chapter iii skripsi asli

8/8/2019 Chapter III Skripsi Asli

1/9

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH FINDING

A. Research Methodology

1. Objective of the Research

In this research the writer also tries to find out whether CLT is

effective in teaching Descriptive Text or not.

2. Place and Time

The research took place at MTs Soebono Mantofani Jombang

Ciputat, which is located at Jalan Sumatera No. 75, Jombang Ciputat.

The research held on 3rd of April up to 15th of Mei 2008.

3. Method of Study

The method of this study is experimental research. The writer uses

the second year students of MTs. Soebono Mantofani as an object of this

study. This object would be taught by using two methods. For experiment

class is taught by using CLT, and control class is taught by using GTM.

The data is taken and analyzed quantitatively to find the effectiveness of

teaching methods.

4. Population and Sample

The population of this research is all students in second year of

MTs. Soebono Mantofani. There are two classes in second years within 50

students. Class 8th 1 and class 8th 2. The writer divided 50 students into two

classes. Twenty five students as experiment class (8 th 2) which is taught by

using CLT. The rest twenty five students (8 th 1) as control class which is

taught by using GTM.

31


2/9

5. Technique of Data Collecting

The techniques of collecting data are used in this research through:

a. Test

Both classes are given descriptive text tests. First meeting,

they did pre test, it was given before the teaching learning process.

The teaching learning process is done in three times. Then in the

last meeting they are given post test.

The test consists of three numbers. It is divided into three

items. First number is social function; the exercise is to describe a

person, place or thing, Schematic structure it is for identification

and description, and language feature focus on specific

participants, use of attributive and identifying processes, frequent

use epithets and classifier in nominal groups and use of simple

present or simple continuous tense.

b. An Interview

To get more information, the writer has interviewed the

English teacher about his technique and problems in teaching

descriptive text. Through interview, the writer get supporting data

about the achievement (percentage of descriptive text has been

done by English teacher at the school (see appendixes)

6. Technique of Data Analyzing

For the next step of the research, the writer processed and analyzed

the data. The writer compared the scores between experiment and controlclasses. To find out the differences of students score by using the

different method, the writer used statistical calculation of thet test.

In analyzing the result of the final test statistics of t - test is used

with significant degree 5 % and 1 % as follows:

32


3/9

M1 M2

to =

(x1 + x2) (N1 + N2)(N1 + N2 2) (N1. N2)

M1 = Mean of post test score of experiment class

M2 = Mean of pos test of control class

x1 = Sum of squared deviation score of experiment class

x2 = Sum of squared deviation score of control class

N1 = Number of students of three experiments classN2 = Number of students of the control class

dF = Degree of freedom

dF = N1 + N2 2

B. Research Finding

1. Description of Data

As mentioned before, the writer took the experiment. She got thedata from pre test and post test of teaching descriptive text and

interview.

In this part, the writer gives the report concerning the data

description according to pre test and post test from experiment and

control class.

The writer explains their scores, as follows:

Table IThe Students score of Control Class

Students Pre - Test Post - Test Gained Score

Ahmad Naufal 65 80 15

Agung Budi Mulya 63 75 12

Bimo devito. S 68 76 8

Abdul Muhadi 50 69 19

Muchlis Adam 70 82 12

Dandy 50 70 20

Jupriansyah 54 70 16

Isnan. N 57 65 8

33


4/9

M. Vicky. WS 67 78 11

M. Faisal Akbar 57 78 21

Jepri Sanjaya 62 65 3M. Yusuf Maulana 45 60 20

Romansyah 64 77 13

Sri Maryani 60 70 10

Roliah 62 70 8

Huswatun Hasanah 71 75 4

Dita TA 50 60 10

Miranti Destiana 72 75 3

Susilawati 72 77 5

Sella Siti Khoirunnisa 71 74 3

Ana Idayanti 74 74 0Annisa 68 68 0

Ade Chandra 62 65 3

Diana 70 78 8

M. Rayhan Muyasar 70 82 12

= 1574 = 1813 = 244

Table II

The students score of Experiment Class

Students Pre Test Post - Test Gained ScoreAmalia Tamimi 77 78 1

Anita Rahma S 84 88 4

Aprilia Dwi P 75 96 21

Endah Haryati 85 94 9

Firman Mahyudi 65 93 28

Heru Ahmad N 80 90 10

Intan Banati A 81 90 9

Leny Mardiyati 82 88 6

Luthfi Nurhamid 81 93 12

M. Ilham 55 72 17

M. Irsyad F 61 93 32

M. Dimas Anya P 62 96 34

M. Ali Sobirin 80 91 11

M. Basyar Al-Falah 77 94 17

M. Ridwan 77 96 19

M. Irfan MF 88 96 8

Nurma Yunita 84 94 10

Puspa Pandini 84 98 14

Rahmat Sugiri 75 96 8

Robbi Rizki S 52 93 41

Sadah 70 96 26

34


5/9

Sahdah Istiqomah 80 91 11

Saiful Rohman 77 86 9

Septia Sahara Dewi 80 91 11Silvia Oktaviani 75 90 15

= 1887 = 2354 = 383

2. Data Analysis

In this research, the technique of data analysis is statistic calculation

of t test, with significance 5 % and 1 % to decide significance of the

difference result of teaching by using CLT and GTM (experiment class

and control class).

Table III

The Score of control and experiment class

Students X1 X2 X1 X2 X1 X2

1 78 80 16.16 7.48 261.1456 55.9504

2 88 75 6.16 2.48 37.9456 6.15043 96 76 1.84 3.48 3.3856 12.1104

4 94 69 0.16 -3.52 0.0256 12.3904

5 93 82 -1.16 9.48 1.3456 89.8704

6 90 70 -4.16 -2.52 17.3056 6.3504

7 90 70 -4.16 -2.52 17.3056 6.3504

8 88 65 -6.16 -7.52 37.9456 56.5504

9 93 78 -1.16 5.48 1.3456 30.0304

10 72 78 -22.16 5.48 491.0656 30.0304

11 93 65 -1.16 -7.52 1.3456 56.5504

12 96 60 1.84 -12.52 3.3856 156.7504

13 91 77 -3.16 4.48 9.9856 20.0704

14 94 70 -0.16 -2.52 0.0256 6.3504

15 96 70 1.84 -2.52 3.3856 6.3504

16 96 75 1.84 2.48 3.3856 6.1504

17 94 60 -0.16 -12.52 0.0256 156.7504

18 98 75 3.84 2.48 14.7456 6.1504

19 96 77 1.84 4.48 3.3856 20.0704

20 93 74 -1.16 1.48 1.3456 2.1904

21 96 74 1.84 1.48 3.3856 2.1904

22 91 68 -3.16 -4.52 9.9856 20.4304

23 86 65 -8.16 -7.52 66.5856 56.5504

35


6/9

24 91 78 -3.16 5.48 9.9856 30.0304

25 90 82 -4.16 9.48 17.3056 89.8704

=2354 = 1813 X1= 0 X2= 0X1=

1017.08

X2=

912.2096

After making the table of students score both experiment and

control class, the writer calculates the score by following steps:

a. Determining Mean variable X1 with formula

M1 = X1 = X1 = 2354 = 94.16

N1 N1 25

b. Determining Mean variable X2 with formula

M1 = X2 = X2 = 1813 = 72.52

N2 N2 25

c. Determining score deviation variable X1 with formula

X1 = X1 M1

Note = Sum X1 or X1 is 0

d. Determining score deviation variable X2 with formula

X2 = X2 M2

Note = Sum X2 or X2 is 0

e. Quad rating x1, then sum: get x1

X1 = 1017.08

f. Quad rating x2, then sum: get x2

X2 = 912.2096

g. Determining toby formula :

M1 M2to =

(X1 + X2) (N1 + N2)

(N1 + N2 -2) (N1 N2)

M1 M2

to =

36


7/9

(X1 + X2) (N1 + N2)

(N1 + N2 -2) (N1 N2)

94.16 72.52

to =

(1017.08 + 912.2096) (25 + 25)

(25 + 25 -2) (25 25)

18.64to =

( 1929.2896 ) ( 50 )

(48) (625)

18.64

to =

(96464.48)

(30000)

18.64

to =

(3.215)

18.64

to =

1.79

to = 10.41

df = N1 + N2 2

df = 25 + 25 2

37


8/9


9/9

2. The null hypotheses (Ho): is there no significance difference

teaching pronunciation by using CLT and GTM at Eight grade

students of MTs. Soebono Mantofani Jombang Ciputat.

To prove the hypotheses above, the writer uses the result score of

experiment class and control class which is calculated byt test and

follows assumptions as below:

a) If the result calculation to is higher than tt (to > tt), the alternative

hypotheses (Ha) is accepted and null hypotheses (Ho) is rejected. It

means that there is significant difference between teaching

descriptive by using CLT and GTM.

b) If the result calculation to is lower than tt (to < tt), the alternative

hypotheses (Ha) is rejected and null hypotheses (Ho) is accepted. It

means that there is no significant difference between teaching

descriptive by using CLT and GTM.

The result of statistic calculation indicates that to > tt, (10.41> 2.01

at 5% and 2.68 at 1%) is significant. There is a difference between the

average of score from the result in experiment class and control class. The

result score of experiment class is higher than control class, so Ha

(alternative Hypotheses) is accepted and Ho (null hypotheses) is rejected.

39

chapter iii skripsi asli

Documents