Where :

kk
k 1
1
pq 
2
t
r
kk
: the coefficient of reliability
p : the proportion of the subject which has right answer in each item
q : the proportion of wrong answer (1p)
k : the number of the valid items on the test
2
t
: the standard deviation scores
Criterion:
0.0 r
kk
< 0.20 : the lowest reliability
0.20 r
kk
< 0.40 : the low reliability
0.40 r
kk
< 0.60 : the quite reliability
0.60 r
kk
< 0.80 : the high reliability
0.80 r
kk
< 1.00 : the highest reliability
(Suharsimi Arikunto, 2002:245)
After the writer obtain the reliability score, the following steps is to
consult to the score with the r product moment table. The computation of
the reliability can be seen on appendix 7. The result of the computation is
0.8809. Because r
kk
= 0.8809 is higher than r
table(36,0.05)
= 0.329, it means
that the test is reliable and has highest reliability.
xl
vi
46
H. Difficulty of Level
After the try out was conducted, each of the items is classified into
difficulty level by using this formula:
Where:
P : item difficulty
P =
B
JS
B : number of students who answered the item correctly
Js : number of students
(Arikunto, 2009: 208)
The level of difficulty of each item is determined by using these
following categorizations:
0 < P 0.3 is difficult
0.3 < P 0.7 is medium
0.7 < P 1 is easy
(Arikunto, 2009: 210)
I. The Technique of Data Analysis
The data gained are analyzed to know the difference between
experimental group and control group. In analyzing the data, the writer uses ttest.
Ttest is used to compare the means of the two groups. The data gained will be
used to test whether or not using of Total Physical Response to enhance students
vocabulary mastery is effective. As the requirement of the ttest, the data have to
be tested using normality test.
The illustration is as follows:
ttest
Total Physical Response Grammar Translation Method
A B
xl
vi
i
47
1
The formula of the ttest in analyzing the data is as follows:
t =
X 1 X 2
S
x1 x2
_
x
2
+
_
x
2
 1 1 
Where, S =
x
1
x
2
1 2
n
1
+ n
2
2
\
n
1
+
n
2
Notes:
t = the effectiveness of the treatment (the tvalue)
S
x1 x2
= the standard error of the difference between two means
X1 = the mean score of the first group (the experimental group), X
n
= X X n
X 2
_
x
2
= the mean of the second group (the control group)
= the sum of the squared deviation scores in the experimental group
x
0
= pre test
x
t
= post test
_
2
x
2
= deviation of
x
0
and x
t
for the control group
x
0
= pre test
x
t
= post test
n
1
= the number of cases in the first group (experimental group)
n
2
= the number of cases in the second group (control group)
As the requirement of ttest, the data have to be tested using normality test
and homogeneity test.
1. Normality Test
Normality test is used to test sample from the population to identify
whether it has normal distribution or not. In this study, the normality test of
experimental and control groups are computed with Lilliefors at the level of
significance = 0.05. According to Sudjana (1996: 466467), the procedures
are as follows:
xl
vi
ii
48
a. Observation of X
1
, X
2
, X
3
X
n
become standard number Z
1
, Z
2
, Z
3
Z
n
by using the formula z =
X
i
X
i
s
( X is the average while s is standard
deviation of the sample).
b. For each of the standard number, use standard number distribution list,
then count the probability F(z
i
)= P(z s z
i
).
c. Then count proportion of Z
1
, Z
2
, Z
3
Zn which less or equal than Z
i
. If
the proportion stated by using S(z
i
), so S(z
i
) is the number of Z
1
, Z
2
, Z
3
Z
n
which is less or equal than Z
i
divided by n.
d. Count result of F(z
i
) S(z
i
) then state the absolute value.
e. Take the biggest value among the absolute values from that result. The
maximum result of F(z
i
) S(z
i
) is Lo.
Criterion: Lo > L
table
= sample does not come from the normal distribution
population.
Lo L
table
= sample comes from normal distribution
population.
To make it clearer the summary is presented on table 1 as follows:
Table 1. The result of Normality Test for Experimental and Control Groups.
No. Groups Sample df L Value Conclusion
Lo Lt
1. Experimental 34 33 0.1060 0.1519 Normal
2. Control 36 35 0.1082 0.1477 Normal
Notes: Lo is Lilliefors value observation of Lilliefors maximal of data
Lt is Lilliefors value on the table at the level of significance and the
sample size n
df is degree of freedom
xl
ix
49
i
i
1
1
2
2
S
i
S
i
i
2. Homogeneity Test
Other requirement of ttest is homogeneity test. It is used to know
whether the population has homogeneity or not. In this research, the
homogeneity uses Barlethtest. The steps are as follows:
a. Hypotheses
H
0
:
2
H
1
:
2
=
2
=
2
, sample comes from homogeny population.
, sample does not come from homogeny population.
b. Computation
( X )
2
_
X
2
_ i
1) S
2
=
n
i
Where:
n 1
2
: variance of the group
_
X
2
_
X
i
: the sum square of the observation
: the sum of the observation
n : the number of the observation
2
=
_
(n
i
1)S
2) S
_
(n
2
i
1)
Where:
2
S : total variance of sample
2
: variance sample of each group
n : the number of the observation
3) B = (log S
2
)
_
(n
Where:
1)
B : Barleth value
2
S : total variance of sample
n
i
: the number of observation of each group
l
50
i
t
S
i
0
2
t
4)
2
= (ln10)B
2
: chi square
_
(n
i
1)logS
2

B : Barleth value
n
i
: the number of observation of each group
2
: variance sample of each group
From the computation of Barleth Test the writer found
2
= 0.0893. It
is lowest than critical value of
2
= 3.841 at the level of significance = 0.05.
From this result it can be seen that the data are homogeneous because
0
(
t
2
(0.05:1) or 0.0893<3.841.
Notes:
o
2
is Chi square value observation of computation (
2
observation)
2
is Chi square value on the table at the significance level 5% and
the sample size n.
J. The Statistical Hypothesis
The value of the ttest would be consulted to the value of ttable in the
appropriate degrees of freedom at the level of significance 5% as usually used in
psychological and educational research. The degrees of freedom can be
determined by using the formula: df = n
1
+ n
2
2.
Whether or not the difference between the two groups is significant
depends on the comparison between the value of ttest and the value of ttable. If
the value of the ttest is higher than ttable, it can be concluded that there is a
significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. The
statistical hypothesis of the research is as follows:
H
0
(Null Hypothesis) : a = b
H
1
(Alternative Hypothesis) : a > b
Where:
A is the mean score of the experimental group.
B is the mean score of the control group.
li
51
H
0
is accepted if both the experimental and the control group have the same score.
H
1
is rejected if the experimental group has higher score than the control group.
lii
52
CHAPTER IV
THE RESULT OF THE STUDY
A. The Description of the Data
After conducting the data collection, the writer obtains the desired data.
They are in the form of scores on English vocabulary mastery test, namely: pre
test and post test scores. These data come from the experimental group (X
1
) and
control group (X
2
).
The detailed description of the students scores from two groups can be
seen as follows:
1. Pretest Scores
a. Experimental Group (X
1
)
The data of the test show that the highest score of the pretest is 7.33,
while the lowest one is 3.67. The mean of the scores is 5.15, the median is
4.68, the mode is 4.68, and the standard deviation is 0.85. The range of
them is 0 to 10. The following are tables of frequency of distribution and
figures of histogram and polygon of the experimental group.
Table 2
Frequency of Distribution of Pretest Scores of the Experimental Group.
Cl ass Li mi t s Mi dpoi nt
Frequency
Absol ut e
Frequency
Rel at i ve
Frequency
3.674.28 3.98 4 11.76%
4.294.90 4.60 7 20.59%
4.915.52 5.22 13 38.24%
5.536.14 5.84 6 17.65%
6.156.76 6.46 3 8.82%
6.777.38 7.08 1 2.94%
Tot al 34 100%
lii
i
53
Figure 1: The Histogram and the Polygon of the Frequency of Distribution
of the Pretest Scores of the Experimental Group.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Notes:
3,975 4,595 5,215 5,835 6,455 7,075
Groupof Score
is histogram
is polygon
b. Control Group (X
2
)
The data of the test show that the highest score of the pretest is 6.33,
while the lowest one is 2.00. The mean of the scores is 4.85, the median is
4.52, the mode is 5.85, and the standard deviation is 1.11. The range of
them is 0 to 10. The following are tables of frequency of distribution and
figures of histogram and polygon of the control group.
Table 3
Frequency of Distribution of Pretest Scores of the Control Group.
No. Class Limits Midpoint
Absolute
Frequency Relative Frequency
1 2.002.72 2.36 3 8.3%
2 2.733.45 3.09 1 2.8%
3 4.464.18 3.82 2 5.6%
4 4.194.91 4.55 11 30.6%
5 4.925.64 5.28 7 19.4%
6 5.656.37 6.01 12 33.3%
Total 36 100%
li
v
54
Figure 2: The Histogram and the Polygon of the Frequency of Distribution
of the Pretest Scores of the Control Group.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Notes:
2,36 3,09 3,82 4,55 5,28 6,01
Group of Score
is histogram
is polygon
2. Post test Scores
a. Experimental Group (X
1
)
The data of the test show that the highest score of the post test is 10, while
the lowest one is 4.67. The mean of the scores is 7.76, the median is 7.45,
the mode is 8.06, and the standard deviation is 1.19. The range of them is
0 to 10. The following are tables of frequency of distribution and figures
of histogram and polygon of the experimental group.
Table 4
Frequency of Distribution of Post test Scores of the Experimental Group.
No. Class Limits Midpoint
Absolute
Frequency Relative Frequency
1 4.675.57 5.12 2 5.88%
2 5.586.48 6.03 4 11.76%
3 6.497.39 6.94 6 17.65%
4 7.408.30 7.85 8 23.53%
5 8.319.21 8.76 12 35.29%
6 9.2210.12 9.67 2 5.88%
Total 34 100%
lv
55
Figure 3: The Histogram and the Polygon of the Frequency of Distribution
of the Posttest Scores of the Experimental Group.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Notes:
5,12 6,03 6,94 7,85 8,76 9,67
Group of Score
is histogram
is polygon
b. Control Group (X
2
)
The data of the test show that the highest score of the post test is 8.67,
while the lowest one is 4.67. The mean of the scores is 6.58, the median is
6.14, the mode is 5.85, and the standard deviation is 1.16. The range of
them is 0 to 10. The following are tables of frequency of distribution and
figures of histogram and polygon of the control group.
Table 5
Frequency of Distribution of Posttest Scores of the Control Group.
No. Class Limits Midpoint
Absolute
Frequency Relative Frequency
1 4.675.32 4.9 5 13.89%
2 5.335.98 5.6 4 11.11%
3 5.996.64 6.3 9 25%
4 6.657.30 6.9 5 13.89%
5 7.317.96 7.6 8 22.22%
6 7.978.62 8.3 4 11.11%
7 8.639.28 8.9 1 2.78%
Total 36 100%
lv
i
56
Figure 4: The Histogram and the Polygon of the Frequency of Distribution
of the Post test Scores of the Control Group.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
4.9 5.6 6.3 6.9 7.6 8.3 8.9
Group of Score
Notes:
is histogram
is polygon
B. Hypothesis Testing
To check whether the writers hypotheses in chapter II are accepted or
not, she tests the null hypothesis (H
o
) and the alternative hypothesis (H
a
) using t
test. The null hypothesis (H
o
) states that there is no significant difference in
English vocabulary achievement between group of students taught by Total
Physical Response (TPR) and those taught by Grammar Translation Method
(GTM). The hypothesis can statistically be formulated as follows:
H
0
(Null Hypothesis) : a = b
It means that the mean scores between two groups are equal or both the
experimental and the control group have the same mean scores. Meanwhile,
alternative hypothesis states that there is a significant difference in English
vocabulary achievement between group of students taught by Total Physical
Response (TPR) and those taught by Grammar Translation Method (GTM).
lv
ii
57
The hypothesis can statistically be formulated as follows:
H
1
(Alternative Hypothesis) : a > b
It means that the experimental group has higher mean score than the
control group or the group of students taught by Total Physical Response has
higher mean score than the group of students taught by Grammar Translation
Method.
The null Hypothesis (Ho) is rejected if t
o
>t
t
(t
observation
> t
table
) for the
degree of freedom (df )= (n
1
+ n
2
) 2 and at the level of significance = 0.05,
which means that alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted. On the contrary, if t
o
<t
t
(t
observation
< t
table
), Ho is accepted and Ha is rejected.
The result of t computation (ttest) shows that the t
observation
(t
o
) is 4.20
while the t
table
(t
t
) for the degree of freedom 68 and at the level of significance
= 0.05 is 1.67. It can be seen that the t
observation
(t
o
) is higher than the t
table
(t
t
),
which means that the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted while the null
hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. This means that there is a significant difference in
English vocabulary achievement between the group of students taught by Total
Physical Response (TPR) and those taught by Grammar Translation Method
(GTM). The computation of ttest can be seen in appendix 23.
The writer uses ttest to test the first hypothesis. Then, to test the second
hypothesis, she needs to compare the mean scores of the two groups which the
total scores of sample divided by the total number of subjects. The mean score of
the students taught using TPR is 7.76, while the mean score of the students taught
using GTM is 6.58. It shows that the mean score of the students taught using TPR
is higher than the mean score of the students taught using GTM. It can be
concluded that using TPR to enhance students vocabulary mastery has better
result than using GTM. On the other hand, TPR is more effective to enhance
students vocabulary mastery.
lv
iii
58
C. Discussion of the Research Result
From the computation of ttest, it shows that the t
observation
(t
o
) = 4.20 is
higher than t
table
(t
t
) = 1.67 for the degree of freedom of 68 and at the level of
significance of = 0.05. The null hypothesis is rejected, which means that there
is a significant difference in English vocabulary achievement between group of
students taught by Total Physical Response (TPR) and those taught by Grammar
Translation Method (GTM). The students who are taught by using TPR have
better result than those taught using GTM, as seen in the differences of mean. The
mean score of the students taught using TPR is 7.76, while the mean score of the
students taught using GTM is 6.58.
The result of the analysis can be clarified by the following reasons. It has
been explained in chapter II that TPR is based on the way in which children learn
their mother tongue. In TPR, they should not learn by memorizing lists of
vocabulary because babies also do not learn by memorizing lists of vocabulary. It
is more fun, like a play, so they will be easy to understand and to learn the target
language. In TPR classroom, students respond to commands that require physical
movement. It can reduce the learners stress and anxiety because students allow
speaking when they are ready. When they do begin to speak, perfection should not
be expected. TPR places more emphasis on the link between word and action. The
activity, where a command is given in the imperative and the learners respond the
command by performing the appropriate gesture, is the main activity of TPR.
Harmer (2007: 84) states that the learners must be encouraged to respond to texts
and situations with their own thoughts and experiences, rather than just answering
questions and doing abstract learning activities. The teacher must give them tasks
which they are able to do, rather than risk humiliating them. It means that it will
be easier for the students to remember the words they have learned for longterm
retention if they are involved directly and use their body in learning vocabulary
items. It can be concluded that this condition will cause the students are easy to
master and remember vocabulary for longterm retention.
On the other hand, Grammar Translation Method is a teaching foreign
language method which focuses on learning the grammar rules and their
li
x
59
application in translating passages from one language into a target language,
memorizing of vocabulary of texts, and writing exercises. In GTM activities, the
teacher gives a text and the students translate it. The students are not active during
learning process or involved in learning process directly and there is no
interaction or response between students and teacher. The students just sit on their
chair and translate the text. This condition will make students bored and forget the
material easily. They also do not enjoy the learning process. This condition is not
relevant with the characteristics of junior high school students. They are more
attracted in experiences than theory. In addition, they are interested to learn
something by doing it or are actively involved in the learning process.
After comparing the characteristics of those methods, it can be concluded
that TPR can give better result to enhance students vocabulary mastery. It shows
that the result of the research proves that there is a significant difference in
English vocabulary achievement between group of students taught by Total
Physical Response (TPR) and those taught by Grammar Translation Method
(GTM) and it also shows that Total Physical Response is effective to enhance
students vocabulary mastery.
lx
60
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND
SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
The objective of this study is to find out whether or not the use of Total
Physical Response to enhance students vocabulary mastery of the seventh grade
of junior high school especially at SMP N 3 Ajibarang is effective. In order to
achieve the objective of this study, the writer conducts an experimental research.
After conducting the experiment, the writer finds out the difference between the
mean scores of the pre test and the posttest both two groups. The test is an
English vocabulary. The students are asked to do the test by answering the 28
multiplechoice items and 2 matching word items. To make sure that the test is
valid and reliable, the test is tried out first. The result of the tryout number 1 is
0.439. It is greater than critical value of 95% with confidence level 0.329. It
means that the test is reliable and valid.
In chapter IV the writer has analyzed the data statistically. Based on the
statistical analysis, it was found that the mean score of the post test of
experimental group (taught using Total Physical Response) is higher than the
mean score of posttest of control group (taught using Grammar Translation
Method). In order to know whether the difference between the two mean is
significant or not, the ttest is applied. The result of computation ttest is 4.20. The
critical value at 0.05 alpha level of significance is 1.67. Since the obtained tvalue
(4.20) is higher than critical value at 0.05 alpha level of significance (1.67) or
t
obervation
>t
table
, the writer concludes that the test is statistically significant or there
is a significant difference in English vocabulary achievement between group of
students taught by Total Physical Response (experimental group) and those taught
by Grammar Translation Method (control group). Group of students taught by
Total Physical Response (experimental group) gets higher achievement in English
vocabulary than those taught by Grammar Translation Method (control group). As
the mean scores of the post test both two groups show that the experimental group
lx
i
61
gets 7.76 while the control group gets 6.58. So, the second hypothesis which says
that the group taught by Total Physical Response has a better achievement in
English vocabulary than those taught by Grammar Translation Method is
accepted. It proved that TPR is more effective than GTM.
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above Total Physical Response is more effective
to enhance students vocabulary mastery to Junior High School students than
Grammar Translation Method. In that emend, the writer would like to offer some
suggestions, as follows:
1. To the students
In Total Physical Response activities, the students should be active to
follow the process of teaching and learning English and do more practices
in the class. In TPR classroom, students respond to commands that require
physical movement. So, the students must not be passive and shy, must do
more practices in the class. Besides these, they have to improve their
vocabulary mastery with various activities.
2. To the English teacher, especially English teacher of Junior High school
a. Teaching English is not easy. The teacher must always be creative and
should use various methods in teaching especially appropriate method
according to the situation and topic or students education level and
interest appropriate for their students. The method should make
students more interested and motivated in teaching and learning
process. Before they conduct the teaching and learning process, they
should choose an appropriate method or approach first. Because the
method or approach is one of factors affecting the success of teaching
and learning process.
b. Total Physical Response as one method of teaching language can be
used as alternative to enhance students vocabulary mastery and
students achievement of English vocabulary.
62
62
3. To the other researcher
The writer hopes that finding of this study will be used as a starting point
of the future studies on similar problem. There are still many other
methods of teaching English that could be studied to find out the
effectiveness of the methods or approaches in teaching vocabulary to be
applied to the students.
63
63
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arends, Richards, I. 1997. Classroom Instruction and Management. New York:
McGrawHill Companies Inc.
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2002. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek.
Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
. 2009. DasarDasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT Bumi
Aksara.
Asher, J. James. Organizing Your Classroom for Successful Second Language
Acquisition. www.tprsource.com/asher.htm. (Accessed on 2 January
2010).
Asher, J. James. The Total Physical Response Approach to Learning Language.
www.tprworld.com/organizing.htm. (Accessed on 2 January 2010).
Brown, Douglas H. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. New York: Prentice Hall.
Brumfit, Cristhoper. 1997. Teaching English to Children: from practice to
principle. Harlow: Longman.
Fraenkel, Jack R., and Wallen, Norman E. 2000. How to Design and Evaluate
Research in Education (4
th
edition). New York: McGraw Hill Company.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching (4
th
ed.).
Cambridge, UK: Longman.
Hatch, Evelyn and Brown, Cheryl. 1995. Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language
Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayward, L. Arthur and Sparkes, John J. 1982. Cassels English Dictionary.
London: Cassel.
Hornby, A.S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English (5
th
Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64
64
Johnson, Burke and Christensen, Larry. 2000. Educational Research: Quantitative
and Qualitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Larsen, Diane and Freeman. 2000. Technique and Principles in Language
Teaching Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Madsen, Harold S. 1983. Techniques in Testing. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Mason, Emanuel. J. and Bramble, William. J. 1997. Research in Education and
the Behavioral Sciences: Concepts and Methods. New York: Brown and
Benchmark.
McCarthy, Michael. 1990. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for
Teacher Education Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Murcia, Celce. 2001. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language Third
Edition. USA: Thomson Learning Inc.
Nordberg, H Orville, Bradfield, James M, and Odell, William C.1962. School
Teaching. New York: MacMillan Company.
Nunan, David.1998. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers.
New York: Prentice Hall.
Petty, Walter. T. and Julie, M. Jensen. 1980. Developing Childrens Language.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc.
Richard, Jack C and Rodgers, Theodore S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in
Language Teaching Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schmitt, Norbert and McCarthy, Michael. 1997. Vocabulary: Description,
Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sudjana. 1996. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: PT Tarsito.
Ur, Penny. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/almmethods.htm, accessed on 15 May 2010.
http://www.Englishraven.com/methods TPR.html, accessed in January 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_physical_response.com, accessed on 15 May
2010.
65
65
www.digilib.unnes.ac.id/gsdl/cgibin/library?, accessed in January 2010.
http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/720report.html, accessed in March 2010.
http://oswaldoipc.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/thegrammartranslationmethod/,
accessed in April 2010.
http://www.slideshare.net/vacoka/grammartranslationmethod, accessed in July
2010.
www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/TotalPhysicalResponse, accessed in January
2010.
66
66