CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
E. Procedure of Collecting Data
In collecting data, the research followed the procedures as follows:
1. Pre-Test
The students were asked to compose a recount text based on the topic given by the teacher. By seeing the result of the students’ written test, the researcher analyzed it to see the prior ability of the students’
writing.
2. Treatment
The students were treated by using Teachers Oral Feedback. The treatment took place within 6 meetings and it took 90 minutes for each meeting.
In this case, the researcher took sixth meetings. The first meeting the researcher gave explanation to the students about definition of recount text, generic structure of recount text and the procedure of writing, after that the researcher gave students the topics and let them choose one of them. Then, the researcher asked students starting to make planning about the topic, the planning included brainstorming (limited topic, eliciting key words, and chronological orders). After that the researcher asked the students to make a draft according to the planning that they have made. The draft included a recount text and it was involved the generic structure of recount text (orientation, events, and reorientation). The second meeting, the researcher gave some correction on the students’ writingby providing oral feedback. After students made
revision, the researcher checked the students’ paragraph again and if there was no a mistake anymore, the researcher invited students to read their recount text in front of the class. In the third and the fifth meeting, the researcher provided the same treatment to the student as in the first meeting, but in this meeting the researcher provided the different topics to the student, then asking them to make a planning and continued with draft. The fourth and the sixth meeting, the researcher also provided the same treatment to the students as in the second meeting, checked students’ writing, did correction, asked students to revise or edit their paragraph, after that invited them to read their paragraph in front of the class. The first meeting until the last meeting, the researcher always monitored and handled the writing class by providing Teachers Oral Feedback.
3. Post Test
The post test was conducted after treatment to find the improvement of the students’ writing skill. The researcherdistributed the different written test as used in pretest to check the result of the treatment in the students’ writing skill.Pre-test and post-test was compared in order to find out whether they were different significantly or not.
D. Technique of Data Analysis
In analyzing the data that collected through the pretest and posttest, the researcher analyzed by using the following procedures:
a) Content
In the content component the researcher used scale 0-100 scoring rate as follows:
Harmer in Santung (2011:25) B
Harmer in Santung (2011:25) c) Organization
In organization component, the researcher used scale 0-100 scoring rate as follows:
Harmer in Santung (2011:25)
Classification Score Indicator
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
90–100 80–89 70–79 60–69 0-59
Effective complex construction.
Effective but simple constructions.
Major problem in simple/complex constructions.
Major problem in simple constructions.
Virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent Very Good
Good Fair Poor
90–100 80–89
70–79 60–69 0-59
Fluent expression–ideas clearly
Some copy – loosely organization but mind ideas out.
Not fluent but ideas stand out Not fluent/ ideas confused
Does not communicated no organize
c) Language use of grammar
To evaluate the score of the language uses of grammar, the researcher used the following table:
Harmer in Santung (2011: 25) The data was collected in this research analyzed by using the procedures as follows:
1. Scoring the students correct answer of pre-test and post-test.
100 Score
Students x
e Total Scor
t Answer t's Correc
of Studen The Number
2. The result of the percentages of the students score was tabulated and classified as the following classification
a. Scores 90- 100 is classified as excellent b. Scores 80–89 is classified as very good c. Scores 70–79 is classified as good d. Scores 60–69 is classified as fair
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 90–100
If the grammar of the paragraph are all correct
Very Good 80–89 If the paragraph contain few errors of grammar
Good 70–79 If the paragraph contain some errors of grammar
Fair 60–69 If the paragraph dominated by error of grammar
Poor 0-59 If the grammar of the paragraph are all incorrect
e. Scores 0 - 59 is classified as poor.
(Depdikbud, 2008) 3. Calculating the collecting data from the students in answer the
test, the researcher used formula to get mean score of the students as follow:
N X
__ x
Where :
__
X
= Mean Score∑X = The sum of all scores N = The total number of sample
(Gay, 1981: 298).
4. To find out the improvement of percentage:
% = 2 − 1 1 x 100 Where, % : the percentage of improvement
X2 : the total score of Post-test X1 : the total score of Pre-test
( Gay, 1987) 5. Calculating the value of t-test to indicate the significance between post-test
and pre-test, the researcher used the formula as follow:
) 1 ( D
t ( D)2
2
N N
N
Where :
N
D e. Scores 0 - 59 is classified as poor.
(Depdikbud, 2008) 3. Calculating the collecting data from the students in answer the
test, the researcher used formula to get mean score of the students as follow:
N X
__ x
Where :
__
X
= Mean Score∑X = The sum of all scores N = The total number of sample
(Gay, 1981: 298).
4. To find out the improvement of percentage:
% = 2 − 1 1 x 100 Where, % : the percentage of improvement
X2 : the total score of Post-test X1 : the total score of Pre-test
( Gay, 1987) 5. Calculating the value of t-test to indicate the significance between post-test
and pre-test, the researcher used the formula as follow:
) 1 ( D
t ( D)2
2
N N
N
Where :
N
D e. Scores 0 - 59 is classified as poor.
(Depdikbud, 2008) 3. Calculating the collecting data from the students in answer the
test, the researcher used formula to get mean score of the students as follow:
N X
__ x
Where :
__
X
= Mean Score∑X = The sum of all scores N = The total number of sample
(Gay, 1981: 298).
4. To find out the improvement of percentage:
% = 2 − 1 1 x 100 Where, % : the percentage of improvement
X2 : the total score of Post-test X1 : the total score of Pre-test
( Gay, 1987) 5. Calculating the value of t-test to indicate the significance between post-test
and pre-test, the researcher used the formula as follow:
) 1 ( D
t ( D)2
2
N N
N
Where :
N
D
Where: t = Test of significance
= The mean of different score
∑D = The sum of total score of significance
∑D2 = The square of the sum for difference N = The total number of subject
(Gay, 1981:366)
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
This chapter particularly covers the findings and discussion of the research.
The findings of the research cover the description of the result from the data collected through a writing test (pretest and posttest). Then, the discussion describes further explanation and interpretation of the findings given.
A. Findings
The findings of this research deal with the students’ score. They are the mean scores of pretest and posttest, the rate percentage and frequency of pretest and posttest and the t-test value. These findings describe as follows:
1. The Pretest Scores of the Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text a. The students’ writing ability in pretest
The students’ prior ability in writing recount text is known after giving pretest to the students. It was aimed to know the prior ability of the students in writing recount text before giving treatment. It was followed by 14 students.
Table 4.1,The Mean Score of the Students’ Pretest
Table 4.1 shows the students ability in writing recount text as the result of the students’ pretest. The mean score of the students’ writing
N=14 Pretest
Mean Score 60.21
b. The classification of the students’mean scores in pretest
After giving pretest to the students, the frequencies of the mean scores were classified into the following table:
Table 4.2, TheClassification of the Students’ Mean Score in Pretest
Table 4.2 shows that from 14 students who followed the pretest, 5 students get poor score, 8 students get fair score and 1student get good score. It means that the prior ability of the students in writing recount text is still low because most students got fair score in pretest. The mean score was calculated from three components of writing namely:
content, organization, and grammar.
c. The students’ ability in components of writing
The pretest involved three components of writing, namely:
content, organization, and grammar. The students’ mean score was calculated from those components. It is shown in the following table:
Table 4.3, TheMean Score ofComponents of the Students’ Writing Ability in Pretest
No Variable Pretest
1 Content 59.65
No Classification Range score Pretest Frequency
1 Excellent 90-100 -
2 Very good 80-89 -
3 Good 70-79 1
4 Fair 60-69 8
5 Poor 0-59 5
3 Grammar 59.28
Total score 180.71
Mean score 60.24
Table 4.3 shows the mean score of the students’ content, organization, and grammar in pretest. In content, the mean score of the students is (59.65). In organization, the mean score of the students is (61.78) and in grammar, the mean score of the students is (59.28). It can be concluded that the prior ability of the students’ content, organization and grammar in writing recount text before teaching by using Teachers Oral Feedback was still low because the students’ mean score 60.24 was indicated as fair.
d. The Classification of the Students’ Scores in Pretest based on the Tree Components of Writing
Pretest result of content
The pretest was aimed to know the basic ability of the students writing. It was conducted in the second grade students of SMKN 1 Gilireng Wajo. The pretest involved 14 students.
Table 4.4, The Classification of the Students’ Content Scores in Pretest
No Classification Range score Frequency %
1 Excellent 90-100 - -
2 Very good 80-89 - -
3 Good 70-79 1 7.14
4 Fair 60-69 9 64.29
5 Poor 0-59 4 28.57
Total 14 100 %
Table 4.4 shows that from 14 students who followed the pretest, 4 students (28.57%) get poor score, 9 students (64.29%) get fair score and 1 student (7.14%) get good score. It can be concluded that the students’
content in pretest is still low because most students get fair score.
Pretest result of organization
The pretest was aimed to know the basic ability of the students writing. It was conducted in the second grade students of SMKN 1 Gilireng Wajo. The pretest involved 14 students.
Table 4.5, The Classification of the Students’ Organization Scores in Pretest
No Classification Range score Frequency %
1 Excellent 90-100 -
2 Very good 80-89 1 7.14
3 Good 70-79 5 35.72
4 Fair 60-69 4 28.57
5 Poor 0-59 4 28.57
Total 14 100%
Table 4.5 shows that from 14 students who followed the pretest, 4 students (28.57%) get poor score, 4 students (28.57%) get fair score, 5 students (35.72%) get good score and 1 student (7.14) get very good score.
Pretest result of grammar
The pretest was aimed to know the basic ability of the students writing. It was conducted in the second grade students of SMKN 1 Gilireng Wajo. The pretest involved 14 students.
Table 4.6, The Classification of the Students’ Grammar Scores in Pretest
No Classification Range score Frequency %
1 Excellent 90-100 - -
2 Very good 80-89 - -
3 Good 70-79 3 21.43
4 Fair 60-69 5 35.71
5 Poor 0-59 6 42.86
Total 14 100%
Table 4.6 shows that from 14 students who followed the pretest, 6 students (42.86%) get poor score, 5 students (35.71%) get fair score, and 3 students (21.43%) get good score.
2. The Posttest Scores ofthe Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text a. The students’ writing ability in posttest
The posttest was done after giving the treatment. It was aimed to know the students’ ability in writing recount text after teaching by using Teachers’ Oral Feedback. It was followed by 14 students.
Table 4.7, The Mean Score of the Students’ Posttest
Table 4.7 shows the students ability in writing recount text as the result of the students’ posttest. The mean score of the students’ writing ability in posttest is 76.26.
N=14 Posttest
Mean Score 76.26
b. The classification of the students’mean score in posttest
After giving posttest to the students, the frequencies of the mean scores were classified into the following table:
Table 4.8, TheClassification of theStudents’ Mean Score in Posttest
Table 4.8 shows that from 14 students who followed the posttest, 2 students get fair score, 7 students get good score and 5 students get very good score. It means that the students’ mean score in posttest is classified as good because most students get good score. The mean score was calculated from three components of writing namely: content, organization, and grammar.
c. The students’ ability in components of writing
The posttest involved three components of writing, namely:
content, organization and grammar. The students’ mean score was calculated from those components. It is shown in the following table:
Table 4.9, The Mean Score of Components of the Students’
Writing Ability in Posttest
No Variable Posttest
1 Content 75.36
2 Organization 76.78
No Classification Range score
Posttest Frequency
1 Excellent 90-100 -
2 Very good 80-89 5
3 Good 70-79 7
4 Fair 60-69 2
5 Poor 0-59 -
3 Grammar 76.78
Total score 228.92
Mean score 76.31
Table 4.9 shows the mean score of the students’ content, organization, and grammar in posttest. In content, the mean score of the students is (75.36). In organization, the mean score of the students is (76.78) and in grammar, the mean score of the students is (76.78). It can be conclude that after teaching by using Teachers Oral Feedback the students’ ability of content, organization and grammar in writing recount text was classified as good.
d. The Classification of the Students’ Scores in Posttest based on the Tree Components of Writing
Post test result of content
The post test was conducted to know the result of the students score writing ability after giving treatment by using Teachers Oral Feedback. The score of the students is shown as follow:
Table 4.10, TheClassification of the Students’ Content Scores in Posttest
No Classification Range score Frequency %
1 Excellent 90-100 - -
2 Very good 80-89 6 42.86
3 Good 70-79 7 50
4 Fair 60-69 1 7.14
5 Poor 0-59 - -
Total 14 100 %
Table 4.10 shows that from 14 students who followed the post test, 1 student (7.14%) get fair score, 7 students (50%) get good score, and 6 students (42.86%) get very good score. It means that the treatment given to the students in the class was successful in improving the students writing ability.
Post test result of Organization
The post test was conducted to know the result of the students score writing ability after giving treatment by using Teachers Oral Feedback. The score of the students is shown as follow:
Table 4.11, The Classification of the Students’ Organization Scores in Posttest
No Classification Range score Frequency %
1 Excellent 90-100 1 7.14
2 Very good 80-89 7 50
3 Good 70-79 4 28.57
4 Fair 60-69 2 14.29
5 Poor 0-59 - -
Total 14 100%
Table 4.11 shows that from 14 students who followed the post test, 2 students (14.29%) get fair score, 4 students (28.57%) get good score, 7 student (50%) get very good score and 1 student (7.14%) get excellent score. It means that the treatment given to the students in the class was successful in improving the students writing ability.
Post test result of grammar
The post test was conducted to know the result of the students score writing ability after giving treatment by using Teachers Oral Feedback. The score of the students is shown as follow:
Table 4.12, The Classification of the Student Grammar Scores in Posttest
No Classification Range score Frequency %
1 Excellent 90-100 - -
2 Very good 80-89 7 50
3 Good 70-79 6 42.86
4 Fair 60-69 1 7.14
5 Poor 0-59 - -
Total 14 100%
Table 4.12 shows that from 14 students who followed the post test, 1 student (7.14%) get fair score, 6 students (42.86%) get good score, and 7 student (50%) get very good score. It means that the treatment given to the students in the class was successful in improving the students writing ability.
3. The Improvement of the Students’ Mean Score in Writing Ability a. The improvement of the students’ mean score
After giving pretest and posttest, the students’ mean score from both of tests was calculated to find the improvement of the students’
ability in writing recount text after giving treatment by using Teachers Oral Feedback. The improvement of the students’ mean score is shown in the following table:
Table 4.14, The Mean Score of the Students’ Pretest and Posttest
Table 4.14 shows the students mean score in writing ability as the result of calculating the students’ pretest and posttest after teaching by using Teachers Oral Feedback. The mean score of the students’ writing ability in pretest is (60.21) and the mean score of the students’ writing ability in posttest is (76.26). It can be conclude that the students’ mean score in writing ability is improved.
b. Classification of the improvement of the students’ mean scores in pretest and posttest
After giving pretest and posttest to the students, their mean score was classified into the following table:
Table 4.15, The Classification of the Students’ Mean Score in Pretest and Posttest
T a b l
Table 4.15 shows that from 14 students who followed the pretest, 5 students get poor score, 8 students get fair score and 1student get good score. In posttest, from 14 students who followed the post test, 2
N=14 Pretest Posttest
Mean Score 60.21 76.26
No Classification Range score
Pretest Frequency
Posttest Frequency
1 Excellent 90-100 - -
2 Very good 80-89 - 5
3 Good 70-79 1 7
4 Fair 60-69 8 2
5 Poor 0-59 5 -
students get fair score, 7 students get good score and 5 students get very good score. It means that the students’ ability in writing recount text is improved because in posttest the students’ frequency in good score is higher than in pretest. The mean score was calculated from three components of writing namely: content, organization, and grammar.
c. The improvement of the students’ mean score in components of writing
The pretest and posttest involved three components of writing, namely: content, organization and grammar. The students’ mean score was calculated from those components. It is shown in the following table:
Table 4.16, The Mean Score of Components of the Students’
Writing Ability
No Variable Pretest Posttest
1 Content 59.65 75.36
2 Organization 61.78 76.78
3 Grammar 59.28 76.78
Total score 180.71 228.92
Mean score 60.24 76.31
Table 4.16 shows the mean score of the students’ content, organization, and grammar in pretest and posttest. In content, the mean score of the students in pretest is (59.65) the mean score of posttest is (75.36). Therefore, the use of teachers’ oral feedback can improve the students’ content in writing recount text because the students’
achievement in posttest is greater than in pretest.
In organization, the mean score of the students in pretest is (61.78) and the mean score of posttest is (76.78). Therefore, the use of teachers’
oral feedback can improve the students’ organization in writing recount text because the students’ achievement in posttest is greater than in pretest.
In grammar, the mean score of the students in pretest is (59.28) and the mean score of posttest is (76.78). Therefore, the use of teachers’
oral feedback can improve the students’ grammar in writing recount text because the students’ achievement in posttest is greater than in pretest.
4. Hypothesis Testing
The significance of the students’ ability in writing recount text was aimed to know the level of significance of the pretest and posttest. The researcher used t-test analysis in the level of significance p (0,05 ) with the degree of freedom (df) = N-1, where N number of subject (14) students then the value of t-table is 2,160.
In order to know whether the mean score from two test (pre-test and post-test) was different or not, the researcher used the t-table. The following table shows the result of the t-test calculation:
Table 4.13 The T-test of Students’ Achievement
T
Variable t-test t-table
Recount Text 6.64 2.160
Table 4.8 indicates that the value of the t-test was higher than the value of the t-table. It indicates that there was a significant difference between the result of the students’ pre-test and post-test.
To find out the degree of freedom (df), the researcher used the following formula:
Df = N-1 (N = Number of students)
Df = 14–1
Df = 13
For the level of significance (p) 0, 05 and df 13, the value of the t- test was higher than t-table 6.64. It meansthat H0was rejected and H1was accepted. So the researcher concludes that there was a significant difference between the result of the students’ pre-test and post-test achievement after giving Teachers Oral Feedback.
B. Discussion
Based on the presentation of findings, the researcher presents some interpretation of findings in order to explain them in details. The writing test measured three components of writing namely: content, organization, and grammar. The description of the data collected through writing test is explained in the previous section. It shows that the students’ ability in writing is improved. It means the use of Teachers Oral Feedback is effective in improving the students’ writing ability of content, organization, and grammar in their recount text.