CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
2. DataTesting
80. After the writer collected data on Ms. in Excel 2010, the author found that the mean score of the pre-test was 80.3 and the mean score of the post-test was 85.6.
71
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
The writer got the result of a normality test using SPSS 26, which used Lilliefors Significance Correction. From the table IV.2 above, it can be seen that the significance value of the data was 0.200>0.05. It can be concluded that H0 is accepted and the data from the pre-test was in normal distribution.
IV.3
Histogram Normality of Pre-Test
2) Normality of Post-Test
Table IV.3
73
Normality of Post-Test Kolmogorov-
Smirnova3
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic Df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.
Post- Test
.118 24 .200 .928 24 .088
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
The writer got the result of a normality test using SPSS 26, which used Lilliefors Significance Correction. From the table IV.3 above, it can be seen that the significance value of the data was 0.200>0.05. It can be concluded that H0 is accepted and the data from the pre-test was in normal distribution.
IV.4
Histogram Normality of Post-Test
b. Control Class
Table IV.5
75
Normality of Pre-Test 1) Normality of Pre-Test
Kolmogorov- Smirnova3
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic Df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.
Pre- Test
.223 24 .003 .920 24 .058
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
The writer got the result of a normality test using SPSS 26, which used Lilliefors Significance Correction. From the table IV.4 above, it can be seen that the significance value of the data was 0.58>0.05. It can be concluded that H0 is accepted and the data from the pre-test was in normal distribution.
IV.6
Histogram Normality of Pre-Test
Table IV.7
77
Normality of Post-Test 2) Normality Of Post-Test
Kolmogorov- Smirnova3
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic Df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.
Post- Test
.176 24 .053 .927 24 .082
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
The writer got the result of a normality test using SPSS 26, which used Lilliefors Significance Correction. From the table IV.5 above, it can be seen that the significance value of the data was 0.053>0.05. It can be concluded that H0 is accepted and the data from the pre-test was in normal distribution.
IV.8
Histogram Normality of Post-Test
3) Homogeneity Result
79 Table IV.9
Homogeneity Test Results Test of Homogeneity of Variance
Levene Statistic
df1 df2 Sig.
Students' Pronunciation Results
Pretest ,007 1 46 ,933
Posttest ,002 1 46 ,963
The homogeneity test of variance on the pre-test value shows that the significance value is 0.933, it can be seen that higher than 0.05, it can be concluded that the data is homogeneous. The homogeneity test of variance on the post-test value shows that the significance value is 0.963. It can be seen that higher than 0.05, it can be concluded that the data is homogeneous.
4) The Hypothesis of Testing
The writer used a paired sample T-Test to analyze this research. A paired-sample t-test is conducted when a research study only has one group object.
a. Paired Sample T-Test Analysis Table IV.10
Paired Samples Statistics Test Experiment Class Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean P
a i r
1
Pre-Test Eksperimen 68,25 24 6,278 1,281
Post-Test Eksperimen
85,67 24 4,082 ,833
Based on the Paired Samples statistic for the experimental class, the average pre-test result in the experimental class was 68.25 and the standard deviation was 6.27. The average post-test result of the research in the experimental class is 85, 67 and the standard deviation
81
is 4,082 this indicates that there is an increase in students' English pronunciation skills.
Table IV.11
Paired Samples Test Experiment Class
Paired Differences
t df
Sig. (2- tailed) Mean
Std . De viat ion
Std.
Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper Pre-Test
Eksperime n - Post-Test Eksperime n
-17,417 7,7 51
1,582 -20,690 -14,144 -11,008 23 ,000
The research was conducted to answer the research problem of whether the use of online media (mmmEnglish) Youtube Videos has any significant effect
on students‟ english pronunciation skills at tenth grade SMAN 09 South Bengkulu. Furthermore, to explain the answer to the question above, the Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) and Null Hypothesis (H0) are assumed as follows:
H0:
There is no significant effect on students‟ english pronunciation skills using online media (mmmEnglish) YouTube Videos as media for teaching pronunciation at the tenth grade of SMAN 09 South Bengkulu.
Ha:
There is significant effect on students‟ english pronunciation skills using online media (mmmEnglish) YouTube Videos as media for teaching pronunciation at the tenth grade of SMAN 09 South Bengkulu.
83
To verify the hypothesis, the data from the pre-test and posttest are calculated by using the t-test (paired samples t-test) formula with the assumption as follows:
If the value of sig. (2-tailed) > 0.05, it means that there is no significant effect on students‟ english pronunciation skills using “mmmEnglish” Youtube Videos . H0 (the null hypothesis) is accepted and Ha is rejected.
If the value of sig. (2-tailed) < 0.05, it means that there is effect on students‟ english pronunciation skills using
“mmmEnglish” Youtube Videos. H0 (the null hypothesis) is rejected and Ha is accepted.
Based on the table above, the value of sig. (2- tailed) was 0.000<0.05. According to the result, it can be concluded that the Null Hypothesis (H0) is rejected and the Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) is accepted (Ikhrom et al., 2018). Moreover, there was a significant effect on
students‟ english pronunciation skills when using
“mmmEnglish” YouTube Videos as a medium for teaching pronunciation at the tenth grade of SMAN 09 South Bengkulu. Furthermore, the table above also shows that t0 (count) = 11.008, and df (degree of freedom) =23.
Gay states that the value of tt = 2.145. As a result of (t0 >
tt), 11.008> 2.145, it can be concluded that t0 was greater than tt and that there was a significant difference before and after teaching english pronunciation using
“mmmEnglish” YouTube Videos.
85
b. Statistical Analysis of the Results of the Pre- Test and Post-Test in the Control Class
Table IV.12
Paired Samples Statistics Test Control Class Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation
Std.
Error Mean Pair 1 Pre-Test
Control
74,46 24 7,547 1,540
Post-Test Control
79,54 24 5,242 1,070
Based on the Paired Samples statistic for the control class, the average pre-test result in the control class was 74,46 and the standard deviation was 7,547. The average post-test result of the research in the control class is 79, 54 and the standard deviation is 5,242.
Table IV.13
Paired Samples Test Control Class
Paired Differences
t df Sig.
(2- tail ed) Mean
Std.
Devi ation
Std.
Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper Pair
1
Pre-Test Control Post-Test Control
-5,083 3,229 ,659 -6,447 -3,720 - 7,7 12
23 ,00 0
5) Independent Sample T-Test Analysis of Students Pronunciation Test
87 Table IV.14
Independent Sample T-Test
Independent Samples Test Levene's
Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2- taile
d) Mean Differ ence
Std.
Error Differ ence
95%
Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper
Students ' Pronunci ation Results
Equal variances assumed
,007 ,933 4,516 46 ,000 6,125 1,356 3,395 8,855
Equal variances not assumed
4,516 43,39 8
,000 6,125 1,356 3,391 8,859
Based on the table above, the value t-obtained was 4,516 at the significance level 0,05 in two tailed testing with df was 46. The conclusion that alternative hypothesis was accepted and null hypothesis was rejected. It means that there was significant effect in pronunciation skills within the students in experimental class, who were taught by using
online media (mmmEnglish) Youtube Videos and those who were not.