Research Findings 1. The Data Description
Table 4.1 The Data Labels
No. Label
Meaning
1 A1
Data of students’ listening comprehension using video 2
A2 Data of students’ listening comprehension using picture
3 B1
Data of students’ listening comprehension with high learning motivation
4 B2
Data of students’ listening comprehension with low learning motivation
5 A1B1
Data of listening comprehension of students with high learning motivation using video
6 A2B1
Data of listening comprehension of students with high learning motivation using picture
7 A1B2
Data of listening comprehension of students with low learning motivation using video
8 A2B2
Data of listening comprehension of students with low learning motivation using picture
The data analyzed was obtained from test and questionnaire both of which were scored in numeric. The data analyzed with ANAVA 2 two
ways. Based on the results, the data can be described as listed in the data analysis table below.
Table 4.2 The Data Analysis of Listening Comprehension with Anava
Two Ways Learning
Motivation Statistics
Learning Media Total
Video A1 Picture A2
A1B1 A2B1
B1
High B1
N X
X
2
̅ SD
21 1523
2319529 72.5238
7.89062 21
1519 2307361
72.3333 1.07347
42 3042
9253764 72,4285
9,30550
A1B2 A2B2
B2
Low B2
N X
X
2
̅ SD
11 534
285156 48.5455
8.11620 11
345 119025
31.3636 9.83130
22 879
772641 39,9545
12,43833 A1
B1
Total N
X X
2
̅ SD
32 2057
4231249 64,2812
13,9751 32
1864 3474496
58,25 22,2797
64 3921
15374241 61,2656
18,6974
a Descriptive Analysis of Students’ Listening Comprehension using
Video A1.
A1 was the data of students listening comprehension taught by using Video. The data was taken from 32 samples that were taught by
using Video, the data’s descriptive statistics was presented below.
Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of A1
N Valid
32 Missing
32 Mean
64.2812 Std. Error of Mean
2.47048 Median
66.0000 Mode
66.00
a
Std. Deviation 1.39752E1
Variance 195.305
Range 53.00
Minimum 35.00
Maximum 88.00
Sum 2057.00
Referring to the Table 4.3, t his data statistics derived from students’
listening comprehension scores taught by using Video. The maximum score was 100, from 32 respondents, the highest score was 88 and the
lowest score was 35. The central tendency of data was distributed around the mean, 64.28, the median 66.0, and the mode, 66.0. Standard deviation
was 13.97. It indicated that most students had almost the same achievement. The distribution was normal because the mean, the median
and the mode were nearly equal to each other. This is the histogram graph.
Histogram
Figure 4.1. Graph of S tudents’ Listening Comprehension Taught by Using
Video
b Descriptive Analysis of Students’ Listening Comprehension using
Picture A2.
A2 was the data of students listening comprehension taught by using Picture. The data was taken from 32 samples that were taught by
Picture, the data’s descriptive statistics was presented below.
Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistic of A2
N Valid
32 Missing
32 Mean
58.2500 Std. Error of Mean
3.93854 Median
62.5000 Mode
71.00
a
Std. Deviation 2.22797E1
Variance 496.387
Range 76.00
Minimum 14.00
Maximum 90.00
Sum 1864.00
Referring to the Table 4.4, t his data statistics derived from students’
listening comprehension scores taught by using Picture. The maximum score was 100, from 32 respondents, the highest score was 90 and the lowest score
was 14. The central tendency of data was distributed around the mean, 58.2, the median 62.5, and the mode, 71.0. Standard deviation was 22.27. It indicated
that most students had almost the same achievement. The distribution was normal because the mean, the median and the mode were nearly equal to each
other. This is the histogram graph.
Histogram
Figure 4.2. Graph of Students’ Listening Comprehension Taught by Using Picture.
c Descriptive Analysis
of Students’ Listening Comprehension with high learning motivation B1.
B1 was the data of students listening comprehension with high learning motivation. The data was taken from 42 samples from the
students in both classes that had high learning motivation based on the questionnaire result;
the data’s descriptive statistics was presented below.
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistic of B1
N Valid
42 Missing
22 Mean
72.4286 Std. Error of Mean
1.43587 Median
71.0000 Mode
69.00
a
Std. Deviation 9.30550
Variance 86.592
Range 36.00
Minimum 54.00
Maximum 90.00
Sum 3042.00
Referring to the Table 4.5, t his data statistics derived from students’
listening comprehension scores with high learning motivation students. The maximum score was 100, from 42 respondents, the highest score
was 90 and the lowest score was 54. The central tendency of data was distributed around the mean, 72.4, the median 71.0, and the mode, 69.0.
Standard deviation was 9.30. It indicated that most students had almost the same achievement. The distribution was normal because the mean,
the median and the mode were nearly equal to each other. This is the histogram graph.
Histogram
Figure 4.3. Graph of S tudents’ Listening Comprehension with High Learning
Motivation.
d Descriptive Analysis of Students’ Listening Comprehension with
low learning motivation B2.
B2 was the data of students listening comprehension with low learning motivation. The data was taken from 22 samples from the
students in both classes that had low learning motivation based on the questionnaire result; the data’s descriptive statistics was presented
below
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistic of B2
Referring to the Table 4.6, this data statistics derived from students’ listening comprehension scores with low learning motivation
students. The maximum score was 100, from 22 respondents, the highest score was 45 and the lowest score was 14. The central tendency of data
was distributed around the mean, 39.9, the median 42.0, and the mode, 42.0. Standard deviation was 1.24. It indicated that most students had
almost the same achievement. The distribution was normal because the mean, the median and the mode were nearly equal to each other. This is
the histogram graph. N
Valid 22
Missing 42
Mean 39.9545
Std. Error of Mean 2.65186
Median 42.0000
Mode 42.00
Std. Deviation 1.24383E1
Variance 154.712
Range 45.00
Minimum 14.00
Maximum 59.00
Sum 879.00
Histogram
Figure 4.4. Graph of Students’ Listening Comprehension with Low Learning Motivation.
e Descriptive Analysis of Students’ Listening Comprehension with
high learning motivation taught by using Video A1B1. A1B1 was the data of students listening comprehension with high
learning motivation taught by using Video. The data was taken from 21 samples that identified as high learning motivation students. T
he data’s descriptive statistics was presented below.
Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistic of A1B1
N Valid
21 Missing
43 Mean
72.5238 Std. Error of Mean
1.72187 Median
71.0000 Mode
66.00
a
Std. Deviation 7.89062
Variance 62.262
Range 27.00
Minimum 61.00
Maximum 88.00
Sum 1523.00
Referring to the Table 4.7, this data statistics derived from listening comprehension scores of 21 students with high learning motivation which
was taught by using Video. The maximum score was 100, from 21 respondents, the highest score was 88 and the lowest score was 61. The
central tendency of data was distributed around the mean, 72.5, the median 71.0, and the mode, 66.0. Standard deviation was 7.89. It indicated that
most students had almost the same achievement. The distribution was normal because the mean, the median and the mode were nearly equal to
each other. This is presented in the histogram graph below.
Histogram
Figure 4.5. Graph of Students’ Listening Comprehension with High
Learning Motivation Taught by Using Video.
f Descriptive Analysis of Students’ Listening Comprehension with
low learning motivation taught by using Video A1B2. A1B2 was the data of students listening comprehension with low
learning motivation taught by using Video. The data was taken from 11 samples that identified as low learning motivation students. The data’s
descriptive statistics was presented below.
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistic of A1B2
N Valid
11 Missing
53 Mean
48.5455 Std. Error of Mean
2.44713 Median
50.0000 Mode
50.00
a
Std. Deviation 8.11620
Variance 65.873
Range 24.00
Minimum 35.00
Maximum 59.00
Sum 534.00
Referring to the Table 4.8, this data statistics derived from listening comprehension scores of 21 students with low learning motivation which
was taught by using Video. The maximum score was 100, from 11 respondents, the highest score was 59 and the lowest score was 35. The
central tendency of data was distributed around the mean, 48.5, the median 50.0, and the mode, 50.0. Standard deviation was 8.11. It indicated that
most students had almost the same achievement. The distribution was normal because the mean, the median and the mode were nearly equal to
each other. This is presented in the histogram graph below.
Histogram
Figure 4.6. Graph o f Students’ Listening Comprehension With Low
Learning Motivation Taught by Using Video.
g Descriptive Analysis of Students’ Listening Comprehension with
high learning motivation taught by using Picture A2B1. A2B1 was the data of students listening comprehension with high
learning motivation taught by using Picture. The data was taken from 21 samples that identified as low learning motivation students. The data’s
descriptive statistics was presented below.
Table 4. 9 Descriptive Statistic of A2B1
N Valid
21 Missing
43 Mean
72.3333 Std. Error of Mean
2.34250 Median
71.0000 Mode
71.00
a
Std. Deviation 1.07347E1
Variance 115.233
Range 36.00
Minimum 54.00
Maximum 90.00
Sum 1519.00
Referring to the Table 4.9, this data statistics derived from listening comprehension scores of 21 students with high learning motivation which
was taught by using Picture. The maximum score was 100, from 21 respondents, the highest score was 90 and the lowest score was 54. The
central tendency of data was distributed around the mean, 72.3, the median 71.0, and the mode, 71.0. Standard deviation was 1.07. It indicated that
most students had almost the same achievement. The distribution was normal because the mean, the median and the mode were nearly equal to
each other. This is presented in the histogram graph below.
Histogram
Figure 4.7. Graph o f Students’ Listening Comprehension With High Learning
Motivation Taught by Using Picture.
h Descriptive Analysis of Students’ Listening Comprehension with
low learning motivation taught by using Picture A2B2. A2B2 was the data of students listening comprehension with low
learning motivation taught by using Picture. The data was taken from 11 samples that identified as low learning motivation students. The data’s
descriptive statistics was presented below.
Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistic of A2B2
N Valid
11 Missing
53 Mean
31.3636 Std. Error of Mean
2.96425 Median
30.0000 Mode
28.00
a
Std. Deviation 9.83130
Variance 96.655
Range 31.00
Minimum 14.00
Maximum 45.00
Sum 345.00
Referring to the Table 4.10, this data statistics derived from listening comprehension scores of 11 students with low learning motivation which
was taught by using Picture. The maximum score was 100, from 11 respondents, the highest score was 45 and the lowest score was 14. The
central tendency of data was distributed around the mean, 31.3, the median 30.0, and the mode, 28.0. Standard deviation was 9.83. It indicated that
most students had almost the same achievement. The distribution was normal because the mean, the median and the mode were nearly equal to
each other. This is presented in the histogram graph below.
Histogram
Figure 4.8. Graph o f Students’ Listening Comprehension With Low
Learning Motivation Taught by Using Picture. 2. Prerequisite Test Analysis
In order to attain valid outcomes, some prerequisite tests must be carried out to certify the hypotheses. To test the hypothesis in a 2x2 factorial
design with analysis of variance technique ANAVA two ways, it was necessary to prerequisite test analysis first, which is the mean of the scores or
data to be tested should have a normal distribution, derived from a homogeneous sample, as well as the mutual independence. The essential tests to
accomplish were Normality and Homogeneity of certain data used. a. Normality Test
Normality test was used to test the data, if the data has a normal distribution or not. Normality was no longer as something that was
assumed, but it has become something that was required in performing a statistical test of the average difference. The normality were test taken from
both classes, and because the sample in each class was less than 50 then the test was done by using the Shapiro
–Wilk test. It was analyzed with SPSS version 16.
The test criteria used at the significance level of 5, which means that if the number probability 0.05, it can be concluded that the data has a
normal distribution. The results of the Shapiro
–Wilk test can be seen in the table 4.11.
Table 4.11 Table Tests of Normalit
y
From the data above it can be seen that the Sig Value from experimental and the control class, each has Sig value of 0.488 and 0.056. Both
of the them had Sig value 0.05, so it can be concluded that the data above are normally distributed.
b. Homogeneity Test.
Homogeneity test is a test conducted to determine whether there are similarities variants of the number of samples used in the study Budiyono,
2004: 175. In order to test whether the experimental group that were treated with video and control groups homogeneous or not, it was carried out with
the calculation of equivalence test alignment and used the homogeneity test sample.
The criteria used in the significance level of 5, which means that if the probability number 0.05 then H accepted, it meant that the samples
have the same variance or can be homogeneous. Here are the results of Chi –
Square test.
Table 4.12 Test Statistics
Postest_Experiment Postest_Control
Chi –Square
7.187
a
7.375
b
Df 18
20 Asymp. Sig.
.988 .995
From the data above it can be seen that, the variable in Asymp. Sig V Learning Outcomes Value in the control and experimental classes, each of
them has a value of 0.988 and 0.995. Both of them had Sig valued 0.05, so it can be concluded that the above data is Homogeneous.
Kolmogorov –Smirnov
a
Shapiro –Wilk
Statistic df
Sig. Statistic
df Sig.
.111 32
.200 .970
32 .488
.154 32
.052 .935
32 .056
3. The Testing of Hypotheses Normality and homogeneity test is the first step before hypothesis test.
Then the next step is to test the hypothesis. To determine the effect of the use of video and picture evaluated from students motivation, conducted with test
Analysis of Variance ANOVA two ways at significance level α = 5.
Analysis of Variance ANOVA is an inferential techniques used to test the differences in mean values Arikunto, 2007, p. 401.
The statistical hypothesis: 1 Teaching Technique picture and video
Ho : There is no significant difference between the students’ who were
taught by using picture and those who were taught by using audio video on students listening comprehension.
Hi : There is significant difference between the students’ who were
taught by using picture and those who were taught by using video on students listening comprehension.
2 Students Motivation Ho : There is no significant different of low motivation and high
motivation student s’ on students’ listening comprehension
Hi : There is significant different of low motivation and high motivation student
s’ on students’ listening comprehension 3
Between both teaching technique and students’ motivation Ho : There is no significant interaction between both teaching technique
and students’ motivation on students’ listening comprehension. Hi : There is significant interaction between both teaching technique and
students’ motivation on students’ listening comprehension. Output results of 2x2 factorial analysis of variance designs that can be
used to prove the hypothesis presented in Table Tests of between Subjects Effects as follows:
Table 4.13 Table Tests of Between Subject Effect
Source Type III Sum
of Squares df
Mean Square F
Sig. Corrected Model
16849.307
a
3 5616.436
65.116 .000
Intercept 182345.119
1 182345.119 2.114E3
.000 Class
1089.297 1
1089.297 12.629
.001 Motivasi
15225.244 1
15225.244 176.519 .000
Class Motivasi 1042.047
1 1042.047
12.081 .001
Error 5175.177
60 86.253
Total 262247.000
64 Corrected Total
22024.484 63
The output results of analysis as presented in Table Test of Between –
Subjects Effects indicate that the coefficient for the hypothesis Sig 1 –3 Class
hypotheses, motivation, and interaction between the Class and Motivation entirely alpha specified 5 which is 0.05. It can be concluded that:
1. Ho stated that there was no significant difference between the students’
who were taught by using picture and those who were taught by using audio video on students listening comprehension rejected, so that it can
concluded that there was significant difference between the students’
who were taught by using picture and those who were taught by using video on students listening comprehension.
2. Ho stated that there was no significant difference between of low motivation and high motivation
students’ on students’ listening
comprehension rejected, so that it can concluded that there was significant different of low motivation and high motivation
students’ on students’ listening comprehension.
3. Ho stated that there was no significant interaction between both teaching technique and students’ motivation on students’ listening
comprehension rejected, so that it can conclude that there was significant interaction
between both teaching technique and students’ motivation on students’ listening comprehension.