Introduction Presentation of the Observation Results

1.3. Descriptive Statistics

The following table shows the descriptive statistics of the pre test and post test of both experimental and control groups. N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Pre-ex Post-ex Pre-con Post-con 24 24 24 24 2 10 2 7 9 18 8 18

3.92 14.75

3.96 12.46 1.692 2.908 1.396 2.766 Table 4.3. The Descriptive Statistics The number of students of each group was 24. The mean score of pre test of the experimental group was 3.92 and the control group was 3.96. The mean score of post test of the experimental group was 14.75 and the control group was 12.46. For the post test mean score, the experimental group had higher score than the control group.

2. Test Validity and Reliability

As stated in the previous chapter, a test has to be reliable and valid. A test is supposed to have face validity and content validity. A test is said to have face validity if it looks as if it measures what it is supposed to measure Hughes;1989. A test is said to have content validity if its content constitutes the representative sample of the language skills. In order to have face and content validity, the writer constructed the test based on the course objective as stated in the syllabus. A test is said to be reliable if it has reliability coefficient approaching 1. The highest the coefficient approaches 1, the more reliable the test is. If the measurement result is to be used for research purpose, score with modest reliability coefficient range of 0.50 to 0.60 may be acceptable Ary, D;2002. The following table shows the test reliability of the tests which were used in this research. Test Reliability Group Pre Test Post Test Experimental Group 0.88 0.84 Control group 0.87 0.827 Table 4.4. Test Reliability The table above shows that the reliability of pre test of the experimental group was 0.88 and of the control group was 0.87. Both were more than the modest reliability 0.60. The test reliability of the post test of the experimental group was 0.84 and of the control group was 0.827. Both post tests were approaching 1. As a conclusion, the tests can be said to be reliable.

3. Data Analysis

This subchapter presents the analysis of the test results. In order to see the significance of the difference of the test results, Independent Sample t-test and Non Independent sample t-test were used. The following is the presentation of the analysis. 3.1. Data Analysis Using Independent Sample t-test 3.1.1 Analysis of the Pre test The pre test results were analyzed in order to know the input competence of both groups before the treatment. As seen in the table 4.1, the mean scores of the experimental group and control group were 3.92 and 3.96 respectively. The mean score of the control group was 0.04 higher than that of the experimental group. In order to know the significance different of the two mean scores, the Independent sample t-test was used. The t-observed as computed using Independent sample t-test was 0.032 see appendix with the degree of freedom 46. In order to see the significance, the t-observed was consulted to the t-table. It was found that for 46 degree of freedom at the level of significance 0.05, the t-value of the t-table is 1.684 see appendix. The mean scores difference is said to be significant if the t-observed is the same or larger than the t-value in the t-table. Since the t-observed was lower than the t- table, it means that the competence of the students of the two groups before the treatment were the same.

3.1.2. Analysis of the Post Test

The post test results were analyzed using Independent sample t-test in order to find out whether or not the improvement of the competence between the two groups was different significantly. The mean scores of the post tests of both groups were higher than the mean scores of the pre tests. It means that there was an improvement of competence for both groups. The Independent Sample t-test calculated the mean score difference between the two groups. The following table shows the mean scores differences between the two groups. Experimental Group Control Group X 1 X 1 - 1 X X 1 - 1 X 2 X 2 X 2 - 2 X X 2 - 2 X 2 8 -2.83 8.0089 4 -4.5 20,25 8 -2.83 8.0089 6 -2.5 6,25 8 -2.83 8.0089 7 -1.5 2.25 8 -2.83 8.0089 7 -1.5 2.25 9 -1.83 3.3489 7 -1.5 2.25 9 -1.83 3.3489 7 -1.5 2.25 9 -1.83 3.3489 7 -1.5 2.25 9 -1.83 3.3489 7 -1.5 2.25 9 -1.83 3.3489 8 -0.5 0.25 10 -0.83 0.6889 8 -0.5 0.25 11 0.17 0.0289 8 -0.5 0.25 11 0.17 0.0289 9 0.5 0.25 11 0.17 0.0289 9 0.5 0.25 11 0.17 0.0289 9 0.5 0.25 11 0.17 0.0289 9 0.5 0.25 12 1.17 1.3689 9 0.5 0.25 12 1.17 1.3689 9 0.5 0.25 13 2.17 4.7089 9 0.5 0.25 13 2.17 4.7089 9 0.5 0.25 13 2.17 4.7089 9 0.5 0.25 13 2.17 4.7089 10 1.5 2.25 14 3.17 10.0489 11 2.5 6.25 14 3.17 10.0489 12 3.5 12.25 14 3.17 10.0489 14 5.5 30.25 ∑=260 ∑=101.3336 ∑=94 1 X =26024 = 10.83 2 X =20424 = 8.5 Table 4.5 The Mean Scores of the Experimental Group and the Control Group By using the Independent Sample t-test, it was found that the t-observed was 3.95. In order to see the significance, the t-observed was compared to the t- value in the t-table. The t-value for 46 degree of freedom at the level 0.05 significance was 1.684 see the appendix. It can be seen clearly that the t- observed was higher than the t-value. It means that mean score of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group. In other words, the Natural Method can improve the competence of the students higher than the traditional method.

3.2. Data Analysis Using Non Independent Sample t-test

As stated before, the objective of computing the test result using the Non Independent sample t-test was to find out the effectiveness of the Natural Method. Therefore, the computation was for the experimental group only; the group in which the Natural Method was implemented. It can be seen in the table see the appendix that the mean score of the post test was higher than that in the pre test. It means that there was an improvement in the students’ vocabulary mastery after the treatment. By using the Non Independent sample t-test, it can be seen whether or not the students make significant improvement. The scores of the pre test and the post test of the experimental group were compared and computed using the Non Independent sample t-test. It was found that the t-observed was 25.195. It was higher than the t-value seen in the t-table which was 1.711 for the degree of freedom 24. It means that the mean score of the pre test and that of the post test were different significantly. The difference was significant because the students got English course for the first time. Before the research done in the school, the students hadn’t got English at school. Therefore, teaching English to the students at this school gave result for the improvement of students’ knowledge of English vocabulary that made the difference of the mean score significant.

C. Presentation of the Observation Results

The observation in this research was to answer the second problem as stated in the problem formulation. By observing the class, the contributions of the Natural Method in improving the students’ competence can be seen. In order to make it easier to observe the class, the writer constructed observation list. The list was consisted of three parts to observe, they were the exposure to the target language, the memorization enhancement, and the output the usage. Facts 1 to 7 showed the comprehensible input which was represented by the exposure to target language uttered by the teacher and the students’ respond to the teacher’s language instruction. Items 8 to 10 represented the effort to encourage memorization. The language use by the students in the real communication referred to number 11 to 14. The statements of the fact items to be observed can be seen in the appendix. The following table shows the results of the observation. Meeting Activity I II III IV V VI VII VIII ∑ Mean 1 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 38 4.75 2 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 35 4.375 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 39 4.875 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 35 4.375 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32 4 6 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 30 3.75 7 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 31 3.875 8 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 37 4.625 9 - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 3.5 10 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 29 3.625 11 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 27 3.375 12 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 31 3.875 13 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 28 3.5 14 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 19 2.375 Table 4.6 Observation List Score of the Experimental Group Meeting Activity I II III IV V VI VII VIII ∑ Mean 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 24 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 25 3.125 3 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 38 4.75 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 23 2.875 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32 4 6 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 36 4.5 7 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 32 4 8 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 36 4.5 9 - 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 23 2.875 10 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 18 2.25 11 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 20 2.5 12 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 17 2.125 13 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 2 14 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 10 1.25 Table 4.7 Observation List Score of the Control Group Note : 1 = never occur 2 = rarely occur 3 = occasionally occur 4 = frequently occur 5 = always occur The observation lists of experimental and control group above was used to see the contribution of the Natural Method in improving the students’ vocabulary mastery. In order to see the contribution, the writer compared the scores of the two groups. Activity1 was about the target language exposure uttered by the teacher. The score of the experimental group was 4.75 which was 1.75 higher than that of the control group. It means that the students in the experimental group got much input than the students in the control group. In the experimental group, the teacher talked in the target language. This technique supplied the students with much input both the vocabulary intended to be taught and the frequently used vocabulary. Activities 2 to 4 represented the use of demonstration gesture and realia by the teacher when presenting the lesson. It can be seen in the observation lists above that the experimental group had higher score than the control group. As stated in the previous chapter, the gesture demonstration and realia help the students to comprehend the language. Therefore, it means that the students in the experimental group were provided with more help of gesture and demonstration than that of the control group which made the input comprehensible for the students. In order to see the students’ respond in the class, activities 5 to 7 told about it. The score of the control group was higher than that of the experimental group. The instruction in the students’ native language was more easily understood by the students rather than the instruction in the target language. Therefore, the students in the control group could almost do all what they were told to do correctly. However, from the observation, it was found that the students in the experimental group were still able to do the instruction correctly because the teacher demonstratedacted out what she said. The teacher demonstrated the instruction; hence the students could perform the instruction correctly. Activities 8 to 10 referred to the use of repetition to enhance the students’ memorization of the vocabulary. Both groups showed that the teachers of the two groups encouraged memorization by repeating new vocabulary several times. However, from the observation score number 9 and 10, it was found that the experimental group got much higher score than that of the control group. The teacher talk in the experimental class combined new vocabulary with previous vocabulary when talking in the target language. Hence, the students were reminded about the vocabulary items and they would automatically recall what they have learned. This evidence proved that in the Natural Method the students were encouraged to repeat unconsciously what they have learned. The last four activities were about the students’ output usage. Here, it means the students’ use of the target language. The mean score for items 11 to 14 of the experimental group was 3.28 while the mean score of the control group was 1.97. The experimental group had much higher score than the control group. The students in the experimental group produced English words as the target language more frequently than that of the control group. The researcher found that the students would tend to answer the teacher’s question in the target language if the teacher asked in the target language compared to when the teacher asked in the students’ native language. The example is as follow:  Teacher experimental group: What color? Student experimental group : red Compared to  Teacher control group : warna apa? Student control group : merah Since the teacher in the experimental group was demanded to speak to the students in the target language, the teacher would always ask the students in the target language. It was different from the teacher in the control group where she occasionally used the target language; the teacher tend to ask in the students’ native language. The activity number 14 showed the students’ producing the target language without being asked see the appendix. From the observation, it was seen that the control group almost never spoke in the target language compared to the students in the experimental group. The following were the evidences that the writer found in the experimental group during the observation.  Some students said “Miss, finish” when they had finish their work without being asked by the teacher  On one occasion, there were two students quarreling, and another student said “ Stop, no..no”  Sometimes, the students repeated what the teacher said, for example “sit down, please”; when the students clapped their fingers, they said “no sound”. From the observation done by the writer, it was seen that the Natural method gave much contributions to encourage the students interact with the target language and hence improve their vocabulary mastery. The comparison of the two groups in giving the contributions in the input, memorization, and the usageoutput from the students can be seen in the Figure 4.2 in the next sub topic.

D. Other Findings

The mean score of the pre test and the post test showed clearly that there was a significant difference of the students’ competence of both groups. Both groups showed significant difference of the mean scores in the pre test and the post test. The difference of the pre test and the post test was significant because it was the first English lesson for the students. Before they were taught English, the English vocabulary mastery of the students was still low. The students had very low knowledge of English. Hence, the vocabulary mastery was significantly different after the students had got English lesson for 8 meetings. The following is the chart of the improvement. The difference of the mean scores as the indicators of the students’ competence can be seen in the chart below. Figure 4.1. Chart of the Competence Difference The significant difference of the improvement between the experimental group and the control group also can be seen in the chart above. The experimental group’s line was higher than that of the control group. As stated before, the t- value of the post test difference of both groups was 3.95. It was significantly difference compared to the t-table which was 1.684. From the significant difference of the score, it was proven that the Natural Method was effective to improve the vocabulary mastery. The contributions that were given by the Natural Method as discussed in the previous subtopic can be seen in the chat below. The following chart shows the comparison of both groups in the contributions of input, memorization, and usageoutput which were the results of the observation. It can be seen that the experimental group got higher score in the input, memorization, and usage as the result of implementing the Natural Method. From the three aspects in vocabulary acquisition, the usage was the highest aspect that was encouraged by the Natural Method.

3.92 14.75

3.96 12.46 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Pre test Post Test Experimental Group Control Group mean score 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 input memorization usage Aspects in Vocabul ary Acquisition Chart of the Observation Results experimental group control group experimental group control group experimental group control group Figure 4.2. Chart of the Observation Results The chart above shows clearly that the experimental group gave more contributions in the input, memorization, and usage as discussed before.

E. Hypothesis Testing

This sub chapter talks about the hypothesis testing. The first part restates the statistical hypothesis that has been discussed in chapter 2. The second part presents the result of the hypothesis testing.

1. Restatement of the Research Hypothesis

The statistical hypothesis or the research was: Ho: e =c Hi: e c Note Ho = the null hypothesis Hi = the alternative hypothesis e = the mean score difference of the experimental group c = the mean score difference of the control group If the mean score difference of the experimental group is higher than that of the control group, Ho is rejected and Hi is accepted. On the contrary if the mean score difference of the experimental group is the same or lower than that of the control group, Ho is accepted and Hi is rejected.

2. Hypothesis Testing

The mean score difference of the post test and the pre test of the experimental group was 10.83 and that of the control group was 8.5. The experimental group got higher score than the control group. The t-observed that was calculated using Independent sample t-test was 3.95 and that was higher than the t-value on the t-table. Since the t-observed was higher than the t-table at the same level of significant different, the null hypothesis Ho was rejected and the alternative hypothesis Hi was accepted.

F. Result Interpretation

The statistical computation of the experimental group showed that the post test score was higher than the pre test. The difference in the achievement of the experimental group and the control group was significant. It was strong enough to reject the null hypothesis. This means that the Natural Method was effective to teach English language to kindergarten students in TK Indriyasana.