i

IMPROVING THE STUDENTS’ VOCABULARY MASTERY IN

WRITING THROUGH WORD ANALOGY TECHNIQUE (A Quasi-Experimental Research Study at the Eleventh Grade of SMAN 8 Pinrang)

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Makassar

Muhammadiyah University in Part Fulfillment Of the Requirement for the

Degree of Educationin English Department

BY:

ABDUL RAHMAN

10535 3812 09

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR

2014

ABSTRACT

ABDUL RAHMAN, 2014. English Education Department Faculty of Teacher

Training and Education, Makassar Muhammadiyah University. Improving the

students’ Vocabulary Mastery in Writing through Word Analogy Technique at the

Eleventh Grade Students of SMN 8 Pinrang. Supervised by HM. Basri Dalle and

Nunung Anugrawati.

The objective of the research was to know the improvement of the

students’ vocabulary mastery in writing in terms of noun and adjective through

Word Analogy Technique at the eleventh grade of SMAN 8 Pinrang.

This research used A Quasi experimental design that consisted of

Experimental class and Controlled class. The research population was the eleventh

grade. The total number of population was 60 students. The instrument of data

collection for this research was a written test. This research was used to measure

the effectiveness of using Word Analogy Technique in improving writing ability

in terms of noun and adjective.

The research findings indicated that; (1) t- value was greater than t–table

where 42.98 > 2.0017, it was proved the hypothesis that there was a significant

difference between students who were taught writing using Word Analogy

Technique and who weren’t; (2) The mean score obtained by the students through

pre-test was 11.03 and post-test was 14.03 in experimental class while the mean

score of pre-test was 10.03 and post-test in controlled class was 11.43. Based on

the research findings, it could be concluded that Using Word Analogy Technique

was effective in improving the students’ vocabulary mastery in writing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Alhamdulillai Robbil A’lamin, the writer expresses his sincere gratitude to

the almighty God, Allah SWT, who has given guidance, mercy, and good health.

So that he could finish writing this thesis. Salam and Shalawat are delivered to the

final, chosen, religious messenger, Muhammad S.A.W.

The writer would like to express his deepest prost profound and gratitude

to his parents, his father Sunre S.Pd,I, his mother Nurhayati , his grandfather Ali,

and his grandmother Hanapia (alm) for their prayer, financial, motivation and

sacrificed. His big thanks for all his lovely sister Suriani and brother Muh. Akbar,

who always pray to Allah SWT for his success.

The writer realizes that in carrying out the research and writing this thesis,

many people had contributed their valuable suggestion, guidance, assistance, and

advice for the completion of this thesis. Therefore he would like to thank them:

1. Thanks a lot for my little family who always give me motivation, praying,

spirit from he was child until now.

2. Dr. H. Irwan Akib, M. Pd., the rector of the Makassar Muhammadiyah

University for his advices during him study at the University.

3. Dr. A. Syukri Syamsuri, M. Hum., the dean of teacher training and

education.

4. Erwin Akib, S.Pd., M.Pd., the head of English Education Department of

FKIP UNISMUH Makassar, who gave me valuable authorities and

suggestion in doing thesis.

5. My greatest thanks are due to my first consultant Prof. HM. Basri Dalle,

and Nunung Anugrawati S, S.Pd., M. Pd., as the second consultant who

had given their valuable time and patient, to support assistance and

guidance to finish this thesis.

6. The mean and the staff and all lectures of the FKIP UNISMUH especially

to the lectures of English Department who taught him for many years.

7. H. Bahctiar M.H The head master of SMAN 8 Pinrang (SMAN 1

Lembang) and the teacher of English Mr. Kasim and all students in class

Exact One and Exact Two of SMAN 8 Pinrang who become his object in

conducting research in academic year 2014/2015.

8. Special thanks to Ika Purwinda who always help me her hand when I need

it, and thanks to all my best friends in Elang Community, HW, EDSA,

KMP Unismuh, KPMP Lembang, MAHAPALA, Ikatan Alumni SMAN 1

Lembang, Bumi Palem Occupant and all my friends in A class English

Department 2009.

9. Finally, for all everybody that could not be mentioned one by one, may

Allah almighty bless us now and forever.

Makassar, 27 April 2014

The Writer

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Writing is one of the language skills which is very important in language

teaching and learning process. We have to know about vocabularies because they

are very important in composing a good writing.

In writing we need to master vocabulary because vocabulary is very

important in learning any language, including English. When we listen, speak,

read, and write, we use thounsands of vocabularies. Today, methodologists and

linguists have increasingly been turning their attention to vocabulary, stress its

importance in language teaching and reassessing some of the ways in which it is

taught and learned. For many years vocabulary was seen as an incidental to the

main purpose of language teaching. Students with inaquate vocabulary cannot

master language effectively as Harmer (1991: 85) states that if language structures

make up the skeleton of language, than it is vocabulary that provides the vital

organs and the flesh.

Referring to the experience of first language acquisition, learning and

teaching vocabulary is so important to master or use the language. This ability,

vocabulary mastery can be gained just through the environmental learning.

Children can have deeply implanted vocabulary, which are usually heard and said

in their daily life.

2

Many students mastery of vocabulary face difficulties in comprehending

the text because they do not have a good command of vocabulary. Certainly, we

realize that the mastery of vocabulary is a difficult task to do, especially English

vocabulary is complex, and this complexity brings difficulties to students who try

to master it. The difficulties may arise from the word it self and it is hard to

overcome. This is probably caused by the words from, various meaning and word

choice. Realizing such difficulties, it is not enough for English teacher to prepare

the students with only word list and ask them to memorize it, but they expected to

provide them with rich and exciting exercise and technique that can help them

enlarge and master the vocabulary quickly and independently.

There are two components that we can view in mastering and possessing

vocabulary. The first is the teacher. The teacher should find an effective effort to

improve students’ vocabulary through presenting learning material in the

classroom. The second is the students, in the case, there are some factors that

many cause students lacking vocabulary motivation, interest, and insufficient

exercises, lack of assignment and poor techniques and strategies for class

interaction by the teacher. So, one of the factors that can make students lack of

vocabulary is the poor technique and strategies used by teacher in class

interaction, especially in introducing new words. (Harmer 1992:1) stated Foreign

language learners and teachers inspired by these convincing and guiding words

have focused on innovative methods both for presenting, practicing, organizing

new words and making them accessible and memorable

3

Remembering that vocabulary in writing is very needed in learning a

language, the writer tries to introduce a new technique used word analogies.

Words analogies allow students to link familiar concept with news ideas, priors

experiences with new information. Therefore writer is going to conduct research

under the title “Improving he students’ vocabulary mastery in writing through

word analogies technique”.

B. Problem Statement

Related to the background above, the writer formulates the research

questions as follows :

1. How is the students’ vocabulary mastery in writing using word analogy

Technique in terms of nouns at Eleventh Grade Students of SMA Negeri 8

Pinrang?

2. How is the students’ vocabulary mastery in writing using word analogy

Technique in terms of adjectives at Eleventh Grade Students of SMA

Negeri 8 Pinrang?

C. Objective of the Study

In relating to the problem statements above, the objectives of the study

are to find out:

1. The students’ vocabulary mastery in writing using word analogy Technique in

term of nouns.

2. The students’ vocabulary mastery in writing using word analogy Technique in

of term adjectives

4

D. Significance of the Study

This research is expected to be piece of information for the English

teacher to improve the students’ vocabulary mastery in writing. Because it can

make the teacher easily help the students to improve their vocabulary mastery

when they are writing. Also, it is helpful contribution for further researchers who

are interested in teaching and learning English.

E. Scope of the Study

The scope of the study is restricted to find out the effectiveness of using

word analogies technique to improve students’ vocabulary mastery in writing and

The kinds of vocabulary presented in this research are nouns and adjective

because they are the centre of the sentences when we are writing a paper.

5

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES

A. Word Analogy Technique

Word analogy technique as a technique to throw away the complaint

high grades, low ability for effective and efficient language teaching. Analogies

are used to assist students in engaging in higher level word comprehension and

logical abilities. Students must analyze simple to complex relationships between

facts or concepts and use higher level thinking skills as they comprehend the

significance of analogies. Analogies are an effective means to connect familiar

concepts with new information. They are also designed to help students examine

the multiple meanings of words and concepts

1. Definition of Word Analogy Technique

Rackner (2000: 1) states: “An analogy is a type of word problem that of

ten appears on standardized tests. It is made up of two word pairs, like this: your

goal in solving an analogy is to find a word that correctly completes the second

pair. At first glance the words in an analogy may seem to have nothing to do with

each other, but the words are always logically related”.

Danniel (2001: 1) argues that An analogy is a comparison showing

resemblance between two are more cutities; calling attention to these likenesses is

to draw an analogy. Analogies help people to relate known things to unknown

5

6

things. They are also argumentative tools used in debate that are useful in creating

perspectives by relating to similar, possibly unrelated things.

Marks (1996-2003: 1) says that an analogy is statement in wich to things

are compared because they have something is common, sometimes the two things

are the some in some way.Sometimes they are opposite.

Danniel (2000: 1) defines that an analogy is a comparison showing

resemblance between two or more entities, calling attention to these likenesses is

to draw an analogy.analogies help people to related known things to unknown

things. They are also argumentative tools used in debat that are useful in creating

persvectives by relating to similar, possibly unrelated things.

Dell (1999: 1) states that analogies is a term that means word

relationship. Analogies are like a word puzzle solving analogiest help you develop

critied Thinking Skills.

So can conclude that an analogy is a literary device or technique that a

writer or storyteller uses to compare two things that have certain similarities but

are otherwise unlike. An analogy is a comparison of certain similarities between

things which are otherwise unlike.

7

2. Types of Analogy

Rackner (2000: 1) argues that an analogy often have one of following

relationships;

Antonyms; Words that have opposite meanings,

as in HOT: COLD

Synonyms; Words that have same or similar

meanings as in UNHAPPY: SAD

Descriptive; One word describes the other word, as

in FAST: CHEETAH

Part to whole; One word is an item in PIECE:PUZZLE

8

Item to category, one word is an item in the

category named by the other, as in BASEBALL:

SPORT BALLS

Table 2.1 Rackner (2000: 1) outlines the following word analogy types;

Types of Analogy

Part of whole Battery ; flashlight ; ; hard ; drive

Cause and effect Fatigue ;yawning ; ; itching ; scratching

Person to situation Mother ; home ; ; teacher ; school

Synonym Obese ; fat ; ; slender ; thin

Antonym Poverty ; wealth ; ; sickness ; health

Geography Chicago; Illinois; Denver; Colorado.

Measurement Pound ; kilogram ; ; quarter ; liter

Time March ; spring ; ; December ; winter

3. Solving Analogy

Rackner (2002: 2) argues that solving analogies is terrific way to sharpen

your thinking skills and prepare for standardized tests. An analogy is a type of

word problem that consists of two word pairs. To solve the analogy you must

find a word that correctly completes the second pair. At first glance, the words

9

in an analogy may seem to have nothing to do with each other, but the words

are always logically related. The first pair of words has a relationship similar

to the second pair of words. To solve the analogy, you need to figure out that

relationship.

Example:

- Read the analogy like this: Graceful is to clumsy as hot is to „blank‟.

- Then ask yourself: what is the relationship between graceful and

clumsy?

- These words have opposite meanings. They are antonyms so the second

pair of words must also be antonyms.

The following procedure is helpful in completing analogies:

1. Decide what relationship exists between the first two words.

2. Put the words in the context of a sentence: A finger is a part of a hand.

3. Determine which of the choices presented shows a similar relationship.

4. Substitute the selected words in the original sentence to verify choice.

The basic structure of an analogy is the sentence relationship. They are

usually written with the symbol: ("is to") and :: ("as"). Thus, "shoe : foot :: hat

: head" reads "Shoe is to foot as hat is to head."

B. Writing

Writing in English means fill the gap that exists between the ability to

express ideas, feeling and opinion. It is widely admitted that is a crucial means of

communication that cannot be separated from human life. The ability to

10

communicate thoughts and ideas through writing helps students become

successful, not only in school but throughout their lives. In order to communicate

effectively, students must organize and develop ideas in a logical, coherent, and

interesting manner that is easy for the reader to follow and understand.

1. What is writing?

Heard & Tucker2000: 44) stated that “Writing is a continuous process of

thinking, organizing, re-thinking and re-organizing. Writing is not a finished

product. Writing involves a number of steps or activities. All writers go through

the same process, whether they are writing a short letter to a friend or a

dissertation for a doctorate degree.

When we write, we use graphic symbols, that is; letters or combination of

letters which relate to the sounds we make when we speak. On one level, then,

writing can be said to be the act of forming these symbols; making marks on a flat

surface of some kind. But writing is clearly much more than the production of

graphic symbols, just as speech is more than production of sounds. The symbols

have to be arranged, according to certain conventions, to form words, and words

have to be arranged to form sentences, although again we can be said to be

“writing” if we are merely making lists of words, as in inventories of items such

as shopping lists.

Harmer (1991: 30) argued that “Writing is a productive skill which

involves though and emotions. It is a medium of communication. Writing

cannot be mastered at once but it needs practice. The practice may include

11

imitating or copying words and sentence from the given ideas or expressing

free ideas based on the writer knowledge experience and point of view”.

Writing is thinking of paper. Thinking is a mood at work, finding facts,

seeing relationship, testing the truth of them, researching conclusion of them,

and forming opinion. In other sense, writing can be a way of expressing idea

through written form, or a process of building, large units from smaller ones,

which the writer uses words to make a composition or essay writing.

Further, Donn Byrne (1988: 1) states that “writing involves the encoding

of a massage of some kind that is; we translate our thoughts into language”.

2. Component of writing

Norman (1990) in Yusuf (2007: 5) stated that the writing process is

highly sophisticated skill combining five general components. Namely:

content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics.

a) Content

b) Organization

c) Vocabulary

d) Language use

e) Mechanics

C. Vocabulary

Jumiaty (2003) stated that vocabulary is a list of works and sometimes

phrases, usually arranged in alphabetical order that expired at distally, grouchy.

Gove in Lamo (1966: 158) commended out: “Vocabulary is a list of

words and sometimes phrases, usually arranged in alphabetical order and defined

7

as dictionary, glossary or lexicon. All the words used by a particular person, class,

profession, etc. Sometimes all the words are recognized and understood by a

particular person although not necessarily used by him.”

Victoria Neufelt (1980: 25-60) states that vocabulary is, 1) a list of

collection of words and phrases usually alphabetically arranged and explained or

defined, 2) sum or stock of words employed by a language group, individual, or

work, or in relation to a subject, 3) a set or list of nonverbal symbols, 4) a set of

expressive forms used in an art, 5) a range of means by which one can apprehend

experiences or express ideas or feelings.

Based on the statement above the writer concludes that vocabulary is a

list of words that used by the people in real life of communication.

1. Types of Vocabulary

There are some tyfes of vocabulary. They are: Harmer (1991: 159)

divides vocabulary into two tyfes: they are active vocabulary refers to vocabulary

that students have been taught or learnt and which they are expected to be ableto

use. While passive vocabulary refers to words, which students will probably not

able to produce. Jane (1981: 115) divided vocabulary into two categories namely ;

a) words with specific meaning, e.g : pen,running, and sleep, b) Words with a

value or a grammatical function, e.g : but,therefore,ect

Suryaningsih (2005) divided vocabulary into four parts, namely: (1) Oral

vocabulary consists of words that are actively used in speech. The significant

character of oral vocabulary is that the speaker in rehearsed situation actively

12

8

used it, (2) Writing vocabulary consists of words, which are actively used in

writing. Since it is not under the constrain of time. It may have substantially wider

range than vocabulary or unrehearsed speech, (3) Listening vocabulary, is the

stoct of words to which one response with meaning and understanding in the

speech of others, (4) Reading vocabulary is the stock of words to which one

respond with meaning and understands in writing of other.

Based on the statement above the writer concludes that types of

vocbulary we can simply in our real life of communication we have to consider

use,(1) Productive and receptive vocabulary, (2) Active and passive vocabulary.

2. Vocabulary by part of speech

Jeananda Col (1993) divided part of speech into these classes:

noun - A noun is a type of word that represents a person, thing, or

place, like mother, apple, or valley.

verb - A verb is a type of word that describes an action or a state of

being, like wiggle, walk, run, jump, be, do, have, or think.

pronoun - A pronoun is a substitute for a noun. Some pronouns

are: I, me, she, hers, he, him, it, you, they, them, etc.

adjective - An adjective is a word that describes something (a

noun). Some adjectives are: big, cold, blue, and silly. One special

type of adjective is an article, a word that introduces a noun and

also limits or clarifies it; in English, the indefinite articles are a and

an, the definite article is the.

13

9

adverb - An adverb is a word that tells "how," "when," "where," or

"how much". Some adverbs are: easily, warmly, quickly, mainly,

freely, often, and unfortunately.

preposition - A preposition shows how something is related to

another word. It shows the spatial (space), temporal (time), or

logical relationship of an object to the rest of the sentence. The

words above, near, at, by, after, with and from are prepositions.

conjunction - A conjunction is a word that joins other words, phrases,

clauses or sentences. Some conjunctions are: and, as, because, but, or,

since, so, until, and while.

interjection - An interjection is a word that expresses emotion. An

interjection often starts a sentence but it can be contained within a

sentence or can stand alone. Some interjections are oh, wow, ugh, hurray,

eh, and ah.

3. The Principles of Teaching and Learning Vocabulary

Wallace (1989: 30) says that there are five steps to learn or to achieve

vocabulary in the mother tongue and target language as follows :

a) There is a felt need; b) There mother tongue learned mostly controls his

own rate of learning; c) The mother tongue is exposed to an enormous

quantity of his own language and has tremendous scope for repetition of

what he learns; d) The language is nearly always encountered in

appropriate context; e) Since he words are learned as they arise out a felt

need in a particular situation, they usually have a clear denotation. In

14

10

regard to the learning of vocabulary in foreign language, Walter (1997: 15)

states that the process of learning vocabulary involves four stages namely;

(1) discrimination, (2) understanding meaning, (3) remembering, and (4)

consolidation and extension of meaning.

Base the principle of teaching and learning vocabulary above, the

researcher conclude that teaching and learning vocabulary we have to consider

some principle stages or steps to achieve vocabulary mastery more

effectively.

4. Techniques in Teaching and Learning vocabulary

Harmer (1991: 161-162) describes some forms of presentation or

explanation in teaching vocabulary as follows; 1) Realia. One way of

presenting words is to bring the things they represent the words into the

classroom. 2) Pictures. One solution is the use of pictures. 3) Mime. Action

and gesture. It is often impossible to explain the meaning, of the words and

grammar either through the use of realia or in pictures. 4) Contract . We saw

how words exits because of their sense relation and this can be used to teach

meaning. 5) Enumeration. Another sense relation was that of general and

spesific words. 6) Explanation. Explaining the meaning of vocabulary items

can be very difficult, especially at beginner and elementary levels. 7)

Translation. Translation is a quick and easy way to present the meaning of

words but it is not without problems.

Brown (1994: 365-367) explain some guidelines for communicative

treatment of vocabulary instruction they are: Allocate specific class time to

15

16

15

11

vocabulary learning. Help students to learn vocabulary in context, play down

the role of bilingual dictionaries and encourage students to develop strategies

for determining the meaning of words.

Harmer (1991: 156-158) explains about what do students need to know

in learning vocabulary as follow; 1) Meaning. The first thing to realize about

vocabulary items that they frequently have more than one meaning. 2) Word

Use. 3) Words Formation. 4) Words Grammar.

5. Conceptual Framework

Words analogy involves many kinds of activities that students can do in

learning vocabulary. The activities are expected to engage students‟ affection

in learning. It also held to ensure that there is input before output; therefore,

students can be provided with a suitable input before they produce the word in

a subsequent task.

16

12

The conceptual framework underlined this research is given in the

following diagram:

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Frame work

Figure 1.Variable affecting writing ability

Quasi experimental research as table on the table showing the process of

research divides in to two groups, namely experimental class and control class.

After choose both classes the researcher gave them pre-test, after that the

researcher gave treatment using word analogy technique for experimental class

and for control class using word puzzle technique, and then gave both of classes

post test to knowing the improvement of the vocabulary mastery of students.

A QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL

RESEARCH

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

CONTROL

GROUP

PRE-TEST

WORD PUZZLE TECHNQUE WORD ANALOGY TECHNIQUE

POST TEST

THE IMPROVEMENT VOCABULARY MASTERY

NOUN AND ADJECTIVE

17

18

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

This research applied quasi-experimental design. With pre-test and post-

test groups. It aimed to find out the effectiveness of using Word Analogy

Technique to improve the Students’ Writing Ability. The quasi-experimental

design used non-randomized control group pre-test and post-test design was

depicted as follows:

A. Research Design

This research had employed a quasi-experimental research design that

consisted of experimental class and control class. The design was described as

follows:

Table 3.1 Research design

Class Pretest Treatment Posttest

E O1 X1 O2

C O1 X2 O2

Notation: E = Experimental group

C = Control group

O1 = Pre-test

O2 = Post- test

X1 = Treatment by using word analogies technique

X2 = Treatment by using word puzzle technique

(Tuckman, 1999: 192)

19

a. Pre-test

Before giving treatment, the students were given pre-test. The pre-test was

used to identify students’ prior knowledge about vocabularies. It knew the

students previous vocabulary mastery before treatment.

b. Treatment

The treatment was conducted in the class for four meetings for each group.

Four meetings for experimental group and four meetings for control group. Every

meeting took for 90 minutes. The students were given the same activities for the

first, second, third and the fourth meetings, but the material and its vocabularies

were different.

Steps of treatment were done as follows:

1. Experimental group (Word Analogy Technique)

a. The teacher introduced the material to the class.

b. The teacher gave explanation about word analogy and shows a

relationship between words.

c. The teacher gave more examples of vocabularies about word

analogy and then translates it.

d. The teacher asked the students to identify the meanings of word

analogy given.

e. The teacher wrote down the vocabulary on the white board, and

asked the students to translate.

20

2. Control group (Word Puzzle Technique)

a. The teacher introduced the material to the class.

b. The teacher gave explanation about vocabulary.

c. The teacher gave more examples of kinds vocabularies and then

translated it.

d. The teacher asked the students to write the vocabulary and then

asked them to translate it.

e. The teacher gave examination.

c. Post-test

After giving treatments, the teacher gave the post-test to the students,

which had the same item given in the pre-test. It aimed to find out the result

of treatment, whether it was different from the pre-test or not.

B. Research Variables and Indicators

1. Variable of the Research

Variable object of research become the focus of the research (Arikunto,

1998). In this research, there were two variables namely: dependent and

independent variable. Dependent variable was vocabulary mastery of the students

and independent variable was the use of word analogy technique.

21

2. Indicators of the Research

Indicators of the research were students’ vocabulary mastery in writing

by using word analogies technique in term of nouns and adjectives.

1. Concrete and abstract nouns, singular and plural nouns.

2. Predicate adjectives and Attribute adjectives.

C. Research Hypothesis

Ho. = There was no significant difference of the students vocabulary

mastery in writing before and after being taught using word

analogies technique.

. = There was a significant difference of the students’ vocabulary

mastery in writing before and after being taught using word

analogies technique.

D. Population and Samples

a. Population

The population of the research was the eleventh year students of SMA 8

Pinrang academic year 2013/2014. It consisted of four classes, namely XI IPA 1,

XI IPA 2, XI IPS 1 and XI IPS 2. Each class consisted of approximately 30

students. Therefore, the total population was about 120 students as shown in the

following;

22

Table 3.2 Population of the research

No. Class Population

1. XI IPA 1 30

2. X IPA 2 30

3. XI IPS 1 30

4. XI IPS 2 30

Total 120

Source; (KTU SMAN 8 Pinrang)

b. Samples

The researcher used purposive sampling technique. The sample was class

XI IPA 1 and XI IPA 2 from Eleventh grade students of Senior High School 8

Pinrang academic year 2013/2014. It took 30 students of class XI IPA 1 and

30 students of class XI IPA 2. The total samples of the research were 60

students.

E. Research Instrument

The researcher used the writing test to assess and examine the

students’ eleventh grade writing ability in aspect vocabulary. There were two

kinds of research instrument in this research, namely pre-test and post-test.

The pre-test, and post-test was conducted to generate scores that were

analyzed to find out whether or not word analogy technique improve

vocabulary mastery in writing ability. The pre-test was conducted to both

experimental and control group before that treatment, in order to measure

students’ prior ability in writing. On the contrary, the post-test was conducted

to both groups after the treatment, in order to see whether or not there was a

change on students’ writing ability.

23

F. Technique of Data Collection

The technique of data collection in this research was using writing

composition test. The writing performance test carry out for the purpose of this

study in the form of writing test to make paragraphs about their family in pre-test

and about their school in post-test. It employed both groups in the first meeting of

instruction (pretest) and in the last meeting (posttest)

G. Data Analysis

To measure the students’ writing ability about their written at the student

second grade in SMAN 8 Pinrang. The researcher gave score based on the

descriptive writing ability scoring classification by Heaton. Classified the criteria

of scoring for vocabulary and organization as follows:

Table 3.3 Scoring rubric of noun

Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 9.6 – 10 They effectively and excellent in using noun

Very Good 8.6 – 9.5 They effectively and very good in using noun

Good 7.6 - 8.5 They effectively and good in using noun

Fairly Good 6.6 – 7.5 They sometime hasty but fairly good in using

noun

Fair 5.6 – 6.5 They sometime fair in using noun

Poor 3.6 – 5.5 They poor in using noun

Very Poor 0 – 3.5 They very poor in using noun

24

Table 3.4 Scoring rubric of adjective

Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 9.6 – 10 They effectively and excellent in using adjective

Very Good 8.6 – 9.5 They effectively and very good in using n

adjective

Good 7.6 - 8.5 They effectively and good in using adjective

Fairly Good 6.6 – 7.5 They sometime hasty but fairly good in using

adjective

Fair 5.6 – 6.5 They sometime fair in using adjective

Poor 3.6 – 5.5 They poor in using adjective

Very Poor 0 – 3.5 They very poor in using adjective

(Sokmen, 1997 )

The data collected are analyze the t-test, the steps are as follow:

1. Scoring the students correct answer of pre-test and post-test.

Students Score = 10max

simumscore

orethetotalsc

After collecting the data of the students the researcher classified the score of

the students into the following criteria:

1. 9.6-10.0 was classified as excellent

2. 8.6-9.5 was classified as very good

3. 7.6-8.5 was classified as good

4. 6.6-7.5 was classified as fairly good

5. 5.6-6.5 was classified as fairly

6. 4.6-5.5 was classified as poor

25

7. 0-4.5 was classified as very poor

(Depdikbud, 1985:6)

2. Calculating the collecting data from the students in answer the

test, the writer used formula to get mean score of the students as follow:

N

XX

Where : X = Mean score

∑X = The sum of all scores

N = The total number of sample

(Gay, 2006: 320)

3. Calculating standard deviation of each total score of pre-test and post-test,

the writer used the following formula:

1

2

12

11

)(

n

xxSS

and

2

2

22

21

)(

n

xxSS

where

x1 = Score of experimental group

x2 = Score of control group

1x = Mean of experimental group

2x = Mean of control group

n1 = Number of subject of experimental group

n2 = Number of subject of control group

SS = Sum of Square

(Gay, 2006: 321)

1. Finding out the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the method, this formula

below was used:

26

2121

21

21

11

2 nnnn

SSSS

XXt

Notation:

T = Test of significance

XC = Mean Score of experimental class

XE = Mean score of control class

SSE = the sum of square of experimental class

nE = the subject of experimental class

nC = the subject of control

(Gay, 2006: 349)

2. To find out the improvement of percentage:

1001

12%

X

XX

( Gay, 1987 )

To decide the significant influence of Word Analogy Technique to

build students’ writing ability, the writer used:

Ttest ≥ Ttable : Having significant influence

H1 : µ

1 > µ

2 or P-value < α 0.05

Ttest ≤ Ttable : Having no significant influence

H2 : µ

1 = µ

2 or P-value > α 0.05

27

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter consists of two sections, the findings of the research and

discussions of the finding.

The result of data analysis found that teaching word analogy technique can

develop the student’s vocabulary mastery in writing at the Eleventh Grade of SMAN

8 Pinrang.

Findings

The data were collected by administering the test, the tests were done twice

namely pre test and post-test, the pre-test was given before the treatment and the

post-test was given after treatment.

1. The improvement of students’ score of Noun and Adjective of pre-test

and post-test

Table 4.1. The students’ mean score in experimental class and control class

Variables indicators

Experimental

Class

Control

Class

Experimental

Class

Control

Class

Pre-test Pre-test Pre-test Post-test Percentage ( % )

Noun

Concrete and

Abstract nouns

5.63 7.3 5.23 6

29.66 14.72

Singular and

Plural nouns

5.63 7.3 5.23 6

Adjective

Predicate

adjective

5.4 7 4.8 5.45

29.62 13.12

Attribute

adjective

5.4 7 4.8 5.45

27

28

Before giving the treatments or pre test in Experimental Class, the

students’ mean score in writing test in term of noun is 5.83 and the students’

mean score in writing test in term of adjective is 5.4. After giving treatments or

in post-test, the students’ mean score in writing paragraph in term of noun is

7.3 and the students’ mean score in terms of adjective is 7. While the

improvement of the students’ ability in writing test in terms of noun is 29.66

% and 29.62 % in term of adjective.

In control class for pre-test, the students’ mean score in writing

paragraph in terms of noun is 5.23 and the students’ mean score in writing test

in term of adjective is 4.8. After giving treatments or in post-test, the students’

means score in writing paragraph in term of noun is 6 and the students’ mean

score in terms of adjective is 5.45. While the improvent of the students’

ability in writing test in terms of noun is 14.72% and 13.12% in terms of

adjective.

Figure 4.1. The students’ percentage in experimental class and control class

29.66% 29.62%

14.72% 13.12%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

Noun Adjective Noun Adjective

Experimental Class

Control Class

29

Table 4.2. The students’ mean score in experimental and controlled class of

pre-test and post-test

Class Pre-test Post-test Improvement %

Experimental 11.03 14.03 27 %

Controlled 10.03 11.43 14 %

The students’ mean score of experimental class in writing test of pre-

test is 11.03 and post-test is 14.03. the srudents’ mean score of controlled

class in writing test of pre-test is 10.03 and in post test is 11.4.

Figure 4.2. The students’ mean score in experimental

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Pree Test Post test

11.03

14.03

10.03

11.43

Mean Score Both Classes

30

Figure 4.3. The improvement of students’score

The students’ mean score of experimental class in writing paragraph of pre-

test is 11.03 and post-test is 14.03 with the improvement is 27%. the srudents’ mean

score of controlled class in writing paragraph in pre-test is 10.03 and in post test is

11.43 with the improvement is 14%.

2. The significance of students’ writing ability and hypothesis testing

a. Significant of students writing ability

Table 4.3. The significance of students’ writing ability in term of noun after

treatment in experimental and controlled class.

Value t-test t-table Conclusion

Post-test 42.98 2.0017 significant

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

experimentalclass

control class

27%

14%

The Improvement of both classes

31

In the t table (see appendix 5) for α = 0,05 df=58 t ratio is 2.017.

Based on the calculation, the value of t-test is greater than the ratio on t-table,

42.98 > 2.0017.

b. hypothesis testing

According to the result that of t-test is greater than the ratio on t-table,

42.98 > 2.0017. It can be concluded that the alternative hypothesis is

accepted. There was a significant difference between students in experimental

and control class.

A. Discussions

After applying word Analogy Technique, the researcher has found that such

strategy was very effective. This assumption is stated with evidence. During the

application process of treatment, the researcher shown that the students were very

interested to the material that the teacher presented. Based on the result of the writing

test, the students’ ability in writing is developed. It is supported by the result of pre-

test and post-test from the components of writing.

The result of the students’ ability in writing in the pretest was still low. The

students did not know how to start in writing because they less of vocabulary

mastery, and they did not know how to make good writing. Beside that they did not

understand how to write their ideas their opinion into sentences, and sometimes they

make some mistakes in choose vocabulary. For example, “work father in the guarden

and work mother work house” (Arni, IPA 1). He wrote like Indonesian style.

Furthermore, (IPA 2), “I am is student in SMA 8 Pinrang, beginning in my school

32

name is SMAN 1 Lembang ”. In this case we don’t understand about the meaning of

the sentences. We could not get its meaning.

The result above also supported with the students’of experimental class mean

score vocabulary in writing, in term of noun is 5.63 and the students’ mean score

vocabulary in writing, in term of adjective is 5.4. After giving treatments or in post-

test, the students’ mean score vocabulary in writing, in term of noun is 7.3 and the

students’ mean score in term of vocabulary is 7. While the improvement of the

students’ ability in writing in term of noun is 29.66% and 29.62% in term of

adjective. In controlled class the students’ mean score vocabulary in writing, in term

of noun is 5.23 and the students’ mean score vocabulary in writing, in term of

adjective is 4.8. After giving treatments or in post-test, the students’ means score in

writing descriptive paragraph in term of noun is 6 and the students’ mean score in

term of vocabulary is5,45. While the improvent of the students’ ability vocabulary

in writing, in term of noun is 14.72% and 13.12% in term of adjective.

Based on the problem before, the researcher gives the treatments to the

students. It make the students’ ability in writing improve. Therefore, the students’

ability of vocabulary in writing through word analogy technique could improve. It

supports by having receive some treatments, the post-test administer to the

experimental and controlled class. These test is intended to measure whether word

analogy technique can help students improve their writing ability especially in

vocabulary. The post-test computation result show that the findings may be conclude

that the two aspects in writing on noun and adjective, have significantly improve

33

(value of t-test 42.98) is greater that the ratio on t-table 2,024. Thus alternative

hypothesis was not rejected which means that there were significant differences

between the experimental and controlled groups’ score after treatment. From the

expalnation above, it can be drawn a conclusion that the students who receive the

treatment have significant improvement mainly in vocabulary specially noun and

adjective.

The improvement of noun can be seen from their writing product. The

experimental score in vocabulary aspect increase significantly. In regard with the

improvements using vocabulary of noun such as common noun, concrete noun,

abstract noun also countable and uncountable noun and using adjective like

descriptive adjective limiting adjective, attribute and predicate adjective. Dealing

with vocabularies, the improvement of the students’ mastery in vocabularies revealed

from the numbers of words they used on pre-test and post-test. On pretest, most

students in both groups use inappropriate vocabulary. After treatments, students in

experimental group show some progression in terms of their vocabulary usage when

they arranged sentences.

Looking at the comparison of the students’ score from the result of pre-test

and post-test, the researcher can conclude that there is an improvement of students’

ability in writing after giving the treatment material.

34

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter consists of two sections, the first section deals with the conclusion of

the finding of the research and the other one deal with suggestion.

A. Conclusion

Based on the finding and discussion in the previous chapter in this study, the

researcher concludes that:

1. The use of word analogy technique is effective to improve vocabulary in

terms of noun.

2. The use of word analogy technique is effective to improve vocabulary

mastery in terms of adjective

3. The result of data analysis that t-test value 42.98 is greater than t-table value

2.0017. Based on the result, hypothesis test showed that H0 was rejected and

H1 was accepted.

B. Suggestions

Based on the result of the data analysis and conclusion, the researcher

suggests as follows:

1) Word analogy technique may be used for the teacher to improve the

students’ writing ability in learning proces. The teacher should be able to

select various kinds of vocabulary students’ needs and interests. Literature

Word analogy technique may be used for the other skills of English.

34

35

2) Word analogy technique may be use for the other aspects like course of

English

3) For the next researcher should have capability in designing and presenting

the materials to the students. As the result, the students will be more

interested and easier in comprehending the materials.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen,Virgina F .1997. Technique in Teaching Vocabulary. Oxford; Oxford

University Press.

Arikuto, Suharsimi. 1993. Procedure Penelitian. Edisi Revisi; Cet IX; Jakarta: PT.

Rineka Cipta.

Asik, Nur (2004). Standar English Vocabulary and New X-Y Theory.Yayasan Fatiya.

Barrera, Rule. (1999)- (2001).Using Form and Function Analogic, (online),

( http//www.britanica.com/article/analogy/html.24 juni 2013)

Carter, Ronald and Mc Carthy,Michael. 1947. Vocabulary and Language Teaching.

Dalan James Nattinger, Some Current Trends in Vocabulary Teaching (pp

62-64). London; Longman Publishing.

Dannial, Mano. (2000). Solving Analogic, (online),

(http://www.coleradoart.com 20 juni 2013)

Dell, Diana. (1999). Analogies, (online),

(http://www.quai.com. 20 juni 2013)

Depdikbud, 1985. Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Mengajar Proses Belajar dan Petunjuk

Pelaksanaan System Penilaian . Jakarta ; Depdikbud.

Gay, LR. 1981. Education Resarch . New York: Graw Hill book Company.

Harmer, Jeremy.1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching new. London;

Cambridge

Haycraf, Jhon.1978. An Introduction English Language Teaching, London :

Longman Group Limited.

Holt, Rinchart and Winston.(1963). Word Analogies, (online),

(http://www.teachervision.fen.com 20 juni 2013)

Jeananda Col (1993) Part of Speech (online)

(http://www.enchantedlearning.com/grammar/partsofspeech/ 28 October

2013)

Jumiaty. 2003. Improving the Students’ Vocabulary Mastery by Using Vocabulary

Cards. Thesis. Faculty of Language and Arts UNM.

Marks, Bench. (1996) .An Analogy. The Internet Article, (online),

(http://www.psvctitest.com. 21 juni 2013)

Masurah, H. Idris (2003). Increasing the Vocabulary achievement of the second Year

Students of SMK 1 Makassar by Using Imitation Drill. Thesis. Makassar .

UNM.

Nattinger, J.R. (1991). Some Current Trends in vocabulary Teaching. In Carter. R. &

Mc Carthy, M (eds).Vocabulary and Language Teaching. Longman.

Rackner, Ann. (1999). More Analogies, (online),

(http://www.Factmonster.com/spot analogy. 21 juni 2013)

Sokmen, A. (1997). Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary. In

N.Schmiit & M,Michael (F,ds.) (1997. Vocabulary: Description, acquisition

and pedagogy (pp.237-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Suryaningsih. 2005. Improving the Students English Vocabulary by Using

Whispering Games. Thesis. Faculty of Language and Arts UNM.

Tuckman Bruce W. (1999) Conducting Educational Research Fifth Edition Tokyo .The Ohio State University Wallace, Michael J. (1989). Teaching vocabulary .London: Oxford University Press.

Wilkins D. (1972). Linguistics and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold

Percentage of Pretest and Post-test

a. Percentage in term noun of experimental class

b. Percentage in term adjective of experimental class

29.62

Percentage of Pretest and Post-test

a) Percentage in term noun of controlled class

b) Percentage in term adjective of controlled class

13.12

The Significance Different

1. The significant different on pre-test in experimental and controlled class

SS1 = 2

12

1n

Where: SS2 =

2

22

2n

SS1 = 2

30

166925 SS2 =

2

30

5.15025.668

SS1 = 30

27556925 SS2=668.25

30

25.22650

SS1 = 925 918.53 SS2 =668.25 755.1

SS1 = 6.47 SS2 = -86.85

1X 30.83 SS1 = 6.47

2X 22.27 SS2 = - 86.85

a) t-Test

t =

2121

21

21

11

2 nnnn

SSSS

t =

30

1

30

1

23030

)85.86(47.6

27.2283.30

t =

60

2

58

38.80

56.8

t = 03.038.1

56.8

t =67.0

56.8

ttest = -12.77

t-Table

For level of significance (α) = 0.05

Degree of freedom (df) = (N1 + N2) -2 = (30 + 30) – 2 = 58

t – Table = 2.0017

2. The significant different on post-test in experimental and controlled class

SS1 = 2

12

1n

Where: SS2 =

2

22

2n

SS1 = 2

30

2151543 SS2 =

2

30

5.17125.987

SS1 = 30

462251543 SS2 = 987.25

30

25.29412

SS1 = 1543 1540.9 SS2 = 987.25

SS1 = 4.1 SS1 = 6.85

1X 7.16 SS1 = 4.1

2X 5.71 SS2 = 6.85

a. t-Test

t =

2121

21

21

11

2 nnnn

SSSS

t =

30

1

30

1

23030

85.61.4

71.416.7

t =

60

2

58

95.10

45.2

t = 3.0189.0

45.2

t =057.0

45.2

ttest = 42.98

b. t-Table

For level of significance (α) = 0.05

Degree of freedom (df) = (N1 + N2) -2 = (30 + 30) – 2 = 58

t – Table = 2.0017

Critical t values (full table)

The t values are for the two tail test. The same t value is used for half the alpha value

in a one tail test.

For example, at 20 degrees of freedom, the t value of 2.086 is critical for α=0.05(2

tail) and α=0.025(1 tail). With the same degrees of fredom, 1.725 is critical for

α=0.1(2 tail) and α=0.05(1 tail).

α (1 tail) 0.05 0.025 0.01 0.005 0.0025 0.001 0.0005

α (2 tail) 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.002 0.001

df

1 6.3138 12.7065 31.8193 63.6551 127.3447 318.4930 636.0450

2 2.9200 4.3026 6.9646 9.9247 14.0887 22.3276 31.5989

3 2.3534 3.1824 4.5407 5.8408 7.4534 10.2145 12.9242

4 2.1319 2.7764 3.7470 4.6041 5.5976 7.1732 8.6103

5 2.0150 2.5706 3.3650 4.0322 4.7734 5.8934 6.8688

6 1.9432 2.4469 3.1426 3.7074 4.3168 5.2076 5.9589

7 1.8946 2.3646 2.9980 3.4995 4.0294 4.7852 5.4079

8 1.8595 2.3060 2.8965 3.3554 3.8325 4.5008 5.0414

9 1.8331 2.2621 2.8214 3.2498 3.6896 4.2969 4.7809

10 1.8124 2.2282 2.7638 3.1693 3.5814 4.1437 4.5869

11 1.7959 2.2010 2.7181 3.1058 3.4966 4.0247 4.4369

12 1.7823 2.1788 2.6810 3.0545 3.4284 3.9296 4.3178

13 1.7709 2.1604 2.6503 3.0123 3.3725 3.8520 4.2208

14 1.7613 2.1448 2.6245 2.9768 3.3257 3.7874 4.1404

15 1.7530 2.1314 2.6025 2.9467 3.2860 3.7328 4.0728

16 1.7459 2.1199 2.5835 2.9208 3.2520 3.6861 4.0150

17 1.7396 2.1098 2.5669 2.8983 3.2224 3.6458 3.9651

18 1.7341 2.1009 2.5524 2.8784 3.1966 3.6105 3.9216

19 1.7291 2.0930 2.5395 2.8609 3.1737 3.5794 3.8834

20 1.7247 2.0860 2.5280 2.8454 3.1534 3.5518 3.8495

α (1 tail) 0.05 0.025 0.01 0.005 0.0025 0.001 0.0005

α (2 tail) 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.002 0.001

df

21 1.7207 2.0796 2.5176 2.8314 3.1352 3.5272 3.8193

22 1.7172 2.0739 2.5083 2.8188 3.1188 3.5050 3.7921

23 1.7139 2.0686 2.4998 2.8073 3.1040 3.4850 3.7676

24 1.7109 2.0639 2.4922 2.7970 3.0905 3.4668 3.7454

25 1.7081 2.0596 2.4851 2.7874 3.0782 3.4502 3.7251

26 1.7056 2.0555 2.4786 2.7787 3.0669 3.4350 3.7067

27 1.7033 2.0518 2.4727 2.7707 3.0565 3.4211 3.6896

28 1.7011 2.0484 2.4671 2.7633 3.0469 3.4082 3.6739

29 1.6991 2.0452 2.4620 2.7564 3.0380 3.3962 3.6594

30 1.6973 2.0423 2.4572 2.7500 3.0298 3.3852 3.6459

31 1.6955 2.0395 2.4528 2.7440 3.0221 3.3749 3.6334

32 1.6939 2.0369 2.4487 2.7385 3.0150 3.3653 3.6218

33 1.6924 2.0345 2.4448 2.7333 3.0082 3.3563 3.6109

34 1.6909 2.0322 2.4411 2.7284 3.0019 3.3479 3.6008

35 1.6896 2.0301 2.4377 2.7238 2.9961 3.3400 3.5912

36 1.6883 2.0281 2.4345 2.7195 2.9905 3.3326 3.5822

37 1.6871 2.0262 2.4315 2.7154 2.9853 3.3256 3.5737

38 1.6859 2.0244 2.4286 2.7115 2.9803 3.3190 3.5657

39 1.6849 2.0227 2.4258 2.7079 2.9756 3.3128 3.5581

40 1.6839 2.0211 2.4233 2.7045 2.9712 3.3069 3.5510

α (1 tail) 0.05 0.025 0.01 0.005 0.0025 0.001 0.0005

α (2 tail) 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.002 0.001

df

41 1.6829 2.0196 2.4208 2.7012 2.9670 3.3013 3.5442

42 1.6820 2.0181 2.4185 2.6981 2.9630 3.2959 3.5378

43 1.6811 2.0167 2.4162 2.6951 2.9591 3.2909 3.5316

44 1.6802 2.0154 2.4142 2.6923 2.9555 3.2861 3.5258

45 1.6794 2.0141 2.4121 2.6896 2.9521 3.2815 3.5202

46 1.6787 2.0129 2.4102 2.6870 2.9488 3.2771 3.5149

47 1.6779 2.0117 2.4083 2.6846 2.9456 3.2729 3.5099

48 1.6772 2.0106 2.4066 2.6822 2.9426 3.2689 3.5051

49 1.6766 2.0096 2.4049 2.6800 2.9397 3.2651 3.5004

50 1.6759 2.0086 2.4033 2.6778 2.9370 3.2614 3.4960

51 1.6753 2.0076 2.4017 2.6757 2.9343 3.2579 3.4917

52 1.6747 2.0066 2.4002 2.6737 2.9318 3.2545 3.4877

53 1.6741 2.0057 2.3988 2.6718 2.9293 3.2513 3.4838

54 1.6736 2.0049 2.3974 2.6700 2.9270 3.2482 3.4800

55 1.6730 2.0041 2.3961 2.6682 2.9247 3.2451 3.4764

56 1.6725 2.0032 2.3948 2.6665 2.9225 3.2423 3.4730

57 1.6720 2.0025 2.3936 2.6649 2.9204 3.2394 3.4696

58 1.6715 2.0017 2.3924 2.6633 2.9184 3.2368 3.4663

59 1.6711 2.0010 2.3912 2.6618 2.9164 3.2342 3.4632

60 1.6706 2.0003 2.3901 2.6603 2.9146 3.2317 3.4602

APPENDIX D.1: DATA OF PRE-TEST

Students

Pre-Test Experimental Class

TOTAL

X1

X2

Score

Word Analogy

noun adjective

S-01 7 6 13 6.5 42.25 Fair

S-02 5 4 9 4.5 20.25 Poor

S-03 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-04 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-05 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-06 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-07 5 6 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-08 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-09 5 6 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-10 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-11 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-12 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-13 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-14 7 6 13 6.5 42.25 Fair

S-15 5 6 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-16 5 6 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-17 5 6 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-18 7 6 13 6.5 42.25 Fair

S-19 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-20 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-21 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-21 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-23 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-24 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-25 5 5 10 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-26 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-27 5 6 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-28 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-29 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-30 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

169 163 331 166 925

5.63 5.4 11.03 5.53 30.83

Students

Pre-Test Controlled Class

TOTAL

X1

X2

Score

Word

Analogy

noun

adjective

S-01 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-02 5 4 9 4.5 20.25 Poor

S-03 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-04 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-05 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-06 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-07 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-08 5 4 9 4.5 20.25 Poor

S-09 6 4 10 5 25 Poor

S-10 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-11 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-12 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-13 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-14 5 5 10 5 5 Poor

S-15 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-16 5 5 10 5 5 Poor

S-17 5 4 9 4.5 20.25 Poor

S-18 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-19 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-20 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-21 4 5 9 4.5 20.25 Poor

S-21 5 4 9 4.5 20.25 Poor

S-23 5 4 9 4.5 20.25 Poor

S-24 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-25 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-26 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-27 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-28 6 5 11 5.5 20.25 Poor

S-29 5 5 10 5 5 Poor

S-30 5 5 10 5 5 Poor

157 144 301 150.5 668.25

5.23 4.8 10.03 5.01 22.27

APPENDIX D.2: DATA OF P0ST-TEST

Students

Post-Test Experimental Class

TOTAL

X1

X2

Score

Word Analogy

noun adjective

S-01 8 8 16 8 64 Good

S-02 8 7 15 7.5 56.25 Fairly good

S-03 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-04 8 7 15 7.5 56.25 Fairly good

S-05 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-06 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-07 8 7 15 7.5 56.25 Fairly good

S-08 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-09 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-10 8 7 15 7.5 56.25 Fairly good

S-11 8 8 16 8 64 Good

S-12 8 7 15 7.5 56.25 Fairly good

S-13 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-14 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-15 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-16 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-17 8 7 15 7.5 56.25 Fairly good

S-18 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-19 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-20 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-21 8 7 15 7.5 56.25 Fairly good

S-21 7 6 13 6.5 42.25 Fair

S-23 8 7 15 7.5 56.25 Fairly good

S-24 8 7 15 7.5 56.25 Fairly good

S-25 7 6 13 6.5 42.25 Fair

S-26 6 7 13 6.5 42.25 Fair

S-27 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-28 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-29 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

S-30 7 7 14 7 49 Fairly good

220 210 430 215 1545

7.3 7 14.33 7.16 51.5

Students

Post-Test Controlled Class

TOTAL

X1

X2

Score

noun

adjective

S-01 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-02 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-03 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-04 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-05 8 7 15 7.5 56.25 Fairly good

S-06 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-07 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-08 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-09 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-10 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-11 7 5 12 6 36 Fair

S-12 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-13 5 6 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-14 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-15 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-16 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-17 7 6 13 6.5 42.25 Fair

S-18 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-19 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-20 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-21 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-21 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-23 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

S-24 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-25 5 5 10 5 25 poor

S-26 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-27 5 5 10 5 25 Poor

S-28 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-29 6 5 11 5.5 30.25 Poor

S-30 6 6 12 6 36 Fair

180 163 343 171.5 987.25

6 5.43 11.43 5.71 32.90

Number of Students

Pree Test Post Test

Noun Adjective Noun Adjective

Concrete and Abstract Noun

Singular and Plural Noun

Predicate Adjective

Attribute Adjective

Concrete and Abstract Noun

Singular and Plural Noun

Predicate Adjective

Attribute Adjective

1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

2 5 5 4 4 6 6 6 6

3 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6

4 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

5 6 6 5 5 8 8 7 7

6 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 5

7 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6

8 5 5 4 4 6 6 6 6

9 6 6 4 4 6 6 6 6

10 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6

11 5 5 5 5 7 7 5 5

12 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

13 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6

14 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

15 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 5

16 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

17 5 5 4 4 7 7 6 6

18 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

19 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6

20 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

21 4 4 5 5 6 6 5 5

157 157 144 144 180 180 163 163

157 + 157 30

314 30

10.47

10.47 2

5.23

144 + 144 30

288 30 9.6

9.6 2

4.8

180 + 180

30 360 30 12

12 2 6

163 + 163

30 326 30

10.87

10.87 2

5.43

22 5 5 4 4 6 6 5 5

23 5 5 4 4 6 6 6 6

24 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

25 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

26 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

27 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

28 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 5

29 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

30 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6

Number of

Students

Pree Test Post Test

Noun Adjective Noun Adjective

Concrete and Abstract Noun

Singular and Plural Noun

Predicate Adjective

Attribute Adjective

Concrete and Abstract Noun

Singular and Plural Noun

Predicate Adjective

Attribute Adjective

1 7 7 6 6 8 8 8 8

2 5 5 4 4 8 8 7 7

3 6 6 5 5 7 7 7 7

4 6 6 5 5 8 8 7 7

5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7

6 6 6 5 5 7 7 7 7

7 5 5 6 6 8 8 7 7

8 6 6 5 5 7 7 7 7

9 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7

10 5 5 5 5 8 8 7 7

11 6 6 5 5 8 8 8 8

12 5 5 5 5 8 8 7 7

13 6 6 5 5 7 7 7 7

14 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7

15 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7

16 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7

17 5 5 6 6 8 8 7 7

18 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7

19 6 6 5 5 7 7 7 7

20 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7

21 6 6 6 6 8 8 7 7

22 5 5 5 5 7 7 6 6

23 5 5 5 5 8 8 7 7

24 6 6 6 6 8 8 7 7

25 5 5 5 5 7 7 6 6

26 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7

27 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7

28 6 6 5 5 7 7 7 7

29 6 6 5 5 7 7 7 7

30 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7

169 169 163 163 220 220 210 210

169 + 169 30

338 30

11.67

11.67 2

5.83

163 + 163 30

326 30

10.8

10.8 2

5.4

220 + 220

30 440 30

14.6

14.6 2

7.3

210 + 210

30 420 30 14

14 2 7

number of students

pree test post test

noun adjective noun adjective

concrete and absract noun

singular and plural noun

predicate adjective

attribute adjective

concrete and absract noun

singular and plural noun

predicate adjective

attribute adjective

1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

2 5 5 4 4 6 6 6 6

3 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6

4 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

5 6 6 5 5 8 8 7 7

6 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 5

7 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6

8 5 5 4 4 6 6 6 6

9 6 6 4 4 6 6 6 6

10 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6

11 5 5 5 5 7 7 5 5

12 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

13 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6

14 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

15 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 5

16 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

17 5 5 4 4 7 7 6 6

18 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

19 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6

20 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

21 4 4 5 5 6 6 5 5

22 5 5 4 4 6 6 5 5

23 5 5 4 4 6 6 6 6

24 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

25 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

26 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

27 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

28 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 5

29 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

30 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6

THE OBJECT OF THE RESEARCH

No Experimental class Controlled class

1 Dian Hardian Fitriani

2 Hariani Mariani

3 Hartika Nirwana has

4 Hasna H Nur asmi

5 Haslinda Marsuka

6 Hasni Maryam

7 Arni Mawar

8 Ayu Lestari Elviana

9 Desi Hastuti

10 Hadiah Muliati

11 Harfika Neon permata sari

12 Juita Nur hikmah

13 Maizin Nurasida

14 Ulandari Al Mukarramah

15 Risdayanti Hanifa

16 Yusmita Israyanti

17 Arva Damayanti Nurul Syafiqha

18 St. Hardianti Sitti nurhani

19 Aslant jufri Sukmawati H

20 Ahmad busaery Tahira

21 Ahmad taufik N Irmawati

22 Ardiansyah Yusuf

Masni

23 Hendra

Nurfadila

24 Armansyah Darwis noviandi

25 Agung Tripurnomo Al Muslihuddin

26 Alimuddin Budi setiawan

27 Abduh Sulkifli

28 Abdullah Bin Nursiati Muh. Arfan

29 Irwan Effendi Al Ghifary anas Ahmad

30 Sahrul supardi