Você está na página 1de 16

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Findings

1. Description of theData

In this section, researcher would like to describe the finding from

try out, pre-test and post-test.

a. Data from tryout

To find out either the instrument were valid or not and reliable

or not, the instrument should have been tested first. Try out test was

given to the students in other class that still in same level which was

class VIII6. This class consistedof 30 students. The description of try

out can be viewed in the table below:

Table 4.1
Accepted/Rejected try out items
No Criteria Item Number Total Description
4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 27,
1 Valid 30 Accepted
28, 29, 34, 36, 37,
38, 39, 40, 41, 43,
45, 46, 47, 50
1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10,
12, 14, 15, 16, 26,
2 Invalid 20 Rejected
30, 31, 32, 33, 35,
42, 44, 48, 49
The result of try out test showed that there were 30 items valid

and 20 items invalid. The items that invalid were removed from the

test. The test was valid because the output is bigger than 0.3. SPSS

outputcan be seenappendix 1 page 73

57
58

b. Data from the Pre-test of Experimental and Control Group

Pre-test was the data analysis that had been given by the

researcher at the first meeting before conducting the treatment for

experimental class by using storytelling and treatment for control class

without using storytelling.

The analysis of raw pre-test scores attained by the

experimental group is as follows:

Table4.2
Pre-test Score of the Control and Experiment Class
Score Range Control (f) Experiment(f)
47-52 3 2
53-58 3 5
59-64 5 6
65-70 9 5
71-76 4 5
77-82 5 4
83-88 3 3
89-94 0 2
32 32
Based on table 4.2, in control class there were 3 students in

score range 47-52, 53-58, and 83-88, 5 students in score range 59-64

and 77-82, 9 students in score range 65-70, and 4 students in score

range 71-76. While in experiment class, there were 2 students in score

range 47-52 and 89-94, 5 students in score range 53-58, 65-70, and

71-76, 4 students in score range 77-82, and 3 students in score range

83-88.The graphic of pre-test scores attained by the control and

experiment class is as follows:


59

Picture 4.1
Pre-test Score of the Control and Experiment Class
10

6
Control
4 Experiment
2

0
47-52 53-58 59-64 65-70 71-76 77-82 83-88 89-94

Based on the calculation from the data that researcher got from

pre-test,the lowest score of pre-test gained by the control class was 47

and the highest score was 87.The mean of the class was 67.56, the

median was 67, standard deviation was 10.488, and the variance was

109.157. For the experiment class, the lowest score of pre-test gained

by the control class was 50 and the highest score is 90. The mean of

the class was 69.19, the median was 70, standard deviation was

10.982 and the variance was 120.609. The data above can be viewed

at the table below:

Table 4.3
The Result of the Calculation of Scores Gained from the Pre- test
Descriptives
Statistic Std. Error
Control Mean 67,56 1,847
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 63,80
Mean Upper Bound 71,33
5% Trimmed Mean 67,71
Median 67,00
Variance 109,157
Std. Deviation 10,448
Minimum 47
60

Maximum 87
Range 40
Interquartile Range 15
Skewness -,362 ,414
Kurtosis -,259 ,809
Experiment Mean 69,19 1,941
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 65,23
Mean Upper Bound 73,15
5% Trimmed Mean 69,10
Median 70,00
Variance 120,609
Std. Deviation 10,982
Minimum 50
Maximum 90
Range 40
Interquartile Range 16
Skewness ,055 ,414
Kurtosis -,722 ,809
c. Data from the Post-test of the Experimental and Control Group

The post-test was conducted at the end of the treatment in

order to find out the effect of storytelling toward students’ test result

in grammar.The post-test was given to the experiment and control

group after treatment. Both group were given the same test material

and time allocation. The data from the post-test score of the control

and experimental class are asfollows:

Table 4.4
Post-test Score of the Control and Experiment Class
Range Control Experiment
47-52 2 0
53-58 3 2
59-64 6 2
65-70 9 2
71-76 4 8
77-82 5 8
83-88 2 6
61

89-94 1 4
32 32
Based on table 4.4, in control class there were 2 students in

score range 47-52 and 83-88, 3 students in score range 53-58, 6

students in score range 59-64, 9 students in score range 65-70, 4

students in score range 71-76, 5 students in score range 77-82, and a

student in score range 89-94. While in experiment class, there are 2

students in score range 53-58, 59-64, and 65-70, 8 students in score

range 71-76 and 77-82, 6 students in score range 83-88, and 4 students

in score range 89-94. The graphic of post-test scores attained by the

control and experiment class is as follows:

Picture 4.2
Post-test Score of the Control and Experiment Class
10

6
Control
4 Experiment

0
47-52 53-58 59-64 65-70 71-76 77-82 83-88 89-94

Based on the calculation from the data that researcher got from

post-test, the lowest score of post-test gained by the control class was

43 and the highest score was 90. The mean of the class was 68.5, the

median was 67, standard deviation was 10.874, and the variance was

118.249. For the experiment class, the lowest score of post-test gained

by the control class was 57 and the highest score was93. The mean of
62

the class was 78.31, the median was 77.4, standard deviation was

8.922, and the variance was 79,609.The data above can be viewed at

the table below:

Table 4.5
The Result of the Calculation of Scores Gained from the Post- test
Descriptives
Statistic Std. Error
Control Mean 68,59 1,922
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 64,67
Mean Upper Bound 72,51
5% Trimmed Mean 68,81
Median 67,00
Variance 118,249
Std. Deviation 10,874
Minimum 43
Maximum 90
Range 47
Interquartile Range 15
Skewness -,128 ,414
Kurtosis ,141 ,809
Experiment Mean 77,44 1,577
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 74,22
Mean Upper Bound 80,65
5% Trimmed Mean 77,71
Median 78,50
Variance 79,609
Std. Deviation 8,922
Minimum 57
Maximum 93
Range 36
Interquartile Range 10
Skewness -,331 ,414
Kurtosis ,207 ,809
2. Analysis of the Data

In this section, the researcher would like to analyse the data from

try out, pre-test, and post-test


63

a. Try out test ofinstrumentation

The result of try out test showed that there were 30 items valid

and 20 items invalid. The items that invalid were removed from the

test. The test was valid because the output is bigger than 0.3. SPSS

output can be seen appendix 1 page 73

Then, the reliability of this test was analyzed for identifying

the test was consistent in measurement or not. The result showed

asfollow:

Vt = 78.39556

𝑛 𝑉𝑡−∑ 𝑝𝑞
r11 = (𝑛−1 ) ( )
𝑉𝑡

50 78.39556−∑ 10,07555556
r11 = (49 ) ( )
78.39556

r11 = 0,88926324

The test wasreliable to be used for pre-test and post-test in this

research if the value of r11 obtained is bigger than 0.6, furthermore

0.89 was categorized as very good.

b. Normality Test of Pre-test Score of Control and Experiment Class

By analyzing the pre-test score of both classes using SPSS 22,

the result used to find out whether the instrument was distributed

normally or not. The Data is normal if Sig. (p value) > 0.05 and is not

normal if Sig. (p value) < 0.05. The output of normality test using

SPSS 22 is shown in table below


64

Table 4.6
Normality Test Using SPSS 22
Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic Df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Control ,135 32 ,147 ,964 32 ,347


Experiment ,123 32 ,200* ,965 32 ,384

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.


a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Based on the table above the Sig. (p value) of both class is

0.147 and 0.2 which are bigger than 0.05, it means that the data

distributed normally. On the table above there are Kolmogorov-

Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk, if the data is more than 50, it is better to

use Kolmogorov-Smirnov. Since the data is more than 50, the

researcher used Kolmogorov-Smirnov. The normality of pre-test data

was used as the condition for the data can be analyzed by using t test

or not.

c. Normality Test of Post-test Score of Control and Experiment

Class.

By analyzing the data using SPSS 22, the result used to find

out whether the instrument was distributed normally or not. The Data

is normal if Sig. (p value) > 0.05 and is not normal if Sig. (p value) <

0.05. The output of normality test using SPSS 22 is shown in table

below
65

Table 4.7
Normality Test Using SPSS 22
Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.

Control ,098 32 ,200* ,976 32 ,663


Experiment ,128 32 ,198 ,956 32 ,212

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.


a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Based on the table above the Sig. (p value) of post-test control

is 0.2 which is bigger than 0.05, it means that the data distributed

normally and the Sig. (p value) of post-test experiment is 0.198 which

is bigger than 0.05, it means that the data also distributed

normally.The normality of the post-test data was used to test the

hypothesis whether it was accepted or not.

d. Homogeneity Test of the Pre-test Score from the Control and

theExperiment Class.

The data from the pre-test of the experimental and control

class were homogeny as presented in the table 4.8:

Table 4.8:
Test Homogenity test of Pre-testUsing SPSS 22
Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

F Sig. t Df

data Equal variances


assumed ,304 ,583 -,606 62

Equal variances not


assumed -,606 61,846

One of the ways to determine the data is homogenous or not is

to compare the Sig.(p value) with the level of significance which is


66

0.05. The Sig. (p value) is 0.583> 0.05, then the data is homogenous.

This sample was also used to test the hypothesis. Before

testing the hypothesis by using t test, the sample had to homogenous.

So, the hypothesis can be analyzed because both pre and post-test had

been homogenous.

e. Homogeneity Test of the Post-test Score from the Experiment

Class and the Control Class

The data from the post-test of the experimental and control

class also homogenous, it can be seen in the table 4.9:

Table 4.9:
Test Homogenity test of Post-test Using SPSS 22
Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

F Sig. t Df

data Equal variances


assumed ,753 ,389 -3,557 62

Equal variances not


assumed -3,557 59,722

One of the ways to determine the data is homogenous or not is

to compare the Sig.(p value) with the level of significance which is

0.05. The Sig. (p value) is 0.389> 0.05. Then it can be concluded that

the data is homogenous.

This homogeneity of both post-test and control class had

function to see between the two classes are homogenous or not. When

they are homogenous, the t test as the formula to test the hypothesis

can be analyzed.
67

3. Testing the Hypothesis

After finding the mean score, the standard deviation, and the value

of the t obtained by using t-test of the both classes, the hypothesis was tested.

The hypothesis of this research was tested asfollow:

a. The firsthypothesis

The first hypothesis in this research, there isany significant

effect of storytelling toward students test result in grammar. To

measure whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected, the researcher

used theformula to find whether Ha/H0 was accepted or rejected, the

value of the t obtained was compared with the value of the t table. If

tobtainedlocated between –ttable and + ttable, the null hypothesis (H0)

isaccepted or tobtainedlocated not between –ttable and + ttable, the alternate

hypothesis (Ha) isaccepted.

Ha H0 Ha

The calculation of pre-test and post-test scores of the

experimental class, the mean score of the post-test ( 2) is 69.19. It

was greater than the mean score of the pre-test 1),77.44. Then it can

be analyzed by using T test in SPSS 22. The output can be viewed on

the table 4.10


68

Table 4.10
T test For Pre-test and Post-test Experimental Class
Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

F Sig. t df

Equal variances 1.761 .189 -3.298 62


assumed
Data
Equal variances not -3.298 59.505
assumed
It was found that t obtained was -3.298 and the t table for degrees

offreedom was 62 with level of significance 0.05 was 1.667. Through

comparing the t obtained (-3.298) andttable(1.667), it was found that the - t

obtained(negative) was smaller than the ttable.

Ha H0 Ha

From the data, it means that there is a significant effect of

using storytelling of prophet Yusuf Story based on Quran

Versestowards students’ grammar mastery which is alternate

hypothesis (Ha) is accepted because the - t obtained is smaller than the t

table.

b. The second hypothesis

From the calculation of post-test scores of the both classes, the

mean score of the post-test ( 2) of the experimental class is 78.31. It

is higher than the mean score of post-test of the control class (


69

1),68.5.Then it can be analyzed by using T test in SPSS 22. The

output can be viewed on the table 4.11

Table 4.11
T test For Post-test of Control and Experimental Class
Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of
Variances Means

F Sig. T Df

data Equal variances


1.959 .166 -4.523 62
assumed
Equal variances not
-4.523 63.851
assumed

It was found that t obtained is -4.523 and the t tablefor degrees of

freedom 62 with =0.05 is 1.667. Through comparing the t obtained (-

4.523) and t table (1.667), it was found that the - t obtained was smaller

than the ttable.

Ha H0 Ha

From the data above, it shows that the alternate hypothesis

(Ha) was accepted and the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected because

the -t obtained was smaller than the t table. So, it can be said that there was

significant difference of the students’ test result ingrammar especially

in pasttense between the students who are taught by using storytelling

and the students who are not taught by using storytelling.

c. The third hypothesis


70

The third hypothesis was the students test result of the students

who are taught by using storytelling was better than the students’ test

result of the students who are not taught by using storytelling or was

the students’ test result of the students who are taught by storytelling

was not better than the students’ test result who are not taught by

using storytelling.

The mean score of post-test of experimental class was bigger

than the post-test mean score of the control class (77.44>68.5). It

means that the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted and it can be

concluded that the grammar test result of the students who were taught

by using storytelling was better than the grammar test result of the

students who were not taught by using storytelling.

B. Discussions

Based on the hypothesis result, researcher found that using

storytelling toward students’ grammar mastery gave significant effect on

students’grammar mastery especially in past tense. It can be shown from the

mean of pre-test and post-test in experimental class. The mean of pre-test of

experimental class is 71.11 and the mean of post-test is 78.31. It means that

the mean of post-test of experimental class is higher than the mean of pre-test

of experimental class. The t-test result is shown that the tobtained is (3,298)

Higher than the ttable (1.667).The differences of both test is caused by the

treatment given. The fact shows that storytelling has significant effect in

increasing the students’ grammar mastery.


71

It has proven that the using storytelling toward students’ test result in

grammar gave significant difference on students’ test result. It can be shown

from the mean of post-test in experimental class and control class. The mean

of post-test of experimental class was 77.44 and control class was 68.5. It

means that the mean of post-test of experimental class is

higherthanthemeanofpost-testofcontrolclass.Thet-testresultwasshown that the

tobtained was higher than the ttable(4.523>1.667). The difference of both classes

was caused by the treatment given. The fact shows that storytelling has

significant difference in influencing the students’ test result in grammar

especially in past tense.

This finding were supported by Belinda Hana Dwiaji in Yogyakarta,

Indonesia.The result of his research showed that there was a significant

difference between the speaking skill of students who were taught by using

storytelling. The other finding was byMusahrain in Wera, Indonesia. This

study found that there was a significant difference between the mastery of

English learning of the students who were taught without storytelling and

taught by using storytelling. They found that storytelling was more effective

than without it.

This difference also happened to the researcher when taught in the

classroom. In experimental class which taught by using storytelling, the

students were more active in learning process. When the researcher taught

them about present tense, they were motivated to raise their hand in giving

example and asking question. This phenomena are suitable with the statement
72

from El-Hariry who said that one of the advantages from storytelling is the

learners are more active in learning process. In contrast, thestudents who were

taught without using storytelling were passive and less motivated in learning

process.

Finally, the data of the experimental and control classes were also

obtained to indicate the students who were taught by storytellingwasbetter

than the students who were not taught by using storytelling from the data that

were obtained.It was found that the mean score of post-test of the

experimental class ( ) was higher than the mean scored of the control class

78.31 > 68.5. It can be concluded that storytelling can help students in

increasing their grammar test result especially in pasttense.

In conclusion, using storytelling can increasing the students’ ability in

grammar especially in past tense. Storytelling is almost appropriate for all

level including weak students. This can be proven from the score ofpost-test

in experimental class of this research.

Você também pode gostar