50
THESIS
ASSESSING THE DEGREE OF COMPARISON
MASTERY OF THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS
OF SMP PANCASILA CANGGU BADUNG
IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/ 2014
I NYOMAN GEDE MURDANA YASA
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR UNIVERSITY
DENPASAR
2014
51
THESIS
ASSESSING THE DEGREE OF COMPARISON
MASTERY OF THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS
OF SMP PANCASILA CANGGU BADUNG
IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/ 2014
I NYOMAN GEDE MURDANA YASA
NPM. 10.8.03.5.1.31.2.5.3781
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR UNIVERSITY
DENPASAR
2014
52
PREE-REQUESTITE TITLE
ASSESSING THE DEGREE OF COMPARISON MASTERY
OF THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS
OF SMP PANCASILA CANGGU BADUNG
IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/ 2014
Thesis
As partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Education Study Program
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Mahasaraswati Denpasar University
I NYOMAN GEDE MURDANA YASA
NPM. 10.8.03.5.1.31.2.5.3781
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR UNIVERSITY
DENPASAR
2014
53
APROVAL SHEET
1
This thesis entitled “Assessing Degree of Comparison Mastery of the Eight
Grade Student of SMP Pancasila Canggu In Accademic Year 2013/2014” has been
approved and accepted as partial fulfillment for sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English
Education Study Program, Faculty Of Teacher Training And Education,
Mahasaraswati Denpasar University
Approved By
Advisor I
Advisor II
IB.Nyoman Mantra ,S.Pd.SH.M.Pd
NPK. 82.64.10.341
Drs. I Nyoman Winata,M.Hum
NIP.19550728 197903 1 007
54
APROVAL SHEET
2
This thesis has been examined and assessed by the examiner committee of
English Education Study Program, faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Mahasaraswati Denpasar University in the oral examination on 14th
February 2014
Chief Examiner
Dra.IA Martini,M.Hum
NIP.19531231 198703 2 001
Examiner I Examiner II
IB.Nyoman Mantra ,S.Pd.SH.M.Pd
NPK. 82.64.10.341
Drs. I Nyoman Winata,M.Hum
NIP.19550728 197903 1 007
Approved By
Dean of the faculty of Teacher
Training and Education
Head of the English Education
Study Program
Prof. Dr. Wayan Maba
NIP.19581231 198303 1 032
I Komang Budiarta, S.Pd.,M.Hum
NPK. 82 8208 306
55
STATEMENT OF AUTENTICITY
The researcher hereby declares that this thesis is his own writing, and it true
and correct that there is no other‟s work or statement , except the work or statement
that is referred in the references. All cited works were quoted in accordance with the
ethical code of academic writing.
Denpasar, 1st
February 2013
The Researcher,
I Nyoman Gede Murdana Yasa
NPM. 10.8.03.5.1.31.2.5.3781
56
ACKNOWLEDMENT
First of all the researcher would like to express his sincere gratitude to the
Almighty God,ida Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa, for His blessing and mercies to that this
thesis could be accomplished on time.
Throughout the writing of this thesis, many people have given support and
encouragement in completing it, and it would not possible to finish without it. The
researcher particularly wishes to acknowledge warmly to Ida Bagus Nyoman Mantra,
SH, S.Pd , M.Pd as the first advisor and Drs. I Nyoman Winata,M.Hum as the
second advisor for the their valuable assistance, supports and encouragement. The
researcher is really thankful for their thoughtful ideas , corrections and suggestions.
His sincere gratitude further goes to the Headmaster, the English Teachers and
eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu for their permission and assistance to
conduct a research of the structure and grammar test and gathering the data needed
for the paper in their school. Next, the researcher also deeply indebted to her parents
and beloved brothers for their fidelity, love and priceless sacrifice so that the
researcher able to complete the writing of this thesis successfully.
Finally, the researcher would like to dedicate this paper to his beloved family
of his life, the first for his father “Drs. I Made Murda, the second one is his mother Ni
Nyoman Sumiati , and his sister Ni luh Made Setiawati, S.Pd. Who has given their
prayer, attention devotion and tremendous support, and thank also for his friends the
best friends (Yoga, Nanox and all his friends in a beloved class 7F
for their input and
support during the process of writing this thesis.
Denpasar, 1st February 2013
The Researcher
I Nyoman Gede Murdana yasa
57
ABSTRACT
Yasa Murdana, I Nyoman Gede.2013. Assessing the Degree of Comparison
Mastery of the Eighth Grade Students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in
Academic Year 2013/204. First Advisor: IB.Nyoman Mantra, S.Pd.
SH.M.Pd. and the Second Advisor : Drs. I Nyoman Winata,M.Hum
The present study was undertaking in order to find out the assessing the
degree of comparison mastery of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu.
The undertaken of the study was motivated by the fact that degree of comparison as
one of Important structural components of English language. The present study was
intended to answer this research question: to what extent is the degree of comparison
mastery of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic year
2013/2014? On attempting to give a tentative solution to the research problem, the
hypothesis can be stated as the following: “Degree of comparison mastery of the
eighth grade student of SMP Pancasila Canggu is low”. This study is conducted by
using an ex-post facto research design with norm reference of five standard values.
The data which was needed for the present study was collected to 40 students
randomly with lottery system. The data collected for the study would be analyzed by
means of norm-reference measure of five standard values. Respectively showing
excellent, good, sufficient, insufficient and poor assessing degree of comparison. The
result of the data showed: (1) there were 6 samples or 15.00% out of 40 samples
under study who showed excellent assessing of degree of comparison, (2) there were
7 samples or 17.50% out of 40 samples who showed good assessing of degree of
comparison, (3) there were 16 samples or 40.00% out of 40 samples showed
sufficient assessing of degree of comparison, (4) there were 7 samples or 17.50% out
of 40 samples who pointed out insufficient assessing of degree of comparison, and
(5) there were 34 samples or 10.00% out of 40 samples who got poor assessing of
degree of comparison. From these research findings, it could be clearly seen that there
were only 29 samples or 72.50% out of 40 samples who achieved satisfactory
assessing of degree of comparison and 11samples or 27.50% out of 40 samples who
totally failed in acquiring degree of comparison. In general, these research findings
revealed that the assessing of degree of comparison by the eighth grade students of
SMP Pancasila Canggu In Accademic year 2013/2014 was sufficient enough.
Key Word: assessing the degree of comparison, eighth grade students of SMP
Pancasila Canggu.
58
TABLE OF CONTENT
COVER ..................................................................................................... i
INSIDE COVER ....................................................................................... ii
PRE-REQUISTE TITLE .......................................................................... iii
APROVAL SHEET 1 ............................................................................... iv
APROVAL SHEET 2 ............................................................................... iv
STATEMENTOF AUTENTICITY .......................................................... vi
ACKOWLEGMENENT ........................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................. viii
TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................ ix
LIST OF APENDICES ............................................................................. xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study .................................................... 1
1.2 Research Problem ............................................................... 2
1.3 Objective of the study ......................................................... 3
1.4 Limitation of the study ...................................................... 3
1.5 Significance of the study .................................................... 3
1.6 Definition of Key Term ...................................................... 4
CHAPTER II THEORITICAL AND EMPIRICAL RIVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Review ............................................................. 6
2.2 Empirical Review ............................................................... 15
2.3 Hypothesis .......................................................................... 18
59
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Design ................................................................. 19
3.2 Population and sample ........................................................ 20
3.3 Research Instrument .......................................................... 20
3.4 Data Collection ................................................................... 32
3.5 Data Analysis ...................................................................... 33
CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Finding ................................................................................ 35
4.2 Discussion ........................................................................... 44
CHAPTER V CONLUSION AND SUGESTION
5.1 Conclusion .......................................................................... 46
5.2 Suggestion .......................................................................... 47
REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 49
APPENDICES .......................................................................................... 50
60
LIST OF TABLES
Appendix 1 The name of the try out sample ....................................... 44
Appendix 2 The Names of the Research Samples ................................ 46
Appendix 3 Try out Instrument ............................................................ 48
Appendix 4 Research Instrument .......................................................... 57
Appendix 5 Item Analysis Sheet of Teacher made Structure test Items 64
Appendix 6 Item analysis sheet of degree comparison ........................ 65
61
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Grammar is central to the teaching and learning of languages. The grammar
of a language is what happens to words when they become plural or negative, or
what word order is used when we make questions or join two clauses to make
one sentence. In real life, many learner do not like to study English especially
grammar because there are not interests in studying it and they have to remember
all the pattern and rules in making sentences. It is because many teacher taught
the students deductively so that the students feel bored. So, in this case, teacher
should see grammar as the body of knowledge that they need as professional
linguist to help learners gain insight.
Grammar skill is very important in communication. Degrees of comparison
are part of grammar. Study Degrees of Comparison is important because it is a
form that is often used in a sentence which refers to the existence of a level
comparison between two things or more. If the students have been able to learn
the essential rules of grammar, they could be able to use the languages concerned
for all kinds of communication. Grammar is the rules how words are combined,
arranged, and changed to show different meaning.
Degrees of comparison of an adjective or adverb describe the relational
value of one thing with something in another clause of a sentence. An adjective
may simply describe a quality (the positive), may compare the quality with that
62
of another of its kind (comparative), and it may compare the quality with many
or all others (superlative). Realizing the Significance of grammar as an integral
component of language teaching; in this case, the researcher decided to
investigate degrees of comparison as one of the important structural components
of English language.
The students of SMP Pancasila Canggu still have problems in learning and
using structures, including degrees of comparison for expressing their ideas
through both spoken and written forms. They are still confused about the
irregular degrees of comparison because they should memorize them. For
example; “bad”, “ worse “ and “ worst “. The students are still confused to chose
which one is the positive, comparative and superlative degree. The other example
is the positive degree “good”, they change into “gooder” in comparative degree.
The assessing degree of comparison in SMP Pancasila Canggu is remarked
sufficient because the English teacher taught the students because the English
teacher taught the students by using old old method and the teacher assessed it
though subjective test , and based on that fact . the capability of the students in
mastering English grammar especially degree of comparison, still under liable
Based on the problem above, the researcher intended to find the ability of
the students in degree of comparison by using multiple choice test items , in the
test have tried out and analyzed to figure out their degree of validities an
reliability.
63
From the example description above, the researcher is highly interested in
solving the problems faced by the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila
Canggu in academic year 2013/2014.
1.2 Research Problem
Based on the background of the research study, degrees of comparison still
play a central role in language teaching. The measurement of degrees of
understanding and usage of degrees comparison must be essential. The researcher
formulates the research question of the present study as follow: to what extent is
the degrees of comparison mastery of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila
Canggu in Academic year 2013/2014?
1.3 Objective of the Study
In this study the researcher wants to find out the degrees of the success and
the failure of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic
year 2013/2014 in obtaining the degrees of comparison, and to figure out the
mastery of degree of comparison includes positive degree of comparison,
comparative degree of comparison and superlative degree of comparison.
1.4 Limitation of the Study
In the present study the researcher will limits his investigation on
examining the assessing of degree of comparison by the eighth grade students of
64
SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic year 2013/ 2014. The degrees of comparison
consist of positive degree of comparison, comparative degree of comparison and
superlative degree of comparison. The student‟s ability in mastering degrees of
comparison is simply assessed through multiple choice tests.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The results of the present study are required to accept both theoretical and
practical significance.
1.5.1 Theoretical Significance
Theoretically, the findings of the present study are expected to see lights
and insights to the existing theories and empirical evidences of the
working knowledge and principles of degrees of comparison. These
findings can be disclosing further areas of research in degrees of
comparison assessing and they can be uses as bases of undertaking
similar study in areas.
1.5.2 Practical Significance
Practically, the findings of the present study are aimed at providing
informative feedback to the English teacher of SMP Pancasila Canggu. The
teachers have to plan and design the teaching learning degrees of
comparison more effective and interesting in order to progress the student‟s
Assessing of degrees of comparison. The informative can be used as basis
65
to plan more effective and efficient grammar instruction in the future which
is expected to be more objective oriented.
1.6 Definition of Key Term
There are two terms, which needs to be operationally defined so as to avoid
miss understanding, that is: Assessing and degrees of comparison.
1.6.1 Assessing is defined as a way to find out the subjects‟ ability or
achievement in using degrees of comparison and the successfulness and
their failure in acquiring degrees of comparison when it is assessed
through multiple choice test.
1.6.2 Degrees of Comparison is defined as an adjective or adverb that describes
the relational value with something else in another clause of a sentence.
In degrees of comparison there are (1) positive, (2) comparative degree,
and (3) superlative degree.
1.6.3 SMP Pancasila Canggu is junior high school. It is located in Canggu
district, Badung regency.
66
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Review
The undertaking of the present study is based on the discussion of some
related theoretical framework and empirical evidences. The present studies are
based on the discussion of the following theoretical framework: (1) conception of
Language Acquisition, (2) Conception of Degrees of Comparison, (3) Types of
Degrees of Comparison, and (4) Form of degrees of comparison, (5) Assessment
of grammar and usage. Detailed discussion of this related theoretical review will
be presented below.
1. Conception of Language Acquisition
According to Ellis (2003: 3), second language assessing can be
defined as the way in which people learn a language other than their mother
tongue, inside or outside of a classroom. It requires meaningful interaction in
the target language and natural communication in which speakers is not
concerned with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are
conveying and understanding. In addition; Savile (2006: 2) states that
Second Languages Acquisition (SLA) refers both the study of individuals
and group who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first one
as young children, and to the process of learning that language.
(Ellis, 2003: 20). They may be learning a lot about the language just
through listening to or reading it; furthermore, there is a good evidence that
67
pleasure reading has a powerful effect on language assessing because the
students do not focus on grammatical structures either on meanings or
messages which are conveyed.
Ellis (2003: 54) states that this comparison is not entirely accurate;
however, for second language learner, even adult ones are also capable of
“picking up” language in much the same way as children do in first language
assessing.
2. Conception of Degrees Comparison
Degrees of comparison an adjective or adverb the rational value of
adverb the relational value of one thing with another clause of a sentence .an
adjective may simply describe a quality (the positive); it may compare the
quality with that of another of its kind ( comparative degree); and it may
compare the quality with many or all others ( superlative degrees). For this
reason, the researcher feels necessary to put emphasis on the forms as well
as on the functions of the comparison.
3. Types of Degrees of Comparison
Studying the second language is increase the ability to use its structure
within a general vocabulary under the conditions of normal communication.
The study of English grammatical structures should not be ignored because
knowing the grammar can help us understand what makes sentences and
paragraphs clearly and interesting.
68
Considering the important of studying structure or grammar of
language in English, the researcher would like to investigate one of the
components of structure especially about degrees of comparison. English has
three degrees of comparison: positive, comparative, and superlative. For
short adjectives, English adds the suffix "-er" to an adjective to form the
comparative degree, and adds "-est" to form the superlative degree. For
adjectives longer than about two syllables, and for adverbs, English precedes
the word with "more" for the comparative and "most" for the superlative.
3.1 Positive Degree
Positive degree is the primary form of an adjective or adverb;
denotes a quality without qualification, comparison, or relation to
increase or diminution. The term positive degree refers
to adjectives or adverbs and means that no comparison is being made
(i.e., It is the normal form of an adjective or adverb.) or to show that two
things are equal. Equality in comparison of adjective in English by using
(..........as.........as.........). According to Hartanto (2003:167) the pattern
are;
as + positive + as
no less + positive + than
69
For example, Nancy is 75 kg and Vicky also 75 kg, so Nancy is as
big as Vicky. The negative form such construction may use the
following.
(.............not so.............as or not as ..........as ..........)
For example:
My shoes is as expensive as your skirt.
Mr. Leo is not as clever as Mr. Tama.
This girl is no less clever than that.
3.2 Comparative Degree
Adverbial or adjectival forms modified by more or ending in -er,
used when comparing two things;futhermore, to express a greater degree or
expressing more than the positive but les then superlative, applied to forms
of adjective and adverbs. One is more than the other. Loode in
Ardiasa(2008:18) writes that in English there are some rules for expressing
the comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs. The rules governing
comparative degree of comparison are as below:
1. When the positive (adjectives) end with two or one consonant whish are
preceded by two vowels, it is added “er”.
For example: Ayung river is deeper than the other. (deep)
2. When the adjectives form end with one consonant is double written and
added by “er”
70
For example: Jakarta is hotter than Malang. (hot)
3. When the adjectives end with the letter “e”, so its comparative just
added by “i”
For example: Jawa is larger than Bali. (large)
4. When the adjectives end in “y” the comparative degree is expresses by
changing „y‟ to‟ier‟.
For example: English is easier than Mathematic. (easy).
The adjective end in „y‟ is not change, if „y‟ preceded by vowel.
For example: Antok is grayer than Mario.
5. If the adjective consist of more than two syllables, it is added “more”
6. For example: In driving a car my father is more careful than my brother.
(careful).
7. There are some adjective to form comporative in irregular way.
For example: Her mark is worse than me. (bad)
8. Adverb in English are formed by adding “ly” to the adjective. Adjective
explain nouns and they come before but adverb explain verbs and they
come afterthe verb, notice the following sentences. For example: Plane
is a fast transportation, (adjective) but , there are several adjectives,
which don‟t need to add “ly” for forming adverb such as the irregular
adverb.
9. Adverb that consist of one syllable, its comparative is formed by adding
„er‟
For example: Nana‟s hair is longer than Dian‟s hair. (long)
71
10. The adverb end in “ly”, its comparative form by adding “more”.
For example: Dina runs more quickly than Eka. (quick)
3.3 Superlative Degree
Superlatior degree is used to indicate that some has measurement
more than all or expresses the highest or the qualityu or manner.
Thomson in Ardiasa (2008:20) states that there are some rules in
forming superlative of adjectives and adverbs, as follows :
1. The adjective and adverbs will make the superlatives and adverbs it
self if: (1) the adjective form end with one or two consonants which
are preceded by two vowals, for example: Ria is the cleverest student
in her class (clever); (2) the adjectives end with one consonant and
preseded by one vowel. For example : Besakih is the biggest temple
in Bali (big); (3) the adverbs consist of one syllable. For example:
Sanglah is the nearest hospital from my house (near).
2. If the end of the adjectives “e” its superlative just adding by “st”.
For example: Jakarta is largest town in Java.
3. If the adjective end in “y” and preceded by consonant, the superlative
form is expressed by changing “y” to “iet”.
For example: we like greyest one.
4. The superlative of adjective or adverbs are expresses by adding
“most” if the adjectives more than two syllable.
For example: Bali is the most interesting place to visit.
72
5. They are some adjectives and adverbs makes superlatives form in
irregular way.
For example. Give me the best knife.
4. Form of Degrees of Comparison
It has been discussed above that the Degrees of Comparison can be
divided into three parts: Positive Degree; an adjective may simply describe
a quality, Comparative Degree; it may compare the quality with that of
another of its kind, and Superlative Degree; it may compare the quality
with many or all others. The Degrees of Comparison in English is formed
by using certain rules. If the words which have „two or
more vowel sounds‟ in them belong to this group, and take the word
“more” before them in comparative form and the word “ (the)most” in
superlative form.
At the prior section all rules of the degree comparison has been
mentioned and directly completed with some examples in sentences. Now,
the researcher would like to show the infection form of positive,
comparative, and superlative degree based on the grammatical rules. The
ways in forming the degrees of comparison are of two kinds, that is regular
an irregular.
4.1 Regular degree of comparison
1. Adding er,r, and est
a. for adjective that consist of one syllable
73
rich richer richest
thick thicker thickest
b. for adjective that consist of two syllable, but ending with y, er, le,
ow and some.
pretty prettier prettiest
simple simpler simplest
c. for adjective that consist of more than two syllable but derive from
two syllable.
unhappy unhappier unhappiest
unlucky unluckier unluckiest
2. Adding more and most
a. For adjective that consist of more than two syllable
interesting more interesting most interesting
important more important most important
b. For adverbs that ending by “ly”
quickly more quickly most quickly
slowly more slowly most slowly
4.2 Irregular degree of comparison
Irregular degrees of comparison does not have any certain rules it
should be memorized.
bad/ill worse worst
good/well better best
74
5. Assessment of Grammar and Usage
Norman (1985:20) states that the success of the students in the school
subject will indicate the general achievement. If the students have good
achievement in the school subject, they can be regarded as having
achievement in the school subject, it means that fail to achieve it. So,
teaching and testing have a close relation that it virtually impossible to work
in either field without being constantly concerned with the other. According
to Heaton (1989:5) assessment can be done by administering a series of test.
Test maybe constructed primarily as device to reinforce learning and to
motivate the students or primarily as a means of assessing student‟s
performance in language.
The term assessment, measurement and evaluation are often
interchangeable used to refer to the teachers‟ formative test. The results of
formative and summative assist as valuable informative feedback to the
teachers and students. The result of the test for the teachers will inform
concerning their relative success and failure in preparing and conducting
instructions and thus they could be used as bases to prepare and undertake
remedial instructions in the students‟ matters concerned. The result of the
test for the students will inform concerning their degrees of achievement
and failure in learning and acquiring different language skills and
components, such as grammatical structures.
75
The test which is used as research instrument should be valid and
reliable. It means that the formative and summative test constructed by the
teachers should be valid and reliable. The tests of degrees of comparison
which is constructed in multiple choice test item and used as the research
instrument in the tenth grade students of SMAN 1 Abiansemal in academic
year 2011/2012 in the present study is considered to have good validity and
reliability because the test which is used to collect the required data, had
first been tried out in other Senior High School.
2.2 Empirical Review
The present study are expected to get the new result which will be
completed the previous result of the study which is carried out before. There are
some empirical evidence which has same discussion. The researcher has been
found two result of the study which is 2012. Both of the study took the same
discussion about the assessing of degree comparison by senior high school.
(Ayu, 2012) conducted a research with entitled “The Acquisition of
degrees of comparison by the tenth grade students of SMAN 1 Abiansemal in
Academic Year 2011/2012. The study was intended to answer the research
questions : to what extent is the Assessing of Degree Comparison in Academic
year 2011/2012? The study use an ex post facto research design in which the
researcher does not have direct possibility to control in the independent variable
because its manifestation has already taken place before the study was
conducted. In order to answer the research question, the data required for the
76
study were collected by administering the valid and reliable research instruments
in from of multiple choice test items. The population of the study is the eighth
grade students of SMAN 1 Abiansemal which consisted of 400 students
altogether.
There were 40 Students determined as the sample of the study by using
random sampling method. The result of the data analysis that were analyzed by
using norm – reference of five standard values clearly showed that (1) 2 subject
or 5 % (2/40 x 100 %) out of 40 students under study excellent ability in degrees
of comparison . (2) 23 subject or 57.5 % (23/40 x 100 %) out of 40 students
under study indicated the good ability in degrees comparison. (3) 26 subject or
65% (26/40 x 100%) out of 40 students under study indicated the sufficient
ability in degrees of comparison, (4) 6 subject or 15 % (6/40 x 100%) out of 40
students under study indicated insufficient ability in degrees of comparison. And
(5) 3 subject or 7, 5 %( 3/40 x 100%) out of 40 students under study indicated the
poor ability in using degrees of comparison.
The findings were used to group the students into student into three: high
achievers (25 students = 62.5%, middle achievers (26 students = 65 %), and low
or poor achievers (9 students =22.5%). If the findings of this study were used to
assign grade to target population , 26 subjects (65%) of the whole subject under
study relatively in average in learning an assessing degrees of comparison. So
that , the hypothesis that stated the Acquisition of degrees of comparison by the
tenth students of SMAN 1 Abiansemal is relatively in average is confirmed. The
findings of the present study was trusted to have rather limited degree of validity
77
and reliability because it was undertaken on the basis of an ex post facto
research design which was characterized by lack of direct control of same
independent variables. The findings of the present study can be used as the basis
on planning better teaching technique; especially the teaching degrees of
comparison at SMAN 1 Abiansemal in future in order to make the students are
motivated to learn degrees of comparison. So that Acquisition of degrees of
comparison by the tenth students of SMAN 1 Abiansemal can be improved.
On the other hand (Yuniati Nessy 2012). conducted a research entitled
“The Acquisition Of Degrees Of Comparison By The Eleventh Grade Students of
SMK Pariwisata Mengwitani In Academic Year 2011/2012. The undertaken of
the study was motivated by the fact that degrees of comparison as one of
important structural components of English language. The present study was
intended to answer this research question: to what extent is the acquisition of
degrees of comparison by the eleventh grade students of SMK Pariwisata
Mengwitani in academic year 2011/2012?. This study is conducted by using an
ex- post facto research design with descriptive analysis. The data which were
needed for the present study were collected to 40 students randomly with lottery
system. The data collected for the study would be analyzed by means of norm –
reference measure of five standard values, respectively showing excellent, good,
sufficient, insufficient, and poor acquisition of degrees of comparison.
The result of the data showed: (1) there were 4 samples or 10.00% out of
40 samples under study who showed excellent acquisition of degrees of
comparison , (2) there were 9 samples or 22.50% out of 40 samples who showed
78
good acquisition of degree comparison, (3) there were 13 samples or 32.50% out
of 40 samples showed sufficient acquisition of degrees of comparison , (4) there
were 11 samples or 27.50% out of 40 samples who pointed out insufficient
acquisition of degrees of comparison, and (5) there were 3 samples or 7.50% out
of 40 samples who got poor acquisition of degrees of comparison . Generally,
these research findings could be considered as sufficient. This was because these
research findings could be considered as sufficient. This was because these
research findings revealed that there were 26 samples or 65.00% out of 40
samples who achieved satisfactory acquisition of degrees of comparison and 14
samples or 35.00% out of 40 samples who totally failed in acquiring degrees of
comparison . the establishment of these research findings appears to be congruent
with related theories and empirical evidences which were reviewed for study.
Therefore, the findings of this present study should be carefully depended upon.
2.3 Hypothesis
On attempting to give a tentative solution to the research problem, the
hypothesis can be stated as the following: “Degree of comparison mastery of the
eighth grade student of SMP Pancasila Canggu is low”
79
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Design
This study is conducted by using an ex-post facto research design with
descriptive analysis. Paul et. (2008:243) states that in ex-post facto design many
independent variables of internets to concussing researcher cannot be manipulated
For instance gender, personality type, treatment success and race are important and
interesting variables, but they cannot be manipulated. Cohen et al.(2005:205) argues
that ex- post facto study is a method of teasing out possible antecedents of events that
have happened and cannot , therefore, be engineered or manipulated by the
investigator.
The investigation was started with the formulation of research question as the
problem to base this study. The research variable of the present study was the
assessing of degree of comparison mastery of the eighth grade students of SMP
Pancasila Canggu in academic year 2013/2014. After the problem, have been
formulated, the researcher continued to collect the data or materials. The researcher
also collected the assignment which was given to the students to do, which was
related to the problem of investigation. The cores were showed to the student‟s ability
in studying and requiring degrees of comparison in English were collected by using
multiple choice test. In summary, ex post facto research took advantage of data you
have already collected by using multiple choice tests. In summary ex post facto
research took advantage of data you have already collected. Therefore, the quality of
80
ex post facto research depends on the quality and quality of data you collect during
the original study.
3.2 Population and Sample
The population of the present study was the eighth grade students of SMP
Pancasila Canggu in academic year 2013/2014. It consisted of four classes with
around 140 students.
The population can be characterized as having rather homogenous population
traits or characteristic in terms of age, motivation, attitude, interest, and quality and
quantity of formal and informal exposures of English the researcher limited the
population by only taking 40 students randomly with lottery system. Altars et al.
(2005:11) mention random sampling is the most commonly used sampling technique
in which each member in the population is given an equal chance of being selected
in the sample.
The samples of the study which consisted of 40 students were considered as
representative enough. Cohen et al. (2005:135) argues that there is in fact no precise
and fixes single role concurring the determination of representative sample of any
study. The determination of the sample size of any study the better result of the study.
3.3 Research Instrument
The preparation of valid and reliable research instrument greatly determines
the validity and the reliability of the data which are required for the study. The
instrument of this of this research was in the form of multiple choice tests. The
students required 60 minutes to finish the tests. The research instrument was used to
81
collect data required for the study, it had been tried been tried out to the eighth grade
students of SMP Ngurah Rai. So as to establish its validity and reliability.
3.3.1 Validity
Validity is an important key to effective research. Validity was defined as the
extent to which an instrument measured what it claimed to measure. The focus of
recent views of validity is not on the instrument itself but on the interpretation and
meaning of the scores derived from the instrument (Ary et al., 2009:225).
Keith (2009:246) mentions content validity focuses on whether the full
content of a conceptual definition is represented in the, measure. The content validity
of any test which is used as a research instrument depended on a careful analysis of
the language component being tested and of particular objective aims. The content
validity of the research instrument was established by making table of test
specification. In addition to being valid, a research instrument is considered to have a
good face validity if the tests looks and sounds good testers and other. The face
validity of the research instrument or test was simply judge from its standardized
typing format, its spelling, its clear instruction and its structures.
Construct validity is focuses on how well a measure conforms with theoretical
expectations. Ary et all.( 2009:25) states that assessing the validity of score based
interpretations is important to the researcher because most instrument used in
educational physiological investigations are design for measuring hypothetical
construct.
82
In conclusion, to having a good content validity, a test should also have good
face validity and construct validity. The degrees of comparison test which was used
as the research instrument of the present study has already met some degrees of
content validity, face validity, and construct validity, it was also considered for the
valid enough. The table of structure test items specification showing the content
validity of the test items could be tabulated as follows:
Table 1
Table of Structure Test Items Specification
Showing Its Content Validity
Testing Objective Aspect of Structure Test Items Total
The students are able
to answer degrees of
comparison correctly
which are
constructed in the
form of multiple
choice test items
1. Positive degree 1,2,6,9,12,17,22,25,26,
27,29,32,36,39,48,51,5
5,56,59,60
20
2. Comparative degree 3,5,8,10,11,14,16,19,20
,28,30,35,37,41,42,45,4
7,49,54,58
20
3.Superlative degree 4,7,13,15,18,21,23,24,3
1,33,34,38,40,43,44,46,
50,52,53,57
20
Total 60 Items 60
83
3.3.2 Reliability
Reliability is central concept in measurement. It basically means consistency.
When a measure has a low reliability, some of differences in scores between people
which it produces are spurious differences. Not real differences (Keith, 2009:246).
Reliability is related to an observed score that can be seen as consisting of two parts,
one part the individual‟s true scores and the other part an error score which is due to
the inaccuracy of instrument score have large error components, reliability is low ,
but if there is little error in the score, reliability is high.
Cohen et al.(2005:117)state reliability is essentially a synonym for
consistency and replicability over time, over instruments and over group of
respondents. Brown (2000:63) defines the reliable of a test as the extent to which the
result can be considered consistent or stable. The degree to which a test is reliable can
be estimated with reliability coefficient. According to Richardson in Sudarsana
(2010:42) a good test should have reliability coefficient between0.50-1.00.
The are different formula which can be used to calculate the reliability
coefficient of a test, such split-half method, tests- rest, internal consistency, Kuder –
Ricahardson 2 (KR-20)and Kuder Ricahardson 21 (KR-21). The reliability
coefficientof the research instrument of the present study was computes by using KR-
21, the formula of which runs as follow.
K-R21 =
(
)
Where:
k = The bunber of test items
84
x = The mean score
S2t = The variance for the set of students total scores
The mean score (x) and the variance for the set of students total scores (s2t) of
degrees of comparison tests were respectively compute by using the following
formulas
x = ∑
Where :
N = The number students taking the test
X = The mean of the test scores
∑ = The total scores of the students
S2t = ∑ ∑
The computation of ∑ and ∑ can be seen in Table 2.
Table 3
Table of Variance Showing of the Students’ Total Scores.
Students
Items
x X2
1 53 2809
2 52 2704
3 51 2704
4 50 2500
5 49 2401
6 49 2401
85
7 48 2304
8 47 2209
9 47 2209
10 46 2116
11 45 2025
12 44 1936
13 44 1936
14 44 1936
15 44 1936
16 43 1849
17 43 1849
18 43 1849
19 43 1849
20 43 1849
21 41 1681
22 39 1521
23 38 1444
24 38 1369
25 37 1296
26 36 1296
27 35 1225
28 32 961
29 31 961
30 31 900
31 31 841
32 30 841
33 28 729
34 27 625
35 26 625
86
36 23 576
37 23 529
38 22 484
39 22 484
40 16 256
N = 40 ∑ =1534 ∑
The mean of degrees of comparison test can be computed as follows:
X = ∑
=
= 38.35
The variance for the set of student total scores can be computed as follows:
S2t = ∑ ∑
=
=
=
S2t = 92.43
Then reliability coefficient of degrees of comparison was computed by KR-21
formula.
K-R21 =
87
=
(
)
=
(
)
=
(
)
= 1.02 (1-0.15)
= 1.02 (0.85)
= 0.87
The computation of reliability coefficient of degree of comparison test
showed the reliability coefficient figured of 0.87. A reliable test should have the
reliability coefficient between 0.50 – 1.00. This means the degree of comparison test
was considered reliable.
3.3.3 Item Analysis
After the test has been tried out, it is usually desirable to evaluate the
effectiveness of the item. This is done by analyzing the student‟s response to each
item. The item analysis aim at looking the result of the test items of item difficulty
and item discrimination. According to Grondlund (2003:55), items analyzing
information can tell us about the difficulty of the items, the discriminating power of
the item, and the effectiveness of each alternative. Good test item should have some
degree of acceptable facility value (FV) and discrimination value (DV). A good some
degrees of acceptable facility value between 0.30 – 0.70. Facility value or facility
88
index aims at measuring the difficulty of the overall test items. The facility value of
the test items were computed by using following formula:
FV =
Where:
FV = Facility Value
Correct U = The number of correct answers of the upper half group
Correct L = The number of correct answer of the lower half group
n = Number of the students in one group
Items discrimination shows how well an items can be discriminate high-
scorers and low scorers. The index or difficulty is generally expressed as the
percentage of the students who answered the items correctly. The index of
discrimination tells us whatever those students who performed well on the whole test
tended to do well or bad an each item in the rest.
The procedure of computing discrimination index of the research instrument
is as follows: first, the total scores obtained by the students should be ranked from the
highest score to the lowest score. Then consist of the number of students into two
groups, that is half upper and lower half (see in table 1), and finally use the above
formula computing the Dvs of the items. The index of DVs is the different between
the proportion passing the item in U and L. the ideals discrimination value should
range between 0.3 – 1.0. Discrimination value can be calculated using formulas:
DV = –
89
Where:
DV = Discrimination value
Correct U = The number of correct answers of the upper half group
Correct L = The number of correct answers of the lower half group
n = Number of the students in one group
Table 4
The summary of the Facility Values (FVs) and Discrimination Values (DVs) of
Degree of Comparison Test
No U L U+L U-L FV DV
Acceptable
Items
1 13 15 28 -2 0.70 -0.10 Unacceptable
2 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable
3 14 7 21 7 0.53 0.35 Acceptable
4 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable
5 15 7 22 8 0.55 0.40 Acceptable
6 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable
7 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable
8 9 10 19 -1 0.48 -0.05 Unacceptable
9 15 9 24 6 0.06 0.30 Acceptable
10 12 6 18 6 0.45 0.30 Acceptable
11 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable
12 17 10 27 7 0.68 0.35 Acceptable
90
13 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable
14 11 4 15 7 0.38 0.35 Acceptable
15 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable
16 13 7 20 6 050 0.30 Acceptable
17 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable
18 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable
19 6 6 12 0 0.30 0.00 Unacceptable
20 13 6 19 7 0.48 0.35 Acceptable
21 15 16 31 -1 0.78 -0.05 Unacceptable
22 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable
23 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable
24 18 9 27 9 0.68 0.45 Acceptable
25 19 15 34 4 0.85 0.20 Unacceptable
26 17 15 32 2 0.80 0.10 Unacceptable
27 20 17 37 3 0.93 0.15 Unacceptable
28 15 9 24 6 0.60 0.30 Acceptable
29 18 15 33 3 0.83 0.15 Unacceptable
30 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable
31 17 5 22 12 0.55 0.60 Acceptable
32 17 10 27 7 0.68 0.35 Acceptable
33 19 9 28 10 0.70 0.50 Acceptable
34 10 4 14 6 0.35 030 Acceptable
91
35 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable
36 19 9 28 10 0.70 0.50 Acceptable
37 11 5 16 6 0.40 0.30 Acceptable
38 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable
39 20 15 35 5 0.88 0.25 Unacceptable
40 17 10 27 7 0.68 0.35 Acceptable
41 8 10 18 -2 0.45 -0.10 Unacceptable
42 10 4 14 6 0.35 0.30 Acceptable
43 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable
44 19 9 28 10 0.70 0.50 Acceptable
45 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable
46 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable
47 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable
48 18 17 35 1 0.88 0.05 Unacceptable
49 9 3 12 6 0.30 0.30 Acceptable
50 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable
51 18
15 33 0.83 0.15 Unacceptable
52 17 8 25 9 0.63 0.45 Acceptable
53 17 11 29 7 0.70 0.30 Acceptable
54 11 5 16 6 0.40 0.30 Acceptable
55 10 4 14 6 0.35 0.30 Acceptable
56 18 17 35 1 0.88 0.05 Unacceptable
92
57 8 9 17 -1 0.43 -0.05 Unacceptable
58 19 7 26 12 0.65 0.60 Acceptable
59 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable
60 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable
The result of the computation of FVs and DVs of the 60 test items clearly
showed that there were 14 items out of 60 test items could not be accepted because
they did not meet the range of good item number
1,8,19,21,25,26,27,29,39,41,48,51,56,57. Therefore, there are only 46 test items
acceptable in the sense that they have met the ranges both the facility value and
discrimination value but only 40 items used in this research study and 6 items were
dropped. The 6 items of all. It is done because the test is aimed in making the same
proportion among positive, comparative, and superlative degrees of comparison.
3.4 Data Collection
Valid and reliable research instruments were used to collect the required data
for the study. The data necessary for the study were pickup by administering the
research instrument to the students under study. The researcher gave students only 60
minutes to finish the research instrument. The administration of the research was
running very successful. The students responded multiple choice test that each the
correct answer was given one point and zero for every wrong one. The raw scores
93
showed for the study which indicated to the students‟ ability in using degree of
comparison are regarded as the data for the present study.
3.5 Data Analysis
In order answer research question under study, the data gathered for the study
should analyze. The data collected which was in the forms of scores showing the
student‟s ability in using degree of comparison in English. The data was analyzed by
means of appropriate formula. The obtained data are analyzed by using norm –
reference measure of five standard values respectively indicates; Excellent, good,
sufficient, insufficient, and poor acquisition in using degree of comparison in English
. The formula that was used to compute the converted score runs as the following:
The mean (M) was computed in the following formula.
SD = √
Where ;
SD = Standard Deviation
D2 = Standard deviation squared of each score from the mean
N = The number students taking the test
After computing M and SD of the raw scores, the researcher converted score by using
the norm –reference measure of five standard values as following
M + 1.5 SD = A (Excellent Assessing)
M + 0.5 SD = B (Good Assessing)
M – 0.5 SD = C (Sufficient)
94
M – 0.5 SD = D (insufficient Assessing)
≤ M – 1.5 SD = E (Poor Assessing)
95
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCCUSSION
In this chapter present the acquiring data from the study and the result of
the data analysis. The discussion of findings is also presented in this chapter.
4.1 Findings
The data collected for the present study which were in the forms of raw scores
showing the assessing the degree of comparison mastery by the samples under study
were analyzed by using norm –reference measures of five standard values, showing
excellent , good, sufficient, insufficient and poor assessment of the grammatical
ability. After id the research 7th
January 2013 the researcher presented the raw score
in mastering English grammar especially simple tenses from each samples of the
study in which highest score was 37 and the lowest score was 11. The tabulation of
the scores was presented bellow
Table 5
Data Showing the assessing of degree of comparison of the eighth grade students
of SMP Pancasila Canggu in Accademic year 2013/2014
Samples Score (X)
Samples Score (X)
1 37
21 26
2 37
22 26
3 37
23 26
4 37
24 25
5 36
25 24
6 36
26 24
7 35
27 24
8 34
28 23
96
Samples Score (X)
Samples Score (X)
9 34
29 23
10 33
30 22
11 32
31 21
12 32
32 21
13 31
33 20
14 30
34 19
15 30
35 19
16 29
36 17
17 29
37 14
18 28
38 13
19 28
39 11
20 28
40 11
∑ =1062
As what had already been mentioned in chapter III, the data for the present
investigation which showed the assessing the degree of comparison mastery of the
eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic year 2012/2013 were
analyzed by using by using of norm-referenced measures of five standard values
which could show excellent, good, sufficient and poor ability.
M + 1.5 SD = A (Excellent Assessing)
M + 0.5 SD = B (Good Assessing)
M – 0.5 SD = C (Sufficient Assessing)
M – 0.5 SD = D (insufficient Assessing)
≤ M – 1.5 SD = E (Poor Assessing)
Before the raw scores obtained from sample could be computed by using the
formula, the mean (M) and the standard deviation (SD) of the raw sores should first
97
be figure out. The following computations which concerned about the computation of
mean and standard deviation could be presented as follow;
M = ∑
M =
M = 26.55
The standard deviation (SD) of the scores was estimated by counting up the
gained scores divided by number of the subjects under study. The SD is used to
measure the degrees of the scores deviation from the meas. The SD of the obtained
raw scores in mastery of degrees of comparison for the present study was computed
by using following formula.
SD =√
Where :
SD = Standard Deviation
D2
= Standard deviation squared of each score from the mean
N = Number of subjects
98
Table 6
Computation the Mean Deviation and Mean Deviation Squared (D2) of the Raw
Score Showing the sample’s Degree of Comparison Assessing.
Sample Raw Score Mean Deviation ( X-M) Squared Deviation (D2)
1 37 10.45 109.2025
2 37 10.45 109.2025
3 37 10.45 109.2025
4 37 10.45 109.2025
5 36 9.45 89.3025
6 36 9.45 89.3025
7 35 8.45 71.4025
8 34 7.45 55.5025
9 34 7.45 55.5025
10 33 6.45 41.6025
11 32 5.45 29.7025
12 32 5.45 29.7025
13 31 4.45 19.8025
14 30 3.45 11.9025
15 30 3.45 11.9025
16 29 2.45 6.0025
17 29 2.45 6.0025
18 28 1.45 2.1025
19 28 1.45 2.1025
20 28 1.45 2.1025
21 26 -0.55 0.3025
22 26 -0.55 0.3025
23 26 -0.55 0.3025
24 25 -1.55 2.4025
25 24 -2.55 6.5025
99
Sample Raw Score Mean Deviation ( X-M) Squared Deviation (D2)
26 24 -2.55 6.5025
27 24 -2.55 6.5025
28 23 -3.55 12.6025
29 23 -3.55 12.6025
30 22 -4.55 20.7025
31 21 -5.55 30.8025
32 21 -5.55 30.8025
33 20 -6.55 42.9025
34 19 -7.55 57.0025
35 19 -7.55 57.0025
36 17 -9.55 91.2025
37 14 -12.55 157.5025
38 13 -13.55 183.6025
39 11 -15.55 241.8025
40 11 -15.55 241.8025
∑ =1062
∑ =2163.9
SD = √
= √
= √
= 7.35
100
After the M and the SD scores obtained by the subject under study have been
computed, now the converted standard scores using norm reference measures of five standard
values could be respectively computed as the followings:
A (Excellent Acquisition) =
= 26.55 + 1.5 (7.35)
= 26.55 + 8.85
= 35.40
So the score of A or Excellent Acquisition was 35.40
1. B (Good Acquisition) = M + 0.5 SD
= 26.55 + 0.5 (7.35)
= 26.55 + 3.67
= 30.22
So the score of B or Good Acquisition was 35.40 30.22
2. C (Sufficient Acquisition) = M - 0.5 SD
=26.55 - 0.5 (7.35)
= 26.55 – 3.67
= 22.88
So the score of C or Sufficient Acquisition was 30.22 22.88
3. D (Insufficient Acquisition ) = M - 1.5 SD
= 26.55 – 1.5 (7.35)
= 26.55 – 11.02
= 15.53
101
So the score of D or Insufficient Acquisition was 22.88 15.53
4. E (Poor Acquisition) = <M – 1.5 SD
= 26.55 – 1.5 (7.35)
= 26.55 – 11.02
= 15.53
So the score of E or Poor Acquisition was <15.53
The data which were analyzed by using norm –reference measures of five standard
values resulted the converted scores of 35.40, 35.40 30.22, 30.22 22.88, 22..88
15.53, <15.53 respectively showing excellent acquisition of simple tenses (A), good
acquisition of simple tenses (B), sufficient acquisition of simple tenses (C),insufficient
acquisition of simple tenses (D), poor acquisition of simple tenses (E). Those converted
scores were determined as the basis of assessing the competence of students in acquiring
degree of comparison. After the converted scores had been figure out , then the degrees of
raw scores in multiple choice test and their corresponding converted scored in the assessing
the degree of comparison mastery of the eighth grade student of SMP Pancasila Canggu in
academic year 2013/2014 could be tabulated . the following table of tabulation of the sample
raw scores and their corresponding converted scored high was assessed through multiple –
choice test could be seen completely.
102
Table 7
The Conversion of the Subject’s Raw Score in Degree of Comparison
on the Basis Norm Reference Measure of Five Values
Samples Raw score Converted score level of degrees of comparison
1 37 ≥ 35.40 A/ Excellent
2 37 ≥ 35.40 A/ Excellent
3 37 ≥ 35.40 A/ Excellent
4 37 ≥ 35.40 A/ Excellent
5 36 ≥ 35.40 A/ Excellent
6 36 ≥ 35.40 A/ Excellent
7 35 35.40 30.22 B/ Good
8 34 35.40 30.22 B/ Good
9 34 35.40 30.22 B/ Good
10 33 35.40 30.22 B/ Good
11 32 35.40 30.22 B/ Good
12 32 35.40 30.22 B/ Good
13 31 35.40 30.22 B/ Good
14 30 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
15 30 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
16 29 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
17 29 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
18 28 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
19 28 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
103
20 28 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
Samples Raw score Converted score level of degrees of comparison
21 26 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
22 26 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
23 26 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
24 25 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
25 24 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
26 24 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
27 24 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
28 23 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
29 23 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient
30 22 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient
31 21 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient
32 21 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient
33 20 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient
34 19 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient
35 19 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient
36 17 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient
37 14 <15.53 E/Poor
38 13 <15.53 E/Poor
39 11 <15.53 E/Poor
40 11 <15.53 E/Poor
104
The result of the present study above can be summarized by percentage blow:
Table 8
Summary of the Findings Data
No Standard Score Total Subject Percent
1 ≥ 35.40 / A (Excellent) 6 15,00 %
2 35.40 30.22 / B ( Good) 7 17,50 %
3 30.22 22.88 / C (Sufficient) 16 40,00 %
4 22..88 15.53 / D (Insufficient) 7 17,50 %
5 <15.53 / E ( Poor) 4 10,00 %
TOTAL 40 100.00 %
4.2 Discussion
The result of the analysis by means of norm – reference measure of five
standard values clearly revealed that (1) there were 6 samples or 15.00% out of 40
samples under study who showed excellent assessing of degree of comparison, (2)
there were 7 samples or 17.50% out of 40 samples who showed good assessing of
degree of comparison, (3) there were 16 samples or 40.00% out of 40 samples
showed sufficient assessing of degree of comparison, (4) there were 7 samples or
17.50% out of 40 samples who pointed out insufficient assessing of degree of
comparison, and (5) there were 34 samples or 10.00% out of 40 samples who got
poor assessing of degree of comparison. From these research findings, it could be
clearly seen that there were only 29 samples or 72.50% out of 40 samples who
105
achieved satisfactory assessing of degree of comparison and 11samples or 27.50%
out of 40 samples who totally failed in acquiring degree of comparison. in general,
these research findings revealed that the assessing of degree of comparison by the
eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu In Accademic year 2013/2014 was
sufficient enough.
The establishment of these research findings appears to be congruent with
related theories and empirical evidences were reviewed for the study. As stated in the
English curriculum and general course outline of the students senior high school
students graduated were expected to have good and practical communication ability
in English. Insufficient knowledge of the roles of the language learned, absence of
language roles in one‟s knowledge, inability to make use of its in real
communication, insufficient time allocated for learning and practicing, and low
learning motivation were crucial factor that made students failed in acquiring degree
of comparison. Therefore, the findings of this presents study should be carefully
depended upon.
According to the hypothesis that was formulated in chapter II, the
achievement degree of comparison of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila
Canggu in academic year 2012/2013 is low was rejected. This was due to that fact
that the ability of eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in degrees of
comparison mastery was quite high.
106
CHAPTER V
CONLUSION AND SUGGESTION
The discussion of the present study which dealt with the assessing of degree
of comparison by the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic
year 2013/2014 could be concluded in this chapter. In reference to the findings of the
study, some practical suggestions are also suggested in this chapter.
5.1 Conclusion
The data obtained from the study which was in the study was in the forms of
raw scores showing the assessing of degree of comparison by the eighth grade
students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in Accademic year 2013/2014 were analyzed by
norm reference measure of five standard values. The result of the data analysis
showed : (1) there were 6 samples or 15.00% out of 40 samples under study was who
showed excellent assessing of degree of comparison , (2) there were 7 samples or
17.50% out of 40 samples who showed good assessing of degree of comparison , (3)
there were 16 samples or 40.00% out of 40 samples showed sufficient assessing of
degree of comparison , (4) there were 7 samples or 17.50% out of 40 samples who
pointed out insufficient assessing of degree of comparison ,and (5) there were 4
sample or 10.00% out of 40 samples who got poor assessing of degree of comparison.
In general, these research findings revealed that the assessing of degree of
107
comparison by the eighth grade student of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic year
2013/2014 could be remarked as sufficient enough.
The findings of the present suggested that the teaching of degrees of
comparison to the eleventh grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic
year 2013 /2014 were still regarded as unsuccessful. There were of course some
factor which might cause the subject understudy still faced problem in learning and
acquiring degree of comparison: insufficient knowledge of the roles of the language
learned, insufficient time allocated for learning and practicing and their low learning
motivation implicated the students‟ problem in acquiring degree of comparison.
These research findings were hope to be able to revitalize strategies and technique of
efficient degree of comparison instruction and exercise by the teacher an students
under the study.
The findings of the present research had rather limited validity and reliability
because the study was undertaken on basis of an ex post facto research design. Hence,
they should be more carefully relied and depended upon.
5.2. Suggestions
As the previous findings, it seems necessary for the researcher to offer some
suggestions to improve the students‟ ability in assessing of degree of comparison.
Therefore, some points are suggested as follows:
1. The eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic year
2013/2014 who have good ability in using degree of comparison are expected
108
to be able to increase their mastery in understanding degrees of comparison in
order to be able to achieve in using degree of comparison.
2. For the students who still have problem in using degrees of comparison are
expected to be able to promote and develop their degree of comparison
mastery.
3. The English teachers of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu
are suggested to be more active and creative in enriching their teaching
methodologies, teaching strategies and technique, which would help the
students to have better and casier ability in understanding the uses of degree
of comparison.
4. The English teachers of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu
are recommended to give exercise in using degree of comparison to the
students to practice their ability in using prior knowledge and experience.
5. For the next researcher who will do the research study, this investigation can
be developed and used as references in collecting the data.
109
REFRENCES
Brown,H.Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagody.Longman
Cohen,Louis,Manion , Lawrence and Morrison, Keith.2000. Research Methods in
Education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Dably,Andrew.2004. dictionary of Languange. London: A & C Black Publicer Ltd.
Downing, Angela and Locke, Philip.2006. English Grammar University Course.
Routledge.
Ellis, Rod. 2003. Second Language Acquisition. New York. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, Rod.et.al 2009. Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning,
Testing and Teaching.
Fulcher, Glen and Davidson, Fred. 2007. Language Testing and Assessment.
Routledge.
Hartanto, Jhon, S.et al.2003.Accurate Brieft and clear English Grammar . Indah
Surabaya
Jakson,Howard.2005. Good Grammar For Students. London : Sage Publications.
Saergeant,Howard.2007.Basic English Grammar for English Language Learners.
Saddeback Educational Publishing.
Savignon ,Sandra, J.2002 Interpenting Communicative Language Teaching. London
:Yale University Press.
Saville, Muriel and Troike.2006. Introduction Second Language Acquisition. New
York : Cambridge University Press.
Swan, Michael. 2005. Practical English Usage. New York :Oxford University Press
110
111
Appendix 1
The Names of the Try Out Samples
NO NAME OF STUDENTS
1 Candra Wijaya G
2 I Made Adi Suantara
3 Ni Kadek Puspita Dewi
4 Dwiki Darmawan
5 Ni Rai Mondayani
6 Okta Suci Lestari
7 Pujianti Wahyuningtyas
8 Nym Ananda Wijaya
9 Juli Ratna Dewi
10 Putu Werdi Ayu
11 Ayu Pebriyanti
12 Agus Wiratama
13 I Gst Ngurah Werdi
14 Sri Wahyuni
15 Talia Jayanti
16 Silvia Milenia Sari
17 Wulan Nila Arisandi
18 Komang Trisna S
19 Meita Juliawati
20 Putu Suardita
21 Gd Juliantara Putra
22 Adi Sudarma Putra
23 Eka Candra Wiguna
24 Kadek Dwiana P
25 Putri Swandewi
26 Luh Gede Juni A
27 Ryan Mahendra P
28 Ni Luh Manik Sukahati
29 Intan Yuliantari
30 Ni Kadek Anita
31 Vena Melinda
112
32 Arya Pratama P
33 Kdk Adi Saputra
34 Wahyu Naradepa
35 Dewi Yantini
36 Sayu Widya P
37 Ni Luh Yuliantini
38 Made Widiyantari
39 Sayang Frisca M
40 Dion Giri Mahendra
113
Appendix 2
The Names of the Research Samples
NO NAMA SISWA
1 Putu Tessa Sentana Apriana
2 Putu Arya Cahya Pramana
3 I kadek Eva Sumantra
4 I putu Aris Eka Saputra
5 I kadek Rai Adi Saputra
6 I Made Rudiana
7 I Gagus Alit Andika Putra
8 I gede Widya Putra
9 Ni Made Dwi Damayanti
10 Ni Komang Erika Anggi Amelia
11 Komang Marta Trisna Widiantari
12 Ni Komang Alit Andriyani
13 I Gede Eddy Cahya Putra
14 I Putu Wahyu Mahendra
15 NatalisKevin Gunawan
16 I Made Rukad Andayat
17 I Ketut Adi Parwadi
18 I Gede Candra Mahendra
19 Bogi Vallerio Ekstrada
20 Figur Buyung Sejati
21 Adi Nova budhi Sastrawan I kadek
22 AgiSuryawan I kadek
23 Agus Bayu Lois Saputra I Kadek
24 Agustini Sukaryasih Ni Luh made
25 Anik Verayanti Ni kadek
26 Ayu Sri Indrayani Ni Luh
27 Dana Natih I Nengah
28 Decelina Rahmadani Manggara Putri
29 Deva Miarta I mMade
30 Devi Dharma Yanthi Kadek
31 Doni Permana Putra I Kadek
32 Dwija Suparsa I kadek
33 Gelindhana I Dewa Agung Gede
34 Gita Astini Kadek
35 Gita Pratama Putri Ni Putu
36 Herasaka Komang
114
37 Ina Fitriani
38 Intan Sari Dewi Ni made
39 Irwan Edi Saputra I kadek
40 Lidya Damayanti Ni kadek
115
Appendix 3
1. My bag is as …. as my brother
A. expensive
B. more expensive
C. most expensive
D. less
2. Solo is as ….. as Surabaya
A. beautiful
B. beautiful
C. more beautiful
D. most beautiful
3. My mother is ….. than my father.
A. old
B. older
C. oldest
D. more old
4. Doni is the ….. boy in my class.
A. tall
B. taller
C. tallest
D. more tall
5. Elephant and cow is an animal. But cow
is…. than elephant.
A. Small
B. Smaller
C. Smallest
D. More small
6. That pencil is as …. as this pencil
A. long
B. longer
C. more long
D. longest
7. An elephant is the ….. animal
nowdays
A. big
B. bigger
C. biggest
D. more big
8. This tea is as ….. as that coffee
A. happy
B. happier
C. happiest
D. more happy
9. That purple shirt is as ….. my
blanket.
A. soft
B. softer
C. more soft
TRY OUT INSTRUMENT
Subject : English
Grade : VIII
INSTRUCTION
1. Write your identity on the provide answer sheet!
2. Please choose the best answer by crossing A, B, C or D on the provided answer sheet!
3. You have 60 minutes to do the test!
116
D. most soft
10. Roger is 12 years old. Danu is 15
years old. Therefore, Roger is….
than Danu
A. young
B. younger
C. more young
D. youngest
11. The red jacket is ….. than the blue
on
A. cheap
B. cheaper
C. more cheap
D. most cheap
12. Rio is as ….. as Fablo
A. fat
B. fattest
C. more fat
D. most fat
13. Which country has the… area?
A. big
B. bigger
C. biggest
D. more big
14. The weather today is …. than
yesterday
A. cool
B. cooler
C. more cool
D. most cool
15. Today is the….. day for me. It‟s my
birthday
A. happy
B. happier
C. happiest
D. more happy
16. This sofa is …. than that chair.
A. comfortable
B. more comfortable
C. most comfortable
D. comfortablest
17. Kecak dance is as …. . as Barong
dance in Bali
A. popular
B. popolarer
C. more popular
D. most popular
18. Jenny has 234 marbles
Emma has 127 marbles
Cheryl has 244 marbles
A. Cheryl has the most marbles
among her friends.
B. Emma has the most marbles
among her friend.
C. Emma has more marbles than
Cheryl.
D. Jenny has more marbles than
Cheryl.
19. Susi is …. than Rani
A. hard
B. hardest
C. harder
D. more hard
20. My brother is ….. than my sister
A. lazy
B. lazier
C. more lazy
117
D. most lazy
21. Toni is the…. boy in his clases
A. clever
B. more clever
C. most clever
D. cleverest
22. The weather today is a…. as
yesterday
A. bright
B. brighter
C. brightest
D. more bright
23. Vino is the …. boy I haver ever seen
A. handsome
B. more handsome
C. most handsome
D. handsomely
24. Tiger is the ….. animal in the wolrd
A. dangerous
B. dangerously
C. more dangerous
D. most dangerous
25. This women is as ……as the man
over there
A. crazy
B. crazier
C. crazier
D. more crazy
26. My father is as …… as my brother
A. busy
B. busier
C. busiest
D. more busy
27. You are noisier than your brother.
You are .... your brother.
A. not noisy
B. not noisier
C. not noisiest
D. not as noisy as
28. Jakarta is ….. than Bandung
A. hot
B. hotter
C. more hot
D. most hot
29. My computer is slower than her
computer.
My computer is .... her computer.
A. not slow
B. not slower
C. not slowest
D. not as slow as
30. Iron is …. than any other metals
A. useful
B. usefully
C. more useful
D. most useful
31. I‟m the….. in my family
A. young
B. younger
C. youngest
D. more young
32. Paul isn‟t as diligent as Nick. It
means…
A. Nick isn‟t more diligent than
Paul.
B. Nick is more diligent than Paul.
C. Paul is more diligent than Nick.
118
D. Nick is the most diligent boy
33. This restaurant should serve the
customers in the ….. service
A. best
B. good
C. better
D. more good
34. What is the…. news of the war?
A. late
B. later
C. latest
D. more late
35. Prita is ….. than Angel.
A. Short
B. Shorter
C. Shorten
D. More short
36. Aldo is 160 centimeters tall.
Yuda is 160 centimeters tall.
A. Aldo is as tall as Yuda.
B. Aldo is taller than Yuda
C. Yuda is taller than Aldo
D. Ado is the tallest boy.
37. Peterpan is …… than Lotot band
A. famous
B. more famous
C. most famous
D. famously.
38. Badung is the ….. city in Indonesia
A. cold
B. colder
C. coldest
D. more cold
39. Sangeh is 20 km from my house.
Taman Ayun is 35 km from my
house.
A. Sangeh is as near as Taman
Ayun.
B. Taman Ayun is nearer than
Sangeh.
C. Sangeh is nearer than Taman
Ayun.
D. Sangeh isn‟t nearer than Taman
Ayun.
40. Teacher: Ana, you are the ….
students in this school.
Ana : Thank you.
It means Ana is …..
A. as diligent as
B. not as diligent as
C. more diligent
D. most diligent
41. The people in Bali is …... then the
people in java
A. familiar
B. familiarer
C. more familiar
D. most familiar
42. My blue trouser is …. Than the
brown one
A. busy
B. busier
C. busiest
D. more busy
119
43. Could you show me where the….
post office is ?
A. near
B. nearer
C. nearest
D. nearly
44. Elvis Presley is the …..musician in
the world
A. great
B. greater
C. greatest
D. more great
45. Tiara‟s bag : Rp. 35.000
Ema‟s bag : Rp. 50.000
A. Ema‟s bag is as expensive as
Tiara‟s bag.
B. Tiara‟s bag is more expensive
than Ema‟s bag.
C. Ema‟s bag is more expensive
than Tiara‟s bag.
D. Ema‟s bag is the most expensive
bag of all.
46. X : Excuse me, do you know the
….way to the bus station?
Y : Yes. Just take this way.
A. as easy as
B. easiest
C. easier
D. easy
47. English isn‟t as difficult as
Mathematic. It means….
A. Mathematic isn‟t difficult than
English.
B. Mathematic is more difficult than
English.
C. English is more difficult than
Mathematic.
D. Mathematic is the most difficult
subject.
48. Syahrini and Asyanti are beautiful
girls.
A. Syahrini is more beautiful than
Asyanti.
B. Asyanti is more beautiful than
Syahrini.
C. Syahrini is as beautiful as
Asyanti.
D. Syahrini is not as beautiful as
Asyanti.
49. Tini isn‟t as brave as Sri. It means….
A. Sri isn‟t braver than Tini.
B. Sri is braver than Tini.
C. Tini is braver than Sri.
D. Sri is the bravest students in his
class.
120
50. Sule : Excuse me, do you know
the …. City in Bali?
Daus : I think is Denpasar
A. as famous as
B. more famous
C. most famous
D. famous
51. Rino and Rai are friendly. It means
….
A. Rino is as friendly as Rai.
B. Rino is not as friendly as Rai.
C. Rino is friendlier than Rai.
D. Rai is friendlier than Rino.
52. They‟ve got lots of money. They
are…..club in the country.
A. the rich
B. the richer
C. the richest
D. as rich as
53. Mr. Rai drives 40 km/jam
Mr. Johan drives 50 km/jam
Mr. Ali drives 35 km/jam
A. Mr. Johan is as slow as Mr. Rai
B. Mr. Rai is slower than Mr. Ali
C. Mr. Ali is the slowest than the
other.
D. Mr. Johan is the slowest than the
other.
54. Desi isn‟t as active as Dedi. It
means….
A. Dedi isn‟t more active than Desi.
B. Dedi is more active than Desi.
C. Desi is more active than Dedi.
D. Dedi is the most active students
in his class.
55. Science and Social are the most
difficult subject. It means …
A. Science is as difficult as Social.
B. Science is not as difficult as
Social.
C. Science is more difficult than
Social
D. Social is more difficult than
Science.
56. Ayu Ting Ting is the famous singer
in Indonesia and has 2500 fans.
Michele Jackson is a famous singer
and has 2500 fans. It means ….
A. Ayu Ting Ting is the most
famous singer in the world.
B. Ayu Ting Ting is as famous as
Michele Jackson.
C. Ayu Ting Ting is more famous
than Michele Jackson.
D. Michele Jackson is more famous
than Ayu Ting Ting.
57. Sule : Excuse me, do you know
the …. city in Bali?
Daus : I think is Denpasar
A. as famous as
B. more famous
C. most famous
D. famous
121
58. Vicky‟s bedroom isn‟t as dirty as
Nancy‟s bedroom. It means….
A. Nancy‟s bedroom isn‟t dirtier
than Vicky‟s bedroom.
B. Nancy‟s bedroom is dirtier than
Vicky‟s bedroom.
C. Vicky‟s bedroom is dirtier than
Nancy‟s bedroom.
D. Nancy‟s bedroom is the dirtiest
then the other.
59. Money and love are important. It
means….
A. Money is more important than
love.
B. Love is more important than
money.
C. Money is not as important as
love.
D. Money is as important as love.
60. Mr. John Attkin and Mrs. Eva Attkin
are happy because they have a son. It
means …
A. Mr. John is happier than Mrs.
Eva
B. Mrs. Eva is happier than Mr.
John.
C. Mr. John is as happy as Mrs.
Eva.
D. Mr. John is not as happy as Mrs.
Eva
122
ANSWER SHEET
Name :
Number :
1 A B C D
21 A B C D
41 A B C D
2 A B C D
22 A B C D
42 A B C D
3 A B C D
23 A B C D
43 A B C D
4 A B C D
24 A B C D
44 A B C D
5 A B C D
25 A B C D
45 A B C D
6 A B C D
26 A B C D
46 A B C D
7 A B C D
27 A B C D
47 A B C D
8 A B C D
28 A B C D
48 A B C D
9 A B C D
29 A B C D
49 A B C D
10 A B C D
30 A B C D
50 A B C D
11 A B C D
31 A B C D
51 A B C D
12 A B C D
32 A B C D
52 A B C D
13 A B C D
33 A B C D
53 A B C D
14 A B C D
34 A B C D
54 A B C D
15 A B C D
35 A B C D
55 A B C D
16 A B C D
36 A B C D
56 A B C D
17 A B C D
37 A B C D
57 A B C D
18 A B C D
38 A B C D
58 A B C D
19 A B C D
39 A B C D
59 A B C D
20 A B C D
40 A B C D
60 A B C D
123
1 . A 31 . C
2 . A 32 . B
3 . B 33 . A
4 . C 34 . C
5 . B 35 . B
6 . A 36 . A
7 . C 37 . B
8 . A 38 . C
9 . A 39 . A
10 . B 40 . D
11 . B 41 . C
12 . A 42 . B
13 . C 43 . C
14 . B 44 . C
15 . C 45 . C
16 . B 46 . B
17 . A 47 . B
18 . A 48 . C
19 . C 49 . B
20 . C 50 . C
21 . D 51 . A
22 . A 52 . C
23 . D 53 . C
24 . C 54 . B
25 . A 55 . A
26 . A 56 . B
27 . D 57 . C
28 . B 58 . B
29 . D 59 . D
30 . C 60 . C
KUNCI JAWABAN TRY OUT
124
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
Subject : English
Grade : VIII
INSTRUCTION
1. Write your identity on the provide answer sheet!
2. Please choose the best answer by crossing A, B, C or D on the provided answer sheet!
3. You have 60 minutes to do the test!
Appendix 4
1. Solo is as ….. as Surabaya
E. beautiful
F. beautiful
G. more beautiful
H. most beautiful
2. My mother is ….. than my father.
E. old
F. older
G. oldest
H. more old
3. Doni is the ….. boy in my class.
E. tall
F. taller
G. tallest
H. more tall
4. Elephant and cow is an animal. But cow
is…. than elephant.
E. Small
F. Smaller
G. Smallest
H. More small
5. That pencil is as …. as this pencil
E. long
F. longer
G. more long
H. longest
6. An elephant is the ….. animal
nowdays
E. big
F. bigger
G. biggest
H. more big
7. That purple shirt is as ….. my
blanket.
E. soft
F. softer
G. more soft
H. most soft
8. Roger is 12 years old. Danu is 15
years old. Therefore, Roger is….
than Danu
E. young
F. younger
G. more young
H. youngest
125
9. The red jacket is ….. than the blue
on
E. cheap
F. cheaper
G. more cheap
H. most cheap
10. Rio is as ….. as Fablo
E. fat
F. fattest
G. more fat
H. most fat
11. Which country has the… area?
E. big
F. bigger
G. biggest
H. more big
12. The weather today is …. than
yesterday
E. cool
F. cooler
G. more cool
H. most cool
13. Today is the….. day for me. It‟s my
birthday
E. happy
F. happier
G. happiest
H. more happy
14. This sofa is …. than that chair.
E. comfortable
F. more comfortable
G. most comfortable
H. comfortablest
15. Kecak dance is as …. . as Barong
dance in Bali
E. popular
F. popolarer
G. more popular
H. most popular
16. Jenny has 234 marbles
Emma has 127 marbles
Cheryl has 244 marbles
E. Cheryl has the most marbles
among her friends.
F. Emma has the most marbles
among her friend.
G. Emma has more marbles than
Cheryl.
H. Jenny has more marbles than
Cheryl.
17. My brother is ….. than my sister
E. lazy
F. lazier
G. more lazy
H. most lazy
18. The weather today is a…. as
yesterday
E. bright
F. brighter
G. brightest
H. more bright
19. Vino is the …. boy I haver ever seen
E. handsome
F. more handsome
G. most handsome
H. handsomely
126
20. Tiger is the ….. animal in the wolrd
E. dangerous
F. dangerously
G. more dangerous
H. most dangerous
21. Jakarta is ….. than Bandung
E. hot
F. hotter
G. more hot
H. most hot
22. Iron is …. than any other metals
E. useful
F. usefully
G. more useful
H. most useful
23. I‟m the….. in my family
E. young
F. younger
G. youngest
H. more young
24. Paul isn‟t as diligent as Nick. It
means…
E. Nick isn‟t more diligent than
Paul.
F. Nick is more diligent than Paul.
G. Paul is more diligent than Nick.
H. Nick is the most diligent boy
25. This restaurant should serve the
customers in the ….. service
E. best
F. good
G. better
H. more good
26. What is the…. news of the war?
E. late
F. later
G. latest
H. more late
27. Prita is ….. than Angel.
E. Short
F. Shorter
G. Shorten
H. More short
28. Aldo is 160 centimeters tall.
Yuda is 160 centimeters tall.
E. Aldo is as tall as Yuda.
F. Aldo is taller than Yuda
G. Yuda is taller than Aldo
H. Ado is the tallest boy.
29. Peterpan is …… than Lotot band
E. famous
F. more famous
G. most famous
H. famously.
30. Badung is the ….. city in Indonesia
E. cold
F. colder
G. coldest
H. more cold
31. Teacher: Ana, you are the ….
students in this school.
Ana : Thank you.
It means Ana is …..
E. as diligent as
F. not as diligent as
G. more diligent
H. most diligent
127
32. My blue trouser is …. Than the
brown one
E. busy
F. busier
G. busiest
H. more busy
33. Could you show me where the….
post office is ?
E. near
F. nearer
G. nearest
H. nearly
34. Elvis Presley is the …..musician in
the world
E. great
F. greater
G. greatest
H. more great
35. Tiara‟s bag : Rp. 35.000
Ema‟s bag : Rp. 50.000
E. Ema‟s bag is as expensive as
Tiara‟s bag.
F. Tiara‟s bag is more expensive
than Ema‟s bag.
G. Ema‟s bag is more expensive
than Tiara‟s bag.
H. Ema‟s bag is the most expensive
bag of all.
36. X : Excuse me, do you know the
….way to the bus station?
Y : Yes. Just take this way.
E. as easy as
F. easiest
G. easier
H. easy
37. English isn‟t as difficult as
Mathematic. It means….
E. Mathematic isn‟t difficult than
English.
F. Mathematic is more difficult than
English.
G. English is more difficult than
Mathematic.
H. Mathematic is the most difficult
subject.
38. Syahrini and Asyanti are beautiful
girls.
E. Syahrini is more beautiful than
Asyanti.
F. Asyanti is more beautiful than
Syahrini.
G. Syahrini is as beautiful as
Asyanti.
H. Syahrini is not as beautiful as
Asyanti.
39. Tini isn‟t as brave as Sri. It means….
E. Sri isn‟t braver than Tini.
F. Sri is braver than Tini.
G. Tini is braver than Sri.
H. Sri is the bravest students in his
class.
128
40. Sule : Excuse me, do you know
the …. City in Bali?
Daus : I think is Denpasar
E. as famous as
F. more famous
G. most famous
H. famous
129
Name :
Class :
1 A B C D 21 A B C D
2 A B C D 22 A B C D
3 A B C D 23 A B C D
4 A B C D 24 A B C D
5 A B C D 25 A B C D
6 A B C D 26 A B C D
7 A B C D 27 A B C D
8 A B C D 28 A B C D
9 A B C D 29 A B C D
10 A B C D 30 A B C D
11 A B C D 31 A B C D
12 A B C D 32 A B C D
13 A B C D 33 A B C D
14 A B C D 34 A B C D
15 A B C D 35 A B C D
16 A B C D 36 A B C D
17 A B C D 37 A B C D
18 A B C D 38 A B C D
19 A B C D 39 A B C D
20 A B C D 40 A B C D
ANSWER SHEET
130
1 . A 21 . B
2 . B 22 . C
3 . C 23 . C
4 . B 24 . B
5 . A 25 . A
6 . C 26 . C
7 . A 27 . B
8 . B 28 . A
9 . B 29 . B
10 . A 30 . C
11 . C 31 . D
12 . B 32 . B
13 . C 33 . C
14 . B 34 . C
15 . A 35 . C
16 . A 36 . B
17 . C 37 . B
18 . A 38 . C
19 . D 39 . B
20 . C 40 . C
KUNCI JAWABAN PENELITIAN
131
Appendix 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Score
1 Candra Wijaya G 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 53
2 I Made Adi Suantara 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 52
3 Ni Kadek Puspita Dewi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 51
4 Dwiki Darmawan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50
5 Ni Rai Mondayani 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 49
6 Okta Suci Lestari 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 49
7 Pujianti Wahyuningtyas 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 48
8 Nym Ananda Wijaya 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 47
9 Juli Ratna Dewi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 47
10 Putu Werdi Ayu 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 46
11 Ayu Pebriyanti 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45
12 Agus Wiratama 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44
13 I Gst Ngurah Werdi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44
14 Sri Wahyuni 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44
15 Talia Jayanti 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44
16 Silvia Milenia Sari 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43
17 Wulan Nila Arisandi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43
18 Komang Trisna S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43
19 Meita Juliawati 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43
20 Putu Suardita 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 928
13 16 14 17 15 16 16 9 15 12 17 20 15 11 16 13 17 16 6 13 15 17 16 18 19 17 20 15 18 17 17 17 19 10 18 19 11 17 20 17 8 10 18 19 16 17 18 18 9 18 18 17 17 11 10 18 8 19 18 17 Average
7 4 6 3 5 4 4 11 5 8 3 0 5 9 4 7 3 4 14 7 5 3 4 2 1 3 0 5 2 3 3 3 1 10 2 1 9 3 0 3 12 10 2 1 4 3 2 2 11 2 2 3 3 9 10 2 12 1 2 3 46
Range 53-43
1 Gd Juliantara Putra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41
2 Adi Sudarma Putra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 39
3 Eka Candra Wiguna 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38
4 Kadek Dwiana P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38
5 Putri Swandewi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 37
6 Luh Gede Juni A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 36
7 Ryan Mahendra P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 35
8 Ni Luh Manik Sukahati 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32
9 Intan Yuliantari 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31
10 Ni Kadek Anita 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31
11 Vena Melinda 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31
12 Arya Pratama P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30
13 Kdk Adi Saputra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
14 Wahyu Naradepa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27
15 Dewi Yantini 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26
16 Sayu Widya P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23
17 Ni Luh Yuliantini 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23
18 Made Widiyantari 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22
19 Sayang Frisca M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22
20 Dion Giri Mahendra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 606
15 10 9 13 8 12 12 8 9 6 13 10 18 4 10 7 13 8 6 8 16 11 9 11 15 15 17 9 12 11 7 8 9 6 8 9 5 13 13 10 10 6 10 7 10 13 10 15 5 10 13 10 9 5 6 15 9 7 10 13 Average
5 10 11 7 12 8 8 12 11 14 7 10 2 16 10 13 7 12 14 12 4 9 11 9 5 5 3 11 8 9 13 12 11 14 12 11 15 7 7 10 10 14 10 13 10 7 10 5 15 10 7 10 11 15 14 5 11 13 10 7 30
Range 41-30
Total
Correct
Incorect
Unanswered
Lower Group
ITEM ANALYSIS SHEET OF TEACHER MADE STRUCTURE TEST ITEMS Correct = Blank; Incorrect = 1; Unanswered = 0
Items
Students
Upper Group
Total
Correct
Incorect
Unanswered
132
Appendix 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Score
1 Putu Tessa Sentana Apriana 1 1 1 37
2 Putu Arya Cahya Pramana 1 1 1 37
3 I kadek Eva Sumantra 1 1 1 37
4 I putu Aris Eka Saputra 1 1 1 37
5 I kadek Rai Adi Saputra 1 1 1 1 36
6 I Made Rudiana 1 1 1 1 36
7 I Gagus Alit Andika Putra 1 1 1 1 1 35
8 I gede Widya Putra 1 1 1 1 1 1 34
9 Ni Made Dwi Damayanti 1 1 1 1 1 1 34
10 Ni Komang Erika Anggi Amelia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33
11 Komang Marta Trisna Widiantari 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32
12 Ni Komang Alit Andriyani 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32
13 I Gede Eddy Cahya Putra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31
14 I Putu Wahyu Mahendra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30
15 NatalisKevin Gunawan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30
16 I Made Rukad Andayat 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29
17 I Ketut Adi Parwadi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29
18 I Gede Candra Mahendra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
19 Bogi Vallerio Ekstrada 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
20 Figur Buyung Sejati 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 653
20 18 18 19 19 19 18 17 19 18 17 19 18 19 19 17 17 17 17 15 16 19 15 16 13 13 17 16 15 18 11 17 12 12 17 13 17 9 13 14 Average
0 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 5 4 1 5 4 7 7 3 4 5 2 9 3 8 8 3 7 3 11 7 6 33
Range 37-28
21 Adi Nova budhi Sastrawan I kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26
22 AgiSuryawan I kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26
23 Agus Bayu Lois Saputra I Kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26
24 Agustini Sukaryasih Ni Luh made 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25
25 Anik Verayanti Ni kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24
26 Ayu Sri Indrayani Ni Luh 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24
27 Dana Natih I Nengah 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24
28 Decelina Rahmadani Manggara Putri 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23
29 Deva Miarta I mMade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23
30 Devi Dharma Yanthi Kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22
31 Doni Permana Putra I Kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21
32 Dwija Suparsa I kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21
33 Gelindhana I Dewa Agung Gede 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20
34 Gita Astini Kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19
35 Gita Pratama Putri Ni Putu 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19
36 Herasaka Komang 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17
37 Ina Fitriani 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
38 Intan Sari Dewi Ni made 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
39 Irwan Edi Saputra I kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
40 Lidya Damayanti Ni kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 409
17 15 18 15 15 13 15 16 18 14 15 12 8 8 12 8 11 7 8 7 7 8 10 10 11 6 5 8 7 10 9 5 6 13 8 7 7 9 5 6 Average
3 5 2 5 5 7 5 4 2 6 5 8 12 12 8 12 9 13 12 13 13 12 10 10 9 14 15 12 13 10 11 15 14 7 12 13 13 11 15 14 20
Range 26-11
ITEM ANALYSIS SHEET OF DEGREE COMPARISON MASTERY OF THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS TEST ITEMS Correct = Blank; Incorrect = 1; Unanswered = 0
Items Students
Upper Group
Total
Correct
Incorect
Unanswered
Total
Correct
Incorect
Unanswered
Lower Group
BIOGRAPHY
His name is I Nyoman Gede Murdana yasa. He was born
in Denpasar on March 12th
1992. He is originally from
Kesiman Village, Denpasar Timur. He lives at Noja Street,
Br Kedaton Kesiman. Heis Balinese. He grows up in a
simple and generous family of lovely parents Drs.I Made
Murda and Ni Nyoman Sumiati. He is the third child of three children. His father
works as a Headmaster in elementary school Denpasar and his mothers is
entrepreneurship. By the age of a half five , his parents sent him to a kindergarden
named TK Srikandi. In 1998, he graduated and continued to a school, SDN 14
Kesiman, for six year in 1998 to 2004 After he got certificate, he continue his futher
study. He went to SMP PGRI 2 Denpasar in 2004 and took his study for three years.
In 2007, he went to SMKN 1 Denpasar for continuing his study in automotive class
for three years. He graduated in 2010 and decided to continue his study in
Mahasaraswati Denpasar University started inthat year. He choose English Education
Study Program of Faculty of Teacher Training and Education. During he studied
English in Mahasaraswati Denpasar University, Beside that during his study in
Mahasaraswati University he also work as staff in Denpasar City Government ,of
Cooperation Division Office. Since I want to be English teacher, I believe graduated
in March 2014
70
71
72
73
74