By comparing the values of t ₀= 1.71 and t
table
2.81 and 2.07, the data calculated with statistical result shows that t
₀ was smaller than t-
table
. So, the alternative hypothesis Ha was rejected and the null hypothesis H
₀ was accepted. It means there is no significance difference between the sanguine
students and the phlegmatic students on their achievement in speaking skill.
B. Interpretation
Based on the statistical calculation, it can be clarified that there was no significant difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic students
in speaking skill achievement. The result of the t-test was 1.71, and it was smaller than t-table both in the degree of significance of 5 and 1 2.07 1.71 2.81.
So the null hypothesis Ho was accepted and the alternative hypothesis Ha was rejected. It can be interpreted that there is no significance difference between the
sanguine students and the phlegmatic students on their speaking skill achievement.
The sanguine students are assumed to have a good ability and better ability in speaking. In this research, their score of speaking was 76.04 in average. The
phlegmatic students were estimated to be people who have less ability in speaking than sanguine students. However, the average of their speaking score was 75.17.
Based on t-test calculation, it showed that there was no difference between sanguine and phlegmatic students in speaking score achievement because of their
different average score was not too significant. In relation to this conclusion and looking at the previous research in chapter II
that student with extrovert personality that was sanguine students had better in English speaking score, and now it have already been proved. The students with
phlegmatic personality could also have better in their English speaking score.
33
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter presents conclusion and suggestion based on this research which has been done at Department of English Education State Islamic University
Jakarta UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
A. Conclusion
This research showed that there was no significantly different between sanguine and phlegmatic student in their achievement in speaking skill. The data
interpreted that sanguine students and phlegmatic students had no difference in their speaking score achievement. Even though the sanguine students had higher
average of English speaking score and the phlegmatic students got lower average English speaking score, the t-test calculation showed that there was no
significantly difference between students with sanguine and phlegmatic personality in their speaking score because the difference of their average is not
too significant. Based on the result above it can be concluded
that students’ personality both sanguine and phlegmatic did not have any effect on
students’ achievement in speaking skill.
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion of this research, it can be recommended some suggestions go to:
1.
Students
The result of this research is expected to help students to recognize their personalities and minimize their weakness, and students should not worry
to have best score in speaking skill because personality is not significantly influence.
2. Institutions
This research can contribute to all educational institutions to consider students’ personality and determine the best strategy in teaching learning
process to minimize students’ gap and maximize their potential in
speaking skill. 3.
Further Researchers The result of this study is expected to be used as consideration or preview
for the next researchers in doing the same field of the study with the different object of the research.
35
REFERENCES
Baststone, Paul. Grammar, New York: Oxford University Press, 1950. Bennet, Art., and Bennet, Laraine. The Temperament God Gave You, Manchester,
New Hampshire: Shopia Institute Press, 2005. Brudden, Philip M. Effective English Teaching, 2nd Ed,
New York: The Bob’s Merrill Company, 1995.
Catrunnada, Lidya., and Puspitawati, Ira. Prokrastinasi Task Differences on Thesis Introvert and Extrovert Personality, Thesis of Undergraduate
Program, Faculty of Psychology, Gunadarma University, 2008. Celce-Murcia, Marianne Ed.. Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language,
2nd Ed, Boston: Heinle Heinle Publishers, 1991. Chamorro-Premuzic, Thomas., and Furnham, Adrian. Personality and Intellectual
Competence, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher, 2005.
Davis, Paul., and Pearse, Eric. Success in English Teaching, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Engler, Barbara. Personality Theories, 8th Ed, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2009.
Eysenck, Hans. Fact and Fiction in Psychology, Baltimore: Penguins Book, 1965. Feis, Jess., and Feist, Gregory J. Theories of Personality, New York: Mc Graw
Hill, 2009. Folse, Keith S. Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to
Classroom Teaching, Michigan: University of Michigan, 2004. Friedman, Howard S., and Schustack, Miriam W. Personality: Classic Theories
and Modern Research, 4th Ed, Boston: Pearson Higher Education, 2009. Gozhenko, A.l., et al.,
Pathology Medical Student’s Library, Radom: Radomska Szkola Wyisza Zubrzyckiego, 2009.
Harmer, Jeremy. ´The Practice of English Language Teaching, New York: Longman Publishing, 1991.
Hewings, Martin. Pronunciation, London: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Larsen, Randy J., and Buss, David M. Personality Psychology, 2nd Ed, New
York: Graw-Hill, 2005. Littaure, Florrence. Personality Plus, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1997.
