The Description of the Data

38 80 88 8 39 48 72 24 40 48 72 24 Sum 2548 3268 720 Mean 63.7 81.7 18 Max 48 72 8 Min 80 92 32 Table 4.2 showed some scores in pre-test and post-test of control class from 40 students. The sum pre-test score of control class was 2548 while the sum post-test score of control class was 3268. The mean pre-test score was 63.7 and the mean post-test score was 81.7. The lowest score in the pre-test was 48 and the highest score was 80 and the lowest post-test score was 72 and the highest post- test score was 96. 1 Result of Pre-test of Experimental class and Control Class The addition results from pre-test in class 8B as the experimental class of this research were presented in a table below: Table 4.3 Table of Data Statistics of Pre-test Result of Experimental class N Valid 40 Missing Median 60.00 Mode 56 Std. Deviation 14.906 Variance 222.195 Range 60 From table 4.3 above, it showed that the total students of experimental class were 40 students, median score was 60.00. The median was the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half. Next, mode score which was defined as the element that appears most frequently among the students’ score was 56. The set of scores constitute a population determined as variance score was 222.195, and standard deviation was 14.906. Standard deviation was a quantity calculated to indicate the extent of deviation for a group as a whole. The range score was 60. From table 4.3 above, it could be made a table of frequency distribution to show the frequencies of the distribution’s score of the students’ score which was presented as follows: Table 4.4 Table of Frequency Distribution of Pre-test Result of Experimental Class Score Frequency Percent 28 1 2.5 36 1 2.5 40 1 2.5 44 1 2.5 48 2 5.0 52 5 12.5 56 7 17.5 60 3 7.5 64 4 10.0 68 6 15.0 72 1 2.5 76 1 2.5 84 2 5.0 88 5 12.5 Total 40 100.0 From table 4.4 above, it described the frequencies and the percentage of each student’s score. The median or the most often appeared score that the students get was 56 with 7 students. Then, the second score that often appeared was 68 with 6 students. Next, the third score that often appeared was 56 and 88 with 5 students in each. The rest score was 64 with 4 students, 60 with 3 students, 48 and 84 with 2 students in each, and the last 28, 36, 40, 44, 72, and 76 with 1 student in each. The next addition result from pre-test in 8A as the control class of this research. The data description of the students’ score was presented as follow: Table 4.5 Table of Data Statistics of Pre-test Result of Control class N Valid 40 Missing Median 64.00 Mode 60 Std. Deviation 10.062 Variance 101.241 Range 32 Table 4.5 above showed that the total students of the control class were 40. Median score was 64.00 and mode score was 60. The variance score was 101.241 and the standard deviation was 10.062. The range score was 32. The table of frequency distribution from the data above was presented as follows: Table 4.6 Table of Frequency Distribution of Pre-test Result of Control Class Score Frequency Percent 48 4 10.0 52 4 10.0 56 5 12.5 60 6 15.0 64 4 10.0 68 5 12.5 72 4 10.0 76 4 10.0 80 4 10.0 Total 40 100.0 From table 4.6 above, it described the frequencies and the percentage of each student’s score. The median or the most often appeared score that the students got was 60 with 6 students. Then, the second score that often appeared was 56 and 68 with 5 students in each. Last, the third score that often appeared were 48, 52, 64, 72, 76, and 80 with 4 students in each. 2 The Result of Post-test of Experimental class and Control Class The addition results from post-test in class 8B as the experimental class of this research were presented in a table below: Table 4.7 Table of Data Statistics of Post-test Result of Experimental class N Valid 40 Missing Median 84.00 Mode 84 Std. Deviation 6.656 Variance 44.297 Range 20 Table 4.7 above showed the median post-test score from the total 40 students of the experimental class was 84.00. Mode score was 84. The standard deviation was 6.656 and the variance score was 44.297 and. Last, the range score was 20. The table of frequency distribution from the data above was presented as follows: Table 4.8 Table of Frequency Distribution of Post-test Result of Experimental Class Score Frequency Percent 76 7 17.5 80 7 17.5 84 10 25.0 88 6 15.0 92 4 10.0 96 6 15.0 Total 40 100.0 From table 4.8 above, it described the frequencies and the percentage of each student’s score. The median or the most often appeared score that the students got was 84 with 10 students. Then, the second score that often appeared was 76 and 80 with 7 students in each. Next, the third score that often appeared was 88 and 96 with 6 students in each. The last score that often appeared was 92 with 4 students. The next addition result was from post-test in 8A as the control class of this research. The data desc ription of the students’ score was presented as follow: Table 4.9 Table of Data Statistics of Post-test Result of Control class N Valid 40 Missing Median 82.00 Mode 84 Std. Deviation 6.398 Variance 40.933 Range 20 Table 4.9 above showed the median post-test score from the total 40 students of control class was 82.00, mode score was 84, the standard deviation was 6.398 and the variance score was 40.933. Last, the range was 20. The table of frequency distribution from the data above was presented as follows: Table 4.10 Table of Frequency Distribution of Post-test Result of Control Class Score Frequency Percent 72 6 15.0 76 7 17.5 80 7 17.5 84 8 20.0 88 8 20.0 92 4 10.0 Total 40 100.0 From table 4.10 above, it described the frequencies and the percentage of each student’s score. The median or the most often appeared score that the students got were 84 and 88 with 8 students in each. Then, the second score that often appeared were 76 and 80 with 7 students in each. Next, the third score that often appeared was 72 with 6 students. And the last score that often appeared was 92 with 4 students.

2. The Analysis of the Data

1 Data Normality Test

a. Pre-test Normality test

The normality test in this research used Kolmogorov-Smirnov technique in SPSS v.20 with criteria Asymp. Sig 2 tailed significance degree 0.05. The results of normality test of the data were presented as follows: Table 4.11 Normality Pre-test Results between Experimental Class and Control Class Class N Kolmogorov- Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. 2-tailed PRE-TEST Experiment 40 .813 .523 Control 40 .749 .628 From table 4.11, it could be seen that the significance of normality pre-test score in experimental class was 0.523. Meanwhile, the significance of normality pre-test score in control class was 0.628. According to the requirement that had been mentioned in chapter III, if the score of Asymp. Sig 2 tailed 0.05, the data did come from the normal population, but if the score of Asymp. Sig 2 tailed 0.05, the data did not come from normal population. So, it could be concluded that the Asymp. Sig 2 tailed scores in both class significance degree, 0.523 0.05 and 0.677 0.05. Therefore, it could be concluded that the data of pretest in experimental class and control class were normally distributed.

b. Post-test Normality Test

Table 4.12 Normality Post-test Results between Experimental Class and Control Class Class N Kolmogorov- Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. 2- tailed POSTTEST Experiment 40 1.048 .222 Control 40 .888 .410 From table 4.12, it could be seen that the significance of normality post- test score in experimental class was 0.222. Meanwhile, the significance of normality pre-test score in control class was 0.410. So, it could be concluded that the Asymp. Sig 2 tailed score in both class significance degree, 0.222 0.05 and 0.410 0.05. Therefore, it could be concluded that the data of post-test in experimental class and control class are normally distributed. 2 Data Homogeneity Test

a. Pre-test Homogeneity Test

After calculating normality test, the researcher calculated the homogeneity test in each class and each test. The homogeneity test in this research used Levene method in SPSS v.20 with criteria Asymp. Sig 2 tailed significance degree 0.05. The results of pre-test homogeneity test of the data were presented as follows: Table 4.13 Homogeneity Pre-test Results between Experimental Class and Control Class Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 3.798 1 78 .055 From table 4.13 it could be seen that the significance homogeneity of pre- test in experimental class and control class was 0.055. Therefore, it could be concluded that the distribution data of pre-test in experimental class and control class had similar variance because Asymp. Sig 2 tailed significance degree 0.05 = 0.055 0.05.

b. Post-test Homogeneity Test

The results of post-test homogeneity test of the data were presented as follows: Table 4.14 Homogeneity Post-test Results between Experimental Class and Control Class Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .001 1 78 .979 From table 4.14 it could be seen that the significance homogeneity of post- test in experimental class and control class was 0.979 and the significance degree was 0.05. Therefore, it could be concluded that the distribution data of post-test in experimental class and control class had similar variance because Asymp. Sig 2 tailed significance degree 0.05 = 0.979 0.05.

3 Hypothesis Test

The next calculation was testing the hypothesis by using t-test. This calculation was to get the answer of the formulation problem in this research, whether there was a significant different between students’ reading comprehension in experimental class which were given Question Generation Strategy and students’ reading comprehension in control class which were not. The researcher used Independent Sample t-test by SPSS. The criteria for hypothesis test were as follow: - If sig. 2-tailed of t-test 0.05, H null hypothesis is accepted, and H 1 alternative hypothesis is rejected. - If sig. 2-tailed of t-test 0.05, H null hypothesis is rejected, and H 1 alternative hypothesis is accepted. In this study, the researcher got the t-test calculation post-test score of both classes and from the gained score of both classes. The table 4.15 below showed the t-test calculation of post-test result between the experiment class which were given Question Generation Strategy in reading class and the control class which were not by using Independent sample t- test. Table 4.15 T-test Result of Post-test Independent Samples Test Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. T Df Sig. 2- tailed Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95 Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper POST-TEST Experimental- Control Class Equal variances assumed .001 .979 2.329 78 .022 3.400 1.460 .494 6.306 Equal variances not assumed 2.329 77.879 .022 3.400 1.460 .494 6.306 From the table 4.15, it presented that Sig. 2-tailed was 0.022. From the criteria above, if sig. 2-tailed of t-test 0.05, then 0.022 0.05, it meant that H 1 was accepted and H was rejected. Therefore, it could be concluded that there was a difference between students’ achievement in reading comprehension of narrative text between experimental class and control class. In order to get a more complete data, the writer also did a t-test that calculated the gained score posttest score – pretest score using Independent sample t-test. Table 4.16 T-test Result of Gained Score Independent Samples Test Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. T df Sig. 2- tailed Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95 Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper GAINED SCORE Equal variances assumed 10.20 1 .002 2.567 78 .012 5.175 2.016 1.162 9.188 Equal variances not assumed 2.567 60.618 .013 5.175 2.016 1.144 9.206 From the table 4.16, it presented that Sig. 2-tailed was 0.012. From the criteria above, if sig. 2-tailed of t-test 0.05, then 0.012 0.05, it meant that H 1 was accepted and H was rejected. Therefore, it could be concluded from the t-test calculation of gained score in experimental class and control class that there was also a difference between students’ achievement in reading comprehension of narrative text between experimental class and control class. The hypothesis in this study is: H : There is no effect of using Question Generation Strategy on the students’ reading comprehension of narrative text.