CHAPTER IV RESULT OF THE RESEARCH
2. Description of Research Data
B : Teachers‟ room
I : Mosque
C : Headmaster‟s and vice Headmaster‟s room
F : School guard home
D : Staff room
K : Principal‟s room
E : Guidance and Counseling room
L : School Medical Room
M : Ceremony yard
G1 – G3 : Bathrooms
J : Place for taking wudhu
2. Description of Research Data
Table 9
The Result of Pre-Test in Speaking Performance at the Eighth Grade of Junior High School Muhammadiyah 1 Metro
No. Name of Students Pre-Test
Score
Explanation
1. Akbar Arbiyansyah 20 Bad
2. Anisa Ramadhani 36 Fair
3. Annisa Rahma Abdilah 40 Fair
4. Arif Tirta Permana 32 Bad
5. Aufan Nida Azzahra 32 Bad
6. Daffa' Rizqy Muzhaffar 24 Bad
7. Dita Dwi Winanda 32 Bad
8. Helsa Mutiara Azzahra 24 Bad
9. Ika Kemala Sari 28 Bad
10. Junean Nida Afifa Fm 36 Fair
11. Khairan Miabahul Azhar 20 Bad
12. Khatamul Annisa Fadhilah 40 Fair
13. Lambodia Diamond M 28 Bad
14. Latifah Hanun 60 Good
15. M. Bintang Aulia 20 Bad
16. M. Daffa Fitra 24 Bad
17. Muhammad Haikal 24 Bad
18. Naufal Dzaky Rahman 20 Bad
19. Putri Nashfati Al Adhiah 52 Good
20. Raffi Abdullah 36 Fair
21. Ranti Rahmadhani 28 Bad
22. Rifa Ainun Azmi 32 Bad
23. Risma Anisa Al Haq 32 Bad
24. Rizky Ikhtiarano 48 Fair
25. Sulthan Dekra Buana 24 Bad
26. Syaefi Nurul Hikmah 28 Bad
27. Tirta Rahayu 32 Bad
Total 852
Average 31,5
Source: the result of pre-test of students’ speaking performance toward small group instruction on August, 31st 2018.
The test was followed by 27 students which were random selected.
The highest score was 60 and the lowest score was 20 with the total score 852. Based on the data, the researcher measured the class interval:
R = the highest score – the lowest score
= 60-20
= 40
K = 1 + 3.3 log n
= 1 + 3.3 log 27
= 1 + 3.3 x 1,4
= 5,62 = 6 I =
=
= 6,67 = 7 Note:
K : The number of interval class
R : a distance from score maximum and score minimum I : The length of interval class (total of class interval) n : Total of participant/students
The total of class interval of this result pre-test was 7. After knowing the class interval, the data was put on the table of frequency distribution as follows:
Table 10
The Table of Frequency Distribution of Pre-Test Score No. Class Interval Frequency Percentage
1. 55-61 1 3,70%
2. 48-54 2 7,40%
3. 41-47 0 0%
4. 34-40 5 18,52%
5. 27-33 10 37,04%
6. 20-26 9 33,34%
Total 27 100%
If the data was put into graphic, it can be seen as follow:
Graph 1
Based on the table frequency distribution and graphic above, it can be inferred that 27 students as the research sample can be devided:
1. For the class interval of 55-61, there was 1 students or 3,70%.
2. For the class interval of 48-54, there were 2 students or 7,40 %.
3. For the class interval of 41-47, there was no students or 0%.
4. For the class interval of 34-40, there were 5 students or 18,52%.
9 10
5
0
2 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
20-26 27-33 34-40 41-47 48-54 55-61
Frequency Distribution of Pre-test Score
Frequency
5. For the class interval of 27-33, there were 10 students or 37,04%.
6. For the class interval of 20-26, there were 9 students or 33,34%.
b. The result of post-test score
After analyzing the weakness and understanding of students speaking performance, the researcher conducted the treatment to help the students in understanding of speaking performance. The researcher asks to the students about dificulties in speaking performance by using small group instruction until the students understand it. After the students has been given the treatment and they have understood, further the researcher gives the post-test to measure their knowing of speaking performance with different test and topic. The post-test was carried out in order to intend the students‟ speaking performance after treatment. The result of post-test can be identified as follows:
Table 11
The Result of Post-Test in Speaking Performance Using Small Group Instruction at the Eighth Grade of Junior High School
Muhammadiyah 1 Metro
No. Name of Students Post-Test
Score
Explanation
1. Akbar Arbiyansyah 36 Fair
2. Anisa Ramadhani 52 Good
3. Annisa Rahma Abdilah 56 Good
4. Arif Tirta Permana 52 Good
5. Aufan Nida Azzahra 56 Good
6. Daffa' Rizqy Muzhaffar 40 Fair
7. Dita Dwi Winanda 64 Good
8. Helsa Mutiara Azzahra 40 Fair
9. Ika Kemala Sari 44 Fair
10. Junean Nida Afifa Fm 56 Good
11. Khairan Miabahul Azhar 44 Fair
12. Khatamul Annisa Fadhilah 60 Good
13. Lambodia Diamond M 52 Good
14. Latifah Hanun 32 Bad
15. M. Bintang Aulia 32 Bad
16. M. Daffa Fitra 48 Fair
17. Muhammad Haikal 44 Fair
18. Naufal Dzaky Rahman 32 Bad
19. Putri Nashfati Al Adhiah 72 Very Good
20. Raffi Abdullah 72 Very Good
21. Ranti Rahmadhani 52 Good
22. Rifa Ainun Azmi 64 Good
23. Risma Anisa Al Haq 52 Good
24. Rizky Ikhtiarano 72 Very Good
25. Sulthan Dekra Buana 48 Fair
26. Syaefi Nurul Hikmah 48 Fair
27. Tirta Rahayu 48 Fair
Total 1368
Average 50,67
Source: the result of post-test of students‟ speaking performance toward small group instruction on September, 01st 2018.
The test was followed by 27 students which were random selected.
The highest score was 72 and the lowest score was 32 with total scor 1368. Based on the table above, the researcher measured by class interval follow:
R = The highest score – the lowest score
= 72 – 32
= 40
K = 1 + 3.3 log n
= 1 + 3.3 x 1,4
= 5,62 = 6 I =
=
= 6,67 = 7
The total of class interval of this result post-test researcher was 7.
After knowing the class interval, the data was put on the table of frequency distribution as follows:
Table 12
The Table of Frequency Distribution of Post-Test Score No. Class Interval Frequency Percentage
1. 68-74 3 11,11%
2. 61-67 2 7,41%
3. 54-60 4 14,81%
4. 47-53 9 33,33%
5. 40-46 5 18,53%
6. 32-39 4 14,81%
Total 27 100%
If the data was put into graphic, it can be seen as follow:
Graph 2
Based on the table frequency distribution and graphic above, it can be inferred that 27 students as the research sample can be devided:
1) For the class interval of 68-74, there were 3 students or 11,11%.
2) For the class interval of 61-67, there were 2 students or 7,41%.
3) For the class interval of 54-66, there were 4 students or 14,81%.
4) For the class interval of 47-53, there were 9 students or 33,33%.
5) For the class interval of 40-46, there were 5 students or 18,53%.
6) For the class interval of 32-39, there were 4 students or 14,81%.