IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This chapter would give the result of the test in this research. The researcher also
provided the discussion regarding the topic with the researcher perspective in this
chapter.
4.1. Result
The population of this research was English Study Program of Teachers Training and
Education Faculty in University of Lampung and the sample was student year 2010.
With total 29 samples, the tests were conducted.
Result of the Questionnaire
The second test was a questionnaire. There are three subjects in the questionnaire; the
highest score from a subject determined which product samples prefer. Maximum score
for each question is 5 and the minimum was 1. Samples’ preference decided by the
highest total score from the others (total scores). The result showed:
1. There are 15 students preferring song and 11 students preferring movie.
34
2. In total 3 students are undecided, mean they are not really prefer one of the three
subjects. Those students, all of them, have two highest subject score (not exactly
in a same number, but the score have significant gap, which the researcher set, to
determine what their preferred).
3. There is no student preferred prose. In the case number 2, the undecided
students’ preference is between song and movie. There is no student prefers
prose or undecided between prose and other two products.
Table 3. Result of the Questionnaire
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Sample
Name
AS
DEN
FP
FA
FW
FAR
GD
GA
IAM
IN
I
KR
LBP
LN
MR
NH
NWP
PA
PM
Product Preference Point
Prose
Song
Movie
17
19
20
23
21
16
16
26
23
25
24
14
40
17
26
19
21
31
16
28
33
35
27
28
35
32
30
30
32
29
32
47
32
34
27
28
38
27
28
30
32
20
36
20
30
34
27
35
33
36
31
31
32
24
19
40
22
Preference
UNDECIDED
Song
Song
Song
Movie
Song
Song
Movie
Song
Movie
Movie
Movie
Song
Song
Song
Song
Song
Movie
Song
35
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
RP
RF
RSE
RFA
RA
R
SER
TW
WW
YAP
18
20
24
19
23
29
27
23
23
22
28
33
30
35
34
39
41
37
26
25
35
34
32
30
34
40
28
37
25
26
Movie
Movie
Movie
Song
UNDECIDED
Movie
Song
UNDECIDED
Song
Movie
Result of the Picture Story Book Test
The first test (TX) was mute story book; samples made a story based on the picture from
a book without any dialog or narration. This test is to measure sample’s vocabulary in
writing. The highest number word produced is 178 words and the lowest is 39, with
average 90 words; the highest density is 85% and the lowest is 48%, with average 65%;
the highest readability is 9.2 and the lowest is 3.1, with average 4.8.
Table 4. Result of the Picture Story Book Test
Score
No
Sample Name
1
Word Count
Lexical Density
Readability
AS
77
77.92
4.8
Vocabulary
Achievement
7
2
DEN
107
55.14
3.1
7
3
FP
98
55.10
3.8
7
4
FA
132
48.48
3.4
6
5
FW
89
64.04
5
7
6
FAR
80
58.75
5.2
7
36
7
GD
104
68.26
3.4
7
8
GA
60
85.00
8.1
8
9
IAM
86
56.97
3.9
7
10
IN
90
65.55
4.7
7
11
I
81
61.72
4.1
7
12
KR
80
60.00
4.9
7
13
LBP
120
72.50
9.2
8
14
LN
141
62.41
4.2
7
15
MR
65
60.00
4.8
7
16
NH
73
71.23
3.7
7
17
NWP
106
48.11
5.7
6
18
PA
108
64.81
5.7
7
19
PM
87
60.91
4.7
7
20
RP
52
80.76
3.9
7
21
RF
89
64.04
5
7
22
RSE
132
64.39
4.5
7
23
RFA
59
74.57
4.8
7
24
RA
66
75.75
4.3
7
25
R
39
74.35
5.5
7
26
SER
178
57.86
3.1
7
27
TW
58
79.31
8.3
8
28
WW
67
71.64
3.3
7
29
YAP
101
62.37
5.2
7
The scoring for word count, lexical density, and readability has been discussed in
previous chapter. Scoring for vocabulary achievement is summed from word count,
lexical density, and readability by criteria. The scoring criteria are:
37
Table 5. Vocabulary Achievement Scoring Criteria
Word Count
Lexical Density
Readability
1
The percentage of
word produced and
word count >= 40%
The score is >= 40
The score is <8.00
Score
2
The percentage of
word produced and
word count >40% and
<=55%
The score is >40 and
<=55
The score is>=8.00
3
The percentage of
word produced and
word count >55%
The score is >55
The score is >=10.00
and <=12.00
The base score is 2.
Readability scoring is based on Gunning Fox.
The researcher had made the calculation example of analysis using two samples’ text -it
can be seen in appendix 8. This result then was separated into 3 groups by the
achievements –word count, lexical density, and readability. Then in each groups,
sample was grouped by their perspective preference (see page 29). From the
assortments it’s drawn conclusion whether student with different literature product
preferences have different vocabulary achievement –in term of word count, lexical
density, and readability- which analyzed statistically.
Comparing the Data and Statistical Result
38
In comparing the data, the researcher grouped it into three subjects: song, movie, and
undecided (song/ movie). ANOVA is used to draw the final result and tested the
hypothesis.
Table below provides statistical analysis using ANOVA:
Table 6. Statistical Result of the Correlation between Literature Product and
Vocabulary Achievement in Writing
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
WORDC
LEXICALD
READABILITY
VOCABACH
Between Groups
df
Mean
Square
F
2.124
.140
5.737
.009
1.507
.240
1.316
.286
3572.660
2
1786.330
Within Groups
21868.582
26
841.099
Total
25441.241
28
Between Groups
752.027
2
376.013
Within Groups
1704.206
26
65.546
Total
2456.233
28
6.437
2
3.219
Within Groups
55.531
26
2.136
Total
61.968
28
Between Groups
Between Groups
.456
2
.228
Within Groups
4.509
26
.173
Total
4.966
28
Sig.
Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
N
WORDC
Mean
Std.
Lower
Deviation Std. Error Bound
Upper
Bound
Minimum Maximum
2.00
15 100.2000 32.49440
8.39002
82.2052 118.1948
59.00
178.00
3.00
11
83.7273 26.27581
7.92245
66.0749 101.3796
39.00
132.00
4.00
3
67.0000 9.53939
5.50757
43.3028
90.6972
58.00
77.00
Total
29
90.5172 30.14325
5.59746
79.0514 101.9831
39.00
178.00
39
LEXICALD
2.00
15
61.4656 8.49374
2.19308
56.7619
66.1692
48.11
74.58
3.00
11
67.9170 8.29327
2.50051
62.3455
73.4885
60.00
85.00
4.00
3
77.6633 1.79046
1.03372
73.2156
82.1111
75.76
79.31
Total
29
65.5883 9.36603
1.73923
62.0256
69.1509
48.11
85.00
READABILITY 2.00
15
4.4200 1.54698
.39943
3.5633
5.2767
3.10
9.20
3.00
11
5.1455 1.11925
.33747
4.3935
5.8974
3.90
8.10
4.00
3
5.8000 2.17945
1.25831
.3859
11.2141
4.30
8.30
Total
29
4.8379 1.48767
.27625
4.2721
5.4038
3.10
9.20
2.00
15
6.9333
.45774
.11819
6.6798
7.1868
6.00
8.00
3.00
11
7.0909
.30151
.09091
6.8884
7.2935
7.00
8.00
4.00
3
7.3333
.57735
.33333
5.8991
8.7676
7.00
8.00
Total
29
7.0345
.42112
.07820
6.8743
7.1947
6.00
8.00
VOCABACH
The researcher used statistical computerization SPSS 17.0 for Windows. Significance is
determined by p<0.05. ANOVA revealed that from three level dependent variables
compared with the independent variable, word count and readability showed
insignificancy; in the other hand, lexical density showed significance at level p<0.05
(p=0.009).
Statistical result ANOVA showed that samples literature preference affecting their
lexical density percentage. From mean comparisons, samples with movie preference
have the highest mean in lexical density and readability while samples with song have
the highest mean in word production. Other than that, samples with undecided
preference always placed 2nd highest mean. From statistical result ANOVA, only lexical
density showed significance. In case of word count, it correlated with samples
preference, but the significance is not high enough.
For detailed explanation, here is the result the post hoc tests from the data:
40
Table 7. Multiple Comparisons from the ANOVA Result
Multiple Comparisons
Scheffe
Dependent
Variable
WORDC
(I)
(J)
PREFERE PREFERE
NCER
NCER
2.00
3.00
4.00
LEXICALD
2.00
3.00
4.00
READABILITY 2.00
3.00
4.00
VOCABACH
2.00
3.00
4.00
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
3.00
16.47273
11.51247
.373 -13.4110
46.3565
4.00
33.20000
18.34229
.214 -14.4124
80.8124
2.00
-16.47273
11.51247
.373 -46.3565
13.4110
4.00
16.72727
18.88994
.680 -32.3067
65.7613
2.00
-33.20000
18.34229
.214 -80.8124
14.4124
3.00
-16.72727
18.88994
.680 -65.7613
32.3067
3.00
-6.45145
3.21380
.154 -14.7938
1.8908
4.00
*
5.12041
.015 -29.4892
-2.9064
2.00
6.45145
3.21380
.154
-1.8908
14.7938
4.00
-9.74633
5.27329
.201 -23.4346
3.9419
2.00
*
5.12041
.015
2.9064
29.4892
3.00
9.74633
5.27329
.201
-3.9419
23.4346
3.00
-.72545
.58013
.468
-2.2313
.7804
4.00
-1.38000
.92430
.343
-3.7793
1.0193
2.00
.72545
.58013
.468
-.7804
2.2313
4.00
-.65455
.95190
.791
-3.1254
1.8164
2.00
1.38000
.92430
.343
-1.0193
3.7793
3.00
.65455
.95190
.791
-1.8164
3.1254
3.00
-.15758
.16531
.640
-.5867
.2715
4.00
-.40000
.26338
.331
-1.0837
.2837
2.00
.15758
.16531
.640
-.2715
.5867
4.00
-.24242
.27125
.675
-.9465
.4617
2.00
.40000
.26338
.331
-.2837
1.0837
3.00
.24242
.27125
.675
-.4617
.9465
-16.19778
16.19778
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
41
Based from statistical results, the researcher assume that only the comparison in lexical
density can be taken; since ANOVA result showed lexical density is the only
achievement that has significance. In this case:
Graph 1. Means Plots of Word Count
Legend :
2.00 = song
3.00 = movie
4.00 = undecided
From the graph we can see that samples with song preference have the highest mean.
The gap mean between song and movie is so significant. Moreover in the first place, the
comparison between means of different sample preference is not significance (p>0.05,
p=140). Thus the means difference is not accepted: H12 is rejected and H02 is accepted.
42
Graph 2. Means Plots of Lexical Density
Legend :
2.00 = song
3.00 = movie
4.00 = undecided
From the graph we can see that samples with undecided preference have the highest
mean.. The comparison overall showed significance result (p<0.05, p=0.009). Thus the
means difference is accepted: H03 is rejected and H13 is accepted.
43
Graph 3. Means Plots of Readability
Legend :
2.00 = song
3.00 = movie
4.00 = undecided
From the graph we can see that samples with undecided preference have the highest
mean. The comparison of mean difference also didn’t showed significance (p>0.05,
p=0.240). Thus the means difference is accepted: H14 is rejected and H04 is accepted.
For hypothesis testing, ignoring mean plot of vocabulary achievement, one of the three
achievements showed significance. Thus, H11 is accepted; there is significant effect of
44
different literature product on students’ vocabulary achievement in specific achievement
which is lexical density.
Based on that, the researcher assumes samples with different literature preference have
different vocabulary achievement in lexical density in writing.
4. 2. Discussion
To begin the discussion, Lawal (2009) states that a strong relationship is exist between
literature and language. Proving Lawal’s words, the researcher found that a part of
literature has connection with student vocabulary in writing. There are some findings in
this research that the researcher have:
1. Preference didn’t affect students’ word count and readability
The significant point showed both word count and readability is not affected by
literature product preference. Through this study, literature doesn’t give significant
effect to word count and readability.
In word count case, it seemed literature doesn’t give great effect on word production.
From the observation the researcher did during the test, there were many expressions the
researcher saw from the samples; there was someone who looked confused when
writing the story; there was one who write in hurry; there was one who enjoy wrote the
story, and many more. The researcher believes students’ word production skill is depend
on subjective issue on the spot; such as motivation, creativity, and mood.
45
The test which was given is writing narrative text based on the picture. It is different
from writing report. While writing report text is decoding concrete data or fact to literal
form, writing narrative text story need something abstract like creativity and inspiration.
There is needed more developed instrument for further analysis.
In readability case, in the beginning of the research, the researcher believes that there is/
are some word(s) or line(s) from literature product which memorable to be remembered.
Actually, the researcher still believes about that thing.
The result showed no effect from the preference to student readability. The researcher
believes that: rather than that literature product preferences that not make students’
readability achievement greatly affected, it because the students themselves who didn’t
drilled or getting used to use the word(s) from the literature.
2. Literature preference product effected lexical density
From three vocabulary achievements, lexical density is the only one who has the
significant result. In previous explanation, readability, the researcher believes that there
is/ are some word(s) or line(s) from literature product which memorable to be
remembered. Thus the word(s) or line(s) is/ are engraved into person and indirectly
learn and master the word(s) or line(s).
This notion is based on Dixon-Krauss (2002) study. She discovered that in the
beginning students are reluctant to use the words from context of literature into their
writing. But in the end, the students commented that they felt successful using the
words correctly.
46
3. More literature product students’ prefer, better achievement they will have
Mean plots showed that samples with undecided preference have the highest mean and
followed by movie then song. Samples with dual preference, movie and song, have
better result than samples with single preference. Ikegulu (1989) observed that literature
provides an additional way in which learner of English as a second language (ESL) is
exposed to the elasticity of the language. The researcher sees it as: if literature provides
an additional way to learn English as second language, then the more student prefer
literature, in quantity, the wider way the student will have. Based on that, the researcher
assumes that the more literature product students prefer the better achievement they will
have.
4. Movie gives the best effect compared other achievements
If we see the result in different way, in single preference view, samples with movie
preference have the highest mean among other preferences. From that we can see that
movie affect samples’ vocabulary better in term of writing. Samples which have
undecided preference (didn’t prefer song or movie best) never have the lowest mean.
The researcher believes that this happen because while the samples preference is
between movie and song, the preference which gave the best effect to the achievement
gave a big part.
47
With ANOVA, then the researcher finds that only lexical density have significant
correlation. In other words, only lexical density which has high correlation with samples
different preference. Then the researcher assumed that only data from lexical density
achievement can be used due its significance.
The researcher conclude that the different preference of literature product only affect
students lexical density; and movie give the best effect out of the other two subjects.
The researcher believe that the reason why movie give better effect because it contain
two source of information for sample. While poetry gives visual information and song
gives audio information, movie gives both visual and audio which commonly called
audio-visual. Since movie give better quantity of information sources, samples have
better chance to grasp information.
Commonly movie contain subtitle within it. Subtitle gives information of dialogue
which spoken in the movie. Hence there is an elaboration information comprehension
between subtitle, picture, and audio when we watch a movie; all of it in one packaged.
The elaboration stimulates our brain harder and gives better result. It is in line with
Akbulut (2007) argument that combining text with visual is more effective in
facilitating vocabulary learning.
In 1950 Audio-Lingual method which is a method of teaching a second language has
emerged. Cited from paper research titled The Effect of Using Movies in Teaching
Vocabulary by Al-Sarhan (2013):
“Researchers and academics become more aware of letting students experience the subject
or at least to get them engaged in classrooms. Another way of teaching is by acting where
48
some students have to perform a certain play and the others watch. For example, by
watching a play, it is hard for students to forget the story of the play. Therefore it is hard for
them to forget some important key words that they have found in the context of the play.
…
Movies can be used to convey the word meaning through the context. The context is
important as a framework where meaning of words can be figured out. Trying to figure out
meaning of a word through movies is easier than trying to figure meaning out through
reading.”
Most of the researchers agree that vocabulary should not be presented in isolation and
should not be learned rote memorization. It is important that new vocabulary items be
presented in context rich enough to provide clue to meaning and that students be given
multiple exposure to items they should learn” (Celce-Murcia, 2001). Not only watching
movies but also playing the scene back by students is helpful.
Movies provide student with good context which make student realize meaning of
words easily and affectively. Sense relation “are extremely valuable, and can provide a
useful frame work for the learner to understand semantic boundaries” (Gairns and
Redman 1992).
To close the discussion: through the finding, the researcher has proven some theories of
connection between literature and language is true. Also, in this research, it found that a
specific literature (product) called movie have the highest correlation with student’s
vocabulary achievement in writing.