CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presented the data presentation,research findings, and discussion. The observation was done fourtimes and it was held on Thursdays, 31 March, then 7, 14, 21 April 2016 at 07.00- 09.15 in Room A2.2 (see Appendix 1).The preliminary study was done on on Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 07.00- 09.15 in Room A2.2. Then, the try out test was done on 25 March 2016 in Writing III A. Thetest session 1 was given to the students on Thursday, 31 March 2016 at 07.00- 09.15 in Room A2.2. The numbers of the students were 21of 25 students.The treatments were done to Writing IIIB class students on 7 and 14 April 2016 at 07.00- 09.15 in Room A2.2.Meanwhile, the test session 2 was given to the students on Thursday, 21April 2016 at 07.00- 09.15 in Room A2.2. The numbers of the students were 21 of 25 students.
A. Data Presentation
The data presentations weredivided into five parts. They were: the students’ writing score of the pretest, the students’ writing score using pattern outline; the students’ writing score using graphic Organizers, the comparison score between ICT based GO and pattern outline, and the results of questionnaire.
1. The Students’ Writing Score of the Pretest
The pretest was done on 31 March 2016 in room A.2.2. The number of the subject was 21 students. The result of the students’writing score of the pretest in writing comparison and contrast essay was illustrated in Table 4.1.
96
Table 4.1 The Students’ Writing Score of the Pretest No Subje
ct
Rater Writing score
Total Accepted
score Grade W1 W2 W3 W4 W5
1 B1 Rater 1 2 1.7 2.5 2 2.5 2.14
2.2 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2 2.3 2.5 2 2.26
2 B4 Rater 1 2 1.5 1.3 1.2 2.5 1.7
1.85 Insufficient
Rater 2 2.5 2 2 1.5 2 2
3 B5 Rater 1 2.5 2.5 3 2.8 3 2.76
2.75 Uneven
Rater 2 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.9 2.74
4 B6 Rater 1 2.5 3.3 3.2 2.8 3.2 3
2.75 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.3 3 2.5 2.2 2.5
5 B7 Rater 1 2.5 2 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.44
2.58 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.5 2.6 3 3 2.72
6 B8 Rater 1 3 2.3 1.5 3 2.6 2.48
2.69 Uneven
Rater 2 3.5 2.5 3 2.5 3 2.9
7 B9 Rater 1 3 2.2 2.5 3 3 2.74
2.74 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 3.2 2.74 8 B10 Rater 1 3.3 3.8 3 2.9 3.2 3.24
3.23 Skillful Rater 2 3.2 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.4 3.22
9 B11 Rater 1 3 2.7 2.3 2.9 2.5 2.68
2.7 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2 3 3.1 3 2.72
10 B12 Rater 1 2 1.5 2 2.2 2.5 2.04
2.27 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 11 B14 Rater 1 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.54
2.65 Uneven
Rater 2 3 2.5 2.7 3 2.6 2.76 12 B15 Rater 1 3.5 3.7 3.5 3 3.5 3.44
3.37 Skillful Rater 2 3.3 3.5 3 3.5 3.2 3.3
13 B17 Rater 1 3 2.5 3 3 2.5 2.8
2.75 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.5 3 3.5 2 2.7
14 B18 Rater 1 2.5 2.1 3 2.4 2 2.4
2.49 Uneven
Rater 2 2.3 2.5 2.6 3 2.5 2.58
15 B19 Rater 1 2.5 2.3 2.2 3 2 2.4
2.36 Uneven
Rater 2 2 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.32
16 B20 Rater 1 3.5 2 2.5 2.5 3 2.7
2.7 Uneven
Rater 2 3 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 2.7 17 B21 Rater 1 3 3.5 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.76
2.6 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.44 18 B22 Rater 1 2 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.2
2.44 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.5 3 3 2.4 2.68 19 B23 Rater 1 1.8 1.4 1.7 2 1.7 1.72
1.65 Insufficient Rater 2 1.6 1.6 1.2 2.1 1.4 1.58
20 B24 Rater 1 3 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.66
2.64 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 3 2.62 21 B25 Rater 1 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.5 2 2.46
2.53 Uneven
Rater 2 2.7 2.5 2.2 3.1 2.5 2.6
Lowest score 1.65 Insufficient
Highest score 3.37 Skillful
Average score 2.56 Uneven
W1 : Content
W2 : Purpose, supporting details W3 : Organization and structure W4 : transition
W5 : Grammar and spelling
3.50-4.00 : Excellent 3.00-3.49 : Skillful 2.00-2.90 : Uneven 1.00-1.90 : Insufficient The frequency distribution of the students’ writing score in beginning of the experiment research was presented in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 The frequency distribution of the students’ writing scorepretest Based on the data above, it could be stated as follows. First, the highest score was 3.37. It meant that there were no students who obtained skillful or even excellent. Second, the lowest score was 1.65. It meant that there were two students obtained insufficient. The average score was 2.56. It meant that the class was on uneven category. The standard deviation was 0.382.(see Appendix 5).
2. The Students’ Writing Score Using Pattern Outline.
The tests using pattern outline were done on 14 and 21 April 2016 in room A.2.2.
The total number of the subject was 21 students. The test was done using
counterbalance procedure. The resultof the students’writing score using pattern outlinein writing comparison and contrast essay was illustrated in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2The Students’ Writing Score Using Pattern Outline
No Subje ct
Rater Writing score
Total Accepted
score Grade W1 W2 W3 W4 W5
1 B1 Rater 1 2 1.7 2.5 2 2.5 2.14
2.24 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2 2.7 2.5 2 2.34
2 B4 Rater 1 2 1.5 1.3 1.2 2.5 1.7
1.85 Insufficient
Rater 2 2.5 2 2 1.5 2 2
3 B5 Rater 1 2.5 2.5 3 2.8 3 2.76
2.83 Uneven
Rater 2 3 3 3 2.5 3 2.9
4 B6 Rater 1 2.5 3.3 3.2 2.8 3.2 3
2.81 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.3 3 2.5 2.8 2.62
5 B7 Rater 1 2.5 2 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.44
2.58 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.5 2.6 3 3 2.72
6 B8 Rater 1 3 2.3 1.5 3 2.6 2.48
2.69 Uneven
Rater 2 3.5 2.5 3 2.5 3 2.9
7 B9 Rater 1 3 2.2 2.5 3 3 2.74
2.62 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 2 2.5 8 B10 Rater 1 3.3 3.8 3 2.9 3.2 3.24
3.23 Skillful Rater 2 3.2 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.4 3.22
9 B11 Rater 1 3 2.7 2.3 2 2.5 2.5
2.61 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2 3 3.1 3 2.72
10 B12 Rater 1 2 1.5 2 2.2 2.5 2.04
2.27 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 11 B14 Rater 1 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.54
2.65 Uneven
Rater 2 3 2.5 2.7 3 2.6 2.76 12 B15 Rater 1 3.5 3.8 3.5 3 3.5 3.46
3.46 Skillful Rater 2 3.8 3.5 3 3.5 3.5 3.46
13 B17 Rater 1 3 2.5 3 3 2.5 2.8
2.75 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.5 3 3.5 2 2.7
14 B18 Rater 1 2.5 2.1 3 2.4 2 2.4
2.49 Uneven
Rater 2 2.3 2.5 2.6 3 2.5 2.58
15 B19 Rater 1 2.5 2.3 2.2 3 2 2.4
2.36 Uneven
Rater 2 2 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.32
16 B20 Rater 1 3.5 2 2.5 2.5 3 2.7
2.7 Uneven
Rater 2 3 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 2.7 17 B21 Rater 1 3 3.5 3.5 2.2 2.2 2.88
2.66 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.44 18 B22 Rater 1 2 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.2
2.44 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2.5 3 3 2.4 2.68
19 B23 Rater 1 2 1.5 2 2 1.7 1.84
1.67 Insufficient Rater 2 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.5
20 B24 Rater 1 3 2.7 2.4 3 2.5 2.72
2.61 Uneven
Rater 2 2.5 2 2.5 2.5 3 2.5
21 B25 Rater 1 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 2 2.5
2.56 Uneven
Rater 2 3 2.5 2 3.1 2.5 2.62
Lowest score 1.67 Insufficient
Highest score 3.46 Skillful
Average score 2.58 Uneven
W1 : Content
W2 : Purpose, supporting details W3 : Organization and structure W4 : transition
W5 : Grammar and spelling
3.50-4.00 : Excellent 3.00-3.49 : Skillful 2.00-2.90 : Uneven 1.00-1.90 : Insufficient The frequency distribution of the students’ writing score using pattern outline was presented in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2 The frequency distribution of the students’ writing score using pattern outline.
Based on the data above, it could be stated as follows. First, the highest score was 3.46. It meant that there were no students who obtained skillful or even excellent. Second, the lowest score was 1.67. It meant that there were two students obtained insufficient. The average score was 2.58. It meant that the class was on uneven category. The standard deviation was 0.39.(see Appendix 5).
3. The Students’ Writing Score Using ICT Based Graphic Organizer.
The tests using pattern outline were done on 14 and 21 April 2016 in room A.2.2.
The total number of the subject was 21 students. The test was done using counterbalance procedure. The resultof the students’writing score usingICT Based Graphic Organizerin writing comparison and contrast essay as illustrated in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3The Students’ Writing Score Using ICT Based Graphic Organizer
No Subject Rater Writing score Total Accepted
score Grade
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5
1 B1 Rater 1 3.6 2.5 3 4 3.4 3.3 3.35
Skillful Rater 2 3.4 3 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.4
2 B4 Rater 1 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.22
3.48 Skillful Rater 2 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.32
3 B5 Rater 1 3.5 3.7 3.2 3.1 3 3.3
3.44 Skillful Rater 2 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.2 3.52
4 B6 Rater 1 3 3.2 2.9 3 2.9 3
3.19 Skillful Rater 2 3.2 3.3 2.6 3.6 3.2 3.18
5 B7 Rater 1 2.7 2.5 3 3 3.7 2.98
3.21 Skillful Rater 2 2.2 3 3 3.2 3.5 2.98
6 B8 Rater 1 3.5 3.7 3.2 3.1 3 3.3
3.54 Excellent Rater 2 3.7 3.6 4 4 3.6 3.78
7 B9 Rater 1 3.5 3.2 4 3.7 3.5 3.58
3.53 Excellent Rater 2 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.56
8 B10 Rater 1 4 3.5 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.6
3.48 Skillful Rater 2 3.5 3.6 3 3 3.7 3.36
9 B11 Rater 1 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.9 3.5
3.59 Excellent Rater 2 4 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.68
10 B12 Rater 1 4 3.7 3 3.5 3.3 3.5
3.50 Excellent Rater 2 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.5
11 B14 Rater 1 4 3.8 3 3.1 3.1 3.4
3.49 Skillful Rater 2 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.48
12 B15 Rater 1 4 3.8 3.7 3.2 3.3 3.6
3.62 Excellent Rater 2 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.66
13 B17 Rater 1 3.7 4 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.84
3.68 Excellent Rater 2 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.7 4 3.72
14 B18 Rater 1 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.16
3.33 Skillful Rater 2 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.5
15 B19 Rater 1 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.3
3.40 Skillful Rater 2 3.8 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.5
16 B20 Rater 1 3.2 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.4
3.44 Skillful Rater 2 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.48
17 B21 Rater 1 4 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.6
3.62 Excellent Rater 2 4 3.8 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.64
18 B22 Rater 1 3.5 4 4 4 3.7 3.84
3.82 Excellent
Rater 2 3.7 4 4 4 4 3.94
19 B23 Rater 1 3.1 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.26
3.39 Skillful Rater 2 3.2 3.5 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.3
20 B24 Rater 1 3.1 3.2 3 3.4 3.3 3.2
3.29 Skillful Rater 2 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.32
21 B25 Rater 1 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.54
3.48 Skillful Rater 2 3.5 3 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.42
Lowest score 2.98 Uneven
Highest score 3.89 Excellent
Average score 3.44 Skillful
W1 : Content
W2 : Purpose, supporting details W3 : Organization and structure W4 : transition
W5 : Grammar and spelling
3.50-4.00 : Excellent 3.00-3.49 : Skillful 2.00-2.90 : Uneven 1.00-1.90 : Insufficient The frequency distribution of the students’ writing score using ICT Based Organizer was presented in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3The frequency distribution of the students’ writing score using ICT based Graphic Organizer
Based on the data above, it could be stated as follows. First, the highest score was 3.89. There were three students could obtain excellent category.
Second, the lowest score was 2.98. It meant that the lowest students obtained skillful category. The average score was3.44. It meant that the class was on skillful category. The standard deviation was 0.21.
4. The Comparison Score Between ICT Based Graphic Organizer and Pattern outline
Based on both scores (using GO versus pattern outline), the scores were compared as described in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4. The Comparison Score Between ICT Based GO Pattern outline ICT Based GO Pattern outline
N Valid 21 21
Missing 0 0
Mean 3.4443 2.5752
Std. Error of Mean .04593 .08495
Median 3.4400 2.6100
Mode 3.44a 2.61
Std. Deviation .21049 .38930
Variance .044 .152
Range .91 1.79
Minimum 2.98 1.67
Maximum 3.89 3.46
Sum 72.33 54.08
* Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Based on the data above, the score was explored in Table 4.5
Table 4.5 The students writing score between using GO and Pattern Outline
Interval Number of students
Grade Using GO Pattern Outline
3.50-4.00 8 0 Excellent
3.00-3.49 13 2 Skillful
2.00-2.90 0 17 Uneven
1.00-1.90 0 2 Insufficient
The distribution of score was as illustrated in Figure 4.4.
Figure. 4.4 Distribution of students’ writing score using GO and pattern outline.
Based on the data above, the comparison of both scores were made, as illustrated in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6. The Comparison Improvement Score between using GO and Pattern Outline
Subjects Using GO Using Pattern
Outline Improvement Percentage
B1 3.35 2.24 1.11 66.87%
B4 3.27 1.85 1.42 56.57%
B5 3.41 2.83 0.58 82.99%
B6 3.09 2.81 0.28 90.94%
B7 2.98 2.58 0.4 86.58%
B8 3.54 2.69 0.85 75.99%
B9 3.57 2.62 0.95 73.39%
B10 3.48 3.23 0.25 92.82%
B11 3.59 2.61 0.98 72.70%
B12 3.5 2.27 1.23 64.86%
B14 3.44 2.65 0.79 77.03%
B15 3.63 3.46 0.17 95.32%
B17 3.78 2.75 1.03 72.75%
B18 3.33 2.49 0.84 74.77%
B19 3.4 2.36 1.04 69.41%
B20 3.44 2.7 0.74 78.49%
B21 3.62 2.66 0.96 73.48%
B22 3.89 2.44 1.45 62.72%
B23 3.28 1.67 1.61 50.91%
B24 3.26 2.61 0.65 80.06%
B25 3.48 2.56 0.92 73.56%
0 1 2 3 4 5
B1 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10B11B12B14B15B17B18B19B20B21B22B23B24B25
Students' writing score
GO Pattern Outline Column1
Lowest
score 2.98 1.67 1.31
Highest
score 3.89 3.46 0.43
Average
score 3.44 2.58 0.86
As seen in the tables above, there was much improvement on the students’
writing score using ICT based graphic organizer and pattern outline. First, in writing using pattern outline, the lowest score was 1.67; highest score was 3.46;
and the mean score was 2.58 in uneven category. On the contrary, on writing using ICT based graphic organizer, the lowest score was 2.98; highest score was 3.89; and the mean score was 3.44 in skillful category. The average improvement was 0.86. In terms of the number of studentsin writing using pattern outline, There were two students who got scores between 3.00- 3.49 (skillful category), 17 students got scores between 2.00- 2.90 (uneven category), and 2 students got scores between 1.00- 1.90 (insufficient category). Meanwhile, in terms of the number of students in writing using ICT based graphic organizer, there were 8 students who got scores between 3.50- 4.00 (excellent category), 13 students got scores between 3.00- 3.49 (skillful category), and none of students got scores between 2.00-2.90 and 1.00- 1.90.
5. The Result of Questionnaire
To answer the second research problem on the area of contribution of ICT based graphic organizer to the students in the writing process at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute
2015/2016 academic years, the questionnaire was distributed to the students on Thursday,21 April 2016. The result of questionnaire was described in Table 4.8.
Table 4.7The result of students’ response on the implementation of using ICT Based Graphic Organizer in writing Comparison and Contrast Essay
No Questions Responses
1
How do you rate writing in term of difficulty?
easy Medium Difficult
A. Before using graphic organizer 0 7 14
0% 33.33% 66.66%
B. After using graphic organizer 11 9 1
52.38% 42.86% 4.76%
2
How do you feel when it is time for writing?
excited Neutral Nervous
A. Before using graphic organizer 0 16 5
0% 76.19% 23.81%
B. After using graphic organizer 18 2 1
85.71% 9.52% 4.76%
3
Do you think writing is fun or boring? Fun Not sure Boring
A. Before using graphic organizer 3 10 8
14.28% 47.62% 38.09%
B. After using graphic organizer 12 9 0
57.14% 42.86% 0%
4
Do you often try your best to accomplish your writing task?
Yes Sometimes No
A. Before using graphic organizer 1 14 6
4.76% 66.67% 28.57%
B. After using graphic organizer 10 11 47.62% 52.38%
5
What is the most difficult part of writing for you?
Planning Organizing Writing
A. Before using graphic organizer 18 1 2
85.71% 4.76% 9.52%
B. After using graphic organizer 3 10 8
14.28% 47.62% 38.09%
The questionnaire model was adapted from International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research Vol.3, No.1, pp.15-36, January 2015 Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Based on the questionnaire checklists,the students’ response as explained in Table 4.7 showed that they gave positive response on the statements on the learning process of writing comparison and contrast essay using ICT based Graphic Organizer. On the statement: How do you feel when it is time for writing?
Before using graphic organizer, there were 14 of 21 or about 66.66% students felt difficult. On the contrary, after using graphic organizer,there were 11 of 21 or about 52.38% students felt easy and 9 of 21 or about 42.86% students felt medium. Only 1 studentor about 4.76% felt difficult.This indicated that more than half students felt easy to write comparison and contrast essay usingICT based Graphic Organizer.
Dealing with the second statement, it showed that ICT Based Graphic Organizer makes the writing class more interesting for students. This was evidenced on the statement: Do you think writing is fun or boring? Before using graphic organizer, there were 5 of 21 or about 23.81%students felt nervous. Then, 16 of 21 or about 76.19% students felt neutral. Meanwhile,after using graphic organizer, 18 of 21 or about 85.71% felt excited with graphic organizer. The other hand, 2 of 21 or about 9.52% felt neutral and 1 of 21 or about 4.76% felt nervous.
On the third statement, Do you think writing is fun or boring? Before using graphic organizer, there were 8 of 21 or about 38.09%students felt boring and 10 of 21 or about 47.62% students not sure. Then, 3 of 21 or 14.28% felt fun when they wrote. In contrast, after using graphic organizer, there were 12 of 21 or about 57,14% felt fun. Whereas 9 of 21 or about 42.86% felt not sure. This indicated that more than half students in liked ICT based Graphic Organizer.
Fourth statement, Do you often try your best to accomplish your writing task? Before using graphic organizer, there were six of twenty-one students or about 28.57% stated that “NO” accomplished their writing task. Fourteen of twenty-one students or about 66.67% sometimes they accomplished their writing
task. Then, only one of twenty one students accomplished their writing task.
Conversely, after using graphic organizer, 10 of 21 students or about 47,62%
claimed “YES” accomplished their writing task. 11 of 21 students or about 52.38% stated sometimes they accomplished their writing task. It is mean that graphic organizer helped students accomplished their writing task.
At the fifth statement, what is the most difficult part of writing for you?
Before using graphic organizer, 18 of 21 or about 85.71% claimed that planning were the most difficult ones. However, it must be confessed that after using graphic organizer, only 3 of 21 or 14.28% students felt difficult in planning. This indicated that graphic organizer helped students in planning for writing essay.
Based on the explanation above, it was concluded that most students had high positive response on the implementation of using graphic organizer in writing comparison and contrast essay (95.24%). Thestudents also felt excited with graphic organizer(85.71%). In addition, about 57.14% student felt fun when they wrote using graphic organizer.
B. Research Findings
The research findings were divided into four parts. They weretesting normality and homogeneity, testing hypotheses using t test for paired sample, interpretation of the results, andthe area of contribution of ICT based graphic organizer to the students in the writing process.
1. Testing Normality and Homogeneity
Before testing the hypothesis, the researcher measured normality of score in order to know the normality of the data that was needed to test the hypothesis.
Here, the Kolmogorov-Smirnovatest was applied to find the normality. The result of Kolmogorov-Smirnova test was as follows:
Table 4.8 Test of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.
PatternOutline .161 21 .162 .928 21 .127
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnovatest, it was shown that the value of Sig. was 0.162. Since it was higher than 0.05, the data was said to be normally distributed.
Afterwards, the researcher measured the homogeneity. It was used to know relatively same variant or not of the data. Here, the levene’s test was applied to see the homogeneity as described in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9 Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
2.246 1 40 .142
Based on the Levene’s test, it was shown that the value of Sig. was 0.142.
Since it was higher than 0.05, the data was not violated the homogeneity.
2. Testing hypotheses Using T test for paired sample.
To test the hypotheses, the researcher applied two models of calculation:
manual calculation and SPSS 16.00 program.
a. Using Manual Calculation
To answer the first research problem whether the students who taught using ICT based graphic organizer get better achievement or not than those who taught without using ICT based graphic organizer at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute 2015/2016 academic years, the T test for paired samplewas applied. The study was based on the assumption that there would be a significant difference on the students’
writing progress: using ICT based graphic organizer and pattern outline in writing a comparison and contrast essay.
To begin with, the researcher considered some assumptions before analyizing data using T test for paired sample. First, the dependent variable should be measured at the interval or ratio level. The data were interval, since they were the student’s writing score with scale 1.00 until 4.00. Here, there were two writing scores (test using ICT based GO and test using Pattern Outline) to be investigated, and those scores belonged to interval level. Second, the independent variable should consist of at least two categorical, "related groups" or "matched pairs". "Related groups" indicated that the same subjects were presented in both groups. Here, test session 1 and 2 were given to the same subjects. Third, the distributions of the differences in the dependent variable between the two related groups should be approximately normally distributed.
To analyze the data, Paired sample t-test was applied. Paired sample t-test is a statistical technique that is used to compare two population means in the case of two samples that are correlated.
There were fifth steps to do. First,computing the probability of the mean differences of this sample given that the sample comes from the null hypothesis population of difference scores. Calculating the difference scores and the intermediate numbers for the SS formula in Table 4.10:
Table 4.10 Table of Different score Code GO (X1) Outline(X2
)
Different
score (D) d=D-𝐷 d2
B1 3.35 2.24 1.11 0.24095 0.058056902
B4 3.27 1.85 1.42 0.55095 0.303545903
B5 3.41 2.83 0.58 -0.28905 0.083549903
B6 3.09 2.81 0.28 -0.58905 0.346979903
B7 2.98 2.58 0.4 -0.46905 0.220007903
B8 3.54 2.69 0.85 -0.01905 0.000362902
B9 3.57 2.62 0.95 0.08095 0.006552902
B10 3.48 3.23 0.25 -0.61905 0.383222903
B11 3.59 2.61 0.98 0.11095 0.012309903
B12 3.5 2.27 1.23 0.36095 0.130284903
B14 3.44 2.65 0.79 -0.07905 0.006248902
B15 3.63 3.46 0.17 -0.69905 0.488670903
B17 3.78 2.75 1.03 0.16095 0.025904902
B18 3.33 2.49 0.84 -0.02905 0.000843903
B19 3.4 2.36 1.04 0.17095 0.029223903
B20 3.44 2.7 0.74 -0.12905 0.016653903
B21 3.62 2.66 0.96 0.09095 0.008271903
B22 3.89 2.44 1.45 0.58095 0.337502903
B23 3.28 1.67 1.61 0.74095 0.549006903
B24 3.26 2.61 0.65 -0.21905 0.047982903
B25 3.48 2.56 0.92 0.05095 0.002595902
M =𝐹𝑋 𝑁
=3.444286
M =𝐹𝑋
𝑁
=2.58
𝐷 = 18.25 /21
= 0.869
𝑑 = 1.73809761
𝑑2 = 3.057780953
Second, measuring correlated sample t-test. In the beginning, measure the mean in each group or 𝑋 = Mean of X. 𝑋 1 is mean of writing score using GO about 3.444286.𝑋 2 is mean of writing score using Pattern Outline about 2.58.
𝑑2= Total of deviation is quadrat from different mean between X1(GO) and X2
(Pattern Outline) about 3.057780953. n is Number of Students, consist of 21 of 25 students.
Third, measure correlated sample t-test. Here, the formula of 𝑡1−2 in correlated sample t-test:
𝑡1−2 = 𝑋1
− 𝑋 2 𝑑2 𝑛 (𝑛 − 1) Where:
𝑋 1 = Mean of X
𝑑2 = Total of deviation from different mean between X1-X2 n = Number of Students
𝑡1−2 = 𝑋1
− 𝑋 2 𝑑2 𝑛 (𝑛 − 1)
=
3.444286 − 2.575238 3.05778095321 (21 − 1)
=
3.444286 − 2.575238 3.05778095321 (20)
= 3.444286 − 2.575238 0.00728043
= 3.444286 − 2.5752380.0853254
= 0.869048 0.0853254
= 10.185103
Fourth, determining the degree of freedom (d.f) using formula: df = N-1.
df=21-1=20. Level of Significance for a Non directional (two-Tailed) Test
Df .10 .05 .025 .01 .005
20 1.325 1.725 2.086 2.528 2.845
Fifth, interpreting the result of statistical calculation by comparing the t observed with t table with the criteria:
If t observed ≥ ttable, Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected If ttest ≤ ttable, Ha is rejected and Ho is accepted
1.725<10.185>2.528
Since the t observed is higher than the t table (1.725<10.185>2.528), it could be interpreted that that at the 5% and 1% of significant level, there was a very significant difference on students’ writing score between the students who wrote a comparison and contrast essay usingICT Based GO and those who wrote a comparison and contrast essay usingpattern outline.
This meant that Ha stating that the students who taught using ICT based graphic organizer get better achievement than those who taught without using ICT based graphic organizer at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute 2015/2016 academic years, was accepted;
and Ho stating that the students who taught using ICT based graphic organizer do not get better achievement than those who taught without using ICT based graphic organizer at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute 2015/2016 academic years, could not be accepted. It meant that using ICT based graphic organizer gave facilitative effect on the students’ essay writing performance. To sum up, the means differed significantly at 1% and 5% significant level.
b. Using SPSS 16.00 Program
Besides manual calculation, the SPSS 16.00 program was also applied to compare the data. Based on the SPSS calculation, the result of the T paired sample test was as described in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11 Paired Samples Test Paired Differences
T Df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Std.
Deviation Std.
Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper Pair
1
ICT Based GO
Pattern Outline .8690 .39101 .08533 1.04703 .69106 10.189 20 .000
After calculating the t value of the compare means of both groups using SPSS 16 program, it was found that the t value was 10.189, with Sig. 0.000. Since the Sig. was smaller than 0.05, it was said that Ha stating that the students who taught using ICT based graphic organizer get better achievement than those who taught without using ICT based graphic organizer at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute 2015/2016 academic years, was accepted; and Ho stating that the students who taught using ICT based graphic organizer do not get better achievement than those who taught without using ICT based graphic organizer at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute 2015/2016 academic years, could not be accepted. It meant that using ICT based graphic organizer gave facilitative effect on the students’ essay writing performance.
3. Interpretation of the Results
Based on the results, it could be concluded that at the 5% and 1% of significant level, there was a very significant difference on students’ writing score between the students who wrote a comparison and contrast essay usingICT Based GO (Mean= 3.44) and those who wrote a comparison and contrast essay usingpattern outline (Mean= 2.58). This meant that Ha stating that the students who taught using ICT based graphic organizer get better achievement than those who taught without using ICT based graphic organizer at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute 2015/2016 academic years, was accepted; and Ho stating that the students who taught using ICT based graphic organizer do not get better achievement than those who taught without using ICT based graphic organizer at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute 2015/2016 academic years, could not be accepted. It meant that using ICT based graphic organizer gave facilitative effect on the students’ essay writing performance. To sum up, the means differed significantly at 1% and 5%
significant level.
4. The area of contribution of ICT based graphic organizer to the students in the writing process.
To find the area of contribution of ICT based graphic organizer to the students in the writing process at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute 2015/2016 academic years, the questionnaire was distributed to the students on Thursday,21 April 2016 (see
Appendix 9 for further detail).The questionnaire covered some aspects of the students’ attitude and response toward the learning process in writing Comparison and Contrast Essay usingICT Based Graphic.
To see the area of contribution of ICT based graphic organizer to the students in the writing process, the following questionnaire gave the answer.
Dealing with the question: Do you think GO can improve your writing skill? Most students (20 of 21) thought that GO could improve their writing skill. Then, due to the next question: In what way GO help your writing skill? About 10 or 47.62%
students confessed that GO could help in generating ideas, maintaining grammar (2 students or 9.52%), building sentences (4 students or 19.04%) and visualizing ideas (6 students or 28.57%). Based on the result above, it could be concluded that GO helped the students in generating ideas (47.62%), visualizing ideas(28.57%), building sentences (19.04%), and maintaining grammar (9.52%), as illustrated in figure 4.5. :
Figure. 4.5. The area contribution of GO
[CATEGORY NAME], [VALUE
], [CATEGORY NAME], [VALUE
],
[CATEGORY NAME], [VALUE
],
Maintaining Grammar
9.52%
9%
the area contribution of GO in writing process
Based on the data above, it was said that the most dominant area of contribution of GO lied in generating ideas (47.62%) or about 10 respondents. It meant that GO gave contribution in process writing in terms of generating ideas.
There were several reasons why this was so. First, by applying GO, students could find ideas from key words they made. Second, by applying GO, students could focus on contents in developing ideas. Third, by applying GO, students were helped to find the variety of ideas, and made it easy to plan the idea.
C. Discussion
1. The Students’ Progress of Writing Scores: Using ICT based graphic organizer Versus Using Pattern Outline.
In order to measure whether the students who taught using ICT based graphic organizer get better achievement or not than those who taught without using ICT based graphic organizer at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute 2015/2016 academic years, the researcher assigned the subjects to do writing test. The writing test was conducted in two sessions.In the first session, the two groups (Group A and B) of subjects were assigned to write a comparison and contrast essay. Group A was assigned to write a comparison and contrast essay about 450 -500 words using a pattern outline. Meanwhile, Group B was assigned to write a comparison and contrast essay about 450 -500 words using ICT Based Graphic Organizer.The first session test was given to Class B students on Thursday, 31 March, 2016 at Room A.2.2. It took time about 120 minutes starting from 07.00 until 09.00. The number of the students joining the test session 1 was 21 of 25 students. The second session test
was given to Class B students on Thursday, 7 April, 2016 at Room A.2.2. In the second session, the two groups (Group A and B) of subjects were assigned to write a comparison and contrast essay. Group A was assigned to write a comparison and contrast essay about 450 -500 words using ICT Based Graphic Organizer. Meanwhile, Group B was assigned to write a comparison and contrast essay about 450 -500 words using pattern outline. It took time about 120 minutes starting from 07.00 until 09.00. All students did the test well.
The first research problem of the study was to measure whether the students taught using ICT Based graphic organizer got better achievement or not than those who taught without using ICT Based graphic organizer at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute 2015/2016 academic years. Then, the subjects were given tests two sessions.. The two scores were compared and analyzed using t paired sample test. The t paired sample test was used to compare scores of the students’ writing testusing ICT Based graphic organizer and using pattern outline. Based on the out put,it was found that the t value was 10.185. Based on the outcomes, it was also found that the df (Degree of freedom) of the distribution observed was 21-1= 20. Based on the Table of t value, if df was 12, the 5% of significant level of t value was at 1.725 and the 1% of significant level of t value was at 2.086.It could be seen that the empiric t value at 10.185 was greater than the t value theoretic. Therefore, t table (5%=1.725) < t value (10.185) > t table ((1%= 2.086). It meant that the t value empiric at 10.185 was greater than t theoretic at the 5% and 1% of significant level. Therefore, at the 5% and 1% of significant level, there was a
very significant difference on students’ writing score between the students who wrote a comparison and contrast essay usingICT Based GO (Mean= 3.44) and those who wrote a comparison and contrast essay usingpattern outline (Mean=
2.58).
There were a number of possible reasons dealing with the research findings. First, Graphic organizers guided learners’ thinking as they filled in and build upon a visual map or diagram. Second, Graphic organizers facilitated students’ learning by helping them identify areas of focus within a broad topic, because they helped the learner make connections and structure thinking, students often turned to graphic organizers for writing projects.In addition to helping students organize their thinking and writing process, graphic organizers could act as instructional tools. Teachers could use graphic organizers to illustrate a student’s knowledge about a topic or section of text showing areas for improvement.
Third, graphic organizers helped students make valuable connections in the language arts classroom. Venn diagrams and other graphic organizers designed for comparing and contrasting helped students make connections between texts, characters and other elements of literature. Cause-and-effect graphic organizers helped students see how events in a story were connected, thereby improving their comprehension of a text. Concept maps boosted students' critical thinking skills as they began to understand how different subtopics connect to a topic as a whole.
Fourth, Graphic organizers helped them organize their information in a logical, easy-to-read format. They could use graphic organizers to keep track of research sources or key facts to include in a research paper. For example, students might
list their research topic at the top of a graphic organizer and had boxes below it representing subtopics and two or three facts related to each subtopic.
Fifth, in writing process, by usinggraphic organizers, students could break down the process into manageable steps. Students could use graphic organizers to brainstorm and focus ideas for a research paper or short story, placing a general topic at the top and narrowing the topic in the boxes below. They could use graphic organizers to outline their writing, including those designed for specific types of writing, such as how-to papers, compare-and-contrast essays or narratives. Additional graphic organizers could help students write introductory paragraphs, body paragraphs and conclusions. In line with this, Novak states:
“Graphic organizeris used to represent children’s conceptual understanding. One of the powerful uses of graphic organizer is not only as a learning tool but also as an evaluation tool, thus encouraging students to use meaningful-mode learning patterns. Perhaps by using graphic organizer in my classroom, my students’ writing will significantly improve.”1
The findings above were also supported by Marjori, Irawati, Lestari and Wahyuni, as stated in the previous studies. They found that graphic organizers gave facilitative effect to teach the pre-writing process. In addition, Herdi, Anas Yasin, and Hermawati Syarif found that graphic organizer strategy had brought a lot of improvement toward the students’ writing skill. The improvement was in terms of content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. In addition, there were positive responses from the students when graphic organizer strategy was implemented. Graphic organizer strategy could improve the students’ interest,
1 Tracey Sharrock. 2008. The Effect of Graphic organizer on Students’ Writing. Graphic organizer And Students’ Writing. Action Research. July, 2008. Kennesaw State University. p.3.
self-confidence, self-motivation, and optimism, which were categorized into personal competence. Students’ interest to the writing increased when they wereguided to write the topic by using graphic organizer strategy through the writing process. The students felt happy and easy to understand to write the topic by implementing the graphic organizer strategy. In addition, the students had self – confidence to increase their writing skill. Self-confidence was a strong sense of one’s self-worth and capabilities.2
2. The area of contribution of ICT based graphic organizer to the students in the writing process.
To find the area of contribution of ICT based graphic organizer to the students in the writing process at the fourth semester English Study Program students of Palangka Raya State Islamic Institute 2015/2016 academic years, the questionnaire was distributed to the students on Thursday,21 April.Based on the questionnaire checklists,the students’ response showed that they gave positive response on the statements on the learning process of writing a comparison and contrast essay using ICT based graphic organizer There were some statements distributed to the students. All statements were given positive response by the respondents. This indicated that ICT based graphic organizer gave some advantages to the students. All in all, it was very helpful for students.
Based on the explanation above, it was concluded that most students had high positive response on the implementation of using graphic organizer in
2Herdi, Anas Yasin, Hermawati Syarif (2014).Improving Students’ Writing Skill by Using Graphic Organizer at The Second Year Students English Education Department Faculty of Education and Teachers Training Lancang Kuning University Pekanbaru.Journal English Language Teaching (ELT) Volume 2 Nomor 2, Juli 2014.
writing comparison and contrast essay (95.24%). Thestudents also felt excited with graphic organizer(85.71%). In addition, about 57.14% students felt fun when they wrote using graphic organizer.
To see the area of contribution of ICT based graphic organizer to the students in the writing process, the questionnaire was given to students. Based on the result, it could be stated that the area of GO helped the students in generating ideas, visualizing ideas, building sentences, and maintaining grammar.
