Data Interpretation FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

achieved was 57 and the maximum one was 86. In addition, the standard deviation showed 71.838 and the variance pointed 64.973. After treatment given, the mean score achieved was 75.784. It showed that the means score of posttest scored by the second scorer was higher that pretest. The students’ lowest score of posttest achieved was 60 and the maximum one was 90. The data showed that the standard deviation pointed 7.0480 and the variance was 49.674. The distribution of pretest and postest of second scorer is presented in the following table. The next table presented the distribution of feedback by first group of pretest. There were 12 elaborated feedbacks and 5 basic feedbacks provided among first group students in pretest. The next table is pointed the distribution of feedback presented by second group of pretest. 9 elaborated feedbacks and 12 basic feedbacks presented among second group of students. Students exclude group presented 4 elaborated feedbacks in that group. In the third group showed in the following table there were 12 elaborated feedbacks and 5 basic feedbacks within group. 3 elaborated feedback and 1 basic feedback presented by students excluded group. The next table presented students within group who provided 12 elaborated feedbacks and 6 basic feedbacks. In addition, 5 elaborated feedbacks and 2 basic feedbacks are presented by excluded students group. The table 4.13 was fifth group which provided 12 elaborated feedbacks and 11 basic feedbacks within group. Besides, only 1 elaborated feedback and 1 basic feedback provided by students excluded group. The following table showed 10 elaborated feedbacks and 4 basic feedbacks by the sixth group. There were no elaborated feedback or basic feedback excluded group. The next table presented 2 elaborated feedbacks and 5 basic feedbacks from seventh group. There were no elaborated feedback or basic feedback provided excluded group. The following table presented 5 elaborated feedbacks and 6 feedbacks within group and 2 elaborated feedback and 2 basic feedbacks from excluded group. The ninth group distribution feedback presented in the next table. There were 6 elaborated feedbacks and 5 basic feedbacks. In contrast, there were only 2 elaborated feedback provided by excluded group. The following table showed 12 elaborated feedbacks and 3 basic feedbacks. There was only 1 feedback provided by excluded group. The next table presented 12 elaborated feedbacks and 7 basic feedbacks in posttest of the first group. In contrast, there were no any feedbacks from excluded group. The following table provided 9 elaborated feedbacks and 8 basic feedbacks in the second group. There were 2 elaborated feedbacks and 6 basic feedbacks from exclude of group. The next table described 12 the distribution of 12 elaborated feedbacks and 1 basic feedback from third group. There was only 1 basic feedback from excluded group. The fourth group provided 9 elaborated feedbacks and 7 basic feedbacks described in the next table. There were no elaborated feedback and basic feedback from other group.The next table showed 11 elaborated feedbacks and 12 basic feedback of fifth group. There were no elaborated feedbacks or basic feedback from other group provided. The sixth group presented 8 elaborated feedbacks and 5 basic feedbacks on the next table. There were no elaborated feedbacks or basic feedback from other group provided. The seventh group showed in the next table. There were 3 elaborated feedbacks and 4 basic feedbacks. There were no elaborated feedbacks or basic feedback from other group provided. The following table showed 5 elaborated feedbacks and 6 basic feedback of eighth group. There were no elaborated feedbacks or basic feedback from other group provided. There were 6 elaborated feedback and 3 basic feedback from ninth group presented on table. There were no elaborated feedbacks or basic feedback from other group provided. The last one was the tenth group provided 11 elaborated feedbacks and 8 basic feedbacks provided on table. The next table presented overall distribution of elaborated feedback and basic feedback. There were 92 elaborated feedbacks and 63 basic feedbacks of group in pretest. Besides, there were 18 elaborated feedbacks and 6 basic feedbacks from other group in pretest. Overall there were 110 elaborated feedbacks and 69 feedbacks of group and excluded group. There were 179 both elaborated feedbacks and basic feedbacks provided in pretest. In addition, there were 86 elaborated feedbacks and 60 basic feedbacks of group in pretest. Moreover, there were only 2 elaborated feedbacks and 1 basic feedback presented by other group. In sum, there were 88 elaborated feedbacks and 61 basic feedbacks presented by participant in group and excluded group. Total elaborated feedback and basic feedback of group and excluded group in postest was 149. The students’ presented feedback in many aspects. There were some students mentioned about grammatical error, content, spelling, tenses, plagiarism and many more. To unite the reliability of the research the researcher connected the reliability of instrument and data. The reliability of instrument used is analytic scoring rubric. Moreover, inter-rater reliability is done to ensure that the rubric is reliable. The result is showed that in the pretest mean score calculate by scorer 1 and 2 were 72.432 and 71.838. In addition, postest mean score calculate by scorer 1 and 2 were 76.378 and 75.784. The data showed that there was no significant difference between provided by scorer 1 and 2. It means that the analytical rubric used is reliable because the calculation produced using the rubric by different scorer was consistent. The calculation of students’ gained score is provided in Appendix. In addition, the validity used is content validity. It refers to the appropriateness of instrument towards what should be measured. In making sure the instrument is valid, he researcher conducted written test to examine student’s writing skill. Moreover, students’ writing is published in blog to create blogging environment. The researcher required students to create chosen blogging platform, Blogger, to create blogging activity. The activity of providing feedback is also concluded in blogging activity. To ensure the instrument and the data is valid, the validity of data is required. To see the appropriateness, the researcher set checklist between competence standard listed from lesson plan and the data that produced. The checklist box can be seen below. Table. 4.9Checklist of Instrument and Data Validity No. Criteria Content Validity Data Interpretation 1. Writing Competence Standard according to lesson plan and syllabus 1. Students will conduct written test to see writing ability. 2. Students are able to identify generic structure and language features of Narrative text. 3. Students can differentiate kinds of Narrative text. 1. Students did written test to see their writing skill in narrative text. 2. Students produced Narrative text in appropriate generic structure and language features. 3. Students wrote one of Narrative kinds such folklore, fairytale, legend, fable and many more. 2. Blogging Activity 1. Students were asked to create Blogger account. 2. Students were asked to post their writing in their own blog. 3. Students are allowed to see other students’ writing by visiting their bog URL. 1. Each student created Blogger account. 2. Students published their writing through blogging. 3. Students visited other students’ URL to read and or give comments. 3. Peer Feedback Activity 1. Students use the blog service to provide comments. 2. Students visit other students’ blog to give comments. 1. Students provided comments through blogging. 2. Students visited other students’ blog to provide comments. Meanwhile, before composing the hypothesis the researcher calculate the normality which shown on table 4.30 to 4.33. The aim of this test was to ensure that the data is normally distributed. The result of normality can been by comparing the value of L value to L table of Kolmogrov-Smirnov. The next test is homogeneity test which provided on table 4.34 and 4.35. The purpose of the test is to see whether the data is homogeneous or heterogeneous. The researcher used SPSS to calculate the normality and homogeneity score. The result of normality and homogeneity test showed that the data normally distributed and homogeneous. Both the data of postest in experiment class also showed that they were distributed normally. According to the criteria of the test, it can be seen in the result that L value post-test L table 0.200 0.224. It means that all of postest data in both scorer 1 and scorer 2 data were distributed normally. The test of homogeneity test was the next test the researcher done. The result of the pretest of homogeneity test is significant value is higher than 0.05 0.025 0.05. It means that the data were homogenous. The result of postest of homogeneity test is significant value is higher than 0.05 0.034 0.05. It means that the data were homogenous. The final calculation was determining the hypothesis. This is the main calculation to answer the research hypothesis, was there any effectiveness of blog on students’ writing of narrative text at tenth year of SMAN Tangerang Selatan. The researcher used t-test formula in the significance degree α of 5. The result showed that T test To T table Tt or 0.59 1.67. The difference of postest statistic result significantly showed from t statistic 2.160 greater from t table 5 = 1.688. So, the null hypothesis H o is rejected. It means that the alternative hypothesis H 1 is accepted that there is effectiveness of blog on students’ writing of narrative text at tenth year of SMAN 3 Tangerang Selatan. 48

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter includes conclusion and suggestion of the studygiven from the researcher.

A. Conclusion

According to the finding described in the previous chapter, it can be concluded that from the statistic calculation, it is achieved that the value of T is 0.59 and he degree of freedom of the hypothesis used is n1-2=35 with the significance degree 0.05 or 5. From the result of statistics calculation, it was obtained that the value of T value was 3.989 and degree of freedom df is 35. In the table of significance 5 the value of the significance was 1.690 T table . Comparing those values, the result was 3.989 1.690 which means T value score was higher than T table score. In conclusion, the Alternative Hypothesis H a was accepted and the Null Hypothesis H was rejected. Therefore, there is effectiveness of blog on students’ writing of narrative text at tenth year of SMAN 3 Tangerang Selatan. It also can be seen from the mean of gain score in the pretest both scorer 1 and scorer 2 were 72.432 and 71.838. Moreover, the posttest score gained were 76.378 and 75.784 scored by first and second scorer. It means that the score after treatment was higher than before one. It is indicated that the treatment is effective. From the research result that the researcher have done there are some improvement done by the participants. Firstly, there were some students found new experience by writing through blogging. It showed from the comments provided by some of them that they g ot many useful lessons from other learners’ writing. From the participants’ writing it can be interpreted that writing through blogging stimulate them to be creative because they simply added pictures, video, links and so on to provide their best writing. By providing feedback to each other, the students were more aware about what they have written because the other students will examine their works. It can be seen from their writing which they performed better in posttest. It means that they reflected and examined their worksto improve their writing in the next opportunity. In addition, feedback service gives the opportunity to students in colaborating their thoughts. Students writing are improved and showed from posttest score. In post test they performed better because they have been trained to make better writing. From the result it can be interpreted that the students were aware about what they have written like avoiding plagiarism, paying attention to mechanics, grammatical and so on by reflecting based on other learners’ comments and entries.

B. Suggestion

Based on the researcher conducted, the researcher suggests several points: 1. In teaching writing, teacher should be able to exploit information and communication technology ICT in conducting appropriate language learning media. 2. Teacher should provide feedback both teacher to students or students to students to facilitate collaborative learning especially in learning writing as one of productive skill. 3. In teaching English as a second language, teacher should be able to create different approach like autonomous learning to increase students’ self- evaluation. 4. Teacher should be able to be flexible in order to adjust with students’ mindset and in real life especially all things related to the development of students’ learning habit.