You are on page 1of 10

CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the research finding and discussion of students reading comprehension before and after treatment by using SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review) Technique in teaching reading comprehension, which includes descriptive analysis of the data, hypothesis testing, and discussion. 4.1 Descriptive Analysis of the Data The illustration of the result of the finding comes from the students score who were taught by SQ3R Technique at the experimental class and the students score who were taught by other at technique control class.
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 No. Responden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Kelas Kontrol Pre-Test 3.91 3.53 3.50 4.80 5.00 4.20 4.10 5.80 4.90 4.81 4.30 4.33 4.10 5.00 5.50 4.70 4.70 5.10 Post-Test 5.00 6.60 6.80 6.61 8.70 7.42 7.50 7.50 8.60 8.60 7.60 8.70 7.00 8.00 7.50 4.80 6.31 6.12 Pre-test 6.60 3.60 5.50 4.20 4.70 4.60 5.90 4.80 4.90 6.50 4.50 4.40 4.30 3.90 5.70 5.20 5.10 5.12 Kelas Eksperimen Post-Test 8.20 5.81 6.93 7.41 8.00 8.12 9.50 7.50 7.50 7.70 8.40 6.90 6.40 7.90 7.40 8.61 8.30 8.42

28

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 SUM MEAN MODE STDEV VARIANCE MEDIAN MAX MIN

4.50 4.60 4.50 4.60 3.70 3.90 5.00 5.40 4.80 5.70 4.70 4.70 3.81 4.90 4.20 4.30

6.50 6.32 6.40 6.80 7.11 6.72 6.30 8.70 5.20 8.70 6.10 5.50 5.90 5.00 5.40 5.20

5.00 4.50 4.00 4.60 5.10 6.00 4.50 5.60 6.40 6.90 5.60 5.22 4.81 5.10 4.90 6.20 5.10 4.30 183.35 5.09 5.10 0.80 0.64 5.05 6.90 3.60

8.50 6.30 7.40 7.80 8.41 7.20 7.70 8.10 9.20 8.60 7.40 7.90 7.50 8.10 7.20 7.50 8.40 7.50 279.71 7.77 7.50 0.76 0.58 7.75 9.50 5.81

155.59 4.58 4.70 0.58 0.33 4.65 5.80 3.50

231.21 6.80 8.70 1.19 1.43 6.67 8.70 4.80

4.1.1 Descriptive Analysis of the Pre test 4.1.1.1 Experimental Class Based on the calculation of students score at pre-test in experimental class, it was found that the mean score from 36 students that were taught by SQ3R was 4, 58, standard deviation was 0, 58, the variance was 0,33, the maximum score was 5,80

29

and the minimum score was 3,50. The detailed description of students score can be seen in table 4.1. Furthermore, based on the classification that provided by Arikunto (1997), students score can be described that twenty-three students (79%) in criteria very poor (0.0-0.39), six students (21%) in criteria poor (4.0-5.5) and no student in criteria fair, good or very good. It can be seen clearly in table below: Table 4.2 Distribution of Students Score Pre Test in Experimental Class Score Classification 9,5 8,00 9,49 6,50 7,99 5,50 6, 49 3 ,01 5,49 3, 00 Frequency 0 0 3 8 25 0 36 Cumulative Percentages % 0,00 0,00 8,33 22,22 69,44 0,00 100 Explanation Excellent Very Good Good Enough Less The Least

4.1.1.2 Control Class Based on the calculation of students score at pre-test in the control class, it was found that the mean score from 34 students that were taught by non-cooperative learning was 5.09, standard deviation was 0.80, the variance was 0.55, the maximum score was 4.2 and the minimum score was 0.8. The detailed description of students score can be seen in table 4.1 Furthermore, based on the classification that provided by Arikunto (1997), students score can be described that twenty-eight students (97%) in criteria very poor (0.0-0.39), one student (3%) in criteria poor (4.0-5.5) and not different with students

30

in experimental class, no student come in criteria fair, good or very good. It can be seen clearly in table below: Table 4.3 Distribution of Students Score at Pre Test in Control Class Score Classification 9,5 8,00 9,49 6,50 7,99 5,50 6, 49 3 ,01 5,49 3, 00 Frequency 0 0 0 3 31 0 34 Cumulative Percentages % 0,00 0,00 0,00 8,82 91,18 0,00 100 Explanation Excellent Very Good Good Enough Less The Least

Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no difference between students scores in the experimental class and the control class before giving them treatment or it can be said that both of classes were homogeneous.

4.1.2 Descriptive Analysis of the Posttest 4.1.2.1 Experimental Class Based on the calculation of students score at post-test in the experimental class, it was found that the mean score from 29 students that were taught by picture was 6.17, standard deviation was 1.50, the variance was 2.27, the maximum score was 8.8 and the minimum score was 3.2. The detailed description of students score can be seen in table 4.1. Furthermore, based on the classification that provided by Arikunto (1997), students score can be described as two students (6.89%) in criteria very poor (0.0-

31

0.39), six students (20.68%) in criteria poor (4.0-5.5), six students (20.68%) in criteria fair (5.6-6.5), thirteen students (44.82%) in criteria good (6.6-7.9) and two students (6.89%) in criteria very good (8.0-10). It can be seen clearly in table below: Table 4.4 Distribution of Students Score at Post Test in Experimental Class Score Classification 9,5 8,00 9,49 6,50 7,99 5,50 6, 49 3 ,01 5,49 3, 00 Frequency 1 14 18 3 0 0 36 Cumulative Percentages % 2,78 38,89 50,00 8,33 0,00 0,00 100 Explanation Excellent Very Good Good Enough Less The Least

4.1.2.2 Control Class Based on the calculation of students score at post-test in control class, it was found that the mean score from 29 students that were taught by non-picture was 4.23, standard deviation was 0.80, the variance was 1.22, the maximum score was 6.6 and the minimum score was 2.6. The detailed description of students score can be seen in table 4.1. In addition, based on the classification that provided by Arikunto (1997), students score can be described that seven students (24.13%) in criteria very poor (0.0-0.39), six students (20.68%) in criteria poor (4.0-5.5), four students (13.79%) in criteria fair (5.6-6.5), one student (3.44%) in criteria good (6.6-7.9) and there was no student in criteria very good. It can be seen clearly in table below:

32

Table 4.5 Distribution of Students Score at Post Test in Control Class Score Classification 9,5 8,00 9,49 6,50 7,99 5,50 6, 49 3 ,01 5,49 3, 00 Frequency 0 7 14 8 5 0 36 Cumulative Percentages % 0,00 20,59 41,18 23,53 14,71 0 100 Explanation Excellent Very Good Good Enough Less The Least

From table above, it can be concluded that the large frequency of students score on posttest at experimental class was on good criteria (44.82%) while in control class was on very poor criteria (24.13%).

4. 2 Hypothesis Testing Before testing the hypothesis, firstly it was checked the homogeneity test to see whether the classes that used for research were homogeneous or not. As can be seen in appendix 12, p 74-75, it was gotten that Fcount was 0.75 and Ftable was 1.99with = 0.05. So it can be concluded that the variance of both of classes were homogeneous because Ftable > Fcount. After that, it was conducted the normality of the data for each class. By using Chi-Square calculation it was found that the data was distributed normally in both of classes which 2count < 2table or -27.008< 11.07 for the experimental class and 2count <

33

2table or -12.368< 11.07 for control class. (For detailed computation could be seen in appendix 13, p 76-78) After conducting the computation of normality and homogeneity test, it can be continued with the hypothesis testing to prove whether there was a significant effect of giving SQ3R to students reading comprehension or not. In this study, the result of post-test of students that were being taught by SQ3R was compared with the result post-test of students that were being taught by non-cooperative learning. For testing the hypothesis, the values of post-test from experimental and control class were needed, as shown in the table below: Table 4.6 Values of Post Test from Experimental Class and Control Class values X S2 N Experimental class 6.17 2.27 29 Control class 4.23 1.22 29

By putting those values into ttest formula, it was found that ttest = 6.25 with = 0.05 and df= 56, ttable = 2.04 (by using interpolation). Therefore, ttest
> ttable

or H0 was

rejected and H1 was accepted. It means that there was a significant effect of picture on students vocabulary achievement at first year students of SMP Negeri 3 Lainea. As can be seen in the graph below, students mean score in experimental class (using picture) was raised from 3.02 at pre test became 6.17 at post-test(3.15 significant increased). While, students mean score in control class raised from 2.42 on pre test
34

became 4.23 at post-test. This result proved that the students who were taught by picture had a significant difference with students who were taught by non-picture with the 1.81 point of significant difference.

Graph 4.1 The comparison of Pre Test and Post Test between Experimental Class and Control Class

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 3.02

6.17

4.23 pre test 2.42 post test

experimental class

control class

4.3 Discussion The result of the study showed that, there is significant effect of using picture on the improvement of students vocabulary achievement. It is supported by Ur (1996: 64), who states, younger learners react well to concrete illustration. Picture as concrete illustration help students in understanding and remembering the new

35

word that they have found when they are exploring the picture. Students of SMP Negeri 3 Lainea as beginner learner react well when they learn by using picture, more so than they did when not using picture. The improvement of students vocabulary achievement may be caused by number of factors, they are: first is size of picture, supported by a journal statement that the sizes are proportional so that the students can imagine the real size of the object in the picture easily; second is colour of picture, this is supported by Ur (1996:289) states that the most obvious type of visual material for children is the picture and the more clearly visible, striking and colorful the better; and the third is the way of the teacher presenting the new word that still have linked each other in each meeting, supported by Ur (1996: 67) states that you will get bettter result if items can be linked each other. In addition Lewis and Hill (1992) stated that picture is a kind of visual aid that in use in teaching vocabulary, also picture can be used to give meaningful information about an object or a thing, also can help the students to convey the meaning which cannot be expressed in word. Grouping also have contribution in improvement of students vocabulary achievement because students ore active in exploring the picture. In this research, picture has a significant improvement of vocabulary achievement of students at 7th year of SMP Negeri 3 Lainea.

36

37