Table 4.8 Students’ Gained Scores
No. PRETEST
X POSTTEST
X D
D-D D-D ²
1 78
76 -2
-5.95 35.40
2 62.5
85.5 23
19.05 362.90
3 80
85.5 5.5
1.55 2.40
4 69.5
83 13.5
9.55 91.20
5 75
72.5 -2.5
-6.45 41.60
6 83
76 -7
-10.95 119.90
7 64.5
70.5 6
2.05 4.20
8 77
72.5 -4.5
-8.45 71.40
9 69.5
82 12.5
8.55 73.10
10 75
76.5 1.5
-2.45 6.00
11 68
77 9
5.05 25.50
12 77
74.5 -2.5
-6.45 41.60
13 82.5
88 5.5
1.55 2.40
14 82
78 -4
-7.95 63.20
15 84.5
84.5 -3.95
15.60 16
60 70.5
10.5 6.55
42.90 17
81.5 84
2.5 -1.45
2.10 18
87 90.5
3.5 -0.45
0.20 19
69.5 76.5
7 3.05
9.30 20
63.5 66
2.5 -1.45
2.10 21
73 71.5
-1.5 -5.45
29.70 22
73 88.5
15.5 11.55
133.40 23
72.5 79
6.5 2.55
6.50 24
66 77
11 7.05
49.70 25
57 60
3 -0.95
0.90 26
64 65.5
1.5 -2.45
6.00 27
70 71
1 -2.95
8.70 28
70.5 70.5
-3.95 15.60
29 65
67.5 2.5
-1.45 2.10
30 79
80.5 1.5
-2.45 6.00
31 75
74.5 -0.5
-4.45 19.80
32 73.5
76.5 3
-0.95 0.90
33 76
79.5 3.5
-0.45 0.20
34 72.5
75 2.5
-1.45 2.10
35 70.5
74 3.5
-0.45 0.20
36 61
68.5 7.5
3.55 12.60
37 61
66.5 5.5
1.55 2.40
2669 2815
146 -0.15
1309.89
D= 146 ̅
= 3.95 S
D
= √
̅
S
D
= √
= √
= 6.031 S
D
=
√
S
D
=
√
= 0.99 t =
t = = 3.989
The degree of freedom of the hypothesis used is n1-2=35 with the significance degree 0.05 or 5. According to the significance degree and degree freedom
described the T
table
value 1.690. H
o:
T
value
1.690 H
1:
T
value
1.690 Based on the data gained T
value
3.989 is higher than T
table.
It means that H
1
is accepted thatthere is a positive effect of using
blog to enhance students’ writing skill in narrative text.
t = S
D
=
√
S
D
= √
̅
From the calculation above can be concluded that mean of posttest first scorer is 76.38 and the second scorer 75.78. The difference of posttest statistic result
significantly showed from t statistic 2.160 greater from t table 5 = 1.688.
The statistical hypotheses of this research are:
a. H Null hypothesis: There is no effectiveness of blog on
students’ writing of narrative text at tenth year of SMAN 3 Tangerang Selatan.
b. Ha Alternative hypothesis: There is effectiveness of blog on students’
writing of narrative text at tenth year of SMAN 3 Tangerang Selatan.
The criteria used as follows: a. If
t t
t
in significant degree of 0.05, H the null
hypothesis is rejected. b. If
t t
t
in significant degree of 0.05, H the null
hypothesis is accepted.
c. To answer the statistical hypothesis that whether there is effectiveness of blog on
students’ writing of narrative text at tenth year of SMAN 3 Tangerang Selatan the researcher used t-test formula in
the significance degree α of 5. The result showed that t
test
t
o
t
table
t
t
or 0.59 1.67.
C. Data Interpretation
In data description above the data was taken from 37 students in a group of pretest and postest study. Table 4.1 and 4.2 presented the pretest mean score by
first scorer achieved was 72. 432. Moreover, the students’ lowest score achieved
was 57 and the maximum one was 88. In addition, the standard deviation showed 57.086 and the variance pointed 57.086. After treatment, the mean score achieved
was 76.378. It pointed that the means score of postest was higher that pretest. The students’ lowest score of postest achieved was 60 and the maximum one was 91.
In addition, the data showed that the standard deviation pointed 7.2509 and the variance was 52.575. In the appendix the data showed
the detailed scored that students achieved during pretest and postest according to first scorer. The
calculation of frequency distribution, mean, range, variance, and standard deviation of pretest and postest rated by the second scorer showed in table 4.5 and
4.6. The pretest score achieved was 71.838.
Moreover, the students’ lowest score
achieved was 57 and the maximum one was 86. In addition, the standard deviation showed
71.838 and the variance pointed 64.973. After treatment given, the mean score achieved was 75.784. It showed that the means score of posttest scored by
the second scorer was higher that pretest. The students’ lowest score of posttest achieved was 60 and the maximum one was 90. The data showed that the standard
deviation pointed 7.0480 and the variance was 49.674. The distribution of pretest
and postest of second scorer is presented in the following table. The next table presented the distribution of feedback by first group of pretest.
There were 12 elaborated feedbacks and 5 basic feedbacks provided among first group students in pretest. The next table is pointed the distribution of feedback
presented by second group of pretest. 9 elaborated feedbacks and 12 basic feedbacks presented among second group of students. Students exclude group
presented 4 elaborated feedbacks in that group. In the third group showed in the following table there were 12 elaborated feedbacks and 5 basic feedbacks within
group. 3 elaborated feedback and 1 basic feedback presented by students excluded group. The next table presented students within group who provided 12 elaborated
feedbacks and 6 basic feedbacks. In addition, 5 elaborated feedbacks and 2 basic feedbacks are presented by excluded students group. The table 4.13 was fifth
group which provided 12 elaborated feedbacks and 11 basic feedbacks within group. Besides, only 1 elaborated feedback and 1 basic feedback provided by
students excluded group. The following table showed 10 elaborated feedbacks and 4 basic feedbacks by the sixth group. There were no elaborated feedback or basic
feedback excluded group. The next table presented 2 elaborated feedbacks and 5 basic feedbacks from seventh group. There were no elaborated feedback or basic
feedback provided excluded group. The following table presented 5 elaborated feedbacks and 6 feedbacks within group and 2 elaborated feedback and 2 basic
feedbacks from excluded group. The ninth group distribution feedback presented in the next table. There were 6 elaborated feedbacks and 5 basic feedbacks. In
contrast, there were only 2 elaborated feedback provided by excluded group. The following table showed 12 elaborated feedbacks and 3 basic feedbacks. There was
only 1 feedback provided by excluded group.
