66 was larger than α, the distribution of the students‟ writing skills Y variable was
normal. Below is the result of normality test and the complete data is presented in Appendix 15.
Table 4.3 the Results of Normality Test
No Variable
Kolmogorov- Smirnov Z
Probability Conclusion
1. Students‟
metacognitive learning strategies
0.946 0.333
Normal 2.
Students‟ writing skills 0.984
0.288 Normal
4 Linearity Test
The researcher used regression analysis in order to test the linear relationship
between the students‟ metacognitive learning strategies X variable and students‟ writing skills Y variable. Based on the data analysis from the two
variables, it was found that the F value was 1.053 with 0.462 for the probability. If the probability is
larger than α = 0.05, it can be said that the variable distribution is linear. The result of the relationship between the two variables was larger than
α, so it can be said that it was linear. Below is the result of linearity test and the complete data are presented in Appendix 16.
Table 4.4 the Results of Linearity Test
F value p
Conclusion The relationship between
students‟ metacognitive learning strategies X variable and
writing skills Y variable 1.053
0.462 Linear
Based on the result of the calculation, the data from the two variables were normally distributed and the relationship was linear.
67
d. Hypothesis Test
There were independent variable metacognitive learning strategies and dependent variable English writing skills which were analysed to answer the
research problems. In analysing the correlation between the two variables, the researcher determined the hypothesis of this research, namely the null hypothesis
H and the alternatives hypothesis H
1
: i.
The null hypothesis H was
“there is no significant correlation between metacognitive learning strategies
and the students‟ writing skills for writing recount texts in the clas
s 8A of SMP BOPKRI 1 Yogyakarta”. ii.
The alternative hypothesis H
1
was “there is a significant correlation between metacognitive learning strategies
and the students‟ writing skills for writing recount texts in clas
s 8A of SMP BOPKRI 1 Yogyakarta”.
In order to test the hypothesis, the researcher used Pearson‟s Product- moment Simple Correlation r. The researcher used SPSS.v.21 to analyse the data
of the research. The following is the result of the calculation analysis which shows the correlation between metacognitive learning strategies
and the students‟ writing skills for writing recount texts in class 8A of SMP BOPKRI 1 Yogyakarta. Below
is the summaris ed results of the Pearson‟s Product-moment Simple Correlation r
analysis and the complete data is presented in Appendix 18.
Table 4.5 the Summarised Results of the Pearson’s Product-moment Simple Correlation r Analysis to Test the Hypothesis
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
r P
Metacognitive learning strategies
Writing skills 0.449
0.000
68 Based on the result, the correlation coefficient r shows the value of 0.627
with 0.000 for the probability. In the r
table
, the sample size N for 30 was 0.449 with α= 0.01. The result shows that the correlation coefficient r value was larger
than r
table
0.627 0.449. Since the p 0.005 and r r
table
, the null hypothesis H
is rejected and the alternative hypothesis H
1
is accepted. Therefore, it shows that there was a moderate of positive and significant relationship between
metacognitive learning strategies and the students‟ writing skills for writing
recount texts in class 8A of SMP BOPKRI 1 Yogyakarta. The second question in the problem formulation was answered since there
is a positive correlation between metacognitive learning strategies and the students‟ writing skills for writing recount texts in class 8A of SMP BOPKRI 1
Yogyakarta. Metacognitive learning strategies and the students‟ writing skills
have a relation. Therefore, the students have an opportunity to develop their writing skills by using metacognitive learning strategies.
D. Discussion
In this section, the researcher discusses the result of the two research questions which are presented above. The discussions are based on the theories in
theoretical framework presented in Chapter II and also, it is supported by some other related theories. Furthermore, there are two parts in this section. The first
part discusses the findings of the first and the second research question in this research. Hereafter, the second part discusses lesson learned of a correlational
