CHAPTER IV
DATA PRESENTATION

This chapter presents the finding and discussing of the study that consist of the discussion on the treatment, the result of the quantitative data, and the interpretation of the quantitative data.
A.	The Discussion on the Treatment
The treatment between the experimental group and control group was different in term of media usage. The experimental group was treated using a map of place in their town, while the control group was treated without using a map.
During conducting this research, the researcher observed the situation, condition, students writing skill (achievement) in teaching and learning process. On the observation and from the result pre-test, the researcher found that seventh grade students writing skill in SMPN I DURENAN-TRENGGALEK were different, and majority, their achievement in writing was under average. The reason was those because the teacher very seldom use writing practice, the students were seldom given a lesson about how to write well and correct in English. So, if the students asked to write a paragraph or composition, they used a dictionary to translate first. Hence, the students always conducted in writing, to develop their ideas, feeling and thought. 
In the process of treating the teacher was free to improve their teaching techniques as long as use of map was optimum, although, in the fact the writer had made two lesson plans considering the themes. The improvisation was important because only the teacher knows best about their students and the use of map could be optimum with the modification of the teaching techniques according to the students need. The modifications was in the form of using translation, asking some students to do some activities in the classroom, asking some exercises in the classroom, repeating of the previous discussing, discussing the homework and making conclusion of what was being taught during a period of that day. 
1.	The treatment for the control group
The writer made observations during the treatment process of the control group to make sure that teacher did not use a map in their teaching. They only use the text book as the instructional material.  
The control group is needed for comparison purpose to use if the new treatment is more effective or has significant influence the score. Here, control group was VIIG, those who were taught without using map in teaching media. The step in teaching learning process for control group as follow: 
1.	Pre test
2.	Teaching of writing without using map as media
3.	Post test

2.	The treatment for the experimental group
The experimental group was VII-H those who were taught using map as media. The steps in teaching-learning process for experimental group as follow:
1.	Pre-test
2.	Teaching of writing using map  as media
First, teacher asked them to mention the name of those places while showing them to map. 
Secondly, explain location of some place in projector, ask to students what is the map can see clearly. 
Thirdly, asking the students to arrange the sentences into good paragraph. 
3. Post test

B.	The Result of The Quantitative Data
In this section the writer discussed the quantitative data that were taken from pre-test and post-test both the experimental and control groups that were used as the sample of this research. The data that were calculated by using t-test for pooled samples were the pre-test and post-test both the experimental and control groups, while the data were calculated by using t-test for the pre-test and post-test between the experimental and control groups. 

1.	The result of  pre- test
The pre-test was followed by 30 students of the experimental group and 31 students of the control group. The students all is followed as well as the pre-test experimental group and control group. The students were done the pre-test during 40 minutes.
Table 4.1 the Result of Pre-Test in Control Group
No.	Score	Interpretation	
1	25	Very poor	
2	25	Very poor	
3	35	Very poor	
4	25	Very poor	
5	40	Very poor	
6	30	Very poor	
7	30	Very poor	
8	15	Very poor	
9	25	Very poor	
10	40	Very poor	
11	30	Very poor	
12	-	-	
13	35	Very poor	
14	30	Very poor	
15	15	Very poor	
16	15	Very poor	
17	10	Very poor	
18	15	Very poor	
19	25	Very poor	
20	-	-	
21	30	Very poor	
22	20	Very poor	
23	20	Very poor	
24	30	Very poor	
25	15	Very poor	
26	30	Very poor	
27	25	Very poor	
28	35	Very poor	
29	35	Very poor	
1	2	3	
30	30	Very poor	
31	30	Very poor	
32	10	Very poor	
33	25	Very poor	

Table 4.2 the Result of Pre-Test in Experimental Group

No.	Score	Interpretation	
1	55	poor	
2	45	Very poor	
3	40	Very poor	
4	30	Very poor	
5	-	-	
6	50	Very poor	
7	55	poor	
8	35	Very poor	
9	60	poor	
10	30	Very poor	
11	55	poor	
12	30	Poor	
13	40	Poor	
14	70	fair	
15	-	-	
16	55	poor	
17	30	Very poor	
18	45	Very poor	
19	35	Very poor	
20	45	Very poor	
21	30	Very poor	
22	30	Very poor	
23	45	Very poor	
24	55	poor	
25	30	Very poor	
26	40	Very poor	
27	40	Very poor	
28	45	Very poor	
29	15	Very poor	
30	55	poor	
31	65	fair	
32	55	poor	

2.	The result of  post- test
The post-test was followed by 30 students of the experimental group and 31 students of the control group. The students all were followed as well as the post--test experimental group and control group. The students were done the pre-test during 40 minutes.
Table 4.3 the Result of Post-Test in Control Group

No.	Score	Interpretation	
1	45	Very poor	
2	50	Very poor	
3	50	Very poor	
4	40	Very poor	
5	75	good	
6	45	Very poor	
7	35	Very poor	
8	45	Very poor	
9	30	Very poor	
10	50	Very poor	
11	90	Very good	
12	-	-	
13	50	Very poor	
14	45	Very poor	
15	45	Very poor	
16	40	Very poor	
17	35	Very poor	
18	40	Very poor	
19	35	Very poor	
20	-	-	
21	60	poor	
22	55	Very poor	
23	45	Very poor	
24	30	Very poor	
25	60	poor	
26	35	Very poor	
27	85	good	
28	50	Very poor	
29	60	poor	
1	2	3	
30	90	Very good	
31	50	Very poor	
32	35	Very poor	
33	65	fair	

TABLE 4.4 the Result of Post--Test in Experimental Group

No.	Score	Interpretation	
1	60	poor	
2	70	fair	
3	90	Very good	
4	70	fair	
5	-	-	
6	70	fair	
7	90	Very good	
8	90	Very good	
9	90	Very good	
10	80	good	
11	80	Good	
12	85	Very good	
13	45	Very poor	
14	100	excellent	
15	-	-	
16	90	Very good	
17	45	Very poor	
18	60	poor	
19	70	fair	
20	70	fair	
21	80	good	
22	40	Very poor	
23	70	Fair	
24	70	Fair	
25	70	Fair	
26	70	Fair	
27	70	Fair	
28	70	Fair	
29	70	Fair	
30	80	good	
31	90	Very good	
32	70	fair	
C.	The calculation of  t-test
The pooled t-test was used to calculate the significant differences of the pre-test and post-test for both experimental and control groups. These calculations were important in order to see whether the increasing scores for both groups were significant or not.
1.	The control group
Table 4.5 the Result of Test in Control Group

No	Pre-test (x)	Post-test (y)	d (y-x)	d	
1.	25	45	20	400	
2.	25	50	25	625	
3.	35	50	15	225	
4.	25	40	15	225	
5.	40	75	35	1225	
6. 	30	45	15	225	
7.	30	35	5	25	
8.	15	45	30	900	
9.	25	30	5	25	
10.	40	50	10	100	
11.	30	90	60	1600	
12.	-	-	-	-	
13.	35	50	15	225	
14.	30	45	15	225	
15.	15	45	30	900	
16.	15	40	25	625	
17.	10	35	25	625	
18.	15	40	25	625	
19.	25	35	10	100	
20.	-	-	-	-	
21.	30	60	30	900	
22.	20	55	25	625	
23.	30	45	15	225	
24.	15	30	15	225	
25.	30	60	30	900	
26.	25	35	10	100	
27.	35	85	50	2500	
28.	35	50	15	225	
1	2	3	4	5	
29	30	60	30	900	
30	30	90	60	3600	
31	30	50	20	400	
32	10	35	25	625	
33	25	86	40	1600	
	=755	=24325	

To calculate the significant difference between pre-test and post-test of the experimental group step were as follows:
a. 
     t
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 9, 65
b. Find t , t = (1-1/2 a) (db)
Where, significant level: 0, 01
db: N -1
     : 31 -1 = 30
So, t = (1- ½. 0, 01) (30)
= (1- ½. 0, 005) (30)
= 0, 995.30
= 29, 85 

In this study the criteria in testing the hypothesis is formulated as follow:
H = is rejected if - t < t < t
H = is accepted if t > t or t < - t
Finally, the result of was checked at the table value of t at 0, 01 levels of significant for a two-tailed test with db =30, the E value of the test (9, 65) was lower than the required valve of t. So, it could be said that there was not significance difference the scores of the pos-test and the score pre-test at the control group. 
The significance differences between the score of pre-test and the score of the post test at control group showed that the students of this group made significant progress at their pos-test. This progress is also being seen from the increasing between t < t  of post-test from the pre-test 
2.	The experimental group
a.	The Hypothesis is formulated as follow: 
 Ho:  There is no significant difference score of the students writing taught after using a map on the students pre-writing achievement of the seventh grade at SMPN I DURENAN-TRENGGALEK ACADEMIC 2009/2010.
 Hi:  There is a significant difference score of the students writing taught after using a map on the students pre-writing achievement of the seventh grade at SMPN I DURENAN – TRENGGALEK ACADEMIC 2009/2010.
The Result 4.6 the Result of Test in Experimental Group

Subject	Pre-test (x)	Post-test (y)	d (y-x)	d	
1.	55	80	25	625	
2.	45	70	25	625	
3.	40	90	50	2500	
4.	30	70	40	1600	
5.	-	-	-	-	
6. 	50	70	20	400	
7.	55	90	35	1225	
8.	35	90	55	3025	
9.	60	90	30	900	
1	2	3	4	5	
10	30	80	50	2500	
11	55	80	25	625	
12	30	85	55	3025	
13	40	70	30	900	
14	70	100	30	900	
15	-	-	-	-	
16	55	90	35	1225	
17	30	60	30	900	
18	45	60	15	225	
19	35	70	35	1225	
20	45	70	25	625	
21	30	80	50	2500	
22	30	40	10	100	
23	45	70	25	625	
24	55	70	15	225	
25	30	70	40	1600	
26	40	70	30	900	
27	40	70	30	900	
28	45	70	25	625	
29	15	70	55	3025	
30	55	80	25	625	
31	65	90	25	625	
32	55	70	15	225	
	=955	=35025	

To calculate the significant difference between pre-test and pos-test of the experimental group were as follows:
a. 

     t
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 29, 2308917

b. Find t , t = (1-1/2 a) (db)
Where, significant level: 0, 01
db: N -1
     : 30 -1 = 29
So, t = (1- ½. 0, 01) (29)
= (1- ½. 0, 005) (29)
= 0, 995.29
= 28, 855 
In this study the criteria in testing the hypothesis is formulated as follow:
H = is rejected if - t < t < t
H = is accepted if t > t or t < - t
Finally, the result of it was checked at the table valves of differences significant for a two tailed test. The t value of the test (0, 01) was higher than achieve the t value to the experimental value of t. So, it could be said that there was a significance difference the scores of the pos-test and the score pre-test at the experimental group. 
The significance differences between the score of pre-test and the score of the post test at experimental group showed that the students of this group made significant progress at their pos-test. This progress is also being seen from the increasing between t > t  of post-test from the pre-test 

D.	The interpretation of the quantitative data
This research started from hypothesis that the use of a map in the teaching writing on seventh grades of Junior High School at SMPN I DURENAN - TRENGGALEK is effective. Thus, the finding supported that the different media used in the treatment of the experimental and control groups through significant difference result in the students’ English achievement.
The result of calculation of the test was difference. The result of  t-test that showed the significant progress of the group, had not been enough for accepting or rejecting the hypothesis, because they only proved the significant differences within the experimental groups test results t-test was need to reject or to accept the hypothesis, which was t-test Using the t-test, firstly the writer compares the results of these test were not significantly different.  The result of t value proved that at the beginning of the study the achievement of the experimental and control groups were not significantly different or in other words the achievement of the groups being compared were the some be done the treatment.
Secondly, the comparison between the result of the post test of the experimental and control groups, the result of proved that there was a significant different both group post test results. It mean that end the study, the achievement of both groups were significantly different.
From the previous discussion, it could be concluded that the achievement of the students of the experimental group was higher than the control groups. The experimental groups were treated using map on the students of the control groups were not treated using map. Therefore, the hypothesis, that use of map on students achievement writing I seventh grades at SMPN I DURENAN-TRENGGALEK is effective, could be accepted.

Table 4.7 Interpretation in Writing

No	Interval	Data interpretation	
1
2
3
4
5
6	91 UP TO 100
81 UP TO 90
71 UP TO 80
61 UP TO 70
51 UP TO 60
< 40 	EXCELLENT
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor