Student Pre-Test
Post-Test Gained Score
31 75
65 -10
32 65
95 30
33 60
60 34
60 70
10 35
60 55
-5 36
65 60
-5
∑ 2130
2405 275
Mean 59.16
66.80 7.64
Table 4.2 above informs that the mean of pre-test in controlled class was 59.16 and the mean of post-test was 66.80, with the mean of gained score was
7.64. It shows that the students’ score in controlled class was also increase. However, even though the students’ score of controlled class was also
increased, it was not as significant as that of the students’ score of experimental class. It means that the students’ score of experimental class learning reading
narrative text with s tory mapping technique was higher than the students’ score
in controlled class learning reading narrative text with story mapping technique.
B. Data Analysis
Based on the data above, the writer analyzed the score of experimental class and controlled class by integrating the results into the formula as follows:
1. Determining mean of variable X Experimental Class, with formula:
∑
2. Determining mean of variable Y Controlled Class , with formula:
∑
3. Determining standard of deviation of variable X, with formula:
√∑ ∑
√ √
√
4. Determining standard of deviation of variable Y, with formula:
√∑ ∑
√ √
√
5. Determining standard error of mean variable X, with formula:
√
√
6. Determining standard error of mean of variable Y, with formula:
√
√
7. Determining standard error of different mean of variable X and mean of
variable Y, with formula:
√
√ √
√
8. Determining t
o
, with formula:
9. Determining Degree of Freedom, with formula:
10. Determining t
t
, with formula:
Based on the calculation of the data above, it can be seen that t observation t
o
is higher than t table t
t
.
C. Test of Hypotheses
To prove the hypothesis, the data obtained from the experimental class and the controlled class was calculated by using t-test formula with the assumptions as
follows: t
o
≥ t
t
: the alternative hypothesis Ha is accepted and the null hypothesis Ho is rejected. It means that there is a significant difference between the
students’ achievement in learning narrative text by using story mapping technique in reading narrative text and without using story mapping
technique. t
o
t
t
: the alternative hypothesis Ha is rejected and the null hypothesis Ho is accepted. It means that there is no significant difference between the
students’ achievement in learning narrative text by using story mapping technique in reading narrative text and without using story mapping
technique. By comparing the values of t
o
= 2.35 and t
t
= 2.00, the data calculated using statistics show that t
o
is higher than t
t
. Hence, the alternative hypothesis Ha is accepted and the null hypothesis Ho is rejected. It means, there is a significant
difference between the students’ achievement in learning narrative text by using story mapping technique in reading narrative text and without using story
mapping technique.
D. Data Interpretation
Based on the description and analysis of the data, it can be informed that the mean of students’ pre-test score in both experimental class and controlled
class are under the score 60. Then, after giving the treatment, their score were increased differently
. The mean of students’ pre-test score of experimental class is 72.78 and the mean of students’ pre-test score of controlled class is 66.80.
