CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
F. Data Analysis
The steps to collect data is undertake by quantitative analysis as follow:
1. Scoring the student’s correct answer of pre-test and post-test, the researcher will use the formula :
Students’ score = The number of student’s correct answer x 100 The total number of items
(Depdikbud in Risnawati, 2019)
2. Classification the students’ score, the researcher using as the following :
Table 3.2 Classification the students’ score
Excellent 96-100
Very good 86-95
Good 76-85
Fairly good 66-75
Fairly 56-65
Poor 36-55
Very poor 0-35
(Depdikbud in Risnawati, 2019)
3. Computing the frequency and the rule percentage of the students’
score.
P X 100
Where: P = Percentage F = Frequency
N = The total number of students ( Gay 2012)
4. To find out standard deviation of the students’ score in pre-test and post-test by applying formula below :
SD =√∑ ∑
Where : SD = Standard Deviation SD = Standard Deviation
∑ = Total raw score
N= The total number of students
(Gay 2012)
5. Calculating the collection data from the students in answering the test, the researcher use the formula to get the mean score of the students as follow :
X =
∑Where:
X = Mean score
∑ = The sum of all score N = the total number of sample
( Gay 2012 : 323)
6. To find the students improvement the formula as follows:
% =
Where:
% = the students improving = the mean score of the pre-test = the mean score of the post-test
( Gay 2012) 7. The criteria for hypothesis testing was as follows:
Table.32 Criteria for hypothesis testing
Comparison Hypothesis
H0 H1
T-test < t-table Accepted Rejected T-test > t-table Rejected Accepted
(Gay 2012)
8. To find out the significant different between pretest and posttest of student ability in vocabulary, the researchers calculated the value of t-test as follow:
̅ =∑ D : Deviation
∑D : Standard Deviation N : Number of students
t = ̅
√∑ ( ∑ )
t : Test of significance
D : The different between pretest and posttest
̅: Mean of different score
∑ : The square of the sum the different score N : Number of sample
1 : constant of number
(Gay 2012 )
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter consist of findings and discussion of the research. The findings of this research deal with the scoring classification of the students’ score in pre- test and post-test, mean score, standard deviation and hypothesis testing.
A. Findings
After conducting this research it was found that there was an improvement on students’ vocabulary after using Simon Says Game in teaching vocabulary at the first grade of SMP Muhammadiyah 12 Makassar.
The students’ improvement can be clearly in the following explanation : 1. The classification of the students’ score in pre-test and post-test
Table 4.1 The Rate Percentage of the Students’ Score in Pre-test and post-test
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
1 Excellent 96-100 0 0 9 39,13%
2 Very good 86-95 0 0 6 26,08%
3 Good 76-85 7 30,43 % 1 4,34%
4 Fairly good 66-75 4 17,39% 2 8,69%
5 Fairly 56-65 3 13,04% 4 17,39%
6 Poor 36-55 8 34,78% 1 4,34%
7 Very poor 0-35 1 4,34% 0 0
23 100% 23 100%
Post-test
Total
Classification Score
NO Pre-test
The table 4.1 shows that the percentage and frequency of the students’
pre-test and post-test. Based on the table above in pre-test there were 7 students ( 30,43%) classified into good, 4 students ( 17,39%) classified fairly good, 3 students ( 13,04%) classified into fairly, 8 students (34,78%) classified into poor and 1 student (4,34%) classified into very poor.
25
While in post-test there were 9 students (39,13%) classified into excellent, 6 students (26,08%) classified into very good, 1 student (4,34%) classified into good, 2 students (8,69%) classified into fairly good, 4 students (17,39%) classified into fairy, and 1 student (4,34%) classified into poor.
To see clearly the students’ score frequency and percentage of the students’ vocabulary, the graphic would be shows the pre-test and post-test result:
Graphic 4.1 The pre-test and post-test score frequency and percentage of the students’ vocabulary
Based on the graphic above shows that the percentage and frequency of the students’ pre-test and post-test. in pre-test there were 7 students ( 30,43%) classified into good, 4 students ( 17,39%) classified fairly good, 3 students ( 13,04%) classified into fairly, 8 students (34,78%) classified into poor and 1 student (4,34%) classified into very poor.
While in post-test there were 9 students (39,13%) classified into excellent, 6 students (26,08%) classified into very good, 1 student (4,34%)
0 0
30.43
17.39
13.04
34.78
4.34 39.13
26.08
4.34
8.69
17.39
4.34 0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Pretest Posttest
classified into good, 2 students (8,69%) classified into fairly good, 4 students (17,39%) classified into fairy, and 1 student (4,34%) classified into poor.
It can be concluded that the rate percentage in the post-test was greater than the rate percentage in the pre-test.
Table 4.2 The classification of the Students’ Score in term of noun and verb in Pre-test and post-test
NO Classifications Score Pre-test Post-test
Noun Verb Noun Verb
1. Excellent 96-100 1 0 6 10
2. Very good 86-95 1 0 7 4
3. Good 76-85 5 5 3 2
4. Fairly good 66-75 7 4 3 2
5. Fairly 56-65 0 4 3 3
6. Poor 36-55 5 8 1 2
7. Very poor 0-35 4 2 0 0
Total 23 23 23 23
Based on the table above shows that in pre-test score noun there was 1 student got excellent score 1 student got very good score, 5 students got good score, 7 students got fairly good score, there was no student got fairly score, 5 students got poor score and 4 students got very poor score. While in score verb there was no student got excellent score, there was no student got very good score, there were 5 students got good score, 7 students got fairly good score, there was no students got fairly score, there were 5 students got poor score and 4 students got very poor score. Its mean that, in pre-test score noun greater than verb.
In post-test score noun there were 6 students got excellent score, 7 students got very good score, 3 students got good score, 3 students got fairly good score, 3 students got fairly score and 1 student got very poor score.
While in score verb there were 10 students got excellent score, 4 students got very good score, 2 students got good score, 2 students got fairly good score, 3 students got fairly score and there was no student got very poor score. Its mean that, in post-test score verb greater than noun.
2. The mean score and standard deviation of the students’ pre-test and post-test.
Table 4.3 The Mean score and the standard deviation
Test Mean score Standard Deviation
Pre-test 61,95 18,39
Post-test 85,39 15,78
The table above showed that the students’ mean score and standard deviation of pre-test and post-test. The mean score of the students’ post- test was higher than the mean score of the students’ pre-test. The students’
mean score of pre-test was 61,95 while the students’ mean score of post- test was 85,39. The standard deviation of the students’ pre-test was 18,39 and the post-test was 15,78.
Graphic 4.2. The Mean score and the standard deviation
The graphic above shows that the students’ mean score and standard deviation of pre-test and post-test. The mean score of the students’ post-test was higher than the mean score of the students’ pre-test. The students’ mean
61.95
18.39 85.39
15.78 0
20 40 60 80 100
mean score standar deviation
pre-test post-test
score of pre-test was 61,95 while the students’ mean score of post-test was 85,39. he standard deviation of the students’ pre-test was 18,39 and the post- test was 15,78.
3. The improvement of the students’ vocabulary Table 4.4 The improvement of students’ vocabulary
Component Pre-test Post-test Improvement (%)
Verb and noun 61,95 85,39 37%
The table above shows that the pre-test was 61,95 and post-test was 85,39. In order words, The score of pre-test was higher than pre-test. The improvement from pre-test to post-test was 37%.
Graphic 4.3. The improvement of the students’ vocabulary
The graphic above presented about the improvement of the students’ vocabulary between pre-test and post-test. The improvement from pre-test to post-test was 37%.
61.95
85.39
37%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
pre-test post-test improvement
pre-test post-test improvement
4. Hypothesis testing
In order to see whether or not, there was a significant difference between the result of the pre-test and post-test was been applied, the t-test analysis from students’ score in vocabulary test was conducted. The result of t-test can be seen in .after calculating of t-test value, then it was compared with the value of t-table with the level of significance (p) =0,05 with the degree of freedom (DF)=22 because the sample was 23 students (N-1=22). The value of t-test was that t-table value.
The table 4.5 T-test the students’ vocabulary
Component T-test value T-table value
Noun and verb 9,29 2.074
The table 4.4 shows that t-test value was higher than t-table value (9,29 > 2.074). It means that there were significant difference between of students’ vocabulary before and after use Simon Says Game to the students’ vocabulary of the first grade of SMP Muhammadiyah 12 Makassar. It can concluded that the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted. In other words, the use of Simon Says Game can improve students’ vocabulary.
B. Discussion
This discussion deals with the interpretation of the findings derived from the statistical analysis. The description of the data collected through the test as explained in the previous section shows that the students’ vocabulary mastery was good.
Based on the table 4.1 shows that in pre-test there is no students got score excellent. It means that the students’ vocabulary at the first grade of SMP Muhammadiyah 12 Makassar was low.
While in post-test there were 9 students (39,13%) classified into excellent.
It means that after being given treatment the students’ vocabulary improved.
Besides that, the mean score of students’ post- test (85,39) was higher than the students’ pre-test (61,95). Thus, alternative hypothesis (H1) there is significant different between the result of pre-test and post-test is accepted while the Null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. It can be concluded that by using Simon Says Game students’ vocabulary could be improved.
This research was conducted in September 16 until 12rd 2019. This research consisted of 8 meetings. 1 meeting for pre-test, 6 meetings for treatment and 1 meeting for post-test. The researcher described one by one the meeting as follow.
a) The description of the first meeting
In the first meeting on September 16th 2019, the researcher gave pre-test. Before the researcher gave pre-test, the researcher greeted the students and asked the students to pray together. After pray together the researcher checked the students attendant list, the researcher introduced herself to the students and asked the students about the main activity of the researcher. After that, the researcher gave pre-test and gave the students 80 minutes to answer the question. After the students have done the test and
collected it, the researcher asked the students about material for the next time and closed the meeting by reciting Hamdalah together.
b) The description of the second meeting
The second meeting was treatment, conducted on September 21th, 2019. In this meeting the researcher greeted and asked the students to take pray together, checked students attendance. After that, the researcher gave material about noun consisted of the names of animals. The researcher asked the students what is animal. The researcher discussed with the students about what they have learned at the second meeting. In this meeting the researcher asked the students to mention the vocabularies that have memorized before were related to the theme in this meeting. The researcher gave example of vocabulary the consisted of picture related to the names of animal. The researcher teach to the students how to pronounce the vocabulary that has been given. After that, the researcher asked the students about Simon Says Game. The students never listened that game. So, the researcher introduced Simon Says Game to the students.
After introduced about this game the researcher gave opportunities for the students to find their partner mates and gave the students 15 minutes to memorized the names of animals that has been given with their partner.
After that, the researcher invited the student with her partner come in front of the class and the researcher applied Simon Says Game. When one student makes a mistake in playing the game, the students was gave punishment. The punishment was students must memorized 5 vocabularies
that have been given with the meaning. Before closed the meeting the students work on assignments about the material that has been given by researcher. In the end of the meeting, the researcher and the students closed the meeting by reciting Hamdalah.
In this meeting the researcher found a problem in applied this game.
The students were difficult to be called to come in front of the class. So, the researcher visited them to come in front of the class.
c) The description of the third meeting
The third meeting was treatment, on September 23th 2019. In this meeting the researcher gave the same game to the students and the activity this meeting same to the activity in the second meeting. But the difference was the materials. This meeting the researcher gave the students the materials about the names of the object in the school and house environment and asked the students about previous material before the researcher gave a new material. This meeting the students were not difficult to called in front of the class. They looked began to enjoy in teaching and learning process.
d) The description of the fourth meeting
The fourth meeting on September 28th 2019 was treatment. In this meeting the students were more active in learning process. They began competing to come in front of the class. The activity in this meeting same to the activity in the second meeting and third meeting. But the material this meeting was about the name of buildings.
e) Description of the fifth meeting
The fifth meeting on September 30th 2019 was treatment. Before studying, the researcher greeted the students, asked the students to take pray together, checked the student attendant and asked students about previous materials. After that the researcher gave the students the material about verb and gave the students the same game. But in this meeting the researcher didn’t gave some pictures to applied the game like previous meeting. But they just directly demonstrated. For example when the researcher stated “ Simon Says jump” the students jump.
Before applied this game the researcher gave vocabulary to the students about verb 1. The researcher write example of verb 1 in the whiteboard and ask the students to write in their book. After their write the researcher tech how to pronounce and the researcher explained how to demonstrated in each verb that has been given. After students understood the researcher applied this game .The students were looked happy and enjoyed. Before the researcher closed the meeting the researcher asked the student one by one about the material. After that the researcher closed by reciting Hamdalah
f) Description of the sixth and the seventh meeting
The six and the seven meeting was treatment. The six meeting on the October 5th 2019 and the seventh meeting on October 7th 2019. In this meeting the researcher gave the same game to the students and the activity
this meeting same to the activity in the fifth meeting. The students more enjoyed and active.
g) Description of the eighth meeting
In the eighth meeting on October 12th 2019, the researcher gave pot- test. Before the researcher gave pot-test, the researcher greeted the students and asked the students to pray together. After pray together the researcher checked the student attendant list. After that, the researcher explained the role of answered post-test. The researcher gave post-test and gave the students 80 minutes to answer the question. After the students have done the test and collected it, the researcher asked the students that this meeting was the last meeting and the researcher closed of the meeting by reciting Hamdalah.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter consists of two parts. The first part was conclusion and the second part was suggestion.
A. Conclusions
Based on the result of data analysis, the researcher found that applying Simon Says Game at the first grade of SMP Muhammadiyah 12 Makasaar, could be improve students’ vocabulary mastery. The achievements of students on vocabulary taught by using Simon Says Game in pre-test there were 7 students ( 30,43%) classified into good, 4 students ( 17,39%) classified fairly good, 3 students ( 13,04%) classified into fairly, 8 students (34,78%) classified into poor and 1 student (4,34%) classified into very poor.
While in post-test there were 9 students (39,13%) classified into excellent, 6 students (26,08%) classified into very good, 1 student (4,34%) classified into good, 2 students (8,69%) classified into fairly good, 4 students (17,39%) classified into fairy, and 1 student (4,34%) classified into poor.
Based on the result above, it can be concluded that the rate percentage in post-test was greater than the rate in pre-test.
B. Suggestion 36
Based on the conclusion above the researcher puts forward some suggestion as follow:
1. The English Teachers are suggested to apply Simon Says Game in teaching and learning process especially in teaching vocabulary.
2. The teachers are suggested to be more creative in teaching English especially in teaching vocabulary.
3. The teachers should be more creative in choosing games that will be used in teaching.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ababneh, S. 2013. Strategies Used by Jerdanian University students’ in Dealing with New Vocabulary in English. Journal of Education and Practice.Vol 4.No 4
Alqahtani, M. 2015. The Importance of Vocabulary in Language Learning And to be Taught. International Journal of Teaching and Education. Vol 3. No 3.
Dalimunte, M., Salmiah, M., & Muhsin, A. 2018. The Implementation of Simon Says Game To Improve Students’ Vocabulary Mastery In Learning English AT MTS. Laboratorium UIN-SU Medan. Journal of Language, Literature & education. Vol.14, No. 14.
Fauziah, A., Apriliaswati, R, Susilawati, E. 2018. The Use of Boggle Game To Improve Students Vocabulary In Writing Descriptive Text. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran. Vol 7. No 1
Gay, L.R, G.E. Mills, G.E.,&Airasian, P.W. 2012. Educational Research Competence for Analysis and Application. USA: Pearson
Hardianti, I. 2018. The Effectiveness of Using Hyponymy Game in Teaching Vocabulary (Quasi-Experimental Stusy at the First Grade of SMP Somba Opu). Muhammadiyah University of Makassar. Thesis
Hatach, E & Brown, C. 1995. Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, D. 2003. Speaking Activities for the Classroom. Bangkok
Jurasni. 2019. The Use of Hangman Game To Increase Students’ Vocabulary.
Muhammadiyah University Of Makassar. Thesis.
Lundquist, L. 2008. Learning Spoken English. Public Domain
Lutfiatun, I .2017.The Use of Word Clap Game and Realia to Improve Students’
Vocabulary Mastery Through Word Clap Game. Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta. Thesis
Musliana. 2015. The Use of Mnemonic Device To Improve Students’ Vocabulary Mastery At The Second Grade of SMP NEG 2 Binamu Kab. Jeneponto.
Muhammadiyah University Of Makassar. Thesis.
38
Nugroho, W & Suprapto. 2017. The Effectiveness of Picture Crossword Puzzle Game in Teaching Vocabulary. Journal of English Language Teaching.
Vol. 6. No. 2.
Pravijanti, D. 2015. Increasing The Students’ Spelling In Vocabulary Through Dictation Technique. Muhammadiyah University Of Makassar. Thesis.
Purnama, E., Sutapa, G.Y., & Susilawati, E. 2017. Improving Students’
Vocabulary Mastery By Using Mime Game In SMPN 3 Sungai Raya.
Jurnal Pendidikan dan pembelajaran. Vol 6, No 8.
Puspita, W. 2018. Improving Students’ Participant In Listening Comprehension Class Using Simon Says Game. Jurnal pendidikan dan Pembelajaran. Vol 7. No 4.
Riskawati. 2018. Improving The Students’ Speaking Ability Through Time Token Arends at the Eleventh Grade Of SMAN 18 Gowa. Muhammadiyah University Of Makassar. Thesis.
Risnawati. 2019. The Use of Tic Tac Toe Game To Improve Students’
Vocabulary. Muhammadiyah University Of Makassar. Thesis.
Sabaena. 2014.Using Bookworm Game On Teaching Vocabulary Of The First Grade Students Of SMP IT Wahdah Islamiyah Makassar. Muhammadiyah University of Makassar. Thesis.
Thornbury, S. 2002. How To Teach Vocabulary. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Wright, A., Betteridge, D., & Buckby, M. .2006. Games for Language Learning.
Camridge: Camridge University Press.
Wardani, S.I. 2015. Impoving Students’ Vocabulary Mastery Using Word Mapping Strategy. Jurnal Bahasa Dan Sastra. Vol.9 No. 1
Yanuri. 2015. The Use of Blinfold Game To Improve The Vocabulary Mastery of The Fifth Grade Students AT SDN Tertek Tulungangung. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Sosial. Vol 11. No.19
Yolageldili, G & Arda, A.2011. Effectiveness of Using Games in Teaching Grammar to Young Learners. Elementary Education Online. Vol. 10. No. 1