Research Finding

A. Research Finding

1. Transition Action Details Strategy gave significant effect towards students’ writing skill on Recount Text at class X of SMAN 1 Bukit

Sundi.

a. Data description

The data of this research were the score of students’ pre-test and pos-test between experimental and control class. Before doing this research, the pre-test was given to the students that are proposed to identify the students’ writing basic skill. After doing the pre-test, the researcher applied Transition Action Details Strategy for experimental The data of this research were the score of students’ pre-test and pos-test between experimental and control class. Before doing this research, the pre-test was given to the students that are proposed to identify the students’ writing basic skill. After doing the pre-test, the researcher applied Transition Action Details Strategy for experimental

The students’ writing test result was evaluated by considering five components of writing; content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanic.

All the data were analyzed to find out the Mean score (x), Maximum score, Minimum score, and Standard Deviation (SD) of pre-test and post-test in experimental class and control class.

b. Students’ Writing Score of Pre-test at Experimental and Control

class

Table below presented the interval data of the students’ writing score both of group in pre-test as follows:

Table 4.1 The Interval Data of Pre Test Score of Experimental and control class

Control class (Students'

F Percentage

Score)

F Percentage

3 11.11% 54-59

48-53

9 33.33%

46-50

7 25.92% 60-65

6 22.22%

51-55

6 22.22% 66-71

5 18.52%

56-60

4 14.81% 72-77

4 14.81%

61-65

2 7.41%

66-70

3 11.11%

From the data above, it was found that most of students’ writing score of pre-test in the experimental class were about48-53 and there were 9 (33. 33%) students got the score at that interval. Then, the interval 54-59, there were 6 (22.22%) students got the score at the interval. At interval 60-65, there were 5 (18.52%). While the interval 66-71, there were 4 (14.81%). While the interval 72-77, there were 2 (7.41%) students got score at the interval, and the interval 78-83, there was 1 (3.70%) student got score at the interval.

Besides that, students’ writing score of pre-test in control class were about 46-50 and there were 3 (11.11%) students got the score at that interval. Then, the interval 51-55, there were 7 (25.92%) students got the score at the interval. At interval 56-60, there were 6 (22.22%), while the interval 61-65, there were 4 (14.81%). While the interval 66-

70, there were 3 (11.11%) students got score at the interval. Then, the interval 71-75, there were 4 (14.81%) students got score at the interval.

The data of students’ writing scores of pre-test in experimental and control class could be seen in the following table:

Table.4.2

Calculation Process of Mean and Standard Deviation of Pre-Test

In Experimental Class

(f x ) = (1612) = 2598544

2 n∑fx

(∑ f x )

n (n 1) 2 27(98340) (1612)

s 1 = 27(27 1)

From the calculation process above, it could be seen the total of students involved in data was 27 students. The result of main score in pre- test at Experimental class was 59.70, while Standard Deviation of Pre-test at experimental class was 8.98. The data was aimed to see the students’ basic skill before giving treatment.

Table.4.3 Calculation Process of Mean and Standard Deviation of Pre-Test

In Control Class

f x²

fx

fx²

(f x ) = (1619) = 2621161

2 n∑fx

(∑ f x )

s 2 = n (n 1)

From the calculation process above, it can be seen the total of students involved in data was 27 students. The result of main score in pre-test at Control class was 59.96, while Standard Deviation of Pre-test at control class was 8.21. The data was aimed to see the students’ basic skill.

Table 4.4 The Data of Pre-test Scores of Experimental and Control Class

Standard Mean Class

The

N The highest

Based on the table above, it could be seen that differences of pre-test scores between control class and experimental class. The highest scores of student’s writing skill before given treatment by Transition Action Details Strategy in experimental class was 78, while the lowest score was 48, the mean score was 59.70 and SD was 8.98. The highest score in control class was 75, while the lowest score was 46. The mean score was 59.96, and SD was 8.21.

c. Students’ Writing Score of Post-Test at Experimental and Control class

After giving the treatment in several times, the students got post- test, the result is going to be presented by the table below in the interval data both of groups as follow:

Table 4.5 The Interval Data of Post-Test Score of Experimental and Control Class

Interval

Interval

Control class (Students'

Experimental class

F Percentage

Score)

F Percentage

60-64

6 22.22% 65-69

55-59

60-64

Control Class (Students'

Interval

Experimental class

F Percentage Score)

F Percentage

Based on the table above, there were 7 students (25.92%) of experimental class at the interval 60-64 and there were 3 (11.11%) students got score at that interval 65-69. There were 7 students (25.92%) got score at the interval 70-74. There were 4 students (14.81%) got score at the interval 75-79. Then, there were 4 students (14.81%) got score at the interval 80-84. Then, there were 2 students (7.41%) got score at the interval 85-89.

Furthermore, while the interval 55-59 in control class, there were 6 students (22.22%). And, there were 7 students (25.92%) got the score at the interval 60-64. Then, there were 3 (11.11%) students got the score at the interval 65-69. Thus, at the interval 70-74, there were 5(18.52%) students got the score at the interval. At the interval 75-79 there were 3 (11.11%) students got score at that interval. Then, there were 3 students (11.11%) got score at the interval 80-84.

The result of post-test in Experimental and Control classes could be seen in the following table below:

Table 4.6 Calculation Process of Mean and Standard Deviation of Post-Test

In Experimental Class

∑ f =27 ∑ x ²= 92058 ∑ f x =1937

∑ f x ²= 140887

(f x ) = (1937) = 3751969

2 n∑fx

(∑ f x )

n (n 1)

2 s 3803949 3751969 1 = 27(27)

From the calculation process of mean and standard deviation above, it was found that the mean score of 27 students at experimental class was

71.74. Standard deviation of students’ post test score at experimental class was 8.60

Table 4.7 Calculation Process of Mean and Standard Deviation of Post-Test

In Control Class

∑ f x = 1782

∑ ixi 1782

x=

∑i =

(f x ) = (1782) = 3175524

2 n∑fx

(∑ f x )

n (n 1) 2 27( 119420 ) (1782)

From the calculation process of mean and standard deviation above, it could be seen that the mean score of students’ post test at control class was

66.00, and standard deviation of students’ post test score at control class was

Table.4.8

The Data of Post-test Score of Experimental Class and Control Class

The

The

Standard Mean

(SD) Experimental

Based on the table above, it could be seen that the differences of post- test scores between control class and experimental class. The highest scores of student’s writing skill after given treatment by using Transition Action

Details Strategy in experimental class was 88, while the lowest score was 60, the mean score was 71.74and SD was 8.60. On the contrast, the control class by using conventional strategy, the highest score was 84, while the lowest score was 55, the mean score was 66 and SD was 8.33.

From the explanation above, it could be seen that the mean score of students’ post-test score at experimental class was higher than the mean score of students’ post-test score at control class. It means that teaching writing by using Transition Action Details Strategy gave significant effect towards students’ writing skill on recount text at class X of SMAN 1 Bukit Sundi.

2. The components of students’ writing skill are mostly improved after implementing Transition Action Details Strategy in teaching writing at class X of SMAN 1 Bukit Sundi.

The second research question could be answered by showing the comparison of students’ mean score of pretest and posttest score of experimental class in the term of content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanic.

Table 4.9 The Calculation of Comparison of Means Pre-test

And Post-test at Experimental Class

No Component

Pre-test

Post-test Difference

1 Content

2 Organization

3 Vocabulary

No Components

Pre-test

Post-test Difference

4 Language use

Based on the table above, it could be explained that:

1. Content

In pre-test, the mean score of the students’ content was got 18.29 while in post-test got 21.92. It was concluded that post-test had increased in content than pre-test with difference 3.63.

2. Organization

In pre-test, the mean score of the students’ organization was got

13.14 while in post-test got 16.03. It was concluded that pre-test had increased in organization than post-test with difference 2.89.

3. Vocabulary

In pre-test, the mean score of the students’ vocabulary was got

13.07 while in post-test got 14.51. It was concluded that pre-test had increased in vocabulary than post-test with difference 1.44.

4. Language Use

In pre-test, the mean score of the students’ language use was got

12.33 while in post-test got 15.24. It was concluded that pre-test had increased in language use than post-test with difference 2.91.

5. Mechanic

In pre-test, the mean score of the students’ mechanic was got 3.14, while in post-test was 3.66. It was concluded that post-test had increased in mechanic than pre-test with difference 0.52.

Based on the explanation above, it can be seen that the components of students’ writing were mostly improved is content with different 3.63 from pre-test to post-test.

3. Data Analysis of Students’ Writing Score

a) Hypothesis Testing

Based on Sudjana (2005: 221) Hypothesis testing will get the conclusion of accept or reject the hypothesis. In order to see whether the hypothesis accepted or rejected, the researcher analyzed by using T-test. The calculation can be seen follow:

n 1 = 27

s = 69.39 2 Where: x : Mean of gain score of experimental class x : Mean of gain score of control class

n 2 = 27

s 2 = 8.33

2 s : Standard deviation of gain score of experimental class

2 s : Standard deviation of gain score of control class

n 1 : The number of subject of experimental group n 1 : The number of subject of experimental group

+ (n 1)s (n 1)s s =

√71.68 = s = 8.467 After getting standard deviation (SD), so it was substituted to

statistic equation for test T: x 1  x 2

df   n 1  n 2  2 

= 52 T-table = t (1-  ) df = t (1- 0.05) 52 = t (0.95) 52 = 2.000 t- Calculate = 2.609

t- Calculate > t- table t- Table

From the result of analyzing the data, it was found that t- calculate was 2.609 while critical value of the t- table was 2.000 at the degree of freedom were 52 and the level of significant is 0.05. It means that the value of t – calculate is higher than the value of t-table. So, it can be concluded that Transition Action Details Strategy gave significant effect on the students’ writing skill.

b) Analysis of Students’ Writing to Recount

Table 4.10

The Data Analysis of Students’ Writing to Recount

At Experimental class

Post test Stage

Pre test

F Percentage

F Percentage

0% Developing Stage

Beginning Stage

20 74.07 % Consolidating Stage

7 25.93 % Extending Stage

The data above showed the analysis of students’ writing to recount text of pretest-posttest score at Experimental Class. It was aimed to see the improvement of students’ writing to recount text.

In the beginning stage, the number of students in pretest were10 students with percentage 37.03 %, and the number of students in posttest were empty. It means that the students in this stage were able to write recount text basically, includes basic organizational features of simple forms used to recount. It provides little information about setting or context in which the even happened, includes some events in sequence, and concludes with personal comment.

In developing stage, the number of students in pretest were17 students with percentage 62.96 %, and the number of students in posttest were 20 students with percentage 74.07 %. It means that the students in this stage were able to develop their recount more clearly. The students were able to provide sufficient information to orient the reader, write In developing stage, the number of students in pretest were17 students with percentage 62.96 %, and the number of students in posttest were 20 students with percentage 74.07 %. It means that the students in this stage were able to develop their recount more clearly. The students were able to provide sufficient information to orient the reader, write

a personal evaluative comment. In Consolidating stage, the number of students in pretest was empty

with percentage 0 %, and the number of students in posttestwere7 students with percentage 25.93 %. It means that the students in this stage were able to select specific vocabulary and uses appropriate organizational frameworks to compose a variety of recount. It provides an orientation that includes contextual and environmental details that impact on the way events unfold, elaborates important events, and concludes with an evaluative or summarizing comment.

In extending stage, the number of students both pretest and posttest were empty. It means the students were unable to reach the extending stage. The extending stage was more complex than other stages. The point of this stage is the students were able to select the vocabulary and manipulate the organizational frameworks to suit the context of the writing event.

It is indicated that the students’ understanding in writing recount is effected by Transition Action Details Strategy.