6 views

Uploaded by deemustcampredo

- Evaluation of Scientific Publications - Part 12 - Choosing statistical tests.pdf
- jurnal madia
- Outliers
- Group 3 Class C - Parking Area of RSUP Dr. Sardjito
- Outliers
- Scientific Evolution Sàrl Catalog
- Mathematics Promotional Exam Cheat Sheet
- stats final paper thingy
- Output Spss
- 9709_m17_qp_72.pdf
- PSII Project - Grp B13A
- CB TOWARDS SMARTPHONE
- Summary of Data Collection and Analysis Process
- outliers.pdf
- PSYC2012 Research Method
- orca_share_media1555938387748
- STATISTICAL TEST
- Studying Methodology Workshop for FMT Students
- t-testpowerpoint
- chinese and non chinese

You are on page 1of 10

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

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

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

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

- Evaluation of Scientific Publications - Part 12 - Choosing statistical tests.pdfUploaded byPho
- jurnal madiaUploaded byANDRI FEBRIANTO
- OutliersUploaded bymanuelq9
- Group 3 Class C - Parking Area of RSUP Dr. SardjitoUploaded byYunitha Ratnadilla
- OutliersUploaded byAman Mahajan
- Scientific Evolution Sàrl CatalogUploaded byVincent ISOZ
- Mathematics Promotional Exam Cheat SheetUploaded byAlan Aw
- stats final paper thingyUploaded byapi-270106405
- Output SpssUploaded byHusin Bin Gunberi Husinz
- 9709_m17_qp_72.pdfUploaded bySonia Mascarenhas
- PSII Project - Grp B13AUploaded bytejaswi51234
- CB TOWARDS SMARTPHONEUploaded byheena
- Summary of Data Collection and Analysis ProcessUploaded byDr Muhammad Mushtaq Mangat
- outliers.pdfUploaded byBagus Hadiwibowo
- PSYC2012 Research MethodUploaded byM Yousuf Adam
- orca_share_media1555938387748Uploaded byjjj ccc
- STATISTICAL TESTUploaded byTasha Razi
- Studying Methodology Workshop for FMT StudentsUploaded bykangnalu
- t-testpowerpointUploaded byapi-261665230
- chinese and non chineseUploaded bysampathfriend
- Distribusi Frekuensi - REVISIUploaded bydandiners
- The Friedman TestUploaded byJakobus Benny Salim
- MSQ171 Revision Lecture - StudentUploaded bySteph Terrill
- 1990 Watts and ZimmermanUploaded bySaiful Iksan Pratama
- Kakatiya University - MbasyllUploaded byShyam Sfdc
- Data Driven Decision HW 1Uploaded byJen Chang
- toyota project marketingUploaded byJitto Joshy
- Michalsik & Aagaard, 2015 - Physical Demands in Elite Team Handball - Comparisons Between Male and Female PlayersUploaded byAlexandru Gherman
- Attributes Enhancing Industrial Productivity an Empirical AnalysisUploaded byesatjournals
- Learning Team Week 4 QNT351 University of PhoenixUploaded byLS

- perubahan 4 perpres nomor 79 tahun 2006 tentang perubahan keempat atas keppres nomor 80 tahun 2003 tentang pedoman pelaksanaan pengadaan barang dan jasa pemerintahUploaded bymightylubu
- RAPAT SUSUTUploaded bydeemustcampredo
- 3._Joko_Widodo_-_Naskah_Pembacaan_Pengumuman_Uploaded byAndika Taufik
- ipi88587Uploaded byTama
- smart[2]Uploaded bydeemustcampredo
- Teknik DigitalUploaded bydeemustcampredo
- TGI PENTANAHAN GIUploaded bydeemustcampredo
- YesUploaded bydeemustcampredo
- Mekanisme dan Pengumuman ujian komprehensifUploaded bydeemustcampredo
- hal 4 -PLNUploaded bydeemustcampredo

- mancova.pdfUploaded byDagoel Sriyansyah
- Week 9Uploaded byKelvin Yuen
- Examples Model BuildingUploaded byHorace Choi
- Chebyshev Best ExplainedUploaded byHarold Valdivia Garcia
- Vine CopulaUploaded byoloyede_wole3741
- OM Test 1-Sample (Undergraduate)Uploaded byRobin T
- mid term MB-1Uploaded byadeepcdma
- Types of ClassifiersUploaded byDurgesh Kumar
- The Essential Guide to Effect SizesUploaded byWilliam Kent
- 203605060515Econometrics Ch12 Gujarati EditedUploaded byMutia Wahyuni
- Stat RecapUploaded byRajesh Dwivedi
- Factor AnalysisUploaded bySaira Anwar
- Multiple Linear Regression in Data MiningUploaded byakirank1
- STAT 2507 Course OutlineUploaded bydean
- RemlGuideUploaded byMartin Grondona
- 71119Uploaded byrocky21st
- 2009_3_ANOVA matUploaded bydebashisdas
- Ho EstimateUploaded bySakib Baghoust
- DrennanStats in ArcheologyUploaded byLuis Fernando Bejar Luksic
- Demand MilkUploaded byom
- eksponensialUploaded byDia Putranto Harmay
- 15 Types of Regression You Should KnowUploaded byRashidAli
- 144 Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient.pdfUploaded byHassan Bay
- 2015cep2096_lab 3 Trafficmovement HeadwayUploaded byMohit Kohli
- 9709_w12_qp_73Uploaded byAnonymous F8kQ7L4
- 9ABS401 Probability & StatisticsUploaded bysivabharathamurthy
- Evans-practical Business Forecasting[1]. Blackwell.2003 3Uploaded bycarlosaliaga
- SAS Annotated OutputUploaded byzknightvn
- Ch11 [Non-Parametric Tests]Uploaded byCheena Alvarez Vitug
- Ppt-19Uploaded bymayankpec