CHAPTER III RESERCH METHOD
H. Technique of Data Analysis
I. Validity and Reliability
1. Validity
To measure whether the test has a good validity, the researcher analyzed the test from content validity. In this research, content validity is the degree to which a test measures an intended content area and the test must appropriate with the grade. The researcher made a
37Suharsimi Arikunto, Prosedure Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, (Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta, 2010), p, 354.
test based on the objectives of syllabus so that it was not out of contents. Moreover, to find out whether the instrument is valid or not by expert judgment, and the instrument of this research was clarified validly after the expert examines the research instrument. Validation was carried out by one of lecturers from material experts in TBI. From the validation activities, the researcher was given input from the validator experts to determine the validation from the use of flash cards significantly improve students‟ vocabulary at 7th grade of SMPN 5 Jonggat.
2. Reliability
A reliable instrument is an instrument that, when used several times to measure the same object, will produce the same data.38 It means that simply reliability is the consistency of a measuring instrument, or the extent to which the measuring instrument can measure the same subject in different times but shows relatively the same results.
38Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Pendidikan: Pendekatan kuantitatif Kualitatif, dan R&D, (Bandung: Alfabeta, 2017), p, 173.
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. Research findings
1. Data Description
There were two classes used as the subject in this study. The first class was VII A as the experimental class and the second was VII C as the control class. The researcher conducted test before and after giving treatments to both classes in order to get scores of the students‟
vocabulary ability.
a. Experimental class
The result of the students‟ pre-test and post-test score of experimental class were presented as follows: The detail is in the appendix 6.
Table 4.1
Pre-test and post-test score of experimental class No Initial name Pre-test Post-test Differenc
e
Square deviation
1 AS 73 93 20 400
2 ADS 75 93 18 324
3 AKS 71 80 9 81
4 AF 68 78 10 100
5 AFA 66 78 12 144
6 AG 72 83 11 121
7 AQN 72 85 13 169
8 AAC 69 72 3 9
9 AN 69 75 6 36
10 AS 70 85 15 225
11 AL 73 86 13 169
12 UA 74 82 8 64
Note:
Pre-test is the students‟ score before the researcher gave the treatment by flash cards.
Post-test is the students‟ score after the researcher gave the treatment by flash cards.
Difference is deviation between post-test and pre-test. The formula is post-test – pre-test. For example: 93 (pos-test) – 73 (pre- test) = 20.
Square deviation is the value of deviation or difference which is it‟s made quadrat. The formula is x². For example: 20² = 400.
Based on the table above, it could be seen the highest score and the lowest score from 26 students in experimental class. The highest score of pre-test was 75 and the lowest score was 66. After the researcher
13 AW 75 85 10 100
14 AA 74 87 13 169
15 AK 70 83 13 169
16 AUD 71 84 13 169
17 BW 72 86 14 196
18 BS 72 85 13 169
19 CR 74 89 15 225
20 DA 73 86 13 169
21 DP 70 84 14 196
22 DAP 75 90 15 225
23 ES 72 84 12 144
24 EM 73 85 12 144
26 EP 75 92 17 289
26 FE 70 85 15 225
∑ ∑
∑
∑
∑
Average 71 84 12
gave the treatment by using flash cards that it was conducted four meetings, the researcher gave the students post-test. The result shows that the highest score of post-test was 93 and the lowest score was 72.
In addition, the average of pre-test score was 71 and the average of post-test score was 84 in experimental class.
b. Control class
The result of the students‟ pre-test and post-test score of control class were presented as follows: The detail is in the appendix 6.
Table 4.2
Pre-test and post-test score of control class No Initial name Pre-test Post-test Differenc
e
Square deviatio
n
1 MW 70 81 11 121
2 MK 74 83 9 81
3 MM 69 80 11 121
4 MRF 70 80 10 100
5 MT 65 71 6 36
6 MF 64 71 7 49
7 MH 70 78 8 64
8 MI 71 78 7 49
9 MN 70 75 5 25
10 NH 72 76 4 16
11 NR 69 75 6 36
12 NS 67 75 8 64
13 N 71 80 9 81
14 PH 74 81 7 49
15 RM 73 82 9 81
16 RF 67 76 9 81
17 RA 69 77 8 64
18 RO 69 76 7 49
19 S 68 75 7 49
20 UA 67 75 8 64
21 W 70 77 7 49
22 WA 72 80 8 64
23 YEL 68 76 8 64
24 ZR 73 82 9 81
26 PKP 65 74 9 81
26 FT 71 80 9 81
∑ ∑
∑
∑
∑
Average 69 77 7
Note:
Pre-test is the students‟ score before the researcher gave the treatment by conventional ways.
Post-test is the students‟ score after the researcher gave the treatment by conventional ways.
Difference is deviation between post-test and pre-test. The formula is post-test – pre-test. For example: 80 (pos-test) – 71 (pre- test) = 9.
Square deviation is the value of deviation or difference which is it‟s made quadrat. The formula is x². For example: 9² = 81.
Based on the table above, it could be seen the highest score and the lowest score from 26 students in control class. The highest score of pre-test was 74 and the lowest score was 64. The highest score of post- test was 83 and the lowest score was 71. In addition, the average of pre-test score was 69 and the average of post-test score was 77 in control class.
2. Data analysis
Then the researcher computed the pre-test and post-test of both classes. Next, mean score of both classes could be distributed in a table and compared them.
a. Mean deviation and the square deviation score of experimental class.
a). Mean deviation score of experimental class
Mx =
=
= 12, 57
b). Square deviation
x2 can be obtained from:
x2 = x2 -
= 4.431 - = 4.431 -
= 4.431 - 4.112 = 319
b. Mean deviation and square deviation score of control class.
a). Mean deviation of control class
My =
=
= 7, 92
b). Square deviation of control class x2 can be obtained from:
x2 = x2 -
= 1.697 - = 1.697 -
= 1.697 - 1.632 = 65
Where:
Mx: mean score of control group My: mean score of experimental group N: total number of the subject
x: the deviation of control group y: the deviation of experimental group
Finally, the researcher computed the correlation coefficient of two mean scores to know whether it is significant or not by using t-test formula. Here is the formula.
√ ∑ ∑
Where:
My = The mean deviation score of control class
Y = The mean deviation pre-test and post-test of control group
Mx = The mean deviation score of control class
X = The deviation pre-test and post-test of experimental group
N = number of sample
Nx = number of sample in experimental class Ny = number of sample in control class.
Based on data above, the value of test could be found and operated as follows:
Mx: 12 My: 7
x2: 319 y2: 65
√ ∑ ∑
√
√ √ √
17,85
From the result of data analysis above shows that the experimental group got better result than the control group. However, the researcher needs to determine the level of significance and degree of freedom used in this research. The level of the table significance with the degree of freedom 52-2 = 50, t-test 17.85 > t-table 2,021, this indicate that the degree of difference between mean score is significant in both confidence level 5% is 50. The result of t-test showed that t-test 17.85 was higher than t-table 2,021. It means that, there is significant different improvement of students who used flash card and without used flash cards. It was proved in the table below:
Table 4.3
Comparison between t-test and t-table Value of t-test Value of t-table
Df 0,05
B. Discussion
This research was conducted by using flash cards effective on students‟ vocabulary at 7th grade of SMPN 5 Jonggat. The process of research was described below.
1. Pre-test
The pre-test was administered in order to measure the students‟
current vocabulary before the treatment. It was conducted on 11 November 2019 for experimental group and 13 November 2019 for control group.
The researcher used two kinds of test. The test one was filling the blank in order to test students‟ spelling and meaning. After that the researcher used oral test in order to test students‟ pronunciation. The researcher given 10 items of incomplete sentences.
The result of experimental group and control group were not really high. The highest score of experimental group was 75 and the lowest score was 66. In other hand, the highest score of control group was 74 and the lowest score was 64. The mean score of experimental group was 71 while control group was 69.
2. Post-test
Post-test was given after researcher given treatment by using flash cards. it was conducted on 20 November 2019 for experimental group and 21 November 2019 for control group.
17,85 50 2,021
The highest score of experimental group was 93 and the lowest score was 72. The mean score was 84. It means that the vocabulary of experimental group got improvement. In addition, the students‟
pronunciation was better after got the treatment than before.
In other hand, the highest score of control group was 83 and the lowest score was 71. The mean score was 77. It means that the improvement of students‟ vocabulary in control group was not really significant.
3. The effect of using flash cards on students‟ vocabulary
At the beginning of experimental group, the researcher informed the students that the objective of study. After that the researcher informed the procedure activities in teaching learning.
The data were obtained from the pre-test and post-test scores in experimental group and control group. The result of experimental group was more improve by flash cards than control group by conventional ways. The result of experimental group showed that the highest score of pre-test was 75 and the post-test was 93. The lowest score of pre-test was 66 and the post-test was 72. The mean score of pre-test was 71 and the post-test was 84. The mean score of deviation was 12.
In other hand, the result of control group showed that the highest score of pre-test was 74 and the post-test was 83. The lowest score of
pre-test was 64 and the post-test was 71. The mean score of pre-test was 69 and the post-test was 77. The mean score of deviation was 7.
The data were analyzed by t-test to find out the use of flash cards effective on students‟ vocabulary or not. The researcher obtained that t-value 17,85 was higher than t-table 2,021 in the significant level of 5%.
Furthermore, the result of analysis showed that used flash cards as a media to teach vocabulary made the students‟ achievement was better. In addition, flash cards gave students opportunities which helping students in memorizing the meanings.
Based on data analysis above, it was clear that the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted while the null hypothesis was rejected.
To sum up, teaching vocabulary by using flash cards effective on students‟ vocabulary than without using flash cards, especially for students at 7th grade of SMPN 5 Jonggat.
This research finding supports what Rahma Matsna Aulia stated in her thesis concluded that the use of flash cards in order to improve the students‟ vocabulary mastery was still effective with some additional activities like games.39 Finally, from the explanation the quantitative data of pre-test and post-test, it can be concluded that the use of flash
39 Rahma Matsna Aulia, “Improving Grade Eight Students‟ Vocabulary Mastery Using Flashcards at MTSN Godean in The Academic Year of 2016/2017, (Thesis, English Education Study Program Faculty of Languages and Arts Yogyakarta State University, Yogyakarta, 2016), p.
109.
cards effective on student‟s vocabulary. It was proved by the improvement of students‟ vocabulary scores.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion
The result of the data analysis in previous chapter shows that the use of flash cards effective on students‟ vocabulary at 7th grade of SMPN 5 Jonggat academic year 2019/2020.
Additionally, flash cards successfully made the students in class enjoyable in learning English vocabulary. Students are more active and enjoyable when teaching learning conducted by flash cards. It was proved by students‟ mean score of post-test in the experimental group was higher than control group. The mean score of post-test in the experimental group was 84. While in the control group was 77.
The data were analyzed by t-test to find out the use of flash cards effective on students‟ vocabulary or not. The researcher obtained that t- value 17,85 was higher than t-table 2,021 in the significant level of 5%.
Hereby it is clear that the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted.
B. Suggestion
Based on the result of this research there are some suggestions as follows:
1. To the students are expected to master vocabulary because by mastering vocabularies all skill of English can be easy to learn.
Therefore, students should develop their knowledge of vocabulary
using interesting media like flash cards because flash cards can attract the students‟ interest and motivation in learning process.
2. To the English teachers are expected to make the teaching learning process enjoyable because students love to play and learn best when they feel enjoyable. The media can be used to teach is flash cards.
3. To the readers or next researchers are expected that they can apply flash cards as a media in teaching vocabulary. In addition, for next researchers can use the result of this study as an additional reference.
References
Adrian Doff, Teach English: A Training Course for Teachers, (UK:
Cambridge University Press,1992), p. 349.
Andrew Wright, Pictures for Language Learning, (New York: Cambridge University Press,1989), p. 139.
David Nunan, Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages, (New York:
Routledge, 2015), p.105.
Dinar Vincy Yunitaka Bahrudin, The Implementation of Flashcard Game on Vocabulary Mastery, Jurnal Pemikiran Penelitian dan Sains, Vol. 3, No.
6, Desember 2015, p. 97.
Dwi Wahyu Utami, “The Effectiveness of Using Word Mapping Strategy in Teaching Vocabulary: An Experimental Study at the Seventh Grade Students of SMP Negeri 1 Plupuh, (Thesis, Faculty Islamic Education and Teacher Training the State Islamic Institute of Surakarta, Surakarta, 2017), p. 20.
Herlina, Flashcard Media: Media for develoving Students Understanding for English Vocabulary at Elementary School, Indonesian Journal of Educational Review, Vol. 4, No 1, July 2017, p. 117.
Jack Richards, Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, (America:
Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 37.
Jeremy Harmer, The Practice of English Language Teaching Fourth Edition, (London: Longman, 2007), p. 229.
Jim Scrivener, Learning Teaching: The Essential Guide to English Language Teaching, (Macmillan), p. 349.
John Haycraft, An Introduction to English Language Teaching, (Singapore:
Longman Group, 1986), p. 102.
Lynne Cameron, Teaching Languages to Young Learners, (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 73.
Mar‟atus Sholikhah, “Improving Students‟ Vocabulary By Using Flash Cards At The Fifth Grade Students of SDN Singaraja II, (Thesis, EED Tarbiyah Faculty Syekh Nurjati State Institute For Islamic Studies Cirebon, Cirebon, 2013).
Michael McCarthy, Language Teaching: A Scheme for Teacher Education;
Vocabulary, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. viii.
MofarehAlqahtani, The Importance of Vocabulary in Language Learning and How to be Taught, International Journal of Teaching and Education, Vol.
III, No 3/2015, p. 22.
Mozaheb, Comparing Vocabulary Learning of EFL Learners By Using Two Different Strategies: Mobile Learning vs. Flashcards, The EUROCALL Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, September 2012, p. 53.
Rahma Matsna Aulia, “Improving Grade Eight Students‟ Vocabulary Mastery Using Flashcards at MTSN Godean in The Academic Year of 2016/2017, (Thesis, English Education Study Program Faculty of Languages and Arts Yogyakarta State University, Yogyakarta, 2016), p. 109.
Scott Thornbury, How to Teach Vocabulary, (Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited, 2002), p. 78.
Sugiyono, MetodePenelitianPendidikan (PendekatanKuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D), (Bandung: Alfabeta, 2015), p. 250.
Suharsimi Arikunto, Prosedure Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, (Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta, 2010), p, 354.
Yasinta Tri Arliana Sutresno, “Using Flashcards to Improve 7th Grade Students‟ Vocabulary: A Classroom Action Research in SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta, (Thesis, Faculty of Taeacher Training and Education Sanata Dharma University Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, 2017).
Yosephus Setyo Nugroho, “Improving Students‟ Vocabulary Mastery Using Flashcards (A Classroom Action Research at the Fourth Grade of SD Negeri II Watuagung, Baturetno, Wonogiri in The Academic Year 2011/2012), (Thesis, EED Teacher Training and Education Faculty Sebelas Maret University Surakarta, Surakarta, 2012).
APPENDIX 1
General Description of SMPN 5 Jonggat
SMPN 5 Jonggat was establish on 16-05-1997 at Loang Sawak Ds.
Barejulat Kec. Jonggat street Central Lombok. It has been accredited by the national accreditation agency with a value of B.
Table 1
The teachers and official list of SMPN 5 Jonggat
No Name Position
1 Drs. MANDIP Principal
2 Dra. ANA MARDIANA IPA
3 SYAMSUL RIZAL, S. Pd Sports 4 Hj. ELUM NURAZIZAH, BA BK
5 MAJERUN, S. Pd Mathematic
6 Drs. SAHIRUDIN PPKn
7 SUPARMAN, S. Pd IPS
8 KURNIATI, S. Pd IPA
9 ROHAYATI, S. Pd English
10 L.M. ISKANDAR. Z. S. Pd English
11 ASUP, S. Pd Mathematic
12 MADIAN RUBANA, S. HI PAI
13 LYDIA MALINDA, S. Pd Indonesian language 14 SRI WAHYUNI, S.Pd Indonesian language 15 HABIBURRAHIM, S. Pd IPS
16 HARUN, S. Pd BK
17 IDHAM KHALID, S. Pt IPA
18 ALI MAHADI, S. Pd Art and culture
19 HERMAN SUSILA, SE TIK
20 AMRILLAH, S. HI PAI + Mulok
21 TITIN YUSNITA, SH TIK
22 IRLIYANTI, S. Pd Mulok
23 HIDAYATI, S. Pd Biology
24 MISNAWATI, S. Pd Indonesian language 25 SYAIFUDIN ZUHRI, S. Sos UKT
26 SUHARTINI Student manager
27 YUSRON Operator
28 SAHWAN, S. Pd Document manager
29 SYAHRI Security
Table 2
Facilities and infrastructure No Facilities and infrastructure Total
1 Principal room 1
2 Representative of principal room
1
3 Teachers room 1
4 Office 1
5 Supervisor room 1
6 Classroom 10
7 Library 1
8 Toilet 6
9 Wi-Fi 1
10 Musholla 1
11 OSIS room 1
12 UKS room 1
13 School yard 1
14 BK room 1
15 Storeroom 1
16 Laboratory 1
17 Security post 1
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan of Experimental Class
RENCANA PELAKSANAAN PEMBELAJARAN (Experimental Class)
Pertemuan ke-2
Satuan Pendidikan : SMP Negeri 5 Jonggat Mata Pelajaran : Bahasa Inggris
Kelas/Semester : VII/1
Materi Pokok : Things in the school bag, Things at the classroom dan Rooms in the school
Alokasi Waktu : 2 x 40 menit
A. Kompetensi Inti
1. Menghargai dan menghayati ajaran agama yang dianutnya
2. Menghargai dan menghayati perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggung jawab, peduli (toleransi, gotong royong), santun, percaya diri, dalam berinteraksi secara efektif dengan lingkungan sosial dan alam dalam jangkauan pergaulan dan keberadaannya.
3. Memahami pengetahuan (faktual, konseptual, dan prosedural) berdasarkan rasa ingin tahunya tentang ilmu pengetahuan, teknologi, seni, budaya terkait fenomena dan kejadian tampak mata.
4. Mencoba, mengolah, dan menyaji dalam ranah konkret (menggunakan, mengurai, merangkai, memodifikasi, dan membuat) dan ranah abstrak (menulis, membaca, menghitung, menggambar, dan mengarang) sesuai dengan yang dipelajari di sekolah dan sumber lain yang sama dalam sudut pandang/teori.
B. Kompetensi Dasar
1.1. Mensyukuri kesempatan dapat mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa pengantar komunikasi internasional yang diwujudkan dalam semangat belajar.
2.2. Menunjukkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, percaya diri, dan bertanggung jawab dalam melaksanakan komunikasi transaksional dengan guru dan teman.
3.5. Memahami fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan pada teks untuk menyatakan dan menanyakan nama dan jumlah benda, dan bangunan publik yang dekat dengan kehidupan siswa sehari-hari.
4.5. Menyusun teks lisan dan tulis untuk menyatakan dan menanyakan nama benda, dan bangunan publik yang dekat dengan kehidupan siswa sehari- hari, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan yang benar dan sesuai konteks.
C. Indikator
1.1.1. Berdo‟a sebelum dan sesudah belajar bahasa Inggris
1.1.2. Menunjukkan motivasi untuk mengembangkan kemampuan berbahasa Inggris
2.2.1. Siswa dapat menunjukan perilaku disiplin dan bertanggung jawab dalam melaksanakan komunikasi tentang nama dan jumlah benda dan bangunan publik.
3.5.1. Siswa dapat mengidentifikasi benda dan bangunan publik.
3.5.2. Siswa dapat mengidentifikasi jumlah benda dan bangunan publik.
3.5.3. Siswa dapat mendeskripsikan benda dan bangunan publik.
3.5.4. Siswa dapat membedakan penggunaan kata benda tunggal dengan a atau an
3.5.5. Siswa dapat membedakan penggunaan imbuhan –s, –es atau irregular plural noun pada kata benda jamak.
3.5.6. Siswa dapat membedakan penggunaan There is/are.., Is there/Are there ..?
4.5.1. Siswa dapat membuat kalimat menggunakan nama dan jumlah benda dan bangunan publik.
D. Materi Pembelajaran Materi pokok
Teks lisan dan tulis untuk menyebutkan dan menanyakan nama dan jumlah benda, dan bangunan publik yang dekat dengan kehidupan siswa seharihari
Fungsi social
Mengenalkan, mengidentifikasi Struktur teks
- Benda yang dipaparkan
- Ciri-cirinya termasuk apa yang ada di dalamnya It’s my pen.
There are many erasers in the classroom., What is it?
Which one is your book? How many correction pens do you have?
The hospital is near the post office. The police station is in the corner. dan semacamnya
Unsur kebahasaan
(1) Nama benda dan bangunan di sekitar sekolah: pen, book, canteen, office.
(2) Kata tanya What? Which one? How many?
(3) Penyebutan kata benda singular dengan a dan an, dan plural (-s).
(4) Kata ganti it, they, this, that, those, these.
(5) Ungkapan There is/are..., Are there ...?
(6) Nama bangunan umum: the post office, the bank, the hospital.
Kata kerja yang menunjuk tindakan yang sangat lazim dan terkait dalam simple present tense: be, have, go, play, get, take, dan sebagainya.
(7) Ucapan, tekanan kata, intonasi, ejaan, dan tulisan tangan.
Topik
Benda, bangunan umum yang terdapat di lingkungan siswa, dengan memberikan keteladanan tentang perilaku ramah lingkungan, percaya diri, dan tanggung jawab.
Vocabularies:
Pencil : pensil Desk : meja
Pen : pulpen Chair : kursi
Eraser : penghapus Blackboard : papan tulis hitam Correction pen : tipe-x Whiteboard : papan tulis putih Pencil sharpener : rautan pencil Cupboard : lemari
Ruler : penggaris Computer : computer