Research Findings Descriptive

A. Research Findings Descriptive

1. Research Settings

The location of the research is SMP Negeri 5 Namohalu Esiwa. The school is located in Lasara village,Namohalu Esiwa subdistrict, North Nias Regency. It is about 37 kilometers from Gunungsitoli Town. There are 28 teachers and 2 officers who are in the school. Two of them are English teachers and two officials and others non-official. The school consists of 9 classes and the total number of the students is 298.

The population of the research is the students at the eighth grade of SMP Negeri 5 Namohalu Esiwa, and sample is VIII-a as Experimental Group and VIII-b as Control Group which consisted of 30 students each group.

The researcher did the research after getting agreement from the headmaster of SMP Negeri 5 Namohalu Esiwa. In doing the researcher, the researcher followed a procedure to arrange validation sheet as a research instrument before implemented to the students. During the implementation of the research, the researcher was helped by the validators and the English teacher or teacher-collaborator in order that the activities of the researcher can run well and the result can be valid. All the students are present during this research.

2. Testing Instrument

a. Validity

In the research, the researcher used internal validation (See Chapter III p.49). Before going to use the research instrument (Essay Test) to the sample, the researcher had asked the teachers or lecturer who were competent in language testing to validate the test. One was the lecturer who taught writing subject (Mrs. Dra. Sulasmi), and others were the English teachers (Mrs. Listina Lase S.Pd and Mr. Elfriman Gea S.Pd). Based on their judgment on the validation sheet, so the test was stated VALID (See Appendix 5).

b. Reliability

Based on the Gay‟s statement “a valid test is always reliable but a reliable test is not always valid.” It can be comprehended that if the test is valid, so it always reliable. Because of that, inderectly the test was stated RELIABLE. It was considered the researcher used internal validation (rational validation).

3. Data Analysis

a. The Pre test and Post Test Analysis

In the research, the researcher gave a pre test and post tests both of Experimental and Control Group. Pre test was used to examine the normality of data and the homogeneity of the sample, while post test was used to examine the hypothesis of the research.

The students‟ mark of pre test for Experimental Group was shown in Table 8 (see Appendix 9), and the students‟ mark of pre test for Control Group was shown in

Table 9 (see Appendix 10). Furthermore, the students‟ mark of post test for Experimental Group was shown in Table 10 (see Appendix 11), and the students‟ mark of post test for Control Group was shown in Table 11 (see Appendix 12). Based on the students‟ mark, the researcher determined the mean score and standard deviation.

1) The Mean Score

Based on the result computation of pre test for Experimental Group, the mean score was 54.8 and classified LESS LEVEL. While the mean score of post test for Experimental Group was 74.1 and classified ADEQUATE LEVEL. (See Appendix

9 Table 10 and Appendix 11 Table 12). The mean score of pre test for Control Group was 46.53 and classified LESS LEVEL. While the mean score of post test for Control Group was 70.57 and classified ADEQUATE LEVEL. (See Appendix 10 Table 11 and Appendix 12 Table 13).

For more clearly, the difference between the mean score of pre test and post test for Experimental Group and Control Group can be seen in the table on the next page.

Table 4 THE MEAN SCORE of PRE TEST for EXPERIMENTAL

and CONTROL GROUP

Mean Score Experimental Group N= 30

Class

Sum

54.8 Control Group

Table 5 THE MEAN SCORE of POST TEST for EXPERIMENTAL

and CONTROL GROUP

Class

Sum

Mean score

Experimental Group

74.1 Control Group

2) The Standard Deviation

Based on the result computation of pre test for Experimental Group, the standard deviation was 10.50. While post test for Experimental Group, the standard deviation it was 9.08. (See Appendix 13 Table 14 and Appendix 14 Table 16).

The standard deviation of pre test for Control Group was 7.22. While post test for Control Group), the standard deviation it was 7.72. (See Appendix 14 Table 15 and Appendix 16 Table 17).

For more clearly, the difference between the standard deviation of pre test and post test for Experimental Group and Control Group can be seen in the table on the next page.

Table 6 THE STANDARD DEVIATION of PRE TEST and POST TEST

for EXPERIMENTAL and CONTROL GROUP

Post Test Class

Pre Test

2 ∑X 2 ∑X S ∑X ∑X s

Experimental Group N= 30 1644 93290 10.50 2223 167113 9.08 Control Group

3) The Normality of Data

Based on the result computation of Normality Data in pre test for Experimental Group, it was L count = -0.0894 and L table (x=0.05;n=30) = 0.161. Because L count (- 0.0894) ≤ L table (0.161), so the data was stated having the NORMAL DISTRIBUTION. (See Appendix 17 Table 18).

In pre test for control group computation, L count = -0.1874 and L table (x=0.05;n=30)

= 0.161. Because L count (-0.1874 )≤L table (0.161), so the data of pre test for control group was stated having the NORMAL DISTRIBUTION.(See Appendix 18 Table 19).

In post test for experimental group computation, L count = -0.2153 and L table

(x=0.05;n=30) = 0.161. Because L count (-0.2153 )≤L table (0.161), so the data was stated having the NORMAL DISTRIBUTION. (See Appendix 19 Table 20).

In post test for control group computation, L count = -0.1960 and L table

(x=0.05;n=30) = 0.161. Because L count (-0.1960 )≤ L table (0.161), so the data was stated having the NORMAL DISTRIBUTION. (See Appendix 20 Table 21).

For more clearly, the difference between the normality of data in pre test and post test for Experimental Group and Control Group can be seen in the following table:

Table 7 THE NORMALITY DATA of PRE TEST and POST TEST

for EXPERIMENTAL and CONTROL GROUP

Post test Experimental Group

Class

Pre test

-0.0894 -0.2153 Control Group

L table =L

0.05 (30) = 0.161 Conclusion= L count ≤L table (Normal Distribution)

4) The Homogeneity Test

Based on the result computation of Homogeneity test for pre test, F count = 2.1 and F table 1.846 . Because of F count (2.1) < F table (1.846), so the research sample for pre test was stated HOMOGENEOUS (See Appendix 21).

In post test, F count = 1.38 and F table 1.846 . Because of F count (1.38) < F table

(1.846), so the research sample was stated HOMOGENEOUS (See Appendix 22).

For more clearly, it can be seen in the following table in the next page.

Table 8 THE HOMOGENEITY TEST of PRE TEST and POST TEST

for EXPERIMENTAL and CONTROL GROUP

Post Test Class

Pre Test

2 ∑X 2 ∑X 2 s ∑X ∑X 2 s

Experimental Group N= 30 1644 93290 110.3 2223 167113 82.4

Control Group 1396 66472 52.1 2117 151119 59.63

F count

F table 0.05 (30-1,30-1) = 1.846

5) Examining the Hypothesis

The hypothesis of the research is: “There is a significant Effect of Summary Pyramid Strategy on the Students‟ Ability in Writing Narrative Text at the Eighth Grade of SMP Negeri 5 Namohalu Esiwa in 2015/2016” (see Chapter I, part F, P.5 ).

Based on Appendix 23, it showed that t count = 1.62 and t table with dk 2(n-1) at the significant level 5% (α = 0.05) =

1.45. Because of t count = 1.62 is not exist between the interval -1.45 to 1.45 (-1.45 ≤ t ≤ 1.45), so it can be concluded that Ha is accepted and H o is rejected. In means that the hypothesis of the research “There is a significant effect of Summary Pyramid Strategy on the students‟ ability in writing narrative text at the eighth grade of SMP Negeri 5 Namohalu Esiwa in 2015/2016 “ is ACCEPTED at the significant level 5%. For more clearly, it can be seen in the table on the next page.

Table 9 EXAMINING HYPOTHESIS

Variables of

t table = 2 (n-1)

t count

Research

N= 30

t 1/2 α(dk) =t 1/2 (0.05) (58)

Y = 1.62

Conclusion : because of t count ≥t table , so H a is Accepted