CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Findings
The findings of the research contains clear answer to the problem statements as obtainable objective of the research which aims to find out the improvement of the students’ speaking abilty by using participation point system at the eighth grade of SMPN 1 Majauleng.
1. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability in Term Accuracy The improvement of the students’ speaking ability is viewed in term of accuracy, dealing with vocabulary and pronunciation through the use of participation point system that can be seen clearly based on the following table:
Table 4.1. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability in Terms Accuracy
No Indicators Pre-Test Post-Test Improvement (%)
1. Vocabulary 4.42 6.67 50.90
2. Pronunciation 4.62 6.41 38.75
Total Score (∑X) 9.04 13.08
44.69
Mean Score (X) 4.52 6.54
The table above shows two indicators of accuracy in the students’
speaking ability. Each indicator has score of pre-test and post-test. The mean score of students’ speaking accuracy in pre-test is 4.52. It is classified as a poor category, but after using the Participation Point System in treatment, the mean score of post-test becomes 6.54. It is greater than pre-test. It is classified as a fairly category. The improvement of the students’ speaking accuracy from pre-test to post-test is 44.69%.
To see clearly the improvement of the students’ accuracy dealing with vocabulary and pronunciation, following graphic below;
Graphic 4.1. The Improvement of the Students’ SpeakingAccuracy The graphic above indicates the students’ improvement of accuracy dealing with vocabulary and pronunciation. The students’ improvement in vocabulary is 50,90%, the students improvement in pronunciation is 38,75%, and the improvement of both are 44,69%.
50,90%
38,75% 44,69%
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
90,00%
100,00%
Vocabulary Pronunciation Mean
Based on the percentages above there are significant improvement of the students by using Participation Point System in teaching English speaking accuracy.
2. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability in Term Fluency The improvement of the studentss, speaking abiliy in this section is viewed based on fluency dealing with smoothness and content through the use of participation point system that can be seen clearly based on the following table:
Table 4.2. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability in Terms Fluency
No Indicator Pre-Test Post-Test
Improvement (%)
1. Smoothness 4.42 6.83 54.52
2. Content 5.12 6.55 27.92
Total Score (∑X) 9.54 13.38
40.25
Mean Score (X) 4.77 6.69
Table 4.2 above shows the score of two indicators of fluency in the students’ speaking ability. The mean score of students’ speaking fluency in pre-test is 4.77. It is classified as a poor category, but after using the Participation Point System in treatment, the mean score of post-test becomes 6.69. It is greater than pre-test. It is classified as a fairly good category. The improvement of the students’ speaking fluency from pre-test to post-test is 40.25%.
To see clearly the improvement of the students, fluency dealing with smoothness and content, following graphic below;
Graphic 4.2. The Improvement of the Students’ SpeakingFluency The graphic above indicates the students’ improvement of fluencydealing with smoothness and content. The students’ improvement in smoothness is 54,52%, the students improvement in pronunciation is 27,92%, and the improvement of both are 40,25%.
Based on the percentages above there are significant improvements of the students by using Participation Point System in teaching English speaking fluency.
3. The Improvements of the Students’ Speaking Ability
To find the students improvement in speaking the researcher administered a test, which is given twice to the students. Firstly, pre-test is given before the treatment. Secondly, post-test is given after the treatment The result of the
54,52%
27,92% 40,25%
0,00%
20,00%
40,00%
60,00%
80,00%
100,00%
Smoothness Content Mean
Percentage
FLUENCY
students’ ability on speaking through Participation Point System is presented in table 4.3. below :
Table 4.3. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability No Variabels Pre-Test Post-Test
Improvement (%)
1. Accuracy 4.52 6.54 44.69
2. Fluency 4.77 6.69 40.25
Total Score (∑X) 9.29 13.23
42.45
Mean Score (X) 4.64 6.61
The data in the table above shows two variabels of speaking ability as the result of calculating of students pre-test and post-test by using Participation Point system. Where thestudents’ scorein pre-test is 4.64. It is classified as a poor category, but after using the Participation Point System in treatment, the mean score of post-test becomes 6.61. It is greater than pre-test. It is classified as a fairly good category. The improvement of the students’
speaking fluency from pre-test to post-test is 42.45%.
To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy and fluency, following the graphic below;
Graphic 3: The Improvement ofStudents’ Speaking Ability
Thegraphic above shows the students’ improvement of speaking ability in terms accuracy and fluency. The students’ improvement in accuracy is 44,69%, the students improvement in fluency is 40,25%, and the improvement of both are 42,45%.
Based on the percentages above there are significant improvements of the students by using Participation Point System in teaching English speaking. It can be conclude that Participation Point System is effective to improve the students’ speaking ability.
4. The Significance of the Students’ Speaking Ability
To know the level of significance of the pre-test and post-test, the researcher uses t-test analysis based on the hypothesis. Hypothesis test: if the T -test value is greater than T-tabel at the level of significance (p) = 0.05 with the degree of freedom (df) = N-1,where N=number of subject (21 and 22 students) thus the alternative hypothesis (H1) will be accepted and null hypothesis (H0) will be rejected. In contrary if the t-test value is lower than t- table, thus the alternative hypothesis will be rejected. Then the value of t-
44,69% 40,25% 42,45%
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
90,00%
100,00%
ACCURACY FLUENCY Mean
Percentage
Speaking Ability
table is 2.018. The t-test statistical analysis for independent sample is applied.
The following table shows the result of t-test calculation:
Table 4.4. T-test of the Students’ Speaking Ability
Speaking Ability
T-Test T-Table Comparison Classification
11.37 2.018 T test > T Table
Significantly Different
The table above indicates the significant different between T-Test and T- Table. That t-test value is greater than t-table (T-Test> T-Table), the final result shows that t-test value for the final score of students’ speaking ability is (11.37 > 2.018). It means that there is significant difference between the students’ speaking ability before and after usingParticipation Point System. It also can be stated that the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted.