The effect of project based learning using cartoon story maker on writing sill at MAN katingan Hilir - Digital Library IAIN Palangka Raya
CHAPTER IV
RESULT OF THE STUDY
A. The Data Description
In this section, it described the obtained data of improvement the students’writing
recount text before and after taught by Cartoon Story maker and non-Cartoon Story
Maker. The presented data consisted of distribution of pre-test score of experimental and
control group and also the distribution of post-test score of experimental group and
control group.
1. The Result of Pretest Score Experimental Group and Control Group
Table 4.1 Pre-Test Score of Control and Experimental Group
Experimental Group
Code
E01
E02
E03
E04
E05
E06
E07
E08
E09
E10
E11
E12
E13
E14
E15
E16
E17
Score
59
66
53
50
53
Control Group
Code
C01
C02
C03
C04
C05
C06
C07
C08
C09
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
47
56
62
56
56
53
41
59
41
50
44
47
58
Score
59
53
59
56
66
47
41
53
59
41
47
41
44
44
53
59
69
59
E18
E19
E20
E21
E22
E23
E24
E25
E26
E27
E28
E29
E30
E31
E32
E33
56
47
41
53
53
53
59
47
59
53
50
56
66
41
59
53
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C4
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
30
C31
32
C33
C34
C35
C36
50
59
50
50
53
53
56
53
59
53
59
47
53
47
47
50
56
53
56
a. The Result of Pretest Score of Experimental Group
The pre-test was conducted on Thursday, 11th August 2016 in the X-A
room. The students asked to write Recount text that interested them about the holiday
that should cover the generic structure consisted of identification and allocated time
was 90 minutes. The students’ pre-test score of experiment group were distributed in
the following table (see appendix 5) in order analyzing the students’ background
knowledge of Recount text before the treatment. Then, it was presented using
distribution frequency in the following table:
60
Table 4.2 Frequency Distribution of Pre-test Experiment Group
Experimental
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
41
4
12.1
12.1
12.1
44
1
3.0
3.0
15.2
47
4
12.1
12.1
27.3
50
3
9.1
9.1
36.4
53
8
24.2
24.2
60.6
56
5
15.2
15.2
75.8
59
5
15.2
15.2
90.9
62
1
3.0
3.0
93.9
66
2
6.1
6.1
100.0
33
100.0
100.0
Total
The distribution of students’ score in pre-test of the experimental group can
also be seen in the following figure.
Figure 4.1
The Distribution of Pre-Test Experimental Group
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Frekuensi
41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 66
61
Based on the figure above, it can be seen that the students pretest score of
experiment group. There were four students who got score 41. There was one
student who got score 44. There were four students who got score 47. There were
three students who got score 50 . There were eight students who got score 53. There
were five students who got score 56. There was five students who got score 59. The
was one student who got score 62 and the last there were two students who got score
66.
The next step, the writer calculated the scores of mean, standard deviation,
and standard error using SPSS 21 program as follows.
Table 4.3 The Calculation of Mean, Standard Error of Mean,
Standard Deviation
Statistics
Experimental
N
Valid
Missing
33
0
Mean
52.70
Std. Error of Mean
1.179
Median
53.00
Mode
Std. Deviation
53
6.775
Minimum
41
Maximum
66
Based on the calculation above, the higher score pre-test of the
experimental group was 66 and the lowest score was 41. And the result of the mean
was 52.70 median was 53.00, the mode was 53 the standard error of the mean was
,1.179 and the standard deviation was 6.775.
62
b. The Result of Pretest Score of Control Group
The pre-test was conducted on Tuesday,23th August 2016 in the X-B room.
The students asked to write Recount text that interested them about the Holiday that
should cover the generic structure consisted of identification and allocated time was
90 minutes. The students’ pre-test score of the control group were distributed in the
following table (see appendix 5) in order analyzing the students’ background
knowledge. Then, it was presented using frequency distribution in the following table:
Table 4. 4 Frequency Distribution of Pre-test Control Group
Control
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
41
3
8.3
8.3
8.3
44
2
5.6
5.6
13.9
47
5
13.9
13.9
27.8
50
4
11.1
11.1
38.9
53
9
25.0
25.0
63.9
56
4
11.1
11.1
75.0
59
7
19.4
19.4
94.4
66
1
2.8
2.8
97.2
69
1
2.8
2.8
100.0
36
100.0
100.0
Total
The distribution of students’ score in pre-test of the experimental group can
also be seen in the following figure.
63
Figure 4.2
The Distribution of Pre-Test Control Group
10
8
6
Frekuensi
4
2
0
41
44
47
50
53
56
59
66
69
Based on the figure above, it can be seen that the students pretest score of
the control group. There were three students who got score 41. There were two
students who got score 44. There were five students who got score 47. There were
four students who got score 50. There were nine students who got score 53. There
were four students who got score 56. There were seven students who got score 59.
There was one student who got score 66 and 69.
The next step, the writer calculated the scores of mean, standard deviation,
and standard error using SPSS 21 program as follows:
Table 4.5 The Calculation of Mean, Standard Error of Mean, Standard
Deviation
Statistics
Control
N
Valid
Missing
36
0
Mean
52.64
Std. Error of Mean
1.098
Median
53.00
Mode
Std. Deviation
53
6.586
Minimum
41
Maximum
69
64
Based on the calculation above, the higher score pre-test of the control group
was 69 and the lowest score was 41. And the result of the mean was 52.64, the
median was 53,00, the mode was 53, the standard error of the mean was ,1.098 and
the standard deviation was 6.586.
2. The Result of Post Test Score Experimental Group and Control Group
Table 4.6 Post Test Score of Control and Experimental Group
Experimental
Group
Code
Score
E01
66
E02
66
E03
62
E04
59
E05
56
E06
59
E07
67
E08
84
E09
62
E10
62
E11
59
E12
59
E13
59
E14
62
E15
62
E16
66
E17
62
Control
Group
Code
Score
C01
62
C02
59
C03
53
C04
59
C05
66
C06
72
C07
66
C08
78
C09
72
C10
62
C11
53
C12
53
C13
47
C14
53
C15
59
C16
81
C17
63
65
E18
66
E19
78
E20
56
E21
67
E22
81
E23
67
E24
78
E25
59
E26
62
E27
67
E28
66
E29
67
E30
90
E31
84
E32
62
E33
66
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33
C34
C35
C36
52
66
53
66
53
62
59
56
66
53
66
69
69
69
69
66
69
59
59
A. The Result of Post-test Score of Experimental Group
The post-test was conducted on Tuesday, 6th September 2016 in the X-A
room. The students asked to write recount text that interested them about the holiday
that should cover the generic structure consisted of identification, allocated time was
90 minutes and should post their text on Cartoon Story Maker. The students’ posttest score of experiment class was distributed in the following table (see appendix 5)
66
in order analyzing the students’ writing recount text after the treatment. Then, it was
presented using frequency distribution in the following table:
Table 4.7 Frequency Distribution of Post Test Experimental Group
Experimental
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
56
2
6.1
6.1
6.1
59
6
18.2
18.2
24.2
62
8
24.2
24.2
48.5
66
6
18.2
18.2
66.7
67
5
15.2
15.2
81.8
78
2
6.1
6.1
87.9
81
1
3.0
3.0
90.9
84
2
6.1
6.1
97.0
90
1
3.0
3.0
100.0
33
100.0
100.0
Total
The distribution of students’ score in pre-test of the Experimental group can
also be seen in the following figure.
Figure 4.3
The Distribution of Post Test Experimental Group
8
6
4
Frekuensi
2
0
56
59
62
66
67
78
81
84
90
67
Based on the figure above, it can be seen that the students pretest score of
the control group. There were two students who got score 56. There were six
students who got score 59. There were eight students who got score 62. There were
six students who got score 66. There were five students who got score 67. There
were two students who got score 78. There were one student who got score 81.
There were two students who got score 84 and the last there was one student who
got score 90.
The next step, the writer calculated the scores of mean, standard deviation,
and standard error using SPSS 21 program as follow.
Table 4.8 The Calculation of Mean, Standard Error of Mean, Standard
Deviation
Statistics
Experimental
N
Valid
Missing
33
0
Mean
66.30
Std. Error of Mean
1.495
Median
66.00
Mode
Std. Deviation
62
8.590
Minimum
56
Maximum
90
Based on the calculation above, the higher score post test of the
experimental group was 90 and the lowest score was 56. And the result of the mean
was 66.30, the median was 66.00, the mode was 62, the standard error of mean was
1.495 and the standard deviation was 8.590.
68
B. The Result of Post-test Score of Control Group
The post-test was conducted on Wednesday 7th September 2016 in the X-B
room. The students asked to write recount text that interested them about the holiday
that should cover the generic structure consisted of identification, allocated time was
90 minutes The students’ post-test score of the control group were distributed in the
following table (see appendix 5) in order analyzing the knowledge of recount text.
Then, it was presented using frequency distribution in the following table:
Table 4.9 Distribution Frequency of Post test Control Group
Control
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
47
1
2.8
2.8
2.8
52
1
2.8
2.8
5.6
53
7
19.4
19.4
25.0
56
1
2.8
2.8
27.8
59
6
16.7
16.7
44.4
62
3
8.3
8.3
52.8
63
1
2.8
2.8
55.6
66
7
19.4
19.4
75.0
69
5
13.9
13.9
88.9
72
2
5.6
5.6
94.4
78
1
2.8
2.8
97.2
81
1
2.8
2.8
100.0
36
100.0
100.0
Total
The distribution of students’ score in post test of control group could also
be seen in the following figure.
69
Figure 4. 4
The Distribution Frequency post-test Score for Control Group
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Frekuensi
47
52
53
56
59
62
63
66
69
72
78
81
Figure 4.4 The Frequency of Distribution of Post test Control Group
Based on the figure above, it can be seen that the students post-test control
group. There was one student who got score 47. There was one student who got
score 52. There were seven students who got score 53. There was one student who
got score 56. There were six students who got score 59. There were three students
who got score 62. There was one student who got score 63. There were seven
students who got score 66. There were five students who got score 69. There were
two students who got score 72. There was one student who got score 78. And the last
there was one student who got score 81.
The next step, the writer calculated the scores of mean, standard deviation,
and standard error using SPSS 21 program as follows:
70
Table 4.10 The Manual Calculation of Mean, Standard Error of Mean,
Standard Deviation
Statistics
Control
N
Valid
Missing
36
0
Mean
62.19
Std. Error of Mean
1.308
Median
62.00
Mode
Std. Deviation
53
7.848
Minimum
47
Maximum
81
Based on the calculation above, the higher score pre-test of the control group
was 81 and the lowest score was 47. And the result of the mean was 62.19, the
median was 62.00, the mode was 53, the standard error of the mean was 1.308 and the
standard deviation was 7.848.
71
3. The Comparison Result of Pre-test and Post-test of Experimental and Control
Group
Table 4.11 The Comparison Result of Pre-test and Post-test of Experimental and
Control Group
Experimental
Control
No
Code
Pre
Test
Post
Test
Improvement
Code
Pre
Test
Post
Test
Improvement
1
2
E01
59
66
7
C01
59
62
3
E02
66
66
0
C02
53
59
6
3
E03
53
62
9
C03
59
53
-6
4
E04
50
59
9
C04
56
59
3
5
E05
53
56
3
C05
66
66
0
6
E06
47
59
12
C06
47
72
25
7
E07
56
67
11
C07
41
66
25
8
E08
62
84
22
C08
53
78
25
9
E09
56
62
6
C09
59
72
13
10
E10
56
62
6
C10
41
62
21
11
E11
53
59
6
C11
47
53
6
12
E12
41
59
18
C12
41
53
12
13
E13
59
59
0
C13
44
47
3
14
E14
41
62
21
C14
44
53
9
15
E15
50
62
10
C15
53
59
6
16
E16
44
66
22
C16
59
81
22
17
E17
47
62
15
C17
69
63
-6
18
E18
56
66
10
C18
50
52
2
19
E19
47
78
31
C19
59
66
7
20
E20
41
56
15
C20
50
53
3
21
E21
53
67
14
C21
50
66
16
22
E22
53
81
28
C22
53
53
0
23
E23
53
67
14
C23
53
62
9
24
E24
59
78
19
C24
56
59
3
25
E25
47
59
12
C25
53
56
3
26
E26
59
62
3
C26
59
66
7
27
E27
53
67
14
C27
53
53
0
72
28
E28
50
66
16
C28
59
66
7
29
E29
56
67
11
C29
47
69
22
30
E30
66
90
24
C30
53
69
16
31
E31
41
84
43
C31
47
69
22
32
E32
59
62
9
C32
47
69
22
33
E33
53
66
13
C33
50
66
16
34
E34
C34
56
69
13
35
E35
C35
53
59
6
36
E36
C36
56
59
3
Total
1895
2239
344
449
Total
1739
2188
Mean
52.70
66.30
Mean
52.64
62.19
Highest
41
56
Highest
41
47
Lowest
66
90
Lowest
69
81
B. Testing the Normality and Homogeneity
1. Normality Test
The writer used SPSS 21 to measure the normality of the data.
a) Testing Normality of Post Test Experimental and Control Group
Table 4.12 Testing Normality of Post Test Experimental and Control
Group
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Experiment
N
Normal Parameters
Most Extreme Differences
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
Control
33
36
Mean
66.30
62.19
Std. Deviation
8.590
7.848
Absolute
.286
.131
Positive
.286
.129
Negative
-.137
-.131
1.642
.783
.009
.571
73
The criteria of the normality test of post-test if the value of (probability
value/critical value) was higher than or equal to the level of significance alpha
defined, it means that the distribution was normal. Based on the calculation used
SPSS 21.00 program, asymptotic significance normality of control group was
0.009 and experiment group 0.571 Then the normality both of class was
consulted with a table of Kolmogorov- Smirnov with the level of significance
5% (α=0.05). because asymptotic significance of control 0.571 > 0.05, and
asymptotic significance of experiment 0.009 > 0.05. it could be concluded that
the data was a normal distribution. It meant that the students’ pre-test score of
experimental and control group had a normal distribution.
2. Homogeneity Test
a). Testing Homogeneity of Post Test Experimental and Control Group
Table 4.13 Testing Homogeneity of Post-Test Experimental and Control
Group
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Experiment
Levene Statistic
2.127
df1
df2
5
Sig.
21
.102
The criteria of the homogeneity test post test were if the value of
(probability value/critical value) was higher than or equal to the level of
significance alpha defined (r = a), it means that the distribution was homogeneity.
Based on the calculation using SPSS 21.0 above, the value of (probably
value/critical value) from post test of the experimental and control group on
74
Homogeneity of Variances in sig column is known that p-value was 0,102. The
data in this study fulfilled homogeneity since the p-value is higher 0,102 > 0.05.
C. Result Data Analysis
1. Testing Hypothesis Using Manual Calculation
To test the hypothesis of the study, the writer used t-test statistical
calculation. Firstly, the writer calculated the standard deviation and the error of
X1 and X2 at the previous data presentation. In could be seen on this following
table:
Table 4.14
The Standard Deviation and Standard Error of X1 and X2
The Standard
The Standard Error
Deviation
of Mean
X1
1. 495
8.590
X2
1.308
7.848
Variable
X1
= Experimental Group
X2
= Control Group
The table showed the result of the standard deviation calculation of X1 was 1.
495 and the result of the standard error mean calculation were 8.590. The result of the
standard deviation calculation of X2 was 1.308 and the result of the standard error mean
calculation was 7.848.
The next step, the writer calculated the standard error of the difference mean
between X1 and X2 as follows:
75
Standard error of mean of score difference between Variable I and Variable II
SEM1 – SEM2 = SEM12 + SEM22
SEM1 – SEM2 =
SEM1 – SEM2 =
SEM1 – SEM2 =
2
SEM1 – SEM2 = 1.163525676553
SEM1 – SEM2 = 1.163
The calculation above showed the standard error of the differences mean
between X1 and X2 was 1.946. Then, it was inserted into the ttest formula to get the value
of t test as follows:
to =
to =
to =
to = 3.53
Which the criteria:
If t-test ≥ t-table, Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected
If t-test < t-table, Ha is rejected and Ho is accepted
76
Then, the writer interpreted the result of t-test; previously, the writer accounted
the degree of freedom (df) with the formula:
Df
= (N1+N2) -2
= 33+36 – 2 = 67
The resecher chose the significant levels at 5%, it means the significant level
of the refusal of null hypothesis at 5%. The researcher decided the significance level at
5% due to the hypothesis typed stated on non-directional (two-tailed test). It meant that
the hypothesis can’t direct the prediction of the alternative hypothesis. Alternative
hypothesis symbolized by “1”. This symbol could direct the answer of hypothesis, “1”
can be (>) or (2.65. It means Ha was accepted and Ho was rejected. It meant Ha was accepted and Ho
was rejected. It could be interpreted based on the result of calculation that H a stating that
Cartoon Story Maker was effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth
grade students at MAN Katingan Hilir was accepted and Ho stating that Cartoon Story
Maker was not effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth grade
students at MAN Katingan Hilir was rejected. It meant that teaching writing with
Cartoon Story Maker was effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth
graders of MAN Katingan Hilir gave significant effect at 5% and 1% significance level.
2. Testing Hypothesis Using SPSS 21.0 Program
The researcher also applied SPSS 21.0 program to calculate t test in the testing
hypothesis of the study. The result of the t test using SPSS 21.0 was used to support the
manual calculation of the t test. The result of the test using SPSS 21.0 program could be
seen as follows:
78
Table 4.16
Mean, Standard Deviation and Standard Error of Experiment Group and Control
Group using SPSS 21.0 Program
Statistics
Experiment
N
Valid
Control
33
36
3
0
Mean
66.30
62.19
Std. Error of Mean
1.495
1.308
Std. Deviation
8.590
7.848
Missing
The table showed the result of mean calculation of experimental group was 66.30,
standard deviation calculation was 8.590, and standard error of mean calculation was 1.
495. The result of mean calculation of control group was 62.19., standard deviation
calculation was 7.848, and standard error of the mean was 1.308.
Table 4.17 The Calculation of T – Test Using SPSS 21.0
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. (2-
F
Equal variances
Score
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
.068
Sig.
.795
T
df
tailed)
Mean
Std. Error
Difference Difference
Difference
Lower
Upper
2.076
67
.042
4.10859
1.97872
.15904
8.05813
2.068
64.943
.043
4.10859
1.98660
.14100
8.07617
79
The table showed the result of t – test calculation using SPSS 21.0 program. To know
the variances score of data, the formula could be seen as follows:
If α =0.05 < Sig, Ho accepted and Ha rejected
If α = 0.05> Sig, Ha accepted and Ho rejected
Since the result of post-test between experimental and control group had
difference score of variance, it found that α = 0.05 was higher than Sig (2-tailed) or
(0.05>0.00) so that Ha was accepted and Ho was rejected . The result of ttest was 3.53,
mean difference between experimental and control group was 4.10859 and the standard
error difference between experimental and control group was 1.97872.
To examine the truth or the false of null hypothesis stating that the there is no
effect of Project-Based Learning using Cartoon Story Maker in writing recount text at
tenth graders of MAN Katingan Hilir. The result of t – test was interpreted on the result of
the degree of freedom to get the ttable. The result of the degree of freedom (df) was 67. The
following table was the result of observed and ttable from 67 df at 5% and 1% significance level.
Table 4.18
The Result of T-Test Using SPSS 21.0 Program
t-table
t-test
3.53
Df
5 % (0,05)
1 % (0,01)
2.00
2.65
67
80
The interpretation of the result of t-test using SPSS 21.0 program, it was found
the t observe was greater than the t table at 5% significance level or 2.002.65. It
means that Ha was accepted and Howas rejected. It could be interpreted based on the result of
calculation that Ha stating that Project-Based Learning using Cartoon Story Maker was
effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth grade students at MAN
Katingan Hilir was accepted and Ho stating that Project-Based Learning using Cartoon
Story Maker was not effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth grade
students at MAN Katingan Hilir was rejected. It meant that teaching writing with Cartoon
Story Maker was effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth graders at
MAN Katingan Hilir gave significant effect at 5% and 1 % significance level.
D. Discussion
The result of the analysis showed that there was a significant effect of ProjectBased Learning using Cartoon Story Maker in writing Recount text at tenth graders of
MAN Katingan Hilir It can be seen from the means score between pre-test and post-test.
The mean score of post test reached a higher score than the mean score of Pre-test (X=
53.61 < Y=50.14). It indicated that the students’ score increased after conducting
treatment. In other words, the students writing Recount text taught by Project-Based
Learning using Cartoon Story Maker have better than those taught by non-Project Based
Learning using Cartoon Story Maker at the tenth graders of MAN Katingan Hilir. There
are some problem when the treatment in school the firs media, media is very important to
learning writing using cartoon story maker, becouse in laboratory computer definite for
the students, so when learning the students bring laptop in school. The second lack a
vocabulary, so when the treatment the teacher gave vocabulary in each meeting, the
students memorize the vocabularies.
81
In addition, after the data was calculated using the ttest formula using SPSS
21.00 program showed that the observed was 3.53. In addition, After the students have been
taught by Cartoon Story Maker, the writing score was higher than before implementing
it. This finding indicated that Project-Based Learning using Cartoon Story Maker was
effective.
In teaching learning process, taught writing Recount text by using Cartoon Story
Maker was a tool used by the writer to teach the students. It could be seen from the score
of students how the used of Cartoon Story Maker gave positive effects for students
writing Recount text. It meant that it has an important role in teaching learning process.
It was answered the problem of the study which “Is there any significant effect of
Cartoon Story Maker in writing Recount text at tenth graders of MAN Katingan Hilir?”.
Project-Based Learning using Cartoon Story Maker as means for language
learning effectively enhanced the writing Recount text at tenth graders of MAN Katingan
Hilir. The students writing Recount text was enhanced after the treatment when they
were given opportunities to use Cartoon Story Maker in the learning process. They wrote
better Recount text using more meaningful contents within a well-organized text in the
post-test.
The results supported the theory by Dare and Gar in Chapter II page 14, stated that
Cartoon Story Maker helped students increase own language learning in a fun and
motivating way.51 The students gave their attention to the material because the writer
used different media than usual. Using Cartoon Story Maker as a media in writing text
actively encourages a collaborative environment, increases motivation and the student's
51
Louis Dare and Coleg Sir Gar, P 6
82
participation. They could update the writing assignments on Cartoon Story Maker and
their friends commented on their writing.
Next results supported the theory by Tarantino and Graf in Chapter II page 15,
stated that integrating Cartoon Story Maker in the foreign language course had several
perceived that using Cartoon Story Maker seems to have a significant impact on
language learning. Such as the nature of the students-to-students and students-toinstructor instructions is more multi-dimensional than a traditional writing assignment.52
In line with it, the writer gave the students the assignment of Recount text and asked
them to post their writing on Cartoon Story Maker not on paper so that the students had
enthusiasm on produce the text.
The result of t-test using SPSS 21.0 program, it was found the t test was greater
than the t table at 5% significance level or 2.002.65. It means that Ha was accepted
and Howas rejected. It could be interpreted based on the result of a calculation that Ha stating
that Cartoon Story Maker was effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth
graders of MAN Katingan Hilir was accepted and Ho stating that Cartoon Story Maker
was not effective for teaching writing Recount text of the tenth graders of MAN
Katingan Hilir was rejected. It meant that teaching writing with Cartoon Story Maker was
effective for teaching writing recount text of the tenth graders of MAN Katingan Hilir.
52
J Terantino, K Graf, P 5
RESULT OF THE STUDY
A. The Data Description
In this section, it described the obtained data of improvement the students’writing
recount text before and after taught by Cartoon Story maker and non-Cartoon Story
Maker. The presented data consisted of distribution of pre-test score of experimental and
control group and also the distribution of post-test score of experimental group and
control group.
1. The Result of Pretest Score Experimental Group and Control Group
Table 4.1 Pre-Test Score of Control and Experimental Group
Experimental Group
Code
E01
E02
E03
E04
E05
E06
E07
E08
E09
E10
E11
E12
E13
E14
E15
E16
E17
Score
59
66
53
50
53
Control Group
Code
C01
C02
C03
C04
C05
C06
C07
C08
C09
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
47
56
62
56
56
53
41
59
41
50
44
47
58
Score
59
53
59
56
66
47
41
53
59
41
47
41
44
44
53
59
69
59
E18
E19
E20
E21
E22
E23
E24
E25
E26
E27
E28
E29
E30
E31
E32
E33
56
47
41
53
53
53
59
47
59
53
50
56
66
41
59
53
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C4
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
30
C31
32
C33
C34
C35
C36
50
59
50
50
53
53
56
53
59
53
59
47
53
47
47
50
56
53
56
a. The Result of Pretest Score of Experimental Group
The pre-test was conducted on Thursday, 11th August 2016 in the X-A
room. The students asked to write Recount text that interested them about the holiday
that should cover the generic structure consisted of identification and allocated time
was 90 minutes. The students’ pre-test score of experiment group were distributed in
the following table (see appendix 5) in order analyzing the students’ background
knowledge of Recount text before the treatment. Then, it was presented using
distribution frequency in the following table:
60
Table 4.2 Frequency Distribution of Pre-test Experiment Group
Experimental
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
41
4
12.1
12.1
12.1
44
1
3.0
3.0
15.2
47
4
12.1
12.1
27.3
50
3
9.1
9.1
36.4
53
8
24.2
24.2
60.6
56
5
15.2
15.2
75.8
59
5
15.2
15.2
90.9
62
1
3.0
3.0
93.9
66
2
6.1
6.1
100.0
33
100.0
100.0
Total
The distribution of students’ score in pre-test of the experimental group can
also be seen in the following figure.
Figure 4.1
The Distribution of Pre-Test Experimental Group
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Frekuensi
41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 66
61
Based on the figure above, it can be seen that the students pretest score of
experiment group. There were four students who got score 41. There was one
student who got score 44. There were four students who got score 47. There were
three students who got score 50 . There were eight students who got score 53. There
were five students who got score 56. There was five students who got score 59. The
was one student who got score 62 and the last there were two students who got score
66.
The next step, the writer calculated the scores of mean, standard deviation,
and standard error using SPSS 21 program as follows.
Table 4.3 The Calculation of Mean, Standard Error of Mean,
Standard Deviation
Statistics
Experimental
N
Valid
Missing
33
0
Mean
52.70
Std. Error of Mean
1.179
Median
53.00
Mode
Std. Deviation
53
6.775
Minimum
41
Maximum
66
Based on the calculation above, the higher score pre-test of the
experimental group was 66 and the lowest score was 41. And the result of the mean
was 52.70 median was 53.00, the mode was 53 the standard error of the mean was
,1.179 and the standard deviation was 6.775.
62
b. The Result of Pretest Score of Control Group
The pre-test was conducted on Tuesday,23th August 2016 in the X-B room.
The students asked to write Recount text that interested them about the Holiday that
should cover the generic structure consisted of identification and allocated time was
90 minutes. The students’ pre-test score of the control group were distributed in the
following table (see appendix 5) in order analyzing the students’ background
knowledge. Then, it was presented using frequency distribution in the following table:
Table 4. 4 Frequency Distribution of Pre-test Control Group
Control
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
41
3
8.3
8.3
8.3
44
2
5.6
5.6
13.9
47
5
13.9
13.9
27.8
50
4
11.1
11.1
38.9
53
9
25.0
25.0
63.9
56
4
11.1
11.1
75.0
59
7
19.4
19.4
94.4
66
1
2.8
2.8
97.2
69
1
2.8
2.8
100.0
36
100.0
100.0
Total
The distribution of students’ score in pre-test of the experimental group can
also be seen in the following figure.
63
Figure 4.2
The Distribution of Pre-Test Control Group
10
8
6
Frekuensi
4
2
0
41
44
47
50
53
56
59
66
69
Based on the figure above, it can be seen that the students pretest score of
the control group. There were three students who got score 41. There were two
students who got score 44. There were five students who got score 47. There were
four students who got score 50. There were nine students who got score 53. There
were four students who got score 56. There were seven students who got score 59.
There was one student who got score 66 and 69.
The next step, the writer calculated the scores of mean, standard deviation,
and standard error using SPSS 21 program as follows:
Table 4.5 The Calculation of Mean, Standard Error of Mean, Standard
Deviation
Statistics
Control
N
Valid
Missing
36
0
Mean
52.64
Std. Error of Mean
1.098
Median
53.00
Mode
Std. Deviation
53
6.586
Minimum
41
Maximum
69
64
Based on the calculation above, the higher score pre-test of the control group
was 69 and the lowest score was 41. And the result of the mean was 52.64, the
median was 53,00, the mode was 53, the standard error of the mean was ,1.098 and
the standard deviation was 6.586.
2. The Result of Post Test Score Experimental Group and Control Group
Table 4.6 Post Test Score of Control and Experimental Group
Experimental
Group
Code
Score
E01
66
E02
66
E03
62
E04
59
E05
56
E06
59
E07
67
E08
84
E09
62
E10
62
E11
59
E12
59
E13
59
E14
62
E15
62
E16
66
E17
62
Control
Group
Code
Score
C01
62
C02
59
C03
53
C04
59
C05
66
C06
72
C07
66
C08
78
C09
72
C10
62
C11
53
C12
53
C13
47
C14
53
C15
59
C16
81
C17
63
65
E18
66
E19
78
E20
56
E21
67
E22
81
E23
67
E24
78
E25
59
E26
62
E27
67
E28
66
E29
67
E30
90
E31
84
E32
62
E33
66
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33
C34
C35
C36
52
66
53
66
53
62
59
56
66
53
66
69
69
69
69
66
69
59
59
A. The Result of Post-test Score of Experimental Group
The post-test was conducted on Tuesday, 6th September 2016 in the X-A
room. The students asked to write recount text that interested them about the holiday
that should cover the generic structure consisted of identification, allocated time was
90 minutes and should post their text on Cartoon Story Maker. The students’ posttest score of experiment class was distributed in the following table (see appendix 5)
66
in order analyzing the students’ writing recount text after the treatment. Then, it was
presented using frequency distribution in the following table:
Table 4.7 Frequency Distribution of Post Test Experimental Group
Experimental
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
56
2
6.1
6.1
6.1
59
6
18.2
18.2
24.2
62
8
24.2
24.2
48.5
66
6
18.2
18.2
66.7
67
5
15.2
15.2
81.8
78
2
6.1
6.1
87.9
81
1
3.0
3.0
90.9
84
2
6.1
6.1
97.0
90
1
3.0
3.0
100.0
33
100.0
100.0
Total
The distribution of students’ score in pre-test of the Experimental group can
also be seen in the following figure.
Figure 4.3
The Distribution of Post Test Experimental Group
8
6
4
Frekuensi
2
0
56
59
62
66
67
78
81
84
90
67
Based on the figure above, it can be seen that the students pretest score of
the control group. There were two students who got score 56. There were six
students who got score 59. There were eight students who got score 62. There were
six students who got score 66. There were five students who got score 67. There
were two students who got score 78. There were one student who got score 81.
There were two students who got score 84 and the last there was one student who
got score 90.
The next step, the writer calculated the scores of mean, standard deviation,
and standard error using SPSS 21 program as follow.
Table 4.8 The Calculation of Mean, Standard Error of Mean, Standard
Deviation
Statistics
Experimental
N
Valid
Missing
33
0
Mean
66.30
Std. Error of Mean
1.495
Median
66.00
Mode
Std. Deviation
62
8.590
Minimum
56
Maximum
90
Based on the calculation above, the higher score post test of the
experimental group was 90 and the lowest score was 56. And the result of the mean
was 66.30, the median was 66.00, the mode was 62, the standard error of mean was
1.495 and the standard deviation was 8.590.
68
B. The Result of Post-test Score of Control Group
The post-test was conducted on Wednesday 7th September 2016 in the X-B
room. The students asked to write recount text that interested them about the holiday
that should cover the generic structure consisted of identification, allocated time was
90 minutes The students’ post-test score of the control group were distributed in the
following table (see appendix 5) in order analyzing the knowledge of recount text.
Then, it was presented using frequency distribution in the following table:
Table 4.9 Distribution Frequency of Post test Control Group
Control
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
47
1
2.8
2.8
2.8
52
1
2.8
2.8
5.6
53
7
19.4
19.4
25.0
56
1
2.8
2.8
27.8
59
6
16.7
16.7
44.4
62
3
8.3
8.3
52.8
63
1
2.8
2.8
55.6
66
7
19.4
19.4
75.0
69
5
13.9
13.9
88.9
72
2
5.6
5.6
94.4
78
1
2.8
2.8
97.2
81
1
2.8
2.8
100.0
36
100.0
100.0
Total
The distribution of students’ score in post test of control group could also
be seen in the following figure.
69
Figure 4. 4
The Distribution Frequency post-test Score for Control Group
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Frekuensi
47
52
53
56
59
62
63
66
69
72
78
81
Figure 4.4 The Frequency of Distribution of Post test Control Group
Based on the figure above, it can be seen that the students post-test control
group. There was one student who got score 47. There was one student who got
score 52. There were seven students who got score 53. There was one student who
got score 56. There were six students who got score 59. There were three students
who got score 62. There was one student who got score 63. There were seven
students who got score 66. There were five students who got score 69. There were
two students who got score 72. There was one student who got score 78. And the last
there was one student who got score 81.
The next step, the writer calculated the scores of mean, standard deviation,
and standard error using SPSS 21 program as follows:
70
Table 4.10 The Manual Calculation of Mean, Standard Error of Mean,
Standard Deviation
Statistics
Control
N
Valid
Missing
36
0
Mean
62.19
Std. Error of Mean
1.308
Median
62.00
Mode
Std. Deviation
53
7.848
Minimum
47
Maximum
81
Based on the calculation above, the higher score pre-test of the control group
was 81 and the lowest score was 47. And the result of the mean was 62.19, the
median was 62.00, the mode was 53, the standard error of the mean was 1.308 and the
standard deviation was 7.848.
71
3. The Comparison Result of Pre-test and Post-test of Experimental and Control
Group
Table 4.11 The Comparison Result of Pre-test and Post-test of Experimental and
Control Group
Experimental
Control
No
Code
Pre
Test
Post
Test
Improvement
Code
Pre
Test
Post
Test
Improvement
1
2
E01
59
66
7
C01
59
62
3
E02
66
66
0
C02
53
59
6
3
E03
53
62
9
C03
59
53
-6
4
E04
50
59
9
C04
56
59
3
5
E05
53
56
3
C05
66
66
0
6
E06
47
59
12
C06
47
72
25
7
E07
56
67
11
C07
41
66
25
8
E08
62
84
22
C08
53
78
25
9
E09
56
62
6
C09
59
72
13
10
E10
56
62
6
C10
41
62
21
11
E11
53
59
6
C11
47
53
6
12
E12
41
59
18
C12
41
53
12
13
E13
59
59
0
C13
44
47
3
14
E14
41
62
21
C14
44
53
9
15
E15
50
62
10
C15
53
59
6
16
E16
44
66
22
C16
59
81
22
17
E17
47
62
15
C17
69
63
-6
18
E18
56
66
10
C18
50
52
2
19
E19
47
78
31
C19
59
66
7
20
E20
41
56
15
C20
50
53
3
21
E21
53
67
14
C21
50
66
16
22
E22
53
81
28
C22
53
53
0
23
E23
53
67
14
C23
53
62
9
24
E24
59
78
19
C24
56
59
3
25
E25
47
59
12
C25
53
56
3
26
E26
59
62
3
C26
59
66
7
27
E27
53
67
14
C27
53
53
0
72
28
E28
50
66
16
C28
59
66
7
29
E29
56
67
11
C29
47
69
22
30
E30
66
90
24
C30
53
69
16
31
E31
41
84
43
C31
47
69
22
32
E32
59
62
9
C32
47
69
22
33
E33
53
66
13
C33
50
66
16
34
E34
C34
56
69
13
35
E35
C35
53
59
6
36
E36
C36
56
59
3
Total
1895
2239
344
449
Total
1739
2188
Mean
52.70
66.30
Mean
52.64
62.19
Highest
41
56
Highest
41
47
Lowest
66
90
Lowest
69
81
B. Testing the Normality and Homogeneity
1. Normality Test
The writer used SPSS 21 to measure the normality of the data.
a) Testing Normality of Post Test Experimental and Control Group
Table 4.12 Testing Normality of Post Test Experimental and Control
Group
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Experiment
N
Normal Parameters
Most Extreme Differences
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
Control
33
36
Mean
66.30
62.19
Std. Deviation
8.590
7.848
Absolute
.286
.131
Positive
.286
.129
Negative
-.137
-.131
1.642
.783
.009
.571
73
The criteria of the normality test of post-test if the value of (probability
value/critical value) was higher than or equal to the level of significance alpha
defined, it means that the distribution was normal. Based on the calculation used
SPSS 21.00 program, asymptotic significance normality of control group was
0.009 and experiment group 0.571 Then the normality both of class was
consulted with a table of Kolmogorov- Smirnov with the level of significance
5% (α=0.05). because asymptotic significance of control 0.571 > 0.05, and
asymptotic significance of experiment 0.009 > 0.05. it could be concluded that
the data was a normal distribution. It meant that the students’ pre-test score of
experimental and control group had a normal distribution.
2. Homogeneity Test
a). Testing Homogeneity of Post Test Experimental and Control Group
Table 4.13 Testing Homogeneity of Post-Test Experimental and Control
Group
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Experiment
Levene Statistic
2.127
df1
df2
5
Sig.
21
.102
The criteria of the homogeneity test post test were if the value of
(probability value/critical value) was higher than or equal to the level of
significance alpha defined (r = a), it means that the distribution was homogeneity.
Based on the calculation using SPSS 21.0 above, the value of (probably
value/critical value) from post test of the experimental and control group on
74
Homogeneity of Variances in sig column is known that p-value was 0,102. The
data in this study fulfilled homogeneity since the p-value is higher 0,102 > 0.05.
C. Result Data Analysis
1. Testing Hypothesis Using Manual Calculation
To test the hypothesis of the study, the writer used t-test statistical
calculation. Firstly, the writer calculated the standard deviation and the error of
X1 and X2 at the previous data presentation. In could be seen on this following
table:
Table 4.14
The Standard Deviation and Standard Error of X1 and X2
The Standard
The Standard Error
Deviation
of Mean
X1
1. 495
8.590
X2
1.308
7.848
Variable
X1
= Experimental Group
X2
= Control Group
The table showed the result of the standard deviation calculation of X1 was 1.
495 and the result of the standard error mean calculation were 8.590. The result of the
standard deviation calculation of X2 was 1.308 and the result of the standard error mean
calculation was 7.848.
The next step, the writer calculated the standard error of the difference mean
between X1 and X2 as follows:
75
Standard error of mean of score difference between Variable I and Variable II
SEM1 – SEM2 = SEM12 + SEM22
SEM1 – SEM2 =
SEM1 – SEM2 =
SEM1 – SEM2 =
2
SEM1 – SEM2 = 1.163525676553
SEM1 – SEM2 = 1.163
The calculation above showed the standard error of the differences mean
between X1 and X2 was 1.946. Then, it was inserted into the ttest formula to get the value
of t test as follows:
to =
to =
to =
to = 3.53
Which the criteria:
If t-test ≥ t-table, Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected
If t-test < t-table, Ha is rejected and Ho is accepted
76
Then, the writer interpreted the result of t-test; previously, the writer accounted
the degree of freedom (df) with the formula:
Df
= (N1+N2) -2
= 33+36 – 2 = 67
The resecher chose the significant levels at 5%, it means the significant level
of the refusal of null hypothesis at 5%. The researcher decided the significance level at
5% due to the hypothesis typed stated on non-directional (two-tailed test). It meant that
the hypothesis can’t direct the prediction of the alternative hypothesis. Alternative
hypothesis symbolized by “1”. This symbol could direct the answer of hypothesis, “1”
can be (>) or (2.65. It means Ha was accepted and Ho was rejected. It meant Ha was accepted and Ho
was rejected. It could be interpreted based on the result of calculation that H a stating that
Cartoon Story Maker was effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth
grade students at MAN Katingan Hilir was accepted and Ho stating that Cartoon Story
Maker was not effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth grade
students at MAN Katingan Hilir was rejected. It meant that teaching writing with
Cartoon Story Maker was effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth
graders of MAN Katingan Hilir gave significant effect at 5% and 1% significance level.
2. Testing Hypothesis Using SPSS 21.0 Program
The researcher also applied SPSS 21.0 program to calculate t test in the testing
hypothesis of the study. The result of the t test using SPSS 21.0 was used to support the
manual calculation of the t test. The result of the test using SPSS 21.0 program could be
seen as follows:
78
Table 4.16
Mean, Standard Deviation and Standard Error of Experiment Group and Control
Group using SPSS 21.0 Program
Statistics
Experiment
N
Valid
Control
33
36
3
0
Mean
66.30
62.19
Std. Error of Mean
1.495
1.308
Std. Deviation
8.590
7.848
Missing
The table showed the result of mean calculation of experimental group was 66.30,
standard deviation calculation was 8.590, and standard error of mean calculation was 1.
495. The result of mean calculation of control group was 62.19., standard deviation
calculation was 7.848, and standard error of the mean was 1.308.
Table 4.17 The Calculation of T – Test Using SPSS 21.0
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. (2-
F
Equal variances
Score
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
.068
Sig.
.795
T
df
tailed)
Mean
Std. Error
Difference Difference
Difference
Lower
Upper
2.076
67
.042
4.10859
1.97872
.15904
8.05813
2.068
64.943
.043
4.10859
1.98660
.14100
8.07617
79
The table showed the result of t – test calculation using SPSS 21.0 program. To know
the variances score of data, the formula could be seen as follows:
If α =0.05 < Sig, Ho accepted and Ha rejected
If α = 0.05> Sig, Ha accepted and Ho rejected
Since the result of post-test between experimental and control group had
difference score of variance, it found that α = 0.05 was higher than Sig (2-tailed) or
(0.05>0.00) so that Ha was accepted and Ho was rejected . The result of ttest was 3.53,
mean difference between experimental and control group was 4.10859 and the standard
error difference between experimental and control group was 1.97872.
To examine the truth or the false of null hypothesis stating that the there is no
effect of Project-Based Learning using Cartoon Story Maker in writing recount text at
tenth graders of MAN Katingan Hilir. The result of t – test was interpreted on the result of
the degree of freedom to get the ttable. The result of the degree of freedom (df) was 67. The
following table was the result of observed and ttable from 67 df at 5% and 1% significance level.
Table 4.18
The Result of T-Test Using SPSS 21.0 Program
t-table
t-test
3.53
Df
5 % (0,05)
1 % (0,01)
2.00
2.65
67
80
The interpretation of the result of t-test using SPSS 21.0 program, it was found
the t observe was greater than the t table at 5% significance level or 2.002.65. It
means that Ha was accepted and Howas rejected. It could be interpreted based on the result of
calculation that Ha stating that Project-Based Learning using Cartoon Story Maker was
effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth grade students at MAN
Katingan Hilir was accepted and Ho stating that Project-Based Learning using Cartoon
Story Maker was not effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth grade
students at MAN Katingan Hilir was rejected. It meant that teaching writing with Cartoon
Story Maker was effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth graders at
MAN Katingan Hilir gave significant effect at 5% and 1 % significance level.
D. Discussion
The result of the analysis showed that there was a significant effect of ProjectBased Learning using Cartoon Story Maker in writing Recount text at tenth graders of
MAN Katingan Hilir It can be seen from the means score between pre-test and post-test.
The mean score of post test reached a higher score than the mean score of Pre-test (X=
53.61 < Y=50.14). It indicated that the students’ score increased after conducting
treatment. In other words, the students writing Recount text taught by Project-Based
Learning using Cartoon Story Maker have better than those taught by non-Project Based
Learning using Cartoon Story Maker at the tenth graders of MAN Katingan Hilir. There
are some problem when the treatment in school the firs media, media is very important to
learning writing using cartoon story maker, becouse in laboratory computer definite for
the students, so when learning the students bring laptop in school. The second lack a
vocabulary, so when the treatment the teacher gave vocabulary in each meeting, the
students memorize the vocabularies.
81
In addition, after the data was calculated using the ttest formula using SPSS
21.00 program showed that the observed was 3.53. In addition, After the students have been
taught by Cartoon Story Maker, the writing score was higher than before implementing
it. This finding indicated that Project-Based Learning using Cartoon Story Maker was
effective.
In teaching learning process, taught writing Recount text by using Cartoon Story
Maker was a tool used by the writer to teach the students. It could be seen from the score
of students how the used of Cartoon Story Maker gave positive effects for students
writing Recount text. It meant that it has an important role in teaching learning process.
It was answered the problem of the study which “Is there any significant effect of
Cartoon Story Maker in writing Recount text at tenth graders of MAN Katingan Hilir?”.
Project-Based Learning using Cartoon Story Maker as means for language
learning effectively enhanced the writing Recount text at tenth graders of MAN Katingan
Hilir. The students writing Recount text was enhanced after the treatment when they
were given opportunities to use Cartoon Story Maker in the learning process. They wrote
better Recount text using more meaningful contents within a well-organized text in the
post-test.
The results supported the theory by Dare and Gar in Chapter II page 14, stated that
Cartoon Story Maker helped students increase own language learning in a fun and
motivating way.51 The students gave their attention to the material because the writer
used different media than usual. Using Cartoon Story Maker as a media in writing text
actively encourages a collaborative environment, increases motivation and the student's
51
Louis Dare and Coleg Sir Gar, P 6
82
participation. They could update the writing assignments on Cartoon Story Maker and
their friends commented on their writing.
Next results supported the theory by Tarantino and Graf in Chapter II page 15,
stated that integrating Cartoon Story Maker in the foreign language course had several
perceived that using Cartoon Story Maker seems to have a significant impact on
language learning. Such as the nature of the students-to-students and students-toinstructor instructions is more multi-dimensional than a traditional writing assignment.52
In line with it, the writer gave the students the assignment of Recount text and asked
them to post their writing on Cartoon Story Maker not on paper so that the students had
enthusiasm on produce the text.
The result of t-test using SPSS 21.0 program, it was found the t test was greater
than the t table at 5% significance level or 2.002.65. It means that Ha was accepted
and Howas rejected. It could be interpreted based on the result of a calculation that Ha stating
that Cartoon Story Maker was effective for Teaching Writing Recount Text of the tenth
graders of MAN Katingan Hilir was accepted and Ho stating that Cartoon Story Maker
was not effective for teaching writing Recount text of the tenth graders of MAN
Katingan Hilir was rejected. It meant that teaching writing with Cartoon Story Maker was
effective for teaching writing recount text of the tenth graders of MAN Katingan Hilir.
52
J Terantino, K Graf, P 5