39
The Pre-test average result of the Inductive Approach group was ̅
∑
=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.
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
Deductive Group
40
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.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7
Inductive Approach Group
Inductive Approach Group
41
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
sho wn. 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.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7
50-60 61-70
71-80 81-90
91-100
Deductive Approach Group
Deductive Approach Group
42
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.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
50-60 61-70
71-80 81-90
91-100
Inductive Approach Group
Inductive Approach Group
43
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.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
0-10 11-20
point 21-30
point 31-40
point 41-50
point 51-60
point deductive group
inductive group
44
Table 9 shows the presentation of both groups’ gain score. From the table, 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 :
√ PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
45
= √
= 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 t-value, the null hypothesis was rejected if the t- obtained t-value Sarwono,2013. Therefore, the null hypothesis of this research
was rejected.
46
In hypothesis testing, p-value had an important role. P-value was used to 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.
47
C. Discussion
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
