Chapter III Nuraina

7/30/2019 Chapter III Nuraina

1/29

CHAPTER III

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDING

A. The Location of Research

1. Schools Profile

SMP Negeri 4 Baktiya is was established on June 24 th, 1992. The school is

located at Jalan Seunuddon Panteu Breuh, Kec. Baktiya, Kab. Aceh Utara. Now,

the school has been led by Azhari, S. Pd. It has 11 classrooms, a science and

biology lab, a library, a hall, a principals room, a teachers room, an

administration room, a praying room, and a prayer room. Below is the

specification of SMP Negeri 4 Baktiya facilities.

Table 1

The Facilities of SMA Negeri 1 Baktiya

No Facilities Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

Classroom

Principals Room

Teachers Room

Praying Room

Library

Hall

Science and Biology LabAdministration Room

11

1

1

1

1

1

11

2. The Teacher

There are 18 teachers and 6 employees in administration room in SMP

Negeri 4 Baktiya. They come from different education backgrounds. The teachers

21


2/29

who teach English subject are 3 teachers. They are graduated from university in

Aceh. Here is the list of their class teaching in this school and their educational

background.

Table 2

The English Teacher of SMA Negeri 1 Baktiya

No Name Class Age Sex Education

1

2

3

Afriani, S.Pd

Nursyamsyiah, S.Pd

Yuslinawati, S.Pd

I, II, and III

I, II, and III

I and II

43

55

46

Female

Female

Female

Unsyiah

Unsyiah

Unimus

3. The Students

The numbrt of students in 2011/2012 academic year is 342 students. There

are 11 classes in this school, three classes in 7 thgrade, four classes in 8th grade and

four classes in 9

th

grade. Here is the detail based on the gender

Table 3

The Students of SMP Negeri 4 Baktiya

No Grade Male Female Total

1

2

3

The seventh year students

The eighth year students

The ninth year students

55

61

69

48

66

43

103

127

112

Total 183 157 342

B. The Process of Teaching

22


3/29

In experimental class, the students had given the treatment for 4 meatings

about speaking by using pair work before they practice conversation to prove the

hypothesis accepted or not.

a. The First Meeting

The cycle was conducted on October 12th, 2011. To open the activities of

the teaching and learning process, the researcher spent ten minutes to lead

students to English speaking by asking who was absent on that day. Moreover, the

researcher asked to practice speaking in front of the class to know how are their

ability in speaking

In the meeting, it was found that the students have many difficulties in

learning speaking and use it in their communication. After that, he began to teach

speaking by using pair work. He taughth about introducing by asked them to be

in pair. By pair work, the students become interested and want to speak about the

topic because they did not feel shy. Uncounsiously, they practice and use

vocabulary together at the same time and become more interactive.

After the teaching learning process had done, the researcher concluded the

point of study and tell them that the study would be held again on october 14th,

2011. Then, the researcher gave his gratitude for the corporation during the

research conducted.

b. The Second Meeting

23


4/29

In this meeting, the teacher began the class with greeting and checking the

students attendance. Then, brainstorming the students knowledge about the

topic, there is introducing. But here, the study did widely about introduce your

friend. The researcher introduced the speaking skill by asked them to be in pair.

Then teacher gave the students a passage of speaking that was the researcher

wants to tell to them. The teacher began to tell the dialogue with his own word

based on the text given. And the students listened the teacher spoken. In the

second step, the teacher explained and spoke in front of the class how to produced

word into short dialogue. In the third step, the teacher gave a passage of dialogue

to students and they worked in pair with their friends and practiced the

conversation into their own word based on the explanation that teacher has given.

While the students practicing the task, the teacher controlled and helped them,

also gave them motivation. After they finished with the task, the students needed

to practice the task for several times, and asking their teacher whatever they had

problems on speaking.

Next, after the teacher felt that the students have no more problems during

practicing, the researcher and students agreed to present the pair work in front of

the class, the researcher gave a chance for students to perform their action in turn.

The students were given ten minutes for presentation. However, the researcher

gave the model first.

The students were actively involved in speaking although they made noise.

After the first pairs were ready to perform the action in front of the class. The

other students paid attention as well. They were waiting for their turn. The

24


5/29

researcher asked the other students to keep on paying attention toward their

friends performance. It would become their additional input. Due to five minutes

left and it is impossible to finish the students presentation all. So, the teacher

stopped. The rest of them would be presented at the third meeting. Finally, the

researcher asked them to practice at home and after the bell rang; the teacher

ended the class by saying good-bye and good-luck.

c. The Third Meeting

In third meeting (October 19th, 2011), the researcher prepared the class for

the English subject, checking the students attendance, and asking them whether

they practiced the dialogue at home. After that the researcher asked the rest of

students to present their turn as the previous conversation. After the students

finishing their action, the researcher began the study with new topic. It is about

hobbies. The researcher divided the students into pair work again. The

researcher asked each pair work to arrange conversations that entitled hobbies.

During the pair working the task, the teacher rounded the class and helped them

while they had problems with grammar, fluency, comprehension and

pronunciation. They finished the task and the researcher gave them ten minutes to

practice it.

Next, without wasting any time, the teacher asked them to present their

dialogue in front of class. Some students seem satisfied with their work because

they are happy to perform the dialogue. However, many of them still speak very

slowly when presentation by using pair work in front of class so that the teacher

has to come closer to listen what they were talking about.

25


6/29

Finally, all pairs had finished the presentation and bell was ringing, the

teacher ended the class by saying good luck.

d. The Fouth Meeting

In this meeting (October 21th, 2011), the researcher began the class

with greeting and checking the students' attendance. Then brainstorming

did to the students to know students' knowledge about the topic "My

Hobby" by asking some questions. The first question was "What are your

hobbies?" most of students answered "playing football, sing, swimming,

and so on." The second question was "Why do you like that?" there were various

answering form them i.e. make me fun, make me healthy, and so on.

Furthermore, the fourth step done by the researcher introduced kind

of hobbies that seen around us. And then the researcher told the students many

of them. The researcher began telling the hobbies and some reason why

people like that . After that, the researcher asked a volunteer to make a

conversation. Next, the researcher asked them makes a conversation based on their

hobby by pair work. Then they did it and showed it in front of the class.

Finally, the time is left few minutes more. The researcher asked them to

practice at home and the class will be continued with the final test. After the bell

rang; the teacher ended the class by saying good-bye and good-luck.

C. The Implementation of the Test

26


7/29

The score giving follow the rating scale accuracy, fluency, and

comprehensibility. It is the rating scale which described the score 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

by Heaton. Here are the criteria of scoring for speaking.1

Score Accuracy Fluency Comprehensibility

6

Pronunciation is

influenced by the mother

tongue but only a few

serious phonological

errors. Several

grammatical and lexical

errors, some of whichcause confusion

Has to make an effort for

much of the time. Often

has to search for the

desired meaning. Rather

halting delivery and

fragmentary. Range of

expression often limited

The listener can

understand a lot of what

is said, but he must

constantly seek

clarification. Cannot

understand many of the

speakers more complexor longer sentences

5

Pronunciation is

sometime influenced by

the mother tongue. But

only a few serious

phonological errors.

Some grammatical and

lexical errors, some of

which cause confusion

Has to make an effort for

some of the time.

Sometime has to search

for desired meaning.

Rather halting delivery

and fragmentary. Range

of expression often

limited

The listener can

understand a lot of what

is said, but he must

constantly seek

clarification. Cannot

understand several of the

speakers more complex

or longer sentences

4

Pronunciation seriously

influenced by the mother

tongue with error causing

a break down in

communication. Many

basic grammatical and

lexical errors

Long pauses while he

searches for the desired

meaning. Frequently

fragmentary and halting

delivery. Almost gives up

making the effort at times

Only small bits (usually

short sentences and

phrases) can be

understood and then with

considerable effort by

someone who is used to

listening to the speaker.

3

Pronunciation seriously

influenced by the mothertongue with some errors

causing a breakdown in

communication. Many


lexical errors

Long pauses while he

searches for the desiredmeaning. Frequently

fragmentary and halting

delivery. Almost gives up

making the effort at

times. Limited range of

expression

Small bits (usually short

sentence and phrases) canbe understood and then

with considerable effort

by someone who is used

to listening to the speaker

2 Serious pronunciation

errors as well as many


Full of long and

unnatural pauses. Very

halting and fragmentary

Hardly anything of what

is said can be understood.

Even when the listener

1

J. B. Heaton. Writing English Language Tests. (Longman Group. UK Limited: 1988)P. 98

27


8/29

lexical errors. No

evidence of having

mastered any of thelanguage skills and areas

practiced in the course

delivery. At times gives

up making the effort.

Very limited range ofexpression.

makes a great effort or

interrupts. The speaker is

unable to clarify anythinghe seems to have said

1

Serious pronunciation

errors and many basic

grammatical and lexical

errors. A little evidence

of having mastered any

of the language skills and

areas practiced in the

course

Some of long and

unnatural pauses.

Sometime very halting

and fragmentary

delivery. At times gives

up making the effort.

Very limited range of

expression.

Sometime anything of

what is said can be

understood. Even when

the listener makes a great

effort or interrupts. The

speaker is unable to

clarify anything he seems

to have said

1. Pre Test

During the pre-test, the students ware asked to practice the speaking by

pair work. The pre-test was held in 60 minutes on October, 7 th, 2011. The results

of the pre-test which ware obtained by the students in the first meeting that

described clearly in the following table.

Table 4: Pre-Test Scores of Experimental Class

No Students Name Accuracy Fluency Comprehensibility Pre-Test

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Asmawati

Al Khalidi

Ami Mastura

ErnaJefrizal

Jumaida Roza

Jamaluddin

Kamariah

Lisdayani

Marlina

Mutia Aina

Musliana

Mursyidah

Miswardi

Muhammad faisal

2

2

2

31

3

2

1

1

4

3

4

2

3

3

3

2

2

32

4

1

1

1

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

42

5

3

1

1

5

3

4

3

3

4

44

39

39

5628

67

33

17

17

67

44

61

44

50

56

28


9/29

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

Muslem

Muhammad Zubir

NurhayatiRita Santi

Rasyidah

Rahmad Hidayat

Samsul Bahri

Safrianum

Yulia Desiyana

Zainab

Zulfahmi

Niswatul Khaira

Zinatul Hayati

Fitri MulianaSyahrul Faizin

3

2

23

1

3

2

4

5

3

1

2

2

31

2

3

22

2

2

1

2

4

2

2

1

2

31

3

3

34

3

4

2

4

5

2

1

2

2

32

44

44

3950

33

50

28

56

78

39

22

28

33

5022

Total 1278

Then we can see the results of the pre-test which have been achieved by

the students of the control class as shown in the following table

Table 5: Pre-Test Scores of Control Class


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Abdul Hadi

Ade Novriza

Asrarul Aini

Alfarizi Billahsyah

Fera Juliana

Husnul Mawaddah

Julianti

Lizawati

MaulanaMaulina

Maulinda Sari

Mirnawati

Mutmainnah

M. Reza

M. Wali

Munawar

Nanda Wahyudi

Nuzul Azmi

Rajul Fitrah

Sarjani

3

1

3

3

2

3

2

2

22

2

4

3

3

3

2

1

3

3

2

3

1

3

3

2

3

1

2

22

3

3

2

3

3

3

1

2

3

2

4

2

4

3

3

4

3

3

33

4

4

4

4

4

4

2

3

4

3

56

22

56

50

39

56

33

39

3939

50

61

50

56

56

50

22

44

56

39

29


10/29

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

29

30

Sri Ananda Riska

Suryadi

WahyuniZulfahmi

Rahmawati

Rahmiyati

Khairul Razi

Jufriadi

M. Ari Dinar

M. Rizal

3

2

45

3

4

2

2

2

3

3

2

33

1

3

1

1

2

2

4

3

45

3

3

2

3

3

3

56

39

6172

39

56

28

33

39

44

Total 1380

2. Post Test

After the teaching and learning process done, the researcher asked the

students to practice the speaking by pair work for 60 minuutes. The following

table is result of the test.

Table 6: Post-Test Scores of Experimental Class


1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Asmawati

Al Khalidi

Ami Mastura

Erna

JefrizalJumaida Roza

Jamaluddin

Kamariah

Lisdayani

Marlina

Mutia Aina

Musliana

Mursyidah

Miswardi

Muhammad faisal

Muslem

4

3

4

5

33

2

4

4

3

3

4

4

5

5

3

5

3

4

3

34

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

4

4

4

5

4

45

4

4

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

5

72

56

72

67

5667

50

61

72

67

67

72

72

78

78

67

30


11/29

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Muhammad Zubir

Nurhayati

Rita SantiRasyidah

Rahmad Hidayat

Samsul Bahri

Safrianum

Yulia Desiyana

Zainab

Zulfahmi

Niswatul Khaira

Zinatul Hayati

Fitri Muliana

Syahrul Faizin

4

5

44

5

4

5

5

5

4

4

3

2

5

5

4

45

5

4

3

4

4

4

5

2

3

4

5

4

55

5

5

5

5

4

5

5

4

4

4

78

72

7278

83

72

72

78

72

72

78

50

50

72

Total 2073

Then we can see the results of the post-test which have been achieved by

the students of the control class as shown in the following table.

Table 7: Post-Test Scores of Control Class


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Abdul Hadi

Ade Novriza

Asrarul Aini

Alfarizi Billahsyah

Fera Juliana

Husnul Mawaddah

Julianti

Lizawati

Maulana

MaulinaMaulinda Sari

Mirnawati

Mutmainnah

M. Reza

M. Wali

Munawar

Nanda Wahyudi

Nuzul Azmi

Rajul Fitrah

Sarjani

Sri Ananda Riska

4

2

3

3

2

3

2

3

2

33

3

4

3

3

2

2

3

3

2

3

3

2

3

4

3

3

3

2

3

23

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

3

3

3

4

2

4

3

3

4

3

3

3

34

4

5

4

4

4

3

3

4

3

5

61

33

56

56

44

56

44

44

44

4456

56

67

56

56

50

39

44

61

44

61

31


12/29

22

23

2425

26

27

28

29

30

Suryadi

Wahyuni

ZulfahmiRahmawati

Rahmiyati

Khairul Razi

Jufriadi

M. Ari Dinar

M. Rizal

2

4

54

4

2

2

3

3

3

3

33

3

2

2

3

3

3

4

53

4

2

3

4

3

44

72

7256

61

33

39

56

50

Total 1555

D. Data Analysis

The data of this thesis ware collected through experimental teaching. It

was conducted to the first year students of SMA Negeri 1 Baktiya, Kab. Aceh

Utara. The research was held on September 6 th, 2011. In the activities of the

research the writer tried to find the data about the students capability of the first

year students in learning speaking. In addition, the researcher wanted to know the

difficulties faced by the students in learning speaking.

The data about the students capability in learning speaking ware collected

through post-test. The data about the difficulties faced by the students ware

collected by giving questionnaires. Futhermore, the writer also did the interview

with Headmaster and English teachers to collect additional data about the school

and teaching learning process.

The writer was going to analyze the the data which were colleted by

giving test. In line with this, the writer would like to use the statistical procedures,

32


13/29

such as range, interval, mean, standart deviation, and t-score. To avoid

misunderstanding of terms, the writer would like to explain them briefly as in the

followings:

1. Range is the difference of the highest score with the lowest score.

The formula is:

R = Hs-Ls

Where:

R = Range score

Hs = Highest score

Ls = Lowest score

2. Interval is amount of class.

The formula is:

I = I + 3,3 log N

Where:

I +3,3 log N = Available score

Logn = Logarithm

N = Number of students

3. Class interval is the number of score that has been grouped based

on the expected interval.

The formula is:

33


14/29

P =I

R

Where:

P = Length of the interval

R = Range of the score

I = The amount of interval class2

1. Analyzing the Pre-Test of Experimental Class

Furthermore, the writer analyzes the data by using the formula above. To

make it easy to analyze. The writerfirstly arranges the data from the highest score

to the lowest score.

17 17 22 22 28

28 28 33 33 33

39 39 39 39 44

44 44 44 44 50

50 50 50 56 56

56 61 67 67 78

After arranging the test score, the writer then analyzes the available data

by following the procedures:

1) For the first step, the writer measure the ranger score, where the highest

score was 78 and the lowest score was 17. And the results was:

2

Anas Sudijono.Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan. (PT. Raja Grafindo Persada: Jakarta.2005) p. 144

34


15/29

R = Hs Ls

= 78-17

= 61

2) The second step was to find out amount of interval. The results was:

I = 1 + 3,3 Log N

= 1 + 3,3 Log 30

= 1 + 3,3 (1,477)

= 1 + 4,8741

= 5,8741

= 6

3) The next step was to find out the class interval score. The results was:

P =I

R

= 6

61

= 10,16

= 10

After getting score of range, interval and class interval, the writer nade the

frequency distribution of the post-test score in order to out the mean. So, it could

be seen in the following table

Table 8: Frequency Distribution of Students Pre-Test of Experimental Class

Class interval fi xi xi2 fixi fixi2

17 26 4 21,5 462,25 86 1849

35


16/29

27 36

37 46

47 56

57 66

67 76

77 86

6

9

7

1

2

1

31,5

41,5

51,5

61,5

71,5

81,5

992,25

1722,25

2652,25

3782,25

5112,25

6642,25

189

373,5

360,5

61,5

143

81,5

5955

15500,25

18565,75

3782,25

10224,5

6642,25

Total 30 1295 62519

Based on the frequency distribution above, the mean could be calculated

by using the following formula:

=X

fi

fixi

=30

1295

= 43,16

So, the result of mean is 43,16

After calculation the mean, the standard deviation could be found. The

standard deviation is measure of validity calculated from the mean. The results of

standard deviation is obtained by using the following formula:

SD = n fixi 2

SD12 =

)1(

)( 22

nn

fixifixin

=)130(30

)1295()62519(30 2

36


17/29

=)29(30

)1677025(1875570

=870

198545

SD1 = 228

SD1 = 15,09

So, the result of standard deviation is 15,09

2. Analyzing the Pre-Test of Control Class

For the needs of the following analysis, the writer analyzes the data by

using the same formula as done to the experimental class above. To make it easy

to analyze, the writer firstly arranges the data from the highest score to the lowest

score.

22 22 28 33 33

39 39 39 39 39

39 39 39 44 44

50 50 50 50 56

56 56 56 56 56

56 56 61 61 72

After arranging the test scores, the writer then comes to analyze the

available data above by following the procedures as done to the experimental

class:

1) R = Hs Ls

37


18/29

= 72 22

= 50

2) I = 1 + 3,3 Log N

= 1 + 3,3 log 30

= 1 + 3,3 (1,477)

= 1 + 4,87

= 5,87

= 6

3) P =I

R

=6

50

= 8,33

= 8

Table 9: Frequency Distribution of Students Pre-Test of Control Class

Class Interval fi xi xi2 fi xi fi xi2

22 29

30 37

38 45

46 53

54 61

62 69

70 77

3

2

7

4

14

0

1

25,5

33,5

41,5

49,5

57,5

65,5

73,5

650,25

1122,25

1722,25

2450,25

3306,25

4290,25

5402,25

76,5

67

290,5

198

805

0

73,5

1950,75

2244,5

12055,75

9801

46287,5

0

5402,25

38


19/29

Total 30 1510,5 77741,75

2X =

fi

fixi

=30

5,1510

= 50,35


SD22 =

)1(

)( 22

nn

fixifixin

=)130(30

)5,1510()77741,75(30 2

=)29(30

)3,2281610(5,2332252

=870

2,50642

SD2 = 2,58

SD2 = 7,63

So, the result of standard deviation is 7,63

Before calculating the t-score, its necessary to calculate the combined SD1

and SD2 by using the following formula:

S2 =2

)1()1(

21

2

22

2

11

+

+

nn

SDnSDn

S2 =23030

)63,7)(130()09,15)(130( 22

+

+

39


20/29

S2 =58

)22,58(29)7,227(29 +

=58

29,16883,6603 +

= 142,95

S = 95,142

S = 11,95

So, the total standard of pre-test between experimental class and control class is

10

t-score =

21

21

11

nnS

XX

+

=301

30195,11

35,5016,43

+

=033,0033,095,11

19,7

+

=07,3

19,7

t-score = -2,34

3. Analyzing the Post-Test of Experimental Class

Next, the writer analyzes the data of post test in experimental class. To

make it easy to analyze. The writer arranges the data from the highest score to the

lowest score.

50 50 50 56 56

40


21/29

61 67 67 67 67

67 72 72 72 72

72 72 72 72 72

72 72 72 78 78

78 78 78 78 83

After arranging the test score, the writer then analyzes the available data

by following the procedures:

1) For the first step, the writer measure the ranger score,

where the highest score was 83 and the lowest score was 50. And the results

was:

R = Hs Ls

= 83 - 50

= 33

2) The second step was to find out amount of interval. The

results was:

I = 1 + 3,3 Log N

= 1 + 3,3 Log 30

= 1 + 3,3 (1,477)

= 1 + 4,8741

= 5,8741

= 6

41


22/29

3) The next step was to find out the class interval score. The

results was:

P =I

R

= 6

33

= 5,5

= 6

After getting score of range, interval and class interval, the writer nade the

frequency distribution of the post-test score in order to out the mean. So, it could

be seen in the following table.

Table 10: Frequency Distribution of Students Post-Test of Experimental Class

Class interval fi xi xi2 fixi fixi2

50 55

56 61

62 67

68 73

74 79

80 85

3

3

5

12

6

1

52,5

58,5

64,5

70,5

76,5

82,5

2756,25

3422,25

4160,25

4970,25

5852,25

6806,25

157,5

175,5

322,5

846

459

82,5

8268,75

10266,75

20801,25

59643

35113,5

6806,25

Total 30 2043 140899,5

Based on the frequency distribution above, the mean could be calculated

by using the following formula:

42


23/29

=X

fi

fixi

=30

2043

= 68,1


After calculation the mean, the standard deviation could be found. The

standard deviation is measure of validity calculated from the mean. The results of

standard deviation is obtained by using the following formula:

SD = n fixi 2

SD12 =

)1(

)( 22

nn

fixifixin

=)130(30

)2043()140899,5(302

=)29(30

)4173849(4226985

=870

53136

SD1 = 07,61

SD1 = 7,82

So, Standard deviation is 7,82

4. Analyzing the Post-Test of Control Class

For the needs of the following analysis, the writer analyzes the data by

using the same formula as done to the experimental class above. To make it easy

43


24/29

to analyze, the writer firstly arranges the data from the highest score to the lowest

score.

33 33 39 39 44

44 44 44 44 44

44 44 50 50 56

56 56 56 56 56

56 56 56 61 61

61 61 67 72 72

After arranging the test scores, the writer then comes to analyze the

available data above by following the procedures as done to the experimental

class:

1) R = Hs Ls

= 72 33

= 39

2) I = 1 + 3,3 Log N

= 1 + 3,3 log 30

= 1 + 3,3 (1,477)

= 1 + 4,87

= 5,87

= 6

3) P =I

R

44


25/29

=6

39

= 6,5

= 7

Table 11: Frequency Distribution of Students Post-Test of Control Class

Class Interval fi xi xi2 fi xi fi xi2

33 39

40 46

47 53

54 60

61 67

68 - 74

4

8

2

9

4

3

36

43

50

57

64

71

1296

1849

2500

3249

4096

5041

144

344

100

513

256

213

5184

14792

5000

29241

16384

15123

Total 30 1570 85724

2X =

fi

fixi

=30

1570

= 52,33

So, mean score is 52,33

45


26/29

SD22 =

)1(

)( 22

nn

fixifixin

=)130(30

)1570()85724(30 2

=)29(30

)2464900(2571720

=870

106820

SD2 = 78,122

SD2 = 11,08

So, standard deviation is 11,08

Therefore, before calculating the t-score, its necessary to calculate the

combined SD1 and SD2 by using the following formula:

S2 =2

)1()1(

21

2

22

2

11

+

+

nn

SnSn

S2 =23030

)08,11)(130()82,7)(130( 22

+

+

S2 =58

)76,122(29)15,61(29 +

=58

22,356035,1773 +

=58

57,5333

= 91,95

S = 95,91

46


27/29

S = 9,59

So, the total standard of post-test between experimental class and control class is

9,59

t-score =

21

21

11

nnS

XX

+

=301

30159,9

33,521,68

+

=033,0033,013,9

77,15

+

=34,2

77,15

t-score = 6,74

E. The Analysis of Interview

The interview for the teacher have done to analyze whether the teacher

have some problems or difficulty in teaching speaking. Learning speaking is a

very important part of learning a language. Here some reasons why speaking is so

difficult to study

1. Verb Tenses

English has a relatively large number of verb tenses, the correct mastering of

which is important for communicating shades of meaning in English. To

complicate the difficulty, English uses many auxiliary words, instead of verbal

inflection, to create its tenses.

2. Writing System

47


28/29

There is often little connection between the way a word is written and the way

it is pronounced. Consider cough vs. through and flood vs. door. Other

inconsistencies include heteronyms, words that are spelled the same but

pronounced differently, such as wound (wrapped up) and wound (an injury),

and row (a fight) and row (a line of something).

3. Plural nouns

Though most nouns in English simply add "s" to their singular form to create

the plural, there are many exceptions to this rule. These include words ending

in "f" or "fe" (wife/wives, knife/knives), words ending in "y" (spy/spies,

fly/flies), words that change interior vowel sounds (man/men; mouse/mice),

and Old English plurals, such as child/children and ox/oxen.

To answer these problems, the teacher gives some ways or strategies in

learning vocabulary. There are:

- The students asked to learn the words that are important to the

subjects of study

- The students asked to learn the words that read or hear again and

again

- The students asked to speak aloud as often as possible and be sure

to let them know it is fine if they feel the need to repeat things over and over,

as well.

48


29/29

- The teacher uses picture and create a learning game for the

students. Many pictures of common items such as fruits, animals and places

are prepared in teaching speaking.

F. Examining Hypothesis

Based on the result above, the writer examined his hypothesis. There was

only one hypothesis, there is Using pair work can improve speaking skill of the

first year students of SMA Negeri 1 Baktiya..

The researcher could understand that it is easy for the students to study

speaking by using pair work and they could improve their speaking easily. The

students was interested in following the lesson until the end of experimental

teaching. So, it could be said that pair work was very effective in improving the

students English vocabulary.

It can proved by looking the comparison before and after the treatment

done on t-score. At pre-test, the students get t-score -2,34; while at post-test, the

students get t-score 6,74. it means t-score of post-test (6,74) > pre-test (-2,34).

Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that the writers

hypothesis can be proved or it can be accepted, or it can be said the hypothesis is

well-accepted.

49

Chapter III Nuraina

Documents

Transcript of Chapter III Nuraina