1

EXAMPLE OF T-TEST REPORT (EXPERIMENT)

This parts is aim to answer the research question number 1,2 and 3. The data analysis was run by using SPSS 14. The
statistics analysis test used to traced p value is one independent sample t-test and paired sample t-test.

i. Is there any difference in the pre-test and post-test scores between learners of control and experimental group after
the literary transactions?

Finding 1 of Research Question 4

T-test analysis results in Table 4.3 shows that there is no a significant difference between control group and experimental
group in pre-test score. The mean score yielded are 63.7 for experimental group and 66 for control group. The different
values yielded are t=.652, and p=.518. The findings imply that the both of the sample group come from the equal
background literature achievement.

TABLE 4.3 T-test Conducted to Control Group and Experiment Group (exposed to LC) toward pre test.

Dependent Variable Group Mean Different t Sig.

Mean
Pre-test Experiment 63.7 -2,3 .652 .518
Control 66
Significant level at 0.05

Table 4.3 shows the findings of t-test between control group and experiment group toward post-test. The findings displayed
that there is a significant difference between control group and experimental group in post-test score. The mean score
yielded are 78.80 for experimental group and 73.76 for control group. The different values yielded are t=-2.04, and p=.000.
The findings imply that the experimental group obtains higher post test score than control group test score.

TABLE 4.4 T-test Conducted to Control Group and Experiment Group (exposed to LC) toward post test.

Dependent Variable Group Mean Different t Sig.

Mean
Post-test Experiment
Control
Significant level at 0.05

Discussion 1 of research question 4

Looking at more specific in each analysis done, it was found that the experimental group obtains higher post test score
than control group post test score, the control group obtains higher post test score than pre-test score, the experimental
group’s pre test score increase much at the post-test after the LC applied in teaching and learning literature. The
conclusion showed very strong results, with participants of LC class significantly improving in reading scores from pre- to
posttest and significantly improving overall compared with a non-participant group (control group).

In others research, Daniel (2002) conducted a research by using LC showed that using literature circles improves the
student learning literature achievement, even the students out performed those who did not in both reading and writing
before LC, performed well after the LC. The literature circles schools made improvements of 13 percent in reading and 25
percent in writing. In sixth grade, the literature circles schools showed improvements of 9 percent in reading and 8 percent
in writing.
2

Finding 2 of Research Question 2

Table 4.4 shows the findings of paired sample t-test to control group toward pre-test and post-test. The mean score yielded
at pre-test is 66 and at post test is 72. The statistic values yielded are t=-7.141, and p=.00<.05. The finding means that there
is a significant difference between control group pre-test score and post-test score. The findings imply that the control
group obtains higher post test score than pre-test score.

TABLE 4.4 Paired sample T-test Conducted to Control Group toward pre-test and post test Pre Vocabulary.

Dependent Variable Test Mean Different t Sig.

Mean
Control Group Pre-test 66 6 3,32 ,000
Post-test 72
Significant level at 0.05

Discussion 2 of Research Question 2

Pre and post test conducted to control group where is the literature class was done by conventional approach. The
conclusion of the finding shows the control group obtains higher post test score than pre-test score. However experimental
group obtain higher achievement rather than control group. In addition, the literature class by using conventional approach
was no longer effectively and interestingly to increase the students' motivation in learning literature, while teaching
literature by LC, students are empowered to create their own destinations in the reading process (Stien&Beed, 2004).

Finding 3 of research question 4

Table 4.5 shows the findings of paired sample t-test on experiment group toward pre and post-test. The findings show also
that there is a significant difference between experimental group pre-test and post-test score. The mean score yielded are
63.76 for pre-test and 78 for post test. The different values yielded are t=-11.07, and p=.000.

TABLE 4.5 Paired sample T-test Conducted to Experiment Group toward pre-test and post test.

Dependent Variable Test Mean Different t Sig.

Mean
Experiment Group Pre-test
Post-test
Significant level at 0.05

EXAMPLE OF ANOVA ANALYSIS

The result of One Way ANOVA between ethnic groups toward dependent variables memory, cognitive, compensation,
meta-cognitive, Affective, social and overall language learning strategies. The findings in Table 4.17 show that there is no
significant difference between ethnic groups upon language strategy in terms of compensation (F=.847, sig.=.496<.05),
Affective (F=1.300, sig.=.269>.05), Social and (F=2.143, sig.= .075>.05). Interestingly, there is a significant difference
between the ethnic groups in language strategies in terms of memory (F=5.264, sig.= .000<.05), Meta-Cognitive (F=4.110,
sig.=.003<.05) and overall Language Learning Strategies (F=4.315, sig.= .002<.05).The result of Pos Hoc Test on the
differences between ethnic upon memory, meta-cognitive and overall language learning strategies is displayed in Table
4.18.

Table 4.17 Analysis ANOVA ethnic across learning strategies

Dependent Source Sum of DF Mean F Sig.

Variable Squares Square
Memory Between Groups 1.226 4 .306 5.26 .000
Within Groups 22.99 395
Total 24.222 399

Cognitive Between Groups .341 4 .085 1.45 .214

Within Groups 23.109 395
3

Total 23.450 399

Compensat-ion Between Groups .332 4 .083 .847 .496

Within Groups 38.736 395
Total 39.068 399

Meta-Cognitive Between Groups 1.128 4 .282 4.11 .003

Within Groups 27.097 395
Total 28.225 399

Affective Between Groups .557 4 .139 1.30 .269

Within Groups 42.349 395
Total 42.907 399

Social Between Groups .923 4 .231 2.14 .075

Within Groups 42.549 395
Total 43.472 399

Lang. Learning Between Groups .250 4 .063 4.31 .002

Strategies Within Groups 5.732 395
Total 5.983 399

Table 4.18 shows differences of memory, meta-cognitive strategies and overall language strategies between ethnic groups.
The Javanese yielded higher mean score in memory strategies rather than ethnic Riau-Malay (Mean difference=-.200, sig.=
.044<.05) and Minangkabau (Mean Difference=-.164, .003<.05). Yet there is no differences between other ethnic groups.
In term of meta cognitive strategies, the Chinese yielded higher mean score than ethnic Riau-Malay (Mean difference=-
.232, sig.= .002<.05) and Minangkabau (Mean Difference=-.188, .027<.05). However there is no difference between other
ethnic groups. The differences also occurred in mean score of overall language learning strategies, the Javanese yielded
higher mean score than ethnic Riau-Malay (Mean difference=-.070, sig.= .018<.05) and Minangkabau (Mean Difference=-
.070, .019<.05). Thus, hypothesis 2 is rejected.

Table 4.18 Pos Hoc Test of ANOVA.The differences in language strategy between students according to ethnicity.

Dependent Ethnic (I) (J) Ethnic Mean Std.Error Sig

Variable Difference
Memory R. Malay M. Kabau -.035 .027 1.000
Javanese -.200* .044 .000
Batak -.076 .049 1.000
Chinese -.064 .057 1.000
M. Kabau Javanese -.164* .045 .003
Batak -.040 .049 1.000
Chinese -.028 .057 1.000
Java Batak .123 .061 .437
Chinese .136 .067 .442
Batak Chinese .012 .070 1.000

Meta R. Malay M. Kabau -.043 .029 1.000

Cognitive Javanese -.084 .048 .833
Batak .006 .053 1.000
Chinese -.232* .061 .002
M. Kabau Javanese -.040 .049 1.000
Batak .049 .054 1.000
4

Chinese -.188* .062 .027

Java Batak .090 .066 1.000
Chinese -.147 .073 .450
Batak Chinese -.238* .076 .020

Learning R. Malay M. Kabau .000 .013 1.000

Strategies Javanese -.070* .022 .018
Batak -.029 .024 1.000
Chinese -.073 .028 .105
M. Kabau Javanese -.070* .02266 .019
Batak -.030 .02484 1.000
Chinese -.073 .02871 .104
Java Batak .040 .03054 1.000
Chinese -.003 .03377 1.000
Batak Chinese -.043 .03527 1.000

CORRELATION (AN EXAMPLE).

Pearson correlation was used analyse the relationship strength between core competencies and students’ CGPA FE
UI. The findings reveal that there was a significant correlation between the communication (r=.273, sig.=.000<.05),
information technology (r=.120, sig.= .033<.05), numeracy (r=.153, sig.= .006<.05), learning how to learn (r=.287, sig.=
.000<.05), problem solving (r=.182, sig.= .001<.05), working with others (r=.260, sig.= .000<.05), subject specific
competencies (r=.332, sig.= .000<.05) and overall core competencies (r=.286, sig.= .000<.05), with students’ CGPA at
Faculty of Economics UI. H05a was accepted and H05b was rejected. The findings are displayed in Table 4.76.

Table 4.1 Pearson correlation of between core competencies and students’ CGPA at UI

Correlation between two variables r Sig.

Communication CGPA .273 .000
Informational technology CGPA .120 .033
Numeracy CGPA .153 .006
Learning how to learn CGPA .287 .000
Problem solving CGPA .182 .001
Working with others CGPA .260 .000
Subject spec. content CGPA .332 .000
CORE COMPETENCIES CGPA .286 .000