commit to user 51
lecturing B
1 :
the mean score of reading test of students having high intelligence B
2 :
the mean score of reading test of students having low intelligence A
1
B
1 :
the mean score or reading test of the students having high intelligence who are taught by using semantic mapping
A
1
B
2 :
the mean score of reading test of the students having low intelligence who are taught by using semantic mapping
A
2
B
1 :
the mean score or reading test of the students having high intelligence who are taught by using lecturing
A
2
B
2 :
the mean score of reading test of the students having low intelligence who are taught by using lecturing
2. Tuckey Test
The ANOVA test is used to find out if there is a significant different between groups. However, the analysis only indicates that there is a difference
between group means, but it does not show the means difference between cells. Thus, a post hoc test needs to be done.
Tukey test is post hoc test designed to perform a pair wise comparison of the means to see where the significant difference is. There are the
procedures to follow in conducting the TUKEY test: a.
Between columns semantic mapping compared with lecturing in teaching reading
n iance
er r or c
X c
X q
var
2 1
commit to user 52
b. Between rows students with high intelligence and low intelligence
n iance
er r or r
X r
X q
var
2 1
c. Between columns semantic mapping compared with lecturing in teaching
reading for students having high intelligence
n iance
er r or r
c X
r c
X q
var
1 2
1 1
d. Between columns semantic mapping compared with lecturing in teaching
reading for students having low intelligence
n iance
er r or r
c X
r c
X q
var
2 2
2 1
or
n iance
er r or r
c X
r c
X q
var
2 1
2 2
The analysis of the result of the computation or qo is compared with qt, if qo qt, the difference is significant. To know which one is better, the
means are compare Ngadiso, 2009: 19.
3. Statistical Hyphothesis
The researcher formulates the statistical hypotheses that consist of null hypotheses H
and alternative hypothesis H
1
. The statistical hypotheses are as follows:
a. The difference in the effectiveness between semantic mapping and
lecturing in teaching reading at the eighth graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in academic year 20122013.
Ho : μ A
1 =
μ A
2
H
1
: μ A
1
μ A
2
Ho : there is no difference in the effectiveness between semantic
commit to user 53
mapping and lecturing in teaching reading
H
1 :
semantic mapping is more ffective than lecturing in teaching reading
b. The difference in reading ability between students who have high
intelligence and low intelligence at the eighth graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in academic year 20122013.
Ho = μ B
1 = μ
B
2
H
1
= μ B
1 μ
B
2
Ho : there is no difference in reading ability between the students having high intelligence and those having low intelligence
H
1 :
the students having high intelligence have better reading ability than those having low intelligence
c. The interaction between teaching strategies and students’ intelligence to
teach reading at the eighth graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya in academic year 20122013.
Ho = A x B = 0 H
1
= A x B 0
Ho : there is no an interaction between teaching strategies and intelligence in teaching reading
H
1 :
there is an interaction between teaching strategies and intelligence in teaching reading
commit to user 54
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
A. Description of Data
There are two classes of the eighth graders of SMPN 12 Tasikmalaya used for the research: class VIII C as control class and VIII D as experimental class.
The experimental class was taught using semantic mapping and control class was taught using lecturing. Each class consists of 40 students. There is a border which
saparate the students. The border is their level of intelligence. The data presented here are the result of the reading test. The description
includes mean, mode, median, standard deviation, and frequency distribution followed by histogram and polygon. Building on group analyzed, the distribution
was divided into eight of groups: 1 the data of the students who were taught using semantic mapping A
1
; 2 the data of the students who were taught using lecturing A
2
; 3 the data of the students having high intelligence B
1
; 4 the data of the students having low intelligence B
2
; 5 the data of the students having high intelligence who were taught using semantic mapping A
1
B
1
; 6 the data of the students having high intelligence who were taught using lecturing
A
2
B
1
; 7 the data of the students having low intelligence who were taught using semantic mapping A
1
B
2
; 8 the data of the students having low intelligence who were taught using lecturing.
