CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. Findings
In findings section, there are several sections that will be explored. They
are try-out test results, pretest results and post test results. Each section is
presented in detail as follows.
1. Pretest Results
The pre-test is aimed to discover the equity of the two groups before
administering treatments by using t-test procedure. It was conducted on 11th
August 2014 to two classes of the tenth grade students of SMA
Muhammadiyah Limbung. The pre-test involved 40 students that divided into
two classes. Class X IPA is as experimental group and X IPS 1 is as control
group. Each of group consists of 20 students. The scoring of the students
writing was adapted from An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy by
Brown (2001). In assessing students writing, this study only assesses two
aspects of writing namely, grammar and vocabulary. Based on pretest result
(see appendix 8.a), it shows that the sum of students writing in experimental
group is 81 and the sum of control group is 72). The next step is determining
homogeneity of variance using F formula.
Table 5.1 Mean Result of Pre-test
Group

( x )

Experimenta
l
Control

20

4,05

20

3,6

42

43

a. Homogeneity of Variance Test

In testing the homogeneity, firstly, the hypothesis is stated as follows:
H0: The variances of the experimental and control group are homogenous.
The formula used in calculating the homogeneity of variance is F-test as
follows:
The result of the calculation of homogeneity variance test on pretest
(see appendix 4) is 1,61. In the F table (see appendix 7) for = 0,05, df1 =
19, df2 = 19, F ratio is 2,15. Based on the calculation, the value of F is
smaller than the ratio on F table, 1,61 < 2,15 so that null hypothesis is not
rejected which means two groups are homogenous.
b. t-test Computation on Pre-Test
Independent t- test formula was used to analyze the significant
differences between the pretest means of experimental and control groups.
Firstly, we have to state the hypothesis as follows:
H1: there is a significant difference between means of experimental
and control groups.
The result of the calculation of t-test on pretest (see appendix 4) is
1,45. In the t table (see appendix 6) for = 0,05 df = 38 t ratio is 2,02. The
data shows the data from the experimental and control groups are equal with
the value of t is lower than t table (1,45 < 2,02). It indicates that the
alternative hypothesis is rejected; there was no significant difference
between the data of the two groups. This result implies that the experimental
and control group are similar in their initial ability.

44

2.

Posttest Result
The post-test was administered on August 29th, 2014 to control group and

30th to experimental group. Both groups were assigned to make a sentence in

simple present tense (Choose one of the word classes that they want).
The students posttest scores (see appendix 8.b) shows that the sum of
students posttest scores of experimental group is 175 and the control group is
132 like pretest scores, those scores are gained from the calculation from two
aspects of writing namely grammar and vocabulary.
Table 5.2 Mean Result of Post-test
Group

( x )

Experimenta
l
Control

20

8,75

20

6,6

Based on the table above, the condition of both classes can be seen on the
chart below:
Chart 5.1 Mean Score of Experimental and Control Group on Post-Test

Mean Score
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Experimental Class

Control Class

45

The chart above shows that the means of both experimental and control
groups are significantly different. Mean of experimental group is higher than
mean of control group after conducting treatment.
a.

Homogeneity of Variance Test

Firstly, the hypothesis is stated as follows:

H0: The variances of the experimental and control group are homogenous.
The formula used in calculating the homogeneity of variance is F-test as
follows:
The result of the calculation of homogeneity variance test on posttest
(see appendix 4) is 1,04. In the F table (see appendix 7) for = 0, 05, df1 =
19, df2 = 19, F ratio is 2,15. Based on the calculation, the value of F is
smaller than the ratio on F table, 1,04 < 2,15, so that null hypothesis is not
rejected which means two groups are homogenous and t-test can be
continued.
b.

t-test Computation on Post-Test

Independent t- test formula was used to analyze the significant

differences between the pretest means of experimental and control groups.

Firstly, we have to state the hypothesis as follows:
H1: there is a significant difference between means of experimental
and control groups.
The result of the calculation of t-test on posttest (see appendix 4) is
5,66 t table (see appendix 6) for = 0,05 df = 38 t ratio is 2,02. Based on

46

the calculation, the value of t is bigger than the ratio on t table, 5,66 > 2,02.
According to the result, it can be concluded that the alternative hypothesis is
not rejected. There was a significant difference between students who are
assigned by the use of card sort strategy and students who are not.
c.

Effect Size
The next calculation, determine the effect size. The calculation was

aimed at knowing the value of treatments effect to the students score.

Based on the effect size criteria (Coolidge, 2000) (see table 4.1 p.42),
the treatments gave a medium to large effect (0,67) (see appendix 4) to the
students score in the experimental group.
3. Percentage Result of Experimental and Control Class
Table 6.1
Percentage Result of Experimental Class on Grammar

No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Classificatio
n
Very Good
Good
Fairly
Poor
Very Poor

Score
Pre-test
Frequency
%
7
35 %
3
65 %
-

Post-test
Frequency
%
14
70%
6
30 %
-

Table 6.2
Percentage Result of Control Class on Grammar

47

No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Classificatio
n
Very Good
Good
Fairly
Poor
Very Poor

Score
Pre-test
Frequency
%
2
10 %
18
90 %
-

Post-test
Frequency
%
4
20 %
11
55 %
5
25 %
-

From percentage result above show that there is significant different

between experimental class and control class on grammar. It can be seen on
percentage result on pre test and post test. Percentage result of experimental
class on post test is 70 % who get very good and 30 % who get good. While
in control class there are not students who get very good and 20 % students
who get good.
Table 6.3
Percentage Result of Experimental Class on Vocabulary

No.
1.
2.
3.
No.
4.
5.

Classificatio
n
Very Good
Good
Fairly
Classificatio
n
Poor
Very Poor

Score
Pre-test
Frequency
-

%
-

Pre-test
Frequency
%
14
70 %
6
30 %

Post-test
Frequency
%
8
40 %
4
20 %
8
40 %
Score
Post-test
Frequency
%
-

Table 6.4
Percentage Result of Control Class on Vocabulary

48

No.

Classificatio
n

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Very Good
Good
Fairly
Poor
Very Poor

Score
Pre-test
Frequency
%
10
50 %
10
50 %

Post-test
Frequency
%
3
15 %
7
35 %
10
50 %
-

From percentage result above show that there is significant different

between experimental class and control class on vocabulary. It can be seen on
percentage result on pre test and post test. percentage result of experimental class
on post test is 40 % who get very good. While in control class is 15 % who get
very good.
B. Discussion
This research was aimed at investigating whether the use of card sort
strategy significantly increased students writing English sentences especially
simple present tense. The writing test in pretest and posttest was used as the
instrument in this study. Furthermore, F-test and t-test formula was used to
compute the pretest and posttest score. Besides, the students pretest data were
analyzed to know the initial ability in writing English sentences in simple present
tense and to measure the equity between experimental and control group before
the treatment. The F- test result on pretest indicated that there was no significant
difference between the students score of experimental and control groups because
the value of F (1,61) is smaller than the ratio on F table (2,15). It means the null

49

hypothesis was not rejected that the ability in writing English sentences in simple
present tense before treatment between both groups were equal.
Having received some treatments, the posttest was administered to the
experimental and control group. This test was intended to measure whether card
sort strategy can help students increase their writing skill especially in simple
present tense. The posttest computation result showed that the findings may be
concluded that the two aspects in writing assessment on grammar and
vocabularies, have significantly improved (value of t (5,66) is bigger than the ratio
on t table (2,02) ).Thus, the alternative hypothesis was not rejected which means
that there were significant differences between the experimental and control
groups scores after treatment. From the explanation above, it can be drawn a
conclusion that the students who receive the treatment have significant
improvement mainly in grammar and vocabulary. The writing assessment was
adopted from Heaton (1969).
When selected and implemented appropriately as teaching strategy, card
sort strategy offer many advantages. First, the teacher is easy to master a class,
second, easy to implement and prepare, third, can be followed by the number of
students very much, this is a fresh and fun way to deal with material that tends to
dry, activity that uses this multiindera learning channel auditory, visual, and
kinesthetic, understanding of students is tested, With around the room, the lecturer
easily sees where the confusion and uncertainty arise. This activity offers an
informal formative assessment; activity provides a strong lesson in cooperation

50

and self-discipline. In addition Card Sort Strategy gives students the opportunity
to work with vocabulary, terms, and concepts. (Silberman, 2007 p.5).
The improvement of grammar also can be seen from their writing product.
The experimental groups score in grammar aspect increase significantly. In
regard with the improvements generic structures (using simple present tense,
using to be (is, are, am), using adjective, noun,verb, and using adverb.
Dealing with vocabularies, the improvements of students writing were
regard with some factors in teaching learning process. Particularly; the students
were introduced to the sample of simple present tense in real context which has
new vocabularies (Jacobson et al, 2003).
The development of students mastery in vocabularies revealed from the
numbers of words they used on pretest and on posttest. On pretest, most students
in both groups use inappropriate vocabulary and singkat. After treatments,
students in experimental group show some progression in terms of their
vocabulary usage. Moreover, they could select right tenses when they arranged
sentences.
Furthermore, learning with card sort strategy is the collaborative activity
that can be used to teach concept, classifying, replay information and material.
Card facilitates teachers also on how to motivate students interest in learning
process. Card sort help them to make active in teaching learning process. In
teaching grammar, the teachers are faced on difficulties related to make the
students can understand and one of the difficulties in teaching grammar about the
low of exciting students in learning grammar. For this reason, it is very important

51

for the teacher to know how to teach grammar enjoyable and exciting. So students
will interest to study. And the alternative ways to teach grammar in simple present
tense the researcher offers one of media which is used in grammar class. It is
teaching grammar using card. Cards are one of the visual aids that can be used in
teaching any subject. Card sort strategy can be used to make the students are fun
and active in the class. Using card sort strategy can make them remember about
the material that has been given by the teacher. When they implement card sort
strategy, most of students could look for and solve the problem itself, find out the
same category, determine the word classes, try some of skills and do the exercise
of material. The learning activity must active because it is can help students to
increase the technique and capability in observing and give the question.
The only way to improve writing skill is writing practice. Thus, in every
meeting the students are exposed to write and teacher gave the feedback on their
writing so that it enables them to memorize how to write the vocabularies
appropriately to their spelling. Writing is like swimming, it is learned behaviors
(Brown, 2001:335) and it inferred that writing needs practice (Alwasilah, 2000
p.108). Supporting opinion about teacher feedback was also argued by Harmer
(2002) teachers feedback on students writing is one of the ways that can
encourage students to write and correct their mistakes. In short, teachers feedback
is also important to improve students writing ability.
In cope with the use of card sort strategy to increase the students
grammatical structure in writing English sentences, almost all students gave
positive perception. Dealing with motivation, the students did not feel learning

52

English as a frightening and boring subject and the learning atmosphere in

classroom was also more fun and challenging (Stlempleski et al.2000). In regard
to the functions of card sort strategy as teaching strategy who give benefit to
students learning and students inspired to write.
Looking at the comparison of the students pre-test and post-test in
frequency and percentage result, the researcher can conclude that the use of card
sort strategy can help the students in increasing their grammatical structure in
writing English sentences. The percentage of students skill in writing English
sentences is increasing after conducting the treatment. Thus they want to use this
strategy for their next writing.