38
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of the findings in this research and its discussion. It provides information about the result of data collected through test that can be discussed in this section below:
Table 4.1 The Students’ Score in Pre-test Based on Speaking Skill
NO Name Pronunciation Comprehension Vocabulary Fluency Score
1 A 5 5 5 5 20
2 AR 3 4 5 4 16
3 DR 4 3 5 4 16
4 EDP 4 4 5 4 17
5 FL 3 3 5 3 14
6 FS 3 3 5 3 14
7 FR 2 3 5 3 13
8 H 3 2 5 3 13
9 MAF 2 3 5 3 13
10 MAR 3 3 5 3 14
11 MFA 5 6 5 5 21
12 MS 1 2 2 3 8
13 M 4 3 5 3 15
14 M 3 3 5 2 13
15 NM 3 3 5 2 13
16 NO 3 2 5 3 13
17 PN 2 3 5 3 13
18 RH 5 6 5 5 21
19 R 3 3 5 3 14
20 SRA 3 3 5 3 14
21 ST. D 3 3 5 3 14
22 SR 3 3 5 3 14
23 SS 3 2 5 3 13
24 VR 1 2 3 2 8
25 VA 3 3 5 3 14
26 AA 3 3 5 3 14
27 FR 3 3 5 3 14
Total 83 86 130 87 368
(Data’ Source: the students’ score in pre-test)
After knowing the students’ score in pre-test based on the criteria of speaking skills which are pronuncation, comprehension, vocabulary, and fluancy. The following table below is to know students speaking score in pre-test:
40
Table 4.2 The Students’ Speaking Score in Pre-test No. Name
Pre-Test of Students (X1)
Max Score Total Score (X1) (X1)2 Classification
1 A 40 50 2500 Fair
2 AR 40 40 1600 Poor
3 DR 40 40 1600 Poor
4 EDP 40 43 1849 Poor
5 FL 40 35 1225 Poor
6 FS 40 35 1225 Poor
7 FR 40 33 1089 Poor
8 H 40 33 1089 Poor
9 MAF 40 33 1089 Poor
10 MAR 40 35 1225 Poor
11 MFA 40 53 2809 Fair
12 MS 40 20 400 Very Poor
13 M 40 38 1444 Poor
14 M 40 33 1089 Poor
15 NM 40 33 1089 Poor
16 NO 40 33 1089 Poor
17 PN 40 33 1089 Poor
18 RH 40 53 2809 Fair
19 R 40 35 1225 Poor
20 SRA 40 35 1225 Poor
21 ST. D 40 35 1225 Poor
22 SR 40 35 1225 Poor
23 SS 40 33 1089 Poor
24 VR 40 20 400 Very Poor
25 VA 40 35 1225 Poor
26 AA 40 35 1225 Poor
27 FR 40 35 1225 Poor
Total ∑X=971 ∑X2=36373
(Data’ Source: the students’ score in pre-test)
Found on the table above about students’ speaking in pre-test we can know the frequency of the classification score by looking the following table:
Table 4.3 the Rate Percentage of the Frequency of the Pre-Test No. Classification Score
Frequency Of Pre- test
Percentage Of Pre- test
1. Very good 81-100 0 0%
2. Good 61-80 0 0%
3. Fair 41-60 3 11,11%
4. Poor 21-40 22 81,48%
5. Very poor 0-20 2 7,41%
Total 27 100%
(Data source: The rate percentage of the frequency of pre-test)
As the explanation in the table above, the average score of students’ prior speaking skills before using cooperative script method. There were three students got fair, twenty two students got poor and two student got very poor. The total score in pre-test was 971. It had shown that the students’ speaking skills in pre-test was low, because most of the students got fair, poor and very poor score. The following are the process of calculation to find out the mean and standard deviation in pre-test of the table 4.2.
Mean score of the pre-test:
x=
x =
x = 36
Thus, the mean score (X1) of pre-test is 36
42
Based on the result of the pre-test, the data showed that the average score of the pre-test is 36. From that analyzing. It had shown that almost of the 27 students skills in speaking was still low because most of the students got very poor score. The total score in pre-test was still low. They mostly have low score in pronunciation and fluency. They spoke with errors in pronunciation and their accent quite faulty in fluency since they spoke unnaturally with many pauses.
√
√
√
√
√
√
Thus, the standard deviation of pre-test is 7.47
After determining the mean score (X1) of pre-test was 36 and standard deviation of the pre-test was 7,47. It had shown that the students’ speaking skills were in low category.
4.1.1.2 The students score in post-test.
Meantime, the students’ score in post-test would be presented in the following table:
Table 4.4 The Students’ Score in Post-test
NO Name Pronunciation Comprehension Vocabulary Fluency Score
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 A 7 7 8 8 30
2 AR 6 6 7 6 25
3 DR 6 7 8 6 27
4 EDP 7 7 8 7 29
5 FL 6 6 7 6 25
6 FS 6 6 7 7 26
7 FR 7 7 8 6 28
8 H 6 6 7 6 25
9 MAF 6 6 7 6 25
10 MAR 6 6 7 7 26
11 MFA 7 7 8 8 30
12 MS 6 6 6 6 24
13 M 7 7 8 7 29
14 M 6 6 7 6 25
15 NM 6 7 8 6 27
16 NO 7 7 8 8 30
17 PN 6 6 7 6 25
18 RH 7 7 8 8 30
19 R 6 7 8 6 27
20 SRA 7 7 8 7 29
21 ST. D 6 6 7 6 25
22 SR 6 6 7 6 25
44
The next of table 4.4
No Name Pronunciation Comprehension Vocabulary Fluency Score
1 2 3 4 5 6
23 SS 6 6 7 6 25
24 VR 6 6 6 6 24
25 VA 6 7 8 6 27
26 AA 6 6 7 6 25
27 FR 6 6 7 6 25
Total 170 174 199 175 718
(Data’ Source: the students’ score in post-test)
After qualified the students’ score in post-test based on the criteria of speaking skills which are vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and pronunciation. The following table below is to know students speaking score in post-test:
Table 4.5 The Students’ Score in Post-test No. Name
Post-Test of Students (X1)
Max Score Total Score (X2) (X2)2 Classification
1 2 3 4 5
1 A 40 75 5625 Good
2 AR 40 62,5 3906,25 Good
3 DR 40 67,5 4556,25 Good
4 EDP 40 72,5 5256,25 Good
5 FL 40 62,5 3906,25 Good
6 FS 40 65 4225 Good
7 FR 40 70 4900 Good
8 H 40 62,5 3906,25 Good
9 MAF 40 62,5 3906,25 Good
10 MAR 40 65 4225 Good
11 MFA 40 75 5625 Good
12 MS 40 60 3600 Fair
13 M 40 72,5 5256,25 Good
14 M 40 62,5 3906,25 Good
15 NM 40 67,5 4556,25 Good
The next of table 4.5 No Nama
Post-Test of Students (X1)
Max Score Total Score (X2) (X2)2 Classification
1 2 3 4 5
16 NO 40 75 5625 Good
17 PN 40 62,5 3906,25 Good
18 RH 40 75 5625 Good
19 R 40 67,5 4556,25 Good
20 SRA 40 72,5 5256,25 Good
21 ST. D 40 62,5 3906,25 Good
22 SR 40 62,5 3906,25 Good
23 SS 40 62,5 3906,25 Good
24 VR 40 60 3600 Fair
25 VA 40 67,5 4556,25 Good
26 AA 40 62,5 3906,25 Good
27 FR 40 62,5 3906,25 Good
Total ∑X= 1795 ∑X2= 120013
From the table above shows about students’ speaking score in post-test. To find out the students’ speaking score in post-test by dividing students’ total score with maximum score, after that times with 100. Based on the table above about students’
speaking score in post-test we can know the frequency of the classification score by looking the following table:
Table 4.6 The Rate Percentage of the Frequency of the Post-test
No. Classification Score Frequency of pre-test Percentage of pre-test
1. Very Good 81-100 0 0%
2. Good 61-80 25 92,59%
3. Fair 41-60 2 7,41%
4. Poor 21-40 0 0%
5. Very poor 0-20 0 0%
Total 27 100%
(Data’ source: The rate percentage of the frequency of post-test)
46
The table above, showed the result of students’ improvement in speaking skills after implementing treatment through cooperative script method. There were twenty five students’ got good score and two students’ got fair score. It means that the students’ speaking skills had improved through using cooperative script method.
The total score in post-test was 1795. It proved that there were improving of students’
score in post-test. In addition, the result of post-test showed that no students had fail classification.
In this table, the researcher analysed the data of students’ score in post-test to know whether there is or there is no a significant different of students’ achievement before and after learning process in use cooperative script method speaking skills.
Mean score of the post-test:
x=
x =
x = 66.48
Thus, the mean score (X1) of post-test is 66.48
Based on the result of the post-test. The data shows that the mean score of the post-test was 66,48. From that analysing, it could be seen that almost of the 27 students’ speaking was good and fair score.
The standard deviation of post-test √
√
√
√
√
√
Thus, the standard deviation (SD) of post-test is 5.11
4.1.1.3 The result of the pre-test and post-test were presented in the following:
Table 4.7 The Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Pre-test And Post-test
Test Mean Score Standard Deviation (SD)
Pre-test Post-test
36 66.48
7.47 5.11
(Data’ source: The mean score and standard deviation of pre-test and post-test)
48
The data in table 4.7. Showed that the mean score of pre-test was X1 = 36 while the mean score of the post-test increased X2 = 66.48. The standard deviation of pre-test was 7.47 while the standard deviation of post-test was 5.11
As the result at this item is the mean score of the post-test was greater than the mean score in pre-test. It means that students’ speaking skills had improvement after doing the learning process that use cooperative script method.
4.1.1.4. The rate percentage of the frequency of the pre-test and post-test
The following table showed the percentage of the frequency in pre-test and post-test
Table 4.8 The Rate Percentage of the Frequency of the Pre-test and Post-test
No Classification Score
Frequency Percentage Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test
1. Very Good 81-100 0 0 0% 0%
2. Good 61-80 0 25 0% 92,59%
3. Fair 41-60 3 2 11,11% 7,41%
4. Poor 21-40 22 0 81,48% 0%
5. Very Poor 0-20 2 0 7,41% 0%
Total 27 27 100% 100%
(Data source: the rate percentage of the frequency of the pre-test and post-test)
The data of the table above indicated that rate percentage of the pre-test most students (81.48%) got poor score while the rate percentage of the post-test, that students got good score was higher than percentage in pre-test. It showed that students were able to improve the students’ speaking skills after treatment through using cooperative script method.
4.1.2 The implementation of use cooperative script on students’ speaking skill at SMP Negeri 6 Parepare
This part presented the result of data analysis about use cooperative script to improve the students’ speaking skill at SMP Negeri 6 Parepare:
4.1.2.1 t-test value
The following is the table to find out the difference of the mean score between pre-test and post-test.
Table 4.9 the worksheet of the calculation the score in pre-test and post-test of the students’ speaking skill.
NO X1 X2 (X1)2 (X2)2 D(X2-
X1) D(X2-X1)2
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 50 75 2500 5625 25 3125
2 40 62.5 1600 3906.25 22.5 2306.25
3 40 67.5 1600 4556.25 27.5 2956.25
4 43 72.5 1849 5256.25 29.5 3407.25
5 35 62.5 1225 3906.25 27.5 2681.25
6 35 65 1225 4225 30 3000
7 33 70 1089 4900 37 3811
8 33 62.5 1089 3906.25 29.5 2817.25
9 33 62.5 1089 3906.25 29.5 2817.25
10 35 65 1225 4225 30 3000
11 53 75 2809 5625 22 2816
12 20 60 400 3600 40 3200
13 38 72.5 1444 5256.25 34.5 3812.25
50
The next of table 4.9
NO X1 X2 (X1)2 (X2)2 D(X2-
X1) D(X2-X1)2
1 2 3 4 5 6
14 33 62.5 1089 3906.25 29.5 2817.25
15 33 67.5 1089 4556.25 34.5 3467.25
16 33 75 1089 5625 42 4536
17 33 62.5 1089 3906.25 29.5 2817.25
18 53 75 2809 5625 22 2816
19 35 67.5 1225 4556.25 32.5 3331.25
20 35 72.5 1225 5256.25 37.5 4031.25
21 35 62.5 1225 3906.25 27.5 2681.25
22 35 62.5 1225 3906.25 27.5 2681.25
23 33 62.5 1089 3906.25 29.5 2817.25
24 20 60 400 3600 40 3200
25 35 67.5 1225 4556.25 32.5 3331.25
26 35 62.5 1225 3906.25 27.5 2681.25
27 35 62.5 1225 3906.25 27.5 2681.25
Tota l
∑X1=97 1
∑X2=179 5
∑X12
=3637 3
∑X22
=12001 3
∑D=82 4
∑D2=83639.5 0
In the other to see the students’ score, the following is T-test was statistically applied:
To find out D used the formula as follow:
=
=
30.52The calculation the t-test value
√
√
√
√
√
√
Thus, the t-test value is 3.34
52
This research used pre-experimental design with pre-test and post-test design.
The data below showed the value of t-test was greater than t-table value. In indicated that there was a significant difference between the result students’ pre-test and post- test.
Table 4.10 The Test of Significant
Variable T-test T-table value
Pre-test – post-test 3.34 1.706
(Data source: Primary data processing)
4.1.2.2 Hypothesis Testing
To find out degree of freedom (df) the researcher used the following formula:
Df = N-1
= 27-1
= 26
For the level, significant (α) 5% and df = 26, and the value of the table is 1.703, while the value of t-test 3.34. It means that the t-test value is greater than t- table (3.34 ≥ 1.706). Thus, it can be concluded the students’ speaking skill through using cooperative script method is significant better after getting the treatment. So, the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted.
4.1.3 The improvement of students’ speaking skill through cooperative script method From the previous result, it showed that the improvement of students’
speaking skill through cooperative script method because the mean score of the pre- test was 36 and the mean score of post-test was 66.48. The researcher conclude that the mean score of students’ before giving the treatment is lower than the mean score of students’ after giving the treatment can supported by the result of the pre-test and
post-test, the data showed that the student speaking skill in pre-test was low because most of the student got fair, poor and very poor score than the result of the post test could be seen that almost of the students’ speaking was good and fair score.
The researcher in teaching speaking to make the students were easier to express their ideas and feelings. The researcher measured the students’ speaking by focusing on the aspect of speaking which are vocabulary, fluency, comprehension and pronunciation. These aspects also were a guideline of the researcher in scoring students’ speaking.
The data provided in classification table based on the aspects of speaking from the test finding. There was an improvement skills after giving the treatment because the students score in the pre-test was 36 and it was very low score then the score of the post-test was 66.48 and it was very high score. In the pre-test, three (11.11%) students got fair score, twenty two (81.48%) students got poor score and two (7.41%) students got very poor score while the rate percentage of the post-test, twenty five (92.59%) students got good score, and two (7,41%) student got fair score. From the result the researcher concluded that the students speaking skill from poor to good score, also from very poor to fair score.
In addition, to know what was the hypothesis received between null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (Ha), the researcher use t-test to calculating result showed that on the t-test value 3.34 was greater than t-table value 1.706 table (3.34 ≥ 1.706) with degree of freedom (df) 26. It means alternative hypothesis (Ha) was concluded that by use cooperaive script method was able to improve the students’ speaking skills at the eight grade of SMP Negeri 6 Parepare. This hypothesis was accepted while the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected.
54
Based on the finding above the researcher conclude that there was an improvement of use cooperative script method to improve English speaking skill of SMP Negeri 6 Parepare.
4.1.4 The ways of use cooperative script in improving students’ speaking skills.
After finishing the research, the writer conclude that the students felt enjoy and fun in learning English by use cooperative script method. It made them easier to express their ideas orally in a pairs and they felt fun because they could communicate and interact with their classmate using English because as long as the meeting, they not only speak individually but also they spoke in a group.
Use cooperative script method in teaching English has impact in improving the students’ speaking skills. In fact, based on the finding most students have a good score in post-test by looking the result scoring of the student post-test. It means that, using cooperative script method was better to be used in improving students’
speaking skill. This method also can make the student closer with their friends because they would find different partner for each meeting and they would be confident to express their ideas in front of the class.
Before giving the treatment there was pre-test. In pre-test, the writer introduced herself and gave explanation about the purpose of the research to make the students understood what they would be done. After that, the researcher gave some story to read after that each students retell the story and how much the vocabulary they mantion which was given by the researcher to know the students skill in speaking. The writer recorded the students answer to make easier evaluate the aspects of students’ speaking which are vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, and comprehension.
In the first meeting on Monday, December 17th, 2018, the researcher greets the students and introduces herself. After that the researcher explained the cooperative script method and then the researcher devided the students in some groups, every group consist of two students. The researcher gave materials to every student a manuscript or short story. The researcher asked the students to give opportunity in summarizing their material every group. The researcher asked the students from every group to read the story until understanding it. After that, they were asked to make a summary from every group and retelling the story with entering main ideas. Furthermore, as listener corrected and indicated not complete enough main ideas from not complete speaker’s explaining yet. This meeting the students still confused because the method first apply in English learning process.
On Tuesday, December 18th, 2018, was the second meeting, same with the first meeting the researcher divided the students in pairs and gave materials to every student a manuscript or short story (the story of dull monkey who wanted to be a king) but with diffrent partner. Then, the students made summary and one student as a speaker their partner as a listener after the speaker done the students change their job . In this meeting, the students still confused and shy to speak with their partner.
The third meeting on Wednesday, December 19th, 2018, Same as the second meeting, the researcher gave materials to every student a manuscript or short story (the story of cap seller and the monkeys). In this meeting, the students was not confused but still shy to speak.
The fourth meeting on Thursday, December 20th, 2018, same as the third meeting but the listener better than before because the student as listener was detail to correction the speaker. In this meeting some of them enjoy in learning procces
56
The fifth meeting on Friday, December 21st, 2018, in this meeting the students was not confused and shy to speak. The students focused with their job as listener and speaker and students was confident to speak.
The six meeting on Saturday, December 22nd, 2018, in this meeting the students show their best as speaker and listener and then all of them enjoy and got the motivation to always speak English.
In the last, the researcher gave post-test on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2019. In this meeting same wih the pre-test. Most of the students excited to retell about he story. It aimed to know the students’ speaking skill after doing the treatment.
On the first meeting until the last meeting, the students express their ideas in speaking with different materials in a pairs for each meeting. It was hoped to make the students confident to speak and also develop their ideas. Using cooperative script method in learning speaking was able to help the students to speak correctly and confidently. As the conclusion, use cooperaive script method has an impact in improving the students’ speaking skill.