CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
D. Instrument of the Research
The researcher used instrument writing test for pre-test and post- test. The pre-test use to know the students’ previous knowledge in writing.
While post-test used to know the students’ writing ability after gave the treatment.
E. Procedure of Collecting Data
The procedure of collecting data involved the following steps:
1. Administrating a Pre-test
Before doing the treatment, the students were given pre-test through writing test to assess the students’ writing ability. The result of pre-test will compare with the result of post-test after doing the treatment.
2. Administrating a Post-test
After doing the treatment, the students were given post-test through writing test to assess the students’ writing ability. Its result would compare with the result of pre-test to find out students’ improvement and their progress.
F. Technique of data Analysis
Scoring and classifying the students’ skill into the following criteria:
Table 3.2. content writing ability
Score classification Criteria
6 Very good
If the central, purpose, unity, completeness, and continuity of the composition are all correct
5 Good
If the composition contains few errors of the central purpose, unity, completeness, and continuity.
4 Average
If the composition contains some errors of the central purpose, unity, completeness, and continuity.
3 Poor
If the composition dominated by errors of the central purpose, unity, completeness, and continuity.
2 Very poor
If the central purpose, unity, completeness, and continuity of composition are all incorrect
Table 3.3. Mechanic writing ability
Score classification Criteria
6 Very good
If the punctuation, capitalization of the composition are all correct
5 Good
If the composition contains few errors of the punctuation and capitalization.
4 Average
If the composition contains some errors of the punctuation and capitalization.
3 Poor
If the composition dominated by errors of the punctuation and capitalization.
2 Very poor
If the punctuation and capitalization of the composition are all incorrect
Jacob et al (1981)
1. Scoring the students correct answer at pre-test and post-test by using this formula:
Score = total point of students correct answer X 100 Total number of correct answer
(Depdikbud, 1985 : 5) 2. Classifying the students’ score into seven levels based on the following
measurement scale:
a. Score 9.6 – 10 = Excellent b. Score 8.6 – 9.5 = Very Good c. Score 7.6 – 8.5 = Good d. Score 6.6- 7.5 = Fairly Good e. Score 5.6 – 6.5 = Fair
f. Score 3.6 – 5.5 = Poor
g. Score 0 – 3.5 =Very poor
(Depdikbud, 1985:6) 3. The percentage of the students’ writing ability was identified by using the
formula as follow:
Where: % = The percentage of the students’ improvement X1 = The mean score of pre-test
X2 = The mean score of post-test
(Sudjana, 1990)
4. Calculating the mean score of the students’ achievement by using the following formula:
N X X
Where: X = Mean score
∑X = The Total row score N = The Total number
(Gay, 1981:298) 5. Measuring the significant between the results of the pre-test and post-test
by using the formula:
√∑ ∑
Where t = Test of significant
D = The difference between the method pairs X2— X1
= The mean of DS
∑ = The square of the sum score of difference
∑
= The square of ∑
(Gay, 1981:331)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Findings
The findings of the research found that teaching writing ability through Inquiry Method was effective to improve the students’ achievement in content writing and also effective to improve the students’ achievement in mechanic writing. In the further interpretation of the data analysis were given below:
1. The Effectiveness of Inquiry Method towards the Students’ Writing Ability in Content
The effectiveness of Inquiry method on the students’ content writing deal with the unity and completeness at the Eight Grade of SMP Negeri 2 Baraka can be seen clearly in the following table:
Table 4.1
The Effectiveness of Inquiry Method towards the Students’ Writing Ability in Content
No
Writing Ability in Content
The Student’s Score Improvement Pre-Test Post-Test (%)
1. Unity 4.62 5.90 27
2. Completeness 4.76 5.83 22
̅ 4.69 5.87 25
The data on table above shows about the mean score of the indicators of each variable in the students’. The improvement of the
students’ writing ability in content was 25% from the mean score in pre- test 4.69 to be 5.87 in post-test, where the students’ mean score of unity in pre-test 4.62 to be 5.90 in post-test and completeness in pre-test 4.76 to be 5.83 in post-test. Besides, from data above, it can be seen that the significantly improvement of the students’ writing ability in terms of unity and completeness after being taught by Inquiry Method.
After calculating the score, the researcher found that the students’
writing ability in content has improvement of 25% from the mean score of 4.69 in pre-test to be 5.87 in post-test. It was more clearly shown in the figure below :
Figure 1. The Effectiveness of Inquiry Method toward the Students’ Writing Ability in Content
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Unity Completeness Mean Score
4.62 5.9 4.76 5.83 4.69 5.87 27
22
25
Content
Pre-test Post-test Improvement
The figure above show that the improvement of the students’
content and the mean score of the students. The improvement of the students’ unity was 27% and the improvement of the students’
completeness was 22%. The improvement of the students writing ability in content was 25%.
2. The Effectiveness of Inquiry Method towards the Students’ Writing Ability in Mechanic
To answer the research question in the previous chapter, the researcher has administered a test, which gave twice to the students.
Firstly, pre-test was given before the treatment. Secondly, post-test was given after the treatment. The result of the students’ writing ability in mechanic whose indicators capitalization and punctuation in pre-test and post-test were presented in the table below :
Table 4.2
The Effectiveness of Inquiry Method towards the students’ Writing Ability in Mechanic
No
Writing Ability in Mechanic
The Student’s Score Improvement Pre-Test Post-Test (%)
1. Capitalization 5.26 6.12 16
2. Punctuation 5.11 6.19 21
̅ 5.19 6.16 18
The data on table above shows about the mean score of the indicators of each variable in the students’. Based on the table, it indicates
that the use of Inquiry Method in teaching and learning writing was successful. The improvement of the students’ writing ability in mechanic was 18% from the mean score in pre-test 5.19 to be 6.16 in post-test, where the students’ mean score of capitalization in pre-test 5.26 to be 6.12 in post-test and punctuation in pre-test 5.11 to be 6.19 in post-test.
Besides, from data above, it can be seen that the significantly improvement of the students’ writing ability in terms of capitalization and punctuation after being taught by Inquiry Method.
After calculating the score, the researcher found that the students’
writing ability in mechanic has improvement of 18% from the mean score of 5.19 in pre-test to be 6.16 in post-test. It was more clearly shown in the figure below :
Figure 2. The Effectiveness of Inquiry Method toward the Students’
Writing Ability in Mechanic
0 5 10 15 20 25
Capitalization Punctuation Mean Score 5.26 6.12 5.11 6.19 5.19 6.16
16
21
18
Mechanic
Pre-test Post-test Improvement
The figure above show that the improvement of the students’
mechanic and the mean score of the students. The improvement of the students’ capitalization was 16% and the improvement of the students’
punctuation was 21%. The improvement of the students writing ability in mechanic was 18%.
Based on the data above, it can be concluded that the use of Inquiry Method can improve the students’ writing ability in mechanic. It can be provided by the improvement of the students mechanic in writing as capitalization was 16%, punctuation was 21% and the mean score was 18%.
The effectiveness of using Inquiry method to know the level of significant of the pre-test and post-test, the researcher used t-test analysis on the level of significant (p) = 0.05 with the degree of freedom (df) = N – 1, where N = Number of subject (23 students) then the value of t-table is 1.717. The t-test statistical, analysis for independent sample was applied.
The result of the data analysis t-test of the students’ writing ability through Inquiry Method table below:
Table4.3
The Comparison of T-test and T-table Score of the Students’ Writing Ability
Variables t-test t-table Comparison Classification
Content 11.7 1.717 t-test>t-table Effective
Mechanic 9.6 1.717 t-test>t-table Effective
X 10.65 1.717 t-test>t-table Effective
The table above shows that the value of the t- test was higher than the value of t-table. The t-test value of content were greater than t-table (11.7 > 1.717) and t-test value of mechanic were greater than t-table (9.6 >
1.717). The result of calculating t-test of the indicators in the students’ t- test in content and mechanic in writing ability was greater than t-table ( 10.65 > 1.717). It was more clearly shown in the chart:
Figure 3: The Comparison of T-test and T-table Score of the Students’
Writing Ability
The value of the t-test was greater than t-table. The score in variable of writing ability was (10.65 > 1.717). It said that the null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted. It means that there was a significance difference between, the
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
T-test T-table
Comparison
result of the students’ content and mechanic in writing ability in writing through Inquiry Method after treatment.
If the t-test value is greater than t-table at the level of significance 0.05 and degree freedom 22(N-1=23-1), thus the alternative hypothesis (H1) will be accepted and null hypothesis (HO) will be rejected. In contrary, if the value is fewer than t-table at the level of significance 0.05 and the degree freedom 22, thus the alternative hypothesis would be rejected and null hypothesis will accepted.
B. Discussions
The description of data collected from writing test as explain in the previous section show that the students’ ability in writing is improved. It was supported by the students’ score and rate percentage of the result of the students pre-test and post-test. Based on the findings above in applying Inquiry Method in the class, the data was collected through the test to explain in the previous findings section shows that the students’ ability in content and mechanic are significantly improved the students’ ability score after giving Inquiry Method was better than before the treatment give to the students.
Before giving treatment, the students’ writing ability in content and mechanic was categorized poor. After giving the treatment, their ability was significantly improved to into good category.
1. The Effectiveness of Inquiry Method towards the Students’ Writing Ability in Content
Based on the findings above in applying Inquiry Method in the class, the data was collected through the test as explain in the previous findings section shows that the students’ writing ability in content was significantly improved.
The data in table 4.1 show that the score of unity has improvement of 27% from the mean score of 4.62 in pre- test to be 5.90 in post-test. The score of the completeness has also improvement of 22% from the mean score of 4.76 in pre-test to be 5.83 in post-test.
The comparison of each indicator from table 4.1 indicates that the improvement of unity was greater than the improvement of completeness (27>22). The improvement of the students’ unity was 27% and the improvement of the students’ completeness was 22%. It means the result of the students’ unity was better than the result of completeness. Even though the result of unity was better than the result of completeness but these indicators equally increase in post-test.
After calculating the score, the researcher found that the students’
writing ability in content has improvement of 25% from the means score of 4.69 in pre-test to be 5.87 in post-test. It is supported by the mean score post-test of students’ writing ability in content was higher than pre-test.
The score of the students’ post-test was greater than the mean score of the
students’ pre-test. Therefore, Inquiry Method can improve the students’
writing ability in content.
2. The Effectiveness of Inquiry Method towards the Students’ Writing Ability in Mechanic
Based on the findings above in applying Inquiry Method in the class, the data was collected through the test as explain in the previous findings section shows that the students’ writing ability in mechanic was significantly improved.
The data in table 4.2 show that the score of capitalization has improvement of 16% from the mean score of 5.26 in pre- test to be 6.12 in post-test. The score of the punctuation has also improvement of 21% from the mean of 5.11 in pre-test to be 6.19 in post-test.
The comparison of each indicator from table 4.2 indicates that the improvement of punctuation was greater than the improvement of capitalization (21>16). The improvement of the students’ capitalization was 16% and the improvement of the students’ punctuation was 21%. It means the result of the students’ punctuation was better than the result of capitalization. Even though the result of punctuation was better than the result of capitalization but these indicators equally increase in post-test.
After calculating the score, the researcher found that the students’
writing ability in mechanic has improvement of 18% from the means score of 5.19 in pre-test to be 6.16 in post-test. It is supported by the mean score post-test of students’ writing ability in mechanic was higher than pre-test.
The score of the students’ post-test was greater than the mean score of the students’ pre-test. Therefore, Inquiry Method can improve the students’
writing ability in mechanic.
Through the result of pre-test and post-test, the result of t-test value of the level of the significant = 0.05, degree of the freedom (df) = 22 indicated that t-table value was 1.717 and t-test value was 10.65.
Therefore, it can be concluded that statistically hypothesis of HI was accepted and the statistically hypothesis of HO was rejected. It means that the using of Inquiry Method in teaching writing ability can improved the students’ writing ability.
By seeing the effectiveness of the students’ writing ability in content and mechanic in writing skill . It was concluded that Inquiry Method improved the students’ ability in content and mechanic in writing.
It could be showed from the students’writing test in pretest and posttest. In pre-test, some students were difficult to write descriptive text. But, the students’ writing ability in post-test, which the way of writing ability could be understand. And then, the students were easy to write descriptive text.
From the discussion above, it could be concluded that the Eight Grade Student of SMP Negeri 2 Baraka Kab. Enrekang in academic year 2015 / 2016 have good ability in writing after being taught through Inquiry Method especially in writing descriptive text.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion
Based on the findings and discussion in the previous chapter it can be concluded that learning writing through Inquiry Method was significantly improved the students’ writing ability at the eight grade students of SMP Negeri 2 Baraka Kab. Enrekang. This was shown by the following result:
1. Inquiry Method improved the students’ writing ability in content dealing with identifying unity and completeness. The data in the findings indicated that the students’ the score of unity has improvement of 27% from the mean score of 4.62 in pre-test to be 5.90 in post-test. The score of the completeness has also improvement of 22% from the mean score of 4.76 in pre-test to be 5.83 in post-test. The result of calculating, the improvement of the students’ writing ability in content was 25% from the means score of 4.69 in pre-test to be 5.87 in post-test. The t-test value of writing ability in content details are greater than t-table (11.7 > 1.717). It means that there was effective difference between before and after giving the treatment.
2. Inquiry Method improved the students’ writing ability in mechanic dealing with identifying capitalization and punctuation. The data in the findings indicated that the students’ the score of capitalization has improvement of 16% from the mean score of 5.26 in pre-test to be 6.12 in post-test. The score of the punctuation has also improvement of 21% from the mean
score of 5.11 in pre-test to be 6.19 in post-test. The result of calculating the improvement of the students’ writing ability in mechanic was 18%
from the means score of 5.19 in pre-test to be 6.16 in post-test. The t-test value of writing ability in mechanic details are greater than t-table (9.6 >
1.717). It means that there is effective difference between before and after giving the treatment.
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above, the researcher presents some suggestions as follows:
1. It is suggested to the English teachers that they apply Inquiry Method as one of the alternative ways in teaching writing subject in the classroom.
2. It is suggested to the teachers of English to maximize in giving guidance to the students in learning and teaching writing subject.
3. The students are expected to increase their intensity in learning writing through Inquiry Method.
4. The researcher suggests the next researchers to conduct further research to see what strategies are more helpful for the students in writing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdelraheem, A & Askin Asan. (2006). The Effectiveness of Inquiry-Based Technology Enchanced Collaborative Learning Environment.
International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 65.
Alexander, Francie. 1990. Writing Assessment Handbook California: California Department of Education
Brereton. 1982. A Plan for Writing Skills. New York: CBS College Publishing.
Byrne, Donn. 1995. Teaching Writing Skills. London and New York: Longman Group UK Limited
Coffman, Teresa. 2009. Engaging Students Through Inquiry-Oriented Learning and Technology. United States of America: Rowman & Littefield Education.
Depdikbud, 1985. Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Proses Belajar Mengajar dan Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Sistem penilaian. Jakarta: Depdikbud.
Dougles, H. Brown. 2001. Principle an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, New York, Pearson Education Company.
Faturrahman Pupuh dan Sutikno M. Sobry, Strategi Belajar Mengajar Melalui Konsep Umum dan Konsep Islam, Refika Aditama, Bandung,2007.
Gay, L.R. 1981. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. America. Charles E. Memi/Publishing Co.
Gerrot, L. and Wignel, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. New South Wales: Antipodean Educational Enterprises (AEE).
Graham, Steve and Dolores Perin. 2007. Writing skill next. Washintong, DC:
Alliance for Excellent Education
Harmer, Jemery. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. New York: Longman Group UK Limited
Heard James, M.Ed. & Ted Tucker, M. Ed. 2000. Advanced Writing. An advanced Writing Course Designed Specifically for The Needs of Korean University Students
Hebrank. 2000. Constructing an Understanding of Scientific Inquiry. From Interdisciplinary Inquiry in Teaching and Learning.
Jacobs, H.Z.Z.A Stephen. M. R.Reanna, H.V.Faye, H.B.Jane. 1981. Testing ESL Composition Profiles, Apractical Approach. Massaashussetts: New Burry House Publisher.
Kinsvatter, Ricard. 1996. Dynamics of Effective Teaching. New York: Longman Publisher USA
Lindbllom, Peter. 1983. Writing with Confidence. New York: Harper Collins Publisher.
Patel, M.F and Praveen M. Jain. 2008. English Language Teaching (Methods, Tools and Techniques). Jaipur. Sunrise Publisher and Distributors.
Peha, Steve. 2002.What is Good Writing. Teaching That Make Sense.: 3 Roestiyah. 2001. Strategi Belajar Mengajar,Jakarta: Rineka Cipta,
Striplin, Barbara. (2009). Teaching Inquiry with Primary Sources.Teaching with Primary Sources Quarterly vol.2,No.3.
Sudjana.1990. Metode Stastistika. Bandung. PT Gramedia.
The National Science Education Standards. 1996. Inquiry, the Learning Cycle, &
the 5E Instructional Model. From the Guidelines for Lesson Planning from the Electronic Journal of Science Education.
Trianto. 2007. Model-Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Berorentasi Kontruktivistik.
Jakarta: Prestasi Pustaka,
Warner, J. Anna & Brian E. Myers. 2008. Implementing Inquiry-Based Teaching Methods. IFAS Extension.