commit to user
70 g. The number of degrees of freedom associated with each source of variation:
df for between – columns sum of squares = C – 1 df for between – rows sum of squares = R – 1
df for interaction = C – 1 R – 1 df for between – groups sum of squares = G – 1
df for within – groups sum of squares = ∑n – 1 df for total sum of squares = N – 1
where: C = the number of columns
R = the number of rows G = the number of groups
n = the number of subjects in one group N = the number of subjects in all groups
Table 3.4 Design for Summarizing ANOVA Source of Variance
SS Df
MS F
o
F
t.05
F
t.01
Between columns Teaching Methods
Between rows Motivation Columns by rows Interaction
Between groups Within groups
Total
3. Tukey Test
Tukey test is used to know the difference between two teaching methods and the mean score obtained is used to know which method is more effective to
commit to user
71 teach reading, whether Think Pair Share Method or Direct Instruction Method.
The formula of the Tukey test is as follows: a. Think Pair Share compared with Direct Instruction Method in teaching reading
comprehension. q =
n nce
ErrorVaria X
X
c c
2 1
−
b. Students having high motivation are compared with students having low
motivation. q =
n nce
ErrorVaria X
X
r r
2 1
−
c. Think Pair Share compared with Direct Instruction Method in teaching reading comprehension for students having high motivation.
q = n
nce ErrorVaria
X X
r c
r c
1 2
1 1
−
d. Think Pair Share compared with Direct Instruction Method in teaching reading comprehension for students having low motivation.
q = n
nce ErrorVaria
X X
r c
r c
2 2
2 1
−
or q =
n nce
ErrorVaria X
X
r c
r c
2 1
2 2
−
commit to user
72 The analysis of the result of the computation or q
o
is compared with q
t
, if q
o
q
t
, the difference is significant. To know which one is better, the means are compared.
4. Statistical Hypotheses
In this research, the researcher proposes three hypotheses. These hypotheses are based on the formulation of the problems. They are as follows:
a. The difference between Think Pair Share A
1
and Direct Instruction A
2
to teach reading comprehension for the eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Metro
in the academic year of 20122013. H
o
:
2 1
A A
µ µ
= It means that there is no difference between A
1
and A
2
Think Pair Share Method is the same as Direct Instruction Method.
H
a
:
2 1
A A
µ µ
It means that Think Pair Share Method is more effective than that Direct Instruction Method to teach reading.
b. The difference between the students having high motivation B
1
have better reading comprehension than those having low motivation B
2
for the eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Metro in the academic year of 20122013.
H
o
:
2 1
B B
µ µ
= It means that there is no difference between B
1
and B
2
between high motivation and low motivation.
commit to user
73 H
a
:
2 1
B B
µ µ
It means that the students having high motivation have better reading skill than those of low motivation.
c. Interaction between teaching methods used, Think Pair Share and Direct Instruction A, and students’ motivation B in teaching reading
comprehension for the eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Metro in the academic year of 20122013.
H
o
: A x B = 0 It means that there is no interaction between A and B between teaching
methods and motivation to teach reading. H
a
: A x B 0 It means that there is interaction between A and B between teaching methods
and motivation to teach reading.
commit to user
74
CHAPTER IV THE RESULT OF RESEARCH
This chapter discusses the result of the study. The result is divided into four discussions as follows: the data description, normality, and homogeneity test,
hypothesis test, and the discussion of the result of study.
A. Implementation of the Research
Next, I conducted the real experiment that is giving a treatment by using cooperative learning Think-Pair-Share TPS method in teaching reading
comprehension to the experimental class and using Direct Instruction Method in teaching reading comprehension to the control class. This experiment was
conducted in order to determine whether there is significant different in reading achievement between the experimental class and control class. The clear
description of conducting treatment to both experimental and control class can be seen in the table as follow:
Table 4.1 Treatment for Experimental Class
Activities Material
Date Learning Process
First meeting
Narrative Text 1 Cinderella,
2 King’s food. October,
22
th
2012 1 Introducing the title of the text and
giving guiding questions about the topic which is going to be discussed.
2 Brainstorming about text by giving questions.
3 Explaining the procedure of Think Pair Share Method.
4 Distributing a text. 5 Think
a Asking the students to read the text individually
b Giving the students “think time” a few moments to think about the
answer of
the question
individually.
Second meeting
Narrative Text 1 Prabu Tapa,
2 Why Does the Cock Eat the Millipede.
October, 24
th
2012
Third meeting
Narrative Text 1 The Legend of Jambi
October, 30
th
2012
74
