CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD RESEARCH METHOD
C. Population and Sample
1) Experimental Class a. Analysing of Pre-test
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. Findings
The tests are given to students to measure students' speaking ability before and after being given treatment. There were two tests in which the students take;
pre-test and post-test. The researcher took class VIII.9 (Experiment class) and class VIII.8 (Control class) of SMP Negeri 18 Makassar as the sample of this research. To obtain the result of Mean, Standard Deviation, and Ttest.
The Effect of Playing Drama In Teaching Speaking Of Grade Eight At Smp n 18 Makassar
The result of this research is analyzed in numeral form. Those data described the raise of students’ speaking ability. The researcher listed the students’ scores in pre-test and post-test. The result of this research is presented as follows:
1) Experimental Class
Table 4.1 The classification and the rate percentage of the students pretest.
NO Score Classification
Pre-Test
F %
1 Score 96-100 Excellent 0 0%
2 Score 86-95 Very Good 0 0%
3 Score 76-85 Good 0 0%
4 Score 66-75 Fairly Good 10 31,25 %
5 Score 56-65 Fairly 10 31,25 %
6 Score 36-55 Poor 12 37,5%
7 Score 0-35 Very poor 0 0%
Total 32 100%
In table 4.1 above, there are 32 respondents before given treatment.
From all of the respondents, there are 10 students (31,25 %) who get fairly good score, 10 students (31,25 %) who get fairly score, and 12 students (37,5%) who get poor score. It can be concluded that most of the students’
speaking ability in experimental group before giving treatment get good score, which is explained that most of the students of experimental group are able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversation. (The score of pretest in experiment class could be seen in appendix)
30
b. Analysing of Post-test.
The post-test of the experimental group was conducted at November 12th 2019. In the post-test, students were asked to explain the conclusion about their mind mapping that have been made as their homework. They presented one by one. The detail of students’s score on post-test is presented on the tablebelow:
Table 4.2 The classification and the rate percentage of the students posttest.
NO Score Classification
Post-Test
F %
1 Score 96-100 Excellent 0 0%
2 Score 86-95 Very Good 1 3,125%
3 Score 76-85 Good 1 3,125%
4 Score 66-75 Fairly good 13 40,625%
5 Score 56-65 Fairly 8 25%
6 Score 36-55 Poor 9 28,125%
7 Score 0-35 Very poor 0 0%
Total 32 100%
In table 4.2 above can be seen there are 32 respondents after given treatment. From all of the respondents, there are 1 students (3,125%) who get very good score, 1 students (3,125%) who get good score, and 13 students (40,625%) who get fairly good score, 8 students (25%) who get fairly score.Then, 9 students (28,125%) who get poor score. It can be
concluded that most of the students are able to use language fluently and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional need after get the treatment.(The score of post-test in experiment class could be seen in appendix)
2). Control Group
a. Analysing of pre test
The pre-test was conducted on Oktober 2019. In pre test, students as the respondents were asked to describe their favorite actor one by one in front of the class. The students’speaking ability was scored using four scales speaking rubric. The detail of students’s score on pretest is presented on the tablebelow:
Table 4.3The classification and the rate percentage of the students pre- test
NO Score Classification
Pre-Test
F %
1 Score 96-100 Excellent 0 0%
2 Score 86-95 Very Good 0 0%
3 Score 76-85 Good 1 3,125%
4 Score 66-75 Fairly Good 16 50%
5 Score 56-65 Fairly 7 21,875%
6 Score 36-55 Poor 8 25%
7 Score 0-35 Very Poor 0 0%
Total 32 100%
32
In table 4.3 above can be seen there are 32 respondents. From all of the respondents, there are 1 students (3,125%) who get good score, 16 students (50%) who get fairly good score, 7 students (21,875%) who get fairly, and 8 students (25%) who get poor score. It can be concluded that most of the students are able to use language fluently and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional need after get the treatment. (The score of pretest in control class could be seen in appendix)
b. Analysing of Post-test
The post-test of the control group was conducted at November 2019. In the post-test, students were asked to explain their holiday in front of the class then they presented one by one. The detail of students’s score on post-test is presented on the table below:
Table4.4 The classification and the rate percentage of the students post-test NO Score Classification
Post-Test
F %
1 Score 96-100 Excellent 0 0%
2 Score 86-95 Very Good 0 0%
3 Score 76-85 Good 3 9,375%
4 Score 66-75 Fairly good 12 37,5%
5 Score 56-65 Fairly 9 28,125%
6 Score 36-55 Poor 8 25%
7 Score 0-35 Very poor 0 0%
Total 32 100%
In table 4.4 above can be seen there are 32 respondents afterteaching conventional in the class about holiday. From all of the respondents, there are 3 students (9,375%) who get good score, and 12 students (37,5%) who get fairly good score, 9 students (28,125%) who get fairly score. Then, 8 students (25%) who get poor score. It can be concluded that most of the students are able to use language fluently and accurately on all levels. (The score of post-test in contro\l class could be seen in appendix)
3). The Mean and Standard Deviation
The mean score and standard deviation in experimental class and control class were presented on the following table below:
Table 4.5 the mean score and standard deviation in experimental class N
Min.
Score
Max.
Score
Mean
Pre-test 32 40 75 66,14 Post-test 32 45 85 64,81
The table above presented that students mean score of pretest in experiment class was 6 and post-test was 7. (The calculation of mean score could be seen in appendix)
Table 4.6 the mean score and standard deviation in control class.
N
Min.
Score
Max.
Score
Mean Mean diff. Score
St.Deviationdiff.
score Pre-test 32 50 90 66.14
-5.27 -127.01
Post-test 32 45 85 60,87
34
The table above presented that students mean score of pretest in control class was 66.14 and post-test was 60.87. (The calculation of mean score of control class could be seen in appendix)
4). The mean difference score and standard deviation difference score The mean difference score and standard deviation difference between pre-test and post-test in experimental class and control class were presented on the following table below:
Table 4.7 The mean difference score and standard deviation differencescore.
Variable Test
Mean diff.
score
Mean diff.
Variable
St.Deviationdiff.
score Experimental Class
(X)
Pre
5.66
1.23
1688.67 Post
Control Class (Y)
Pre
-0.43 -250.66
Post
Based on the table above. It can be seen that there are two variables in this research were Variable (X) and Variable (Y). The mean difference score of variable (X) was 5.66 and standard deviation differnce score was 1688.67.Then, the mean of variable (Y) was -0.43 with the standard deviationdifference score was -250.66. Next, the mean of difference variable (X) and (Y) was 1.23. (The calculation of mean difference score, mean difference variable and Standard deviation difference score could be seen in appendix)
5). Examining Testing
In examining hypothesis the researcher needed to firstly determine null hypothesis (Ho) and alternative hypothesis (Ha).
Ho= Playing Drama cannot increase students’ speaking ability.
Ha= Playing Drama can increase students’ speaking ability.
Then the condition is that Ha is accepted if Ttest> T table, otherwise Ho is not accepted.
Table 4.8 The t-test and t-table of students’improvement
Component T-test T-table
Experiment Class
4.951 2.042
Control Class
Based on the table above, It can be seen that the hypothesis of this study uses T-table at a significant level of a = 0.05. Based on the t-table list, the value of the distribution table at 60 as degrees of freedom is 2.042.
Because Ttest> Ttabel, 4.95> 2.042, then H0 is rejected and Ha is accepted. It appears that using mind mapping is effective in increasing students’ speaking ability.