleton model effective to foster learners‘ writing of recount text ability at eight grade of Mts. Al Falah?‖
The hypotheses could be used to find the answer of the formulated question above. The hypotheses could be analyzed as follows:
H1 = to > tt
Ho = to < tt The criteria were used as follows:
1. If to > tt, the alternative hypotheses (H1) is accepted and null hypotheses (Ho) is rejected. It can be concluded that there is an effect of story skeleton model on learners‘ writing of recount text
2. If to < tt, the alternative hypotheses (H1) is rejected and null hypotheses (Ho) is accepted. It can be concluded that there is no an effect of story skeleton model on learners‘ writing of recount text
Moreover, based on the t-test manual calculation the value of to is 3,22 while degree of freedom (df) is 48. The t-table of 48 with significance level 5% is 2,01.
Therefore, the value of t-observation is higher than t-table in other word to > tt. It means that alternative hypotheses (H1) was accepted and null hypotheses (Ho) was rejected. Thus, it could be concluded that there is an effect of using story skeleton model to foster learners‘ writing of recount text.
B. Discussion
After collecting the data of the study and analyzing all of them by using Microsoft Excel, the writer attained several information that support the research.
Teaching and learning about recount text was performed well. The learners enjoyed to learn English with variety of activities in the classroom. However, the learners‘ writing skill was still needed to be improved.
In data described above, the data was taken from 50 students in two groups of experimental class and controlled class. The pre-test scores showed that many learners got very minimum score for their recount text writing. The mean score of experimental class pre-test was 66.64 while the mean score of the controlled class was 68.12. Moreover, the learners‘ lowest score achieved was 57 in the experimental class and was 60 in the controlled class. In addition, the highest score of pretest in the experimental class was 85 while in the controlled class was 87.
After treatment, the mean score was increased in both classes. It pointed out that the mean score of post-test was higher than pre-test. The learners‘ lowest score of post-test in the experimental class was 68 and the highest was 90.
Meanwhile, the highest score of post-test in the controlled class was 89 and the lowest was 61. Moreover, the mean score of experimental class 76.12 while the controlled class was 72.64.
Moreover, the data from Table 4.3 also showed that minimum gained the score of the experimental class was -3 and the minimum gained the score of the controlled class was -5. The mean gained the score of the experimental class was 9.48 and for the controlled class was 4.52. It proves that using Story Skeleton Model is effective to foster on learners‘ writing of recount text.
In addition, based on the calculation of the t-test that Ho was rejected and Ha was accepted as formulated if to > tt. Based on the calculation, the result of to was higher than tt, which was 3.22 > 2.000. Therefore, Ha was accepted and Ho was rejected. This is supported by the test of size effect which resulted 0,78 means that the effect is categorized as moderate effect because it is in the interval 0,51-1.00.
Thus, there is a significant difference between the learners‘ score in learners‘
writing that learned by using Story Skeleton Model and the learners‘ writing score without learned by using Story Skeleton Model at the eighth-grade of MTs. Al Falah. It means learners‘ who learned recount text using Story Skeleton Model had a significant effect on writing compared to those who did not learn recount text by using Story Skeleton Model.
48
The finding of this research supports and proves the idea as what is stated by Crum that Story skeleton looks like early process in writing makes know what to write next when learners write sequence of action in drafting and revising, it will a lot easier.52 It helps the learners to write a recount text in sequence based on the story skeleton that have been written, it can increase their writing ability in writing. It is in line with Robinson that skeleton help learner to develop the idea in logical organization. 53
By applying Story Skeleton Model, it can build the learners‘ curious and interest since the form of skeleton that caught their attention to write their idea. It is proved by Mantei and kervin that creation of visual artworks invites them to make a text.54 Since that, they felt enjoyment to write their ideas that happened in the past.
Based on the data, there is not significant different between the experimental class and controlled class since the controlled class learnt about recount text and its components by windowshopping technique which it is collaborative learning.
Collaborative learning influence the learners in learning especially recount text since they works together means they can ask to the members of the group, they do their works by themselves, then they know what they did not know before.
Ingleton states that Collaborative learning involves interaction either in peers or group of works in order to solve the problem in learning.55
Because of the collaborative learning, it showed that the learners discovered a knowledge which it is probably the most effective way in learning. Based on Discovery learning by Jerome Bruner in learning theory who is stated by Soemanto that the learners should find their problem solving in learning by
52 Shutta Crum, Story Skeleton: Teaching Plot Structure with Picture Books, 2005, p. 1.
53 Thomas E Robinson, Putting Flesh on Story Skeleton, Elementary English, Vol.25, No.
4, 1948, p. 216.
54 Jessica Mantei and Lisa Kervin, (2014). Interpreting the Images in A Picture Book:
Students Make Connections to Themselves, Their Lives and Experiences: Practice and Critique, 13 (2), Paper of Faculty Social Science of University of Wollongong Australia, Australia, 2014, p.
78.
55Christine Ingleton, Loene Doube, and Tim Rogers, Leap into Collaborative Learning, (Australia : Centre for Learning and Proffesional Development, The University of Adelaide Australia, 1969), p. 3.
provided them material that they can learn by themselves either individual or in group of work.56
However, the effect of story skeleton model occurred on the experimental class which comes along with learning theory of behaviorism. Story skeleton became one of stimulus for learner, then they response it in form of writing which is done for four times. It is equal with E.R Guthrte who states “the law of association” that how many often the same stimulus occurred, a tendency to do the same reponse will happened.57 Moreover, it is also supported by Langan who states that writing should be seen as the process which it needs practice.58 And Story skeleton was implemented on the experimental class for four times which the learners have more time to write a recount text than the controlled class.
To sum up, based on the final result and those theories, it is proved that there was a significant effect of using Story Skeleton Model to foster learners‘ writing of recount text. So, the final result answers the question whether Story Skeleton Model gives effects or not to foster learners‘ writing of recount text. This is related the title of the research, ―The Use of Story Skeleton Model to Foster Learners‘ Writing of Recount Text‖.
56 Wasty Soemanto, Psikologi Pendidikan Landasan Kerja Pemimpim Pendidikan, (Jakarta:Rineka Cipta, 2012), p. 135.
57 Ibid., p.125.
58 John Langan, Exploring Writing Sentences and Paragraphs 2nd ed., (New York:
McGrawHill, 2010), p. 5.
50
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion
It could be seen that experimental class got lower score in pre-test than controlled class. The mean score of pre-test of experimental class was 66,46 while controlled class was 68,12. It means that there was difference score between experimental class and controlled class. In addition, both classes in which experimental class got higher score on post-test than controlled class. The mean score of post-test of experimental class was 76,12 and the mean score of post-test of controlled class was 72,64. It means that there was significant difference between score of post-test of experimental and controlled class.
Furthermore, the calculation by using statistical analysis showed that the minimum gained score of experimental class was -3 while the minimum gained score of controlled class was -5. The maximum gained score of experimental class was 19 while the maximum gained score of controlled class was 11. Moreover, the average gained score of experimental class was 9,48 and the average gained score of controlled class was 4.52.
It could be concluded that the ability of learners in experimental class on writing recount text by using story skeleton model increased more significant than controlled class that was taught without story skeleton model on recount text. It means that there is significant effect of using Story Skeleton Model to foster learners‘ writing of recount text at the eighth grade learners of MTs. Al Falah in academic year 2017/2018. Moreover, calculation of size effect by Cohen showed the result was 0.78 in which meant the result was a modest effect.
B. Suggestion
Here are suggestions from the data which hopefully, are useful for the learners, English teacher and other researchers who are interested in teaching and learning writing of recount text by using Story Skeleton Model.
The learners can improve their writing by learning the story skeleton model given by the teacher. By learning the structure of story skeleton, it is hoped that learners have long-term improvement in writing because they have to think the
organization meaning and correct their writing by themselves based on the story skeleton model given by the teacher.
The English teacher should be more innovative in finding the appropriate way to teach writing. It is recommended to use story skeleton model to be applied in classes in order to improve the learners‘ writing of recount text. Furthermore, it is hoped that they can conduct studies related to the use of story skeleton model in teaching writing or any other English skill. After that, hopefully a seminar for teachers about the effective methods for teaching could be organized.
Nevertheless, this study uses only quantitative method. Thus, it is expected that the future researchers can conduct the related research by using either qualitative or mixed method. The interview and questionnaire can be given to know the perception of teachers and learners related to the use of story skeleton model in teaching and learning writing or any other English skill with different English text. However, in writing, it is expected that the future research can make the study more reliable by giving scoring with other researcher‘s or the future researcher can make a new rubric scoring. This study uses two classes from a school which has small sample. Hence, it is hoped that future researchers can use a bigger sample.