Nama: Firmansyah

NIM: 21291034

“The Effect of Task Based Language Teaching and Problem Based Learning
towards Students’ Speaking Performance”

A. Research Question

1. Does TBLT affect the students’ speaking Performance?

2. Does PBL affect the students’ speaking performance?

B. Hypothesis

1. TBLT Affects the student’s speaking performance

2. PBL affects the student’s Speaking performance

C. Data Analysis

Descriptives
RESULT
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound m m
Task Based 16 64.06 9.699 2.425 58.89 69.23 50 75
Language Teaching
(TBLT)
Problem Based 16 55.94 7.793 1.948 51.78 60.09 45 70
Learning
Method used at 16 56.56 9.437 2.359 51.53 61.59 40 70
school by the teacher
Total 48 58.85 9.578 1.383 56.07 61.64 40 75

Based on table above, the method that shows significant effect towards the students is TBLT with
mean 64.06. while PBL Method shows that Method used at school is higher than PBL.
 Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
METHODE Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
RESULT Task Based Language .230 16 .024 .864 16 .022
Teaching (TBLT)
Problem Based Learning .199 16 .091 .926 16 .212
Method used at school by the .194 16 .109 .923 16 .188
teacher
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

The significant score for three groups proved that they are normal because all the significant score on
the table is > 0.05 which are 0.22 for TBLT, 0.212 for BBL, and Method used at school is 0.188.

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
RESULT Based on Mean .988 2 45 .380
Based on Median .586 2 45 .561
Based on Median and with .586 2 42.855 .561
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean .975 2 45 .385

The Sig score of the data’s Above is 0385 which means that the data’s above is normal because it’s
more than 0.05.
ANOVA
RESULT
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 654.167 2 327.083 4.024 .025
Within Groups 3657.813 45 81.285
Total 4311.979 47

Based on the data above the Sig. score is 0.025 < 0.05 which means that TBLT, PBL, and Method
used in class have different Meant.
 Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: RESULT
Tukey HSD
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Difference Std. Lower Upper
(I) METHODE (J) METHODE (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
Task Based Problem Based 8.125 *
3.188 .037 .40 15.85
Language Teaching Learning
(TBLT) Method used at 7.500 3.188 .059 -.23 15.23
school by the teacher

Problem Based Task Based -8.125* 3.188 .037 -15.85 -.40

Learning Language Teaching
(TBLT)
Method used at -.625 3.188 .979 -8.35 7.10
school by the teacher

Method used at Task Based -7.500 3.188 .059 -15.23 .23

school by the teacher Language Teaching
(TBLT)
Problem Based .625 3.188 .979 -7.10 8.35
Learning
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Based on table it shows that there is different outcome between TBLT and Method used at school.
It shows that the mean difference between TBLT and Method used at school is 7.500. but somehow
the significant score between TBLT and Method used at school is 0.059 >0.05 which means that
TBLT does not have significant effects towards students’ speaking performance.

In the other hand, the difference mean between PBL and method used at school is -0.625. and the
significant score is 0.979 which also means that PBL has no significant effects towards Students’
speaking Performance.
 RESULT
Tukey HSD a

Subset for alpha = 0.05

METHODE N 1 2
Problem Based Learning 16 55.94
Method used at school by 16 56.56 56.56
the teacher
Task Based Language 16 64.06
Teaching (TBLT)
Sig. .979 .059
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 16.000.