CHAPTER 4.

RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results of interview, the result of documentation, the
result of homogeneity test, the analysis of the try out, the description of the treatment,
the result of the post test, the hypothesis verification, and discussion. The schedule of
administering the research could be seen in Table 4.1 below:
Table 4.1 The Schedule of Administering the Research
No Activities Date (in the year of !""#
1. omogeneity Test !
th
"ay
#. The Analysis of omogeneity Test $
th
"ay
%. Try &ut '
th
"ay
4. The Analysis of Try &ut Score (
th,
1)
th
"ay
!. Treatment to the e*perimental group 11
th
, 1#
th
, 1+
th
"ay
+. Activity to the control group 11
th
, 1#
th
, 1+
th
"ay
(. ,ost test 1(
th
"ay
1). Analysis of the ,ost Test #)
th
, #1
st
"ay
4." The Res$%t of Intervie&
The interview was conducted informally with the eighth grade -nglish teacher
of S", .egeri # Tanggul on /anuary %
rd,
#)11. According to him, -nglish was taught
twice a wee0, and the curriculum used was 1nstitutional 2ased 3urriculum 45TS,
#))$6. e taught reading comprehension by using 7uestion8Answer method. 1n
applying 7uestion8Answer method, he gave the model by reading the te*t aloud in
front of the class and then he as0ed some students to read the te*t. After that, he
as0ed the students to read the te*t silently. Then, he as0ed the students some difficult
words and then as0ed them to give the meanings. After that, he as0ed the students to
do the e*ercises given based on the te*t. e never used /igsaw type 11 in teaching
reading comprehension.
e used two boo0s in teaching learning -nglish, the compulsory boo0 and the
students9 wor0sheet 4:5S6. The compulsory boo0 that was used was ;unctional
-nglish for /unior igh School <rade =111 published by Buana Raya in Surakarta in
#))!. ;or the students9 wor0sheet, he used 21"A 42imbingan "enu>u Ana0 3erdas6
which was published by Saudara in Solo.
4. The Res$%t of Doc$'entation
?ocumentation in this research was used to get the data for e*ample the total
number and the names of the respondents of the eighth grade students of S",. #
Tanggul /ember. The total number of the eighth grade students of S",. # Tanggul
/ember in the #)1)@#)11 academic year was 1++ students consisting of ! classes 4The
distribution of the students can be seen in Table 4.#6
Table 4.# The Total .umber of the -ighth <rade Students of S",. #
Tanggul in the #)1)@#)11 Academic Aear
.o 3lass "ale ;emale Total
1. =111 A #4 1% %'
#. =111 2 #1 1! %$
%. =111 3 #! 1! 4)
4. =111 ? #4 14 %+
!. =111 - #! 1# %'
Total 11( $( 1++
4Source: S", .egeri # Tanggul /ember6
4.( The Res$%t of Ho'o)eneity Test
The homogeneity test was administered on "ay !
th
, #)11. This schedule was
not ad>usted to the -nglish schedule for each class because some non -nglish teachers
let the researcher use their teaching period for conducting the homogeneity test.
Therefore, the homogeneity test only too0 1 day for ! classes. This test was
administered to 0now whether the five classes were homogeneous or not.
%#
The respondents of the research were the eighth grade students of S",. #
Tanggul in the #)1)@#)11 academic year consisting of five classes 4=111 A, =111 2,
=111 3, =111 ?, =111 -6. The results of homogeneity test were analyBed statistically by
using A.&=A formula 4Appendi* .6.
2ased on the calculation, the result of statistical computation was ).+% while
the value of ;8table in !C significant level was #.%'. ;rom the calculation above, it
was 0nown that ;8computation was lower than that of ;8table. 1t means that there was
no significant difference mean of the five classes. 1n other words, the population was
homogenous. Therefore, the samples could be ta0en randomly from any classes of the
population.
The lottery was done directly after 0nowing the result of the homogeneity test
to determine the e*perimental group and the control group from the population.
2ased on the lottery, two classes were chosen, =111 3 as the e*perimental group and
=111 - as the control group.
4.4 The Ana%ysis of the Try O$t
The analysis of the try out was important to 0now whether or not the research
instrument, especially the test was valid and reliable or not. The analysis was focused
on establishing test validity and finding out the difficulty inde* and the reliability
coefficient.
4.4." The Ana%ysis of the Test *a%i+ity
Regarding the validity of the test, this research established content validity
since it had been arranged based on the material stated in the 1nstitutional 2ased
3urriculum and the syllabus of the teaching -nglish used in S",. # Tanggul
/ember. The researcher had also already chec0ed and consulted the material to the
-nglish teacher and both of the consultants. ;or this reason, the test could be said to
fulfil the reDuirement of content validity.
%%
4.4. The Ana%ysis of Diffic$%ty In+e,
The try out was conducted on "ay !
th
, #)11 at ':4) until +:#) a.m. 1t was
given to one class of the e*isting five classes of grade eight which was not selected as
the e*perimental group and the control group, that was class =111 ? of S", .egeri #
Tanggul /ember which consisted of %+ students. After administering the try out, the
researcher started to analyBe the difficulty inde*. ;rom the result, it was 0nown that
the range of difficulty inde* was from ).4' up to ).$+ 4Appendi* R6. Thus, it could
be concluded that the test items were not too easy or too difficult. Thus, the
researcher did not need to revise the test items.
The other considerations being concerned with the try out were the instruction
and the time allocation. The instruction of the test was understood by the students
because the instructions were made by the researcher in two languages, -nglish and
1ndonesian. 1n addition, the students did not have problems with the time allocation.
They did the test within the available time so that the researcher did not need to
e*tend or shorten the time.
4.4.( The Ana%ysis of Re%ia-i%ity Coefficient
1n estimating the value of reliability coefficient, the researcher has applied
split half odd8even techniDue 4Appendices &, ,, 76. To gain the value of the whole
test reliability 4r
11
6, the correlation of the two halves was continued to be analysed by
using Spearman82rown formula 4Sudi>ono, 1((+:#1(6. The r
xy
was calculated as
follows:
( )( )
{ }{ }
#
#
#
#
6 4 6 4

=
Y Y N X X N
Y X XY N
r
xy
( )( )
{ }{ }
# #
6 111# 4 %%!)4 %+ 6 1)4+ 4 #(+#4 %+
111# 1)4+ %1#)) %+

=
x x
x
r
xy
{ }{ } 1#%$!44 1#'%1!# 1)(+%)4 11%%%1#
11$!%'$ 11+!$))

=
xy
r
%4
%$$)+ %!))+
#)##4
x
r
xy
=
1#+1!'#+$4
#)##4
=
xy
r
)$ . %!'((
#)##4
=
xy
r
r
xy
E ).!$
.otes:
r
*y
: The correlation coefficient of product moment
. : The total number of participants
FGA : The total number of odd items and even items
4FG6 : The total number of odd items
4FA6 : The total number of even items
;rom the calculation, it was found that the reliability coefficient of a half test
was ).!$. 1n order to find the reliability of the whole test, the following calculation
was done.
xy
xy
r
r
r
+
=
1
#
11
!$ . ) 1
!$ . ) #
11
+
=
x
r
!$ . 1
1# . 1
11
= r
'# . )
11
= r
.otes:
r
11
: The reliability coefficient for the whole test items
r
*y
: The correlation coefficient of product moment
%!
;rom the calculation above, reliability coefficient of the whole test was ).'#
2ased on ?>iwandono 41(($:1!46 the reliability coefficient of the whole items that
was ).'# was categoriBed as high correlation 4).') H ).+(6 and the test was
considered reliable. 1t means that the researcher did not have to ma0e any changes of
the test items, and the test items of the post test could be administered to the real test.
4.. The Descri/tion of the Treat'ent
As e*plained in 3hapter %, the e*perimental group 4=111 36 received the
treatment that was teaching reading by using /igsaw type 11, while the control group
4=111 -6 received no treatment that was teaching reading by using 7uestion8Answer
method. The treatments were conducted on "ay 11
th
up to "ay 1+
th
, #)11. The
treatments of each class were given three times during this research. This means that
all the treatments were done in si* meetings, three meetings for each group. The
schedule of administering the treatments can be seen in the following table.
Table 4.% The Schedule of Administering the Treatment
.o. Treatments -*perimental <roup 3ontrol <roup
1 Treatment 1 "ay 11
th
, #)11
)(.)) H 1).!)
"ay 11
th
, #)11
1).!) H 1#.1)
# Treatment # "ay 1#
th
, #)11
)'.)) H )+.#)
"ay 1#
th
, #)11
)(.)) H 1).!)
% Treatment % "ay 1+
th
, #)11
)(.)) H 1).!)
"ay 1+
th
, #)11
1).!) H 1#.1)
There were the differences in time for each activity during the teaching
learning process for both the e*perimental group and the control groups. 1n the first
meeting of the e*perimental group, the discussion for the e*pert group was 1#
minutes and the discussion for the home group was 1$ minutes. 1n the second
meeting, the discussion for the e*pert group was ( minutes and for home group was
1! minutes, and in the last meeting, the discussion for the e*pert group was + minutes
and for the home group was 1# minutes. These differences happened because in the
%$
first meeting, the students were not familiar with /igsaw type 11 as that was the first
time for them to do /igsaw type 11, so that the time of the discussion for the e*pert
group and the home groups too0 longer than the second and the third meetings. 1n the
second meeting, the students understood much better on what was meant by /igsaw
type 11, so that they could do the discussion effectively. 1n the last meeting, the
students had already been familiar with the procedures of /igsaw type 11 so that they
only too0 a little time to do the discussion. Although there were differences in time of
each activity during the teaching learning process, the total time of each meeting was
the same, that was +) minutes. The researcher added the items of the e*ercises in
each meeting so that each meeting had the same time that was +) minutes. 1n the first
meeting, the total items of the e*ercises was 1', in the second meeting was #) items,
and in the third meeting was #% items. -ach e*pert group and home group finished
their discussion in different time too. The differences of time of the e*pert groups and
the control group could be seen in the tables 4.4 and 4.! below.
Table 4.4 The Time Allocation for the -*pert <roup to ?o the ?iscussion
-*pert
<roup
Time
"eeting 1 "eeting # "eeting %
1 1) minutes, !!
seconds
( minutes, 44
seconds
' minutes, %)
seconds
# 1# minutes, %)
seconds
( minutes !+
seconds
' minutes,%+
seconds
% 1# minutes, 11
seconds
( minutes, 44
seconds
+ minutes, 1)
seconds
4 ( "inutes, 4)
seconds
( minutes, #
seconds
$ minutes, 1$
seconds
! 11 minutes, 1'
seconds
( minutes, 11
seconds
' minutes, %)
seconds
Table 4.! The Time Allocation for ome <roup to ?o the ?iscussion
%'
ome
<roup
Time
"eeting 1 "eeting # "eeting %
1 1$ minutes, %
seconds
14 minutes, 44
seconds
1# minutes, 1%
seconds
# 1! minutes, 4+
seconds
14 minutes, %#
seconds
1# minutes, !!
minutes
% 1! minutes, #%
seconds
14 minutes, 1(
seconds
1# minutes, %4
seconds
4 1$ minutes, 1)
seconds
14 minutes, 44
seconds
1# minutes, 1%
seconds
! 1$ minutes %)
seconds
1! minutes, #
seconds
1# minutes, 1+
seconds
$ 1$ minutes, %
seconds
14 minutes !+
seconds
11 minutes,
!!seconds
' 1! minutes, %)
seconds
1! minutes. #%
seconds
1# minutes, 4%
seconds
+ 1$ minutes 1! minutes, #)
seconds
11 minutes, !(
minutes
The differences in time for each meeting for control group laid on the time in
doing the e*ercises in each meeting.
4.0 The Res$%t of the Post Test
The post test was conducted on Thursday, "ay 1(
th
, #)11. The e*perimental
group was given post test from ':4) until +:#) a.m. and the control group was tested
from (:)) until (:4) a.m without brea0 time to anticipate the discussion between both
of the groups or among the students. The post test was given to both of the
e*perimental group and the control groups after they had received different
treatments. The meetings were done from Iednesday, "ay 11
th
, #)11 up to
Iednesday, "ay 1+
th
, #)11. The control group was taught by using 7uestion and
Answer method while the e*perimental group was taught by using /igsaw type 11.
%+
The total number of the e*perimental group was 4) but the students who >oined the
test were %' students, % students were absent at the time of the test. 1n the control
group, the total number of the students was %' and all of them >oined the test. So that
the total numbers of the students who >oined the test were '4 students. The post test
used was reading comprehension test consisting of #) test items in the form of
multiple choice having four options. The post test was administered in 4) minutes.
-ach point for identifying general information was $ points, while each point for
identifying specific information was 4 points. Therefore, the total point was
1)) 1))
($
($
= X
.
4.0." The Ana%ysis of Post Test Res$%t
The post test scores of both the e*perimental and the control groups were used as
the data to investigate the different effects of the treatment using /igsaw type 11
strategy for e*perimental group and 7uestion and Answer method for the control
group. The post test result was analyBed statistically by using t8test formula to 0now
whether the mean difference between the e*perimental group and the control group
was significant or not. The result of the post test could be seen below:
Table 4.$ The Score of ,ost Test
Sub>ect
-*perimental <roup 3ontrol <roup
G
G 8
A
A 8
1 '! 8).(# ).+4$4 '% 1.' #.+(
# $) 81!.(# #!%.44$ $! 8$.% %(.$(
% '! 8).(# ).+4$4 '1 8).% ).)(
%(
4 +1 !.)+ #!.+)$4 '1 8).% ).)(
! $! 81).(# 11(.#4$ '% 1.' #.+(
$ '' 1.)+ 1.1$$4 $+ 8%.% 1).+(
' +$ 1).)+ 1)1.$)$ '1 8).% ).)(
+ '' 1.)+ 1.1$$4 +1 (.' (4.)(
( +! (.)+ +#.44$$ '% 1.' #.+(
1) '! 8).(# ).+4$4 $) 811.% 1#'.$(
11 '( %.)+ (.4+$4 +1 (.' (4.)(
1# +1 !.)+ #!.+)$4 '% 1.' #.+(
1% '! 8).(# ).+4$4 '% 1.' #.+(
14 '' 1.)+ 1.1$$4 '1 8).% ).)(
1! '% 8#.(# +.!#$4 +1 (.' (4.)(
1$ '! 8).(# ).+4$4 '% 1.' #.+(
1' '1 84.(# #4.#)$4 '! %.' 1%.$(
1+ '! 8).(# ).+4$4 $) 811.% 1#'.$(
1( '! 8).(# ).+4$4 '' !.' %#.4(
#) +1 !.)+ #!.+)$4 +4 1#.' 1$1.#(
#1 ) ) ) '! %.' 1%.$(
## '! 8).(# ).+4$4 '! %.' 1%.$(
#% ) ) ) $! 8$.% %(.$(
#4 '! 8).(# ).+4$4 '% 1.' #.+(
#! $) 81!.(# #!%.44$ '1 8).% ).)(
#$ $+ 8'.(# $#.'#$4 +1 (.' (4.)(
#' +1 !.)+ #!.+)$4 '% 1.' #.+(
#+ '' 1.)+ 1.1$$4 $) 811.% 1#'.$(
#( ++ 1#.)+ 14!.(#$ $% 8+.% $+.+(
%) $( 8$.(# 4'.++$4 $% 8+.% $+.+(
%1 +1 !.)+ #!.+)$4 '1 8).% ).)(
%# '' 1.)+ 1.1$$4 $) 811.% 1#'.$(
%% '' 1.)+ 1.1$$4 $+ 8%.% 1).+(
%4 +1 !.)+ #!.+)$4 '1 8).% ).)(
%! '! 8).(# ).+4$4 '1 8).% ).)(
%$ +4 +.)+ $!.#+$4 '% 1.' #.+(
%' +1 !.)+ #!.+)$4 '1 8).% ).)(
%+ ) ) )
%( $( 8$.(# 4'.++$4
4) '% 8#.(# +.!#$4
F #+)( 8).)4 14#$.'$ #$%+ 8).1 1%+'.'%
"ean '!.(# '1.%
4)
The results were analyBed by using t8test formula and consulted to the t8table
at !C significant level as presented below:
a
M
E '!.(#
b
M
E '1.%
a
X
E 8).)4

#
a
X
E 14#$.'$
b
X
E 8).1

#
b
X
E 1%+'.'%
a
N
E %'
b
N
E %'
( )

+
+

=

Nb Na Nb Na
X X
Mb Ma
t
b a
tes
1 1
#
# #

+
+

=
%'
1
%'
1
# %' %'
'% . 1%+' '$ . 14#$
% . '1 (# . '!
E
( )( ) )!4 . ) )( . %(
$# . 4
E
4! . 1
$# . 4
E %.1(
.otes:
"
a
: "ean score of the e*perimental group
"
b
: "ean score of the control group
G
a
: 1ndividual score deviation of the e*perimental group
G
b
: 1ndividual score deviation of the control group
41
.
a
: The number of sub>ect in the e*perimental group
.
b
: The number of sub>ect in the control group
After 0nowing the t8test result that was %.1(, it was continued by finding the
degree of freedom:
f
d
E
( ) # + Ny Nx
E
( ) # %' %' +
E '#
2ased on the computation of the t8test formula of the scores of the post test, it
showed that the statistical value of t8test was %.1(. Then t8table at significant level !C
with df 4'#6 was #.)). ?egree of freedom $) was used because it was the nearest
range of '#. 1t means that the statistical value of t8test was higher than that of t8table
4%.1(J#.))6.
4.1 Hy/othesis *erification
2ased on the computation of the t8test formula of the scores of the post test on
reading comprehension achievement test, it showed that the statistical value of t8test
was %.1( while the value of t8table at significant level !C with df 4'#6 was #.)). 1t
means that the statistical value of t8test was higher than that of t8table. 3onseDuently,
the null hypothesis 4
)
6: KThe use of /igsaw type 11 in 3ooperative :earning has not a
significant effect on the eighth grade students9 reading comprehension achievement at
S",. # Tanggul /emberL was re>ected. &n the other hand, the alternate hypothesis:
KThe use of /igsaw type 11 in 3ooperative :earning has a significant effect on the eighth grade
students9 reading comprehension achievement at S",. # Tanggul /emberL was accepted.
Thus, it can be stated that /igsaw type 11 significantly affected the eighth grade
students9 reading comprehension achievement at S",. # Tanggul /ember.
4#
4.2 Disc$ssion
1n this research, the reading test was applied to get data about the students9
reading comprehension achievement. The total number of the test items was #) in the
form of multiple choice consisting of + items of identifying general information and
1# items of identifying specific information. The items of identifying specific
information was less than those of identifying specific information because
identifying general information was considered more difficult than identifying
specific information.
The result showed that the statistical computation value of the t8test was
higher than that of the t8table 4%.1(J#.))6. ;rom the scores of post test, it could be
seen that the e*perimental group who was taught reading by using /igsaw type 11 got
better score compared to the control group who was taught reading by using 7uestion
and Answer method.
1n addition, the research finding was in line with the e*perts9 opinions. :ie
4#))#:$+6 points out that in /igsaw type 11, students are able to wor0 together, have a
lot of chance to gain information and they can increase their communication s0ill.
;urthermore, Tew0sbury 4#))!:%6 states that /igsaw encourages cooperation and
active learning and each member of the group has contribution in the group. ;rom the
above opinions, it is clear that the students can identify and comprehend the reading
te*t easily and accurately by applying /igsaw type 11.
;urther, the effect of /igsaw type 11 was supported by previous researchers
which had proved that /igsaw type 11 was able to improve the students9 reading
comprehension achievement. The previous researches were done by Iahyuni 4#))$6
and TaDwiati 4#)1)6. Iahyuni 4#))$6 conducted a classroom action research at S",
,<R1 4 5anigoro 2litar in the #))!@#))$ academic year. 1n her research, she reported
that the use of /igsaw 1 could improve the students9 reading comprehension
achievement. She proved that the improvement of the mean score was from $+.1% to
''.1$. The e*pected mean score was 4'$8+!6. 1n addition, TaDwiati conducted a
classroom action research at S",. # Tegaldimo 2anyuwangi in the #))+@#))(
4%
academic year concluded that the improvement of the mean score was from '1.( to
'!.% with the e*pected mean score was '). Although the research target had been
obtained, the researcher decided to conduct the second cycle because she wanted to
determine whether the result of the action was consistent or not. 1n the second cycle,
the results were stable which verified that the use of /igsaw 1 could improve reading
comprehension of students of S",. # Tegaldimo 2anyuwangi in the #))+@#))(
academic year.
1n line with those previous research findings, it was important to give
e*planation that the present research has the similarities and differences with those
previous researches. The first similarity was the dependent variable that focused on
reading comprehension achievement. The second similarity was this present research
and those researches focused on /unior igh School level. 2esides having the
similarities, this present research had two differences with the various researches.
Iahyuni and TaDwiati used classroom action research in their research designs, but
this research used an e*perimental design. This research focused on /igsaw type 11
while their researches focused on /igsaw type 1.
1n conclusion, /igsaw type 11 was an appropriate strategy that had a significant
effect in reading comprehension achievement. 3oncerning the results of this research,
it proved that the use /igsaw type 11 had a significant effect on the eighth grade
students9 reading comprehension achievement at S",. # Tanggul /ember.
44