CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the findings of the data collection and analysis that are
going to be processed. It shows how data collection and analysis outcomes must be
discussed and synchronized with the research question before it can be concluded.
This research has two variables: the independent variable and the dependent
variable. The English Club program is independent, while students' speaking skills
are dependent. The pre-test and post-test were chosen as the primary assessments
for evaluating and quantifying the impact of the English Club Program on students'
speaking abilities.

A. FINDINGS
This section discusses the research results from the treatment and control class.
This study is divided into three main sections to answer these two questions. The
first is to figure out the speaking abilities of students who did not join the English
Club Program, the second is to identify the results of students' speaking abilities
resulting from their participation in the English Club Program; and the third is to
determine whether there is a significant difference between the speaking abilities of
students who participated and those who did not.

1. The result of students' speaking skills without using the English Club
Program
The findings of the research in the control class are discussed in this section.
This section describes how to assess students' speaking skills beforehand, the
stages of treatment, and how to find the results of speaking skills without
utilizing the English Club Program.

56
a. Control Class Description
The control class of this study was students of VIII D SMP Triyasa,
Bandung. The class consists of 29 students. It consists of 11 boys and 18 girls.
The meeting was conducted in two stages: pre-test and post-test. The meeting
is described in the table below:

Table 4.1: Research schedule of the control class

NO DATE THEME
1. August 25, 2023 Pre-test
2. October 06, 2023 Post-test

1) Implementing pre-test

Figure 4.1 Students make a task of pre-test.

Figure 4.2 After taking the pre-test.

On August 25, 2023, a control class of 29 students in class VIII D completed
the pretest to evaluate their proficiency in speaking by asking students to make
a conversation text and practice it. Afterward, students were required to give

57
spoken responses to questions. The pretest has a 45-minute time limit. The
following table shows the outcomes of the student pretest:
Table 4.2 Scores Pre-test of Control Class
Oral-English Rating Sheet
Score
No Student Final
Pronunciation Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Comprehension Total
1 Student 1 2 2 3 2 3 12
2 Student 2 3 2 3 3 3 14
3 Student 3 2 2 2 2 3
4 Student 4 1 1 2 2 3
5 Student 5 2 2 2 3 2
6 Student 6 1 2 2 1 3
7 Student 7 2 2 2 1
8 Student 8 1 2 3 2
9 Student 9 3 3 2 2
10 Student 10 1 2 2 2
11 Student 11 1 1 2 1
12 Student 12 1 2 2
13 Student 13 2 2 2
14 Student 14 2 2 2
15 Student 15 2 3 3
16 Student 16 2 2
17 Student 17 2 2
18 Student 18 2 2
19 Student 19 1
20 Student 20 1
21 Student 21 2
22 Student 22 2
23 Student 23 2
24 Student 24
25 Student 25
26 Student 26
27 Student
28 Stud
29 S

The pre-test for students who do not participate in the English Club Program
varies, as seen from the chart above. There were 2 students who got 56, 2
students who got 52, 4 students who got 48, 8 students who got 44, 5 students
who got 40, 7 students who got 36 and 1 student who got 32. That is why the
pre-test results from the control class were moderate. The pre-test control
class's overall score was 1244, with a mean of 42.89.
Following data collection, the data was processed using the SPSS version
to determine the pre-test's minimum score, mean score, and standard deviation
value with the number N (the sample size utilized), for 29 participants.

58
 2) Implementing Post-test

Figure 4.3 The Post-test of Control Class

On October 06, 2023, a control class of 29 students in class VIII D
completed the pretest to evaluate their proficiency in speaking by asking
students to make a descriptive text and presentation it. Afterward, students were
required to give spoken responses to questions. The post-test has a 45-minute
time limit. The following table shows the outcomes of the student post-test:

Table 4.3 Scores Post-test of Control Class

Oral-English Rating Sheet
Score
No Student Final Score
Pronunciation Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Comprehension Total
1 Student 1 3 2 3 2 3 13 52
2 Student 2 3 3 3 3 3 15 60
3 Student 3 2 2 3 3 3 13 52
4 Student 4 2 3 3 2 3 13 48
5 Student 5 3 3 3 3 3 15 60
6 Student 6 3 3 3 2 3 14 48
7 Student 7 2 3 3 2 3 13 48
8 Student 8 2 3 3 3 3 14 56
9 Student 9 3 3 3 3 3 15 60
10 Student 10 3 3 3 3 3 15 60
11 Student 11 2 3 3 2 3 13 48
12 Student 12 2 3 3 2 3 13 48
13 Student 13 3 3 3 3 3 15 60
14 Student 14 2 3 3 2 2 12 48
15 Student 15 3 3 3 3 3 15 60
16 Student 16 2 3 3 3 3 14 52
17 Student 17 2 3 3 3 3 14 56
18 Student 18 2 3 3 2 3 13 52
19 Student 19 2 3 3 3 3 14 56
20 Student 20 2 3 3 2 3 13 48
21 Student 21 2 3 3 3 3 14 48
22 Student 22 2 3 3 2 3 13 48
23 Student 23 2 3 3 3 3 14 56
24 Student 24 2 2 3 3 3 13 52
25 Student 25 2 3 2 3 3 13 52
26 Student 26 2 3 3 2 3 13 52
27 Student 27 2 3 3 2 3 13 52
28 Student 28 2 3 3 2 3 13 52
29 Student 29 3 3 3 3 3 15 56
Total 1540
Mean 53.10

59
 The post-test for students who do not participate in the English Club
Program varies, as seen from the chart above. There were 6 students who got
60, 5 students who got 56, 9 students who got 52, and 9 students who got 48.
That is why the post-test results from the control class were moderate. The post-
test control class's overall score was 1540, with a mean of 53.10.
Following data collection, the data was processed using the SPSS version to
determine the post-test's minimum score, mean score, and standard deviation
value with the number N (the sample size utilized), for 29 participants.

2. The result of students’ speaking skills using the English Club

Program
This section describes the research results in the treatment class. What is
described in this section is to determine students’ speaking skills pre-test, the
treatments, and post-test to find the result of speaking skills using the English Club
Program.
a. Treatment Class Description
The treatment class of this study is students of English Club members of SMP
Triyasa, Bandung. The class consists of 63 students, but the researcher uses 29
students from English Club members. The meeting was conducted in three
stages: pre-test, five treatments, and post-test. The meeting is described in the
table below:
Table 4.4 Research schedule of the Treatment class
NO DATE THEME
1. August 25, 2023 Pre-test
2. August 26, 2023 Treatment 1
3. September 2, 2023 Treatment 2
4. September 9, 2023 Treatment 3
5. September 16, 2023 Treatment 4
7 September 30, 2023 Treatment 5

60
1) Implementing pre-test

Figure 4.4 Students make a task of pre-test.

Figure 4.5 Assessing pre-test with tutor of English Club.

The pretest was given to 29 students in English Club members of the
treatment class to assess their speaking mastery by asking them to make and
practice a conversation text. Then, the researcher and tutor of the English
Club asked questions to answer orally. The pretest has a 45-minute time limit.
The following table shows the outcomes of the student pretest:
Table 4.5 Pre-test of Treatment Class.
Oral-English Rating Sheet
Score
No Student Final Score
Pronunciation Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Comprehension Total
1 Student 1 3 2 3 2 2 12 48
2 Student 2 2 2 3 2 2 11 44
3 Student 3 3 3 3 4 3 16 64
4 Student 4 4 3 3 3 3 16 64
5 Student 5 4 3 3 3 4 17 68
6 Student 6 3 2 3 3 3 14 56
7 Student 7 2 3 4 2 3 14 56
8 Student 8 3 3 4 3 3 16 64
9 Student 9 3 3 4 3 3 16 64
10 Student 10 3 2 2 3 3 13 52
11 Student 11 3 3 2 2 3 13 52
12 Student 12 2 3 4 3 3 15 60
13 Student 13 2 3 4 2 3 14 56
14 Student 14 3 3 3 3 3 15 60
15 Student 15 3 3 3 3 3 15 60
16 Student 16 2 3 3 2 3 13 52

61
 The pre-test results of students participating in the English Club Program
differed substantially, as shown in the table above. One student received a 76,
one received a 72, two received a 68, seven received a 64, seven received a
60, four received a 56, four received a 52, one received a 48, and two received
a 44. So, it may derive a moderate conclusion from the pre-test results of
the experimental class. It received a total score of 1716, with a mean of 59.31.
Following data collection, the data was processed using the SPSS version to
determine the pre-test's minimum score, mean score, and standard deviation
value with the number N (the sample size utilized) for 29 participants.

2) Implementing of Treatments
The researcher using curriculum merdeka which mixed with English club
program (lesson plan) while conducting the material.

Figure 4.6 First Treatment

62
 The first treatment was given on August 26, 2023. The meeting's subject
was "Personal Information." Each units have six sections; for the first session
is warmer up activity. In this session, students should memorize 10 to 20
vocabulary words before the material was distributed. Anyhow, students are
given a 15-minute to memorize before transferring their vocabulary to a
teacher or tutor. In addition to providing memorization, researchers also
corrected several students' pronunciation errors and had them repeat to
enhance students' fluency and pronunciation skills.

For the second session, students are introduced to the topic of "Personal
Information" by the instructor and researcher based on the module used by
the English Club Program. The discussion will focus on the linguistic aspects
of questions and answers, along with the need of accurately conveying
information in writing. Also, the researcher gave students assignments to
observe, read, and respond to questions on the subject.

For the third session, the researcher given feedback to the activity. The
researcher asking students to identify sentences in the text and evaluate their
vocabulary comprehension level. Students can inquire and respond to basic
inquiries about their personal information. The second and third units have
been specifically built to accommodate a 60-minute session of the English
Club.

The next activity takes place during the fourth session. The researcher and
tutors provide a final evaluation of any pronunciation faults or errors
connected to the subject of the day's meeting. For example, in words nephew
(/ˈnefyo͞ o/) and refrigerator (rɪˈfrɪʤəreɪtə) using the International Phonetic
Alphabet (IPA) system to give more detailed information for students.

For the fifth and sixth session, researchers give students sharing session.
Thus, researcher encourage and advise students, so they are more excited and
don't worry about using English incorrectly when speaking, discussing, or
asking questions.

63
 Figure 4.7 Second Treatment

On September 2, 2023, the second treatment was given. The "Learning by

Doing Games" exercise was given during this meeting by the tutor and
researchers. There are two separate activities in this time's play-while-
learning method. In the first activity, pairs of students are given a set of
random letters and instructed to arrange them into words or sentences within
ten seconds. This game is comparable to Scrabble, which is known to help
pupils develop their vocabulary and strategic thinking abilities. The team with
the most words at the end of the game is selected to compete in the final round
of competition.

In the second activity, the class is split up into six groups of eight students
each. The students are then required to guess a word, name each letter in a
systematic way, or spell words after the tutor and researcher have given them
the word. Examples are the phrases "Mobile," "M-o-b-i-l-e," and "Drew,"
which is the second verb in the sentence "Draw," which is misleading many
students. This game can help students focus while also enhancing their
speaking, listening, and vocabulary. At the end, the winner of each game has
the option to select a random envelope containing a reward.

Figure 4.8 Third Treatment

64
 The third treatment was given on September 9, 2023. In this session, the
researcher focuses on deepening vocabulary material. The researcher used the
"Shadowing Technique", also known as the "Listen and Repeat Technique."
Using Yamada's (2018) opinion, shadowing was then employed for listening
and speaking practice in teaching because shadowing requires listening to and
verbally repeating the input.

Therefore, when repeating a word mindfully, you can concentrate on the

following to ensure proper pronunciation (Weiler, 2016):

1. How a word is pronounced.

2. Which area of the mouth does a sound appear to be in when you

pronounce a word?

3. How the various sound components (vowels, consonants, tone) that make
up that phrase change as your mouth shape does.

4. How does the term sound to you when you speak it?

5. How does the word compare to what you hear other people say? Words
that may sound similar or have comparable meanings.

This time, researchers implemented Weiler's (2016) methods into the

treatment materials. For the first session, students are given between 15 and
20 minutes to memorize at least 10 to 20 words. When they are ready, the
researcher asks the vocabulary in English, and the students respond with the
meaning. Following the completion of the vocabulary memorization,
researchers provided several questions and instances of vocabulary equations
with corresponding pronunciations. For instance, the words "bedroom" and
"bathroom" frequently have their pronunciations switched over or even
mispronounced. In line with a study at the University of Maryland in the USA
(Weiler 2016), for the infant to adapt to hearing the word in numerous
contexts, it is more efficient for a mother to repeat the word in several types
of sentences. This theory can be used in a broader context, such as learning

65
to listen and speak to students, so the researcher decided to use it to convey
the material effectively.

In addition, researchers freed students asking about their difficulties in

vocabulary and pronunciation. During the evaluation phase, the researcher
explains how to pronounce words correctly and how to use them in a sentence.
Students then follow along using the listen-and-repeat technique. Thus,
Weiler (2016) argues that our practice or memory will improve just by
repetition.

By helping students identify phonetic letters, the strategies and exercises

used above provide stimulus and help students improve their vocabulary,
pronunciation, and fluency. Additionally, it can be concluded that the result
of this method makes students eagerly follow the researcher's instructions, are
not afraid of asking questions, and respond to something well.

Figure 4.9 Fourth Treatment

The fourth treatment was given on September 16, 2023. In this session, the
researcher gives conjunction material. Initially, the researcher and tutor
explain the conjunction, the type of conjunction and the conjunction letters
used in sentences. Furthermore, students are given an example of the use of
conjunction in sentences. In the final stage of the evaluation, students are
asked to make complete sentences consisting of positive, negative, and
interrogative sentences using conjunction as many as five sentences in each
type.

66
 Following completing the task and the evaluation, the researcher makes time
available for sharing sessions regarding the material and meetings today. In
addition, researchers offer comments regarding faults or challenges students
encounter while learning. Due to this approach, students may become open-
minded and more easily able to share their viewpoints, after which they may
work together to discover solutions to their problems.

Figure 4.10 Fifth Treatment.

The fifth treatment was given on September 30, 2023. In this session, the
researcher discusses post-test preparation. The subject presented is
descriptive text; students receive instruction on descriptive text, sentence
structure, and descriptive text patterns. For example, using adjectives in
describing people and how to describe someone.

In addition, researchers trained students' speaking skills by having them

read a text. After reading the text, the researcher corrected students'
pronunciation errors, had them practise intonation, and provided suggestions
on pronouncing complex vocabulary so that the students could become
familiar with pronouncing it. This simple approach appears to have a
significant impact on their communication skills.

This meeting is anticipated to provide an overview in preparation for the

post-test so that participants become familiar with proper pronunciation and
sentence construction. At the end of the meeting, the researcher allocated 10
minutes to discuss their obstacles and encouraged them to speak up
confidently.

67
3) Implementing of post-test

Figure 4.11 students make a descriptive text of Post-test.

The post-test was given to 29 students in the treatment class to assess their
speaking mastery by asking them to make and present a descriptive text.
Then, the researcher and tutor of the English Club asked questions to answer
orally. The post-test has a 60-minute time limit. The following table shows
the outcomes of the student post-test:

Table 4.6 Scores Post-test of Treatment Class.

Oral-English Rating Sheet

Score
No Student Final Score
Pronunciation Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Comprehension Total
1 Student 1 3 3 4 3 4 17 68
2 Student 2 3 3 3 4 3 16 64
3 Student 3 4 3 3 3 4 17 68
4 Student 4 4 4 4 4 4 20 80
5 Student 5 4 4 4 4 5 21 84
6 Student 6 3 4 4 3 4 18 72
7 Student 7 3 4 4 3 4 18 72
8 Student 8 3 3 4 4 4 18 72
9 Student 9 4 3 4 4 5 20 80
10 Student 10 3 4 4 3 4 18 72
11 Student 11 4 3 4 3 4 18 72
12 Student 12 3 4 4 3 4 18 72
13 Student 13 3 3 4 4 3 17 68
14 Student 14 3 3 4 3 4 17 68
15 Student 15 3 3 3 3 4 16 64
16 Student 16 3 3 4 3 4 17 68
17 Student 17 3 3 4 3 4 17 68
18 Student 18 4 3 3 4 5 19 76
19 Student 19 4 4 4 4 4 20 80
20 Student 20 4 4 5 4 4 21 84
21 Student 21 3 3 4 3 4 17 68
22 Student 22 4 4 5 4 4 21 84
23 Student 23 4 3 4 4 4 19 76
24 Student 24 4 4 4 4 4 20 80
25 Student 25 4 4 5 4 5 22 88
26 Student 26 4 4 4 4 5 21 84
27 Student 27 3 4 4 3 4 18 72
28 Student 28 4 3 4 4 4 19 76
29 Student 29 4 5 5 4 5 23 92
Total 2172
Mean 74.89

68
 The post-test results of students participating in the English Club Program
differed substantially, as shown in the table above. One student received a 92,
one student received an 88, four students received an 84, four students
received an 80, two received a 76, eleven received a 68, six received a 64. So,
it may derive a moderate conclusion from the pre-test results of the treatment
class. It received a total score of 2172, with a mean of 74.89.
Following data collection, the data was processed using the SPSS version to
determine the pre-test's minimum score, mean score, and standard deviation
value with the number N (the sample size utilized) for 29 participants.

3. The Significances Differences between students using the English

Club Program and those who do not.
In this section, will review the results of research question number two's
response to identify the differences between students in the treatment class and
those in the control class. The t-test is employed in this data analysis technique to
test for normality, hypothesis, and N-gain values. All analytical data will be detailed
in the table that is provided below:

B. The Result of Research Analysis

1. Descriptive Statistic Test
It is necessary to conduct descriptive statistical measurements of this variable to
gain a general understanding of the data, including the Mean value, Maximum
Scores, Minimum Scores, and Standard Deviation for each variable, namely Pre-
test and Post-test data for the Treatment Class and Control Class. Regarding the
research Descriptive Statistics Test results, the following table 4.7 provides details:

69
 Table 4.7 The Minimum Score, Maximum Score, Mean
and Standard Deviation

Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Pre 29 44 76 59.31 7.565
Treatment
Post 29 64 92 74.90 7.399
Treatment
Pre-Control 29 32 56 42.90 6.315
Post-Control 29 48 60 53.10 4.523
Valid N 29
(listwise)

Table 4.16 shows that the maximum score for pre-test data in the treatment group
is 60, the minimum score is 40, and the mean score for the treatment class pre-test
is 49.10. The standard deviation of the pre-test data for the treatment class is 6.565.
In addition, the maximum score on the post-test for the treatment group is 92, the
minimal score is 64, and the average score on the post-test for the treatment class is
74.90. The treatment class's pre-deployment class standard deviation is 7,399.
In addition, the maximum score of pre-test data for the control group is 56, the
minimum score is 32, and the average score on the pre-test for the control group is
42.90. The standard deviation of the pre-test data for the control class is 6,315. The
maximum score on the post-test for the control group was 60, the minimum score
was 48, and the average score on the pre-test for the control group was 53.10. Then,
the Standard Deviation of the pre-test data for the control group was 4.523.

2. Testing for Normality

A normality test is performed to determine whether the data fits into the
distribution. The researcher used the SPSS program version 25 with Kolmogorov-

70
Smirnov to analyse the normality in this study. The data has a normal distribution
if the significant value of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is more than 0.05. If the
significance level of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is less than 0.05, the data are
not normally distributed. The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality
are as follows:

a. Analysis normality of pre-test

Table 4.8 Normality of two classes pre-test
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statisti Statisti
c df Sig. c df Sig.
Pretest- .157 29 .066 .964 29 .400
Treatment
Pretest-Control .155 29 .074 .934 29 .072
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Based on the calculation of SPSS version 25 above, it shown that Sig. of

treatment class is 0.066>0.05 and Sig. of control class is 0.074>0.05. Thus, the
pre-test data of the control and treatment class is normality distributed.

b. Analysis normality of post-test

Table 4.9 Normality of two classes post-test
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statisti
Statistic df Sig. c df Sig.
Post test- .204 29 .003 .929 29 .053
Treatment
Post test- .217 29 .001 .845 29 .001
Control
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

71
 Based on the calculation of SPSS version 25 above, it shown that Sig. of
treatment class is 0.003<0.05 and Sig. of control class is 0.001<0.05. Thus, the
post-test data of the control and treatment class is not normality distributed.
Thus, the researcher continues with Mann Whitney’s test to transformation
outlier data and find out the result of learning two classes.

c. Mann Whitney
When normality is unmet, the Mann–Whitney U test is a non-parametric
alternative to the independent T-test. The Mann–Whitney U test compares two
unpaired samples and determines their mean. This study's hypothesis is Ha =
there are differences in the learning outcomes of the treatment and control
groups. Decisions in the Mann Whitney are based on the following:
• Ha = acceptable if the 2-tailed p-value is less than 0.05.
• Ha = rejected if the 2-tailed p-value is higher than 0.05.
Table 4.10 Mann Whitney test result
Test Statisticsa
Hasil
Mann-Whitney U .000
Wilcoxon W 435.000
Z -6.583
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Grouping Variable: Class

Based on the data above, Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) in Mann Whitney test is
0.000<0.05 so, Ha accepted, and Ho rejected. It means that there is difference in
learning outcomes between treatment and control class. Therefore, the researcher
will continue process to normality test of treatment and control class by using
one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov.

72
 Table 4.11 Normality test of Control and Treatment Class
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Unstandardiz
ed Residual
N 29
Normal Parametersa,b Mean .0000000
Std. .22402976
Deviation
Most Extreme Absolute .132
Differences Positive .132
Negative -.109
Test Statistic .132
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .200c, d
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
c. Lilliefors Significance Correction.
d. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

Based on the calculation of SPSS version 25 above, the test used a one-
sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. It can be seen from the value Sig. (2-tailed)
that is higher than α (0.200>0.05). The data of the control and treatment groups
is normally distributed. As a result, if the above data significance result fits the
homogeneity assumptions, the researcher continues the homogeneity test to
determine whether the variance is homogeneous. In addition, the independent
sample t-test test analysis requires homogeneity testing (Widiyanto 2010:51).

73
 3. Homogeneity
The Homogeneity Test determines whether multiple population variants are
equal. This test was performed to fulfil the independent sample t-test
requirements and ANOVA analysis. In addition, the Homogeneity test
demonstrates that the differences observed in parametric statistical tests (such as
the T Test and ANOVA) are due to differences between groups, not because of
differences within groups. Rosmiati's (2019) decision-making basis in the
Homogeneity test:
- If the value is not significant or Sig. <0.05, then the variance of two or more
data population categories is not identical (heterogeneous).
- If Sig.>0.05, then the variance of two or more data population groups is
identical (homogeneous).
Table 4.12 Result of Homogeneity Test
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Hasil Based on Mean .802 1 56 .374
Based on Median .542 1 56 .465
Based on Median and .542 1 53.473 .465
with adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean .800 1 56 .375

Based on the data above, the result of significance variances showed

0.374>0.05. It means that the post-test variance data in the treatment and control
class are homogeneous.

4. ANOVA Test
Sawyer (2009) described that ANOVA, or analysis of variance, is a
statistical test used to identify variations in group averages when there is a single
parametric dependent variable and one or more independent variables. Before
carrying out the test, the researcher will explain the ANOVA test criteria as
below:
- Sig. value (P Value) < 0.05 means there is a significant difference between
the two groups.

74
 - Sig. value (P Value) > 0.05 means there is no significant difference
between the two groups.

Table 4.13 Result of ANOVA Test

ANOVA
Hasil
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 6886.621 1 6886.621 183.174 .000
Within Groups 2105.379 56 37.596
Total 8992.000 57

Table 4.22 presents the Sig value between the two groups, which is 0.000
and less than 0.05. Based on this value, it can be inferred that there are significant
differences between the analyzed groups.

5. T Test
After conducting tests for normality and homogeneity, the researcher tested
the hypothesis. Researcher analyzed the data using the independent sample t-
test. This test, as defined by Nuryadi, Astuti, Utami, and Budiantara (2017), is
used to ascertain the difference between the means of two independent
populations/data sets. In the opinion of Nuryadi et al. (2017), the requirements
for an independent T-test are as follows:
a. The data must be normally distributed.
b. The two data categories are independent.
c. The linked variables are quantitative and categorical (with only two
categories).

The decision criteria for the sample T-test are as follows:

• If the 2-tailed significance value is higher than 0.05, H0 is accepted, and
Ha is rejected. It indicates no difference in the mean between the treatment
and control classes.

75
 • If the 2-tailed significance value is less than 0.05, H0 is rejected, and Ha
is accepted. It indicates a difference between the treatment and control
classes' means.

Table 4.14 The Result of Independent T Test

Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Eq

F Sig. t df

Result EVA 8.363 .005 -1

EVNA

*EVA = Equal Varian Assumed

*EVNA = Equal Varian Not Assumed

The T-test data above show that the mean difference in students' speaking
skills scores between the treatment and control classes is -21.793. Standard
error = 1,610. Lower and upper confidence intervals refer to the 95% confidence
level. T value is determined by T-test = Degree of freedom (df) = 56 (db - 2: 56
- 2 = 54). Score significance (two-tailed) = 0.000.
The following columns to evaluate are the Lavene's Test and its relevance,
as well as the t-value and significance. Levene's Test is a statistical technique
used to examine the equality of variance between two treatment class and a
control class. The Sig. value for Levene's Test is 0.005<0.05, indicating that
Levene's Test value is significant. In other words, the two groups have different
variances.
Next, based on Nuryadi et al. (2017) explanation, because Levene's Test
value is significant, examine the t-value in the second row (equal variance is not
assumed). The SPSS output displayed above indicates that the t-value is -13.534
with Sig. 0.000, indicating that the t-value is statistically significant (p =
0.000<0.005).

76
 This basic assumption leads us to the conclusion that:
Ha: There is a significant difference in the speaking skills of students taught
using the English club program.
H0: There is no significant difference in the speaking skills of students
taught using the English club program.
The 2-way significance value (t-tailed) is 0.000 < 0.05. So, there is a
significant difference in score points between the control and treatment class.
Based on the descriptive value, it is proven that the treatment group with the
English Club program received a higher score. Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume that the English club program improves students' speaking skills.

B. Discussion
We already knew that one of SMP Triyasa's extracurriculars was an English
club, and the findings confirmed that participation in the club had a significant
positive effect on students' ability in the English language. In this section, the
researcher will discuss the main point of the research findings about the impact
of the English club program on increasing students' speaking skills among the
eight-grade students of SMP Triyasa Bandung. This research has three essential
questions of study:
1. The students’ speaking skills before using English club program.
The first discussion focuses on the pre-test. During the pre-test, the students
had difficulty creating the text because they were initially unsure what ideas or
arguments to include regarding the topic. Researchers found several pre-test text
findings in the control class that did not match the requirements, either
grammatically or in terms of topic interest. It relates to the classroom learning
process and demonstrates the significance of the teaching method.
The provided form of the pre-test is an instruction to create a conversation
text and practice it with a partner. After they contributed, the researcher
discovered several students' difficulties when practicing for the speaking test.
Consequently, some students lack the confidence to speak English. Several
obstacles were also identified about the pronunciation of foreign words or

77
vocabulary. Meanwhile, if they comprehend the meaning of a term, they will
acquire knowledge or information. In the view of (Brown, 1994; Burns & Joyce,
1997), speaking is an interactive process of meaning construction that involves
information production, reception, and processing. However, some students did
not receive any information on the pre-test because they lacked comprehension
of the material presented. As a result of discovering many obstacles to learning
in the control group, the researcher provided several corrections and motivation
to the students in the treatment group so that they would be enthusiastic about
learning English.
The results and statistics show that the students in the control group
improved their speaking skills by 10.21 points, with a mean pre-test score of
42.89 and a mean post-test score of 53.10.

2. The students’ speaking skills after using English club program.

The second discussion focuses on the treatment procedure. The researcher
only administered treatments to the treatment class. In the treatment class, the
researcher provided treatments using the choice method from the English club's
module and lesson plan. The researcher has not observed a significant
improvement in students' abilities after the first treatment. However, after the
second and third treatments, the students' speaking skills began to appear. When
the researcher asks questions, the participants feel more comfortable answering
and expressing their thoughts. Even when the researcher points out that they have
made mistakes in their pronunciation or grasp of the content, the participants
have no trouble following along and eventually doing it correctly. In this case,
the researchers correct the incorrect vocabulary pronunciation, so they follow
and use it.
In the same way, the fourth and fifth treatments increased students' interest
in learning the provided content. They are no longer shy about expressing their
thoughts and concerns. Their pronunciation and fluency also increase due to
assignments and practice materials. Using the method in the English club's
program is anticipated.

78
 After five treatment sessions, the process of teaching speaking skills using
the English club program had a positive effect on the treatment class's speaking
skills. In keeping with the findings and data analysis, the mean pre-test score is
59.31, and the mean post-test score is 74.89. After using the English club
program, their speaking skills improved.

3. The significant difference between students’ speaking skills before

and after using English club program.
The research findings and statistical data analysis aim to answer the last
research question: the difference in English-speaking skills between the class
joining the English club and those without one. Based on the data, the pre-test
score of the treatment class is 49.10, and the post-test score is 74.89. Students in
the treatment class have developed points in their speaking skills while learning
the English club program. Meanwhile, the pre-test score of the control class is
42.89, and the post-test of the control class is 53.10. It means that both classes
are increased, but the significance in the treatment group is higher than in the
control class.
This research was carried out to determine whether there is a significant
difference between students’ speaking skills before and after using the English
club program. The treatment class applied treatments. Meanwhile, in the control
class, treatments are not applied treatments. The statistical calculation of the
post-test showed that using the English club program effectively improved
students’ speaking skills. The result of the analysis independent t-test proved
this.

79
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

After conducting the research, calculating the series data, and analyzing it,
the researcher would like to conclude the data analysis that has been discussed
before. Besides, the researcher tried to give some suggestion related to the result of
data analysis that might be useful for the teacher, the students, and the school. The
goal of this study was to identify the impact of the English club program on
increasing students’ speaking skills.

A. Conclusion
The impact of the English club program on students' speaking abilities after
participation has been thoroughly investigated in this study. As a result of what was
discovered in Chapter 4, the researcher concluded that the English club program
significantly impacted increasing students' speaking skills at SMP Triyasa. Students
at SMP Triyasa may benefit from the English club program to enhance their
speaking abilities in the language. Several factors influenced the results of this
study, including the methodology employed in the English club program, their
proficiency in vocabulary, and tutor’s instructional approach and materials.

The outcome of the treatment class that using English club program revealed that
10 students showed an excellent level of speaking competence, 2 students
performed at a good level, and 17 students exhibited a moderate level of
proficiency. Out of the five components of speaking, comprehension, and
vocabulary have the highest score, while pronunciation has the lowest score. Based
on the statistics, the researcher concluded that students' speaking skill generally
falls within a moderate level. Most students had intermediate speaking skills, with
only ten achieving the highest scores among all. Out of the total of 29 students, just
10 students possess proficient speaking skills. The instrument of the speaking class
was a material from English book, and then students were asked to make a text and
practice it with their ideas and words. It showed a lot of students have high
vocabulary mastery.

80