The Descriptive Statistic of Post-test Result

51

4.2 Data Analysis

There was sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis which says that the mean score of post test was lower than the mean score of pre test. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis was used for this research. The mean score of post-test was higher than the mean score of pre-test. The difference between two mean score was significant t25 = 3.02, p .05. This finding became the evidence to answer the first research question at the beginning of this research; GAIL significantly improves SMA students’ writing skills. The results of both pre-test and post-test scores from experimental and control group were calculated by using SPSS ver.20. The aim was to observe the significance of the mean gain difference by applying an independent t-test Balnaves Caputi, 2001. Below is the result of the t-test of experimental group: Table 4.6. The T-test Result of Experimental Group One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean change 53 5,1698 12,44949 1,71007 One-Sample Test Test Value = 0 T Df Sig. 1-tailed Mean Difference 95 Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Change 3,023 52 ,002 5,16981 1,7383 8,6013 The t-test results of the pre-test and the post-test of the experimental group showed M= 1.71, SD=12.44, t 52 = 3.02, p 0.05. There was a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of the experimental group. 52 Table 4.7. The T-test Result of Pre-test And Post-test Score of Control Group One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean control_prepost 52 2,6154 14,91434 2,06825 One-Sample Test Test Value = 0 T Df Sig. 1-tailed Mean Difference 95 Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper control_prepost 1,265 51 ,106 2,61538 -1,5368 6,7676 As the comparison of experimental group’s performance, the t-test result of the control group is also presented. The t-test result of the pre-test and the post- test of the control group showed M= 2.61, SD=14.91, t 51 = 1.26, p 0.05. There was no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of the control group. The researcher then performed the t-test to compare the pre-test and post-test mean scores of both groups. This was done to find the comparison of the experimental and control group. An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the score of the pre-test and the post-test of the experimental and control group. The writing skills of the experimental group that used GAIL did not differ significantly M=5.1, SD=12.4 from the control group that used ordinary teaching-learning activities M=2.6, SD=14.9, t 103 = 0.95, p 0.05. It is unlikely that there was significant difference between the mean score of the experimental and control group. Table 4.8. The Result of T-test Group Statistics Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Mean E 53 5.1698 12.44949 1.71007 C 52 2.6154 14.91434 2.06825 53 Independent Sample Test Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. T Df Sig. 1- tailed Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95 Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Mean Equal variances assumed .965 .328 .953 103 .171 2.55443 2.67904 -2.75882 7.86768 Equal variances not assumed .952 99.12 8 .171 2.55443 2.68365 -2.77043 7.87929 Although there was an improvement in the experimental group, the researcher did not have enough evidence to claim that GAIL is significantly better than other teaching methods. In the following section, the researcher explained about the external factors found during the research.

4.3 The Discussion

In this part, the researcher explained some external factors that were found during the research. Below is the discussion of each point.

4.3.1 The Factors That Influenced The Result of The Experiment

This research was designed based on the researcher’s belief that GAIL would improve the students’ writing skill. If the pre-test and post-test result for both groups were compared, the mean difference would be seen Balnaves Caputi, 2001. However, the results of the t-test showed that the difference was not significant M=2.6, SD=14.9, t 103 = 0.95, p 0.05. Therefore, the researcher would presume and discuss the factors that influenced the results of the experiment. There were three factors: the school chosen, students’ adaptability, and students’ writing skill. 54 The experiment was conducted in SMA Kolese De Britto Jogjakarta. This school was well-known as one of the best private schools in Jogja, considering the results of the national exam. The students here had similar ability and tended to have similar characteristics. It was found while the researcher conducted the internship program. The writing results gathered before the research conducted showed that each class got at least 78 for report writing results. It may be one of the influencing factors. By having students with similar characteristics, it would be difficult to see the significantly different performance of the students. This research may have different result if it was conducted in a school in which the students had very different characteristics. The researcher still believed that the significant difference could be expected. One of the trademarks of De Britto students was their ability to adapt to the new environment or treatment. It is reinforced to them by the teachers, either the homeroom or the subject teachers Admin, 2009. They learnt that every teacher had different teaching style; therefore they should help themselves to adapt. Seeing the situation, it would not be surprising if the students quickly adapted to the new assessment sheetrubric given by the researcher. In addition, the students in both groups had minimum difficulty in achieving the criterion provided. Another reason was the writing skill of the students. When the researcher did the internship program, she noticed that the students were weak only in some writing aspects such as grammar and developing ideas. The students were having almost no problem in choosing vocabulary and forming the text. It could be seen 55 from their writing process. Even in the first draft, their ability to form a text was shown. They could provide appropriate information related to the topic and also logical conclusion. As stated above, their problems were grammar and the ability to develop the ideas. Sometimes they found difficulties in expressing their ideas in written form. As a result, their writings were sometimes misleading or confusing. The writing skill here became the problems because actually the students were already good at some writing aspects. In the rubric the aspects assessed were focus, organization, sources, and mechanicalgrammar features. As stated in the previous chapter, each aspect assessed different parts of the text. Focus assessed the content in each paragraphs, while organization assessed the organization of the text introduction, arguments, conclusion and the transition. Sources were dealing with facts and supportive statements quoted or cited by the students. The last one, mechanicalgrammatical features dealt with the grammar and punctuation errors found in the text. In conclusion, the students were already good at focus and organization. They were also not that hopeless in sources and grammar. Considering these factors, the fact that the mean difference was not significant was then not surprising. Even though the result of the t-test was unlikely to show significant difference, the researcher found that the experimental group performed much better than the control group in organizing ideas.