43
This chapter presents the finding and discussion of the research. The finding consist of the data obtained through achievement test to see the students’
achievement after being taught the materials of reading comprehension through anticipation guide strategy and data collected through observation and evaluation to see the students’ improvement in learning reading comprehension after given treatment.
Based on the table above, it was shown that before giving treatment: out of 20 students. Main idea There were 4 (20%) students got fair score, 13 (65%) students got poor score, and 3 (15%) students get very poor. The results of students’ scorein pre-test main idea concluded that, all students claasified in poor level.
Table 4.2Findings Classification the Students’ Score of Pre-Test Supporting idea
No. Classification Score Conclusion Frequency Percentage
1. Excellent 96–100 - 0%
2. Very Good 86 -95 - 0 %
3. Good 76-85 - 0 %
4. Fairly Good 66–75 - 0 %
5. Fair 56–65 1 5 %
6. Poor 46-55 11 55 %
7. Very poor 0–45 8 40%
Total 20 100 %
Based on the table above, it was shown that before giving treatment there was 1 (5%) student got fair score, 11 (55%) students got poor score, and 8 (40%) students got very poor score. The results of students’ scorein pre-test supporting idea that, all students classified in poor level.
Table 4.3 Findings Classification the Students’ Score of Post-Test Main idea
No. Classification Score Main idea
Frequency Percentage
1. Excellent 96–100 - 0 %
2. Very Good 86 -95 - 0 %
3. Good 76-85 4 20%
4. Fairly Good 66–75 5 25 %
5. Fair 56–65 11 55 %
6. Poor 46-55 - 0 %
7. Very poor 0–45 - 0%
Total 20 100 %
In the table above, the researcher found that after giving treatment the achievement of students in their reading comprehension through Anticipation Guide as a reading Strategy; out of 20 students. There are 3 (15%) students who got good score, 5 (25%) students got fairly good score, and 11(55%) students got fair score. The results of students’ score in post-test main idea concluded that, there are only a few students had an increase of their score, and some students have reached the standard value.
Table 4.4 Findings Classification the Students’ Score of Post-Test Supporting idea
No. Classification Score Supporting idea Frequency Percentage
1. Excellent 96–100 - 0%
2. Very Good 86 -95 - 0 %
3. Good 76-85 3 15 %
4. Fairly Good 66–75 5 25%
5. Fair 56–65 6 30 %
6. Poor 46-55 6 30%
7. Very poor 0–45 - 0%
Total 20 100%
In the table above, the researcher found that after giving treatment the achievement of students in their reading comprehension through Anticipation Guide as a reading Strategy, there are 3 (15%) students got good score, 5 (25%) students got fairly good score, 6 (30%) students got fair score, and 6 (30%) students got poor. The results of students’ scorein post-test supporting idea that, there are only a few students had an increase of their score, and some students have reached the standard value.
1. The Effectiveness ofStudents’ Literal Comprehension(Main idea) The researcher used Anticipation Guide Strategy in treatment to see the improvement students’ in literal comprehension and there was improvement in pre-test to post-test. It showed from mean score of the students in pre-test and post-test and also improvement percentage. It could see in the table below:
Table 4.5 The Mean Score of Students’ Literal Comprehension
Indicator Mean score Improvement (%)
Main idea
Pre-test
Post-test
= 42.92%
49. 5 70.75
Table 4.5 indicates that there are differences of students’ score of pre- test and post-test in reading literal comprehension. The data analysis shows the students’ mean score improves from pre-test to post-test. The students’
mean score of pretest is 49.5 and it is classified as poor . However, after applying treatment the students’ literal comprehension improved. It is proved by students’ mean score in post-test is 70.75 and it is classified as fairly good. So, the improvement of students’ achievement in literal Comprehension is 42.92%. It means that, using Anticipation Guide Strategy iseffective to improve students’ literal comprehension in reading.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pre-test Post-test Improvement
Pre-test Post-test Improvement
Chart.4.1. The Mean Score of Students’ Literal Comprehension
2. The Effectiveness of Students’Literal Comprehension (supporting idea) The researcher used Anticipation Guide Strategy in treatment to see the improvement students’ in literal (supporting idea) comprehension and there was improvement in pre-test to post-test. It showed from mean score of the students in pre-test and post-test and also improvement percentage. It could see in the table below:
Table 4.6 The Mean Score of Students’Literal Comprehension
Indicator Mean score Improvement (%)
Supporting idea
Pre-test Post-test = 48.58%
44.25 65.75
Table 4.6 indicates that there are differences between students’ score of literal comprehension before and after using treatment in reading. The data analysis shows that the students’ mean score improves from pre-test to post-test. The students’ mean score of pre-test is 44.25 and it classified as poor. However, after applying treatment the students’ literal (supporting idea ) comprehension improved. It is proved by students’ mean score in posttest is 65.75 and it classified as fair. So, the improvement of students’
achievement in literal (supporting idea ) comprehension is 48.58%. It means that, using Anticipation Guide Strategy is effective to improve students’literal (supporting idea) comprehension in reading.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pre-test Improvement
Pre-test Post-test Improvement
Chart.4.2. The Mean Score of Students’ literal Comprehension (Supporting idea )
3. The Effectiveness ofStudents’ Literal Comprehension
The researcher used Anticipation Guide Strategy in treatment to see the improvement students’ inliteal comprehension and there was improvement in pre-test to post-test. It showed from mean score of the students in pre- test and post-test and also improvement percentage. It could see in the table below:
Table 4.7 The Mean Score of Students’Literal (Main idea and supporting idea ) Comprehension
Indicators Mean score
Improvement Pre-test Post-test
Main idea (Literal) 49.5 70.75 42.92%
Supporting idea 44.25 65.75 48.58%
Table 4.7 indicates that the students score in post-test improves after teaching reading comprehension by using Anticipation Guide Strategy for
literal level. Before giving treatment the students’ score in pre-test for literal (main idea) comprehension is 49.5 and literal (supporting idea) comprehension is 44.25. These results are classified as poor category . However, after giving treatment the students’ score in posttest improves to be 70.75 for main idea and 65.75 for supporting idea level. These scores are classified as a fairly good and fair category. It means that, after using Anticipation Guide Strategy gives improvement to the students’
comprehension in reading.
4. T-test Value
In order to know whether or not the difference between the mean score of test and post-test is statistically significant the t-test statistical analysis for non independent sample is employed. The result of the t-test is shown in the following table.
Table 4.8 The T-Test Analysis of The Students’ Improvement
Variables t-test t-table Explanation
Literal (main idea)
Literal (supporting idea)
9.45
11.84
2.093
2.093
t testt- table
t testt- table
Effective
Effective
The researcher compared t-test value and t- table to know whether the use of Anticipation Guide Strategy in teaching reading comprehension was significant,
to find out the degree of freedom (df) the researcher used formula N-1=20-1=19, for the level significant (p)=0,05 and df=29, t-table got score 2.093. After calculating the t-test value of literal (main idea), it got score 9.45, so the value of t-test and t-table is (9.452.093), and calculating the t-test value of literal (supporting idea), it got score 11.84 . So the value of t-test and t-table is (11.842.093), it means that there was different result of the value of t-test and t- table
5. Hypothesis Testing
The result of the statistical analysis at the level significance 0.05 with degrees of freedom (df) = n – 1, where df = 20 – 1 and df = 19 indicated that there is significant difference between the mean score of the post-test and pre-test. The mean score of the pre-test is 44.25 and post-test is 65.75, and the value of t-test in literal (supporting idea) is 11.84 whole the t-table is 2.093 where 11.84 2.093.
It is concluded the null hypothesis (H1) is accepted. Seeing the fact that, the students’ reading comprehension could improve after treatment by using Anticipation Guide Strategy.
In addition the t-test value in literalis greater that the t-table value (65.75>2.093). It means that there is significant difference between the students’
reading comprehension before and after using Anticipation Guide in teaching reading. This also means that null hypothesis (H0) is rejected, while the alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted.