ASSESSING THE DEGREE OF COMPARISON …unmas-library.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SKRIP… ·...

50

THESIS

ASSESSING THE DEGREE OF COMPARISON

MASTERY OF THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS

OF SMP PANCASILA CANGGU BADUNG

IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/ 2014

I NYOMAN GEDE MURDANA YASA

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR UNIVERSITY

DENPASAR

2014

51

THESIS

ASSESSING THE DEGREE OF COMPARISON

MASTERY OF THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS




NPM. 10.8.03.5.1.31.2.5.3781




DENPASAR

2014

52

PREE-REQUESTITE TITLE

ASSESSING THE DEGREE OF COMPARISON MASTERY

OF THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS



Thesis

As partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Education Study Program

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

Mahasaraswati Denpasar University


NPM. 10.8.03.5.1.31.2.5.3781




DENPASAR

2014

53

APROVAL SHEET

1

This thesis entitled “Assessing Degree of Comparison Mastery of the Eight

Grade Student of SMP Pancasila Canggu In Accademic Year 2013/2014” has been

approved and accepted as partial fulfillment for sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English

Education Study Program, Faculty Of Teacher Training And Education,

Mahasaraswati Denpasar University

Approved By

Advisor I

Advisor II

IB.Nyoman Mantra ,S.Pd.SH.M.Pd

NPK. 82.64.10.341

Drs. I Nyoman Winata,M.Hum

NIP.19550728 197903 1 007

54

APROVAL SHEET

2

This thesis has been examined and assessed by the examiner committee of

English Education Study Program, faculty of Teacher Training and Education,

Mahasaraswati Denpasar University in the oral examination on 14th

February 2014

Chief Examiner

Dra.IA Martini,M.Hum

NIP.19531231 198703 2 001

Examiner I Examiner II

IB.Nyoman Mantra ,S.Pd.SH.M.Pd

NPK. 82.64.10.341

Drs. I Nyoman Winata,M.Hum

NIP.19550728 197903 1 007

Approved By

Dean of the faculty of Teacher

Training and Education

Head of the English Education

Study Program

Prof. Dr. Wayan Maba

NIP.19581231 198303 1 032

I Komang Budiarta, S.Pd.,M.Hum

NPK. 82 8208 306

55

STATEMENT OF AUTENTICITY

The researcher hereby declares that this thesis is his own writing, and it true

and correct that there is no other‟s work or statement , except the work or statement

that is referred in the references. All cited works were quoted in accordance with the

ethical code of academic writing.

Denpasar, 1st

February 2013

The Researcher,

I Nyoman Gede Murdana Yasa

NPM. 10.8.03.5.1.31.2.5.3781

56

ACKNOWLEDMENT

First of all the researcher would like to express his sincere gratitude to the

Almighty God,ida Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa, for His blessing and mercies to that this

thesis could be accomplished on time.

Throughout the writing of this thesis, many people have given support and

encouragement in completing it, and it would not possible to finish without it. The

researcher particularly wishes to acknowledge warmly to Ida Bagus Nyoman Mantra,

SH, S.Pd , M.Pd as the first advisor and Drs. I Nyoman Winata,M.Hum as the

second advisor for the their valuable assistance, supports and encouragement. The

researcher is really thankful for their thoughtful ideas , corrections and suggestions.

His sincere gratitude further goes to the Headmaster, the English Teachers and

eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu for their permission and assistance to

conduct a research of the structure and grammar test and gathering the data needed

for the paper in their school. Next, the researcher also deeply indebted to her parents

and beloved brothers for their fidelity, love and priceless sacrifice so that the

researcher able to complete the writing of this thesis successfully.

Finally, the researcher would like to dedicate this paper to his beloved family

of his life, the first for his father “Drs. I Made Murda, the second one is his mother Ni

Nyoman Sumiati , and his sister Ni luh Made Setiawati, S.Pd. Who has given their

prayer, attention devotion and tremendous support, and thank also for his friends the

best friends (Yoga, Nanox and all his friends in a beloved class 7F

for their input and

support during the process of writing this thesis.

Denpasar, 1st February 2013

The Researcher

I Nyoman Gede Murdana yasa

57

ABSTRACT

Yasa Murdana, I Nyoman Gede.2013. Assessing the Degree of Comparison

Mastery of the Eighth Grade Students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in

Academic Year 2013/204. First Advisor: IB.Nyoman Mantra, S.Pd.

SH.M.Pd. and the Second Advisor : Drs. I Nyoman Winata,M.Hum

The present study was undertaking in order to find out the assessing the

degree of comparison mastery of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu.

The undertaken of the study was motivated by the fact that degree of comparison as

one of Important structural components of English language. The present study was

intended to answer this research question: to what extent is the degree of comparison

mastery of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic year

2013/2014? On attempting to give a tentative solution to the research problem, the

hypothesis can be stated as the following: “Degree of comparison mastery of the

eighth grade student of SMP Pancasila Canggu is low”. This study is conducted by

using an ex-post facto research design with norm reference of five standard values.

The data which was needed for the present study was collected to 40 students

randomly with lottery system. The data collected for the study would be analyzed by

means of norm-reference measure of five standard values. Respectively showing

excellent, good, sufficient, insufficient and poor assessing degree of comparison. The

result of the data showed: (1) there were 6 samples or 15.00% out of 40 samples

under study who showed excellent assessing of degree of comparison, (2) there were

7 samples or 17.50% out of 40 samples who showed good assessing of degree of

comparison, (3) there were 16 samples or 40.00% out of 40 samples showed

sufficient assessing of degree of comparison, (4) there were 7 samples or 17.50% out

of 40 samples who pointed out insufficient assessing of degree of comparison, and

(5) there were 34 samples or 10.00% out of 40 samples who got poor assessing of

degree of comparison. From these research findings, it could be clearly seen that there

were only 29 samples or 72.50% out of 40 samples who achieved satisfactory

assessing of degree of comparison and 11samples or 27.50% out of 40 samples who

totally failed in acquiring degree of comparison. In general, these research findings

revealed that the assessing of degree of comparison by the eighth grade students of

SMP Pancasila Canggu In Accademic year 2013/2014 was sufficient enough.

Key Word: assessing the degree of comparison, eighth grade students of SMP

Pancasila Canggu.

58

TABLE OF CONTENT

COVER ..................................................................................................... i

INSIDE COVER ....................................................................................... ii

PRE-REQUISTE TITLE .......................................................................... iii

APROVAL SHEET 1 ............................................................................... iv

APROVAL SHEET 2 ............................................................................... iv

STATEMENTOF AUTENTICITY .......................................................... vi

ACKOWLEGMENENT ........................................................................... vii

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................. viii

TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................ ix

LIST OF APENDICES ............................................................................. xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study .................................................... 1

1.2 Research Problem ............................................................... 2

1.3 Objective of the study ......................................................... 3

1.4 Limitation of the study ...................................................... 3

1.5 Significance of the study .................................................... 3

1.6 Definition of Key Term ...................................................... 4

CHAPTER II THEORITICAL AND EMPIRICAL RIVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Review ............................................................. 6

2.2 Empirical Review ............................................................... 15

2.3 Hypothesis .......................................................................... 18

59

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Research Design ................................................................. 19

3.2 Population and sample ........................................................ 20

3.3 Research Instrument .......................................................... 20

3.4 Data Collection ................................................................... 32

3.5 Data Analysis ...................................................................... 33

CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Finding ................................................................................ 35

4.2 Discussion ........................................................................... 44

CHAPTER V CONLUSION AND SUGESTION

5.1 Conclusion .......................................................................... 46

5.2 Suggestion .......................................................................... 47

REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 49

APPENDICES .......................................................................................... 50

60

LIST OF TABLES

Appendix 1 The name of the try out sample ....................................... 44

Appendix 2 The Names of the Research Samples ................................ 46

Appendix 3 Try out Instrument ............................................................ 48

Appendix 4 Research Instrument .......................................................... 57

Appendix 5 Item Analysis Sheet of Teacher made Structure test Items 64

Appendix 6 Item analysis sheet of degree comparison ........................ 65

61

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Grammar is central to the teaching and learning of languages. The grammar

of a language is what happens to words when they become plural or negative, or

what word order is used when we make questions or join two clauses to make

one sentence. In real life, many learner do not like to study English especially

grammar because there are not interests in studying it and they have to remember

all the pattern and rules in making sentences. It is because many teacher taught

the students deductively so that the students feel bored. So, in this case, teacher

should see grammar as the body of knowledge that they need as professional

linguist to help learners gain insight.

Grammar skill is very important in communication. Degrees of comparison

are part of grammar. Study Degrees of Comparison is important because it is a

form that is often used in a sentence which refers to the existence of a level

comparison between two things or more. If the students have been able to learn

the essential rules of grammar, they could be able to use the languages concerned

for all kinds of communication. Grammar is the rules how words are combined,

arranged, and changed to show different meaning.

Degrees of comparison of an adjective or adverb describe the relational

value of one thing with something in another clause of a sentence. An adjective

may simply describe a quality (the positive), may compare the quality with that

62

of another of its kind (comparative), and it may compare the quality with many

or all others (superlative). Realizing the Significance of grammar as an integral

component of language teaching; in this case, the researcher decided to

investigate degrees of comparison as one of the important structural components

of English language.

The students of SMP Pancasila Canggu still have problems in learning and

using structures, including degrees of comparison for expressing their ideas

through both spoken and written forms. They are still confused about the

irregular degrees of comparison because they should memorize them. For

example; “bad”, “ worse “ and “ worst “. The students are still confused to chose

which one is the positive, comparative and superlative degree. The other example

is the positive degree “good”, they change into “gooder” in comparative degree.

The assessing degree of comparison in SMP Pancasila Canggu is remarked

sufficient because the English teacher taught the students because the English

teacher taught the students by using old old method and the teacher assessed it

though subjective test , and based on that fact . the capability of the students in

mastering English grammar especially degree of comparison, still under liable

Based on the problem above, the researcher intended to find the ability of

the students in degree of comparison by using multiple choice test items , in the

test have tried out and analyzed to figure out their degree of validities an

reliability.

63

From the example description above, the researcher is highly interested in

solving the problems faced by the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila

Canggu in academic year 2013/2014.

1.2 Research Problem

Based on the background of the research study, degrees of comparison still

play a central role in language teaching. The measurement of degrees of

understanding and usage of degrees comparison must be essential. The researcher

formulates the research question of the present study as follow: to what extent is

the degrees of comparison mastery of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila

Canggu in Academic year 2013/2014?

1.3 Objective of the Study

In this study the researcher wants to find out the degrees of the success and

the failure of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic

year 2013/2014 in obtaining the degrees of comparison, and to figure out the

mastery of degree of comparison includes positive degree of comparison,

comparative degree of comparison and superlative degree of comparison.

1.4 Limitation of the Study

In the present study the researcher will limits his investigation on

examining the assessing of degree of comparison by the eighth grade students of

64

SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic year 2013/ 2014. The degrees of comparison

consist of positive degree of comparison, comparative degree of comparison and

superlative degree of comparison. The student‟s ability in mastering degrees of

comparison is simply assessed through multiple choice tests.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The results of the present study are required to accept both theoretical and

practical significance.

1.5.1 Theoretical Significance

Theoretically, the findings of the present study are expected to see lights

and insights to the existing theories and empirical evidences of the

working knowledge and principles of degrees of comparison. These

findings can be disclosing further areas of research in degrees of

comparison assessing and they can be uses as bases of undertaking

similar study in areas.

1.5.2 Practical Significance

Practically, the findings of the present study are aimed at providing

informative feedback to the English teacher of SMP Pancasila Canggu. The

teachers have to plan and design the teaching learning degrees of

comparison more effective and interesting in order to progress the student‟s

Assessing of degrees of comparison. The informative can be used as basis

65

to plan more effective and efficient grammar instruction in the future which

is expected to be more objective oriented.

1.6 Definition of Key Term

There are two terms, which needs to be operationally defined so as to avoid

miss understanding, that is: Assessing and degrees of comparison.

1.6.1 Assessing is defined as a way to find out the subjects‟ ability or

achievement in using degrees of comparison and the successfulness and

their failure in acquiring degrees of comparison when it is assessed

through multiple choice test.

1.6.2 Degrees of Comparison is defined as an adjective or adverb that describes

the relational value with something else in another clause of a sentence.

In degrees of comparison there are (1) positive, (2) comparative degree,

and (3) superlative degree.

1.6.3 SMP Pancasila Canggu is junior high school. It is located in Canggu

district, Badung regency.

66

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Review

The undertaking of the present study is based on the discussion of some

related theoretical framework and empirical evidences. The present studies are

based on the discussion of the following theoretical framework: (1) conception of

Language Acquisition, (2) Conception of Degrees of Comparison, (3) Types of

Degrees of Comparison, and (4) Form of degrees of comparison, (5) Assessment

of grammar and usage. Detailed discussion of this related theoretical review will

be presented below.

1. Conception of Language Acquisition

According to Ellis (2003: 3), second language assessing can be

defined as the way in which people learn a language other than their mother

tongue, inside or outside of a classroom. It requires meaningful interaction in

the target language and natural communication in which speakers is not

concerned with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are

conveying and understanding. In addition; Savile (2006: 2) states that

Second Languages Acquisition (SLA) refers both the study of individuals

and group who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first one

as young children, and to the process of learning that language.

(Ellis, 2003: 20). They may be learning a lot about the language just

through listening to or reading it; furthermore, there is a good evidence that

67

pleasure reading has a powerful effect on language assessing because the

students do not focus on grammatical structures either on meanings or

messages which are conveyed.

Ellis (2003: 54) states that this comparison is not entirely accurate;

however, for second language learner, even adult ones are also capable of

“picking up” language in much the same way as children do in first language

assessing.

2. Conception of Degrees Comparison

Degrees of comparison an adjective or adverb the rational value of

adverb the relational value of one thing with another clause of a sentence .an

adjective may simply describe a quality (the positive); it may compare the

quality with that of another of its kind ( comparative degree); and it may

compare the quality with many or all others ( superlative degrees). For this

reason, the researcher feels necessary to put emphasis on the forms as well

as on the functions of the comparison.

3. Types of Degrees of Comparison

Studying the second language is increase the ability to use its structure

within a general vocabulary under the conditions of normal communication.

The study of English grammatical structures should not be ignored because

knowing the grammar can help us understand what makes sentences and

paragraphs clearly and interesting.

68

Considering the important of studying structure or grammar of

language in English, the researcher would like to investigate one of the

components of structure especially about degrees of comparison. English has

three degrees of comparison: positive, comparative, and superlative. For

short adjectives, English adds the suffix "-er" to an adjective to form the

comparative degree, and adds "-est" to form the superlative degree. For

adjectives longer than about two syllables, and for adverbs, English precedes

the word with "more" for the comparative and "most" for the superlative.

3.1 Positive Degree

Positive degree is the primary form of an adjective or adverb;

denotes a quality without qualification, comparison, or relation to

increase or diminution. The term positive degree refers

to adjectives or adverbs and means that no comparison is being made

(i.e., It is the normal form of an adjective or adverb.) or to show that two

things are equal. Equality in comparison of adjective in English by using

(..........as.........as.........). According to Hartanto (2003:167) the pattern

are;

as + positive + as

no less + positive + than

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-er

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-est

http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/adjectives.htm

http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/adverbs.htm

69

For example, Nancy is 75 kg and Vicky also 75 kg, so Nancy is as

big as Vicky. The negative form such construction may use the

following.

(.............not so.............as or not as ..........as ..........)

For example:

My shoes is as expensive as your skirt.

Mr. Leo is not as clever as Mr. Tama.

This girl is no less clever than that.

3.2 Comparative Degree

Adverbial or adjectival forms modified by more or ending in -er,

used when comparing two things;futhermore, to express a greater degree or

expressing more than the positive but les then superlative, applied to forms

of adjective and adverbs. One is more than the other. Loode in

Ardiasa(2008:18) writes that in English there are some rules for expressing

the comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs. The rules governing

comparative degree of comparison are as below:

1. When the positive (adjectives) end with two or one consonant whish are

preceded by two vowels, it is added “er”.

For example: Ayung river is deeper than the other. (deep)

2. When the adjectives form end with one consonant is double written and

added by “er”

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adverbial

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adjectival

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/more

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-er

70

For example: Jakarta is hotter than Malang. (hot)

3. When the adjectives end with the letter “e”, so its comparative just

added by “i”

For example: Jawa is larger than Bali. (large)

4. When the adjectives end in “y” the comparative degree is expresses by

changing „y‟ to‟ier‟.

For example: English is easier than Mathematic. (easy).

The adjective end in „y‟ is not change, if „y‟ preceded by vowel.

For example: Antok is grayer than Mario.

5. If the adjective consist of more than two syllables, it is added “more”

6. For example: In driving a car my father is more careful than my brother.

(careful).

7. There are some adjective to form comporative in irregular way.

For example: Her mark is worse than me. (bad)

8. Adverb in English are formed by adding “ly” to the adjective. Adjective

explain nouns and they come before but adverb explain verbs and they

come afterthe verb, notice the following sentences. For example: Plane

is a fast transportation, (adjective) but , there are several adjectives,

which don‟t need to add “ly” for forming adverb such as the irregular

adverb.

9. Adverb that consist of one syllable, its comparative is formed by adding

„er‟

For example: Nana‟s hair is longer than Dian‟s hair. (long)

71

10. The adverb end in “ly”, its comparative form by adding “more”.

For example: Dina runs more quickly than Eka. (quick)

3.3 Superlative Degree

Superlatior degree is used to indicate that some has measurement

more than all or expresses the highest or the qualityu or manner.

Thomson in Ardiasa (2008:20) states that there are some rules in

forming superlative of adjectives and adverbs, as follows :

1. The adjective and adverbs will make the superlatives and adverbs it

self if: (1) the adjective form end with one or two consonants which

are preceded by two vowals, for example: Ria is the cleverest student

in her class (clever); (2) the adjectives end with one consonant and

preseded by one vowel. For example : Besakih is the biggest temple

in Bali (big); (3) the adverbs consist of one syllable. For example:

Sanglah is the nearest hospital from my house (near).

2. If the end of the adjectives “e” its superlative just adding by “st”.

For example: Jakarta is largest town in Java.

3. If the adjective end in “y” and preceded by consonant, the superlative

form is expressed by changing “y” to “iet”.

For example: we like greyest one.

4. The superlative of adjective or adverbs are expresses by adding

“most” if the adjectives more than two syllable.

For example: Bali is the most interesting place to visit.

72

5. They are some adjectives and adverbs makes superlatives form in

irregular way.

For example. Give me the best knife.

4. Form of Degrees of Comparison

It has been discussed above that the Degrees of Comparison can be

divided into three parts: Positive Degree; an adjective may simply describe

a quality, Comparative Degree; it may compare the quality with that of

another of its kind, and Superlative Degree; it may compare the quality

with many or all others. The Degrees of Comparison in English is formed

by using certain rules. If the words which have „two or

more vowel sounds‟ in them belong to this group, and take the word

“more” before them in comparative form and the word “ (the)most” in

superlative form.

At the prior section all rules of the degree comparison has been

mentioned and directly completed with some examples in sentences. Now,

the researcher would like to show the infection form of positive,

comparative, and superlative degree based on the grammatical rules. The

ways in forming the degrees of comparison are of two kinds, that is regular

an irregular.

4.1 Regular degree of comparison

1. Adding er,r, and est

a. for adjective that consist of one syllable

73

rich richer richest

thick thicker thickest

b. for adjective that consist of two syllable, but ending with y, er, le,

ow and some.

pretty prettier prettiest

simple simpler simplest

c. for adjective that consist of more than two syllable but derive from

two syllable.

unhappy unhappier unhappiest

unlucky unluckier unluckiest

2. Adding more and most

a. For adjective that consist of more than two syllable

interesting more interesting most interesting

important more important most important

b. For adverbs that ending by “ly”

quickly more quickly most quickly

slowly more slowly most slowly

4.2 Irregular degree of comparison

Irregular degrees of comparison does not have any certain rules it

should be memorized.

bad/ill worse worst

good/well better best

74

5. Assessment of Grammar and Usage

Norman (1985:20) states that the success of the students in the school

subject will indicate the general achievement. If the students have good

achievement in the school subject, they can be regarded as having

achievement in the school subject, it means that fail to achieve it. So,

teaching and testing have a close relation that it virtually impossible to work

in either field without being constantly concerned with the other. According

to Heaton (1989:5) assessment can be done by administering a series of test.

Test maybe constructed primarily as device to reinforce learning and to

motivate the students or primarily as a means of assessing student‟s

performance in language.

The term assessment, measurement and evaluation are often

interchangeable used to refer to the teachers‟ formative test. The results of

formative and summative assist as valuable informative feedback to the

teachers and students. The result of the test for the teachers will inform

concerning their relative success and failure in preparing and conducting

instructions and thus they could be used as bases to prepare and undertake

remedial instructions in the students‟ matters concerned. The result of the

test for the students will inform concerning their degrees of achievement

and failure in learning and acquiring different language skills and

components, such as grammatical structures.

75

The test which is used as research instrument should be valid and

reliable. It means that the formative and summative test constructed by the

teachers should be valid and reliable. The tests of degrees of comparison

which is constructed in multiple choice test item and used as the research

instrument in the tenth grade students of SMAN 1 Abiansemal in academic

year 2011/2012 in the present study is considered to have good validity and

reliability because the test which is used to collect the required data, had

first been tried out in other Senior High School.

2.2 Empirical Review

The present study are expected to get the new result which will be

completed the previous result of the study which is carried out before. There are

some empirical evidence which has same discussion. The researcher has been

found two result of the study which is 2012. Both of the study took the same

discussion about the assessing of degree comparison by senior high school.

(Ayu, 2012) conducted a research with entitled “The Acquisition of

degrees of comparison by the tenth grade students of SMAN 1 Abiansemal in

Academic Year 2011/2012. The study was intended to answer the research

questions : to what extent is the Assessing of Degree Comparison in Academic

year 2011/2012? The study use an ex post facto research design in which the

researcher does not have direct possibility to control in the independent variable

because its manifestation has already taken place before the study was

conducted. In order to answer the research question, the data required for the

76

study were collected by administering the valid and reliable research instruments

in from of multiple choice test items. The population of the study is the eighth

grade students of SMAN 1 Abiansemal which consisted of 400 students

altogether.

There were 40 Students determined as the sample of the study by using

random sampling method. The result of the data analysis that were analyzed by

using norm – reference of five standard values clearly showed that (1) 2 subject

or 5 % (2/40 x 100 %) out of 40 students under study excellent ability in degrees

of comparison . (2) 23 subject or 57.5 % (23/40 x 100 %) out of 40 students

under study indicated the good ability in degrees comparison. (3) 26 subject or

65% (26/40 x 100%) out of 40 students under study indicated the sufficient

ability in degrees of comparison, (4) 6 subject or 15 % (6/40 x 100%) out of 40

students under study indicated insufficient ability in degrees of comparison. And

(5) 3 subject or 7, 5 %( 3/40 x 100%) out of 40 students under study indicated the

poor ability in using degrees of comparison.

The findings were used to group the students into student into three: high

achievers (25 students = 62.5%, middle achievers (26 students = 65 %), and low

or poor achievers (9 students =22.5%). If the findings of this study were used to

assign grade to target population , 26 subjects (65%) of the whole subject under

study relatively in average in learning an assessing degrees of comparison. So

that , the hypothesis that stated the Acquisition of degrees of comparison by the

tenth students of SMAN 1 Abiansemal is relatively in average is confirmed. The

findings of the present study was trusted to have rather limited degree of validity

77

and reliability because it was undertaken on the basis of an ex post facto

research design which was characterized by lack of direct control of same

independent variables. The findings of the present study can be used as the basis

on planning better teaching technique; especially the teaching degrees of

comparison at SMAN 1 Abiansemal in future in order to make the students are

motivated to learn degrees of comparison. So that Acquisition of degrees of

comparison by the tenth students of SMAN 1 Abiansemal can be improved.

On the other hand (Yuniati Nessy 2012). conducted a research entitled

“The Acquisition Of Degrees Of Comparison By The Eleventh Grade Students of

SMK Pariwisata Mengwitani In Academic Year 2011/2012. The undertaken of

the study was motivated by the fact that degrees of comparison as one of

important structural components of English language. The present study was

intended to answer this research question: to what extent is the acquisition of

degrees of comparison by the eleventh grade students of SMK Pariwisata

Mengwitani in academic year 2011/2012?. This study is conducted by using an

ex- post facto research design with descriptive analysis. The data which were

needed for the present study were collected to 40 students randomly with lottery

system. The data collected for the study would be analyzed by means of norm –

reference measure of five standard values, respectively showing excellent, good,

sufficient, insufficient, and poor acquisition of degrees of comparison.

The result of the data showed: (1) there were 4 samples or 10.00% out of

40 samples under study who showed excellent acquisition of degrees of

comparison , (2) there were 9 samples or 22.50% out of 40 samples who showed

78

good acquisition of degree comparison, (3) there were 13 samples or 32.50% out

of 40 samples showed sufficient acquisition of degrees of comparison , (4) there

were 11 samples or 27.50% out of 40 samples who pointed out insufficient

acquisition of degrees of comparison, and (5) there were 3 samples or 7.50% out

of 40 samples who got poor acquisition of degrees of comparison . Generally,

these research findings could be considered as sufficient. This was because these

research findings could be considered as sufficient. This was because these

research findings revealed that there were 26 samples or 65.00% out of 40

samples who achieved satisfactory acquisition of degrees of comparison and 14

samples or 35.00% out of 40 samples who totally failed in acquiring degrees of

comparison . the establishment of these research findings appears to be congruent

with related theories and empirical evidences which were reviewed for study.

Therefore, the findings of this present study should be carefully depended upon.

2.3 Hypothesis

On attempting to give a tentative solution to the research problem, the

hypothesis can be stated as the following: “Degree of comparison mastery of the

eighth grade student of SMP Pancasila Canggu is low”

79

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Research Design

This study is conducted by using an ex-post facto research design with

descriptive analysis. Paul et. (2008:243) states that in ex-post facto design many

independent variables of internets to concussing researcher cannot be manipulated

For instance gender, personality type, treatment success and race are important and

interesting variables, but they cannot be manipulated. Cohen et al.(2005:205) argues

that ex- post facto study is a method of teasing out possible antecedents of events that

have happened and cannot , therefore, be engineered or manipulated by the

investigator.

The investigation was started with the formulation of research question as the

problem to base this study. The research variable of the present study was the

assessing of degree of comparison mastery of the eighth grade students of SMP

Pancasila Canggu in academic year 2013/2014. After the problem, have been

formulated, the researcher continued to collect the data or materials. The researcher

also collected the assignment which was given to the students to do, which was

related to the problem of investigation. The cores were showed to the student‟s ability

in studying and requiring degrees of comparison in English were collected by using

multiple choice test. In summary, ex post facto research took advantage of data you

have already collected by using multiple choice tests. In summary ex post facto

research took advantage of data you have already collected. Therefore, the quality of

80

ex post facto research depends on the quality and quality of data you collect during

the original study.

3.2 Population and Sample

The population of the present study was the eighth grade students of SMP

Pancasila Canggu in academic year 2013/2014. It consisted of four classes with

around 140 students.

The population can be characterized as having rather homogenous population

traits or characteristic in terms of age, motivation, attitude, interest, and quality and

quantity of formal and informal exposures of English the researcher limited the

population by only taking 40 students randomly with lottery system. Altars et al.

(2005:11) mention random sampling is the most commonly used sampling technique

in which each member in the population is given an equal chance of being selected

in the sample.

The samples of the study which consisted of 40 students were considered as

representative enough. Cohen et al. (2005:135) argues that there is in fact no precise

and fixes single role concurring the determination of representative sample of any

study. The determination of the sample size of any study the better result of the study.

3.3 Research Instrument

The preparation of valid and reliable research instrument greatly determines

the validity and the reliability of the data which are required for the study. The

instrument of this of this research was in the form of multiple choice tests. The

students required 60 minutes to finish the tests. The research instrument was used to

81

collect data required for the study, it had been tried been tried out to the eighth grade

students of SMP Ngurah Rai. So as to establish its validity and reliability.

3.3.1 Validity

Validity is an important key to effective research. Validity was defined as the

extent to which an instrument measured what it claimed to measure. The focus of

recent views of validity is not on the instrument itself but on the interpretation and

meaning of the scores derived from the instrument (Ary et al., 2009:225).

Keith (2009:246) mentions content validity focuses on whether the full

content of a conceptual definition is represented in the, measure. The content validity

of any test which is used as a research instrument depended on a careful analysis of

the language component being tested and of particular objective aims. The content

validity of the research instrument was established by making table of test

specification. In addition to being valid, a research instrument is considered to have a

good face validity if the tests looks and sounds good testers and other. The face

validity of the research instrument or test was simply judge from its standardized

typing format, its spelling, its clear instruction and its structures.

Construct validity is focuses on how well a measure conforms with theoretical

expectations. Ary et all.( 2009:25) states that assessing the validity of score based

interpretations is important to the researcher because most instrument used in

educational physiological investigations are design for measuring hypothetical

construct.

82

In conclusion, to having a good content validity, a test should also have good

face validity and construct validity. The degrees of comparison test which was used

as the research instrument of the present study has already met some degrees of

content validity, face validity, and construct validity, it was also considered for the

valid enough. The table of structure test items specification showing the content

validity of the test items could be tabulated as follows:

Table 1

Table of Structure Test Items Specification

Showing Its Content Validity

Testing Objective Aspect of Structure Test Items Total

The students are able

to answer degrees of

comparison correctly

which are

constructed in the

form of multiple

choice test items

1. Positive degree 1,2,6,9,12,17,22,25,26,

27,29,32,36,39,48,51,5

5,56,59,60

20

2. Comparative degree 3,5,8,10,11,14,16,19,20

,28,30,35,37,41,42,45,4

7,49,54,58

20

3.Superlative degree 4,7,13,15,18,21,23,24,3

1,33,34,38,40,43,44,46,

50,52,53,57

20

Total 60 Items 60

83

3.3.2 Reliability

Reliability is central concept in measurement. It basically means consistency.

When a measure has a low reliability, some of differences in scores between people

which it produces are spurious differences. Not real differences (Keith, 2009:246).

Reliability is related to an observed score that can be seen as consisting of two parts,

one part the individual‟s true scores and the other part an error score which is due to

the inaccuracy of instrument score have large error components, reliability is low ,

but if there is little error in the score, reliability is high.

Cohen et al.(2005:117)state reliability is essentially a synonym for

consistency and replicability over time, over instruments and over group of

respondents. Brown (2000:63) defines the reliable of a test as the extent to which the

result can be considered consistent or stable. The degree to which a test is reliable can

be estimated with reliability coefficient. According to Richardson in Sudarsana

(2010:42) a good test should have reliability coefficient between0.50-1.00.

The are different formula which can be used to calculate the reliability

coefficient of a test, such split-half method, tests- rest, internal consistency, Kuder –

Ricahardson 2 (KR-20)and Kuder Ricahardson 21 (KR-21). The reliability

coefficientof the research instrument of the present study was computes by using KR-

21, the formula of which runs as follow.

K-R21 =

(

)

Where:

k = The bunber of test items

84

x = The mean score

S2t = The variance for the set of students total scores

The mean score (x) and the variance for the set of students total scores (s2t) of

degrees of comparison tests were respectively compute by using the following

formulas

x = ∑

Where :

N = The number students taking the test

X = The mean of the test scores

∑ = The total scores of the students

S2t = ∑ ∑

The computation of ∑ and ∑ can be seen in Table 2.

Table 3

Table of Variance Showing of the Students’ Total Scores.

Students

Items

x X2

1 53 2809

2 52 2704

3 51 2704

4 50 2500

5 49 2401

6 49 2401

85

7 48 2304

8 47 2209

9 47 2209

10 46 2116

11 45 2025

12 44 1936

13 44 1936

14 44 1936

15 44 1936

16 43 1849

17 43 1849

18 43 1849

19 43 1849

20 43 1849

21 41 1681

22 39 1521

23 38 1444

24 38 1369

25 37 1296

26 36 1296

27 35 1225

28 32 961

29 31 961

30 31 900

31 31 841

32 30 841

33 28 729

34 27 625

35 26 625

86

36 23 576

37 23 529

38 22 484

39 22 484

40 16 256

N = 40 ∑ =1534 ∑

The mean of degrees of comparison test can be computed as follows:

X = ∑

=

= 38.35

The variance for the set of student total scores can be computed as follows:

S2t = ∑ ∑

=

=

=

S2t = 92.43

Then reliability coefficient of degrees of comparison was computed by KR-21

formula.

K-R21 =

87

=

(

)

=

(

)

=

(

)

= 1.02 (1-0.15)

= 1.02 (0.85)

= 0.87

The computation of reliability coefficient of degree of comparison test

showed the reliability coefficient figured of 0.87. A reliable test should have the

reliability coefficient between 0.50 – 1.00. This means the degree of comparison test

was considered reliable.

3.3.3 Item Analysis

After the test has been tried out, it is usually desirable to evaluate the

effectiveness of the item. This is done by analyzing the student‟s response to each

item. The item analysis aim at looking the result of the test items of item difficulty

and item discrimination. According to Grondlund (2003:55), items analyzing

information can tell us about the difficulty of the items, the discriminating power of

the item, and the effectiveness of each alternative. Good test item should have some

degree of acceptable facility value (FV) and discrimination value (DV). A good some

degrees of acceptable facility value between 0.30 – 0.70. Facility value or facility

88

index aims at measuring the difficulty of the overall test items. The facility value of

the test items were computed by using following formula:

FV =

Where:

FV = Facility Value

Correct U = The number of correct answers of the upper half group

Correct L = The number of correct answer of the lower half group

n = Number of the students in one group

Items discrimination shows how well an items can be discriminate high-

scorers and low scorers. The index or difficulty is generally expressed as the

percentage of the students who answered the items correctly. The index of

discrimination tells us whatever those students who performed well on the whole test

tended to do well or bad an each item in the rest.

The procedure of computing discrimination index of the research instrument

is as follows: first, the total scores obtained by the students should be ranked from the

highest score to the lowest score. Then consist of the number of students into two

groups, that is half upper and lower half (see in table 1), and finally use the above

formula computing the Dvs of the items. The index of DVs is the different between

the proportion passing the item in U and L. the ideals discrimination value should

range between 0.3 – 1.0. Discrimination value can be calculated using formulas:

DV = –

89

Where:

DV = Discrimination value

Correct U = The number of correct answers of the upper half group

Correct L = The number of correct answers of the lower half group

n = Number of the students in one group

Table 4

The summary of the Facility Values (FVs) and Discrimination Values (DVs) of

Degree of Comparison Test

No U L U+L U-L FV DV

Acceptable

Items

1 13 15 28 -2 0.70 -0.10 Unacceptable

2 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable

3 14 7 21 7 0.53 0.35 Acceptable

4 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable

5 15 7 22 8 0.55 0.40 Acceptable

6 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable

7 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable

8 9 10 19 -1 0.48 -0.05 Unacceptable

9 15 9 24 6 0.06 0.30 Acceptable

10 12 6 18 6 0.45 0.30 Acceptable

11 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable

12 17 10 27 7 0.68 0.35 Acceptable

90

13 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable

14 11 4 15 7 0.38 0.35 Acceptable

15 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable

16 13 7 20 6 050 0.30 Acceptable

17 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable

18 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable

19 6 6 12 0 0.30 0.00 Unacceptable

20 13 6 19 7 0.48 0.35 Acceptable

21 15 16 31 -1 0.78 -0.05 Unacceptable

22 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable

23 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable

24 18 9 27 9 0.68 0.45 Acceptable

25 19 15 34 4 0.85 0.20 Unacceptable

26 17 15 32 2 0.80 0.10 Unacceptable

27 20 17 37 3 0.93 0.15 Unacceptable

28 15 9 24 6 0.60 0.30 Acceptable

29 18 15 33 3 0.83 0.15 Unacceptable

30 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable

31 17 5 22 12 0.55 0.60 Acceptable

32 17 10 27 7 0.68 0.35 Acceptable

33 19 9 28 10 0.70 0.50 Acceptable

34 10 4 14 6 0.35 030 Acceptable

91

35 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable

36 19 9 28 10 0.70 0.50 Acceptable

37 11 5 16 6 0.40 0.30 Acceptable

38 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable

39 20 15 35 5 0.88 0.25 Unacceptable

40 17 10 27 7 0.68 0.35 Acceptable

41 8 10 18 -2 0.45 -0.10 Unacceptable

42 10 4 14 6 0.35 0.30 Acceptable

43 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable

44 19 9 28 10 0.70 0.50 Acceptable

45 16 10 26 6 0.65 0.30 Acceptable

46 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable

47 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable

48 18 17 35 1 0.88 0.05 Unacceptable

49 9 3 12 6 0.30 0.30 Acceptable

50 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable

51 18

15 33 0.83 0.15 Unacceptable

52 17 8 25 9 0.63 0.45 Acceptable

53 17 11 29 7 0.70 0.30 Acceptable

54 11 5 16 6 0.40 0.30 Acceptable

55 10 4 14 6 0.35 0.30 Acceptable

56 18 17 35 1 0.88 0.05 Unacceptable

92

57 8 9 17 -1 0.43 -0.05 Unacceptable

58 19 7 26 12 0.65 0.60 Acceptable

59 18 10 28 8 0.70 0.40 Acceptable

60 17 11 28 6 0.70 0.30 Acceptable

The result of the computation of FVs and DVs of the 60 test items clearly

showed that there were 14 items out of 60 test items could not be accepted because

they did not meet the range of good item number

1,8,19,21,25,26,27,29,39,41,48,51,56,57. Therefore, there are only 46 test items

acceptable in the sense that they have met the ranges both the facility value and

discrimination value but only 40 items used in this research study and 6 items were

dropped. The 6 items of all. It is done because the test is aimed in making the same

proportion among positive, comparative, and superlative degrees of comparison.

3.4 Data Collection

Valid and reliable research instruments were used to collect the required data

for the study. The data necessary for the study were pickup by administering the

research instrument to the students under study. The researcher gave students only 60

minutes to finish the research instrument. The administration of the research was

running very successful. The students responded multiple choice test that each the

correct answer was given one point and zero for every wrong one. The raw scores

93

showed for the study which indicated to the students‟ ability in using degree of

comparison are regarded as the data for the present study.

3.5 Data Analysis

In order answer research question under study, the data gathered for the study

should analyze. The data collected which was in the forms of scores showing the

student‟s ability in using degree of comparison in English. The data was analyzed by

means of appropriate formula. The obtained data are analyzed by using norm –

reference measure of five standard values respectively indicates; Excellent, good,

sufficient, insufficient, and poor acquisition in using degree of comparison in English

. The formula that was used to compute the converted score runs as the following:

The mean (M) was computed in the following formula.

SD = √

Where ;

SD = Standard Deviation

D2 = Standard deviation squared of each score from the mean

N = The number students taking the test

After computing M and SD of the raw scores, the researcher converted score by using

the norm –reference measure of five standard values as following

M + 1.5 SD = A (Excellent Assessing)

M + 0.5 SD = B (Good Assessing)

M – 0.5 SD = C (Sufficient)

94

M – 0.5 SD = D (insufficient Assessing)

≤ M – 1.5 SD = E (Poor Assessing)

95

CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCCUSSION

In this chapter present the acquiring data from the study and the result of

the data analysis. The discussion of findings is also presented in this chapter.

4.1 Findings

The data collected for the present study which were in the forms of raw scores

showing the assessing the degree of comparison mastery by the samples under study

were analyzed by using norm –reference measures of five standard values, showing

excellent , good, sufficient, insufficient and poor assessment of the grammatical

ability. After id the research 7th

January 2013 the researcher presented the raw score

in mastering English grammar especially simple tenses from each samples of the

study in which highest score was 37 and the lowest score was 11. The tabulation of

the scores was presented bellow

Table 5

Data Showing the assessing of degree of comparison of the eighth grade students

of SMP Pancasila Canggu in Accademic year 2013/2014

Samples Score (X)

Samples Score (X)

1 37

21 26

2 37

22 26

3 37

23 26

4 37

24 25

5 36

25 24

6 36

26 24

7 35

27 24

8 34

28 23

96

Samples Score (X)

Samples Score (X)

9 34

29 23

10 33

30 22

11 32

31 21

12 32

32 21

13 31

33 20

14 30

34 19

15 30

35 19

16 29

36 17

17 29

37 14

18 28

38 13

19 28

39 11

20 28

40 11

∑ =1062

As what had already been mentioned in chapter III, the data for the present

investigation which showed the assessing the degree of comparison mastery of the

eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic year 2012/2013 were

analyzed by using by using of norm-referenced measures of five standard values

which could show excellent, good, sufficient and poor ability.

M + 1.5 SD = A (Excellent Assessing)

M + 0.5 SD = B (Good Assessing)

M – 0.5 SD = C (Sufficient Assessing)

M – 0.5 SD = D (insufficient Assessing)

≤ M – 1.5 SD = E (Poor Assessing)

Before the raw scores obtained from sample could be computed by using the

formula, the mean (M) and the standard deviation (SD) of the raw sores should first

97

be figure out. The following computations which concerned about the computation of

mean and standard deviation could be presented as follow;

M = ∑

M =

M = 26.55

The standard deviation (SD) of the scores was estimated by counting up the

gained scores divided by number of the subjects under study. The SD is used to

measure the degrees of the scores deviation from the meas. The SD of the obtained

raw scores in mastery of degrees of comparison for the present study was computed

by using following formula.

SD =√

Where :

SD = Standard Deviation

D2

= Standard deviation squared of each score from the mean

N = Number of subjects

98

Table 6

Computation the Mean Deviation and Mean Deviation Squared (D2) of the Raw

Score Showing the sample’s Degree of Comparison Assessing.

Sample Raw Score Mean Deviation ( X-M) Squared Deviation (D2)

1 37 10.45 109.2025

2 37 10.45 109.2025

3 37 10.45 109.2025

4 37 10.45 109.2025

5 36 9.45 89.3025

6 36 9.45 89.3025

7 35 8.45 71.4025

8 34 7.45 55.5025

9 34 7.45 55.5025

10 33 6.45 41.6025

11 32 5.45 29.7025

12 32 5.45 29.7025

13 31 4.45 19.8025

14 30 3.45 11.9025

15 30 3.45 11.9025

16 29 2.45 6.0025

17 29 2.45 6.0025

18 28 1.45 2.1025

19 28 1.45 2.1025

20 28 1.45 2.1025

21 26 -0.55 0.3025

22 26 -0.55 0.3025

23 26 -0.55 0.3025

24 25 -1.55 2.4025

25 24 -2.55 6.5025

99

Sample Raw Score Mean Deviation ( X-M) Squared Deviation (D2)

26 24 -2.55 6.5025

27 24 -2.55 6.5025

28 23 -3.55 12.6025

29 23 -3.55 12.6025

30 22 -4.55 20.7025

31 21 -5.55 30.8025

32 21 -5.55 30.8025

33 20 -6.55 42.9025

34 19 -7.55 57.0025

35 19 -7.55 57.0025

36 17 -9.55 91.2025

37 14 -12.55 157.5025

38 13 -13.55 183.6025

39 11 -15.55 241.8025

40 11 -15.55 241.8025

∑ =1062

∑ =2163.9

SD = √

= √

= √

= 7.35

100

After the M and the SD scores obtained by the subject under study have been

computed, now the converted standard scores using norm reference measures of five standard

values could be respectively computed as the followings:

A (Excellent Acquisition) =

= 26.55 + 1.5 (7.35)

= 26.55 + 8.85

= 35.40

So the score of A or Excellent Acquisition was 35.40

1. B (Good Acquisition) = M + 0.5 SD

= 26.55 + 0.5 (7.35)

= 26.55 + 3.67

= 30.22

So the score of B or Good Acquisition was 35.40 30.22

2. C (Sufficient Acquisition) = M - 0.5 SD

=26.55 - 0.5 (7.35)

= 26.55 – 3.67

= 22.88

So the score of C or Sufficient Acquisition was 30.22 22.88

3. D (Insufficient Acquisition ) = M - 1.5 SD

= 26.55 – 1.5 (7.35)

= 26.55 – 11.02

= 15.53

101

So the score of D or Insufficient Acquisition was 22.88 15.53

4. E (Poor Acquisition) = <M – 1.5 SD

= 26.55 – 1.5 (7.35)

= 26.55 – 11.02

= 15.53

So the score of E or Poor Acquisition was <15.53

The data which were analyzed by using norm –reference measures of five standard

values resulted the converted scores of 35.40, 35.40 30.22, 30.22 22.88, 22..88

15.53, <15.53 respectively showing excellent acquisition of simple tenses (A), good

acquisition of simple tenses (B), sufficient acquisition of simple tenses (C),insufficient

acquisition of simple tenses (D), poor acquisition of simple tenses (E). Those converted

scores were determined as the basis of assessing the competence of students in acquiring

degree of comparison. After the converted scores had been figure out , then the degrees of

raw scores in multiple choice test and their corresponding converted scored in the assessing

the degree of comparison mastery of the eighth grade student of SMP Pancasila Canggu in

academic year 2013/2014 could be tabulated . the following table of tabulation of the sample

raw scores and their corresponding converted scored high was assessed through multiple –

choice test could be seen completely.

102

Table 7

The Conversion of the Subject’s Raw Score in Degree of Comparison

on the Basis Norm Reference Measure of Five Values

Samples Raw score Converted score level of degrees of comparison

1 37 ≥ 35.40 A/ Excellent






7 35 35.40 30.22 B/ Good

8 34 35.40 30.22 B/ Good

9 34 35.40 30.22 B/ Good

10 33 35.40 30.22 B/ Good

11 32 35.40 30.22 B/ Good

12 32 35.40 30.22 B/ Good

13 31 35.40 30.22 B/ Good

14 30 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

15 30 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

16 29 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

17 29 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

18 28 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

19 28 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

103

20 28 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

Samples Raw score Converted score level of degrees of comparison

21 26 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

22 26 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

23 26 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

24 25 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

25 24 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

26 24 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

27 24 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

28 23 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

29 23 30.22 22.88 C/Sufficient

30 22 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient

31 21 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient

32 21 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient

33 20 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient

34 19 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient

35 19 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient

36 17 22..88 15.53 D/Insuficient

37 14 <15.53 E/Poor

38 13 <15.53 E/Poor

39 11 <15.53 E/Poor

40 11 <15.53 E/Poor

104

The result of the present study above can be summarized by percentage blow:

Table 8

Summary of the Findings Data

No Standard Score Total Subject Percent

1 ≥ 35.40 / A (Excellent) 6 15,00 %

2 35.40 30.22 / B ( Good) 7 17,50 %

3 30.22 22.88 / C (Sufficient) 16 40,00 %

4 22..88 15.53 / D (Insufficient) 7 17,50 %

5 <15.53 / E ( Poor) 4 10,00 %

TOTAL 40 100.00 %

4.2 Discussion

The result of the analysis by means of norm – reference measure of five

standard values clearly revealed that (1) there were 6 samples or 15.00% out of 40

samples under study who showed excellent assessing of degree of comparison, (2)

there were 7 samples or 17.50% out of 40 samples who showed good assessing of

degree of comparison, (3) there were 16 samples or 40.00% out of 40 samples

showed sufficient assessing of degree of comparison, (4) there were 7 samples or

17.50% out of 40 samples who pointed out insufficient assessing of degree of

comparison, and (5) there were 34 samples or 10.00% out of 40 samples who got

poor assessing of degree of comparison. From these research findings, it could be

clearly seen that there were only 29 samples or 72.50% out of 40 samples who

105

achieved satisfactory assessing of degree of comparison and 11samples or 27.50%

out of 40 samples who totally failed in acquiring degree of comparison. in general,

these research findings revealed that the assessing of degree of comparison by the

eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu In Accademic year 2013/2014 was

sufficient enough.

The establishment of these research findings appears to be congruent with

related theories and empirical evidences were reviewed for the study. As stated in the

English curriculum and general course outline of the students senior high school

students graduated were expected to have good and practical communication ability

in English. Insufficient knowledge of the roles of the language learned, absence of

language roles in one‟s knowledge, inability to make use of its in real

communication, insufficient time allocated for learning and practicing, and low

learning motivation were crucial factor that made students failed in acquiring degree

of comparison. Therefore, the findings of this presents study should be carefully

depended upon.

According to the hypothesis that was formulated in chapter II, the

achievement degree of comparison of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila

Canggu in academic year 2012/2013 is low was rejected. This was due to that fact

that the ability of eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in degrees of

comparison mastery was quite high.

106

CHAPTER V

CONLUSION AND SUGGESTION

The discussion of the present study which dealt with the assessing of degree

of comparison by the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic

year 2013/2014 could be concluded in this chapter. In reference to the findings of the

study, some practical suggestions are also suggested in this chapter.

5.1 Conclusion

The data obtained from the study which was in the study was in the forms of

raw scores showing the assessing of degree of comparison by the eighth grade

students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in Accademic year 2013/2014 were analyzed by

norm reference measure of five standard values. The result of the data analysis

showed : (1) there were 6 samples or 15.00% out of 40 samples under study was who

showed excellent assessing of degree of comparison , (2) there were 7 samples or

17.50% out of 40 samples who showed good assessing of degree of comparison , (3)

there were 16 samples or 40.00% out of 40 samples showed sufficient assessing of

degree of comparison , (4) there were 7 samples or 17.50% out of 40 samples who

pointed out insufficient assessing of degree of comparison ,and (5) there were 4

sample or 10.00% out of 40 samples who got poor assessing of degree of comparison.

In general, these research findings revealed that the assessing of degree of

107

comparison by the eighth grade student of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic year

2013/2014 could be remarked as sufficient enough.

The findings of the present suggested that the teaching of degrees of

comparison to the eleventh grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic

year 2013 /2014 were still regarded as unsuccessful. There were of course some

factor which might cause the subject understudy still faced problem in learning and

acquiring degree of comparison: insufficient knowledge of the roles of the language

learned, insufficient time allocated for learning and practicing and their low learning

motivation implicated the students‟ problem in acquiring degree of comparison.

These research findings were hope to be able to revitalize strategies and technique of

efficient degree of comparison instruction and exercise by the teacher an students

under the study.

The findings of the present research had rather limited validity and reliability

because the study was undertaken on basis of an ex post facto research design. Hence,

they should be more carefully relied and depended upon.

5.2. Suggestions

As the previous findings, it seems necessary for the researcher to offer some

suggestions to improve the students‟ ability in assessing of degree of comparison.

Therefore, some points are suggested as follows:

1. The eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu in academic year

2013/2014 who have good ability in using degree of comparison are expected

108

to be able to increase their mastery in understanding degrees of comparison in

order to be able to achieve in using degree of comparison.

2. For the students who still have problem in using degrees of comparison are

expected to be able to promote and develop their degree of comparison

mastery.

3. The English teachers of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu

are suggested to be more active and creative in enriching their teaching

methodologies, teaching strategies and technique, which would help the

students to have better and casier ability in understanding the uses of degree

of comparison.

4. The English teachers of the eighth grade students of SMP Pancasila Canggu

are recommended to give exercise in using degree of comparison to the

students to practice their ability in using prior knowledge and experience.

5. For the next researcher who will do the research study, this investigation can

be developed and used as references in collecting the data.

109

REFRENCES

Brown,H.Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagody.Longman

Cohen,Louis,Manion , Lawrence and Morrison, Keith.2000. Research Methods in

Education. London: Routledge Falmer.

Dably,Andrew.2004. dictionary of Languange. London: A & C Black Publicer Ltd.

Downing, Angela and Locke, Philip.2006. English Grammar University Course.

Routledge.

Ellis, Rod. 2003. Second Language Acquisition. New York. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, Rod.et.al 2009. Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning,

Testing and Teaching.

Fulcher, Glen and Davidson, Fred. 2007. Language Testing and Assessment.

Routledge.

Hartanto, Jhon, S.et al.2003.Accurate Brieft and clear English Grammar . Indah

Surabaya

Jakson,Howard.2005. Good Grammar For Students. London : Sage Publications.

Saergeant,Howard.2007.Basic English Grammar for English Language Learners.

Saddeback Educational Publishing.

Savignon ,Sandra, J.2002 Interpenting Communicative Language Teaching. London

:Yale University Press.

Saville, Muriel and Troike.2006. Introduction Second Language Acquisition. New

York : Cambridge University Press.

Swan, Michael. 2005. Practical English Usage. New York :Oxford University Press

110

111

Appendix 1

The Names of the Try Out Samples

NO NAME OF STUDENTS

1 Candra Wijaya G

2 I Made Adi Suantara

3 Ni Kadek Puspita Dewi

4 Dwiki Darmawan

5 Ni Rai Mondayani

6 Okta Suci Lestari

7 Pujianti Wahyuningtyas

8 Nym Ananda Wijaya

9 Juli Ratna Dewi

10 Putu Werdi Ayu

11 Ayu Pebriyanti

12 Agus Wiratama

13 I Gst Ngurah Werdi

14 Sri Wahyuni

15 Talia Jayanti

16 Silvia Milenia Sari

17 Wulan Nila Arisandi

18 Komang Trisna S

19 Meita Juliawati

20 Putu Suardita

21 Gd Juliantara Putra

22 Adi Sudarma Putra

23 Eka Candra Wiguna

24 Kadek Dwiana P

25 Putri Swandewi

26 Luh Gede Juni A

27 Ryan Mahendra P

28 Ni Luh Manik Sukahati

29 Intan Yuliantari

30 Ni Kadek Anita

31 Vena Melinda

112

32 Arya Pratama P

33 Kdk Adi Saputra

34 Wahyu Naradepa

35 Dewi Yantini

36 Sayu Widya P

37 Ni Luh Yuliantini

38 Made Widiyantari

39 Sayang Frisca M

40 Dion Giri Mahendra

113

Appendix 2

The Names of the Research Samples

NO NAMA SISWA

1 Putu Tessa Sentana Apriana

2 Putu Arya Cahya Pramana

3 I kadek Eva Sumantra

4 I putu Aris Eka Saputra

5 I kadek Rai Adi Saputra

6 I Made Rudiana

7 I Gagus Alit Andika Putra

8 I gede Widya Putra

9 Ni Made Dwi Damayanti

10 Ni Komang Erika Anggi Amelia

11 Komang Marta Trisna Widiantari

12 Ni Komang Alit Andriyani

13 I Gede Eddy Cahya Putra

14 I Putu Wahyu Mahendra

15 NatalisKevin Gunawan

16 I Made Rukad Andayat

17 I Ketut Adi Parwadi

18 I Gede Candra Mahendra

19 Bogi Vallerio Ekstrada

20 Figur Buyung Sejati

21 Adi Nova budhi Sastrawan I kadek

22 AgiSuryawan I kadek

23 Agus Bayu Lois Saputra I Kadek

24 Agustini Sukaryasih Ni Luh made

25 Anik Verayanti Ni kadek

26 Ayu Sri Indrayani Ni Luh

27 Dana Natih I Nengah

28 Decelina Rahmadani Manggara Putri

29 Deva Miarta I mMade

30 Devi Dharma Yanthi Kadek

31 Doni Permana Putra I Kadek

32 Dwija Suparsa I kadek

33 Gelindhana I Dewa Agung Gede

34 Gita Astini Kadek

35 Gita Pratama Putri Ni Putu

36 Herasaka Komang

114

37 Ina Fitriani

38 Intan Sari Dewi Ni made

39 Irwan Edi Saputra I kadek

40 Lidya Damayanti Ni kadek

115

Appendix 3

1. My bag is as …. as my brother

A. expensive

B. more expensive

C. most expensive

D. less

2. Solo is as ….. as Surabaya

A. beautiful

B. beautiful

C. more beautiful

D. most beautiful

3. My mother is ….. than my father.

A. old

B. older

C. oldest

D. more old

4. Doni is the ….. boy in my class.

A. tall

B. taller

C. tallest

D. more tall

5. Elephant and cow is an animal. But cow

is…. than elephant.

A. Small

B. Smaller

C. Smallest

D. More small

6. That pencil is as …. as this pencil

A. long

B. longer

C. more long

D. longest

7. An elephant is the ….. animal

nowdays

A. big

B. bigger

C. biggest

D. more big

8. This tea is as ….. as that coffee

A. happy

B. happier

C. happiest

D. more happy

9. That purple shirt is as ….. my

blanket.

A. soft

B. softer

C. more soft

TRY OUT INSTRUMENT

Subject : English

Grade : VIII

INSTRUCTION

1. Write your identity on the provide answer sheet!

2. Please choose the best answer by crossing A, B, C or D on the provided answer sheet!

3. You have 60 minutes to do the test!

116

D. most soft

10. Roger is 12 years old. Danu is 15

years old. Therefore, Roger is….

than Danu

A. young

B. younger

C. more young

D. youngest

11. The red jacket is ….. than the blue

on

A. cheap

B. cheaper

C. more cheap

D. most cheap

12. Rio is as ….. as Fablo

A. fat

B. fattest

C. more fat

D. most fat

13. Which country has the… area?

A. big

B. bigger

C. biggest

D. more big

14. The weather today is …. than

yesterday

A. cool

B. cooler

C. more cool

D. most cool

15. Today is the….. day for me. It‟s my

birthday

A. happy

B. happier

C. happiest

D. more happy

16. This sofa is …. than that chair.

A. comfortable

B. more comfortable

C. most comfortable

D. comfortablest

17. Kecak dance is as …. . as Barong

dance in Bali

A. popular

B. popolarer

C. more popular

D. most popular

18. Jenny has 234 marbles

Emma has 127 marbles

Cheryl has 244 marbles

A. Cheryl has the most marbles

among her friends.

B. Emma has the most marbles

among her friend.

C. Emma has more marbles than

Cheryl.

D. Jenny has more marbles than

Cheryl.

19. Susi is …. than Rani

A. hard

B. hardest

C. harder

D. more hard

20. My brother is ….. than my sister

A. lazy

B. lazier

C. more lazy

117

D. most lazy

21. Toni is the…. boy in his clases

A. clever

B. more clever

C. most clever

D. cleverest

22. The weather today is a…. as

yesterday

A. bright

B. brighter

C. brightest

D. more bright

23. Vino is the …. boy I haver ever seen

A. handsome

B. more handsome

C. most handsome

D. handsomely

24. Tiger is the ….. animal in the wolrd

A. dangerous

B. dangerously

C. more dangerous

D. most dangerous

25. This women is as ……as the man

over there

A. crazy

B. crazier

C. crazier

D. more crazy

26. My father is as …… as my brother

A. busy

B. busier

C. busiest

D. more busy

27. You are noisier than your brother.

You are .... your brother.

A. not noisy

B. not noisier

C. not noisiest

D. not as noisy as

28. Jakarta is ….. than Bandung

A. hot

B. hotter

C. more hot

D. most hot

29. My computer is slower than her

computer.

My computer is .... her computer.

A. not slow

B. not slower

C. not slowest

D. not as slow as

30. Iron is …. than any other metals

A. useful

B. usefully

C. more useful

D. most useful

31. I‟m the….. in my family

A. young

B. younger

C. youngest

D. more young

32. Paul isn‟t as diligent as Nick. It

means…

A. Nick isn‟t more diligent than

Paul.

B. Nick is more diligent than Paul.

C. Paul is more diligent than Nick.

118

D. Nick is the most diligent boy

33. This restaurant should serve the

customers in the ….. service

A. best

B. good

C. better

D. more good

34. What is the…. news of the war?

A. late

B. later

C. latest

D. more late

35. Prita is ….. than Angel.

A. Short

B. Shorter

C. Shorten

D. More short

36. Aldo is 160 centimeters tall.

Yuda is 160 centimeters tall.

A. Aldo is as tall as Yuda.

B. Aldo is taller than Yuda

C. Yuda is taller than Aldo

D. Ado is the tallest boy.

37. Peterpan is …… than Lotot band

A. famous

B. more famous

C. most famous

D. famously.

38. Badung is the ….. city in Indonesia

A. cold

B. colder

C. coldest

D. more cold

39. Sangeh is 20 km from my house.

Taman Ayun is 35 km from my

house.

A. Sangeh is as near as Taman

Ayun.

B. Taman Ayun is nearer than

Sangeh.

C. Sangeh is nearer than Taman

Ayun.

D. Sangeh isn‟t nearer than Taman

Ayun.

40. Teacher: Ana, you are the ….

students in this school.

Ana : Thank you.

It means Ana is …..

A. as diligent as

B. not as diligent as

C. more diligent

D. most diligent

41. The people in Bali is …... then the

people in java

A. familiar

B. familiarer

C. more familiar

D. most familiar

42. My blue trouser is …. Than the

brown one

A. busy

B. busier

C. busiest

D. more busy

119

43. Could you show me where the….

post office is ?

A. near

B. nearer

C. nearest

D. nearly

44. Elvis Presley is the …..musician in

the world

A. great

B. greater

C. greatest

D. more great

45. Tiara‟s bag : Rp. 35.000

Ema‟s bag : Rp. 50.000

A. Ema‟s bag is as expensive as

Tiara‟s bag.

B. Tiara‟s bag is more expensive

than Ema‟s bag.

C. Ema‟s bag is more expensive

than Tiara‟s bag.

D. Ema‟s bag is the most expensive

bag of all.

46. X : Excuse me, do you know the

….way to the bus station?

Y : Yes. Just take this way.

A. as easy as

B. easiest

C. easier

D. easy

47. English isn‟t as difficult as

Mathematic. It means….

A. Mathematic isn‟t difficult than

English.

B. Mathematic is more difficult than

English.

C. English is more difficult than

Mathematic.

D. Mathematic is the most difficult

subject.

48. Syahrini and Asyanti are beautiful

girls.

A. Syahrini is more beautiful than

Asyanti.

B. Asyanti is more beautiful than

Syahrini.

C. Syahrini is as beautiful as

Asyanti.

D. Syahrini is not as beautiful as

Asyanti.

49. Tini isn‟t as brave as Sri. It means….

A. Sri isn‟t braver than Tini.

B. Sri is braver than Tini.

C. Tini is braver than Sri.

D. Sri is the bravest students in his

class.

120

50. Sule : Excuse me, do you know

the …. City in Bali?

Daus : I think is Denpasar

A. as famous as

B. more famous

C. most famous

D. famous

51. Rino and Rai are friendly. It means

….

A. Rino is as friendly as Rai.

B. Rino is not as friendly as Rai.

C. Rino is friendlier than Rai.

D. Rai is friendlier than Rino.

52. They‟ve got lots of money. They

are…..club in the country.

A. the rich

B. the richer

C. the richest

D. as rich as

53. Mr. Rai drives 40 km/jam

Mr. Johan drives 50 km/jam

Mr. Ali drives 35 km/jam

A. Mr. Johan is as slow as Mr. Rai

B. Mr. Rai is slower than Mr. Ali

C. Mr. Ali is the slowest than the

other.

D. Mr. Johan is the slowest than the

other.

54. Desi isn‟t as active as Dedi. It

means….

A. Dedi isn‟t more active than Desi.

B. Dedi is more active than Desi.

C. Desi is more active than Dedi.

D. Dedi is the most active students

in his class.

55. Science and Social are the most

difficult subject. It means …

A. Science is as difficult as Social.

B. Science is not as difficult as

Social.

C. Science is more difficult than

Social

D. Social is more difficult than

Science.

56. Ayu Ting Ting is the famous singer

in Indonesia and has 2500 fans.

Michele Jackson is a famous singer

and has 2500 fans. It means ….

A. Ayu Ting Ting is the most

famous singer in the world.

B. Ayu Ting Ting is as famous as

Michele Jackson.

C. Ayu Ting Ting is more famous

than Michele Jackson.

D. Michele Jackson is more famous

than Ayu Ting Ting.


the …. city in Bali?


A. as famous as

B. more famous

C. most famous

D. famous

121

58. Vicky‟s bedroom isn‟t as dirty as

Nancy‟s bedroom. It means….

A. Nancy‟s bedroom isn‟t dirtier

than Vicky‟s bedroom.

B. Nancy‟s bedroom is dirtier than

Vicky‟s bedroom.

C. Vicky‟s bedroom is dirtier than

Nancy‟s bedroom.

D. Nancy‟s bedroom is the dirtiest

then the other.

59. Money and love are important. It

means….

A. Money is more important than

love.

B. Love is more important than

money.

C. Money is not as important as

love.

D. Money is as important as love.

60. Mr. John Attkin and Mrs. Eva Attkin

are happy because they have a son. It

means …

A. Mr. John is happier than Mrs.

Eva

B. Mrs. Eva is happier than Mr.

John.

C. Mr. John is as happy as Mrs.

Eva.

D. Mr. John is not as happy as Mrs.

Eva

122

ANSWER SHEET

Name :

Number :

1 A B C D

21 A B C D

41 A B C D

2 A B C D

22 A B C D

42 A B C D

3 A B C D

23 A B C D

43 A B C D

4 A B C D

24 A B C D

44 A B C D

5 A B C D

25 A B C D

45 A B C D

6 A B C D

26 A B C D

46 A B C D

7 A B C D

27 A B C D

47 A B C D

8 A B C D

28 A B C D

48 A B C D

9 A B C D

29 A B C D

49 A B C D

10 A B C D

30 A B C D

50 A B C D

11 A B C D

31 A B C D

51 A B C D

12 A B C D

32 A B C D

52 A B C D

13 A B C D

33 A B C D

53 A B C D

14 A B C D

34 A B C D

54 A B C D

15 A B C D

35 A B C D

55 A B C D

16 A B C D

36 A B C D

56 A B C D

17 A B C D

37 A B C D

57 A B C D

18 A B C D

38 A B C D

58 A B C D

19 A B C D

39 A B C D

59 A B C D

20 A B C D

40 A B C D

60 A B C D

123

1 . A 31 . C

2 . A 32 . B

3 . B 33 . A

4 . C 34 . C

5 . B 35 . B

6 . A 36 . A

7 . C 37 . B

8 . A 38 . C

9 . A 39 . A

10 . B 40 . D

11 . B 41 . C

12 . A 42 . B

13 . C 43 . C

14 . B 44 . C

15 . C 45 . C

16 . B 46 . B

17 . A 47 . B

18 . A 48 . C

19 . C 49 . B

20 . C 50 . C

21 . D 51 . A

22 . A 52 . C

23 . D 53 . C

24 . C 54 . B

25 . A 55 . A

26 . A 56 . B

27 . D 57 . C

28 . B 58 . B

29 . D 59 . D

30 . C 60 . C

KUNCI JAWABAN TRY OUT

124

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

Subject : English

Grade : VIII

INSTRUCTION

1. Write your identity on the provide answer sheet!

2. Please choose the best answer by crossing A, B, C or D on the provided answer sheet!

3. You have 60 minutes to do the test!

Appendix 4

1. Solo is as ….. as Surabaya

E. beautiful

F. beautiful

G. more beautiful

H. most beautiful

2. My mother is ….. than my father.

E. old

F. older

G. oldest

H. more old

3. Doni is the ….. boy in my class.

E. tall

F. taller

G. tallest

H. more tall

4. Elephant and cow is an animal. But cow

is…. than elephant.

E. Small

F. Smaller

G. Smallest

H. More small

5. That pencil is as …. as this pencil

E. long

F. longer

G. more long

H. longest

6. An elephant is the ….. animal

nowdays

E. big

F. bigger

G. biggest

H. more big

7. That purple shirt is as ….. my

blanket.

E. soft

F. softer

G. more soft

H. most soft

8. Roger is 12 years old. Danu is 15

years old. Therefore, Roger is….

than Danu

E. young

F. younger

G. more young

H. youngest

125

9. The red jacket is ….. than the blue

on

E. cheap

F. cheaper

G. more cheap

H. most cheap

10. Rio is as ….. as Fablo

E. fat

F. fattest

G. more fat

H. most fat

11. Which country has the… area?

E. big

F. bigger

G. biggest

H. more big

12. The weather today is …. than

yesterday

E. cool

F. cooler

G. more cool

H. most cool

13. Today is the….. day for me. It‟s my

birthday

E. happy

F. happier

G. happiest

H. more happy

14. This sofa is …. than that chair.

E. comfortable

F. more comfortable

G. most comfortable

H. comfortablest

15. Kecak dance is as …. . as Barong

dance in Bali

E. popular

F. popolarer

G. more popular

H. most popular

16. Jenny has 234 marbles

Emma has 127 marbles

Cheryl has 244 marbles

E. Cheryl has the most marbles

among her friends.

F. Emma has the most marbles

among her friend.

G. Emma has more marbles than

Cheryl.

H. Jenny has more marbles than

Cheryl.

17. My brother is ….. than my sister

E. lazy

F. lazier

G. more lazy

H. most lazy

18. The weather today is a…. as

yesterday

E. bright

F. brighter

G. brightest

H. more bright

19. Vino is the …. boy I haver ever seen

E. handsome

F. more handsome

G. most handsome

H. handsomely

126

20. Tiger is the ….. animal in the wolrd

E. dangerous

F. dangerously

G. more dangerous

H. most dangerous

21. Jakarta is ….. than Bandung

E. hot

F. hotter

G. more hot

H. most hot

22. Iron is …. than any other metals

E. useful

F. usefully

G. more useful

H. most useful

23. I‟m the….. in my family

E. young

F. younger

G. youngest

H. more young

24. Paul isn‟t as diligent as Nick. It

means…

E. Nick isn‟t more diligent than

Paul.

F. Nick is more diligent than Paul.

G. Paul is more diligent than Nick.

H. Nick is the most diligent boy

25. This restaurant should serve the

customers in the ….. service

E. best

F. good

G. better

H. more good

26. What is the…. news of the war?

E. late

F. later

G. latest

H. more late

27. Prita is ….. than Angel.

E. Short

F. Shorter

G. Shorten

H. More short

28. Aldo is 160 centimeters tall.

Yuda is 160 centimeters tall.

E. Aldo is as tall as Yuda.

F. Aldo is taller than Yuda

G. Yuda is taller than Aldo

H. Ado is the tallest boy.

29. Peterpan is …… than Lotot band

E. famous

F. more famous

G. most famous

H. famously.

30. Badung is the ….. city in Indonesia

E. cold

F. colder

G. coldest

H. more cold

31. Teacher: Ana, you are the ….

students in this school.

Ana : Thank you.

It means Ana is …..

E. as diligent as

F. not as diligent as

G. more diligent

H. most diligent

127

32. My blue trouser is …. Than the

brown one

E. busy

F. busier

G. busiest

H. more busy

33. Could you show me where the….

post office is ?

E. near

F. nearer

G. nearest

H. nearly

34. Elvis Presley is the …..musician in

the world

E. great

F. greater

G. greatest

H. more great

35. Tiara‟s bag : Rp. 35.000

Ema‟s bag : Rp. 50.000

E. Ema‟s bag is as expensive as

Tiara‟s bag.

F. Tiara‟s bag is more expensive

than Ema‟s bag.

G. Ema‟s bag is more expensive

than Tiara‟s bag.

H. Ema‟s bag is the most expensive

bag of all.

36. X : Excuse me, do you know the

….way to the bus station?

Y : Yes. Just take this way.

E. as easy as

F. easiest

G. easier

H. easy

37. English isn‟t as difficult as

Mathematic. It means….

E. Mathematic isn‟t difficult than

English.

F. Mathematic is more difficult than

English.

G. English is more difficult than

Mathematic.

H. Mathematic is the most difficult

subject.

38. Syahrini and Asyanti are beautiful

girls.

E. Syahrini is more beautiful than

Asyanti.

F. Asyanti is more beautiful than

Syahrini.

G. Syahrini is as beautiful as

Asyanti.

H. Syahrini is not as beautiful as

Asyanti.

39. Tini isn‟t as brave as Sri. It means….

E. Sri isn‟t braver than Tini.

F. Sri is braver than Tini.

G. Tini is braver than Sri.

H. Sri is the bravest students in his

class.

128


the …. City in Bali?


E. as famous as

F. more famous

G. most famous

H. famous

129

Name :

Class :

1 A B C D 21 A B C D









10 A B C D 30 A B C D

11 A B C D 31 A B C D

12 A B C D 32 A B C D

13 A B C D 33 A B C D

14 A B C D 34 A B C D

15 A B C D 35 A B C D

16 A B C D 36 A B C D

17 A B C D 37 A B C D

18 A B C D 38 A B C D

19 A B C D 39 A B C D

20 A B C D 40 A B C D

ANSWER SHEET

130

1 . A 21 . B

2 . B 22 . C

3 . C 23 . C

4 . B 24 . B

5 . A 25 . A

6 . C 26 . C

7 . A 27 . B

8 . B 28 . A

9 . B 29 . B

10 . A 30 . C

11 . C 31 . D

12 . B 32 . B

13 . C 33 . C

14 . B 34 . C

15 . A 35 . C

16 . A 36 . B

17 . C 37 . B

18 . A 38 . C

19 . D 39 . B

20 . C 40 . C

KUNCI JAWABAN PENELITIAN

131

Appendix 5

1 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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Score

1 Candra Wijaya G 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 53

2 I Made Adi Suantara 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 52

3 Ni Kadek Puspita Dewi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 51

4 Dwiki Darmawan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50

5 Ni Rai Mondayani 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 49

6 Okta Suci Lestari 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 49

7 Pujianti Wahyuningtyas 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 48

8 Nym Ananda Wijaya 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 47

9 Juli Ratna Dewi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 47

10 Putu Werdi Ayu 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 46

11 Ayu Pebriyanti 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45

12 Agus Wiratama 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44

13 I Gst Ngurah Werdi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44

14 Sri Wahyuni 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44

15 Talia Jayanti 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44

16 Silvia Milenia Sari 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43

17 Wulan Nila Arisandi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43

18 Komang Trisna S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43

19 Meita Juliawati 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43

20 Putu Suardita 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 928

13 16 14 17 15 16 16 9 15 12 17 20 15 11 16 13 17 16 6 13 15 17 16 18 19 17 20 15 18 17 17 17 19 10 18 19 11 17 20 17 8 10 18 19 16 17 18 18 9 18 18 17 17 11 10 18 8 19 18 17 Average

7 4 6 3 5 4 4 11 5 8 3 0 5 9 4 7 3 4 14 7 5 3 4 2 1 3 0 5 2 3 3 3 1 10 2 1 9 3 0 3 12 10 2 1 4 3 2 2 11 2 2 3 3 9 10 2 12 1 2 3 46

Range 53-43

1 Gd Juliantara Putra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41

2 Adi Sudarma Putra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 39

3 Eka Candra Wiguna 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38

4 Kadek Dwiana P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38

5 Putri Swandewi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 37

6 Luh Gede Juni A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 36

7 Ryan Mahendra P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 35

8 Ni Luh Manik Sukahati 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32

9 Intan Yuliantari 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31

10 Ni Kadek Anita 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31

11 Vena Melinda 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31

12 Arya Pratama P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30

13 Kdk Adi Saputra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28

14 Wahyu Naradepa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27

15 Dewi Yantini 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26

16 Sayu Widya P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23

17 Ni Luh Yuliantini 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23

18 Made Widiyantari 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22

19 Sayang Frisca M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22

20 Dion Giri Mahendra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 606

15 10 9 13 8 12 12 8 9 6 13 10 18 4 10 7 13 8 6 8 16 11 9 11 15 15 17 9 12 11 7 8 9 6 8 9 5 13 13 10 10 6 10 7 10 13 10 15 5 10 13 10 9 5 6 15 9 7 10 13 Average

5 10 11 7 12 8 8 12 11 14 7 10 2 16 10 13 7 12 14 12 4 9 11 9 5 5 3 11 8 9 13 12 11 14 12 11 15 7 7 10 10 14 10 13 10 7 10 5 15 10 7 10 11 15 14 5 11 13 10 7 30

Range 41-30

Total

Correct

Incorect

Unanswered

Lower Group

ITEM ANALYSIS SHEET OF TEACHER MADE STRUCTURE TEST ITEMS Correct = Blank; Incorrect = 1; Unanswered = 0

Items

Students

Upper Group

Total

Correct

Incorect

Unanswered

132

Appendix 6

1 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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Score

1 Putu Tessa Sentana Apriana 1 1 1 37

2 Putu Arya Cahya Pramana 1 1 1 37

3 I kadek Eva Sumantra 1 1 1 37

4 I putu Aris Eka Saputra 1 1 1 37

5 I kadek Rai Adi Saputra 1 1 1 1 36

6 I Made Rudiana 1 1 1 1 36

7 I Gagus Alit Andika Putra 1 1 1 1 1 35

8 I gede Widya Putra 1 1 1 1 1 1 34

9 Ni Made Dwi Damayanti 1 1 1 1 1 1 34

10 Ni Komang Erika Anggi Amelia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33

11 Komang Marta Trisna Widiantari 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32

12 Ni Komang Alit Andriyani 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32

13 I Gede Eddy Cahya Putra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31

14 I Putu Wahyu Mahendra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30

15 NatalisKevin Gunawan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30

16 I Made Rukad Andayat 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29

17 I Ketut Adi Parwadi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29

18 I Gede Candra Mahendra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28

19 Bogi Vallerio Ekstrada 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28

20 Figur Buyung Sejati 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 653

20 18 18 19 19 19 18 17 19 18 17 19 18 19 19 17 17 17 17 15 16 19 15 16 13 13 17 16 15 18 11 17 12 12 17 13 17 9 13 14 Average

0 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 5 4 1 5 4 7 7 3 4 5 2 9 3 8 8 3 7 3 11 7 6 33

Range 37-28

21 Adi Nova budhi Sastrawan I kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26

22 AgiSuryawan I kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26

23 Agus Bayu Lois Saputra I Kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26

24 Agustini Sukaryasih Ni Luh made 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25

25 Anik Verayanti Ni kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24

26 Ayu Sri Indrayani Ni Luh 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24

27 Dana Natih I Nengah 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24

28 Decelina Rahmadani Manggara Putri 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23

29 Deva Miarta I mMade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23

30 Devi Dharma Yanthi Kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22

31 Doni Permana Putra I Kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21

32 Dwija Suparsa I kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21

33 Gelindhana I Dewa Agung Gede 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20

34 Gita Astini Kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19

35 Gita Pratama Putri Ni Putu 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19

36 Herasaka Komang 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17

37 Ina Fitriani 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14

38 Intan Sari Dewi Ni made 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13

39 Irwan Edi Saputra I kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

40 Lidya Damayanti Ni kadek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 409

17 15 18 15 15 13 15 16 18 14 15 12 8 8 12 8 11 7 8 7 7 8 10 10 11 6 5 8 7 10 9 5 6 13 8 7 7 9 5 6 Average

3 5 2 5 5 7 5 4 2 6 5 8 12 12 8 12 9 13 12 13 13 12 10 10 9 14 15 12 13 10 11 15 14 7 12 13 13 11 15 14 20

Range 26-11

ITEM ANALYSIS SHEET OF DEGREE COMPARISON MASTERY OF THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS TEST ITEMS Correct = Blank; Incorrect = 1; Unanswered = 0

Items Students

Upper Group

Total

Correct

Incorect

Unanswered

Total

Correct

Incorect

Unanswered

Lower Group

BIOGRAPHY

His name is I Nyoman Gede Murdana yasa. He was born

in Denpasar on March 12th

1992. He is originally from

Kesiman Village, Denpasar Timur. He lives at Noja Street,

Br Kedaton Kesiman. Heis Balinese. He grows up in a

simple and generous family of lovely parents Drs.I Made

Murda and Ni Nyoman Sumiati. He is the third child of three children. His father

works as a Headmaster in elementary school Denpasar and his mothers is

entrepreneurship. By the age of a half five , his parents sent him to a kindergarden

named TK Srikandi. In 1998, he graduated and continued to a school, SDN 14

Kesiman, for six year in 1998 to 2004 After he got certificate, he continue his futher

study. He went to SMP PGRI 2 Denpasar in 2004 and took his study for three years.

In 2007, he went to SMKN 1 Denpasar for continuing his study in automotive class

for three years. He graduated in 2010 and decided to continue his study in

Mahasaraswati Denpasar University started inthat year. He choose English Education

Study Program of Faculty of Teacher Training and Education. During he studied

English in Mahasaraswati Denpasar University, Beside that during his study in

Mahasaraswati University he also work as staff in Denpasar City Government ,of

Cooperation Division Office. Since I want to be English teacher, I believe graduated

in March 2014

70

71

72

73

74

Date post:	13-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuongthuan
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times

ASSESSING THE DEGREE OF COMPARISON …unmas-library.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SKRIP… ·...

Documents