CHAPTER III RESEACRH METHOD RESEACRH METHOD
A. Findings
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presented the result of the data of the students‘ creativity in writing. The finding of this research presented the result that covers students‘
creativity in fluency, flexibility and originality by using divergent thinking method. The discussion of this research covered further explanation of findings.
Table 4.1. The Pre-Test Score Percentage of Students‘ Creativity Writing in Terms of Fluency of Thinking
No. Classification Score
Pre-Test Frequency %
1 Very Fluent 5 0 0%
2 Fluent 4 2 6.7%
3 Fluent enough 3 6 20%
4 Less Fluent 2 1 3.3%
5 Not Fluent 1 21 70%
Total 30 100%
Table 4.1 showed that the group of students who had the largest frequency lies in the classification of not fluent with a 21 (70%) frequency whereas, then there were 6 (20%) frequency in fluent enough and there was no in the very fluent classification. Overall it means that the students' scores and percentages in the pre-test were still low because more than half of the students got not fluent scores.
b. Post test
In the post-test, the researcher presented the result of percentage of students‘ score in writing essay in terms fluency after using divergent thinking as a method in teaching. This research involved 30 students and was conducted at the eleventh grade of students of SMA Negeri 2 Takalar.
Table 4.2. The Post-Test Score Percentage of Students‘ Creativity Writing in Terms of Fluency
No. Classification Score
Post-Test Frequency %
1 Very Fluent 5 2 6.67%
2 Fluent 4 6 20%
3 Fluent enough 3 1 3.3%
4 Less Fluent 2 20 66,7%
5 Not Fluent 1 1 3.3%
Total 30 100%
Table 4.2 showed that the group of students who had the largest frequency lies in the classification of less fluent with a 20 (66.7%) frequency whereas, then there were 6 (20%) frequency in fluent, and there were 2 (6.67%) frequency in the very fluent classification.
Overall it means that the students' scores and percentages in the pre- test were slightly improved because half of the students got very fluent scores.
2. The Students’ Creativity In Terms of Flexibility
The finding presented the result of score percentage of students‘
creativity in terms of flexibility and comparing the score percentage between pre-test and post-test.
a. Pre-test
In the pre-test, the researcher presented the result of the percentage of students‘ values in writing essay in flexibility terms before use divergent thinking as a method in teaching. This study
involved 30 students and was conducted at the eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 2 Takalar.
Table 4.3. The Pre-Test Score Percentage of Students‘ Creativity Writing Essay in Terms of Flexibility
No. Classification Score
Pre-Test Frequency %
1 Very Flexible 5 0 0%
2 Flexible 4 2 6.7%
3 Flexible enough 3 6 20%
4 Less Flexible 2 1 3.3%
5 Not Flexible 1 21 70%
Total 30 100%
Table 4.3 showed that the group of students who had the largest frequency lies in the classification of not flexible with a 21 (70%) frequency whereas, then there were 6 (20%) frequency in flexible enough and there was no in the very flexible classification. Overall it means that the students' scores and percentages in the pre-test were still low because more than half of the students got not flexible scores.
b. Post test
In the post-test, the researcher presented the result of percentage of students‘ score in writing essay in terms flexible after using divergent thinking as a method in teaching. This research involved 30 students and was conducted at the eleventh grade of students of SMA Negeri 2 Takalar.
Table 4.4. The Post-Test Score Percentage of Students‘ Creativity Writing Essay in Terms of Flexibility
No. Classification Score
Post-Test Frequency %
1 Very Flexible 5 2 6.67%
2 Flexible 4 6 20%
3 Flexible enough 3 3 10%
4 Less Flexible 2 19 63.33%
5 Not Flexible 1 0 0%
Total 30 100%
Table 4.4 showed that the group of students who had the largest frequency lies in the classification of less flexible there was no frequency whereas, then there were 19 (63.33%) frequency in less flexible and there were 2 (6.67%) in the very flexible classification.
Overall it means that the students' scores and percentages in the pre- test were slightly improved because half of the students got very flexible scores.
3. The Students’ Creativity In Terms of Originality
The findings presented the result of score percentage of students‘
creativity in terms of originality and comparing the score percentage between pre-test and post-test.
a. Pre-test
In the pre-test, the researcher presented the result of the percentage of students‘ values in writing essay in flexibility terms before use divergent thinking as a method in teaching. This research
involved 30 students and was conducted at the eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 2 Takalar.
Table 4.5 The Pre-Test Score Percentage of Students‘ Creativity in Writing Essay in Terms of Originality
No. Classification Score
Pre-Test Frequency %
1 Very Original 5 0 0%
2 Original 4 1 3.3%
3 Original enough 3 2 6.7%
4 Less Original 2 6 20%
5 Not Original 1 21 70%
Total 30 100%
Table 4.5 showed that the group of students who had the largest frequency lies in the classification of not original with a 21 (70%) frequency whereas, then there were 6 (20%) frequency in less original and there was no in the very original classification. Overall it means that the students' scores and percentages in the pre-test were still low because more than half of the students got not original scores.
b. Post test
In the post-test, the researcher presented the result of percentage of students‘ score in writing essay in terms originality after using divergent thinking as a method in teaching. This research involved 30 students and was conducted at the eleventh grade of students of SMA Negeri 2 Takalar.
Table 4.6 The Post-Test Score Percentage of Post-Test Result of Students‘ Creativity in Writing Essay in Terms of Originality
No. Classification Score
Post-Test
Frequency %
1 Very Original 5 1 3.3%
2 Original 4 2 6.7%
3 Original enough 3 6 20%
4 Less Original 2 20 67%
5 Not Original 1 1 3.3%
Total 30 100%
Table 4.6 showed that the group of students who had the largest frequency lies in the classification of less original with a 20 (67%) frequency whereas, then there were 6 (20%) frequency in original enough and there was 1 (3.3%) frequency in the very original classification. Overall it means that the students' scores and percentages in the pre-test were slightly improved.
4. The Improvement of Students’ Creativity in Writing
The improvement of the students‘ creativity score obtained through writing test.
Table 4.7
No. Indicators of Creativity Mean Score
Pre-Test Post-Test
1 Fluency 3.26 5.2
2 Flexibility 3.26 5.3
3 Originality 2.9 4.8
Total 9.42 15.3
Improvement 3.14 5.1
Column 1.
The result above showed that the students‘ score improved after using divergent thinking as method in teaching and learning process. It was proved by comparing students‘ score in pre-test and post-test. It can be seen in the table 4.9 that in pre-test was 3.8 and in the post-test was 5.1.
5. Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis was a temporary answer to the problem that must be formulated as stated in Chapter II. The hypothesis proposed in this research was "the divergent thinking can improve students' creativity in writing at SMA Negeri 2 Talakar especially in class XI IPA 1 in writing. In this research the researcher uses t-test analysis on the level of significance (p) = 0.05 with the degree of freedom (df) = N-1 (30-1=29) and the t-table was 1.699. The table shows the result of the t-test calculation.
Improvement 3.8 5.1 0
Pre-Test Post-Test
6 5 4 3 2 1
Improvement Score
Table 4.8 The T-Test of Students‘ Improvement
Aspect of Creativity T-test Value T-table Value
Fluency 16.92
1.699
Flexibility 2
Originality 32.16
Student’ Creativity 17.02
Table 4.8 that the t-test value in aspect of creativity were improved. It could be seen on the table that the t-test was higher than t-table (17.02>1.699).
It indicated that there was a significant difference between the result of the students‘ pre-test and post-test by using divergent thinking as method in teaching. It means that the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.