1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Problem

Writing is one of the language skills beside listening, speaking and reading

that must be mastered by English learners. Through writing one can express and

exchange his or her ideas, thoughts and experiences to others. Through writing

one can also transfer information and knowledge to others. In other words, writing

can be said as a means of communication between the writer and the reader.

Writing is an activity that combines words to form meaningful messages that

the writer wants to express. In writing, the writer has to consider number of

aspects such as vocabulary, spelling, grammar, mechanics and organization. The

complexity of the writing makes writing seem difficult for most English learners.

Mastering English writing or learning writing is not an easy job. According

to Vallete (1976), writing in English may truly be considered as the most

sophisticated among the four primary language skills. These skills are speaking,

listening, reading and writing. This idea is supported by Raimes (1983) who stated

that many adult native speakers of a language find writing difficult.

The same opinion is also given by Byrne (1982) who concludes that among

the four skills, writing in term of well-organized ideas, is the highest level and

commonly regarded as a difficult activity for most people both in mother tongue

and in foreign language. Harris (1974) conclude that during the early learning of

English, the three other skills must be well-taught and trained as the prerequisite

for learning writing.

1
 2

From numerous opinions given by the experts, it can be concluded that they

have the same opinion that writing skill is the most difficult one among the four

basic skills of language. When the students have to study written composition as a

required subject, they face many troubles. It seems that they are not able to

transfer the oral language habit automatically into written language with the same

level of correctness. Not only do the structures used in written English differ from

those used in oral, but also there are difficulties in spelling, language style, and

formality and the problem of organizing ideas. What they have studied during the

oral-drill period is something different from they are facing when they begin to

write.

Teacher added that the most difficult problem faced by the students in

writing is in linguistic aspects, particularly in grammar. Students relatively often

made grammatical errors in writing. As stated by Paulston (1976) structure of

grammar permeates all language skills.

B. Identification of the Problem

Since writing is a part of a language skills taught in Junior High School, the

students have to master it. Hughes (1986:101) states that there are five

components in evaluating student’s writing. They are grammar (if any noticeable

errors of grammar), vocabulary (if it is distinguishable from educated native

writer), mechanics (if any noticeable lapses in punctuation or spelling), fluency

(choice of structures and vocabulary consistently appropriate) and form (the

organization). So, one of the important aspects in writing is grammar.

 3

The student’s writing can reflect how far the students understand the

grammar point that has been taught. Hughes (1986:99) says that in intermediate

low level such as at junior high school, there are many basic errors in grammar,

word choice, punctuation, spelling in the formation and the use of nonalphabetic

symbols. One way to know the student’s mastery of the grammar is by giving

writing exercises to the students. The exercises they do can be used as reflection

of the student’s mastery of the grammar in writing. In checking the grammar at

the student’s writing, the teacher usually gives score. But the score given is not

with any comments and suggestions. Giving scores and marks on student’s writing

without any comments and corrections will raise students negative sense of the

teacher’s scoring. The students do not know what aspects or criteria are given by

teacher to give the score. The lack of correction of student’s writing makes the

students not know their mistakes.

Due to the problem above, giving written correction on student’s writing is

important. Written correction is one form of feedback from which they know

where they have made mistakes and errors. The corrections given are used as

feedbacks and information for them for the next writing. The students should

receive feedbacks on their work to improve the quality of the work. Without

feedbacks, the students cannot improve their skill and do not know their progress.

It often occurs that the teacher gives correction on student’s performance

orally. The teacher gives correction in misspelling or mispronouncing of the

words. In contrast, it is rare that the teacher gives sufficient written correction.

The teachers almost always give students written exercises or tasks, yet the
 4

student’s works are not provided with sufficient feedback, like correction. Yet, the

teachers only give numerical marks like 7, 8, 9 or alphabetical grades such as A,

B, C, D or E.

Therefore, giving written correction on student’s writing is important. It

means that the teacher has informed the student’s mistakes, so the students can

learn from the correction given.

Based on the assumption that grammar is one of the important aspect in

writing, the teacher also needs to pay attention to the grammar used while

correcting the student’s writing. The teacher is suggested to give comments and

corrections on the grammar mistakes or error at the student’s writing besides

giving score.

C. Limitation of the Problem

Based on the identification above, the problem is limited to the study of the

effect of the teacher’s written grammatical corrections on the student’s grammar

mastery in their writing especially in narrative and recount text of the second year

students of SMPN 2 Bonjol.

D. Formulation of the Problem

The problem of this study is formulated as follows: Do the teacher’s written

grammatical corrections on the student’s writing give better effect on the grammar

mastery especially in narrative and recount text at grade VIII students of SMPN 2

Bonjol?
 5

E. Hypothesis

It is hypothesized that the students whose written works are given teacher’s

written grammatical corrections will give better effect than the students whose

written works are corrected by conventional way on the grammar mastery of their

writing.

F. Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to explain whether giving teacher’s written

grammatical correction on the student’s writing will give significant difference on

the grammar mastery of student’s writing especially in narrative and recount text.

G. Significance of the Study

Giving written grammatical correction on student’s work is very important

in learning process because by giving the written grammatical corrections, the

students will know their mistakes and they can learn from those mistakes.

Therefore, this study is useful to know whether the teacher’s written grammatical

correction affects student’s grammar mastery of their writing.

H. Definition of the Key Term

Teacher’s written correction : The written correction given by the teacher

on the students’ grammatical mistakes as

found in their writings.

 6

Grammar mastery : The scores obtained by the students for their

writings.

Grammar : Grammar that is used in narrative and recount

text and added with misspelling, chose of

word and word order.

Student’s writing : The works or exercises done by the students

in written form such as making a short

paragraphs, making sentences, short

dialogs.
 7

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. Review of the Related Theories

1. Writing

Writing is one of the language skills besides listening, speaking and reading.

Writing is a means of communication to which the people express his or her ideas

of feeling to others. Nurgiantoro (1987) states that writing activity is a final

manifestation of language skills mastered by language learners.

There are several definitions about writing itself. According to Rusyana

(1984) writing is ability to use language pattern in written form, to express ideas

or messages. This means that writing is a means to convey one’s ideas or

messages to others. Tarigan (1986) says that writing means to illustrate or

symbolize graphic symbols that show a language and understood by someone so

that others can read the graphic symbols. In addition Hubbard (1998) views

writing is not just as a skill but it is able to enhance one’s learning. Writing needs

other people to consider and to examine whether his or her writing is readable.

Carino (1991) devides writing into two categories namely writing as a

product and writing as a process. As a product it deals with bad or good writing.

While as a process, writing is seen from the activity from the beginning to the end

of the writing process.

Writing is different from other skills because it depends on other aspects

such as spelling and grammatical rules. As Hoy and Farr (1983:100) say that

writing has its own areas, they are:

7
 8

“1). spelling, 2). written syntax, 3). text organization, 4).

choice of audience, 5). ideation or abstractness and 7).
handwriting.”

In addition Heaton (2003:134) says that writing is a complex skill because it

has four main areas. They are:

1) Grammatical skils: the ability to write correct

sentences;
2) Stylistic skills: the ability to manipulate sentences
and use the language effectively;
3) Mechanical skills: the ability to use correctly
those conventions peculiar to the written language – e.g
punctuation, spelling;
4) Judgment skills: the ability to write in an
appropriate manner for a particular purpose with a
particular audience in mind, together with an ability to
select, organize and order relevant information.

To see the student’s progress, it is not enough just conducting formative and

summative test at the end of a particular unit or some units. Harris (1974:121)

states that written exercise is the best way to know student’s mastery for early

stage about grammatical point and lexical item, and the latter stage is to complex

ability such as organization ability. A writing test is also a means to measure and

to know student’s ability and understanding about the material being taught

deeply. A written works done daily and regularly can improve the student’s

mastery and comprehending about the matter given. He views the written

performance from five components:

1) Content: the substances of the writing.

2) Form: the way now to organize the content.
3) Grammar: the appropriate and correct rule used.
4) Style: words and structure chosen.
5) Mechanics: such as punctuation and capitalization.
 9

Writing includes certain stages. Mc. Manan and Day (1984:98) state the

stages in writing activity:

“1). Outlining, 2). Writing stages (constructing the first draft),

3). Revising stage (revising the rough draft), 4). Editing stage
(correcting the final version).”

From the description above, the writing is a complex activity in which one

has to consider a number of aspects. The aspects are grammar, vocabulary,

spelling, organization, fluency and so on. Then there are also stages in the writing

process. The stages involve outlining, composing first draft, revising and editing.

Writing activity is not only to write paragraph, but also to write sentences or

words that one wants to express.

2. Grammar

Grammar is very important in English teaching and learning. Grammar

cannot be separated from four English basic skill; listening, writing, reading and

speaking. Grammar is related to structure. Talking about grammar, it will also talk

about structure. Grammar is not actually a language skill, yet it is necessary in

language skills.

Burton (1984) defines that grammar is the rules by which words are formed

and put together to make sentences, for example: word order in sentences,

grammatical markers like plurals, verb tenses, pronoun, etc. He adds that grammar

is concerned with the structure that should be mastered by learners in order to

construct English grammatical sentences effectively.

 10

Rivers (in Arnold, 1987) states the grammar is a frame of work in a language

use. Horn (in Refnaldi, 1994) says that grammar is the science of rules of

combining words becoming sentences and the classification of words. While the

structure is a way of how words are combined. Without grammar, the language

learners will not master the language skills such as speaking, reading, listening

and writing. So, grammar is one of the most important components in English

language, because it enables students to group words and to organize them in a

good order to form units of ideas in the correct English sentences.

Refnaldi (1994) discusses that teaching grammar communicatively

combines three objectives of language teaching: form, meaning and use. Narius

(1995) discusses grammatical contents focus on two area: verb system (the formal

and semantic system of tense, aspects, modality and voice), and the formation of

complex sentences (clause and verbal).

Based on the explanations above, it can conclude that grammar is the system

of rules, which deals with words that are formed. Grammar is also a system of

rules in forming words and joining the words into sentences. It combines three

objectives of language teaching: form, meaning and use. Moreover, grammar

relates to the four language skills; listening, speaking, reading an d writing. In

other words, grammar is very necessary while mastering the four English basic

skills. As the consequences, without mastering grammar, the four English basic

skills will be hard to be mastered.

 11

3. Corrections
a. Teacher’s Written Grammatical Corrections

The case for grammar correction in the student’s writing is based on the idea

that if a teacher points out to a student a grammatical error they have made, the

student will understand the mistake they have made, learn from it, and their ability

to write accurately will improve. It is also widely felt that if teachers do not

correct their students' grammatical mistakes, 'fossilization' will occur, and it will

become very difficult to later eliminate these errors.

Correction can reflect the student’s mastery about the lesson taught. Prayitno

(1989) says that in correcting student’s works or tests, the teacher should provide

a lot of comments on the sheet because they will avoid the students from

assuming that the teachers gives unfair and random mark for their work.

According to Ur (2000), the correction given by the teacher is ongoing correction,

which is directed to bring the improvement of the students. If the student’s works

are not corrected, the students may feel that they are useless on doing it. So,

comments on the student’s work are very helpful as information to be better for

the next, to know the mistake, and to see the progress achieved.

Corrections are done to both mistakes and errors which commonly occur in

the learning process. Corder (1974) says that many students are unaware what is

error and what is a mistake. As it has a serious implication to the teaching of

writing itself, many attempts have been done to remedy this situation. Porte

(1993) gives an explanation as to what constitutes an error and what is a mistake.

He says that error would appear to demonstrate a fault at a deeper level. An error

may have become so ingrained that a students may not even have perceived it as
 12

such and is thus condemned to repeat it until proficiency. Mistake, on the other

hand, may well result from carelessness, a slip of tongue or momentary lapse in

though.

Furthermore, Corder (1967) makes a useful distinction between errors and

mistakes in his paper. Errors tend to be systematic and reveal the learner’s

underlying knowledge of the language to date, while mistakes are unsystematic,

resulting from memory lapse, physical states, such as tiredness and psychological

condition.

In correcting the student’s work the teacher may not focus directly on the

student’s mistakes. George (in Hendrickson, 1971) suggests a number of

techniques to correct the student’s written error, as follows:

a.Use different colors of ink to differentiate between the least

and the more important error to be paid attention to.
b. Underline all misspetl words or omitted affixes.
c.Write suggestion or mark above confusing phrases or
sentences or an arrow to indicate the preposition of article
left.

The similar way is also suggested by George and Tribbon (1992), that they

call annoting that is writing some comments in the margin of the student’s paper

and the comments might be one or two words.

Yasin (1978:23) argues that error come from interlanguage and

intralanguage. The interlinguage errors are:

a.Omission of –s as plural form

For example: three year, six pen
b. Omission of –s as third singular indication
For example: She run fast. John write a letter.
c.Omission of be
For example: My mother sick. She very beautiful.
d. Omission of preposition
 13

For example: I went school economic faculty.

e.Omission of –ing in gerund
For example: The child stops cry.
f. Misuse of past and present tense
For example: They come here last year. She cries yesterday.
g. Omission of articles
For example: I have book and pencil
h. Omission of to be before infinitive
For example: we need by there guided books.

The intralinguage errors are still explained by Yasin (1978:24):

a.Overgeneralization. It is caused by overgeneralization of

what they have learned. For example: She can runs fast.
John writed a letter for his mom.
b. Ignorance of rule restriction. It happened because
the students ignore the rule that they have learned. For
example: I make them to hate her. I saw the girl whom wore
the same shirt as you.
c.Incomplete application of rule. For example: What are you
doing then? I sleeping. Did you go to bed lately? Yes, I go to
bed lately.
d.
False concept hypothesis. It is resulted from faulty
comprehension of distinctions in target language.

So, correction is an action ro rectify an error and to make right a wrong. İt is

also to st straight an error, clarify a misunderstanding, posting of the notice of a

mistake that appeared in a writing. The correction given by the teacher is ongoing

correction, which is directed to bring the improvement of the students. By giving

the corrections, the student will then understand the mistake they have made, learn

from it, and their ability to write accurately will improve.

b. Conventional Corrections
 14

Hornby (1990:120) defines conventional as (1) (of person) behaving

according to what is the usual costum, (2) (of speech and action) depending in

convention: usual and ordinary, or nothing new and interesting, (3) according to

accepted rules or tradition; not showing imagination, as conventional art,

conventional design as in a carpet. For those reasons, the writer thinks that the

term conventional means what has happened in most English learning and

teaching process.

A conventional technique has been applied for many years. In teaching and

learning writing, the teacher corrects the student’s written work by using

conventional way. The teacher only gives mark such as 7, 8, 9 or A, B, C, D or E

without any comments and suggestions on the student’s worksheet. After the

teacher knew the student’s mistakes and errors in writing, he or she just explain

generally in front of the class.

So, conventional correction is correction given by the teacher orally in

front of the class after the teacher knows the difficulties faced by the students in

grammar in their writing.

B. Review of the Related Findings

In accordance to giving reinforcement, Lelfita (1993) has investigated the

effect of giving reinforcement in teaching and learning process of physic subjects.

She (1993) obtains that students who receive reinforcement give better result than

those who do not got reinforcement.

Meanwhile in giving correction followed by any comment, Dewi (2000) also

found that giving written comments on student’s work gives good impacts
 15

towards student’s achievement. Dewi (2000) conducts the research of the written

comments on the student’s homework. The result is the students are diligent to do

their homework and achieve good mark. Nurmailis (2000) also finds that most

teachers do not give any comment or correction on student’s paper. The student’s

works are only give numerical mark and sometimes alphabetical mark.
Moreover, Apen (1995) obtains that giving feedback on student’s answer

sheet and returning it to the students give better result in Reading III. The students

comprehend the lesson given more than before, and the feedback given motivates

them to study better. In addition Hafizah (2002) analyzes that almost all students

agree when the teacher gives written comment on their paper in writing. They see

the comments from the teacher as feedback about their work and as guide for

them for the next writing. Lastly, Rosmar (2000) finds that the students whose

exercises are corrected by the teacher give better result in final achievement in

mathematic than the students whose work are not corrected.

C. Conceptual Framework

Writing is one of the language skills that should be mastered by English

learners. Writing can be seen from five aspects: mechanics, grammar, style, form,

and content. Giving correction on student’s writing on the grammar aspects can

affect student’s grammar accuracy on their writing.

Through the correction given, the students can learn and know their

mistakes or errors. In addition, through the correction they know the correct ones.

As the result, the students will have better results in grammar accuracy of their

writing than before.

 16

The following diagram will draw the process of the research:

Writing skill

Teacher’s written Conventional

grammatical Corrections
corrections

- Use Explain generally in

different colors of front of the class about
ink students problems in
- Underline grammar in their writing
all misspetl words
or omitted affixes
- Write

Student’s grammar
mastery in writing

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD

A. Research Design
 17

This study was an experimental research. It attempted to find out whether

teacher’s written grammatical corrections effected of the grammar accuracy in the

student’s writing by giving the teacher’s written correction or buy using

conventional way in giving correction. It involved two balanced groups, one as

experimental group and the other one as control group. As stated by Sumady

(1998) one characteristic of an experimental research is that it uses experimental

group to be compared to the control group. The experimental group received

teacher’s written grammatical correction on student’s writing about grammar

accuracy while the control group was corrected by using conventional way.

Then, this study was the pretest-posttest control group design. Pretest was

given to the two sample groups in the first meeting of the research to know the

student’s ability in writing before giving the treatment. The posttest was

conducted to the two groups in the final meeting of the research.

Research Design

Group Pretest Treatment Posttest

Given teacher’s written
E X Y
grammatical corrections
By using conventional
C X Y
correction

17
E : Experimental Group
C : Control Group
X : Pretest for both experimental and control group
Y : Posttest for both experimental and control group

B. Population and Sample

 18

The population of this study was the second year students of SMPN 2

Bonjol who were registered in academic year 2008/2009. There were 217 students

in five classes. They are class VIII.1 consisted of forty students, class VIII.2

consisted of forty-six students, class VIII.3 consisted of forty-five students, class

VIII.4 consisted of forty-four students and class VIII.5 consisted of forty-five

students.

The two sample groups were selected by using random cluster sampling

because the five classes were parallel and homogeny. To determine which class to

be an experimental and control group, a coin was flipped. The side of picture was

experimental group and the side of number was control group.

C. Instrumentation

A writing test was used for the instrument of the research. The students were

assigned to make a short paragraph about one type of the text, which was about

narrative text or recount text. The students was asked to choose one of them. The

test was used because it reflects the student’s writing ability in grammar mastery

and based on the experts, the indicators in narrative and recount text is suitable to

measure the grammar mastery in the student’s writing.

The instrument of the research was administering the posttest; there were

two scorers in scoring the posttest. The scorers were the researcher herself and the

English teacher of class VIII. The scoring was based on guidelines derived from

Weigle (2002:117):

0: Almost all grammatical patterns inaccurate.

 19

1: Frequent grammatical inaccuracies.

2: Some grammatical inaccuracies.

3: Almost no grammatical inaccuracies.

D. Procedure
1. Pretest

The pretest was conducted in the first meeting of the research to both

groups. Both of them were about writing a short paragraph about narrative text or

recount text. The students was asked to choose one of them. The test was

administered at the same time that was about 80 minutes, the same given topic and

the same length of time.

2. Treatment

The treatment was done for a months of for four weeks. The treatment was

focused only on the grammatical aspect.

a.Experimental Group

In the experimental group, the teachers corrected the student’s writing by:

use different colors of ink to differentiate between the least and the more

important error to be paid attention to, underline all misspetl words or omitted

affixes, write suggestion or mark above confusing phrases or sentences or an

arrow to indicate the preposition of article left and write some comments in the

margin of the student’s paper and the comments might be one or two words. And

then the teacher will give the score based on the scoring above (0, 1, 2, and 3)

b. Control Group
 20

In the control group, the teachers corrected the student’s writing by using

conventional way, that was just explain generally about the student’s mistakes and

errors. Then the teachers would give score based on the scoring above (0, 1, 2, and

3).

3. Posttest

The posttest was conducted in the final meeting of the research. Both of

them were about writing a short paragraph about narrative text or recount text.

The students was asked to choose one of them. The test was administered at the

same time that was about 80 minutes, the same given topic and the same length of

time.

E. Technique of Collecting the Data

The data of this study was taken from the student’s writing test. The test was

given to the sample of the population that were experimental group and control

group. After the students have finished, the answer sheets was collected and

analyzed. It was assumption that the students data will be in normal curve so t-test

was used. The scoring was based on guidelines derived from Weigle (2002:117)

which is stated above.

F. Technique of Analyzing the Data

 21

The data was analyzed by using t-test to test the hypothesis at .05 level of

significance as it was often used as a standard in educational study derives from

Gay (1987:399)

x 1 −x 2
t=

√( SS1 + SS 2
n1 +n2 −2 )( 1 1
+
n 1 n2 )

explanation:

t = the value of t-calculated

x1 = mean of the experimental group

x2 = mean of the control group

SS1 = sum of squares experimental group

SS2 = sum of squares control group

n1 = number of experimental group

n2 = number of control group

Then the t-calculated was compared to the t-table at level of significance .05.

If the t-calculated was smaller or the same with the t-table, it means that the

difference is not significant and the hypothesis was not accepted. And if t-

calculated was bigger than t-table, it means the difference was significant and the

hypothesis was accepted.

 22

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. Findings
1. Description of the Data
The scores of the students were collected by administering a pretest at the

first meeting and a posttest at the end of the meeting. The pretest and posttest
 23

were followed by the students of the two groups, forty students from experimental

group and forty-four students from control group that were selected by using

cluster random sampling.

The pretest and posttest were to make one or two paragraphs about certain

topics. The aspect scored was only grammar errors. There were two scores to give

score of the test. It aimed at enhancing the reliability of the scoring. The two

scores resulted were totalized and then divided by two to get the final scores. The

highest possible score was three and the lowest possible score was nol. The result

of the pretest and the posttest of the experimental and control group are in the

following table.

Table 4.1 The result of pretest of experimental group

S SCORER 1 SCORER 2 X1 X12

1 1 2 1.5 2.25
2 1 1 1 1
3 1 2 1.5 2.25
4 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1
6 2 1 1.5 2.25
7 1 2 1.5 2.25
8 1 2 1.5 2.25
9 1 1 1
23 1
10 1 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1
12 1 1 1 1
13 1 2 1.5 2.25
14 1 1 1 1
15 1 2 1.5 2.25
16 1 2 1.5 2.25
17 1 1 1 1
18 1 1 1 1
19 1 2 1.5 2.25
20 1 1 1 1
 24

21 1 1 1 1
22 1 1 1 1
23 2 1 1.5 2.25
24 2 1 1.5 2.25
25 1 1 1 1
26 1 1 1 1
27 1 1 1 1
28 2 1 1.5 2.25
29 2 1 1.5 2.25
30 1 1 1 1
31 1 2 1.5 2.25
32 1 1 1 1
33 3 3 3 9
34 2 2 2 4
35 1 1 1 1
36 1 1 1 1
37 2 2 2 4
38 3 3 3 9
39 2 2 2 4
40 2 1 1.5 2.25
53 56 54.5 83.75
ΣX1 ΣX12

From the table above, it was found that the highest score is 3 and the lowest

score is 1. To see the class and the frequency of the students more clearly about

the data above, table 4.2 that follows gives the details.
Table 4.2 The frequency and class interval of the result of pretest of experimental

group

Class Interval Frequency

2.6 – 3.0 2
2.1 – 2.5 0
1.6 – 2.0 3
1.1 – 1.5 15
0.6 – 1.0 20
0 – 0.5 0

The information of table 4.2 can be simplified in graphic 4.1 bellow:

 25

Graphic 4.1. The graphic of the scores of pretest of experimental group

The

following is table 4.3 describes the result of pretest of control group.

Table 4.3 The result of pretest of control group

S SCORER 1 SCORER 2 X2 X22

1 2 1 1.5 2.25
2 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1
4 2 2 2 4
5 1 1 1 1
6 2 2 2 4
7 3 3 3 9
8 2 1 1.5 2.25
9 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1
12 1 1 1 1
13 2 1 1.5 2.25
14 1 2 1.5 2.25
15 2 1 1.5 2.25
16 2 2 2 4
17 1 0 0.5 0.25
18 0 0 0 0
 26

19 0 0 0 0
20 2 1 1.5 2.25
21 0 1 0.5 0.25
22 1 2 1.5 2.25
23 1 0 0.5 0.25
24 1 1 1 1
25 2 2 2 4
26 1 1 1 1
27 1 1 1 1
28 0 1 0.5 0.25
29 1 1 1 1
30 2 1 1.5 2.25
31 1 1 1 1
32 2 1 1.5 2.25
33 2 1 1.5 2.25
34 1 1 1 1
35 1 1 1 1
36 2 2 2 4
37 1 1 1 1
38 2 2 2 4
39 2 1 1.5 2.25
40 1 2 1.5 2.25
41 1 1 1 1
42 1 2 1.5 2.25
43 1 1 1 1
44 2 2 2 4
58 53 55.5 84.25
ΣX2 ΣX22

From the table above, it was found that the highest score is 3 and the lowest

score is 0. To see the class and the frequency of the students more clearly about

the data above, table 4.4 that follows gives the details.

Table 4.4 The frequency and class interval of the result of pretest of control group

Class Interval Frequency

2.6 – 3.0 1
2.1 – 2.5 0
1.6 – 2.0 7
1.1 – 1.5 13
0.6 – 1.0 17
 27

0 – 0.5 6

The information of table 4.4 can be simplified in graphic 4.2 bellow:

Graphic 4.2. The graphic of the scores of pretest of control group

The following is table 4.5 describes the result of posttest of experimental group.
Table 4.5 The result of posttest of experimental group

S SCORER 1 SCORER 2 X1 X12

1 2 2 2 4
2 3 3 3 9
3 2 1 1.5 2.25
4 1 2 1.5 2.25
5 1 2 1.5 2.25
6 3 3 3 9
7 3 3 3 9
8 2 3 2.5 6.25
9 3 3 3 9
10 1 1 1 1
11 3 3 3 9
12 2 2 2 4
13 3 2 2.5 6.25
 28

14 3 2 2.5 6.25
15 3 3 3 9
16 2 2 2 4
17 2 2 2 4
18 3 3 3 9
19 3 3 3 9
20 3 2 2.5 6.25
21 3 3 3 9
22 3 3 3 9
23 3 3 3 9
24 3 3 3 9
25 2 2 2 4
26 3 2 2.5 6.25
27 3 3 3 9
28 3 3 3 9
29 3 3 3 9
30 3 2 2.5 6.25
31 2 2 2 4
32 3 3 3 9
33 2 2 2 4
34 3 3 3 9
35 2 2 2 4
36 3 2 2.5 6.25
37 3 3 3 9
38 2 1 1.5 2.25
39 3 3 3 9
40 2 2 2 4
99.5 260.75
ΣX1 ΣX12

From the table above, it was found that the highest score is 3 and the lowest

score is 1. To see the class and the frequency of the students more clearly about

the data above, table 4.6 that follows gives the details.

Table 4.6 The frequency and class interval of the result of posttest of experimental

group
 29

Class Interval Frequency

2.6 – 3.0 19
2.1 – 2.5 7
1.6 – 2.0 9
1.1 – 1.5 4
0.6 – 1.0 1
0 – 0.5 0

The information of table 4.6 can be simplified in graphic 4.3 bellow:

Graphic 4.3. The graphic of the scores of posttest of experimental group

The following is table 4.7 describes the result of posttest of control group.

Table 4.7 The result of posttest of control group

S SCORER 1 SCORER 2 X2 X22

1 3 3 3 9
2 2 2 2 4
3 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1
5 2 1 1.5 2.25
6 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1
 30

9 0 1 0.5 0.25
10 3 3 3 9
11 2 2 2 4
12 1 1 1 1
13 1 2 1.5 2.25
14 1 1 1 1
15 1 1 1 1
16 1 1 1 1
17 1 1 1 1
18 1 1 1 1
19 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1
21 1 1 1 1
22 3 3 3 9
23 1 1 1 1
24 2 2 2 4
25 1 1 1 1
26 0 0 0 0
27 2 2 2 4
28 2 2 2 4
29 3 3 3 9
30 1 1 1 1
31 0 0 0 0
32 1 1 1 1
33 1 1 1 1
34 1 1 1 1
35 1 1 1 1
36 1 1 1 1
37 2 2 2 4
38 1 1 1 1
39 1 1 1 1
40 1 1 1 1
41 1 1 1 1
42 2 1 1.5 2.25
43 2 2 2 4
44 3 3 3 9
60 106
ΣX2 ΣX22
 31

From the table above, it was found that the highest score is 3 and the lowest

score is 0. To see the class and the frequency of the students more clearly about

the data above, table 4.8 that follows gives the details.

Table 4.8 The frequency and class interval of the result of posttest of control

group

Class Interval Frequency

2.6 – 3.0 5
2.1 – 2.5 0
1.6 – 2.0 7
1.1 – 1.5 3
0.6 – 1.0 26
0 – 0.5 3

The information of table 4.8 can be simplified in graphic 4.4 bellow:

Graphic 4.4. The graphic of the scores of posttest of control group

2. Data Analysis
This research administered pretest to know student’s ability before

treatment. It wanted to compare between the result of pretest and the posttest

whether the treatment gave significant differences to students writing ability

especially in grammar.
 32

As mentioned in F (Data Analysis) of chapter III, the analysis of the data

used the t-test. From the analysis, it was found that in pretest at experimental

group, the number of group is 40 students, the sum of scores is 54.4, the mean of

the scores is 1.36, the sum of the squared scores is 83.75 and the standard

deviation is 0.49. At control group, the number of group is 44, the sum of scores is

55.5, the mean of the scores is 1.26, the sum of squared scores is 84.25 and the

standard deviation is 0.58.

Table 4.9 bellow simplified the result of the analysis.

Table 4.9 Pretest result

ΣX Group N X ΣX2 SD
Experiment 40 54.5 1.36 83.75 0.49
Control 44 55.5 1.26 84.25 0.58

Explanation:

N : the number of group

ΣX : the sum of scores
X : the mean of the scores
ΣX2 : the sum of the squared scores
SD : the standard deviation

To analyze the data obtained from experimental and control group in

pretest, the t-test is used.

�� �1−X 2 1 , 36−1 , 26 0 ,1
t= = =

√( S S1 + S S 2
n 1+ n2−2 )( 1 1
+
n1 n2 ) √( 4 0+44−2 )( 4 0 + 4 4 ) √( 8 2 )( 1 760 )
9 , 49+14,24 1 1 23,73 8 4

0,1 0 ,1 0,1
¿ = = =0.833
√( 0 , 29 ) ( 0 , 05 ) √0 , 0145 , 12
0

t obtained = 0.833
 33

t table = 1.980

t obtained < t table

Based on the analysis, t obtained is smaller than t table. It meant that there is

no significance differences between the two groups.

After doing treatment for about a month, the posttest were held. Both

groups got posttest in the same place and same length of time. From the analysis,

it was found that in posttest at experimental group, the number of group is 40

students, the sum of scores is 99.5, the mean of the scores is 2.49, the sum of the

squared scores is 260.75 and the standard deviation is 0.58. At control group, the

number of group is 44, the sum of scores is 60, the mean of the scores is 1.36, the

sum of squared scores is 106 and the standard deviation is 0.79.

Table 4.10 bellow simplified the result of the analysis.

Table 4.10 Posttest result

Σ �� � Gro N X ΣX2 SD
up
Experiment 40 99.5 2.49 260.75 0.58
Control 44 60 1.36 106 0.79

Explanation:

N : the number of group

ΣX : the sum of scores
X : the mean of the scores
ΣX2 : the sum of the squared scores
SD : the standard deviation

To analyze the data obtained from experimental and control group in

posttest, the t-test is used.

 34

X 1 −X 2 2, 49−1 , 36 1 ,13
t= = =

√( S S1 + S S 2
n 1+ n2−2 )(
1 1
+
n1 n2 ) √(
1, 13
1 3,24+24,18 1
4 0+ 44−2
1 , 13
)(
1, 13
4 0
+
4
1
) √( 3 7,42
4
84
8 2 )( 1760 )

¿ = = =7,533
√( 0 , 45 )( 0 , 05 ) √ 0 , 023 0 ,15

t obtained = 7.533

t table = 1.980

t obtained > t table

Based on the analysis, t obtained is bigger than t table. It meant that there is

significance differences between the two groups.

3. Hypothesis Testing
The analysis of t test describes that if the t obtained is the same or less than

the t table, the hypothesis is rejected. However, if the t obtained is bigger than the

t table, the hypothesis is accepted.

The result of the comparing of posttest scores of the two groups by using t

test, it was found that the value of t calculated was 7.533 and the t table is 1.980.

The t obtained was bigger than the t table. It could be concluded that the

hypothesis was accepted.

B. Discussion
The data indicates that the two groups have different results in grammar

accuracy as reflected in their writings. The experimental group shows higher

scores than the control group due to the different treatment. The experimental

group was given written grammatical corrections on their writing, while the

control group was given conventional way or conventional corrections.

 35

The difference of results of the two groups could be seen from the

hypothesis testing. The value of t obtained was bigger than t table. It refers to the

difference of the mean scores of the experiment and control group is significant.

Thus, the hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, the difference of the result of the two

groups was effect of giving written grammatical correction on student’s writings

especially in grammar mastery for the experimental group.

Logically, in experimental group, where the students give the teacher’s

written grammatical corrections, gives better effect in grammar mastery in their

writings. It is caused by the teacher’s written grammatical corrections can be read

repeatedly. The place of the error and grammar mistakes is clear and easy to

identify because it uses different color of ink. The language used in giving

comment is simple and comments that are not clear for the students can be asked

to the teacher inside or outside the classroom. On the other hand, in control group

where the students give conventional way, the students are not given written

grammatical corrections but the teacher only give explanation generally in front of

the class about error and grammar mistakes.

 36

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion
Writing is a language skill by which one can express his or her ideas,

feeling, thoughts and experiences to others. However writing seems difficult for

most learners. The students have to consider number of aspects in writing like

grammar. So, in teaching writing the teacher has to be able to overcome the

student’s problem in grammar. One of the way is by giving written grammatical

corrections on their writing.

Based on findings in this research, it was found that giving corrections on

students writing on their grammatical errors will give better result on their

grammar accuracy of their writing. Therefore, the written grammatical corrections

are very useful.

B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion that the teacher’s written grammatical corrections

gives a better result to the student’s grammatical mastery, it is suggested that the

teachers give teacher’s written grammatical corrections in correcting grammar in

student’s writing. The corrections given by the teacher become information for the

students for the next writing.

For the next research, it is suggested to study the other aspects such as

vocabulary or mechanics. It was better to conduct a research by giving corrections

followed comments. It aims at viewing whether there is any significant difference

between giving written grammatical corrections, from the written grammatical

38
 37

followed by comments. Thus, the students will learn from their mistakes and from

the corrections and comments given.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Apen, Rahmah. 1995. “Pengaruh Pengembalian Jawaban Test yang disertai

komentar hasil belajar Mahasiswa dalam kuliah Reading III.”
(Unpublished Paper). Institut Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Padang.

Brog, Walter R, Meredith D Gall. 1983. Educational Research: An introduction.

Fourth Edition. Now York: Longman Inc.

Burton, S.H. 1984. Mastering English Grammar. London: Macmillan Education

Ltd.

Byrne, Donn. 1981. English Teaching Perspective. Singapore: Longman Goup

Limited.
 38

Carrion. 1990. “Trial and Error”. English Teaching Forum: 25. 3: 8.

Corder, S. Pit. 1967. The Significance of Learning’s Error. Harmord Sworth:

Penguin Education.

Dewi, Asra. 2000. “Perbandingan Hasil Belajar Siswa yang diberi tugas
Pengembaliannya Dikomentari Guru Secara Tertulis”. (Unpublished
Thesis). Universitas Negeri Padang.

Djamarah, Syaiful Basri. 2000. Guru dan Anak dalam Interaksi Edukatif. Jakarta:
PT. Rineka Cipta.

Finocchiaro, Mary. 2000. English as a Second / Foreign language. New York.

University of New York.

Gay, L.R. 1986. Educational Research. Third Edition. New York: Merrill
Publishing Company.

Hadi, sutrisno. 1995. Metodologi Research. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset Yogyakarta.

Harris, David P. 1974. Testing English as a Second Language. New York: Tata
McGraw hills Publishing Company Ltd.

Heaton, J. B. 2003.Writing English Language Tests. San Fransisco: Longman.

Hoy, Cherri and Novel Gregg. 1993. Assesment: The Special educator’s Role.
California: Brooks Cole Publishing.

Hubbard. 1998. Assessment: The Special Educator’s Role. California: Brooks

Cole Publishing.

Hughes, Arthur. 1985. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. 40
Makmum, Abin Syamsuddin. 2001. Psikologi Pendidikan. Bandung: PT.
Rosdakarya Offset.

Narius, Don. 1995. “English structure and exercise”. (Unpublished Book).

Padang: Institut Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Padang.

Nurgiantoro. 1987. “Integration Reading and Writing for Effective Language

Teaching”. English Teaching Forum: 39. 1: 10.

Paulston, Christina, Bratt and Mary. 1976. Teaching English as a Second

Language, Technique and Procedures. Boston: Little Brown and
Company.
 39

Porte, Graeme K. 1993. “Mistakes, Errors and Black Check”. English Teaching
Forum. July Edition, p. 21-25. University of Delhi. New Delhi.

Raimes, Ann. 1970. Technique in Teaching Writing. England: Oxford University

Press.

Refnaldi. 1994. “Pendekatan Komunikatif dalam Pengajaran Tata Bahasa Inggris

di SMA”. (Unpublished Paper). Institut Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan
Padang.

Richard, Jack C, and Theodrick S. Rodgers. 1996. Communicative Language

Teaching: Approach and Method in Language Teaching. A descriptive
analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

River, Wilga M. 1970. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Tokyo: Toppan Printing
Company Limited.

Robb, T., Ross, S. & I, Shortreed. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its
effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20: 83-95.

Suryabrata, Sumadi. 1998. Metodologi Penelitian. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo

Persada.

Tarigan, Hendri Guntur. 1989. Berbicara Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa.

Bandung: Angkasa.

Tribon, John and Diana George. 1992.Reading Culture: Context for Critical
Reading and Writing. New York: Happer Collins Publisher.

Ur, Penny. 2000. A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Vallette, Rebeca M. 1967. Modern Language Teaching. New York: Harcourt

Brace Jovanovih.

Weigle, Sara Cushing. 2002. Assesing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Winkel, WS. 1999. Psikologi Pengajaran. Jakarta: PT. Grasindo.

Yasin, Anas. 1978. “An Error Analysis of English Sentences Made by Indonesian
Students”. (Unpublished Thesis). Padang: Institut keguruan dan Ilmu
Pendidikan Padang.
 40

APPENDIX A
SAMPLE NAMES OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

NO NAME
1 FAUZANA
2 NUR AMINAH
3 DASMI RIZAL
4 ADIK FITRIA NILIS
5 DERI ISIAGUSMANI
6 FARADILLA NIVITA
7 DESI SUNARIA
8 NELI SARTIKA
9 NELI KARTIKA
 41

10 SETIA PUTRI ANA

11 FAHYU WIDIA
12 VITRIA SYAFRI YANTI
13 ANDRE FERNANDES
14 YONALDO
15 ROBBY TRIKI NOVANDRA
16 HAFIDZ HARITAMA GANI
17 BAYU SAPUTRA
18 SILVIA FITRI
19 YULIA
20 SILVIA HERWIN
21 HORIYA PUTRA
22 HANACO ARGA MESA
23 FIRDAUS
24 NELLA ANDRICA
25 GUSTIRANDA
26 ELVA SUSANTI
27 RENI RAHMATUL HUSNA
28 YOLLIA EKA PUTRI
29 ROZA FATMA
30 RINGGA MAWARNI
31 RESKI SAFRINA
32 WELLA MUTIA
33 FENI SISKAWATI
34 DENI PUTRA
35 ROMI FERNANDES
36 PHINTA RISKA ANGELINA
37 ORIZA SATIVA
38 RINA SRIRAMAWATI
39 SRI WAHYUNI PUTRI
40 NURHAVIZA AMILA SYARIF
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE NAMES OF CONTROL GROUP

NO NAME
1 WIKE HAPPI YARNI
2 MAYA ROMANTIKA
3 PUJI LESTARI
4 NOVRI ANDIKA PUTRI
5 NURLENA
6 LILI SANIA
7 SISKA
8 RESI NOVA LIA
9 YOSRIZAL
 42

10 RAHMATUL HUSNA
11 ZULITA SAPUTRI
12 YONIS
13 TAUFIK ISMAIL
14 ROPY ISMA PUTRA
15 RENI
16 ADEP RESPANCE
17 RONNI CAHYADI
18 RITO
19 EFRENDI
20 ZAKARIA
21 SITI ZAHARA
22 YULIANI ASTUTI
23 RESTU RAHMADANI
24 IJULNI
25 NADIA FEBRI AMANDA
26 SERLI SETIAWAN
27 OSSE MILA NOVITA
28 YELLI NOVITA
29 NURFADILAH
30 DARMIYANTI
31 ILHAM PRADIPTA
32 M. FADLI H
33 RESKI MAILI
34 RIYAN HIDAYAT
35 AFRIANDE
36 TUTI CLAUDIA
37 ADE PURNAMA
38 NEZA APRILIA
39 HAZRADTUNI
40 TAUFIK ISMAIL
41 HERMAN SYOFIAN
42 HAMDANI
43 NELMANELI
44 ZULNI LUCIANA PUTRI
 43

APPENDIX C
PRETEST DATA
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

SCORER SCORER
S 1 2 X1 X12
1 1 2 1.5 2.25
2 1 1 1 1
3 1 2 1.5 2.25
4 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1
6 2 1 1.5 2.25
 44

7 1 2 1.5 2.25
8 1 2 1.5 2.25
9 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1
12 1 1 1 1
13 1 2 1.5 2.25
14 1 1 1 1
15 1 2 1.5 2.25
16 1 2 1.5 2.25
17 1 1 1 1
18 1 1 1 1
19 1 2 1.5 2.25
20 1 1 1 1
21 1 1 1 1
22 1 1 1 1
23 2 1 1.5 2.25
24 2 1 1.5 2.25
25 1 1 1 1
26 1 1 1 1
27 1 1 1 1
28 2 1 1.5 2.25
29 2 1 1.5 2.25
30 1 1 1 1
31 1 2 1.5 2.25
32 1 1 1 1
33 3 3 3 9
34 2 2 2 4
35 1 1 1 1
36 1 1 1 1
37 2 2 2 4
38 3 3 3 9
39 2 2 2 4
40 2 1 1.5 2.25
53 56 54.5 83.75
ΣX1 ΣX12

CONTROL GROUP

SCORER SCORER
S 1 2 X2 X22
1 2 1 1.5 2.25
 45

2 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1
4 2 2 2 4
5 1 1 1 1
6 2 2 2 4
7 3 3 3 9
8 2 1 1.5 2.25
9 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1
12 1 1 1 1
13 2 1 1.5 2.25
14 1 2 1.5 2.25
15 2 1 1.5 2.25
16 2 2 2 4
17 1 0 0.5 0.25
18 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0
20 2 1 1.5 2.25
21 0 1 0.5 0.25
22 1 2 1.5 2.25
23 1 0 0.5 0.25
24 1 1 1 1
25 2 2 2 4
26 1 1 1 1
27 1 1 1 1
28 0 1 0.5 0.25
29 1 1 1 1
30 2 1 1.5 2.25
31 1 1 1 1
32 2 1 1.5 2.25
33 2 1 1.5 2.25
34 1 1 1 1
35 1 1 1 1
36 2 2 2 4
37 1 1 1 1
38 2 2 2 4
39 2 1 1.5 2.25
40 1 2 1.5 2.25
41 1 1 1 1
42 1 2 1.5 2.25
43 1 1 1 1
 46

44 2 2 2 4
58 53 55.5 84.25
ΣX2 ΣX22

APPENDIX D
POSTTEST DATA
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

SCORER
S 1 SCORER 2 X1 X12
1 2 2 2 4
2 3 3 3 9
3 2 1 1.5 2.25
4 1 2 1.5 2.25
5 1 2 1.5 2.25
6 3 3 3 9
7 3 3 3 9
8 2 3 2.5 6.25
9 3 3 3 9
10 1 1 1 1
 47

11 3 3 3 9
12 2 2 2 4
13 3 2 2.5 6.25
14 3 2 2.5 6.25
15 3 3 3 9
16 2 2 2 4
17 2 2 2 4
18 3 3 3 9
19 3 3 3 9
20 3 2 2.5 6.25
21 3 3 3 9
22 3 3 3 9
23 3 3 3 9
24 3 3 3 9
25 2 2 2 4
26 3 2 2.5 6.25
27 3 3 3 9
28 3 3 3 9
29 3 3 3 9
30 3 2 2.5 6.25
31 2 2 2 4
32 3 3 3 9
33 2 2 2 4
34 3 3 3 9
35 2 2 2 4
36 3 2 2.5 6.25
37 3 3 3 9
38 2 1 1.5 2.25
39 3 3 3 9
40 2 2 2 4
99.5 260.75
ΣX1 ΣX12

CONTROL GROUP

S SCORER 1 SCORER 2 X2 X22

1 3 3 3 9
2 2 2 2 4
3 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1
5 2 1 1.5 2.25
6 1 1 1 1
 48

7 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1
9 0 1 0.5 0.25
10 3 3 3 9
11 2 2 2 4
12 1 1 1 1
13 1 2 1.5 2.25
14 1 1 1 1
15 1 1 1 1
16 1 1 1 1
17 1 1 1 1
18 1 1 1 1
19 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1
21 1 1 1 1
22 3 3 3 9
23 1 1 1 1
24 2 2 2 4
25 1 1 1 1
26 0 0 0 0
27 2 2 2 4
28 2 2 2 4
29 3 3 3 9
30 1 1 1 1
31 0 0 0 0
32 1 1 1 1
33 1 1 1 1
34 1 1 1 1
35 1 1 1 1
36 1 1 1 1
37 2 2 2 4
38 1 1 1 1
39 1 1 1 1
40 1 1 1 1
41 1 1 1 1
42 2 1 1.5 2.25
43 2 2 2 4
44 3 3 3 9
60 106
ΣX2 ΣX22
 49

APPENDIX E
PRETEST FORMULA

PRETEST
X 1=
∑ X 1 = 5 4,5 =1,36
n1 40

X 2=
∑ X 2 = 5 5,5 =1,26
n2 44

2
(∑ X 1 ) ( 5 4,5 )2 2 970,25
S S 1 = ∑ X 12 − =83,75− =83,75− =83,75−7 4 , 26=9,49
n1 40 40
S S 1=9,49

SD ¿
√S S1
n1 −1
SD=0,49
=
√
9 , 49
4 0−1
=
9 , 49
39 √
=√ 0 , 2433=0,49

2
(∑ X 2 ) (5 5,5 )2 3 080,25
S S 2 = ∑ X 22 − =84,25− =84,25− =84,25−7 0,01=14,24
n2 44 44
 50

SS1=14,24

SD ¿

SD=0,58
√S S2
n2 −1
=
1 4,24
44−1 √
=
1 4,24
43 √
= √ 0 , 33=0,58

X 1 −X 2 1 , 36−1 , 26 0 ,1
t= = =

√( S S1 + S S 2
n 1+ n2−2 )( 1 1
+
n1 n2 ) √ ( 9 , 49+14,24 1
4
0,1
0+44−2 )( 4 0
+
4
0 ,1
1
4 ) √ 8 2 )( 1 760 )
(
0,1
23,73 8 4

¿ = = =0,833
√( 0 , 29 ) ( 0 , 05 ) √0 , 0145 0 , 12
t=0,833

APPENDIX F
POSTTEST FORMULA

POSTTEST
X 1=
∑ X 1 = 9 9,5 =2,49
n1 40

X 2=
∑ X 2 = 6 0 =1,36
n2 44

2
(∑ X 1 ) ( 9 9,5 )2 9 900,25
S S 1=∑ X 1 − 2
=2 60,75− =260,75− =260,75−2 47,51=13,24
n1 40 40
S S 1=13,24

SD ¿
√S S1
n1 −1
SD=0,58
=
1 3,24
4 0−1 √
=
13,24
39 √
=√ 0 ,339=0,58

2
(∑ X 2 ) ( 6 0 )2 3 600
S S 2=∑ X 2 − 2
=106− =106− =106−8 1,82=24,18
n2 44 44
SS1=24,18
 51

SD ¿
√S S2
n2 −1
SD=0,79
=
2 4,18
4 4−1 √=
2 4,18
43 √
=√ 0 ,62=0,79

X 1 −X 2 2, 49−1 , 36 1 ,13
t= = =

√( S S1 + S S 2
n 1+ n2−2 )( 1 1
+
n1 n2 ) √ 4 0+ 44−2 4 0 4 4 √ 8 2 )( 1760 )
( 1 3,24+24,18 1
)( 1
+ )

1, 13
( 3 7,42 8 4

1 , 13 1, 13
¿ = = =7,533
√( 0 , 45 )( 0 , 05 ) √ 0 , 023 0 ,15
t=7,533

APPENDIX G
PRETEST AND POSTTEST

Section : Second class of SMP

Time : 2 × 30 minutes

Please make two or more short paragraphs about one type of the text below!

1. Narrative Text
2. Recount Text
 52

APPENDIX H
SAMPLE OF PRETEST OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUP
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
53
 54

CONTROL GROUP
55
 56

APPENDIX I
SAMPLE OF POSTTEST OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL
GROUP
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
57
 58

CONTROL GROUP
59
 60

APPENDIX J
SURAT IZIN PENELITIAN