CHAPTER IV THE RESULT OF THE STUDY. hypothesis test, and the discussion of the result of the study.

Transcription

1 64 CHAPTER IV THE RESULT OF THE STUDY This chapter discusses the result of the study. It is divided into four discussions as follows: the description of data, normality and homogeneity test, hypothesis test, and the discussion of the result of the study. A. The Description of the Data The data presented are the result of the speaking test. It includes the mean, mode, median, standard deviation, and frequency distribution then followed by histogram and polygon. The descriptions of the data are based on the groups analyzed which are divided into eight groups: 1. The data of speaking test of experimental class that is taught by using Send- A-Problem method (A 1 ).. The data of speaking test of control class that is taught by using Audiolingual method (A ). 3. The data of speaking test of the students having high self-actualization (B 1 ). 4. The data of speaking test of the students having low self-actualization (B ). 5. The data of speaking test of the students having high self-actualization who are taught by using Send-A-Problem method (A 1 B 1 ). 6. The data of speaking test of the students having high self-actualization who are taught by using Audio-lingual method (A B 1 ). 7. The data of speaking test of students having low self-actualization who are taught by using Send-A-Problem method (A 1 B ). 64

2 65 8. The data of speaking test of students having low self-actualization who are taught by using Audio-lingual method (A B ). The data of each group are described as follows: 1. The data of speaking test of experimental class that is taught by using Send-A-Problem method (A 1 ) The score of students who are taught by using Send-A-Problem method are: 50, 54, 55, 55, 60, 60, 65, 65, 68, 70, 70, 70, 73, 74, 75, 78, 78, 78,80, 83, 83, 85, 85, 85, 85, 86, 86, 86, 88, 88, 88, 88. Descriptive analysis of the data A 1 shows that the lowest score is 50 and the highest score is 88. The mean is 75.31, the mode is 86.69, the median is 78.67, and the standard deviation is The frequency distribution, histogram, and polygon are presented in table 4.1 and figure 4.1 as follows: Table 4.1 Frequency Distribution of Data A 1 Class Limits Class Midpoint Frequency Boundaries (X i ) (f 1 ) Percentage Total 3 100

3 The students who are taught by using Send-A-Problem method (A 1 ) Frequency Class Boundaries Figure 4.1. Histogram and Polygon of Data A 1. The data of speaking test of control class that is taught by using Audiolingual method (A ) The score of students who are taught by using Send-A-Problem are: 50, 50, 50, 50, 53, 53, 53, 55, 55, 56, 58, 58, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 6, 63, 65, 65, 65, 65, 66, 66, 68, 68, 69, 70, 70, 71, 81. Descriptive analysis of the data A shows that the lowest score is 50 and the highest score is 81. The mean is 61.31, the mode is 54.90, the median is 60.75, and the standard deviation is 7.6. The frequency distribution, histogram, and polygon are presented in table 4. and figure 4. as follows:

4 Table 4. Frequency Distribution of Data A Class Limits Class Midpoint Frequency Boundaries (X i ) (f 1 ) Percentage Total The students who are taught by using Audio-lingual method (A ) 10 8 Frequency Class Boundaries Figure 4.. Histogram and Polygon of Data A 3. The data of speaking test of the students having high self-actualization (B 1 ) The score of students who have high self-actualization are: 55, 56, 58, 60, 60, 60, 6, 65, 65, 66, 66, 68, 68, 69, 70, 70, 71, 74, 78, 80, 80, 83, 85, 85, 85, 86, 86, 86, 88, 88, 88, 88. Descriptive analysis of the data B 1 shows that the lowest score is 55 and the highest score is 88. The mean is 73.44, the mode is 86.97, the median is 71.5, and the standard deviation is The frequency

5 distribution, histogram, and polygon are presented in table 4.3 and figure 4.3 as follows: Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution of Data B 1 Class Limits Class Midpoint Frequency Boundaries (X i ) (f 1 ) Percentage Total The students having high Self-Actualization (B 1 ) 10 Frequency Class Boundaries Figure 4.3. Histogram and Polygon of Data B 1 4. The data of speaking test of the students having low self-actualization (B ) The score of students who have high self-actualization are: 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 53, 53, 53, 54, 55, 55, 55, 58, 60, 60, 60, 60, 63, 65, 65, 65, 65, 68, 70, 70, 70, 73, 75, 78, 78, 83, 85. Descriptive analysis of the data B shows that the lowest score is 50 and the highest score is 85. The mean is 6.63, the mode is

6 53.9, the median is 60.30, and the standard deviation is The frequency distribution, histogram, and polygon are presented in table 4.4 and figure 4.4 as follows: Table 4.4 Frequency Distribution of Data B Class Limits Class Midpoint Frequency Boundaries (X i ) (f 1 ) Percentage Total The students having low Self-Actualization (B ) 1 10 Frequency Class Boundaries Figure 4.4. Histogram and Polygon of Data B 5. The data of speaking test of the students having high self-actualization who are taught by using Send-A-Problem method (A 1 B 1 ) The score of students who have high self-actualization who are taught by using Send-A-Problem method are: 70, 70, 74, 78, 80, 83, 85, 85, 85, 86, 86, 86, 88, 88, 88, 88. Descriptive analysis of the data A 1B 1 shows that the lowest

7 score is 70 and the highest score is 88. The mean is 8.75, the mode is 86.70, the median is 84.50, and the standard deviation is The frequency distribution, histogram, and polygon are presented in table 4.5 and figure 4.5 as follows: Table 4.5 Frequency Distribution of Data A 1 B 1 Class Limits Class Midpoint Frequency Boundaries (X i) (f 1) Percentage Total Frequency The scores of students having high self-actualization who are taught by using Send-A-Problem method (A 1 B 1 ) Class Boundaries Figure 4.5. Histogram and Polygon of Data A 1B 6. The data of speaking test of the students having high self-actualization who are taught by using Audio-lingual method (A B 1 ) The score of students who have high self-actualization who are taught by using Audio-lingual method are: 55, 56, 58, 60, 60, 60, 6, 65, 65, 66, 66, 68, 68, 69, 71, 80. Descriptive analysis of the data A B 1 shows that the lowest score

8 is 55 and the highest score is 80. The mean is 63.88, the mode is 59.64, the median is 6.90, and the standard deviation is The frequency distribution, histogram, and polygon are presented in table 4.6 and figure 4.6 as follows: Table 4.6 Frequency Distribution of Data A B 1 Class Limits Class Midpoint Frequency Boundaries (X i ) (f 1 ) Percentage Total The scores of students having high self-actualization who are taught by using Audio-lingual method (A B 1 ) Frequency Class Boundaries Figure 4.6. Histogram and Polygon of Data A B 1 7. The data of speaking test of students having low self-actualization who are taught by using Send-A-Problem method (A 1B ). The score of students who have low self-actualization who are taught by using Send-A-Problem method are: 50, 54, 55, 55, 60, 60, 65, 65, 68, 70, 73, 75, 78, 78, 83, 85. Descriptive analysis of the data A 1 B shows that the lowest score is 50 and the highest score is 85. The mean is 68.50, the mode is 73.50,

9 the median is 69.50, and the standard deviation is The frequency distribution, histogram, and polygon are presented in table 4.7 and figure 4.7 as follows: Table 4.7 Frequency Distribution of Data A 1 B Class Limits Class Midpoint Frequency Boundaries (X i ) (f 1 ) Percentage Total Frequency 4,5 4 3,5 3,5 1,5 1 0,5 0 The scores of students having low self-actualization who are taught by using Send-A-Problem method (A 1 B ) Class Boundaries Figure 4.7. Histogram and Polygon of Data A 1 B 8. The data of speaking test of students having low self-actualization who are taught by using Audio-lingual method (A B ). The score of students who have low self-actualization who are taught by using Audio-lingual method are: 50, 50, 50, 50, 53, 53, 53, 55, 58, 60, 60, 63, 65, 65, 70, 70. Descriptive analysis of the data A B shows that the lowest score is 50 and the highest score is 70. The mean is 59.50, the mode is 5.4, the

10 median is 57 and the standard deviation is The frequency distribution, histogram, and polygon are presented in table 4.8 and figure 4.8 as follows: Table 4.8 Frequency Distribution of Data A B Class Limits Class Midpoint Frequency Boundaries (X i ) (f 1 ) Percentage Total Frequency The scores of students having low self-actualization who are taught by using Audio-lingual Method (A B ) Class Boundaries Figure 4.8. Histogram and Polygon of Data A B B. Normality and Homogeneity Test Normality and homogeneity test should be done before analyzing the data by using inferential analysis. The function of normality test is to know whether the sample is in normal distribution, while homogeneity test is to know whether the data are homogeneous. The description of each test is as follows:

11 74 1. Normality Test The sample is in normal distribution if L o (L obtained) is lower than L t at Table 4.9. Normality Test No. Data The Number of Sample (L o) (L t) 1. A A B B A 1 B A B A 1 B Distribution of population Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 8. A B Normal liefors. Based on the table above, all the highest value of (L o ) > (L t ) at the distribution.. Homogeneity Test Homogeneity test is to know the data are homogeneous or not. The data are homogenous if is lower than or < = 0.05).

12 75 Table Homogeneity Test No X 1 X X 3 X 4 X 1 X X 3 X Sample df 1/(df) s i log s i (df) log s i = (In 10){B - 1 1) log s i } =.306 ( ) = Based on the result of homogeneity test above, it can be concluded that the (6.874) is lower than (7.815). Because < (6.874 < 7.815) the data are homogenous.

13 76 C. Hypothesis Test After the data are normal and homogeneous, hypothesis test can be done. The data analysis is done by using multifactor analysis of variance x. H o is rejected, if F o > F t. It means that there is a significant difference. After knowing that H o is rejected, the analysis is continued by using Tukey test. It is used to know the difference between the two groups and cells. The summary of x ANOVA and Tukey test can be described as follows: 1. The Mean Scores of the Cells Table The Mean Scores of the Cells Simple Effect Send-A-Problem (A 1 ) Main Effect Audio-lingual (A ) Total High Self-Actualization (B 1 ) (A 1 B 1 ) (A B 1 ) (B 1 ) Low Self Actualization (B ) (A 1 B ) (A B ) (B ) Total (A 1 ) (A ). Summary of x Multifactor Analysis of Variance Table 4.1. Summary of x Multifactor Analysis of Variance source of variance SS df MS Fo Ft(.05) Ft(.01) between columns between rows columns by rows (interaction) between groups within groups Total

14 77 Based on the table above, it can be concluded that: a) Because F o between columns (48.61) is higher than F t (4) at the o is rejected and the difference between columns is significant. It means there is a significant are taught by Send-A-Problem and those who are taught by Audiolingual method. The mean score of the students who are taught by using Send-A-Problem (74.81) is higher than the mean score of students who are taught by using Audio-lingual method (61.06). It can be concluded that Send-A-Problem method is more effective than Audio-lingual method to teach speaking. b) Because F o between rows (30.759) is higher than F t (4) at the level o is rejected and the difference between rows is significant. It means the students who have selfactualization and those who have low self-actualization are significantly different in their speaking skill. The mean score of the students who have high self-actualization (73.41) is higher than that of those having low self-actualization (6.47). It can be concluded that the students having high self-actualization have better speaking skill than those having low self-actualization. c) Because F o interaction (5.063) is higher than F t (4) at the level of o is rejected and it can be concluded that there is an interaction between the two variables, teaching methods

15 78 and self-actualization to teach speaking. It means the effectiveness of teaching methods to teach speaking depends on the degree of -actualization. 3. Summary of Tukey Test The analysis of the data is continued using Tukey test to find out whether the mean difference between the cells is significant or not. The summary of the result of analysis can be seen as follows: Table Summary of Tukey Test Data Sample q o q t Status Meaning A 1 - A Significant A 1 > A B 1 - B Significant B 1 > B A 1 B 1 - A B Significant A 1 B 1 > A B 1 A 1 B - A B Significant A 1 B > A B Based on the table above, it can be concluded that: a) Because q o between columns (9.860) is higher than q t at the level of Send-A-Problem differ significantly from Audio-lingual method. The mean score of A 1 (74.81) is higher than the mean score of A (61.06). It can be concluded that Send-A-Problem method is more effective than Audio-lingual method to teach speaking. b) Because q o between rows (7.843) is higher than q t at the level of - actualization differ significantly from those who have low selfactualization. The mean score of students having high selfactualization (73.41) is higher than the mean score of students

16 79 having low self-actualization (6.47). It can be concluded that students who have high self-actualization have better speaking skill than students who have low self-actualization. c) Because q o between cells HSA (9.) is higher than q t at the level -A-Problem method differs significantly from Audio-lingual method for students who have high self-actualization. The mean score of A 1B 1 (8.5) is higher than the mean score of A B 1 (64.31). It can be concluded that Send- A-Problem method is more effective than Audio-lingual method to teach speaking for students who have high self-actualization. d) Because q o between cells LSA (4.7) is higher than q t at the level -A-Problem differs significantly from Audio-lingual method for students who have low self-actualization. The mean of A 1 B (67.13) is higher than the mean score of A B (57.81). It can be concluded that Send-A- Problem method is more effective than Audio-lingual method to teach speaking for students who have low self-actualization.

17 80 D. Discussion Based on the finding of the study, the writer draws conclusions as seen as follows: 1. Using Send-A-Problem method is more effective than Audio-lingual method Send-A-Problem method is more effective than Audio-lingual method to help students to improve their speaking skill. Send-A-Problem method is kind of cooperative learning method. The students work in small group to help one another to improve their skill. It makes students more creative, confidence and communicatively. Jolliffe (007: 3) states that pupils work together in small group to support each other to improve their own learning and that of others. Using Send-A-Problem the students try to solve their problem in group discussion. Send-A-Problem can be used as a way to get groups to discuss and review material or potential solutions to problems related to content information (Career, 007: 1). Students can enhance their thinking, problem solving, and also responsibility. They learn how they participate in contributing the solution to solve the problem. They also are motivated to learn and to answer the Otherwise, Audio-lingual method is classical method or teacher-centered that makes students become passive. This method does not need creativity from the students and just depends on the teacher. The teacher becomes a model for teaching learning process and the students follow what the teacher does. Krashen (1995: 19) states that the common features of audio-lingual language

18 81 teaching typically begin with dialogue, which contains the structure and vocabulary of the lesson. They just repeat and imitate what the teacher says. Drills and pattern practice are the type of the Audio-lingual method (Richards and Rodgers, 1986: 44-48). In the classroom this method focuses on the correct imitation by the students. Therefore, Send-A-Problem is more effective than Audio-lingual method to teach speaking.. The students who have high self-actualization have better speaking skill than the students who have low self-actualization The students having high self-actualization have better speaking skill than the students having low self-actualization. The students who have high self-actualization are indicated by high potential and willingness to gain their skill. The students who have high self-actualization are indicated by having high potential to improve their talent and high willingness to realize the ability in speaking. They are not worried about their performance and making mistake. The students who have high self-actualization are individuals who have high creativity, realistic, spontaneous in though and action, acceptance of self and others, problem-centered, natural, simply, and establish interpersonal relation. Maslow (1970: 150) states that people need self-actualization to do something in accordance with their talent and self-potential to develop themselves maximally and they become the best they can be. The students who have high selfactualization possess good participation in learning process. They are spontaneous and highly creative students. They also maintain interpersonal relation with others friends. Furthermore, they also aware that they are not

19 8 perfect and they want learn a new thing to grow their potential. Biro (009: 31) describes the students who have high self- actualization: (a) are aware of his or her unfulfilled needs, and able to fulfill them, thus proceeding toward selfactualization; (b) may improve their awareness, spontaneity and intimacy skill, if they find it necessary for the realization of their potential; (c) may recognize his or her false goals and intensions, thus may get closer to the experience; (d) may realize his or her being alienated, and can cope with it with the help of love. Meanwhile, the students having low self-actualization do not have any interest in joining the learning process. They do not care about their potential. They feel satisfied with their condition and do not want to struggle maximally to raise their knowledge. Heylighen (199: 41) states that the situation where all the lower level needs have been satisfied, but the highest need, self-actualization has not. They also have less motivation to increase their potential. They do not have awareness and willingness to gain their potential. According to Maslow in Biro (009: 17) states that the following traits of low self-actualization are rejection impulses, dependences of the environment, interpersonal relationship based on interest, demanding love (based on demands). Therefore, it can be concluded that the students having high selfactualization have better speaking skill than students having low selfactualization.

20 83 3. There is an interaction - actualization in teaching speaking Teaching method can influence the success of teaching and learning process. Selecting the teaching method can help the students to develop the -A-Problem method is one kind of cooperative learning method. Send-A-problem method is one of teaching methods which must be done by group. It makes students become active learners in teaching process. Send-A-Problem method helps balance the environment by encouraging students to work together than individually to achieve learning goals. The students are invited to join in group discussion. Teacher gives opportunity to the students to ask the questions and solve the problems. According to Barkley (010: 66) in Send-A-Problem method, groups of students each receives a problem, tries to solve it, and then passes the problem and solution to a nearby group. Send-A- (010: 66) states that Send-A-Problem involves two activities stages solving problem and evaluating solutions. The purpose of the first stage is to provide students with an opportunity to practice together and learn from each other the thinking skill required for effective problem solving. The purpose of second stage is to help students learn to compare and discriminate among multiple solutions. The students have responsibility to learn the material and develop the ideas or creativity. Send-A-Problem method as one of the cooperative learning methods has several criteria. Johnson and Johnson in Tran and Ramon (01: ) describe the criteria as follows: (1) positive interdependence; () promotes

21 84 interaction; (3) individual accountability; (4) interpersonal and social skills; (5) group processing. In other words, the students learn how to evaluate, analyze the materials. Students also develop their confidence and build their social skills. Moreover, the students develop teamwork skill because they help each other to get the best goal. Meanwhile, Audio-lingual method is one of teacher-centered methods. dominates to be a model of the target language. In classical method students will be passive because the teacher will cover the teaching learning process. It makes them passive and they do not have willingness to speak up. Audio-lingual method is focus on drill and pattern practice. Lesson in the classroom focuses on the correct imitation of the teacher by the students (Richard and Rodgers, 1993: 53-56). In other words, the student will be safe because they do not need to speak in front of the class. The students listen, repeat and imitate what the teacher says. It means that this method is one way communication. When the students have a mistake the teacher will correct them directly. In Audio-lingual method the students work individually. The characteristics of Audio-lingual method are a great deal of oral activity-pronunciation and pattern drills and conversation practice-with virtual none of grammar and translation found in traditional classes (Brown, 001: ). Self-actualization has important role in teaching and learning process. The students who have high self-actualization are active in teaching and learning process. The students who have high self-actualization are indicated by

22 85 high potential and willingness to gain their skill. Biro (009: 31) describes the students who have high self-actualization are (a) aware of his or her unfulfilled needs, and able to fulfill them, thus proceeding toward self-actualization; (b) may improve his or her awareness, spontaneity and intimacy skill, if (s)he finds it necessary for the realization of his or her potential; (c) may recognize his or her false goals and intensions, thus may get closer to the experience; (d) may realize his or her being alienated, and can cope with it with the help of love Maslow (1970: 140) states that self-actualization is the process of recognizing neurological networks, through learning, by recombining compartmentalized brain functions, designed for other purposes, into new and useful capacities. Based on the result of this research, Send-A-Problem is appropriate for students who have high self-actualization because in this method the students have opportunity to work together with their groups. This method leads the students to be active and creative. They can gain their skill through working in group. The students who have high self-actualization know what they want to do in class when they work together. Moreover, they have confidence to show their potential and they are not afraid to make mistakes. Therefore, Send-A-Problem method is effective to teach speaking for students who have high selfactualization. Based on the result of this research, Send-A-Problem is appropriate for the students who have low self-actualization. The stages of Send-A-Problem method appropriate are for the characteristics of the students having low selfactualization. At the beginning stages, the teacher gives explanation about the

23 86 Send-A-Problem method. Then, the teacher asks the students to discuss with their group. It means that all of the students take a part in teaching learning process. Biro (009: 17) states that the students having low self-actualization are dependent on the environment. Heylighen (199: 43) states that low selfactualization tend to be unable to have interpersonal relation. It means that the students who have low self-actualization are having poor interpersonal relationship. In other words, the students who have low self-actualization need teaching method that can build their social interaction. Group activities can help them in teaching and learning process. Moreover, Send-A-Problem method has the suitable characteristics for students who have low self-actualization because this method forces the students to speak up and also can build social interaction such as helping and encouraging among the students. In a group discussion the members will help each other. According to Ames (1990: 19) grouping motivation can be great influenced by the ways we relate to the other people who are also involved in accomplishing a particular goal. When the task involves complex learning and problem skills, cooperation leads to higher achievement than competition, especially for students with low abilities. The interaction with peers make the students enjoy so much becomes a part of learning process. In addition, they do not have the anxiety to speak up because other member will help them if they make some mistakes. Yager, Johnson and Johnson (1985) and Gabbert, Johnson and Johnson (1986) in Koh, et al. (007: ) provide evidence that high, medium, and low achievers all derived benefit

24 87 from taking part in cooperative learning consisting of members of mixed ability. In traditional method, the students cannot be more active and develop their ideas. In conclusion, students who are taught by cooperative learning have better performance than traditional method. Johnson and Johnson (1989) summed up the findings of a plethora of experimental and correlation studies with the conclusion that cooperative efforts lead to improved social interaction and psychological health, and enhance productivity and achievement to a greater extent than competition or individualism. Thus, Send-A-Problem is effective to teach speaking than Audio-lingual method for students who have high and low self-actualization.