Data Presentation of the Pretest and the Posttest Presentation of Descriptive Statistic

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 Posttest Score X Frequency f fX 52 1 52 60 3 180 62 1 62 67 4 268 77 1 77 80 3 240 82 1 82 85 2 170 90 1 90 95 2 190 100 1 100 ∑f = 28 ∑fX 2 =1869 Mean X = ∑fX fX Mean of posttest X = 1869 28 = 66.7 Mode of posttest = 50 and 67 Median of posttest = 67 The table of frequency distribution showed the complete computation of central tendency which includes mean, mode and median. From the table, it was seen that the total score of the pretest was 1748 and the total score of the posttest was 1869. The total score of the pretest and the posttest was divided by the number of the students, which was 28. From the division, it was obtained the mean or the average of the pretest and the posttest. The mean of the pretest was 62.4 and the mean of the posttest was 66.7. Then, it could be concluded that the mean of the pretest was quite higher than of the pretest. The mode is the most frequently obtained score in the data Hatch and Farhady, 1982. From the table, it was concluded that the mode of the pretest was 67 and the mode of the posttest were 50 and 67. It means that 67 was the only score received by 4 students in the pretest, whereas in the posttest, there were two modes or bimodal, which were 50 and 67. There were 4 students received 50 and 60 respectively. Next, the median is the score which is at the center of the distribution. In finding the median, the researcher took from the midpoint between the two middles scores since the number of the scores was even. Then, it could be concluded that the median of the pretest and the posttest was the same, which was 67. The two middles scores of the both test were 67 and 67. It means that half of the scores of the both tests were above 67 and the other half were below. Having discussed the central tendency of the pretest and the posttest, the researcher would discuss the computation of standard deviation of the both tests in order to find out the variability of the scores. The next table would show the detail computation process. Table 4.8 The Table of Variability Computation of Pretest Pretest X f X 2 fX X 2 f 10 1 100 10 100 35 1 1225 35 1225 42 1 1764 42 1764 47 2 2209 94 4418 50 2 2500 100 5000 52 1 2704 52 2704 Posttest X f X 2 fX X 2 f 55 3 3025 165 9075 57 1 3249 57 3249 62 1 3844 62 3844 67 4 4489 268 17956 72 2 5184 144 10368 75 3 5625 225 16875 77 1 5929 77 5929 80 2 6400 160 12800 82 1 6724 82 6724 85 1 7225 85 7225 90 1 8100 90 8100 ∑f=28 ∑X=1748 ∑X 2 =117356 The formula used was: Where: σ : standard deviation ∑X 2 : the sum of the squares of each score ∑X 2 : the sum of the scores squared N : the number of cases in the distribution σ pretest = = = 18.4 Table 4.9 The Table of Variability Computation of Posttest Posttest X f X 2 fX X 2 f 27 1 729 27 729 37 1 1369 37 1369 47 2 2209 94 4418 50 4 2500 200 10000 52 1 2704 52 2704 60 3 3600 180 10800 Posttest X f X 2 fX X 2 f 62 1 3844 62 3844 67 4 4489 268 17956 77 1 5929 77 5929 80 3 6400 240 19200 82 1 6724 82 6724 85 2 7225 170 14450 90 1 8100 90 8100 95 2 9025 190 18050 100 1 10000 100 10000 ∑f=28 ∑X=1869 ∑X 2 =134273 σ posttest = = 17.1 The computation above showed the variability among the scores; how they spread out from the central tendency. In finding or measuring the variability of the scores, the researcher used standard deviation as the most frequent used measured of variability Hatch and Farhady, 1982. The standard deviation of the pretest was 18.4 and the other was 17.1. It was obvious that the standard deviation of the pretest was higher than the standard deviation of the posttest. In other words, the scores in the pretest were more variable from the central point in the distribution than those in the posttest. Hatch and Farhady 1982 state that the larger the standard deviation, the more variability from the central point in the distribution. Meanwhile, the smaller the standard deviation, the closer the distribution is to the central point. It means that, the heterogeneity of the students’ pretest scores were higher than the students’ posttest scores. To summarize briefly, the comparison of descriptive statistic of the pretest and the posttest results was presented in the table below: Table 4.10 The Descriptive Statistic of Pretest and Posttest No Variable Sources Pretest Posttest 1 Mean 62.4 66.7 2 Mode 67 50; 67 3 Median 67 67 4 Standard Deviation 18.47 17.14 5 Maximum 90 100 6 Minimum 10 27 The typical score of the pretest and the posttest was described by finding the central tendency and the variability of the scores. The central tendency was used to talk about central point in the distribution of scores in the data. There are three measures of central tendency, namely mean arithmetic concept, mode most frequent obtained score, and median the score which at the center of distribution. The three measures can be seen in the first the numbers in the table. Having known the most typical score of the pretest and the posttest, the researcher measured the degree of variability of the data from the measure of central tendency through standard deviation the average variability of all the scores around the mean. Based on the table, there was not significant progress from the pretest and posttest.

6. Presentation of Hypothesis Testing

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the null hypothesis states that there is no difference between the variables or there is no significance difference between the mean for the pretest and the posttest, whereas the research hypothesis states that there is a relationship between the variables or the mean of the posttest is higher than that for the pretest. This study used the t-test for dependent sample since there was only one group in this study. The measure to be analyzed by the dependent t-test is the mean difference between the paired scores; the pretest and the posttest scores. The level of significance is set at 0.05; the detailed computation is presented in the table below: Table 4.11 The Hypothesis Testing Subject Number X Y D D 2 1 10 27 17 289 2 47 37 -10 100 3 47 62 15 225 4 55 67 12 144 5 67 67 0 0 6 67 85 18 324 7 52 60 8 64 8 50 47 -3 9 9 42 52 10 100 10 67 50 -17 289 11 75 77 2 4 12 75 67 -8 64 13 50 50 0 0 14 67 95 28 784 15 72 90 18 324 16 85 95 10 100 17 57 47 -10 100 18 55 67 12 144 19 75 80 5 25 Subject Number X Y D D 2 20 80 82 2 4 21 62 50 -12 144 22 90 100 10 100 23 72 80 8 64 24 80 85 5 25 25 77 60 -17 289 26 35 50 15 225 27 55 60 5 25 28 82 80 -2 4 N=28 ∑X=1748 ∑Y=1869 ∑ D = 121 ∑ D 2= 3969 X = the pretest scores Y = the posttest scores ∑ D = the difference of the pretest and the posttest scores Using t-test for dependent sample, the researcher found that the t-observed was 2.03. The detailed computation could be seen in appendix L p.132. As stated previously, the level significance is set at 0.5 with 28 cases. The number of degrees of freedom which was obtained from N-1, where n is the number of pairs of observation, is 27. Based on the appendix, it is found that the critical value with 27 degree of freedom is 2.052 to be significant at the 0.5 level of significant. However, from the computation, it was found that the t-observed statistic is 2.03. It means that the t-table was higher than the t-observed statistic. As a result, the null hypothesis was accepted and the research hypothesis was rejected. In other words, implementing self-questioning strategy is not statistically significant to improve the seventh grades learners’ reading comprehension at SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta. 74 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS This chapter presents the conclusion drawn from the findings discussed in Chapter IV and suggestion. The researcher divided this chapter into two parts. In the first part, the researcher presents the conclusion of this research which conveys the summary of the answers in this study. The second part proposes suggestions for the English teachers and other researchers as well.

A. Conclusion

There were two research problems defined in this study. The first research problem was how the implementation of self-questioning strategy in the English classroom of seventh grade learners in SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta and the second research problem was whether self-questioning strategy improves reading comprehension of the seventh grade learners in SMP Maria Immaculata Yogyakarta. Based on the findings discussed in Chapter 4, the conclusions are put forward. Firstly, related to the first research problem of this study, there were three steps done in implementing self-questioning strategy. They were pre-reading, while reading, and post-reading. In the pre-reading, after the researcher attracted the students’ interest on a certain topic by giving questions and answer section, which aims to evoke students’ background knowledge, the students were asked to make up questions in the provided space based on what they wanted to know from the reading