CHAPTER IV

THE DATA ANALYSIS

1.1 Description of the Data

The data are taken from the test score of the two classes which are

chosen as samples of the research. The data obtained from the experiment

about the effect of teaching speaking through TAI (team assisted

individualization) on student speaking skill achievement at class VIII A

(Experimental class) and teaching speaking using story telling at class VIII B

(Control class)

1.2 Data Analysis

Before analyzing the data using t test formula, the writer wants to

calculate the mean and standard deviation of each group to get the minimum

criterion writer.

1.2.1 The Mean of Experimental Group and Control Group

a. The Mean of Experimental Group

Me = =

38

b. The Mean of Control Group

Mc =

The data shows that mean of experimental group is higher than mean of

control group. It can be concluded that teaching speaking using team assisted

individualization technique is more effect morethan using story telling on the

students’ speaking skill achievement

1.2.2 The Standard Deviation of the Two Groups

To calculate the standard deviation, the writer used Standard Deviation

formula according to Arikunto (2005:264). as follows:

Where

: Standard Deviation of experimental group

: Standard Deviation of control group

: The sum of the square of experimental group score

: The square of the total sum of experimental score

: The sum of the square of control group score

: The square of the total sum of control group score

39

N : The total number of sample

a. The Standard Deviation of Experimental Group:

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g. The Standard Deviation of the Control Group:

Comparing the = 1333,88 with the = 1959,68 value, it is clear

that is higher than value. It means that teaching speaking using team

40

assisted individualization technique is more effect positive than without using

team assisted individualization technique on the students’ speaking skill

achievement.

1.2.3 Finding Out the Significant Differences by Using t test

After knowing the two standard deviation values, the writer can find

out the t-observed value. To make it clear writer uses t-test formula which is

stated by (Arikunto,2006:321) as follows

t =the result of the two means

Mx =the average of score experiment group

My = the average of score control group

N =the number off subject

X =Deviation of each score x2 and x2

Y =Deviation of each score y2 and y1

= sum of squared deviation of experimental class

= of squared deviation of control class

Nx = subject of experimental class

Ny = subject of control class

41

After the writer has found the t-value, then he combined with the

degree of freedom (df) of the sample, which is formulated by Sudijono

(2010:353) as follows:

df =

= 31 + 31 - 2

= 60

Based on the calculation above, then the writer draws recapitulation

some data of each variable.

Table 3: Table of the Data Recapitulation of Two Groups

Kinds of Data Experimental Group Control Group

42

Number of Sample 31 31

Mean 75,16 72,74

Standard Deviation 1959,68 1333,88

t-Test 2,016

1.3 Hypothesis Testing and Discussion of Research Finding

After collecting the data and analyzing them using one tailed t-test

formula, it is on 0.05 level of significance. The data above t-value is 2,016

and the degree of freedom in there study is 60 lies between 40 and 60. So, t-

critical value is 1,67. The difference between t-value and t-critical value was

2,016 >1,67.

Based on the data from the test above, it is clear that the t-value is

higher than the t-critical value. It was based on criteria:

If t-computation > t-critical value, Ha is accepted

If t-computation < t-critical value, Ha is rejected

The data shows t-computation > t-critical (2,016 >1,67) so, Ha is accepted.

Based on the criteria above, the writer concludes that his alternative

hypothesis (Ha) “Teaching speaking using team assisted individualization

43

technique on the students’ speaking achievement” is accepted. On the other

hand, null hypothesis (Ho) “Teaching speaking without using team assisted

individualization technique on the students’ speaking achievement” is

rejected. It means that there is significant the effect on the students’ speaking

achievement after being taught by team assisted individualization technique at

experimental class. In other words, teaching speaking by using team assisted

individualization technique is more effect than without using team assisted

individualization technique . Besides that, the team assisted individualization

technique has aroused the students’ motivation and surely affect the students’

achievement in studying English especially in speaking skill .

44

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION, SUGGESTION AND RECOMMENDATION

1.1 Conclusion

Based on the result of data analysis and interpretation of the research,

it is clear that there is a significant difference between students’ speaking skill

after being taught by team assisted individualization technique. In other

words, team assisted individualization technique is a effect technique in

teaching speaking on the students’ speaking skill achievement.

The data shows that mean and standard deviation of experimental

group are 75,16 and 1959,68 Meanwhile mean and standard deviation of

control group are 72,74 and 1333,88 At the degree of freedom of 60 and the

level of significance for two-tailed test of 0.05, the writer finds that the t-

table is 1,67 meanwhile t-observed is 2,016. It means that teaching speaking

by using team assisted individualization technique is affect on the students’

speaking skill achievement. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected;

on the other hand, the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted.

1.2 Suggestion

Knowing the result of the research, the writer would like to offer some

suggestions as follows:

45

1. The teacher should use team assisted individualization technique in

teaching speaking since it is a good technique for students to practice

speaking naturally.

2. Team assisted individualization technique can be use as the way for

improving students’ speaking skill, because it is more interesting and

enjoyable.

3. The writer suggests to the English teacher to use team assisted

individualization technique as one the technique in teaching speaking

process.

4. The English teachers should apply the team assisted individualization

technique in teaching speaking in order to improve the students’ speaking

skill achievement.

5. Students should know that by more practice they will get an achievement

in speaking, because it is as the accomplishment to enlarge talent and

master English.

1.3 Recommendation

Concerning to the importance of education, the writer recommend to the

institution of educational should develop students’ speaking skill by

providing more time for English class like English course.The collage as an

institution should make a good program to progress students skill or talent.

46

One of them is the ability in speaking English and providing a good media.

Like Language lab.

47

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arikunto , Suharsimi . 2005 . Dasar - Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan . Jakarta : Bumi Aksara

Brown , H. Douglas . 2004 . Language Assessment : Principle and Classroom Practice . Francisco State University : Person Education

Fraenkel,R.Jack and dkk.2007. How to Design and Evaluate Research Hypotheses in Education. Singapore : McGraw Hill

Herrhyanto,Nar dan Hamid Akib,M.H.2007.Statistik Dasar.Indonesia: Universitas Terbuka

Harmer ,Jeremy .2007 The Practice of English Language Teaching. Mexico : Person Longman

McCafferty,G.Steven and dkk. 2006. Cooperative Learning and Second Language Teaching. Singapore : Cambridge University Press

Richards ,J.C and Renandya ,A. Willy. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching An Anthology of Current Practice .new York : Crambridge University Press

Richard ,J.C and Roger ,T.S .2001. Approacher and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Crambridge University Press

Slavin ,R . E . 2005 . Cooperative Learning : Teori , Riset , dan Praktik . London : Allymand Bacon .

Suparman,Ujang.2010. Phcholinguistics: The Theory of Language Acquisiition.Bandung : Arfino Raya

Sudijono,Anas.2010.Pengantar Statistik Dasar.Jakarta :Rajawali Pers

Soegeng, HS. 2004 . Kurikulum 2004 Standar Kompetensi Bahasa Inggris SMP dan Mts . Jakarta : Pusat Kurikulum , Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Depdiknas

Tarigan , Henry Guntur . 1980. Berbicara Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung : Angkasa Bandung

48

West, Richard and Turner ,H. Liyann.2008.Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Applications. Jakarta : Salemba Humanika

Zaro, Juan Jesus and Salaberri, Sagrario .1995.Storytelling.Oxford : Macmillan Heinemann

49

ABSTRACT

Name : Muhammad Ali Wahyudin

NIM : D.09 07 0028, Title” The Effect Of Teaching Speaking Through TAI (Team Assisted Individualization) Technique On Student Speaking Skill Achievement at The Eight Grade Student of SMP YPP Sobang In Academic Year 2010-2011)

The aim of the research is to know the Influence of teaching speaking through TAI Metodh on the students’ speaking skill achievement. This research conducts Mei 2010 and the writer chooses SMP YPP Sobang as a place of his research. The writer takes the eighth grade students of SMP YPP Sobang as the population in his research which consists of 62 students. In his research, the writer uses an experiment design. he takes class VIII A students as experimental group and VIII B students as control group. Experimental group is a group which through Team Assisted Individualization metodh, on the other hand, the control group is the other group which is through Story Telling technique. Each class consists of 31 students.

In this research, the writer uses the achievement test in collecting the data needed. In order to collect the data needed relevant to the problem, he administers the test after giving a treatment to the experimental group through Team Assisted Individualization metodh and using Story Telling for the control group. To analyze the data, he uses statistical computation, including scoring the result of the test, calculating the mean of both experimental and control group. Besides, he calculates the Standard Deviation of each group and then finds out the significant differences by using t-test.

Based on the result of data analysis and interpretation of the research, it is clear that there is a significant difference between students’ speaking skill achievement after being through Team Assisted Individualization metodh. In other words, through Team Assisted Individualization metodh is an effect technique on the students’ speaking skill achievement.

The data shows that mean and standard deviation of experimental group are 75,16 and 1959,68 Meanwhile mean and standard deviation of control group are 72,74 and 1333,88 At the degree of freedom of 60 and the level of significance for two-tailed test of 0.05, the writer finds that the t-table is 1,67 meanwhile t-observed is 2,016. It means that teaching speaking through team assisted individualization technique is affect on the students’ speaking skill achievement. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected; on the other hand, the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted.

50

51

Table 1

The Score of Experimental Class

NO NAME Pre-test Post-test Gain X2

1 E 01 40 75 10 100

2 E 02 50 70 20 400

3 E 03 60 70 10 100

4 E 04 50 70 20 400

5 E 05 50 75 25 625

6 E 06 50 75 25 625

7 E 07 40 75 35 1225

8 E 08 50 75 25 625

9 E 09 50 80 30 900

10 E 10 50 70 20 400

11 E 11 55 70 15 225

12 E 12 50 75 25 625

13 E 13 50 70 20 400

14 E 14 40 75 35 1225

15 E 15 60 75 15 225

16 E 16 50 70 20 400

17 E 17 50 80 30 900

18 E 18 60 75 15 225

19 E 19 40 80 40 1600

20 E 20 50 75 25 625

52

21 E 21 50 75 25 625

22 E 22 40 80 40 1600

23 E 23 60 70 10 100

24 E 24 50 80 3o 900

25 E 25 50 75 25 625

26 E 26 50 75 25 625

27 E 27 60 80 20 400

28 E 28 60 75 15 225

29 E 29 50 80 30 900

30 E 30 50 80 30 900

31 E 31 60 80 20 400

∑ 1575 ∑ 2330 ∑ 730 ∑ 19150

53

Table 2

The Score of Control Class

NO NAME Pre-test Post-test Gain Y2

1 C 01 50 70 20 400

2 C 02 40 70 30 900

3 C 03 55 75 30 400

4 C 04 55 80 25 625

5 C 05 40 70 30 900

6 C 06 50 80 30 900

7 C 07 40 70 30 900

8 C 08 40 70 30 900

9 C 09 40 70 30 900

10 C 10 50 70 20 400

11 C 11 55 70 15 225

12 C 12 55 70 15 225

13 C 13 50 75 20 400

14 C 14 50 70 25 625

15 C 15 55 70 15 225

16 C 16 60 75 10 100

17 C 17 55 70 20 400

18 C 18 40 70 30 900

19 C 19 50 75 20 400

54

20 C 20 50 80 25 625

21 C 21 50 75 30 900

22 C 22 55 80 20 400

23 C 23 55 75 25 625

24 C 24 55 70 20 400

25 C 25 55 70 15 225

26 C 26 55 75 20 400

27 C 27 55 70 20 400

28 C 28 50 70 20 400

29 C 29 55 70 15 225

30 C 30 40 70 30 900

31 C 31 40 80 40 1600

∑ 1540 ∑ 2255 ∑ 715 ∑ 17825

55

56