8. FINDINGS

In this research, maximal improvement towards the spelling problem of the

participants had been shown. This research had also confirmed that the use of drilling

dice was able to improve spelling problem among Year 4 pupils. This statement

could be interpreted based from the findings below;

Participant A

The data below shows the reduction of spelling mistakes from pre-test to post-test.

Category Pre-test Intervention I Intervention II Post-testNumber of

spelling mistakes

13 10 6 0

Table 9: The spelling mistakes of Participant A

Pre-test Intervention I Intervention II Post-test0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of mistakes

Number of mistakes

Graph 3: The spelling mistakes of participant A.

38

From the data above, it showed that participant A had decreased in spelling

mistakes from pre-test to post-test. It could be supported with the data collected

during observation and checklist done as below:

Time taken to answer the test

Confidence level

Motivational level

Disturbance behaviour

Attention/ interest

Body posture

Pre- test observation

50 minutes

Low Low No No Bad

Observation for

intervention I and II session

46 minutes

44 minutes

Low

Low

High

High

No

No

Yes

Yes

Good

Good

Post-test observation

41 minutes

High High No Yes Good

Table 10: The observation result of participant A.

Through observation and checklist, participant A showed the improvement in

the behaviour like the time taken to answer had shortened, the confidence level had

increased, the motivation became high and the interest and attention was better after

the intervention. All of these showed that participant A had improved after the

intervention had been done. Other than that, this statement could be supported with

the data collected during the interview. The data could be seen as follow:

39

Before

the inter

vention

Interve

ntion I

Interve

ntion II

After the i

nterve

ntion02468

10121416

Number of oral spelling mistakes

Number of oral spelling mis-takes

Graph 4: The oral spelling mistakes done by participant A.

From the data above, it showed that participant A had improved in spelling

whereby there were no mistakes at all during the interview done after the

intervention. It could be concluded that participant A had improved in spelling

problem after this intervention session. This data had proven that the drilling dice

technique was successful.

The same result goes to participant B. The result was shown below:

Category Pre-test Intervention I Intervention II Post-testNumber of

spelling mistakes

13 10 5 0

Table 11: The spelling mistakes of participant B.

40

Pre-test Intervention I Intervention II Post-test0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of mistakes

Number of mistakes

Graph 5: The spelling mistakes of participant B.

From the data above, it could be seen that the spelling mistakes of participant B had

decreased from pre-test to post-test. It could be supported with the data collected

during observation and checklist done as below:

Time taken to answer the test

Confidence level

Motivational level

Disturbance behaviour

Attention/ interest

Body posture

Pre- test observation

56 minutes

Low Low No No Bad

Observation for

intervention I and II session

50 minutes

46 minutes

Low

Low

High

High

No

No

Yes

Yes

Good

Good

Post-test observation

42 minutes

High High No Yes Good

Table 12: The observation result of participant B.

41

Through observation and checklist, participant B showed the improvement in his

behaviour like the time taken to answer were less, the confidence level increased, the

motivation become high and the interest and attention was better after the

intervention. All of these showed that participant B had improved after the

intervention had been done. Other than that, this statement could be supported with

the data collected during the interview. The data could be seen as follow:

Before

the inter

vention

Interve

ntion I

Interve

ntion II

After the i

nterve

ntion02468

10121416

Number of oral spelling mistakes

Number of oral spelling mis-takes

Graph 6: The oral spelling mistakes done by participant B.

From the data above, it showed that participant B had improved in spelling whereby

there were no mistakes at all during the interview done after the intervention. It could

be concluded that participant B had improved in spelling problem after this

intervention session. This data had proven that the drilling dice technique was

successful.

42

Category Pre-test Intervention I Intervention II Post-testNumber of

spelling mistakes

15 10 4 0

Participant C

Table 13: The spelling mistakes of participant C.

Pre-test Intervention I Intervention II Post-test0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Number of mistakes

Number of mistakes

Graph 7: The spelling mistakes of participant C.

From the data above, it could be seen that the spelling mistakes of participant C had

decreased from pre-test to post-test. It could be supported with the data collected

during observation and checklist done as below:

43

Time taken to answer the test

Confidence level

Motivational level

Disturbance behaviour

Attention/ interest

Body posture

Pre- test observation

49 minutes

Low Low Yes No Bad

Observation for

intervention I and II session

45 minutes

44 minutes

Low

High

High

High

No

No

Yes

Yes

Good

Good

Post-test observation

40 minutes

High High No Yes Good

Table 14: The observation result of participant C.

Through observation and checklist, participant C showed the improvement in her

behaviour like the time taken to answer were less, the confidence level increased, the

motivation become high and the interest and attention was better after the

intervention. All of these showed that participant C had improved after the

intervention has been done. Other than that, this statement could be supported with

the data collected during the interview. The data could be seen as follow:

44

Before

the inter

vention

Interve

ntion I

Interve

ntion III

After the i

nterve

ntion02468

10121416

Number of oral spelling mistakes

Number of oral spelling mis-takes

Graph 8: The oral spelling mistakes done by participant C.

From the data above, it showed that participant C had improved in spelling whereby

there were no mistakes at all during the interview done after the intervention. It could

be concluded that participant C had improved in spelling problem after this

intervention session. This data had proven that the drilling dice technique was

successful.

45

Participant D

Category Pre-test Intervention I Intervention II Post-testNumber of

spelling mistakes

13 10 8 3

Table 15: The spelling mistakes of participant D.

Pre-test Intervention I Intervention II Post-test0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of mistakes

Number of mistakes

Graph 9: The spelling mistakes of participant D.

From the data above, it showed that participant D had decreased in spelling mistakes

from pre-test to post-test. It could be supported with the data collected during

observation and checklist done as below:

46

Time taken to answer the test

Confidence level

Motivational level

Disturbance behaviour

Attention/ interest

Body posture

Pre- test observation

55 minutes

Low Low Yes No Bad

Observation for

intervention I and II session

50 minutes

45 minutes

Low

Low

Medium

Medium

No

No

Yes

Yes

Good

Good

Post-test observation

42 minutes

High High No Yes Good

Table 16: The observation result of participant D.

Through observation and checklist, participant D had showed the improvement in her

behaviour like the time taken to answer were less, the confidence level increased, the

motivation become high and the interest and attention was better after the

intervention. All of these showed that participant D had improved after the

intervention had been done. Other than that, this statement could be supported with

the data collected during the interview. The data could be seen as follow:

47

Before

the inter

vention

Interve

ntion I

Interve

ntion II

After the i

nterve

ntion 02468

10121416

Number of oral spelling mistakes

Number of oral spelling mis-takes

Graph 10: The oral spelling mistakes done by participant D.

From the data above, it showed that participant D had improved in spelling whereby

there were little mistakes at all during the interview done after the intervention. It

could be concluded that participant D had improved in spelling problem after this

intervention session. This data had proven that the drilling dice technique was

successful.

Based on the data above, it enforces that the drilling dice techniques was the best

method to improve spelling problem among students. It is supported by Matthews,

Spratt, and Dangerfield 1991, in their research that states drills were used usually at

the controlled practice stage of language learning so that students have the

opportunity to accurately try out what they have learned. Drilling session helps

students to develop quick, automatic responses using a specific formulaic expression

or structure, such as a tag ending, verb form, or transformation.

48

This research also in accordance to Doff 1990, repetition drills was useful for

familiarizing pupils quickly with a specific structure or formulaic expressions. In this

research, the researcher was able to help those four students who have spelling

problem with action verb in correcting their spelling of action verbs through drillings

dice sessions.

In addition, Robertson& Richard, 2009 in a research entitles Approach and Method

in Language Teaching stated that “Drilling dice” technique was one of the ways that

was used in teaching English spelling where the students were suggested to be

familiar or used to the target language technique and the students were emphasized to

do more practices. This statement supported the research done since the research give

the chances to the participant to get familiar with the spelling of action verb through

drilling. It gives the positive effect whereby based from the data collected, 90% of

the participants had mastered the spelling of the words drilled by the researcher.

Riswanto, Endang Haryanto, 2012 in their research, Improving Students’

Pronunciation through Communicative Drilling Technique says that drilling

technique is a way of teaching or learning spelling by repeating exercise. By

applying this technique ESL learners were more confident to spell words accurately

and enjoyable. This statement could be supported by the evidence given by the

researcher whereby those four participants had increased their confidence to spell

words accurately. Through the statement supported by the other researches, it can be

concluded that drilling dice technique was the best technique to improve spelling of

action verbs among students.

49

The researcher had proven that drilling dice was able to improve spelling problem

among Year 4 pupils. In conclusion, the findings show that this research had

answered the research questions and research objectives.

50