CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the research findings and their discussion. The findings of the research cover the description of the result of data collecting through the test. The discussion will describe the interpretation of the findings.
Table 4.1Classification of the Students’ Pre-test and Post test of Control Class
No Classification Score
Pre - Test Post - Test F Percentage F Percentage
1 Excellent 81-100 0 0% 2 7.1%
2 Good 61-80 3 10.7% 3 10.7%
3 Adequate 41-60 15 53.6% 15 53.6%
4 Fair 21-40 9 32.1% 8 28.6%
5 Limited 1-20 1 3.6% 0 0%
6 No 0 0 0% 0 0%
TOTAL 28 100% 28 100%
Table 1 above presents the data about the students’ achievement in speaking performance of the 2 Agri 1 students of SMK Negeri 2 Jeneponto in academic year 2015-2016 as the control group in this research. From the table above, it can be seen that most of the students in pre-test are in adequate level and down. It was around 25 students or 89.3% which was 15 (53.6%) students are classified as adequate, 9 (32.1%) are in fair level, and 1 (3.6%) student is in limited level. And only 3 (10.7%) students are above of adequate level, they are in good level. It’s no one of them in no level and in excellent level. By the presenting data above, the students’ pretest achievement of the speaking performance was still low.
Furthermore, the students’ post-test achievement of the speaking performance after getting treatment as usual method gets an improvement. Even tough, most of the students are still below adequate level but there was an
increasing rate of the students score above adequate level. It was 5 (17.8%) students are above adequate. 2 (7.1%) students got the highest level, excellent, and 3 (10.7%) others are one level below or good level. And the post-test result shows low level improvement.
2. The Classification of the Students’ Score in Pre-test and Post test of Experimental Class.
The data from experimental class also had been calculated and specifically classified into six different levels. It will be showed by the table below:
Table 4.2Classification of the Students’ Pre-test and Post test of Experimental Class
No Classification Score
Pre - Test Post - Test
F Percentage F Percentage
1
Excellent
81- 100
0 0% 4 16%
2 Good 61-80 4 16% 9 36%
3 Adequate 41-60 10 40% 11 44%
4 Fair 21-40 10 40% 1 4%
5 Limited 1-20 1 4% 0 0%
6 No 0 0 0% 0 0%
TOTAL 25 100% 25 100%
In the table 2 above compares the level of the students’ achievement in pretest and post-test in percentage rate of experimental class. In pre-test, the description of students’ scores almost similar to the pre-test of control class where most of the students get low scores. But in post-test, there was a high level of
improvement. The scores of the student move up. Most of them or 24 (96%) students are in three upper levels, excellent, good and adequate while 1 (4%) student in fair level. No more students are in limited and no level. Generally, the post test score of the students’ experimental group in this research is greater than the pre-test.
3. Percentage Improvement of Students’ Speaking Performance
The classification of the result of tests in this research shows the improvement of the students in speaking performance both in experimental and control group. But the real rate of improvement cannot be shown. Thus, it should be calculated through the formula, and the result is presented in tables below:
Table 4.3Percentage Improvement of Students’ Speaking Performance in Experimental Class
Mean Score Pretest
Classification
Mean Score Post-test
Classification
Percentage Improvement
50.4 Adequate 70.2 Good 39.29%
As the explanation before, the improvement of the students in experimental class was great enough. Implementation of Rotating Trio Exchange method had improved the students’ achievement in speaking performance. It has risen up the score of the students to one upper level, from adequate level in their pretest to good level in post-test. The students’ achievement increases 19.8 points or 39.29%.
Different from the experimental class, the control class has low improvement. The improvement of the students in control class will be shown by the table below.
Table 4.4Percentage Improvement of Students’ SpeakingPerformance in Control Class
Mean Score Pretest
Classification
Mean Score Post-test
Classification
Percentage Improvement
51.1 Adequate 54.5 Adequate 6.65%
The students in control class also give an improvement of their English speaking performance but it was not as great as in experimental class. The improvement of the students was just 3.4 points or 6.65%. It describes that usual method which was applied in control group has improved lower than the method used in experimental class. Furthermore, to see the difference improvement degree, the diagram will be presented as follows:
Figure 4.1.Diagram comparing improvement of students’ speaking performance.
The diagram above clearly shows that mean score of pretest in experimental class was a bit lower than pretest in control class. The difference rate between
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
mean score of pretest 50.4 51.1
Table 4.4Percentage Improvement of Students’ SpeakingPerformance in Control Class
Mean Score Pretest
Classification
Mean Score Post-test
Classification
Percentage Improvement
51.1 Adequate 54.5 Adequate 6.65%
The students in control class also give an improvement of their English speaking performance but it was not as great as in experimental class. The improvement of the students was just 3.4 points or 6.65%. It describes that usual method which was applied in control group has improved lower than the method used in experimental class. Furthermore, to see the difference improvement degree, the diagram will be presented as follows:
Figure 4.1.Diagram comparing improvement of students’ speaking performance.
The diagram above clearly shows that mean score of pretest in experimental class was a bit lower than pretest in control class. The difference rate between
mean score of pretest mean score of post-test 70.2
51.1 54.5
experimental group control group
Table 4.4Percentage Improvement of Students’ SpeakingPerformance in Control Class
Mean Score Pretest
Classification
Mean Score Post-test
Classification
Percentage Improvement
51.1 Adequate 54.5 Adequate 6.65%
The students in control class also give an improvement of their English speaking performance but it was not as great as in experimental class. The improvement of the students was just 3.4 points or 6.65%. It describes that usual method which was applied in control group has improved lower than the method used in experimental class. Furthermore, to see the difference improvement degree, the diagram will be presented as follows:
Figure 4.1.Diagram comparing improvement of students’ speaking performance.
The diagram above clearly shows that mean score of pretest in experimental class was a bit lower than pretest in control class. The difference rate between
experimental group control group
them was around 0.7 points. Fortunately, mean score of post test shows a significant improvement of experimental class. It has risen up 19.8 points and higher 15.7 points than control group. It indicates that the students speaking performance has been improved greater in experimental class through Rotating Trio Exchange method than control class which used a conventional method.
4. Test of Significance ofthe Students’ Speaking Performance
In this research, the significance test was calculated through t-test with two tailed test because this research uses two groups, they are experimental and control group. The t-test was used to know whether there was a significant increase of the students in speaking performance or not. To compare the result of t-test and t-table, the level of significance and degree of freedom (d.f) should be determined. And the level of significance used in this research is 0.05 while degree of freedom calculated through formula n1 + n2 – 2 for two tailed test. In short, the result shows below:
Table 4.5 t-test and t-table Value in Students’ Speaking Performance
t-test value t-table value Comparison Classification
4.19 2.021 4.19 > 2.021 Significant
The t-test value in this research was 4.19. For t-table value with level of significance 0.05 and the degree of freedom 40 is 2.021. Actually, this research has d.f = n1+ n2–2 = 25 + 28 - 2 = 51, but in t-table there is no d.f = 51. So, d.f = 40 is used. Table above shows that result of t-test was greater than t-table value, so this research which observes the speaking performance of high school students
is classified as significant. The calculation result shows a significantly different of the students’ achievement.
5. Hypotheses Testing
Gay (2006: 349) stated that if the t-test value is equal to or greater than the t- table value, then the null hypothesis was rejected. Based on that explanation, the null hypothesis (H0) in this research is rejected because the t-test value (4.19) was greater than t-table value (2.021). And finally, alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted where there was improvement of the speaking performance of the students who have been treated through the use of Rotating Trio Exchange method.