No. Questions
Strongly Disagree
Percentage Disagree
Percentage Agree
Percentage Strongly
Agree Percentage
3. Learning narrative text by
using mind
mapping technique is fun.
3.7 18.5
55.6 22.2
4. Understanding of the concept
about mind mapping in learning narrative text.
3.7 22.2
59.3 14.8
5. Mind
mapping technique
helps students to understand narrative text.
25.9 40.7
33.3
6. Mind map helps students to
remember information based on the narrative text that is
read. 3.7
11.1 25.9
59.3
7. Ability to retell the narrative
text that you construct into a mind map.
3.7 7.4
14.8 74.1
8. Mind mapping techniques
makes it easier to learn narrative text.
3.7 11.1
74.1 11.1
9. Motivation to learn narrative
text after
using mind
mapping technique. 3.7
7.4 63
25.9
10. The satisfaction of reading
understanding after using mind mapping technique.
3.7 22.2
66.7 7.4
As revealed in table 4.20, the majority 74.1 of the students disagreed that reading narrative text was fun, while 66.7 of them agreed that mind
mapping technique was better than the previous technique used to learn narrative text. Also, 63 of the students were more motivated to learn narrative text after
using mind mapping technique. Almost half 40.7 of the students agreed and 33.3 of them strongly agreed that mind mapping technique helped them to
understand narrative text.
B. Interpretation
The pretest mean score in experimental class was 82.04, and after given 4 treatments using Mind Mapping technique, the posttest mean score in
experimental class was 84.81. Meanwhile, in control class showed that the pretest mean score was 85.74. And after given 4 treatments without using mind mapping
technique, the posttest mean score was 82.04. Therefore, the students who received higher scores in experimental class were more than the students in
control class. The increase of the mean score in experimental class can be based on the quality of learning process that get better, because the students ability to
understand the material is developed well, the students may also enjoy the learning process.
While the decrease of the mean score in control class was because the learning process was monoton, the students were less involved to be
active in the process which make them did not enjoy the lesson. After finding the mean score in both of the classes, the writer made sure
that the data were distributed normally and homogeneous. In experimental class, the value 0.599 for pretest and 0.301 for posttest was found through normality
test. And in control class, the value 0.404 for pretest and 0.106 for posttest was found. All of the values were higher than 0.05 which means that the data were
distributed normally. It means that there was balance distribution between the students who get low, middle , and high score.
In homogeneity test, the value 0.56 for pretest and 0.88 for posttest was gained. This result shows that in both of pretest and posttest, the data between
experimental class and control class was homogeneous as the values were higher than 0.05. It means that the dispersion was relatively similar between the
experimental and control class.
