Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

Improving EL 4 Students Mastery of Parts of Speech by Modifying Song Lyrics into Their Own Versions Parawati Siti Sondari LB LIA BUAH BATU ABSTRACT This research was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of song lyrics to improve the EL 4 students mastery of parts of speech. This research used pre-experimental design, the intact group design, as the students were placed in classes on the basis of placement test (Hatch and Farhady, 1982) and compared two groups; experimental (my EL 4 students who modified the song lyrics into their own versions) and control group (another EL 4 class that didnt use any songs). The data were gained from pre-test and post-test. Prior to starting the treatment, a test was prepared as the pre-test and post-test. The test consisted of 16 multiple-choice items of 4 parts of speech (nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs) presented in a text in order to provide context. After some treatments the result showed that the experimental group had better progress than the control group. Hence, it was concluded that the contribution of song lyrics in teaching parts of speech to elementary 4 students led to a higher level of parts of speech mastery improvement. BACKGROUND The most difficult part of utilizing lexicon is in terms of form and function. Especially to the elementary students as they discovered that knowing the meaning of the lexicon is clearly insufficient. As teachers, we need to demonstrate that there is some order and coherence in lexicalization (Quirk and Stein, 1990). Thus, teacher must come up with the suitable means to teach the lexical items which meet the prerequisite for learning grammar as proposed by Thornbury (1999); attention, understanding, memory, and motivation. One of the means that meet such prerequisites is song lyrics.

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

Songs have good reputation as an effective teaching material. Lynch (2002) remarks, songs are usually directed to the native-speaking population so they usually contain contemporary vocabulary, idioms and expressions. Baoan (2008) also states, Songs not only can motivate students but also contain rich linguistic information, including pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, rhetoric and language sense. According to Lynch (2005), EFL, English as a foreign language, ESL, English as a Second language and foreign language teachers should all consider using songs as a regular part of their classroom activities. Teachers need to come up with various methods in teaching, and songs have so much to offer to be utilized in the classroom. RESEARCH QUESTIONS In this research, the following questions are posed: 1. Are song lyrics effective to improve EL 4 students mastery of parts of speech? 2. Which parts of speech improves the most? ASSUMPTIONS AND HYPOTHESIS A. Assumptions 1. The test used as the pre-test and post-test is considered suitable to measure EL 4 students mastery of parts of speech. 2. The experimental group and the control group are considered having relatively similar ability in their mastery of parts of speech prior to the treatment. B. Hypothesis There are significant differences between the experimental group and the control group METHODOLOGY/PROCEDURE This research is aimed to investigate the effectiveness of song lyrics in improving EL 4 students mastery of parts of speech. It is also aimed to find out which parts of speech improve significantly after the song lyrics are given. The parts of speech are limited only to four parts of speech, namely noun, adjective, verb, and adverb in accordance with EL 4 grammar focus on lessons 7, 9, and 11.

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

A. Research Method The method of this research is pre-experimental study, the intact group design (Hatch and Farhady, 1982). The formula is:
G1 (Experimental group) G2 (Control group) X (Treatment) T2 (Post-test) T2 (Post-test)

Pre-test (attached on the appendix) was administered to both groups before the treatment in order to know the students schemata on parts of speech (on August 23rd for the experimental group and the 26th for the control group). The experimental group, consisting of 16 students, was given treatment, which is the song lyrics, and post-test (on September 13th). The control group, which consists of 25 students, only got post-test (on September 9th) without treatment. According to Sujana (1989), the comparing test of mean between experimental and control group, which is calculated by using statistical analysis (t-test) where the level of significance () is 0.05, requires the investigation on the normal distribution assumption in order to justify that the changes occurred are caused by the treatment. Homogeneity of variances also needs to be calculated by using One-Way ANOVA in order to prove whether both groups means population is homogenous or not. Conclusion was finally drawn based on this t-test by comparing the improvements of both groups. B. The Song Lyrics as the Treatment The song lyrics utilized were taken from www.azlyrics.com. There song lyrics were Nothing Really Matters by Madonna, My Heart Will Go On by Celine Dion, I Have A Dream by Westlife, Im Like A Bird by Nelly Furtado (the sample of songs were attached on the appendix). These songs were given some blanks on particular parts that enable the students to change the original message of the songs, the titles were changed and the context of the songs was also subjected to change. C. Procedures or Techniques of Teaching Parts of Speech by Using Song Lyrics

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

The followings are the techniques in using the song lyrics to teach parts of speech.
The first treatment on Saturday, August 30th Pre-writing activity Analyze the parts of speech in a song entitled Bad Actress by Def leppard (attached on the appendix) while listening to the song. Fill out the derivational chart of those words. Discuss the analysis result. Whilst-writing activity Analyze the original song Nothing Really Matters in pairs. Fill out the blanks on the song while listening to the song in pairs. Post-writing activity Give feed back and correction to the modified lyrics. The third treatment on Saturday, September 6th Pre-writing activity Listen to the song My Heart Will Go On and fill out the blanks. Analyze the parts of speech of the words in the blanks. Fill out the derivational chart of those words. Discuss the analysis result. Whilst-writing activity Analyze the original song I Have A Dream in pairs. Fill out the blanks on the song while listening to the song in pairs. Post-writing activity Give feed back and correction to the modified lyrics. Ask the students to read aloud their modified songs. The second treatment on Saturday, August 30th Pre-writing activity Listen to the song Nothing Really Matters and fill out the blanks. Analyze the parts of speech of the words in the blanks. Fill out the derivational chart of those words. Discuss the analysis result. Whilst-writing activity Analyze the original song My Heart Will Go On individually. Fill up the blanks on the song while listening to the song. Post-writing activity Give feed back and correction to the modified lyrics. The fourth treatment on Saturday, September 6th Pre-writing activity Listen to the song I Have A Dream and fill out the blanks. Analyze the parts of speech of the words in the blanks. Fill out the derivational chart of those words. Discuss the analysis result. Whilst-writing activity Analyze the original song Im Like A Bird individually. Fill up the blanks on the song while listening to the song. Post-writing activity Give feed back and correction to the modified lyrics.

RESULT OF THE STUDY In testing the hypothesis, several steps need to be undertaken. The first is to figure out the normality of distribution of the data, the second is to find out the homogeneity of variances and the last one is the t-test. These steps are inferential statistics which is intended to prove 4

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

the hypothesis. Due to the limitation of the number of pages, the detailed steps are attached on the appendix. A. Control Group A. 1. The Experimental Group and Control Group Pre-test The normality distributions of the pre-test results of the two groups were calculated using Kolgomorov-Smirnov on SPSS program. The pre-test results of both groups, as shown on table 1, are normally distributed as the value of probability is more than the alpha level 0.05.
Table 1. The Normality Distribution of Pre-test Scores Group P-Level Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Data Distribution Experimental 0.05 0.627 Normal Control 0.930

The Pre-test and Post-Test between The Experimental and The

The homogeneity of variances of the pre-test scores were calculated by using One-Way ANOVA and Ho (the scores of both groups have the same variances) was used.
Table 2. The Homogeneity of Variances of Pre-test Scores Source DF SS MS F ratio Fcritical Between Groups 1 6.244 6.244 1.230 4.08 Within Groups 39 198.000 5.077

The table showed that the variance is homogenous, as F ratio is less that F critical (1.230 < 4.08), see the appendix for the calculation. After finding the homogeneity of variances, let us compare the mean difference between the experimental and the control group. Independent T-Test was used to compare both means and the result showed that the probability is greater than the alpha level (0.274 and 0.235); it means that the Ho (there is no significant difference between both groups) is accepted that both groups are considered equal. Even though the control group achieved higher mean scores with 8.80 than the experimental group with 8.00, yet it is not considered significantly different.

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

Table 3. Experimental and control group pre-test result

Group Statistics VAR00001 1,00 2,00 N 16 25 Mean 8,00 8,80 Std. Deviation 1,713 2,533 Std. Error Mean ,428 ,507

pretest result

In d epen d en t S am ples Tes t Le v e n e 's Te s t fo r E q u a lity o f Va ria n c e s t-te s t fo r E q u a lity o f M e a n s 9 5 % C o n fid e n c e In te rv a l o f th e D iffe re n c e Lo w e r Up p e r -2,25 9 -2,1 4 2 ,6 5 9 ,5 4 2

F p re te st re s u lt E q u a l v a ria n c e s assumed E q u a l v a ria n c e s not assumed 3,5 5 6

S ig . ,0 6 7

t -1 ,1 0 9 -1 ,20 6

df 39 38 ,8 31

Mean S td . E rro r S ig . (2-ta ile d ) D iffe re n c e D iffe re n c e ,27 4 ,235 -,8 0 -,8 0 ,7 21 ,6 6 3

A. 2. The Experimental Group and Control Group Post-test The post-test was administered in order to measure the improvement the students have made. The analysis steps are similar to those of pre-test. Firstly, the normal distribution needs to be calculated. And the result was, as shown on table 4; both groups scores have normal distribution as the probability value is more than the alpha level (0.05).
Table 4. The Normality Distribution of Post-test Scores Group P-Level Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Data Distribution Experimental 0.05 0.404 Normal Control 0.344

Homogeneity of variances of both groups post-test scores were calculated and the result showed that F ratio is less than F critical (0.892 < 4.08). It means that the variance of the scores is homogenous (see appendix for further details).
Table 5. The homogeneity of Variances of Post-test Scores Source DF SS MS F ratio Fcritical Between Groups 1 2.319 2.319 0.733 4.08 Within Groups 39 123.438 3.165

In order to find out the difference between the experimental and the control group, the independent t-test was used. The results are:
Table 6. Experimental and control group post-test result

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

Group Statistics GROUP experimental control N 16 25 Mean 9,31 9,80 Std. Deviation 1,662 1,848 Std. Error Mean ,416 ,370

POSTTEST

In d epen d en t S am ples Test Le vene 's Test fo r Eq ua lity of Varian ces t-test fo r Eq ua lity of Me an s 9 5% Co nfide nce In terva l o f the Diffe re nce Lo wer Upp er -1,64 0 -1,61 7 ,6 65 ,64 2

F PO STTEST Eq ual varian ce s a ssu med Eq ual varian ce s n ot assumed ,281

Sig . ,599

t -,856 -,877

df 39 34 ,597

Mea n Std . Error Sig. (2-ta iled ) Diffe rence Diffe re nce ,39 7 ,38 7 -,4 9 -,4 9 ,57 0 ,55 6

The result above showed that the probability values are more than the alpha level (0.397 and 0.387 > 0.05). It shows that there is still no difference between both groups. However, this result does not indicate that the treatment utterly fails. In order to see the effect of the treatment clearly, a comparison between the pre-test and post-test scores of each group need to be conducted. B. Comparing the Experimental and Control Group Means

B. 1. The Experimental Group Means The pre-test and the post-test results of the experimental group are compared in order to see the effect of the treatment towards parts of speech mastery.
Table 7. Experimental Group Means Scores Group N Means Pre-test Post-test Experimental Group 16 8.00 9.31

Based on the table above, we can see that there is a significant difference between the two means scores, which indicates that the treatment works. In order to see whether the increase of the mean scores is significant or not, paired t-test was conducted.
Table 8. The Paired T-test of the Experimental Group

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

Paired Samples Statistics Mean 8,0000 9,3125 N 16 16 Std. Deviation 1,71270 1,66208 Std. Error Mean ,42817 ,41552

Pair 1

before treatment after treatment

Paired Samples Correlations N Pair 1 before treatment & after treatment 16 Correlation ,047 Sig. ,863

P aired S am ples Tes t Pa ire d Diffe re n ce s 9 5 % C o n fid e n ce In te rva l o f th e D iffe re n ce Lo w e r Up p e r -2,5 5 4 1 -,0 7 0 9

Me a n Pa ir 1 b e fo re tre a tme n t -1 ,31 25 - a fte r tre a tme n t

Std . De via tio n 2,330 0 6

Std . Erro r Me a n ,5 8 25 1

t -2,25 3

df 15

Sig . (2-ta ile d ) ,0 4 0

If the probability score is less than the alpha level 0.05, we can reject the null hypothesis (there is no difference between the experimental and the control group) and accept the alternative hypothesis (there are differences between the experimental and the control group). Based on the table above, we can see that the probability score is less than the alpha level (0.040<0.05). It means that the treatment had a significant influence on the EL4 students mastery of parts of speech. B. 2. The Control Group Means The result of the control group means scores are:
Table 9. Control Group Means Scores Group N Means Pre-test Post-test Control Group 25 8.80 9.80

Paired T-test was also conducted to see the significance of the increase of the two means scores. The results are:
Table 10. The Paired T-test of the Control Group

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

Paired Sam ples Statistics M ean 8,80 9,80 N 25 25 Std. Deviation 2,533 1,848 Std. Error M ean ,507 ,370

Pair 1

test before treatm ent test after treatm ent

Paired Samples Correlations N Pair 1 test before treatment & test after treatment 25 Correlation ,400 Sig. ,047

P air ed S am ples Tes t P a ire d D iffe r e n c e s 9 5 % C o n fid e n c e In te rv a l o f th e D iffe re n c e S td . E rro r S td . D e v ia tio n M e a n Lo w e r Up p e r 2,4 6 6 ,4 9 3 -2,0 2 ,0 2

Mean P a ir 1 te s t b e fo re tr e a tm e n t - te s t a fte r tre a tm e n t -1 ,0 0

t -2,0 27

df 24

S ig . (2-ta ile d ) ,0 5 4

The table above showed that the probability value is higher than the alpha level (0.054> 0.05), so the null hypothesis is accepted. It means that in the control group there is no difference between the two means scores. C. Comparing the Parts of Speech

In order to answer the second research question, the means scores of the pre-test and posttest of each parts of speech of the experimental group are compared. The parts of speech are ranked based on the mean difference of the two tests.
Table 11. The Comparison of the Means Scores of Each Part Of Speech No. 1. 2. 3. 4. Parts of Speech Adverb Adjective Noun Verbs Means Scores Pre-test Post-test 1.63 2.06 2.31 2.88 1.81 2.38 2.19 2.50 Mean Difference 1.43 0.57 0.57 0.31

As it is shown on the table above, adverb has the highest increase, while adjective and noun have the same mean difference. Verb is at the bottom of the table as it has the lowest increase. 9

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

CONCLUSION This research is aimed to improve EL 4 students mastery of parts of speech in terms of using the right form of the words in accordance to the function and the meaning. The research was conducted by giving song lyrics as the treatment and utilized pre-test and post-test to measure the improvements. In order to see whether the treatment works, another class was chosen as the control group which they didnt get any treatment. The result was there is a difference between the experimental and the control group. Therefore, the hypothesis is accepted and the first research question is answered that the song lyrics is considered effective. The difference is in terms of the improvement that both groups achieved. Despite the fact that both groups had almost the same means scores on the posttest and that both groups were considered equal in proficiency based on the pre-test, the experimental group achieved significant improvement as the paired t-test value is less than the alpha level (0.04<0.05). This is possible as actually even though the both groups were considered similar, the means score of the control groups pre-test was higher than the experimental group. The control group did achieve better than previously, however their improvement was not significant, as the paired t-test value is higher than the alpha level (0.054>0.05). This fact explains that modifying song lyrics into different version can help EL 4 students to improve their analytical skills in using parts of speech. Another result is the song lyrics mostly help the students in improving their analysis and use of adverbs. In a nutshell, modifying song lyrics into different version is considered a pretty much helpful aid to improve El 4 students morpho-syntactic skills. It offers loads of fun, creativity, and critical discussion along the process. Expectantly, this research will spark teachers willingness to apply this treatment in the classroom.

REFERENCES

10

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

Baoan, Wang. (2008). Application of popular English Songs in EFL Classroom Teaching. Available at http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jun08/less03.htm. Explore 1 Book (2006). Who Would Have Thought Hatch, Evelyn and Farhady, Hossein. (1982). Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. London: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. M Lynch, Larry. (2005). 9 Reasons Why You Should Use Songs to Teach English as a Foreign Language. Available at http://bettereflteacher.blogspot.com M. Lynch, Larry (2002). Using Pop Songs to Improve Language Listening Comprehension Skills. Available at http://EnzineAarticles.com Quirk, Randolph and Stein, Gabrielle. (1990). English in Use. England: Longman. Thornbury, Scott. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. England: Longman APPENDICES Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 The test as pre-test and post-test The pre-test and post-test results The pre-test and post-test calculations Parts of speech calculations based on pre-test and post-test results Song samples; song lyrics as analysis tools and modified song lyrics

Appendix 1

The test as pre-test and post-test

11

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

Steven Spielberg
A Director with Numerous Achievements Steven Spielberg is surely one of the most [1] (a) successive movie directors of all (b) succeed (c) successful time. He has been directing various kinds of moviesfrom science fiction to heavy drama. Of course, [2] (a) succession never comes to a person overnight. It has to be (b) success (c) successful built over years, with [3] (a) patient and persistence. (b) patiently (c) patience As a boy, Spielberg was [4 ] (a) actual a slow reader. However, he had a gift for (b) actually (c) actuality storytelling. He just loved telling stories. That is probably why he was [5 ] (a) eager to (b) eagerly (c) eagerness make his own films. Spielbergs parents were not aware of their sons talent. All the probably knew was how much he enjoyed spending time in front of the television set and playing around with a camera. Spielberg made his first film with script and actors at age 12. Who starred in it? His three sisters did! He liked using them in his films because he could [6] (a) exploitation (b) exploit (c) exploited the purpose of telling a good story. After making around four homemade movies, he them in any way. He could kill them over and over, all for learned how [7] (a) powerful a film (b) powerfully (c) power [8] could be. So, he began to take his hobby (a) serious. Somehow, he knew it could (b) seriously (c) seriousness become his future career. Spielbergs parents [9 ] (a) divorce when he was still a teenager. Although (b) divorcee (c) divorced he was really hurt, he was not discouraged. In fact, he made use of the tragedy as sad themes in many of his films. Later, Spielberg moved to Northern California. There, he continued making his movies. He made Firelight at age 16. It had one showing in a Phoenix movie-house. However, making that film made him neglect his studies, so his [10] (a) graduation were (b) graded (c) grades really bad. 12

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

After graduating from high school, Spielberg studied at Cal State, Long Beach. During his studies, he made Amblin. It was a small project, but it changed his [11](a) live. (b) life. (c) lives. Amblin won awards at the Venice and Atlanta film festivals. For this success, Spielberg [12 ] (a) signature a seven-year contract with Universal Studios. He then (b) signing (c) signed [13] (a) professionally made movies like Jaws, raiders of the Lost Ark, The Goonies (b) professional (c) profession and E.T.. After setting up his own film company, Dreamworks, Spielberg [14](a) continuous (b) continued (c) continuously making more successful movies, such as A.I., Hook, Jurassic Park, Schindlers List, and The Terminal. Spielberg got an Oscar and The National Society of Film Critics Award as best director for Schindlers List. It was a masterpiece! Saving Private Ryan was another masterpiece [15] (a) brilliance made by Spielberg. (b) brilliant (c) brilliantly Besides being an outstanding moviemaker, Steven Spielberg is also a [16] (a) wonder , loving father. For him, directing a movie is easier than managing (b) wonderfully (c) wonderful a family.

Appendix 2

The pre-test and post-test results

13

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

A. The pre-test results The Experimental Group

No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. N No. 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. N Name Syifa Sisca Siti Nuraida Ahdiyanti Silmi Juniar Tiur Lulu Vicky Aini Ahsan Raja Wandi Relo Aji Total Name Widianti Fahmi H Ryan M. Diani D. Yasmin Miral M. Inggi Frida P. Aulia G. M. Aliyana Disha M. Rizki J. S. Fahreza L. Mutiara Chita F. A. Rindu P. Juniko K Delsita Y. Andreas N Okeu A. P. Ira Melyani Ratna D. Rika P. E. Indriani D. Gilang A. Total 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 13 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 11 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 15 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 10 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 8 4 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 10 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 23 5 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 21 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 12 7 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 13 8 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 33 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 15 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 11 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 23 12 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 11 12 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 13 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 30 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 14 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 29 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 22 16 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11 16 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 35 Total 7 9 7 8 12 8 9 7 7 10 8 10 5 8 6 7

The Control Group

Total 9 8 7 8 14 6 6 8 7 6 9 9 6 4 6 10 11 11 10 12 13 12 9 8 11

B. The post-test results 14

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

The Experimental Group

No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. N No. 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. N Name Syifa Sisca Siti Nuraida Ahdiyanti Silmi Juniar Tiur Lulu Vicky Aini Ahsan Raja Wandi Relo Aji Total Name Widianti N. Fahmi H. J Ryan M. H Diani D. P. Yasmin Miral M. Inggi Frida P. N. Aulia G. M. Aliyana Disha M. Rizki J. S. Fahreza L. Mutiara Chita F. A. Rindu P. S Juniko K Delsita Y. Andreas N Okeu A. P. Ira Melyani Ratna D. Rika P. E. Indriani D. Gilang A. Total 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 13 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 15 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 14 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 8 4 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 11 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 23 5 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 10 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 21 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 11 7 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 8 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 8 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 33 9 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 13 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 23 11 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 13 12 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 12 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 7 13 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 30 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 7 14 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 29 15 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 22 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 12 16 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 35 Total 9 7 10 11 10 6 11 8 12 11 10 9 8 7 11 11

The Control group

Total 9 8 7 8 14 6 6 8 7 6 9 9 6 4 6 10 11 11 10 12 13 12 9 8 11

15

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

Appendix 3

The pre-test and post-test calculations

A. Pre-test calculations The Experimental Group - The Normality distributions

16

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

O e a p K lm g ro -S irn v T s n -S m le o o o v m o e t P EET RTS N N rm l P ra e rs o a a m te M s E tre e ot x m D re c s iffe n e K lm g ro -S irn v Z o oo v m o A y p S . (2 ile ) s m . ig -ta d a T s d trib tio is N rm l. . e t is u n o a b C lc la d fro d ta . a u te m a .
a ,b

Ma en S . D v tio td e ia n A s lu b o te Ps e o itiv N g tiv ea e

1 6 8 00 ,0 0 1 17 ,7 2 0 ,1 8 8 ,1 8 8 - 5 ,1 5 ,7 0 5 ,6 7 2

The Homogeneity of variances

Test of Homogeneity of Variances pretest result Levene Statistic 3,556 df1 1
A OV N A pretest result S of um S quares 6,2 44 198,000 2 04,2 44 df 1 3 9 40 M ean S quare 6,244 5,077 F 1,2 0 3 S ig. ,2 74

df2 39

Sig. ,067

Betw een Groups W ithin G roups Total

The Control Group - The Normality distributions

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test N Normal Parameters Most Extreme Differences Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) a. Test distribution is Normal. b. Calculated from data. PRETEST 25 8,8000 2,53311 ,109 ,109 -,095 ,543 ,930

a,b

Mean Std. Deviation Absolute Positive Negative

The Homogeneity of variances

17

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

Test of Homogeneity of Variances pretest score Levene Statistic 3,315 df1 1 df2 40 Sig. ,076

ANO VA pretest result Sum of Squares 6,244 198,000 204,244 df 1 39 40 Mean Square 6,244 5,077 F 1,230 Sig. ,274

Between Groups Within Groups Total

B. Post-test calculations The Experimental Group - The Normality distributions

O ne-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test N a,b Normal Parameters Most Extreme Differences Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) a. Test distribution is Normal. b. Calculated from data. POSTTEST 16 9,3125 1,66208 ,223 ,155 -,223 ,892 ,404

Mean Std. Deviation Absolute Positive Negative

The Homogeneity of variances

Test of Homogeneity of Variances POSTTEST Levene Statistic ,281 df1 1 df2 39 Sig. ,599

18

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

ANO VA POSTTEST Sum of Squares 2,319 123,438 125,756 df 1 39 40 Mean Square 2,319 3,165 F ,733 Sig. ,397

Between Groups Within Groups Total

The Control Group - The Normality distributions

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test N Normal Parameters Most Extreme Differences Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) a. Test distribution is Normal. b. Calculated from data. POSTTEST 25 9,8000 1,84842 ,187 ,187 -,163 ,937 ,344

a,b

Mean Std. Deviation Absolute Positive Negative

The Homogeneity of variances

Test of Homogeneity of Variances POSTTEST Levene Statistic ,281 df1 1 df2 39 Sig. ,599

ANO VA POSTTEST Sum of Squares 2,319 123,438 125,756 df 1 39 40 Mean Square 2,319 3,165 F ,733 Sig. ,397

Between Groups Within Groups Total

Appendix 4

Parts of speech calculations based on pre-test and post-test results 19

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

Adjectives, items number 1, 5, 7, 16 Nouns, items number 2, 3, 10, 11 Verbs, items number 6, 9, 12, 14 Adverbs, items number 4, 8, 13, 15
No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. N Name Syifa Sisca Siti Nuraida Ahdiyanti Silmi Juniar Tiur Lulu Vicky Aini Ahsan Raja Wandi Relo Aji Total Adj 3 3 2 1 4 2 2 1 1 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 36 Pre-test N V 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 29 35 Post-test N V 4 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 38 32

Adv 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 26

Adj 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 1 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 48

Adv 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 3 4 34

Appendix 5

Song samples; song lyrics as analysis tools and modified song lyrics

20

Classroom Action researchTerm 3, 2008

21