Research Findings

A. Research Findings

1. Settings of the Research

The location of this research was SMP Negeri 5 Namohalu Esiwa. It is located in Lasara Village. It is around 37 km from the center of Gunungsitoli town. This school had some rooms, such as headmaster’s room, teacher’s room, classrooms, library, and canteen. There were some courts of sport such as football court, vollyball court and table tennis court. This school consisted of one headmaster, one vice of headmaster, 28 teachers, and 1 officials. They were very kind and familiar.

The population of this research was the students at the eighth grade of SMP Negeri 5 Namöhalu Esiwa, that consists of 120 students that divided into four classes; VIII-A, VIII-B, VIII-C and VIII-D in 2015/2016. The researcher chose this population because the students had problems in writing kill.

The researcher did the research after getting the agreement from the headmaster of SMP Negeri 5 Namöhalu Esiwa. In doing the research, the researcher applies Quantitative Research Method with the general type is Experimental Method. This is specified into quasi experimental method.

2. Testing Instrument

a. Validity

In the research, the researcher used internal validity to validate the instrument. Before going to use the research instrument (Written Test) to the research sample, the researcher had asked the qualified teachers or lecturer who were competent in language testing to validate the test. One was the lecturer who taught writing subject (Mrs. Dra Nursayani Maru ’ao), and others were the English teachers at SMP Negeri 5 Namohalu Esiwa (Miss Agusmsin Telaumbanua, S.Pd), and SMP Negeri 1 Namohalu Esiwa (Darma Kari Harefa S.Pd). Based on their judgment on the sheet of instrument validity test, So the test was stated VALID (see Appendices 5a, 5b, and 5c).

b. Reliability

After the test was valid, the researcher examined the reliability of the instrument. Based on the Last, J. (Ed.) statement said that a common threat to internal validity is reliability. In other words, if the test was valid, it would be always reliable. So, to indicate of the test or instrument was stated REALIABLE. It was considered the researcher used the result of internal validation by validators said the test was VALID.

c. Item Facility

In the research, to decide item facility the researcher needed judgment from validators when validated the instrument. Item facility is used to find out the In the research, to decide item facility the researcher needed judgment from validators when validated the instrument. Item facility is used to find out the

3. Data Analysis

a. The Pre Test and Post Test Analysis

In the research, the researcher gave a pre-test and post-test both Experimental Group and Control Group. After that, pre-test was used to examine the normality of data and the homogeneity of the sample, while post-test was used to examine the hypothesis of the research.

The stu dents’ mark of pre-test for Experimental Group was shown in Table

10 (See Appendix 10), and the st u dents’ mark of pre-test for Control Group was shown in Table 11 (See Appendix 11). Furthermore, the stu dents’ mark of post- test for Experimental Group was shown in Table 12 (See Appendix 12), and the stu dents’ mark of post-test for Control Group was shown in Table 13 (See Appendix 13). Based on the stu dents’ mark, the researcher determined the score mean and standard deviation.

b. The Mean Score, Standard Deviation, and Variance

Based on Appendix 14 (Table 14), the mean score of pre test in the control group was 55.83 and classified less. While on Appendix 15 (Table 15), the mean score of post test in the control group was 70.00 and classified good. Based on

Appendix 16 (Table 16), the mean score of pre test in experimental group was

56.67 and classified less. While on Appendix 17 (Table 17), the mean score of post test in the experimental group was 81.70 and classified good.

In Appendix 16, Table 16, it shown the standard deviation computation of experimental pre test was 12.59 while in Appendix 17 in Table 17, the standard deviation computation of experimental post test was 12.59. In Appendix 14 in Table 14, that is shown the standard deviation computation of control pre test was 12.41 while the in Appendix 15 in Table 15, the standard deviation computation of control post test was 12.25.

In Appendix 16 Table 16, it shows the variance computation of experimental pre test was 158.51 while in Appendix 17 in Table 17, the experimental post test was 158.51. Based in Appendix 14 in Table 14, it shows the variance control pre test was 154.01 while in Appendix 15 in Table 15, the control post test was 150.06.

Table 5

THE RESULT of MEAN SCORE, STANDARD DEVIATION, VARIANCE of PRE-TEST and POST-TEST in CONTROL GROUP and EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP CONTROL GROUP EXPERIMENTAL GROUP N

Variance Score

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test

c. The Normality Test

In Appendix 18, Table 18, it shows the normality test was L count 0.1608 with L table = 0.1610 at the significant level 0.05, it means 0.1608 < 0.1610 Because L count < L table so the pre test result of experimental group was stated having the Normal Distribution. In Appendix 19, Table 19, it shows the normality test was L count 0.1608 with L table = 0.1610 at the significant level 0.05, it means 0.1608 < 0.1610 Because L count < L table so the pre test result of experimental group was stated having the Normal Distribution.

In Appendix 20, Table 16, it shows the normality test was L count = 0.1601 with L table = 0.1610 at the significant level 0.05, it means 0.1601 < 0.1610 Because L count <L table so the pre test result of control group was stated having the Normal Distribution. In Appendix 21, Table 21, it shows the normality test was L count = 0.1596 with L table = 0.1610 at the significant level 0.05, it means 0.1596 <

0.1610 Because L count < L table so the pre test result of control group was stated having the Normal Distribution.

Table 6 THE RESULT of NORMALITY TEST of PRE-TEST and POST-TEST

in CONTROL GROUP and EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

CONTROL GROUP EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Pre Test

Post Test

Pre Test

Post Test

L count L table L count L table L count L table L count L table

d. The Homogeneity of Sample

Based on Appendix 22a, it shows the result of the pre test homogeneity computation indicated F table = 1.78 was consulted to the score F count . To dk= n 1 -1, n 2 -2 at the significant level 5% was gotten F count = 1.03. It means F count <F table . It can be concluded that both of the groups in the pre test are stated Homogenous.

Based on Appendix 22b, it shows the result of the post test homogeneity computation indicated F table = 1.78 was consulted to F count = 1.06. It means F count <

F table . It can be concluded that both of the groups in the post test were stated Homogenous.

Table 7 THE RESULT of HOMOGENEITY of PRE-TEST and POST-TEST

in CONTROL GROUP and EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Homogeneity of

Homogeneity of

Pre Test

Post Test

F count F table F count F table

30 1.03 1.78 1.06. 1.78

e. The Testing Hypothesis

The testing hypothesis in Appendix 21, t count = 3.468 and t table with dk = 2(n-1) = 2(30- 1) = 58 at the significant level 5% (α = 0.05) was t table =t 1/2α(dk) =t 0.025 (58) = 2.002. It means that t count (3.468) did not exist between the interval -2.002 to 2.002 (- 2.002 ≤ t ≤ 2.002). So, it can be concluded that Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected. In short, the hypothesis of the research, “There is a significant effect of Vocab-O-Gram Strategy on the students’ ability in writing skill at the eighth grade of SMP Negeri 5 Namohalu Esiwa in 2015/2016” is Accepted at the significant level 5%.

Table 8

THE RESULT of PRE TEST and POST TEST in CONTROL GROUP and EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Control Group

Experimental Group

Pre Test

Post Test

Pre Test

Post Test

30

30

55.83 70.00 56.67 81.70

Based on the result computation in the previous table, it shows the students mean score both groups that were pre test and post test in control group and pre test and post test in experimental group. Based on the result computation in experimental group after did the treatment by using Vocab-O-Gram Strategy the researcher gave post test to the students. The result shows that it has a very good effect on the students’ ability in writing skill especially in writing a narrative text. In the research, especially from the computations of the obtained data either experimental group and control group, it proved that there was the different students’ learning outcome. When taking the pre-test namely the students’ ability test to both of groups was stated low. And then, the researcher gave the treatment in experimental group by using Vocab-O-Gram Strategy. By applying Vocab-O- Gram Strategy especially in narrative text, the students had shown their ability in writing skill. After doing the treatment, the researcher gave the post-test namely the students’ ability in writing narrative test both of groups. The researcher stated that the students’ post-test score was higher than students’ pre-test score. Then, when comparing to the post-test result of control group without the treatment, it shows that the result of experimental group was higher than control group. It

means that there is a significant effect on the students’ ability in writing skill by using Vocab-O-Gram Strategy.

From the result of hypothesis computation above, it can be concluded that the

research hypotheses as written in Chapter I is H o is rejected and H a is ACCEPTED.

Table 9

THE RESULT OF EXAMINING HYPOTHESIS

Examining Criteria Hypothesis

T count T table

of Hypothesis

H a is accepted if

H a is accepted and H o is rejected because T count ( ) >T table (2.002)