CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
F. Technique Analysis Data
26
to the outcome of the discussion and the other.
4. Clarification The teacher will provide feedback to determine the extent to which students understand each other.
Krashen and Terell (1983) 3) Closing Activities
a) Ask students about difficulities during the learning proces.
b) Conclude the lesson together with the students.
c) Give homework.
d) The teacher will inform plan learning for the next meeting.
3. Post test
In this research, post test was given to the students after the students learn the writing skill through the implementation of Scientific Approach. The researcher gave the same test with the pretest but has different subject of topic to describe.
27
scored. This model is used in ESL (English as a Second Language) Table 3.3 Score and Criteria of Content
Classification Criteria Score
Very good 4 The topic is complete and clear and the details are relating to the topic.
Good 3 The topic is complete and clear but the details are almost relating to the topic.
Poor 2 The topic is complete and clear but the details are not relating to the topic.
Very poor 1 The topic is not clear and the details are not relating to the topic.
Table 3.3 Score and Criteria of Organization
Classification Criteria Score
Very good 4 Identification is complete and descriptions are arranged with proper connectives.
Good 3 Identification is almost complete and descriptions are arranged with almost proper connectives.
Poor 2 Identification is not complete and descriptions are arranged with few misuse of connective.
Very poor 1 Identification is not complete and descriptions are arranged with misuse of connectives.
Adapted from Brown (2007) The table above used to analyze the data. Pre-test and post- test were compared to achieve significance result to show how effective is Scientific Approach in teaching writing based on the score classification table below:
28
Table 3.4 Score of Classification of the Students
(Depdikbud, 2006) Calculating score pre-test and post test of students follow:
Total score
x 100 = Maximum score
(Nurgiyantoro, 2012)
2. Calculating the mean score of students‟ answer in both pretest and posttest by this formula :
𝑥 = ∑ X 𝑁 Where :
𝑥 : mean score
∑ : The Sum of all Score; add them up X : any score
N : Total number of Subject
(Gay, 1981) 3. To find out the standard deviation of the students pre-test and post test
by using the following formula:
SD = √
Where: = ∑ (∑ ) Where:
No. Classification Score
1. Very Good 85-100
2. Good 65-84
3. Fair 55-64
4. Poor 35-54
5. Very Poor 0-34
29
SD = Standard Deviation SS = Standard Score
N = The total number of students
∑ = The sum of the score
∑ = The sum of the squares
(∑ ) = The squares of the sum of the score = Constant number
(Gay in Ratnasari, 2016 : 32) 4. To find out the students‟ improvement, the formula was follows:
% = × 100 Where:
% = the students‟ percentage = the mean score of the pre-test
= the mean score of the post-test
(Harmer, 1991) 5. To find out whether the differences between pre-test and posttest value is significant, the following t-test formula is χ use:
̅ ̅ (√
) ( )
Where ( ) ( ) x1 = score of experimental group
x2 = score of control group ̅ = mean of experimental group ̅ = mean of control group
n1 = number of subject of experimental group n2 = number of subject of control group SS = Sum of Square
30
(Gay, 1998)
Coolidge in Ningsih (2016) explained about the hypothesis. If t ratio < t table, then the hypothesis is rejected which means there is no significant difference between two groups. On the other hand, if the t ratio > t table, hypothesis is not rejected, that means there is a significant difference between two groups.
31 CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Findings
1. The Improvement of Students’ Writing Skill through Scientific Approach
The researcher used the Scientific Approach in the Experimental Group to see the improvement of student content and organization in the written descriptive text.
a. The improvement of students’ content in writing
The students‟ content in writing can be seen in the following table:
Table 4.1 The Improvement of Students’ Writing Skill in Terms of Content in Experimental Group.
Indicator Mean Score Improvement
Pre-test Post test
Content 1.8 3.4 88.8 %
Based on Table 4.1 above, it shows that the average student pre-test score was 1.8. Most students did not know how to compose their basic theme idea and relate it to supporting details in order to complete the content of their writing in paragraph. Some of the students just wrote the topic without describe the details at all.
32
Students tend to follow what teacher usually commanded them to write. After that, the researcher gave treatment by using the Scientific Approach and the students‟ writing test result has shown the combination of topic and details in term of writing content were getting better. The students‟ mean score became 3.4 which meant that the improvement was 88.8% compared to the pre-test result. This data proved that using Scientific Approach in writing could improve students‟ writing skill viewed from the content.
b. The improvement of students’ organization in writing
The researcher also assessed students‟ organization in writing skill. It was begun by pre-test to post test. After treatment, there was an improvement in student writing skills in terms of organization. The difference between the pre-test student score and the post-test score was indicated. In addition, the researcher also counted an improvement percentage of students. Shows in the table below:
Table 4.2 The Improvement of Students’ Writing Skill in Terms of Organization in Experimental Group.
Indicator Mean Score Improvement
Pre-test Post test
Organization 2.2 3.5 58.09 %
Based on the table 4.2 above, shows that the mean score of the students in pre-test was 2.2. Most of the students confused to
33
organize their paragraph. Some of them found it difficult to determine identification of the subject to describe. After the treatment by using the Scientific Approach, the researcher found out that the score had improved which is 3.5. The percentage of improvement the students in pre-test to post test was 58.09 % which means that Scientific Approach helped to improve the students‟ organization in writing.
c. The Rate Percentage of the Students’ Score
The rate percentages of the students‟ scores were presented in the following table.
Table 4.3 The Rate Percentage of Pre-test and Post-test Score NO Classification Score Pre – Test Post - Test
F % F %
1 Very good 85-100 0 0% 16 80%
2 Good 65-84 1 5% 2 10%
3 Fair 55-64 6 30% 2 10%
4 Poor 35-54 13 65% 0 0%
5 Very poor 0-34 0 0% 0 0%
∑ 20 100% 20 100%
Table 4.2 shows that in the pre-test, which was done before treatment, 13 students (65%) who belonged to „poor‟ category, 6 students (30%) belonged to „fair‟ category and 1 student (5%) who belonged to „good‟ category. Based on the percentage data of pre- test, the ability of the students in Experimental Group before the
34
treatment found to be poor.
While in the post-test that done after the treatment, from 20 students, there was 16 students (80%) who belonged to „very good‟ category, 2 students (10%) belonged to „good‟ category and also 2 students (10%) belonged to „fair‟ category. Based on the result, it can be concluded that the rate percentage in the post-test was higher than the rate percentage of pre-test.
2. The Improvement of Students’ Writing Skill through Natural Approach.
The researcher taught students by using the Natural Approach as the conventional approach in Control Group to see the improvement of students‟ content and organization in Writing descriptive text.
a. The improvement of students’ content in writing
The students content in writing can be seen in the following table:
Table 4.4 The Improvement of Students’ Writing Skill in Terms of Content in Control Group.
Indicator Mean Score Improvement
Pre-test Post test
Content 1.5 1.7 13.3 %
Based on the table 4.3 above, it shows that the mean score of the students in pre-test was 1.5. The students wrote clear topic but the details kept missing the relation with the topic in order to complete
35
their writing‟s content. After that, the researcher give treatment by using the conventional teaching way that is Natural Approach and the score of the students had improved even though the score was not significant or higher enough. It showed in post test which become 1.7.
This result of pre-test and post test had improvement which was 13.3
%, showed that using Natural Approach could improve students‟
writing ability viewed from content.
b. The improvement of students’ organization in writing
The researcher also assessed the writing skills of the student organization. It started with a pre-test and post-test. The researcher also reported an improvement percentage of students. The difference between the pre-test student score and the post-test score was indicated. The score shown in the table below:
Table 4.5 The Improvement of Students’ Writing Skill in Terms Of Organization in Control Group.
Indicator Mean Score Improvement
Pre-test Post test
Organization 1.7 1.9 11.7 %
Based on the table 4.4 above, it showed that the mean score of the students in pre-test were 1.7. Most of the students felt confuse to identify and gave description based on the topic. It was caused by their lack in organization of the text. Students‟
identification is not complete enough and the description were
36
arranged with few misuse of connectives. After the researcher gave treatment by using conventional which is Natural Approach, the score of the students had improved. It showed in the post test which to be 1.9. It was indicated that the students had improved their organization and they can write descriptive text better than before. The percentage of the improvement was 11.7 %. It was meant that Natural Approach could improve students‟ organization in writing.
c. The Rate Percentage of the Students’ Score
The rate percentages of the students‟ scores were presented in the following table.
Table 4.6 The Rate Percentage of Pre-test and Post-test Score NO Classification Score
Pre – Test Post – Test
F % F %
1 Very good 85-100 0 0% 0 0%
2 Good 65-84 0 0% 0 0%
3 Fair 55-64 0 0% 1 5%
4 Poor 35-54 15 75% 19 95%
5 Very poor 0-34 5 25% 0 0%
∑ 20 100% 20 100%
The table 4.2 shows that in the pre-test, which was done before treatment, which 15 students (75%) who belonged to „poor‟
category and 5 students (25%) belonged to „very poor‟ category.
While in the post-test that done after the treatment, from 20
37
students, there was 1 student (5%) belonged to „fair‟ category and the rest 19 students (95%) belonged to „poor‟ category. Based on the result, it can be concluded that the rate percentage in the post- test was higher than the rate percentage of pre-test.
3. The Significance Improvement of Students’ Writing Skill in Experimental and Control Group
A pre-test and post-test was administered to determine whether there was a significant improvement in student writing skills between students taught by the Scientific Approach and students taught by the Natural Approach. The mean score was shown in the table below.
a. Mean score based on pre-test and post test in experimental and control group.
Table 4.7 Mean score of pre-test and post test
Group Mean Score Improvement
Pre-test Post test
Experimental 20.2 34.5 70.7 %
Control 16 18.2 13.7 %
Based on the table 4.5 above, the students‟ mean score of pre-test in Experimental Group was 20.2. after getting the treatment by using Scientific Approach, the students mean score of post test was 34.5. It meant that the mean score of the students in Experimental Group have an improvement, namely 70.7 %.
In Control Group the students‟ mean score of pre-test was 16, after
38
giving the treatment by using Natural Approach, the students‟ mean score of post test was 18.2 which meant that the mean score of the students in Control Group have an improvement, namely 13.7 %.
b. The Standard Deviation of Experimental and Control Group in Post-test.
After calculating the student score, the standard deviation for both classes is shown in the table below:
Table 4.8 The Standard Deviation of Experimental and Control Group in Post Test
Group Mean Score Standard Deviation Pre-test Post test
Experimental 34.5 4.8 4.2
Control 18.2 4.16 4.2
Table 4.8 shows that the students‟ mean score of post test in Experimental Group by using Scientific Approach was 34.5 and the standard deviation in pre-test was 4.8 and 4.2 for the post test. In Control Group without using Scientific Approach, the students‟
mean score post test was 18.2 and the standard deviation in control group was 4.16 in pre-test and post test was 4.2.
c. Test of Significance (t – Test)
The significance score of post – test between experimental and control group can known by using t-test.
Table 4.7 Test of Significant
Variable T – test value T – table value Remark
X1 – X2 12.5 2.024 Significantly
39
different
The table above showed that t – table value was low than t – test. The result of the test showed there was significant difference between t – test and t-table (12.5 > 2.024), it means that t – test was higher than t – table at the level of significance 0.05 and the degree of freedom (N1 + N2– 2) = (20 + 20 - 2) = 38.
Figure 4.1 Hypothesis Testing
Figure 4.1 indicates that the value of the t-test (12.5) was greater than the value of t-table (2.024). It means that there was significance score of post – test between experimental group and control group.
Based on the result above it can be concluded that the Null Hypothesis (H0) was rejected whereas the Alternative Hypothesis (H1) was accepted. In other words, the use of Scientific Approach
T- test value T- table value 12.5
2.024
40
was effective to improve the students‟ writing ability in term of content and organization.
B. Discussion
In this section, the researcher presented the discussion about the researcher findings about the research question of is the use of Scientific Approach effective to be used in teaching writing in term of content and organization for senior high school at SMAN 3 Kulisusu.
This research was conducted to found out students‟ writing ability of descriptive test in term content and organization with the process the learning using Scientific Approach and without using Scientific Approach.
The approach of treatments used to teach the class were different, where the experimental class was taught by using Scientific Approach and the control class using Natural Approach.
1. The Improvement of Students’ Writing Ability in Experimental Group
Before given treatment, the data of the result means of the experimental class was 20.2. After given treatment the result means of experimental class was 34.5. Thus, the experimental class is deep learning using Scientific Approach was higher. From the results of the analysis it appears that of the Scientific Approach effective on the learning outcomes of English students in improving students‟ writing ability.
The improvement of the students‟ writing ability in terms content
41
and organization. The aim in this research was to find out whether the Scientific Approach was effective to enhance students‟ writing ability and it was expected that Scientific Approach improved the students‟
writing in term content and organization. Referring to the comparison between pre – test and post – test of the experimental class, there was improved on students‟ score in pre – test and post – test scores. It can be concluded the students‟ score between pre – test and post – test had a significance difference.
In the first meeting when the researcher gave pre-test, researcher looked most of the students still difficult to write without guided from the teacher and when they got a specific topic they are still confused what they want to write in the paper. They did not know how to compose their writing based on the topic. It could be seen in the table 4.1 that the students‟ writing ability in pre-test mean score was very poor, which was 20.2.
After the students had given treatment by using Scientific Approach, the mean score had improved became 34.5. it was higher than the pre-test score. The improvement percentage showed 70.7 %.
The improvement percentage showed that using Scientific Approach to teach English especially writing ability in term content and organization had improved.
42
2. The Improvement of Students’ Writing Ability in Control Group The improvement of writing ability also can be seen in Control Group. It showed in the table 4.5 that the students‟ writing achievement in pre-test was 16. After the students had taught by using Natural Approach, mean score of students in post test had also improved become 18.2. It was higher than the pre-test score. Although the improvement percentage showed 13.7 % by using Natural Approach, but the mean score or else improvement percentage was not higher enough.
3. The Significance Improvement of Students’ Writing Skill in Experimental and Control Group
The student's mean score of pre-test in Experimental group was 20.2. After giving the treatment by using Scientific Approach, the student's mean score of post-test was 34.5. It means that the mean score of the student's in Experimental group have an improvement, namely 70.7 %.
In Control Group the student's mean score of pre-test was 16. after giving the treatment by using Natural Approach, the student's mean score post-test was 18.2. It means that the mean score of the student's in control group have an improvement, namely 13.7. %.
The result of the t-test statistical analysis showed that there was a significant difference between the experimental group receiving
43
treatment using the Scientific Approach and the controlled group receiving the Natural Approach treatment. The statement was proved by the t-test value (12.5) which higher than t-table value (2.024), at the lavel of significance 0.05 and the degree of freedom (NI + N2) – 2; (20 + 20) - 2 = 38. It means that the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted.
The result showed the students writing ability improved especially in content and organization after applied Scientific Approach in experimental class. It is different mean score in control class without using Scientific Approach. Both class improved in content and organization but experimental class is highest. This improved was due to the used of Scientific Approach in experimental class.
Seeing the result above, it can be concluded that teaching English using Scientific Approach can improve the students' writing skill at the tenth grade of SMAN 3 Kulisusu, Kab. Buton Utara.
44 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion
Based on the researcher findings and discussion in the previous chapter and looking at the result of the research, the researcher made a conclusion that using Scientific Approach was effective to improve students‟ writing ability. It was proved by the mean score of post – test between experimental group and control group. The mean score in experimental group before and after treatment (20.2 became 34.5) and in control group before and after treatment (16 became 18.2) with the t-test value was greater than t-table (12.5 > 2.024), it means the students‟
writing in term content and organization of both classes were significantly difference at the level of significance 0.05 and the degree of freedom (N1
+ N2 - 2) = (20 + 20 - 2) = 38. The experimental group was higher than the control group. This findings of Scientific Approach is one of a good technique in teaching writing.
B. Suggestion
Suggestions are directed to:
1. English Teacher
Teacher should try Scientific Approach in teaching English especially writing as the English component. The teacher can be more creative in applying that method to the students and use it in teaching vocabulary
45
so that the students are motivated, interested, and not bored in learning English.
2. Future Researchers
In this research has not perfect yet, it is suggested for the future researchers to conduct further researchers in the same field, especially on using the Scientific Approach on teaching writing. This research was very important because it will give some knowledge to the researcher. In order to know the benefits of using Scientific Approach in teaching writing.