1 views

Uploaded by azkhakenzie

chpter 4

- Reading SPSS2 Output
- BSc Econometrics 1-Spring 2019-Chaudhry-Lecture 5
- A Study Examining the Students Satisfaction in Higher Education
- Biostatistics Experimental Design
- Computer Application in Business (CAB)
- STAB22_FinalExam_2010F
- Statistical Treatment of Test Scores
- Ate
- Preference of Social Media
- MATHEMATICAL_CONCEPT_OF_AREA_A_TOOL_FOR.pdf
- PPT
- chem 2210l spring 2014 stat data
- Final Output
- Final Expe
- 163 Mitchell
- Suitable Coding
- KAP MODEL 2.pdf
- ies ref
- 7230-15714-1-SM
- Coding Factors

You are on page 1of 27

In this chapter, the findings of the research and the interpretation of data analysis from

the implementation of TSTS technique compared with lecturing technique will be presented and

discussed. In this research there are two classes, experimental class and control class. Every class

has each treatment. The experimental class has TSTS technique while control class has lecturing

technique. The purpose of the research is to know the effectiveness of TSTS technique compared

with lecturing technique to highly and lowly motivated students in SMP Negeri 2 Bumiayu

especially to Class VII C as experimental class and Class VII B as control class.

1.1. Findings

In experimental class which has TSTS technique, the teacher divides the class into

group of four students. Two students will be as guest that stray to other group and gain

information from the host in other groups and two others students will be the host in the group to

share information and material two the guests.

The information they share in the first session is about the descriptive text and

material related with it; definition, purpose, generic structure, grammatical features, simple

present tense, verb used, and example of some descriptive text. In writing task, the Strayed

students will discuss with the host in writing descriptive text. If there are mistakes, they will

correct it together. After that, the strayed students will go back to their own group and discuss

with their groups to revise their writing if there are mistakes. The discussion between the host

with the strayed students and the strayed students with their own group will enrich the

cooperative situation and also in their understanding because they will learn cooperatively by

sharing each other to build their understanding and then re-share it to their own group to make it

better.

On the other hand, the control group has the material as the teacher usually do in his

daily teaching. The teacher explained about descriptive text and its components and the students

made any important notes and some example. They also had a simple task and do it individually.

And finally they had an individual assignment to write descriptive text.

The teacher delivered questionnaire to both experimental class and control class to

classify them into highly and motivated students. The questionnaire contained several questions

related with the process of English teaching learning. Some low motivated students felt that they

have less motivation to attend English class because the teacher use lecturing technique

continuously and use other Technique rarely. Some high motivated students expressed that they

feelt comfortable with the Technique used by the teacher in teaching learning process.

After the class had been divided into highly and lowly motivated students, the

researcher gave pretest to each class before the treatment. After the treatment had been presented

on each class, the researcher gave posttest. The result of pretest and posttest can be seen on the

following tables.

Table 4.1

Pretest and Posttest Score of Experimental and Control Class

Low

Motivated

Number Students

TSTS Technique

Students

Lecturing

Technique

Pre Test

Post

Test

Pre Test

Post

Test

1 RSA 66 78 WW 64,8 70

2 VGP 66 80 FRA 63,5 76

3 DAD 62,3 81 SYM 62,3 68

4 MFY 62,3 76 DES 62,3 64

5 JN 61 85 MRK 62,3 68

6 NAM 61 76 MEI 62,3 67

7 ANN 61 78 MMB 61 63

8 NK 61 81 MRDA 57,3 57

9 MRR 59,8 79 BAY 56 58

10 RDP 58,5 79 MY 56 77

11 TAM 53,5 77 RO 53,5 66

12 MNK 53,5 74 EGP 53,5 69

13 RR 49,8 75 MKF 52,3 56

14 HF 44,8 69 MWWM 49,8 57

15 MLA 44,8 76 MRI 49,8 63

16 MMH 43,5 79 GMR 49,8 66

17 DSM 42,3 72 AS 48,5 58

18 MDAP 41 77 AMAU 46 43

WL 38,5 76 MHI 32,3 42

1030,60 1467,10

1043,30 1188,00

Mean 54,24 77,22 54,91 62,53

Std. Dev 8,60 3,55 6,02 8,04

Highest Score 66,00 84,90 64,80 77,00

Lowest Score 38,50 69,40 32,30 42,00

High

Motivated

1 EDF 80 84 STA 94 93

2 AS 79 81 AMU 86 73

3 NKM 79 96 ASN 83 84

4 UNK 79 89 SL 83 89

5 EER 78 89 ANA 81 87

6 RAS 75 90 NDR 72 84

7 SAP 75 87 RMU 69 77

8 AMI 73 82 SAH 69 77

9 RST 71 78 SAM 69 68

10 KNU 70 82 RA 69 76

11 MP 70 93 NF 68 73

12 NFPA 70 85 PYL 68 77

13 ASR 69 75 SAS 68 77

14 MAA 68 86 DRK 66 76

15 LP 66 81 AP 66 81

16 AI 66 85 RR 64 79

17 MRN 66 83 ATMW 64 68

18 AK 66 80 ALE 64 69

19 MI 66 82 NSI 63 73

1364,90 1607,30

1363,60 1481,00

Mean 71,84 84,59 71,77 77,95

Std. Dev 5,07 5,09 8,85 6,98

Highest Score 80 96 94 93

Lowest Score 63 64 63 68

From the column of pretest score of experimental class we can see that the score of

the pretest in experimental class both to high motivated students and low motivated students

range from 38.5 to 80. The pretest is used to measure the competence of students writing

descriptive text before the treatments is applied.

In control group, there was also a pretest which has the same purpose in experimental

class. From the table of pretest score for control class, we can see that the lowest score in the

class is 32.3 and the highest score achieved by the student is 93.8.

After pretest has been conducted to both experimental class and control class, the

researcher then present different treatment for each class. Experimental class has TSTS

technique and control class has lecturing technique.

After the treatment has been presented, the final step is conducting the posttest. The

posttest show how effectiveness TSTS technique compared with lecturing technique. The result

of the post test can be seen in the two following tables.

The next column is the score of posttest for experimental class. The table shows

that the score of posttest in experimental class treated TSTS technique range from 69.36 to

96.18. The average score for high motivated students has raised from 71.84 to 84.58 or gained

12.75 points. In low motivated students the average score has raised from 54.4 to 77.21 or gained

22.97 points.

From the table of pretest score for control class applied with lecturing technique, we

can see that the range of score is from 42 to 93. The average score of the control class in the

pretest for high motivated students is 71.75 and for low motivated students is 54.88. While in

posttest, the average score for high motivated students is 77.85 and for low motivated students is

62.48. So we can conclude that after the treatment in control class the average score of the high

motivated students has raised from 71.75 to 77.85 or gained 6.10 point. While for low motivated

students, it also has raised from 54.88 to 62.48 or gained 7.60 points.

From all the test, we can see that achievement of the students in experimental and

control class has gained different achievement. In experimental class, the average score of high

motivated between pretest and posttest gained 12.75 points. In low motivated students it gained

22.97 points. If we compared with control class which gained 6.10 point for high motivated

students and 7.60 point for low motivated students. So, the gained score from pretest and posttest

of high motivated students in experimental class is higher 6.65 point than high motivated

students in control class. While low motivated students in experimental class is higher 15.37

points than in control class. So from this result, we can conclude that TSTS make the students

both with high or low motivation in experimental class to gain better score rather than the class

with lecturing technique in writing descriptive text.

1.1.1. Data Analysis

In this part, the researcher first presents about the data normality in pretest and

posttest both in experimental class and control class. After calculating the data normality, the

researcher show the homogeneity of the test. The homogeneity is tested using Levene test of

Variance

1.1.1.1. The test of Data Normality

The test is used to find out whether the sample has a normal distribution or not. The

criterion is: if the level of significance is higher than 0.05, it indicates that the sample is in

normal distribution. In the other hand, if the level of significance is smaller than 0.05, the sample

does not belong to a normal distributed data (Priyatno, 2009:79). So from this explanation, it can

be concluded that the significance score determines the normality of data distribution. If the level

of significance is higher than 0.05 the null hypothesis is accepted.

The hypothesis in normality test is:

- Ho: data has normal distribution

- Ha: Data has not normal distribution

The following table will figure the data normality test both in pretest and posttest

using One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Table 4.2

Normality Test of Pretest

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Pre-test

Experiment

High

Motivated

Pre-test

Experiment

Low

Motivated

Pre-test

Control High

Motivated

Pre-test

Control

Low

Motivated

N 19 19 19 19

Normal Parameters

a,b

Mean 71.84 54.24 71.77 54.91

Std. Deviation 5.073 9.184 8.853 8.014

Most Extreme

Differences

Absolute .168 .205 .294 .145

Positive .168 .164 .294 .109

Negative -.131 -.205 -.161 -.145

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .731 .893 1.282 .631

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .659 .403 .075 .821

a. Test distribution is Normal.

b. Calculated from data.

Based on the table above, it can be seen that the value of Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) in all

data is higher than 0.05 (0.659, 0.403, 0.075 and 0.821 > 0.05) so it can be concluded that the

data is distributed normally. So null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.3

Normality Test of Posttest

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Post-test

Experiment

High

Motivated

Post-test

Experiment

Low

Motivated

Post-test

Control High

Motivated

Post-test

Control

Low

Motivated

N 19 19 19 19

Normal Parameters

a,b

Mean 84.59 77.22 77.95 62.53

Std.

Deviation

5.094 3.475 6.980 9.258

Most Extreme

Differences

Absolute .111 .113 .186 .152

Positive .111 .103 .186 .104

Negative -.063 -.113 -.081 -.152

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .486 .494 .809 .662

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .972 .967 .530 .772

a. Test distribution is Normal.

b. Calculated from data.

Based on the table above, we can see that Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) for all data is higher

than 0.05 (0.972, 0.967, 0.530 dan 0.772 > 0.05). so it can be concluded that the data is normally

distributed

From the two tables above, it can be concluded that all data from pretest and posttest

belongs to normal distribution data so the further analysis using ANOVA is able to be done.

1.1.1.2. The Test of Homogeneity

This test is used to know the homogeneity of variants. The highest and the lowest

variants are calculated using statistical analysis called Leven Test of Homogeneity of Variance

Table 4.4

Homogeneity of Pretest

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Pre-test

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

2.576 3 72 .060

The criterion of the test:

- If significance value / P-value < 0.05, means the data is not homogeny

- If significance value / P-value > 0.05, means the data is homogeny

- Based on the Statistical calculation table above, Levene Statistic is 2.576

and Sig. 0.060, because Sig. > 0.060 (0.060 > 0.05) so it can be concluded that the data is

homogeny

Table 4.5

Homogeneity of Posttest

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Post-test

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

2.185 3 72 .059

The criterion of the test:

- If significance value / P-value < 0.05, means the data is not homogeny

- If significance value / P-value > 0.05, means the data is homogeny

Based on the Statistical calculation table above, Levene Statistic is 2,185 and Sig.

0.059, because Sig. > 0.059 (0.059 > 0.05) so it can be concluded that the data is homogeny

From the two tables above we can see that the variance of the data show the

characteristic of homogeneity. The P-value from both pretest and posttest >0.05. So it can be

concluded that the variance of the two groups are homogeny.

1.2. Discussion on Research Findings

This part will explain and discuss all the result gained from pretest and posttest. This

part will answer the research question based on the analysis on the result of the data obtained

from pretest and posttest.

1.2.1. The Effectiveness of TSTS Technique Compared with Lecturing Technique to High

Motivated Students in Writing Descriptive Text

The effectiveness of TSTS in experimental class compared with lecturing technique

to high motivated students can be seen in the following tables

Table 4.6

Means Score of TSTS and LT to High Motivated Students

Group Statistics

Data Test N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

High Motivated

TSTS 19 84.59 5.094 1.169

Lecturing

Technique

1

9

7

7.95

6

.980

1.

601

From the table above, we can see that the mean score of high motivated students who

has TSTS achieved 84.59 and who has lecturing technique is 77.95. So we can conclude that

TSTS has made higher score compared with lecturing technique to high motivated students.

Table 4.7

The Test Score of TSTS and LT to High Motivated Students

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differen

Std. Error

Differenc

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

ce e Lower Upper

High

Motivated

Equal

variances

assumed

1.456 .235 3.353 36 .002 6.647 1.982 2.627 10.668

Equal

variances

not

assumed

3.353 32.9

37

.002 6.647 1.982 2.614 10.681

Notes:

- If Sig. /P-value < 0.05 means there is significant difference

- If Sig. /P-value > 0.05 means there is no significant difference

Hypothesis:

- Ho = there is no significant difference in the test score between experimental class and control

class to high motivated students.

- Ha = there is significant difference in the test score between experimental class and control

class to high motivated students.

Based on the table above the value of Sig, 0.002 < 0.05. So, it can be concluded that

Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted. It means that there is significant difference between the

students score test who has TSTS (experimental class) and lecturing Technique (control class) to

high motivated students. From the means score of the posttest the students who has TSTS

technique got 84.59 and lecturing technique gained 77.95. So it can be concluded that TSTS is

more effective than lecturing technique to improve the students competence in writing

descriptive text to high motivated students.

1.2.2. The Effectiveness of TSTS Technique Compared with Lecturing Technique to Low

Motivated Students in Writing Descriptive Text

The effectiveness of TSTS Technique compared with lecturing technique to low

motivated students can be seen in the following tables

Table 4.8

Means Score of TSTS Technique and LT to Low Motivated Students

Group Statistics

Data Test N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Low Motivated

TSTS 19 77.22 3.475 .797

Lecturing Technique 19 62.53 9.258 2.124

From the table above, the mean score for the low motivated students who has TSTS

technique gained 77.22. While the students who has Lecturing technique gained 62.53. So we

can conclude that TSTS has made higher test score compared with lecturing technique to low

motivated students.

Table 4.9

The Test Score of TSTS and LT to Low Motivated Students

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std.

Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Low

Motivate

d

Equal

variances

assumed

9.654 .004 6.475 36 .000 14.689 2.269 10.089 19.290

Equal

variances

not

assumed

6.475 22.97

3

.000 14.689 2.269 9.996 19.383

Notes:

- If Sig. /P-value < 0.05 means there is significant difference

- If Sig. /P-value > 0.05 means there is no significant difference

Hypothesis:

- Ho = there is no significant difference in the test score between experimental class and control

class to low motivated students.

- Ha = there is significant difference in the test score between experimental class and control

class to low motivated students.

Based on the data above, the value of Sig, 0.000 < 0.05, so it can be concluded that

Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted. It means that there is significant difference on the test score

between the class taught with TSTS technique and the class taught with lecturing technique to

the students with low motivation. From the mean score of the posttest score, the students taught

with TSTS got 77.22 and the students taught with lecturing technique got 62.53. So, from this

result, it can be concluded that TSTS Technique gives more effective result than lecturing

technique to improve the students competence in writing descriptive text to low motivated

students.

1.2.3. The effectiveness of TSTS technique to high and low motivated students in writing

descriptive text

The effectiveness of TSTS Technique to low and high motivated students in writing

descriptive text can be seen in the following tables

Table 4.10

Means Score of TSTS Technique to Low and High Motivated Students

Group Statistics

Data Test N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

TSTS

High Motivated 19 84.59 5.094 1.169

Low Motivated 19 77.22 3.475 .797

From the table above, in experimental class we can see that the mean score of High

motivated students got 84.59 and low motivated students got 77.22.

Table 4.11

Test Score of TSTS Technique to Low and High Motivated Students

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of

Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

TST

S

Equal variances

assumed

2.511 .122 5.216 36 .000 7.379 1.415 4.510 10.248

Equal variances not

assumed

5.216 31.770 .000 7.379 1.415 4.497 10.261

Notes:

- If Sig. /P-value < 0.05 means there is significant difference

- If Sig. /P-value > 0.05 means there is no significant difference

Hypothesis:

- Ho = there is no significant difference in the test score between low and high motivated

students in the class taught with TSTS

- Ha = there is significant difference in the test score between low and high motivated students

in the class taught with TSTS

Based on the statistical calculation above, Sig, 0.000 < 0.05. So it can be concluded

that Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted or it means that there is a significant differences in the

result between low and high motivated students in experimental class taught with TSTS. From

the mean score we can also see that low motivated gained 84.59 and low motivated students

gained 77.22 So it can be concluded that TSTS technique in experimental class is more effective

to high motivated students to improve the competence in writing descriptive text.

1.2.4. The effectiveness of Lecturing technique to high and low motivated students in

writing descriptive text

The next research question is to find out how significant is lecturing technique to

high and low motivated students in improving the students competence in writing descriptive

text. To prove the significant, we can see the following table.

Table 4.12

Means Score of Lecturing Technique to Low and High Motivated Students

Group Statistics

Data Test N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Lecture Technique

High Motivated 19 77.95 6.980 1.601

Low Motivated 19 62.53 9.258 2.124

From the table, we can see that mean score for high motivated students taught using

lecturing technique is 77.95 and the mean score for the lowly motivated is 62.53.

Table 4.13

Test Score of Lecturing Technique to Low and High Motivated Students

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Lecture

Tecnique

Equal variances

assumed

.958 .334 5.798 36 .000 15.421 2.660 10.027 20.816

Equal variances

not assumed

5.798 33.46

6

.000 15.421 2.660 10.012 20.830

Notes:

- If Sig. /P-value < 0.05 means there is significant difference

- If Sig. /P-value > 0.05 means there is no significant difference

Hypothesis:

- Ho = there is no significant difference in the test score between low and high motivated

students in the class taught with Lecturing technique

- Ha = there is significant difference in the test score between low and high motivated students

in the class taught with Lecturing technique

From the table above, the value of Sig, 0.000 < 0.05, it means that that Ho is rejected

and Ha is accepted. There is significant differences in the test score between low motivated

students and high motivated students in the class taught with lecturing technique. High motivated

students in control class achieved 77.95 mean score, while low motivated students achieved

62.53. So it can be concluded that lecturing technique is more effective to high motivated

students rather than low motivated students in writing descriptive text.

1.2.5. Interaction Between Teaching Technique (TSTS and Lecturing Technique) and

Motivation (Low and High Motivated Students)

The fifth research question is about the significance of the interaction between the

technique (TSTS technique and lecturing technique) and motivation (low and high motivated

students). To know how significant it is we can see the following tables.

Table 4.14

Table of Subject Factors

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N

Technique 1 TSTS 38

2

Lecture

Technique

38

Motivation

1 High 38

2 Low 38

From the table above it can be explained that the data is divided into two Techniques

and two motivation. The Technique, technique or strategy is divided into TSTS and lecturing

technique and Motivation divided into Low and High motivated students. There were 38 students

in every group.

Table 4.15

Means and Standard Deviation of Data

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: Score

Technique Motivation Mean Std. Deviation N

TSTS

High 84.59 5.094 19

Low 77.22 3.475 19

Total 80.91 5.699 38

LT

High 77.95 6.980 19

Low 62.53 9.258 19

Total 70.24 11.245 38

Total

High 81.27 6.904 38

Low 69.87 10.148 38

Total 75.57 10.356 76

From the data above it can be seen the mean score and standard deviation for each

group in posttest in both experimental and control class. It can be seen that the mean score of

experimental class taught by TSTS is higher than control class taught by lecturing technique to

both high and low motivated students.

Table 4.16

Level of Error Variances Data

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances

a

Dependent Variable: Score

F df1 df2 Sig.

4.185 3 72 .009

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent

variable is equal across groups.

a. Design: Intercept + Technique + Motivated + Technique * Motivated

From the table above, it can be summarized that the homogeneity of the data of

dependent variables across groups. Based on the result above, the value is greater than 0.05. It

indicates that the dependent variables is equal across group. If the sig. value is less than 0.05 then

it can be concluded that the variance across the groups is different significantly.

Table 4.17

Mean score of TSTS and LT

1. Technique

Dependent Variable: Score

Technique Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

TSTS 80.905 1.065 78.782 83.029

LT 70.237 1.065 68.114 72.360

Based on the table above, it can be seen that the means score of students were treated

by TSTS got 80.905 and the means score of the students treated by LT is 70.237. it means that

TSTS has better effect to increase the competence of the students in writing descriptive text.

Table 4.18

Mean score of High Motivated and Low Motivated

2. Motivation

Dependent Variable: Score

Motivation Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

High 81.271 1.065 79.148 83.394

Low 69.871 1.065 67.748 71.994

From the table above, it can be seen that the means score of students motivation is so

different. High motivated students got 81.271. While low motivated students got 69.871

Table 4.19

Mean score of Students Motivation and Technique

3. Technique * Motivation

Dependent Variable: Score

Technique Motivation Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

TSTS

High 84.595 1.506 81.592 87.598

Low 77.216 1.506 74.213 80.219

LT

High 77.947 1.506 74.945 80.950

Low 62.526 1.506 59.523 65.529

From the table above, it can be seen that the means score of the technique motivation

table in experimental class and control class are very different. In experimental class treated by

TSTS, the means score for high motivated is 84.595 and for low motivated is 77.216. On the

other hand, in control class treated by lecturing technique, the means score for High motivated is

77.947 and for low motivated students the means score is 62.626

Table 4.20

Result of Each Subject Effect

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: Score

Source Type III Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 4938.937

a

3 1646.312 38.186 .000

Intercept 434034.784 1 434034.784 10067.496 .000

Technique 2162.489 1 2162.489 50.159 .000

Motivated 2469.240 1 2469.240 57.274 .000

Technique *

Motivated

307.208 1 307.208 7.126 .009

Error 3104.099 72 43.112

Total 442077.820 76

Corrected Total 8043.036 75

a. R Squared = .614 (Adjusted R Squared = .598)

Hypothesis 1:

- Ho = the score achieved is not different between students taught with TSTS and lecturing

technique

- Ha = the score achieved is different between students taught with TSTS and lecturing

technique

Based on the table above, F value = 50.159 and the sig value is 0.000. Because sig

value (0.000) < 0.05 so Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected. It means that the result of the students

learning between TSTS and lecturing technique is significantly different.

Hypothesis 2:

- Ho = the test score between high motivated students and low motivated students is not

different

- Ha = the test score between high motivated students and low motivated students is different

Based on the table, it can be seen that F value = 57.274 at the level significance

0.000. Because Sig. (0.000) < 0.05 so, Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected. It means that there is

significant difference in students test score between low and high motivated students

The interaction between the technique and motivation can be explained as follow.

From the test, the sig. value 0.009 or lower than 0.05 (0.009<0.05). So it can be concluded that

there is interaction between the use of the technique to the students score and competence. It

means that TSTS technique is effective to improve the students test score and their competence

especially in writing descriptive text.

In the relationship among variables, R square = 0.614, this value shows how big is

the relationship among the variables. Because the value of R square is in the range of 0.600

0.800, means there is a significant relationship between the technique, students learning

motivation and the competence of students writing descriptive text.

1.3. Discussion

The aim of this research is to find out the effectiveness of TSTS technique to

improve the students competence in writing descriptive text both to high motivated and low

motivated students. To make it easier to be measured, the technique is compared with the

technique usually used by the teacher in teaching writing descriptive text, so lecturing technique

was chosen as the compared technique.

Before the treatment is applied, the researcher divide the class into two groups, high

motivated students and low motivated students. The teacher delivered a questionnaire to

determine where the students should be categorized. The questionnaire contains several question

related with the students learning habit and their view about English teaching learning. After the

students answered the questionnaire, the answer or score will be the tool to determine whether

the students are highly motivated or lowly motivated in English class.

After that, the teacher delivered pretest for the experiment class and control class.

The pretest is very important to know whether the competence of the students are in the same

level or not. The score of the pretest will be used later in statistical calculation.

The next step is presenting the treatment. Experimental class will have TSTS activity

and control class will have lecturing technique.

The procedure of TSTS technique is very simple. At the first meeting, the teacher

divided the experimental class into 4 or 5 students. The teacher firstly gave explanation about the

steps of TSTS technique. After the students understood what TSTS is and the procedure on how

to do it, teacher delivered a copy of material should be learnt by each group. Each of group had

different material should be learnt. The differences has the purpose that at the next classroom

activity, they can share the material they have to the students in other groups. After the groups

has discussed and understood the material they have, two students will stray to other group as

guest and two others will stay in the group to receive the guest strayed from other groups. The

activity of TSTS encourage the students to be active both in giving idea or absorbing idea from

others. TSTS is designed to make the students easy to express their idea. They have the

responsibility to getting idea from the host to share to their own group later. The host also feel

responsible to explain their material to the guest well. After the guest (strayed students) got the

point on the material shared by the host they will go back to their own group and share what they

got from the other groups. In the end of the activity, each group will present about what they

have learnt in the activity. The presentation is expected to make all the students get all the

material related with writing descriptive text.

The second cycle in teaching learning activity is just same like the first session,

dividing into the same previous group. But in this session the students will have different

example and assignment of writing descriptive text. The guess will stray as usual and the host

will stay in the group. The guest will discuss with the host about the task they have. They will

make a draft by doing brainstorming using flashcards given by the teacher to make a certain

descriptive text. After they have finished, as they do before, the guest will back to their group

and then they discuss about their own work and make revision is needed. Finally they will

present their work in front of the class.

The final steps is giving individual task to each students to know the level of

competence they achieved after they got the treatment. The calculation using software on the test

score both pretest and posttest will show whether the use of TSTS has succeed to improve the

students competence in writing descriptive to high and low motivated students.

After getting all the data, the researcher calculated the data using normality test and

homogeneity test. The data showed that the value of Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) in pre-test score of

experimental class is higher than 0.05 (0.659 and 0.403 > 0.05). In control class, the value of

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) is also higher than 0.05 (0.075 and 0.821 > 0.05) so it can be concluded

that all the data is distributed normally. From the posttest we can see that Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

in posttest score of experimental class is higher than 0.05 (0.972, 0.967,>0.05). In control class

Asymp. Sig.(2-tailed) ias also higher than 0.05 (0.530 dan 0.772 > 0.05) so it can be concluded

that the data is normally distributed.

Levene Statistic of the pretest is 2.576 and Sig. 0.060, because Sig. > 0.060 (0.060

> 0.05) so it can be concluded that the data is homogeny. While in posttest, Levene Statistic is

2,185 and Sig. 0.059, because Sig. > 0.059 (0.059 > 0.05) so it can be concluded that the data

is homogeny

So from the Levene statistic of pretest and posttest we can see that the variance of the

data show the characteristic of homogeneity. The P-value from both pretest and posttest >0.05.

So it can be concluded that the variance of the two groups are homogeny. Because all data is

normal and homogeneity, so the instruments were appropriate to give to the students.

For the first question, it wants to answer how effective is TSTS in experimental class

compared with lecturing technique to high motivated students. From the data calculation showed

that the value of Sig, 0.002 < 0.05. It means that there is significant difference between the

students score test who has TSTS (experimental class) and lecturing Technique (control class) to

high motivated students. The means score also showed that the students who has TSTS technique

got 84.59 and lecturing technique gained 77.95. So, from this fact it can be concluded that TSTS

is more effective than lecturing technique to improve the students competence in writing

descriptive text to high motivated students.

In the second question where the question is about the effectiveness of TSTS

Technique compared with lecturing technique to low motivated students. The data showed that

the value of Sig, 0.000 < 0.05. It means that there is significant difference on the test score

between the class taught with TSTS technique and the class taught with lecturing technique to

the students with low motivation. From the mean score of the posttest score, the students taught

with TSTS got 77.22 and the students taught with lecturing technique got 62.53. So, from this

result, it can be concluded that TSTS Technique gives more effective result than lecturing

technique to improve the students competence in writing descriptive text to low motivated

students.

For the third data, it is about the effectiveness of TSTS Technique to low and high

motivated students in writing descriptive text. The data showed, Sig, 0.000 < 0.05. So it means

that there is a significant differences in the result between low and high motivated students in

experimental class taught with TSTS. From the mean score we can also see that low motivated

gained 84.59 and low motivated students gained 77.22 So it can be concluded that TSTS

technique in experimental class is more effective to high motivated students to improve the

competence in writing descriptive text.

For the next question about how effective is lecturing technique to high and low

motivated students in improving the students competence in writing descriptive text. The data

showed that, the value of Sig, 0.000 < 0.05. So, there is significant differences in the test score

between low motivated students and high motivated students in the class taught with lecturing

technique. High motivated students in control class achieved 77.95 mean score, while low

motivated students achieved 62.53. So it can be concluded that lecturing technique is more

effective to high motivated students rather than low motivated students in writing descriptive

text.

The last question is about the interaction between the technique and motivation and

competence. Based on the table above, F value = 50.159 and the sig value is 0.000. Because sig

value (0.000) < 0.05., it means that the result of the students learning between TSTS and

lecturing technique is significantly different. Based on the table, it can be seen that F value =

57.274 at the level significance 0.000. Because Sig. (0.000) < 0.05, it means that there is

significant difference in students test score between low and high motivated students

The interaction between the technique and motivation can be explained as follow.

From the test, the sig. value 0.009 or lower than 0.05 (0.009<0.05). So it can be concluded that

there is interaction between the use of the technique to the students score and competence. It

means that TSTS technique is effective to improve the students test score and their competence

especially in writing descriptive text.

In the relationship among variables, R square = 0.614, this value shows how big is

the relationship among the variables. Because the value of R square is in the range of 0.600

0.800, means there is a significant relationship between the technique, students learning

motivation and the competence of students writing descriptive text.

Finally, from all the explanation based on the data gained in the research and after

the calculation using statistical calculation, the research has proven that TSTS technique has

been succeed to improve the students competence in writing descriptive text both to high

motivated students and low motivated students. If TSTS is compared with the technique used by

the teacher in daily teaching learning activities (i.e. Lecturing Technique), it has proven that

TSTS is more effective to improve the students competence in writing descriptive text to both

high and low motivated students.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter presents some conclusion after the research was finally done and based

on the result stated in the previous chapter. This chapter also draws some suggestion that

proposed related with the findings in the research.

1.1. Conclusion

Before presenting the conclusion, I think it is very important to review the purpose

of the research. The purpose is to show the effectiveness of TSTS technique compared to LT in

writing descriptive text to high and motivated students. From the findings, I can briefly explain

as follow.

First, TSTS technique has shown a significant and different result in the students

competence of writing descriptive text compared with LT to high motivated students. Highly

motivated students in experimental class had achieved better test score rather than high

motivated students in control class.

Second, TSTS technique also indicated significant difference in the result compared

with LT to low motivated students. The low motivated students in experimental class taught with

TSTS Technique gained better result that control class taught with LT.

Third, from the statistical calculation showed that TSTS technique in experimental

class is more effective to high motivated students to improve the competence in writing

descriptive text.

Fourth, the competence of writing descriptive to the students taught with lecturing

technique showed that lecturing technique is more effective to high motivated students rather

than low motivated students.

Fifth, from the data calculation it can be stated that there is a significant

relationship between the technique, students learning motivation and the competence of students

writing descriptive text.

From all the result it can be concluded that TSTS technique has shown effective

result both to low motivated students and high motivated students compared with LT in students

writing of descriptive text. So, TSTS technique can be used in the teaching learning process

especially in writing descriptive text in Junior High school.

1.2. Suggestions

Based on the results of TSTS technique that showed significant result to the students

competence in writing descriptive text, I can propose some suggestions for further research as

follows

a) TSTS technique could be compared with other cooperative learning techniques to find out the

effectiveness of TSTS technique among other cooperative learning models to improve the

competence of students writing descriptive text.

b) The various media also can be used to support the TSTS technique implementation in English

writing teaching learning process to make TSTS would be more effective and obtain better

competence to the students writing.

c) The TSTS technique in this research was applied in Junior high school. In the other research

there would be interesting if the technique also applied in higher or lower degree of education

such as: in elementary school or Senior high school or even to the university level students.

d) TSTS technique in this research was used to find out the effectiveness in writing descriptive

text. There would be interesting if other researcher used TSTS technique in other skills like in

teaching learning vocabularies, or even in speaking skill.

- Reading SPSS2 OutputUploaded bymarcelobeloni
- BSc Econometrics 1-Spring 2019-Chaudhry-Lecture 5Uploaded byKhawaja Muhammad Hamza
- A Study Examining the Students Satisfaction in Higher EducationUploaded bycuachanhdong
- Biostatistics Experimental DesignUploaded byUna
- Computer Application in Business (CAB)Uploaded byAbhijit Pathak
- STAB22_FinalExam_2010FUploaded byexamkiller
- Statistical Treatment of Test ScoresUploaded byRonellOropesa
- AteUploaded byFikri Mauludi Ihsan
- Preference of Social MediaUploaded byAnusha Neupane
- MATHEMATICAL_CONCEPT_OF_AREA_A_TOOL_FOR.pdfUploaded byesther
- PPTUploaded byAshuTosh Sharma
- chem 2210l spring 2014 stat dataUploaded byapi-281150432
- Final OutputUploaded byMarlon Cabanilla Baslot
- Final ExpeUploaded byLouriel Nopal
- 163 MitchellUploaded byCAT B
- Suitable CodingUploaded byfaith23dbagul
- KAP MODEL 2.pdfUploaded byirahkub
- ies refUploaded byapi-355967068
- 7230-15714-1-SMUploaded byVia Adriessa
- Coding FactorsUploaded byfaith23dbagul
- Do Reputable Companies Have Superior Earnings Quality.pdfUploaded byNicholas Adzor
- 1Uploaded byPurushottam
- Interpretation REGRESSIONUploaded byshashank phadte
- A Study of Cargo Receipt Logistics for FlowerUploaded byAntonio Pancho
- articleUploaded byYuda Brilyan
- Phase 3 Stats ReportUploaded byPaige Schoneweis
- Data EnterUploaded byfaith23dbagul
- TR204ftUploaded byNgân Nguyễn
- Analyse the DataUploaded byfaith23dbagul
- Job Satisfaction Versus Family Income (GSS)Uploaded byMathieuMondelé

- Abs TrakUploaded byazkhakenzie
- Contoh Model Soal Un 2018Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- RPP Bahasa iNggris Kelas IX Kurikulum 2013 Part 2Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- RPP Bahasa iNggris Kelas IX Kurikulum 2013 Part 3Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- PD_Ganda_19_September_2016.xlsxUploaded byazkhakenzie
- Kurikulum Sd 2013-SugiartoUploaded byazkhakenzie
- Taabel PerkalianUploaded byazkhakenzie
- RPP Bahasa iNggris Kelas IX Kurikulum 2013 Part 1Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- Format Data PTK Tahun 2015.xlsxUploaded byazkhakenzie
- RPP Bahasa iNggris Kelas IX Kurikulum 2013 Part 4Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- IPA PAKET 1Uploaded byA Budi yahoo
- penilaian-praktikUploaded byazkhakenzie
- RPP Bahasa iNggris Kelas IX Kurikulum 2013 Chapter 13Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- RPP Bahasa iNggris Kelas IX Kurikulum 2013 Part 5Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- Soal Olimpiade Guru SDUploaded byazkhakenzie
- Pendataan Sarpras Dghjikdas-TonjongUploaded byazkhakenzie
- struktur labUploaded byazkhakenzie
- Bumbu Dan BahanUploaded byazkhakenzie
- exercise1Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- KALENDER PENDIDIKAN TP.10_11Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- SK. TIM BOS 2Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- sk0910Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- Dafdir, format pengayaanUploaded byazkhakenzie
- JURNAL KEGIATAN PEMBELAJARAN dan skenarioUploaded byazkhakenzie
- tyhjtyjryjyjtyjtyjtyjtyjtyjhtyhjthjhjsfjhsrujhyrUploaded byazkhakenzie
- legger 8aUploaded byazkhakenzie
- KALENDER PENDIDIKAN TP (version 1)Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- daftar remidi uas 1 2010-2011Uploaded byazkhakenzie
- TITIPAN ARIUploaded byazkhakenzie

- Chapter+10+e TextUploaded bySteven Sulik
- ResearchUploaded byBudulan Radu
- Hypothesis TestingUploaded byDeepti Ji
- “Metacognitive Reading Strategies and Its Relationship with English Achievement of IX Standard Students of Raipur City”Uploaded byinventionjournals
- IMPACT OF DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES AND OTHER FACTORS ON IMPULSE BUYINGUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Quantitative Social ResearchUploaded byJohn Nicer Abletis
- Service-Quality-Expectations-and-Perceptions-of-Public-and-Private-Sector-Banks-in-India.pdfUploaded bysandhya
- Hypothesis TestingUploaded byAbhishek Singh
- Hypothesis Testing Using Z- And T-testsUploaded byFaisalameen73
- Jurnal InternasionalUploaded byArie Swiftskandarians
- wilson1994.pdfUploaded byShimon Benusovich
- Project ReportUploaded byChhavi Mittal
- Bios TatUploaded bymunendrajain
- Poe AnswersUploaded byNguyen Xuan Nguyen
- wp51Uploaded byTyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
- Statistical Methods for Assessing Measurement Error (Reliability)in Variables Relevant to Sports MedicineUploaded byhgtrainer
- OutliersUploaded bymanuelq9
- An Empirical Model to Calculate the Threads Stripping of a Bolt Installed in a Tapped PartUploaded byparag7676
- A Study on Employee Absenteeism at TVS Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai, TamilnaduUploaded byIJRASETPublications
- SSRN-id2945807.pdfUploaded byAnonymous koXqTMPEs
- The Role of Committees in Decision Making in University of MaiduguriUploaded byIOSRjournal
- Explaining UnemploymentUploaded byApik Siv Lotd
- Statistics-Fundamentals of Hypothesis TestingUploaded byDr Rushen Singh
- Intro to Hypo TestingUploaded byfocus16hoursgmailcom
- iim Point Estimation and Interval Estimation.pdfUploaded byVishnu Prakash Singh
- SAS_PerfPayImpactStudyUploaded byMegan Matthews Carnahan
- 1 Review of Basic Concepts - Hypotheses Test.docUploaded byTiffany Or
- Gsrj Police Community RelationsUploaded byaudie
- Rapid Critical Appraisal of Controlled Trials Annette PluddemannUploaded byRisty
- Equotip 2Uploaded byAhmad Kamil