CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
E. Technique of Data Analysis
1. The data collected through pre-test and post-test to quantitative analysis. The way of getting the score was determined based on the given criteria of content, organization . To score the students’ result their composition were analyzed for every component. The method will derive from the original formula of Heaton (1988:146).
A. Content
Score Classification Indicator
30-27 Exellent to very good
Knowledge,subtantive,relevant to assigned topic.
26-22 Good to average some knowledge of subject,ad adequate mostly relevant to topic but lacks details.
21-17 Fair to poor Limited knowledge of subject little substance,inadequate.
16-13 Very poor Does not show knowledge of
subject,non substantive is not organized not enough to evaluate.
Heaton(1988:146) B Organization
Score Classification Indicator
20-18 Exellent to very good Fluent expression,ideas Clearly stated and supported Well organized logical sequencing.
17-14 Good to average Somewhat copy,loosely
organized but main ideas stand out ,limited support,logical
incomplete sequencing.
13-10 Fair to poor Non-fluent
9-7 Very poor Does not communicate,no
organization,not enough to evaluate.
5. Calculating the mean score of the student pre-test and post-test using the following formula:
X =∑x N
Where : X = Mean
∑ X=The sum of all score
N= Total number of subject ( Gay , 1981 : 298 )
6. To find the significance different between the result of the pre-test and post-test by calculating the value of the T- using the following formula:
t = D
= ∑ ( (∑ )) Where: t = test of significant
D = The mean of the different between the pair score
∑ D2 = the sum of the D ( the difference between two pair of score
∑ D2) = Squares the sum of the D
N =Number of students ( Gay ,1987:363)
7. The students score in the two components were tabulated and analyzed. The following formula has used to find out their classification .
NO Classification Score
1 Exellent to very Good 86-100
2 Good to average 68-85
3 Fair to poor 48-67
4 Very poor 32-47
( Jacobs in Neny, 2004) 8. Finding the mean score of the difference scored by using formula :
D =∑D N
Where: D = The mean score
∑ D = The sum of difference score
N = The total number of the sample. (gay ,1981:332)
9. Finding out the value of t – table by using the interpolation system . the formula is presented as follow:
C = C0 +( C1–C0) . ( B–B0) B1–B0
Where : C = The value of t–table of df =11 C0 =The value of t- table of df =10
C1=The value of t- table of df= 20 B= df 11
B0= df 10 B1= df 20
( Riduan in Harrry,2009:56)
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSIONS A. Findings
The findings of the research deal with the students’ score of the research activities such as pre-test and post-test, the frequency and rate percentage of the students’ score. The mean score of the students pre-test and post-test , and t-test value .
This finding will be explained below :
1. The result of the data collected through internet materials from the fires and the second test were collected. The result of two scores collected and calculated in the mean score to obtain the final score of the students’
writing whether the students are able or not improving their writing by internet materials method to write argumentative essay. Then it was observed from two components of writing according to Heaton( 1986:146) , They are content and organization .
2. The students’ score of pre-test (x1) and post-test (x2), Gain/difference between the matched pairs (D) and the square of the gain (D2).
To get the answer of the researc question in the previous chapter , the writer has collected the result from two kinds of the test namely pre- test and post-test. A pre-test was given to the students before having the treatment which aimed tho know the prior knowledge of students about writing and post-test was given to the students after having the treatments
37
which aimed to know the achievement of the students’ writing ability after they got the treatments. The pre-test and post-test were compared to see whether or not there is a signifcant improvement of the students’ writing ability. Both pre-test as the first test and post-test as the second test were given to the students by using writing test , to get the information, to identif the problem that was faced by students’. In pre-test the students were found many difficulties in writing. Therefore, they made a lot of mistakes in writing. In treatment ,the writer led the students in learning writing through internet materials.
During learning process the writer explains how to write their argumentative essay based on the internet materials. After doing the treatment fourth meetings , the writer tried to do test again to know their writing ability in post-test. Here the students could write well. The writer observed that there was significance different the students’ writing ability and after having the treatments.
Table 1: Score classification of pre-test
Classification
Mean Score Pre-test
Frequency Percentage Excellent to very
good
86-100 - 0%
Good to average 68-85 4 10%
Fair to poor 46-67 15 85%
Very poor 32-47 2 5%
Total 21 100%
The table above indicates that none students(0%) got excellent to very good score, 4 students (10%) got good to average score, 15 students(85%) got fair to poor score, and 2 students (5%) got very poor score.
Table 2: Score classification of post-test
Classification
Mean Score Post-test
Frequency Percentage Excellent to
very good
86-100 - 0%
Good to 68-85 13 70%
average
Fair to poor 46-67 8 30%
Very poor 32-47 - 0%
Total 21 100%
The table above shows that none students (0%) excellent to very good score, 13 students (70%) got good to average score , 8 students (30% ) got fair to poor score,and none students (0%) got very poor score . From the change of the score classification above , there is significant thing. Then the writer can conclude that the rate percentage of post-test was higher than pre-test.
The mean score of the students’ pre-test and post-test are peresented in the following table:
Table 3: The mean score of pre-test and post-test
Test Mean score
Pre-test 60.523
Post-test 70.714
The data of table 2 above shows that the mean score of students pre-test was 60.523 and the mean score of students post-test was 70.714. Then the mean score of the students post-test was higher than the mean score of the students pre- test.
Table 4: Total percentage and the students’ improvement in Pre-test and Post-test
Pre-test Post-test Improvement
60.523 70.714 10.191
The data of table 4 above shows that the students’ improvement in pre-test and post-test is 10.191 .
1. Hypothesis
To find out degree of freedom (df) the writer used the following formula :
df = N-1 , Where ( N =20)
df = 21-1
df = 20
for the level of significance (p) =0,05 and the degree of freedom (df)=20 thus the value of t- table was found by using interpolation system that introduced by Riduan in Hadiah (2008:56 ) because the value of df (20) was not in the table . the formula is presented s follow :
C = C0 + (B-B0)
C = 2.201 + . . ( 20-11)
C = 2.201 + ( -0.121(9) 10
C = 2.201–(0.012)(9) C = 2.093
Compared with the t-test value , it can be concluded that t-test value (67.93) was higher tahn the value of t- table (2.093). in the other words ,it can be said that 67.93≥2.093 . it means that there is significant between the post-test of the students achievement after given a treatment based material internet . thus, it means null hypothesis (H0) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis ( H1) is accepted.
B. Discussion
There is a significant difference of teaching materials upon writing competence.
The materials taken from internet are proven to able to improve student’s competence in writing since the internet materials provide an abudant source of knowledge and information for the students to learn more new vocabularies , dictions, styles, and ways to improve their writing competence in writing argumentative essays. Other reasons why internet materials are able to improve student’s writing competence are quoted by Maurer and Davidson in Charupan (2002:56) who mention that the advantages of internet materials are:
1 Teaching and learning process are more effective when the prepared materials are interesting and challenging.
2 Teaching and learning process is more effective when students evolve strategies to undesrstand how they learn.
3 Teaching and learning process is more effective when they are an active process involving students.
Creativity is known as a general ability to create something new and to share new ideas implemented in problem solving. It can also be said as an ability to undesrstand new relationship among previous elements (Munandar,1999a:25).
Everyone has a different level of creativity which effects ways of thinking, their behaviour and their competences in all aspects of life.
Based on this reserach , it is revealed that creativity plays an important role in helping students express their ideas in the written from especially in the form of argumentative essays. From the data analysis, it is shown that students with high creativity are able to show better competence in expressing their ideas in argumentative essay. It is because their creativity helps them to choose ,select,analyze and apply the most effective ,efficient and persuasive ways in argumentation. The students with high level creativity are able to involve both mental and social processes in order to yield newly developed ideasto convey and share. One’s creativity is about an ability to process a new idea in his mind is supported by his basuc function of intelligence.
One’s creativity can be seen in his or her eagernes to take part in an activity enthusistically, to behave assertively and to share with others. It can be seen from the result of their writing competence when the internet materials were applied in their class. On the other way arround , the students with low level of creativity will just rite what he sees , reads and listens without being able to think what is beyond. They are unable to come up with their own fresh ideas and opinions when learning. These are some of the reasons why their writing scores are less than those having high creativity. Their low creativity makes them unable to express their ideas better. This can be seen from the result of their writing competence in which of both control and experimental classes are lower than those of having high level of creativity from both classes given treatment.
There is an interaction between learning materials and creativity. It means that internet materials are suitable only for the students having high level of creativity to learn writing especially argumentative essay. No one denies that internet materials are believed to be more interesting and enjoyable ways for students to learn writing especially argumentative essay. Teaching writing by internet materials is one method used to increase language use and acquisition of foreign language. For example , it was found that interaction in language helps learnes to gain input in language learning process. Spesifically, it increases a synchronous communication of English as a foreign language and forces them to use language in real communication situation. In other words ,the internet
motivates learnes to use English in their daily lives and provides functional communicative experiences. Thus, students learn best when they are allowed to express themselves in such a way that they are able to express their creativity in written form.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion
The conclusions of the research which are based on the statistical analyses and the findings can be drawn as follows:
This finding will be explained below :
1. The result of the data collected through internet materials from the fires and the second test were collected. The result of two scores collected and calculated in the mean score to obtain the final score of the students’
writing whether the students are able or not improving their writing by internet materials method to write argumentative essay. Then it was observed from two components of writing according to Heaton( 1986:146) They are content and organization .
2. The students’ score of pre-test (x1) and post-test (x2), Gain/difference between the matched pairs (D) and the square of the gain (D2).
To get the answer of the researc question in the previous chapter , the writer has collected the result from two kinds of the test namely pre- test and post-test. A pre-test was given to the students before having the treatment which aimed tho know the prior knowledge of students about writing and post-test was given to the students after having the treatments which aimed to know the achievement of the students’ writing ability after they got the treatments. The pre-test and post-test were compared to see whether or not there is a signifcant improvement of the students’ writing
ability. Both pre-test as the first test and post-test as the second test were given to the students by using writing test , to get the information, to identif the problem that was faced by students’. In pre-test the students were found many difficulties in writing. Therefore, they made a lot of mistakes in writing. In treatment ,the writer led the students in learning writing through internet materials.
During learning process the writer explains how to write their argumentative essay based on the internet materials. After doing the treatment fourth meetings , the writer tried to do test again to know their writing ability in post-test. Here the students could write well. The writer observed that there was significance different the students’ writing ability and after having the treatments.
C. Suggestion
Based on the conclusions and implications written earlier, there are some suggestions proposed
1. For the Teacher
a. This research has revealed that materials taken from internet yield great impact to students’ writing performance. Thus, other English lecturers are suggested to use teaching materials taken from internet in their teaching and learning processes beside, of course, the materials from other sources.
b. Lecturers should professionally and carefully make the use of materials taken from internet in their teaching so that the students will be more enthusiastic and interested in learning. In this case, it is expected that the materials taken from internet will be able to facilitate and promote an effective and efficient learning process.
2. For Students
a. It is urgent that students enrich themselves with any available materials taken not only from provided textbooks but also from internet which provide an abundant useful material.
b. Students are expected to provide themselves with appropriate knowledge of how to use internet so that they will be able to explore anything they want from internet.
3. For Other Researchers
a. Other researchers can do further research in the field by applying some other variables involving emotional quotient, intelligent quotient, and many others.
b. The results of this research can be used as an additional reference for similar research with different variables.
sisters. She is the second child of Qamariyah and Arifin Musa.
In 2001, She started her education in SDI Tapobali NTT and graduated in 2006. She continued her study in MTS Nurul Falah NTT and graduated in 2009.
And then she continued her study in SMA Muhammadiyah lembang bu’ne Malakaji. Regency and graduated in 2012. In 2012, she again preceded her study and accepted as a student in English Department Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Makassar Muhammadiyah University to get undergraduate degree.
P
P
E
N
D
I
x
E
S
Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran
Nama sekolah : SMAN 1 Bajeng Mata Pelajaran : Bahasa Inggris Kelas/Semester : XI/1
Pertemuan ke : 2x pertemuan Alokasi Waktu : 2 x 45 menit
A. Standar kompetensi Menulis
1. Mengungkapkan makna dalam teks fungsional pendek dan monolog berbentuk narrative, explanation, dan argumentative dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari .
B. KompetensiDasar
2. Mengungkapkan makna dalam transaksional percakapan (untuk menyelesaikan sesuatu) dan interpersonal (sosial) dan resmi terus (berkelanjutan) dengan menggunakan berbagai bahasa lisan secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari Dalam teks yang berbentuk: narrative ,explanation dan argumentative.
C. Indikator
1. Siswa mampu menganalisis unsur-unsur penyusunan argumentative essay 2. Siswa mampu membuat teks essay berbentuk argumentative.
D. Tujuan Pembelajaran
1. Dibacakan sebuah wacana, siswa dapat mengidentifikasi unsur2 penyusunan essay berbentuk argumentative essay.
2. Siswa mampu membuat teks berbentuk argumentative essay .
have claimed that religion is drugs or toxin, and toxin in fact make the users drunken or unaware or fly. Thus, there is no need to have religion in this life. They can live happily in balance and in harmony without any religion beside science. They call those who need religion beside science as stupid or old fashioned. Whereby ,they call themselves as modern or up to date. The opponents to this belief, however think vice versa. Scince needs a religion to make it balance. They believes that scince without a religion is blind.
While religion also needs sciences. They believe that religion without science is lame.
Thus science and religion are catalysators for mankind to live on the track or in harmony.
They called those why do not religion beside science as crazy or insane people. In short, both sides have their own arguments to promote theor believe and each of whom blame to one another for creating this world imbalance,war, and global crisis.
F . Metode Pembelajaran/Teknik:
Internet Based Materials
G.Langkah-Langkah Kegiatan 1. Kegiatan Awal
a. Memberi salam b. Berdoa
c. Mengabsen siswa
d. Menyampaikan tujuan pembelajaran 2. Kegiatan inti
Elaborasi:
1. Guru menjelaskan unsur unsur penyusunan argumentative essay.
2. Guru memberi contoh paragraph yang berbentuk argumentative.
3. Guru meminta siswa untuk membuat essay sesuai dengan Tema yang telah diberikan.
Konfirmasi:
1. Guru meminta siswa menunjukkan essay yang telah dibuat siswa.
2. Guru memberikan umpan balik kepada siswa.
3. Kegiatan akhir
1. Guru menanyakan kesulitan yang dihadapi siswa terkait dengan teks essay argumentative essay.
2. Guru menyuruh siswa menyimpulkan materi . 3. Guru memberi motivasi
4. Doa penutup 5. Salam
H. Sumber Bahan/alat 1. Buku ( look a Head) 2. Buku teks yang relevant
I. Penilaian
Teknik: Tertulis, Performance Assessment
No Indikator penilaian Skor 1
2 3
The use of vocabulary Grammar
Content
30 30 40
Jumlah 100
INSTRUMENT TEST WRITING
Name : Class :
INSTRUCTION
Write a Narrative paragraph and choose one of the topics below that you think interesting !
1. Internet
2. Malin kundang
...
...
...
...
...
...
INSTRUMENT TEST WRITING
Name : Class :
INSTRUCTION
Write a Narrative paragraph and choose one of the topics below that you think interesting !
1. The Lion and the Mouse 2. True Friends
...
...
...
...
...
...
df ,10 ,05 ,01 ,001 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
6,314 2,920 2,353 2,132 2,015 1,943 1,895 1,860 1,833 1,812 1,796 1,782 1,771 1,761 1,753 1,746 1,740 1,734
12,706 4,303 3,182 2,776 2,571 2,447 2,365 2,306 2,626 2,228 2,201 2,179 2,160 2,145 2,131 2,120 2,110 2,101
63,657 9,925 5,841 4,604 4,032 3,707 3,499 3,355 3,250 3,169 3,106 3,055 3,012 2,977 2,947 2,921 2,898 2,878
636,619 31,598 12,924 8,610 6,869 5,959 5,408 5,041 4,781 4,587 4,437 4,318 4,221 4,140 4,037 4,015 3,965 3,922
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 40 60 120
~
1,717 1,714 1,711 1,708 1,706 1,703 1,701 1,699 1,697 1,684 1,671 1,658 1,615
2,074 2,069 2,064 2,060 2,056 2,052 2,048 2,045 2,042 2,021 2,000 1,980 1,960
2,819 2,807 2,797 2,787 2,779 2,771 2,763 2,756 2,750 2,704 2,660 2,617 2,576
3,792 3,767 3,745 3,725 3,707 3,690 3,674 3,569 3,646 3,551 3,460 3,373 3,291
No. Students Total score Score classification
1. S-01 57 Fair to poor
2. S-02 60 Fair to poor
3. S-03 60 Fair to poor
4. S-04 63 Fair to por
5. S-05 45 Very poor
6. S-06 40 Very poor
7. S-07 54 Fair to poor
8. S-08 60 Fair to poor
9. S-09 55 Fair to poor
10. S-10 70 Good to average
11. S-11 65 Fair to poor
12. S-12 65 Fair to poor
13. S-13 60 Fair to poor
16. S-16 62 Fair to poor
17. S-17 65 Fair to poor
18. S-18 72 Good to average
19. S-19 55 Fair to poor
20. S-20 64 Fair to poor
21. S-21 63 Fair to poor
The table above indicates the score of students’ writing in pre-test
2. S-02 62 Fair to poor
3. S-03 73 Good to average
4. S-04 74 Good to average
5. S-05 66 Fair to poor
6. S-06 52 Fair to poor
7. S-07 67 Fair to poor
8. S-08 72 Good to average
9. S-09 67 Fair to poor
10. S-10 81 Good to average
11. S-11 76 Good to average
12. S-12 60 Fair to poor
13. S-13 72 Good to average
14. S-14 80 Good to average
15. S-15 81 Good to average
18. S-18 66 Fair to poor
19. S-19 67 Fair to poor
20. S-20 77 Good to average
21. S-21 74 Good to average
The table above indicates the score of students writing in post-test
NO SAMPLE PRE-TEST POST-TEST GAIN(D) (X2-X1)
D2
1 S-01 57 69 12 144
2 S-02 60 62 2 121
3 S-03 60 73 13 169
4 S-04 63 74 11 121
5 S-05 45 66 21 441
6 S-06 40 52 12 144
7 S-07 54 67 13 169
8 S-08 60 72 12 144
9 S-09 55 67 12 144
10 S-10 70 81 11 121
11 S-11 65 76 11 121
12 S-12 65 60 12 144
15 S-15 68 81 13 169
16 S-16 62 73 11 121
17 S-17 65 76 11 121
18 S-18 72 66 12 144
19 S-19 55 67 12 144
20 S-20 64 77 13 169
21 S-21 63 74 11 121
N=21 ∑X1=1271 ∑X2=1485 ∑D=249 ∑D2=326
NO SUBJECT CONTENT ORGANIZATION
1 S-01 19 8
2 S-02 22 10
3 S-03 24 9
4 S-04 22 11
5 S-05 17 9
6 S-06 13 7
7 S-07 17 9
8 S-08 24 10
9 S-09 17 12
10 S-10 27 11
11 S-11 25 11
12 S-12 23 13
13 S-13 24 10
16 S-16 24 11
17 S-17 21 11
18 S-18 23 9
19 S-19 19 10
20 S-20 21 11
21 S-21 24 9
Total 454 217
Mean score 21.619 10.33
Score of the two components of the students’ writing(pre-test)
NO SUBJECT CONTENT ORGANIZATION
1 S-01 22 11
2 S-02 25 13
3 S-03 27 12
4 S-04 25 14
5 S-05 20 12
6 S-06 16 10
7 S-07 20 12
8 S-08 27 13
9 S-09 20 15
10 S-10 28 14
11 S-11 27 14
12 S-12 26 16
15 S-15 26 16
16 S-16 26 14
17 S-17 24 14
18 S-18 26 12
19 S-19 22 13
20 S-20 24 14
21 S-21 27 12
Total 513 280
Mean score 24.428 13.333
Adelstein, M, E and Prival, G. J. 1980. The Writing Commitment 2 Edition.
New York: Harcout States of America.
Boyle, O. F. 1982b. Writing: Process VS Product. In O. Boyle (Ed), Writing Lesson 2:
Lesson in Writing By Teachers (pp. 39-44). Berkeley: University of California/ Bay Area Writing Project.
Damayanti, Irma. 2009. Increasing the Students’ Writing Skill through dyadic essay confrontation technique. Skripsi. Makassar: Fakultas keguruan dan ilmu pendidikan Universitas Muhammadiyah.
Byrne, Donn. 1989. Teaching Writing skill. London; Longman Group Ltd.
Gay, L. R. 1981. Education Research Competencies for Analysis and Application. Ohio;
Merril Publishing Company.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2002. How to teach Writing. New York: Longman.
Hammond, Jenny. 1992. English for social purposes. Mscquare University Sydney: National Centre For English Language Teaching and Research.
Heaton J. B. 1988. Writing English Language Test. New ed. Longman. London and New York.
Jacobs, H. Z. Z. A Stephen. M. R. Reanna, H. V. Faye, H. B. Jane, 2003. Testing ESL Composition Profiles, A Practical Approach. Massaachussetts: New Burry House Publisher.
Lennon, John. 1992. The Writing Process: A Concise Rhetoric: Fourth Edition, New York:
Harpers Collins Publisher.
Meyers, Allan. 2005. Gateways to academic writing: Effective sentences, paragraph and Essays. New York: Longman.
Need, Elizabeth Cowan and Kate Kiefer. 1990. Writing Brief: Third Edition. Glenview:
Scoot, Foresman Company.
Oshima, Alice and Hogue, Ann. 1997. Introduction to academic Writing. London and New York: Longman Group UK Limited.
Rivers. 2000 Teaching foreign Language skill. Cambridge., Cambridge University Press.