IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter would give the result of the test in this research. The researcher also

provided the discussion regarding the topic with the researcher perspective in this

chapter.

4.1. Result

The population of this research was English Study Program of Teachers Training and

Education Faculty in University of Lampung and the sample was student year 2010.

With total 29 samples, the tests were conducted.

Result of the Questionnaire

The second test was a questionnaire. There are three subjects in the questionnaire; the

highest score from a subject determined which product samples prefer. Maximum score

for each question is 5 and the minimum was 1. Samples’ preference decided by the

highest total score from the others (total scores). The result showed:

1. There are 15 students preferring song and 11 students preferring movie.

34

2. In total 3 students are undecided, mean they are not really prefer one of the three

subjects. Those students, all of them, have two highest subject score (not exactly

in a same number, but the score have significant gap, which the researcher set, to

determine what their preferred).

3. There is no student preferred prose. In the case number 2, the undecided

students’ preference is between song and movie. There is no student prefers

prose or undecided between prose and other two products.

Table 3. Result of the Questionnaire

NoSample Name

Product Preference Point PreferenceProse Song Movie

1 AS 17 28 28 UNDECIDED2 DEN 19 33 30 Song3 FP 20 35 32 Song4 FA 23 27 20 Song5 FW 21 28 36 Movie6 FAR 16 35 20 Song7 GD 16 32 30 Song8 GA 26 30 34 Movie9 IAM 23 30 27 Song

10 IN 25 32 35 Movie11 I 24 29 33 Movie12 KR 14 32 36 Movie13 LBP 40 47 31 Song14 LN 17 32 31 Song15 MR 26 34 32 Song16 NH 19 27 24 Song17 NWP 21 28 19 Song18 PA 31 38 40 Movie19 PM 16 27 22 Song20 RP 18 28 35 Movie

35

21 RF 20 33 34 Movie22 RSE 24 30 32 Movie23 RFA 19 35 30 Song24 RA 23 34 34 UNDECIDED25 R 29 39 40 Movie26 SER 27 41 28 Song27 TW 23 37 37 UNDECIDED28 WW 23 26 25 Song29 YAP 22 25 26 Movie

Result of the Picture Story Book Test

The first test (TX) was mute story book; samples made a story based on the picture from

a book without any dialog or narration. This test is to measure sample’s vocabulary in

writing. The highest number word produced is 178 words and the lowest is 39, with

average 90 words; the highest density is 85% and the lowest is 48%, with average 65%;

the highest readability is 9.2 and the lowest is 3.1, with average 4.8.

Table 4. Result of the Picture Story Book Test

No Sample NameScore

Word Count Lexical Density Readability Vocabulary Achievement

1 AS 77 77.92 4.8 7

2 DEN 107 55.14 3.1 7

3 FP 98 55.10 3.8 7

4 FA 132 48.48 3.4 6

5 FW 89 64.04 5 7

6 FAR 80 58.75 5.2 7

7 GD 104 68.26 3.4 7

36

8 GA 60 85.00 8.1 8

9 IAM 86 56.97 3.9 7

10 IN 90 65.55 4.7 7

11 I 81 61.72 4.1 7

12 KR 80 60.00 4.9 7

13 LBP 120 72.50 9.2 8

14 LN 141 62.41 4.2 7

15 MR 65 60.00 4.8 7

16 NH 73 71.23 3.7 7

17 NWP 106 48.11 5.7 6

18 PA 108 64.81 5.7 7

19 PM 87 60.91 4.7 7

20 RP 52 80.76 3.9 7

21 RF 89 64.04 5 7

22 RSE 132 64.39 4.5 7

23 RFA 59 74.57 4.8 7

24 RA 66 75.75 4.3 7

25 R 39 74.35 5.5 7

26 SER 178 57.86 3.1 7

27 TW 58 79.31 8.3 8

28 WW 67 71.64 3.3 7

29 YAP 101 62.37 5.2 7

The scoring for word count, lexical density, and readability has been discussed in

previous chapter. Scoring for vocabulary achievement is summed from word count,

lexical density, and readability by criteria. The scoring criteria are:

37

Table 5. Vocabulary Achievement Scoring Criteria

Score1 2 3

Word Count

The percentage of word produced and word count >= 40%

The percentage of word produced and word count >40% and <=55%

The percentage of word produced and word count >55%

Lexical Density The score is >= 40 The score is >40 and <=55

The score is >55

Readability The score is <8.00 The score is>=8.00 The score is >=10.00 and <=12.00

The base score is 2.Readability scoring is based on Gunning Fox.

The researcher had made the calculation example of analysis using two samples’ text -it

can be seen in appendix 8. This result then was separated into 3 groups by the

achievements –word count, lexical density, and readability. Then in each groups,

sample was grouped by their perspective preference (see page 29). From the

assortments it’s drawn conclusion whether student with different literature product

preferences have different vocabulary achievement –in term of word count, lexical

density, and readability- which analyzed statistically.

Comparing the Data and Statistical Result

In comparing the data, the researcher grouped it into three subjects: song, movie, and

undecided (song/ movie). ANOVA is used to draw the final result and tested the

hypothesis.

38

Table below provides statistical analysis using ANOVA:

Table 6. Statistical Result of the Correlation between Literature Product and

Vocabulary Achievement in Writing

ANOVASum of

Squares dfMean

Square F Sig.

WORDC Between Groups 3572.660 2 1786.330 2.124 .140

Within Groups 21868.582 26 841.099

Total 25441.241 28

LEXICALD Between Groups 752.027 2 376.013 5.737 .009Within Groups 1704.206 26 65.546

Total 2456.233 28

READABILITY Between Groups 6.437 2 3.219 1.507 .240Within Groups 55.531 26 2.136

Total 61.968 28

VOCABACH Between Groups .456 2 .228 1.316 .286

Within Groups 4.509 26 .173

Total 4.966 28

Descriptives

N MeanStd.

Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum MaximumLower Bound

Upper Bound

WORDC 2.00 15 100.2000 32.49440 8.39002 82.2052 118.1948 59.00 178.00

3.00 11 83.7273 26.27581 7.92245 66.0749 101.3796 39.00 132.00

4.00 3 67.0000 9.53939 5.50757 43.3028 90.6972 58.00 77.00

Total 29 90.5172 30.14325 5.59746 79.0514 101.9831 39.00 178.00LEXICALD 2.00 15 61.4656 8.49374 2.19308 56.7619 66.1692 48.11 74.58

3.00 11 67.9170 8.29327 2.50051 62.3455 73.4885 60.00 85.004.00 3 77.6633 1.79046 1.03372 73.2156 82.1111 75.76 79.31Total 29 65.5883 9.36603 1.73923 62.0256 69.1509 48.11 85.00

READABILITY 2.00 15 4.4200 1.54698 .39943 3.5633 5.2767 3.10 9.203.00 11 5.1455 1.11925 .33747 4.3935 5.8974 3.90 8.10

39

4.00 3 5.8000 2.17945 1.25831 .3859 11.2141 4.30 8.30Total 29 4.8379 1.48767 .27625 4.2721 5.4038 3.10 9.20

VOCABACH 2.00 15 6.9333 .45774 .11819 6.6798 7.1868 6.00 8.00

3.00 11 7.0909 .30151 .09091 6.8884 7.2935 7.00 8.00

4.00 3 7.3333 .57735 .33333 5.8991 8.7676 7.00 8.00

Total 29 7.0345 .42112 .07820 6.8743 7.1947 6.00 8.00

The researcher used statistical computerization SPSS 17.0 for Windows. Significance is

determined by p<0.05. ANOVA revealed that from three level dependent variables

compared with the independent variable, word count and readability showed

insignificancy; in the other hand, lexical density showed significance at level p<0.05

(p=0.009).

Statistical result ANOVA showed that samples literature preference affecting their

lexical density percentage. From mean comparisons, samples with movie preference

have the highest mean in lexical density and readability while samples with song have

the highest mean in word production. Other than that, samples with undecided

preference always placed 2nd highest mean. From statistical result ANOVA, only lexical

density showed significance. In case of word count, it correlated with samples

preference, but the significance is not high enough.

For detailed explanation, here is the result the post hoc tests from the data:

Table 7. Multiple Comparisons from the ANOVA Result

Multiple Comparisons

Scheffe

40

Dependent Variable

(I) PREFERE

NCER

(J) PREFERE

NCER

Mean Difference

(I-J)Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

WORDC 2.00 3.00 16.47273 11.51247 .373 -13.4110 46.3565

4.00 33.20000 18.34229 .214 -14.4124 80.8124

3.00 2.00 -16.47273 11.51247 .373 -46.3565 13.4110

4.00 16.72727 18.88994 .680 -32.3067 65.7613

4.00 2.00 -33.20000 18.34229 .214 -80.8124 14.4124

3.00 -16.72727 18.88994 .680 -65.7613 32.3067LEXICALD 2.00 3.00 -6.45145 3.21380 .154 -14.7938 1.8908

4.00 -16.19778* 5.12041 .015 -29.4892 -2.90643.00 2.00 6.45145 3.21380 .154 -1.8908 14.7938

4.00 -9.74633 5.27329 .201 -23.4346 3.94194.00 2.00 16.19778* 5.12041 .015 2.9064 29.4892

3.00 9.74633 5.27329 .201 -3.9419 23.4346READABILITY 2.00 3.00 -.72545 .58013 .468 -2.2313 .7804

4.00 -1.38000 .92430 .343 -3.7793 1.01933.00 2.00 .72545 .58013 .468 -.7804 2.2313

4.00 -.65455 .95190 .791 -3.1254 1.81644.00 2.00 1.38000 .92430 .343 -1.0193 3.7793

3.00 .65455 .95190 .791 -1.8164 3.1254VOCABACH 2.00 3.00 -.15758 .16531 .640 -.5867 .2715

4.00 -.40000 .26338 .331 -1.0837 .2837

3.00 2.00 .15758 .16531 .640 -.2715 .5867

4.00 -.24242 .27125 .675 -.9465 .4617

4.00 2.00 .40000 .26338 .331 -.2837 1.0837

3.00 .24242 .27125 .675 -.4617 .9465

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Based from statistical results, the researcher assume that only the comparison in lexical

density can be taken; since ANOVA result showed lexical density is the only

achievement that has significance. In this case:

Graph 1. Means Plots of Word Count

41

Legend :

2.00 = song 3.00 = movie 4.00 = undecided

From the graph we can see that samples with song preference have the highest mean.

The gap mean between song and movie is so significant. Moreover in the first place, the

comparison between means of different sample preference is not significance (p>0.05,

p=140). Thus the means difference is not accepted: H12 is rejected and H02 is accepted.

Graph 2. Means Plots of Lexical Density

42

Legend :

2.00 = song 3.00 = movie 4.00 = undecided

From the graph we can see that samples with undecided preference have the highest

mean.. The comparison overall showed significance result (p<0.05, p=0.009). Thus the

means difference is accepted: H03 is rejected and H13 is accepted.

43

Graph 3. Means Plots of Readability

Legend :

2.00 = song 3.00 = movie 4.00 = undecided

From the graph we can see that samples with undecided preference have the highest

mean. The comparison of mean difference also didn’t showed significance (p>0.05,

p=0.240). Thus the means difference is accepted: H14 is rejected and H04 is accepted.

For hypothesis testing, ignoring mean plot of vocabulary achievement, one of the three

achievements showed significance. Thus, H11 is accepted; there is significant effect of

different literature product on students’ vocabulary achievement in specific achievement

which is lexical density.

44

Based on that, the researcher assumes samples with different literature preference have

different vocabulary achievement in lexical density in writing.

4. 2. Discussion

To begin the discussion, Lawal (2009) states that a strong relationship is exist between

literature and language. Proving Lawal’s words, the researcher found that a part of

literature has connection with student vocabulary in writing. There are some findings in

this research that the researcher have:

1. Preference didn’t affect students’ word count and readability

The significant point showed both word count and readability is not affected by

literature product preference. Through this study, literature doesn’t give significant

effect to word count and readability.

In word count case, it seemed literature doesn’t give great effect on word production.

From the observation the researcher did during the test, there were many expressions the

researcher saw from the samples; there was someone who looked confused when

writing the story; there was one who write in hurry; there was one who enjoy wrote the

story, and many more. The researcher believes students’ word production skill is depend

on subjective issue on the spot; such as motivation, creativity, and mood.

The test which was given is writing narrative text based on the picture. It is different

from writing report. While writing report text is decoding concrete data or fact to literal

45

form, writing narrative text story need something abstract like creativity and inspiration.

There is needed more developed instrument for further analysis.

In readability case, in the beginning of the research, the researcher believes that there is/

are some word(s) or line(s) from literature product which memorable to be remembered.

Actually, the researcher still believes about that thing.

The result showed no effect from the preference to student readability. The researcher

believes that: rather than that literature product preferences that not make students’

readability achievement greatly affected, it because the students themselves who didn’t

drilled or getting used to use the word(s) from the literature.

2. Literature preference product effected lexical density

From three vocabulary achievements, lexical density is the only one who has the

significant result. In previous explanation, readability, the researcher believes that there

is/ are some word(s) or line(s) from literature product which memorable to be

remembered. Thus the word(s) or line(s) is/ are engraved into person and indirectly

learn and master the word(s) or line(s).

This notion is based on Dixon-Krauss (2002) study. She discovered that in the

beginning students are reluctant to use the words from context of literature into their

writing. But in the end, the students commented that they felt successful using the

words correctly.

46

3. More literature product students’ prefer, better achievement they will have

Mean plots showed that samples with undecided preference have the highest mean and

followed by movie then song. Samples with dual preference, movie and song, have

better result than samples with single preference. Ikegulu (1989) observed that literature

provides an additional way in which learner of English as a second language (ESL) is

exposed to the elasticity of the language. The researcher sees it as: if literature provides

an additional way to learn English as second language, then the more student prefer

literature, in quantity, the wider way the student will have. Based on that, the researcher

assumes that the more literature product students prefer the better achievement they will

have.

4. Movie gives the best effect compared other achievements

If we see the result in different way, in single preference view, samples with movie

preference have the highest mean among other preferences. From that we can see that

movie affect samples’ vocabulary better in term of writing. Samples which have

undecided preference (didn’t prefer song or movie best) never have the lowest mean.

The researcher believes that this happen because while the samples preference is

between movie and song, the preference which gave the best effect to the achievement

gave a big part.

With ANOVA, then the researcher finds that only lexical density have significant

correlation. In other words, only lexical density which has high correlation with samples

different preference. Then the researcher assumed that only data from lexical density

achievement can be used due its significance.

47

The researcher conclude that the different preference of literature product only affect

students lexical density; and movie give the best effect out of the other two subjects.

The researcher believe that the reason why movie give better effect because it contain

two source of information for sample. While poetry gives visual information and song

gives audio information, movie gives both visual and audio which commonly called

audio-visual. Since movie give better quantity of information sources, samples have

better chance to grasp information.

Commonly movie contain subtitle within it. Subtitle gives information of dialogue

which spoken in the movie. Hence there is an elaboration information comprehension

between subtitle, picture, and audio when we watch a movie; all of it in one packaged.

The elaboration stimulates our brain harder and gives better result. It is in line with

Akbulut (2007) argument that combining text with visual is more effective in

facilitating vocabulary learning.

In 1950 Audio-Lingual method which is a method of teaching a second language has

emerged. Cited from paper research titled The Effect of Using Movies in Teaching

Vocabulary by Al-Sarhan (2013):

“Researchers and academics become more aware of letting students experience the subject

or at least to get them engaged in classrooms. Another way of teaching is by acting where

some students have to perform a certain play and the others watch. For example, by

watching a play, it is hard for students to forget the story of the play. Therefore it is hard for

them to forget some important key words that they have found in the context of the play.

…

48

Movies can be used to convey the word meaning through the context. The context is

important as a framework where meaning of words can be figured out. Trying to figure out

meaning of a word through movies is easier than trying to figure meaning out through

reading.”

Most of the researchers agree that vocabulary should not be presented in isolation and

should not be learned rote memorization. It is important that new vocabulary items be

presented in context rich enough to provide clue to meaning and that students be given

multiple exposure to items they should learn” (Celce-Murcia, 2001). Not only watching

movies but also playing the scene back by students is helpful.

Movies provide student with good context which make student realize meaning of

words easily and affectively. Sense relation “are extremely valuable, and can provide a

useful frame work for the learner to understand semantic boundaries” (Gairns and

Redman 1992).

To close the discussion: through the finding, the researcher has proven some theories of

connection between literature and language is true. Also, in this research, it found that a

specific literature (product) called movie have the highest correlation with student’s

vocabulary achievement in writing.