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.