You are on page 1of 13

8.

FINDINGS
In this research, maximal improvement towards the spelling problem of the
participants had been shown. This research had also confirmed that the use of drilling
dice was able to improve spelling problem among Year 4 pupils. This statement
could be interpreted based from the findings below;
Participant A
The data below shows the reduction of spelling mistakes from pre-test to post-test.
Category
Number of
spelling
mistakes

Pre-test
13

Intervention I
10

Intervention II
6

Post-test
0

Table 9: The spelling mistakes of Participant A

Number of mistakes
14
12
10
8
Number of mistakes

6
4
2
0

Graph 3: The spelling mistakes of participant A.

38

it showed that participant A had decreased in spelling mistakes from pre-test to post-test. participant A showed the improvement in the behaviour like the time taken to answer had shortened. It could be supported with the data collected during observation and checklist done as below: Time taken to answer the test Pre. Other than that. the motivation became high and the interest and attention was better after the intervention. Through observation and checklist. All of these showed that participant A had improved after the intervention had been done.test 50 observation minutes Observation 46 for minutes intervention 44 I and II minutes session Post-test 41 observation minutes Confidence level Motivational level Disturbance behaviour Attention/ interest Body posture Low Low No No Bad Low High No Yes Good Low High No Yes Good High High No Yes Good Table 10: The observation result of participant A. the confidence level had increased. this statement could be supported with the data collected during the interview.From the data above. The data could be seen as follow: 39 .

From the data above.Number of oral spelling mistakes 16 14 12 10 Number of oral spelling mistakes 8 6 4 2 0 Before the intervention Intervention II Graph 4: The oral spelling mistakes done by participant A. This data had proven that the drilling dice technique was successful. The result was shown below: Category Number of spelling mistakes Pre-test 13 Intervention I 10 Intervention II 5 Post-test 0 Table 11: The spelling mistakes of participant B. It could be concluded that participant A had improved in spelling problem after this intervention session. 40 . The same result goes to participant B. it showed that participant A had improved in spelling whereby there were no mistakes at all during the interview done after the intervention.

From the data above.test 56 observation minutes Observation 50 for minutes intervention 46 I and II minutes session Post-test 42 observation minutes Confidence level Motivational level Disturbance behaviour Attention/ interest Body posture Low Low No No Bad Low High No Yes Good Low High No Yes Good High High No Yes Good Table 12: The observation result of participant B. It could be supported with the data collected during observation and checklist done as below: Time taken to answer the test Pre.Number of mistakes 14 12 10 8 Number of mistakes 6 4 2 0 Graph 5: The spelling mistakes of participant B. it could be seen that the spelling mistakes of participant B had decreased from pre-test to post-test. 41 .

42 . this statement could be supported with the data collected during the interview. Other than that. the confidence level increased. the motivation become high and the interest and attention was better after the intervention.Through observation and checklist. All of these showed that participant B had improved after the intervention had been done. The data could be seen as follow: Number of oral spelling mistakes 16 14 12 10 Number of oral spelling mistakes 8 6 4 2 0 Before the intervention Intervention II Graph 6: The oral spelling mistakes done by participant B. participant B showed the improvement in his behaviour like the time taken to answer were less.

Category Number of spelling mistakes Pre-test 15 Intervention I 10 Intervention II 4 Post-test 0 Participant C Table 13: The spelling mistakes of participant C. This data had proven that the drilling dice technique was successful. Number of mistakes 16 14 12 10 8 6 Number of mistakes 4 2 0 43 .From the data above. it showed that participant B had improved in spelling whereby there were no mistakes at all during the interview done after the intervention. It could be concluded that participant B had improved in spelling problem after this intervention session.

participant C showed the improvement in her behaviour like the time taken to answer were less. All of these showed that participant C had improved after the intervention has been done. It could be supported with the data collected during observation and checklist done as below: Time taken to answer the test Pre. Other than that.Graph 7: The spelling mistakes of participant C. From the data above. this statement could be supported with the data collected during the interview. the motivation become high and the interest and attention was better after the intervention. the confidence level increased.test 49 observation minutes Observation 45 for minutes intervention 44 I and II minutes session Post-test 40 observation minutes Confidence level Motivational level Disturbance behaviour Attention/ interest Body posture Low Low Yes No Bad Low High No Yes Good High High No Yes Good High High No Yes Good Table 14: The observation result of participant C. it could be seen that the spelling mistakes of participant C had decreased from pre-test to post-test. The data could be seen as follow: 44 . Through observation and checklist.

45 . From the data above. it showed that participant C had improved in spelling whereby there were no mistakes at all during the interview done after the intervention.Number of oral spelling mistakes 16 14 12 10 Number of oral spelling mistakes 8 6 4 2 0 Before the intervention Intervention III Graph 8: The oral spelling mistakes done by participant C. It could be concluded that participant C had improved in spelling problem after this intervention session. This data had proven that the drilling dice technique was successful.

It could be supported with the data collected during observation and checklist done as below: 46 . From the data above. Number of mistakes 14 12 10 8 6 Number of mistakes 4 2 0 Graph 9: The spelling mistakes of participant D. it showed that participant D had decreased in spelling mistakes from pre-test to post-test.Participant D Category Number of spelling mistakes Pre-test 13 Intervention I 10 Intervention II 8 Post-test 3 Table 15: The spelling mistakes of participant D.

test 55 observation minutes Observation 50 for minutes intervention 45 I and II minutes session Post-test 42 observation minutes Confidence level Motivational level Disturbance behaviour Attention/ interest Body posture Low Low Yes No Bad Low Medium No Yes Good Low Medium No Yes Good High High No Yes Good Table 16: The observation result of participant D. Through observation and checklist. this statement could be supported with the data collected during the interview.Time taken to answer the test Pre. Other than that. the motivation become high and the interest and attention was better after the intervention. All of these showed that participant D had improved after the intervention had been done. the confidence level increased. participant D had showed the improvement in her behaviour like the time taken to answer were less. The data could be seen as follow: 47 .

and Dangerfield 1991. This data had proven that the drilling dice technique was successful. From the data above. Spratt. it showed that participant D had improved in spelling whereby there were little mistakes at all during the interview done after the intervention. it enforces that the drilling dice techniques was the best method to improve spelling problem among students.Number of oral spelling mistakes 16 14 12 10 Number of oral spelling mistakes 8 6 4 2 0 Before the intervention Intervention II Graph 10: The oral spelling mistakes done by participant D. It is supported by Matthews. It could be concluded that participant D had improved in spelling problem after this intervention session. Drilling session helps 48 . Based on the data above. in their research that states drills were used usually at the controlled practice stage of language learning so that students have the opportunity to accurately try out what they have learned.

it can be 49 . Through the statement supported by the other researches. Improving Students’ Pronunciation through Communicative Drilling Technique says that drilling technique is a way of teaching or learning spelling by repeating exercise. or transformation. repetition drills was useful for familiarizing pupils quickly with a specific structure or formulaic expressions. Robertson& Richard. This research also in accordance to Doff 1990. In addition. In this research. automatic responses using a specific formulaic expression or structure. 2009 in a research entitles Approach and Method in Language Teaching stated that “Drilling dice” technique was one of the ways that was used in teaching English spelling where the students were suggested to be familiar or used to the target language technique and the students were emphasized to do more practices.students to develop quick. verb form. the researcher was able to help those four students who have spelling problem with action verb in correcting their spelling of action verbs through drillings dice sessions. such as a tag ending. This statement could be supported by the evidence given by the researcher whereby those four participants had increased their confidence to spell words accurately. Riswanto. This statement supported the research done since the research give the chances to the participant to get familiar with the spelling of action verb through drilling. 2012 in their research. By applying this technique ESL learners were more confident to spell words accurately and enjoyable. Endang Haryanto. 90% of the participants had mastered the spelling of the words drilled by the researcher. It gives the positive effect whereby based from the data collected.

The researcher had proven that drilling dice was able to improve spelling problem among Year 4 pupils. 50 . the findings show that this research had answered the research questions and research objectives. In conclusion.concluded that drilling dice technique was the best technique to improve spelling of action verbs among students.