CHAPTER III METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
G. Technique of Analysis Data
The gather of data use in order to figure out whether or not the treatment achieve a good result toward students‟ writing skill of eighth grade at SMPN 1 Kalaena, Luwu Timur. This research support by a quantitative data analysis. The quantitative data of this research is numeric data and can be formulated by using statistical method.
1. Scoring each component by using the following rating scale in the scoring of the composition (Jacobs, 2000: 6).
Content
30-27 Very Good: knowledge, substantive, relevant to assigned topic.
26-22 Good: some knowledge of subject, adequate range, mostly relevant to topic but lacks detail
21-17 Fair: Limited knowledge, little substance, Inadequate development of the main idea
16-13 Poor: does not show knowledge of subject, substance, not enough to evaluate.
Organization
20-18 Very Good: Fluent expression, ideas clearly stated and supported, well-organized, logical sequencing.
17-14 Good: somewhat choppy, loosely organized but minimum ideas stand out, limited support, logical but incomplete sequencing.
13-10 Fair: non-fluent, ideas confused or disconnected.
9-7 Poor: does not communicate, no organization, not enough to evaluate.
Vocabulary
20-18 Very Good: sophisticated range, effective word/idiom choice and usage.
17-14 Good: adequate range, occasional errors of word/idiom, choice, and usage out meaning not occurred
13-10 Fair: limited range, frequent errors of word/idiom from choice, and usage.
9-7 Poor: essential translation, little knowledge of English vocabulary.
Grammar/Language use
25-22 Very Good: effective complex construction.
21-18 Good: effective but simple construction
17-11 Fair: mayor problems in sample /complex construction 10-5 Poor: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules.
Jacobs (2000: 6) Mechanics
5 Very Good: demonstrate mastery of convictions
4 Good: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation capitalization.
3 Fair: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation capitalization.
2 Poor: no mastery of connections, dominated by errors of spelling.
Capitalization paragraphing.
(Jacobs (2000: 6)
2. classifying the students score based on the following classification:
Table 3.1 Scoring Classification
Score Classification
91-100 Excellent
76-90 Good
61-75 Average
51-60 Poor
< 50 Very Poor
(Depdiknas, 2013:13) To know the score classification of each components ofthe students pre- test and post-test the researcher converted the students‟ score using the formula:
Then, after getting the students‟ score, the researcher calculated the mean score, standard deviation, frequency table and the value of t-test in identifying the difference between pre-test and post-test by using inferential analysis in SPSS version 16.0.
32 CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the data that was collected during the experimental research. In this part, the researcher showed the calculation of pre-test score and post-test score.
After presents the students‟ achievement of class VIII.5 in a table the researcher analyzed the data by comparing the chance that the students make during this research.
A. Findings
This finding presents the result of data of students writing skill of the second grade students of SMPN 1 Kalaena, Luwu Timur. The findings of this research deal with scoring and classification of the students‟ pre-test and post- test. Data calculated based on the result and the result of pre-test and post- test. The researcher do some observation and test during research activity in this chapter.
1. The score classification of students‟ pre-test and post test
The students‟ pre-test and post-test in making paragraph descriptive text through POW+TREE strategy be seen in the following table.
Table 4.1.Rate Frequency (F)and Percentage (P) of the Students Score in Pre-test and Post-test in Content.
No Classification Score
Pre-test Post-test
F P F P
1 Very good 30-27 - - 12 41.38%
2 Good 26-22 5 17.24 % 14 48.28%
3 Fair 21-17 15 51.72% 3 10.34%
4 Poor 13-16 9 31.03% - -
Total 29 100% 29 100%
Table 4.1 above show that, in the pre-test none of the students classified as very good, 5 students (17.24 %) classified as good, 15 students (51.72%) classified as fair and 9 students (31.03%) classified as poor.
In the post test, 12 (41.38%) students classified as very good, 14 (48.28%) students classified as good, 3 students (10.34%) classified as fair and none of student classified as poor.
The writer found that in the pre-test, the students had difficult to make a relevant paragraph each other, but after application the POW+TREE strategy in writing lesson, in post-test the students easier to make a relevant paragraph. This results show that there is an improvement of the students‟ writing skill in content.
Table 4.2. Rate Percentage (P) and Frequency (F) of the Students Score in Pre-test and Post-test in Organization No Classification Score Pre-test Post-test
F P F P
1 Very good 20-18 - - 9 31,03%
2 Good 17-14 3 10.34% 18 62.07%
3 Fair 13-10 10 34.48% 2 6.90%
4 Poor 9-7 16 55.17% - -
Total 29 100% 29 100%
Table 4.2 above show that, in the pre-test none of the students classified as very good, 3 students (10.34%) classified as good, 10 students (34.48%) were Classified as fair and 16 students (55.17%) classified as poor.
In the post-test there were, 9 students (31,03%) classified as very good, 18 students (62.07%) classified as good, 2 students (6.90%) classified as fair and none of the students were classified as poor.
The writer found that in the pre-test, most of students had difficult in organizing their idea into readable paragraph, but in post-test the students can organizing their idea into readable paragraph.
Table 4.3. Rate Percentage (P) and Frequency (F) of the Students Score in Pre-test and Post-test in Vocabulary No Classification Score
Pre-test Post-test
F P F P
1 Very good 20-18 - - 17 58.62%
2 Good 17-14 8 27.59% 12 41.38%
3 Fair 13-10 13 44.83% - -
4 Poor 9-7 8 27.58% - -
Total 29 100% 29 100%
Table 4.2 above show that, in the pre-test none of the students classified as very good, 8 students (27.59%) classified as good, 13 students (44.83%)were Classified as fair and 8 students (27.58%) classified as poor.
In the post-test there were, 17 students (58.62%) classified as very good, 12 students (41.38%) classified as good, and none of the students classified as fair and poor.
The writer found that in pre-test, the students still had difficult in choosing vocabulary, so that the students were difficult to make a good paragraph, but in the post-test the students easier to choosing a vocabulary, so that the students were easier to make a good paragraph. This result show that there is an improvement of the students, writing skill in vocabulary.
Table 4.4. RatePercentage (P) and Frequency of the students Score in Pre-test and Post-test in Language Use/Grammar.
No Classification Score Pre-test Post-test
F P F P
1 Very good 20-18 - - 7 24.13%
2 Good 17-14 - - 16 55.17%
3 Fair 13-10 9 31.03% 6 20.70%
4 Poor 9-7 20 68.97% - -
Total 30 29 100% 29 100%
Table 4.3 above show that, in the pre-test none of the students classified as very good and good, 9 students (31.03%) classified as fair and 20students (68.97%) classified as poor.
In the post-test there were, 7 (24.13%) students classified as very good, 16 students (55.17%) classified as good, 6 (20.70%) students classified as fair and none of the students classified as poor.
The writer found in the pre-test, most of students no mastery of sentences construction rule, so that the students difficult to make a good paragraph. But in post-test, some of students can mastery of sentence construction rule, so that the students can make a good paragraph. This result show that there is an improvement of the students, writing skill in grammar.
Table 4.5.Rate Percentage (P) and Frequency (F) of the students Score in Pre-test and Post-test in Mechanics.
No Classification Score
Pre-test Post-test
F P F P
1 Very good 25-22 - - 4 13.80%
2 Good 21-19 - - 15 51.72%
3 Fair 18-11 5 17.24% 10 34.48%
4 Poor 10-7 24 82.76% - -
Total 30 29 100% 29 100%
Table 4.5 above show that, in the pre-test none of the students classified as very good and good, 5 students (17.24%) classified as fair and 24 students (82.76%) %) classified as poor .
In the post-test 4 (13.80%) students classified as very good, 15students (51.72%classified as good, 10 students (34.48%classified as fair and none of the students classified as poor.
The writer found, in pre-test most of students‟ written was dominated by errors of spelling, but in the post-test the writer found some of students can mastery of conviction. This result show that there is an improvement of the students‟ writing skill in mechanics.
Table 4.6. Rate Percentage (P) and Frequency (F) of the students Score in the five components Observed.
No Classification Score Pre-test Post-test
F P F P
1 Very good 91-100 - - 6 20.69%
2 Good 90-76 - - 16 55.17%
3 Fair 75-61 6 20.69% 7 24.14%
4 Less 51-60 3 10.34% - -
5 Poor 0-50 20 68.97% - -
Total 29 29 100% 29 100%
Based on the result of the data analysis for the test on table 6 above indicates that in the pre-test none of the students classified as very good and good, 6 students (20.69%) classified as fair, 3 students (10.34%) classified as less category, and 20 (68.97%) students classified as poor.
In the post test 6 students (20.69%) classified as very good, 16 students (55.17%) classified as good, 7 students (24.14%) classified as fair, and none of the students classified as less and poor.
The writer found in the pretest, most of the students got low score. But in post test, most of students can got good score. This result show that there is an effect on the students‟ writing skill in grammar.
2. Students‟ Pre-Test and Post-Test Score Students’
Name Code Pre-Test Classification Post-Test Classification
S1 44 Poor 82 Good
S2 62 Fair 81 Good
S3 51 Less 90 Good
S4 66 Fair 93 Excellent
S5 62 Fair 93 Excellent
S6 37 Poor 78 Good
S7 48 Poor 84 Good
S8 51 Less 87 Good
S9 46 Poor 83 Good
S10 44 Poor 82 Good
S11 44 Poor 82 Good
S12 44 Poor 81 Good
S13 38 Poor 75 Fair
S14 41 Poor 88 Good
S15 43 Poor 75 Fair
S16 56 Less 90 Good
S17 44 Poor 91 Excellent
S18 37 Poor 84 Good
S19 34 Poor 74 Fair
S20 34 Poor 86 Good
S21 34 Poor 65 Fair
S22 34 Poor 66 Fair
S23 34 Poor 74 Fair
S24 39 Poor 86 Good
S25 34 Poor 73 Fair
S26 34 Poor 76 Good
S27 66 Fair 89 Good
S28 66 Fair 97 Excellent
S29 62 Fair 97 Excellent
After calculating the result of the students‟ pretest and post test, the mean score and standard deviation were presented in the following table.
N Minimum Maximum Sum Mean Std.
Deviation
Pre-Test 29 34 66 1329 45.83 11.113
Post-Test 29 65 97 2402 82.83 8.320
Valid N (list wise) 29
Based on the data of pre-test and post-test the above, the researcher found that there is significant improvement after giving the treatment. In pre-test, the total score is 1329, the mean score is45.83and standard deviation is11.113.
While in post-test, the total score 2402 with the mean is 82.83 and standard deviation is 8.320.The total and mean score of post-test is higher than pre-test.
3. Test of significance (t-test).
After conducting the students‟ pre-test and post-test score in experiment class, the researcher used t-test for hypothesis test. T-test is a test to measure whether or not there is a significant difference between the results of the students‟ mean scores in the pretest and the posttest. By using inferential analysis of t-test or test of significance run by SPSS Version 16, the significant differences can be easier to analyze.
In this research, the Null hypothesis (Ho) stated that the effect of POW+TREE strategy can‟t enhance the students‟ writing skill in English at the eight grade of SMPN 1 Kalaena, Luwu Timur in the academic year 2020/2021. While the Alternative hypothesis (H1) state that the Effect of POW +TREE strategy can enhance the students‟ writing skill in English at the eight grade of SMPN 1 Kalaena, Luwu Timur in the academic year 2020/2021s.If
the value of significance 2 or sig. (2-tailed) lower than 0.05, H1 accepted and Ho rejected.
Table 4.5 The Result t-test
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 -
posttest -37.000 7.290 1.354 -39.773 -
34.227 -27.332 28 .000
The result of t-test stated that Sig. (2-tailed) was 0,000. The result provided that the Sig. (2-tailed) table was lower than level of significance. So, the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted and the null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected. It means that the effect of POW+TREE strategy can enhance students‟
writing skill in English at the eight grade of SMPN 1 Kalaena, Luwu Timur in the academic year 2020/2021.
B. Discussion
From the findings, it is clear that there is significant effect from the students after given treatment through POW+TREE strategy. The students‟ writing skill especially for five components (Content, Organization, Vocabulary, Grammar and Mechanics) before treatment was less and after treatment was good. The students showed that the use of POW+TREE strategy makes them interested to join the class. They also were more active and creative during teaching learning process Therefore, the researcher took conclusion the POW+TREE strategy effect for students‟ writing skill.
The result of pre-test showed not much enhanced students writing skill focus on organization, The most common error from the students found by the researcher was students cannot arrange the word in good sentences and when expressing their ideas, that happens because they are low in developing their thinking in writing. Students also were low in composing sentences well in their writing in a succinct manner. Finally, they also worry about grammar and vocabulary. This is evident when students write they sometimes used the wrong words because limited vocabulary. They also do not consider correct grammar and proper punctuation. Thus, students should think clearly to make their writing better. They are not forced to make their own writing. It keeps students low in writing.
During the treatment at the 1thmeeting the researcher explain briefly everything related to writing descriptive text, such as how to write a descriptive text, how to use mechanics of writing , and how to make grammatical sentence.
The students response was good. They could write sentence but they still had problem with mechanics of writing.
To overcome the problem the researcher provided the students with teaching material about mechanics of writing in the 2thmeeting. She explain the usage followed by some example. As it result, the students understanding got better.
At the 3rd meeting the researcher explain detail about descriptive text and its organization (generic structure). At first the students did not get the point of the organization. So, the researcher gave them an analogy by saying that the generic structure of descriptive text was like a book; identification was the cover and the
description was the content. The analogy seemed to be effective. The students could differentiate between the identification and the description.
The researcher ask the students to write descriptive paragraph in 4th meeting.
The students writing skill were much improved. They no longer had problem with mechanics, organization, and content. In sum, they were able to write a descriptive paragraph using good grammar and correct mechanics of writing.
When the post-test was given, students could describe their favorite teacher in a good paragraph. There are Some students got the same score at the pretest but got different improvements in the posttest after being given treatment. This happens because students who have increased higher have high enthusiasm and curiosity, they always pay attention when the researcher gave an explanation and ask questions related to the material and some difficult words when they don‟t understand the explanation given. Besides, the field notes showed that in the teaching and learning process, they took notes and had a curiosity about the material. Whereas students who got low increased has less attention when the researcher gave an explanation. This is also because this strategy was first taught to them and the lack of curiosity from the students, so it takes time to explain it repeatedly.
The statistical analysis of the students‟ writing ability show that from their pre-test score, none of students classified as very good and good, 6 students (20.69%) classified as fair, 3 students (10.34%) classified as less and 20 students (68.97%) classified as poor. On the other hand, the students‟ writing skill could be classified as good. In the result of post-test 6 students (20.69 %) classified as
very good, 16 students (55.17%) classified as good, 7 students (241.14%) classified as fair and none of the students classified as less and poor. There some students not chance classification because their vocabulary is still less and it was difficult to make the sentence into a paragraph, and there are also students when the pre-test the score is low but after the treatment was given, the students feel motivated to learn. When the post-test was given the score of students is higher.
The result of the t-test analysis show that there was a significant between the result of pre-test and post-test. The mean score at the pre-test is 45.83 and classified fair. While, the total mean score at post-test is 82.23 and classified as good. It means that the students‟ writing skill in writing was effect significantly after being taught by using POW+TREE strategy.
The result of t-test stated that Sig. (2-tailed) was 0,000. The result provided that the Sig. (2-tailed) table was lower than level of significance This result means that there was a significant different between the result of pre-test and post-test. In the other words, teaching writing through POW+TREE strategy is effective on students writing skill.
This research had several advantages. The important things where POW+TREE strategy changed teacher centered to students centered where the students could write by them selves during constructing their written page then just listened and imitate and also they feel more enjoy when they are writing because they are guided by the steps of POW+TREE strategy and they can focus to follow those steps. The disadvantages of this research is this strategy was first
taught to the students so that in implementing it, it takes a long time and researcher find it difficult to adjust it to the predetermined time.
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that the effect of POW+TREE strategy make the students easy to write and students easier to evolving the topic of written.
44 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter deals with the conclusion of findings on the research, and suggestion for English learners and teachers of the research as follows:
A. Conclusions
According to the research findings and discussion, it can be concluded that five components of writing got better improvement after using POW+TREE strategy than conventional strategy. Thesuccess of this research can be indicated by the students‟ scores in post test. The use of POW+TREE strategy guided the students to developing ideas. It also helped students to find more idea.. This strategy made the higher ability to share ideas and they be better because they are guided by some steps from POW+TREE procedures. The improvement had not been acquired spontaneously, but after giving the treatment in four meetings. It means that the students ability in writing has been improved gradually.
B. Suggestions
Based on the conclusion of the research above, the researcher has some suggestions to the teacher and the student. First, POW+TREE strategy was effective in improving students‟ writing achievement. Therefore, the teachers are suggested to use the strategy in teaching writing. Second, POW+TREE strategy was suitable to be used in teaching writing, because this strategy let the students share the ideas in their writing activity. Third, for the students, POW+TREE strategy can be used in learning writing especially
at eight grade Junior High School 1 V Kalaena, Luwu Timur. This strategy will make you easy to write a text. The last, this research is greatly expected will become an important input to solve the students‟ problem in writing.
Based on the suggestions above, it can be concluded that the researcher suggests the students in Junior High School 1 Kalaena, Luwu Timur especially for eight grade V students, to be interested in writing because it is a skill to write and express some information and knowledge that is needed.
Then, for English teachers, it is suggested to use POW+TREE strategy in teaching writing because it can help the teachers to improve students’ writing achievement.