CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Findings

4.1.1 Description of Findings

The data obtained of this research were taken from the result of test of

writing descriptive text of eighth graders of SMPN 5 Jambi City in the academic

year 2016/2017 of those who were taught by using and without PowerPoint. Two

classes were chosen as the sample of the research. There were class VIII H as the

experimental class and class VIII I as the control class. Each of class consisted of

36 students.

The data were obtained from the students’ scores achievement of writing

test. They were pre and post-test scores from the experimental and control class.

Pre-test was held in the first meeting and post-test was held in the end of meeting.

The result of pre and post-test were compared. This comparison was used to show

whether the treatment were successful or not.

The tests were obtained from 5 components of writing: content,

organization, grammar, vocabulary and mechanic. The range of each component

score was 1-4 with the difference of weight.

4.1.2 Description of Pre-Test Score in Experimental and Control Class

Before giving the treatment, the first action was administering pre-test to

both classes; experimental and control class. Pre-test was administered November

7th, 2016. In this test, students were instructed to write a descriptive text in 40

39
minutes. The researcher gave the topic for the students to write a descriptive text.

The topics that students wrote in the pre-test was my bestfriend The result of pre-

test score showed in the following table.

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Score in Pre-test in

Experimental Class and Control Class
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Pretestexperimental 36 25 65 36.39 11.506
Pretestcontrol 36 0 50 28.71 8.026
Valid N (listwise) 36

From the table above, the pre-test result of experimental class showed that

the mean score was 36.39. Then, the mean score of control class was 28.71. In the

experimental class, it was found that the highest score was 65 .

Table 9: The Frequency Distribution of Students’ Score in Pre-test in

Experimental Class and Control Class
Score Category Pre-test experimental class Pre-test control class
Frequency Precentage Frequency Precentage
81-100 Very good 0 0 0 0
61-80 Good 2 5.56% 0 0
41-60 Fair 10 27.77% 3 8.33%
21-41 Poor 24 66.67% 32 88.89%
0-20 Very poor 0 0 1 2.78%

Table 9 showed that most of the students were categorized fair. The result

of the study showed that the highest score of pre-test was 61-80 which consist of 2

students. The highest score of control class was 50 which consisted 3 students of

the score was 41-60. Meanwhile, the lowest score of pre-test of experimental class

40
was 25. The frequency of the lowest score was 21-60 which consisted of 24

students. Meanwhile, the lowest score of control class was 0 and majority score of

pre-test was 21-60 which consisted of 36 students. The frequency distribution of

students’ score from pre-test was described in table below.

Based on the result of the pre-test many students still had difficulties in

writing a descriptive text. They had low motivation to write a story. Some of them

seemed confused on what they should write in the worksheet. Then, some of them

were busy with their own business.

4.1.3 Description of Post-Test Score in Experimental Class and Control Class

After giving treatment to the students for six meetings, the post test was

conducted to both classes; experimental and control class. The post-test was done

on December 3rd, 2016. The test was used to find out the students’ achievement of

writing descriptive paragraph after being treated with PowerPoint. In the post-

test, students were instructed to write descriptive text with the same instruction as

the pre-test. The post-test used the same writing assessment rubric with the pre-

test. The descriptive statistics and frequency distribution of students’ score in

post-test in experimental and control class was presented in table 8 and table 9.

Table 10: Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Score in Post-test in

Experimental Class and Control Class
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Posttestexperimental 36 25 77.50 51.39 15.892
Posttestcontrol 36 25 62.50 40.76 10.877
Valid N (listwise) 36

41
 Table 11 : The Frequency Distribution of Students’ Score in Post-test in
Experimental Class and Control Class
Score Category Post-test experimental Post-test control class
class
Frequency Precentage Frequency Precentage
81-100 Very good 0 0 0 0
61-80 Good 12 33.33% 2 5.56%
41-60 Fair 20 55.56% 13 36.11%
21-40 Poor 4 11.11% 21 58.33%
0-20 Very poor 0 0 0 0

The result of post-test in experimental class showed that the means score

was 51.39 which the highest score was 77.50 and the lowest score was 25. The

frequency of post-test from experimental class showed the highest score was 61-

80 which consist of 12 students. Meanwhile, the lowest and majority score was

21-40 contain 4 students which involved in this category. Then, categorized of fair

was 41-60 consisted of 20 students. In control class, the post-test result showed

that the mean score post-test was 40.76. Unlike the students in experimental class,

the highest score of post-test was 62.50 and lowest score was 25. The majority of

students were categorized fair and poor. In categorized of good was 61-80 which

consisted of 2 students. Meanwhile, categorized of fair was 41-60 which consist

of 13 students. Then, categorized of poor was 21-40 consisted of 21 students.

However, if it was compared to the pre-test, the experimental class had

much better improvement. The improvement from pre-test and post-test score

showed that students in experimental class felt easier in writing the descriptive

text because they had been trained for six meetings so they had used PowerPoint

42
as the guideline for writing. They also did not feel bored because the processes of

learning become more enjoyable by using interesting presentation of PowerPoint.

Actually the control class also received a treatment but it was a

conventional media. From the data, it implied that the technique helped the

students in writing the descriptive paragraph but the improvement of mean score

between pre-test and post-test was lower than experimental class. It might happen

because the treatment was not as interesting as the writing process in experimental

class which used PowerPoint as learning media.

4.2 Description of Five Aspects in Writing for Experimental and Control

Class

There were five aspects of writing based on the writing rubric assessment

that was used in pre-test and post-test for experimental class and control class.

Those aspects were content, organization, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics.

To analyze those aspects, researcher used independent sample t-test and paired

sample t-test formula in SPSS 16. It was used to know whether there was a

significant effect of using PowerPoint on student’s ability in writing descriptive

paragraph. The significant level is 0.05, so if the result of the t-test lower than

0.05, it can be said there was a significant effect.

43
4.2.1 Content Score

a. Description Result of Content Score using Independent Sample T-Test

Table 12: T-test Conducted to Control Class and Experiment Class (exposed
to Content) toward Writing Pre test.
Dependent Variable Group Mean T Sig.
Pre-Content Experimental Class 4.75 .041
1.984
Control Class 4.00

T-test analysis results in Table 12 showed the result of t-test score between

experimental and control class in pre-content test. Experimental class yield mean

score 4.75 and control class yield 4.00 while different values were t= 1.984 and

sig= 0.041 < 0.05, It was found that there was a significant between experimental

and control class toward pre-content writing test.

Table 13: T-test Conducted to Control Class and Experiment Class

(exposed to content) toward Post-test
Dependent Variable Group Mean T Sig.
Post-Content Experimental Class 7.08 .057
1.938
Control Class 6.08

Table 13 displayed the result of t-test between experimental and control

class toward content of post-test. The findings showed that there was a difference

score between experimental and control class in post-test score. The mean score

yield was 24.41 for experimental and 19.41 for control class. The different values

yield were t=1.938, and Sig. =.057 > .05.

44
 b. Description Result of Content Score using Paired Sample T-Test

Table 14: Paired sample T-test Conducted to Experimental Class toward

Content of pre-test and post test.
Dependent Variable Test Mean T Sig.
Experimental class Pre-content 4.75 -5.857 .000
Post-content 7.08

T-test analysis results in Table 14 showed the findings of paired sample t-

test on experimental class toward pre-content test and post-content test. The

findings showed also that there is a significant difference between experimental

class toward pre-content score and post-content score. The mean score yield is

4.75 for pre-content and 7.08 for post-content. The different values yield were t=-

5.857, and Sig. =.000<.05.

4.2.2 Organization Score

a. Description Result of Organization Score using Independent Sample

T-Test

Table 15: T-test Conducted to Control Class and Experiment Class (exposed
to Organization) toward Writing Pre test.
Dependent Variable Group Mean T Sig.
Pre-Organization Experimental Class 2.89 3.591 .001
Control Class 2.11

Table 15 displays the result of t-test between experimental class and

control class toward organization of writing pre-test. The findings showed that

there is a significant difference between experimental class and control class in

pre-test score. The mean score yield is 2.89 for experimental class and 2.11 for

45
control class. The findings imply that the experimental class obtains higher pre-

test score than control class test score. The different values yield were t=3.519,

and Sig. =.001 < .05.

Table 16: T-test Conducted to Control Class and Experiment Class

(exposed to Organization) toward Post-test
Dependent Variable Group Mean t Sig.
Post-Organization Experimental Class 4.17 .001
3.617
Control Class 3.06

T-test analysis results in Table 16 showed the result of t-test score between

experimental class and control class in post-organization test. Experimental class

yield mean score was 4.17 and control class yield was 3.06 while different values

were t= 3.617 and sig= 0.001 < 0.05, It was found that there was a significant

between experimental class and control class toward post-organization writing

test.

b. Description Result of Organization Score using Paired Sample T-Test

Table 17: Paired sample T-test Conducted to Experimental class toward pre-
organization test and post-organization test
Dependent Variable Test Mean T Sig.
Experimental Class Pre-organization 2.80 -5.301 .000
Post-organization 4.17

Table 17 showed the findings of paired sample t-test to experimental class

toward pre-organization test and post-organization test. The mean score yield at

pre-test was 2.80 and at post-test was 4.17. The findings imply that the

experimental obtain higher post test score than pre-test score. The statistic values

46
yield were t= -5.301, and Sig=.000<.05. The findings mean that there was a

significant difference between experimental class pre-organization test score and

post-organization test score.

4.2.3 Grammar Score

a. Description Result of Grammar Score using Independent Sample T-

Test

Table 18: T-test Conducted to Control Class and Experiment Class (exposed
to Grammar) toward Writing Pre test.
Dependent Variable Group Mean t Sig.
Pre-Grammar Experimental Class 2.61 .055
1.948
Control Class 2.17

T-test analysis results in Table 16 showed the result of t-test score between

experimental class and control class in pre-grammar test. Experimental class yield

mean score was 2.61 and control class yield was 2.17 while different values were

t=1.948 and sig= 0.055 > 0.05. There was a difference score between

experimental class and control class toward pre-grammar of writing test.

Table 19: T-test Conducted to Control Class and Experiment Class

(exposed to Grammar) toward Post-test
Dependent Variable Group Mean t Sig.
Post-Grammar Experimental Class 3.39 .001
3.334
Control Class 2.50

Table 19 displays the result of t-test between experimental class and

control class toward grammar of post-test. The findings showed that there was a

significant difference between experimental class and control class in post-test

score. The mean score yield was 3.39 for experimental class and 2.50 for control

47
class. The findings imply that the experimental class obtains higher post test score

than control class test score. The different values yield were t=3.334, and Sig.

=.001 < .05

b. Description Result of Grammar Score using Paired Sample T-Test

Table 20 : Paired sample T-test Conducted to Experimental class toward pre-

grammar test and post-grammar test
Dependent Variable Test Mean T Sig.
Experimental class Pre-grammar 2.61 -3.618 .001
Post-grammar 3.39

T-test analysis results in Table 20 showed the findings of paired sample t-

test on experimental class toward pre-grammar test and post-grammar test. The

findings showed also that there was a significant difference between experimental

class toward pre-grammar test and post-grammar test. The mean score yield was

2.61 for pre-test and 3.39 for post-test. The different values yield were t=-3.618,

and Sig. =.001<.05.

4.2.4 Vocabulary Score

a. Description Result of Vocabulary Score using Independent Sample T-

Test

Table 21 : T-test Conducted to Control Class and Experiment Class (exposed

to Vocabulary) toward Writing Pre test.
Dependent Variable Group Mean t Sig.
Pre-Vocabulary Experimental Class 2.29 .001
3.552
Control Class 1.58

Table 21 displays the result of t-test between experimental class and

control class toward vocabulary of writing pre-test. The findings showed that

48
there was a significant difference between experimental class and control class in

pre-test score. The mean score yield was 2.29 for experimental class and 1.58 for

control class. The findings imply that the experimental class obtains higher pre-

test score than control class test score. The different values yield were t=3.052,

and Sig. =.003 < .05.

Table 22: T-test Conducted to Control Class and Experiment Class

(exposed to Vocabulary) toward Post-test
Dependent Variable Group Mean t Sig.
Post-Vocabulary Experimental Class 3.17 .000
3.989
Control Class 2.33

T-test analysis results in Table 22 showed the result of t-test score between

experimental class and control class in post-vocabulary test. Experimental class

yield mean score was 3.17 and control class yield was 2.33 while different values

were t= 3.989 and sig= 0.000 < 0.05. It was found that there was a significant

between experimental class and control class toward post-vocabulary of writing

test.

b. Description Result of Vocabulary Score using Paired Sample T-Test

Table 23: Paired sample T-test Conducted to Experimental class toward pre-
vocabulary test and post-vocabulary test.
Dependent Variable Test Mean T Sig.
Experimental Class Pre-vocabulary 2.29 -4.782 .000
Post-vocabulary 3.17

Table 23 showed the findings of paired sample t-test to experimental class

toward pre-vocabulary test and post-vocabulary test. The mean score yield at pre-

test was 2.29 and at post test was 3.17. The findings imply that the experimental

49
class obtains higher post test score than pre-test score. The statistic values yielded

were t=-4.782, and Sig=.000<.05. The findings mean that there was a significant

difference between experimental class pre-test score and post-test score.

4.2.5 Mechanic Score

a. Description Result of Mechanic Score using Independent Sample T-

Test

Table 24: T-test Conducted to Control Class and Experiment Class

(exposed to Mechanic) toward Pre-test
Dependent Variable Group Mean T Sig.
Pre-Mechanic Experimental Class 2.04 .004
2.695
Control Class 1.58

T-test analysis results in Table 24 showed the result of t-test score between

experimental class and control class in pre-mechanic test. Experimental class

yield mean score was 2.04 and control class yield was 1.59 while different values

were t= 2.695 and sig= 0.004 < 0.05. It was found that there was a significant

between experimental class and control class toward pre-vocabulary of writing

test.

Table 25: T-test Conducted to Control Class and Experiment Class

(exposed to Mechanic) toward Post-test
Dependent Variable Group Mean T Sig.
Post-Mechanic Experimental Class 2.75 1.275 .007
Control Class 2.45

Table 25 displays the result of t-test between experimental class and

control class toward post-mechanic test. The findings showed that there was a

significant difference between experimental class and control class in post-test

50
score. The mean score yielded was 2.75 for experimental class and 2.45 for

control class. The findings imply that the experimental class obtains higher post

test score than control class test score. The different values yield were t=1.275,

and Sig. =.007 < .05.

b. Description Result of Mechanic Score using Paired Sample T-Test

Table 26: Paired sample T-test Conducted to Control class toward pre-test
and post test.
Dependent Variable Test Mean T Sig.
Experimental class Pre-mechanic 2.04 -3.497 .001
Post-mechanic 2.75

T-test analysis results in Table 26 showed the findings of paired sample t-

test on experimental toward pre-mechanic test and post-mechanic test. The

findings showed also that there was a significant difference between pre-test and

post-test score. The mean score yield was 2.04 for pre-test and 2.75 for post test.

The different values yield were t=-3.497, and Sig. =.001<.05.

4.3 Hypothesis Testing

The last calculated was hypothesis testing. In order to see the significance

between two variables, the t-test formula was applied. According to Pallant

(2011), The criteria for hypotheses test were;

 If the value of t-test or in the Sig. (2-tailed) column is equal or less than t-

table or .05 (t-test < t-table) so there is a significant difference in the mean

scores on dependent variable for each of the two groups.

 If the value t-test or Sig. (2-tailed) is above .05 (t-test > t-table), there is no

significant difference between the two groups.

51
 Table 27: T-test Conducted to Control Class and Experiment toward post
test.

Dependent Variable Group Mean t Sig.

Post- test Experimental Class 51.39 3.310 .001

Control Class 40.76

Table 27 displays the result of t-test between experimental class and

control class toward post-test. The findings showed that there was a significant

difference between experimental class and control class in post-test score. The

mean score yield was 51.39 for experimental class and 40.76 for control class.

The findings imply that the experimental class obtains higher post test score than

control class test score. The different values yield were t=3.310, and Sig. =.001 <

.05.

Table 28: Paired sample T-test Conducted to Experimental class toward pre-
test and post test.
Dependent Variable Test Mean T Sig.

Experimental Class Pre-test score 36.39 -6.271 .000

Post-test score 51.39

Table 28 showed the findings of paired sample t-test to experimental class

toward pre-test and post-test. The mean score yield at pre-test was 36.39 and at

post test was 51.39. The findings imply that the experimental class obtains higher

52
post test score than pre-test score. The statistic values yield were t=-6.271, and

Sig=.000<.05. The findings mean that there was a significant difference between

experimental class pre-test score and post-test score.

4.4 Discussion

From the investigation, it was found out that there were significant

difference in descriptive writing scores between students taught by PowerPoint

and who those taught by using conventional method. The descriptive writing of

the experimental class was higher than the control class. It was proved by the

average of the students’ scores: they were 51.39 for experimental class and 40.76

for control class.

As the experimental class, VIII H was taught by using PowerPoint as

learning media to guide the students to write about descriptive text. At the first

meeting the treatment, researcher gave explanation about definition, function and

language features of descriptive text. Before giving explanation about those

elements, the researcher gave the video to guide the students to guess the topic

that to be learn in the meeting. All the material had already put in PowerPoint

presentation. Therefore, the researcher operated the laptop to run PowerPoint. All

students had already excited even when the researcher was preparing LCD

projektor and laptop. They expressed their pleasure in various ways such as

laughing and imagine what kind of material that researcher would showed to

them. PowerPoint enhanced instruction and motivates students to learn. So, they

53
had already motivated to learn for that day. (Harrison in Nouri and Shahid,

2005:55).

As stated by Clark and Paivio in Nouri and Shahid (2005:55) that in a

PowerPoint presentation, topics were presented in a hierarchical fashion graphics,

colour, video, and animation, students could retrieve the information and they

could organize the information easily. The researcher put the material from the

material which was as brainstorming until the end of material orderly with

modified with some pictures, videos and even made the material that made

students feel like were doing interaction with PowerPoint. So, students were more

active during the learning and teaching process. They were more focused with the

material which was taught by researcher even they were more sharp when they

were asked to describe the thing especially when it comes to describe a thing from

the video.

To measure the students’ writing score progress, the test was administered

before and after treatment. The form of this test was in writing form, it was

because researcher would like to know the student’s ability in writing descriptive

text. The test was constructed based on the material which had been learnt during

the treatment process. The material used by the researcher was taken from the text

book “Smart Steps” written by Ali Akhmadi and Ida Safrida published by Ganexa

Exact. (2009), the validity of the test was if the content of test instrument related

to the purposes of the test.

The students’ paragraphs were assessed based on writing rubric

assessment. In this rubric, there were five aspects to be evaluated in the system of

54
content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. Based on the result

of post-test, most of the students could make paragraph well enough after being

given treatment by using PowerPoint. From the result of the five aspects to be

evaluated in post-test result, most of the students were successful to achieve good

category. It was different from pre-test result, most of the students failed to

achieve good category on each components, most of them got in poor category.

The results from this research have some similarities with the previous

research which was conducted by Anggraini (2013). Both of the research showed

that the result of pre-test showed that mean score of post-test were higher than

pre-test after they got treatment by using PowerPoint. The improvement of the

score in experimental class is higher than the control class.

Based on hypothesis testing, it can be seen that the students who were

given PowerPoint in their writing had better writing skill than the students who

were not. It was same with the result of this research. In Anggraini (2013) the

effect of PowerPoint on the seventh grade students’ writing skill was in the level

significance .000 while in this research, the level is .001. The difference between

Anggraini’s research with this research are the sample and kind of the text which

was taught.

In conclusion, statistical of students in pre-test and post-test of

experimental class showed there was a better improvement on student writing

ability of descriptive paragraph. From post-test result it was found that there was

better achievement of score in the class which was taught by using PowerPoint

(experimental class) than those which was not (control class). So, the main point

55
of this research was to see whether or not there was a significant effect of using

PowerPoimt on students’ achievement in writing descriptive text. Statistically, it

was found that there was a significant effect using PowerPoint toward an

achievement of students’ descriptive writing ability, because the result of t-test

data analysis was lower than t-table.

56