The effectiveness of deductive approach and inductive approach in teaching simple present tense to the sixth graders of Aisyiyah full day elementary school : a comparative study.

(1)

Ariesty, Ghina Rindiani. 2016. The Effectiveness of Deductive Approach and Inductive Approach in Teaching Grammar to The Sixth Graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School: a Comparative Study. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

There are two different approaches that can be used to teach grammar which are deductive approach and inductive approach. The teachers should be able to select an effective approach to help the teachers teaching the intended lesson, especially for the young learners. Therefore, at the end of the lesson, the

students’ understanding about the lesson improved because of the use of the effective approach.

In this research, the researcher compared the use of deductive approach and inductive approach to teach simple present tense. First, the researcher investigated whether the inductive approach was more effective than the deductive approach. Second, the researcher investigated how the inductive approach improves students’ proficiency in simple present tense.

There were two groups which were involved in this research. They were Deductive Approach group and Inductive Approach group. These two groups were taught by different approaches. These two groups received the same materials and the same tests. The result of post-test minus pre-test (gain) was compared.

approach group’s gain score was 20.25 and the deductive approach group’s gain

score was 19.47. The researcher also used independent sample t-test to check whether the inductive approach was more effective than the deductive approach to teach simple present tense. The result showed that the obtained value of the t was -0.165. It was less than the given value which was 1.7016. It meant that the inductive approach was better than deductive approach to teach simple present tense. The researcher calculated the p-value in order to find out whether the data were significant or not. The result showed that the p-value was .043. It was less than the significant level of .05. It meant that the data were significant. From the results, the researcher concluded that the inductive approach was more effective than the deductive approach to teach simple present tense to the sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School.

Therefore, there are two suggestions from the researcher. First suggestion is that the researcher recommends the teacher to implement inductive approach to teach grammar. The inductive approach is more effective than the deductive approach to teach grammar. Second suggestion is that the teacher should have a good control toward the students to implement inductive approach. Therefore, the students can understand the materials better.

(2)

Ariesty, Ghina Rindiani. 2016. The Effectiveness of Deductive Approach and Inductive Approach in Teaching Grammar to The Sixth Graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School : Comparative Study. Yogyakarta : Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Ada dua pendekatan berbeda yang dapat digunakan untuk mengajar tata bahasa, yaitu pendekatan deduktif dan pendekatan induktif. Guru dapat memilih pendekatan yang efektif dan sesuai dengan level belajar siswa untuk mengajarkan materi tata bahasa. Sehingga pemahaman siswa tentang tata bahasa dapat ditingkatkan dengan penggunaan pendekatan yang efektif.

Dalam penelitian ini, peneliti membandingkan penggunaan pendekatan deduktif dengan pendekatan induktif untuk mengajar simple present tense. Pertama, peneliti menyelidiki apakah pendekatan induktif lebih efektif dari pedekatan deduktif . Kedua, peneliti menyelidiki bagaimana pendekatan induktif meningkatkan pemahaman siswa dalam simple present tense.

Ada dua kelompok yang terlibat dalam penelitian ini, kelompok pendekatan deduktif dan kelompok pendekatan induktif. Kedua kelompok tersebut belajar dengan menggunakan pendekatan yang berbeda. Kedua kelompok tersebut mendapatkan materi ajar dan beberapa tes yang sama. Hasil dari nilai post-test dikurangi pre-test (peningkatan) kemudian dibandingkan.

Setelah diberikan perlakuan yang berbeda, peneliti membandingkan nilai peningkatan rata-rata dari kedua kelompok tersebut. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa kelompok pendekatan induktif memiliki nilai rata-rata peningkatan lebih tinggi dari kelompok pendekatan deduktif. Nilai rata-rata peningkatan kelompok pendekatan induktif adalah 20.25 dan nilai rata-rata peningkatan kelompok pendekatan deduktif adalah 19.47. Peneliti juga menggunakan independent sample t-test untuk mengetahui apakah pendekatan induktif lebih efektif dari pendekatan deduktif untuk mengajar simple present tense. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa nilai t yang didapat adalah -0.165. Nilai ini lebih kecil dari nilai t table yaitu 1.687. Peneliti menghitung nilai p dengan tujuan untuk mencari tahu apakah data yang didapat signifikan. Hasilnya menunjukan bahwa nilai p yang didapat adalah 0.043. Nilai tersebut lebih kecil dari nilai pada level signifikan 0.05. Hal tersebut menunjukkan bahwa data yang didapat signifikan. Dari hasil tersebut, peneliti menyimpulkan bahwa pendekatan induktif lebih efektif dari pendekatan deduktif untuk mengajar simple present tense pada siswa kelas enam di SD Aisyiyah Full Day.

Berdasarkan kesimpulan diatas, dua saran diberikan. Pertama, peneliti menyarankan para guru untuk mempertimbangkan faktor level belajar siswa dan jenis materi dalam pemilihan pendekatan yang digunakan. Saran kedua adalah para guru harus memiliki control yang baik terhadap para siswa untuk mengimplementasikan pendekatan induktif. Sehingga, para siswa dapat memahami materi dengan lebih baik.

(3)

INDUCTIVE APPROACH IN TEACHING SIMPLE PRESENT

TENSE TO THE SIXTH GRADERS OF AISYIYAH FULL DAY

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

Ghina Rindiani Ariesty Student Number: 111214100

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

(4)

INDUCTIVE APPROACH IN TEACHING SIMPLE PRESENT

TENSE TO THE SIXTH GRADERS OF AISYIYAH FULL DAY

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

Ghina Rindiani Ariesty Student Number: 111214100

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2016

(5)

(6)

(7)

“ Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear.”

Qur’an 2:286

This thesis is dedicated to: Mama Meirina Prasasti Alm. Abah Dian Wijayanto Alm. Yangkung Sutaryo & Almh. Yangti Sri Wartani Alm. Yangkung & Yangti Soepriyadi Pakdhe Ismuji Raharjo & Budhe Habsari Ratih

(8)

(9)

(10)

vii

After giving different treatments, the researcher compared the average gain score from both groups. The result showed that the inductive approach group had higher average gain score than the deductive approach group. The inductive approach group’s gain score was 20.25 and the deductive approach group’s gain score was 19.47. The researcher also used independent sample t-test to check whether the inductive approach was more effective than the deductive approach to teach simple present tense. The result showed that the obtained value of the t was -0.165. It was less than the given value which was 1.7016. It meant that the inductive approach was better than deductive approach to teach simple present tense. The researcher calculated the p-value in order to find out whether the data were significant or not. The result showed that the p-value was .043. It was less than the significant level of .05. It meant that the data were significant. From the results, the researcher concluded that the inductive approach was more effective than the deductive approach to teach simple present tense to the sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School.

(11)

viii

(12)

I would like to say my gratitude to Allah SWT who always gives me His blessing to my life. Therefre, I can finish writing my thesis. However, I would like to say thank to everyone who had helped me in finishing my thesis.

First of all, I would like to thank Drs. Pius Nurwidasa Prihatin, M.Ed.,

Ed.D. as my major sponsor. I would never finish this thesis without his help and

guidance. He also motivated me in many ways, so that I did not give up in this thesis.

I am indebted to the head master of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School,

Mr. Hartono for giving me permission to do my research at the school. I would

also like to say thank to Ustadzah Widi as the English teacher. Her suggestions and helps were a big help for me.

My sincere gratitude goes to my parents, Alm. Dian Wijoyanto and

Meirina Prasasti. I would like to thank my parents for being patient and

supportive. They always pray for my success and happiness. I would love to thank my big family for their support. They are Budhe Habsari Ratih, Pakdhe

Ismuji Raharjo, Abi, Ramza, Fajar Safitri, M. Rahadi, Yangkung & Yangti Taryo, Yangti Prie, Pakdhe Hendri. They always become my mood booster and

motivation in finishing this thesis.

Thanks to all my best friends in “Menuju April Bertoga” group, Agnes Mega Oktaviana Dewi, Ayu Wulan Kinanti, Bagas Rahardjo Ranggen, who

share happiness and sorrow together. I would like to thank them for being such a good friend. I love them all.

I would love to thank my best dude, Reza, for being a good listener and motivator. I am grateful to him that he is always being sarcastic and supportive. I am grateful that he lets me know that I can do anything.

(13)

Derry, Ando, Yosia, Bram, Irest, Shinta, and Cindy. I would also like to thank

them for being my competitors in finishing thesis. I would like to thank Mbak

Febby and Dennis Meilky La’lang as my proof reader and statistic teacher. Without their help, I would never finish this thesis. I would love to thank my besties, Devia, Fitria and Tia, who always ask and support my thesis.

I would like to thank everyone who had helped me in finishing my thesis. I cannot mention all of their names. Without their help, I will not be in this state.

(14)

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGES ... ii

DEDICATION PAGE ... iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... v

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... vi

ABSTRACT ... vii

ABSTRAK ... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... xi

LIST OF TABLES ... xiii

LIST OF CHARTS ... xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 A. Research Background ... 1

B. Problem Formulation ... 3

C. Problem Limitation ... 3

D. Research Objectives ... 4

E. Research Benefits ... 4

F. Definitions of Terms ... 5

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 7 A. Previous Studies ... 7

B. Theoretical Description: Approaches in Teaching Grammar ... 10

1. Deductive Approach ... 11

2. Inductive Approach ... 14

(15)

xii

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 20

A. Research Method ... 20

B. Variables ... 22

C. Variability ... 23

D. Homogeneity ... 25

E. Research Participants ... 25

F. Setting ... 26

G. Research Instruments ... 26

H. Reliability ... 29

I. Treatments ... 30

J. Data Analysis Technique ... 30

K. Hypothesis ... 32

L. Research Procedures ... 33

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 35 A. The Data of The Test Result ... 35

B. Analysis Result and Hypothesis Testing ... 43

C. Discussion ... 47

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 49 A. Conclusions ... 49

B. Suggestions ... 50

REFERENCES ... 51

(16)

xiii

Table 1. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Deductive Approach in

Teaching Grammar ... 12

Table 2. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Inductive Approach in Teaching Grammar ... 16

Table 3. The Range Score of Both Deductive Approach Group and Inductive Approach Group’s Pre-test and Post-test ... 24

Table 4. The Test of Homogeneity of Variances’ Result ... 25

Table 5. The Distribution of Test Items ... 28

Table 6. Pre-test and Post-test Score of Deductive Group’s Students ... 36

Table 7. Pre-test and Post-test Score of Inductive Group’s Students ... 37

Table 8. The Result and Frequency Distribution of Pre-test and Post-test from Deductive Approach and Inductive Approach Group ... 38

Table 9. The Total Gain Score from Deductive Approach and Inductive Approach Group ... 44

(17)

xiv

Chart 1. Frequency Distribution of Pre-test Score from Deductive

Approach Group ... 39 Chart 2. Frequency Distribution of Pre-test Score from Inductive

Approach Group ... 40 Chart 3. Frequency Distribution of Post-test Score from Deductive

Approach Group ... 41 Chart 4. Frequency Distribution of Post-test Score from Inductive

Approach Group ... 42 Chart 5. The Gain Score of Deductive Approach Group and Inductive

(18)

Appendix A. Permission Letter ... 56

Appendix B. Lesson Plan of Deductive Approach Group ... 58

Appendix C. Lesson Plan of Inductive Approach Group ... 62

Appendix D. Materials from Students’ Book ... 67

Appendix E. The Pre-Test and The Answer Key ... 74

Appendix F. The Post-Test and The Answer Key ... 79

Appendix G. The Calculation of Reliability ... 84

(19)

INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of the background of the study, problem formulation, problem limitation, objectives of the research, benefits of the research, and definition of terms.

A. Research Background

Students need to learn grammar in order to understand English as foreign language. Grammar has its own superiority in language learning, especially in English as a foreign language (Widodo, 2006). It is important for having good knowledge about grammar in order to develop the learners’ ability in English. For the learners, grammatical rules enable them to know and apply how certain sentence patterns should be put together (Ur, 1999). In learning grammar, the learners should be able to understand the language structure, meaning and use. Moreover, grammar is important because it leads the learners to master the English skills like speaking, listening, reading, and writing.

The sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Ementary School learn English as one of their subjects. One of the grammar materials that is given for the sixth grade of elementary school is simple present tense. By learning simple present tense, the learners will understand the sentence structure, meaning, and the use of this tense.

(20)

deductive and the inductive approaches (Larsen-Freeman, 2001). Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. Many teachers usually use deductive approach because it presents the knowledge directly.

The researcher found that the grammar materials in the students’ book are presented deductively. The structure, meaning, and the use of simple present tense are explained completely. There are also some tasks about simple present tense. However, many specialists agree that inductive approach is more appropriate than deductive approach for ESL/EFL learners, especially for young learners. Therefore, this study focused on comparing two different approaches in teaching grammar, which were deductive approach and inductive approach. Those approaches were implemented in the sixth grade of Aisiyah Full Day Elementary School in Klaten.

Khan (2007) conducted a research about implementing deductive approach and inductive approach in Bangladesh. The result was that the inductive approach became more effective to teach young learners in Bangladesh. Another research from Shaffer (1989) that was conducted in Princeton. Shaffer (1989) observed the implementation of both approaches to teach grammar. The result was that inductive approach was better to teach certain grammar materials. Based on those researches, the researcher wanted to find out which approach was more effective to teach simple present tense to sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School.

(21)

In this research, the researcher intends to find the answers of these problems:

1. Is inductive approach more effective than deductive approach to teach simple present tense for sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School? 2. How does the use of inductive approach improve students’ mastery in simple

present tense?

C. Problem Limitation

This research was conducted in the sixth grade of Aisyiyah Full Day elementary school in Klaten. There were two classes that were used as the population. There were 19 students in Tholhah class and 20 students in Hamzah class. Based on the problems, the researcher focused on comparing the effectiveness of two approaches in teaching grammar. They were deductive approach and inductive approach. In order to find out the better approach to teach grammar and improve students’ grammar mastery, the researcher used quasi experimental method to conduct this study. The researcher used pre-test and post-test to gather the data. There were 19 post-test items in the post-test. All of the post-test items were about simple present tense. Moreover, the researcher also discussed about the advantages and limitation of the approaches.

(22)

This research focused on finding out which approach is more effective to teach simple present tense to the sixth grade of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School students in Klaten. Deductive approach and inductive approach were the approaches that were compared on this research. This research also discussed about how the inductive approach improves students’ mastery in simple present tense.

E. Research Benefits

There are some benefits of the research that are related to the use of deductive approach and inductive approach in teaching simple present tense to the sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School.

1. Students

The sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School can learn English grammar in two different approaches that can help them to master grammar effectively. The choice of suitable approach can help the students understanding the materials better.

2. Teachers

The result of this research can be the consideration for the teachers to use the approaches in teaching learning activity. The English teacher can also find out which approach that can be used in teaching grammar effectively.

3. Future teacher

The future teacher can use this research as the additional information to enhance their knowledge in teaching grammar. This research can also be a good

(23)

any research about teaching grammar and deductive-inductive approach. 4. Future researcher

In the future, this research can be an additional information or reference for the similar or the same topic. This research can help future researcher to do the better research about the use of deductive approach and inductive approach in teaching grammar.

F. Definition of Terms

1. Deductive Approach

Deductive approach is an approach where rules of a grammar aspect are presented clearly and followed by the practice of applying the rules (Richards, Platt and Platt ;1992). In addition, Decoo (1996) states that the actual deduction teaching is when the grammatical rule or pattern is explicitly stated at the beginning of the learning process and the students move into the applications of the rule (examples and exercises).

2. Inductive Approach

Decoo (1996) describes conscious inductive teaching as guided discovery. The students first encounter various examples, often sentences, or texts. Then, the conscious discovery of the grammar is directed by the teacher. The teacher normally asks some key-questions to help the students discovering and formulating the rule.

(24)

The word “Effectiveness” means having the quality of being effective (Webster, 1983). This term refers to the ability of certain activities to hit the targeted goal or aim. The effectiveness is measured from the result that the students get from pre-test and post-test. The term “effective” means having an effect or able to bring about the result intended (Yolageldili & Arikan, 2011). In the researcher’s interpretation, the term “effectiveness” can be seen from the gain score of pre-test and post-test.

4. Grammar

Richards et al (1985) as cited in Nunan (2003) states that grammar refers to the structure of a language and the way about how to compare sentences by combining appropriate words and phrase. In this research, the researcher focuses on simple present tense. Simple present tense is one of the grammar materials at the sixth grade of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School.

5. Students of Sixth Grade in Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School

The researcher observed the sixth grade’s students in Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School. There are two classes of sixth grade. They are Tholhah class and Hamzah class. There are 19 students in Tholhah class and 20 students in Hamzah class. The students are about 10 to 12 years old. Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School is located in Pandes village, Wedi, Klaten. It is Islamic elementary school in Klaten.

(25)

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter focuses on the discussion of the theories that are used as the foundation in this research. There are three types of discussion. They are theoretical description, theoretical framework and hypothesis.

Theoretical description discusses the important concepts that are related to the research in Aisiyah Full Day elementary school. The theoretical frameworks discuss about the frameworks based on the review of literature review that supports this research. The hypothesis section discusses about the hypothesis in the research.

A. Previous Studies

Earlier research pointed out that young learners have a limited ability to make grammatically judgements (Ellis, 1991). In addition, young learners also make fewer syntactic repairs than adults, but make more semantic repairs than adults do. Ellis (2002) states that grammar teaching should not be directed at beginners. It is shown that inductive approach is better to teach grammar for young learners.

The most important thing about inductive grammar teaching is the explanations of the rules are not given until the students have practiced a grammar item in a variety of context and have acquired a perception of the analogies involved (Khan, 2007). Therefore, a major shift occurred in the

(26)

emphasis of skill, from reading and writing to speaking. This method focuses on the notions and functions rather than the grammar structure. It is communicative language teaching method. The goal of this method is to create a realistic context for language acquisition in the classroom. Communicative language teaching method focuses on the communication skills which are taught by doing group and pair activities, language games, role-plays, etc. However, it is the responsibility of the teacher to organize the classroom as a setting for communicative activities. One of the examples is the teacher monitoring, encouraging and suppressing the inclination to supply gaps in lexis, grammar, and strategy during the group activity. In conclusion of group activities, the teacher leads assisting groups in self-correction discussion (Richards and Rodgers, 1986). In this research, the researcher used this method to teach grammar in inductive approach group.

There are some researches that also discussed about deductive approach and inductive approach. Shaffer (1989) observed the implementation of both deductive approach and inductive approach toward students from Princeton. The research was aimed to find whether those approaches affected the students’ performances in understanding grammar. The students were given some tests. The tests consisted of some questions about grammatical rule, including the types of tenses and the vocabularies. These tests were used to observe students’ comprehension toward English grammar. Based on the result, Shaffer concluded that inductive approach should not be used to teach difficult concept. However, when inductive approach was used to teach simple grammar material, it would influence students’ understanding about grammar effectively.

(27)

Another research is from Herron & Tomasello (1992) that also compared the effectiveness of deductive approach and inductive approach toward students from French. In the deduction condition, the teacher began the lesson by pointing to a sentence on the board that exemplified the grammar rule. Then, the teacher started reading the sentence aloud and gave brief explanation. After that, the teacher drilled the students and used flash card too. Meanwhile, in inductive condition, the teacher started the lesson by introducing the topic of the lesson. The teacher also drilled the students orally. Then, the teacher directed students’ attention to the sentence in the board and asked them to fill in the blanks orally in a group. The result from the research was that the inductive approach was superior to the deductive approach for the teaching of certain grammatical structures. The effect was particularly strong in the immediate written test where the target structures were learned better in the inductive approach condition.

Khan (2007) observed the implementation of deductive approach and inductive approach in Bangladesh. The samples were the elementary school’s students. In Khan’s research, Khan concluded that in many teachers of ESL classes in Bangladesh taught grammar deductively. The teacher gave some grammar rules and the students memorized those rules. This method might ensure good grades in examination. However, when the students are asked to apply grammar items in real life context, they face great problems. If the teachers avoid the traditional rule-giving of teaching and teach grammar inductively, it makes the grammar teaching effective. Khan suggested avoiding rule-giving teaching or deductive approach in teaching grammar.

(28)

B. Theoretical Description: Approaches in Teaching Grammar

Theoretical description part presents the theory that the researcher used in this research. The theory is about the approaches in teaching grammar. They are deductive approach and inductive approach.

There are two main opposing approaches to formal grammar teaching: the deductive and the inductive approaches. In the former, the students were given the rule. After that, they applied it to examples. In inductive approach, the students learn the grammar rule by generalizing the rule from a set of examples (Larsen-Freeman, 2001). There are arguments that are related to deductive and inductive approaches. Thornbury (1999) says that one of the advantages of the deductive approach is that it saves time and gets straight to the point. However, Thornbury (1999) also states that teaching grammar rule by starting the lesson with a grammar presentation is not suitable for the younger learners.

On the other hand, Bourke (1996) believes that the deductive approach tends to focus on form rather than meaning. Deductive approach also encourages passiveness rather than activeness in terms of learners’ involvement in the learning process.

Ellis (1997) states that allowing the learners to take responsibility for discovering the underlying patterns of the target language affects retention. This is supported by Nunan (2005) who states that when the learners discover the grammar rule by themselves, the grammar rules will be more meaningful and memorable. Furthermore, the active involvement of learners in the learning

(29)

process is more likely to increase their attentiveness and motivation (Thornbury, 1999).

Deductive approach is still being used as the approach in teaching grammar, especially for young learners. The researcher also found it in Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School. The materials on the students’ book are still presented deductively. However, Ellis (1997), Nunan (2005) and Thornbury (1999) say that inductive approach is better to teach grammar, especially for young learners.

1. Deductive Approach

Deductive approach is also called rule-driven learning. There are many course books and grammar books that still use deductive approach (Fortune, 1992). In the deductive approach, a teacher teaches grammar by presenting grammatical rules. After that, the teacher gives some examples. If the learners have understood the rule, the teacher asks the learners to apply the rule and make some sentences.

Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School still uses deductive approach to teach grammar. Implementing deductive approach to teach grammar is considered simpler an easier. The students can learn grammar directly by learning what the teacher teaches to them or what the books presents. However, there are disadvantages of deductive approach. One of the disadvantages is that deductive approach makes the students cannot be active in teaching-learning activity.

(30)

There are more advantages and disadvantages of deductive approach. Widodo (2006) explaines about the advantages and disadvantages of deductive approach in Table 1.

Table 1. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Deductive Approach

Advantages 1. The deductive approach goes straightforwardly to the point and can be time-saving.

2. A number of rule aspects (for example, form) can be more simply and clearly explained than elicited from examples

3. A number of direct practice/application examples are immediately given.

4. The deductive approach respects the intelligence and maturity of many adult learners in particular and acknowledges the role of cognitive processes in language acquisition.

5. It confirms many learners’ expectations about classroom learning particularly for those who have an analytical style.

Disadvantages 1. Beginning the lesson with a grammar presentation may be off-putting for some learners, especially younger learners.

2. Younger learners may not be able to understand the concepts or encounter grammar terminology given. 3. Grammar explanation encourages a teacher-fronted

or transmission-style classroom. So, it will hinder learner involvement and interaction immediately. 4. The explanation is seldom as memorable as other

forms of presentation (for example, demonstration). 5. The deductive approach encourages the belief that learning a language is simply a case of knowing the rule.

Thornbury (1999) states that one of the advantages of the deductive approach is that it saves time. It gets straight to the point. However, Thornbury declares that teaching grammar rule by starting the lesson with a grammar

(31)

presentation is not suitable for the younger learners. On the other hand, Bourke (1996), believes that the deductive approach tends to focus on form over meaning, and encourages passiveness rather than activeness in terms of learners’ involvement in the learning process.

There is a method that uses deductive approach. It is grammar translation method (GTM). The teacher teaches English grammar by presenting the detailed analysis of the grammar rules. Then, the students apply the rules to the task of translating sentences and texts. Grammar is taught by presenting the grammar rules and practicing the rules through translation (Khan, 2007). Therefore, the researcher used grammar translation method to teach simple present tense in deductive approach group.

There are some activities in practicing grammar deductively. There are drillings, doing dialogues, and doing role plays. However, drilling is the activity that most teachers do in teaching deductively (Matthews, Spratt, and Dangerfield, 1991). Drills can be useful as teaching-learning material. This helps to build confidence and automatic use of structures and expressions that have been drilled (Spratt, 1991). Drills can give the students a chance to articulate the new language fluently. Spratt (1991) states that drilling is a suitable learning style for those who learn well through memorization and repetition.

Dialogues are popular activity in learning grammar (Wood, 2002). It is because of 4 reasons. First reason is that dialogues demonstrate grammar in context. The teacher can use dialogues to introduce and practice a function, structure, or vocabulary. The second reason is that dialogues facilitate

(32)

conversation. The teacher can give specific language practice to the students. The third reason is that dialogues provide recreation such a skit. Dialogues provide spontaneous use of learners’ knowledge (Wood, 2002).

Role play is for practicing structures (Doff, 1990). Role play is less controlled practice. Therefore, students may not use the target structures as much as the teacher would like. However, role play is considered as the opportunity for students to practice a range of speaking and listening skill (Doff, 1990). So, there are so many activities that can be used in practicing grammar deductively. Some activities are good for improving certain skills. The teacher may choose the suitable activities based on the materials and the type of students (Doff, 1990).

2. Inductive Approach

Learning English by using inductive approach is a learning process that starts from particular aspects to the general (Felder & Henriques, 1995). One type of inductive grammar teaching involves consciousness-raising, sometimes known as CR. Rutherford (1987) says that consciousness-raising is task-oriented. The learner is actively engaged in solving problems (cited in Butler-Tanaka, 1998). It focuses on aspects of grammar without necessarily using explicit rules. Instead of presenting the rules and principles directly, it helps the learners to discover the rules by themselves (Butler-Tanaka, 1998).

Nunan (2005) suggests some vital principles for teaching grammar to beginning learners. The first suggestion is that the learning activities and materials should be manageable in a way that simplifies the grammar for beginning

(33)

learners. Therefore, Nunan (2005) suggested implementing consciousness-raising activities. The activities help them to notice patterns that can be developed over time. The second suggestion is emphasizing inductive over deductive teaching because of the lack of linguistic ability to comprehend grammatical explanations at the beginning stages.

In fact, Ellis (1996), Nunan (2005) and Thornbury (1999) agree that inductive approach is better to be implied in teaching grammar, especially for young learners. They believe that the students can learn grammar deeper. Moreover, the students can also be more active in teaching learning activity. That was considered as the advantage of inductive approach. However, inductive approach also has disadvantages. One of the disadvantages is that the inductive approach is time and energy-consuming. Widodo (2006) also explains about the advantages and disadvantages of inductive approach that are explained in Table 2 on the next page.

According to Brown (1999), teacher should provide various learning activities. The activities should not require students to think very hard. Otherwise, they would reject the activities (Brown, 1999). When young students learn what they are curious about, they go faster, cover more territory than we would everything of (Faw, 1980). It is like the inductive approach. The students learnt grammar through activities and let them understand the materials without explain it explicitly. The following table explains about the advantages and disadvantages of inductive approach.

(34)

Table 2. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Inductive Approach

Advantages 1. Learners are trained to be familiar with the rule discovery; this could enhance learning autonomy and self-reliance.

2. Learners’ greater degree of cognitive depth is “exploited”.

3. The learners are more active in the learning process, rather than being simply passive recipients. In this activity, they will be motivated to learn English.

4. The approach involves learners’ pattern

-recognition and problem solving abilities in which particular learners are interested in this challenge. 5. If the problem-solving activity is done

collaboratively, learners get an opportunity for extra language practice.

Disadvantages 1. The approach is time and energy-consuming as it leads learners to have the appropriate concept of the rule.

2. The concepts given implicitly may lead the learners to have the wrong concepts of the rule that is taught.

3. The approach can place emphasis on teachers in planning a lesson.

4. It encourages the teacher to design data or materials that will be taught carefully and systematically.

5. The approach may frustrate the learners with the students’ personal learning style, or their past learning experience.

Grammar is an area of knowledge that linguists and language teachers study (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). It is more helpful to think about grammar as a skill rather than as an area of knowledge. This underscores the importance of developing students’ ability to do something. So, the students are not only storing knowledge about the language or its use, but also using it in real life. Therefore, teachers are expected to be able to teach grammatical knowledge and the use of

(35)

grammar to the students in the right way. The teachers should not only ask the students to merely memorize rules, but also ask the students to practice through speaking and writing. Skill development and learning grammar need practices. The researcher used inductive approach in this research.

Grammatical resources are limited and precious. They are distributed in a non-arbitrary manner. It means that in conveying meaning, a language uses a particular form from the vantage point of a single point in time. One of the examples is making simple present tense sentence. In positive sentence, -s/-es should be attached to regular verbs. Therefore, grammar is arbitrary (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). This is the reason that inductive approach is effective to teach grammar.

C. Theoretical Framework

This research dealt with the students of the elementary school grade VI. The students in this grade were introduced to an English grammar lesson. In the first semester, they learnt about simple present tense. The use of certain approaches to teach grammar at this level helped them in mastering the intended lesson. In this research, the researcher used deductive approach and inductive approach to teach English grammar. From the discussion in the previous part of this chapter, the researcher concluded that the implementation of deductive and inductive approach is effective to improve students’ grammar mastery.

Deductive approach is the most common approach that is used for teaching grammar. Deductive approach is considered to be called as the

(36)

rule-driven learning. In teaching grammar, deductive approach helps the students to understand about the materials that are given by presenting grammatical rules and then presenting the examples of sentences. However, Thornbury (1999) also states that deductive approach has advantage and disadvantage. Deductive approach gets to the point but can make the students confused. In this research, the researcher taught simple present tense by implementing deductive approach to one of the classes. The aim was that the students understood and mastered the simple present tense.

From the brief explanation above, implementation of certain approach can help the students to master grammar effectively. There is another approach of teaching grammar which can help the students mastering English grammar. It is inductive approach.

Inductive approach is an approach that lets the students to learn grammar through activities and let them understand the materials without explaining it explicitly. The implementation of this approach can motivate the students. The learners are more active in the learning process, rather than being simply passive recipients. This approach brought more advantages than the deductive approach, especially in teaching young learners.

As Nunan (2005) suggests, there are some vital principles to teach grammar for beginning learners. They are implementing consciousness-raising activities and emphasizing inductive over deductive teaching. Through teaching grammar by implementing inductive approach, the students can reach deeper understanding of English grammar.

(37)

In English grammar teaching and learning, inductive approach led to a better grammar mastery of the students. The result of learning can be seen from the students’ achievement. Inductive approach was more effective to teach grammar than the deductive approach in the sixth grade of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School.

(38)

METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researcher presents the research methodology. The discussion is divided into eight parts. The first part explains about the methodology that was implemented in the research. The second part is about the variables being observed in the research. The third part is about the research participants. The fourth part is talking about where and when the research was conducted. The fifth part is discussing the research instrument or how the data were gathered. The sixth part is discussing the data analysis technique. The seventh part discusses about the data validation. The last part discusses about research procedure or how the research was conducted.

A. Research Method

The researcher conducted the research in order to see the comparison of the effectiveness of deductive approach and inductive approach in teaching grammar, especially simple present tense. It was conducted in sixth grade of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School. The researcher adopted quasi-experimental comparison-group method in conducting this research. Quasi-experimental research was conducted when the true experiment could not be done (Yaunt, 2006). The researcher used non-equivalent control group design. However, in order to find the answer of the research question, the researcher used comparison group and the following research design.

(39)

II O1 X2 O2

According to Hadjar (1996), there is an alternative method; the researcher can use comparison group design, without using control group. The steps are the same with non-equivalent control group design. The difference is in the third step, each group is given different treatment.

The researcher used two experimental groups. In one group (Group A), the researcher used deductive approach and in another group (Group B), the researcher used inductive approach. The teaching and learning activity in both groups were conducted inside the classroom.

There were two classes that were observed. They were six Tholhah and six Hamzah. In this research, Tholhah class was called as group A and Hamzah class was called as group B. The researcher used deductive approach in Group A and inductive approach in Group B.

The pre-test was conducted in both classes. The researcher compared the result of the pre-test as the pre-test data. The researcher used deductive approach in Group A. In the same week, the researcher also taught group B by using inductive approach. The teaching learning activities was done around 2 weeks.

The researcher used GTM and CLT in teaching grammar. Grammar Translation Method (GTM) was used to teach grammar, especially simple present tense, in Group A. Meanwhile, the researcher used Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Group B.

(40)

deductively. The teaching and learning consisted of presentation and the study of the grammar rules. After that, the students practiced through translation exercises. However, in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), the teaching activities consisted of groups and pair activities, language games, role-play, etc (Richards and Rodgers, 1986).

The experiment lasted for about a month. The researcher carried out the teaching and learning process in four meetings for each group to conduct the research. Two meetings were used to teach in each group and the other two meetings were used to do the pre-test and post-test. The consideration was that there was one meeting in every week. Both deductive group and inductive group received the same materials and tests. The difference was the approach that was used to teach grammar.

At the end of the teaching and learning process, the students were given post-test. The results of those tests were compared. The result of the post-test showed whether there was an improvement of the students’ grammar mastery or not from each group. From the result, the researcher got the result of which approach that was more effective to teach grammar, especially simple present tense, to the sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School.

B. Variables

Brown (1991, p.78) states that a variable is something that may vary or differ. Furthermore, in simpler way, a variable is anything that can be measured and varies (Sprinthall, Schmutte & Sirois, 1991). Research variables can be

(41)

& Sirois: 1991).

In this research, the independent variable for deductive group is the use of deductive approach in teaching grammar. Moreover, the independent variable for inductive group is the use of inductive approach in teaching grammar. The variable that the independent variable is presumed to affect is called the dependent variable (Fraenmel and Wallen, 1993). The dependent variable for both groups is the same. It is the students’ grammar score. The grammar material is focussing on simple present tense.

Independent variables is the factor that is measurably separate and distinct from the dependent variable, but may relate to dependent variable (Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh, 1979). An independent variable is presumed to have an effect on, to influence somehow, another variable.

C. Variability

Variability refers to the extent to which these data points differ from each other. There are 2 important things that are used to find the variability. They are range and standard deviation (Amirudin, 2010).

Range is the amount between the lowest score and highest score item in the set (Suardiman, 1998). The formula to calculate the range is as followed.

R = H-L+1 Where,

(42)

L : Lowest score

Table 3. The range score of both groups’ pre-test and post-test. Deductive Approach Group Inductive Approach Group

Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

H L H L H L H L

85 36 100 55 92.5 19 97.5 60

Range : 85-36+1=50

Range: 100-55+1=46

Range: 92.5-19+1=74.5

Range: 97.5-60+1=38.5

Standard deviation is a statistic that tells how tightly all the various examples are clustered around the mean in a set of data (Niles, 2015). The formula to calculate the standard deviation is as followed.

SD =

√

∑

The standard deviation for deductive approach group’s pre-test was 13.64 and the deductive approach group’s post-test was 14.04. Meanwhile, the standard deviation for the inductive approach group’s pre-test was 19.39 and the inductive approach group’s post-test was 11.98.

(43)

Test of homogeneity was used to see whether all groups had the same or similar variances (Tanbakuchi, 2009). If the level of significance is greater than the alpha value, the data is considered homogenous. This research calculated the homogeneity of variance by using Lavene’s test. The researcher used SPSS to find the result.

The level of significance was 0.763. It was greater than the alpha value which is 0.05 (0.763>0.05). Therefore, the data of this research was considered homogenous.

Table 4. The test of homogeneity of variances’ result.

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

.092 1 37 .763

E. Research Participants

The participants of this research were the sixth grade’s students of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School in Pandes, Wedi, Klaten. There were two classes that were being observed. They were six Tholhah and six Hamzah. In this research, six Tholhah was called as Group A and six Hamzah was called as Group B. There were 19 students in Group A. Group B consisted of 20 students. Deductive approach was used in Group A and inductive approach was used in Group B. Their ages were around ten to twelve years old. So, they were still considered as young learners.

(44)

The time allocation to conduct this research was about 2 weeks. The consideration was that there was one meeting in each week. One meeting was about 35 minutes. The researcher needed two meetings for teaching each group. The researcher also needed 2 meetings for conducting pre-test and post-test. The researcher used drawing class to do the pre-test and post-test for each group.

G. Research Instruments

The instruments for this research were a pre-test and a post-test. Pre-test was given before the treatment implemented. From the test, the researcher could see the students’ knowledge about simple present tense before the treatment was given. The result of pre-test was used as the basic data. Post-test was given after the treatment was being implemented. From the post-test, the researcher could see the students’ knowledge about simple present tense after the treatment given, whether the treatment affected the students or not. The result of post-test was compared to the result of pre-test. From that comparison, the researcher could find which approach was more effective to teach grammar, especially simple present tense, for sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full day Elementary School. The form of the tests were written tests. The test items were taken from Longman’s Grammar Practice for Elementary Students book and adapted from students’ English textbook.

The total number of the test items itself was 19 items. There were 10 items in the form of multiple choice in Part A. There were 5 items in the form of

(45)

completion task in Part C.

The multiple choice test items were chosen because of three reasons. First reason was because multiple choice test items were easy to score (Marsh,2005). Second reason was multiple choice test items could increase the fluency or familiarity of the incorrect answers (Hasher et al., 1977). The third reason was the multiple choice test items could be discussed easily (Clay, 2001). The students could understand why the incorrect choices were wrong. Meanwhile, the jumbled words and grammatical transformational test items were chosen because copying activities were better to be used for teaching English grammar (Kaswan, 2010). Jumbled words and grammatical transformational test items encourage the students to think.

Hatch and Farhady (1982) stated that there are three basic types of validity: (1) content validity, (2) criterion-related validity, and (3) construct validity. A test is said to have content validity if its content constitutes a representative sample of the language skills, structure, etc which it is meant to be concerned (Hughes, 1989). The purpose of the test was to measure the students’ grammar mastery, especially in simple present tense.

Criterion-related validity is defined as the extent to which test performance is related to other valued measure of performance (Hatch and Farhady, 1982). In this research, grammar test scores might be used to predict students’ future achievement in English class. The test just measured the students’ grammar mastery, especially in simple present tense. It obtained the construct validity

(46)

terms of the questions were adapted from students’ English textbook for Elementary school grade six and Longman’s grammar practice book for elementary students.

The researcher made a test items’ distribution for the requirement of the test validity. Furthermore, the test had a content validity. The test items were designed to measure the specific skill of the content on the course.

The items were selected from the available material. The following table was the content validity of the items :

Table 5. The distribution of test items

Number Topic Test Item Number Total

1 Positive sentence Part A ( 1,2,3,4) Part B (1,2)

6 2 Negative sentence Part A (5,6,7)

Part B (3) Part C (1,2)

6 3 Interrogative sentence Part A (8,9,10)

Part B (4,5) Part C (1,2)

From the table, the researcher concluded that the test had its content validity. It was because the items of the test had already represented the topic that was taught. The total number of the test items itself was 19 items. There were 10 items in the form of multiple choice in Part A. There were 5 items in the form of jumbled words in Part B. Moreover, there were 4 items in the form of sentence completion task in Part C. From 100% distribution items of the test, there were 31.6% of items represent the topic of positive sentence in Simple Present Tense. There were also 31.6% of items represent the topic of negative sentence in Simple

(47)

Simple Present Tense.

H. Reliability

The reliability was calculated by using the Kuder – Richardson 21 (KR-21) procedure and Alpha Cronbach procedure. This procedure was chosen because it could provide the basic information needed to find out the reliability of the test using very limited information. The KR-21 procedure was used to calculate the reliability of multiple choice question test. The Alpha Cronbach procedure was chosen to calculate the reliability of jumbled words and grammatical transformation task. The complete calculation was explained on the Appendices. The following was the KR-21 formula :

_{ }

Where,

K = number of item in the test X = mean of the sample

= variance of the sample

The following was the Alpha Cronbach formula : [_{] [}∑ ]

(48)

K = number of item in the test = variance of component

= variance of the observed total test scores

This formula was based on the mean of the samples and the numbers of the items (Hatch and Farhady, 1982). All of the tests were highly reliable. The complete calculation of tests’ reliability was on the Appendix.

I. Treatments

Each group had different treatments. Group A was given the deductive approach as the treatment. Group B was given the inductive approach as the treatment. In two meetings, each group was taught about simple present tense by implementing one of the approaches. The materials were adapted from students’ English book. The researcher taught the students about how to make good sentences by using simple present tense. The sentences included the positive sentence, negative sentence and interrogative sentence. For further explanation, there were some lesson plans on the Appendix.

J. Data Analysis Technique

The researcher used simple mean comparison to answer the research question. It focused on the each group’s mean score from the result of pre-test and post-test. First step, the researcher counted the gain of each group. Gain was defined as post-test minus pre-test (Knapp & Shaffer, 2009). The results of each student’s gain score was calculated. Then, the result was divided by the number of

(49)

researcher compared both mean scores from both groups. The inductive group’s mean score had higher score rather than the deductive group.

Independent sample t-test was employed to answer whether inductive group showed significant improvement or not. The independent t-test was used when the mean and standard deviation of the population were unknown. It was also used when two separate groups were compared (Walpole, 1988). The independent t-test was used to compare the input competence of the groups at the beginning of the test and the average improvement of grammar mastery after the treatment by comparing the average gain scores of the two groups. The objective of this research was to find out which group’s score was higher, the deductive approach or the inductive approach. The complete formula of the independent t-test was :

̅

√

( Walpole, 1988 ) Where,

̅ = the mean of experimental group

̅ = the mean of comparison group SD = Standard deviation score

= the members of experimental group = the members of comparison group

(50)

of making errors (Paret, 2012). The level of significant .05 was used because there was a higher risk of making errors.

To know whether the mean score were significantly different, the t-observed was compared to the t-table. If the t-t-observed was larger than the t-table at 0.05 significant level for a directional (one-tailed) test, the mean score were significantly different. Therefore, the null hypothesis ( ) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis ( ) was accepted. Inductive approach was more effective if the result of t-test higher than the t-table.

K. Hypothesis

The researcher made the hypothesis. The hypothesis can be stated as conceptual hypothesis, operational hypothesis, and statistical hypothesis.

Conceptual :

The students’ grammar mastery which is taught using inductive approach is better than the students’ grammar mastery which is taught using deductive approach.

Operational :

The mean score of the students who are taught using inductive approach is higher than those students who are taught using deductive approach.

Statistical :

: : Where,

(51)

: The average score of post-test minus pre-test of Deductive group In this research, the researcher calculated the gain score by deducting pre-test score from post-pre-test score. After that, the researcher divided the score by the number of students in order to calculate the average gain score. Later on, the average gain scores of deductive approach group and inductive approach group were compared. In the statistical hypothesis, the hypothesis one meant what the researcher wanted to happen. Therefore, the null hypothesis needed to be rejected. The null hypothesis could be rejected by doing t-test in the calculation. therefore, the researcher could say that inductive approach is more effective than the deductive approach to teach simple present tense.

L. Research Procedures

The procedure of this research consisted of three steps. They were preparing the research, experimenting, and analysing the result. In the preparation, the researcher prepared many things. The researcher asked the school to give permission so that the researcher could conduct the research at Aisyiyah Full day Elementary School. The researcher also explained to the English teacher about the research that would be conducted. The researcher also prepared the pre-test and post-test. The questions were discussed with the English teacher in sixth grade of Aisyiyah Full day Elementary School. The researcher gave pre-test to both groups that were being observed. Both pre-test and post-test had the same questions.

The second step was experimenting. The researcher implemented different treatment to both group. In Group A, the researcher used deductive approach and

(52)

inductive approach and Communicative Language Teaching. After several meetings, the researcher gave post-test to the students. It was aimed to see the improvement of the students’ grammar mastery after having the treatment.

The last step was analyzing the result. The result of post-test from both groups would be measured. Then, the results would be compared to find out which approach was more effective to teach grammar for sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School.

(53)

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This research was focussing on the effectiveness of using inductive approach compared to deductive approach in teaching grammar for sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School. There is a question in this research. It is whether Inductive Approach is more effective than Deductive Approach for teaching grammar for sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School. In order to observe the Inductive Approach’s effectiveness, the researcher compared the gain score between the pre-test’s result and post-test’s result from both groups.

In this chapter, the data gathered was presented. The first was the data of the test result. It presented the test result of the Inductive Approach group and the Deductive Approach group. The second was the presentation of the t-test.

A. The Data of the Test Results

The researcher conducted the pre-test and post-test to the deductive approach group and inductive approach group. The results of the pre-test and post-test from both groups were showed in Table 6 and 7. The deductive approach group’s scores improved from the pre-test to the post-test. The following table was the report of the pre-test from both Deductive Approach group and Inductive Approach group.

(54)

students in the deductive approach group. Most of the students improved their scores. For the pre-test, the lowest score was 36 and the highest score was 85. However, for the post-test, the lowest score was 55 and the highest score was 100. There was 49 points gain score for the lowest score and 15 points gain score for the highest score.

Table 6. Pre-test and Post-test score of Deductive Group’s students

The inductive approach group’s scores also improved from the pre-test to post-test. Eventhough the students of inductive approach group did not get perfect score which was 100 points, but the gain score of the score was high. Table 7 was the report of pre-test and post-test score from Inductive Group’s students.

DEDUCTIVE GROUP

NAME PRE-TEST

SCORE

POST-TEST SCORE

Student A 38 92

Student B 36 76

Student C 61 69

Student D 60 75

Student E 65 64

Student F 65 95

Student G 56 55

Student H 44 64

Student I 70 100

Student J 79 97

Student K 72 85

Student L 45 74

Student M 42 66

Student N 59 76

Student O 85 100

Student P 68 75

Student Q 48 64

Student R 51 77

(55)

However, for the post-test, the lowest score was 60 and the highest score was 97.5. There was 41 points gain score for the lowest score and 5 pints gain score for the highest score.

Table 7. Pre-test and Post-test score of Inductive group’s students

INDUCTIVE GROUP

NAME PRE-TEST

SCORE

POST-TEST SCORE

Student A 75 89

Student B 65 85

Student C 54 76

Student D 19 62

Student E 78 96

Student F 52 77

Student G 92.5 97.5

Student H 64 95

Student I 26 79

Student J 80 94

Student K 31 72

Student L 65 86

Student M 72 92

Student N 57 67

Student O 61 67

Student P 57 89

Student Q 46 72

Student R 79 60

Student S 80 92

Student T 85 96

After calculating the scores, the researcher analysed the result by distributing the scores’ frequency. Therefore, the gain scores were seen. The following data was the average gain score from both deductive and inductive group. From the table, x represented the scores and f represented frequency of the scores. From the data in Table 8, the researcher calculated the average gain score of deductive approach group and inductive approach group. Table 8 showed that

(56)

group.

Table 8. Frequency distribution of pre-test and post-test score.

Deductive Approach Inductive Approach

Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-test Post-test

Score F Score F score f Score F

36 1 55 2 19 1 60 1

38 1 64 3 26 1 62 1

42 1 66 1 31 1 67 2

44 1 69 1 46 1 72 2

45 2 74 1 52 1 76 1

48 1 75 2 54 1 77 1

51 1 76 2 57 2 79 1

56 1 77 1 61 1 85 1

59 1 85 1 64 1 86 1

60 1 92 1 65 2 89 2

61 1 95 1 72 1 92 2

65 2 97 1 75 1 94 1

68 1 100 2 78 1 95 1

70 1 79 1 96 2

72 1 80 2 97.5 1

79 1 85 1

85 1 92.5 1

Total 19 Total 19 Total 20 Total 20

The Pre-test average result of the Deductive Approach Group was

̅ ∑ = 57.3. Further, the post-test average result of the deductive approach group was ̅ ∑ = 76.78.

From the calculation, the researcher found that mean score ( ̅) of the Deductive Approach group on their pre-test was 57.3. The researcher also found that mean score ( ̅) of the Deductive Approach group on their post-test was 76.78. These scores were used to check the reliability of the test.

(57)

=62. Furthermore, the post-test average result of the Inductive Approach group was ̅ ∑ = 82.17.

From the calculation, the researcher found that mean score ( ̅) of the Inductive Approach group on their pre-test was 62. The researcher also found that mean score ( ̅) of the Inductive Approach group on their post-test was 82.17. These scores were used to check the reliability of the test. For better description, chart 1 and 2 shows pre-test and post-test of both Deductive Approach and Inductive Approach group.

Chart 1. Frequency distribution of pre-test score from Deductive Approach group. As shown in Chart 1, five students of deductive approach group got scores around 61-70 points. There was no students who got scores under 30 points. However, there was only one student who got score above 81 points. There were 2 students who got the lowest score which was around 31-40 points.

0 1 2 3 4 5

10-20 score

21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100

Deductive Group

(58)

Chart 2. Frequency distribution of pre-test from the Inductive Approach Group.

Both charts show the frequency distribution of pre-test from the deductive approach group and inductive approach group. Chart 2 shows the frequency distribution of pre-test from the inductive approach group. In inductive approach group, there were 2 students who got scores under 30 points. The highest score of the inductive approach group was different from the deductive approach group. There were 6 students who got 71-80 points. That was the score which the most students got. Furthermore, only 1 student who got the highest score. The highest pre-test score of inductive approach group was around 81-90 points.

Chart 3 shows the post-test score from both Deductive Approach group and Inductive Approach group. In Chart 3, it was shown that the highest score of deductive approach group was around 91-100 points. There were 5 students who got the highest scores. The lowest score improved from 30 points to 50 points.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Inductive Approach Group

(59)

Chart 3. Frequency distribution of post-test from Deductive Approach group.

From the data on the Chart 3 and 4, the frequency distribution of post-test score from both deductive approach group and inductive approach group was shown. There were improvement’s scores from both groups. The inductive approach group also showed some improvements. The highest score of inductive approach group was 91-100 points. There were 7 students who got the highest score. The highest score improved from 10 points to 20 points. The lowest score improved from 10 points to 50 points. There was only a student who got the lowest score. The lowest post-test score of inductive approach group was around 50-60 points.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

50-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100

Deductive Approach Group

(60)

Chart 4. Frequency distribution of post-test score from Inductive Approach group.

Most students from both deductive approach group and inductive approach group improved their scores. Most of them improved for 11-20 points for their scores. There were 7 students from deductive approach group and 6 students from inductive approach group who improved their scores for 11-20 points. However, there were also some students who got the big gain score, which was around 51-60 points. There was a student from deductive approach group and a student from inductive approach group who improved for about 51-60 points. Chapter 5 shows the gain score of both deductive approach group and inductive approach group.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

50-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100

Inductive Approach Group

(61)

Chart 5. The gain score of deductive approach group and inductive approach group.

The researcher analysed the data by calculating the data gathered. The researcher calculated the data by using independent sample t-test. The researcher also found out whether the result was significant or not from the p-value. On the next chapter, the researcher presented the data analysis and the hypothesis testing.

B. Analysis Result and Hypothesis Testing

The problem formulation was answered by comparing the total gain score from both groups. From the table of pre-test and post-test score, the researcher found the gain. Gain score can be calculated from post-test minus pre-test. Moreover, the average gain score was calculated by dividing the total gain score with the number of students.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0-10 11-20 point 21-30 point 31-40 point 41-50 point 51-60 point deductive group inductive group

(62)

the gain score can be seen very clearly. The average gain score from Deductive Approach Group was 19.4. However, the average gain score for Inductive Approach Group was 20.17.

Table 9. The gain score from Deductive Approach and Inductive Approach group.

Deductive Approach Group

Inductive Approach Group

Pre-test 57.3 61.92

Post-test 76,7 82.17

Gain 19.47 20.25

The result of hypothesis testing which was formulated on Chapter 3 page 31 showed the result that null hypothesis was rejected. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis was accepted. The alternative hypothesis was the average gain score of inductive approach group was higher or bigger than the average gain score of deductive approach group.

The researcher assigned an experimental treatment to both groups. Then, both groups were compared. The aim was to find the effect of the treatment and the difference between the two groups. The two independent sample t-test was used to find the difference between the mean scores of the two samples.

Before using t-test, the researcher counted the standard deviation score. The calculation was as follow :

(63)

=

√

= 3.8

To reject the null hypothesis, the observed difference had to be greater than the expected difference. The t-ratio was needed to make a ratio of the two numbers. The formula was :

̅

√

=

√

= - 0.165

( Walpole, 1988 )

The degrees of freedom for the independent t-test was 37. The researcher used one tail hypothesis for the significant level of .05. The t-table for the level of significance was 1.687, while the t-observed was -0.165. The negative t-value means that the hypothesis testing was done on the left side of the hypothesis testing curve. For the negative value, the null hypothesis was rejected if the t-obtained < t-value (Sarwono,2013). Therefore, the null hypothesis of this research was rejected.

(64)

see whether the data was significant or not. The p-value was .043, where .043 < .05. It meant that the inductive approach group’s gain score was significant at the .05 level. It also gave the evidence to reject the null hypothesis, where the null hypothesis was rejected when p-value < .05.

Statistical hypothesis :

: : Where,

: The average score of post-test minus pre-test of Inductive group

: The average score of post-test minus pre-test of Deductive group The result of the analysis indicated that the mean score of post-test minus pre-test of inductive approach group was significantly higher than the deductive approach group. The conclusion was supported by the obtained p-value which rejected the null hypothesis. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis was accepted.

In this research, the alternative hypothesis is that the average gain score of inductive approach group is bigger than the average gain score of deductive approach. It meant that the inductive approach was more effective to teach simple present tense for the sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary school. The result was also significant.

(65)

Although both approaches were considered effective to be applied, the average gain score of Inductive Approach group (20.25) was signicantly higher than the average gain score of Deductive Approach group (19.47). Therefore, the hypothesis indicated that teaching grammar using Inductive Approach was more effective than using Deductive Approach. Therefore, the inductive approach was more effective to teach simple present tense for the sixth graders of Aisyiyah Full Day Elementary School.

Deductive approach is still being used as the approach in teaching grammar. However, the result of this research proved that the inductive approach was more effective to teach grammar, especially to teach younger students. Nunan (2005) suggests some vital principles for teaching grammar for beginning learners. First, it is the manageable learning load that simplifies the grammar for the beginning learners. Secondly, emphasizing inductive over deductive teaching because of the lack of linguistic ability to comprehend grammatical explanation at the beginning stages. Ellis (2002) also states that grammar teaching should not be directed at beginners. It is also shown that teaching grammar to young learners inductively is better than teaching grammar to young learners deductively.

Shaffer (1989), Herron & Tomasello (1992), and Khan (2007) also showed that inductive approach gave more significant result or was more effective to teach grammar for young learners in their researches. Shaffer (1989) observed the implementation of both deductive approach and inductive approach toward students from Princeton. Based on the result, Shaffer concluded that when

(1)

∑ ∑ = = 2.64 [_{] [}∑ ] = [ ] [ ] = 0.7 PART 3 ∑ ∑ = =2.24 ∑ ∑ = =1.62 ∑ ∑ = =2.46 ∑ ∑ = 2.02 ∑ ∑ = =18.04

(2)

[_{] [}∑ ] = [ ] [ ] = 0.71 POST TEST PART 1

SD √∑ ∑ = √ = √ = 2.23

r21 = ̅ ̅

= = 0.72 PART 2 ∑ ∑ = =0.362 ∑ ∑ = =0.185 ∑ ∑ = = 0.057

(3)

∑ ∑ = =0.212 ∑ ∑ = =0.115 ∑ ∑ = =2.307 [_][ ∑ ] = [ ] [ ] = 0.75 PART 3 ∑ ∑ = =0.74 ∑ ∑ = =1.12 ∑ ∑ = =0.41 ∑ ∑ = =2.64

(4)

∑ ∑

=7.84

[_][ ∑ ]

= [

] [ ]

(5)

APPENDIX H

(6)

The effectiveness of deductive approach and inductive approach in teaching simple present tense to the sixth graders of Aisyiyah full day elementary school : a comparative study.

INDUCTIVE APPROACH IN TEACHING SIMPLE PRESENT

TENSE TO THE SIXTH GRADERS OF AISYIYAH FULL DAY

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

INDUCTIVE APPROACH IN TEACHING SIMPLE PRESENT

TENSE TO THE SIXTH GRADERS OF AISYIYAH FULL DAY

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2016

“ Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear.”

Qur’an 2:286

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

METHODOLOGY

√

̅

̅

√

Deductive Group

Inductive Approach Group

Deductive Approach Group

Inductive Approach Group

=

√

= 3.8

̅

̅

√

=

APPENDIX H

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

The Effectiveness of TPR method in teaching simple present tense : a case study at beginner of sec jombang ciputat

The effectiveness of communicative approach in teaching the simple present tense (an experimental study of the seventh year students of SMP Islam Al-Fajar Kedaung-Pamulang)

Error Analysis on Transforming Affirmative to Negative and Interrogative Sentences of Simple Presnt Tense (a case study at SMP YAPERA Ciledug)

The Effectiveness of Inductive Instruction in Teaching Simple Present Tense

The effectiveness of jigsaw technique in teaching simple past tense

A Study of the effectiveness of the language experience approach to teaching reading to the grade 5 students of the elementary school.

The Effectiveness of the semantic organizer approach in teaching English writing to the fifth grade of the elementary school.

The Effecto of Using Deductive Approach and Inductive Approach in Teaching English to Students on Their Conditional Sentence Mastery (An Experimental Study) | Gorat | Magister Scientiae 1 SM

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MINIATURE LANGUAGE IN TEACHING SIMPLE PRESENT TENSE AND SIMPLE PAST TENSE AT THE SECOND GRADE STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 2 SOKARAJA IN THE ACADEMIC OF YEAR 20112012

The Effect of Using Deductive Approach and Inductive Approach in Teaching English to Students on their Conditional Sentence Mastery (An Experimental Study) A THESIS

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan