CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Research Findings
In this section, the researcher would present the final result of this study in form of descriptive data. The objective of this research is to find out whether there is a significant effect of using collaborative learning on students’ ability in speaking or not. There are two classes that the researcher took as the sample;
those are VII IPA 1 as the control group and VII IPA 2 as the experiment group which each of the group consisting of 20 students. After conducting the experiment, the researcher obtained the desired data. The data analyzed in this research were pre-test and post-test of narrative text scores from both of the groups, experiment and control group. The pre-test and post-test scores of both the experiment and the control groups were compared by using independent t- test.
1. Data Description
The data description of each group, control and experiment group will be presented by using Microsoft Excel 2007 analysis as follows:
a. Pre-test Result in Control and Experiment Group
The pre-test data at control group obtained the lowest score was 28 and the highest score was 44 from 20 in speaking skill. While the pre-test data at experiment group obtained the lowest score was 28 and the highest score was 48 from 20 students in speaking.
Table 4.1
Control and Experiment Group’s Scores in Pre-test49 Control Group Experiment Group
NO NAME PRE-TEST
SCORE NAME PRE-TEST
SCORE
1 Alia Fitriana 24 Arnis Nazira 24
2 Ana Sari 24 Dewi Anjani 32
3 Aulia Wulandari 32 Dina Amelia 28
4 Dewi Anjani 24 Erna Hilida 24
5
Hidayatul Rofika 32 Indah Seri Utami 28
6 Isnaini 24 Intan Ledista 24
7 Isratul jannah 32 Julia Nadea 28
8 Istiharoh 28 Lilis Tiani 32
9 Puput Wulandari 28 Linda Okiana 28
10 Lihayati 36 Lisa Agustina 32
11 Lola Herlina 24 Munisari 28
12 Maisaroh 32 Nadia Liani 28
13 Melisa Agustin 28 Reka Epiza 28
14 Muliani 32 Sila Nabila 32
15 Novia Rahimiwati 24 Siti Solehah 24
49 VII IPA 1 and VII IPA 2, Test, Gerung, 4 February 2020
16 Noviana 28 Siti Uswatun 32
17 Nurul Aini 36 Sulistia Ningsih 24
18 Rizki Astiani 28 Ulya Citra Dewi 24
19 Rosiana 28 Ulfatunnisa 24
20 Sahadasih 32 Wanda Apri H 32
Based on the data above, the researcher then described the data as follows:
Table 4.2
Descriptive Data of Pre-test at Control and Experiment Group Descriptive Data Control Group Experiment Group
Pre-test Pre-test
Mean 28.8 27.8
Median 28.0 28.0
Variance 16.16 10.90
Standard
Deviation 4.02 3.30
Maximum 36 32
Minimum 24 24
Range 12.0 8.0
Total 576 556
It can be seen that the pre-test score at experiment group gained lower mean score (27.8) than does the pre-test score at control group (28.8). The median score in pre-test at control group were 28.0, while the variance score was 16.16 and the standard deviation was 4.02. While at experiment group, the median score also 28.0 with the variance was 10.90 and standard deviation was 3.30. Additionally, the total of pre-test score in control group was 576 which indicated that it
was higher than the total score of pre-test in experiment group which only gained 556 as showed at Table 4.2.
b. Post-test Result in Control and Experiment Group
The post-test data at control group obtained the lowest score was 28 and the highest score was 48 from 20 students in speaking.
While the post-test data at experimental group obtained the highest score was 70 and the lowest score was 44 from 20 students in speaking.
Table 4.3
Control and Experiment Group’s Scores in Post-test50
Control Group Experiment Group
NO NAME POST-TEST
SCORE NAME POST-TEST
SCORE
1 Alia Fitriana 24 Arnis Nazira 44
2 Ana Sari 24 Dewi Anjani 48
3 Aulia Wulandari 28 Dina Amelia 56
4 Dewi Anjani 28 Erna Hilida 56
5
Hidayatul Rofika 32 Indah Seri Utami 44
6 Isnaini 28 Intan Ledista 52
7 Isratul jannah 32 Julia Nadea 48
8 Istiharoh 24 Lilis Tiani 60
9 Puput Wulandari 32 Linda Okiana 48
10 Lihayati 24 Lisa Agustina 44
11 Lola Herlina 28 Munisari 48
50 VII IPA 1 and VII IPA 2, Test, Gerung, 10 Maret 2020
12 Maisaroh 32 Nadia Liani 56
13 Melisa Agustin 28 Reka Epiza 44
14 Muliani 28 Sila Nabila 60
15 Novia Rahimiwati 28 Siti Solehah 52
16 Noviana 24 Siti Uswatun 48
17 Nurul Aini 36 Sulistia Ningsih 52
18 Rizki Astiani 32 Ulya Citra Dewi 48
19 Rosiana 28 Ulfatunnisa 52
20 Sahadasih 32 Wanda Apri H 56
Based on the data above, the researcher then described the data as follows:
Table 4.4
Descriptive Data of Post-test at Control and Experiment Group Descriptive Data Control Group Experiment Group
Post-test Post-test
Mean 28.6 50.8
Median 28.0 50.0
Variance 12.25 27.11
Standar Deviation 3.50 5.20
Maximum 36.0 44.0
Minimum 24.0 60.0
Range 12.0 16.0
Total 572 1016
It can be seen that the post-test in experiment group gained higher mean score (50.8) than the post-test in control group (28.6).
The median score in post-test at control group were 28.0, while the variance score was 12.25and the standard deviation was 3.50. While
at experiment group, the median score was 50.0 with the variance was 27.11 and standard deviation was 5.20. Additionally, the total score in experiment group was 1016 which indicated that it was higher than the total score in control group which only gained 572.
c. The Calculated Score of Control and Experiment Group Table 4.5
Calculated Table Score of Control51 Control Group
No. Name
Pre-test (y1)
Post-test (y2)
Difference (y)
1 Alia Fitriana 24 24 0
2 Ana Sari 24 24 0
3 Aulia Wulandari 32 28 -4
4 Dewi Anjani 24 28 4
5 Hidayatul Rofika 32 32 0
6 Isnaini 24 28 4
7
Isratul jannah 32 32 0
8 Istiharoh 28 24 -4
9 Puput Wulandari 28 32 4
10 Lihayati 36 24 -12
11 Lola Herlina 24 28 4
12 Maisaroh 32 32 0
13 Melisa Agustin 28 28 0
14 Muliani 32 28 -4
15 Novia Rahimiwati 24 28 4
51 X MIPA 1, Test, Gerumg, 13 Maret 2020
16 Noviana 28 24 -4
17 Nurul Aini 36 36 0
18 Rizki Astiani 28 32 4
19 Rosiana 28 28 0
20 Sahadasih 32 32 0
ƩN= 20 Ʃy1= 576 Ʃy2=572 Ʃy= -4
Table 4.6
Calculated Table Score of Experiment Group52 Experiment Group
No. Name
Pre-test (x1)
Post-test (x2)
Difference (x) 1
Arnis Nazira 24 44 20
2 Dewi Anjani 32 48 16
3 Dina Amelia 28 56 28
4 Erna Hilida 24 56 32
5
Indah Seri Utami 28 44 16
6 Intan Ledista 24 52 28
7 Julia Nadea 28 48 20
8 Lilis Tiani 32 60 28
9
Linda Okiana 28 48 20
10 Lisa Agustina 32 44 12
11 Munisari 28 48 20
12
Nadia Liani 28 56 28
13
Reka Epiza 28 44 16
14 Sila Nabila 32 60 28
52 X MIPA 1, Test, Gerung, 15 Maret 2020
15 Siti Solehah 24 52 28
16 Siti Uswatun 32 48 16
17 Sulistia Ningsih 24 52 28
18 Ulya Citra Dewi 24 48 24
19 Ulfatunnisa 24 52 28
20 Wanda Apri H 32 56 24
ƩN= 20 Ʃx1= 556 Ʃx2= 1016 Ʃx= 460
According to the data in Table 4.5, the writer compared the scores that students at control group achieved at both pre-test and post-test in oral presentation test. It showed no significant difference between pre- test and post-test. Among 20 students, only 6 students got higher score in post-test from their pre-test score, 9 students got the same score from pre-test to post-test, and the rest got their score decreased in post- test. In addition, the writer found that the total score in pre-test (Ʃy1) was 576, the total score in post-test (Ʃy2) was 572, and the total difference score between pre-test and post-test (Ʃy) was -4. While in experiment group, the writer found such a great achievement that the students’ got from pre-test to post-test in oral presentation. Among 20 students, all students got their score significantly increased in post-test after the treatment by using collaborative learning. Moreover, the total score in pre-test (Ʃx1) experiment group was 556, the total score in
post-test (Ʃx2) was 1016 and the difference total between pre-test and post-test score was 460 as showed in Table 4.6.
2. Prerequisite Test
There are two kind of perquisite test; those are normality test and homogeneity test. This aims of normality test is to find out whether the sample of data has been normally distributed or not. While homogeneity test aims to find out whether the both samples, control group and experiment group, are homogeneous. In analyzing the normality and homogeneity testing in this research, the writer used SPSS 16.0.
a. Normality Test
Table 4.7
Normality Test in Control Group
test
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
speaking skill control group
pre-test .187 20 .065 .871 20 .012
post-test .218 20 .014 .873 20 .013
Table 4.8
Normality Test in Experiment Group
test
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
speaking skill experiment group
pre-test .225 20 .009 .803 20 .001
post-test .205 20 .028 .908 20 .057
Based on Table 4.7, the sample data in control group showed that the Sig. values in Kolmogorov-Smirnovand Shapiro-Wilk was >
0.05 both at the pre-test (0.065 & 0.012) and post-test (0.014 & 0.013) which indicated that sample data in control group was normally distributed. Different result acquired in experiment group as the Table 4.8 showed, the Sig.values in Kolmogorov-Smirnovwas > 0.05 both at pre-test and post-test ( 0.09 & 0.028) which means that the sample data in experiment group was in normal distribution, while in and Shapiro-Wilk, the pre-test score gained less than 0.05 (0.01) but gained greater than 0.05 in post-test (0.057).
b. Homogeneity Test
Table 4.9
Homogeneity Test in Pre-test
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
pre-test score Based on Mean .801 1 38 .377
Based on Median .622 1 38 .435
Based on Median and with
adjusted df .622 1 37.915 .435
Based on trimmed mean .809 1 38 .374
Table 4.10
Homogeneity Test in Post-test
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
post-test score Based on Mean 4.836 1 38 .034
Based on Median 5.013 1 38 .031
Based on Median and with
adjusted df 5.013 1 37.201 .031
Based on trimmed mean 4.974 1 38 .032
Drawing to the Table 4.9 and Table 4.10, the Sig. value Based on Mean in control and experiment group both in pre-test and post-test showed a greater value than 0.05 (Sig. Based on Mean> 0.05), it indicated that the data variance both in control and experiment group were homogeneous.
2. Hypothesis Testing
The table 4.11 presented the outputs of paired sample t-test analysis, as follow:
Table 4.11 Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
t df
Sig. (2- tailed) Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper Pair
1
pretest control -
posttest control .20000 3.99473 .89325 -1.66959 2.06959 .224 19 .825 Pair
2
pretest experiment - posttest experiment
- 2.30000 E1
5.78564 1.29371 -25.70777 -20.29223 -17.778 19 .000
The data above showed the result of tcount in pair 2 experiment group pre- test and post-test was 17.778 with degree freedom (df) was 20 and significance value (Sig. 2-tailed) 0.000. Then, the df 20 found in ttable score at significance level 5% (0.05) was 2.088. Based on the statistical analysis using t-test, it showed that ttable = 2.088 and tcount=17.778 which indicates
that tcount was higher than ttable (17.778 >2.088). It concluded that if the tcount>ttable (17.778> 2.088) the alternative hypothesis (Ha) which stated that there is any significant effect of using Collaborative learning toward the students’ speaking skill was accepted. Moreover, the significance value (Sig. 2-tailed) was less than 0.05 (0.000<0.05) which means the null hypothesis (H0) that stated that there is no any significant effect of using Collaborative learning toward the students’ speaking skill was rejected.