CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Findings
The findings of this study explain the statistical data. the researcher collected the pre-test and post-test scores. furthermore, there are statistical test results that contain the average and standard deviation of the score on the pre-test and post-test.
1. The students' results in the pre-test
Table 4.1 The Score of Students' Speaking Skills in the Pre-Tes No Respondents The Aspect of Speaking Assessment Total
score
Final Score Accuracy Fluency Compreh
ensibility
1 R. 01 2 2 2 6 2
2 R. 02 2 1 3 6 2
3 R. 03 1 1 2 4 1.33
4 R. 04 1 1 2 4 1.33
5 R. 05 3 2 3 8 2.66
6 R. 06 2 2 2 6 2
7 R. 07 2 2 3 7 2.33
8 R. 08 2 2 2 6 2
9 R. 09 1 1 1 3 1
10 RD 10 2 2 2 6 2
11 R. 11 3 3 3 9 3
33
12 R. 12 1 2 1 4 1.33
13 R. 13 2 2 2 6 2
14 R. 14 2 2 1 5 1.66
15 R. 15 2 2 2 6 2
28 27 31 86 28.4
Total Mean Score 1.90 (poor)
Table 4.1 reveals the students' scores on the pre-test. Several aspects are used in assessing the students' pre-test including fluency, accuracy, and comprehensibility. Total mean score at the pre-test is 1.90
1) Accuracy
Before treatment, the researcher assessed the pre-test with inaccurate student scores. Scores percentage ratio table showing accuracy score, as shown in the table below :
34
Table 4.2 The Percentage Score of Students' Accuracy in the Pre-Test Pre-Test
No Classification Rating
Frequency Percentage
1 Excellent 6 0 0%
2 Very Good 5 0 0%
3 Good 4 0 0%
4 Average 3 2 13%
5 Poor 2 9 60%
6 Very Poor 1 4 27%
Total 15 100%
The table 4.2 informed the accuracy scores in the pre-test. It can be seen that no student has obtained are excellent, very good and good category (0%).
The majority of the 2 students (13%) get an average category, 9 students (60%) get the poor category and 4 students (27%) get the very poor category.
2) Fluency
The fluency scores indicated by a score percentage table can be seen in the table below :
35
Table 4.3 The Percentage Score of Students' Fluency in the Pre-Test Pre-Test
No Classification Rating
Frequency Percentage
1 Excellent 6 0 0%
2 Very Good 5 0 0%
3 Good 4 0 0%
4 Average 3 1 7%
5 Poor 2 10 66%
6 Very Poor 1 4 27%
Total 15 100%
The table 4.3 illustrated the fluency scores in the pre-test. It showed no students get the excellent, very good and good category (0%). The majority of the 1 students (7%) get the average category, 10 student (66%) get the poor category and 4 students (27%) get a very poor category.
3) Comprehensibility
The comprehensibility scores are indicated by a score percentage table, which can be seen in the table below :
36
Table 4.4 The Percentage Score of Students' Comprehensibility in the Pre- Test
Pre-Test
No Classification Rating
Frequency Percentage
1 Excellent 6 0 0%
2 Very Good 5 0 0%
3 Good 4 0 0%
4 Average 3 4 27%
5 Poor 2 8 53%
6 Very Poor 1 3 20%
Total 15 100%
The table 4.4 provided the fluency scores in the pre-test. It is clearly seen that no students get the excellent,very good and good category (0%). The majority of the 4 students (27%) get the average category, 8 students (53%) get the poor category and 3 students (20%) get a very poor category.
37 2. The students' results in post-test
Table 4.5 The Score of Students' Speaking Skills in the Pos-Tes No Respondents The Aspect of Speaking
Assessment Total
Score
Final Score Accuracy Fluency Compreh
ensibility
1 R 01 3 3 4 10 3.33
2 R. 02 3 3 3 9 3
3 R. 03 3 2 3 8 2.66
4 R. 04 2 2 4 8 2.66
5 R. 05 4 3 3 10 3.33
6 R. 06 3 3 3 6 2
7 R. 07 3 4 3 10 3.33
8 R.08 3 3 4 10 3.33
9 R. 09 2 3 2 7 2.33
10 R. 10 3 3 3 9 3
11 R 11 4 4 4 12 4
12 R.12 2 4 3 9 3
13 R.13 3 3 4 10 3.33
14 R.14 3 3 3 9 3
15 R.15 3 4 3 10 3.33
43 45 49 137 49.29
Total Mean Score 3.28 (Good)
38
Table 4.5 exhibition the students' scores on the pos-test. Several aspects are used in assessing the students' pre-test including fluency, accuracy, and comprehensibility.
1) Accuracy
Before treatment, the researcher assessed the post-test with inaccurate student scores. Scores percentage ratio table showing accuracy score, as shown in the table below :
Table 4.6 The Percentage Score of Students' Accuracy in the Post-Test Pre-Test
No Classification Rating
Frequency Percentage
1 Excellent 6 0 0%
2 Very Good 5 0 0%
3 Good 4 2 13%
4 Average 3 10 67%
5 Poor 2 3 20%
5 Very Poor 1 0 0%
Total 15 100%
The table 4.6 showboat the accuracy scores in the post-test. It can be seen that no student has obtained are excellent, very good, and very poor (0%). The majority of the 5 students (13%) get a good category, 10 students (67%) get the average categoryry and 3 students (20%) get the poor category.
39 2) Fluency
The fluency scores indicated by a score percentage table can be seen in the table below :
Table 4.7 The Percentage Score of Students' Fluency in the Post-Test Pre-Test
No Classification Rating
Frequency Percentage
1 Excellent 6 0 0%
2 Very Good 5 0 0%
3 Good 4 4 27%
4 Average 3 9 60%
5 Poor 2 2 13%
6 Very Poor 1 0 0%
Total 15 100%
The table 4.7 represented the fluency scores in post-test. It is clearly seen that no students get the excellent, very good, and very poor category (0%). The majority of the 5 students (33%) get a good category, 10 students (67%) get the average category and 2 students (13%) get the poor category.
40 3) Comprehensibility
The comprehensibility scores are indicated by a score percentage table, which can be seen in the table below :
Table 4.8 The Percentage Score of Students' Comprehensibility in the Pos-Test
Pre-Test
No Classification Rating
Frequency Percentage
1 Excellent 6 0 0%
2 Very Good 5 0 0%
3 Good 4 5 33%
4 Average 3 9 60%
5 Poor 2 1 7%
6 Very Poor 1 0 0%
Total 15 100%
The table 4.8. Appearrance the comprehensibility scores in the post-test. It showed no students get the excellent, very good, and very poor category (0%).
The majority of the 5 students (53%) get a good category, 7 students (47%) get the average category and 1 students (7%) get the poor category.
3. The comparison between the result in pre-test and post-test
In this study, the pre-test and post-test mean scores and standard deviations were recorded, and the two were compared. An outcome table with descriptive statistics is displayed:
41
Table 4.9 the Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Pre-Test and Post-Test Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Pre-test 1.90 15 .676 .174
Posttest 3.28 15 .617 .159
The table 4.9 above reveals the mean of pre-test score was (1.90) with standar deviation was ( 0.676) and error standar was (0.174). The mean of post- test score was (3.30) with standar deviation was (0.560) and error standar was (0.144). The result is that the students ratings increased from (0.00) to (3.00).
Table 4.10 The paired Samples Correlation of Pre-Test and Post-test Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Pretest & Posttest 15 .452 .091
Table 4.10 presents the data of the correlation between the pre-test and post-test. The cohen correlation table (can be seen on page 31) with a correlation of (0.30-0.49), it shows that the correlation score 0.452 is medium category with a significance value is 0.091.This data there is corelation between students speaking skills before and after giving the treatment.
42
5.137>2.144
Table 4.11 The Paired Sample Test of Pre-Test and Post-Test Paired Samples Test
Std.
Deviat ion
Std.
Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean Lower Upper T Df
Pretest – Pair 1 -
Posttes t
-
1.400 -1.055 .272 -
1.984
- 815
-
5.137 14 .000
The researcher obtains data with tc (tcount) = 5.137 and df (degrees of freedom) = 14 while the tt (ttable) for the standar of significant level 0,05 (5%) on df =14 is 2.144. It means the value of the t-count is higher than the value of the t- table.
As a result, the Ha hypothesis is automatically accepted whereas the Ho
hypothesis is rejected. It was determined that there was a considerable difference between speaking students' abilities before and after the use of chain story games.
Therefore, the researcher concluded that using chain story games was effective to improve students speaking skills at XI IPA 1 at SMAN 4 Palopo.