31

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH FINDING

A. Research Methodology
1. Objective of the Research
In this research the writer also tries to find out whether CLT is
effective in teaching Descriptive Text or not.

2. Place and Time

The research took place at MTs Soebono Mantofani Jombang –
Ciputat, which is located at Jalan Sumatera No. 75, Jombang – Ciputat.
The research held on 3rd of April up to 15th of Mei 2008.

3. Method of Study
The method of this study is experimental research. The writer uses
the second year students of MTs. Soebono Mantofani as an object of this
study. This object would be taught by using two methods. For experiment
class is taught by using CLT, and control class is taught by using GTM.
The data is taken and analyzed quantitatively to find the effectiveness of
teaching methods.

4. Population and Sample

The population of this research is all students in second year of
MTs. Soebono Mantofani. There are two classes in second years within 50
students. Class 8th 1 and class 8th 2. The writer divided 50 students into two
classes. Twenty five students as experiment class (8th 2) which is taught by
using CLT. The rest twenty five students (8th 1) as control class which is
taught by using GTM.
 32

5. Technique of Data Collecting

The techniques of collecting data are used in this research through:
a. Test
Both classes are given descriptive text tests. First meeting,
they did pre test, it was given before the teaching learning process.
The teaching learning process is done in three times. Then in the
last meeting they are given post test.
The test consists of three numbers. It is divided into three
items. First number is social function; the exercise is to describe a
person, place or thing, Schematic structure it is for identification
and description, and language feature focus on specific
participants, use of attributive and identifying processes, frequent
use epithets and classifier in nominal groups and use of simple
present or simple continuous tense.
b. An Interview
To get more information, the writer has interviewed the
English teacher about his technique and problems in teaching
descriptive text. Through interview, the writer get supporting data
about the achievement (percentage of descriptive text has been
done by English teacher at the school (see appendixes)

6. Technique of Data Analyzing

For the next step of the research, the writer processed and analyzed
the data. The writer compared the scores between experiment and control
classes. To find out the differences of students’ score by using the
different method, the writer used statistical calculation of the‘t’ test.
In analyzing the result of the final test statistics of t - test is used
with significant degree 5 % and 1 % as follows:
 33

M1 – M2
to =

√ (∑x1² + ∑x2²) (N1 + N2)

(N1 + N2 – 2) (N1. N2)
M1 = Mean of post test score of experiment class
M2 = Mean of pos test of control class
∑x1² = Sum of squared deviation score of experiment class
∑x2² = Sum of squared deviation score of control class
N1 = Number of students of three experiments class
N2 = Number of students of the control class
dF = Degree of freedom
dF = N1 + N2 – 2

B. Research Finding
1. Description of Data
As mentioned before, the writer took the experiment. She got the
data from pre – test and post – test of teaching descriptive text and
interview.
In this part, the writer gives the report concerning the data
description according to pre – test and post – test from experiment and
control class.
The writer explains their scores, as follows:
Table I
The Students’ score of Control Class
Students Pre - Test Post - Test Gained Score
Ahmad Naufal 65 80 15
Agung Budi Mulya 63 75 12
Bimo devito. S 68 76 8
Abdul Muhadi 50 69 19
Muchlis Adam 70 82 12
Dandy 50 70 20
Jupriansyah 54 70 16
Isnan. N 57 65 8
 34

M. Vicky. WS 67 78 11
M. Faisal Akbar 57 78 21
Jepri Sanjaya 62 65 3
M. Yusuf Maulana 45 60 20
Romansyah 64 77 13
Sri Maryani 60 70 10
Roliah 62 70 8
Huswatun Hasanah 71 75 4
Dita TA 50 60 10
Miranti Destiana 72 75 3
Susilawati 72 77 5
Sella Siti Khoirunnisa 71 74 3
Ana Idayanti 74 74 0
Annisa 68 68 0
Ade Chandra 62 65 3
Diana 70 78 8
M. Rayhan Muyasar 70 82 12
∑ = 1574 ∑ = 1813 ∑ = 244

Table II
The students’ score of Experiment Class
Students Pre – Test Post - Test Gained Score
Amalia Tamimi 77 78 1
Anita Rahma S 84 88 4
Aprilia Dwi P 75 96 21
Endah Haryati 85 94 9
Firman Mahyudi 65 93 28
Heru Ahmad N 80 90 10
Intan Banati A 81 90 9
Leny Mardiyati 82 88 6
Luthfi Nurhamid 81 93 12
M. Ilham 55 72 17
M. Irsyad F 61 93 32
M. Dimas Anya P 62 96 34
M. Ali Sobirin 80 91 11
M. Basyar Al-Falah 77 94 17
M. Ridwan 77 96 19
M. Irfan MF 88 96 8
Nurma Yunita 84 94 10
Puspa Pandini 84 98 14
Rahmat Sugiri 75 96 8
Robbi Rizki S 52 93 41
Sa’dah 70 96 26
 35

Sahdah Istiqomah 80 91 11
Saiful Rohman 77 86 9
Septia Sahara Dewi 80 91 11
Silvia Oktaviani 75 90 15
∑ = 1887 ∑ = 2354 ∑ = 383

2. Data Analysis
In this research, the technique of data analysis is statistic calculation
of ‘t’ test, with significance 5 % and 1 % to decide significance of the
difference result of teaching by using CLT and GTM (experiment class
and control class).

Table III
The Score of control and experiment class
Students X1 X2 X1 X2 X1² X2²
1 78 80 16.16 7.48 261.1456 55.9504
2 88 75 6.16 2.48 37.9456 6.1504
3 96 76 1.84 3.48 3.3856 12.1104
4 94 69 0.16 -3.52 0.0256 12.3904
5 93 82 -1.16 9.48 1.3456 89.8704
6 90 70 -4.16 -2.52 17.3056 6.3504
7 90 70 -4.16 -2.52 17.3056 6.3504
8 88 65 -6.16 -7.52 37.9456 56.5504
9 93 78 -1.16 5.48 1.3456 30.0304
10 72 78 -22.16 5.48 491.0656 30.0304
11 93 65 -1.16 -7.52 1.3456 56.5504
12 96 60 1.84 -12.52 3.3856 156.7504
13 91 77 -3.16 4.48 9.9856 20.0704
14 94 70 -0.16 -2.52 0.0256 6.3504
15 96 70 1.84 -2.52 3.3856 6.3504
16 96 75 1.84 2.48 3.3856 6.1504
17 94 60 -0.16 -12.52 0.0256 156.7504
18 98 75 3.84 2.48 14.7456 6.1504
19 96 77 1.84 4.48 3.3856 20.0704
20 93 74 -1.16 1.48 1.3456 2.1904
21 96 74 1.84 1.48 3.3856 2.1904
22 91 68 -3.16 -4.52 9.9856 20.4304
23 86 65 -8.16 -7.52 66.5856 56.5504
 36

24 91 78 -3.16 5.48 9.9856 30.0304

25 90 82 -4.16 9.48 17.3056 89.8704
∑X1²= ∑X2²=
∑=2354 ∑ = 1813 ∑X1= 0 ∑X2= 0
1017.08 912.2096

After making the table of students’ score both experiment and

control class, the writer calculates the score by following steps:
a. Determining Mean variable X1 with formula
M1 = ∑X1 = ∑X1 = 2354 = 94.16
N1 N1 25
b. Determining Mean variable X2 with formula
M1 = ∑X2 = ∑X2 = 1813 = 72.52
N2 N2 25
c. Determining score deviation variable X1 with formula
X1 = X1 – M1
Note = Sum X1 or ∑X1 is 0
d. Determining score deviation variable X2 with formula
X2 = X2 – M2
Note = Sum X2 or ∑X2 is 0
e. Quad rating x1, then sum: get ∑ x1²
∑X1² = 1017.08
f. Quad rating x2, then sum: get ∑x2
∑X2² = 912.2096
g. Determining to by formula :
M1 – M2
to =

√ (∑X1² + ∑X2²) (N1 + N2)

(N1 + N2 -2) (N1 ∙ N2)

M1 – M2
to =
 37

√ (∑X1² + ∑X2²) (N1 + N2)

(N1 + N2 -2) (N1 ∙ N2)

94.16 – 72.52
to =

√ (1017.08 + 912.2096) (25 + 25)

(25 + 25 -2) (25 ∙ 25)

18.64
to =

√( 1929.2896 ) ( 50 )
(48) (625)

18.64
to =

√ (96464.48)
(30000)

18.64
to =

√ (3.215)

18.64
to =
1.79
to = 10.41

df = N1 + N2 – 2
df = 25 + 25 – 2
 38

df = 48
The df result (48) is not mentioned in‘t’ table, for reason the writer uses
the closer value for 48 that is 50 as degree of freedom (df).
t table at significance 5 % = 2.01
t table at significance 1 % = 2.68

3. Data Interpretation
From the data calculation above, it is obtained that the result of to
is 10, 41 and it is looked at the table of significant at 5 % and 1 % as
follows:
At significance 5 % is 2.01
At significance 1 % is 2.68
It means that
to > tt = 10.41 > 2.01 in 5 %
to > tt = 10.41 > 2.68 in 1 %
So, to > tt
2.01 < 10.41 > 2.68
The result of statistic calculation shows that there is a difference
between the score from the result learning in experiment class with the
score from the result learning in control class. The average of score from
experiment class is higher than control class (94.16 > 72.52).
By looking at the gained score, Communicative Language
Teaching gets 383 and Grammar Translation Method gets 244. It means
that teaching descriptive text by CLT is higher than GTM.

4. Test of Hypotheses
As mention before in chapter I, the writer proposed hypotheses as follows:
1. The experimental hypotheses (Ha): is there a significance
differences in teaching descriptive text by using CLT and GTM at
eight grade students of MTs Soebono Mantofani Jombang –
Ciputat.
 39

2. The null hypotheses (Ho): is there no significance difference

teaching pronunciation by using CLT and GTM at Eight grade
students of MTs. Soebono Mantofani Jombang – Ciputat.
To prove the hypotheses above, the writer uses the result score of
experiment class and control class which is calculated by‘t’ test and
follows assumptions as below:
a) If the result calculation to is higher than tt (to > tt), the alternative
hypotheses (Ha) is accepted and null hypotheses (Ho) is rejected. It
means that there is significant difference between teaching
descriptive by using CLT and GTM.
b) If the result calculation to is lower than tt (to < tt), the alternative
hypotheses (Ha) is rejected and null hypotheses (Ho) is accepted. It
means that there is no significant difference between teaching
descriptive by using CLT and GTM.
The result of statistic calculation indicates that to > tt, (10.41> 2.01
at 5% and 2.68 at 1%) is significant. There is a difference between the
average of score from the result in experiment class and control class. The
result score of experiment class is higher than control class, so Ha
(alternative Hypotheses) is accepted and Ho (null hypotheses) is rejected.