commit to user
74
CHAPTER IV THE RESULT OF RESEARCH
This chapter discusses the result of the study. The result is divided into four discussions as follows: the data description, normality, and homogeneity test,
hypothesis test, and the discussion of the result of study.
A. Implementation of the Research
Next, I conducted the real experiment that is giving a treatment by using cooperative learning Think-Pair-Share TPS method in teaching reading
comprehension to the experimental class and using Direct Instruction Method in teaching reading comprehension to the control class. This experiment was
conducted in order to determine whether there is significant different in reading achievement between the experimental class and control class. The clear
description of conducting treatment to both experimental and control class can be seen in the table as follow:
Table 4.1 Treatment for Experimental Class
Activities Material
Date Learning Process
First meeting
Narrative Text 1 Cinderella,
2 King’s food. October,
22
th
2012 1 Introducing the title of the text and
giving guiding questions about the topic which is going to be discussed.
2 Brainstorming about text by giving questions.
3 Explaining the procedure of Think Pair Share Method.
4 Distributing a text. 5 Think
a Asking the students to read the text individually
b Giving the students “think time” a few moments to think about the
answer of
the question
individually.
Second meeting
Narrative Text 1 Prabu Tapa,
2 Why Does the Cock Eat the Millipede.
October, 24
th
2012
Third meeting
Narrative Text 1 The Legend of Jambi
October, 30
th
2012
74
commit to user
75
Forth meeting
Narrative Text 1 Deadalus and Icarus
October, 31
th
2012 6 Pair
a Dividing students into pairs. b Giving worksheet to each pairs.
c Giving marks to the students to start pairing up with other
students. d Guiding the students to analyze
the content of the text and monitoring discussion process.
7 Share a The teacher calls on some pairs to
share their answers with the rest of the class.
b Asking each pair to give opinion to other pairs. Other pairs give
feedback and share their different ideas.
8 Giving feedback to students’ answer or students’ discussion.
9 Giving assessment to the result of discussion of each pair.
Fifth meeting
Analytical Exposition 1 Law Making Bodies
in Australia 2 Global Warming
October, 06
th
2012
Sixth meeting
Analytical Exposition 1 An Electronic book
November, 07
th
2012 Seventh
meeting Analytical Exposition
1 The important of reading
2 The technique of teaching
November, 13
th
2012
Eighth meeting
Analytical Exposition 1 Crime
November, 14
th
2012
The students of class XI-A3, as experimental class, were taught in eight meetings. Each meeting took two hours. Experiment class taught using
cooperative learning Think-Pair-Share TPS method. In First to fourth meetings, the narrative texts were spread out to students and the analytical exposition texts
commit to user
76 were given to the students in the fifth to eight meetings. After the texts were
explained, the students were asked to answer the questions related to the text in pair because they taught using cooperative learning Think-Pair-Share TPS
method.
Table 4.2 Treatments for Control Class
Activities Material
Date Learning Process
First meeting Narrative Text
1 Cinderella, 2 King’s food.
October, 22
th
2012 1 Explaining of the goal and preparing
students a
Explaining about the goal of the lesson.
b Explaining the procedure of Direct
Instruction Method. c
Showing an example about narrative text and distributing the narrative text
entitled to the students. The teacher introduces the material.
2 Presenting or demonstrating of certain skill a Explaining to the students about the
characteristics of text, such as; generic structure, linguistics feature,
and social function of text to the students.
b Teacher guides the students through some questions that have correlation
with the topic. d Teacher checks frequently for
understanding of all students and provide immediate corrective
feedback when needed. 3 a The teacher asks the students to read
few lines from the text. b
The students are asked to translate the words from the text into their L1.
The teacher helps them in translate meanings for these words.
c The answers are checked by them. Mistakes are corrected by the teacher
4 Giving Individual Task a
Giving worksheet to each student. b
Asking each student to answer the questions in their students’ worksheet
related to the text independently. c Giving feedback to students’ answer.
Second meeting
Narrative Text 1 Prabu Tapa,
2 Why Does the Cock Eat the Millipede.
October, 24
th
2012
Third meeting Narrative Text
1 The Legend of Jambi
October, 30
th
2012
Forth meeting Fifth meeting
Sixth meeting
Seven meeting
Eighth meeting
Narrative Text 1 Deadalus and Icarus
Analytical Exposition 1 Law Making Bodies
in Australia 2 Global Warming
Analytical Exposition 1 An Electronic book
Analytical Exposition 1 The important of
reading 2 The technique of
teaching Analytical Exposition
1 Crime October,
31
th
2012 November,
6
th
2012
November, 7
th
2012 November,
13
th
2012 November,
14
th
, 2012
The students of class XI-A4, as control class, were taught in eight meetings. Each meeting took two hours. Control class taught using Direct
commit to user
77 Instruction Method. In First to fourth meetings, the narrative texts were spread out
to students and the analytical exposition texts were given to the students in the fifth to eight meetings. After the text were explained, the students were asked to
answer the questions related to the text individually because they taught without using cooperative learning Think-Pair-Share TPS method.
From the explanation above we can see that both of class had the same topics and material but different method of presentation. At the end of the
experiment, I conducted a post test for both of class in different day. I used the same test for both. For control group the test was conducted on November 20,
2012. For experimental group the test was conducted on November 23, 2012. The test results were used as the data in this study to determine whether there is
significant different in students’ reading achievement between experimental group and control group.
B. Data Description