Table 4.2 Calculation of Comparison Mean, Higher score, and Lower score of Component Writing in Experimental Class C O V L M Sum Mean
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter means to present the result of research that was done for six
meetings of Junior High School 1 Pariangan. The study was started on April, 7th
2017 and ended May, 9th 2017. At the end of the research the students were given
writing test. The analysis of the collected data was carried out to find whether
Story Mapping Technique can improve students’ writing ability at Junior High
School 1 Pariangan. The data were analyzed by using t-test, which is proposed by
Sudjana (1992: 239).
A. Data Description
Based on the research that had been done in class sample, it got result
of learning writing. The data of this research was the score of students’ posttest for both control and experiment class. The writing results were evaluated
by considering five components, namely: content, organization, language use,
vocabulary, and mechanics (Jacobs, 1981: 90). The researcher conducted a
post-test to see whether the treatment processes had any effect to students’
writing ability especially to the experimental class. While the control class did
not have any treatment by the researcher, they were taught as they had usually
been taught by their English teacher. Post test was given for both of this group
experimental group and control group. The post-test data of experimental and
control classes were shown as follows;
45
46
Table 4.1 Students’ Score of Post-test of Experimental Class (VIII4)
NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
C
27
22
23
22
21
21
24
22
25
25
22
22
21
21
25
21
23
23
22
22
20
22
496
Narrative
Writing component
O
V
L
18
20
20
17
17
15
17
18
17
17
14
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
17
16
17
16
15
17
17
18
15
17
17
21
15
15
17
16
15
17
17
17
17
14
17
17
18
17
18
17
15
15
17
17
15
18
18
18
18
17
17
14
14
16
15
15
15
17
17
21
362
358
370
M
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
71
Jumlah
Max
100
89
74
78
72
69
67
77
73
78
84
72
73
75
72
82
71
75
81
77
69
68
81
1657
Table 4.2 Calculation of Comparison Mean, Higher score, and Lower score
of Component Writing in Experimental Class
C
O
V
L
M
Sum
22,54 16,45 16,27 16,81
3,22
75,32
Mean
25
18
20
21
4
89
Higher score
20
14
14
14
3
67
Lower score
47
The table above is students’ post-test score of experimental class. It can
be described as follows; there are 22 students at experimental class with the
total of students’ score is 1657 and the average score is 75.32. Meanwhile the
higher score is 89 and the lower score is 67. Then look the content as one of
component of writing , it total score is 496 with mean score is 22,54, while the
maximum score 25 and minimum score is 20. Next is organization, it total
score is 362 with the average score of organization is 16,45, while the
maximum score 18 and minimum score is 14. The next description of writing
componenet is vocabulary, Not far from previous score vocabulary has the
average score is 16.27 and the total score is 358 while the higher score that
students got is 20 and the lower score is 14. It continues by language use
description, it total score is 370 and the average score is 16,81, then higher
score is 21 while 14 is the lower score. As a part of writing component,
mechanics has 4 as the higher score with mean score is 3,22 and 2 as the lower
score. Then the total score of mechanic is 71.
48
Table 4.3 Students’ Score of Post-Test of Control Class (VIII3)
NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
C
21
15
24
21
23
22
21
25
24
22
17
15
17
21
16
20
23
15
21
17
21
19
440
O
17
10
17
15
15
16
15
18
17
17
15
15
15
15
9
14
15
9
14
14
14
15
321
Narrative
Writing component
V
L
17
16
10
15
17
17
15
14
15
16
17
16
15
15
17
16
16
16
17
15
16
10
10
10
15
14
16
15
10
10
15
14
15
14
10
10
15
14
17
15
16
15
14
13
325
310
M
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
53
Jumlah
Max
100
73
52
78
67
72
74
68
80
76
74
61
52
63
70
47
65
69
46
66
65
68
63
1449
49
Table 4.4 Calculation of Comparison Mean, Higher score, and Lower
score of Component Writing in Control Class
Mean
Higher score
Lower score
C
20,00
25
15
O
14,59
18
9
V
14,77
17
10
L
14,09
17
10
M
2,40
2
4
Sum
65,86
80
46
As a part of research, the students of control class post-test also had
varieties of score as follows; there also 22 students at control class with the
total of all students’ score is 1449 and the average score is 65.86. Meanwhile
the higher score is 80 and the lower score is 46. Then look the content as one of
component of writing , it total score is 440 with average score is 20,00, while
the maximum score 25 and minimum score is 15. Next is organization, it total
score is 321 with the average score of organization is 14,59, while the
maximum score is 18 and minimum score is 9. The next description of writing
component is vocabulary. The average score is 14,77 and the total score is 325
while the higher score that students got is 17 and the lower score is 10. Then it
continues by language use description, it have 14,09 as the average score with
total score is 310 then the higher score is 17 and the lower score is 10.
Mechanics have 4 as the higher score and 2 as the lower with total and average
score are 53 and 2.40.
50
Table 4.5 The Calculation of Comparison of Means of Post-Test of
Experiment and Control Class
No
Aspects/
Components
Experiment
Class
ni
N
1
2
3
4
5
Content
Organization
Vocabulary
Language Use
Mechanic
496/22 = 22,54
362/22 = 16.45
358/22 = 16,27
370/22 = 16,81
71/22 = 3,22
Control Class
ni
Difference
N
440/22 = 20,00
320/22 = 14,54
325/22 = 14,77
310/22 = 14,09
54/22 = 2,45
2,54
1,91
1,5
2,72
0,77
From the table above can be explained that:
1. Content
In experimental class, the mean post test scores of the students’
content was 22,54 while in control class, the mean of post test was 20.00
with difference 2,54. It can be concluded that Story Mapping Technique
helped the students in developing their ideas fluently in writing. Besides, it
helped to encouraged their thinking and imagination about what they are
going to write and expand it.
2. Organization
In experimental class, the mean post test score of the students’
organization was
test was 14,54
16.45 while in control class, the mean scores of post
with difference 1,91. It can be concluded that Story
Mapping Technique helped the students in developing their ideas clearly
in writing. Besides it improved their competence in descriptor of an
organization such as fluent expression, ideas clearly stated/supported,
succinct, well-organized, and logical sequencing, and cohesive.
51
3. Vocabulary
In experimental class, the mean post test score of the students’
vocabulary was 16,27 while in control class, the mean scores of post test
was 14,77 with difference 1,5. It can be concluded that Story Mapping
Technique helped the students highly in mastering vocabulary.
4. Language use
In experimental class, the mean post test score of the students’
language use was
16,81 while in control class, the mean scores of post
test was 14,09 with difference 2,72. It can be concluded that Story
Mapping Technique helped the students in mastering the language use.
5. Mechanics
In experimental class, the mean post test score of the students’
mechanic was
3.22 while in control class, the mean scores of post test
was 2.45 with difference 0,77. It can be concluded that Story Mapping
Technique improved the student’s knowledge in using mechanic in writing
such as in capitalization (e.g. semicolon, colon), and capitalization.
Meanwhile, to see what component of students’ writing were mostly
improve, it can be seen from the different all component writing of both class.
First content, the different of both classes in content was 2,54. Second
organization, the different of both classes in organization was 1,91. Third
vocabulary, the different of both classes in vocabulary was 1,5. Fourth
language use, the different of both classes in language use was 2,72. The last
mechanic, the different of both classes in mechanic was 0.77. So, from the
52
explanation above, the researcher can conclude that the component of students’
writing were mostly improve is language use with different 2,72 from the both
classes.
Based on the explanation above showed the students’ writing
competence in aspects of content, organization, vocabulary, language use and
mechanic has really developed and the use of story mapping technique for
experimental group gave significance effect than the conventional one. It
means that the hypothesis of this research was accepted.
B. Descriptive Data Analysis
The data will be analyzed by using t-test formula. The calculation of ttest between mean score of post test of experimental class and control class is
as follow; Besides that, the students’ interval score in experiment class can be
seen from the table below :
1. Tabulating
Based on data which was gathered from 44 students specified by as
sample, data of students’ achievement on writing ability will be tabulated as
follow. Before going to the tabulating, we had to find those interval.
a. Experimental Class
H = 89
n = 22
RH L +1
L = 67
I = R/K
K 1 3.3 log n
Note:
I = Interval
R = Range; (the difference of higher score and lower score) +1
53
R = 89- 67 +1
= 23
K = 1+3,3. Log n
= 1+ 3,3 . Log 22
= 1+ 3,3. 1.34
= 1+ 4,42
= 5,42
I = R/K
= 23/5,42
= 4,24
=4
So, the interval of students writing score is 4.
Then, the students’ score of test in experimental class can be seen
in the table below :
Table 4.6 The Interval Data of Experimental Class Post Test Score (VIII.4)
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Interval
(Students’ Writing Scores)
87 – 90
83 – 86
79 – 82
75 – 78
71 – 74
67 – 70
Total
Frequency
Percentage
1
1
3
6
7
4
4%
4%
16,63 %
27,27 %
31,81 %
18,18 %
100 %
22
From the table above, it was found that most of students’ writing
scores of post-test in the experiment class was about 67-70 there were 4
54
students got scores at that interval or 18,18 % while the interval 71-74
there were 7 students too got the scores at that intervals or 31,81 % then
the interval 75-78 there were 6 students got score at that interval or
27,27%, beside that the interval 79-82 there were 3 students got score at
that interval or 16,63%. In the other hand the interval 83-86 there were
students got score at that interval or 4 %, meanwhile interval 87-90 there
were 1 student got score at that interval or 4%, it can be said that there
were no students got the scores under 67.
b. Control Class
H = 80
n = 22
RH L +1
L = 46
I = R/K
K 1 3.3 log n
R = 80- 46+ 1
= 34
K = 1+3,3. Log n
= 1+ 3,3 . Log 22
= 1+ 3,3. 1.34
= 1+ 4.42
= 5,42
I = R/K
= 34/5,42
= 6,27
=6
So, the interval of students writing score is 6
55
Then, the students’ score of test in control class can be seen in the
table below :
Table 4.7 The Interval Data of Control Class Post Test Score (VIII.3)
Interval
No
Frequency
Percentage
(Students’ writing Scores)
1
76 – 81
3
13.63 %
2
70 – 75
5
22.72 %
3
64 – 69
7
31,81 %
4
58 – 63
3
13.63 %
5
52 – 57
2
9,09 %
6
46 – 51
2
9,09%
Total
22
100 %
From the table above, it was found that most of students’ writing
scores of post-test in the control class was about 46-51 there were 2
students got scores at that interval or 9,09% while the interval 52-57
there were 2 students got the scores at that intervals or 9.09 % then the
interval 58-63 there were 3 students got score at that interval or 13,63%
beside that the interval 64-69 there were 7 students got score at that
interval or 31,81%. In the other hand the interval 70-75 there were 5
students got score at that interval or 22.72 % while 76-81 there were 3
students got score at that interval or 13.63 % and nobody got scores at 82
anymore.
2. Mean Scores and Standard Deviation
After tabulating, we looked for the mean scores in both experimental
and control classes. The formula of means score; X1
F X
F
1
1
1
This following was calculation process to find out the means of the
data:
56
a. Experiment Class
Table 4.8 Calculation Process of Mean and Standard Deviation of
Writing Test Experimental Group
x1
67
68
69
71
72
73
74
75
77
78
81
82
84
89
X1
x12
4489
4624
4761
5041
5184
5329
5476
5625
5929
6084
6561
6724
7056
7921
80804
f1
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
22
F X
F
1
1
1
=
1657
22
= 75.32
(ΣF1X1)2 = 1657 = 2745649
2
n 1 F1 x 12 ( F1 X1 ) 2
S
2
1
=
22.125461 2745649
2222 1
=
2760142 2745649
462
S12 =
S1
n 1 (n 1 1)
14493
= 31.37
462
=
31.37 = 5.60
f1 x1
67
68
138
71
216
146
74
150
154
156
162
82
84
89
1657
f1 x12
4489
4624
9522
5041
15552
10658
5476
11250
11858
12168
13122
6724
7056
7921
125461
57
b. Control Class
Table 4.9 Calculation Process of Mean and Standard Deviation of
Writing Test Control Group
x2
46
47
52
61
63
65
66
67
68
69
70
72
73
74
76
78
80
f2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
22
X2
F X
F
2
2
2
=
x22
2116
2209
2704
3721
3969
4225
4356
4489
4624
4761
4900
5184
5329
5476
5776
6084
6400
76323
1449
= 65.86
22
(ΣF2X2)2= 1449 = 2099601
2
S
2
2
n 2 F2 x 22 ( F2 X 2 ) 2
n 2 (n 2 1)
=
22 * 97321 2099601
2222 1
=
2141062 2099601
2221
=
41461
462
f2 x2
46
47
104
61
126
130
66
67
136
69
70
72
73
148
76
78
80
1449
f2 x22
2116
2209
5408
3721
7938
8450
4356
4489
9248
4761
4900
5184
5329
10952
5776
6084
6400
97321
58
S 22 = 89.74
S2 =
89.74
S2 = 9.47
Table 4.8 The Calculation of Comparison Standard Deviation of Test
Class
N
Highest
Score
Lowest
Score
Mean
(X)
Total
score
Standard
Deviation
Experimental
22
89
67
75.32
1657
5.60
Control
22
80
46
65.86
1449
9.47
3. Graphs
Graph 1 Post-Test Score of Experimental Class VIII.4
F1
8
7
6
5
4
Column2
3
Series 1
2
1
0
87 - 90
83- 86
79 - 82
75 - 78
71 -74
67 - 70
59
Graph 2 Post-Test Score of Control Class VIII.3
Frequency
F2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
76 - 81
70 - 75
64 - 69
58 - 63
52 - 57
46 - 51
Interval of Students’ Writing Score at Control Class
Graph 3 Descriptive Data Analysis
89
90
80
80
75.32
67
65.86
70
60
46
50
40
30
22 22
20
9.47
5.6
10
0
Number of
Students
Maximum
Score
Minimum
Score
Experimental Class
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Control Class
60
Graph. 4. Mean Score of Writing Component between Experiment and
Control
80
60
40
20
0
C
Experimental 22.54
O
16.45
V
16.27
L.U
16.81
M
3.22
sum
75.32
Control
14.59
14.77
14.09
2.4
65.86
20
C. Inferential Data Analysis
1. Prerequisite Hypotesis Testing
The prerequisite is necessary to determine whether the analysis of
data for hypothesis testing can be continued or not. Some data analysis
technique demanding test prerequisite analysis. Analysis of variance
requisite that data come from a populatioan with normal distribution and
group compared to homogenity of data.
A variety of prerequisite testing analysis, such as a normality test
and homogenity test. the prerequisite analysis of data will be mentioned on
the next point.
61
a. The normality of distribution test
Normality test had an objective to know the population normal or
not. In this research, to doing the normality test the researcher used
Kolmogrov Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk. Test was performed in SPSS test.
Testing criterion and distributed normal if the data was more than 0.05.
The class was normal. Based on that test, the researcher got test of
normality class VIII4 as experiment class.
Table 4.10 Result of Normality Distribution Test on Post-Test
Kelas
nilai
Ex
Contro
l
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
Df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
*
.115
22
.200
.959
22
.471
.154
22
.190
.927
22
.105
b. The homogeneity of variance test
To check the homogeneity of variance of the data, Levene’s test
was conducted. The result of calculating using Levene test are as follows:
Test of Homogeneity of Variance
Levene
Statistic
3.435
2.926
df1
Based on Mean
Based on Median
Nilai Based on Median and
2.926
with adjusted df
Based on trimmed
3.365
mean
The table shows that the significance
df2
Sig.
1
1
42
42
.071
.095
1
32.193
.097
1
42
.074
value (based on mean) is
0.71. It means that the probability is higher than 0.05 (p >0.05).
Therefore, the result of the test indicated that the students’ test scores in
62
both classes were equal. The table of the homogeneity of variance test
result can be seen clearly at the appendix.
D. Hypothesis Testing
In order to see the effect of Story Mapping Technique gave any
significant difference on students’ writing ability in these classes, the data that
was observed of this research was analyzed by using Ttest.
The calculation of Ttest between mean score of experiment and control
group could be figured bellow:
X1 X 2
t
s
1
1
n1 n 2
Where: X 1 = 75,32
n1 = 22
S1= 5.60
S12 = 31,37
X 2 = 65,86
n2 = 22
S2= 9,47
S 22 = 89,74
S2
(n
1) s1 (n2 1) s2
2
1
2
n n 2
1
2
= (22-1) 31,37 + (22-1) 89,74
22+22-2
= (21) 658,77 + (21) 1.884,54
42
= 658,77 + 1.884,54
42
= 2543,31
42
S2 = 60,555
S = 60,55
63
S = 7,78
t
X1 X 2
1
1
S
n1 n2
75.32 65.86
7.78
tCalculate
1
1
22 22
9.46
7.78 0.09
9.46
7.78 0.09
9.46
7.780.3
9.46
2.33
4,06
df n1 n2 2
(22 22 2) 42
α = 0.05
t- table = t (1- α ) (df)
= t (1-0,05) (44)
= t (0,95) (44)
= 1,684
t- Table = 1,684
t- Calculate > t- table
4.06 >1,684
From the result of analyzing the data, it was found that t-calculated is
4.06 while critical value of the t- table is 1,684 at the degree of freedom is 42
64
and the level of significant is 0.05. In conclusion, the value of t –calculated is
bigger than the value of t-table. It means that the use of story mapping
technique towards students’ writing significantly.
E. Discussion on Research Finding
The first step taken by the researcher after got the data from doing
experiment research at Junior High School 1 Pariangan to find whether they
were homogenous or not. From the apparent data, the outcome of the data was
different between the two groups. The data analysis showed that they are.
Story Mapping Technique could highly help students identify elements
of story this opinion relevant with the Schaefer (2001:47) state story mapping
help students identify the main character, setting, problem, and solution. Facts
that highly develop their writing skills and help them come up well organized
idea of stories based on clear elements. According Thomson (2003:135) Story
Mapping Technique provides a structure for students to develop their narratives
and to locate their ideas in relation to different story elements: main character,
supporting characters, relationship among characters, setting, events,
complication and resolution.
Related to the purpose of the research to determine whether there is any
significant difference on students’ writing ability by using Story Mapping
Technique, the researcher can say that there is any significant difference on
students’ writing ability between those who taught by using Story Mapping
Technique and those who taught without using Story Mapping Technique that
65
could be seen on findings. It is shown by the post-test result for both classes
after giving the treatment by applying Story Mapping Technique.
In doing this research, there are several steps in the technique the
researcher forgot to apply it, for which the researcher asked for the negligence.
In this research, there were five components of writing that should be
measured in conducting the writing activity, namely: content, organization,
vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. In this case, the researcher wanted to
see these all of components and the researcher found that the component of
students’ writing mostly improve was organization and content.
After being taught by using Story Mapping Technique in several
meetings, the students got some improvements of writing ability that was
shown by their writing score. The experimental group improved dramatically
after receiving treatment. While the control class group showed no significant
improvement after receiving no treatment. The research proves that Story
Mapping Technique have a dramatic influence on students’ writing ability.
Statistically calculated, the result of this research, the mean scores of
experiment class is 75,32 that taught by Story Mapping Technique and it
supported the research hypothesis that Story Mapping Technique gave
significance effect toward students writing skill in Narrativet Text at class VIII
Junior High School 1 Pariangan.
The result of this research finding was also relevant with the previous
researcher such as Teddy Ansyah abiding (2014): “Using Story Mapping
Technique to Improve the Writing Ability of Grade VIII Students at SMP N 2
66
Gamping”, He stated there was a significant differences in students’ writing
competency between the students who taught by Story Mapping Tehnique and
conventional strategy in every aspect. The students feel easier in develop their
ideas; they also know what their role as a writer. So, they get better score than
those who taught by conventional strategy.
Then, the result of this research finding was also relevant with Annisa
Purwaning Sayekti (2014) in her study about “Using Story Mapping to Teach
Students’ Writing Ability of Narrative Text”. Based on findings, Story Mapping
Technique is a useful to help studentsin getting ideas, organizing them and
developing the ideas.
Finally, it can be said that the findings of this research proved that there
is any significant difference on students’ writing ability between the students
who were taught by using Story Mapping Technique and those who were
taught without using Story Mapping Technique and then, this strategy also can
improve the students’ writing ability.
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter means to present the result of research that was done for six
meetings of Junior High School 1 Pariangan. The study was started on April, 7th
2017 and ended May, 9th 2017. At the end of the research the students were given
writing test. The analysis of the collected data was carried out to find whether
Story Mapping Technique can improve students’ writing ability at Junior High
School 1 Pariangan. The data were analyzed by using t-test, which is proposed by
Sudjana (1992: 239).
A. Data Description
Based on the research that had been done in class sample, it got result
of learning writing. The data of this research was the score of students’ posttest for both control and experiment class. The writing results were evaluated
by considering five components, namely: content, organization, language use,
vocabulary, and mechanics (Jacobs, 1981: 90). The researcher conducted a
post-test to see whether the treatment processes had any effect to students’
writing ability especially to the experimental class. While the control class did
not have any treatment by the researcher, they were taught as they had usually
been taught by their English teacher. Post test was given for both of this group
experimental group and control group. The post-test data of experimental and
control classes were shown as follows;
45
46
Table 4.1 Students’ Score of Post-test of Experimental Class (VIII4)
NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
C
27
22
23
22
21
21
24
22
25
25
22
22
21
21
25
21
23
23
22
22
20
22
496
Narrative
Writing component
O
V
L
18
20
20
17
17
15
17
18
17
17
14
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
17
16
17
16
15
17
17
18
15
17
17
21
15
15
17
16
15
17
17
17
17
14
17
17
18
17
18
17
15
15
17
17
15
18
18
18
18
17
17
14
14
16
15
15
15
17
17
21
362
358
370
M
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
71
Jumlah
Max
100
89
74
78
72
69
67
77
73
78
84
72
73
75
72
82
71
75
81
77
69
68
81
1657
Table 4.2 Calculation of Comparison Mean, Higher score, and Lower score
of Component Writing in Experimental Class
C
O
V
L
M
Sum
22,54 16,45 16,27 16,81
3,22
75,32
Mean
25
18
20
21
4
89
Higher score
20
14
14
14
3
67
Lower score
47
The table above is students’ post-test score of experimental class. It can
be described as follows; there are 22 students at experimental class with the
total of students’ score is 1657 and the average score is 75.32. Meanwhile the
higher score is 89 and the lower score is 67. Then look the content as one of
component of writing , it total score is 496 with mean score is 22,54, while the
maximum score 25 and minimum score is 20. Next is organization, it total
score is 362 with the average score of organization is 16,45, while the
maximum score 18 and minimum score is 14. The next description of writing
componenet is vocabulary, Not far from previous score vocabulary has the
average score is 16.27 and the total score is 358 while the higher score that
students got is 20 and the lower score is 14. It continues by language use
description, it total score is 370 and the average score is 16,81, then higher
score is 21 while 14 is the lower score. As a part of writing component,
mechanics has 4 as the higher score with mean score is 3,22 and 2 as the lower
score. Then the total score of mechanic is 71.
48
Table 4.3 Students’ Score of Post-Test of Control Class (VIII3)
NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
C
21
15
24
21
23
22
21
25
24
22
17
15
17
21
16
20
23
15
21
17
21
19
440
O
17
10
17
15
15
16
15
18
17
17
15
15
15
15
9
14
15
9
14
14
14
15
321
Narrative
Writing component
V
L
17
16
10
15
17
17
15
14
15
16
17
16
15
15
17
16
16
16
17
15
16
10
10
10
15
14
16
15
10
10
15
14
15
14
10
10
15
14
17
15
16
15
14
13
325
310
M
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
53
Jumlah
Max
100
73
52
78
67
72
74
68
80
76
74
61
52
63
70
47
65
69
46
66
65
68
63
1449
49
Table 4.4 Calculation of Comparison Mean, Higher score, and Lower
score of Component Writing in Control Class
Mean
Higher score
Lower score
C
20,00
25
15
O
14,59
18
9
V
14,77
17
10
L
14,09
17
10
M
2,40
2
4
Sum
65,86
80
46
As a part of research, the students of control class post-test also had
varieties of score as follows; there also 22 students at control class with the
total of all students’ score is 1449 and the average score is 65.86. Meanwhile
the higher score is 80 and the lower score is 46. Then look the content as one of
component of writing , it total score is 440 with average score is 20,00, while
the maximum score 25 and minimum score is 15. Next is organization, it total
score is 321 with the average score of organization is 14,59, while the
maximum score is 18 and minimum score is 9. The next description of writing
component is vocabulary. The average score is 14,77 and the total score is 325
while the higher score that students got is 17 and the lower score is 10. Then it
continues by language use description, it have 14,09 as the average score with
total score is 310 then the higher score is 17 and the lower score is 10.
Mechanics have 4 as the higher score and 2 as the lower with total and average
score are 53 and 2.40.
50
Table 4.5 The Calculation of Comparison of Means of Post-Test of
Experiment and Control Class
No
Aspects/
Components
Experiment
Class
ni
N
1
2
3
4
5
Content
Organization
Vocabulary
Language Use
Mechanic
496/22 = 22,54
362/22 = 16.45
358/22 = 16,27
370/22 = 16,81
71/22 = 3,22
Control Class
ni
Difference
N
440/22 = 20,00
320/22 = 14,54
325/22 = 14,77
310/22 = 14,09
54/22 = 2,45
2,54
1,91
1,5
2,72
0,77
From the table above can be explained that:
1. Content
In experimental class, the mean post test scores of the students’
content was 22,54 while in control class, the mean of post test was 20.00
with difference 2,54. It can be concluded that Story Mapping Technique
helped the students in developing their ideas fluently in writing. Besides, it
helped to encouraged their thinking and imagination about what they are
going to write and expand it.
2. Organization
In experimental class, the mean post test score of the students’
organization was
test was 14,54
16.45 while in control class, the mean scores of post
with difference 1,91. It can be concluded that Story
Mapping Technique helped the students in developing their ideas clearly
in writing. Besides it improved their competence in descriptor of an
organization such as fluent expression, ideas clearly stated/supported,
succinct, well-organized, and logical sequencing, and cohesive.
51
3. Vocabulary
In experimental class, the mean post test score of the students’
vocabulary was 16,27 while in control class, the mean scores of post test
was 14,77 with difference 1,5. It can be concluded that Story Mapping
Technique helped the students highly in mastering vocabulary.
4. Language use
In experimental class, the mean post test score of the students’
language use was
16,81 while in control class, the mean scores of post
test was 14,09 with difference 2,72. It can be concluded that Story
Mapping Technique helped the students in mastering the language use.
5. Mechanics
In experimental class, the mean post test score of the students’
mechanic was
3.22 while in control class, the mean scores of post test
was 2.45 with difference 0,77. It can be concluded that Story Mapping
Technique improved the student’s knowledge in using mechanic in writing
such as in capitalization (e.g. semicolon, colon), and capitalization.
Meanwhile, to see what component of students’ writing were mostly
improve, it can be seen from the different all component writing of both class.
First content, the different of both classes in content was 2,54. Second
organization, the different of both classes in organization was 1,91. Third
vocabulary, the different of both classes in vocabulary was 1,5. Fourth
language use, the different of both classes in language use was 2,72. The last
mechanic, the different of both classes in mechanic was 0.77. So, from the
52
explanation above, the researcher can conclude that the component of students’
writing were mostly improve is language use with different 2,72 from the both
classes.
Based on the explanation above showed the students’ writing
competence in aspects of content, organization, vocabulary, language use and
mechanic has really developed and the use of story mapping technique for
experimental group gave significance effect than the conventional one. It
means that the hypothesis of this research was accepted.
B. Descriptive Data Analysis
The data will be analyzed by using t-test formula. The calculation of ttest between mean score of post test of experimental class and control class is
as follow; Besides that, the students’ interval score in experiment class can be
seen from the table below :
1. Tabulating
Based on data which was gathered from 44 students specified by as
sample, data of students’ achievement on writing ability will be tabulated as
follow. Before going to the tabulating, we had to find those interval.
a. Experimental Class
H = 89
n = 22
RH L +1
L = 67
I = R/K
K 1 3.3 log n
Note:
I = Interval
R = Range; (the difference of higher score and lower score) +1
53
R = 89- 67 +1
= 23
K = 1+3,3. Log n
= 1+ 3,3 . Log 22
= 1+ 3,3. 1.34
= 1+ 4,42
= 5,42
I = R/K
= 23/5,42
= 4,24
=4
So, the interval of students writing score is 4.
Then, the students’ score of test in experimental class can be seen
in the table below :
Table 4.6 The Interval Data of Experimental Class Post Test Score (VIII.4)
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Interval
(Students’ Writing Scores)
87 – 90
83 – 86
79 – 82
75 – 78
71 – 74
67 – 70
Total
Frequency
Percentage
1
1
3
6
7
4
4%
4%
16,63 %
27,27 %
31,81 %
18,18 %
100 %
22
From the table above, it was found that most of students’ writing
scores of post-test in the experiment class was about 67-70 there were 4
54
students got scores at that interval or 18,18 % while the interval 71-74
there were 7 students too got the scores at that intervals or 31,81 % then
the interval 75-78 there were 6 students got score at that interval or
27,27%, beside that the interval 79-82 there were 3 students got score at
that interval or 16,63%. In the other hand the interval 83-86 there were
students got score at that interval or 4 %, meanwhile interval 87-90 there
were 1 student got score at that interval or 4%, it can be said that there
were no students got the scores under 67.
b. Control Class
H = 80
n = 22
RH L +1
L = 46
I = R/K
K 1 3.3 log n
R = 80- 46+ 1
= 34
K = 1+3,3. Log n
= 1+ 3,3 . Log 22
= 1+ 3,3. 1.34
= 1+ 4.42
= 5,42
I = R/K
= 34/5,42
= 6,27
=6
So, the interval of students writing score is 6
55
Then, the students’ score of test in control class can be seen in the
table below :
Table 4.7 The Interval Data of Control Class Post Test Score (VIII.3)
Interval
No
Frequency
Percentage
(Students’ writing Scores)
1
76 – 81
3
13.63 %
2
70 – 75
5
22.72 %
3
64 – 69
7
31,81 %
4
58 – 63
3
13.63 %
5
52 – 57
2
9,09 %
6
46 – 51
2
9,09%
Total
22
100 %
From the table above, it was found that most of students’ writing
scores of post-test in the control class was about 46-51 there were 2
students got scores at that interval or 9,09% while the interval 52-57
there were 2 students got the scores at that intervals or 9.09 % then the
interval 58-63 there were 3 students got score at that interval or 13,63%
beside that the interval 64-69 there were 7 students got score at that
interval or 31,81%. In the other hand the interval 70-75 there were 5
students got score at that interval or 22.72 % while 76-81 there were 3
students got score at that interval or 13.63 % and nobody got scores at 82
anymore.
2. Mean Scores and Standard Deviation
After tabulating, we looked for the mean scores in both experimental
and control classes. The formula of means score; X1
F X
F
1
1
1
This following was calculation process to find out the means of the
data:
56
a. Experiment Class
Table 4.8 Calculation Process of Mean and Standard Deviation of
Writing Test Experimental Group
x1
67
68
69
71
72
73
74
75
77
78
81
82
84
89
X1
x12
4489
4624
4761
5041
5184
5329
5476
5625
5929
6084
6561
6724
7056
7921
80804
f1
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
22
F X
F
1
1
1
=
1657
22
= 75.32
(ΣF1X1)2 = 1657 = 2745649
2
n 1 F1 x 12 ( F1 X1 ) 2
S
2
1
=
22.125461 2745649
2222 1
=
2760142 2745649
462
S12 =
S1
n 1 (n 1 1)
14493
= 31.37
462
=
31.37 = 5.60
f1 x1
67
68
138
71
216
146
74
150
154
156
162
82
84
89
1657
f1 x12
4489
4624
9522
5041
15552
10658
5476
11250
11858
12168
13122
6724
7056
7921
125461
57
b. Control Class
Table 4.9 Calculation Process of Mean and Standard Deviation of
Writing Test Control Group
x2
46
47
52
61
63
65
66
67
68
69
70
72
73
74
76
78
80
f2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
22
X2
F X
F
2
2
2
=
x22
2116
2209
2704
3721
3969
4225
4356
4489
4624
4761
4900
5184
5329
5476
5776
6084
6400
76323
1449
= 65.86
22
(ΣF2X2)2= 1449 = 2099601
2
S
2
2
n 2 F2 x 22 ( F2 X 2 ) 2
n 2 (n 2 1)
=
22 * 97321 2099601
2222 1
=
2141062 2099601
2221
=
41461
462
f2 x2
46
47
104
61
126
130
66
67
136
69
70
72
73
148
76
78
80
1449
f2 x22
2116
2209
5408
3721
7938
8450
4356
4489
9248
4761
4900
5184
5329
10952
5776
6084
6400
97321
58
S 22 = 89.74
S2 =
89.74
S2 = 9.47
Table 4.8 The Calculation of Comparison Standard Deviation of Test
Class
N
Highest
Score
Lowest
Score
Mean
(X)
Total
score
Standard
Deviation
Experimental
22
89
67
75.32
1657
5.60
Control
22
80
46
65.86
1449
9.47
3. Graphs
Graph 1 Post-Test Score of Experimental Class VIII.4
F1
8
7
6
5
4
Column2
3
Series 1
2
1
0
87 - 90
83- 86
79 - 82
75 - 78
71 -74
67 - 70
59
Graph 2 Post-Test Score of Control Class VIII.3
Frequency
F2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
76 - 81
70 - 75
64 - 69
58 - 63
52 - 57
46 - 51
Interval of Students’ Writing Score at Control Class
Graph 3 Descriptive Data Analysis
89
90
80
80
75.32
67
65.86
70
60
46
50
40
30
22 22
20
9.47
5.6
10
0
Number of
Students
Maximum
Score
Minimum
Score
Experimental Class
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Control Class
60
Graph. 4. Mean Score of Writing Component between Experiment and
Control
80
60
40
20
0
C
Experimental 22.54
O
16.45
V
16.27
L.U
16.81
M
3.22
sum
75.32
Control
14.59
14.77
14.09
2.4
65.86
20
C. Inferential Data Analysis
1. Prerequisite Hypotesis Testing
The prerequisite is necessary to determine whether the analysis of
data for hypothesis testing can be continued or not. Some data analysis
technique demanding test prerequisite analysis. Analysis of variance
requisite that data come from a populatioan with normal distribution and
group compared to homogenity of data.
A variety of prerequisite testing analysis, such as a normality test
and homogenity test. the prerequisite analysis of data will be mentioned on
the next point.
61
a. The normality of distribution test
Normality test had an objective to know the population normal or
not. In this research, to doing the normality test the researcher used
Kolmogrov Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk. Test was performed in SPSS test.
Testing criterion and distributed normal if the data was more than 0.05.
The class was normal. Based on that test, the researcher got test of
normality class VIII4 as experiment class.
Table 4.10 Result of Normality Distribution Test on Post-Test
Kelas
nilai
Ex
Contro
l
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
Df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
*
.115
22
.200
.959
22
.471
.154
22
.190
.927
22
.105
b. The homogeneity of variance test
To check the homogeneity of variance of the data, Levene’s test
was conducted. The result of calculating using Levene test are as follows:
Test of Homogeneity of Variance
Levene
Statistic
3.435
2.926
df1
Based on Mean
Based on Median
Nilai Based on Median and
2.926
with adjusted df
Based on trimmed
3.365
mean
The table shows that the significance
df2
Sig.
1
1
42
42
.071
.095
1
32.193
.097
1
42
.074
value (based on mean) is
0.71. It means that the probability is higher than 0.05 (p >0.05).
Therefore, the result of the test indicated that the students’ test scores in
62
both classes were equal. The table of the homogeneity of variance test
result can be seen clearly at the appendix.
D. Hypothesis Testing
In order to see the effect of Story Mapping Technique gave any
significant difference on students’ writing ability in these classes, the data that
was observed of this research was analyzed by using Ttest.
The calculation of Ttest between mean score of experiment and control
group could be figured bellow:
X1 X 2
t
s
1
1
n1 n 2
Where: X 1 = 75,32
n1 = 22
S1= 5.60
S12 = 31,37
X 2 = 65,86
n2 = 22
S2= 9,47
S 22 = 89,74
S2
(n
1) s1 (n2 1) s2
2
1
2
n n 2
1
2
= (22-1) 31,37 + (22-1) 89,74
22+22-2
= (21) 658,77 + (21) 1.884,54
42
= 658,77 + 1.884,54
42
= 2543,31
42
S2 = 60,555
S = 60,55
63
S = 7,78
t
X1 X 2
1
1
S
n1 n2
75.32 65.86
7.78
tCalculate
1
1
22 22
9.46
7.78 0.09
9.46
7.78 0.09
9.46
7.780.3
9.46
2.33
4,06
df n1 n2 2
(22 22 2) 42
α = 0.05
t- table = t (1- α ) (df)
= t (1-0,05) (44)
= t (0,95) (44)
= 1,684
t- Table = 1,684
t- Calculate > t- table
4.06 >1,684
From the result of analyzing the data, it was found that t-calculated is
4.06 while critical value of the t- table is 1,684 at the degree of freedom is 42
64
and the level of significant is 0.05. In conclusion, the value of t –calculated is
bigger than the value of t-table. It means that the use of story mapping
technique towards students’ writing significantly.
E. Discussion on Research Finding
The first step taken by the researcher after got the data from doing
experiment research at Junior High School 1 Pariangan to find whether they
were homogenous or not. From the apparent data, the outcome of the data was
different between the two groups. The data analysis showed that they are.
Story Mapping Technique could highly help students identify elements
of story this opinion relevant with the Schaefer (2001:47) state story mapping
help students identify the main character, setting, problem, and solution. Facts
that highly develop their writing skills and help them come up well organized
idea of stories based on clear elements. According Thomson (2003:135) Story
Mapping Technique provides a structure for students to develop their narratives
and to locate their ideas in relation to different story elements: main character,
supporting characters, relationship among characters, setting, events,
complication and resolution.
Related to the purpose of the research to determine whether there is any
significant difference on students’ writing ability by using Story Mapping
Technique, the researcher can say that there is any significant difference on
students’ writing ability between those who taught by using Story Mapping
Technique and those who taught without using Story Mapping Technique that
65
could be seen on findings. It is shown by the post-test result for both classes
after giving the treatment by applying Story Mapping Technique.
In doing this research, there are several steps in the technique the
researcher forgot to apply it, for which the researcher asked for the negligence.
In this research, there were five components of writing that should be
measured in conducting the writing activity, namely: content, organization,
vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. In this case, the researcher wanted to
see these all of components and the researcher found that the component of
students’ writing mostly improve was organization and content.
After being taught by using Story Mapping Technique in several
meetings, the students got some improvements of writing ability that was
shown by their writing score. The experimental group improved dramatically
after receiving treatment. While the control class group showed no significant
improvement after receiving no treatment. The research proves that Story
Mapping Technique have a dramatic influence on students’ writing ability.
Statistically calculated, the result of this research, the mean scores of
experiment class is 75,32 that taught by Story Mapping Technique and it
supported the research hypothesis that Story Mapping Technique gave
significance effect toward students writing skill in Narrativet Text at class VIII
Junior High School 1 Pariangan.
The result of this research finding was also relevant with the previous
researcher such as Teddy Ansyah abiding (2014): “Using Story Mapping
Technique to Improve the Writing Ability of Grade VIII Students at SMP N 2
66
Gamping”, He stated there was a significant differences in students’ writing
competency between the students who taught by Story Mapping Tehnique and
conventional strategy in every aspect. The students feel easier in develop their
ideas; they also know what their role as a writer. So, they get better score than
those who taught by conventional strategy.
Then, the result of this research finding was also relevant with Annisa
Purwaning Sayekti (2014) in her study about “Using Story Mapping to Teach
Students’ Writing Ability of Narrative Text”. Based on findings, Story Mapping
Technique is a useful to help studentsin getting ideas, organizing them and
developing the ideas.
Finally, it can be said that the findings of this research proved that there
is any significant difference on students’ writing ability between the students
who were taught by using Story Mapping Technique and those who were
taught without using Story Mapping Technique and then, this strategy also can
improve the students’ writing ability.