commit to user 66
2. Summary of Tuckey Test
Tukey test is conducted to find out which strategy is more effective and which group is better. The pattern of
q
is found by dividing the difference between the means by the square root of the ration of the within group
variation and the sample size. The following here is the result of tuckey test:
Table 4.13. Summary of Tukey Test
Between Group q
o
q
t
Status Meaning
A
1
A
2
3.252595724 2.86
Significant A
1
≠ A
2
B
1
B
2
4.230820002 2.86
Significant B
1
≠ B
2
A
1
B
1 –
A
2
B
1
6.800022127 2.95
Significant A
1
B
1
≠ A
1
B
1
A
1
B
2 –
A
2
B
2
3.527716004 2.95
Significant A
1
B
2
≠ A
2
B
2
1 Because q
o
between columns A
1
A
2
3.25 is higher than q
t 0.05
2.86, the difference between columns is significant.
The students’ mean of A
1
70 is higher than the students’ mean of A
2
67
.
It can be inferred that teaching reading using semantic mapping at the eighth graders of SMPN 12
Tasikmalaya is more effective than teaching reading using lecturing. 2
Because q
o
between rows
B
1
B
2
4.23 is higher than q
t 0.05
2.86, it can be concluded that the students who have high intellligence and those who have
low intelligence are signicantly different in their reading ability. Hence, B
1
71 is higher than B
2
66, it can be stated that the students having high intelligence have better reading ability and those having low intelligence.
3 Because q
o
between cells A
1
B
1
and A
1
B
2
6.80 is higher than q
t 0.05
2.95, the students who have high intelligence who are taught by using semantic
mapping are significantly different in reading ability from the students who have low intelligence who are taught by using lecturing. The mean score of
students having high intelligence A
1
B
1
77 is higher than that of those who
commit to user 67
have low intelligence A
1
B
2
65, so semantic mapping is more effective than lecturing to teach reading for the students having high intelligence.
4 Because q
o
between two cells A
1
B
2
and A
2
B
2
3.52 is higher than q
t 0.05
2.95, lecturing differs significantly from semantic mapping to teach reading for students who have low intelligence. The mean score of students having low
intelligence who are taught by lecturing 69 is higher than those who are taught by using semantic mapping 64, thus lecturing is more effective than
semantic mapping for teaching reading for students having low intelligence. Reffering to the result of tuckey test at point 3 and 4 above, it can be
inffered that semantic mapping is more appropriate strategy for the students with high intelligence, while conventional strategy, lecturing, is appropriate strategy
for students with low intelligence in teaching reading. Hence, it can be summarized that there is an interaction between teaching strategies and the
students’ intelligence in teaching reading.
D. Discussion of Data Analysis
Based on the computation result of data analysis, it can be presented as follows:
1. Semantic mapping is more effective than lecturing to teach reading.
Semantic mapping is a strategy in which information is categorically structured. It helps students arrange information by utilizing the most important
aspect and concept which is related with a text. All activities in this strategy are students-
centered because it makes the use of students’ prior knowledge and control the input at each paragraph of the map’s bulding.
Kategori