CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
3.6 Procedure of Collecting Data
The researcher used one test at the treatment of collecting data namely, speaking test in pre-test and post-test. In the treatment used Kim‟s memory game to handle the students how to increase in speaking :
43
43 1. Pre-test
1. The researcher explained all about this research
2. The researcher asked some questions about Kim‟s memory game.
3. The researchergave the students test about speaking without implementing Kim‟s memory gameto know how far they know about Kim‟s memory game.
The test was given to the students is to speak in ten different Indonesian to English sentences with content of Kim‟s memory game.
2. Treatment
Treatment was gaven three times, where each material run two of 30 minutes.
The treatment conduct after pre-test wasgaven in the classroom and the treatment wasbased on procedures for each activity in each meeting as follows:
1. The First Meeting
The treatment held after pre-test, in this step the researcher will do:
Opening Activities
1. The researchergave greeting to the students and praying together before studying
2. The researcher gave motivations and explanations how important English for our future
Main Activities
1. The reseacher gave the students material Singular and Plural.
2. The researcher gave some examples.
3. The researcher aplliedthis game by describing something and asked the class to identify what the researcher have described.
44
44
4. The researcherrather than allowing the learners to call out, and asked them first to tell their neightbourswhattheythinkthe researcherhavedescribed.Thenaskedforsuggestions from theclass.
5. The researcher
askedoneofthemoreconfidentlearnerstotakeoneofthewordcardsat random from the researcher hand. He or she must describe the meaning of the wordonthecardsowellthatotherscanidentifywhatitis.
6. The researcher prepareda number of pictures to the lesson specially focus on singlar and plural.
7. The
researcheraskedonelearnertodescribeaparticularpicturefromachoiceofatlea st five which everyone cansee.
8. The researcher encouragedhisorherpartnerorgrouptoidentify which picture has beendescribed.
Closing Activities
1. The researcher gave instruction to the student that they have to memorize them again in their house
2. The researchersaid thanks and prayed before closing the class.
2.The Second Meeting
Opening Activities
1. The researchergave greeting to the students and praying together before studying
2. The researcher gave motivations and explanations how important English for our future
45
45
Main Activities
1. The reseachergave the students material about Describing Object.
2. The researchergave some examples.
3. The researcher explained all the difficult words and the important information.
4. The researcher aplliedthis game by describing something and asked the class to identify what the researcher has described.
5. The researcherrathered than allowing the learners to call out, and asked them first to tell their neighborswhattheythinkthe researcherhavedescribed.Thenaskedforsuggestions from theclass.
6. The
researcheraskedoneofthemoreconfidentlearnerstotakeoneofthewordcar dsat random from the researcher hand. He or she must describe the meaning of the wordonthecardsowellthatotherscanidentifywhatitis.
7. The researcher bringsseveralpicturesorapicturewithmanyobjects init.
8. The researcher askedonelearnertothinkofanobjectinthepictureandthen describe him, her orit.
9. The researcher encouraged
therestoftheclasstoidentifytheobjectwhichhas beendescribed.
Closing Activities
1. The researchergaveinstruction to the student that they have to memorize them again in their house
2. The researcher said thanks and prayed before closing the class.
46
46 3.The Third Meeting
Opening Activities
1. The researchergave greeting to the students and praying together before studying.
2. The researchergavemotivations and explanations to the students how important English for our future.
Main Activities
1. The reseachergave the students material about Limiting Adjective.
2. The researchergave some examples.
3. The researcher aplliedthis game by describing something and asked the class to identify what the researcher have described.
4. The researcher rathered than allowing the learners to call out, and asked them first to tell their neightbourswhattheythinkthe researcherhavedescribed.Thenaskedforsuggestions from theclass.
5. The
researcheraskedoneofthemoreconfidentlearnerstotakeoneofthewordcar dsat random from the researcher hand. He or she must describe the meaning of the wordonthecardsowellthatotherscanidentifywhatitis.
6. The
researcherbroughtalargepicturewithalotofpeopleinit,orseveraldifferent pictures of peopleinteracting.
7. The researchershowed the picture(s) to the class and asked them to
work in pairs. Explained
47
47
thattheyhavetochoosetwopeopleinthepicturewhomightbehavinga conversation. The pairs should not reveal their choice to others in the class.
8. The researcher
askedeachpairtodeviseandwroteoutaconversationbetweenthechosen characters,andperform it.
9. Inviteedtheclasstoidentifywhichtwocharacterswerebeingrepresented in eachconversation.
Closing Activities
1. The researchergave instruction to the student that they have to memorize them again in their house.
2. The researcher said thanks and pray before closing the class.
4.The Forth Meeting
Opening Activities
1. The researchergave greeting to the students and praying together before studying
2. The researcher gavemotivations and explanations how important English for our future.
Main Activities
1. The reseacher gave the students materialabout Descriptive Adjective 2. The researcher gave some examples.
3. The researcher explained all the difficult words and the important information.
48
48
4. The researcher aplliedthis game by describing something and asked the class to identify what the researcher have described.
5. The researcher rathered than allowing the learners to call out, and asked them first to tell their neightbourswhattheythinkthe researcherhavedescribed.Thenaskedforsuggestions from theclass.
6. The
researcheraskedoneofthemoreconfidentlearnerstotakeoneofthewordcar dsat random from the researcher hand. He or she must describe the meaning of the wordonthecardsowellthatotherscanidentifywhatitis.
7. The researcher
broughtalargepicturewithalotofpeopleinit,orseveraldifferent pictures of peopleinteracting.
8. The researchershowed the picture(s) to the class and asked them to
work in pairs. Explained
thattheyhavetochoosetwopeopleinthepicturewhomightbehavinga conversation. The pairs should not reveal their choice to others in the class.
9. The researcher
askedeachpairtodeviseandwroteoutaconversationbetweenthechosen characters,andperform it.
10. Invitedtheclasstoidentifywhichtwocharacterswerebeingrepresented in eachconversation.
Closing activities
49
49
1. The researchergave instruction to the student that they have to memorize them again in their house
2. The researchersaid thanks and pray before closing the class.
5.The Fifth Meeting
Opening Activities
1. The researcher gave greeting to the students and praying together before studying
2. The researcher gave motivations and explanations how important English for our future.
Main Activities
1. The reseachergave maerial aboutDescribing Ourselves.
2. The researcher gave some examples.
3. The researcher explained all the difficult words and the important information.
4. The researcher aplliedthis game by describing something and asked the class to identify what the researcher have described.
5. The researcher rathered than allowing the learners to call out, and asked them first to tell their neightbourswhattheythinkthe researcherhavedescribed.Thenaskedforsuggestions from theclass.
6. The researcher
askedoneofthemoreconfidentlearnerstotakeoneofthewordcardsat
50
50
random from the researcher hand. He or she must describe the meaning of the wordonthecardsowellthatotherscanidentifywhatitis.
7. The
researcherbroughtalargepicturewithalotofpeopleinitorseveraldifferent pictures ofpeople.
8. Showedthepicture(s)tothelearnersandaskedeachofthemtochooseone character,withoutrevealingtheirchoicetoanyoneelse.
9. The
researcheraskedeachlearnertowritewhattheirchosencharactermightbethi nking inthepicture,thentoreadhisorhertexttotherestoftheclass.
10. The researcher
invitedthelearnerstoidentifywhichpersonwasbeingrepresentedineach case.
Closing activities
1. The researchergave instruction to the student that they have to memorize them again in their house
2. The researcher said thanks and pray before closing the class.
6. The Sixth meeting
Opening Activities
1. The researcher gave greeting to the students and praying together before studying.
51
51
2. The researcher gave motivations and explanations how important English for our future.
3. The researcher explainedagain all about memorize techniques.
Main Activities
1. The researchergave material about Describing Someone
.
2. The researchergave some examples.
3. The researcher explained all the difficult words and the important information.
4. The researcher aplliedthis game by describing something and asked the class to identify what the researcher have described.
5. The researcher rather than allowing the learners to call out, and asked them first to tell their neighborswhattheythinkthe researcherhavedescribed.Thenaskedforsuggestions from theclass.
6. The researcher
askedoneofthemoreconfidentlearnerstotakeoneofthewordcardsat random from the researcher hand. He or she must describe the meaning of the wordonthecardsowellthatotherscanidentifywhatitis.
7. The
researcherbringalargepicturewithalotofpeopleinitorseveraldifferent pictures ofpeople.
8. Showedthepicture(s)tothelearnersandaskedeachofthemtochooseone character,withoutrevealingtheirchoicetoanyoneelse.
52
52 9. The
researcheraskedeachlearnertowritewhattheirchosencharactermightbe thinking inthepicture,thentoreadhisorhertexttotherestoftheclass.
10. The researcher
invitedthelearnerstoidentifywhichpersonwasbeingrepresentedineach case.
Closing activities
1. The researchergavemotivation how important the personal pronoun when they are speaking
2. The researcher said thanks and prayed before closing the class.
3. Post-test
After giving the treatment the students examine by speaking test to find out the students speaking . The researcher gaves the student speaking by using memorize technique. In this time the researcher gave one them like the pre-test above the test gave to the students is to speak in ten different Indonesian to English sentences with content of speaking . Like in the three treatments above, the researcher is still use memoize technique to learn speaking . And in the last of post-test, the researcher know the students‟ English speaking ability by using memorize technique.
3.8Technique of Data Analysis
To analyze the data the result of the pre-test and post-test, some formulas one used in this research as follows:
3.7.1 Speaking test
53
53
The data collected through the test analyzed quantitatively in percentage to measure the students‟ achievement. This quantitative analysis employed statically calculation to test the hypothesis. The steps are:
3.7.1.1 Some formula in this research is use to process the data as follows:
1. Scoring Classification
Scoring the speaking the students speaking ability using the following rubric:
Table 3.2 Scoring Rubric
Score Comprehensibility Accuracy Fluency 6 Easy for the listener
toUnderstandthe speaker‟sintentionand general
meaning.Veryfew interruptionsofclarifica tions required.
Pronunciation isOnlyvery,slightly Influencedby the mother tongue.Two or more
threeminorgrammatical and lexical errors.
Speaks without toogreat an effort with a Fairlywide range ofexpression.
Searches for word occasionally butonly
one or two
unnaturalpauses.
5 Thespeaker‟s
intentionand general meaning are fairly
clear. A few
interruptions by the listener for the sake of
Pronunciation isslightly influenced bythe mothertongue. A fewminor grammatical and lexical errors but most utterances are
Has to make an effort at times to search for words. Nevertheless, smooth delivery on the whole and only a
54
54 clarificationare
necessary.
correct. few unnatural pauses.
4 Most of what the speaker says is easy to follow. His intention is always clear but several interruptions are necessary to help him to convey themessage or to seekclarification
Pronunciation isstill moderatelyinfluenced by the mother tongue but
noseriousphonologicale
rrors. A
fewgrammatical and lexical errors but only one or twomajor errors causing confusion.
Although he has to make an effortand search for words, there are not too manyunnatural
pauses.Fairlysmooth delivery
mostly. Occasionally fragmentary
butsucceeds
inconveying in general meaning.
Fairrange ofexpression.
3 The listener can understand a lot of what is said,but he must constantly seek clarification.
Cannotunderstand
many of the
speaker‟smore
Pronunciationisinfluenc ed by the mothertongue but only a few serious phonologicalerrors.
Severalgrammatical andlexical errors,cause confusion
Has to make an effort for much of the time.
Often has to search for the desired meaning.
Rather haltingdelivery and fragmentary.
Rangeofexpression
55
55 2. The Classification of Students` Score
31BasoJabu,English Language Testing (Makassar: The UNM Publisher,2008), p. 110-111
complex or longer sentences.
often limited.
2 Only small bits (usuallyshort
sentences and
phrases)can be understood-and then with considerable effort by someone who is used to listening to the speaker.
Pronunciation
seriouslyinfluencedby the mother tonguewith errorscausing a breakdown
incommunication.
Many
„basic‟grammatical and lexical errors.
Long pauses while he
searches for
thedesiredmeaning.
Frequently ragmentary andhalting delivery.
Almost gives
upmaking the effort at times.Limited range of expression.
1 Hardly anything of what is said can be understood. Even when the listener makes a great effort or interrupts, the speaker is unable to clarify anything he seems to have said.31
Seriouspronunciation as
well as
„basic‟grammatical and lexical errors. No evidence of having mastered any of the language skills and areas practiced in the course.
Full of long and unnatural pauses.Very haltingandfragmentary lexicaldelivery. At timesgives up making the effort. Very limited range of expression.
56
56 Table 3.3 Classification of Students‟ Score
NO Classification Score
1 Very Good 80 – 100
2 Good 66 – 79
3 Fair 56 – 65
4 Poor 40 – 55
5 Very Poor ≤ 39
Calculating the students‟ score of the test as follow:
Accounting the mean score used the following formula:
Where:
X = Mean score
= The sum of the all score N = Total number of sample32
Computing the frequency and the rate percentage of the students:
Where: P: Percentage F: Item of frequency
N: Total number of students33
32BurhanNurgiyantoro, PenilaiandalamPengajaranBahasadanSastra(Yogyakarta: BPFE- Yogyakarta, 1987), p.327.
33L.R. Gay, Educational Research Competencies For Analysis and Application, p. 225
X =
57
57
Finding the significant between the mean score and pre-test and post-test by calculating the value of the test
Where:
D = The total score difference
∑D = The sum of total difference
= The square of the sum score of difference N = The total number of students
T = Test of significance34 Criteria of testing hypothesis:
The statistical hypothesis in this researcher is as follows:µ = µ2
µ>µ235
To test hypothesis the researcher used two tails with 0,05 level of significance.For independent sample, the formula of freedom (df) is N-1.
If t-table > t-test, Ho is accepted an Ha is rejected, it means that the Kim‟s memory game isnot able to increase the members‟ speaking skillsof Libam IAIN Parepare.
34L.R. Gay, Educational Research Competencies For Analisys and Application,p. 331.
35Gay L. R., Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application, p.228.
t =
√
58
58
If t-table ≤ t-test, Ha is accepted an Ho is rejected, it means that Kim‟s memory is able to increasethe members‟ speaking skillsof member of Libam IAIN Parepare.
59
59
CHAPTER IV
FINDING 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:
4.1 Finding
The finding of this research consists of the classification pre-test and post-test.
It aimed to find out the answer of research question. The writer gave two tests which are pre-test and post-test. Pre-test was given before treatment to know the members‟
speaking skills then post-test was given to know members‟ speaking skills after doing the treatment.From the result of the post-test, it aimed to find out that using Kim‟s memory game is able to increase the members‟ speaking skills of member of Libam IAINParepare.
The technique that writer recommended is using Kim‟s memory game. It is able to influence the members‟ mindset and open their thought as well as in making idea by their communicative in language or the way to understand the key expression from the sentence of the card to collect their ideas in their mindset first then express it by speaking in front of their friend.
4.1.1Members‟ Speaking Skills in Using Kim‟s memory game
This section described the result of data analysis in using Kim‟s memory gameto increasemembers‟ speaking skills at LIBAM IAIN Parepare:
4.1.1.1 The members‟ Score in Pre-test
The writer gave some questions to the members‟ as the pre-test to know the members‟ speaking skills. Every member got the questions and answered it then the
60
60
writer recorded the members‟ answers. After giving the pre-test to the members, the writer found out the result of members‟ speaking skills based on the criteria of speaking skills which are comprehensibility, accuracy and fluency before giving treatment. The result was shown in the following table:
Table 4.1 the members‟ score of pre-test
No Nama Prodi Aspect
Result Score
C A F
1 YaumulHaeriyah MZW 2 2 2 6 33.3
2 Sinta PS 1 2 1 4 22.2
3 Khaerunnisa MZW 1 1 2 4 22.2
4 SittiRahma MTK 1 1 2 4 22.2
5 SitiNurjannah PBI 2 2 2 6 33.3
6 Erni PAI 1 1 1 3 16.7
7 Irnayanti PBI 2 3 1 6 33.3
8 Nadia Aloatun PBI 2 1 1 4 22.2
9 Rasmi KPI 2 2 2 6 33.3
10 AyuAstari PBI 4 3 3 10 55.6
11 Muh. FadhilMuarij PBI 2 1 2 5 27.8
12 IsmiZaskiahHersyam SPI 1 2 1 4 22.2
13 Niar AS 2 1 1 4 22.2
14 SiskaAngraini ALKES 2 2 2 6 33.3
15 NurAfni PS 2 2 1 5 27.8
16 MuhFajar PS 2 2 2 6 33.3
17 Muhammad IkmalAiman ALKES 2 2 2 6 33.3
18 SyamsulMa'arif PS 3 2 3 8 44.4
19 Aldi Fatriadi KPI 3 4 3 10 55.6
20 AinunAnnisaAkkas IPA 3 4 4 11 61.1
Total 655.6
Data Source: members‟ pre-test
After knowing the members‟ score in pre-test based on aspect of speaking the following table is members‟ score to find out the mean score:
61
61
Table 4.2 Themembers‟ score and square in pre-test
No Nama
Pre - test of the members
(X1) Classification
X1 X12
1 YaumulHaeriyah 33.3 1108.9 Very Poor
2 Sinta 22.2 492.8 Very Poor
3 Khaerunnisa 22.2 492.8 Very Poor
4 SittiRahma 22.2 492.8 Very Poor
5 SitiNurjannah 33.3 1108.9 Very Poor
6 Erni 16.7 278.9 Very Poor
7 Irnayanti 33.3 1108.9 Very Poor
8 Nadia Aloatun 22.2 492.8 Very Poor
9 Rasmi 33.3 1108.9 Very Poor
10 AyuAstari 55.6 3091.4 Fair
11 Muh. FadhilMuarij 27.8 772.8 Very Poor
12 IsmiZaskiahHersyam 22.2 492.8 Very Poor
13 Niar 22.2 492.8 Very Poor
14 SiskaAngraini 33.3 1108.9 Very Poor
15 NurAfni 27.8 772.8 Very Poor
16 MuhFajar 33.3 1108.9 Very Poor
17 Muhammad IkmalAiman 33.3 1108.9 Very Poor
18 SyamsulMa'arif 44.4 1971.4 Poor
19 Aldi Fatriadi 55.6 3091.4 Fair
20 AinunAnnisaAkkas 61.1 3733.2 Fair
Total 655.3 24431.1
Data Source: members‟ pre-test
The table above showed that the result of members” speaking score before applying Kim‟s memory game. There were sixteen members got very poor score, there were one member got poor score, and three members got fair score. The total score in pre-test is 655,3. It has shown that the students‟ speaking ability in pre-test was low, because most of members still got very poor. The following are the process of calculation to find out the mean score on the calculation of members‟ score in pre- test of the table 4.2.
62
62 Mean score of pre-test
̅=
∑̅=
̅=
32.8Thus the mean score of pre-test is 32.8 4.1.1.2 The members‟ score in post-test.
Meanwhile, the members‟ score in post-test would be presented in the following table:
Table 4.3 Themembers‟ score of post-test
No Nama Prodi Aspect
Result Score
C A F
1 YaumulHaeriyah MZW 3 3 3 9 50
2 Sinta PS 2 3 2 7 38.9
3 Khaerunnisa MZW 2 2 3 7 38.9
4 SittiRahma MTK 2 2 2 6 33.3
5 SitiNurjannah PBI 3 3 3 9 50
6 Erni PAI 2 2 2 6 33.3
7 Irnayanti PBI 3 3 2 8 44.4
8 Nadia Aloatun PBI 3 4 3 10 55.6
9 Rasmi KPI 2 3 3 8 44.4
10 AyuAstari PBI 5 5 5 15 83.3
11 Muh. FadhilMuarij PBI 2 2 3 7 38.9
12 IsmiZaskiahHersyam SPI 2 3 2 7 38.9
13 Niar AS 3 2 2 7 38.9
14 SiskaAngraini ALKES 3 3 3 9 50
15 NurAfni PS 3 2 2 7 38.9
16 MuhFajar PS 3 3 3 9 50
17 Muhammad IkmalAiman ALKES 3 3 3 9 50
18 SyamsulMa'arif PS 4 5 4 13 72.2
19 Aldi Fatriadi KPI 4 5 4 13 72.2
20 AinunAnnisaAkkas IPA 5 5 5 15 83.3
Total 1005.6
Data Source: members‟ post-test
63
63
After knowing the members‟ score in post-test based on aspect of speaking the following table is members‟ score to find out the mean score:
Table 4.4 Themembers‟ score and square in post-test
No Nama
Post - test of the members
(X2) Classification
X2 X22
1 YaumulHaeriyah 50 2500 Poor
2 Sinta 38.9 1513.2 Very Poor
3 Khaerunnisa 38.9 1513.2 Very Poor
4 SittiRahma 33.3 1108.9 Very Poor
5 SitiNurjannah 50 2500 Poor
6 Erni 33.3 1108.9 Very Poor
7 Irnayanti 44.4 1971.4 Poor
8 Nadia Aloatun 55.6 3091.4 Fair
9 Rasmi 44.4 1971.4 Poor
10 AyuAstari 83.3 6938.9 Very Good
11 Muh. FadhilMuarij 38.9 1513.2 Very Poor
12 IsmiZaskiahHersyam 38.9 1513.2 Very Poor
13 Niar 38.9 1513.2 Very Poor
14 SiskaAngraini 50 2500 Poor
15 NurAfni 38.9 1513.2 Very Poor
16 MuhFajar 50 2500 Poor
17 Muhammad IkmalAiman 50 2500 Poor
18 SyamsulMa'arif 72.2 5212.8 Good
19 Aldi Fatriadi 72.2 5212.8 Good
20 AinunAnnisaAkkas 83.3 6938.9 Very Good
Total 1005.4 55134.6
Data Source: members‟ post-test
The table above showed that there were a changed of members‟ score after did the treatment. There were two members got very good score, there were two members got good score, there were one member got fair score,there were seven members got poor score, and three were eigth members got very poor score. The total score in post- test is 1005.4. It proved that there were increasing of members‟ score in post-test.
64
64
In this, the writer analyzed the data of members‟ score in post-test to know whether there is or there is no a significant difference of members‟ achivement b e f o r e a n d a f t e r l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s i n u s i n g K i m ‟ s m e m o r y g a m e . Mean score of post-test
̅=
∑̅=
̅=
50.2Thus the mean score of post-test is 50.2
4.1.1.3The 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 4.5 The Classification frequency and percentage of the members‟ pre-test and post-test
No Classification Score Interval
Frequency Precentage
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
1 Very Good 80-100 0 2 0% 10%
2 Good 66-79 0 2 0% 10%
3 Fair 56-65 3 1 15% 5%
4 Poor 40-55 1 7 5% 35%
5 Very Poor ≤ 39 16 8 80% 40%
Total 20 20 100% 100%
The data of the table above indicated that the rate percentage of the pre-test.
One member got poor score (5%), and threemembers got fair score(15%), while the rate percentage of the post-test, twomembers got very good score(10%), twomembers got good score(10%). The percentage in post-test that members got very good score was higher than percentage in pre-test. It showed that members were able to increase the members‟speaking skills after treatment by using Kim‟s memory game.
65
65
4.1.2 The implementation of using Kim‟s memory gameto increase the members‟
speaking skillss of LIBAM IAIN Parepare.
This part presented the result of data analysis about the implementation of using Kim‟s memory gameto increase the members‟ speaking skills at the second grade of LIBAM IAIN Parepare.
4.1.2.1t-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 members‟ speaking skills
In the other to see the members‟ score, the following is T-test was statistically applied:
Table 4.6 the worksheet of the calculating of the score on pre-test and post-test on the members‟ speaking skill
NO. X1 X2 (X1)2 (X2)2 D(X2-X1) D2(X2-X1)2
1 33.3 110889 50 2500 16.7 278.9
2 22.2 492.84 38.9 1513.21 16.7 278.9
3 22.2 492.84 38.9 1513.21 16.7 278.9
4 22.2 492.84 33.3 1108.89 11.1 123.2
5 33.3 1108.89 50 2500 16.7 278.9
6 16.7 278.89 33.3 1108.89 16.6 275.6
7 33.3 1108.89 44.4 1971.36 11.1 123.2
8 22.2 492.84 55.6 3091.36 33.4 1115.6
9 33.3 1108.89 44.4 1971.36 11.1 123.2
10 55.6 3091.36 83.3 6938.89 27.7 767.3
11 27.8 772.84 38.9 1513.21 11.1 123.2
12 22.2 492.84 38.9 1513.21 16.7 278.9
13 22.2 492.84 38.9 1513.21 16.7 278.9
14 33.3 1108.89 50 2500 16.7 278.9