Table 4.4 The Classification of the Posttest Scores
Category Scores Number of
students Percentage
1 Very good
9-10 4 14.3
2 Good
8 – 8.9 6
21.4 3
Sufficient 6.5 – 7.9
5 17.6
4 Bad
5.5 – 6.4 4
10.7 5
Very bad …. 5.5
9 32.1
The score ranged from 100 to 27. The highest score was 100 and the lowest score was 27. There were 4 students or 14.3 of the whole class who were able to
achieve very good predicate since they stayed in the category 1. In the second category, six students or 21.4 of the whole class who were able to achieve good
predicate, their scores were between 8 - 8.9. Five students or 17.6 of the whole class were in the third category that was between 6.5 and 7.9. They achieved
sufficient predicate. The fourth category was positioned by 4 students or 10.7 of the whole class. Their scores were between 5.5 and 6.4. In the lowest part, there were
nine students or 32.1 stayed in very bad category; their scores were below 5.5. Having discussed the data got from the posttest result, the researcher would
discuss the comparison of the data obtained from the pretest and the posttest. The detailed discussion is presented as follows.
4. Data Presentation of the Pretest and the Posttest
In the previous section, the researcher discussed the data obtained from the pretest and the posttest separately. In this section, the researcher would discuss the
data obtained from the pretest and the posttest together in order to get clearer comparison between the scores gained from the pretest and the posttest. The table is
as follows:
Table 4.5 The comparison of Pretest and Posttest Scores
Number of students Category Scores
Pretest Posttest
1 Very Good
9-10 1 3.6
4 14.3 2
Good 8 – 8.9
4 14.3 6 21.4
3 Sufficient
6.5 – 7.9 10 35.7
5 17.6 4
Bad 5.5 – 6.4
5 17.6 4 10.7
5 Very bad
…. 5.5 8 28.6
9 32.1
The data obtained from the pretest result showed that there was only one student or 3.6 of the whole class who could get score 9-10, yet in the posttest there were 4
students or 14.3 of the whole class who could get score 9-10. It means that the number of the students who stayed in the first category or achieved very good
predicate increased. The four students consisted of three students 10.7 who improved their score category and one student 3.6 who stayed in the same
category. In the second category, the number of the students in the posttest was
higher than the number of the students in the pretest. In the pretest, there were 4 students or 14.3 of the whole class who achieved good predicate. Yet, in the
posttest, there were six students or 21.4 of the whole class who stayed in the second category. It means, there were two students 7.1 who were able to improve the
scores. A different situation happened in the lower rank, the number of the students in the posttest was lower than that in the pretest. It was from ten students 35.7 into
five students 17.6. This situation showed positive indication because most of the students in the third rank improved their scores to the higher rank. The number of the
students in the fourth category in the posttest reduced from the number of the students in the pretest. One student 3.6 decreased hisher score to the lowest rank or the
fifth category. As a result, the number of the students in the lowest rank increased. It was from 8 students 28.6 into 9 students 32.1. Most of the students who
stayed in the fifth category in the pretest did not increase their score. In other words, it showed negative indication.
From the discussion above, it can be concluded that there was not a significant progress of the students’ reading comprehension. It was seen from the comparison
between the pretest score and the posttest score.
5. Presentation of Descriptive Statistic
To strengthen the result of this study, the researcher would not only present the pretest and the posttest results. Yet, the researcher would also present the other
supporting results, namely the central tendency and the dispersion of the scores. The next tables would show the detail computation process.
Table 4.6 Frequency Distribution of the Pretest
Pretest Score Frequency
fX X f
10 1 10 35 1 35
42 1 42 47 2 94
50 2
100 52 1 52
55 3 165
57 1 57 62 1 62
67 4 268
72 2 144
75 3 225
77 1 77 80 2
160 82 1 82
85 1 85 90 1 90
∑f = 28 ∑fX
1
1748
Mean X = ∑fX
fX Mean of pretest X = 1748
28 = 62.4
Mode of pretest = 67 Median of pretest = 67
Table 4.7 Frequency Distribution of the Posttest
Posttest Score Frequency
fX X f
27 1 27
37 1 37
47 2 94
50 4 200
