Data Analysis CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

B. Data Analysis

The data analysis of the difficulty frequency of form and usage of degrees of comparison are listed in the table below: a. The form of comparative degree Table 4.2 General Frequency of Students’ Mastery in Comparative Form To find out the whole average used the following formula: No Item Number Frequency of Mastery Percentage 1 1 8 21.05 2 2 8 21.05 3 3 3 7.89 4 4 11 28.94 5 5 6 15. 78 6 6 2 5.26 Total 6 38 99.97 F P = x 100 N x n 38 P = x 100 38 x 6 The table shows that 16, 66 students who got the mastery in the form of comparative degree. The specific frequency of mastery in comparative form will be showed in the table below. Table 4.3 Specific Frequency of Students’ Mastery in Comparative Form No Comparative Types Item Number Frequency of Mastery Percentage 1 Add –er 1 8 21.05 2 8 21.05 4 11 28.94 2 Add more before adjective 5 6 15.78 6 2 5.26 3 Change –y to –i and add –er 3 3 7.89 From the table above, it shows that in comparative type of adding –er there are eight 21.05 students who had the mastery for the item number 1, eight 21.05 students who had the mastery for the item number 2 and eleven 28.94 students who had the mastery for the item number 4. In the comparative type of adding more- before adjective there are six 15.78 students who had the mastery for the item number 5 and two 5.26 students who had the mastery for the item number 6. In the comparative type of changing –y to –i and add –er there are three 7.89 students who had the mastery for the item number 3. 3800 P = 228 P = 16, 666 b. The form of superlative degree Table 4.4 General Freque ncy of Students’ Mastery in Superlative Form To find out the whole average used the following formula: No Item Number Frequency of Mastery Percentage 1 7 11 28.94 2 8 9 23.68 3 9 7 18.42 4 10 21 55.26 5 11 11 28.94 6 12 18 47.36 Total 6 77 202.6 F P = x 100 N x n 77 P = x 100 38 x 6 7700 P = 228 P = 33. 77 The table shows that 33.77 students who got the mastery in the form of superlative degree. The specific mastery will be showed in this following table. Table 4.5 Speci fic Frequency of Students’ Mastery in Superlative Form F From the table above, it can be explained in superlative type of adding – the most before adjective there are eleven 28.94 students who had the mastery for the item number 7 and nine 23.68 students who had the mastery for the item number 8. In the superlative type of adding article the there are nine 23.68 students who had the mastery for the item number 8, seven 18.42 students who had the mastery for the item number 9, twenty one 55.26 students who had the mastery for the item number 10 and eighteen 47.36 students who had the mastery for the item number 12. In superlative type of changing –y to –i and add –est there are twenty one 55.26 students who had the mastery for the item number 10. In superlative type of irregular there are twenty one 55.26 students who had the mastery for the item number 10. In superlative type of adding –est there are eleven 28.94 students who had the mastery for the item number 11 and eighteen 47.36 students who had the mastery for the item number 12. In superlative type of adding be there are seven 18.42 students who had the mastery for the item number 9. No Superlative Types Item Number Frequency of Mastery Percentage 1 Add –the most before adjective 7 11 28.94 8 9 23.68 2 Add article the 8 9 23.68 9 7 18.42 10 21 55.26 12 18 47.36 3 Change –y to –i and add –est 10 21 55.26 4 Irregular superlative 10 21 55.26 5 Add –est 11 11 28.94 12 18 47.36 6 Add be 9 7 18.42 c. Distinguishing the usage of degrees of comparison comparative and superlative Table 4. 6 General Frequency of Studen ts’ Mastery in the Usage of Degrees of Comparison Comparative and Superlative To find out of the whole average used the following formula: No Degrees of Comparison Item Number Frequency of Mastery Percentage 1 Comparative 13 2 5.26 2 Superlative 14 23 60.52 3 Superlative 15 19 50 4 Superlative 16 23 60.52 5 Comparative 17 26 68.42 6 Comparative 18 4 10.52 Total 6 96 252.61 F P = x 100 N x n 96 P = x 100 38 x 6 9600 P = 228 P = 42, 105 The table shows that there are 42,105 students who got the mastery in the usage of comparative and superlative degree. The Specific Frequency of Students’ Mastery in the Usage of Comparative and Superlative Degree will be showed in this following table. Table 4. 7 Specific Frequency of Students’ Mastery in the Usage of both Comparative and Superlative Degree No Item Number Question Answer Key Rule Frequency of Mastery Percentage 1 13 This car is…than that one. comfortable more comfortable add more before adjective 2 5.26 2 14 Padang restaurant serves …food in town. spicy the spiciest add article the, change –y to –i and add -est 23 60.52 3 15 Rizky is … boy in his class. tall the tallest add article the, add – est. 19 50 4 16 Dik Doank is … man in his community. popular the most popular add article the, add most before adjective. 23 60.52 5 17 Your house is … her old house. expensive more expensive than add more before adjective, add than after adjective 26 68.42 6 18 My friend is a … swimmer than I am, but I managed to keep up. strong Stronger Add –er 4 10.52 From the table above, there are two 5.26 students who had the mastery for for item number 13, twenty three 60.52 students who had the mastery for for item number 14, nineteen 50 students who had the mastery for for item number 15, twenty three 60.52 students who had the mastery for for item number 16, twenty six 68.42 students who had the mastery for for item number 17 and four 10.52 students who had the mastery for item number 18. Table 4. 8 Type and Percentage of Mastery in Learning Degrees of Comparison No Types Percentage 1 The form of comparative degree 16.66 2 The form of superlative degree 33.77 3 The usage of both comparative and superlative degree 42.105 From the table above, it shows that there are 16.66 students who had the mastery in the items of comparative form, 33.77 students who had the mastery in the items of the superlative form and 42.105 students who had the mastery in the items of the usage of both comparative and superlative degree. After analyzing, the writer took interview to five students who got bad scores to know what the factors are and why the students low in mastering degrees of comparison. Here are some questions which were asked to the interviewee as follows in Bahasa: 1. Bagaimana pendapatmu tentang degrees of comparison? 2. Pada aspek apa saja kamu kesulitan memahami degrees of comparison? 3. Apa penyebabnya kamu sulit memahami dan menguasai degrees of comparison? Student a. 1. Sangat sulit. 2. Sepertinya bentuk- bentuk ataupun rumusnya sulit bagi saya. 3. Karena saya sering bingung harus pakai imbuhan –er -est dan more most. Kadang lupa pakai kata the dulu untuk kalimat superlative. Student b. 1. Sulit. 2. Menurut saya comparative dan superlative. 3. saya belum mengerti bagaimana membedakan cara pakai more most ataupun imbuhan –er -est. Student c. 1. susah. 2. hampir semuanya sulit, saya ga bias. 3. Saya kurang mengerti materi tentang degrees of comparison. Karena pada waktu itu saya tidak masuk sekolah jadi ketinggalan pelajaran tentang itu. Student d. 1. sulit sekali. 2. comparative juga superlative. 3. Saya sulit membedakan bagaimana cara pilih more atau tambahan -er nya, sering kebolak- balik. Kadang saya bingung pakai the apakah untuk comparative atau superlative. Student e. 1. sulit. 2. rumus-rumus nya sulit. 3. kalau soalnya pilihan ganda, saya sering terkecoh dengan jawabannya membingungkan untuk pilih yang mana. Saya juga bingung kalo pertanyaannya berbentuk isian, apakah harus ditambah imbuhan –er atau –est dan sering ketukar pilih more atau most nya.

C. Interpretation


Dokumen baru

PENGARUH PENERAPAN MODEL DISKUSI TERHADAP KEMAMPUAN TES LISAN SISWA PADA MATA PELAJARAN ALQUR’AN HADIS DI MADRASAH TSANAWIYAH NEGERI TUNGGANGRI KALIDAWIR TULUNGAGUNG Institutional Repository of IAIN Tulungagung

61 1248 16

PENGARUH PENERAPAN MODEL DISKUSI TERHADAP KEMAMPUAN TES LISAN SISWA PADA MATA PELAJARAN ALQUR’AN HADIS DI MADRASAH TSANAWIYAH NEGERI TUNGGANGRI KALIDAWIR TULUNGAGUNG Institutional Repository of IAIN Tulungagung

23 350 43

PENGARUH PENERAPAN MODEL DISKUSI TERHADAP KEMAMPUAN TES LISAN SISWA PADA MATA PELAJARAN ALQUR’AN HADIS DI MADRASAH TSANAWIYAH NEGERI TUNGGANGRI KALIDAWIR TULUNGAGUNG Institutional Repository of IAIN Tulungagung

23 293 23

PENGARUH PENERAPAN MODEL DISKUSI TERHADAP KEMAMPUAN TES LISAN SISWA PADA MATA PELAJARAN ALQUR’AN HADIS DI MADRASAH TSANAWIYAH NEGERI TUNGGANGRI KALIDAWIR TULUNGAGUNG Institutional Repository of IAIN Tulungagung

5 200 24

PENGARUH PENERAPAN MODEL DISKUSI TERHADAP KEMAMPUAN TES LISAN SISWA PADA MATA PELAJARAN ALQUR’AN HADIS DI MADRASAH TSANAWIYAH NEGERI TUNGGANGRI KALIDAWIR TULUNGAGUNG Institutional Repository of IAIN Tulungagung

17 275 23

KREATIVITAS GURU DALAM MENGGUNAKAN SUMBER BELAJAR UNTUK MENINGKATKAN KUALITAS PEMBELAJARAN PENDIDIKAN AGAMA ISLAM DI SMPN 2 NGANTRU TULUNGAGUNG Institutional Repository of IAIN Tulungagung

26 368 14

KREATIVITAS GURU DALAM MENGGUNAKAN SUMBER BELAJAR UNTUK MENINGKATKAN KUALITAS PEMBELAJARAN PENDIDIKAN AGAMA ISLAM DI SMPN 2 NGANTRU TULUNGAGUNG Institutional Repository of IAIN Tulungagung

20 334 50

KREATIVITAS GURU DALAM MENGGUNAKAN SUMBER BELAJAR UNTUK MENINGKATKAN KUALITAS PEMBELAJARAN PENDIDIKAN AGAMA ISLAM DI SMPN 2 NGANTRU TULUNGAGUNG Institutional Repository of IAIN Tulungagung

7 195 17

KREATIVITAS GURU DALAM MENGGUNAKAN SUMBER BELAJAR UNTUK MENINGKATKAN KUALITAS PEMBELAJARAN PENDIDIKAN AGAMA ISLAM DI SMPN 2 NGANTRU TULUNGAGUNG Institutional Repository of IAIN Tulungagung

13 350 30

KREATIVITAS GURU DALAM MENGGUNAKAN SUMBER BELAJAR UNTUK MENINGKATKAN KUALITAS PEMBELAJARAN PENDIDIKAN AGAMA ISLAM DI SMPN 2 NGANTRU TULUNGAGUNG Institutional Repository of IAIN Tulungagung

19 391 23