Post on 19-Jul-2016
description
i
TEACHING WRITING BY USING CUBING TECHNIQUE TO THE EIGHTH
GRADE STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 9 LUBUKLINGGAU
By
Darmadi Student Number: 2106170
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
INSTITUTE OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
(STKIP-PGRI) LUBUKLINGGAU
2013
ii
TEACHING WRITING BY USING CUBING TECHNIQUE TO THE EIGHTH
GRADE STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 9 LUBUKLINGGAU
A Thesis
Submitted to English Education Study Program
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
For Undergraduate Degree in English Education
By
Darmadi Student Number: 2106170
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
INSTITUTE OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
(STKIP-PGRI) LUBUKLINGGAU
2013
iii
APPROVAL
TEACHING WRITING BY USING CUBING TECHNIQUE TO THE EIGHTH
GRADE STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 9 LUBUKLINGGAU
The thesis by Darmadi , Student Number 2106170 has been approved by the
advisors to be submitted by the team of examiners
Advisor, Assistant Advisor,
Suhar Jendro, M.Pd Mardi Juansyah, M.Pd
Certified by
Head of Language and Arts Education Department
For the Head of Institute of Teacher Training and Education
Teacher Association of Republic of Indonesia Lubuklinggau
Dra. Hj. Nyayu Masnon Arif, M.Pd
iv
VALIDATION
The Thesis by Darmadi, Student Number 2106170 has been passed in the
examination by the team of examiners on July 06, 2013
TEAM OF EXAMINERS
Chairman : Suhar Jendro, M.Pd ............................................
Secretary : Mardi Juansyah, M.Pd ............................................
Members : 1. Dra. Irma Suryani, M.Pd ..............................................
2. Endrik Parasetyo, M.Pd ..............................................
Certified by
Head of Institute of Teacher Training and Education
Teacher Association of Republic of Indonesia Lubuklinggau
Drs. H. Aidil Fitri Syah, M.M
v
MOTTO AND DEDICATION
Motto:
“Catch what you Love, Love what you catch”
“Ora ghelem rekoso mbudidoyo at least make little change in the world”
This thesis is dedicated to:
My Parents, Abdul Hasan and Sri Welas who support me Alive till now,
I can’t imagine your struggle. Thank you
My brothers and sister who support me: Ondok, Otok, Apai, Paman,
Sipit, Jonit, Embot and Lia, thank you.
My two advisors : Mr. Suhar Jendro and Mr. Mardi Juansyah, thank you
so much for guidance.
All my lecturers, especially: Mrs. Hindun, Mrs. Sastika Seli,
Mr. Endrik Prasetyo, thank you very much for your endeavour.
My friends: Oby Putrasyah, Efri Cahyono, Riki Purnomo, Abdi Wibowo,
Suharmanto, Maroten, Debby and Niken.
My Almamater, you will be remembered.
vi
PERNYATAAN
Saya yang bertanda tangan dibawah ini:
Nama : Darmadi
NPM : 2106170
Program Studi : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
Jurusan : Bahasa dan Seni
Judul Karya Ilmiah/Skripsi : TEACHING WRITING BY USING CUBING
TECHNIQUE TO THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS
OF SMP NEGERI 9 LUBUKLINGGAU
Dengan ini menyatakan bahawa karya ilmiah dengan judul tersebut diatas adalah benar-
benar karya saya sendiri dan saya tidak melakukan penjiplakan atau pengutipan dengan
cara-cara yang tidak sesuai dengan kaidah dan etika keilmuan yang berlaku dalam
masyarakat ilmiah. Atas pernyataan ini, saya siap menanggung resiko ataupun sanksi
yang dijatuhkan kepada saya apabila dikemudian hari ditemukan adanya pelanggaran
etika keilmuan atau plagiat dalam karya ilmiah ini. Hal ini juga berlaku apabila ada
klaim pihak lain terhadap keaslian karya saya ini
Lubuklinggau, Juli 2013
Yang membuat pernyataan
Darmadi
NIM 2106170
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis has written to fulfil one of the requirements for Sarjana Degree in
English Study Program, Institute of Teacher Training and Education, Teacher
Association of The Republic of Indonesia (STKIP-PGRI) Lubuklinggau.
Alhamdulillah, praise be to Alloh Subhana hu Wata’Ala for blessing and
everything, so the writer could finish writing this thesis. The writer would like to thank
both of the advisers Mr. Suhar Jendro, M.Pd and Mr. Mardi Juansyah, M.Pd, who have
given the writer much guidance, suggestion and advice in writing this thesis. And the
writer’s gratitude was expressed to all the teachers, staff, and the students of SMP
Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau, especially to the Headmaster of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau,
Mr. Edi Yanuar, M.Pd who has given the writer permission and assistance in
conducting the research and collecting the data. In addition, the writer would like to
thank to the Head of STKIP-PGRI Lubuklinggau Mr. Aidil Fitri Syah, M.M and to all
of the lecturers.
The writer expressed thank you to the writer’s parents, brothers and sister,
friends for supports, prayer and assistance.
Finally, suggestions and criticism are very much welcome for the improvement
of this thesis. paijokemin@hotmail.com
Lubuklinggau, May 2013
The writer
viii
ABSTRACT
TEACHING WRITING BY USING CUBING TECHNIQUE TO THE EIGHTH
GRADE STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 9 LUBUKLINGGAU
By
Darmadi
Student Registration Number 2106170
The main problem of this study was “Is it effective teaching writing by using cubing
technique to the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the academic
year of 2012/2013?” The objective of this study was to find out whether or not it was
effective teaching writing by using cubing technique to the eighth grade students of
SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the academic year of 2012/2013. There were two
hypotheses in this study. They were Null Hypothesis (H0) and Alternative Hypothesis
(Ha). The population of this study was all of the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 9
Lubuklinggau in the academic year of 2012/2013. The sample consisted of 28 students
that was taken by using cluster random sampling. The writer applied quasi-experimental
method and the data were collected through written test. To analyse the data the writer
applied three techniques. They were: Individual score, Conversion of individual score
and Matched t-test. The result of matched t-test calculation was t-obt = 6.89. It was
higher than the critical value of t-table 1.701 for significant level 0.05. So, the Null
Hypothesis (H0) was rejected and the Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) was accepted. It
means that teaching writing by using cubing technique to the eighth grade students of
SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the academic year of 2012/2013 was effective.
Key Words: teaching, writing, cubing technique.
ix
CONTENT
Page
COVER ............................................................................................................. i
TITLE ............................................................................................................... ii
APPROVAL ...................................................................................................... iii
VALIDATION .................................................................................................. iv
MOTTO AND DEDICATION ........................................................................ v
PERNYATAAN ................................................................................................ vi
ACKNOWLEDMENTS ................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... viii
CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ xii
LIST OF CHARTS AND FIGURE ................................................................. xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................. xiv
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1
A. Background .................................................................................................... 1
B. The Formulation of the Problems .................................................................. 3
C. The Objective of the Research ....................................................................... 3
C. The Scope of the Research .............................................................................. 3
D. Significances of the Research ......................................................................... 4
E. Operational Definition .................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 6
A. Theoretical Descriptions ................................................................................. 6
1. The Concept of Teaching ......................................................................... 6
2. The Concept of Writing ............................................................................ 6
3. The Concept of Descriptive Paragraph ..................................................... 9
4. The Concept of Achievement ................................................................... 10
5. The Concept of Cubing Technique ........................................................... 11
x
6. The Procedure Teaching Writing by Using Cubing Technique ............... 14
B. Related Previous Study …. ............................................................................. 14
C. Theoretical Framework …. ............................................................................. 15
D. The Hypothesis .............................................................................................. 18
CHAPTER III: METHOD OF THE RESEARCH ...................................... 19
A. Research Design ............................................................................................. 19
B. Population and Sample ................................................................................... 20
1. Population ................................................................................................. 20
2. Sample ...................................................................................................... 20
C. Technique for Collecting the Data ................................................................. 21
D. Technique for Analysing the Data ............................................................... 22
1. Individual Score ....................................................................................... 22
2. The Students’ Categories Score ............................................................... 24
3. Matched t-test ........................................................................................... 25
E. Accountability of the Research ..................................................................... 26
1. Validity ..................................................................................................... 26
2. Reliability .................................................................................................. 27
CAHPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................... 31
A. Findings ......................................................................................................... 31
1. The Students’ Scores in the Pre-test ........................................................ 32
2. The Students’ Scores in the Post-test ...................................................... 33
3. Normality and Homogeneity .................................................................. 34
4. The Calculation of Matched t-test ............................................................. 41
B. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 42
C. Limitation of the Study ................................................................................. 45
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION ................................ 46
A. Conclusions ................................................................................................... 46
B. Suggestion ..................................................................................................... 46
xi
1. For the Teacher of English ....................................................................... 46
2. For the Students ...................................................................................... 47
3. To the other Researcher ........................................................................... 47
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 48
APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 51
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 : Population of the Study .................................................................. 20
Table 3.2 : Scale Range and Category ............................................................. 22
Table 3.3 : Scoring Criterion ............................................................................ 23
Table 3.4 : Conversion of Individual Score ..................................................... 25
Table 3.5 : The Test Specification .................................................................. 27
Table 4.1 : The Score Distribution of Pre-test and Post-test ............................ 34
Table 4.2 : The List Frequency of Observation and Expectation
of the Students’ Scores in the Pre-test ............................................. 36
Table 4.3 : The List Frequency of Observation and Expectation
of the Students’ Scores in the Post-test ........................................... 39
xiii
LIST OF FIGURE AND CHARTS
Page
Image 2.1 : Cubing Technique ....................................................................... 12
Chart 2.1 : Theoretical Framework ............................................................... 17
Chart 4.1 : The Result of the Students’ test .................................................. 31
Chart 4.2 : The Percentage Students’ Categories Score in Pre-test .............. 32
Chart 4.3 : The Percentage Students’ Categories Score in Post-test ............. 33
Chart 4.4 : The Normality Curve of Pre-test ................................................ 38
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A : The Advisors’ SK
Appendix B : Surat Izin Penelitian
Appendix C : Instrument of the Test
Appendix D : Data of Pre-test and Post-test
Appendix E : Normality and Homogeneity
Appendix F : Analysing Statistic and Hypothesis
Appendix H : Surat Keterangan Memperbanyak Skripsi
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
English is an important language since it is one of the languages used in
international communication. For this reason, English becomes a compulsory
subject in junior and senior high schools in Indonesia. Moreover, in some primary
schools, English has been taught from the fourth grade as a local-content subject.
The purpose of teaching English at school is that the students can use English as a
means to develop their knowledge and skills in science, technology, culture, and
arts. Indonesian students can hopefully become citizens who are intelligent,
skilful, and ready to take part in the national development and the challenge in the
international scope.
Learning a language includes learning the four skills, namely listening,
speaking, reading and writing. Besides, students should learn the language
aspects, such as grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling, to support the
development of the language skills. Among the four skills, writing is considered
one of the most difficult skills for many students (Richards, 1990:100). They do
not know what to write and how to develop the topic. Besides, “writing should be
conventional: it should employ readily, identifiable symbols so that other people
can pick up a piece of writing and know what it says” (Nathan, et al., 1993:13).
Byrne (1993:4-5) identifies three problems in writing-psychological,
linguistic, and cognitive. From the psychological aspect, the act of writing
becomes difficult because writing is a solitary activity and the fact that people are
1
2
required to write on their own, without the possibility of interaction or the benefit
of feedback. From the linguistic aspect, writers should be sure with the choice of
sentences structure and the way sentences are linked together and sequenced so
that the writing can be interpreted on its own, from the cognitive aspect, writers
have to master the written form of the language and to learn certain structures
which are less used in understood by the readers who are not known by the
writers.
The students’ achievement in writing was considered low. It could be seen
from the percentage of the students who passed the writing mastery minimum
criteria or it is called writing KKM. The writing KKM of the school is 72. Based
on the writer’s observation in writing, there were 28 students in the class. It was
found that there were 16 students or 57.14% who did not pass the writing KKM,
while there were 12 students or 42.85% who could pass the writing KKM (see
Appendix C). Therefore, the writer considers it needs an improvement for the
writing.
There are many ways to help the students to write. Some researchers
suggest using prewriting activities to handle writing problem. Mann and Mann
(1990:4) state that prewriting consists of written activities to get the point of
writing a draft. Prewriting activities help students to develop a focus and to
generate ideas for writing. One kind of prewriting activities proposed by the
researchers is cubing technique. Cubing has been successfully used in ESL classes
as a quick means of helping students to identify a writing focus (Scarcella and
Oxford, 1992:125). Cwikilnski (2003:1), cubing gives students the opportunity to
3
construct meaning about a given topic through six different ways and it can be
used in all disciplines. Cubing can also help readers to look at a subject from a
variety of perspective.
Based on the description above, the writer was interested to conduct a
research entitled “Teaching Writing by Using Cubing Technique to the Eighth
Grade Students of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau.”
B. The Formulation of the Problems
The problem of the study is formulated into the following question “Is it
significantly effective to teach writing by using cubing technique to the eighth
grade students of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the academic year of
2012/2013?”
C. The Objective of the Research
The objective of the study is to find out whether or not it was significantly
effective to teach writing by using cubing technique to the eighth grade students
of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the academic year of 2012/2013.
D. The Scope of the Research
It is important for the writer to limit the area of this research to avoid
wider description of the investigation. The problem is limited to the following
points:
1. The material of writing was focused on the descriptive paragraph.
2. The technique used was Cubing Technique.
3. The subject of this study referred to the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 9
Lubuklinggau in academic year 2012/2013.
4
E. Significances of the Research
Hopefully, the result of this investigation would be valuable in teaching
and learning process of English. The significance of the study would be useful for
the teachers of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau, the researcher himself and students.
This study hopefully to be advantageous to the following people:
1. Teacher
It is really expected that this study gives the teacher information about
creative and interactive technique in teaching English especially in teaching
writing. It also can help the teachers face the problems that occur during the
process of teaching and learning in the class.
2. The Students
Hopefully it can help the students to improve their writing skill, in this
case the skill in descriptive paragraph and get a better score in their English lesson
at school. Moreover it can increase their writing and achievement in learning
English.
3. The Writer
This research can enlarges the writer’s understanding about descriptive
paragraph, also giving the writer’s experience in teaching and this research can be
one of the references for the next research.
F. Operational Definitions
For the purpose of the study, the following terms are defined in order to
avoid misunderstanding. They are Teaching, Writing, Cubing Technique,
Descriptive Paragraph and Achievement.
5
1. Teaching
Teaching is a process transformation of knowledge from the teacher to the
students that used methodologies to make the students understand about material
that the teacher given. In this study, teaching referred to guiding the students how
to learn writing through cubing technique.
2. Writing
Writing is the combination of letters which are arranged to form sentences
or paragraphs or way of communicating information, ideas, and feelings to other
people by producing the thoughts, ideas and feelings in written symbols.
3. Cubing Technique
Cubing is an effective technique for writing because it offers a more
systematic method of asking questions and generating ideas or a writing exercise
used as a prewriting technique.
4. Descriptive Paragraph
Paragraph is a group of related statement that the writer develops about the
topic. Descriptive paragraph is a paragraph describe about people, place, things
and others. In this study, descriptive paragraph means how the students’ writing of
descriptive paragraph by using cubing technique.
5. Achievement
Achievement is successfully in finishing something, especially to mastery
knowledge or science. In this study achievement referred to the student’s score in
writing test.
6
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Theoretical Descriptions
1. Concept of Teaching
According to Faturrahman and Sutikno (2007:45), teaching is a process of
transfer knowledge and skill for the students. This activity must organise and
arrange the environment in order to make the situation enjoy in teaching process.
Teaching is one aspect of education, the style of teaching, approach the method of
teaching and how to manage the classroom. The activity of teaching must be
occurring in the process of students learning and process of teacher in
demonstrating a lesson material. The teacher does three principle activities in
carrying out the job, they are: planning; implementation, and evaluation.
According to Whimley (2001:8), teaching is assumed that teachers can
improve their knowledge and skills, not necessarily by following a particular
method or the findings provided by “official” research, but with and enquiring
attitude which allows him/her to find out the most adequate technique in each
situation, because each teaching situation is different. And it needs to take of the
teacher, the classroom context and the community with its local educational and
intellectual traditions and every language lesson on necessarily different and
unique as the teacher and the learners jointly construct it.
2. The Concept of Writing
Byrne (1993:1) states that writing is the combination of letter which are
arranged to form sentences or paragraphs. Writing is a way of communicating
6
7
information, ideas, and feelings to other people by producing the thoughts, ideas
and feelings in written symbols (Chin, 1990:11). Writing is primarily a mental
activity, but it relies on physical tools and resources from pens and paper to word
processor (Sharples, 1999:6). Bello (1997:1) states that writing is continuing
process of discovering how to find the most effective language for communicating
one’s thought and feelings.
According to Chin (1990:10), writing is a way of giving information,
ideas, and feelings, to other people in written. It means that when one writes, one
also composer or create meaning with words, and then meanings are received by
the reader of the words. Block (1993:211) states that writing is expressing
thoughts, ideas, and feelings in written language. Writing involves many aspects
of language, such as grammar, spelling, vocabulary, organisation, and mechanics.
Moreover, Block (1993:215) states that communication through written language
is the act of transmitting thoughts, feelings, and ideas from “up here” in the hand
to “down here” on paper. Zemach and Rumisek (2005:3) state that to produce
piece of writing, good writer should go through several steps:
a. Prewriting
Step one: choose a topic. The writers determine some ideas or a topic of
what to write about. Step two: Gather ideas. When the writers have a topic, the
writers have to think about what they will write about the topic. Step three:
Organise. Decide which of the ideas the writers want to use and where the writers
want to use them. Choose which idea to talk about first, which to talk about next
and which to talk about last.
8
b. Drafting
Step four: write. The writers write paragraph or essay from start to finish.
The writers use their notes about their ideas and organisation.
c. Reviewing and revising
Step five: Review structure and content. The writers check what they have
written. Read the writing silently to themselves or aloud, perhaps to their friend.
Look for places where the writers can add more information, and check to see if
they have any unnecessary information by asking to exchange texts with their
classmates by reading their writing each other. Getting a reader’s opinion is a
good way to know if a writing work is clear and effective. Learning to give
opinions about other people’s writing helps them to improve skill. The writer may
want to go on to step six and revise the structure and content of their texts before
they proofread it.
d. Rewriting
Step six: Revise structure and content. Use the ideas from step five to write
the text, making improvement to the structure and content. The writer might need
to explain something more clearly, or add more details. The writers may even
need to change their organisation so that the text is more logical. Together, steps
five and six can be called editing. Proofread. Read the text again checking the
spelling and grammar and think about the words have been chosen to be used.
Make final correction. The writers checking the errors have been corrected which
is discovered in step five and six and make any other changes.
9
3. The Concept of Descriptive Paragraph
According to Zemach and Rumisek (2005:11), paragraph is a group of
sentences about a single topic. Together, the sentences of the paragraph explain
the writer’s main idea (most important idea) about the topic. A paragraph is often
between five and ten sentences long but it can be longer or shorter, depending on
the topic. The first sentence of a paragraph is usually indented (moved in) a few
spaces.
A paragraph has three basic parts: a topic sentence, the supporting
sentences, and a concluding sentence.
a. Topic Sentence
Topic sentence is the main idea of the paragraph. It is usually the first
sentence of the paragraph, it is the most general sentence of the paragraph.
b. The Supporting Sentences
The supporting sentences are sentences that talk about or explain the topic
sentence. They are more detailed ideas that follow the topic sentence.
c. The Concluding Sentence
The concluding sentence may be found as the last sentence of a paragraph.
It can finish a paragraph by repeating the main idea or just giving a final comment
about the topic.
Descriptive paragraph is a paragraph describe things, it can be describing
people, places and processes. A descriptive paragraph explains how someone or
something looks or feels. A process paragraph explains how something is done.
For example:
10
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls, a popular destination for thousands of visitors each year, is a
beautiful place. When you stand at the edge and look down at the 188 feet of
white waterfalls, you feel amazed at the power of nature. The tree-lined river that
leads into the falls is fast.-moving, pouring over the edge of the falls and crashing
to the bottom in aloud roar. If you want to experience the falls close up, go for a
boat ride. You’ll come near enough to look up at the roaring streams of water
flowing over the edge and feel the cool mist that rises as the water hits the rocks
below. Seeing Niagara Falls is an unforgettable experience! (Adopted from:
Academic Writing from Paragraph to Essay p: 26)
4. The Concept of Achievement
According to Richards, et al. (2002:7), achievement is how much of a
language learners have successfully learned with specific reference to a particular
course, textbook, or programme of instruction.
Hornby (2010:11) states that achievement is something done successfully
with effort and skill. It means that the teacher’s evaluation would be some that
simplified. Effective teaching is usually determined by the teacher’s ability to
produce desirable change in students’ learning behaviour in students’
achievement. The students’ achievement, based on the desirable outcome, could
then be determined. Teacher has a profound affect on students learn.
In addition, achievement is something important that somebody succeed in
doing by his/her own efforts (Pearson, 2012:13). Achievement of the students can
be defined as the score or the ability achieved by the student after had some test.
11
Failure can be regarded as negative achievement meanwhile success as positive
achievement. In this study the students’ achievement is their ability in writing a
paragraph.
5. The Concept of Cubing Technique
Gould, et al. (1989:120) state that cubing is a writing exercise used as a
prewriting technique. Cubing is an effective technique for writing because it
offers a more systematic method of asking questions and generating ideas. Scott
(2003:79) states that cubing can be and is a powerful tool for generating ideas
prior to the actual writing. A writer can explore his idea and develop through the
cubing guidelines. A writer often cannot go on writing about a subject because
they are locked in on a single way of looking at the topic, and that’s where cubing
works well.
Dawson (2001:1), points out that cubing allows a writer to explore various
aspects of a topic, forcing the writer to think and re-think the topic. A writer can
apply cubing to the main person, thing, or concept that the writing will be about.
Cubing can also be applied for an abstract concept and it can be used in all
disciplines (Cwiklinski, 2003:1).
According to Center (2003:2), cubing is a technique that encourages the
writer to explore different aspects of a topic. Essentially, the writer answers six
commands or prompts. Therefore, this technique is called cubing because the six
different approaches to subject represent the six different sides of a cube. The six
sides of the cube are described in the proper sequence as follows (Mann and
Mann, 1990:10):
12
Image 2.1
Cubing Technique (Source: http://novelinks.org)
a. Describe it: Describe or define the topic.
b. Compare it: What does it resemble? The comparison can include likenesses
and differences.
c. Associate it: Does it make you think of certain time, people, place, or events?
d. Analyse it: Tell how it is made, constructed, or formed, and if possible, identify
what it is made of.
e. Apply it: How can the topic are used? What can you do with it?
f. Argue for it against it: Be sure to choose only one position. Give reasons why
you argue or against it.
Cubing technique is one of the effective ways in generating ideas so the
students can creatively writing a paragraph. The following is an example of how
to apply the cubing technique in writing a paragraph entitled “Volunteer”
(Wyrick, 2011:13).
13
a. Describe it: I and five other members of my campus organisation volunteered
three Saturdays to work at the shelter here in town. We mainly helped in the
kitchen, preparing, serving, and cleaning up after meals. At the dinners we
served about 70 homeless people, mostly men but also some families with
small children and babies.
b. Compare it: I had never done anything like this before so it is hard to compare
or contrast it to anything. It was different though from what I expected. I hadn’t
really thought much about the people who would be there or to be honest I
think I thought they would be pretty weird or sad and I was kind of dreading
going there after I volunteered. But the people were just regular normal people.
And they were very, very polite to us.
c. Associate it: some of the people there reminded me of some of my relatives!
John, the kitchen manager, said most of the people were just temporarily
“down on their luck” and that reminded me of my aunt and uncle who came to
stay with us for a while when I was in high school after my uncle lost his job.
d. Analyse it: I feel like I got a lot out my experience. I think I had some wrong
ideas about “the homeless” and working there made me think more about them
as real people, not just a faceless group.
e. Apply it: I feel like I am more knowledgeable when I hear people talk about
the poor or the homeless in this town, especially those people who criticize
those who use the shelter.
f. Argue for or against it: I would encourage others to volunteer there. The work
isn’t hard and it isn’t scary. It makes you appreciate what you’ve got and also
14
makes you think about what you or your family might do if things went wrong
for a while. It also makes you feel good to do something for people you don’t
even know.
6. The Procedure Teaching Writing by Using Cubing Technique
Teaching writing by using Cubing Technique can be implemented through
the following steps:
a. Teacher explains the concept of descriptive paragraph.
b. Teacher explains the students how to make a paragraph by using cubing
technique and gives them example.
c. The students and teacher discuss the six questions in the cubing technique in
relation to the topic given.
d. The students answer the six questions individually in twenty minutes
e. Teacher asks some students to write their answers on the blackboard
f. The students and the writer discuss some alternative answers for the questions
g. The students combine the answers they have made into paragraph.
h. Teacher checks the students’ work mistakes and corrects them.
B. Related Previous Study
In this study, the writer found a thesis which is relevant to the writer’s
thesis. It is “Improving the Second Year Students’ Ability to Write Descriptive
paragraph through the Cubing Technique at SMA Negeri 4 Palembang”. The
thesis was written by Irlina in 2005.
There are several similarities between this studies and Irlina’s thesis. The
similarity is both studies talk about teaching writing by using Cubing Technique.
15
The differences are (a) the research problem, Irlina’s thesis used true-experimental
method while the writer used quasi-experimental method, (b) location of
investigation, her thesis was done SMA Negeri 4 Palembang but the writer study
was at SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau, (c) the number of sample used, Irlina’s thesis
used 87 students and the writer’s study use 28 students as sample.
The result of Irlina’s thesis showed that the results of match t-test
calculation were 3.497, while the critical value was 1.9876. It means that the Ha
was accepted and the Ho was rejected. So it was significantly to improve the
Second Year Students’ Ability to Write Descriptive paragraph through the Cubing
Technique at SMA Negeri 4 Palembang in the academic year 2004/2005.
C. Theoretical Framework
Theoretical Framework of this research is clearly described as follow:
First, the writer observed to the school by asked some questions related to the
problems of the study to the English Teacher of eighth grade students of SMP
Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau. Second, the writer searched the literature as well the
related previous study that was suitable for writing problems. The writer found
Irlina’s thesis which is relevant to the writer’s thesis. Third, the writer formulating
the problem of the study, the problem of the study was formulated into the
following question “Is it significantly effective to teach writing by using cubing
technique to the Eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the
academic year of 2012/2013?” Fourth, the writer defined the tentative notion.
Tentative notion is temporarily expectation of factors that affect the research
result. Then, the writer formulated the hypothesis. There are two hypotheses the
16
writer used, they are the alternative hypothesis (Ha) which is stated “It is
significantly effective teaching writing by using cubing technique to the eighth
grade students of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the academic year of
2012/2013.” and H0 which is stated “It is not significantly effective teaching
writing by using cubing technique to the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 9
Lubuklinggau in the academic year of 2012/2013.” Fifth, the writer determined
research method. The writer used quasi-experimental method with Pre-test and
Post-test design. The data source is taken from eighth grade students of SMP
Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau. In selecting the data source, the sample was chosen by
using cluster random sampling. Cluster random sampling means that the selection
of the groups of individual rather than single individual. The sample was taken by
arbitrary choosing one of the seven classes of eighth grade students of SMP
Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in academic year 2012/2013. Then, the writer defined
research variable that would be analysed in writing elements. They are: content,
organisation, vocabulary, language use and mechanic. Seventh, the writer used
writing test as the research instrument. To find out the test instrument is valid and
reliable, the writer gave try out to the students. Eighth, the writer collected the
data by giving test. The students are given the same writing test twice namely Pre-
test, pre-test is the test in which the sample given the test before the treatment and
Post-test, post-test is the test which is given after treatment. Ninth, after collecting
the data the writer analysed the data by calculating it to individual score, student’s
categories score and matched t-test. The writer also asked the English teacher to
give the score of the test. Tenth, after analysing the data got from the test, the
17
writer concluded the research result. And the last, the writer wrote whole the
report into the thesis. The theoretical framework illustrated into the following
chart:
Chart2.1
Theoretical Framework (Arikunto, 1999:18)
1. Choosing the problem
2. Related Previous Study
6a. Determine the
variables
4. Tentative notion
3. Formulating the Problem
6b. Determine data
source
4a. Hypothesis
5. Choosing the Method
10. Concluding the research
9. Analysing the Data
8. Collecting the Data
7. Designing Instrument
11. Writing the thesis
18
D. Hypotheses
According to Hornby (2010:740), hypothesis is an idea or explanation of
something that is based on a few known facts but that has not yet been proved to
be true or correct. McMillan (1992:35), hypotheses are educated “guesses” or
tentative explanations about a correct solution to a problem, description, possible,
relationship, or differences.
The hypotheses which were used in this study were Null Hypothesis (Ho)
and Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) which:
1. The Null Hypothesis (Ho) was stated that it was not significantly effective to
teach writing by using cubing technique to the eighth grade students of SMP
Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the academic year of 2012/2013.
2. The Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) was stated that it was significantly effective
to teach writing by using cubing technique to the eighth grade students of SMP
Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the academic year of 2012/2013.
The hypotheses were tested by critical value of the t distribution table.
Since the total number of the sample of this research were 27 (28-1) students and
the significance level was 95 % or 0,05 for one tailed test, the critical value of t-
table is 1.701, when the result of the t-obtained is less than 1.701, the null
hypothesis will be accepted. On the other hand, if the result of the matched t-test
was equal to or exceeded 1.701, the alternative hypothesis was accepted and
consequently the null hypothesis was rejected (Hatch and Farhady, 1982:272).
19
CHAPTER III
METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
A. Research Design
In doing this study, the writer used quasi-experimental method. Quasi-
experimental method refers to an experimental method that does not meet all the
requirements necessary for controlling the influence of extraneous variables
(Christensen, 1991:303). Moreover, Dane (1990:104) cites in Irlina (2005:16)
state that quasi-experimental method is a research method that approximates but it
is not truly-experimental method. Quasi-experimental research is simply not
possible to randomly assign participants to the difference levels of many
independent variables, in the quasi-experimental there are still exists a treatment,
in the sense that the researcher introduces a treatment or experimental design, pre-
test post-test design. The one-group pre-test post-test design is a single group is
measured or observed not only after being exposed to a treatment of some sort,
but also before (Fraenkel, et al., 2012:269). The formula of this design is as
follow:
01 X 02
Where: 01 : The pre-test
02 : The post-test
X : Treatment
19
20
B. Population and Sample
1. Population
Richards, et al. (2002:408) state that population is any set of items,
individuals, etc, which share some common observable characteristics and from
which sample can be taken. In addition, Arikunto (1997:115) also states that
population is a set (or correlation) of all elements possessing one or more
attributes of interest.
The population in this study was taken from the eighth grade students of
SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau. The population was 188 students. The population of
this study is presented in the table below:
Table 3.1
Population of the Study
No Classes Number of Students
1 VIII.A 28
2 VIII.B 27
3 VIII.C 26
4 VIII.D 28
5 VIII.E 27
6 VIII.F 26
7 VIII.G 26
Total 188
(Source: SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggauin the academic year of 2012/2013)
2. Sample
Sample is a group of subject on which information is obtained. It is
selected in such way that it represented larger group (population) from which it is
21
obtained (Fraenkel, et al., 2012:91). In addition, McMillan (1992:60) states that
sample is the group of elements, or a single element from which data are obtained.
It is smaller number of elements that have been selected for the study from the
total number of element contained in population.
In selecting the sample, the writer used cluster random sampling
technique. According to McMillan (1992:78), the advantages of cluster random
sampling are that it low cost, requires list of elements and efficient with large
population. In addition, Fraenkel et al. (2012:95) cluster random sampling means
that the selection of groups of individual rather than single individuals. The steps
of cluster random sampling: (1) writing the seven classes in small of pieces of
paper, (2) rolling them up, (3) putting them in a glass, and, (4) taking one of them
to be chosen as the sample. The result was VIII.A as the sample group with the
total number of 28 students.
C. Technique for Collecting Data
In collecting the data, the writer applied a written test. There was one test
and was administered twice to the students. In this study, they were pre-test and
post-test. The pre-test was given before doing the teaching experiment to the
sample students and the post-test was given at the end of teaching experiment.
The post-test was given since it was important to know the students’ progress in
studying writing through writing cubing technique.
The data were collected through written test in the form of descriptive
paragraph that consists of 80-100 words. The time allocated for the students to do
the test was 60 minutes.
22
D. Technique for Analysing the Data
In analysing the data obtained from the test. First, the data concern with
the pre-test scores. Second, the data concern with the scores of the students in the
post-test. The writer applied three techniques. They were: individual score, the
students’ categories score, and matched t-test.
1. Individual Score
The students’ paragraph was scored in terms of five elements: content,
organisation, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. Content refers to the idea
of paragraph; organisation is concerned with ideas and their logical and coherent
language and development; vocabulary covers the correct or appropriate choice of
words and idioms; structure refers to the grammar and word order; and mechanics
involve the punctuation and spelling.
The following table 3.2 and table 3.3 show the complete scale and ranges
scoring in writing proposed by Heaton (1988:146).
Table 3.2
Scale Range and Category
Elements
Scale Range and Category
Very Poor Poor to Fair Average
to Good
Very Good to
Excellent
Content 13-16 17-21 22-26 27-30
Organisation 7-9 10-13 14-17 18-20
Vocabulary 7-9 10-13 14-17 18-20
Structure 5-10 11-17 19-21 22-25
Mechanics 2 3 4 5
(See Heaton, 1988:146)
23
Table 3.3
Scoring Criterion
a. Content
30-27 knowledgeable-substantive
26-22 some knowledge of subject-adequate range
21-17 Limited knowledge of subject – little substance
16-13 Does not show knowledge of subject-non substantive
b. Organisation
20-18 Fluent expression – ideas clearly stated
17-14 Somewhat choppy-loosely organised but main ideas stand out
13-10 Not fluent – ideas confused or disconnected
9-7 Does not communicate-no organisation
c. Vocabulary
20-18 Fluent expression – ideas clearly stated
17-14 Adequate range – occasional errors of word /idiom form, choice,
usage but meaning not obscured usage
13-10 Limited range – frequent errors of word/ idiom word, choice,
9-7 Essentially translation – little knowledge of English vocabulary
d. Structure / Language Use
25-22 Effective complex construction
21-18 Effective but simple construction.
17-11 Major problem in simple/complex construction
10-5 Virtually no mastery of sentences construction rules
24
e. Mechanics
5 Demonstrates mastery of conventions.
4 Occasional errors of spelling, punctuation.
3 Frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.
2 No mastery conventions – dominated by errors of spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing.
Then, the writer changed those scores into the students’ individual score.
To find out the individual score, the writer used the following formula:
Where:
: Individual Score
: Students’ Score
: Total Score
2. The Students’ Categories Score
In order to know the student’s categories score, the scores were converted
into the range of the score. The writer used conversion of individual score as seen
in the following table 3.4.
25
Table 3.4
Conversion of Individual Score
Mark Range Qualification
91-100 Excellent
81-90 Very good
71-80 Good
61-70 Nearly good
51-60 Sufficient
41-50 Nearly Sufficient
34-40 Poor
≤ 33 Very poor
(Source: Heaton, 1988:145)
3. Matched t-test
The writer used matched t-test in comparing the result of the post-test and
pre-test. The formula is presented below:
SD
xxtobt
21
Where:
tobt : The t-obtained
1X : The Students’ Mean Score of Post-Test
2X : The Students’ Mean Score of Pre-Test
SD : The Standard Errors of Differences
SD was obtained by using the following formula:
n
SDSD
26
SD was calculated by using the following formula:
1
/122
n
DnDSD
Where:
SD : Standard Deviation
n : Number of Students
D : Difference of Students’ Scores
(Hatch and Farhady, 1982:116)
E. Accountability of the Research
In order to have a good test, before the test was being given to the
students, the writer measured the validity and reliability of the test. The aim is to
examine whether or not the test items can be used as a test instrument for
collecting the data.
1. Validity
Validity refers to the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of
inferences researcher makes (Fraenkel et al., 2012:147). In this study, the writer
used content validity. According to Richards, et al. (2002:115), content validity is
a form of validity, which based on the degree to which a test adequately and
sufficiently measures the particular skills or behaviour it set out to measure.
Validity is the degree to which the test actually measures what it is intended to
measure (Heaton, 1988:160). In making the test to be valid, the writer had
27
consulted it with his two advisors in constructing it. So, the test materials really
measured about the students’ descriptive paragraph writing. In order to make the
test has high degree of content validity, the writer devised the test items in
accordance with the table of the test specifications. The table of test specification
is also based on the curriculum or syllabus which is taught by their teachers. The
test specification is valuable information in producing an appropriate test, level of
difficulty, content, topic, task and others. The test specification is presented on the
following table:
Table 3.5
The Test Specification
Objective Material Indicator Total
item
Test
Type
To write
descriptive
paragraph
correctly.
Writing skill of
descriptive
paragraph entitled
“meatball”
Write one descriptive
paragraph Consisting of
80-100 words. the
elements that will be
scored are:
(1) Content
(2) Organisation
(3) Vocabulary
(4) Structure
(5) Mechanics
1
Written
Test
Total 1
2. Reliability
Fraenkel, et al. (2012:154) state that reliability refers to the consistency of
the scores obtained-how consistent they are for each individual from one
administration of an instrument to another and from one set of items to another.
Moreover, Richard et al. (2002:454) state that reliability is a measure of the
28
degree to which a test gives consistent result, a test is said to be reliable if it gives
the same results when it is given on different occasions or when it is used by
different people. In measuring the reliability of the test, the writer used split-half
procedure by using internal-consistency methods. In administering this method,
the writer asked the teacher of English of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau to help the
test scoring. So, there were two scorers and the reliability coefficient of the
writing test was 0.444. It means that if the result of the calculation is higher than
or equals to 0.444, the test is reliable. On the other hand, the test is not reliable if
the result of the calculation is lower than 0.444. The score was obtained by using
the following formula:
∑ (∑ ) (∑ )
√{ ∑ (∑ ) }{ ∑
(∑ ) }
Where:
: Correlation for the whole test
: The students’ score from the first scorer (the writer)
: The students’ score form the second scorer (the English teacher)
: The number of the students
To find out the reliability for whole test the writer calculated by using
Spearman Brown formula. The formula is as follows:
29
Where:
: Reliability of scores on total test
: Correlation coefficient
From The result of the calculation of try-out test is presented on the table 1
(Appendix C), the writer calculated the reliability coefficient by using Pearson
Product Moment Formula. The process of the calculation can be seen as follows:
∑ (∑ ) (∑ )
√{ ∑ (∑ ) }{ ∑
(∑ ) }
( ) ( )( )
√*( ) ( ) +*( ) ( ) +
√( )( )
√
√
1
After getting the value of correlation coefficient, the writer calculated
reliability for whole test through Spearman Brown formula as follows:
( )
30
Base on the result of the calculation above, the writer found that the
reliability coefficient of the writing test was 0.751. Since the reliability coefficient
(0.751) was higher than 0.444, the test instrument was “reliable”.
31
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Findings
The research result is shown in the following chart:
Chart 4.1
The Result of the Students’ test
It was found that the students’ average score in the pre-test was 62.29 and
in the post-test 71.11. It means that the average score in the post-test was higher
than the students’ average score in the pre-test. Then the writer also found that the
result of the matched t-test calculation 6.89 was higher than the critical value,
meanwhile the critical value was 1.701. It means that the Ho (null hypothesis) was
rejected and automatically the Ha (alternative hypothesis) was accepted. It was
effective teaching writing by using cubing technique to the eighth grade students
of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
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
SCORE
STUDENTS
Pre-test Post-test
31
32
1. The students’ score in the pre-test
The elements of the writing that the writer checked were content (C),
organisation (O), vocabulary (V), structure (S), and mechanism (M). Previously,
more detail explanation of the scoring criterion was described in chapter III. The
students’ score of the pre-test is presented in the table 2. (Appendix D).
From the table 2 (on Appendix D) showed that there was 1 student or
3.57% who was in “very good” category, 5 students or 17.86% who were in the
“good” category, 9 students or 32.14% in the “nearly good” category, 11 students
or 39.29% in the “sufficient” category, and 2 students or 7.14% in the “nearly
sufficient” category. The average score was 71.11, the highest score was 89 and
the lowest score was 54. The Chart 4.2 shows the result of students’ score in the
pre-test.
Chart 4.2
The Percentage Students’ Categories Score in the Pre-test
Excellent. 0.
0% Very good.
3.57%
Good. 17.86%
Nearly good.
32.14%
Sufficient.
39.29%
Nearly
Sufficient.
7.14%
Poor. 0. 0% Very poor.
0. 0%
Excellent Very good Good
Nearly good Sufficient Nearly Sufficient
Poor Very poor
33
2. The Students’ Score in the Post-test
The elements of writing that the writer checked in the post-test are same as
those in the pre-test. They were content (C), organisation (O), vocabulary (V),
structure (S), and mechanism (M). The result of the students’ score in the post-test
was shown on the table score 3 (Appendix D).
From that table score 3.2 (Appendix D), it was known that there were2
students or 7.14%, who were in “Sufficient” category, 14 students or 50.00% who
were in “Nearly Good” category, 6 students or 21.43% who were in “Good”
category, and6students or 21.43% who were in “Very good” category. Herein the
chart of the percentage of students’ categories scores:
Chart 4.3
The Percentage Students’ Categories Score in the Post-test
Excellent. 0%
Very good.
21.43%
Good. 21.43%
Nearly good.
50.00%
Sufficient.
7.14%
Nearly
Sufficient. 0.
0%
Poor. 0. 0% Very poor.
0. 0%
Excellent Very good GoodNearly good Sufficient Nearly SufficientPoor Very poor
34
Table 4.1
The Score Distribution of Pre-test and Post-test
N = 28 Pre-test Post-test
Highest score 87 89
Lowest score 47 54
Average score 62.29 71.11
Students
Categories Score
Pre-test Post-test
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Excellent 0 0% 0 0%
Very good 1 3.57% 6 21.43%
Good 5 17.86% 6 21.43%
Nearly good 9 32.14% 14 50.00%
Sufficient 11 39.29% 2 7.14%
Nearly sufficient 2 7.14% 0 0%
Poor 0 0% 0 0%
Very poor 0 0% 0 0%
3. Normality and Homogeneity
a. Normality Test
Before the writer calculated matched t-test of this study. The writer
calculated normality and homogeneity of the test firstly. They are as follows.
∑( )
the Observation Frequency
the Expectation Frequency
Before the writer calculated normality test, it is important to know the
some steps to calculate the normality test. The data were got from the table 4 and
table 5of the square of the students’ score of the pre-test and post-test in the
Appendix E. They were as follow.
35
1) Calculated Mean Score
In the pre-test, it was known that mean score of the pre-test was 62.29 It
was got by total of the students’ score (1744) divided by the number of students
(28). In the post-test, it was also known that mean score of the post-test was
71.11. It was got by the total of the students’ score (1991) divided by the number
of students.
2) Calculated Standard Deviation
a) In the pre-test, data was taken from table 4 in the Appendix E. From the
calculation in the Appendix E, the writer found that the standard deviation in
the pre-test was 9.94
b) In the post-test, the data was taken from the table 6 in the Appendix E. From
the calculation in the Appendix E, the writer found that the standard deviation
in the post test was 9.64.
3) Make List of the Observation Frequency and Expectation Frequency
a) In the pre-test
(1) Dividing the interval class
( )
the number of the students
( )
So, K was 5 or can be taken 6
(2) Distance
Distance Highest score Lowest score
36
87 47
40
(3) Long interval class
So, can be taken 6 or 7
After that, the writer made the table of normality as follow.
Table 4.2
The List Frequency of Observation and Expectation of the Students’ Scores
In the Pre-Test
Interval
Class
Boundary
Class Z-Score
The
Boundary of
Wide of Area
The
Wide
Of Area
Ei Oi (Oi-
Ei)2/Ei
87.5 2.54 4945
81-87 2.81 0.79 1 0.06
80.5 1.83 4664
74-80 9.56 2.68 2 0.65
73.5 1.13 3708
67-73 20.80 5.82 4 2.51
66.5 0.42 1628
60-66 27.31 7.65 8 0.24
59.5 -0.28 1103
53-59 22.62 6.33 7 0.02
52.5 -0.98 3365
46-52 11.80 3.30 6 2.20
45.5 -1.69 4545
5.68
Explanation of the calculation:
Column 1: Lowest score + Long class
37
Column 2 : Boundary Class is the lower and upper limited of interval class.
Column 3 : Z Scores
Column 4 : Boundary Wide of Area use List of Z- table
Column 5 : The wide of Area
The value of Wide of Area should be in positive by ignoring minus sign
after being subtracted by upper BWA and lower BWA. The exception for interval
class 60-66, because the interval class was between plus and minus Z-Score of 0
ordinate points, so both of the values of Boundary Wide of Area between those
ordinate points were added.
For instance, the Wide of Area
27.31
Column 6 :Ei
38
Column 7 : Observation Frequency
Column 8 : Score (Oi – Ei)2/Ei
From the table 4.2 above it was found that .Then,the writer
calculated degree of freedom (df) = number of interval class -1. So, df=6-1 = 5
with the significance level 0.05 on the table of Chi-square was 11.070. If
5.68<11.070 so the data distribution was normal.
Chart 4.4
The Normality Curve of Pre-test
b) In the Post-test
(1) Dividing the interval class
( )
the number of the students
( )
So, K was 5 or can be taken 6
-1.69
-0.98 -0.28
0.42
1.13
1.83
2.54
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
39
(2) Distance
Distance Highest score Lowest score
89 54
35
(3) Long interval class
So, can be taken 5 or 6.
The result of normality calculation was shown in the table below:
Table 4.3
The List Frequency of Observation and Expectation of the Students’ Scores
in the Post-Test
Interval
Class
Boundary
Class Z-Score
The
Boundary of
Wide of Area
The
Wide
Of Area
Ei Oi (Oi-
Ei)2/Ei
89.5 1.90 4713
84-89 6.98 1.95 4 2.15
83.5 1.29 4015
78-83 15.61 4.37 6 0.60
77.5 0.66 2454
72-77 22.94 6.42 1 4.57
71.5 0.04 0160
66-71 23.50 6.58 8 0.30
65.5 -0.58 2190
60-65 16.29 4.56 7 1.30
59.5 -1.20 3819
54-59 8.37 2.34 2 0.04
53.5 -1.83 4656
8.96
40
The steps of normality calculation of post-test were same like in the pre-
test and it was found that . After that, the writer calculated degree of
freedom (df) = number of interval class -1. So, df=5-1 = 4 with the significance
level 0.05 on Chi-square table was 9.488
So, 8.96<9.488 the data distribution was normal.
b. Homogeneity Test
Beside calculated the normality, the writer calculated the homogeneity test
as well. For calculating the homogeneity, the writer used the following formula.
According to table 6 of the variance of homogeneity of the students’ scores
in the pre-test and in the post-test in Appendix E, the writer found that the highest
variance was 84.5 and the lowest variance was 76.34. The calculation of the
homogeneity was shown as follow.
1.09
From that degrees of freedom it was known that (df) na-1 =28-1 = 27 and
n0-1= 28-1 =27. The value of degrees of freedom (df) na and n0=27, with the
significance level of 5%, on Ftable was 1.93
From the calculation above, it was known that Fobt = 1.09. and Ftable = 1.93.
It statistically could be said that the data distribution was homogeneity, because
Fobt<Ftable.
41
4. The Calculation of Matched t-test
After analysing and calculating the students’ score in the post-test and pre-
test, the writer calculated the matched t-test. It was done to test the hypothesis
which one was accepted or rejected. The result of matched t-test calculation can
be seen in the table 7 (see Appendix F).
From the table 7, it was found that the number of students (N) was 28, the
students’ average scores in the pre-test ( )was 62.29 the students’ average score
on the post-test ( ) was 71.11, the sum of difference (∑ ) was 247 and the
squared sum of the difference (∑ 2) 3433. The process of the calculation of t-test
is presented as follows:
√∑ ( )(∑ )
√ ( ) ( )
√ ( ) ( )
√
√
√
√
√
42
1.28
0
Based on the result of the calculation above, it was found that t-obtained
was 6.89 higher than the critical value of t-table 1.701 for significant level 0.05
for df=28. It was indicated that the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted and
the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. So, it is significantly effective teaching
writing by using cubing technique to the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 9 in
the academic year 2012/2013.
B. Discussion
This study was conducted based on the phenomena that happened in the
real field concerning the student’s writing achievement. This happened because of
several factors one of them is the students have difficulty in developing the ideas
in writing. As a result, the students feel confuse and spend the time by imagine
what they should write on the paper. Then, the writer chose the cubing technique
to overcome the students’ writing problems. Byrne (1993:25) states that in view
of the many difficulties with which are the students faced in learning foreign
43
language, the fundamental principal in guiding them in various ways towards a
mastery of writing skills, and sometimes controlling what they write, is not one
we can lightly dismiss, even if the principle has to some extent been misapplied
(for example, in trying eliminate mistakes). Rather, we should consider more
carefully what kind of guidance we should give them, particularly in relation to
the various problems they have when they writing.
Scott (2003:79) states that cubing can be and is a powerful tool for
generating ideas prior to the actual writing. A writer can explore his/her idea and
develop through the cubing guidelines. A writer often cannot go on writing about
a subject because they are locked in on a single way of looking at the topic, and
that is where cubing works well.
In doing the research the writer asked the English teacher’s help in giving
the score of the students’ test. The scoring criterion is based on table 3.3 (Heaton,
1988:146). In the Pre-test the writer gave the students writing test with the topics:
Model (food) and Supermarket. The students should choose only one of topics for
their descriptive paragraph. Then, the writer gave the students treatments by twice
teaching them, the first meeting the writer taught the students descriptive
paragraph through cubing technique in the topic of “meatball.” The second
meeting, the writer also taught the students the same steps in first meeting but
slightly different by using another topic. Then in the next meeting the writer gave
the students Post-test. The test given was the same as in the pre-test.
After got the data, the writer combined the score from the first judge (the
writer) and the second judge (the English teacher). In the pre-test, 7.14% of the
44
students in nearly sufficient category, but in post-test decreased become 0%.
Then, 39.27% students who was in sufficient category in the pre-test decreased to
7.14% in the post-test. Meanwhile, the percentage of the students in nearly good
category was increased from 32.14% in the pre-test to 50.00% in the post-test. As
well, the students’ category in good category also increased from 17.86% in the
pre-test to 21.43% in the post-test. And the students who reached in very good
category also increased from 3.57% in the pre-test to 21.43% in the post-test.
More detailed, see table 3.1 on Appendix D.
Based on the results of the data obtained above, the writer interpreted that
the students’ achievement in writing has a better score. This result could be seen
from the difference between students’ mean score obtained in the pre-test and the
post-test. In the pre-test, the students’ mean score was 62.29. On the other hand,
in the post-test, their mean score increased to be 71.11. It means that after being
taught, their achievement on writing was improved.
The highest score in the pre-test was 87 and the lowest score was 47.
Meanwhile, the highest score in the post-test was 89 and the lowest score was 54.
Therefore, it was obvious that in the post-test most of the students could make
better achievement than in the pre-test.
In addition, the result of matched t-test calculation shows that the value of
the t-obtained was much higher than t-table. The t-obtained was 6.89 while the
critical value for df=28 of the t-table was 1.701. It means that the null hypothesis
(Ho) was rejected and automatically the alternative hypothesis (Ha) which is
stated “It is significantly effective to teach writing by using Cubing Technique to
45
the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the academic year
2012/2013” was accepted.
In Irlina thesis (2005), it was found that the value of the mean difference
of the pre-test and post-test in the experimental group was 4.43 meanwhile the
value of the mean difference of the pre-test and post-test in control group was 1.67
and the mean difference of the post-test in the experimental group and the post-
test in the control group was 2.83. This means difference was statistically
significant for significance level of p<0.05 in two tailed testing by df=87. It means
that there was a significant difference in the students’ writing achievement
between the students who were taught by using cubing technique and those who
were not. Therefore, based on the writer’s and Irlina’s research result. It was
found that teaching writing by using cubing technique is significantly effective.
C. Limitation of the Study
The writer would describe the limitations of the research that were found
during conducting the research. The instrument used in this research only a test, it
should be added by questionnaire in order to see the satisfaction and comments of
the students toward the method applied. The time taken for conducting the
research was not really sufficient because when collecting the data a few days of
that month were the school holiday. Therefore, the more exposure for writing
activities could not be achieved maximally. After the post-test, there are still some
of the students’ writing achievements have not passed writing KKM of Eighth
grade Students of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the academic year 2012/2013.
(see table 9 Appendix F).
46
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusion
Based on the result of the test the writer concludes that there was
significant difference between the students’ writing achievement before and after
treatment. The students’ ability was increased from “Nearly good” category in
pre-test to “good” category in post-test. The average of the students’ score in the
post-test (71.11) was much higher than those in the pre-test (62.29). The result of
matched t-test, t-obtained was 6.89 was higher than the coefficient critical value
of t-table (1.701) for significant level 0.05 for df = 28. The writer concludes that it
was significantly effective teaching writing by using cubing technique to the
eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 9 Lubuklinggau in the academic year of
2012/2013.
B. Suggestion
Based on the data analysis and implementation the writer has some
suggestions to the teacher of English, the students, and to the researcher. For the
sake educational development partially in the teaching and learning writing, the
writer offers some suggestions for the teachers, the students of English, and the
other researchers.
1. For the Teacher of English
The teacher of English should apply the cubing technique because the
cubing technique is a good technique in how to develop students’ idea in teaching
46
47
writing. The writer suggests the teacher of English can use the six questions of
cubing technique in creating descriptive, narrative, and argumentative essay in
teaching writing. Since the result of this research showed that Cubing Technique
was effective to be used in teaching writing for the students.
2. For the Students
The students are suggested to pay close attention when the teacher
teaching them. The writer also suggests that the student must increase their
knowledge in field of grammar and structure, vocabulary and the others aspect of
writing. Ideally, the students are better to take the English course, study
themselves and discuss to the teacher of English and their friends to help them
master English better. And the last one and the most important, students should
take a plenty of practice in writing to achieve writing mastery.
3. To the other Researchers
To the other researchers, the writer suggests to do the same research with
Cubing technique in teaching on the other materials and field. To know deeply the
effectiveness of Cubing technique the future researcher should be careful in
designing the lesson plan because the accuracy in managing the time and the
teaching goals is really tight close. In choosing the technique that appropriate for
the research, make sure that the future researchers checking the materials to be
investigated are available in syllabus or curriculum at the school or university of
the research to be done.
48
REFERENCES
Arikunto, S. 1999. Prosedur Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Bello, T. 1997. Improving ESL Learners' Writing Skills (Online)
http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/Writing.html accessed on
August 19, 2012
Block, J. 1993. Choosing Your Course Book. London: Oxford University Press
Byrne, D. 1993. Teaching Writing Skills. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Center, A. 2003. Cubing. (Online)
http://www.uhv.edu/ac/research/prewrite/cubing.aspx accessed on August
21, 2012
Chin, B. 1990. On Your Own: Writing Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Christensen, L. B. 1991. Experimental Methodology. (5th
ed). Needham Heights,
M.A: Allyn and Bacon.
Cwiklinski, A. 2003. Strategy: Cubing. (Online)
http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/weeklytips.phtml/17 accessed
on August 20, 2012.
Dane, F. 1992. Research Methods. Belmont, California, CA: Wadsworth.
Dawson, M. 2001. Prewriting: Cubing. (Online)
http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/cubing.html accessed on
August 19, 2012.
Irlina. 2005. “Improving the Second Year Students’ Ability to Write Descriptive
paragraph through the Cubing Technique at SMA Negeri 4
Palembang.”Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. Palembang: Faculty of
Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Indralaya.
Faturrahman, P., and M. S. Sutikno. 2007. Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Bandung:
Rafika Aditama.
Fraenkel, J. R., N. E. Wallen, and H. H. Hyun. 2012. How to Design and Evaluate
Research in Education. (8th
ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
49
Gould, E., D. Yanni., and W. Smith. 1989. The Act of Writing. New York, NY:
Random House.
Hadi, S. 2002. Metodologi Research. Yogyakarta: ANDI
Hatch, E., and H. Farhady. 1982. Research Design and Statistics for Applied
Linguistics. London: Newbury House Publisher, Inc.
Hornby, A. S. 2010. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (8th
ed). London:
Oxford University Press.
Heaton, J. B. 1989. Writing English Language Test. New York, NY: Longman
Group Ltd.
Pearson Education, 2012. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English for
Advance Learners. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited
Mann, R. C., and P. Mann. 1990. Essay Writing Methods and Models. Belmont,
California, CA: Wadsworth.
McMillan, J. M. 1992. Educational Research Fundamentals for the Consumer.
New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
Nathan, R., C.Temple, F. Temple,and N. A. Burris 1993.The Beginning of
Writing. (3rd
ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Nazir, P. 2005. Metode Penelitian. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia.
Richards, J.C. 1990. The Language Teaching Matrix. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press
Richards, J. C., R. Schmidt, H. Kendricks, and Y. Kim.2002. Longman Dictionary
of Applied Linguistics.London: Pearson Education Ltd.
Scarcella, R., and R. L. Oxford. 1992. The Tapestry of Language Learning: The
Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle and
Heinle.
Scott, J. H. 2003. The Cubing Technique. (Online)
http://csun.edu/~hcpas003/cubing.html accessed on August 18, 2012
Sharples, M. 1999. How We Write: We Write as Creative Design. London:
Routledge.
STKIP-PGRI Lubuklinggau. 2001. Pedoman Penulisan Makalah dan Skripsi
Mahasiswa STKIP-PGRI Lubuklinggau. Lubukinggau: STKIP-PGRI
Lubuliggau.
50
Whimley, A. 2001. Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Activities. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wyrick, J. 2011. Steps to Writing Well: with Additional Reading. Boston, MA:
Wadsworth.
Zemach, E. D., and L. A. Rumisek. 2005. Academic Writing from Paragraph to
Essay. London: Macmillan Publishers Limited.