N Lobserved Ltable note
writing ability
experimental class 24 0.0832 0.173 Lo < Lt Normal control class 24 0.129 0.173 Lo < Lt Normal experimental
class
Based on the table above, it can concluded that Fobserved of students‟
writing skill and their reading habits were lower than Ftable ratio. It means that the variance of those groups was homogenous. The procedures of homogeneity testing analysis can be seen on appendix 17 page 173-176.
c. Hypothesis Testing
In this research, hypothesis testing 1,2,3 used t-test, and two ways ANOVA for hypothesis 4. The used of two ways ANOVA was to know the interaction. Meanwhile, the interaction was the combination of teaching strategy and students‟ reading habits toward students‟ writing.
1) Hypothesis 1
Ho : the students who are taught by using collaborative writing get the same result in writing of recount text with those who are taught by using conventional strategy
Ha : the students who are taught by using collaborative writing give better result in students‟ writing of recount text than those who are taught by using conventional strategy
The result of writing skill t-test for both of experimental and control class can be seen at table 21.
Table 21: Summary of t-test students’ writing skill of experimental and control class
tobserved ttable Note
2.34 1.645 tobserved > ttable Ha : accepted
Based on the table above, it can be concluded that tobserved > ttable. It means that Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted. The procedure of analyzing of the t-test can be seen on appendix 18 page 177.
2) Hypothesis 2
Ho : the students who have high reading habit who are taught by using collaborative writing get the same result in writing of recount text than those who are taught by using conventional technique
Ha : the students who have high reading habit who are taught by using collaborative writing give better result in students‟ writing of recount text than who are taught by using conventional technique
The t-test result of students‟ writing score with high reading habits who were taught by collaborative writing can be seen at the table 22.
Table 22: Summary of t-test students’ writing ability score of Experimental class who have high reading habits
tobserved ttable Note
4.2 1.812 tobserved > ttable Ha : accepted
Based on analysis of hypothesis by using t-test, tobserved = 4.2 was higher than ttable = 1.812, it can be concluded that t situated on rejected area of Ho. it meant alternative hypothesis (Ha) – Students with higher reading habits who are taught by Collaborative writing have better writing skill in recount
text – accepted. The procedure of analyzing the t-test can be seen on appendix 18 page 179.
3) Hypothesis 3
Ho : the students who have low reading habit who are taught by using collaborative writing get the same result in writing of recount text than those who are taught by using conventional technique
Ha : the students who have low reading habits who are taught by using collaborative writing give better result in students‟ writing of recount text than those who are taught by using conventional technique
The ttest result of students‟ writing score with lower reading habits who were taught by Collaborative Writing can be seen at the table 23.
Table 23: Summary of t-test students’ writing score of experimental class who have low reading habits
tobserved ttable Note
0.63 1.812 tobserved < ttable
Ha : rejected
Based on analysis of hypothesis by using t-test, tobserved = 0.63 was lower than ttable =1.812, it could be concluded that t situated on rejected area of Ha. It meant alternative hypothesis (Ha)- students with lower reading habits who are taught by Collaborative Writing have better writing skill in recount text- rejected. The procedure of analyzing the t-test can be seen on appendix 18 page 181.
4) Hypothesis 4
Ho : there is no interaction between both treatments and students‟ reading habit toward students‟ writing of recount text
Ha : there is an interaction between both treatments and students‟ reading habit toward students‟ writing of recount text
In this research, the researcher used ANOVA 2x2 formula unweighted means in analyzing the interaction between both of the techniques and reading habits to students‟ writing skill. The result of the analysis can be seen on the table below:
Table 24: The Result of ANOVA
Source of Variance
JK Df Variance Fobserved Ftabel
Row 3933.93 1 3933.93 8.75 4.351
Column 239.22 1 239.22 0.53 4.351
Interaction 139.28 1 139.28 0.31 4.351
Within Cell 8996.32 20 449.816
The third row in table of ANOVA above showed that score of Fo was 0.31 and the score of Ftable was 4.351 It can be concluded that Fo < Ftable, it meant Ha accepted, it can be said that there was no interaction between both techniques and reading habits to students‟ writing skill. The analyzing of the ANOVA can be seen on appendix 18 page 183.
The average score of students that had high and low reading habits who were taught by Collaborative Writing was 73.58 while the students who were taught by conventional teaching was 67.25. From those scores, it can be concluded that the scores of both class were different although those are not really significant. The data can be seen as follow:
Table 25: the students’ average score Teaching Technique
Reading Habits
Collaborative Writing
Conventional Teaching
High 88.83 77.67
Low 58.33 56.83
Average Score 73.58 67.25
Based on that average score of students‟ writing skill, it can be concluded that one of the techniques is an effective technique for teaching writing. It indicated that Collaborative Writing can improve students‟ writing skill in recount text. In contrast, if there were two lines of ordinal line, it indicates that there is no interaction. The chart of interaction can be seen as follow:
The graph above shows that there are two lines of ordinal, not diagonal lines. It indicates that there is no interaction between the use of Collaborative writing strategy and conventional technique toward the students‟ writing.