CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSIONRESULT AND DISCUSSION
A. General Description of Research Location
2. The Result of Post-test
P =
P = 6
Having known the class interval, then the writer analyzed and put the result of pre-test of control class at the eighth grade of State Junior High School 2 Raman Utara, East Lampung in the academic year of 2010/2011 into the frequency score distribution table.
Table 10
Frequency Distribution of the Result of Pre-test of Control Class (CC) at the Eighth Grade of State Junior High School 2 Raman Utara, East Lampung
in the Academic Year of 2010/2011
Class Interval Frequency Percentage %
30 - 35 8 24.24
26 - 41 8 24.24
42 - 47 3 9.09
48 - 53 6 18.18
54 - 59 2 6.06
60 - 65 5 15.15
66 - 71 1 3.30
Total 33 100
State Junior High School 2 Raman Utara, East Lampung
No Students' Code Score
1 AA 93
2 AB 70
3 AC 72
4 AD 86
5 AE 80
6 AF 93
7 AG 62
8 AH 66
9 AI 73
10 AJ 46
11 AK 50
12 AL 56
13 AM 86
14 AN 92
15 AO 66
16 AP 80
17 AQ 76
18 AR 83
19 AS 86
20 AT 73
21 AU 50
22 AV 50
23 AW 73
24 AX 70
25 AY 80
26 AZ 76
27 AA1 90
28 AB2 93
29 AC3 50
30 AD3 50
31 AF4 40
32 AG5 40
33 AH6 70
34 AI7 60
∑ Score 2381
Average 70.03
Minimum Score 40
Maximum Score 93
Before the writer measured the interval, the writer classified the students’ score based o the minimum mastery criteria (60).
Table 12
Students’ Score Classification
No Score Frequency Percentage Criteria
1 < 60 9 26,5% Fail
2 > 60 25 73,5% Pass
Total 34 100%
Based on the table above, it can be seen that the students’ writing ability in the experimental class was increased. It is indicated by the students’ who got the score > 60 or passed the minimum mastery criteria were increased from 10 students to be 25 students.
Having classified the score, then the writer measured the class interval using the formula below:
R = the highest score - the lowest score R = 93 – 40
R = 53
K = 1 + 33 Log n K = 1 + 33 Log 34 K = 1 + 5,05 K = 6,05 K = 6 P =
P = P = 8,83 P = 9
Having known the class interval, then the writer analyzed and put the result of pos-test of Experimental Class (EC) at the eighth grade of State Junior High School 2 Raman Utara, East Lampung in the academic year of 2010/2011 into the frequency score distribution table.
Table 13
Frequency Distribution of the Result of Post-test of Experimental Class (EC) at the Eighth Grade of State Junior High School 2 Raman Utara,
East Lampung in the Academic Year of 2010/2011 Class Interval Frequency Percentage %
85 - 93 8 23.82
76 – 84 6 17.64
67 - 75 7 20.58
58 - 66 4 11.76
49 - 57 6 17.64
40 - 48 3 8.28
Total 34 100
While the score of post test of Control class can be seen in the table below:
Table 14
The Result of Post-test of Control class (CC) at the Eighth Grade of State Junior High School 2 Raman Utara, East Lampung
in the Academic Year of 2010/2011 No Students' Code Score
1 BA 50
2 BB 50
3 BC 56
4 BD 60
5 BE 66
6 BF 60
7 BG 70
8 BH 73
9 BI 70
10 BJ 56
11 BK 60
12 BL 60
13 BM 60
14 BN 46
15 BO 60
16 BP 76
17 BQ 66
18 BR 56
19 BS 73
20 BT 50
21 BU 53
22 BV 66
23 BW 70
24 BX 73
25 BY 50
26 BZ 66
27 BA1 50
28 BB2 73
29 BC3 60
30 BD3 60
31 BF4 50
32 BG5 57
33 BH6 50
∑ Score 1889
Average 57.24
Minimum Score 35
Maximum Score 76
Before the writer measured the interval, the writer classified the students’ score based o the the minimum mastery criteria (60).
Table 15
Students’ Score Classification
No Score Frequency Percentage Criteria
1 < 60 20 60,6% Fail
2 > 60 13 39,4% Pass
Total 33 100%
Based on the table above, it can be seen that the students’ writing ability in the experimental class was increased. It is indicated by the students’ who got the score > 60 or passed of the minimum mastery criteria (KKM) were increased from 7 students to be 13 students.
After classified the score, then the writer measured the data into the class interval using the formula below:
R = the highest score - the lowest score R = 76 – 30
R = 46
K = 1 + 33 Log n K = 1 + 33 Log 33 K = 1 + 5,11 K = 6,05 K = 6 P =
P = P = 7,67 P = 8
Having known the class interval, then the writer analyzed and put the result of pos-test of Control Class at the eighth grade of State Junior High School 2 Raman Utara, East Lampung in the academic year of 2010/2011 into the frequency score distribution table.
Table 16
Frequency Distribution of the Result of Post-test of Control Class (CC) at the Eighth Grade of State Junior High School 2 Raman Utara, East Lampung
in the Academic Year of 2010/2011
Class Interval Frequency Percentage %
69 - 76 8 23.82
62 - 68 6 17.64
54 - 61 7 20.58
46 – 53 4 11.76
38 – 45 6 17.64
30 – 37 3 8.28
Total 34 100
Having classified and then calculated the data, it can be seen that the increasing score between two classes (Experimental class and Control Class) are different.
The increasing of both classes can be seen in the table below:
Table 17 The Increasing Score
Class Resume Pre test Post test Increasing
The highest score 65 93 28
The lowest score 30 40 10
Mean 47.67 70.03 22.36
Pass the KKM 10 25 15
The highest score 66 76 10
The lowest score 30 30 0
Mean 47.69 57.24 9.55
Pass the KKM 7 13 6
Based on the table above, it can be inferred that students’ descriptive writing ability taught through CTL approach (Experimental Class) is higher than students’ descriptive writing ability taught through without CTL approach (Control Class).
In the Experimental Class, the highest score of post-test is better than the pre-test. To know the improvement of both the score is by comparing the pre test and post-test score (93 – 65 =28) So it can be said that the improvement is 28 %
( x 100% = 28%). And also in post lowest score, the lowest score of the post-test is better than the pre-test. The comparison of the lowest score between post-test and pre-test score is 40 – 30=10. So it can be said that the improvement
is 10% ( x 100% = 10%). In line with the highest and the lowest score, in the average score between the post-test and pre test can be seen that the average score of post-test is higher than the pre-test. The comparison of the average score between post-test and pretest score is 70.03 – 47.67= 22.36. So it can be said that
the improvement is 10.85% ( x 100% = 22.36%). And also the total students who got the score more than the minimum mastery criteria (KKM) is increase. There are 25 student or 82,5 % of students of Experimental Class who passed the criteria.
While in the Control class, the highest score of post-test is better than the pre-test. To know the improvement of both the score is by comparing the pre test and post test score (76 – 66 =10) So it can be said that the improvement is 10 %
( x 100% = 10%). And also in post lowest score, the lowest score of the post-test is same as the pre-test. The comparison of the lowest score between post test and pretest score is 30 – 30=0. So it can be said that the improvement is 0% (
x 100% = 0%). In line with the highest and the lowest score, in the average score between the post-test and pre test can be seen that the average score of post- test is higher than the pre-test. The comparison of the average score between post- test and pre-test score is 57.24– 47.69= 9.55. So it can be said that the
improvement is 10.85% ( x 100% = 9.55%). And also the total students who got the score more than the minimum mastery criteria (KKM) is increase.
There are 13 student or 38,2 % of students of Control Class who passed the criteria.