CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
F. Technique of Data Analysis
a. The Accuracy of Pronunciation
Table. 3.2 Scoring Rubric of Pronunciation
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 6
Pronunciation is only very slightly influenced by the mother tongue. Two or three grammatical and lexical errors.
Very Good 5
Pronunciation is slightly influenced by the mother tongue. A few minor grammatical and lexical errors but most utterance is correct.
Good 4
Pronunciation is still moderately influence by the mother tongue but no serious phonological errors.
A few grammatical and lexical errors but one or two major errors causing confusion.
Fair 3
Pronunciation influenced by mother tongue but only a few serious phonological errors. Several grammatical and lexical errors, some of which cause confusing.
Poor 2 Pronunciation seriously influenced by the mother tongue with errors causing a breakdown in communication many basic grammatical and
lexical errors.
Very Poor 1
Serious pronunciation errors as well as many basic grammatical and lexical errors. No evidenced of having mastered any of the language skills and areas practiced in the course.
(Heaton, 1988: 99) b. The Accuracy of Vocabulary
Table. 3.3 Scoring Rubric of Vocabulary
Classification Score Criteria
Excellence 6
Speak without too great an effort with a fairly wide range of expression. Searches for words occasionally but only one or two unnatural pauses.
Very good 5
Has to make an effort at time to search for words.
Nevertheless, smooth delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural.
Good 4
Although he has to make an effort and search for words, there re not too many unnatural pauses.
Fairly smooth delivery mostly. Occasionally fragmentary but succeeds in conveying the general meaning. Fair range of expression.
Average 3
Has to make an effort for much of the time. Often has to search for the desired meaning. Rather halting delivery and fragmentary. Range of expression often limited.
Poor 2
Long pauses while he searched for the desired meaning. Frequently and halting delivery. Almost gives up making the effort at times limited range of expression.
Very poor 1
Full of long and unnatural pauses. Very halting and fragmentary delivery. At times gives up making the effort. Very limited range of expression.
(Heaton, 1988:99)
c. The Accuracy of Grammar
Table 3.4 Scoring Rubric of Grammar.
Classification Score Criteria
Excellence 6
Speak without too great an effort with a fairly wide range of expression. Searches for words occasionally but only one or two unnatural pauses.
Very good 5
Has to make an effort at time to search for words.
Nevertheless, smooth delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural.
Good 4
Although he has to make an effort and search for words, there re not too many unnatural pauses.
Fairly smooth delivery mostly. Occasionally fragmentary but succeeds in conveying the general meaning. Fair range of expression.
Average 3
Has to make an effort f
or much of the time. Often has to search for the desired meaning. Rather halting delivery and
(Heaton, 1988:99)
In this section, the researcher was analyzed the data using the statistical analysis.
2. To know the mean score, the formula was used:
̅ =Σ
Notes:
X: any score
̅: the mean, or arithmetic average, of the score N: total number of subjects
Σ:the sum of; add them up Gay (1981:297-298) 3. To know the result of T-Test, the formula was used:
There was a significant difference of means between the control and experimental groups. The formula in calculating independent t-test was:
fragmentary. Range of expression often limited.
Poor 2
Long pauses while he searched for the desired meaning. Frequently and halting delivery. Almost gives up making the effort at times limited range of expression.
Very poor 1
Full of long and unnatural pauses. Very halting and fragmentary delivery. At times gives up making the effort. Very limited range of expression.
= 1− 2 1+
1 + 2 − 1
1
1 + 1
2
ℎ = Σ 12– (Σx )2
1 1 = Σ 22 − (Σ 2)2
2
x1 = Score of experimental group x2 = Score of control group
1 = Mean of experimental group
2 = Mean of control group
n1 = Number of subject of experimental group n2 = Number of subject of control group SS = Sum of Square
(Gay, 1998:55)
The next was comparing the value of t with t table. The researcher selected α = 0.05 then determined the appropriate degrees of freedom by using n1+ n2 – 2. . the t ratio > t table, it means that the hypothesis was not rejected, there was a significant difference between two groups. In contrary, t ratio < t able, the hypothesis was rejected, there was no significant difference between the two groups (Coolidge, 2000:77)
= 1 − 2
1+
1+ 2 − 1
1
1 + 1
2
ℎ = Σ 12– (Σx )2
1 1 = Σ 22 − (Σ 2)2
2
x1 = Score of experimental group x2 = Score of control group
1 = Mean of experimental group
2 = Mean of control group
n1 = Number of subject of experimental group n2 = Number of subject of control group SS = Sum of Square
(Gay, 1998:55)
The next was comparing the value of t with t table. The researcher selected α = 0.05 then determined the appropriate degrees of freedom by using n1+ n2 –2. . the t ratio > t table, it means that the hypothesis was not rejected, there was a significant difference between two groups. In contrary, t ratio < t able, the hypothesis was rejected, there was no significant difference between the two groups (Coolidge, 2000:77)
= 1 − 2
1+
1+ 2 − 1
1
1 + 1
2
ℎ = Σ 12– (Σx )2
1 1 = Σ 22 − (Σ 2)2
2
x1 = Score of experimental group x2 = Score of control group
1 = Mean of experimental group
2 = Mean of control group
n1 = Number of subject of experimental group n2 = Number of subject of control group SS = Sum of Square
(Gay, 1998:55)
The next was comparing the value of t with t table. The researcher selected α = 0.05 then determined the appropriate degrees of freedom by using n1+ n2 –2. . the t ratio > t table, it means that the hypothesis was not rejected, there was a significant difference between two groups. In contrary, t ratio < t able, the hypothesis was rejected, there was no significant difference between the two groups (Coolidge, 2000:77)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Findings
In finding section, the researcher presents finding based on the data collected during the research. The aimed of this study would to find out the significance different between of the students speaking accuracy taught through the use of Quantum Teaching method and those who are taught through the use of Direct method. The explanation can be seen as follows:
1. The results of pretest for experimental group and control group.
a. The results of the students speaking accuracy in pretest for experimental and control.
The pre-test was aimed to discover the equity of the two groups before administering treatments by using t-test procedure. It was conducted on October, 13th 2015 to two classes of the seventh grade students of MTs YASPI Sambung Jawa. The pre-test involved 34 students that divided into two classes. Class VII A was as experimental group and VII B was as control group. Each of group consists of 17 students. In assessing students’ speaking, this study assessed three aspects of speaking namely, pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar.
The table below would describe the result of students speaking accuracy in pretest for experimental group and control group.
27
Table. 4.1 the result of students speaking accuracy in pretest for experimental group and control group.
(source: appendix 1.a and 1.b) In pretest, the pronunciation of the students was conducted by using recorder. The result of students’ pronunciation in pretest showed that the mean score students’ pronuciationin experimental group was 4.71. And the mean score in control group was 4.02.
The mean score of the students’s vocabulary in pretest for exprimental group was 4.80. the result of mean score students vocabulary in control group was 4.71.
The result of the students’ grammar in pretest showed that the mean score of the students’ grammar in experimental group was 4.21. The result of mean score students vocabulary in control group was 3.72.
Speaking accuracy Mean score in pretest Experimental group Control group
Pronunciation 4.71 4.02
Vocabulary 4.8 4.71
Grammar 4.21 3.72
b. The mean score students speaking accuracy in pretest for experimental and control group.
The result of mean score students accuracy in pretest was from the total of score students accuracy that have conducted. The mean score result in experimental group was 4.58, and the mean score result of control group was 4.15. The result was described in table below:
Tabel 4.2 the mean score in pretest Mean score
Students Experimental Group Control group
N=17 = 4.58 = 4.15
(source: appendix 1.c) Based on the table above, the mean score of experimental group in pretest was 4.58, and the mean score of control group was 4.15. It means the mean score experimental group was higher than control group before treatment was given.
c. The significant testing of t-tes and t-table in pretest.
Table above show the significance result of t-test and t-table.
table 4.3 the significant result of t-tes and t-table in pretest.
Student Pretest Significance
N= 17 t-test t-table Not significance
1.95 2.042
(source: appendix 1.d)
The result of the calculation of t-test on pre-test (in appendix 1.d) was 1.95. In the t-table (in appendix 3) forα= 0.05 df = 32 t-ratio was 2.042. The data showed from the experimental and control groups were equal with the value of t was lower than t-table (1.95 < 2.042). It indicated that the alternative hypothesis was rejected; there was no significant difference between the data of the two groups. This result implied that the experimental and control group were similar in their initial ability.
2. The results of postest for experimental group and control group.
a. The results of the students speaking accuracy in postest for experimental and control.
The post-test was aimed to discover the equity of the two groups after administering treatments by using t-test procedure. It was conducted on October, 27th 2015 to two classes of the seventh grade students of MTs YASPI Sambung Jawa. The pre-test involved 34 students that divided into two classes. Class VII A was as experimental group and VII B was as control group. Each of group consists of 17 students. In assessing students’ speaking, this study assessed three aspects of speaking namely, pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar.
The table below would describe the result of students speaking accuracy in pretest for experimental group and control group.
Table. 4.4 the result of students speaking accuracy in postest for experimental group and control group.
(source: appendix 2.a and 2.b) In posttest, the pronunciation of the students was conducted by using recorder. The result of students’ pronunciation in posttest which showed that the mean score students’ pronuciation in experimental was 7.06. The mean score students pronuciation in control group was 4.41.
The result of the students’s pronunciation in posttest which showed that mean score students’vocabulary in exprimental group was 6.28. The mean score students vocabulary in control group was4.8. The result of the students’ grammar in posttest which showed that the mean score of the students’ grammar in experimental group was 5.49. The mean score students grammar in control group was 3.43.
Speaking accuracy Mean score in posttest Experimental group Control group
Pronunciation 7.06 4.41
Vocabulary 6.28 4.8
Grammar 5.49 3.43
b. The mean score in posttest for experimental and control group.
The result of mean score students speaking accuracy in posttest was from the total of score students accuracy that have conducted. The mean score result in experimental group was 5.45, and the mean score result of control group was 4.21. The result was described in table below:
Tabel 4.5 the mean score in postest Mean score
Students Experimental Group Control group
N=17 = 5.45 = 4.21
Based on the table above, the condition of both classes could be seen on the chart below:
Chart 4.1 Mean Score of Experimental and Control Group on Post-Test
Experimental Control
Mean Score 5,45 4,21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mean Score
The chart above showed that the means of both experimental and control groups were significantly different. Mean of experimental group was higher than mean of control group after conducting treatment.
c. The significant testing of t-tes and t-table in postest.
Table above show the significance result of t-test and t-table.
table 4.6 the significant result of t-tes and t-table in postest.
Students Postest Significance
N= 17 t-test t-table Significance
2.69 2.042
(source: appendix 2.d)
The result of the calculation of t-test on post-test (in appendix 2.d) was 2.69. In the t-table (in appendix 3) for α = 0.05 df =32 t-ratio was 2.042. Based on the calculation, the value of t was higher than the ratio on t table, 2.69 < 2.042. According to the result, it could be concluded that the alternative hypothesis was not rejected. There was a significant difference between students who were assigned Quantum teaching method and students who were not.
3. The significance testing between pretest and posttest who are taught through Quantum Teaching method and who are taugh through Direct Method.
The significance different would be shown with compare the result of t-test and t-table in pretest and post test in experimental and control group by describe table below:
Table 4.7 the significance testing of t-test and t-table
Based on the table above, the value of t-test in pretest was 1.95, it means the value of t-test was lower than t-table, so there was no significance different between two group. But after treatment was given the value of t- test was higher than t-table. So, there was significance difference between two group.
t-test t-table Significance
Pretest 1.95 2.042 Not Significance
Posttest 2.69 2.042 Significance
B. Discussion
In this part, discussion dealing with the interpretation of findings derived from the result of findings of students’ accuracy in speaking through the use of Quantum Teaching Method and those who are taught through the use of Direct Method. Before treatment was given the students speaking ability in term accuracy was very low (categorized very poor). The condition might be caused teaching method and less speaking practice, so that the students cannot improve their speaking achievement.
Based on the finding, the result of score in post-test was greater than pre- test in terms accuracy of speaking. In pre-test, the researcher actually found the most students did not know how to pronunciate the words, and they did not know the structure of sentences. After giving the treatment, their ability was significance improved.
1. The results of pretest
Based on the finding the result of pre-test in experimental and control group before the treatment was given. In Pre-test of experimental group, according to table 4.1, the result of students’ pronunciation in pretest which showed that the sum students’ pronuciation in experimental group was 79.99, and the mean score was 4.71. And the sum result of students’ pronunciation in control group was 68.3, and the mean score was 4.02.
The sum result of students’vocabulary in pretest for experimental group was 81.66, and the mean score was 4.80. and the sum result of students’ vocabulary in control group was 79.99,and the mean score was 4.71.
And the sum result of students’ grammar in pretest for experimental group was 71.64, and the mean score was 4.21. The sum result in control group was 63.29 and the mean score was 3.72.
And table 4.2 was shown the mean score of experimental group was 4.58, and in control group was 4.15, it means the mean score of experimental group was higher than control group before treatment was given.
So, according to mean score of experimental and control group who have calculated, the result of t-test was 1.95, and the result of t-table was 2.042 because df result was 32 students. It means there was not significance different between two group because the result of t-tes was lower than t-table 1.95<2.042.
2. The result of posttest
Based on the finding the result of post-test in experimental and control group after treatment was given. In post-test of experimental group, table 4.4 was showed the result of students’ pronunciation that the sum students was 120, and the mean score was 7.06, the sum result of pronunciation in pretest for control group was 74.98, and the mean score was 4.41.
The sum result of students vocabulary in pretest for experimental group was 108.68, and the mean score was 6.28, and the sum result in control group was 81.66, and the mean score was 4.8.
The sum result of students grammar in pretest for experimental group was 93.35, and the mean score was 5.49, and the sum result in control class was 58.28, the mean score was 3.48
And table 4.5 was shown the mean score of experimental group was 5.45, and in control group was 4.21. It means after treatment was given the mean score of experimental group always higher than control group.
So, according to mean score of experimental and control group who have calculated, the result of t-test was 2.69, and the result of t-table was 2.042 because df result was 32 students. It means there was significance difference after treatment was given because the result of t- tes was higher than t-table 2.69>2.042.
3. The significance different result between pretest and posttest who are taught through Quantum Teaching method and who are taugh through Direct Method.
According to table 4.7, there was result of t-test and t-table in experimental and control group. The result of t-test in pretest was 1.95, and the value of t-table was 32 =2.042. And the result of t-test in posttest was 2.69, and the value of t-table was 32=2.042.
Coolidge(2000:77) states is if the t ratio > t table, it means that the hypothesis was not rejected, there was a significant difference between two groups. In contrary, t ratio < t able, the hypothesis was rejected, there was no significant difference between the two groups.
So, Before treatment were given. In pretest result, there was no significant between two groups, because value of T-test was 1.95, and value of T-table was 32. It means t was lower than t-table (1.95>2.042), it indicated that alternative hypothesis was rejected.
And after treatment was given, in Posttest result, there was significant between two groups, because value of t-test was 2.69, and value of t-table was 32. It means it was t-test higher than t-table (2.69>2.042), it indicated that alternative hypothesis was not rejected. So, There was a significant difference between students who are taught through Quantum teaching method and students who are taught through Direct Method.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
Based on the result and the discussion of the findings previously, the writer took conclusions as follows:
1. The result of pretest, before treatment was given. The mean score in experimental group was higher than control group. The result of t-tes was lower than t-table, it means there was no significance between two group.
2. The result of posttest, there was significant difference after the treatment was conducted in posttest. Because the mean score of experimental group was increased and the mean result of experimental group was permanent higher than control group. The result of t-test was higher than t-table, it means there was significance between two group after treatment was given.
3. Before treatment were given. In pretest result, there was no significant between T-test and T-table, because value of T-test was lower than t- table, it indicated that alternative hypothesis was rejected.
And after treatment was given, in post test result, there was significant between T-test and T-table, because value of t-test was higher than t- table, it indicated that alternative hypothesis was not rejected.
So, this study has proven that Quantum teaching method was effective in terms of improving students’ Speaking skill. It could be seen on the
39
means’ scores on both of control and experimental group where the experimental group gained higher than the control group after treatment was given. That was the reason why the Quantum teaching method was effective than Direct Method.
B. Suggestions
Suggestions are directed to:
1. English Teachers
Teachers should take advantage of Quantum teaching method in teaching English especially for Speaking class not only to teach but also to create and enhance students’ motivation, interest and achievement. For English teacher of MTs YASPI Sambung Jawa, who teach English as a foreign language should be cognizant of the benefits of using Quantum Teaching method in learning English specially in Speaking class. A combination of their skills, experience and the use of Quantum Teaching method will definitely bring about a more effective teaching and learning.
2. Future Researchers
For future researchers, it is suggested that this study could be a reference to conduct other research on the same field. Future researchers may use true experimental research design to know whether or not the use of Quantum teaching method is effective in improving students’ abilities in other skills, such as writing, reading and listening.