Data from Listening Comprehension Tests 1 The Pre-test Result

Table 4.8The Results of T-test of the Pre-Test Scores on Listening Comprehension in the Experimental and Control Class Data T observed T table df p α Interpretation Pre-test 0.642 4.01 58 0.524 0.05 Not Significant From the table above, it can be seen that t observed t table 0.644.01 with p 0.520.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. It means that there is no difference on the students listening comprehension between experimental and control class before the research or the treatment is given. Although the mean score of the experimental class is higher than that of the control class 63.8362.16, the difference is not significant. In other words, the classes have almost similar ability in listening comprehension and they are proper to be used for the experimental research. 2 The Post-Test Result The data obtained from the post-test of the control class Appendix 11 show that the minimum score is 50 and the maximum score is 95. Moreover, the mean value is 71.3, the mode is 70, the median is 70, and the standard deviation is 10.3. The results of the data analysis are presented in the table of descriptive analysis below. Table 4.9Descriptive Analysis of the Post-Test Score on Listening Comprehension of the Control Class N Minimum Maximum Mean Mode Median Std. Deviation 30 50.00 95.00 71.3333 70.00 70.0000 10.33352 Moreover, the data of the post-test of control class is also displayed in categories or score criteria. As previously mentioned in the pre-test score categories, there are five categories to classify the scores. They are very good, good, fair, poor , and very poor. The results of the categorization can be seen below. Table 4.10Frequency Distribution of the Post-Test Scores on Listening Comprehension of the Control Class No. Score Frequency Category Absolute Relative Percentage Cumulative Percentage 1 88 - 100 2 6 6 Very Good 2 76 - 87 5 17 23 Good 3 64 - 75 18 60 83 Fair 4 52 - 63 5 17 100 Poor 5 0 - 51 Very Poor Total 30 100 The table shows that there is nostudent classified into very poor category. Then, 5students are classified into poor category. There are 18 students in fair category, 5 students in good category and 2students classified into very good category. After the sequence of teaching-learning process in control group, there is some sort of change on the score attainment of listening comprehension test. The post-test results show that most of the students in control group were rangedfrom fair to very good category. The data of listening comprehension post-test are also obtained from the experimental class Appendix 11. The descriptive statistics of the post-test data from experimental class is presented in the table below. From the table below it can be seen that the minimum score is 65 and the maximum score is 100. The median, mode and standard deviation are 85, 80 and 10.09 respectively. Meanwhile, the mean score of the post-test in experimental class is 84.2. Table 4.11Descriptive Analysis of the Post-Test Score on Listening Comprehension of the Experimental Class N Minimum Maximum Mean Mode Median Std. Deviation 30 65.00 100.00 84.17 80.00 85.0000 10.09296 In addition to the table above, the data from the post-test of experimental class are presented in score criteria. There is no student cassified into very poor and poor category. In addition, 8students are classified into fair category, 10 students are cassified into good category and 12students are classified into very good category. Table 4.12Frequency Distribution of the Post-Test Scores on Listening Comprehension of the Experimental Class No. Score Frequency Category Absolute Relative Percentage Cumulative Percentage 1 88 - 100 12 40 40 Very Good 2 76 - 87 10 33 73 Good 3 64 - 75 8 27 100 Fair 4 52 - 63 Poor 5 0 - 51 Very Poor Total 30 100 Most of the students in experimental group, after the treatment, obtained satisfactory scores which ranged from fair to very good category and no student is classified into poor and very poor category. The range that the students obtained in experimental class in the post-test is the same with that of the control group from fair to very good category. However, the highest frequency of score in experimental class is in very good category while in control class is in fair category. In addition, in control class, there were still 5 students who were in poor category while in experimental class there was no student included in this category. To make the result of the post-test clearer, the descriptive statistics of the post-test of control and experimental class are also compared. The comparison can be seen in the table below. Table 4.13The Comparison of Descriptive Analysis of the Post-Test Scores between Experimental and Control Class Class Minimum Maximum Mean Mode Median Std. Deviation Cont. 50.00 95.00 71.3333 70.00 70.0000 10.33352 Exp. 65.00 100.00 84.17 80.00 85.0000 10.09296 In the table above, it can be seen that the mean score of the control and experimental class is different. The mean score of the experimental classis higher than that of the control class 84.271.3. However, a further statistical analysis needed to be done to know whether the mean is really different or not. This was done by using independent-samples t-testsee Appendix 16. Before calculating the data, the pre-analysis of normality and homogeneity was done see Appendix 18. Here is the result of the normality test of control and experimental class. Table 4.14Normality Test of the Post-Test Scores on Listening Comprehension in the Experimental and Control Class CLASS Kolmogorov-Smirnov a Statistic df Sig. SCORE cont. .149 30 .089 exp. .118 30 .200 The requirement for judging that the data is in normal distribution is if the value of p or sig. is greater than =0.05. From the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the significance value shows that the data both in control and experimental class are in normal distribution 0.090.05 and 0.200.05. The homogeneity test is then conducted. The results of the homogeneity test is presented in the table below. Table 4.15Homogeneity Test of the Pre-Test Scores on Listening Comprehension in the Experimental and Control Class Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. score Equal variances assumed .108 .743 Equal variances not assumed The requirement for judging that the two classes are homogenous is if the value of p or sig. is greater than =0.05. From the Levene’s test, the significance value shows that the samples variances of the two classes are homogenous 0.740.05. After knowing that the data are normal and homogenous, a t-test is conducted to test whether there is any significant difference of the pre-test scores in both classes before the treatment was applied. SPSS 17 computer program was used to analyze the hypothesis and the data. In hypothesis testing, H 1 is accepted if the value of p0.05 or t observed t table . So, Ho is rejected and H 1 is accepted. The result of t-test is presented in the following table. Table 4.16The Results of T-test of the Post-Test Scores on Listening Comprehension in the Experimental and Control Class Data T observed T table df p α Interpretation Pre-test 4.866 4.01 58 0.000 0.05 Significant From the table above, it can be seen that t observed t table 4.874.01 with p 0.000.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. It means that there is a difference on the students listening comprehension between experimental and control class after the research or the treatment is given. The mean score of the experimental class is significantly higher than that of the control class 84.271.3.

b. Data from Listening Strategy Questionnaires

In addition to the data of the listening comprehension test, in this part, the data related to the students listening strategy will be presented. The data were taken from the listening strategy questionnaire that has been developed and validated previously. The listening strategy questionanire was administered two times, i.e. at the beginning of the research pre-test and in the end of the research post-test. They served different purposes. At the beginning of the research, the listening strategy questionnaire was administered to make sure about the students listening strategy, i.e. whether their strategies are various or not since they would be classified into two levels, i.e. using more varied and less varied strategy. In addition to that purpose, the data are used to control the experimental condition because it would be compared to the data of the students listening strategy at the end of the research. After administering the questionnaire to the students, the data of listening strategy were obtained Appendix 12 and Appendix 13. Then, the calculation using SPSS 17 program was done. The descriptive statistics was presented Appendix 17. The normality and homogeneity test were conducted Appendix 19. Then, the statistical analysis paired-samples t-test is used to know whether there is any difference between students listening strategy before and after conducting the treatment. As it is noted, listening strategy in this case is the moderator variable that is not manipulated. The variable that is manipulated is only the technique used in teaching listening FLAP or non-FLAP. The table below shows the result of statistical test of the students listening strategy. Table 4.17 The Result of Statistical Test about Students’ Listening Strategy The mean score of listening strategy Mean difference p  Interpretation Pre-test Post-test Control Class 93.60 95.13 1.53 0.294 0.05 Not Significant Experimental Class 93.60 92.27 1.33 0.510 0.05 Not Significant From the table above, it can be seen that the score of listening strategy before and after the research in both classes is different. However, the difference is not significant. The mean difference of the control class is 1.53 and the mean difference of the experimental class is 1.33. In addition, statistically, the p value of the control class is 0.29 0.05 and the p value of experimental class is 0.51 0.05, therefore, it can be concluded that there is no difference between the listening strategy score before and after the treatment. It means that the experimental condition for the research had been fulfilled statistically.

c. Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses testing was conducted to answer the research question number 1 and number 2. Hypotheses testing was done by employing inferential statistics two-way ANOVA since the design of the research is factorial design which consists of two independent variables each with two levels and an dependent variable. The results from the two-way ANOVA test is divided into two: main effect and interaction effect. The answer of hypothesis 1 can be seen from the main effect and the answer to the hypothesis 2 can be seen from the interaction effect. However, before testing the hypothesis using two-way ANOVA, some prerequisites tests needed to be done: normality test and homogeneity test. The data which were used in this case was only the data taken after the treatment because it was considered as the recent data that reflected the condition after the treatment. The following table is the result of the normality test. Table 4.18 Test of Normality Tests of Normality class Kolmogorov-Smirnov a Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. score cont. .149 30 .089 .964 30 .384 exp. .118 30 .200 .956 30 .240 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction . This is a lower bound of the true significance. From the table above it can be seen that the significant value of both classes are more than 0.05. The significance value of the experimental class is 0.20 0.05 and the significance value of the control class is 0.09 0.05. It means the data from both classes are in normal distribution. Meanwhile, to look at whether the samples are homogenous or not, a homogeneity test Levene test was conducted. The following table presents the result of the homogeneity of the post-test scores. Table 4.19 Homogeneity Test Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. score Equal variances assumed .108 .743 Equal variances not assumed From the table above, it can be proven that the data are homogenous. The significance value is 0.74, that is more than 0.05. If the p 0.05, the data are homogenous. After knowing that the data are normal and homogenous, the statistical analysis two-way ANOVA was conducted to know the main effect and interaction effect of the variables. Before testing the hypothesis, the level of significance should be determined first. In this research, the level of significance determined was 0.05. The results of the analysis of two-way ANOVA is presented as follows. Table 4.20 The Results of Two-Way ANOVA Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:score Source SS df MS F Sig. Corrected Model 5491.250 a 3 1830.417 33.829 .000 Intercept 362703.750 1 362703.750 6703.436 .000 technique 2470.417 1 2470.417 45.658 .000 strategy 3010.417 1 3010.417 55.638 .000 technique strategy 10.417 1 10.417 .193 .663 Error 3030.000 56 54.107 Total 371225.000 60 Corrected Total 8521.250 59 a. R Squared = ,644 Adjusted R Squared = ,625 SS= Sum of Squares ; MS= Mean Square The results were three types. The first result of the ANOVA presented in the table reveal significant differences on the listening comprehension across the technique used in experimental and control class. For the technique, the F table 1, 58 at 0.05 significance level is 4.01 while the F observed was 45,66. Ho is rejected when F observed F table and vice versa. Therefore, this result indicated that the null hypothesis is rejected, that is there is significance difference of the listening comprehension at 0.05 significant level between two different techniques FLAP and non-FLAP. The second result revealed that there is significant differences on the listening comprehension based on the strategy used by the students. As it is noted, in this research the students have been classified into more varied and less varied strategies using the score of the questionnaire administered after the post- test. The students classified to have more varied strategies were likely better in their listening comprehension than that of less varied strategies. the F table 1, 58 at 0.05 significance level is 4.01 while the F observed was 55,64. Ho is rejected when F observed F table and vice versa. Therefore, this result indicated that the null hypothesis is rejected, that is there is significance difference of the listening comprehension at 0.05 significant level between two classification of listening strategies more varied and less varied strategy. The third result is about the interaction effect technique by listening strategy. The result shows that there is no interaction effect F observed =0,19F table =4.01 and p=0.66=0.05. It indicates that the null hypothesis is not rejected. The results in the table 4.20 can be graphically presented in the figure below. Figure 4.1 The Profile Plots of the Listening Comprehension Mean Score Based on the profile plots above, it can be seen that there is significant main effect for both independent variables learning technique and listening strategy.