32

CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter particularly presents the findings of the research which are
presented as data description, and the discussion of the findings reveals arguments
and further interpretation of the findings. In this chapter, the writer analysed the
data consisting of the result of pre-test and post-test either in experimental group
or control group.
A. Findings
1. The Improvement of Students Speaking Achievement
a. Experimental Group
The writer would like to present the improvement of Students speaking
achievement in the experimental group as follow:
Table 4.1
The Improvement of the Experimental Group
Pre Test

Post Test

2
2
3
4
1
3
2

2
2
2
3
2
2
2

3
4
4
4
3
4
4

2
2
3
4
2
4
3

Average

2
3
3
3
2
2
2

Comprehension

Pronunciation

1.8
2.0
2.8
3.2
1.6
2.8
1.6

Vocabulary

2
2
3
4
2
4
2

Fluency

2
3
4
4
2
3
3

Grammar

2
2
2
2
1
2
1

Average

1
1
3
4
1
3
1

Speaking Aspect
Comprehension

2
2
2
2
2
2
1

Pronunciation

Vocabulary

Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Student 6
Student 7

Fluency

Samples

Grammar

Speaking Aspect

2.2
2.6
3.0
3.6
2.0
3.0
2.6

33

Student 8
Student 9

2.6

a. The Pre Test

Table 4.2
The Rate Percentage of Score Experimental Group in Pre-test
No.
1.
2.
3
4.

Classification
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total

Score
3.3 - 4.0
2.8 - 3.2
2.1 - 2.7
1.0 - 2.0

Frequency
0
4
2
14
20

Percentage
0%
20%
10%
70%
100 %

Table 4.2 above shows the rate percentage of score of experimental

group in pre-test from none student got excellent, 4 students (20%) got
good, 2 student (10%) fair and 14 students (70%) got poor.
Based on the table 4.1 above, in the pre-test, the writer got the data
from the experimental group that the lowest average score was 1.2 and the
highest average score was 3.2. Pre-test score had purpose to measure the
students ability in speaking before treatment.
b. The Post Test
Table 4.3
The Rate Percentage of Average Score Experimental Group in
Post-test
No.
1.
2.
3
4.

Classification
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total

Score
3.3 - 4.0
2.8 - 3.2
2.1 - 2.7
1.0 - 2.0

Frequency
2
5
8
5
20

Percentage
10%
25%
40%
25%
100%

While, the rate percentage of average score of experimental group

in post-test from 20 students as table 4.3 above shows that 2 students

3.0

34

(10%) got excellent score, 5 students (25%) got good score, 8 students
(40%) got fair score and 5 students (25%) got poor score.
After getting the post-test score of the experimental group which
had purpose to measure the students improvement after giving the
treatment that was using Brain Based Teaching method to develop
students speaking ability. Based on the table 4.1 above, in the post-test
many students got higher score than the pre-test. The lowest score was
1.8. The point had increased about 0.6 from the pre-test (1.2). The
highest was 3.6 so it was also increased 0.4 point from the pre-test (3.2).
From the two calculations above, mean score of the experimental
groups pre-test was 2.06 and mean score of the post-test was 2.62 the
improvement was 0.56 point.
2. The Control Group
Table 4.4

Total
Mean
Max
Min

Average

Comprehension

Pronunciation

Vocabulary

Fluency

Grammar

Average

Post Test
Speaking Aspect
Comprehension

Pronunciation

Vocabulary

Fluency

Pre Test
Speaking Aspect
Grammar

Experimental Group
Score

Result of the Control Group

30 39 36 53 44 40.4 34 39 37 54 47 42.2
1.50 1.95 1.802.65 2.20 2.02 1.70 1.95 1.85 2.70 2.35 2.11
3.2
3.6
1.2
1.2

a. The Pre Test

Table 4.5
The Rate Percentage of Score Control Group in Pre-test

35

No.
1.
2.
3
4.

Classification
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total

Score
3.3 - 4.0
2.8 - 3.2
2.1 - 2.7
1.0 - 2.0

Frequency
0
4
7
9
20

Percentage
0%
20%
35%
45%
100 %

Table 4.5 shows the rate percentage of score of control group in pretest from 20 students, none of the student got excellent, 4 students (20%)
got good, 7 students (35%) got fair and 9 students (45%) got poor.
Base on the table 4.4 above, in the pre-test, the writer got the data
from the control group that the lowest score was 1.2 and the highest score
was 3.6. In the pre-test, the students achievement in speaking was low.
b. The Post-Test
Table 4.6
The Rate Percentage of Score Control Group in Post-test
No.
1.
2.
3
4.

Classification
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Total

Score
3.3 - 4.0
2.8 - 3.2
2.1 - 2.7
1.0 - 2.0

Frequency
1
4
7
8
20

Percentage
5%
20%
35%
40%
100 %

While, the rate percentage of score of control group in post-test

from 20 students as table 4.6 above shows, 1 student (5%) got excellent, 4
students (20%) got good score, 7 students (35%) got fair score and 8
students (40%) got poor score.
After the writer taught them speaking, the post-test score had
purpose to measure the students improvement after giving treatment.
Base on the table 4.4 above, in the post-test, the control group showing
the less significant result. The lowest score was 1.2, the score didnt

36

increase from the pre-test (1.2) and the highest score was 3.6, the score
increased 0.4 point from the pre-test (3.2 point).
3. Standard Deviation and Mean Score between the Experimental and
the Control group
To find out the answer of the research question in the previous
chapter, the writer was used speaking test twice. A pre-test was
administrated before the treatment, which aims to know whether there
was a significant difference of the students speaking achievement before
and after treatments were given to the students. After calculating the
result of the students score, the mean score and standard deviation of both
groups be explained table below:

Table 4.7
Mean Score and Standard Deviation between the Experimental and
the Control group
Mean Score
Experimental
Group

Control
Group

Standard Deviation

Total Mean

Total Mean

Experimental Control
Group
Group

Pre test

2.08

2.02

0.55

0.66

Post test

2.54

2.11

0.53

0.73

The
Improvement

0.46

0.09

-0.02

0.07

Type of Test

a. Mean Score

37

The rate percentage of score of experimental group in post-test from

21 students as table 4.7 above shows In the pre-test, the mean score of the
experimental group was 2,08 and the control group was 2.02, it showed
that the score had relatively equal or there was no significant difference
result of the test. Meanwhile, the post-test of the experimental group was
2.54 and the post-test of the control group was 2.11. The result of the
experimental groups post-test was higher than the control groups posttest. The improvements mean score of experimental group was 0.46.
Meanwhile, the improvement mean score of control group was 0.09.
b. Standard Deviation
Standard deviation of the control group was 0.73 then the
experimental group was 0.53 because the result experimental group <
control group, so that the control groups data had higher variation than
experimental group. Then, the total deviations above were used to count tvalue on the next step.
4. Hypothesis Testing
Table 4.8
Distribution the Value of T-test and T-table in Post-test
Variable
Post-test

T-Test Value
-8.759

T-Table Value
2.093

The table above shows that t-test value is higher than t-table. The result
of the test shows there is a significant difference between t-table and t-test (8.759 > 2.093), it means that, t-test was bigger than t-table.
The result of the t-test statistical analysis shows that there is a
significant difference between the experimental group score in post-test who

38

got treatment by brain based teaching method and their pre-test. The
statement was proved by the t-test value (-8.759) which is higher than t-table
value (2.093), at the level of significance 0.05 and the degree of freedom N 1 = 20 - 1 = 19.
The result of the statistical analysis at the level of significance (P) 0.05
with degrees of freedom (df) = n-1, where n = 20 indicated that there was a
difference between the mean score of the pre-test was (2.09) and the mean
score of post-test of experimental group was (2.54). In addition the t-test
value was higher than the t-table value that is (-8.759 > 2.093) it means that
the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (H1) was
accepted.
Seeing the result above, it can be concluded that the null hypothesis
(H0) is rejected and while alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted. So, Brain
Based Teaching method is effective to develop students English speaking
abilities..
B. Discussion
1. Experimental Group (Using Brain-Based Teaching method in
Teaching Speaking)
a. Pre-Test
In the pre-test, the students speaking ability was low. The
result showed that the students faced many difficulties in their
speech. They made many errors in grammar and their vocabulary is
limited. For the students fluency, they made a lot of pause between
words and took a long time to think about what they wanted to say.

39

Some of the students also difficult to comprehend and deliver the

information to the listener. However, most of them really good at
pronounce some difficult words and they just made a few errors in
pronunciations.
b. Post-Test
In this part, the writer presents the result of the use of brainbased teaching method in teaching speaking. To know the result of the
treatment, students were taught by using 5 learning system of brainbased teaching method. In giving the treatment, First, the writer
conducted a warm-up activity to encourage students to learn English
by playing an icebreaking games.
After the icebreaking games, the writer explained a little about
the target material to the students. This phase is called cognitive
learning system. In this phase, the writer explained the material while
encouraged the students to brainstorming about the target material.
After that the writer played an individual and a group games to
practice the material in front of the class. This phase is called social
learning system. In this part, the writer also conducted the reflective
learning system to measure which part of students need to be
improved especially in speaking ability.
The Post-Test was conducted by interviewing students about
the material that has been taught before after were given a treatment.
The interview consisted of 5 questions and instructions to encourage
the students to speak. The writer called two students and interviewed
them and also asked them to make a short conversation which is
related with the target material that has been taught before. The writer

40

then measure students grammar, fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary,

and comprehension score based on the interview.
After conducting the research by using brain-based teaching
method to teach speaking, the writer got the result which addressed
that the students ability in speaking increased. There are some factors
that influenced the result of this research: (1) the students in the
experimental group seem enjoying the lesson and the activity in the
classroom, (2) the experimental group students felt excited with the
games, however they seemed to be confused at the first time because
they didnt use to play games that force them to move (Physical
learning system). (3) The experimental group students seem really
enjoy and enthusiast to participate in the activities but most of them
lack in comprehend the teacher instructions especially when teacher
used English while explaining the material.
2. Control Group (Using Teacher-Centered Method)
In this part, the writer presented the discussion of the use of TeacherCentered Method in teaching speaking
a. Pre-Test
The same of the result of the pre-test of experimental group, the
students faced many difficulties in their speech. The students made many
errors in grammar, their vocabulary was limited, and they had bad
structure. Some of the students can pronounce well and made a few
mistakes but there are about two to three students were difficult to
pronounce the words. Then, for the students fluency, they used to be
silent after saying one or two words; they took long time to think what
they wanted to say later. Most of them looked very nervous and

41

uncomfortable in speech. However, the students tried their best to answer

the teachers questions and made a conversation with their partner.
b. Post-Test
There are a few students got their speaking skill improved after
being given a treatment and most of them didnt show any significant
improvement in their speaking ability. However, their pronunciation got
better than before but they still found many difficulties in grammar
especially in how to organize their sentences. The error in constructing
their sentences was stayed same like before they got a treatment. Their
fluency also didnt improve. Some of them also looked nervous.