CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
A. The Data Description
2. The Data of Research
This research was conducted on the eleventh grade of SMA Muhammadiyah 2 Metro in one class. It was class XI IPA 2 which consist of 30 students. This research was held from Mei 16-30, 2016.
53
The researcher conducted the research by steps, and the explanation was as follows:
a. Pre-test Result
To measure the students writing hortatory exposition performance the researcher used the pre-test before giving the treatment. The student had been ordered to build up a hortatory exposition text. The researcher gave the students some topic related to hortatory exposition text, they had to choose one of the topic and build a hortatory exposition text based on the topic. They were given 45 minutes to finish the test. The result of pretest can be shown as follows:
Table 5
The Pre-Test Score of Writing Hortatory Exposition Performance at The Eleventh Grade of Senior High School Muhammadiyah 2
Metro
No Students Initial The Score of Pre- test
1 AS 60
2 AR 50
3 AN 58
4 AAP 50
5 AK 58
6 AN 56
7 AN 63
8 CNF 45
9 CAT 58
10 DS 58
11 DA 68
12 DKS 80
13 EF 45
14 EO 46
15 HH 82
54
16 IK 50
17 IR 60
18 LM 40
19 MS 46
20 MWI 52
21 MIP 60
22 MFS 47
23 OBS 59
24 RH 50
25 S 49
26 S 72
27 SR 59
28 YS 58
29 SW 49
30 AP 49
Total 1677
The Highest Score 82 The Lowest Score 40
Average 55,9
Source: The pre-test score of students’ writing hortatory exposition performance on Mei 19th, 2016.
From the data above, it can be found that the highest score was 82 and the lowest score was 40. Based on the data, the researcher measured the class interval by using the formula as follows:
K= 1 + 3,3 log n K= 1 + 3,3 log 30 K= 1 + 3,3 × 1,47 K= 1 + 4,87 K= 5,87 ≈ 6
R= H (highest score) – L (lowest score) + 1 R= 82 – 40 + 1
R= 43 I=
55
I=
I= 7,167 ≈ 7 Note
R = The distance from score maximum and score minimum H = The highest score
L = The lowest score
K = The number of interval class I = The length of interval class n = Total of participant
The total of class interval of this result pretest research was 7.
After knowing the class interval, the data taken from interval above was put on the table of frequency distribution, as follows:
Table 6
The Frequency Distribution of Students’ Score in Pre-Test of Writing Hortatory Exposition Performance
No Class Interval Frequency Percentage %
1 75-82 2 6,67 %
2 68-74 2 6,67 %
3 61-67 1 3,33 %
4 54-60 12 40 %
5 47-53 8 26,67 %
6 40-46 5 16,66 %
Total 30 100 %
If the data was put into graphic, it can be seen as follow:
Figure 2
The Graphic of Frequency Distribution of The Students’ Score Pre–Test of Writing Hortatory Exposition Performance
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
75-82 68-74 61-67 54-60 47-53 40-46
Frequency Percentage
56
Based on the table frequency distribution and graphic above, it can be inferred that 30 students as the research sample can be divided:
1) For the class interval of 40-46, there were 5 student or 16,66%.
2) For the class interval of 47-53, there were 8 students or 26,67% . 3) For the class interval of 54-60, there were 12 students or 40% . 4) For the class interval of 61-67, there was only 1 students or 27% . 5) For the class interval of 68-74, there were 2 students or 6, 67%.
6) For the class interval of 75-82, there were 2 student or 6,67%.
The table and graphic above show that most of students got lower grade than 70, they were 27 students. The criteria of students who are successful in mastering the material are the students who got score more than 70, it was only 3 students or 10%. The average grade of pre-test is 55,9. It shows that the score of the students’ writing hortatory exposition performance in pre test was not satisfactory. It became one of the reasons why researcher used fishbone strategy as an alternative strategy to teach English especially in writing hortatory exposition performance. It was done to know the influence of the
57
fishbone strategy on students’ writing hortatory exposition performance.
b. Post-test Result
After knowing the pre-test score of the students’ writing hortatory exposition performance, it might be assumed that the students got poor score. Therefore, the researcher conducted the treatment to help the students in understanding of writing hortatory exposition performance. The researcher gave treatment by using fishbone strategy. The researcher asked to the students about the difficulties in building up a hortatory exposition text and gave more explanation about the writing hortatory exposition text by using fishbone strategy. The researcher explained about what the fishbone strategy is, and also explained about the procedure of fishbone strategy in learning process. Therefore, the students were curious and interested to use this strategy in learning writing hortatory exposition.
In this process the researcher saw that the students were interested and they motivated to study writing more by using this strategy, at the end. The researcher gave post-test to know their writing hortatory exposition performance after they were given the instruction (treatment).
58
To measure the influence of fishbone strategy, the researcher tested the students to build a hortatory exposition text. The score of the post-test can be described as follows:
Table 7
The Post-Test Score of Writing Hortatory Exposition Performance at The Eleventh Grade of SMA Muhammadiyah 2
Metro
No Students Initial The Score of Posttest
1 AS 82
2 AR 80
3 AN 74
4 AAP 74
5 AK 69
6 AN 86
7 AN 88
8 CNF 82
9 CAT 85
10 DS 76
11 DA 83
12 DKS 91
13 EF 72
14 EO 75
15 HH 93
16 IK 82
17 IR 86
18 LM 78
19 MS 75
20 MWI 75
21 MIP 85
22 MFS 77
23 OBS 80
24 RH 75
25 S 70
26 S 89
27 SR 69
28 YS 74
29 SW 78
59
30 AP 76
Total 2379
The Highest Score 93 The Lowest Score 69
Average 79,3
Source: The score of post-test of students’ writing hortatory exposition performance on Mei 30th, 2016.
From the data above, it can be found that the highest score was 93 and the lowest score was 69. Based on the data, the researcher measured the class interval by using the formula as follows:
K= 1 + 3,3 log n K= 1 + 3,3 log 30 K= 1 + 3,3 × 1,47 K= 1 + 4,87 K= 5,87 ≈ 6
R=H (highest score) –L (lowest score) + 1 R= 93 – 69 + 1
R= 25
I=
I=
I= 4,167 ≈ 4
Note :
60
R = The distance from score maximum and score minimum H = The highest score
L = The lowest score
K = The number of interval class I = The length of interval class n = Total of participant
The total of class interval of this result pretest research was 4.
After knowing the class interval, the data taken from interval above was put on the table of frequency distribution, as follows:
Table 8
The Frequency Distribution of Students’ Post-Test Score of Writing Hortatory Exposition Performance
No Class Interval Frequency Percentage %
1 89-93 3 10,00%
2 85-88 5 16,67%
3 81-84 4 13,33%
4 77-80 5 16,67%
5 73-76 9 30,00%
6 69-72 4 13,33%
Total 30 100%
61
If the data was put into graphic, it can be seen as follow:
Figure 3
The Graphic of Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Score in Post–test of Writing Hortatory Exposition Performance
Based on the table frequency distribution above, it can be inferred that 30 students as the research sample can be divided :
1) For the class interval of 89-93, there were 3 students or 10%.
2) For the class interval of 85-88, there were 5 students or 16,67%.
3) For the class interval of 81-84, there were 4 students or 13,33% . 4) For the class interval of 77-80, there were 5 students or 16,67% . 5) For the class interval of 73-76, there were 9 students or 30% . 6) For the class interval of 69-72, there were 4 students or 13,33% .
Based on the table and graphic above, the average score from students was 79,3. It shows that their average of pre-test grades was
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
89-93 85-88 81-84 77-80 73-76 69-72
Frequency Percentage
62
increased so; it means that the treatment through fishbone strategy was successful on students writing hortatory exposition performance. From the table above, it can be seen that the students who passed the test was the students who got score more than 70, there were 27 students or 90%.