This chapter presented the result of the research. The writer obtained two kinds of data, the scores of pre-test and the scoresof post-test.
1. The Pre-Test Scores
The data of pre-test scores can be seenin the table 4.1 below Table 4.1
It shows that themean of pronunciation is1,86 the median is 2,5 the highest score is 3 and
No Students Initial Name Pre-Test Studen
Scorets
P G V F C
1 Andi Nadia 2 2 1 1 2 8
2 Sarah Tuwalu 2 2 1 1 1 7
3 RhaffiKadry 2 3 3 2 3 13
4 Daniel Tuwalu 1 1 1 1 1 5
5 KhotimahLauzah 3 3 3 2 3 14
6 LidyaAndara 1 1 2 1 2 7
7 Muhammad Daus 3 2 3 3 3 14
8 Yogi Pratama 2 2 2 2 2 10
9 LuqmanRahmat 2 1 2 1 2 8
10 Jaya Kurnia Muhammad 3 3 3 2 3 14
11 ShafaruddinMarhab 1 1 1 1 1 5
12 Randi Wijaya 2 3 3 2 3 `13
13 LidyapittiOnna 1 1 2 1 2 7
14 St. Harmiawati 1 2 2 1 2 8
SUM 26 27 29 21 30 133
MEAN SCORE 1,86 1,92 2,08 1,5 2,14 9,5
the lowest score is 1. Themean of grammar is1,92 the median is 2 the highest score is 3 and the lowest score is 1,
The mean of grammar is2,08 the median is 2,5 the highest score is 3 and the lowest score is 1. The mean of fluency is1,5 the median is 2,5 the highest score is 3 and the lowest score is 1 and the mean of comprehension is 2,14 the median is 2,5 the highest score is 3 and the lowest score is 1
2. The Post-Test Scores
The data of the post-test score can be seen in the table 4.2below Table 4.2
No Students Initial Name Pre-Test Studen
ts Score
P G V F C
1 Andi Nadia 2 3 2 2 3 12
2 Sarah Tuwalu 2 3 2 2 3 12
3 RhaffiKadry 3 4 3 3 3 6
4 Daniel Tuwalu 2 2 2 2 2 10
5 KhotimahLauzah 3 3 3 3 4 16
6 LidyaAndara 2 3 2 2 3 12
7 Muhammad Daus 3 2 3 3 3 14
8 Yogi Pratama 2 4 3 2 3 14
9 LuqmanRahmat 2 2 2 2 2 10
10 Jaya Kurnia Muhammad 3 4 3 2 4 16
11 ShafaruddinMarhab 2 2 2 2 2 10
12 Randi Wijaya 3 4 3 2 3 15
13 LidyapittiOnna 2 2 3 3 3 13
14 St. Harmiawati 2 3 2 2 3 12
SUM 26 33 41 35 32 41
MEAN SCORE 1,86 2,35 2,92 2,5 2,29 2,92
It shows that the mean of pronunciation is 2,35 the median is 2,5 the highest score is 3 and the lowest score is 2, the mean of grammar is 2,92 the median is 3 the highest score is 4 and the lowest score is 2, the mean of vocabulary is 2,5 the median is 3 the highest score is 3 and the lowest score is 2, the mean of fluency is 2,29 the median is 2,5 the highest score is 3 and the lowest score is 2, and the mean of comprehension is 2,92 the median is 3 the highest score is 4 and the lowest score is 2 3. The Comparison of The Test Result
The comparison of the test result can be seen in the table 4.11 below Score In Pre-test and Post-test
Pronunciation Table 4.3
No Clrass Score Pre-test Post –Test
Freq. Perc. Freq. Perc.
1 Excellent 94-100 0 0% 0 0%
2 Very good 87-93 0 0% 0 0%
3 Good 80-86 0 0% 0 0%
4 Average 63-79 0 0% 0 0%
5 Poor 56-62 3 21,5% 5 35,8%
6 Very Poor 0-55 11 78,5% 9 64,2%
Total 14 100% 14 100%
Notation :
a) Class : Classification b) Freq : Frequency c) Perc : Percentage
The Percentage of pronuncations table show that no students categories excellent, very good, good and average, 3 students ( 21,5%) in poor classification, and 11 students (78,5%) in very poor speaking performance before treatment
In the post – test show that 5 students (35,8%) in poor and 9 students (64,2%) in very poor classification. It means there is a little difference of the students pronunciation performace.
Grammar Table 4.4
No Clrass Score Pre-test Post –Test
Freq. Perc. Freq. Perc.
1 Excellent 94-100 0 0% 0 0%
2 Very good 87-93 0 0% 0 0%
3 Good 80-86 0 0% 4 28,6%
4 Average 63-79 0 0% 0 0%
5 Poor 56-62 4 28,5% 5 35,7%
6 Very Poor 0-55 10 71,5% 5 35,7%
Total 14 100% 14 100%
Notation :
a) Class : Classification b) Freq : Frequency c) Perc : Percentage
The Percentage of grammar table show that no students categories excellent, very good, good and average classification, 4 students ( 28,5%) in poor classification, 10 students (71,5%) in very poor speaking performance before treatment.
Post – test table shows that 4 students (28,6%) in good classification, 5 students (35,7%) in poor classification and 5 students (35,7%) in very good classification. It means there is a significant difference of the studentsgrammarperformace.
Vocabualry Table 4.5
No Clrass Score Pre-test Post –Test
Freq. Perc. Freq. Perc.
1 Excellent 94-100 0 0% 0 0%
2 Very good 87-93 0 0% 0 0%
3 Good 80-86 0 0% 0 0%
4 Average 63-79 0 0% 0 0%
5 Poor 56-62 5 35,7% 7 50%
6 Very Poor 0-55 9 64,3% 7 50%
Total 14 100% 14 100%
Notation :
a) Class : Classification b) Freq : Frequency c) Perc : Percentage
The Percentage of vocabulary table show that no students categories excellent, very good, good, and average5 students (35,7%) in poor classification, 9 students ( 64,3%) in very poor classification speaking performance before treatment.
Post – test table showsthat 7 students (50%) in poor classification and 7 students (50%) in very poor classification. It means there is a little difference of the studentsvocabularyperformace
Fluency Table 4.6
No Clrass Score Pre-test Post –Test
Freq. Perc. Freq. Perc.
1 Excellent 94-100 0 0% 0 0%
2 Very good 87-93 0 0% 0 0%
3 Good 80-86 0 0% 0 0%
4 Average 63-79 0 0% 0 0%
5 Poor 56-62 1 7,1% 4 28,5%
6 Very Poor 0-55 13 92,9% 10 71,5%
Total 14 100% 14 100%
Notation :
a) Class : Classification b) Freq : Frequency c) Perc : Percentage
The Percentage of fluency table show that no students categories excellent, very good, good, and average. 1 student (7,1%) in poor classification, 13 students ( 92,9%) in very poor classificationspeaking performance before treatment.
Post – test table shows that 4 students (28,5%) in poor classification and 10 students (71,5%) in very poor classification. It means there is a little difference of the studentsfluencyperformace.
Comprehension Table 4.7
No Clrass Score Pre-test Post –Test
Freq. Perc. Freq. Perc.
1 Excellent 94-100 0 0% 0 0%
2 Very good 87-93 0 0% 0 0%
3 Good 80-86 0 0% 0 0%
4 Average 63-79 0 0% 2 14,2%
5 Poor 56-62 5 35,7% 9 64,2%
6 Very Poor 0-55 9 64,3% 3 21,4%
Total 14 100% 14 100%
Notation :
a) Class : Classification b) Freq : Frequency c) Perc : Percentage
The Percentage of coprehension table show that no students categories excellent, very good, goog, and average.5 students (35,7%) in poor classification, 9 students ( 64,3%) in very poor classificationspeaking performance before treatment.
Post – test table shows that 3 students (21,4%) in very poor classification,9 students (64,2%) in poor classification and 2stundent(14,2%) in average classification. It means there is a little difference of the studentscomprehensionperformace.
4. Students Speaking Ability
The data analysis show that using facebook in the tenth grade SMA Negeri 4 PolewaliMandar can be seen as follows
Table 4.8 Stadar Deviation Test Mean Score Standard Deviation
Pre - test 8,72 3,86
Post - tes 12,98 3,9
The table shows that the mean score of student speaking ability in pre-test is (9,52) which is classification as very poor. And the mean score of student speaking speaking ability in post test is (13,85) which is classification is average. Standard deviation on pre-test is (3,86) and on the post-test is (2,9)
Table 4.9 T – Table Value
Variable T – Test Value T – Table Value
X2 X1 2,160 6,86
It can be conclued that there is little different between the result of the student pre-test and post-test. When the T-Test Value is 2,160 and the T-Table Value is 6,86. It also indicates that null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypotesis (H1) was accepted