b. Homogeneity Test of Posttest The posttest homogeneity test is also done by using SPSS 15.0 for
Windows Evaluation Version. The result of posttest homogeneity test of the data is presented as follows:
Table 4.18 Homogeneity Posttest Results between Experimental Class and Control Class
Levene Statistic
df1 df2
Sig. 3,018
1 52
,088
The Table 4.18 shows that the significance of postest result between experimental class and control class is 0.088. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the posttest data between experimental class and control class are similar, because 0.088 0.05.
5. Hypothesis Testing
The last calculation was testing the hypothesis. The writer used SPSS 15.0 for Windows Evaluation program which is Paired Sample Test. Based on the
hypothesis that has been explained in chapter III, which is: There is no effectiveness of using mind mapping on students
’ reading of narrative text.
There is effectiveness of using mind mapping technique on students ’ reading
of narrative text. So, the criteria for hypothesis test are as follow:
If the significance of T-test T-table the Ho is accepted, Ha is rejected If the significance of T-test T-table the Ho is rejected, Ha is accepted
The Table 4.19 below shows the result between the experimental class which were given mind mapping technique in reading class and the control class
which were not given mind mapping technique. To get the result, first the writer input the posttest data of experimental and control group into different table in
SPSS program. Then, the writer chose analyze – compare means – Paired-Sample
T Test instruction. After that, an output as depicted in Table 4.19 below were shown up.
Table 4.19 T-test Result
From the Table 4.19, it presents that the T-test of this study is 0.706 and the T-table of this study is 2.056. It can be seen from the calculation of reading test
result between the experimental class and the control class, Ho is accepted, and the Ha is rejected because 0.706 2.056 or the T-test T-table. Therefore, it can
be conclude that there is no significance difference between the experimental class and the control class.
6. Questionnaire
To inquire whether the students found mind mapping technique helpful, the questionnaire was launched after the completion of the experiment. The result is
shown in Table 4.20 below.
Table 4.20 Recapitulation Data of Experimental Class
No. Questions
Strongly Disagree
Percentage Disagree
Percentage Agree
Percentage Strongly
Agree Percentage
1. Reading narrative text is fun.
7.4 74.1
18.5
2. The previous technique to
learn narrative text is better than using mind mapping
technique. 14.8
66.7 18.5
Paired Samples Test
2,778 20,444
3,934 -5,310
10,865 ,706
26 ,486
Experimental - Control Pair 1
Mean St d. Dev iation
St d. Error Mean
Lower Upper
95 Conf idence Interv al of the
Dif f erence Paired Dif f erences
t df
Sig. 2-tailed
No. Questions
Strongly Disagree
Percentage Disagree
Percentage Agree
Percentage Strongly
Agree Percentage
3. Learning narrative text by
using mind
mapping technique is fun.
3.7 18.5
55.6 22.2
4. Understanding of the concept
about mind mapping in learning narrative text.
3.7 22.2
59.3 14.8
5. Mind
mapping technique
helps students to understand narrative text.
25.9 40.7
33.3
6. Mind map helps students to
remember information based on the narrative text that is
read. 3.7
11.1 25.9
59.3
7. Ability to retell the narrative
text that you construct into a mind map.
3.7 7.4
14.8 74.1
8. Mind mapping techniques
makes it easier to learn narrative text.
3.7 11.1
74.1 11.1
9. Motivation to learn narrative
text after
using mind
mapping technique. 3.7
7.4 63
25.9
10. The satisfaction of reading
understanding after using mind mapping technique.
3.7 22.2
66.7 7.4
As revealed in table 4.20, the majority 74.1 of the students disagreed that reading narrative text was fun, while 66.7 of them agreed that mind
