CHAPTER IV RESULT OF THE RESEARCH
1. Research Setting
a. A Brief History of Establishment on SMK PGRI 1 Punggur
SMK PGRI 1 Punggur Lampung Tengah is located in Tanggul angin, Punggur district of Central Lamung. It was established on May, 1985. SMK PGRI 1 Punggur has accreditation status of C and had been lead by the following principals:
1st July 1984 – 31 July 1987 had been lead by Mr. Bayu Suprihyanto, B.Sc
1st August 1987 - 31 July 1990 had been lead by Drs. Sujadi Margono
1st August 1990 - 31 Juli 1993 had been lead by Mr. Dwi Suhardiyono, S.Pd
1stAugust 1993 - 31 Juli 1996 had been lead Mr. Bayu Suprihyanto, B.Sc
1stAugust 1996 - 31 Juli 1999 had been lead Mr. Dwi Suhardiyono, S.Pd
1stAugust 1999 - 31 Juli 2002 had been lead Drs. Sujadi Margono
1s tAgust 2002 - 31 Juli 2005 had been lead Mr. Dwi Suhardiyono, S.Pd
1stAugust 2005 - 31 Juli 2008 had been lead Mr. Mardiyono, HS, BA
1stAugust 2008 - 31 Juli 2011 had been lead Mr. Mardiyono, HS, S.Pd
1stAugust 2011- 31 Juli 2015 had been lead Hi. Mardiyono, HS, S.Pd
10 July 2015 -until now had been lead Mrs. Harnani, S.Pd
SMK PGRI 1 Punggur established on area ± 8.440 m2 with school statistic number 344120206005. SMK PGRI 1 Punggur has four skill program. Those are marketing, accountancy, office administration, and computer program with the total class are 3 for each the skill program. SMK PGRI 1 Punggur has 30 teachers and 6 official employees.
b. Vision and Mission 1) Vision
“Produce skilled, independent, competitive and noble graduates”
2) Mission
“Preparing students to be a skilled, honest, polite, and be cautious medium level manager to make leaders competitive in work”
c. The Condition of Teacher and Official Employers at SMK PGRI 1 Punggur.
Table 2.1
The Condition of Teachers and Official Employers in SMK PGRI 1 Punggur in the Academic Year of 2018/2019
No. Name / NIP
Education
last Teache
r status Position
1 Harnani, S.Pd S.1 DPK Headmaster
2 Dra. Ernawati S.1 DPK Vice curriculum
3 Wahana Widjanarko, S.Pd S.1 GTY Vice student 4 Hi. Mardiyono, HS, S.Pd S.1 GTY Civics teacher
5 Ir. Suyoto, MM S.2 GTY English Teacher
6 Drs. Cahyo Purwono S.1 GTT History Teacher
7 Drs. Tugiman S.1 GTY Office admin Teacher
8 A. Agus Gunardiyanta, BA S.1 GTT Civics Teacher 9 Drs. Tribono Budi Rumpoko S.1 DPK Computer Teacher
10 Dra. Rupiyah S.1 DPK
Management Bussines Teacher
11 Dra. Masturyatun S.1 GTT Computer Teacher
Quantity of SMK PGRI 1 Source : School Documentation
12 Dwi Suhardiyono, S.Pd S.1 GTT Counceling Teacher
13 Dra. Ari Retnani S.1 GTT History Teacher
14 May Farida S.Pd. S.1 GTT Indonesian Teacher
15 Drs. Sungedi S.1 GTT
Islamic Religion Teacher
16 Suwito SGO GTY Indonesian Teacher
17 Eni Purwiyati, BA SARMUD GTY Art Teacher
18
Indriani
Srimuryantini,SE.M.S, Ak S.1 GTY
Accountant Economic Teacher
19 Dra. Salbiah S.1 GTY
Islamic Religion Teacher
20 Lusy Yusarniati, SE. S.1 GTT Economic Teacher 21 Dyah Ayu Novitasari ,SE. S.1 GTY Economic Teacher
22 Sumartini, S.Pd S.1 GTY Management Teacher
23 Agung Tri Hardono SMA GTY Consult Teacher
24 Desi Anawati, S.Pd S.1 GTY Indonesian Teacher
25 Bekti Adarani, S.Pd S.1 GTY English Teacher 26 Willy Artanika Rikarda,ST S.1 GTY Computer Teacher 27 Rofita Handayani, S.Pd S.1 GTY Mathematics Teacher 28 Nuari Anisa Sivi, S.Kom S.1 GTY Computer Teacher 29 Asri Puji Astuti, S.Pd S.1 GTY English Teacher 30 A.Ali Hanafiah, S.Pd S.1 GTT Mathematics Teacher
31 Drs. Sudarminto S.1 GTT
Islamic Religion Teacher
32 Alggi Fani Rama Santi, S.Pd S.1 GTT English Teacher
33 Miftahudin S.1 GTT Marketing Teacher
34 Supanto PGSMTP PTY
Head of
Administration
35 Suhadi PGSMTP PTY Treasury
36 Suparjo SMP PTY
Staff of
Administration 37 Dwi Haryanti
D.1
Komputer PTY
Staff of
Administration
38 I Made Sugiarta SMA PTY
Staff of
Administration
40 Avfrillia Suzanty SMA PTT
Staff of
Administration
a. Students Punggur
The student’s quantity of SMK PGRI 1 Punggur in the academic year of 2018/2019 is that can be identified as follows:
Table 2.2
The Table of Students Quantity of SMK PGRI 1 Punggur in the Academic Year of 2018/2019
NO CLASS DEPARTMENT SEX TOTAL
TKJ AK AP P MALE FEMALE
1 X 20 15 22 23 30 45 75
2 XI 24 13 12 13 27 35 62
3 XII 20 18 16 11 25 40 62
TOTAL 81 120 202
Source : School Documentation
b. Structure Organization of SMK PGRI 1 Punggur
The structure organization of SMK PGRI 1 Punggur academic year 2018 / 2019 can be shown in the figure as follows :
Figure II
The Structure Organization of SMK PGRI 1 Punggur
Source : School Documentation B. Research Data
1. The Result of the Students’ Pre-Test
The researcher conducted pre-test in the first meeting of hir research in order to find out the initial different between the classes who have similar level. The pre-test used in this research is in the form of writing test. The result of pre-test can be identified as follows:
Principal Harnani, S.Pd
Treasury Suhadi Vice Principal of Students
Wahana Widjanarko, S.Pd
Vice Principal of Curriculum Dra. Ernawati
Head of Administration Suparjo
Counselor Agung Tri Hardono
Library Officer I Made Sugiarta
Laboratory Dwi Haryanti
Teachers
Students
Table 2.3
The Result of Students’ Experimental Class Pre-Test at the Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1 Punggur in the Academic of Year 2018/2019
NO NAME CO OR VO GR M SCORE
1. Ahmd 19 14 11 8 3 55
2. Thh 18 13 10 7 2 50
3. Amr 17 13 11 7 2 50
4. Ags 17 13 11 7 2 50
5. Anr 16 18 11 8 2 55
6. Rhm 17 13 9 6 - 45
7. Ans 14 16 11 6 3 50
8. Dms 19 15 12 6 3 55
9. Frs 19 15 12 6 3 55
10. Fkr 19 15 12 6 2 55
11. Hnk 17 14 11 6 2 50
12. Nvr 17 13 10 5 - 45
13. Hsn 20 14 12 7 2 55
14. Hstn 20 15 11 7 2 55
15. Lia 20 15 11 7 2 55
16. Agng 17 14 11 6 2 50
17. Hsn 20 17 12 7 2 58
18. Bdw 13 17 10 5 - 45
19. Spr 20 15 12 8 3 58
20. Nsh 19 16 12 7 2 56
Total 1249
Average 54.3
The highest score 58
The lowest 45
The number of the students who got 62 or more -
Based on the table above, the writer then measured the class interval using Arikunto formulation as follows:
R = the highest score – the lowest score
= 58-45
=13
K = 1+3.3 log n
= 1+4.494 = 5.494
= 6 P = R K
= 13 6
= 2.17=2
After knowing the interval class, the data then is taken from interval above was put on the table of frequency distribution, as follows:
Table 2.4
Frequency Distribution as the Result of Experimental Class Pre-Test at the Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1 2018/2019
Interval Frequency Percentages %
45-46 4 17.39%
47-48 - -
49-50 6 26.09%
51-52 - -
53-54 - -
55-56 11 47.83
57-58 2 8.69
32 100%
Based on the table of frequency distribution above, it can be inferred that all of the students is noting who got more than 62 which is the minimum mastery criteria (KKM). Therefore, it can be inferred that the students’ descriptive writing ability is very low.
And the data of pre-test score at the control class as follows:
Table 2.5
The Result of Students’ Control Class Pre-Test at The Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1 in Academic Year 2018/2019
NO NAME CO OR VO GR M SCORE
1. Ui 18 15 9 14 4 60
2. Whd 18 13 11 14 4 60
3. Ulm 20 17 13 11 4 65
4. Rzk 18 18 15 11 3 65
5. Ai 19 16 15 12 3 65
6. Hd 19 16 15 12 3 65
7. Akr 20 16 13 13 3 65
8. Sr 19 18 13 11 4 65
9. Nm 18 19 13 11 4 65
10. Ash 22 20 14 11 3 70
11. Tn 20 21 14 12 3 70
12. Irm 22 19 14 12 3 70
13. Isn 20 18 13 11 3 65
14. Indh 20 18 13 10 4 65
15. Hy 22 20 13 11 4 70
16. Fdlh 26 20 14 11 4 75
17. Gst 19 17 13 12 4 65
18. Dk 20 18 12 12 3 65
19. Chls 21 18 12 11 3 65
20. Bt 20 18 13 11 3 65
Total 1510
Average 65.6
The highest score 75
The lowest 60
The number of the students who got 62 or more 20
Based on the table above, the writer then measured the class interval using Arikunto formulation as follows:
R = the highest score – the lowest score
= 75-60
=15
K = 1+3.3 log n
= 1+4.493= 5.493
= 6 P = R K
= 15 6
= 2.5= 2
After knowing the interval class, the data then is taken from interval above was put on the table of frequency distribution, as follows
Table 2.6
Frequency Distribution as the Result of Control Class Pre-Test at the Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1 2018/2019
Interval frequency Percentages %
60-61 3 13.04%
62-63 - -
64-65 15 65.22%
66-67 - -
68-69 - -
70-71 4 17.4%
72-73
74-75 1 4.34%
23 100%
Based on the table of frequency distribution above, it can be inferred that 20 (86.95%) students got more than 62 which is the minimum mastery criteria (KKM). Therefore, it can be inferred that the students’ descriptive writing ability is good.
2. The Result of the Students’ Post-Test
And the data of post-test score at the control class as follows:
Table 2.7
The Result of Students’ Control Class Post-Test at The Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1 in Academic of Year 2018/2019
NO NAME CO OR VO GR M SCORE
1. Um 20 14 11 11 4 60
2. Whd 19 15 10 17 4 65
3. Ulm 19 14 11 17 4 65
4. Rzk 19 13 17 11 5 65
5. Ad 19 12 16 11 5 65
6. Hd 18 15 16 9 4 65
7. Akr 20 10 19 11 5 65
8. Sr 20 16 12 12 5 65
9. Nm 18 13 12 17 5 65
10. Ash 19 18 12 17 4 70
11. Tn 22 19 13 11 5 70
12. Irm 23 17 10 16 4 70
13. In 18 16 12 15 4 65
14. Idh 19 15 11 16 4 65
15. Hy 18 19 18 11 4 70
16. Fdlh 25 18 11 17 4 75
17. Gst 19 19 11 12 4 65
18. Dk 19 19 10 18 3 65
19. Chls 20 20 8 12 5 65
20. Bt 22 18 12 9 4 65
Total 1515
Average 65.8
The highest score 75
The lowest 60
The number of the students who got 62 or more 21
Based on the table above, the writer then measured the class interval using Arikunto formulation as follows:
R = the highest score – the lowest score
= 75-60
=15
K = 1+3.3 log n
= 1+4.493= 5.493
= 6
P = R
K
= 15 6
= 2.5=2
Table 2.8
Frequency Distribution as the Result of Experimental Class Post-Test at the Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1 2018/2019
Interval Frequency Percentages %
60-61 8 34.7%
62-63 - -
64-65 5 21.74%
66-67 - -
68-69 - -
70-71 7 30.43%
72-73
74-75 3 13.04%
23 100%
Based on the table of frequency distribution above, it can be inferred that 21 (91.30%) students got more than 62 which is the minimum mastery criteria (KKM). Therefore, it can be inferred that the students’ descriptive writing ability is good.
The writer also conducted post-test for the experimental class. The result of the students’ post-test at the experimental class can be identified as follows:
Table 2.9
The Result of Students’ Experimental Class Post-Test at the Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1 in Academic of Year 2018/2019
NO NAME CO OR VO GR M SCORE
1. Ahmd 20 7 19 7 4 57
2. Thh 19 15 10 14 4 62
3. Amr 19 8 11 9 4 51
4. Ags 19 9 11 9 5 53
5. Anr 16 19 11 19 5 70
6. Rhm 13 17 18 16 4 70
7. Ans 20 7 11 6 5 51
8. Dns 21 12 12 11 5 63
9. Frs 23 15 17 15 5 75
10. Fkr 18 11 14 11 4 58
11. Hnk 19 9 11 8 5 52
12. Nvr 18 16 10 15 4 65
13. Hsn 21 15 12 16 4 70
14. Hstn 19 8 11 8 4 50
15. Li 19 5 18 4 4 50
16. Agng 10 11 11 12 4 48
17. Hsn 21 14 19 15 4 75
18. Bdw 10 11 10 11 3 45
19. Spr 20 16 18 16 5 75
20. Nsh 22 9 12 8 4 57
Total 1445
Average 62.826
The highest score 75
The lowest 45
The number of the students who got 62 or more 10
Based on the table above, the writer then measured the class interval using Arikunto formulation as follows:
R = the highest score – the lowest score
= 75-45
=30
K = 1+3.3 log n
= 1+4.493= 5.493
= 6 P = R K
= 30 6
= 5
After knowing the interval class, the data then is taken from interval above was put on the table of frequency distribution, as follows:
Table 14
Frequency Distribution as the Result of Experimental Class Post-Test at the Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1 2018/2019
Interval frequency Percentages %
45-49 3 13.043 %
50-54 5 21.739 %
55-59 4 17.391 %
60-64 3 13.043 %
65-69 1 4.347 %
70-75 7 30.434 %
23 100 %
Based on the table of frequency distribution above, it can be inferred that 10 (43.47) students got more than 62 which is the minimum mastery criteria (KKM). Therefore, it can be inferred that the students’ descriptive writing ability in post test is increased or easy to say is good.
C. Hypotheses Testing
After applying the method, the writer analyzed the data by using t-test in order to prove whether there is any influence between experimental classes which using Brainstorming technique and control class which didn’t using
Brainstorming technique at the Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1’ Students in Academic Year of 2018/2019, as follows:
1. Preparing the table in order to proved whether there is any difference between the experimental class and the control class at the Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1’ Students in Academic Year of 2018/2019
Table 2.10
The Authentic Table Of the Differences between Experimental Class and Control Class at the Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1’ Students
In Academic Year of 2018/2019
NO
Experimental Class
NO
Control Class Subject
Pre- Test (X1)
Post- Test (X2)
Difference (X)
Subject Pre- Test (Y1)
Post- Test (Y2)
Difference (Y)
1. Ahmd 55 57 2 1. Um 60 60 -
2. Thh 50 62 12 2. Whd 60 65 5
3. Amr 50 51 1 3. Ulm 65 65 -
4. Ags 50 53 3 4. Rzk 65 65 -
5. Anr 55 70 15 5. Ad 65 65 -
6. Rhm 45 70 25 6. Hd 65 65 -
7. Ans 50 51 1 7. Akhr 65 65 -
8. Dns 55 63 8 8. Sr 65 65 -
9. Frs 55 75 20 9. Nm 65 65 -
10. Fkr 55 58 3 10. Ash 70 70 -
11. Hnk 50 52 2 11. Tn 70 70 -
12. Nvr 45 65 20 12. Irm 70 70 -
13. Hsn 55 70 15 13. Isn 65 65 -
14. Hstn 55 50 -5 14. Indh 65 65 -
15. Lia 55 50 -5 15. Hy 70 70 -
16. Agng 50 48 -2 16. Fdlh 75 75 -
17. Hsn 58 75 17 17. Gst 65 65 -
18. Bdw 45 45 - 18. Dk 65 65 -
19. Spr 58 75 17 19. Chls 65 65 -
20. Nsh 56 57 1 20. Bt 65 65 -
The Result 1249 1271 ∑ X= 157 The Result 1510 1515 ∑ Y=5
2. Putting the data into formula t-test in order to get tobserved: Mx= 157 = 5.565
23
∑x2 = ∑X2 - (∑X) 2 N = 2781 - (157)2 23 = 2781 - 24649 23 = 2781 – 1071.695
∑x2 = 1709.305
My = 5 = 0.22 23
∑y2 = ∑Y2 - (∑Y) 2 N = 25- (5)2 23 = 25- 25 23 = 25-1.087
∑y2 = 23.913
Therefore the researcher counted by using the formula of t-test as follow:
t =
23 1 23
1 2
23 23
913 . 23 305 . 1709
22 . 0 826 .
6
=
23 2 44
218 . 1733
606 .
6
=
39.3916.606x0.086
= 3.590
840 . 1
607 . 6 3876 . 3
606 .
6
Moreover, after putting the data above into formula t-test, the writer got tobserved is 3.590
D. Interpretation
Last but not list, after applying the treatment the writer found tobserved is 3.590, whereas, the determined of hypothesis testing is, if the tobserved higher than ttable, Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected and on the other way tobserved
smaller that ttable, Ha is rejected and Ho is accepted.
1. Interpretation of tobserved
If tobserved > ttable, Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected If tobserved < ttable, Ha is rejected and Ho is accepted
The critical value tobserved was 3.590, the researcher interpret it base on the quotation above. It can be know that there is significant influence of using Venn diagram toward the students’ descriptive writing ability at Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1.
2. Statistical Significance
To know the critical value of t-test (t-observed), the researcher firstly counted degree of freedom (df). The formulation of df = Nx + Ny - 2.
df = Nx+Ny – 2 = 23+23-2 = 44
After considering the t-test table by using df 44, the researcher not found it in t-table. So, it is done interpolation because 44 are higher than 40 and smaller than 60.
Table 2.11 Critical Value of ttable
5% 1%
d.f 40 2.000 2.660 d.f 60 1.980 2.617
5% 1%
d.f 40 + d.f 60 2
2.021 + 2.000 2
2.704 + 2.660 2
= 2.010 = 2.682
From all data analysis above, it can be known that:
tobserved = 3.590
ttable = 2.010 (5%) and 2.682 (1%)
The data confirm that tobserved is higher than ttable. Therefore, it can be inferred that Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected. It means that there is significant influence of Brainstorming technique on students’ descriptive writing ability at Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1, in the academic year of 2018/2019.
E. Limitation
However after conducting the research and gaining the data from test and documentation, the researcher found the problem faced by the students, as
follows:
1. This research was conducted on the Tenth Graders of SMK PGRI 1, so the result was limited only to this class. Moreover, this research was held on the academic year of 2018/ 2019, and then the result of this research is only for that year.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
After considering the t-test table by using df.44, the researcher not found it in the table. So it’s done interpolation because 44 is higher than 40 and smaller than 60, and as the result, from interpolation by using df 44, it can be known that the critical value of ttable for the 5% level is 2.010, the critical value of ttable for the 0.01% level is 2.682. From those all of the data analysis, it can be seen that tobserved (3.590) is higher than ttable (5% = 2.010, 0.01% = 2.682).
The data confirm that tobserved is higher that ttable, therefore it can be inferred that Hi is accepted and Ho is rejected. It means that there is significant influence of Brain storming technique through the students descriptive writing ability at the eleventh grade of SMK PGRI 1 Punggur Central Lampung, in the Academic Year of 2018/2019.
B. Suggestion
Based on the explanation above, the writer suggests some points as follows:
1. For the Teachers
The teacher should choose the suitable technique in teaching English especially in writing class in order that the student can understand the material delivered by the teacher, because by an interesting technique in learning, it can automatically improved the student motivation in learning process and it can make them try the best effort to accepting the material taught by the teacher.
2. For The Students
a. Students should be more active in learning English, if they do not understand about the lesson that delivered by their teacher, they should ask to the teacher.
b. The students are suggested to improve their descriptive writing.
3. For The School
a. The writer greatly expects that this study can give contribution for the school, such as a reference for further studies in learning descriptive writing ability.
The school is recommended to make the further studies in applying the Brainstorming technique which is done by the teacher in learning descriptive writing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acott-Smith, Angela. Writing Paragraphs and The Writing Process, National Literacy Secretariat of Human Resources Development Canada:Winter, 1999.
Ary, Donald, et.al., Introduction to Research in Education, USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2010.
Barker, Alan, 30 minutes...to Brainstorm Great Ideas, London: Kogan Page Imited, 1999.
Brown, H. Douglas, Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Second Edition , New York: Addison Wisley Longman, Inc., 2000.
Faisal & Suwandita, Krisna,The Effectiveness of FRESH Technique to Teach Descriptive Paragraph, Journal of Education and Learning.Vol.7, 2013.
Hennessy, Brendan, Writing An Essay: How to Improve Your Performance for Coursework and Examinations, United Kingdom: How to Books ltd, 1999.
Hillocks Jr, George, The Testing Trap (How State Writing Assessments Control Learning), New York: Teacher College press, 2002.
Hornby, A.S., Oxford Advanced Leaners Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University.
Press, 1989.
Jordan, R.R, Academic Writing Course Study Skill in English, third edition, England: Pearson Education Limited, 2003.
Kothari, Research MethodologyMethods and Techniques, New Delhi: New Age International, 2008.
Kumar Singh, Yogesh, Fundamental of Research Methodology and Statistics, New Delhi: New Age International, 2006.
Muijs, Daniel, Doing Quantitative Research In Education, London: SAGE Publications, 2004.
Nation, I.S.P, Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2009.
Perry, David and De Maria, Rusel, A Brainstorming Tool Book, Canada: Course Technology, 2009.
PW, M Mursyid, Learning Descriptive Text, Jakarta: 2005.
Reid, Joy M., Teaching ESL Writing, USA: Prentice Hall Regent, 1993.
Richards, Jack C and Schmidt, Richard, Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics,third edition, Longman: Pearson education, 2002.
Setiawan Djuharie, Otong, Book 3 Essay Writing, Bandung: Yrama Widya, 2009.
Siahaan, Sanggam, Issues In Linguistics , Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu, 2008.
Taken from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&
cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjFn7LH6eTKAhVFtpQKHVtID WAQFggnMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fyour.kingcounty.gov%2Femplo yees%2FHRD%2FCareerOrgServices%2Ftoolkit%2Fdocs%2FBrainstor ming.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHwU8hxn2ajr1qNZEwvc4oJghjMPQ on February, 7th 2016 at 12.47 p.m
Thomas, S. Kane, , Oxford, Essential Guide to Writing, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Urdan, Timothy C., Statistics in Plain English, Second Edition, London: LEA publisher, 2005.
Wardiman, Artono, et. Al, English in Focus, Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2008.
Wishon, George E. and M. Burks, Julia, Let’s Write Englishrevised edition, New York: Teachers College Press, 1980.
Yakhontova, T. V., English Academic Writing, UK: University of Liverpool, 2003.