CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
E. Techniques of Data Collection
There were two requisite data in this research; the scores of students’
linguistic intelligence (LI) and the scores of students’ writing. Both of data were obtained by using tests. The scores of students’ LI were taken from the result of an LI test that was administered before pre-test. The students were asked to complete the test in the class within 120 minutes. Based on their scores, the students from both of groups were classified into three levels of LI; high, average and low. In other hand, the scores of students’ writing analytical exposition text were obtained from the result of writing test. The writing test was conducted twice; pre-test and post-test. Pre-test was conducted to know the students’ ability before the treatment, while post-test was done to know the students’ achievement and improvement. In writing test, each student was asked to choose one of some available topics that should be developed to be an essay in form of analytical exposition text in 60 minutes.
F. Technique of Data Analysis
According to Creswell (2012, p. 175), there are several interrelated steps used in the process of analyzing quantitative data. The first step is to prepare the data and analyze it. Typically it is conducted by using a descriptive analysis of the data reporting measures of central tendency and variation. Then it is
53 continued by using more sophisticated inferential analysis to test hypotheses and examining confidence intervals and effect sizes. Next, the data analysis result is reported by using tables, figures, and a discussion. The final step is interpreting the results of the data analysis which consists of summarizing the results, comparing the results with past literature and theories, advancing the limitations of the study, and ending with suggestions for future research.
Based on the explanation above, the data then were analyzed in some steps as follows.
1. Arranging the writing scores and then classifying them into some categories.
a. Classifying writing scores of pre-test and post-test (achievement) both of groups.
Table 3.7
Classification of Writing Score
Pre-test Post-test
1) Students who were taught by using mind mapping (A1)
2) High LI students who were taught by using mind mapping (A1B1) 3) Average LI students who were
taught by using mind mapping (A1B2)
4) Low LI students who were taught by using mind mapping (A1B3) 5) Students who were taught by
using direct instruction (A2) 6) High LI students who were taught
by using direct instruction (A2B1) 7) Average LI students who were
taught by using direct instruction (A2B2)
8) Low LI students who were taught by using direct instruction (A2B3).
1) Students who were taught by using mind mapping (A1)
2) Students were taught by using mind mapping (A1B1)
3) Average LI students who were taught by using mind mapping (A1B2)
4) Low LI students were taught by using mind mapping (A1B3)
5) Students who were taught by using direct instruction (A2)
6) High LI students who were taught by using direct instruction (A2B1) 7) Average LI students who were
taught by using direct instruction (A2B2)
8) Low LI students who were taught by using direct instruction (A2B3).
b. Based on the writing scores above, then determining the improvement (gain score) both of groups.
2. Presenting the data by using descriptive analysis. Descriptive analysis meant to get a general overview of the study result. The data obtained were presented in the amount of descriptive statistics such as the average (mean), the (median), the highest frequency (mode), standard deviation (standard deviation).
3. Checking the normality and homogeneity of the sample distribution.
a. Normality Test
In this study, the normality test used Kolmogorov-Smirnov method in significance level α = 0.05 as the rule to accept or reject the normal test. The normality test was done to both experimental and control group by using statistical hypotheses as follows:
H0 = sample data is distributed normally H1 = sample is not distributed normally
The computation was performed with the assistance of SPSS version 22 for windows. Based on the criteria of this program, the data was normal if p value > 0.05 which means H0 was accepted and on the contrary H1 was rejected (data is distributed normally). P value was the number on the sig column from the table of normality test outcome by using SPSS program.
b. Homogeneity test
The purpose of homogeneity test was to find out whether the designed groups were homogenous or not. The homogeneity test for the data of writing analytical exposition text was performed by using Levene’s test in the significant level of 5%.
The hypotheses for homogeneity test were set as follows:
H0 : Data comes from homogenous population H1 : Data comes from non-homogenous population
P value > 0.05 means that H0 is accepted and H1 is automatically rejected. On the contrary, p value ≤ 0.05 implied that H1 was accepted and H0 was automatically rejected.
4. Testing the hypotheses
There were five hypotheses that must be tested:
a. There was a significant difference in writing analytical exposition text between students who were taught by using mind mapping technique and those who were taught by using direct instruction.
H01 : µ11 = µ21
Ha1 : µ11 ≠ µ21
b. There was a significant difference in writing analytical exposition text between students who had high linguistic intelligence that were taught by using mind mapping technique and those who were taught by using direct instruction.
H02 : µ12 = µ22 Ha2 : µ12 ≠ µ22
55 c. There was a significant difference in writing analytical exposition text between students who had average linguistic intelligence that were taught by using mind mapping technique and those who were taught by using direct instruction.
H03 : µ13 = µ23
Ha3 : µ13 ≠ µ23
d. There was a significant difference in writing analytical exposition text between students who had low linguistic intelligence that were taught by using mind mapping technique and those who were taught by using direct instruction.
H04 : µ14 = µ24 Ha4 : µ14 ≠ µ24
e. There was any interaction between teaching technique and students’
linguistic intelligence on students’ writing analytical exposition text.
H05 : Int. A*B = 0 Ha5 : Int. A*B ≠ 0
If the data distributed normally and homogeny, the data would be analyzed by using two-way ANOVA and Paired-Sample Test with assistance of SPSS 22.
ANOVA is used when the researcher desires to find out whether there are significant differences between the means of two groups or more (Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. 236). In other words, it is a used when more than one independent variable is investigated, as in factorial design. Another useful thing that can be done in ANOVA is to look at interaction effect (Muijs, 2004, p. 197). However, if the data did not distribute normally and homogeny, the data would be analyzed by using statistic non-parametric such as Mann-Whitney test or Kruskal-Wallis test (Siregar, 2013, p. 368).
Then the hypotheses were tested by applying two ways of hypothesis testing criteria.
1) By using p value
P value ≤ 0.05 meant Ho was rejected.
P value > 0.05 meant Ho was accepted.
2) By comparing coefficient Fobserved with Ftable.
Fobserved > Ftable meant Ho was rejected.
Fobserved ≤ Ftable meant H0 was accepted.
5. Finally, interpreting the results from the data analysis. This consisted of summarizing the results, comparing the results with past literature and theories, advancing the limitations of the study, and ending with suggestions for future research.
57 CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presented the findings of the study which was concerned to answer the research questions. In this case, it discussed the way of investigating the effect of mind mapping technique and linguistic intelligence (LI) on students’
writing analytical exposition text at the eleventhgrade students of SMAN 2 Muara Teweh in academic year 2015/2016. The first sub-heading was research finding which covered the data descriptions, the prerequisite tests for data analysis, and the hypotheses testing. It then was continued by the discussion of research findings.
A. Research Finding 1. The Data Description
The description of writing score was presented into three sections; the pre- test data, post-test data and N gain score. In order to answer the research question, the data of each section then were classified into eight categories; A1, A2, A1B1, A1B2, A1B3, A2B1, A2B2, and A2B3. The following descriptive statistic of the data was performed to determine the range of the data, average, median, mode, and standard deviation. All of statistical description and calculation of tests were performed through SPSS 22.00.
a. Data Description of Pre-test Score
The data of pre-test score was presented in the table below.
Table 4.1
Descriptive Statistic of Pre-test Score
A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 A1B1 A1B2 A1B3 A2B1 A2B2 A2B3
N Valid 21 21 14 14 14 7 7 7 7 7 7
Missing 0 0 7 7 7 14 14 14 14 14 14
Mean 50.33 53.52 59.00 50.57 46.21 58.43 48.00 44.57 59.57 53.14 47.86 Std. Error of Mean 1.712 2.742 2.859 2.420 2.041 2.339 1.773 1.824 5.464 4.474 3.719 Median 49.00 52.00 55.50 47.00 46.00 57.00 46.00 44.00 52.00 53.00 50.00
Mode 45 38a 52a 45 40a 52a 45 44 78 38a 36a
Std. Deviation 7.84 12.57 10.7 9.05 7.64 6.19 4.7 4.83 14.46 11.84 9.84 Variance 61.53 157.7 114.5 81.96 58.34 38.29 22.00 23.28 208.9 140.1 96.81 Skewness .669 .541 .655 .873 .363 .639 2.062 -.504 .505 .117 -.032 Std. Error of Skewness .501 .501 .597 .597 .597 .794 .794 .794 .794 .794 .794 Kurtosis .187 -.521 -.618 -.098 -.831 -1.19 4.493 -.998 -2.03 -1.7 -2.11 Std. Error of Kurtosis .972 .972 1.154 1.154 1.154 1.587 1.587 1.587 1.587 1.587 1.587
Range 31 42 33 30 24 16 13 13 33 30 24
Minimum 37 36 45 38 36 52 45 37 45 38 36
Maximum 68 78 78 68 60 68 58 50 78 68 60
Sum 1057 1124 826 708 647 409 336 312 417 372 335
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Note:
A1 = The scores of students who were taught by using mind mapping technique A2 = The scores of students who were taught by using direct instruction
technique
B1 = The scores of high LI students B2 = The scores of average LI students B3 = The scores of low LI students
A1B1 = The scores of high LI students who were taught by using mind mapping A1B2 = The scores of average LI students who were taught by using mind
mapping
A1B3= The scores of low LI students who were taught by using mind mapping A2B1 = The scores of high LI students who were taught by using direct instruction A2B2 = The scores of average LI students who were taught by using direct
instruction
A2B3 = The scores of low LI students who were taught by using direct instruction Here are the data descriptions of pre test score of each group.
1. The Pre-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for Students who were Taught by Using Mind Mapping Technique (A1)
The respondents of experimental class were 21 students who were taught by using mind mapping technique (A1). The empiric scores of pre-test showed that the highest score was 68 and the lowest score was 37. Furthermore, the mean was 50.33, the median was 49.00, the mode was 45, the standard of deviation was 7.84, and the variance was 61.53. To make it clear, it can be seen in the display of histogram below.
Figure 4.1
The Graph of Writing Pre-test Scores for A1
59 2. The Pre-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for High LI
Students who were Taught by Using Mind Mapping Technique (A1B1) The respondents of experimental class were 21 students where 7 of them were posed as high linguistic intelligence students (A1B1). The empiric scores of pre-test stated that the highest score of high LI students who were taught by using mind mapping was 68 and the lowest score was 52. Furthermore, the mean was 58.43, the median 57.00, the mode was 52, the standard of deviation was 6.188, and the variance 38.27. To make it clear, we can see the display of the histogram which presented below.
Figure 4.2
The Graph of Writing Pre-test Scores for A1B1
3. The Pre-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for Average LI Students who were Taught by Using Mind Mapping Technique (A1B2)
The respondents of experimental group were 21 students where 7 of them were classified as average LI students (A1B2). The empiric scores of pre-test showed that the highest score of average LI students who were taught by using mind mapping was 58 and the lowest was 45. Furthermore, the mean was 47.14, the median was 46.00, the mode was 45, the standard of deviation was 4.69, and the variance 22.00. To make it clear, we can see the display of the histogram which is presented below.
Figure 4.3
The Graph of Writing Pre-test Scores for A1B2
4. The Pre-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for Low LI Students who were Taught by Using Mind Mapping Technique (A1B3)
The respondents of experimental class were 21 students where 7 of them were classified as low LI students (A1B3). The empiric scores of pre-test showed that the highest score of low LI students who were taught by using mind mapping was 50 and the lowest score was 37. Furthermore, the mean was 44.57, the median was 44.00, the mode was 44, the standard of deviation was 4.83 and the variance was 23.29. To make it clear, it can be seen in the display of histogram which is presented below.
Figure 4.4
The Graph of Writing Pre-test Scores for A1B3
61 5. The Pre-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for Students
who were Taught by Using Direct Instruction Technique (A2)
The respondents of controlled class were 21 students who were taught by using direct instruction (A2). The empiric scores of pre-test showed that the highest score was 78 and the lowest score was 36. Furthermore, the mean was 53.52, the median was 52.00, the mode was 38, the standard of deviation was 12.57 and the variance was 157.86. To make it clear, it can be seen in the display of histogram which is presented below.
Figure 4.5
The Graph of Writing Pre-test Scores for A2
6. The Pre-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for High LI Students who were Taught by Using Direct Instruction Technique (A2B1)
The respondents of controlled class were 21 students where 7 of them were categorized as high LI students (A2B1). The empiric scores of pre-test showed that the highest score of high LI students who were taught by using direct instruction was 78 and the lowest score was 45. Furthermore, the mean was 59.57, the median was 46.00, the mode was 45, the standard of deviation was 14.455 and the variance was 22.00. To make it clear, it can be seen in the display of histogram which is presented below.
Figure 4.6
The Graph of Writing Pre-test Scores for A2B1
7. The Pre-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for Average LI Students who were Taught by Using Direct Instruction Technique (A2B2)
The respondents of controlled class were 21 students where 7 of them were categorized as average LI students (A2B2). The empiric scores of pre-test showed that the highest score of average LI students who were taught by using direct instruction was 68 and the lowest score was 38. Furthermore, the mean was 53.14, the median was 53.00, the mode was 38, the standard of deviation was 11.87 and the variance was 140.143. To make it clear, it can be seen in the display of histogram which is presented below.
Figure 4.7
The Graph of Writing Pre-test Scores for A2B2
63 8. The Pre-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for Low LI Students who were Taught by Using Direct Instruction Technique (A2B3)
The respondents of controlled class were 21 students where 7 of them were classified as low LI students (A2B3). The empiric scores of pre-test showed that the highest score of low LI students who were taught by using direct instruction was 60 and the lowest score was 36. Furthermore, the mean was 47.86, the median was 50.00, the mode was 36, the standard of deviation was 9.84 and the variance was 96.81. To make it clear, it can be seen in the display of histogram below.
Figure 4.8
The Graph of Writing Pre-test Scores for A2B3
b. The Data Description of Post-test Result
The result of post-test will be described in the table below.
Table 4.2
Descriptive Statistic of Post-test
A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 A1B1 A1B2 A1B3 A2B1 A2B2 A2B3
N Valid 21 21 14 14 14 7 7 7 7 7 7
Missing 0 0 7 7 7 14 14 14 14 14 14
Mean 64.81 60.29 73.50 60.71 54.00 74.14 64.71 56.71 72.86 56.71 51.29 Std. Error of Mean 2.072 2.585 1.660 2.170 2.128 2.029 2.201 3.198 2.773 3.198 2.634 Median 64.00 61.00 72.00 62.00 54.00 72.00 64.00 55.00 72.00 55.00 53.00
Mode 52a 45a 70 47a 45a 70 57a 47 64a 47 45
Std. Deviation 9.495 11.85 6.211 8.119 7.961 5.367 5.823 8.460 7.335 8.460 6.969 Variance 90.16 140.3 38.58 65.91 63.39 28.81 33.91 71.57 53.81 71.57 48.57 Skewness -.050 .297 .111 -.410 .264 .297 .005 .102 .230 .102 .065 Std. Error of Skewness .501 .501 .597 .597 .597 .794 .794 .794 .794 .794 .794 Kurtosis -.717 -.772 -1.26 -.769 -1.03 -2.23 -1.68 -1.78 -1.36 -1.78 -1.84 Std. Error of Kurtosis .972 .972 1.154 1.154 1.154 1.587 1.587 1.587 1.587 1.587 1.587
Range 34 40 19 25 25 13 15 21 19 21 18
Minimum 47 43 64 47 43 68 57 47 64 47 43
Maximum 81 83 83 72 68 81 72 68 83 68 61
Sum 1361 1266 1029 850 756 519 453 397 510 397 359
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Note:
A1 = The scores of students who were taught by using mind mapping technique A2 = The scores of students who were taught by using direct instruction
technique
B1 = The scores of high LI students B2 = The scores of average LI students B3 = The scores of low LI students
A1B1 = The scores of high LI students who were taught by using mind mapping A1B2 = The scores of average LI students who were taught by using mind
mapping
A1B3= The scores of low LI students who were taught by using mind mapping A2B1 = The scores of high LI students who were taught by using direct instruction A2B2 = The scores of average LI students who were taught by using direct
instruction
A2B3 = The scores of low LI students who were taught by using direct instruction Here are the data descriptions of post test score of each group.
65 1. The Post-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for Students
Who were Taught by Using Mind Mapping Technique (A1)
The respondents of experimental class were 21 students who were taught by using mind mapping technique (A1). The empiric scores of post-test stated that the highest score was 81 and the lowest score was 47. Furthermore, the mean was 64.81, the median was 64.00, the mode was 52, the standard of deviation was 9.49, and the variance was 90.16. To make it clear, it can be seen in the display of histogram below.
Figure 4.9
The Graph of Writing Post-test Scores for A1
2. The Post-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for High LI Students who were Taught by Using Mind Mapping Technique (A1B1)
The respondents of experimental class were 21 students where 7 of them were posed as high linguistic intelligence students (A1B1). The empiric scores of post-test stated that the highest score of high LI students who were taught by using mind mapping was 81 and the lowest score was 68. Furthermore, the mean was 74.14, the median 72.00, the mode was 70, the standard of deviation was 5.37, and the variance 28.81. To make it clear, we can see the display of the histogram below.
Figure 4.10
The Graph of Writing Post-test Scores for A1B1
3. The Post-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for Average LI Students who were Taught by Using Mind Mapping Technique (A1B2)
The respondents of experimental class were 21 students where 7 of them were posed as average linguistic intelligence students (A1B2). The empiric score of post-test stated that the highest score of average LI students who were taught by using mind mapping was 72 and the lowest score was 57. Furthermore, the mean was 64.71, the median 64.00, the mode was 57, the standard of deviation was 5.82, and the variance 33.91. It can see the display of the histogram below.
Figure 4.11
The Graph of Writing Post-test Scores for A1B2
67 4. The Post-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for Low LI
Students who were Taught by Using Mind Mapping Technique (A1B3) The respondents of experimental class were 21 students where 7 of them were categorized as low linguistic intelligence students (A1B3). The empiric scores of post-test stated that the highest score of low LI students who were taught by using mind mapping was 68 and the lowest score was 47. Furthermore, the mean was 56.71, the median 55.00, the mode was 47, the standard of deviation was 8.46, and the variance 71.57. To make it clear, we can see the display of the histogram below.
Figure 4.12
The Graph of Writing Post-test Scores for A1B3
5. The Post-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for Students who were Taught by Using Direct Instruction Technique (A2)
The respondents of controlled class were 21 students who were taught by using direct instruction (A2). The empiric scores of post-test stated that the highest score was 83 and the lowest score was 43. Furthermore, the mean was 60.29, the median 61.00, the mode was 45, the standard of deviation was 11.84, and the variance 140.31. To make it clear, we can see the display of the histogram which is presented below.
Figure 4.13
The Graph of Writing Post-test Scores for A2
6. The Post-test Scores of Writing Analytical Exposition Text for High LI Students who were Taught by Using Direct Instruction Technique (A2B1)
The respondents of controlled class were 21 students where 7 of them were classified as high linguistic intelligence students (A2B1). The empiric scores of post-test stated that the highest score of high LI students who were taught by using direct instruction was 83 and the lowest score was 64. Furthermore, the mean was 72.86, the median 72.00, the mode was 64, the standard of deviation was 7.33, and the variance 53.81. To make it clear, we can see the display of the histogram below.
Figure 4.14
The Graph of Writing Post-test Scores for A2B1