Analyzing the Significance of Students’ Speaking Improvement Analyzing the Significance Difference between Experimental and

digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id 46

1. Analyzing the Significance of Students’ Speaking Improvement

The result of the analysis was taken from the pretest result on March, 09 th 2015 and post test result on March, 20 th 2015. Data were analyzed by t­test formula and the result can be seen on table V. After the result was found, the t obs had been compared with the t cri, with α : 5 alpha: 0,05 t obs on degree of freedom is 30 see table VII, it showed that t cri = 2,042. Now, looking back to the hypotheses: ­ H : Student’s speaking skill cannot significantly improve after Think­Pair­Share Technique using flashcards is implemented. ­ H a : Students’ speaking skill can significantly improve after Think­Pair­Share Technique using flashcards is implemented. Will be taken if the t cri is smaller than t obs , it means that H is rejected and H a is accepted. By looking at the result that t cri is smaller than t obs 2,042 15,7 it concluded that H is rejected and H a is accepted. digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id 47

2. Analyzing the Significance Difference between Experimental and

Control Class The result of the analysis was taken from the post test result of experimental class and post test result of control class which did not apply any treatment in speaking lesson. To make sure that both the control and experimental class had not too much difference in speaking skill, the pretest result from control class was needed to take. The control class 8B consists of 30 students, the pretest result see table III was taken before the teacher implements the speaking teaching technique based on the lesson plan that constructed by teacher himself. Based on the table III, it shows that the mean of the students’ speaking score was 12,4 points. Then, the researcher implemented the speaking teaching technique based on the lesson plan that constructed by the teacher see appendix VI. The material was based on the theme ‘What is Your Favorite Story’ and the teaching goal is to make students be able to response and create the expression of asking for and giving agreement. After that, researcher took post test of the control group and the mean of the score was 12,6 points see table IV. It showed that their speaking score was increased 0,2 points by the mean of their pretest score which was 12,4 points. digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id 48 To analyze the significance different between experimental and control class, researcher took from post test result from both sample. Both had been compared by using formula. The data were analyzed by using t­test formula and the result can be seen on table VI. Before testing the significance, the hypothesis needs to be constructed first: ­ H : There is no different in the speaking skill between experimental group that apply Think­Pair­Share technique using flashcard and control group that does not apply Think­Pair­Share technique ­ H a : There is significant different in speaking skill between experimental group that apply Think­Pair­Share Technique and the control group that does not apply Think­Pair­Share technique using flashcards. Or can be written as: H : µ 1 = µ 2 H a : µ 1 ≠ µ 2 To decide the t­test formula, the variance of the sample needed to be tested that they are homogeny or not. Testing the sample homogeny used F test by using the following formula: digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id 49 digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id 50 F = Highest Variance Smallest Variance Based on the table VI, it can be seen that the highest variance is 46 and the smallest one is 24. It can be said, 46 : 24 is 1,92. F obs needs to be compared with F cri see table VIII with upper degree of freedom = 32 – 1 is 31 and lower degree of freedom = 30 – 1 was 29. By deciding the alpha α : 5, it can be seen that F cri = 1,85. In this case, the rule was taken ‘if F obs is smaller or equal with F cri, it means that H o is accepted and H a is rejected’. If H is accepted, it means that the variance is homogeny. After test by using F formula, it was found that F obs was bigger than F cri 1,92 1,85, it means that the variance was not homogeny. Because the nominal sample between experiment and control group was different, the formula used for t­test was using separated variance see table VI. After the result was found, the t obs had been compared with the t cri. Because the nominal of two sample groups were different, the researcher used substitute t cri. Where degree of freedom of experimental class = n 1 – 1 and degree of freedom of control class = n 2 – 1 with α: 5: n 1 = 32; degree of freedom = 31, so t cri = 2,042 digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id digilib.uinsby.ac.id 51 n 2 = 30; degree of freedom = 29, so t cri = 2,045 Then, this t cri had been calculated from the difference value of t cri by dividing them to 2: 2,045­2,042:2 = 0,0015 Next step was adding them with the smallest t cri : 2,042 + 0,0015 = 2,043 It concluded that substitute t cri is 2,043 which was smaller than t obs 2,043 2,61. It means that H was rejected and H a was accepted.

C. Discussion