1. Distribution of pre-test score of Experiment group The pre-test of the experiment group were presented in the following table - The effect of finger puppets in teaching english vocabularyat the seventh grade students of SMP Muhammadiyah Palangka Raya -
CHAPTER IV
RESULT OF THE STUDY
A.
Data Finding
In this section, it would be described the obtained data of improvement the
students’ vocabulary after and before taught by using finger puppet media. The
presented data consisted of Mean, Median, Modus, Standard Deviation, Standard
Error, and the figure.
1.
Distribution of pre-test score of Experiment group
The pre-test of the experiment group were presented in the following table
Table 2.1 the Description of pre test scores of the Data Achieved by the
students in Experimental Group
No
Students
Code
Sscore
1.
Alif Purnomo
A01
66
2.
Ahmad Riadi
A02
43
3.
Akbar Raya
A03
53
4.
Alfianur
A04
30
5.
Ahmad Sairaji
A05
20
6.
Agus Dwi Yanto
A06
30
41
7.
Bagas Panca Surya
A07
43
8.
Cahyair Sandhi
A08
53
9.
Citra Farah
A09
23
10.
Dini Angriani
A10
33
11.
Daffa Bagus A
A11
43
12.
Fatmala
A12
43
13.
Fitri Rahayu
A13
27
14.
Isna Mayada
A14
33
15.
M. Adi Saputra
A15
33
16.
M. Tri Yandi
A16
47
17.
Mesia Maulida
A17
37
18.
M.Rizki
A18
13
19.
Maharani
A19
17
20.
Maulida
A20
20
21.
Monica
A 21
27
22.
Olga Maulida
A22
33
23.
Reyhan Rizki
A23
40
24.
Reza Prayuda
A24
10
25.
Syafei
A25
43
26.
Syarifah
A26
30
27.
Siti Kharunisa
A27
37
28.
Yudid Ramadhan
A28
53
29.
Yuyun Rumanti
A 29
40
30.
Yolanda Silva
A30
13
Based on the data above, it can be seen that the students’ highest score was
66 and the student’s lowest score was 10. It mean that, most students still did not
master about vocabulary especially noun. To determine the range score use
interval of temporary, the writer calculated using formula as follows:
The highest score (H)
= 66
The lowest score (L)
= 10
The Range of score (R) = H-L+1
= 66-10 + 1
= 56 + 1 = 57
Interval of temporary =
=
= 11, 4 or 12
So, the range of score was 57 and interval of temporary was 12. It was
presented using frequency distribution in the following table.
Table 2.2 The Frequency Distribution of Pre-Test score of the
Experiment Class
No
Interval
Frequency
X
Fx
1.
65-69
1
67
67
2.
60-64
0
62
0
3.
55-59
0
57
0
4.
50-54
3
52
156
5.
54-49
1
47
47
6.
40-44
7
42
294
7.
35-39
2
37
74
8.
30-34
7
32
224
9.
25-29
2
27
54
10.
20-24
3
22
66
11.
15-19
1
17
17
12.
10-14
3
12
36
N=30
1.035
The distribution of students’ pretest score can also be seen in the following
figure.
3.1The Frequency Distribution of the Pre Test Scores Of the
Experiment Class
It can be seen from the figure above about the students’ pretest score. There
where twelve students who got score between 10and 14. There was one student
who got score between 15 and 19. There were three students who got score
between 20 and 24. There were two students who got score between 25 and 29.
There were seven students who got score 30 and 34. There were two students who
got score between 35 and 39. There were seven students who got score between
40 and 44. There was one student who got score between 45 and 49. There were
three students who got score between 50 and 54. And there was one student who
got score between 65 and 69.
The next step, the writer tabulated the scores into the table into the
calculation of mean, median, and modus as follows:
No
Interval
F
X
fx
X’
Fx’
fka
Fkb
1.
65-69
1
67
67
6
6
1
30
2.
60-64
0
62
0
5
0
1
29
3.
55-59
0
57
0
4
0
1
29
4.
50-54
3
52
156
3
9
4
29
5.
54-49
1
47
47
2
2
5
26
6.
40-44
7
42
294
1
7
12
25
7.
35-39
2
37 m
74
0
0
14
18
8.
30-34
7
32
224
-1
-7
21
16
9.
25-29
2
27
54
-2
-4
23
9
10.
20-24
3
22
66
-3
-9
26
7
11.
15-19
1
17
17
-4
-4
27
4
12.
10-14
3
12
N=30
36
-5
1.035
-15
30
3
-15
From the table above, the data could be inserted in the formula of mean,
median and modus. In simple explanation, I are interval score of students, f is
total student who got the score, fX is multiplication both X and f, fkb is the
cumulative students calculated from under to the top, in other side fka is the
cumulative students calculated from the top to under. The process of calculation
used formula below:
a.
Mean
M=
M=
M = 34, 5
b.
Median
No
Interval
F
fka
Fkb
1.
65-69
1
1
30
2.
60-64
0
1
29
3.
55-59
0
1
29
4.
50-54
3
4
29
5.
54-49
1
5
26
6.
40-44
7
12
25
7.
35-39
2 fa
14
18
8.
30-34
7
21
16
9.
25-29
2
23
9 fb
10.
20-24
3
26
7
11.
15-19
1
27
4
12.
10-14
3
30
3
N=30
Score of interval
= 34-35
Fi
=2
Fka
= 12
I
=5
U
= 34 + 0.5 = 34.5
Mdn
=
= 34,5 -
= 34,5 = 34,5 – 0,7 = 33,8
l= 30 – 0, 5
fi = 7
I=5
Mdn
=
=
=29, 5 +
= 29, 5 + 4, 3 = 33, 8
c.
Modus
Interval
F
65-69
1
60-64
0
55-59
0
50-54
3
45-49
1fa
40-44
7
35-39
2 fb
30-34
7
25-29
2
20-24
3
15-19
1
10-14
3
N=30
Fa = 1
L = 45- 0,5 = 44,5
I=5
= 44,
= 44, 5 + 0,3 X 5
= 44,5 + 1,5 = 46
The last step, the writer tabulated the scores of pre test of control group into
the table for the calculation of standard deviation and the standard error as
follows:
Table 2.3 the Calculation of the Standard Deviation and Standard
Error of the Pretest Score of Experiment group.
Score
F
X
Fx
x-m
x2
Fx’2
65-69
1
67
67
32.5
1056.25
1056.25
60-64
0
62
0
27.5
756.25
0
55-59
0
57
0
22.5
506.25
0
50-54
3
52
156
17.5
306.25
918,75
45-49
1
47
47
12.5
156.25
156.25
40-44
7
42
294
7.5
56.25
393.75
35-39
2
37
74
2.5
6.25
12.5
30-34
7
32
224
-2.5
6.25
43.75
25-29
2
27
54
-7.5
56.25
112.5
20-24
3
22
66
-12.5
156.25
468.75
15-19
1
17
17
-17.5
306.25
306.25
10-14
3
TOTAL
∑F= 30
12
36
-22.5
506.25
1518.75
∑Fx2=
4987.5
The table above used for calculate standard deviation and standard error by
calculate standard deviation first. The process of calculation used formula below:
d.
Standard Deviation
SD=
=
= 12, 893
e.
Standar eror
Sd =
=
=
=
= 2, 394
The result of calculation showed the standard deviations of pre test score of
experimental group was 12,893 and the standard error of pre test score of
experimental group was 2.394.
2.
Distribution of Post-Test Score forExperimentGroup
The post-test score of the experimental group were presented by the
following table:
Table 2.4 the Description of Post-test Score the Data Achieved by the
Students in Experiment Group
No
Students
Code
Score
1.
Alif Purnomo
A01
73
2.
Ahmad Riadi
A02
70
3.
Akbar Raya
A03
67
4.
Alfianur
A04
56
5.
Ahmad Sairaji
A05
30
6.
Agus Dwi Yanto
A06
53
7.
Bagas Panca Surya
A07
80
8.
Cahyair Sandhi
A08
50
9.
Citra Farah
A09
67
10.
Dini Angriani
A10
60
11.
Daffa Bagus A
A11
70
12.
Fatmala
A12
83
13.
Fitri Rahayu
A13
80
14.
Isna Mayada
A14
73
15.
M. Adi Saputra
A15
63
16.
M. Tri Yandi
A16
73
17.
Mesia Maulida
A17
80
18.
M.Rizki
A18
30
19.
Maharani
A19
73
20.
Maulida
A20
63
21.
Monica
A 21
70
22.
Olga Maulida
A22
63
23.
Reyhan Rizki
A23
60
24.
Reza Prayuda
A24
53
25.
Syafei
A25
73
26.
Syarifah
A26
63
27.
Siti Kharunisa
A27
70
28.
Yudid Ramadhan
A28
80
29.
Yuyun Rumanti
A 29
57
30.
Yolanda Silva
A30
86
Based on the data above, it can be seen that the students’ highest score was
86 and the student’s lowest score was 30. To determine the range of score and
interval of temporary, the writer calculated using formula :
The highest score (H) = 86
The lowest score (L)
= 30
The Range of score (R) = H-L+1
= 86-30 + 1
= 56 + 1 = 57
Interval of temporary =
= 57/6
= 9, 5 = 10
So, the range of score was 57 and interval of temporary was 10. It was
presented using frequency distribution in the following table.
Table 2.5 the table of Frequency Distribution of Post-Test score for
Experiment Group
No
Interval
(F)
X
FX
1.
84-89
1
86,5
86,5
2.
78-83
5
80,5
402,5
3.
72-77
5
74,5
372,5
4.
66-71
6
68,5
411
5.
60-65
6
62,5
375
6.
54-59
2
56,5
113
7.
48-53
3
50,5
151,5
8.
42-47
0
44,5
0
9.
36-41
0
30,5
0
10.
30-35
2
32,5
65
TOTAL
N= 30
∑= 1977
The distribution of students’ posttest score can also be seen in the following
figure.
Figure 3.2 the Frequency Distribution of Post-Test Score of the
experiment Group
the frequency distribution of post
test
8
6
4
2
0
84-89 78-83 72-77 66-71 60-65 54-59 48-53 42-72 36-41 30-35
It can be seen from the figure above about students’ posttest score. There
was one student who got score between 84-89. There were five students who got
score between 78-83. There were five students who got score between 72-77.
There were six students who got score between 66-71. There were six students
who got score between 60-65. There were two students who got score between
54-59. There were three students who got score between 48- 53. There were two
students who got score between 30-35.
The next step, the writer tabulated the score into the table for the calculation
of mean, median, modus as follows:
Table 2.6 the Table for Calculating Mean of Posttest Scores for the
Experimental Group
No
Interval
F
X
FX
1.
84-89
1
86,5
86,5
2.
78-83
5
80,5
402,5
3.
72-77
5
74,5
372,5
4.
66-71
6 m
68,5
411
5.
60-65
6
62,5
375
6.
54-59
2
56,5
113
7.
48-53
3
50,5
151,5
8.
42-47
0
44,5
0
9.
36-41
0
38,5
0
10.
30-35
2
32,5
65
TOTAL
N= 30
∑=
1977
a.
Mean
M=
=
b.
= 65, 9
Median
Interval
F
X
Fka
Fkb
84-89
1
86,5
1
30
78-83
5
80,5
6
29
72-77
5
74,5
11fka
24
66-71
6
68,5
17
19
60-65
6
62,5
23
13fkb
54-59
2
56,5
25
7
48-53
3
50,5
28
5
42-47
0
44,5
28
2
36-41
0
38,5
28
2
30-35
2
32,5
30
2
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Score Interval = 66-71
Fi
=6
Fka
= 11
I
=6
U
= 71 + 0.5 = 71.5
Mdn
=
=
= 71, 5 – 4/6 X6
= 71, 5 – o, 7 X 6 = 71.5 – 4, 2 = 67, 3
c.
Modus
interval
F
84-89
1
78-83
5
72-77
5fa
66-71
6
60-65
6fb
54-59
2
48-53
3
42-47
0
36-41
0
30-35
2
TOTAL
N= 30
Modus = Fa =5
N= 66-71
L = 66-0,5 = 66,5
I=6
=
= 65,5 + 0,5 x 6 = 68,5
The calculation above showed mean value was 69, 5, the median was 67,5
and the modus taken from the highest frequency was 68,5 of the pre test of the
experimental group.
The last step, the writer tabulated the scores of pre test of experimental
group into the table for the calculation of standard deviation and the standard error
as follows:
Table 2.7 the Calculation of the Standard Deviation and Standard
Error of the Pretest Score of Experiment group.
Interval
F
X
FX
x-m
X2
fx2
84-89
1
86,5
86,5
20,6
424,36
424,36
78-83
5
80,5
402,5
14,6
213,16
1065,8
72-77
5
74,5
372,5
8,6
73,96
369,8
66-71
6
68,5
411
2,6
6,76
17,576
60-65
6
62,5
375
-3,4
11,56
69,36
54-59
2
56,5
113
-9,4
88,36
176,72
48-53
3
50,5
151,5
-15,4
237,16
711,48
42-47
0
44,5
0
-21,4
457,96
0
36-41
0
38,5
0
-27,4
750,76
0
30-35
2
32,5
65
-33,4
1.115,56
2.231,12
TOTAL
∑=
N= 30
1977
d.
5066,216
Standard Deviation
SD=
e.
∑=
= √168, 873867 = 12,995
=
Standard Error
Sem
=
=
=
= 2,413
The result of calculation showed the standard deviation of post test score of
experimental group was 12.995 and the standard error of post test score of
experimental group was 2.413.
3.
Distribution of Pre-Test Score of Control Group
The pre test scores of the control group were presented in the following
table.
Table 2.8 the Description of Pre-Test Scores of Data Achieved by the
Students in Control Group
No
Student
CODE
SCORE
1.
Abu Nidal
C01
30
2.
Ade Nur
C02
36
3.
Adelia Fatahaya
C03
40
4.
Aditya Putra
C04
43
5.
Aisyah
C05
26
6.
Ali Wibowo
C06
20
7.
Amelia Lestari
C07
30
8.
Anggun Angriani
C08
50
9.
Anita Nooraini
C09
26
10. Arnan Maulana
C10
26
11. Bilqis
C11
33
12. Bima Aditya
C12
36
13. Dea Calossa
C13
66
14. Debi Oktavia
C14
33
15. Feri Irawan
C15
23
16. Fitri Anti
C16
66
17. M. Khaidir
C17
23
18. M. Muzaini
C18
30
19. M.Gozali
C19
30
20. Putri Lestari
C20
20
21. Putri Maryanti
C21
23
22. Raden Oni Qital
C22
30
23. Rudi Hartono
C23
43
24. Salsadiva
C24
53
25. Sarah Maulida
C25
33
26. Supriyanto
C26
30
27. Tri Subi
C27
23
28. Windi Dwi
C28
36
29. Yola Depi Marista
C29
36
30. Yulia Islami
C30
20
Based on the data above, it can be seen that the students’ highest score was
66 and the student’s lowest score was 10. It mean that, most students still did not
master about vocabulary especially noun. To determine the range score use
interval of temporary, the writer calculated using formula as follows:
The highest score (H) = 66
The lowest score (L)
= 20
The Range of score (R) = H-L+1
= 66-20 + 1
= 46 + 1 = 47
Interval of temporary =
= 47/5
= 9, 4
So, the range of score was 47 and interval of temporary was 10. It was
presented using frequency distribution in the following table.
Table 2.9 the table of Frequency Distribution of Pre-Test score for
Control Group
No
Interval
Frequency
(F)
1.
65-69
2
FX
134
2.
60-64
0
0
3.
55-59
0
0
4.
50-54
2
104
5.
45-49
0
0
6.
40-44
3
126
7.
35-39
3
111
8.
30-34
10
320
9.
25-29
3
81
10.
20-24
7
154
TOTAL
∑= 1.030
The distribution of students’ pretest score can also be seen in the following
figure.
3.3 The Frequency Distribution of Pre-Test Score of the Control Group
The table and the figure showed the pre-test score of students in control
group. It could be seen that two were students who got score between 65 and 69.
There were two students who got score between 50 and 54. There were three
students who got score between 40 and 44. There were three students who got
score between 35 and 39. There were ten students who got score between 30 and
34. There were three students who got score between 25 until 29. There were
seven who got score between 20 and 24. In this case, many students got score
under 70.
The next step, the writer tabulated the score into the table for the calculation
mean, median and modus as follows:
a.
Mean
Interval
Frequency (F)
X
FX
65-69
2
67
134
60-64
0
62
0
55-59
0
57
0
50-54
2
52
104
45-49
0
47
0
40-44
3
42
126
35-39
3
37
111
30-34
10 m
32
320
25-29
3
27
81
20-24
7
22
154
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Mean:
M =
=
= 34,3 = 34
b.
Median
∑P= 1.030
Interval
F
X
Fka
Fkb
65-69
2
67
2
30
60-64
0
62
2
28
55-59
0
57
2
28
50-54
2
52
4
28
45-49
0
47
4
26
40-44
3
42
7
26
35-39
3
37
10fa
23
30-34
10
32
20
20
25-29
3
27
23
10fb
20-24
7
22
30
7
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Score Interval = 30-34
Fi
= 10
Fka
= 10
I
=5
U
= 3 4+ 0.5 = 34.5
Mdn
=
= 34, 5 – 2, 5 = 32
c.
Modus
Interval
F
65-69
2
60-64
0
55-59
0
50-54
2
45-49
0
40-44
3
35-39
3fa
30-34
10
25-29
3fb
20-24
7
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Fa = 3
N= 30-34
L = 30- 0,5 = 29,5
I=5
= 29, 5 + 2, 5 = 32
The last step, the writer tabulated the scores of pre test of control group into
the table for the calculation of standard deviation and the standard error as
follows:
Table 2.10 the Calculation of the Standard Deviation and Standard
Error of the Pretest Score of Control group.
Score
F
X
Fx
x-m
x2
Fx’2
65-69
2
67
134
32.7
1069.29
2.138,58
60-64
0
62
0
27.7
757.29
0
55-59
0
57
0
22.7
515.29
0
50-54
2
52
104
17.7
313.29
626,58
45-49
0
47
0
12.7
161.29
0
40-44
3
42
126
7.7
7.29
21,87
35-39
3fa
37
111
2.7
59,29
177,87
30-34
10
32
320
-2.3
5.29
52,9
25-29
3fb
27
81
-7.3
53.29
159,87
20-24
7
22
154
-12.3
151.29
1.059,03
TOTAL
∑F= 30
∑=
∑Fx2=
1.030
4236,7
The table above used for calculate standard deviation and standard error by
calculate standard deviation first. The process of calculation used formula below:
a.
Standard Deviation
SD=
b.
=
Standard error
Sem =
=
=
= 2,206
= 141,223 = 11,884
The result of calculation showed the standard deviations of pre test score of
control group was 11,884 and the standard error of pre test score of control group
was 2,206.
f.
Distribution of Post-test score for Control group
That post test score of the control group were presented by the following
table:
Table 2.11 the Description of Post-test Scores of the Data Achieved by
the Students in Control Group
No
Students
Code
Score
1.
Abu Nidal
C01
33
2.
Ade Nur
C02
43
3.
Adelia Fatahaya
C03
40
4.
Aditya Putra
C04
63
5.
Aisyah
C05
40
6.
Ali Wibowo
C06
30
7.
Amelia Lestari
C07
33
8.
Anggun Angriani
C08
50
9.
Anita Nooraini
C09
30
10.
Arnan Maulana
C10
33
11.
Bilqis
C11
43
12.
Bima Aditya
C12
53
13.
Dea Calossa
C13
80
14.
Debi Oktavia
C14
40
15.
Feri Irawan
C15
33
16.
Fitri Anti
C16
63
17.
M. Khaidir
C17
36
18.
M. Muzaini
C18
47
19.
M.Gozali
C19
50
20.
Putri Lestari
C20
23
21.
Putri Maryanti
C21
50
22.
Raden Oni Qital
C22
53
23.
Rudi Hartono
C23
50
24.
Salsadiva
C24
46
25.
Sarah Maulida
C25
26
26.
Supriyanto
C26
63
27.
Tri Subi
C27
40
28.
Windi Dwi
C28
36
29.
Yola Depi Marista
C29
40
30.
Yulia Islami
C30
23
Based on the data above, it can be seen that the students’ highest score was
86 and the student’s lowest score was 30. To determine the range of score and
interval of temporary, the writer calculated using formula :
The highest score (H) = 80
The lowest score (L)
= 23
The Range of score (R) = H-L+1
= 80-23 + 1
= 57 + 1 = 51
Interval of temporary =
= 58/7
= 8.2
So, the range of score was 51. It was presented using frequency distribution
in the following table.
Table 2.12 the table of Frequency Distribution of Post-Test score for
control Group
No
Interval
(F)
X
FX
1.
79-85
1
82
82
2.
72-78
0
75
0
3.
65-71
0
68
0
4.
58-64
2
61
122
5.
51-57
2
54
108
6.
44-50
6
47
282
7.
37-43
7
40
280
8.
30-36
9
33
297
9.
23-29
3
26
78
TOTAL
N= 30
∑=1249
The distribution of students’ posttest score can also be seen in the following
figure.
Figure 3.4 the Frequency Distribution of Post-Test Score of the control
Group
It can be seen from the figure above about students’ posttest score. There
was one student who got score between 79-85. There were two students who got
score between 58-64. There were two students who got score between 51-57.
There were six students who got score between 44-50. There were seven students
who got score between 37-43. There were nine students who got score between
30-36. There were three students who got score between 23-29.
The next step, the writer tabulated the score into the table for the calculation
of mean, median, and modus as follows:
a.
mean
No
interval
f
X
FX
1.
79-85
1
82
82
2.
72-78
0
75
75
3.
65-71
0
68
68
4.
58-64
2
61
61
5.
51-57
2
54
54
6.
44-50
6
47
47
7.
37-43
7
40
40
8.
30-36
9
33
33
23-29
3
26
26
TOTAL
N= 30
∑=1249
M=
=
b.
= 41, 6 = 42
Median
Interval
F
X
Fka
Fkb
79-85
1
82
1
30
72-78
0
75
1
29
65-71
0
68
1
29
58-64
2
61
3
29
51-57
2
54
5
27
44-50
6
47
11fka
25
37-43
7
40
18
19
30-36
9
33
27
12fkb
23-29
3
26
30
3
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Score Interval = 37-43
Fi
=7
Fka
= 11
I
=7
U
= 43 + 0.5 = 43.5
Mdn
=
=
= 43,5 – 0,571x 7 = 43,5 – 3,997 = 39,5
c.
Modus
Interval
F
79-85
1
72-78
0
65-71
0
58-64
2
51-57
2
44-50
6
37-43
7 fa
30-36
9
23-29
3 fb
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Modos= Fa =6
N= 30-36
L = 29, 5
I=7
=
= 29,5 + 0,7 X 7 = 2,95 + 4,9 = 34,4
The last step, the writer tabulated the scores of pre test of experimental
group into the table for the calculation of standard deviation and the standard error
as follows:
Table 2.13 the Calculation of the Standard Deviation and Standard
Error of the Pretest Score of control group.
Interval
F
X
FX
x-m
X2
fx2
79-85
1
82
82
40
1600
1600
72-78
0
75
75
33
1089
0
65-71
0
68
68
26
676
0
58-64
2
61
61
19
361
722
51-57
2
54
54
12
144
288
44-50
6
47
47
5
25
150
37-43
7
40
40
-2
4
28
30-36
9
33
33
-9
81
729
23-29
3
26
26
-16
256
768
∑= 1249
d.
Standard Deviation
SD=
e.
∑= 4285
=
= 11,951
Standard error
Sem
=
=
=
= 2,219
The result of calculation showed the standard deviation of post test score of
control group was 11,951 and standard error of post test score of control group
was 2,219.
B.
The Result of Data Analysis
a.
Calculate T-test using Manual Calculation
The writer chose the significance level on 5%, it means the significance
level of refusal of null hypothesis on 5%. The writer decided the significance level
at 5% due to the hypothesis type stated on non-directional (two-tailed test). It
means that the hypothesis can’t direct the prediction of alternative Hypothesis.
Alternative Hypothesis symbolized by “1”. This symbol could direct the answer
of hypothesis, “1” can be (>) or () or (2.65. It means Ha was accepted and Ho was rejected.
It could be interpreted based on the result of calculation that Ha stating that
finger puppets give influences toward student’s scores in increasing English
vocabulary
was accepted and Ho stating that finger puppets does not give
influences toward student’s scores in increasing English vocabulary was rejected.
It means that teaching vocabulary using finger puppets gave significant effect on
the students’ vocabulary score of the seventh grade students at SMP
muhammadiyah Palangka Raya.
C. Discussion
In teaching learning process, English vocabulary by using finger puppets
is a tool using by the teacher to teach the students. Finger puppets approach can
make a good interaction between teacher and students.
From the result of
analysis, it can be seen from the score of students how the use of media giving
positive effects for student’s vocabulary. It meant media has important role in
teaching learning process.
The results of researcher’s study is supported by theory (Chapter II: theory
that be developed by mahony on page 22) about the reasons why teaching
vocabulary using finger puppet could increase students’ interested in teaching
learning process. The first reason is about the advantage of finger puppet in
learning process, such as: the students are motivated to be active in the class; the
students easy to understand memorize and remember vocabulary because the
student can see the object directly. Teaching learning process more interested
when the teacher used finger puppets. From the data above, it can be known that
teaching vocabulary by using finger puppets as the media of learning process gave
significant effects in improving students’ English vocabulary. The students more
interested to receive vocabulary using finger puppet. So, the research of
improving students’ English vocabulary by using finger puppet as media is
balanced with the theory in chapter II : theory that be developed by mahony on
page 22. The theory was support the use of finger puppets as media in learning
process and suitable with the condition of the seventh grade students.
The result of data analysis showed that The Effect of Finger Puppets in
Teaching English Vocabulary of the Seventh Grade Students of SMP
Muhammadiyah Palangka Raya. It can be seen first from the means score between
Pre-test and Post-test. The mean score of Posttest reached higher score than the
mean score of Pretest (X= 65, 9< Y=42). It indicated that the students’ score
increased after conducting treatment. In other words, teaching vocabulary by
using finger puppets gave significant effect toward the students’ vocabulary.
Meanwhile, after the data was calculated using the ttest formula using manual
calculation showed that the tobserved was 7.291. By comparing the tobserved with the
ttable, it was found that the tobserved was higher than ttable at 5% level significance or
tobserved = 7.291>ttable=2.00.
In teaching vocabulary by using finger puppets, researcher find this media
made the student more focus and motivated to memorize word and the able to
write it. The students more interested to role play and practice their spoken. The
student can make it easy. But, in teaching vocabulary by using finger puppets, the
researcher found problem, like difficult in determine character suitable with each
finger puppets.
When the researcher taught vocabulary and the writer used L2 (English) in
conversation the students are confuse and didn’t interested, because they didn’t
understand about topic have been taught. Finally, the researcher used L1 and L2
in teaching vocabulary.
RESULT OF THE STUDY
A.
Data Finding
In this section, it would be described the obtained data of improvement the
students’ vocabulary after and before taught by using finger puppet media. The
presented data consisted of Mean, Median, Modus, Standard Deviation, Standard
Error, and the figure.
1.
Distribution of pre-test score of Experiment group
The pre-test of the experiment group were presented in the following table
Table 2.1 the Description of pre test scores of the Data Achieved by the
students in Experimental Group
No
Students
Code
Sscore
1.
Alif Purnomo
A01
66
2.
Ahmad Riadi
A02
43
3.
Akbar Raya
A03
53
4.
Alfianur
A04
30
5.
Ahmad Sairaji
A05
20
6.
Agus Dwi Yanto
A06
30
41
7.
Bagas Panca Surya
A07
43
8.
Cahyair Sandhi
A08
53
9.
Citra Farah
A09
23
10.
Dini Angriani
A10
33
11.
Daffa Bagus A
A11
43
12.
Fatmala
A12
43
13.
Fitri Rahayu
A13
27
14.
Isna Mayada
A14
33
15.
M. Adi Saputra
A15
33
16.
M. Tri Yandi
A16
47
17.
Mesia Maulida
A17
37
18.
M.Rizki
A18
13
19.
Maharani
A19
17
20.
Maulida
A20
20
21.
Monica
A 21
27
22.
Olga Maulida
A22
33
23.
Reyhan Rizki
A23
40
24.
Reza Prayuda
A24
10
25.
Syafei
A25
43
26.
Syarifah
A26
30
27.
Siti Kharunisa
A27
37
28.
Yudid Ramadhan
A28
53
29.
Yuyun Rumanti
A 29
40
30.
Yolanda Silva
A30
13
Based on the data above, it can be seen that the students’ highest score was
66 and the student’s lowest score was 10. It mean that, most students still did not
master about vocabulary especially noun. To determine the range score use
interval of temporary, the writer calculated using formula as follows:
The highest score (H)
= 66
The lowest score (L)
= 10
The Range of score (R) = H-L+1
= 66-10 + 1
= 56 + 1 = 57
Interval of temporary =
=
= 11, 4 or 12
So, the range of score was 57 and interval of temporary was 12. It was
presented using frequency distribution in the following table.
Table 2.2 The Frequency Distribution of Pre-Test score of the
Experiment Class
No
Interval
Frequency
X
Fx
1.
65-69
1
67
67
2.
60-64
0
62
0
3.
55-59
0
57
0
4.
50-54
3
52
156
5.
54-49
1
47
47
6.
40-44
7
42
294
7.
35-39
2
37
74
8.
30-34
7
32
224
9.
25-29
2
27
54
10.
20-24
3
22
66
11.
15-19
1
17
17
12.
10-14
3
12
36
N=30
1.035
The distribution of students’ pretest score can also be seen in the following
figure.
3.1The Frequency Distribution of the Pre Test Scores Of the
Experiment Class
It can be seen from the figure above about the students’ pretest score. There
where twelve students who got score between 10and 14. There was one student
who got score between 15 and 19. There were three students who got score
between 20 and 24. There were two students who got score between 25 and 29.
There were seven students who got score 30 and 34. There were two students who
got score between 35 and 39. There were seven students who got score between
40 and 44. There was one student who got score between 45 and 49. There were
three students who got score between 50 and 54. And there was one student who
got score between 65 and 69.
The next step, the writer tabulated the scores into the table into the
calculation of mean, median, and modus as follows:
No
Interval
F
X
fx
X’
Fx’
fka
Fkb
1.
65-69
1
67
67
6
6
1
30
2.
60-64
0
62
0
5
0
1
29
3.
55-59
0
57
0
4
0
1
29
4.
50-54
3
52
156
3
9
4
29
5.
54-49
1
47
47
2
2
5
26
6.
40-44
7
42
294
1
7
12
25
7.
35-39
2
37 m
74
0
0
14
18
8.
30-34
7
32
224
-1
-7
21
16
9.
25-29
2
27
54
-2
-4
23
9
10.
20-24
3
22
66
-3
-9
26
7
11.
15-19
1
17
17
-4
-4
27
4
12.
10-14
3
12
N=30
36
-5
1.035
-15
30
3
-15
From the table above, the data could be inserted in the formula of mean,
median and modus. In simple explanation, I are interval score of students, f is
total student who got the score, fX is multiplication both X and f, fkb is the
cumulative students calculated from under to the top, in other side fka is the
cumulative students calculated from the top to under. The process of calculation
used formula below:
a.
Mean
M=
M=
M = 34, 5
b.
Median
No
Interval
F
fka
Fkb
1.
65-69
1
1
30
2.
60-64
0
1
29
3.
55-59
0
1
29
4.
50-54
3
4
29
5.
54-49
1
5
26
6.
40-44
7
12
25
7.
35-39
2 fa
14
18
8.
30-34
7
21
16
9.
25-29
2
23
9 fb
10.
20-24
3
26
7
11.
15-19
1
27
4
12.
10-14
3
30
3
N=30
Score of interval
= 34-35
Fi
=2
Fka
= 12
I
=5
U
= 34 + 0.5 = 34.5
Mdn
=
= 34,5 -
= 34,5 = 34,5 – 0,7 = 33,8
l= 30 – 0, 5
fi = 7
I=5
Mdn
=
=
=29, 5 +
= 29, 5 + 4, 3 = 33, 8
c.
Modus
Interval
F
65-69
1
60-64
0
55-59
0
50-54
3
45-49
1fa
40-44
7
35-39
2 fb
30-34
7
25-29
2
20-24
3
15-19
1
10-14
3
N=30
Fa = 1
L = 45- 0,5 = 44,5
I=5
= 44,
= 44, 5 + 0,3 X 5
= 44,5 + 1,5 = 46
The last step, the writer tabulated the scores of pre test of control group into
the table for the calculation of standard deviation and the standard error as
follows:
Table 2.3 the Calculation of the Standard Deviation and Standard
Error of the Pretest Score of Experiment group.
Score
F
X
Fx
x-m
x2
Fx’2
65-69
1
67
67
32.5
1056.25
1056.25
60-64
0
62
0
27.5
756.25
0
55-59
0
57
0
22.5
506.25
0
50-54
3
52
156
17.5
306.25
918,75
45-49
1
47
47
12.5
156.25
156.25
40-44
7
42
294
7.5
56.25
393.75
35-39
2
37
74
2.5
6.25
12.5
30-34
7
32
224
-2.5
6.25
43.75
25-29
2
27
54
-7.5
56.25
112.5
20-24
3
22
66
-12.5
156.25
468.75
15-19
1
17
17
-17.5
306.25
306.25
10-14
3
TOTAL
∑F= 30
12
36
-22.5
506.25
1518.75
∑Fx2=
4987.5
The table above used for calculate standard deviation and standard error by
calculate standard deviation first. The process of calculation used formula below:
d.
Standard Deviation
SD=
=
= 12, 893
e.
Standar eror
Sd =
=
=
=
= 2, 394
The result of calculation showed the standard deviations of pre test score of
experimental group was 12,893 and the standard error of pre test score of
experimental group was 2.394.
2.
Distribution of Post-Test Score forExperimentGroup
The post-test score of the experimental group were presented by the
following table:
Table 2.4 the Description of Post-test Score the Data Achieved by the
Students in Experiment Group
No
Students
Code
Score
1.
Alif Purnomo
A01
73
2.
Ahmad Riadi
A02
70
3.
Akbar Raya
A03
67
4.
Alfianur
A04
56
5.
Ahmad Sairaji
A05
30
6.
Agus Dwi Yanto
A06
53
7.
Bagas Panca Surya
A07
80
8.
Cahyair Sandhi
A08
50
9.
Citra Farah
A09
67
10.
Dini Angriani
A10
60
11.
Daffa Bagus A
A11
70
12.
Fatmala
A12
83
13.
Fitri Rahayu
A13
80
14.
Isna Mayada
A14
73
15.
M. Adi Saputra
A15
63
16.
M. Tri Yandi
A16
73
17.
Mesia Maulida
A17
80
18.
M.Rizki
A18
30
19.
Maharani
A19
73
20.
Maulida
A20
63
21.
Monica
A 21
70
22.
Olga Maulida
A22
63
23.
Reyhan Rizki
A23
60
24.
Reza Prayuda
A24
53
25.
Syafei
A25
73
26.
Syarifah
A26
63
27.
Siti Kharunisa
A27
70
28.
Yudid Ramadhan
A28
80
29.
Yuyun Rumanti
A 29
57
30.
Yolanda Silva
A30
86
Based on the data above, it can be seen that the students’ highest score was
86 and the student’s lowest score was 30. To determine the range of score and
interval of temporary, the writer calculated using formula :
The highest score (H) = 86
The lowest score (L)
= 30
The Range of score (R) = H-L+1
= 86-30 + 1
= 56 + 1 = 57
Interval of temporary =
= 57/6
= 9, 5 = 10
So, the range of score was 57 and interval of temporary was 10. It was
presented using frequency distribution in the following table.
Table 2.5 the table of Frequency Distribution of Post-Test score for
Experiment Group
No
Interval
(F)
X
FX
1.
84-89
1
86,5
86,5
2.
78-83
5
80,5
402,5
3.
72-77
5
74,5
372,5
4.
66-71
6
68,5
411
5.
60-65
6
62,5
375
6.
54-59
2
56,5
113
7.
48-53
3
50,5
151,5
8.
42-47
0
44,5
0
9.
36-41
0
30,5
0
10.
30-35
2
32,5
65
TOTAL
N= 30
∑= 1977
The distribution of students’ posttest score can also be seen in the following
figure.
Figure 3.2 the Frequency Distribution of Post-Test Score of the
experiment Group
the frequency distribution of post
test
8
6
4
2
0
84-89 78-83 72-77 66-71 60-65 54-59 48-53 42-72 36-41 30-35
It can be seen from the figure above about students’ posttest score. There
was one student who got score between 84-89. There were five students who got
score between 78-83. There were five students who got score between 72-77.
There were six students who got score between 66-71. There were six students
who got score between 60-65. There were two students who got score between
54-59. There were three students who got score between 48- 53. There were two
students who got score between 30-35.
The next step, the writer tabulated the score into the table for the calculation
of mean, median, modus as follows:
Table 2.6 the Table for Calculating Mean of Posttest Scores for the
Experimental Group
No
Interval
F
X
FX
1.
84-89
1
86,5
86,5
2.
78-83
5
80,5
402,5
3.
72-77
5
74,5
372,5
4.
66-71
6 m
68,5
411
5.
60-65
6
62,5
375
6.
54-59
2
56,5
113
7.
48-53
3
50,5
151,5
8.
42-47
0
44,5
0
9.
36-41
0
38,5
0
10.
30-35
2
32,5
65
TOTAL
N= 30
∑=
1977
a.
Mean
M=
=
b.
= 65, 9
Median
Interval
F
X
Fka
Fkb
84-89
1
86,5
1
30
78-83
5
80,5
6
29
72-77
5
74,5
11fka
24
66-71
6
68,5
17
19
60-65
6
62,5
23
13fkb
54-59
2
56,5
25
7
48-53
3
50,5
28
5
42-47
0
44,5
28
2
36-41
0
38,5
28
2
30-35
2
32,5
30
2
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Score Interval = 66-71
Fi
=6
Fka
= 11
I
=6
U
= 71 + 0.5 = 71.5
Mdn
=
=
= 71, 5 – 4/6 X6
= 71, 5 – o, 7 X 6 = 71.5 – 4, 2 = 67, 3
c.
Modus
interval
F
84-89
1
78-83
5
72-77
5fa
66-71
6
60-65
6fb
54-59
2
48-53
3
42-47
0
36-41
0
30-35
2
TOTAL
N= 30
Modus = Fa =5
N= 66-71
L = 66-0,5 = 66,5
I=6
=
= 65,5 + 0,5 x 6 = 68,5
The calculation above showed mean value was 69, 5, the median was 67,5
and the modus taken from the highest frequency was 68,5 of the pre test of the
experimental group.
The last step, the writer tabulated the scores of pre test of experimental
group into the table for the calculation of standard deviation and the standard error
as follows:
Table 2.7 the Calculation of the Standard Deviation and Standard
Error of the Pretest Score of Experiment group.
Interval
F
X
FX
x-m
X2
fx2
84-89
1
86,5
86,5
20,6
424,36
424,36
78-83
5
80,5
402,5
14,6
213,16
1065,8
72-77
5
74,5
372,5
8,6
73,96
369,8
66-71
6
68,5
411
2,6
6,76
17,576
60-65
6
62,5
375
-3,4
11,56
69,36
54-59
2
56,5
113
-9,4
88,36
176,72
48-53
3
50,5
151,5
-15,4
237,16
711,48
42-47
0
44,5
0
-21,4
457,96
0
36-41
0
38,5
0
-27,4
750,76
0
30-35
2
32,5
65
-33,4
1.115,56
2.231,12
TOTAL
∑=
N= 30
1977
d.
5066,216
Standard Deviation
SD=
e.
∑=
= √168, 873867 = 12,995
=
Standard Error
Sem
=
=
=
= 2,413
The result of calculation showed the standard deviation of post test score of
experimental group was 12.995 and the standard error of post test score of
experimental group was 2.413.
3.
Distribution of Pre-Test Score of Control Group
The pre test scores of the control group were presented in the following
table.
Table 2.8 the Description of Pre-Test Scores of Data Achieved by the
Students in Control Group
No
Student
CODE
SCORE
1.
Abu Nidal
C01
30
2.
Ade Nur
C02
36
3.
Adelia Fatahaya
C03
40
4.
Aditya Putra
C04
43
5.
Aisyah
C05
26
6.
Ali Wibowo
C06
20
7.
Amelia Lestari
C07
30
8.
Anggun Angriani
C08
50
9.
Anita Nooraini
C09
26
10. Arnan Maulana
C10
26
11. Bilqis
C11
33
12. Bima Aditya
C12
36
13. Dea Calossa
C13
66
14. Debi Oktavia
C14
33
15. Feri Irawan
C15
23
16. Fitri Anti
C16
66
17. M. Khaidir
C17
23
18. M. Muzaini
C18
30
19. M.Gozali
C19
30
20. Putri Lestari
C20
20
21. Putri Maryanti
C21
23
22. Raden Oni Qital
C22
30
23. Rudi Hartono
C23
43
24. Salsadiva
C24
53
25. Sarah Maulida
C25
33
26. Supriyanto
C26
30
27. Tri Subi
C27
23
28. Windi Dwi
C28
36
29. Yola Depi Marista
C29
36
30. Yulia Islami
C30
20
Based on the data above, it can be seen that the students’ highest score was
66 and the student’s lowest score was 10. It mean that, most students still did not
master about vocabulary especially noun. To determine the range score use
interval of temporary, the writer calculated using formula as follows:
The highest score (H) = 66
The lowest score (L)
= 20
The Range of score (R) = H-L+1
= 66-20 + 1
= 46 + 1 = 47
Interval of temporary =
= 47/5
= 9, 4
So, the range of score was 47 and interval of temporary was 10. It was
presented using frequency distribution in the following table.
Table 2.9 the table of Frequency Distribution of Pre-Test score for
Control Group
No
Interval
Frequency
(F)
1.
65-69
2
FX
134
2.
60-64
0
0
3.
55-59
0
0
4.
50-54
2
104
5.
45-49
0
0
6.
40-44
3
126
7.
35-39
3
111
8.
30-34
10
320
9.
25-29
3
81
10.
20-24
7
154
TOTAL
∑= 1.030
The distribution of students’ pretest score can also be seen in the following
figure.
3.3 The Frequency Distribution of Pre-Test Score of the Control Group
The table and the figure showed the pre-test score of students in control
group. It could be seen that two were students who got score between 65 and 69.
There were two students who got score between 50 and 54. There were three
students who got score between 40 and 44. There were three students who got
score between 35 and 39. There were ten students who got score between 30 and
34. There were three students who got score between 25 until 29. There were
seven who got score between 20 and 24. In this case, many students got score
under 70.
The next step, the writer tabulated the score into the table for the calculation
mean, median and modus as follows:
a.
Mean
Interval
Frequency (F)
X
FX
65-69
2
67
134
60-64
0
62
0
55-59
0
57
0
50-54
2
52
104
45-49
0
47
0
40-44
3
42
126
35-39
3
37
111
30-34
10 m
32
320
25-29
3
27
81
20-24
7
22
154
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Mean:
M =
=
= 34,3 = 34
b.
Median
∑P= 1.030
Interval
F
X
Fka
Fkb
65-69
2
67
2
30
60-64
0
62
2
28
55-59
0
57
2
28
50-54
2
52
4
28
45-49
0
47
4
26
40-44
3
42
7
26
35-39
3
37
10fa
23
30-34
10
32
20
20
25-29
3
27
23
10fb
20-24
7
22
30
7
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Score Interval = 30-34
Fi
= 10
Fka
= 10
I
=5
U
= 3 4+ 0.5 = 34.5
Mdn
=
= 34, 5 – 2, 5 = 32
c.
Modus
Interval
F
65-69
2
60-64
0
55-59
0
50-54
2
45-49
0
40-44
3
35-39
3fa
30-34
10
25-29
3fb
20-24
7
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Fa = 3
N= 30-34
L = 30- 0,5 = 29,5
I=5
= 29, 5 + 2, 5 = 32
The last step, the writer tabulated the scores of pre test of control group into
the table for the calculation of standard deviation and the standard error as
follows:
Table 2.10 the Calculation of the Standard Deviation and Standard
Error of the Pretest Score of Control group.
Score
F
X
Fx
x-m
x2
Fx’2
65-69
2
67
134
32.7
1069.29
2.138,58
60-64
0
62
0
27.7
757.29
0
55-59
0
57
0
22.7
515.29
0
50-54
2
52
104
17.7
313.29
626,58
45-49
0
47
0
12.7
161.29
0
40-44
3
42
126
7.7
7.29
21,87
35-39
3fa
37
111
2.7
59,29
177,87
30-34
10
32
320
-2.3
5.29
52,9
25-29
3fb
27
81
-7.3
53.29
159,87
20-24
7
22
154
-12.3
151.29
1.059,03
TOTAL
∑F= 30
∑=
∑Fx2=
1.030
4236,7
The table above used for calculate standard deviation and standard error by
calculate standard deviation first. The process of calculation used formula below:
a.
Standard Deviation
SD=
b.
=
Standard error
Sem =
=
=
= 2,206
= 141,223 = 11,884
The result of calculation showed the standard deviations of pre test score of
control group was 11,884 and the standard error of pre test score of control group
was 2,206.
f.
Distribution of Post-test score for Control group
That post test score of the control group were presented by the following
table:
Table 2.11 the Description of Post-test Scores of the Data Achieved by
the Students in Control Group
No
Students
Code
Score
1.
Abu Nidal
C01
33
2.
Ade Nur
C02
43
3.
Adelia Fatahaya
C03
40
4.
Aditya Putra
C04
63
5.
Aisyah
C05
40
6.
Ali Wibowo
C06
30
7.
Amelia Lestari
C07
33
8.
Anggun Angriani
C08
50
9.
Anita Nooraini
C09
30
10.
Arnan Maulana
C10
33
11.
Bilqis
C11
43
12.
Bima Aditya
C12
53
13.
Dea Calossa
C13
80
14.
Debi Oktavia
C14
40
15.
Feri Irawan
C15
33
16.
Fitri Anti
C16
63
17.
M. Khaidir
C17
36
18.
M. Muzaini
C18
47
19.
M.Gozali
C19
50
20.
Putri Lestari
C20
23
21.
Putri Maryanti
C21
50
22.
Raden Oni Qital
C22
53
23.
Rudi Hartono
C23
50
24.
Salsadiva
C24
46
25.
Sarah Maulida
C25
26
26.
Supriyanto
C26
63
27.
Tri Subi
C27
40
28.
Windi Dwi
C28
36
29.
Yola Depi Marista
C29
40
30.
Yulia Islami
C30
23
Based on the data above, it can be seen that the students’ highest score was
86 and the student’s lowest score was 30. To determine the range of score and
interval of temporary, the writer calculated using formula :
The highest score (H) = 80
The lowest score (L)
= 23
The Range of score (R) = H-L+1
= 80-23 + 1
= 57 + 1 = 51
Interval of temporary =
= 58/7
= 8.2
So, the range of score was 51. It was presented using frequency distribution
in the following table.
Table 2.12 the table of Frequency Distribution of Post-Test score for
control Group
No
Interval
(F)
X
FX
1.
79-85
1
82
82
2.
72-78
0
75
0
3.
65-71
0
68
0
4.
58-64
2
61
122
5.
51-57
2
54
108
6.
44-50
6
47
282
7.
37-43
7
40
280
8.
30-36
9
33
297
9.
23-29
3
26
78
TOTAL
N= 30
∑=1249
The distribution of students’ posttest score can also be seen in the following
figure.
Figure 3.4 the Frequency Distribution of Post-Test Score of the control
Group
It can be seen from the figure above about students’ posttest score. There
was one student who got score between 79-85. There were two students who got
score between 58-64. There were two students who got score between 51-57.
There were six students who got score between 44-50. There were seven students
who got score between 37-43. There were nine students who got score between
30-36. There were three students who got score between 23-29.
The next step, the writer tabulated the score into the table for the calculation
of mean, median, and modus as follows:
a.
mean
No
interval
f
X
FX
1.
79-85
1
82
82
2.
72-78
0
75
75
3.
65-71
0
68
68
4.
58-64
2
61
61
5.
51-57
2
54
54
6.
44-50
6
47
47
7.
37-43
7
40
40
8.
30-36
9
33
33
23-29
3
26
26
TOTAL
N= 30
∑=1249
M=
=
b.
= 41, 6 = 42
Median
Interval
F
X
Fka
Fkb
79-85
1
82
1
30
72-78
0
75
1
29
65-71
0
68
1
29
58-64
2
61
3
29
51-57
2
54
5
27
44-50
6
47
11fka
25
37-43
7
40
18
19
30-36
9
33
27
12fkb
23-29
3
26
30
3
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Score Interval = 37-43
Fi
=7
Fka
= 11
I
=7
U
= 43 + 0.5 = 43.5
Mdn
=
=
= 43,5 – 0,571x 7 = 43,5 – 3,997 = 39,5
c.
Modus
Interval
F
79-85
1
72-78
0
65-71
0
58-64
2
51-57
2
44-50
6
37-43
7 fa
30-36
9
23-29
3 fb
TOTAL
∑F= 30
Modos= Fa =6
N= 30-36
L = 29, 5
I=7
=
= 29,5 + 0,7 X 7 = 2,95 + 4,9 = 34,4
The last step, the writer tabulated the scores of pre test of experimental
group into the table for the calculation of standard deviation and the standard error
as follows:
Table 2.13 the Calculation of the Standard Deviation and Standard
Error of the Pretest Score of control group.
Interval
F
X
FX
x-m
X2
fx2
79-85
1
82
82
40
1600
1600
72-78
0
75
75
33
1089
0
65-71
0
68
68
26
676
0
58-64
2
61
61
19
361
722
51-57
2
54
54
12
144
288
44-50
6
47
47
5
25
150
37-43
7
40
40
-2
4
28
30-36
9
33
33
-9
81
729
23-29
3
26
26
-16
256
768
∑= 1249
d.
Standard Deviation
SD=
e.
∑= 4285
=
= 11,951
Standard error
Sem
=
=
=
= 2,219
The result of calculation showed the standard deviation of post test score of
control group was 11,951 and standard error of post test score of control group
was 2,219.
B.
The Result of Data Analysis
a.
Calculate T-test using Manual Calculation
The writer chose the significance level on 5%, it means the significance
level of refusal of null hypothesis on 5%. The writer decided the significance level
at 5% due to the hypothesis type stated on non-directional (two-tailed test). It
means that the hypothesis can’t direct the prediction of alternative Hypothesis.
Alternative Hypothesis symbolized by “1”. This symbol could direct the answer
of hypothesis, “1” can be (>) or () or (2.65. It means Ha was accepted and Ho was rejected.
It could be interpreted based on the result of calculation that Ha stating that
finger puppets give influences toward student’s scores in increasing English
vocabulary
was accepted and Ho stating that finger puppets does not give
influences toward student’s scores in increasing English vocabulary was rejected.
It means that teaching vocabulary using finger puppets gave significant effect on
the students’ vocabulary score of the seventh grade students at SMP
muhammadiyah Palangka Raya.
C. Discussion
In teaching learning process, English vocabulary by using finger puppets
is a tool using by the teacher to teach the students. Finger puppets approach can
make a good interaction between teacher and students.
From the result of
analysis, it can be seen from the score of students how the use of media giving
positive effects for student’s vocabulary. It meant media has important role in
teaching learning process.
The results of researcher’s study is supported by theory (Chapter II: theory
that be developed by mahony on page 22) about the reasons why teaching
vocabulary using finger puppet could increase students’ interested in teaching
learning process. The first reason is about the advantage of finger puppet in
learning process, such as: the students are motivated to be active in the class; the
students easy to understand memorize and remember vocabulary because the
student can see the object directly. Teaching learning process more interested
when the teacher used finger puppets. From the data above, it can be known that
teaching vocabulary by using finger puppets as the media of learning process gave
significant effects in improving students’ English vocabulary. The students more
interested to receive vocabulary using finger puppet. So, the research of
improving students’ English vocabulary by using finger puppet as media is
balanced with the theory in chapter II : theory that be developed by mahony on
page 22. The theory was support the use of finger puppets as media in learning
process and suitable with the condition of the seventh grade students.
The result of data analysis showed that The Effect of Finger Puppets in
Teaching English Vocabulary of the Seventh Grade Students of SMP
Muhammadiyah Palangka Raya. It can be seen first from the means score between
Pre-test and Post-test. The mean score of Posttest reached higher score than the
mean score of Pretest (X= 65, 9< Y=42). It indicated that the students’ score
increased after conducting treatment. In other words, teaching vocabulary by
using finger puppets gave significant effect toward the students’ vocabulary.
Meanwhile, after the data was calculated using the ttest formula using manual
calculation showed that the tobserved was 7.291. By comparing the tobserved with the
ttable, it was found that the tobserved was higher than ttable at 5% level significance or
tobserved = 7.291>ttable=2.00.
In teaching vocabulary by using finger puppets, researcher find this media
made the student more focus and motivated to memorize word and the able to
write it. The students more interested to role play and practice their spoken. The
student can make it easy. But, in teaching vocabulary by using finger puppets, the
researcher found problem, like difficult in determine character suitable with each
finger puppets.
When the researcher taught vocabulary and the writer used L2 (English) in
conversation the students are confuse and didn’t interested, because they didn’t
understand about topic have been taught. Finally, the researcher used L1 and L2
in teaching vocabulary.