CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
B. Suggestion
Based on the research, the researcher gives some suggestions as follow:
1. In teaching writing skill, the teacher is hoped more creative and has a good feedback in teaching her students in order to maximize teaching learning process.
2. The teacher should be active in giving the material to involve the students in teaching learning process.
3. Using instagram caption as media in learning can be applied in English teaching learning process, particularly the attempt of improving the students‟
ability in writing descriptive text.
45
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelstein, E. & Pival J. (1984). The writing commitment. Hardcourt Jovanovich.
USA.
Alshohry. H. (2014). The Effects of Using Electronic Social Networks on Social Relationships Facebook and Twitter as Example, King Abdul Aziz University, Jedah.
Anderson, M & Anderson, K. (1997). Text Type in English 2. Malaysia: Mac Millan.
Ary, et al. (2010). (2006). Introduction to Research in Education. Wadsworth:
Cengage Learning
Bin Tahir, S. Z., & Aminah, A. (2014). Improving Students’ Writing Skill through Facebook at University of Iqra Buru. Proceeding of ICT for Language Learning (7th ed., pp. 235-241).
Blattner, G., Fiori, M. (2009) Facebook in the Language Classroom: Promises and Possibilities. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 6/1. 17-28.
Brown, H. D. 2007. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Byrne, F. (1986). Teaching Writing Skills. New York: University of Manchester.
Creswell, J. ( 2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
https://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/JBER/article/viewFile/2532/
2578 accessed on August 5 2017
Creswell, J. W., Fetters, M. D., & Ivankova, N. V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(1), 7-12.
Deporter, B., & Heracky, M. (2002). Quantum Learning. Bandung: Penerbit Kaifa Derewinka B. (2004). Exploring How Texts Work. Sydney: Primarily English
Teaching Association.
Evawina, E. (2010). Thesis of Improving Students’ Achievement on Writing Descriptive Paragraph through the Application of Student Team Achievement Division. Medan: State University of Medan.
Gay, L.R., (2006). Educational Research. Columbus: Prentice-Hall.
Harmer, Jeremy. (2007). How To Teach English. Pearson Education Limited.
Essex, England
Hyland, Ken. (2004). Gendre and Second Language Writing. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Ibrahim.M. (2013). The Effect of Using Facebook on Improving Students' Writing Skills in English, An-Najah National University.
Instagram Press. (2015) www.instagram.com. Accessed: 12/06/2015.
Kabilan, M., Ahmad, N., Abidin, M. (2010). Facebook: An Online Environment for Learning of English in Institutions of Higher Education? Internet and Higher Education. 13. 179-187.
Kaplan, M, Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite ! the challenges and opportunities of social media. Kelley School of Business.
Kessler, G. (2013). Teaching ESL/EFL in a World of Social Media, Mash-Ups, and Hpyer Collaboration. TESOL Journal. 4/4. 615-632.
Listiani, (2016). The effectiveness of instagram writing compared to teacher centered writing to teach recount text to students with high and low motivation. Journal of English Language Teaching.
Mayers, Horarik M. (2002). “Something to Shoot for”: A Systematic Functional Approach to Teaching Genre in Secondary School Science. NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates
Murthy. (2013). Twitter: Social Communication in The Social Age. UK: polity Press
Naba‟h, A. A. (2013). The Effects of Using Electronic Dialogue Journal on English Writing Performance of Jordanian Students. International Arab Journalon E-Technology, 3(1), 37-43.
Oshima, Alice & Ann Hogue. (1997). Writing Academic English. New York:
Addison Wesley Longman.
Oxford Dictionary. (2005). Oxford Learners Pocket Dictionary. New York.
Oxford University Press.
47
Pardyono. (2007). Pasti Bisa Teaching Genre Based Writing. Yogyakarta: Andi.
Peyton, J. K. (2000). Dialogue journals: Interactive writing to develop languageand literacy. ESL Resources: Digests. National Center for ESL
Literacy Education. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/Dialogue_Journals.html
Rajfanshi. (2015). Social media : The inevitable and pertinent influence in the lives of indian youth. International Journal of Applied Research.
Reinking, Hart A., & Osten, R. (1993). Strategies for Successful Writing:
Rhetoric, Reader and Handbook. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Renaldy (2017). using Instagram to improve students’ ability and interest in writing. A thesis (unpublished) of English Department of Unismuh Makassar..
Sumarsih & Sanjaya, (2013). TPS as an effective to enhance the students’s achievement on writing descriptivr text. Canadian center of Science an Education.
Yakkop. (2006). Cooperative Learning in improving writing skill at SMU Nasional Makassar. A thesis (unpublished) of English Department of Unismuh Makassar.
Zidny, (2017). Improving students’ writing skill using instagram in grade X of science 5 at SMAN 5 Yogyakarta.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Instrument
PRE-TEST Name :
NIS :
Number :
Write down three short paragraph of descriptive text about your own home in which every paragraph consist of 5 sentences. Text should be at least 80 words and at most 120 words!
My Home
POST-TEST Name :
NIS :
Number :
Write down three short paragraph of descriptive text about your own home in which every paragraph consist of 5 sentences. Text should be at least 80 words and at most 120 words!
My Home
Appendix 2. Sample of Test
Appendix 3. Documentation
Appendix 4. The List Name of The Students
No. Students Name Initial
1. Aldi A
2. Ummu Kalsum UK
3. Darmawati D
4. Febrianti F
5. Zaki Akbar. R ZA
6. Nur Alifiah. SN NA
7. Amelia A
8. Imam Khoiri IK
9. Sultan S
10. St. Nurul Azisah NA
11. Naimah N
12. Renaldi R
13. Gita Rahma Utami GRU
14. Febriana. S F
15. Tina T
16. Almi Papinian Tandi Lawa APTL
17. Rifaldi R
18. St. Khaerunnisa SK
Appendix 5. The students’ score in pre-test and post-test based on aspects of writing Descriptive Text
a. the students‟ score in pre-test based on aspects of writing descriptive text O= Organization
No. Students Name Aspects Score
O
1. A 2 50
2. UK 3 75
3. D 1 25
4. F 1 25
5. ZA 2 50
6. NA 2 50
7. A 2 50
8. IK 1 25
9. S 1 25
10. NA 2 50
11. N 2 50
12. R 2 50
13. GRU 3 75
14. F 2 50
15. T 2 50
16. APTL 3 75
17. R 2 50
18. SK 3 75
b. the students‟ score in post-test based on aspects of writing O= Organization
No. Students Name Aspects Score
O
1. A 3 75
2. UK 4 100
3. D 3 75
4. F 3 75
5. ZA 3 75
6. NA 3 75
7. A 3 75
8. IK 3 75
9. S 2 50
10. NA 2 50
11. N 4 100
12. R 3 75
13. GRU 3 75
14. F 3 75
15. T 3 75
16. APTL 3 75
17. R 3 75
18. SK 4 100
Appendix 6. Students’ Score and Mean Score of Pre-test.
a. students‟ score in pre-test
No. Students Name Pre-test of the students (X1)
Max Score
Score (X)
X2 Classification
1. A 4 50 2500 Poor
2. UK 4 75 5625 Good
3. D 4 25 625 Very poor
4. F 4 25 625 Very Poor
5. ZA 4 50 2500 Poor
6. NA 4 50 2500 Poor
7. A 4 50 2500 Poor
8. IK 4 25 625 Very Poor
9. S 4 25 625 Very Poor
10. NA 4 50 2500 Poor
11. N 4 50 2500 Poor
12. R 4 50 2500 Poor
13. GRU 4 75 5625 Good
14. F 4 50 2500 Poor
15. T 4 50 2500 Poor
16. APTL 4 75 5625 Good
17. R 4 50 2500 Poor
18. SK 4 75 5625 Good
∑X1 = 900
∑X1 2= 50.000
b. Mean score of the pre-test:
x= 𝑥
𝑁
x = 900
18
x = 50
The mean score (X1) of pre-test is 50
Appendix 7. Students’ Score and Mean Score of Post-test.
a. students‟ score in post-test
No. Students Name Pre-test of the students (X1)
Max Score
Score (X2)
X22 Classificatio n
1. A 4 75 5625 Good
2. UK 4 100 10000 Very Good
3. D 4 75 5625 Good
4. F 4 75 5625 Good
5. ZA 4 75 5625 Good
6. NA 4 75 5625 Good
7. A 4 75 5625 Good
8. IK 4 75 5625 Good
9. S 4 50 2500 Poor
10. NA 4 50 2500 Poor
11. N 4 100 10000 Very Good
12. R 4 75 5625 Good
13. GRU 4 75 5625 Good
14. F 4 75 5625 Good
15. T 4 75 5625 Good
16. APTL 4 75 5625 Good
17. R 4 75 5625 Good
18. SK 4 100 10000 Very Good
∑X2= 1.375
∑X2 2= 108.125
b. Mean score of the post-test:
x= 𝑥
𝑁
x = 1.37518 x = 76.3
The mean score (X1) of post-test is 76.3
Appendix 8. students improvement in writing descriptive text
P = X2-X1 x 100%
X1
P = 76.3 – 50 x 100%
50
P = 26.3 x 100%
50
The students‟ improvement = 52.6%
Where :
P : The percentage of the students‟ improvement X1 : The mean score of pre-test
X2 : The mean score of post-test
Appendix 9. The rate percentage of the frequency of the pre-test and post-test.
No. Classification Score Frequency Percentage Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
1. Very Good 80 – 100 0 3 0 17
2. Good 66 – 79 4 13 22 72
3. Fair 56 – 65 0 0 0 0
4. Poor 40 – 55 10 2 56 11
5. Very Poor ≤ 39 4 0 22 0
Total 18 18 100 % 100 %
Following the formula below:
P
=𝐹
𝑁 × 100 %
Where:
P = percentage F = frequency
N = total of number of sample.
Appendix 10. the worksheet of the calculation of the score on pre-test and post-test on the students’ writing skill in descriptive text.
No. X1 X2 (X1)2 (X2)2 D(X2-X1) D(X2-X1)2
1. 50 75 2500 5625 25 625
2. 75 100 5625 10000 25 625
3. 25 75 625 5625 50 2500
4. 25 75 625 5625 50 2500
5. 50 75 2500 5625 25 625
6. 50 75 2500 5625 25 625
7. 50 75 2500 5625 25 625
8. 25 75 625 5625 50 2500
9. 25 50 625 2500 25 625
10. 50 50 2500 2500 0 0
11. 50 100 2500 10000 50 2500
12. 50 75 2500 5625 25 625
13. 75 75 5625 5625 0 0
14. 50 75 2500 5625 25 625
15. 50 75 2500 5625 25 625
16. 75 75 5625 5625 0 0
17. 50 75 2500 5625 25 625
18. 75 100 5625 10000 25 625
Total 900 1.375 50.000 108.125 475 16.875
In the other to see the students‟ score, the following is t-test was statistically applied:
Find out𝐷 𝐷 = 𝐷
N = 47518 = 26, 3
The calculation the t-test value
t = 𝐷
D 2−( D) 2N N(N−1)
t = 26.3
16.875−475218 18(18−1)
t = 26.3
16.875−225.62518 18(17)
t = 26.3
16.875−13.535 306
t = 26.3
3.340 306
t = 26.3 10.91
t =26.3 3.3 t = 𝟕. 𝟗𝟔
Thus, the t-test value is 7, 96.
Appendix 11. Distribution of T-Table
P ( Level of Significance) ( One Tailed Test)
Df 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.001
1 6.314 12.706 63.657 636.619
2 2.920 4.303 9.925 31.598
3 2.353 3.182 5.841 12.924
4 2.132 2.776 4.604 8.610
5 2.015 2.571 4.032 6.869
6 1.945 2.447 3.707 5.959
7 1.895 2.365 3.499 5.408
8 1.860 2.306 3.355 5.041
9 1.833 2.262 3.250 4.781
10 1.812 2.228 3.169 4.587
11 1.796 2.201 3.106 4.437
12 1.782 2.179 3.055 4.318
13 1.771 2.160 3.012 4.221
14 1.761 2.145 2.977 4.140
15 1.753 2.131 2.947 4.073
16 1.746 2.120 2.921 4.015
17 1.740 2.110 2.898 3.965
18 1.734 2.101 2.878 3.922
19 1.729 2.093 2.861 3.883
20 1.725 2.086 2.845 3.850
21 1.721 2.080 2.831 3.819
22 1.717 2.074 2.819 3.792
23 1.714 2.069 2.807 3.767
24 1.711 2.064 2.797 3.745
25 1.708 2.060 2.787 3.725
26 1.706 2.056 2.779 3.707
27 1.703 2.05 2.771 3.690
28 1.701 2.048 2.763 3.674
29 1.699 2.045 2.756 3.659
30 1.697 2.042 2.750 3.646
40 1.684 2.021 2.704 3.551
60 1.671 2.000 2.660 3.460
120 1.658 1.980 2.617 3.373
(Sugiyono, 2014:332) Df = N-1
Df = 18-1 Df = 17
t-table for (α) = 0.05 = 2.110