4.1.2. The Presentation Of The Data Analysis
The result were analyzed to find out to what extend the students’ ability to master passive voive in simple past tense in positive, negative, and interrogative sentences.
4.1.2.1. Students’ ability to master passive voice mean score and percentage
Tabel 4.2 Students’ score to master passive voice in positive sentences
No Student Numbers
Correct answer
for each students
Number of items
Score for each
student X
Frequency f
fx
1 3,4,10,16,20,24 ,25,27
10 10 100 8 800
2 5,14,18,28 9
10 90
4 360
3 1,2,6,26,30 8
10 80
5 400
4 8,12,15,21,29 6
10 60
5 300
5 7,13,22 5
10 50 3
150 6 23
4 10 40 1 40
7 17,19 3 10 30
2 60
8 9,11 2 10 20
2 40
f
= 30
fx
= 2150
To find the mean score of the students’ ability to master passive voice in positive sentences, I calculated by using the following formula.
=
f fx
X
30
Universitas Sumatera Utara
=
f fx
X So,
= 30
2150
= 71,6 = 72 rounded
Thus the mean score of the students is 72 that means they are categorized as having good ability.
Tabel 4.3 The percentage of the students to master passive voice in positive
sentences
Classification Level of Ability
Range Frequency Percentage
Very good 80-100
17 57
Good 60-79 5
17 Average 40-59
4 13
Poor 20-39 4
13 Very poor
0-19
Total
30 100
From table 4.3 about the percentage of the students to master passive voice in positive sentences, it is shown that more than 50 could answer the test correctly 17 57
students are categorized as very good level, 5 17 students are categorized as good level, 4 13 students are categorized as average level, and 4 13 students are
categorized as poor level.
31
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Tabel 4.4 Students’ score to master passive voice in negative sentences
No Student Numbers
Correct answer
for each students
Number of items
Score for each
student X
Frequenc y f
fx
1 1,3,4,10,15,16, 20,24,25,26,27
,28,30 10 10
100 13 1300
2 19,29 9 10
90 2 180 3
7,8,12,14 8 10 80 4 320
4 2,18,21,23 7 10
70 4 280 5
9,11,13,22 6 10 60 4 240
6 12 4 10
40 1 40 7 5,6
3 10 30 2 60
X
= 30
fx
= 2420
The mean score of the students’ ability to master passive voice in negative sentences.
=
f fx
X
= 30
2420
= 80,6 = 81rounded
Thus the mean score of the students is 81 that means they are categorized as having as very good ability.
32
Universitas Sumatera Utara
33
Tabel 4.5 The percentage of the students to master passive voice in negative
sentences
Classification Level of Ability
Range Frequency Percentage
Very good 80-100
19 63
Good 60-79 8
27 Average 40-59
1 3
Poor 20-39 2
7 Very poor
0-19
Total
30 100
From table 4.5 about the percentage of the students to master passive voice in negative sentences, it is shown that more than 50 could answer the test correctly, 19
63 students are categorized as very good level, 8 27 students are categorized as good level, 1 3 students are categorized as average level, and 2 7 students are
categorized as poor level.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Tabel 4.6 Students’ score to master passive voice in interrogative sentences
No Student Numbers
Correct answer
for each students
Number of items
Score for each
student X
Frequency f
fx
1 3,10,18,24 10
10 100
4 400
2 1,8,13,14,2 5,27,28,30
9 10 90 8 720
3 4,12,19,20 8
10 80
4 320
4 15 7
10 70
1 70
5 7,9,16,17,2 3,29
6 10 60 6 360
6 5,11 5
10 50
2 100
7 2,6,21,26 4
10 40
4 40
8 22 3
10 30
1 30
X
= 30
fx
= 2040
The mean score of the students’ ability to master passive voice in interrogative sentences.
=
f fx
X
= 30
2040
= 68 Thus the mean score of the students is 68 that means they are categorized as having as
good ability.
34
Universitas Sumatera Utara
35
Tabel 4.7 The percentage of the students to master passive voice in interrogative
sentences
Classification Level of Ability
Range Frequency Percentage
Very good 80-100
16 53
Good 60-79 8
27 Average 40-59
5 17
Poor 20-39 1
3 Very poor
0-19
Total
30 100
From table 4.7 about the percentage of the students to master passive voice in interrogative sentences, it is shown that more than 50 could answer the test correctly,
16 53 students are categorized as very good level, 8 27 students are categorized as good level, 5 17 students are categorized as average level, and 1 3 students are
categorized as poor level.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
36
Tabel 4.8 The students’ score to master passive voice
NO Name
A B C Total Score Classification
1 Andy Mustaqim
8 10
9 27
90 Very good
2 Anggiat S
8 7 4 19 63
Good 3
Arifin Sitorus 10
10 10
30 100
Very good 4
Bayu Sugara 10
10 8
28 93
Very good 5
Benny Y. S 9
3 5
17 56
Average 6 David
H 8 3 7 18
60 Good
7 Debi Pranata
5 8 6 19 63
Good 8 Didi
Fajar 6 8 9 23
76 Good
9 Doni Putra
D 2 6 6 14 46
Average 10
Feri Irawan S 10
10 10
30 100
Very good 11 Fisker
T 2 6 5 13
43 Average
12 Harianto S
6 8 8 22 73
Good 13 Hasiholan
M 5 6 9 20
66 Good
14 Heryanto H
9 8
9 26
86 Very good
15 Ian Deficson
6 10 7 23 76
Good 16
Iksan Aiba 10
10 6
26 86
Very good 17 Maniur
S 3 4 6 13
43 Average
18 Marihot H
9 7
10 26
86 Very good
19 Nur Iswandi
3 9 8 20 66
Good 20 Peterson
10 10 8 28 93
Very good
21 Rikki Fernando 6 7 4 17
56 Average
22 Riko Sipayung 5 6 3 14
46 Average
23 Rinaldi Sitinjak 4 7 6 17
56 Average
24 Roy Ferianto
10 10
10 30
100 Very good
25 Sudarto 10 10 9 29
96 Very
good 26 Suharno
8 10 4 22 73
Good 27
Syahri R 10
10 9
29 96
Very good 28 Syuyanto
9 10 9 28 93
Very good
29 Winardi 6 9 6 21
70 Good
30 Yose Rizal
8 10
9 27
90 Very good
Total
215 242 219 676 2255
Mean score 22,5
75
Universitas Sumatera Utara
37
4.2. Data Interpretation
Kategori