CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the findings of the research and the interpretation of data analysis from
the implementation of TSTS technique compared with lecturing technique will be presented and
discussed. In this research there are two classes, experimental class and control class. Every class
has each treatment. The experimental class has TSTS technique while control class has lecturing
technique. The purpose of the research is to know the effectiveness of TSTS technique compared
with lecturing technique to highly and lowly motivated students in SMP Negeri 2 Bumiayu
especially to Class VII C as experimental class and Class VII B as control class.
1.1. Findings
In experimental class which has TSTS technique, the teacher divides the class into
group of four students. Two students will be as guest that stray to other group and gain
information from the host in other groups and two others students will be the host in the group to
share information and material two the guests.
The information they share in the first session is about the descriptive text and
material related with it; definition, purpose, generic structure, grammatical features, simple
present tense, verb used, and example of some descriptive text. In writing task, the Strayed
students will discuss with the host in writing descriptive text. If there are mistakes, they will
correct it together. After that, the strayed students will go back to their own group and discuss
with their groups to revise their writing if there are mistakes. The discussion between the host
with the strayed students and the strayed students with their own group will enrich the
cooperative situation and also in their understanding because they will learn cooperatively by
sharing each other to build their understanding and then re-share it to their own group to make it
better.
On the other hand, the control group has the material as the teacher usually do in his
daily teaching. The teacher explained about descriptive text and its components and the students
made any important notes and some example. They also had a simple task and do it individually.
And finally they had an individual assignment to write descriptive text.
The teacher delivered questionnaire to both experimental class and control class to
classify them into highly and motivated students. The questionnaire contained several questions
related with the process of English teaching learning. Some low motivated students felt that they
have less motivation to attend English class because the teacher use lecturing technique
continuously and use other Technique rarely. Some high motivated students expressed that they
feelt comfortable with the Technique used by the teacher in teaching learning process.
After the class had been divided into highly and lowly motivated students, the
researcher gave pretest to each class before the treatment. After the treatment had been presented
on each class, the researcher gave posttest. The result of pretest and posttest can be seen on the
following tables.
Table 4.1
Pretest and Posttest Score of Experimental and Control Class
Low
Motivated
Number Students
TSTS Technique
Students
Lecturing
Technique
Pre Test
Post
Test
Pre Test
Post
Test
1 RSA 66 78 WW 64,8 70
2 VGP 66 80 FRA 63,5 76
3 DAD 62,3 81 SYM 62,3 68
4 MFY 62,3 76 DES 62,3 64
5 JN 61 85 MRK 62,3 68
6 NAM 61 76 MEI 62,3 67
7 ANN 61 78 MMB 61 63
8 NK 61 81 MRDA 57,3 57
9 MRR 59,8 79 BAY 56 58
10 RDP 58,5 79 MY 56 77
11 TAM 53,5 77 RO 53,5 66
12 MNK 53,5 74 EGP 53,5 69
13 RR 49,8 75 MKF 52,3 56
14 HF 44,8 69 MWWM 49,8 57
15 MLA 44,8 76 MRI 49,8 63
16 MMH 43,5 79 GMR 49,8 66
17 DSM 42,3 72 AS 48,5 58
18 MDAP 41 77 AMAU 46 43
WL 38,5 76 MHI 32,3 42
1030,60 1467,10

1043,30 1188,00
Mean 54,24 77,22 54,91 62,53
Std. Dev 8,60 3,55 6,02 8,04
Highest Score 66,00 84,90 64,80 77,00
Lowest Score 38,50 69,40 32,30 42,00
High
Motivated
1 EDF 80 84 STA 94 93
2 AS 79 81 AMU 86 73
3 NKM 79 96 ASN 83 84
4 UNK 79 89 SL 83 89
5 EER 78 89 ANA 81 87
6 RAS 75 90 NDR 72 84
7 SAP 75 87 RMU 69 77
8 AMI 73 82 SAH 69 77
9 RST 71 78 SAM 69 68
10 KNU 70 82 RA 69 76
11 MP 70 93 NF 68 73
12 NFPA 70 85 PYL 68 77
13 ASR 69 75 SAS 68 77
14 MAA 68 86 DRK 66 76
15 LP 66 81 AP 66 81
16 AI 66 85 RR 64 79
17 MRN 66 83 ATMW 64 68
18 AK 66 80 ALE 64 69
19 MI 66 82 NSI 63 73
1364,90 1607,30

1363,60 1481,00
Mean 71,84 84,59 71,77 77,95
Std. Dev 5,07 5,09 8,85 6,98
Highest Score 80 96 94 93
Lowest Score 63 64 63 68


From the column of pretest score of experimental class we can see that the score of
the pretest in experimental class both to high motivated students and low motivated students
range from 38.5 to 80. The pretest is used to measure the competence of students writing
descriptive text before the treatments is applied.
In control group, there was also a pretest which has the same purpose in experimental
class. From the table of pretest score for control class, we can see that the lowest score in the
class is 32.3 and the highest score achieved by the student is 93.8.
After pretest has been conducted to both experimental class and control class, the
researcher then present different treatment for each class. Experimental class has TSTS
technique and control class has lecturing technique.
After the treatment has been presented, the final step is conducting the posttest. The
posttest show how effectiveness TSTS technique compared with lecturing technique. The result
of the post test can be seen in the two following tables.

The next column is the score of posttest for experimental class. The table shows
that the score of posttest in experimental class treated TSTS technique range from 69.36 to
96.18. The average score for high motivated students has raised from 71.84 to 84.58 or gained
12.75 points. In low motivated students the average score has raised from 54.4 to 77.21 or gained
22.97 points.
From the table of pretest score for control class applied with lecturing technique, we
can see that the range of score is from 42 to 93. The average score of the control class in the
pretest for high motivated students is 71.75 and for low motivated students is 54.88. While in
posttest, the average score for high motivated students is 77.85 and for low motivated students is
62.48. So we can conclude that after the treatment in control class the average score of the high
motivated students has raised from 71.75 to 77.85 or gained 6.10 point. While for low motivated
students, it also has raised from 54.88 to 62.48 or gained 7.60 points.
From all the test, we can see that achievement of the students in experimental and
control class has gained different achievement. In experimental class, the average score of high
motivated between pretest and posttest gained 12.75 points. In low motivated students it gained
22.97 points. If we compared with control class which gained 6.10 point for high motivated
students and 7.60 point for low motivated students. So, the gained score from pretest and posttest
of high motivated students in experimental class is higher 6.65 point than high motivated
students in control class. While low motivated students in experimental class is higher 15.37
points than in control class. So from this result, we can conclude that TSTS make the students
both with high or low motivation in experimental class to gain better score rather than the class
with lecturing technique in writing descriptive text.
1.1.1. Data Analysis
In this part, the researcher first presents about the data normality in pretest and
posttest both in experimental class and control class. After calculating the data normality, the
researcher show the homogeneity of the test. The homogeneity is tested using Levene test of
Variance
1.1.1.1. The test of Data Normality
The test is used to find out whether the sample has a normal distribution or not. The
criterion is: if the level of significance is higher than 0.05, it indicates that the sample is in
normal distribution. In the other hand, if the level of significance is smaller than 0.05, the sample
does not belong to a normal distributed data (Priyatno, 2009:79). So from this explanation, it can
be concluded that the significance score determines the normality of data distribution. If the level
of significance is higher than 0.05 the null hypothesis is accepted.
The hypothesis in normality test is:
- Ho: data has normal distribution
- Ha: Data has not normal distribution
The following table will figure the data normality test both in pretest and posttest
using One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test





Table 4.2
Normality Test of Pretest
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Pre-test
Experiment
High
Motivated
Pre-test
Experiment
Low
Motivated
Pre-test
Control High
Motivated
Pre-test
Control
Low
Motivated
N 19 19 19 19
Normal Parameters
a,b

Mean 71.84 54.24 71.77 54.91
Std. Deviation 5.073 9.184 8.853 8.014
Most Extreme
Differences
Absolute .168 .205 .294 .145
Positive .168 .164 .294 .109
Negative -.131 -.205 -.161 -.145
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .731 .893 1.282 .631
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .659 .403 .075 .821
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Based on the table above, it can be seen that the value of Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) in all
data is higher than 0.05 (0.659, 0.403, 0.075 and 0.821 > 0.05) so it can be concluded that the
data is distributed normally. So null hypothesis is accepted.
Table 4.3
Normality Test of Posttest

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Post-test
Experiment
High
Motivated
Post-test
Experiment
Low
Motivated
Post-test
Control High
Motivated
Post-test
Control
Low
Motivated
N 19 19 19 19
Normal Parameters
a,b

Mean 84.59 77.22 77.95 62.53
Std.
Deviation
5.094 3.475 6.980 9.258
Most Extreme
Differences
Absolute .111 .113 .186 .152
Positive .111 .103 .186 .104
Negative -.063 -.113 -.081 -.152
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .486 .494 .809 .662
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .972 .967 .530 .772
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.

Based on the table above, we can see that Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) for all data is higher
than 0.05 (0.972, 0.967, 0.530 dan 0.772 > 0.05). so it can be concluded that the data is normally
distributed
From the two tables above, it can be concluded that all data from pretest and posttest
belongs to normal distribution data so the further analysis using ANOVA is able to be done.
1.1.1.2. The Test of Homogeneity
This test is used to know the homogeneity of variants. The highest and the lowest
variants are calculated using statistical analysis called Leven Test of Homogeneity of Variance
Table 4.4
Homogeneity of Pretest

Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Pre-test
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
2.576 3 72 .060

The criterion of the test:
- If significance value / P-value < 0.05, means the data is not homogeny
- If significance value / P-value > 0.05, means the data is homogeny
- Based on the Statistical calculation table above, Levene Statistic is 2.576
and Sig. 0.060, because Sig. > 0.060 (0.060 > 0.05) so it can be concluded that the data is
homogeny
Table 4.5
Homogeneity of Posttest

Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Post-test
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
2.185 3 72 .059

The criterion of the test:
- If significance value / P-value < 0.05, means the data is not homogeny
- If significance value / P-value > 0.05, means the data is homogeny
Based on the Statistical calculation table above, Levene Statistic is 2,185 and Sig.
0.059, because Sig. > 0.059 (0.059 > 0.05) so it can be concluded that the data is homogeny
From the two tables above we can see that the variance of the data show the
characteristic of homogeneity. The P-value from both pretest and posttest >0.05. So it can be
concluded that the variance of the two groups are homogeny.
1.2. Discussion on Research Findings
This part will explain and discuss all the result gained from pretest and posttest. This
part will answer the research question based on the analysis on the result of the data obtained
from pretest and posttest.



1.2.1. The Effectiveness of TSTS Technique Compared with Lecturing Technique to High
Motivated Students in Writing Descriptive Text
The effectiveness of TSTS in experimental class compared with lecturing technique
to high motivated students can be seen in the following tables
Table 4.6
Means Score of TSTS and LT to High Motivated Students
Group Statistics

Data Test N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
High Motivated
TSTS 19 84.59 5.094 1.169
Lecturing
Technique
1
9
7
7.95
6
.980
1.
601

From the table above, we can see that the mean score of high motivated students who
has TSTS achieved 84.59 and who has lecturing technique is 77.95. So we can conclude that
TSTS has made higher score compared with lecturing technique to high motivated students.
Table 4.7
The Test Score of TSTS and LT to High Motivated Students

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Differen
Std. Error
Differenc
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
ce e Lower Upper
High
Motivated
Equal
variances
assumed
1.456 .235 3.353 36 .002 6.647 1.982 2.627 10.668
Equal
variances
not
assumed

3.353 32.9
37
.002 6.647 1.982 2.614 10.681
Notes:
- If Sig. /P-value < 0.05 means there is significant difference
- If Sig. /P-value > 0.05 means there is no significant difference
Hypothesis:
- Ho = there is no significant difference in the test score between experimental class and control
class to high motivated students.
- Ha = there is significant difference in the test score between experimental class and control
class to high motivated students.
Based on the table above the value of Sig, 0.002 < 0.05. So, it can be concluded that
Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted. It means that there is significant difference between the
students score test who has TSTS (experimental class) and lecturing Technique (control class) to
high motivated students. From the means score of the posttest the students who has TSTS
technique got 84.59 and lecturing technique gained 77.95. So it can be concluded that TSTS is
more effective than lecturing technique to improve the students competence in writing
descriptive text to high motivated students.
1.2.2. The Effectiveness of TSTS Technique Compared with Lecturing Technique to Low
Motivated Students in Writing Descriptive Text
The effectiveness of TSTS Technique compared with lecturing technique to low
motivated students can be seen in the following tables

Table 4.8
Means Score of TSTS Technique and LT to Low Motivated Students

Group Statistics

Data Test N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Low Motivated
TSTS 19 77.22 3.475 .797
Lecturing Technique 19 62.53 9.258 2.124

From the table above, the mean score for the low motivated students who has TSTS
technique gained 77.22. While the students who has Lecturing technique gained 62.53. So we
can conclude that TSTS has made higher test score compared with lecturing technique to low
motivated students.
Table 4.9
The Test Score of TSTS and LT to Low Motivated Students
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Differenc
e
Std.
Error
Differenc
e
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Low
Motivate
d
Equal
variances
assumed
9.654 .004 6.475 36 .000 14.689 2.269 10.089 19.290
Equal
variances
not
assumed

6.475 22.97
3
.000 14.689 2.269 9.996 19.383
Notes:
- If Sig. /P-value < 0.05 means there is significant difference
- If Sig. /P-value > 0.05 means there is no significant difference
Hypothesis:
- Ho = there is no significant difference in the test score between experimental class and control
class to low motivated students.
- Ha = there is significant difference in the test score between experimental class and control
class to low motivated students.
Based on the data above, the value of Sig, 0.000 < 0.05, so it can be concluded that
Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted. It means that there is significant difference on the test score
between the class taught with TSTS technique and the class taught with lecturing technique to
the students with low motivation. From the mean score of the posttest score, the students taught
with TSTS got 77.22 and the students taught with lecturing technique got 62.53. So, from this
result, it can be concluded that TSTS Technique gives more effective result than lecturing
technique to improve the students competence in writing descriptive text to low motivated
students.
1.2.3. The effectiveness of TSTS technique to high and low motivated students in writing
descriptive text
The effectiveness of TSTS Technique to low and high motivated students in writing
descriptive text can be seen in the following tables
Table 4.10
Means Score of TSTS Technique to Low and High Motivated Students
Group Statistics

Data Test N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
TSTS
High Motivated 19 84.59 5.094 1.169
Low Motivated 19 77.22 3.475 .797

From the table above, in experimental class we can see that the mean score of High
motivated students got 84.59 and low motivated students got 77.22.
Table 4.11
Test Score of TSTS Technique to Low and High Motivated Students
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Differenc
e
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
TST
S
Equal variances
assumed
2.511 .122 5.216 36 .000 7.379 1.415 4.510 10.248
Equal variances not
assumed

5.216 31.770 .000 7.379 1.415 4.497 10.261
Notes:
- If Sig. /P-value < 0.05 means there is significant difference
- If Sig. /P-value > 0.05 means there is no significant difference
Hypothesis:
- Ho = there is no significant difference in the test score between low and high motivated
students in the class taught with TSTS
- Ha = there is significant difference in the test score between low and high motivated students
in the class taught with TSTS
Based on the statistical calculation above, Sig, 0.000 < 0.05. So it can be concluded
that Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted or it means that there is a significant differences in the
result between low and high motivated students in experimental class taught with TSTS. From
the mean score we can also see that low motivated gained 84.59 and low motivated students
gained 77.22 So it can be concluded that TSTS technique in experimental class is more effective
to high motivated students to improve the competence in writing descriptive text.
1.2.4. The effectiveness of Lecturing technique to high and low motivated students in
writing descriptive text
The next research question is to find out how significant is lecturing technique to
high and low motivated students in improving the students competence in writing descriptive
text. To prove the significant, we can see the following table.
Table 4.12
Means Score of Lecturing Technique to Low and High Motivated Students
Group Statistics

Data Test N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Lecture Technique
High Motivated 19 77.95 6.980 1.601
Low Motivated 19 62.53 9.258 2.124

From the table, we can see that mean score for high motivated students taught using
lecturing technique is 77.95 and the mean score for the lowly motivated is 62.53.
Table 4.13
Test Score of Lecturing Technique to Low and High Motivated Students
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Differenc
e
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Lecture
Tecnique
Equal variances
assumed
.958 .334 5.798 36 .000 15.421 2.660 10.027 20.816
Equal variances
not assumed

5.798 33.46
6
.000 15.421 2.660 10.012 20.830
Notes:
- If Sig. /P-value < 0.05 means there is significant difference
- If Sig. /P-value > 0.05 means there is no significant difference
Hypothesis:
- Ho = there is no significant difference in the test score between low and high motivated
students in the class taught with Lecturing technique
- Ha = there is significant difference in the test score between low and high motivated students
in the class taught with Lecturing technique
From the table above, the value of Sig, 0.000 < 0.05, it means that that Ho is rejected
and Ha is accepted. There is significant differences in the test score between low motivated
students and high motivated students in the class taught with lecturing technique. High motivated
students in control class achieved 77.95 mean score, while low motivated students achieved
62.53. So it can be concluded that lecturing technique is more effective to high motivated
students rather than low motivated students in writing descriptive text.

1.2.5. Interaction Between Teaching Technique (TSTS and Lecturing Technique) and
Motivation (Low and High Motivated Students)
The fifth research question is about the significance of the interaction between the
technique (TSTS technique and lecturing technique) and motivation (low and high motivated
students). To know how significant it is we can see the following tables.
Table 4.14
Table of Subject Factors

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N
Technique 1 TSTS 38
2
Lecture
Technique
38
Motivation
1 High 38
2 Low 38

From the table above it can be explained that the data is divided into two Techniques
and two motivation. The Technique, technique or strategy is divided into TSTS and lecturing
technique and Motivation divided into Low and High motivated students. There were 38 students
in every group.

Table 4.15
Means and Standard Deviation of Data

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: Score
Technique Motivation Mean Std. Deviation N
TSTS
High 84.59 5.094 19
Low 77.22 3.475 19
Total 80.91 5.699 38
LT
High 77.95 6.980 19
Low 62.53 9.258 19
Total 70.24 11.245 38
Total
High 81.27 6.904 38
Low 69.87 10.148 38
Total 75.57 10.356 76

From the data above it can be seen the mean score and standard deviation for each
group in posttest in both experimental and control class. It can be seen that the mean score of
experimental class taught by TSTS is higher than control class taught by lecturing technique to
both high and low motivated students.

Table 4.16
Level of Error Variances Data

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
a

Dependent Variable: Score
F df1 df2 Sig.
4.185 3 72 .009
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent
variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Technique + Motivated + Technique * Motivated

From the table above, it can be summarized that the homogeneity of the data of
dependent variables across groups. Based on the result above, the value is greater than 0.05. It
indicates that the dependent variables is equal across group. If the sig. value is less than 0.05 then
it can be concluded that the variance across the groups is different significantly.

Table 4.17
Mean score of TSTS and LT
1. Technique
Dependent Variable: Score
Technique Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
TSTS 80.905 1.065 78.782 83.029
LT 70.237 1.065 68.114 72.360


Based on the table above, it can be seen that the means score of students were treated
by TSTS got 80.905 and the means score of the students treated by LT is 70.237. it means that
TSTS has better effect to increase the competence of the students in writing descriptive text.
Table 4.18
Mean score of High Motivated and Low Motivated

2. Motivation
Dependent Variable: Score
Motivation Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
High 81.271 1.065 79.148 83.394
Low 69.871 1.065 67.748 71.994

From the table above, it can be seen that the means score of students motivation is so
different. High motivated students got 81.271. While low motivated students got 69.871

Table 4.19
Mean score of Students Motivation and Technique

3. Technique * Motivation
Dependent Variable: Score
Technique Motivation Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
TSTS
High 84.595 1.506 81.592 87.598
Low 77.216 1.506 74.213 80.219
LT
High 77.947 1.506 74.945 80.950
Low 62.526 1.506 59.523 65.529

From the table above, it can be seen that the means score of the technique motivation
table in experimental class and control class are very different. In experimental class treated by
TSTS, the means score for high motivated is 84.595 and for low motivated is 77.216. On the
other hand, in control class treated by lecturing technique, the means score for High motivated is
77.947 and for low motivated students the means score is 62.626
Table 4.20
Result of Each Subject Effect
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Score
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 4938.937
a
3 1646.312 38.186 .000
Intercept 434034.784 1 434034.784 10067.496 .000
Technique 2162.489 1 2162.489 50.159 .000
Motivated 2469.240 1 2469.240 57.274 .000
Technique *
Motivated
307.208 1 307.208 7.126 .009
Error 3104.099 72 43.112

Total 442077.820 76

Corrected Total 8043.036 75

a. R Squared = .614 (Adjusted R Squared = .598)

Hypothesis 1:
- Ho = the score achieved is not different between students taught with TSTS and lecturing
technique
- Ha = the score achieved is different between students taught with TSTS and lecturing
technique
Based on the table above, F value = 50.159 and the sig value is 0.000. Because sig
value (0.000) < 0.05 so Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected. It means that the result of the students
learning between TSTS and lecturing technique is significantly different.
Hypothesis 2:
- Ho = the test score between high motivated students and low motivated students is not
different
- Ha = the test score between high motivated students and low motivated students is different
Based on the table, it can be seen that F value = 57.274 at the level significance
0.000. Because Sig. (0.000) < 0.05 so, Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected. It means that there is
significant difference in students test score between low and high motivated students
The interaction between the technique and motivation can be explained as follow.
From the test, the sig. value 0.009 or lower than 0.05 (0.009<0.05). So it can be concluded that
there is interaction between the use of the technique to the students score and competence. It
means that TSTS technique is effective to improve the students test score and their competence
especially in writing descriptive text.
In the relationship among variables, R square = 0.614, this value shows how big is
the relationship among the variables. Because the value of R square is in the range of 0.600
0.800, means there is a significant relationship between the technique, students learning
motivation and the competence of students writing descriptive text.

1.3. Discussion
The aim of this research is to find out the effectiveness of TSTS technique to
improve the students competence in writing descriptive text both to high motivated and low
motivated students. To make it easier to be measured, the technique is compared with the
technique usually used by the teacher in teaching writing descriptive text, so lecturing technique
was chosen as the compared technique.
Before the treatment is applied, the researcher divide the class into two groups, high
motivated students and low motivated students. The teacher delivered a questionnaire to
determine where the students should be categorized. The questionnaire contains several question
related with the students learning habit and their view about English teaching learning. After the
students answered the questionnaire, the answer or score will be the tool to determine whether
the students are highly motivated or lowly motivated in English class.
After that, the teacher delivered pretest for the experiment class and control class.
The pretest is very important to know whether the competence of the students are in the same
level or not. The score of the pretest will be used later in statistical calculation.
The next step is presenting the treatment. Experimental class will have TSTS activity
and control class will have lecturing technique.
The procedure of TSTS technique is very simple. At the first meeting, the teacher
divided the experimental class into 4 or 5 students. The teacher firstly gave explanation about the
steps of TSTS technique. After the students understood what TSTS is and the procedure on how
to do it, teacher delivered a copy of material should be learnt by each group. Each of group had
different material should be learnt. The differences has the purpose that at the next classroom
activity, they can share the material they have to the students in other groups. After the groups
has discussed and understood the material they have, two students will stray to other group as
guest and two others will stay in the group to receive the guest strayed from other groups. The
activity of TSTS encourage the students to be active both in giving idea or absorbing idea from
others. TSTS is designed to make the students easy to express their idea. They have the
responsibility to getting idea from the host to share to their own group later. The host also feel
responsible to explain their material to the guest well. After the guest (strayed students) got the
point on the material shared by the host they will go back to their own group and share what they
got from the other groups. In the end of the activity, each group will present about what they
have learnt in the activity. The presentation is expected to make all the students get all the
material related with writing descriptive text.
The second cycle in teaching learning activity is just same like the first session,
dividing into the same previous group. But in this session the students will have different
example and assignment of writing descriptive text. The guess will stray as usual and the host
will stay in the group. The guest will discuss with the host about the task they have. They will
make a draft by doing brainstorming using flashcards given by the teacher to make a certain
descriptive text. After they have finished, as they do before, the guest will back to their group
and then they discuss about their own work and make revision is needed. Finally they will
present their work in front of the class.
The final steps is giving individual task to each students to know the level of
competence they achieved after they got the treatment. The calculation using software on the test
score both pretest and posttest will show whether the use of TSTS has succeed to improve the
students competence in writing descriptive to high and low motivated students.
After getting all the data, the researcher calculated the data using normality test and
homogeneity test. The data showed that the value of Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) in pre-test score of
experimental class is higher than 0.05 (0.659 and 0.403 > 0.05). In control class, the value of
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) is also higher than 0.05 (0.075 and 0.821 > 0.05) so it can be concluded
that all the data is distributed normally. From the posttest we can see that Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
in posttest score of experimental class is higher than 0.05 (0.972, 0.967,>0.05). In control class
Asymp. Sig.(2-tailed) ias also higher than 0.05 (0.530 dan 0.772 > 0.05) so it can be concluded
that the data is normally distributed.
Levene Statistic of the pretest is 2.576 and Sig. 0.060, because Sig. > 0.060 (0.060
> 0.05) so it can be concluded that the data is homogeny. While in posttest, Levene Statistic is
2,185 and Sig. 0.059, because Sig. > 0.059 (0.059 > 0.05) so it can be concluded that the data
is homogeny
So from the Levene statistic of pretest and posttest we can see that the variance of the
data show the characteristic of homogeneity. The P-value from both pretest and posttest >0.05.
So it can be concluded that the variance of the two groups are homogeny. Because all data is
normal and homogeneity, so the instruments were appropriate to give to the students.
For the first question, it wants to answer how effective is TSTS in experimental class
compared with lecturing technique to high motivated students. From the data calculation showed
that the value of Sig, 0.002 < 0.05. It means that there is significant difference between the
students score test who has TSTS (experimental class) and lecturing Technique (control class) to
high motivated students. The means score also showed that the students who has TSTS technique
got 84.59 and lecturing technique gained 77.95. So, from this fact it can be concluded that TSTS
is more effective than lecturing technique to improve the students competence in writing
descriptive text to high motivated students.
In the second question where the question is about the effectiveness of TSTS
Technique compared with lecturing technique to low motivated students. The data showed that
the value of Sig, 0.000 < 0.05. It means that there is significant difference on the test score
between the class taught with TSTS technique and the class taught with lecturing technique to
the students with low motivation. From the mean score of the posttest score, the students taught
with TSTS got 77.22 and the students taught with lecturing technique got 62.53. So, from this
result, it can be concluded that TSTS Technique gives more effective result than lecturing
technique to improve the students competence in writing descriptive text to low motivated
students.
For the third data, it is about the effectiveness of TSTS Technique to low and high
motivated students in writing descriptive text. The data showed, Sig, 0.000 < 0.05. So it means
that there is a significant differences in the result between low and high motivated students in
experimental class taught with TSTS. From the mean score we can also see that low motivated
gained 84.59 and low motivated students gained 77.22 So it can be concluded that TSTS
technique in experimental class is more effective to high motivated students to improve the
competence in writing descriptive text.
For the next question about how effective is lecturing technique to high and low
motivated students in improving the students competence in writing descriptive text. The data
showed that, the value of Sig, 0.000 < 0.05. So, there is significant differences in the test score
between low motivated students and high motivated students in the class taught with lecturing
technique. High motivated students in control class achieved 77.95 mean score, while low
motivated students achieved 62.53. So it can be concluded that lecturing technique is more
effective to high motivated students rather than low motivated students in writing descriptive
text.
The last question is about the interaction between the technique and motivation and
competence. Based on the table above, F value = 50.159 and the sig value is 0.000. Because sig
value (0.000) < 0.05., it means that the result of the students learning between TSTS and
lecturing technique is significantly different. Based on the table, it can be seen that F value =
57.274 at the level significance 0.000. Because Sig. (0.000) < 0.05, it means that there is
significant difference in students test score between low and high motivated students
The interaction between the technique and motivation can be explained as follow.
From the test, the sig. value 0.009 or lower than 0.05 (0.009<0.05). So it can be concluded that
there is interaction between the use of the technique to the students score and competence. It
means that TSTS technique is effective to improve the students test score and their competence
especially in writing descriptive text.
In the relationship among variables, R square = 0.614, this value shows how big is
the relationship among the variables. Because the value of R square is in the range of 0.600
0.800, means there is a significant relationship between the technique, students learning
motivation and the competence of students writing descriptive text.
Finally, from all the explanation based on the data gained in the research and after
the calculation using statistical calculation, the research has proven that TSTS technique has
been succeed to improve the students competence in writing descriptive text both to high
motivated students and low motivated students. If TSTS is compared with the technique used by
the teacher in daily teaching learning activities (i.e. Lecturing Technique), it has proven that
TSTS is more effective to improve the students competence in writing descriptive text to both
high and low motivated students.




CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter presents some conclusion after the research was finally done and based
on the result stated in the previous chapter. This chapter also draws some suggestion that
proposed related with the findings in the research.
1.1. Conclusion
Before presenting the conclusion, I think it is very important to review the purpose
of the research. The purpose is to show the effectiveness of TSTS technique compared to LT in
writing descriptive text to high and motivated students. From the findings, I can briefly explain
as follow.
First, TSTS technique has shown a significant and different result in the students
competence of writing descriptive text compared with LT to high motivated students. Highly
motivated students in experimental class had achieved better test score rather than high
motivated students in control class.
Second, TSTS technique also indicated significant difference in the result compared
with LT to low motivated students. The low motivated students in experimental class taught with
TSTS Technique gained better result that control class taught with LT.
Third, from the statistical calculation showed that TSTS technique in experimental
class is more effective to high motivated students to improve the competence in writing
descriptive text.
Fourth, the competence of writing descriptive to the students taught with lecturing
technique showed that lecturing technique is more effective to high motivated students rather
than low motivated students.
Fifth, from the data calculation it can be stated that there is a significant
relationship between the technique, students learning motivation and the competence of students
writing descriptive text.
From all the result it can be concluded that TSTS technique has shown effective
result both to low motivated students and high motivated students compared with LT in students
writing of descriptive text. So, TSTS technique can be used in the teaching learning process
especially in writing descriptive text in Junior High school.
1.2. Suggestions
Based on the results of TSTS technique that showed significant result to the students
competence in writing descriptive text, I can propose some suggestions for further research as
follows
a) TSTS technique could be compared with other cooperative learning techniques to find out the
effectiveness of TSTS technique among other cooperative learning models to improve the
competence of students writing descriptive text.
b) The various media also can be used to support the TSTS technique implementation in English
writing teaching learning process to make TSTS would be more effective and obtain better
competence to the students writing.
c) The TSTS technique in this research was applied in Junior high school. In the other research
there would be interesting if the technique also applied in higher or lower degree of education
such as: in elementary school or Senior high school or even to the university level students.
d) TSTS technique in this research was used to find out the effectiveness in writing descriptive
text. There would be interesting if other researcher used TSTS technique in other skills like in
teaching learning vocabularies, or even in speaking skill.