CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Findings
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presented the findings of the research and discussion.
The finding consists of the description of the result of data collected through test. In the discussion part, the writer presented interpretation of the findings.
Then the writer analysis the data obtained from the result of the students’ pre- test and post-test.
1. The Analysis of the Students’ Score
In collected data the writer employed a test, which used in pre-test and post-test. The pre-test was applied before giving treatment whereas the post- test was administrated after giving treatment. In analyzing data, the writer presented the result of multiple choice test in pre-test and post-test.
The students’ score was obtained through the test, in order to know the students’ English ability through giving reward. Then the writer determined the quality of the students’ score into rate percentage and score of classification as follow:
Table 4.1: The Students’ Score in Pre-Test NO
Initial of Students’ Name Students’ Score
1 AM 40
2 ATB 45
3 A 50
4 AS 45
5 AP 40
6 APR 60
To be continued
7 D 45
8 DR 45
9 DS 60
10 E 45
11 FYP 65
12 FP 50
13 J 55
14 JP 45
15 KP 45
16 LS 60
17 LL 65
18 MGT 45
19 MDT 60
20 MD 55
21 MT 50
Continuation
22 PT 45
23 PL 50
24 RH 50
25 R 35
26 RP 45
27 RPP 60
28 ST 50
29 SS 50
30 TP 35
Total 1490
Source: SMPN 2 Bangkelekila’
Based on the table 4.1 above, the writer concludes that the students’
score in pre-test is low than average. Most of them got less than 50, they have low ability in learning English. It seems that most of them are lack in vocabulary and expression sentences, so they need more time to the writer needed to conduct treatment to improve the students’ English ability. In this test there are 2 students were higher. They are Febryanti Paliwan (FYP) and Continuation
Lesa Liga (LL) they have good basic in English and also they are smartest in their class. Beside that there are 2 students Rante (R) and Thomas Pawarrangan (TP) were the lower because while test they were not seriously.
At the time, they sat next to each other, they were just noisy and work together the test so their answers are the same and their value is the same on pre-test.
Table 4.2: The Students’ Score in Post-Test NO
Initial of Students’ Name Students’ Score
1 AM 65
2 ATB 75
3 A 80
4 AS 85
5 AP 75
6 APR 75
7 D 70
8 DR 65
To be continued
9 DS 90
10 E 70
11 FYP 95
12 FP 75
13 J 80
14 JP 75
15 KP 65
16 LS 80
17 LL 85
18 MGT 80
19 MDT 70
20 MD 80
21 MT 85
22 PT 75
23 PL 85
Continuation
24 RH 80
25 R 70
26 RP 70
27 RPP 85
28 ST 70
29 SS 95
30 TP 60
Total 2355
Source : SMPN 2 Bangkelekila’
Based on the table 4.2 above, the writer concluded that there was a significant achievement students’ score in post-test. Most of them got very good classification and good classification, one none of them got very poor classification. In this test, Rante (R) got a good score than in pre-test after he learned (To be and vocabulary) through treatment. He was enthusiastic when the writer gave treatment and actually he is smart but in pre-test he was not seriously while working the test, whereas Thomas Pawarrangan (TP) still got the lowest score in post-test because he was still not seriously and he always out of the class in learning process. Febryanti Paliwan (FYP) is still at the Continuation
higher value. She only has one wrong number, its problem is only the expression sentence.
Table 4.3: The Comparison between Students’ Score in Pre-Test and Post- Test
NO
Initial of Students’ Name
Students’ Score
Pre-Test Post-Test
1 AM 40 65
2 ATB 45 75
3 A 50 80
4 AS 45 85
5 AP 40 75
6 APR 60 75
7 D 45 70
8 DR 45 65
9 DS 60 90
10 E 45 70
11 FYP 65 95
To be continued Continuation
12 FP 50 75
13 J 55 80
14 JP 45 75
15 KP 45 65
16 LS 60 80
17 LL 65 85
18 MGT 45 80
19 MDT 60 70
20 MD 55 80
21 MT 50 85
22 PT 45 75
23 PL 50 85
24 RH 50 80
25 R 35 70
26 RP 45 70
27 RPP 60 85
28 ST 50 70
29 SS 50 95
30 TP 35 60
Total 1490 2355
Source: SMPN 2 Bangkelekila’
Table in the previous page of above show the comparison between students’ score in pre-test and post-test, from the table the writer conclude that the students’ score in post-test is higher than pre-test. It means that giving reward can improve students’ achievement in learning English. Its shows a significant difference of the students score after treatment was given the pre-test and post-test. In the table pre-test indicates twenty one students’
categories as poor, while in post-test, table 4.3 indicates that after giving treatment, it was only one student has a lowest score or students’ categories as poor, it means the most of the students’ categories as poor before giving treatment than after giving treatment.
The table describes that lowest score the pre-test is 35 and the highest score is 65, while the lowest score of post-test is 60 and the highest score is
Continuation
95. Its shows the significance improvement of students, in this case Sarni Sattu (SS) got the highest improvement from 50 to 95, Kurniawati Palombu (KP) had not good improvement from 45 to 65 and Lesa Liga (LL) It’s on pre- test she is got the higher score but on post-test she had not good improvement from 65 to 85. She is not active when learning process.
Table 4.4: The Rate Percentage of Pre-test and Post-test
Classificatio n
Scor e
Pre-test Post-test
Frequenc y
Percentag e
Frequenc y
Percentag e Excellent 91-
100
- 0% 2 7%
Very good 81-90 - 0% 9 30%
Good 71-80 - 0% 10 33%
Fair 61-70 2 7% 8 27%
Poor 51-60 7 23% 1 3%
Very poor <50 21 70% - 0%
Total 30 100% 30 100%
Source: SMPN 2 Bangkelekila’
Table In previous page shows the students’ score percentage in pre- test and post-test. In pre-test none of student got excellent classification, very good classification, and good classification, 2 students (7%) got fair classification, 7 students (23%) got poor classification, and 21 students (70%) got very poor classification.
In the post there were 2 students (7%) got excellent classification, 9 students (30%) got very good classification, 10 students (33%) got good classification, 8 students (27%) got fair classification, 1 students (3%) got poor classification and none of the students got very poor classification.
Based on the table above the writer find the percentage of students in post- test is higher that pre-test. It proved after applying the effect of giving reward.
It means that the effect of giving reward was effective way to improved students’ achievement in learning English.
2. The Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Students in Pre-test and Post- test
The mean score and standard deviation of the students is used to know the significance difference of the students’ achievement in pre-test and post- test.
To know the mean score of the test, the writer calculated all score by used formula as follow:
1. Pre-test X
=
𝛴𝑋𝑁
=
149030
=
49.72. Post-test X = 𝛴𝑋
𝑁
= 2355 30 = 78.5
Table 4.5: The Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Students.
Test Mean score Standard deviation
Pre-test 49.7 8.01
Post-test 78.5 9.11
Source: SMPN 2 Bangkelekila’
The mean score and standard deviation were difference in pre-test and post-test. The results of the students’ mean score in pre-test and post-test shows significance different. This means that there was an improvement after giving treatment. In the pre-test the students’ mean score was 49.7 and in the post-test the students’ mean score was 78.5. Standard deviation in pre-test was 8.01 and standard deviation in post-test was 9.11. The mean score of both pre-test and post-test were different after the treatment. It means that the mean score of post-test is higher than pre-test (78.5 > 49.7).
3. Test of significance (T-test)
T-test value is I intended to see whether or not difference between the pre-test and post-test was significant.
Table 4.6: T-test Value of Students’ English Achievement Test of Significance Variable T-test value T-table value
X2-X1 27.72 2.045
Source: SMPN 2 Bangkelekila’
The table 4.6 above shows that the t-test value of the students’
achievement in learning English was greater than the t-table value (27.72>2.045). It can be conclude that there was significance between the students’ pre-test and the post-test. It means that giving reward can improve students’ achievement in learning English.
4. Hypothesis Testing
To find out the degree of freedom (df) the research used the following formula:
Df = N-1 Df = 30-1 Df = 29
For the level of significant (p) = 0.05 and degree freedom (df) 29. Than t- table value = 2.045 and t-test value = 27.72, this the value of t-test is greater than t-table (27.72 ≥ 2.045). It means that there was a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of the students in giving reward to improved students’ achievement in learning English. It means that null hypothesis (H0) is rejected while alternative hypothesis is accepted. In other word, there was a significant of the result of the pre-test and post-test.
Based on the data analysis above it was found the effect of giving reward on learning of SMPN 2 Bangkelekila’.