47 CHAPTER IV FINDING AND INTERPRETATION In this chapter, the writer describes: () findings and () interpretation. A. Findings This study deals with the title Teaching Writing Recount Text by Using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) Strategy to The Tenth Grade Students of SMA Muhammadiyah 5 Palembang. The findings of this study were to find out: () data descriptions, () prerequisite analysis, and (3) results of hypothesis testing.. Data Description In the data descriptions, distribution of data frequency and descriptive statistic were analyzed. a. Distribution of Data Frequency In distribution of data frequency, score, frequency, and percentage, were described. The scores were got from: () pretest scores in control group, () posttest scores in control group, (3) pretest scores in experimental group, and (d) posttest scores in experimental group. ) Students Pretest Scores in Control Group In distribution of data frequency, the writer got the interval score, frequency, and percentage. There were one student got 36 (%), one student got 36.5 (%), two students got 37.5 (%), one students got 40 (%), one student got 40.5 (%), two students got 4 (%), two
48 students got 4 (%), one student got 47 (%), one student got got 49 (%), one student got 50 (%), one student got 5 (%), one student got 53 (%), one student got 54 (%), one student got 54.5 (%), two students got 55.5 (%), one student got 56 (%), one student got 57 (%), one student got 57.5 (%), one student got 59.5 (%), one student got 6.5 (%), one student got 6 (%), one student got 65 (%), one student got 66 (%), one student got 67 (%), one student got 68 (%), one student got 69 (%), one student got 70 (%), three students got 70.5 (7.5%), one student got 7(%), one student got 7 (7.5%), one student got 74 (%) and three students got 74.5 (7.5%). The result of the pretest scores in control group is described in table 7. Table 7 Distribution of Data Frequency on Students Pretest Scores in Control Group Scores Frequency Percent (%) 36.00 36.50 37.50 40.00 40.50 4.00 40 47.00 49.00 50.00 5.00 53.00 54.00 54.50 55.50 56.00 57.50
49 59.50 6.50 6.00 60 65.50 66.00 67.00 68.00 69.00 70.00 70.50 7.00 7.00 74.00 74.50 Total 3 3 40 7.5 7.5 00.0 ) Students Posttest Scores in Control Group In distribution of data frequency, it was found that there were one student got 48 (%), one student got 49.5 (%), one student got 50 (%), one student got 50.5 (%), one student got 5.5 (%), two students got 5 (%), one student got 5 (%), one student got 53.5 (%), two students got 54 (%), one student got 58 (%), one student got 58.5 (%), three students got 59 (7.5%), one student got 60.5 (%), one student got 6 (%), two students got 6 (%), two students got 63 (%), one student got 63.5 (%), one student got 64.5 (%), one student got 65 (%), one student got 66 (%), one student got 68.5 (%), four students got 70 (0.0%), one student got 70.5 (%), one student got 7 (%), one student got 7 (%), two students got 73 (%), one student got 74.5 (5%), one student got 76 (%), one student
50 got 78.5 (%), and one student got 80 (%). The result of the posttest scores in control group is described in table 8. Table 8 Distribution of Data Frequency on Students Posttest Scores in Control Group Scores Frequency Percent (%) 48.00 49.50 50.00 50.50 5.50 5.00 50 53.50 54.00 58.00 58.50 59.00 60.50 6.00 60 63.00 63.50 64.50 60 66.00 68.50 70.00 70.50 7.00 70 73.00 74.50 76.00 78.50 80.00 Total 3 4 40 7.5 0.0 00.0
5 3) Students Pretest Scores in Experimental Group In distribution of data frequency, it was found that there were two students got 35.5 (%), one student got 36 (%), two students got 37.5 (%), one student got 39 (%), one student got 39.5 (%), two students got 40 (%), one student got 4.5 (%), one student got 43 (%), one student got 43.5 (%), one student got 44.5 (%), two students got 45 (%), one student got 46.5 (%), one student got 49 (%), one student got 50 (%), one student got 50.5 (%), one student got 5 (%), one student got 55.5 (%), one student got 58 (%), two students got 59 (%), one student got 59.5 (%), one student got 6 (%), one student got 6 (%), two students got 63.5 (%), three students got 64 (7.5%), one student got 65.5 (%), one student got 67 (%), three students got 67.5 (7.5%), one student got 69.5 (%), one student got 70 (%) and one student got 7 (%). The result of the pretest scores in experimental group is described in table 9. Table 9 Distribution of Data Frequency on Students Pretest Scores in Experimental Group Scores Frequency Percent (%) 35.50 36.00 37.50 39.00 39.50 40.00 4.50 43.00 43.50 44.50
5 40 46.50 49.00 50.00 50.50 0 55.50 58.00 59.00 59.50 6.00 60 63.50 64.00 65.50 67.00 67.50 69.50 70.00 7.00 Total 3 3 40 7.5 7.5 00.0 4) Students Posttest Scores in Experimental Group In distribution of data frequency, it was found that there were two students got 60 (%), one student got 60.5 (%), one student got 6 (%), two students got 6.5 (%), three students got 6 (7.5%), one students got 63.5 (%), one student got 64 (%), one student got 64.5 (%), two students got 66 (%), two students got 67.5 (%), one student got 68 (%), one student got 69 (%), one student got 70.5 (%), one student got 7 (%), one student got 7.5 (%), one student got 7 (%), one student got 7 (%), one student got 73 (%), one student got 73.5 (%), one student got 74 (%), one student got 74.5 (%), three students got 75 (7.5%), one student got 76 (%), one student
53 got 77.5 (%), one student got 78 (%), one student got 79 (%), two students got 79.5 (%), one student got 8 (%) and two students got 8 (%). The result of the posttest scores in experimental group is described in table 0. Table 0 Distribution of Data Frequency on Students Posttest Scores in Experimental Group Scores Frequency Percent (%) 60.00 60.50 6.00 6.50 6.00 63.50 64.00 64.50 66.00 67.50 68.00 69.00 69.50 70.50 7.00 7.50 7.00 70 73.00 73.50 74.00 74.50 70 76.00 77.50 78.00 79.00 79.50 8.00 80 Total 3 3 40 7.5 7.5 00.0
54 b. Descriptive Statistics In this decriptive statistics, the total of sample (N), minimum score, maximum score, mean score, and standard deviation were analyzed. The score were got from; (a) pretest scores in control group, (b) posttest scores in control group, (c) pretest scores in experimental group, and (d) posttest scores in experimental group. ) Students Pretest Scores in Control Group In descriptive statistics, it showed that the total number sample is 40 students. The minimum score was 36.00, the maximum score was 74.50, the mean score was 57.5, and the standard deviation was.77843. The result analysis of decriptive statistics in control group is described in table. Table Descriptive Statistics on Students Pretest Scores in Control Group Pretest Scores N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 40 36.00 74.50 57.5.77843 ) Students Posttest Scores in Control Group In descriptive statistics, it showed that the total number sample is 40 students. The minimum score was 48.00, the maximum score was 80.00, the mean score was 6.7500, and the standard deviation was 8.84844. The result analysis of decriptive statistics in control group is described in table.
55 Table Descriptive Statistics on Students Posttest Scores in Control Group Posttest Scores N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 40 48.00 80.00 6.7500 8.84844 3) Students Pretest Scores in Experimental Group In descriptive statistics, it showed that the total number sample is 40 students. The minimum score was 35.50, the maximum score was 7.00, the mean score was 53.500, and the standard deviation was.83703. The result analysis of decriptive statistics in experimental group is described in table 3. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics on Students Pretest Scores in Experimental Pretest Scores Group N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 40 35.50 7.00 53.500.83703 4) Students Posttest Scores in Experimental Group In descriptive statistics, it showed that the total number sample is 40 students. The minimum score was 60.00, the maximum score was 80, the mean score was 70.50, and the standard deviation was 6.90870. The result analysis of decriptive statistics in experimental group is described in table 4.
56 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics on Students Posttest Scores in Experimental Group Posttest Scores N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 40 60.00 80 70.50 6.90870. Pre-requisite Analysis In the pre-requisite analysis, normality and homogeneity were analyze. a. Normality Test In the normality test, the total of sample (N), kolmogorov smirnov, significant and result were analyzed. The scores were got from: () students pretest scores in control group, () students posttest scores in control group, (3) students pretest scores in experimental group, and (4) students posttest scores in experimental group. ) Students Pretest Scores in Control Group After acquiring the data from the scores of the 40 students in control group, it was found that the significance level is 0.494. From the result of the output, it can be stated that the students pretest control group was normal. Since, it was higher than 0.05. The result of analysis is figured out in table 5. No Table 5 Normality Test of Students Pretest Scores in Control Group Students Pretest N Kolmogorov Smirnov Sig. Result Control Group 40 0.83 0.494 Normal
57 ) Students Posttest Scores in Control After acquiring the data from the scores of the 40 students in control group, it was found that the significance level is 0.66. From the result of the outpot, it can be stated that the students posttest control group was normal. Since, it was higher than 0.05. The result of analysis is figured out in table 6. Table 6 Normality Test of Students Posttest Scores in Control Group No Students Posttest N Kolmogorov Smirnov Sig. Result Control Group 40 0.75 0.66 Normal 3) Students Pretest Scores in Experimental Group After acquiring the data from the scores of the 40 students in Experimental group, it was found that the significance level is 0.369. From the result of the outpot, it can be stated that the students pre-test experimental group was normal. Since, it was higher than 0.05. The result of analysis is figured out in table 7. Table 7 Normality Test of Students Pretest Scores in Experimental Group No Students Pretest Experimental Group N Kolmogorov Sig. Result Smirnov 40 0.98 0.369 Normal
58 4) Students Posttest Scores in Experimental Group After acquiring the data from the scores of the 40 students in Experimental group, it was found that the significance level is 0.738. From the result of the output, it can be stated that the students posttest experimental group was normal. Since, it was higher than 0.05. The result of analysis is figured out in table 8. Table 8 Normality Test of Students Posttest Scores in Experimental Group No Students Posttest Experimental Group N Kolmogorov Sig. Result Smirnov 40 0.738 0.684 Normal b. Homogeneity Test In the homogeneity, Levene Statistics in SPSS was used to analyze the students pretest and posttest scores in control and experimental group. ) Students Pretest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups Based on measuring homogeneity test, it was found that the significance level is 0.85. From the result of the output, it can be stated that the students pretest in control and experimental group was homogenous since it was higher than 0.05. The result of homogeneity test is figured out in table 9.
59 Table 9 Homogeneity Test on Students Pretest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups No Students Pretest N Levene Statistics Sig. Result Control Group 40 Experimental Group 40 0.055 0.85 Homogen ) Students Posttest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups Based on measuring homogeneity test, it was found that the significance level is 0.9. From the result of the output, it can be stated that the students pretest in control and experimental group was homogenous since it was higher than 0.05. The result of homogeneity test is figured out in table 0. Table 0 Homogeneity Test on Students Posttest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups No Students N Post-test Control Group 40 Experimental Group 40 Levene Statistics Sig. Result.485 0.9 Homogen
60 3. Results of Hypothesis Testing a. Measuring a Significant Difference on Students Achievement in Writing Recount Text Taught by Using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) Strategy and Teacher s Method In this study, independent sample t-test was conducted to measure the significant difference on students writing achievement scores taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy and teacher s method at SMA Muhammadiyah 5 Palembang. First, from the table analysis of pretest in control and experimental group, it was found that p-output was 0.65 and t- value was.40. Since the p-output was higher than 0.05 level and t-value was lower than value of t-table (Df:78=000) at the significance level p < 0.05, so that the null hypothesis (Ho) was accepted and alternative hypothesis (Ha) was rejected. It is figured out in table. Table Analysis Result of Significant Difference on Students Achievement in writing recount text before being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question- Polish) Strategy and Teacher s Strategy PQP (Praise- Question-Polish) Strategy and Teacher s Method Independent Sample t-test T Df Sig. (- Tailed) Ho.40 78 0.65 Accepted Then, from the table analysis of posttest in control and experimental group, it was found that the p-ouput was 0.000 and the t-value was 4.. Since the p-ouput was lower than 0.05 level and t-value was higher than value of t-table (Df:78=.000) at the significance level p > 0.05, so that the
6 null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected and alternative hyphotesis (Ha) was accepted. It can be stated that there was significant difference on students writing achievement taught using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The analysis result of independent sample t-test is figured out in table. Table Analysis Result of Significant Difference on Students Achievement in writing recount text after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question- Polish) Strategy and Teacher s Strategy PQP (Praise- Question-Polish) Strategy and Teacher s Method Independent Sample t-test T Df Sig. (- Tailed) Ho 4. 78 0.000 Rejected b. Measuring Students Responses on the Implementation of PQP (Praise Question-Polish) Strategy In this study, questionnaire was used to find out students responses on the implementation of PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy in learning writing recount text, questionnaire constructed by the writer herself and it was presented by using closed statements. The questionnaire was given to the experimental group only and to give the response on the questionnaire the writer used Quipper School Indonesia as online learning media which is accessed from http://www.quipperschool.com. In general, most of students gave positive responses on the statements given.
6 Figure : The Questionnaire Results () Figure 3: The Questionnaire Result () From the graph above, the result of questionnaire number one showed that there were 5 students (%) gave negative responses and 35 students (87.5%) gave positive responses that they were motivated to compose recount text after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number two showed that there were student (%) gave negative response and 39 students (97.5%) gave positive
63 responses that they more focused on composing recount text after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number three showed that all of students, 40 students (00%) in experimental group gave positive responses that they could apply English language better in composing recount text after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number four showed that there were 6 students (40%) gave negative response and 4 students (60%) gave positive responses that they did not need much time to compose recount text after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number five showed that there were student (%) gave negative response and 39 students (97.5%) gave positive responses that they could revise their own and peers recount text draft after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number six showed that there were 4 students (0%) gave negative responses and 36 students (90%) gave positive responses that their interests in composing recount text decreased after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number seven showed that there were 3 students (9.7%) gave negative responses and 37 students (9%) gave positive responses that they could know which parts of their recount text draft that did not be understood by peers after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question- Polish) strategy.
64 The result of questionnaire number eight showed that there were student (%) gave negative response and 39 students (97.5%) gave positive responses that they could get more ideas of recount text draft after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number nine showed there were 3 students (3%) gave negative responses and 7 students (67.5%) gave positive responses that they could understand peers draft to be revised after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number ten showed that all of the students, 40 students (00%) in experimental group gave positive responses that they could get good suggestions to their recount text draft from peers after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number eleven showed that there were 6 students (5%) gave negative responses and 34 students (85%) gave positive responses that they could think critically after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number twelve showed that all of the students, 40 students (00%) in experimental group were motivated to compose recount text after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number thirteen showed that all of the students, 40 students (00%) in experimental group could know how to compose recount text based on the correct generic structure and grammar after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy.
65 The result of the questionnaire number fourteen showed that there were 7 students (7.5%) gave negative responses and 33 students gave positive responses that they could know many vocabularies after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number fifteen showed that there were 8 students (0%) gave negative responses and 3 students (80%) gave positive responses that their recount text draft s quality increase after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result of questionnaire number sixteen showed that there were student (%) gave negative response and 39 students (97.5%) gave positive responses that they became active in group discussion after being taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. Based on the result above, it could be concluded that the most of students in experimental group gave positive responses on the implementation of PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. B. Interpretations Based on the findings which have been described in the previous section, the writer made some interpretations as follows: First, the writer had given the pretest in both control and experimental group. After the students pretest scores obtained from control and experimental group, the writer chose X.IIS as a control group and X.IIS as experimental group. It was because the students scores in control group slightly higher than the
66 students scores in experimental group. It was also proved that the mean of pretest in X.IIS was higher than X.IIS (see appendix G). Second, the writer had given treatments in control and experimental group. During the treatments in control group by using teacher s strategy (Listing), the writer found that the students faced difficulties. They felt difficult to generate the ideas, arrange the sequences of events of the story to make a good text, and identify the generic structure of a text especially recount text. It was because most of students did not have high motivation which is needed in learning English. They felt bored and lazy when the process of teaching and learning was taking place. After the writer gave the treatments, the writer did not find any improvements from the students in control group. The process of treatments in control group showed that the students motivation did not change significantly. From the explanation, it could be stated that teacher s method that used to teach control group did not help the students in teaching and learning process of making composition. Otherwise, during the treatments in experimental group, the writer also found that the students faced the difficulties as same as the students in control group. Then, the writer implemented PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy to help students in teaching and learning writing recount text. After implementing PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy, the writer found that the students motivation in learning English significantly improved. Third, there was significantly achievement in experimental group through PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy during the treatments in 0 meetings. In
67 the first to the fourth meeting, the writer still found that the students felt difficulties in learning process by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. It was because the students were still confused how to revise their peer s draft of recount text by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The writer had to explain them again to stimulate their critical thinking. In the fifth to the eighth meeting, the students could adapt in using this strategy. They were able to give comment to their peers draft of recount text. They also began interested and motivated in learning writing recount text by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. In the ninth to the tenth meeting, they used to apply PQP (Praise- Question-Polish) strategy as their new strategy in learning writing skill. They also felt the advantage when they used the strategy. The students got motivation to learn and experience as they give comment to peers draft. Therefore, they became more active and spirit in learning writing recount text because they were able to revise their draft of recount text by using PQP guide form. Fourth, the writer analyzed the normality of the sample data from pretest and posttest between control and experimental group to prove whether the sample of the data was in normality or not. One sample Kolmogorov Smirnov test was used to analyze the normality test. From the result, it could be stated that the students pretest and posttest scores in control and experimental groups were categorized normal since the significant of normality test was higher than 0.05. It was because the students had basic knowledge of English where they had ever learnt English in junior high school and elementary school. In addition, some of them ever took English course. Then, the writer analyzed the homogeneity of the
68 sample data from pretest and posttest between control and experimental group to prove whether the sample of the data was in homogeneity or not. Levene Statistics in SPSS was used to analyze the homogeneity test. From the result, it could be stated the students pretest scores in control and experimental groups and the students posttest scores in control and experimental groups were homogenous since the p-output was higher than mean significant difference at 0.05 level. It was because the students abilities were in the same level. Fifth, the significant difference scores in both groups could be seen from the result of pretest and posttest scores got progress. The progress of the students in experimental group was good enough. Meanwhile, the progress of the students in control group was not so high. Therefore, the posttest scores in both groups were different. It could be seen from the result of the t-test. As a result, it could be interpreted that there was a significant difference on students achievements in writing recount text between the students who were taught by using PQP (Paise- Question-Polish) strategy and those who were taught by using teacher s strategy. Based on the explanation above, it can be interpreted that PQP (Praise- Question-Polish) strategy was successfully applied to the tenth grade students of SMA Muhammadiyah 5 Palembang. It means that the strategy was suitable for the students which helped them improve their writing skill. There are some reasons why PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy could improve the student s writing skill. Firstly, by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy, the students were taught to be able to identify and revise their own and peers recount text draft in
69 order to improve the quality of their recount text draft. It was because PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy taught the students to give praise statement about the draft. Besides, the students were also taught to ask questions about the draft where revision may be needed, and give the suggestion about the writing drafts, especially recount text drafts. It was in line with what Pastorek (008, p. 5) said that PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) is a revision strategy which teaches young writers to: ) write a praise statement that compliment one another s writing drafts, ) ask questions about parts of a draft where revision may be needed, and 3) write polishing statements to help the author improve the expression and quality of the text of a draft. The second reason is that PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy taught the students to sort out which suggestions that should be accepted or rejected that used to revise the draft of recount text. As Neubert and McNelis (986, p. 58) states that writers are encouraged to be openminded and to recognize that they have the option of accepting or rejecting the suggestions. Responders are taught to give praise first, followed by question and polish. The third reason is that PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy could help students focus to give response in revising process. It is supported by Neubert and McNelis (990, p. 5) that this technique helps students focus on the task at hand as well as maintain a positive attitude toward the critique process. Besides, the null hypothesis (H o ) was rejected because PQP (Praise- Question-Polish) strategy was effective in teaching and learning process. In addition, there was significant difference on the tenth grade students writing achievement who were taught by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy and
70 those who were taught by using teacher s method (Listing) of SMA Muhammadiyah 5 Palembang. Meanwhile, Alternative hyphotesis (H a ) was accepted because the PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy which conducted by the writer was applicable for the students because PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy helped students to be more critical. As Neubert and McNelis (986, p. 58) said that there are benefits both for writers, who gain feedback, and for responders, who sharpen their analytical/critical skills. It was proved that the improvement in control group was not as high as in experimental group. The increase in experimental group was higher than in control group (see appendix G). From the interpretations above, it could be summed that PQP (Praise- Question-Polish) strategy was beneficial to help students improve their skill in writing a good text, especially a good recount text. It was also supported by the result of the questionnaire that showed the most of students in experimental group gave positive responses in implementing PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy. The result showed that the students agreed PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy improved their ability in writing recount text.