CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS

This chapter presents: (1) findings and (2) interpretation of the study.

4.1 Findings

The findings of this study were present: (1) data descriptions, (2) prerequisite

analysis, and (3) the results of hypotheses testing.

4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics

In the descriptive statistics, the total of sample (N), minimum and

maximum scores, mean scores, standard deviation were analyzed. The score were

acquired from; (a) pretest scores and posttest scores in control group, (b) pretest

scores and posttest scores in experimental group. Besides, the students’ score

based on the score interval were also presented.

1. Pretest Scores and Posttest in Control Group

In descriptive statistics of pretest score in control group, it showed that the

total number of sample was 39 students. The minimum score was 25.00 the

maximum score was 61.00 the mean score was 40.487 and the standard deviation

was 10.310.

And In descriptive statistic of posttest score in control group, it showed that

the total number of sample was 39 students. The minimum score was 30.00 the

maximum score was 71.00 the mean score was 51.00 and the standard deviation

was 10.632 The result analysis of descriptive statistics in control group was

described in Table 9.

37
 Table 9

Descriptive Statistics on Pretest and Posttest Scores in Control Group

Descriptive Statistics

Posttest in Control Group

Pretest in Control Group

N N

Posttest_Control 39 Posttest_Control 39
Valid N (listwise) 39 Valid N (listwise) 39
Minimum 25,00 Minimum 30,00
Maximum 61,00 Maximum 71,00
Mean 40,4872 Mean 51,0000
Std. Deviation 10,31063 Std. Deviation 10,63262

Beside in distribution of data frequency, the researcher got the interval

score, frequency, and percentage. Based on the result analysis of students’ pretest

scores in control group, it showed that there were thirty five students got very

poor qualification with interval score 00-55, two student got poor qualification

with interval score 55-59, two students got average qualification with interval

score 60-69.

And in post test control group, it was found that that there were twenty

seven students got very poor qualification with interval score 00-55, five students

got poor qualification with interval score 55-59, five students got average with

interval score 60-69, two students got good qualification with interval score 70-

79. The result of the pretest and post test score in control group was described in

Table .

38
 Table

Students’ score on Pretest and Posttest Scores in Control Group

Pretest in Control Group Posttest in Control Group

Score Category Frequency percent Category Frequency percent

Interval

80-100 Excellent - - Excellent - -

70-79 Good - - Good 2 5
60-69 Average 2 5 Average 5 13
56-59 Poor 2 5 Poor 5 13
0-55 Very Poor 35 90 Very Poor 27 69
39 100 39 100
Total (N) Total (N)

3. Pretest Scores and Posttest Score in Experimental Group

In descriptive statistics of pretest score in experiment group, it showed that

the total number of sample was 39 students. The minimum score was 25.00 the

maximum score was 68.00 the mean score was 48.897 and the standard deviation

score was 11.32

In descriptive statistics of posttest score in experiment group, it showed that

the total number of sample was 39 students. The minimum score was 57.00 the

maximum score was 86.00 the mean score was 69,53 and the standard deviation

score was 8.087 The result analysis of descriptive statistics in experimental group

was described in Table 10.

39
 Table 10.

Descriptive Statistics on Pretest and Posttest Scores

in Experimental Group

Descriptive Statistics

Posttest in Experiment Group

Pretest in Experiment Group

N N

Posttest_Control 39 Posttest_Control 39
Valid N (listwise) 39 Valid N (listwise) 39
Minimum 25,00 Minimum 57,00
Maximum 68,00 Maximum 86,00
Mean 48,8974 Mean 69,5385
Std. Deviation 11,32718 Std. Deviation 8,08783

Beside in distribution of data frequency, the researcher got the interval

score, frequency, and percentage. Based on the result analysis of students’ pretest

scores in experiment group, it showed that there were twenty eight students got

very poor qualification with interval score 00-55, five student got poor

qualification with interval score 55-59, six students got average qualification with

interval score 60-69.

And in post test experiment group, it was found that that there were no

students got very poor qualification with interval score 00-55, four students got

poor qualification with interval score 55-59, thirteen students got average with

interval score 60-69, seventeen students got good qualification with interval score

70-79, and there were five students got excellent qualification with interval score

80-100 The result of the pretest and post test score in experiment group was

described in Table .

40
 Table

Students’ score on Pretest and Posttest Scores in Experiment Group

Pretest in Control Group Posttest in Control Group

Score Category Frequency percent Category Frequency percent

Interval

80-100 Excellent - - Excellent 5 13

70-79 Good - - Good 17 44
60-69 Average 6 15 Average 13 33
56-59 Poor 5 13 Poor 4 10
0-55 Very Poor 28 72 Very Poor - -
39 100 39 100
Total (N) Total (N)

4.1.2 Prerequisite Analysis

In prerequisite analysis, there were two analyses should be done. They

were normality test and homogenity test.

4.1.2.1 Normality Test

In measuring normality test, 1 Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov was used.

The normality test was used to measure students‟ pretest and posttest in control

and experimental group.

1. Pretest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups

The computations of normality used the computation in SPSS 20. The

result of analysis was figured out in table 11 below.

41
 Table 13

Normality Test of Pretest Scores in Control and Experimental

Groups

No Student’s Pretest N Kolmogorov Sig. Result

Smirnov
1 Control Group 39 .781 .575 Normal
2 Experimental Group 39 .720 .678 Normal

2. Posttest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups

The computations of normality used the computation in SPSS 20. The

result of analysis wass figured out in table 12 below.

Ttable 12

Normality Test of Posttest Scores in Control and Experimental

Groups

No Student’s Pretest N Kolmogorov Sig. Result

Smirnov
1 Control Group 39 .552 .921 Normal
2 Experimental Group 39 .852 .462 Normal

4.1.2.2 Homogenity Test

In measuring homogeneity test, Levene statistics was used. Levene

statistics is a formula that used to analyze the homogeneity data. The

homogeneity test was used to measure students’ pretest scores in

experimental and control groups, and students’ posttest scores in

experimental and control groups.

42
1. Pretest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups

Based on the homogeneity test, it was found that the significance level was

0.722. From the result of the output, it could be stated that the students’ pretest in

control and experimental group were homogenous since they were higher than

0.05. The result of homogeneity test was figured out in Table 13.

Table 13.

Homogeneity Test of Both in Control and Experimental Groups

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

SS_Score

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

,722 1 76 ,398

2. Posttest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups

Based on the homogeneity test, it was found that the significance level was

0.182. From the result of the output, it could be stated that the students’ posttest in

control and experimental group were homogenous since they were higher than

0.05. The result of homogeneity test was figured out in Table 14.

Table14.

Homogeneity Test of Both in Control and Experimental Groups

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

SS_Score

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

1,813 1 76 ,182

43
4.1.3 Result of Hypothesis Testing

In this result hypothesis testing, measuring means significant improvement

was presented.

4.1.3.1 Result Analysis of Students' Writing Score Pretest to Posttest Score

in Experimental Groups

In this research, paired sample t-test was used to measure the significant

improvement on student’ descriptive writing by using PLEASE Strategy at SMP

Nurul Iman Palembang. From the result of the output, it was found that the p-

output 0.000. It means that there is significant improvement since the p-output is

lower than 0.05.The analysis result of paired sample t-test was figured out in

Table 15.

Table 15

Result Analysis of Students' Writing Score Pretest to Posttest Score in

Experimental Groups

Paired Sample t-test

Ha
Using T Df Sig. (2-tailed)
PLEASEStrategy
at SMP Nurul
Iman 12.594 38 .000 Accepted
Palembang

4.1.3.2 Result Analysis of Independent Sample T-Test from Posttest Scores in

Control and Experimental Groups
In this research, independent t-test was used to measure the significant

difference on students’ descriptive writing scores taught by using PLEASE

Strategy and those who were taught by using teacher’s method at SMP Nurul

Iman Palembang. The analysis result of paired sample t-test was figured out in

44
Table 16.

Table 16

Result Analysis of independent Sample t-test from Posttest Scores in

Experimental and Control Groups

Independent Sample t-test

Ha
Using PLEASE T Df Sig. (2-tailed)
Strategyand
those who were
taught by 8.666 76 .000 Accepted
using teacher’s
method.

Based on the table analysis, it was found that the p-output was 0.000 and

the t-value was 8.666. It could be stated that there was a significant difference on

students’ descriptive writing taught by using PLEASE Strategy because the p-

output was lower than 0.05 and the t-value was higher than t-table (df 76 = 1,991).

Therefore, it was concluded that the null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected, and the

alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted.

4.2 Interpretation

Based on the findings above, the researcher made some interpretations. There

are some findings can be interpreted as follow:

In this research, when the researcher conducted pretest and posttest by both

experimental and control group, the researcher found students difficulties in

writing, such as the students could not develop their imagine and could not

45
construct generic structure in descriptive writing, the student’s did not know how

to start, how to develop their ideas, or how to conclude the essay. they could not

write descriptive based on the language features and they got bored in writing

because they lacked the technical skills of writing acceptable compositions

in writing. Then, the researcher conducted treatments in experimental group

by using PLEASE Strategy to write and memorize a topic easily.

After getting treatment and posttest, it was found that there was

significant improvement between pretest and posttest in experimental group.

Those facts were the result between maximum pretest score in experimental group

was 68.00 and the maximum posttest score was 86.00 .Moreover, the students’

pretest score to posttest score in experimental group have a p-output 0.000 with t-

value 12.594. It means that there is significant improvement since the p-output is

lower than 0.05

Therefore, the result analysis result of paired sample t-test was found that the

p-output was 0.000 and the t-value was 8.666. It could be stated that there was a

significant difference on students’ descriptive writing taught by using PLEASE

Strategy because the p-output was lower than 0.05 and the t-value was higher than

t-table (df 76 = 1,991). Therefore, it was concluded that the null hypothesis (Ho)

was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted.

This study also supported by Mona Liza and Refnaldi (2013, p. 443) the

result was the PLEASE strategy also effective for improving the students’ ability

in writing and essay. PLEASE strategy is suitable for students at junior high

school and can help the students in improving their writing skill. This strategy

46
guides the students how to their start writing and generate their idea. By using this

strategy the students will be helped to start writing and it will help them to write

step by step until they finish writing descriptive text. They will be helped by the

teacher and PLEASE strategy in writing desciptive text. In PLEASE strategy the

students should know who will read their writing and choose the appropriate topic

and then start to collect the data information about what they will write and start

their writing.

Moreover, Akincilar ( 2010, p. 53 ) tells that PLEASE Strategy is effective

for improving the students’ ability in writing paragraph. As a result, the pre-test

and the post-test writing scores indicated that each student experienced

improvement in terms of overall qualityand length of the written products. by

applying this strategy, students will be easy to find an idea that will be written

PLEASE Strategy is one of the strategies that can be used to facilitate the students

to write a descriptive paragraph. The strategy training helped students become

more aware of the need for pre-writing planning and they started to engage in

planning prior to writing in real practice. After the treatment, the students also

experienced increased self-confidence.

In conclusion, it was inferred that the implementation of PLEASE strategy

showed significant improvement on students’ descriptive writing at SMP Nurul

Iman Palembang. It could be proposed that PLEASE strategy was

appropriate to teach descriptive writing. According to Silberman (2014, p. 192),

participants may choose to accompany the poster with a one-page handout

47
offering more detail explanation and serving as further reference material. Based

on this statement, students will be allowed to write more detail explanation from

the poster. It means that this strategy is suitable for descriptive writing.

48
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter presents: (1) conslusion and (2) suggestions.

5.1 Conclusion

In this research, the researcher concluded that there was a significant

improvement on the seventh grade students’ descriptive writing who were taught

by using PLEASE strategy. The students’ pretest score to posttest score have a p-

output 0.000 since the p-output was lower than 0.05 level with t-value 12.594 was

higher than (df 38 =2,024). It could be stated that the null hypothesis (Ho) was

rejected and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted.

Moreover, there was a significant difference on the eighth grade

students‟ descriptive writing between those who were taught by using PLEASE

strategy and those who were taught at control group. The students’ posttest

score in experimental and control group have a p-output 0.000 since the p-output

was lower than 0.05 with t-value 8.666 was higher than t-table (df 76 = 1,991).

Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis

(Ha) was accepted.

5.2 Suggestions

Based on the study that has been conducted, the researcher would like to

offer some suggestions to all teachers, students and next researchers. Firstly, for

the teacher, this strategy is really suitable in teaching writing descriptive text, it

will teach students how to organize their ideas, develop their imagine too, it

motivates for the students to make a good paragraph.

49
 Then, for the students, especially for the eighth grade sudents at SMP

Nurul Iman Palembang, it is suggested that they should learn more about writing

not only descriptive writing but also another paragraphs, it would be better for the

students to use the concept of PLEASE strategy. They can use this strategy and it

can develop their ideas from many perspectives.

Finally, for the next researchers who want to conduct the research in

teaching writing can use this result of study as additional references for further

relevant research with different variable and conditions.

50