CHAPTER III METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
G. Technique of Data Analysis
The data will be collected through the test is analyze quantitatively as follows:
1. Calculating the mean score of the students’ speaking test by using the following formula:
X X
N Where : : Mean Score∑ : Total score of respondents N : Total sample
(Gay : 2006) X
2. Finding out the significance difference between the students’ pre-test and post-test, the researcher applied the formula as follows:
) 1 (
)
( 2
2
N N
N D D
t D
Where:
T = test of significant
D = the mean score of the difference between the scores of pre-test and post- test
∑ = the sum of the difference N = the total number of sample
∑D2 = the square of sum of total score of different.
(Gay, 1981:355) 3. Finding out the standard deviation of the students’ speaking achievement, the
researcher applieed the following formula:
SD ∑×
∑×
Where:
SD : the total square of the students score
∑X : the total score of the students n : the number of students
27 CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Findings shows description of result from the data that had collected through writing test in pre-test and post-test. Then, discussion is explanation of findings.
A. Findings
1. The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Accuracy Viewed From Its Vocabulary
The improvement of students’ speaking accuracy in terms of vocabulary was seen through the improvement scores that the difference between post test and pre test score and there was improvement in pre-test to post- test. It could see in the table below:
Table 4.1. The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Accuracy in Terms of Vocabulary
No. Indicator Pre-test Post-test
1. Mean Score 42.5 67.03
2. Improvement 57.72%
Table 4.1, it shows that the mean score of the students in pre-test were (42.5). Most of students felt confuse to develop their idea based on the topic. It was caused they had less vocabulary. After that researcher gave treatment by using Peer Tutoring Strategy and the score of the students’ had improved. It showed in post-test which to be (67.03). The students’ speaking was suitable, they could develop their idea based on the topic.
The result of pre-test and post-test had improvement which was (57.72)%
and from pre-test score the data showed that using Peer Tutoring Strategy in speaking couldimprove students’ speaking skillviewed from vocabulary.
Graphic 4.1. The Mean Score and Improvement of the Students’ speaking Skill Viewed of vocabulary
The graphic above showed that there was improvement of the students in speaking accuracy viewed of vocabulary from pre-test with the mean score was (42.5) to post-test with the mean score was (67.03). So the improvement of pre- test to post-test was (57.72 %).
2. The Improvement of Students’ speaking skill Viewed From grammar Researcher also assessed students’ grammar in speaking skill. It was done using pre-test to post-test. After researcher gave pre-test and post-test, there was improvementof students’ speaking skill in terms of grammar. It was indicated by te significant difference between students’ pre-test and post-test score. Beside
42.5
67.03
57,718%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
The mean Score and Improvement of the Students' Speaking Accuracy Viewed of vocabulary
Pre- test Post-test
29
that, researcher also had counted improvement percentage of students. It showed at the following table:
Table 4.2. The Improvement ofStudents’ Speakingin Grammar
No. Indicator Pre-test Post-test
1. Mean Score 50 68.12
2. Improvement 36.24%
Table 4.2 described that mean score in pre-test was lower than mean score of post-test. Mean score in pre-test was (50), it caused that most of students still used uncorrect grammar such as they used present tense when they wanted to express their idea in the past. It happened because they did not know to use past tense, they thought that they could used past tense and also they did not know formula of tenses.
Mean score of post-test was (68.12), it was improved from pre-test.
Students’ records had some or few error grammar such as in pre-test. They knowed that to use past tense and they could speak sentence that suitable of past tense formula. Based on the data in pre-test and post-test had happened improvement of students’ speaking skill. The percentage of improvement the students in pre-test to post-test was 36.24%. It was meant that Peer Tutoring Strategycould improve students’grammar in speaking accuracy.
Graphic 4.2. The Mean Score and Improvement of The Students’ Speaking Accuracy Viewed of Grammar
The graphic above showed that there was improvement of the students in speaking accuracy viewed of grammar from pre-test with the mean score was (50) to post-test with the mean score was (68.12).Post-test score was higher than pre- test score so the improvement of pre-test to post-test was (36.24%). The improvement was significant difference.
It proved that there was significant improvement of students’speaking skill in accuracy viewed of vocabulary and grammar by using Peer Tutoring Strategy at the Second grade of students in SMPN 29 Makassar. Based on the result, we could conclude that used of Peer Tutoring Strategy could improve the students’speaking skill in accuracy viewed from grammar too.
50
68.12
36.24%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
The mean Score and Improvement of the Students' Speaking Accuracy Viewed of Grammar
31
3. The Testing Hypothesis
The researcher had used t-test analysis on the level of the significance (p) 0,05 with the degree of freedom (df) = N-1, where N = number of students (32 students) and then the value of t-table was (1.697).The t-test statistical analysis for independent sample was applied. The following table showed the result of t-test calculation.
Table 4.3. The t-Test Analysis of The Students’ Improvement No. Components t-Test Value t-Table
Value
Description
1. Vocabulary 5.60 1.697 Significance
2. Grammar 7.32 1.697 Significance
Table 4.3. shows that t-test value of vocabulary was greater than t-table value (5.60> 1.697) and also t-test value of grammar was greater than t-table value (7.32> 1.697). It meant that there was significance difference between the students’speaking skill before and after researcher used Peer Tutoring Strategy in speaking skill to second grade of students in SMPN 29 Makassar. It was show that the nul hypothesis (H0) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.
B. Discussion
The description of data collected from speaking accuracy in terms of vocabulary and grammar as explained in the previous section showed that the students’ skill invocabulary and grammar in speaking improved. It was supported
by mean score and percentage of the students’ pre-test and post-test result. For example, in pre-test the vocabulary of the student’s still low because they could usetheir vocabulary based on the situation of the sentence, example: they said “if I have many money I will….whereas, the true of vocabulary that should students use is much money. In grammar, most of the students still used present tense when they wanted to express their idea in the past tense. For example: they said “I go to market yesterday”. Whereas, the true of sentence based on the rule of grammar if time signal show simple past they should be used verb 2, I went to market yesterday.
Based on the finding above, the using Peer Tutoring Strategy made students had mean score that was higher in speaking skill than before they knowed Peer Tutoring Strategy.
1. The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Skill Viewed From Its Vocabulary
Speaking accuracy in terms of vocabulary was about the skill in memorizing but could develop it based on the topic that had given from the researcher and also it was suitablefor students’ needs andwants.
Improvement of the students’ speaking skill in term of vocabulary was about (57.72%) from the pre-test score. The vocabulary competence in pre-test show that the students speak hasty and used in appropriate vocabularies. The students’ vocabulary become less hasty and are good enough in using vocabularies in post-test.
In the first meeting when researcher gave pre-test, researcher looked that most of students are lack of vocabularies. They were difficult to speak. The
33
students’ speaking achievement in pre-test’s mean score was very poor, it was (42.5).
In terms of vocabulary in pre-test, the students were lack of vocabularies that related to the topic were given. Besides that students also spoke as they knew.
After the students had been given treatment, mean score in post-test from students had improved to become (67.03). It was higher than pre-test score. Pre– test to post-test score, there was improvement score of students from poor to fairly good by using Peer Tutoring Strategy. The improvement percentage showed (57.72%). Using Peer Tutoring Strategy had improved students’ speaking skill special in accuracy viewed from vocabulary.
2. The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Accuracy Viewed From Its Grammar
Improvement of the students’ speaking accuracy in term of grammar is show by 30 percent from the students’ pre-test. The students’ grammar competence in pre-test is categorized as poor but in post-test, it has increased to fairly good.
In addition, the grammar in speaking. Cook (1991) defines the types of grammar as in the following: first, Perspective grammar that prescribes what people should say. It is the rules found in school-books; say the warnings against final preposition in sentence. Second, Traditional grammar concerns with labeling sentences with parts of speech. Third, Structural grammar concern with how words go into phrases structure, which shows how some words go together in the sentences. Finally, Grammar as knowledge, it refers to the native speakers’
knowledge of language.
In the first meeting when researcher gave pre-test, researcher looked the most of students was difficult to write , and they wrote in unstructured.
Beside that students also got other knowledge that they could apply to all of grammar, not only speaking but also it was make them easier to write something in the future. They did not write unstructure again.
The data on the table 4.2 showed that the score of grammar improved from 50 in pre-test’s mean score to (68.12) in post-test’s score. It was good improvement because they knowed more about past tense in other side.
After calculating of score between pre-test and post-test score, researcher found that skill of students improved which was to be (36.29%) from mean score (50) in pre-test to (68.12) in post-test. It meant that implementation of Peer Tutoring Strategy in treatment of students’ SMPN 29 Makassar was succes to
make students understandabled and knowed about speaking accuracy in the terms of grammar.
3. The Significance of Hypothesis Test
After calculating the value t-test analysis then it was compared with t-table value so researcher found that the value of t-test was greater than the t-table value, it meant that null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted because there was difference significant mean score of test that had given by researcher before and after researcher thought speaking accuracy in term of vocabulary and grammar by using Peer Tutoring Strategy.Meanwhile, when it was found that the value of t-test was lower than t-table value, it meant that the null hypothesis (H0) was accepted and alternative hypothesis (H1) was rejected
35
because there was not difference significant mean score of test that had given by researcher before and after researcher thought Speaking accuracy by Peer Tutoring Strategy.
T-test value of vocabulary was greater than t-table(5.60> 1.697) and also t- test value of grammar was greater than t-table (17.32> 1.697). It meant that there was significant difference between students’ speaking skill before and after they got Peer Tutoring Strategy from researcher in speaking accuracy in term of Vocabulary and grammar of the Second grade of students SMPN 29 Makassar.
Beside that, the data showed that null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.
Researcher could conclude that using Peer Tutoring Strategy was one of good technique that could improve the students’ skill in speaking accuracy and also students’speaking skill of the Second Grade of students’ SMPN 29 Makassar in academic year 2016/ 2017 could improved in vocabulary and grammar of speaking.
36 A. CONCLUSIONS
1. Conclusion
Based on the result of data analysis and the discussion of the result in the previous chapter, the researcher concludes that:
a. The students’ accuracy in terms of Vocabulary in speaking English at the Second grade of SMPN 29 Makassar can improved after applying Peer Tutoring Strategy. It is shown the post-test that score (67.03) was higher than pre-test (42.5). it is also shown that the significant difference between pre-test and post-test. So that, the improvement of the students’ speaking ability in vocabulary was (57.72%). This means Peer Tutoring Strategy is effective to improve students’ speaking accuracy in term of vocabulary.
b. The students’ accuracy in term grammar in speaking English at the Second grade of SMPN 29 Makassar can be improved after applying Peer Tutoring Strategy. It is shown that the post-test that score (68.12) was higher than pre- test (50). It is also shown the significant difference between pre-test and post- test. So that, the improvement of the students’ speaking ability in grammar was (36.24%). This means Peer Tutoring Strategy is effective to improve students’ speaking accuracy in term of grammar.
c. The students t-test value for vocabulary was greater than t-table (5.60>
1.697), t-test value of grammar was greater than t-table (17.32>1.697). It means that there was significant difference between the students’ speaking
37
ability before and after used peer tutoring strategy at the second grade of students SMPN 29 Makassar.
B. Suggestions
The suggestion consisted of meaning couldapply practically a and accepted usefully. Suggestions consisted also researchers’ recommendation and expectation related to the research that has done. Suggestions of this research could be seen in the below:
1. The successful teaching doesn’t depend on the lesson program only, but more important is how the teacher presents the lesson and uses various methods or technique to manage the class more lively and. Regarding to the teaching speaking by using peer tutoring strategy, the researcher gave some suggestion for the teacher and students .
2. The teacher should be more creative to enrich their teaching method and material. Choosing strange or unique words can stimulate them in learning English. And the materials are presented in an enjoyable, relaxed and understandable way. That’s why; it is suggested for the teacher to apply peer tutoring strategy in teaching English.
3. The students are hoped to be more confident in speaking English, to be active and creative in enriching their vocabularies and grammar to apply in speaking activity. And they should ask the teacher if there is word that they cannot pronounce.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aria Djalil. 2001. Peningkatan Pembelajaran Fisika Melalui Pembelajaran Tutor Sebaya Pada Kelas VIII SMP Negeri 1 Sinjai Timur. UNM. Skripsi tidak di publikasikan.
Aridah. 2011. Meningkatkan Prestasi Belajar Matematika Kelas VII SMP Negeri 1 Palu Melalui Pembelajaran Tutor Sebaya Pada Kelas VIII SMP Negeri 1 Sinjai Timur. UNM. Skripsi tidak di publikasikan.
Billson, J. & Tiberius, R. (1991) Effective Social Arrangements for Teaching and Learning New Directions for Teaching and Learning 45 (3)
Cook, Vivian. 1992. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching.
London: Longman Group.
Ernawati, 2015. Using beyond centers and circles time method to improve the students’ speaking ability. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Fadanrangi, 2015. Improving The Students Speaking Skill by Using Peer Teaching Tutoring Strategy. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Fathullah, 2011. Improving English Speaking through Pictures Series. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Goodlad, S. & Hirst, B .1989. Peer Tutoring: A Guide to Learning by Teaching London:Kogan Page.
Gordon, E.E. 2005 .Peer Tutoring: A teacher’s Resource Guide Lanham Maryland: Scarecrow Education.
Hadijah. (2006). The Effectiveness of Debate Activity to Increase The Speaking Ability of The second Year Student of State Islamic Senior High School (MAN) Wonomulyo West Sulawesi. Thesis UIN.
Harmer, J. 1991. The practice of English language teaching. Essex, UK:
Longman.
Hatch, E and Farhady. 1982. Research Design and Statistic For Applied Linguistic, Los Angeles: University of California.
Huddleston, R. 1954. English Grammar: An Outline. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39
Kathryn Goh, 2006. Investigating Peer Learning and Teaching in a Problem- Based learning Context, retrieved on 22 December 2014
Loh, H. 1993. Peer Assisted Study Session in Anatomy for Nursing Students.
Proceedings of the Conference Peer Tutoring: Learning by Teaching, held 19-21 August 1993, (pp. 193-202). University of Auckland, Auckland.
Malayanti. 2004. The Comparison between Students’ English Speaking Achievement living at and out of dormitory at As’adiyah Islamic Boarding School Sengkang Wajo Regency. Thesis UIN.
Mardia. 2015. Using Group Leadership Technique to Improve The Students’
Speaking Ability at the second grade of MAN Baraka Enrekang. Thesis FKIP Unismuh
Nisrinah. (2004). Developing Vocabulary through Morphological Approach to The Second Year Students of Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 2 Bima. Thesis UIN.
Nurhayati. 2010. Improving the Student Speaking Skill by Using Questioning Technique. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Ramla, Rahma. 2010. Improving The Student Speaking Ability Through Simulation Technique. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar Rubin, J. & Herbert, M. 1998. Peer Teaching – Model for Active Learning
College Teaching 48 (1)
Simmons et al .1995. Effects of Explicit Teaching and Peer Tutoring on the Reading Achievement of Learning – Disabled and Low- Performing Students in Regular Classrooms The Elementary School Journal vol.95, no.5
Siti. Nurhayati. 2010. Improving Speaking Skill by Using Aural-Oral Language Approach. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Topping, K. 2005. Trends in Peer learning and Educational Psychology.
Retrieved www.dundee.ac.uk/eswce/research/projects/trwresources/.
Tomas, Scruggs. 2006. Peer Tutoring Strategy. Retrieved on 9 December 2010 Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. London: OUP.
APPENDIX D
The list Name of the Students at the Second Grade of SMPN 29 Makassar
No. Sample Code
1. Afifah Van Helen S-1
2. Albana Vab Basten S-2
3. Alifa Mustagfira Fadillah R. S-3
4. Alya Laurel Olivia Nur S-4
5. Armyansyah S-5
6. Audie Dwi Ananda S-6
7. Ayu Adira Mitharia S-7
8. Bungaderi Yuliana Usman S-8
9. Fita Anggreni S-9
10. Jasmine Zahra H.Soenargo S-10
11. Lutfia Maharani Dwi Nurafifah S-11
12. M.Fathir Arfiansyah R. S-12
13. Moh. Ridho Prasetio S-13
14. Muh.Gilang Hermansyah S-14
15. Muh.Taqwa Kaluku S-15
16. Muhammad Rahan Marsyah S-16
17. Muhammad Zulkifli Said S-17
20. Nur Fadila Rasyid S-20
21. Nur Haliza S-21
22. Nurmala Dewi F. S-22
23. Rafli Ramlan S-23
24. Reivi Larasari S-24
25. Reski Baharuddin S-25
26. Retno Dyan Ayu N. S-26
27. Sri Wahyuni S-27
28. Suriyani S-28
29. Susilawari S-29
30. Windha Adhalya Eka Putri S-30
31. Yuliana Selviani Mayori Hadu S-31
32. Reski Mulia S-32
APPENDIX E
1.The raw score of students’ Speaking Accuracy in term of Vocabulary Pre test
No. Name Score Classification
1. S-1 40 Poor
2. S-2 55 Poor
3. S-3 55 Poor
4. S-4 40 Poor
5. S-5 60 Fair
6. S-6 40 Poor
7. S-7 55 Poor
8. S-8 60 Fair
9. S-9 55 Poor
10. S-10 55 Poor
11. S-11 40 Poor
12. S-12 55 Poor
13. S-13 60 Fair
14. S-14 60 Fair
15. S-15 55 Poor
16. S-16 40 Poor
17. S-17 40 Poor
18. S-18 40 Poor
19. S-19 55 Poor
20. S-20 60 Fair
21. S-21 55 Poor
22. S-22 55 Poor
23. S-23 60 Fair
24. S-24 60 Fair
25. S-25 40 Poor
28. S-28 40 Poor
29. S-29 60 Fair
30. S-30 40 Poor
31. S-31 50 Poor
32. S-32 40 Poor
Total Score
∑X 1630
X 50.93
2.The raw score of students’ Speaking Accuracy in term of Vocabulary Post test
No. Name Score Classification
1. S-1 65 Fair
2. S-2 70 Fairly good
3. S-3 60 Fair
4. S-4 75 Fairly good
5. S-5 65 Fair
6. S-6 65 Fair
7. S-7 60 Fair
8. S-8 70 Fairly good
9. S-9 75 Fairly good
10. S-10 70 Fairly good
11. S-11 60 Fair
12. S-12 65 Fair
13. S-13 65 Fair
14. S-14 75 Fairly good
15. S-15 70 Fairly good
16. S-16 70 Fairly good
17. S-17 65 Fair
18. S-18 60 Fair
19. S-19 65 Fair
20. S-20 65 Fair
21. S-21 70 Fairly good
22. S-22 65 Fair
23. S-23 75 Fairly good
24. S-24 70 Fairly good
25. S-25 60 Fair
26. S-26 70 Fairly good
27. S-27 70 Fairly good
30. S-30 65 Fair
31. S-31 65 Fair
32. S-32 65 Fair
Total Score
∑X 2145
X 67.03
APPENDIX F
1.The raw score of students’ Speaking Accuracy in term of Grammar Pre- test
No. Name Score Classification
1. S-1 40 Poor
2. S-2 55 Poor
3. S-3 40 Poor
4. S-4 60 Fair
5. S-5 40 Poor
6. S-6 60 Fair
7. S-7 55 Poor
8. S-8 40 Poor
9. S-9 55 Poor
10. S-10 55 Poor
11. S-11 50 Poor
12. S-12 40 Poor
13. S-13 50 Poor
14. S-14 60 Fair
15. S-15 55 Poor
16. S-16 40 Poor
17. S-17 60 Fair
18. S-18 60 Fair
19. S-19 40 Poor
20. S-20 50 Poor
21. S-21 50 Poor
22. S-22 40 Poor
23. S-23 40 Poor
24. S-24 60 Fair
25. S-25 60 Fair
26. S-26 40 Poor