CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
B. Discussion
result of the students’ content and mechanic in writing ability in writing through Inquiry Method after treatment.
If the t-test value is greater than t-table at the level of significance 0.05 and degree freedom 22(N-1=23-1), thus the alternative hypothesis (H1) will be accepted and null hypothesis (HO) will be rejected. In contrary, if the value is fewer than t-table at the level of significance 0.05 and the degree freedom 22, thus the alternative hypothesis would be rejected and null hypothesis will accepted.
1. The Effectiveness of Inquiry Method towards the Students’ Writing Ability in Content
Based on the findings above in applying Inquiry Method in the class, the data was collected through the test as explain in the previous findings section shows that the students’ writing ability in content was significantly improved.
The data in table 4.1 show that the score of unity has improvement of 27% from the mean score of 4.62 in pre- test to be 5.90 in post-test. The score of the completeness has also improvement of 22% from the mean score of 4.76 in pre-test to be 5.83 in post-test.
The comparison of each indicator from table 4.1 indicates that the improvement of unity was greater than the improvement of completeness (27>22). The improvement of the students’ unity was 27% and the improvement of the students’ completeness was 22%. It means the result of the students’ unity was better than the result of completeness. Even though the result of unity was better than the result of completeness but these indicators equally increase in post-test.
After calculating the score, the researcher found that the students’
writing ability in content has improvement of 25% from the means score of 4.69 in pre-test to be 5.87 in post-test. It is supported by the mean score post-test of students’ writing ability in content was higher than pre-test.
The score of the students’ post-test was greater than the mean score of the
students’ pre-test. Therefore, Inquiry Method can improve the students’
writing ability in content.
2. The Effectiveness of Inquiry Method towards the Students’ Writing Ability in Mechanic
Based on the findings above in applying Inquiry Method in the class, the data was collected through the test as explain in the previous findings section shows that the students’ writing ability in mechanic was significantly improved.
The data in table 4.2 show that the score of capitalization has improvement of 16% from the mean score of 5.26 in pre- test to be 6.12 in post-test. The score of the punctuation has also improvement of 21% from the mean of 5.11 in pre-test to be 6.19 in post-test.
The comparison of each indicator from table 4.2 indicates that the improvement of punctuation was greater than the improvement of capitalization (21>16). The improvement of the students’ capitalization was 16% and the improvement of the students’ punctuation was 21%. It means the result of the students’ punctuation was better than the result of capitalization. Even though the result of punctuation was better than the result of capitalization but these indicators equally increase in post-test.
After calculating the score, the researcher found that the students’
writing ability in mechanic has improvement of 18% from the means score of 5.19 in pre-test to be 6.16 in post-test. It is supported by the mean score post-test of students’ writing ability in mechanic was higher than pre-test.
The score of the students’ post-test was greater than the mean score of the students’ pre-test. Therefore, Inquiry Method can improve the students’
writing ability in mechanic.
Through the result of pre-test and post-test, the result of t-test value of the level of the significant = 0.05, degree of the freedom (df) = 22 indicated that t-table value was 1.717 and t-test value was 10.65.
Therefore, it can be concluded that statistically hypothesis of HI was accepted and the statistically hypothesis of HO was rejected. It means that the using of Inquiry Method in teaching writing ability can improved the students’ writing ability.
By seeing the effectiveness of the students’ writing ability in content and mechanic in writing skill . It was concluded that Inquiry Method improved the students’ ability in content and mechanic in writing.
It could be showed from the students’writing test in pretest and posttest. In pre-test, some students were difficult to write descriptive text. But, the students’ writing ability in post-test, which the way of writing ability could be understand. And then, the students were easy to write descriptive text.
From the discussion above, it could be concluded that the Eight Grade Student of SMP Negeri 2 Baraka Kab. Enrekang in academic year 2015 / 2016 have good ability in writing after being taught through Inquiry Method especially in writing descriptive text.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion
Based on the findings and discussion in the previous chapter it can be concluded that learning writing through Inquiry Method was significantly improved the students’ writing ability at the eight grade students of SMP Negeri 2 Baraka Kab. Enrekang. This was shown by the following result:
1. Inquiry Method improved the students’ writing ability in content dealing with identifying unity and completeness. The data in the findings indicated that the students’ the score of unity has improvement of 27% from the mean score of 4.62 in pre-test to be 5.90 in post-test. The score of the completeness has also improvement of 22% from the mean score of 4.76 in pre-test to be 5.83 in post-test. The result of calculating, the improvement of the students’ writing ability in content was 25% from the means score of 4.69 in pre-test to be 5.87 in post-test. The t-test value of writing ability in content details are greater than t-table (11.7 > 1.717). It means that there was effective difference between before and after giving the treatment.
2. Inquiry Method improved the students’ writing ability in mechanic dealing with identifying capitalization and punctuation. The data in the findings indicated that the students’ the score of capitalization has improvement of 16% from the mean score of 5.26 in pre-test to be 6.12 in post-test. The score of the punctuation has also improvement of 21% from the mean
score of 5.11 in pre-test to be 6.19 in post-test. The result of calculating the improvement of the students’ writing ability in mechanic was 18%
from the means score of 5.19 in pre-test to be 6.16 in post-test. The t-test value of writing ability in mechanic details are greater than t-table (9.6 >
1.717). It means that there is effective difference between before and after giving the treatment.
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above, the researcher presents some suggestions as follows:
1. It is suggested to the English teachers that they apply Inquiry Method as one of the alternative ways in teaching writing subject in the classroom.
2. It is suggested to the teachers of English to maximize in giving guidance to the students in learning and teaching writing subject.
3. The students are expected to increase their intensity in learning writing through Inquiry Method.
4. The researcher suggests the next researchers to conduct further research to see what strategies are more helpful for the students in writing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdelraheem, A & Askin Asan. (2006). The Effectiveness of Inquiry-Based Technology Enchanced Collaborative Learning Environment.
International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 65.
Alexander, Francie. 1990. Writing Assessment Handbook California: California Department of Education
Brereton. 1982. A Plan for Writing Skills. New York: CBS College Publishing.
Byrne, Donn. 1995. Teaching Writing Skills. London and New York: Longman Group UK Limited
Coffman, Teresa. 2009. Engaging Students Through Inquiry-Oriented Learning and Technology. United States of America: Rowman & Littefield Education.
Depdikbud, 1985. Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Proses Belajar Mengajar dan Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Sistem penilaian. Jakarta: Depdikbud.
Dougles, H. Brown. 2001. Principle an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, New York, Pearson Education Company.
Faturrahman Pupuh dan Sutikno M. Sobry, Strategi Belajar Mengajar Melalui Konsep Umum dan Konsep Islam, Refika Aditama, Bandung,2007.
Gay, L.R. 1981. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. America. Charles E. Memi/Publishing Co.
Gerrot, L. and Wignel, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. New South Wales: Antipodean Educational Enterprises (AEE).
Graham, Steve and Dolores Perin. 2007. Writing skill next. Washintong, DC:
Alliance for Excellent Education
Harmer, Jemery. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. New York: Longman Group UK Limited
Heard James, M.Ed. & Ted Tucker, M. Ed. 2000. Advanced Writing. An advanced Writing Course Designed Specifically for The Needs of Korean University Students
Hebrank. 2000. Constructing an Understanding of Scientific Inquiry. From Interdisciplinary Inquiry in Teaching and Learning.
Jacobs, H.Z.Z.A Stephen. M. R.Reanna, H.V.Faye, H.B.Jane. 1981. Testing ESL Composition Profiles, Apractical Approach. Massaashussetts: New Burry House Publisher.
Kinsvatter, Ricard. 1996. Dynamics of Effective Teaching. New York: Longman Publisher USA
Lindbllom, Peter. 1983. Writing with Confidence. New York: Harper Collins Publisher.
Patel, M.F and Praveen M. Jain. 2008. English Language Teaching (Methods, Tools and Techniques). Jaipur. Sunrise Publisher and Distributors.
Peha, Steve. 2002.What is Good Writing. Teaching That Make Sense.: 3 Roestiyah. 2001. Strategi Belajar Mengajar,Jakarta: Rineka Cipta,
Striplin, Barbara. (2009). Teaching Inquiry with Primary Sources.Teaching with Primary Sources Quarterly vol.2,No.3.
Sudjana.1990. Metode Stastistika. Bandung. PT Gramedia.
The National Science Education Standards. 1996. Inquiry, the Learning Cycle, &
the 5E Instructional Model. From the Guidelines for Lesson Planning from the Electronic Journal of Science Education.
Trianto. 2007. Model-Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Berorentasi Kontruktivistik.
Jakarta: Prestasi Pustaka,
Warner, J. Anna & Brian E. Myers. 2008. Implementing Inquiry-Based Teaching Methods. IFAS Extension.
APPENDICES
A.1. The students’ row scores of pre-test A.2. The students’ row scores of post-test
A.3. Table of students’ achievement in writing ability A.4. T-test of writing ability
A.5. Calculation of the mean score of students’ writing ability A.6. The percentage of the students’ development in writing ability A.7. Table of classification of students’ scores in writing ability
B.3. Teaching materials B.4. Lesson plan
B.5. Documentations