You are on page 1of 30

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. Description of data There are three variables in this research, namely learning model and learning motivation as independent variable or X variable and students speaking skill as dependent variable or Y variable. Data acquired to find out students learning motivation. 1. Group of students taught using problem solving method (A1) From 60 students as sample taught using problem solving method the lowest score is 50 and the highest score is 90, mean 72,67, median 70, modus 70, and standard deviation 1,215.

72

73

Table 4.1. Statistical description of problem solving method (A1)

N Mean Std. Error of Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Range Minimum Maximum Sum

Valid Missing

60 64 72,67 1,215 70,00 70 9,409 88,531 -,377 ,309 ,077 ,608 40 50 90 4360

74

Picture 1. Histogram of students score taught using problem solving method (A1)

From the above histogram and polygon diagram it can be concluded that the highest frequency is 70 and the highest score is 90 and the lowest score is 50. 2. Group of students taught using conventional method (A2) From 60 students taken as sample taught using conventional method the lowest score is 25, the highest score is 80, mean is 53,50, modus is 60, and standard deviation is 1,811.

75

Table 4.2. Statistical desdription of conventional method (A2)

Valid Missing

60 64 53,50 1,811 52,50 60 14,031 196,864 ,162 ,309 -,706 ,608 55 25 80 3210

Mean Std. Error of Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Range Minimum Maximum Sum

76

Picture 2.Histogram of students score taught using conventional method (A2)

From the above histogram and polygon diagram it can be concluded that the highest frequency is 60 and the highest score is 80 and the lowest score is 25. 3. Group of students with high motivation (B1) From 60 students taken as sample taught using conventional method, the lowest score is 35, the highest score is 90, mean 68,08, median 70, modus 70, standard deviation is 1, 485.

77

Table 4.3. Statistical description of high motivation (B1)

Valid Missing

60 64 68,08 1,485 70,00 70 11,501 132,281 -,652 ,309 ,797 ,608 55 35 90 4085

Mean Std. Error of Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Range Minimum Maximum Sum

78

Picture 3. Histogram of students score with high motivation (B1)

From the above histogram and polygon diagram it can be concluded that the highest frequency is 60 and the highest score is 80 and the lowest score is 25.

79

4. Group of students with low motivation (B2) From 60 students taken as sample taught using conventional method, the lowest score is 25, the highest score is 85, mean 58,08, median 55, modus 50, standard deviation is 2,195.

Table 4.4. Statistical description of low motivation (B2) N Valid Missing Mean Std. Error of Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Range Minimum Maximum Sum a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

60 64 58,08 2,195 55,00 50a 17,002 289,061 ,068 ,309 -1,123 ,608 60 25 85 3485

80

Picture 4. Histogram of students score with low motivation (B2)

From the above histogram and polygon diagram it can be concluded that the highest frequency is 60 and the highest score is 80 and the lowest score is 25.

5. Group of high motivated students taught using problem solving method (A1B1) From 30 high motivated students taken as sample taught using problem solving method, the lowest score is 50, the highest score is 90, mean 73,17, median 72,50, modus 70, standard deviation is 1,581.

81

Table 4.5. Statistical description of problem solving method with high learning motivation (A1B1)

Valid Missing

30 94 73,17 1,581 72,50 70 8,659 74,971 -,113 ,427 ,894 ,833 40 50 90 2195

Mean Std. Error of Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Range Minimum Maximum Sum

82

Picture 5. Histogram of high motivated students taught using problem solving method (A1B1)

From the above histogram and polygon diagram it can be concluded that the highest frequency is 70 and the highest score is 90 and the lowest score is 50. 6. Group of low motivated students taught problem solving method (A1B2) From 30 low motivated students taken as sample taught using problem solving method, the lowest score is 50, the highest score is 85, mean 72,17, median 70, modus 70, standard deviation is 1,867.

83

Table 4.6. Statistical description of problem solving method with low motivation (A1B2) N Valid Missing Mean Std. Error of Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Range Minimum Maximum Sum

30 94 72,17 1,867 70,00 70 10,229 104,626 -,506 ,427 -,401 ,833 35 50 85 2165

84

Picture 6. Histogram of low motivated students taught using problem solving method (A1B2)

From the above histogram and polygon diagram it can be concluded that the highest frequency is 70 and the highest score is 85 and the lowest score is 50. From all data above it can be concluded that group of high motivated students taught using problem solving method (A1B1) has average score 73,17. It means that high motivated students taught using problem solving method have better skill in speaking English.

85

7. Group of high motivated students taught using conventional method (A2B1) From 30 high motivated students taken as sample taught using conventional method, the lowest score is 35, the highest score is 80, mean 63, median 62,50, modus 60, standard deviation is 2,166.

Table 4.7. Statistical description of conventional method with high motivation (A2B1)

Valid Missing

30 94 63,00 2,166 6,50 60 11,861 140,690 -,565 ,427 ,177 ,833 45 35 80 1890

Mean Std. Error of Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Range Minimum Maximum Sum

86

Picture 7. Histogram of high motivated students score taught using conventional method (A2B1)

From the above histogram and polygon diagram it can be concluded that the highest frequency is 60 and the highest score is 80 and the lowest score is 35.

8. Group of low motivated students taught using conventional method (A2B2) From 30 low motivated students taken as sample taught using conventional method, the lowest score is 25, the highest score is 60, mean 44, median 45, modus 45, standard deviation is 1,561.

87

Table 4. 8. Statistical description of conventional method with low motivation (A2B2) N Valid Missing Mean Std. Error of Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Range Minimum Maximum Sum

30 94 44,00 1,561 45,00 45 8,550 73,103 -,287 ,427 -,428 ,833 35 25 60 1320

88

Picture 8. Histogram of low motivated students score taught using conventional method (A2B2)

From the above histogram and polygon diagram it can be concluded that the highest frequency is 45 and the highest score is 60 and the lowest score is 25. From all data above it can be concluded that group of high motivated students taught using conventional method (A2B1) has average score 63. It means that high motivated students taught using conventional method have better skill in speaking English.

89

Table 4. 9. Statistical description of Dependent variable Learning motivation High motivation Low motivation Total Conventional High motivation Low motivation Total Total High motivation Low motivation Total

Learning Model Problem solving

Mean 73,17 72,17 72,67 63,00 44,00 53,50 68,08 58,08 63,08

Std. Deviation 8,659 10,229 9,409 11,861 8,550 14,031 11,501 17,002 15,301

N 30 30 60 30 30 60 60 60 120

B. Technique of Data Requirement Analysis 1. Normality test Normality test using Lilliefors of dari kosmogorov-Smirnov (Uyanto, S. S., 2006: 35) with software SPSS 16.0 for windows. The normality test is done to test the following hypothesis : 1) Hypothesis Ho : data is from normally distributed population

90

H1

: data is not from normally diistributed population

2) Testing criteria : If P-value (sig.) (0,05), so Ho accepted If P-value (sig.) < (0,05), so Ho rejected Summary of normality test analysis result using Lilliefors with significance level = 0,05 (5%) for each group, the students score (problem solving and conventional method) persented as follows : a. Problem solving classs The following is table of normality test result Lilliefors KolmogorovSmirnov for recital class using software SPSS 16.0 for windows.

Table 4. 10.Result of normality test Lilliefors Kolmogorov-Smirnov class of problem solving

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test A1 N Normal Parameters


a

60 Mean Std. Deviation Absolute Positive Negative 72,67 9,409 ,155 ,128 -,155 1,201 ,112

Most Extreme Differences

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) a. Test distribution is Normal.

91

Based on the above table score of Asymp. Sig of experiment class is 0,112 and it shows that if P-value (sig.) (0,05), then Ho accepted. It means score of problem solving class is normally distributed. b. Conventional class The following is table of normality test result Lilliefors KolmogorovSmirnov for conventional class using software SPSS 16.0 for windows.

Table 4. 11. Result of normality test Lilliefors Kolmogorov-Smirnov Conventional class

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test A2 N Normal Parametersa Most Extreme Differences Mean Std. Deviation Absolute Positive Negative Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) a. Test distribution is Normal. 60 53,50 14,031 ,098 ,098 -,095 ,763 ,605

Based on the above table score of Asymp. Sig of experiment class is 0,112 and it shows that if P-value (sig.) (0,05), then Ho accepted. It means score of conventional class is normally distributed.

92

So the conclusion is both classes (problem solving and conventional) are normally distributed. Thus it can be continued to test homogeneity. 2. Homogeneity Test Besides normality test, one of the requirement needed to analyse data using ANOVA is homogeneity test. The purpose of this test is to know whether population variance is homogenous or not. Homogeneity test on sample groups data is using bartlet test on significance level = 5%. The following is summary of homogeneity test result on each sample group:

Table 4. 12. Homogeneity Test Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa Dependent Variable:Students speaking skill F 1,152 df1 3 df2 116 Sig. ,331

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + Learning_Model + learning_motivation + Learning _model *
learning_motivation

The summary of homogeneity test result on table 4.13 for above group shows probability score sig= 0,331. Since probability score sig> 0,05, then H0 is accepted or four variances are the same. In other word the sample comes from population having homogenous variance.

C. Research Hypothesis Test

93

Research hypothesis test analysed using two path ANOVA to know effect and interaction between two groups. This ANOVA analysisi using SPSS 16. The following is ANOVA table:

Table 4. 13. Anova Tests of Between-Subjects Effects DependentVariable:Students speaking skill Source Corrected Model Intercept Learning model Learning motivation Learning model * learning motivation Error Total Corrected Total Type III Sum of Squares 16450,833a 477540,833 11020,833 3000,000 2430,000 11408,333 505400,000 27859,167 Df 3 1 1 1 1 116 120 119 Mean Square 5483,611 F 55,757 Sig. ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

477540,833 4,856E3 11020,833 112,060 3000,000 2430,000 98,348 30,504 24,708

a. R Squared = ,590 (Adjusted R Squared = ,580)

Based on the calculation explained, the result of hypothesis test can be explained as follows: 1. The Effect of Learning model towards Students Speaking Skill To test hypothesis the effect of problem solving and conventional method towards students speaking skill the writer using SPSS 16 version. From the calculation the score is sig = 0,000 < 0,05. It means that the use of learning method has effect towards students speaking skill. While F observe

94

= 112,060. F table = 4,02. It means that the learning method has effect towards students speaking skill. In other word in testing the first hypothesis H0 rejected and H1 accepted, so the first hypothesis is significantly accepted. Thus there is significant effect of problem solving and conventional method towards students speaking skill. The average score of students speaking skill using problem solving method is significantly higher than the score using conventional method as shown on descriptive analysis table 4.10. 2. The Effect of Learning Motivation towards Students Speaking Skill. To test hypothesis the effect of learning motivation towards students speaking skill the writer using SPSS version 16. From the

calculation the score is sig = 0,000 < 0,05. It means that learning motivation has effect towards students speaking skill. While F observe = 30,504. F table = 4,02. It means that learning motivation has effect towards students speaking skill. This result shows that H0 rejected and H1 accepted, thus the second hypothesis accepted. Then it can be concluded that there is significant effect of problem solving method and learning motivation towards students speaking skill as shown on descriptive analysis on table 4.10 3. The Interactive Effect of Learning model and Learning Motivation towards Students Speaking Skill (A dan B)

95

To test hypothesis the interactive effect of learning model and learning motivation towards students speaking skill the writer using SPSS version 16. From the calculation the score is sig = 0,000 < 0,05. It means that learning motivation has interaction towards learning motivation. While F observe = 24,708. F table = 4,02. It means that learning method has interaction towards learning motivation. This hypothesis is to test whether there is interaction or not between learning model and learning motivation towards students speaking skill. In other word to know how significant the learning model and learning

motivation effect students speaking skill, the hypothesis is formulated below: H0 : there is no interactive effect of learning model and learning motivation towards students sepaking skill. H1 : there is interactive effect of learning model and learning motivation towards students sepaking skill.

The hypothesis is tested referring to significance coefficient. If score sig > 0,05 ; H0 accepted and H1 rejected If score sig < 0,05 ; H1 sccepted and H0 rejected By testing using 16 above the significance of learning method and learning motivation sig 0,000 < 0,05 so H1 accepted and H0 rejected, then it can be concluded that there is effect of teachig model and learning motivation towards students speaking skill.

96

Based on this result, further test is needed. 4. Further Test (Simple Effect Hypothesis Test) Since there is significantly interactive effect of learning method and learning motivation towards students speaking skill, so it is needed further test. Because of the same number of each group, so the test using Tukey Test. In this test is used SPSS 16.0, resulting the following data.

Table 4. 14. Multiple Comparisons

Tukey HSD

(I) learning Dependent Variable Students speaking skill model 1

(J) learning motivation 2 3 4

Mean Differenc e (I-J) 1,000 10,167* 29,167* -1,000 9,167


*

95% Confidence Interval Std. Error 2,561 2,561 2,561 2,561 2,561 2,561 2,561 2,561 2,561 2,561 2,561 2,561 Sig. ,980 ,001 ,000 ,980 ,003 ,000 ,001 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 Lower Bound -5,67 3,49 22,49 -7,67 2,49 21,49 -16,84 -15,84 12,33 -35,84 -34,84 -25,67 Upper Bound 7,67 16,84 35,84 5,67 15,84 34,84 -3,49 -2,49 25,67 -22,49 -21,49 -12,33

1 3 4

28,167* -10,167* -9,167* 19,000


*

1 2 4

1 2 3

-29,167* -28,167* -19,000*

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. From the analysis ( Table 4.14 ), it shows that :

97

a).Group 1 group 2 (A1B1 dan A1B2), Means Difference is 1,000 means that ratio between group 1 and group 2 is 1,000, with sig = 0,980 > 0,05 , it indicares that there is no effect of students speaking skill between group 1 and group 2. b) Group 1 group 3 (A1B1 dan A2B1), Means Difference is 10,67 means that ratio between group 1 and group 3 is 1,0,67, with sig = 0,001 > 0,05 , it indicares that there is effect of students speaking skill between group 1 and group 3. c) Group 2 group 4 (A1B2 dan A2B2), Means Difference is 28,167 means that ratio between group 2 and group 4 is 28,167, with sig = 0,000 > 0,05 , it indicares that there is effect of students speaking skill between group 2 and group 4. d) Group 3 group 4(A2B1 dan A2B2), Means Difference is 19,00 means that ratio between group 1 and group 2 is 19,00, with sig = 0,000 > 0,05 , it indicates that there is effect of students speaking skill between group 3 and group 4.

D. Discussion of Research Hypothesis 1. Discussion of the first hypothesis Result of research shows that the use of problem solving and conventional method is Fobserve = 112,060, Ftable= 4,02. Thus the first hypothesis is significantly tested and accepted its truth. F h ( Ak ) > Ftable ( Ak ) ; 112,060 > 4,02. Then it can be drawn conclusion that there is

98

significant effect of problem solving learning method and conventional one towards students speaking skill. The average of students score taught using problem solving learning method is higher than using

conventional method. Based on the descriptive analysis, the students score taught using problem solving method : the lowest score 50, the highest 90, means 72,67, median 70, and standard deviation 1,215. While the students score taught using conventional method: the lowest score 25, the highest 80, means 53,50, median 52,50, and standard deviation 1,811. The data shows that the students score taught using problem solving method is significantly higher than those taught using conventional method. 2. Discussion of the second hypothesis Result of the research shows that group of high motivated students and of low motivated students, the score is F observe = 30,504 dan Ftable= 4,02 Thus the second hypothesis is significantly tested and accepted its truth. F
h

( Ak ) > Ftable ( Ak ) ; 30,504 > 4,02. Then it can be drawn

conclusion that there is significant effect of high motivated students and low motivated students towards students speaking skill. The average of students score taught using problem solving learning method is higher than using conventional method. Based on the descriptive analysis, the high motivated students score: the lowest score 35, the highest 90, means 68,08, median 70, and standard deviation 1,485. While the low motivated

99

students score: the lowest score 25, the highest 85, means 58,08, median 55,00, and standard deviation 2,195. From the analysis the score sig = 0,000 < 0,05, so it can be concluded that there is difference of students speaking skill between high motivated student and low motivated student. It is proven that the high motivated students average score motivated students average score 58,08. 3. Discussion of the third hypothesis Test result of the third hypothesis (interaction) Fh = 24,708 > Ft = 4,00 that shows there is significant interaction between problem solving method and learning motivation towads students speaking skill. This is supported by score of sig of problem solving method and learning motivation is 0,000 < 0,05 thus it can be concluded that there is significantly interactive effect of problem solving method and 68,08 is higher than of low

learning motivation towads students speaking skill. This fact is supported by the average score of four groups in this research, namely: a. On the group 1 and 2 (A1B1 and A1B2): the average score 73,17 < 72,17 with sig 0,980 > 0,05. It means that high motivated students score is higher than low motivated students score if they are taught using problem solving method. So it is obvious that the low motivated students score is lower than those of high motivated.

100

b. On the group 1 and 3 (A1B1 and A2B1): the average score 73,17 > 63 with sig 0,001 > 0,05 shows that there is significant difference between group 1 and group 3. It means that high motivated students score is higher if they are taught using problem solving method than conventional one. c. On the group 2 and 4 (A1B2 and A2B2): the average score 72,17 > 44 with sig 0,887 > 0,05. Shows that there is significant difference between group 2 and group 4. It means that low motivated students score is higher if they are taught using problem solving method than uisng conventional one. d. On the group 3 and 4 (A2B1 and A2B2): the average score 63 > 44 with sig 0,000 > 0,05. Shows that there is significant difference between group 3 and group 4.It means that the score of conventional method is higher for high motivated student than for low motivated student.

101