The Description of the Data

Figure 4.1 Bar Diagram of Pretest and Posttest Comparison of Experimental Class The Figure 4.1 above showed the comparison between pretest and posttest result in experimental class. The higher and lower frequency could be easily compared as the blue block represented pretest result and the red block represented posttest result. b. The Data of Control Class Table 4.4 Pretest and Posttest Score of Control Class Students Y Pretest Posttest 1 95 65 2 100 85 3 90 90 4 80 95 5 95 95 6 95 95 7 85 65 8 90 75 9 85 100 10 80 85 11 95 95 2 4 6 8 10 12 30-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 Fr e q u e n cy Interval Value Experimental Class Pretest Posttest 12 80 90 13 95 75 14 70 90 15 80 80 16 60 60 17 80 35 18 85 90 19 75 95 20 95 100 21 85 85 22 90 95 23 95 90 24 75 95 25 80 50 26 95 95 27 85 45 From the Table 4.4 above, it could be seen that the scores of pretest and posttest in experimental class were quite various, just like the result of the pretest and posttest in experimental class. But in control class, there was a big gap between the lowest and highest score in posttest. The lowest score of the pretest given to 27 students was 60. And after the posttest was given, the lowest score decrease into 35. Even though the highest score of the pretest and posttest given to 27 students was the same, which were 100. The further information about the pretest and posttest score can be seen trough the Table 4.5 and 4.6 below. Table 4.5 Frequency Distribution Table of Pretest Result of Control Class No Interval Value Frequency 1 30-40 - 2 41-50 - 3 50-60 1 4 61-70 3 5 71-80 11 6 81-90 5 7 91-100 7 Total 27 Table 4.6 Frequency Distribution Table of Posttest Result of Control Class No Interval Value Frequency 1 30-40 1 2 41-50 1 3 51-60 2 4 61-70 2 5 71-80 3 6 81-90 8 7 91-100 10 Total 27 The frequency distribution depicted in Table 4.5 and 4.6 were based on the pretest and posttest result in control class. It could be seen that there were a significant decrease in the number of students who get score between 71 and 80. In pretest, there were 11 students who get the score between 71 and 80, and in posttest it decreased into 3 students. A decrease was also happened to the students who get score in interval 61 —70. In interval 61—70, the frequency of the students decreased from 3 into 2 students only. Overall, there were 1 to 8 decreases of students in interval 61 —70, and 71—80. In addition to decreasing in some interval values, intervals 30 —40, 41—50, 51 —60, 81—90 and 91—100 were on increase. There was 1 increase of students in each interval 30 —40, 41—50, and 51—60 and there were 3 increases in each interval 81 —90 and 91—100. In interval 30—40 and 41—50, the frequency of students increased from 0 into 1. In interval 51 —60, the frequency of the students increased from 1 into 2 students. In interval 81 —90, the frequency of the students increased from 5 into 8 students. And in interval 91 —100 the frequency of the students increased from 7 into 10 students. An increase in interval 30 —60 of the posttest result meant that the students included in lower class were increased compared to the pretest result. For more details, the comparison between pretest and posttest results can be more clearly seen on the Figure 4.2 below. Figure 4.2 Bar Diagram of Pretest and Posttest Comparison of Control Class The Figure 4.2 above showed the comparison between pretest and posttest result in control class. The higher and lower frequency could be easily compared as the blue block represented pretest result and the red block represented posttest result. c. The Result of Mind Mapping In experimental class, the result of this study was not only in a form of scores, but also in a form of mind maps. Here are some results of the mind map: 2 4 6 8 10 12 30-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 Fr e q u e n cy Interval Value Control Class Pretest Posttest Figure 4.3 Mind Map Result of the Second Treatment It could be seen that in the Figure 4.3 above the writer found that it was difficult to measure students’ understanding about narrative text that they read. It is because they only copied and pasted the story into a mind map. Also, it seemed like the students were not fully understand about the concept of mind mapping. This mind map was constructed in the second meeting of the treatment in experimental class when the writer asked the students to work in group. In Figure 4.3, the students separated the part of The Miser story based on the generic structure of narrative text in an attractive way instead of making a mind map. As the writer observed the students work, the writer concluded that most of the students focused on drawing some pictures and decorating the paper into colorful page. Although not all the students constructed their mind maps like the mind map in Figure 4.3, it could be ascertained that most of the students did the same. There were only one or two groups that create an almost perfect mind map. Further results about mind map of the 2 nd treatment can be seen in the appendix 10. However, the students started to understand the concept of constructing a mind map on the third and the last day of treatment. On the third treatment, the writer asked the students to work individually constructing a mind map based on The Faulty Goods story. And the result was quite satisfying. One of the mind maps can be seen in the Figure 4.4 below. Figure 4.4 Mind Map Result of the Third Treatment In the Picture 4.4 above, it could be seen that the student started to understand the concept of mind map. It was proved by the way the mind map constructed. Thus, the writer could measure students’ understanding about narrative text that they read. In the Picture 4.4, the student succeeded to decide what idea that should be put on the mind map —the main topic, and the ideas on each branches. It meant that they understood the story very well. If they did not understand the story, it was not possible for the students to put the right information which the relation could be traced one to another. Further results about mind map of the 3 rd treatment can be seen in the appendix 11.

2. The Analysis of the Data

a. Experimental Class Pretest and posttest result From the data of experimental class presented previously, both the pretest and posttest result obtained was presented on the Table 4.7 below. Table 4.7 Recapitulation Data of Experimental Class Class Test Mean Min Max Median Mode STDEV Experimental Pretest 82.04 60 100 85 95 12.73 Posttest 84.81 60 100 90 95 11.89 The pretest and posttest results of 27 students in experimented class were analyzed. The results of the study, shown in Table 4.7, reveals that after teaching by mind mapping technique the students’ pretest mean score was increased into 84.81 on posttest where the score was 82.04 on pretest. The median score of pretest was 85 while on posttest was 90. Median is the numerical value separating the higher half from the lower half of the data. In other words, it is the middle number in a sorted list of numbers. The mode in both pretest and posttest was 95. The mode is the value that appears most often in a set of data. The minimum and maximum score of the pretest and posttest result in experimental class were same which were 60 for minimum score and 100 for maximum score. Standard deviation of the pretest result was 12.73 and standard deviation of the posttest was 11.89. Standard deviation is a number used to tell how measurements for a group are spread out from the average. Pretest and posttest comparison of experimental class The scores were further divided into 3 groups in order to further investigate in what way the use of mind mapping technique had an effect on the students’ reading abilities. Based on the overall data gained in experimental class, it was found that there were 11 students whose the score increased on the posttest. There were 8 students whose the score were stable. And there were 8 other students whose the score decreased. There were 27 students of experimental class in total. Further information was presented on table 4.8 as follow. Table 4.8 Students ’ Achievement of posttest in Experimental Class Class Form Increased Stable Decreased Total Experimental Number 11 8 8 27 Percentage 40.74 29.63 29.63 100 As shown, almost half of the class 40.74 received higher scores, 29.63 of all the students received lower scores and another 29.63 of all students maintained the same scores. This result was depicted in the Figure 4.5 below. Figure 4.5 Pie Chart of Students’ Posttest Achievement of Experimental Class b. Control Class Pretest and posttest result From the data of control class presented previously, both the pretest and posttest result obtained was presented on the Table 4.9 below. 41 29 30 Experimental Class Increased Stable Decreased Table 4.9 Recapitulation Data of Control Class Class Test Mean Min Max Median Mode STDEV Control Pretest 85.74 60 100 85 95 9.38 Posttest 82.04 35 100 90 95 17.66 The pretest and posttest results of 27 students in control class were analyzed, and the results were the data as depicted in the Table 4.9 above. The mean score were decreased from 85.74 in pretest result into 82.04 in posttest result. The median score of pretest was 85 while on posttest was 90. The mode in both pretest and posttest was 95. The minimum score of the pretest in control class was 60 and decreased into 35 on posttest. Standard deviation of the pretest result was 9.38 and standard deviation of the posttest was 17.66. Pretest and posttest comparison of control class Based on the overall data gained in control class, it was found that there were 10 students whose the score increased on the posttest. There were 8 students whose the score were stable. And there were 9 other students whose the score decreased. There were 27 students of control class in total. Further information was presented on table 4.10 as follow. Table 4.10 Students’ Achievement of posttest in Control Class Class Form Increased Stable Decreased Total Control Number 10 8 9 27 Percentage 37.04 29.63 33.33 100 As shown, more than one-third of the class 37.04 received higher scores, one-third 33.33 received lower scores and 29.63 of all students maintained the same scores. This result was depicted on the Figure 4.6 below. Figure 4.6 Pie Chart of Studen ts’ Posttest Achievement of Control Class c. The Comparison between Experimental Class and Control Class The comparison between experimental class and control class was briefly summarized on the Table 4.11 below. Table 4.11 Comparison of Recapitulation Data between Experimental and Control Class Class Test Mean Min Max Median Modus STDEV Experimental Pretest 82.04 60 100 85 95 12.73 Posttest 84.81 60 100 90 95 11.89 Control Pretest 85.74 60 100 85 95 9.38 Posttest 82.04 35 100 90 95 17.66 The result of pretest mean score in experimental class was lower than in control class. In experimental class, the mean score was only 82.04 while in control class the mean score was 85.74. But, the result of posttest mean score in experimental class increased into 84.81 and the posttest mean score in control class was decreased into 82.04. The comparison of the mean score between experimental class and control class was depicted in Figure 4.7 below. 37 30 33 Control Class Increased Stable Decreased