37 After five meetings, they were post tested to see if the guessing meaning
from context procedure helped them to improve their vocabulary learning. The posttest was carried out on May 13, 2016. The students had to answer the 10 items
using guessing meaning from context procedure, which they had learned in 130 minutes. The questions were compiled from the book entitled, “When English
Rings a Bell” and the reading text of first final exam exercises in the year of 2016. Actually, the steps were for learning the vocabulary in English, but after having
consultation with the teacher in charge of junior high school grader students in this study the students were asked to find the meaning in Bahasa Indonesia. The
result of the pretest and posttest played that there was no significant role in determining the effectiveness of the guessing meaning from context procedure as
a vocabulary learning. During the learning process, the observer wrote what was happening.
According to Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen 210:433 the observation can take a great deal of time because one must wait for behavior to occur naturally. In this
research, the researcher included the observer naturally, it seemed that there was no observer in the class. The result of the observation sheet, there should be more
meeting to implement this procedure in order to get a good result implementation of guessing meaning from context procedure.
38
B. The Result of the Implementation of Guessing Meaning from Context
Procedure for Vocabulary Learning
The second part discusses the result of the implementation after having the experimental study. This result included the pretest, posttest and dependent t-test,
the questionnaire of the research object, and the analysis of the students‟ mistakes
in using the technique of guessing meaning from context.
1. Pretest and posttest result
By conducting experimental research with a one group pretest posttest design, the researcher had the treatment of implementing the procedure of
guessing meaning from context in eight graders of SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta for six days. The researcher took 8A as the field of the research. There were 33
students, but only 30 students who came for the pretest. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
39
Table 4.1 The Students’ Pretest and Posttest Scores
Participant Number
Pretest Score
Posttest Score
Difference Squared
Difference
1. 2.6
6 3.4
11.56 2.
2 5
3 9
3. 4
3 -1
1 4.
3.3 6
2.7 7.29
5. 5.3
5 -0.3
0.09 6.
2.6 5
2.4 5.76
7. 3.3
4 0.7
0.49 8.
4.6 2
-2.6 6.76
9. 2
5 3
9 10.
2 5
3 9
11. 4
5 1
1 12.
5.3 2
-3.3 10.89
13. 4
6 2
4 14.
4 8
4 16
15. 4.6
4 -0.6
0.36 16.
2.6 5
2.4 5.76
17. 2
4 2
4 18.
2.6 4
1.4 1.96
19. 4
4 16
20. 4
1 -3
9 21.
1.3 4
2.7 7.29
22. 2
4 2
4 23.
4 -4
16 24.
2 -2
4 25.
2.6 5
2.4 5.76
26. 2
2 27.
6 7
1 1
28. 4.6
2 -2.6
6.76 29.
4 5
1 1
30. 4.6
4 -0.6
0.36 ∑D= 24.1 ∑D
2
=175.09 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
40
Table 4.2 Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N
Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean Pair 1
pretest 3.2633
30 1.37226
.25054 posttest
4.0667 30
1.89251 .34552
For the pretest data, the score of mean 3.2633, the total data is 30, with standard deviation 1.37226 and the standard error 0.25054. While for the posttest
data, the score of mean is 4.0667, total data 30, with standard deviation 1.89251 and standard error mean 0.34552.
Table 4.3 Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation
Sig. Pair 1 pretest posttest
30 .018
.924
From the output is obtained the correlation value of 0.018 with significance 0.924. This statistic means that there is a very weak connection between the pre-
test to post-test for values close to 0 zero.
Table 4.4 Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t
df Sig.
2- taile
d Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Mean 95 Confidence Interval
of the Difference Lower
Upper P
a i
r 1
pretest - posttest
-.80333 2.31732
.42308 -1.66864
.06197 -1.899 29 .068
41 Paired sample t test was used to determine whether there is a difference
between the pre-test to post-test after the training was held. The tests used SPSS with significance level of 0.05. The following are the steps of the testing.
1. Formulate a hypothesis
Ho: There is no difference in average value between pretest to posttest, after the application of guessing meaning from context for vocabulary
learning. Ha: There is a difference in average value between pretest to posttest, after the
application of guessing meaning from context for vocabulary learning. 2.
Determining t and significance From the output is obtained t value is -1.899 and significance of 0.068.
3. Determine t table. T table can be seen in the statistics table on the 0.05: 2 = 0.025 test 2 sides
with degrees of freedom df n-1 or 30-1 = 29. The results obtained for t table of 2.045.
4. The test criteria: - If - t table t t table, then Ho is accepted.
- If - t - t table or t count t table, then Ho is rejected Based on the significance:
- If the significance of 0.05, then Ho is accepted. - If significance 0.05, then Ho is rejected.
5. Conclusion PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
42 Because the value of t table t t table -2.045 -1.899 2.045 and significant
value 0.05 0.068 0.05, then Ho is accepted. Thus, it can be concluded that there was no difference in average value between pretest to posttest, after the
application of the technique for guessing meaning from context for vocabulary learning.
2. The Result of the Questionnaire
In the second part of this chapter, the researcher discusses the result of the questionnaire filled out by the students in class 8A of SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta.
Finally, out of the total 30 students who had already taken both the pretest and posttest, all of them completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire was written
using the first language of the participants, which is Bahasa Indonesia, to enable them to comprehend each and every item of the questionnaire in the best possible
way. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first part of the questionnaire was close-ended items in the form of statements aiming to find out
whether or not this guessing meaning from context procedure helped them to improve their skill in their vocabulary learning. Th
e participants‟ possible responses were categorized into Strongly Agree SA, Agree A, Disagree D,
and Strongly Disagree SD. Considering that the subjects of this research was the students of Junior High School, so the researcher made 4 questions in the second
part, these questions were designed to elicit the research subjects‟ opinion on using this guessing meaning from context procedure after three weeks‟ exposure.
