The Technique of Data Analysis

CHAPTER III METHOD OF RESEARCH

F. The Technique of Data Analysis

After collecting the data from the test, the dataanalysis by using the following procedure:

1. Scoring the students’ answer for value of the test.

2. Listing the scores into two tables, first for the experimental group scores and second for the control group scores.

3. Calculating the total score Pre-test and Post-test in experimental group and control group. Calculating was conducted by using t-test as show below, according to Sugiyono (2017):

4. Calculating Mean Score:

n i

x₌

∑

x (Sugiyono, 2017)

Note :

x = Mean

∑

^xi = The total of students’ value n = The number of students 5. Standar Deviation by Formula

( )( ( )

¹

)

2 2

1 −

=

∑

−

∑

n n

x x

SD n (Sugiyono, 2017)

6. Calculating correlation Product Moment between X1 and X2

( )( ) ( )

{ ∑

²

∑ ∑

²

∑ } { ∑ ∑

²

⁽ ∑ ⁾

²

}

−

−

= −

i i

i

i i i

xy

y y

n x x

n

y x y

x

r n ( Sugiyono, 2017 : 255)

7. Determining the percentage of X variable toward Y variable D = x 100%

x = 100% - D

8. Hypothesis test (t-test)















−  +

= −

2 2 1 1 2

2 2 1 2 1

2 1

2 n

s n r s n s n s

x

t x (Sugiyono, 2017 : 275)

In which : t = t-test

x1 = Mean of variable 1 (experimental group) x2 = Mean of variable 2 (control group)

s1 = Standard deviation of sample 1 (experimental group) s2 = Standard deviation of sample 2 (control group)

2

s1 = Standard deviation squared (variants) of sample 1 (experimental group)

2

s2 = Standard deviation squared (variants) of sample 2 (control group) n = Total of sample

n1 = Number of cases for variable 1 (experimental group)

33

n2 = Number of cases for variable 2 (control group) r = Correlation of product moment between and .

BAB IV

DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS

A. Data Collection

The data were collected by giving oral test. The sample in this research is 42. The sample was divided into two classes, the experimental group and control group. Each group was given pre-test and post-test of the same test. In experimental group, the students’ total score of pre-test was 1422 with the lowest score of pre-test was 50 and the highest one was 85 (see appendix 1). In experimental group, the students’

total score of post-test was 1857 with the lowest score of post-test was 80 and the highest one was 95 (see appendix 2). Meanwhile, in control group the students’ total score of pre-test was 1291 with the lowest score was 50 and the highest score was 85 (see appendix 3). In control group the students’ total score of post-test was 1663 with the lowest score was 70 and the highest score of post-test test was 85 (see appendix 4).

After getting the students’ score in pre-test and post-test of both classes, it was known that there was a difference of students’ abilit y in speaking after receiving the treatment.

34

35

Table 4.1

The Students’ Score of Pre-test and Post-test in Experimental Group

No Students’ Initial Pre-test Post-Test Score

1 ASR 55 80 135

2 AFS 65 85 150

3 AL 59 88 147

4 APM 65 80 145

5 D 70 89 159

6 DPS 75 85 160

7 DAM 70 81 151

8 FR 69 92 161

9 IP 60 95 155

10 JA 60 83 143

11 JLA 65 92 157

12 MIM 80 87 167

13 MIR 71 85 156

14 NK 72 85 157

15 NA 75 92 167

16 PN 85 90 175

17 RG 50 91 141

18 RA 69 95 164

19 RPR 60 95 155

20 VO 67 95 162

21 YAW 80 92 172

Total 1422 1857 3279

Based on table 4.1 above it can be seen that there was differences between pre-test and post-test of experimental group. After calculated the data for the experimental group above score pre-test was 1422 and total score post-test was 1857. It means the score for post-test was higher than pre-test.

Table 4.2

The Students’ Score of Pre-test and Post-test in Control Group No Students’ Initial Pre-test Post-test Score

1 AR 50 75 125

2 ADR 55 79 134

3 AFA 55 80 135

4 AP 60 70 130

5 DHR 62 82 144

6 DHM 62 75 137

7 FIA 65 75 140

8 FR 62 80 142

9 HP 55 80 135

10 IA 55 72 127

11 KZF 57 84 141

12 MRS 80 80 160

13 MMR 67 77 144

14 MRZ 64 79 143

15 NHN 64 85 149

16 PAS 85 78 163

17 RFS 50 82 132

18 RHH 60 85 145

19 RKA 50 80 130

20 SH 60 80 140

21 ZAP 73 85 158

Total 1291 1663 2954

Based on table 4.2 above it can be seen that there was differences between pre-test and post-test of control group. After calculated the data for the control group above score pre-test was 1291 and total score post-test was 1633. It means the score for post-test was higher than pre-test.

37

B. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed by computing reliability and t-observed which was related to examine the hypothesis in order to answer the research problem. The data of this study was the score of pre-test used find out the mean and standard derivation of experimental and control group. The score of pre-test and post-test as follow:

Table 4.3

Differences Score between Pre-test and Post-test of the Experimental Group

No Students’

Initial

Pre-test (X₁)

Post-test

(X₂) (X₁)² (X₂)²

1 ASR 55 80 3025 6400

2 AFS 65 85 4225 7225

3 AL 59 88 3481 7744

4 APM 65 80 4225 6400

5 D 70 89 4900 7921

6 DPS 75 85 5625 7225

7 DAM 70 81 4900 6561

8 FR 69 92 4761 8464

9 IP 60 95 3600 9025

10 JA 60 83 3600 6889

11 JLA 65 92 4225 8464

12 MIM 80 87 6400 7569

13 MIR 71 85 5041 7225

14 NK 72 85 5184 7225

15 NA 75 92 5625 8464

16 PN 85 90 7225 8100

17 RG 50 91 2500 8281

18 RA 69 95 4761 9025

19 RPR 60 95 3600 9025

20 VO 67 95 4489 9025

21 YAW 80 92 6400 8464

TOTAL

∑

^x1

=1422

∑

^x2=1857

^∑

^x12=

97792

2

∑

^x1⁼

164721 Based on the table 4.1 above it can be seen that there was differences between pre-test and post-test experimental class. After calculated the data for the experimental group above score for pre-test was 1422 and the total score post-test was 1857. It means the score for post-test is higher than pre-test. The mean score was calculated as follows:

a. The Average (Mean)

42 , 88

21 1857

2

=

=

=

∑

n x x

39

b. Standard Derivation of X Variabel

( )( ( ) )

( ) ( )

( )( )

04 , 5

457 , 25

420 10692

420

3448449 3459141

1 21 21

1857 164721

21

1

2 2 2

1

=

=

=

= −

−

= −

−

=

∑

−

∑

n n

x x

SD n

Table 4.4

Differences Score between Pre-test and Post-test in Control Group

No Students’

Initial

Pre-test (X₁)

Post-test

(X₂) (X₁)² (X₂)²

1 AR 50 75 2500 5625

2 ADR 55 79 3025 6241

3 AFA 55 80 3025 6400

4 AP 60 70 3600 4900

5 DHR 62 82 3844 6724

6 DHM 62 75 3844 5625

7 FIA 65 75 4225 5625

8 FR 62 80 3844 6400

9 HP 55 80 3025 6400

10 IA 55 72 3025 5184

11 KZF 57 84 3249 7056

12 MRS 80 80 6400 6400

13 MMR 67 77 4489 5929

14 MRZ 64 79 4096 6241

15 NHN 64 85 4096 7225

16 PAS 85 78 7225 6084

17 RFS 50 82 2500 6724

18 RHH 60 85 3600 7225

19 RKA 50 80 2500 6400

20 SH 60 80 3600 6400

21 ZAP 73 85 5329 7225

TOTAL

∑

^x1

=1291

∑

^x2=1663

^∑

^x12=

81041

2

∑

^x1⁼

132033

Based on table 4.2 above it can be seen that there was differences between pre-test and post-test score of control class. After calculated the data for the control group above the score for pre-test was 1291 and the total score for post-test was 1663. It means the score for the post-test is higher than pre-test. The mean score was calculated as follows:

a. The Average(Mean)

2 , 79

21 1663

2

=

=

=

∑

n y y

41

b. Standard Derivation of Y Variable

( ) ( )

( )( )

( ) ( )

( )( )

( ) ( )

1 , 4

17 420 7124

420

2765569 2772693

1 21 21

1663 132033

21

1

2 2 2 2

2 2

=

=

=

= −

−

= −

−

=

∑

−

∑

n n

y y

SD n

Based on the previous data, after the mean was obtained, then the correlation determined with the formula:

( )( ) ( )

{ ∑

²

∑

²

} { ∑

²

⁽ ∑ ⁾

²

}

∑

∑ ∑

−

−

= −

i i

i i

i i i

i xy

y y

n x x

n

y x y

x r n

It was concluded in the following table:

Table 4.5

Calculating Correlation Product Moment between X1 and X2

No Students’

Initial

Pre-test (X₁)

Post-test

(X₂) (X₁)² (X₂)²

(X₁)(X₂)

1 ASR 55 80 3025 6400 4400

2 AFS 59 85 3481 7225 5015

3 AL 59 88 3481 7744 5192

4 APM 65 80 4225 6400 5200

5 D 68 89 4624 7921 6052

6 DPS 68 85 4624 7225 5780

7 DAM 70 81 4900 6561 5670

8 FR 69 92 4761 8464 6348

9 IP 60 95 3600 9025 5700

10 JA 60 83 3600 6889 4980

11 JLA 65 92 4225 8464 5980

12 MIM 80 87 6400 7569 6960

13 MIR 71 85 5041 7225 6035

14 NK 72 84 5184 7056 6048

15 NA 75 90 5625 8100 6750

16 PN 85 90 7225 8100 7650

17 RG 50 91 2500 8281 4550

18 RA 69 95 4761 9025 6555

19 RPR 55 95 3025 9025 5225

20 VO 67 92 4489 8464 6164

21 YAW 80 92 6400 8464 7360

TOTAL

∑

^x1

=1402

∑

^x2

=1851

2

∑

^x1

=95196

2

∑

^x2

=163627

1x2

∑

x

=123614

43

a. Correlation Product Moment between X1 and X2

( )( )

{ ( ) } { ^{( )} }

( ) ( )( )

( ) ( )

{ } { ^{( ) ( )} }

{ }{ }

{ }{ }

056 , 0

034 , 18366

1041 337311216

1041

10692 31548

1041

3448449 3459141

2022084 2053632

2640654 2641695

1857 164721

21 1422 97792

21

1857 1422 125795

21

2 2

2 2 2 2

=

=

=

=

−

−

= −

−

−

= −

−

−

= −

∑

∑

∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

i i

i i

i i i

i xy

y y

n x x

n

y x y

x r n

b. Coeficient

( )( )

{ ( ) } { ^{( )} }

( ) ( )( )

( ) ( )

{ } { ^{( ) ( )} }

{ }{ }

( )( )

70 , 0

3105720 2195199

561 9645500760

2195199

2779817 3469833

2195199

2765569 5545386

3448449 6918282

3088191 5283390

1663 132033

42 1857 164721

42

1663 1857 125795

42

2 2

2 2 2 2

=

=

=

=

−

−

= −

−

−

= −

−

−

= −

∑

∑

∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

i i

i i

i i i

xy

y y

n x x

n

y x x

r n

c. Determining the value of t-test with formula:

After the correlation value was obtained, furthermore specified t-test with the formula:

45

( )

( )( )( )

19 , 16

57 , 0

23 , 9

33 , 0

23 , 9

10 , 0 43 , 0

23 , 9

89 , 0 09 , 1 112 , 0 19 , 0 24 , 0

23 , 9

21 1 , 4 21 04 , 056 5 , 0 21 2

1 , 4 21

04 , 5

19 , 79 42 , 88

2

2 2 1 1 2

2 2 1 2 1

2 1

=

=

=

= −

−

= +



 







 



−  +

= −









− +

= −

n s n r s n s n s

x t x

After measuring the data above, by using t-test formula it showed that t-test value was 16.19. After seeking the table of the distribution of t-test as the accounting in certain degree of freedom (df). The calculation showed that:

d. Determining the Percentage of the Effect of X Variable toward Y Variable

( )

40 2 42

2 21 2

2 2

=

−

=

−

=

−

= n Df

In determining, the percentage of the effect of Applying Cooperative Learning on The Students’ Speaking Achievement, the formula was:

% 70

% 100 70

, 0

%

2 100

=

×

=

×

= r D

% 30

% 70

% 100

% 100

=

−

=

−

= D

x

It means that the percentage of the effect of x toward y or the Effect of Applying Cooperative Learning on The Students’ Speaking Achievement was 70% and 30% was influence by others factors 2.021.

47

C. Testing Hypothesis

After accounting the data previously by using t-test formula that critical value then after seeking the table of distribution of valuate Speaking Skill as basic of counting Degree of Freedom (DF), the calculation shows that DF was (2n-2=42-2=40) in line 40 that t-table is 2.021 for 0.05. It could concluded t- test>t-table or 16.19>2.021. So Ho was rejected and Ha was accepted or there was the effect of Applying Cooperative Learning on The Students’ Speaking Achievement through asking and giving opinion at eighth grade in SMP Muhammadiyah 47 Sunggal.

D. Research Finding

Based on the data analysis above, the findings of this research were described that the students who were taught with Applying Cooperative Learning got higher score than the students who were taught by using Lecturing Method.

Total of significant effect was 70%. It was proved by the result of t-test which was 16.19 and t-table which was 2.021 (t-test>t-table, 16.19>2.021). It means that the students’ Speaking Achievement with Applying Cooperative Learning was significant than using Lecturing Method.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusions

Based on the findings and data analysis, the researcher could make the conclusion as follow: There was significant effect of Applying Cooperative Learning on The Students’ Speaking Achievement is proven by the result of the test t-test>t-table or 16.19>2.021. It means that the result of analysis showed that t-test was higher than t-table with the level significant 0.05 and the Degree of Freedom (DF) = 40. Cooperative Learning gives stimulus for the students to become active learning and accept the lesson that the teacher gave. The students be active to giving opinion and speak up in front of the class.

B. Suggestion

In this case the researcher, would like to give the suggestion, the suggestion were put forward as follows:

1. The English teachers, the teacher were suitable applying cooperative learning on the learning process. The teacher should stimulus students to interact with other in English. The teacher should make the students interest and enjoy in learning proses.

2. The students, they should improve their speaking skills by increasing vocabulary. Practice speaking with someone is very important. The

50

49

students should practice their speaking in daily conversation, so that will make them competent in English.

3. The reader, were encouraged to have a lot of information about teaching learning experience for them.

4. The other researchers, it is suggested to conduct further research related to the topic of the study.

Bailey, M. K. 2003. Speaking : Practical English Language Teaching Ed David Nunan. New York : Monterey Institute of International Studies

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principle : An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. San Fransisco : Longman

Chamisah. 2013. An Analysis On The Advantages of Cooperative Learning Approach in Teaching Writing. Banda Aceh. State Islamic University Ar- Raniry

Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Third Edition.

Pearson : Longman

Huda, M. 2017. Cooperative Learning : Metode, Teknik, Struktur, dan Model Penerapan. Yogyakarta. Pustaka Belajar

Hughes, R. 2010. Teaching and Researching Speaking. United Kingdom. Pearson Education

Husna, U. 2018. The effect of Applying Guided Writing Technique on The Students’ Achievement in Writing Analytical Exposition Text. Medan.

UMSU

Macpherson, A. 2015. Cooperative Learning Group Activities for College Courses. Surrey, BC Canada : Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Nunan, D. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. Singapore : International Edition

Tarigan, G. 2008. “Berbicara Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa”.

Bandung: Percetakan Angkasa

Sugiyono. 2017. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung : Alfabeta

Sonthara, Kong. 2009. Cooperative Learning : Theory & Practice. Cambodia.

World Education

Curriculum Vitae Name : Jihan Jifanisah

Address : Jalan Abdul Hamid no.73 Telephone : 082370816730

Place Date of Birth : Medan, June, 10 ^th 1997

Name of Parents : M.Jamsah and Murniati Ningsih

Gender : Female

Nationally : Indonesian

Religion : Islam

Marital Status : Single

Email : jifanisahjihan@gmail.com

Hobbies : Traveling, Watching, and Reading.

Education

The year of 2009 : Elementary School of SD Negeri 064014 Medan The year of 2012 : Junior High School of SMP Negeri 19 Medan The year of 2015 : Senior High School of SMA Darussalam Medan The year 2019 : University of Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara