CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD RESEARCH METHOD
A. Findings
3. The Significant Difference Between Students’ Speaking Skill Who are Taught Using Group Work and Those Who are Taught Using
3. The Significant Difference Between Students’ Speaking Skill Who
research was 1.68. Based on the data, the t-value (10.53)> t-Table (1.68) and P value (0.00) < 0.05. It can be concluded that there was a significant different between pretest and posttest for Experimental Class. In other word, there was an improvement on the students‟ speaking in terms of pronunciation between pretest and posttest by applying group works in Experimental class.
While the inferential analysis for control class, the Table showed the achievement of the students‟ pretest and posttest in terms of Pronunciation, like as follows;
Table 4.10: the t-test between Pretest and Posttest for Control Class in Terms on Pronunciation
Variable t-value Df Probability Value
Pretest and Posttest 3.34 19 0.00
Table 4.10 shows that the t-value was 3.34 with degree of freedom 19 and P value 0.00. From the degree of freedom we can know the t-Table of this research was 1.68. Based on the data, the t-value (3.34)> t-Table (1.68), means that in control class there was also an improvement on the students‟ speaking achievement in terms of pronunciation between pretest and posttest, and P value (0.00) < 0.05, means it was significant. However, comparing the result in experimental and control class, they show that the value of t-test of experimental in terms of pronunciation is greater than the value of t-test of control class (10.53>3.34).
It can be concluded that there was a significant different between pretest and posttest for Experimental Class. In other word, there was an improvement on the students‟ speaking achievement in terms of pronunciation between pretest and posttest by applying group works in Experimental class.
In addition, the researcher found out the value of t-test to test hypothesis.
The hypotheses were tested by using inferential analysis. In this case, the researcher used t-test (testing of significance) for independent sample test, that is, a test to know the significance difference between the result of students‟ mean scores in pretest and posttest in Experimental and Control class.
In Experimental Class, the t-test value (10.53) was greater than the t- Table (1.68), this result evidenced that the hypothesis stating there was a significant difference between the mean score of pretest and posttest of the students‟ pronunciation as a whole was tenable.
And in Control Class, the t-test value (3.34) was greater than the t-Table (1.68), this result evidenced that the hypothesis stating there is a significant difference between the mean score of pretest and posttest of the students‟
speaking pronunciation as a whole is tenable.
Table 4.11: the t-test between Pretest and Posttest for Experimental Class in Terms on Grammar
Variable t-value Df Probability Value
Pretest and Posttest 8.25 19 0.00
Table 4.11 shows that the t-value was 8.25 with degree of freedom 19 and P value 0.00. From the degree of freedom we can know the t-Table of this research was 1.68. Based on the data, the t-value (8.25)> t-Table (1.68) and P value (0.00) < 0.05. It can be concluded that there was a significant different between pretest and posttest for Experimental Class. In other word, there was an improvement on the students‟ speaking in terms of grammar between pretest and posttest by applying group works in Experimental class.
While the inferential analysis for control class, the Table showed the achievement of the students‟ pretest and posttest in terms of grammar, like as follows;
Table 4.12: the t-test between Pretest and Posttest for Control Class in Terms on Grammar
Variable t-value Df Probability Value
Pretest and Posttest 5.81 19 0.00
Table 4.12 shows that the t-value was 5.807 with degree of freedom 19 and P value 0.00. From the degree of freedom we can know the t-Table of this research was 1.68. Based on the data, the t-value (5.81)> t-Table (1.68), means that in control class there was also an improvement on the students‟ speaking achievement in terms of grammar between pretest and posttest, and P value (0.00) < 0.05, means it was significant. However, comparing the result in experimental and control class, they show that the value of t-test of experimental in terms of pronunciation is greater than the value of t-test of control class (8.25>5.81).
It can be concluded that there was a significant different between pretest and posttest for both of Experimental Class and Control Class. In other word, there was an improvement on the students‟ speaking achievement in terms of grammar between pretest and posttest for both of Experimental and Control class.
In addition, the researcher found out the value of t-test to test hypothesis.
The hypotheses were tested by using inferential analysis. In this case, the researcher used t-test (testing of significance) for independent sample test, that is, a test to know the significance difference between the result of students‟ mean scores in pretest and posttest in Experimental and Control class.
In Experimental Class, the t-test value (8.25) was greater than the t-Table (1.68), this result evidenced that the hypothesis stating there was a significant difference between the mean score of pretest and posttest of the students‟
grammar as a whole was tenable.
And in Control Class, the t-test value (5.81) was greater than the t-Table (1.68), this result evidenced that the hypothesis stating there is a significant difference between the mean score of pretest and posttest of the students‟
speaking grammar as a whole is tenable.
Table 4.13: the t-test between Pretest and Posttest for Experimental Class in Terms on Vocabulary
Variable t-value Df Probability Value
Pretest and Posttest 10.53 19 0.00
Table 4.13 shows that the t-value was 10.53 with degree of freedom 19 and P value 0.00. From the degree of freedom we can know the t-Table of this research was 1.68. Based on the data, the t-value (10.53)> t-Table (1.68) and P value (0.00) < 0.05. It can be concluded that there was a significant different between pretest and posttest for Experimental Class. In other word, there was an improvement on the students‟ speaking in terms of vocabulary between pretest and posttest by applying group works in Experimental class.
While the inferential analysis for control class, the Table showed the achievement of the students‟ pretest and posttest in terms of vocabulary, like as follows;
Table 4.14: the t-test between Pretest and Posttest for Control Class in Terms on vocabulary
Variable t-value Df Probability Value
Pretest and Posttest 6.09 19 0.00
Table 4.14 shows that the t-value was 6.09 with degree of freedom 19 and P value 0.00. From the degree of freedom we can know the t-Table of this research was 1.68. Based on the data, the t-value (6.09)> t-Table (1.68), means that in control class there was also an improvement on the students‟ speaking achievement in terms of grammar between pretest and posttest, and P value (0.00) < 0.05, means it was significant. However, comparing the result in experimental and control class, they show that the value of t-test of experimental in terms of vocabulary is greater than the value of t-test of control class (10.53>5.09).
It can be concluded that there was a significant different between pretest and posttest for both of Experimental Class and Control Class. In other word, there was an improvement on the students‟ speaking achievement in terms of vocabulary between pretest and posttest for both of Experimental and Control class.
In addition, the researcher found out the value of t-test to test hypothesis.
The hypotheses were tested by using inferential analysis. In this case, the researcher used t-test (testing of significance) for independent sample test, that is, a test to know the significance difference between the result of students‟ mean scores in pretest and posttest in Experimental and Control class.
In Experimental Class, the t-test value (10.53) was greater than the t- Table (1.68), this result evidenced that the hypothesis stating there was a significant difference between the mean score of pretest and posttest of the students‟ vocabulary as a whole was tenable.
And in Control Class, the t-test value (6.09) was greater than the t-Table (1.68), this result evidenced that the hypothesis stating there is a significant difference between the mean score of pretest and posttest of the students‟
speaking vocabulary as a whole is tenable.
Table 4.15: the t-test between Pretest and Posttest for Experimental Class in Terms on Fluency
Variable t-value Df Probability Value
Pretest and Posttest 10.10 19 0.00
Table 4.15 showed the score of the t-value was 10.10 with degree of freedom 19 and P value 0.00. From the degree of freedom we can know the t- Table of this research was 1.68. Based on the data, the t-value (10.10)> t-Table (1.68) and P value (0.00) < 0.05. It can be concluded that there was a significant different between pretest and posttest for Experimental Class. In other word, there was an improvement on the students‟ speaking in terms of fluency between pretest and posttest by applying group works in Experimental class.
While the inferential analysis for control class, the Table showed the achievement of the students‟ pretest and posttest in terms of grammar, like as follows;
Table 4.16: the t-test between Pretest and Posttest for Control Class in Terms on fluency
Variable t-value Df Probability Value
Pretest and Posttest 6.11 19 0.00
The Table 4.16 showed that the t-value was 6.11 with degree of freedom 19 and P value 0.00. From the degree of freedom we can know the t-Table of this research was 1.68. Based on the data, the t-value (56.11)> t-Table (1.68), means
that in control class there was also an improvement on the students‟ speaking achievement in terms of grammar between pretest and posttest, and P value (0.00) < 0.05, means it was significant. However, comparing the result in experimental and control class, they show that the value of t-test of experimental in terms of pronunciation is greater than the value of t-test of control class (10.10>6.11).
It can be concluded that there was a significant different between pretest and posttest for both of Experimental Class and Control Class. In other word, there was an improvement on the students‟ speaking achievement in terms of fluency between pretest and posttest for both of Experimental and Control class.
In addition, the researcher found out the value of t-test to test hypothesis.
The hypotheses were tested by using inferential analysis. In this case, the researcher used t-test (testing of significance) for independent sample test, that is, a test to know the significance difference between the result of students‟ mean scores in pretest and posttest in Experimental and Control class.
In Experimental Class, the t-test value (10.10) was greater than the t- Table (1.68), this result evidenced that the hypothesis stating there was a significant difference between the mean score of pretest and posttest of the students‟ fluency as a whole was tenable.
In Control Class, the t-test value (6.11) was greater than the t-Table (1.68), this result evidenced that the hypothesis stating there is a significant difference between the mean score of pretest and posttest of the students‟
speaking pronunciation as a whole is tenable.