CHAPTER IV

DATA PRESENTATION, DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA

The data of this research were the scores of student test of all experiments and control
classes. The main purpose of the research is to explore the comparison between DRA and
DRTA on students reading comprehension on narrative text. Test scores from the
students test reading comprehension results is analyzed by using quantitative data
analysis for the findings. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses are included.
Frequency counts, percentages, mean scores and standard deviation of the variables are
presented in the descriptive statistical analyses. The hypotheses developed for this study
are tested using independent sample t-test and paired-sample t-test.

4.2.

DATA PRESENTATION
The data of the research are the scores of the students pre-test and post-test from
experiment and control groups at MAN 1 Pekanbaru. The data are collected through the
following procedures:
a. The students of experimental 1, experimental 2 and control class get pre-test by
asking them to answer the questions.
b. The students of the experimental class 1 get the treatment by using DRA,
experimental class 2 get the treatment by using DRTA and the control class nonDRA and DRTA strategy, but all groups have the same materials.
c. The students of experimental 1, experimental 2 and the control classes get posttest by asking them to answer the questions.

IV.2.1.

The Data Presentation of students reading comprehension before giving the

treatment of DRA and DRTA strategies for the Experimental Groups and nontreatment of DRA and DRTA strategy for the Control Group at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
The data of the students reading comprehension before giving the treatment of
DRA and DRTA strategies for the experimental group and non-treatment of DRA and

DRTA strategy for the control group are obtained from the students pre-test scores of all
classes consisting of 8 indicators of reading comprehension questions. The descriptions of
the data are as follows:

Table IV.1
The results of students reading comprehension pre-test scores
No

Student

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Student 6
Student 7
Student 8
Student 9
Student 10
Student 11
Student 12
Student 13
Student 14
Student 15
Student 16
Student 17
Student 18
Student 19
Student 20
Student 21
Student 22
Student 23
Student 24
Student 25
Student 26
Student 27
Student 28
Student 29
Student 30
Student 31

Experiment 1
68
76
68
64
72
68
56
76
60
64
48
48
44
56
40
40
68
68
68
40
64
48
68
44
40
68
44
68
44
44
68
67

Pre-test score
Experiment 2
44
64
68
60
44
48
60
44
68
56
40
60
68
52
60
60
60
64
68
60
60
64
68
60
60
68
68
68
52
44
68

Control
36
60
76
44
52
64
52
44
68
44
60
64
72
64
68
68
48
44
64
56
52
68
72
68
60
52
40
80
68
68
40

32

Student 32
Total
Mean

1792
57.80

1828
58.96

68
1884
58.87

From the table above, there are 31 participants of the experimental 1 class, 31
participants of the experimental 2 class and 32 participantss for the control class. The
calculation of total pre-test score of the experimental 1 class is 1792, total pre-test score of
experimental 2 is 1828 and the calculation of total pre-test score of control class is 1884.
The mean of pre-test score of experimental 1 class is 57.80, the mean of pre-tet score of
experimental 2 class is 58.96 and the mean of pre-test score control class is 58.87. From the
pre-test scores of the experimental class, based on the mean scores of both groups, they have
the same capability before doing the treatment.
The frequency distribution of pre-test score in the experimental 1 class is obtained
by using SPSS 20 as follows:

Table IV.2
The frequency distribution of students reading comprehension test (Pre-Test) in
Experimental Class 1
68

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Missing

40.00
44.00
48.00
56.00
60.00
64.00
68.00
72.00
76.00

4
5
3
2
1
3
10
1
2

4.3
5.3
3.2
2.1
1.1
3.2
10.6
1.1
2.1

12.9
16.1
9.7
6.5
3.2
9.7
32.3
3.2
6.5

Total

31

33.0

100.0

System

63

67.0

94

100.0

Total

12.9
29.0
38.7
45.2
48.4
58.1
90.3
93.5
100.0

Based on the table IV.2, it can be seen that the frequency of interval 40 is 4 students
(12.9%), the frequency of interval 44 is 5 students (16.1%), the frequency of interval 48 is 3
students (9.7%), the frequency of interval 56 is 2 students (6.5%), the frequency of interval 60 is
1 student (3.2%), the frequency of interval 64 is 3 students (9.7%), the frequency of interval 68 is
10 students (32.3%), the frequency of interval 72 is 1 student (3.2%), and the frequency of
interval 76 is 2 students (6.5%).
To determine more about the pre-test score of the experimental 1 class consisting of 31
participants at MAN 1 Pekanbaru. The following Bar Chart which is obtained from the output of
SPSS 20 is described as follows:

Bar Chart 1

69

Table IV.3
The classification of students reading comprehension pre-test score at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
(Experimental Class 1)
No

Categories

Score

Frequency

Percentage

Very Good

80-100

(%)
0

70

2
3
4
5

Good
Sufficient
Less
Fail
Total

66-79
56-65
40-55
0-39

13
6
12
0
31

42.4
19.2
38.4
0
100

Based on the table IV.3, it can be seen that there are 5 categories for students reading
comprehension pre-test score of the experimental 1 class. The frequency of Very Good
category is no student (0%), the frequency of Good category is 13 students (42.4%), the
frequency of sufficient category is 6 students (19.2%), the frequency of Less category is 12
students (38.4%), and there is no student categorized into Fail (0%). The table shows that
the highest percentage of student classification of students reading comprehension pre-test
score of the experimental 1 class is 42.4%. Thus, the majority of the students in the
experimental 1 class before being taught by using DRA strategy are classified as Good.
Then, the frequency distribution of students reading comprehension pre-test score in
the experiment 2 is obtained by using SPSS 20 as follows:

Table IV.4
The frequency distribution of students reading comprehension test (Pre-Test) in the
Experimental Class 2
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

40.00
44.00
48.00
52.00
56.00
60.00
64.00
68.00

1
4
1
2
1
10
3
9

1.1
4.3
1.1
2.1
1.1
10.6
3.2
9.6

3.2
12.9
3.2
6.5
3.2
32.3
9.7
29.0

Total

31

33.0

100.0

71

3.2
16.1
19.4
25.8
29.0
61.3
71.0
100.0

Missing
Total

System

63

67.0

94

100.0

Based on the table IV.4, it can be seen that the frequency of interval 40 is 1 student
(3.2%), the frequency of interval 44 is 4 students (12.9%), the frequency of interval 48 is 1
student (3.2%), the frequency of interval 52 is 2 students (6.5%), the frequency of interval 56 is 1
student (3.2%), the frequency of interval 60 is 10 students (32.3%), the frequency of interval 64
is 3 students (9.7%), and the frequency of interval 68 is 9 students (29%).
To determine more about the pre-test score of the experimental 2 class consists of 31
participants at MAN 1 Pekanbaru, the following Bar Chart is obtained from the output of SPSS
20:

Bar Chart 2

72

Table IV.5
The classification of students reading comprehension pre-test score at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
(Experimental Class 2)
No

Categories

Score

Frequency

Percentage

Very Good

80-100

(%)
0

73

2
3
4
5

Good
Sufficient
Less
Fail
Total

66-79
56-65
40-55
0-39

9
14
8
0
31

29
45.2
25.8
0
100

Based on the table IV.5, it can be seen that there are 5 categories for students reading
comprehension pre-test score of the experimental 2 class. The frequency of Very Good
category is no student (0%), the frequency of Good category is 9 students (29%), the
frequency of sufficient category is 14 students (45.2%), the frequency of Less category is 8
students (25.8%), and there is no student categorized into Fail (0%). The table shows that
the highest percentage of student classification of students reading comprehension pre-test
score of the experimental 2 class is 45.2%. Thus, the majority of the students in the
experimental 2 class before being taught by using DRTA strategy are classified as
Sufficient.
Then, the frequency distribution of students reading comprehension pre-test score in
the control group is obtained by using SPSS 20 as follows:
Table IV.6
The frequency distribution of students reading comprehension test (Pre-Test) in the
Control Class
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

36.00
40.00
44.00
48.00
52.00
56.00
60.00
64.00
68.00

1
2
4
1
4
1
3
4
8

1.1
2.1
4.3
1.1
4.3
1.1
3.2
4.3
8.5

74

3.1
6.3
12.5
3.1
12.5
3.1
9.4
12.5
25.0

3.1
9.4
21.9
25.0
37.5
40.6
50.0
62.5
87.5

Missing
Total

72.00
76.00
80.00

2
1
1

2.1
1.1
1.1

6.3
3.1
3.1

Total

32

34.0

100.0

System

62

66.0

94

100.0

93.8
96.9
100.0

Based on the table IV.6, it can be seen that the frequency of interval 36 is 1 student
(3.1%), the frequency of interval 40 is 2 students (6.3%), the frequency of interval 44 is 4
students (12.5%), the frequency of interval 48 is 1 student (3.1%), the frequency of interval 52 is
4 students (12.5%), the frequency of interval 56 is 1 student (3.1%), the frequency of interval 60
is 3 students (9.4%), the frequency of interval 64 is 4 students (12.5%), the frequency of interval
68 is 8 students (25%), the frequency of interval 72 is 2 students (6.3%), the frequency of
interval 76 is 1 student (3.1%), and the frequency of interval 80 is 1 student (3.1%).
To determine more about the pre-test score of the control class consisting of 32
respondents at MAN 1 Pekanbaru, the Bar Chart is obtained from the output of SPSS 20:

Bar Chart 3

75

Table IV.7
The classification of students reading comprehension pre-test score at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
(Control Class)
No
1
2
3
4
5

Categories
Very Good
Good
Sufficient
Less
Fail
Total

Score
80-100
66-79
56-65
40-55
0-39

76

Frequency

Percentage

0
12
8
11
1
32

(%)
0
37.5
25
34.4
3.1
100

Based on the table IV.7, it can be seen that there are 5 categories for students reading
comprehension pre-test score of the control class. The frequency of Very Good category is no
student (0%), the frequency of Good category is 12 students (37.5%), the frequency of sufficient
category is 8 students (25%), the frequency of Less category is 11 students (34.4%), and there is
1 student categorized into Fail (3.1%). The table shows that the highest percentage of student
classification of students reading comprehension pre-test score of the control class is 37.5%.
Thus, the majority of the students in the control class before being taught by using non-DRA and
DRTA strategy are classified as Good.

IV.2.2.

The Data Presentation of students reading comprehension after giving the

treatment of DRA and DRTA strategy for the Experimental Groups and nontreatment of DRA and DRTA strategy for the Control Group at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
The data of the students reading comprehension after giving the treatment of DRA
and DRTA strategies for the experimental groups and non-treatment of DRA and DRTA
strategy for the control group are obtained from students post-test scores of all classes
consisting of 8 indicators of reading comprehension questions. The descriptions of the
data are as follows:
Table IV.8
The results of students reading comprehension post-test scores
No

Student

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

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

Experiment 1
72
80
80
80
84
72
77

Post-test score
Experiment 2
88
76
88
88
92
88

Control
88
64
64
88
84
88

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32

Student 7
Student 8
Student 9
Student 10
Student 11
Student 12
Student 13
Student 14
Student 15
Student 16
Student 17
Student 18
Student 19
Student 20
Student 21
Student 22
Student 23
Student 24
Student 25
Student 26
Student 27
Student 28
Student 29
Student 30
Student 31
Student 32
Total
Mean

68
88
80
80
84
80
84
92
84
80
96
80
76
76
76
80
88
80
80
64
84
80
80
80
80
2488
80.25

84
88
72
88
92
80
80
84
84
88
76
84
84
88
88
64
88
84
84
84
68
76
72
96
88
2584
83.35

68
68
72
48
72
72
80
80
76
64
72
80
80
72
64
64
72
76
76
80
80
72
68
88
88
80
2388
74.65

From the table above, there are 31 participantss of the experimental 1 class, 31
participants of the experimental 2 class and 32 participants for the control class. The
calculation of total pre-test score of the experimental class 1 is 2488, total pre-test score of
the experimental class 2 is 2584 and the calculation of total pre-test score of the control
class is 2388. The mean of pre-test score of the experimental 1 class is 80.25, the mean of
pre-test score of experimental class 2 is 83.35 and the mean of pre-test score control class is
74.65. From the pre-test scores of the experimental class, based on the mean scores of both

78

groups, they have different capability after giving the treatment for the experimental class 1
and 2.
The frequency distribution of post-test score in the experimental class 1 is obtained
by using SPSS 20 as follows:
Table IV.9
The frequency distribution of students reading comprehension test (Post-Test) in the
Experimental Class 1
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Missing

64.00
68.00
72.00
76.00
80.00
84.00
88.00
92.00
96.00

1
1
2
3
15
5
2
1
1

1.1
1.1
2.1
3.2
16.0
5.3
2.1
1.1
1.1

3.2
3.2
6.5
9.7
48.4
16.1
6.5
3.2
3.2

Total

31

33.0

100.0

System

63

67.0

94

100.0

Total

3.2
6.5
12.9
22.6
71.0
87.1
93.5
96.8
100.0

Based on the table IV.9, it can be seen that the frequency of interval 64 is 1 student
(3.2%), the frequency of interval 68 is 1 student (3.2%), the frequency of interval 72 is 2 students
(6.5%), the frequency of interval 76 is 3 student (9.7%), the frequency of interval 80 is 15
students (48.4%), the frequency of interval 84 is 5 students (16.1%), the frequency of interval 88
is 2 students (6.5%), the frequency of interval 92 is 1 student (3.2%), and the frequency of
interval 96 is 1 student (3.2%).

79

To determine more about the post-test score of the experiment class 1 consisting of 31
participants at MAN 1 Pekanbaru, the following Bar Chart is obtained from the output of SPSS
20:

Bar Chart 4

80

Table IV.10
The classification of students reading comprehension post-test score at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
(experimental Class 1)
No
1
2
3
4
5

Categories
Very Good
Good
Sufficient
Less
Fail
Total

Score
80-100
66-79
56-65
40-55
0-39

81

Frequency

Percentage

24
6
1
0
0
31

(%)
77.4
19.4
3.2
0
0
100

Based on the table IV.10, it can be seen that there are 5 categories for students reading
comprehension post-test score of the experiment class 1. The frequency of Very Good category is
24 students (77.4%), the frequency of Good category is 6 students (19.4%), the frequency of
sufficient category is 1 student (3.2%), the frequency of Less category is no student (0%), and
there is no student categorized into Fail (0%). The table shows that the highest percentage of
student classification of students reading comprehension post-test score of the experiment class
is 77.4%. Thus, the majority of the students in the experiment class 1 after being taught by using
DRA strategy is classified as Very Good.
The frequency distribution of post-test score in experimental class 2 is obtained by
using SPSS 20 as follows:

Table IV.11
The frequency distribution of students reading comprehension test (Post-Test) in
Experimental Class 2

82

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Missing

64.00
68.00
72.00
76.00
80.00
84.00
88.00
92.00
96.00

1
1
2
3
2
8
11
2
1

1.1
1.1
2.1
3.2
2.1
8.5
11.7
2.1
1.1

3.2
3.2
6.5
9.7
6.5
25.8
35.5
6.5
3.2

Total

31

33.0

100.0

System

63

67.0

94

100.0

Total

3.2
6.5
12.9
22.6
29.0
54.8
90.3
96.8
100.0

Based on the table IV.11, it can be seen that the frequency of interval 64 is 1 student
(3.2%), the frequency of interval 68 is 1 student (3.2%), the frequency of interval 72 is 2 students
(6.5%), the frequency of interval 76 is 3 students (9.7%), the frequency of interval 80 is 2
students (6.5%), the frequency of interval 84 is 8 students (25.8%), the frequency of interval 88
is 11 students (35.5%), the frequency of interval 92 is 2 students (6.5%), and the frequency of
interval 96 is 1 student (3.2%).
To determine more about the post-test score of the experiment class 2 consisting of 31
respondents at MAN 1 Pekanbaru, the following Bar Chart is obtained from the output of SPSS
20:

Bar Chart 5

83

Table IV.12
The classification of students reading comprehension post-test score at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
(Experimental Class 2)
No
1
2
3
4
5

Categories
Very Good
Good
Sufficient
Less
Fail
Total

Score
80-100
66-79
56-65
40-55
0-39

84

Frequency

Percentage

24
6
1
0
0
31

(%)
77.4
19.4
3.2
0
0
100

Based on the table IV.12, it can be seen that there are 5 categories for students reading
comprehension post-test score of the experiment 2 class. The frequency of Very Good category is
24 students (77.4%), the frequency of Good category is 6 students (19.4%), the frequency of
sufficient category is 1 student (3.2%), the frequency of Less category is no student (0%), and
there is no student categorized into Fail (0%). The table shows that the highest percentage of
student classification of students reading comprehension post-test score of the experiment class 2
is 77.4%. Thus, the majority of the students in the experiment class 2 after being taught by using
DRTA strategy are classified as Very Good.
The frequency distribution of post-test score in experimental class 2 is obtained by
using SPSS 20 as follows:

Table IV.13
The frequency distribution of students reading comprehension test (Post-Test) in the
Control Class
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Missing
Total

48.00
64.00
68.00
72.00
76.00
80.00
84.00
88.00

1
5
3
7
3
7
1
5

1.1
5.3
3.2
7.4
3.2
7.4
1.1
5.3

3.1
15.6
9.4
21.9
9.4
21.9
3.1
15.6

Total

32

34.0

100.0

System

62

66.0

94

100.0

3.1
18.8
28.1
50.0
59.4
81.3
84.4
100.0

Based on the table IV.13, it can be seen that the frequency of interval 48 is 1 student
(3.1%), the frequency of interval 64 is 5 students (15.6%), the frequency of interval 68 is 3
85

students (9.4%), the frequency of interval 72 is 7 students (21.9%), the frequency of interval 76
is 3 students (9.4%), the frequency of interval 80 is 7 students (21.9%), the frequency of interval
84 is 1 student (3.1%), and the frequency of interval 88 is 5 students (15.6%).
To determine more about the post-test score of the control class consisting of 32
respondents at MAN 1 Pekanbaru, the following Bar Chart is obtained from the output of SPSS
20:
Bar Chart 6

86

Table IV.14
The classification of students reading comprehension post-test score at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
(control Class)
No
1
2
3
4
5

Categories

Score

Frequency

Percentage

Very Good
Good
Sufficient
Less
Fail
Total

80-100
66-79
56-65
40-55
0-39

13
13
5
1
0
32

(%)
40.6
40.6
15.7
3.1
0
100

Based on the table IV.14, it can be seen that there are 5 categories for students reading
comprehension post-test score of the control class. The frequency of Very Good category is 13
students (40.6%), the frequency of Good category is 13 students (40.6%), the frequency of
sufficient category is 5 students (15.7%), the frequency of Less category is 1 student (3.1%), and
there is no student categorized into Fail (0%). The table shows that the highest percentage of
student classification of students reading comprehension post-test score of the control class is
40.6%. Thus, the majority of the students in the control class after being taught by using nonDRA and DRTA strategies are classified as Good to Very Good.

87

4.3.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTIC

TABLE IV.15
Result of students reading comprehension pre-test and post-test score at MAN 1
Pekanbaru
Descriptive Statistics
N
Sum
Mean

Std. Deviation

Pretest Experiment
31

1792.00

57.8065

12.30019

31

1828.00

58.9677

8.76160

32

1884.00

58.8750

11.77134

31

2488.00

80.2581

6.27677

31

2584.00

83.3548

7.31003

32
31

2388.00

74.6250

9.23440

1
Pretest Experiment
2
Pretest Control
Posttest
experiment 1
Posttest
experiment 2
Posttest control
Valid N (listwise)

Based on Table IV.15., it can be determined that the number of participants at

MAN 1 Pekanbaru in the experimental group 1 is 31 with pre-test standard deviation
(12.30), post-test standard deviation (6.276), with pre-test mean score (57.80) and posttest mean score (80.25), the number of participants of MAN 1 Pekanbaru

in the

experimental group 2 is 31 with pre-test standard deviation (8.76), post-test standard

deviation (7.31), pre-test mean score (58.96), and post-test mean score (83.35). and the
number of participants of MAN 1 Pekanbaru in the control group is 32 with pre-test
standard deviation (11.77), post-test standard deviation (9.23), pre-test mean score
(58.87), and post-test mean score (74.62).
4.4.

DATA ANALYSIS
Pallant (2001) states that if the significance value is bigger than 0.05, this
indicates that there is no violation of the assumption of equality of variance and that
88

equal variances are assumed for the variable concerned and if the significance value is
smaller than 0.05 this indicates that there is violation of the assumption of equality of
variance. An independent sample t-test is conducted to determine any significant
difference for hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Then, paired sample T-test is conducted to
determine any significance improvement for hypothesis 7, 8, and 9. To find out the effect
size of hypothesis 7, 8, and 9 this research uses eta-squared formula.
IV.3.1.

Hypothesis 1
The procedure of inferential statistics began with the statistical test on the
following null hypothesis:

Ho1 : There is no a significant difference on students reading comprehension pretest

mean score between an experimental group 1 and an experimental group 2 at
MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
Ha1 : There is a significant difference on students reading comprehension pretest mean
score between an experimental group 1 and an experimental group 2 at MAN 1
Pekanbaru.
The result of pre-test reading comprehension test for an experimental
group 1 and an experimental group 2 without considering students group is
analyzed by using an Independent Sample T-test and presented at the following
Table IV.16

TABLE IV.16

89

The Analysis of Independent Sample T-test of Pre-test reading comprehension score

between an Experimental group 1 and an experimental Group 2 at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
Standard
Subject

Research Groups

Mean

Df

Sig.(2-tailed)

Deviation
Experimental Group
Pre test

57.80

12.30

31

60

0.42

.670

1
8
Experimental Group
58.96

8.76

31

Based on Independent T-test analysis for pre-test reading comprehension score of

experimental 1 and experimental group 2 on Table IV.16 above, it showed that there is no
significant difference at pre-test reading comprehension between experimental 1 and
experimental group 2. T-test result was -0.428, its df is 60, standard deviation of
experimental group 1 is 12.30 and experimental group 2 is 8.76. So, in the conclusion p =
0.670, the 2-tailed value is bigger than 0.05 (p>0.05). The result showed that the mean
scores did not differ much between both groups. It could be determined that the subjects
in both groups are equivalent before giving the treatment at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
Based on the analysis of Table IV.16, of the first hypothesis Ha1 is rejected and
Ho1 is accepted. So, it can be concluded that There is no significant difference of
students reading pre-test mean score between an experimental group 1 and an experiment
group 2 at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.

IV.3.2.

Hypothesis 2
90

The procedure of inferential statistics begins with the statistical test on the
following null hypothesis:
Ho2 : There is no a significant difference on students reading comprehension pretest
mean score between an experimental group 1 and a control group at MAN 1
Pekanbaru.
Ha2 : There is a significant difference on students reading comprehension pretest mean
score between an experimental group 1 and a control group at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
The result of pre-test reading comprehension test for an experimental
group 1 and a control group without considering student group is analyzed by
using an Independent Sample T-test and presented at the following Table IV.17

TABLE IV.17
The Analysis of Independent Sample T-test of Pre-test reading comprehension score
between an Experimental group 1 and control group at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
Standard
Subject
Pre test

Research Groups
Experimental Group

Mean
57.80

Deviation
12.30
91

df

Sig.(2-tailed)

31

61

.726

0.35
1
2
Control Group

58.87

11.77

32

Based on Independent T-test analysis for pre-test reading comprehension score of

an experimental group 1 and a control group on Table IV.17 above, it shows that there is no
significant difference at pre-test reading comprehension between an experimental group 1
and a control group. T-test result is -0.352, its df is 61, standard deviation of an experimental
group 1 is 12.30 and a control group is 11.77. So, in the conclusion p = 0.726, the 2-tailed
value is bigger than 0.05 (p>0.05). The result shows that the mean scores do not differ much
between both groups. It can be determined that the subjects in both groups are equivalent
before giving the treatment at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.

Based on the analysis of Table IV.17, of the second hypothesis Ha2 is rejected and
Ho2 is accepted. So, it can be concluded that There is no significant difference of students
reading pre-test mean score between an experiment group 1 and a control group at MAN 1
Pekanbaru.

IV.3.3.

Hypothesis 3
The procedure of inferential statistics begins with the statistical test on the
following null hypothesis:

92

Ho3 : There is no a significant difference on students reading comprehension of pretest

mean score between an experimental group 2 and a control group at MAN 1
Pekanbaru.
Ha3 : There is a significant difference on students reading comprehension of pretest
mean score between an experimental group 2 and a control group at MAN 1
Pekanbaru.
The result of pre-test reading comprehension test for an experimental
group 2 and a control group without considering students group is analyzed by
using an Independent Sample T-test and presented at the following Table IV.18

TABLE IV.18
The Analysis of Independent Sample T-test of Pre-test reading comprehension score
between an Experimental group 2 and a control Group at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
Standard
Subject

Research Groups

Mean

df

Sig.(2-tailed)

Deviation
Experimental Group
Pre test

0.03
58.96

8.76

31

61

.972
5

Control Group

58.87

11.77

32

Based on Independent T-test analysis for pre-test reading comprehension

score of an experimental group 2 and a control group on Table IV.18 above, it
shows that there is no significant difference at pre-test reading comprehension
between an experimental group 2 and a control group. T-test result is -0.035, its df
is 61, standard deviation of an experimental group 2 is 8.76 and a control group is
93

11.77. So, in the conclusion p = 0.972, the 2-tailed value is bigger than 0.05
(p>0.05). The result shows that the mean scores do not differ much between both
groups. It can be determined that the subjects in both groups are equivalent before
giving the treatment at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
Based on the analysis of Table IV.18, of the third hypothesis Ha3 is
rejected and Ho3 is accepted. So, it can be concluded that There is no significant
difference of students reading pre-test mean score between an experiment group
2 and a control group at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.

IV.3.4.

Hypothesis 4
The procedure of inferential statistics begins with the statistical test on the
following null hypothesis:

Ho4 : There is no a significant difference on students reading comprehension post-test

mean score between an experimental group 1 and an experimental group 2 at
MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
Ha4 : There is a significant difference on students reading comprehension post-test
mean score between an experimental group 1 and an experimental group 2 at
MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
The result of post-test reading comprehension for an experimental group 1
and an experimental group 2 is analyzed by using an Independent Sample T-test
and presented at the following Table IV.19.

TABLE IV.19

94

The Analysis of Independent Sample T-test of Post-test reading comprehension score

between an Experimental group 1 and an Experimental Group 2 at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
Standard
Subject

Research Groups

Mean

df

Sig.(2-tailed)

60

-1.79

.079

Deviation
Experimental Group
Post test

80.25

6.27

31

83.35

7.31

31

1
Experimental Group
2
Based on Independent T-test analysis for post-test reading comprehension score of
an experimental group 1 and an experimental group 2 on Table IV.19 above, it shows that
there is no significant difference at post-test reading comprehension between an experimental
group 1 and an experimental group 2. T-test result is -1.79, its df is 60, standard deviation of
an experimental group 1 is 6.27 and an experimental group 2 is 7.31. So, in the conclusion p =
0.079, the 2-tailed value is bigger than 0.05 (p>0.05). The result shows that the mean scores
do not differ much between both groups. It can be determined that the subjects in both groups
are not equivalent after giving the treatment at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
Based on the analysis of Table IV.19, of the forth hypotheses Ha4 is rejected and
Ho4 is accepted. So, it can be concluded that There is no significant difference on students
reading comprehension post-test mean score between an experiment group 1 and an
experiment group 2 at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.

IV.3.5.

Hypothesis 5
The procedure of inferential statistics begins with the statistical test on the
following null hypothesis:
95

Ho5 : There is no a significant difference on students reading comprehension posttest

mean score between an experimental group 1 and a control group at MAN 1
Pekanbaru.
Ha5 : There is a significant difference on students reading comprehension posttest
mean score between an experimental group 1 and a control group at MAN 1
Pekanbaru.
The result of post-test reading comprehension for an experimental group 1
and a control group is analyzed by using an Independent Sample T-test and
presented at the following Table IV.20.

TABLE IV.20
The Analysis of Independent Sample T-test of Post-test reading comprehension score
between an Experimental group 1 and a control Group at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
Standard
Subject

Research Groups

Mean

Df

Sig.(2-tailed)

Deviation
Experimental Group
Post test

2.82
80.25

6.27

31

1
Control Group

61

.006
3

74.62

9.23

96

32

Based on Independent T-test analysis for post-test reading comprehension score of

an experimental group 1 and a control group on Table IV.20 above, it shows that there is a
significant difference at post-test reading comprehension between an experimental group 1
and a control group. T-test result is 2.823, its df is 60, standard deviation of an experimental
group 1 is 6.27 and a control group is 9.23. So, in the conclusion p = 0.006, the 2-tailed
value is smaller than 0.05 (p<0.05). The result shows that the mean scores do differ much
between both groups. It can be determined that the subjects in both groups are equivalent
after giving the treatment at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
Based on the analysis of Table IV.20, of the fifth hypotheses Ha5 is accepted and
Ho5 is rejected. So, it can be concluded that There is a significant difference on students
reading comprehension post-test mean score between an experimental group 1 and a control
group at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.

IV.3.6.

Hypothesis 6
The procedure of inferential statistics begins with the statistical test on the
following null hypothesis:

Ho6 : There is no significant difference on students reading comprehension of posttest

mean between an experimental group 2 and a control group at MAN 1
Pekanbaru.
Ha6 : There is a significant difference on students reading comprehension of posttest
mean between an experimental group 2 and a control group at MAN 1
Pekanbaru.
97

The result of post-test reading comprehension for an experimental group 2

and a control group is analyzed by using an Independent Sample T-test and
presented at the following Table IV.21.

TABLE IV.21
The Analysis of Independent Sample T-test of Post-test reading comprehension score
between an Experimental group 2 and a control Group at MAN 1 Pekanbaru
Standard
Subject

Research Groups

Mean

Df

Sig.(2-tailed)

Deviation
Experimental Group
Post test

4.15
83.35

7.31

31

61

.000
2

Control Group

74.62

9.23

32

Based on Independent T-test analysis for post-test reading comprehension

score of an experimental group 2 and a control group on Table IV.21 above, it
shows that there is significant difference at post-test reading comprehension
between an experimental group 2 and a control group. T-test result is 4.152, its df
is 61, standard deviation of an experimental group 2 is 7.31 and a control group is
9.23. So, in the conclusion p = 0.000, the 2-tailed value is smaller than 0.05
(p<0.05). The result shows that the mean scores differ much between both groups.
It could be determined that the subjects in both groups are not equivalent after
giving the treatment at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
Based on the analysis of Table IV.21, of the sixth hypotheses Ha6 is
accepted and Ho6 is rejected. So, it can be concluded that There is significant

98

difference on students reading comprehension post-test mean score between an

experimental group 2 and a control group at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.

IV.3.7.

Hypothesis 7
The inferential statistics procedures are started with the statistical test on
the following null hypothesis:

Ho7 : There is no significant improvement on students reading comprehension mean

score of pretest and posttest mean score of an experimental 1 at MAN 1
Pekanbaru
Ha7 : There is a significant improvement on students reading comprehension mean
score of pretest and posttest mean score of an experimental group 1 at MAN 1
Pekanbaru
The result of the effect on implementing the treatment of DRA strategy on
students reading comprehension for an experimental group 1 of the composite
comparing score for both pre-test and post-test is analyzed by using a Paired
Sample T-test, and presented at the following Table 4.22:

TABLE IV.22
The Analysis of Paired Sample T-test Between Pre-test and Post-test on students reading
comprehension for an Experimental Group 1
Paired Samples T-Test
Standard
Subject

Group Score

Mean

N
Deviation
99

df

Sig.(2-tailed)

Effect

Pre test Score

57.80

12.30

31

Post test Score

80.25

6.27

31

30 -8.907

.000

From the table IV.22 above, the output of paired sample t-test shows that
the t-test result is -8.907, its df is 30, by comparing number of significance. If
probability>0.05, null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. If probability<0.05 alternative
hypothesis (Ha) is accepted. Because the significance is 0.000 < 0.05, thus, Ha is
accepted while H0 is rejected.
Then, the percentage of significant effect is found out between pre-test and
post-test of an experimental class 1 by looking for the effect size or eta-squared as
follows:
2 =

t2
t 2 +n1

2 =

(8.907)
(8.907)2+311

79.33
79.33+30

2=0.72
Eta-squared = 2 x 100%
Eta-squared = 0.72 x 100% = 72%
The result of data analysis is based on inferential statistics which has been
identified that after conducting the treatment for 4 meetings or 8 class-hours by
using DRA strategy can improve 72% on the reading comprehension. Therefore,
the Ho7 hypothesis is rejected and Ha7 is accepted that there is significant
improvement

between

reading

100

comprehension

pre-test

mean

score

of

experimental group 1 and reading comprehension post-test mean score of an

experimental group 1 at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.

IV.3.8.

Hypothesis 8
The inferential statistics procedures arestarted with the statistical test on
the following null hypothesis:

Ho8 : There is no significant improvement on students reading comprehension mean

score of pretest and posttest mean score of an experimental 2 at MAN 1
Pekanbaru
Ha8 : There is a significant improvement on students reading comprehension mean
score of pretest and posttest mean score of an experimental 2 at MAN 1
Pekanbaru
The result of the effect on implementing the treatment of DRTA strategy
on students reading comprehension for an experimental group 2 of the composite
comparing score for both pre-test and post-test is analyzed by using a Paired
Sample T-test, and presented at the following Table 4.23:

TABLE IV.23
The Analysis of Paired Sample T-test Between Pre-test and Post-test on students reading
comprehension for an Experimental Group 2
Paired Samples T-Test
Subject

Group Score

Mean

Standard

101

Sig.(2-tailed)

Deviation
Effect

Pre test Score

58.96

8.76

31

Post test Score

83.35

7.31

31

30

-9.79

.000

From the table IV.23 above, the output of paired sample t-test shows that
the t-test result is -9.79, its df is 30, by comparing number of significance. If
probability>0.05, null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. If probability<0.05 alternative
hypothesis (Ha) is accepted. Because the significance is 0.000 < 0.05, thus, Ha is
accepted while H0 is rejected.
Then, the percentage of significant effect is found out between pre-test and
post-test of an experimental class 2 by looking for the effect size or eta-squared as
follows:
2

2 =

t
2
t +n1

(9.79)2
(9.79)2+311

2=

95.84
95.84+30

2=0.76
Eta-squared = 2 x 100%
Eta-squared = 0.76 x 100% = 76%
The result of data analysis is based on inferential statistics which has been
identified that after conducting the treatment for 4 meetings or 8 class-hours by
using DRTA strategy can improve 76% on the reading comprehension. Therefore,
the Ho8 hypothesis is rejected and Ha8 is accepted that there is significant
improvement

between

reading
102

comprehension

pre-test

mean

score

of

experimental group 2 and reading comprehension post-test mean score of an

experimental group 2 at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.

IV.3.9.

Hypothesis 9
The inferential statistics procedures started with the statistical test on the
following null hypothesis:

Ho9 : There is no significant improvement on students reading comprehension mean

score of pretest and posttest mean score of a control group at MAN 1
Pekanbaru
Ha9 : There is a significant improvement on students reading comprehension mean
score of pretest and posttest mean score of a control group at MAN 1
Pekanbaru

The result of the effect on implementing the treatment of DRTA strategy

on students reading comprehension for an experimental group 2 of the composite
comparing score for both pre-test and post-test is analyzed by using a Paired
Sample T-test, and presented at the following Table 4.24:

TABLE IV.24
The Analysis of Paired Sample T-test Between Pre-test and Post-test on students reading
comprehension for a Control Group
Paired Samples T-Test

103

Standard
Subject

Group Score

Mean

D
N

Deviation
Effect

Sig.(2-tailed)

-5.514

.000

Pre test Score

58.87

11.77

32

Post test Score

74.62

9.23

32

31

From the table IV.24 above, the output of paired sample t-test shows that the t-test
result was -5.514, its df is 31, by comparing number of significance. If probability>0.05,
null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. If probability<0.05 alternative hypothesis (H a) is accepted.
Because the significance is 0.000 < 0.05, thus, Ha is accepted while H0 is rejected.
Then, the percentage of significant effect is found out between pre-test
and post-test of an experimental class 2 by looking for the effect size or etasquared as follows:
=

t2
t 2 +n1

2 =

(5.514)2
(5.514)2+321

2=

30.40
30.40+ 31

2=0.49
Eta-squared = 2 x 100%
Eta-squared = 0.49 x 100% = 49%
The result of data analysis is based on inferential statistics which has been
identified that after conducting the treatment for 4 meetings or 8 class-hours by using
DRTA strategy can improve 49% on the reading comprehension. Therefore, the Ho9
hypothesis is rejected and Ha9 is accepted that there is a significant improvement

104

between reading comprehension pre-test and post-test mean score of a control group
at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
4.5.

DISCUSSION
The main aim of this study is to compare the use of DRA and DR-TA strategies on

students reading comprehension at State Islamic Senior High School (MAN 1) Pekanbaru.
DRA (Directed Reading Activities) and DR-TA (Directed Reading Thinking Activities) are
two strategies used in teaching Reading Comprehension at Junior and Senior High School
level. Based on the KTSP or 2013 Curriculum, reading comprehension or reading skill takes
major part of teaching English as well as more reading materials are tested in final or
national examination.

Specifically, the study is done to answer the research questions that are stated as
follows:
a. To what extent does using Directed Reading Activity (DRA) strategies give the effect
on the students reading comprehension at State Islamic Senior High School (MAN 1)
Pekanbaru?
Based on data analysis of inferential statistics of an Experimental Group 1 using DRA
strategy, it shows that there is significant improvement on students reading comprehension
pre-test and post-test mean score of an experimental group 1 using Directed Reading
Activity ( DRA) strategy at MAN 1 Pekanbaru. Then, the percentage of significant effect
between pre-test and post-test of an experimental class 1 by looking for the effect size or etasquared as follows: Eta-squared = 0.72 x 100% = 72%

105

b. To what extent does using Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DR-TA) strategies give
the effect on the students reading comprehension at State Islamic Senior High School
(MAN 1) Pekanbaru?
Based on data analysis of inferential statistics of Experimental Group 2 using
Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DR-TA) strategy, it shows that there is a significant
improvement on students reading comprehension pre-test and post-test mean score of an
experimental group 2 using DR-TA strategy at MAN 1 Pekanbaru. Then, the percentage of
significant effect between pre-test and post-test of an experimental class 2 by looking for the
effect size or eta-squared as follows: Eta-squared = 0.76 x 100% = 76%
c. Is there any significant difference on the students reading comprehension between
using Directed Reading Activity (DRA) and Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA) strategies at State Islamic Senior High School (MAN 1) Pekanbaru?
To determine the comparison if there is significant difference on the students reading
comprehension between using Directed Reading Activity (DRA) and Directed Reading
Thinking Activity (DR-TA) strategies at State Islamic Senior High School (MAN 1)
Pekanbaru.
Based on an Independent T-test analysis for post-test reading comprehension score of
an experimental group 1 and an experimental group 2 on Table IV.19 above, it shows that
there is no significant difference at post-test reading comprehension between an
experimental group 1 and an experimental group 2. T-test result is -1.79, its df is 60,
standard deviation of an experimental group 1 is 6.27 and an experimental group 2 is 7.31.
So, in the conclusion p = 0.079, the 2-tailed value is bigger than 0.05 (p>0.05). The result
shows that the mean scores do not differ much between both groups. It can be determined

106

that the subjects in both groups are not equivalent after giving the treatment at MAN 1
Pekanbaru.
Based on the analysis of the forth hypotheses Ha4 is rejected and Ho4 is accepted. So,
it can be concluded that There is no significant difference on students reading
comprehension post-test mean score between an experiment group 1 and an experimental
group 2 at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.
Alan Crawford (2005:42) states the rationale of this strategy is designed to support
students reading comprehension by guiding them to key points in the text and providing
opportunities discuss its meaning with their classmates. Both DRA and DR-TA (Stauffer
1969) is popular method for engaging students in reading narrative texts for understanding.
DR-TA is similar to DRA in that students read silently under direction of the teacher, but the
question prompts are less specific and provide less support for comprehension than DRA.
DR-TA is suitable for students who have had good success with DRA, because it encourages
them to make their own predictions.
The finding of the forth hypotheses analysis shows There is no significant difference
on students reading comprehension post-test mean score between an experiment group 1
using Directed Reading Activity (DRA) and an experiment group 2 using Directed Reading
Thinking Activity (DR-TA) at MAN 1 Pekanbaru.Dealing with this finding, Stauffer (1969)
states that both DRA and DR-TA are similar strategies engaged to teach reading
comprehension especially in reading narrative texts. On the other hand, DR-TA strategy is
suitable for students who have had good success with DRA because DR-TA encourages
students to make their own predictions.

107