1

CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION

A. Result of the Research

This research aimed to know whether there was an influence of using Tea party
strategy towards students’ vocabulary mastery at the eleventh grade of SMAN 1 Seputih
Banyak in the academic year of 2023/2024. The total number of the sample was 35
students in experimental class (IPA 1) and 35 students in control class (IPA 4).
The research was conducted in 2 classes namely experimental and control class. In
experimental class, the students were taught by using Tea party strategy while in control
class, they were taught by using Conventional technique memorizing vocabulary. The
researcher got the data in the form of score. The score was derived from pre-test and
posttest. In pretest, the researcher gave the task for the students before treatment and in
the post test, the researcher gave the task for students to answer the questions after
treatment. After doing the research, the researcher got the result of the pre-test and post-
test and the result was counted by using SPSS version 25 as follows:

1. Result of Pre-test
The researcher conducted Pretest in order to know students’ vocabulary mastery
before the treatment. The scores of students tested in pre-test both in experimental and
control class could be seen in Figure 4.1 and 4.2.

10
9
8
7
6
frequency

5
4
3
2
1
0
20 30 40 50 55 60 70 75 80
Scores

Figure 4.1
Graphs of the Result of the Pre-test in Experimental Class
 2

Based on Figure 4.1, it could be seen that from 35 students there were 2 students who
got score 20, 6 students who got score 30, 9 students who got score 40, 5 students who got
score 50, 3 students who got score 55, 6 students who got score 60, 1 student who got
score 70, 1 student who got score 75 and 2 students who got score 80.

The mean of pretest in experimental class was 47.43, standard deviation was 15.689,
N was 35, median was 50.00, mode was 40, variance was 246.134, minimum score was
20, maximum score was 80. It showed student’ vocabulary mastery before they got
treatments. (see appendix 9)

Meanwhile, the result and graph of pretest in control class can be seen as follows:

8
7
6
5
frequency

4
3
2
1
0
10 15 20 30 35 40 45 50 60 65 70
Scores

Figure 4.2
Graphs of the Result of the Pre-test in Control Class
Based on Figure 4.2, it could be seen that from 35 students there were 2 students who
got score 10, 3 students who got score 15, 3 students who got score 20, 7 students who got
score 30, 2 students who got score 35, 5 students who got score 40, 3 students who got
score 45, 6 students who got score 50, 1 student who got score 60, 1 student who got
score 65 and 2 students who got score 70.

The mean of pretest in control class was 37.29, standard deviation was 16.149, N
was 35, median was 40.00, mode was 30, variance was 260.798, minimum score was 10,
maximum score was 70. It showed student’ vocabulary mastery before they got
treatments. (see appendix 9).

2. Result of Post-test
The researcher conducted Posttest in order to know students’ vocabulary mastery
after the treatment. The scores of students’ post-test in the experimental and control class
could be seen in Figure 4.3 and 4.4.
 3

frequency
4

0
35 40 45 55 60 65 70 75 80 90 95
Scores

Figure 4.3
Graphs of the Result of the Post-test in Experimental Class

Based on Figure 4.3, it could be seen that from 35 students there were 2 students who
got score 35, 2 students who got score 40, 4 students who got score 45, 6 students who got
score 55, 3 students who got score 60, 2 students who got score 65, 5 students who got
score 70, 4 students who got score 75, 3 students who got score 80, 1 student who got
score 90 and 3 students who got score 96.

The mean of post-test in experimental class was 63.86, standard deviation was
16.981, N was 35, median was 65.00, mode was 55, variance was 288.361, minimum
score was 35, maximum score was 95. It showed student’ vocabulary mastery after they
got treatments. (see appendix 9)

Meanwhile, the result and graph of posttest in control class can be seen as follows:
 4

8
7
6
5

frequency
4
3
2
1
0
30 35 40 50 55 60 65 70 85 90
Scores

Figure 4.4
Graphs of the Result of the Post-test in Control Class

Based on Figure 4.4, it could be seen that from 35 students there were 2 students who
got score 30, 2 students who got score 35, 4 students who got score 40, 7 students who got
score 50, 2 students who got score 55, 4 students who got score 60, 3 students who got
score 65, 7 students who got score 70, 1 student who got score 85 and 3 students who got
score 90.

The mean of post-test in control class was 58.00, standard deviation was 16.592, N
was 35, median was 60.00, mode was 50, variance was 275.294, minimum score was 30,
maximum score was 90. It showed student’ vocabulary mastery after they got treatments.
(see appendix 9).

3. Result of Normality Test

The normality test was used to measure weather the data in the have normally distributed
or not.
The hypothesis formulas are:
Ho = the data have normal distribution.
Ha = the data do not have normal distribution.
The criteria of acceptance or rejection of the hypotheses for normality test were:
Ho is accepted if Sig. (Pvalue) > α = 0.05
Ha is accepted if Sig. (Pvalue) < α = 0.05
Table 4.1
The Result Normality Test of the Experimental and Control Class
Test Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic Df Sig.
Pre-test Experimental 0.951 35 0.124
Pre-test Control 0.961 35 0.242
 5

Post-test Experimental 0.960 35 0.230

Post-test Control 0.951 35 0.121
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Based on Table 4.1, it can be seen that Pvalue (Sig.) for pre-test experimental class
was 0.124, Pvalue (Sig.) for pre-test control class was 0.242, Pvalue (Sig.) for post-test
experimental class was 0.230, Pvalue (Sig.) for post-test control class was 0.121. Therefore,
Ho is accepted and Sig. (Pvalue) for the the tests > α 0.05. The conclusion was that the data in
the experimental and control class had normal distribution. (see appendix 10).

4. The Result of Homogeneity Test

The researcher tested Homogeneity Test after he got the score of students’ vocabulary
mastery (pre-test and post-test of student’ vocabulary mastery by using SPSS version 25).
a. The hypotheses are:
Ho = the variances of the data are homogenous
Ha = the variances of the data are not homogenous.
b. The Criteria of the test are follows:
Ho is accepted if Sig. > α = 0.05
Ha is accepted if Sig. < α = 0.05
Table 4.2
The Result Homogeneity Test
Levene Df Sig

Satistic

Score Based on Mean 0.103 136 0.958

Based on the results obtained in the test of homogeneity of variances in the column, it
could be seen that Sig. (Pvalue) = 0.958 > α = 0.05. It demonstrated that H o was accepted
because Sig. (Pvalue) > α = 0.05. It means that the variance of the data was homogenous. (see
appendix 11).

5. The Result of Hypothetical Test

Based on the previous explanation that the normality and homogeneity test were
satisfied. Therefore, the researcher used the hypothetical test using SPSS (Statistical Program
for Social Science), independent sample t-test.
The hypothesis formulas are:
Ha : There is significant influence of Tea party strategy towards students’ vocabulary
mastery at the eleventh grade at SMAN 1 Seputih Banyak in the Academic Year of
2023/2024.
 6

Ho : There is no significant influence of Tea party strategy towards students’ vocabulary

mastery at the eleventh grade at SMAN 1 Seputih Banyak in the Academic Year of
2023/2024.
The criteria of acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis for hypothetical test were:
Ho is accepted if Sig. (Pvalue) > α = 0.05
Ha is accepted if Sig. (Pvalue) < α = 0.05
Table 4.3
The Result of Hypothetical test
T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

2.665 68 0.010

Based on the results obtained in the independent sample t-test, that the value of
significant generated Sig (2-tailed) = 0.010 < α = 0.05. So, H a was accepted and Ho was
rejected. Based on the computation, it can be concluded that there was significant influence of
Tea party strategy towards students’ vocabulary mastery at the eleventh grade at SMAN 1
Seputih Banyak in the Academic Year of 2023/2024. (see appendix 12).

B. Discussion
Based on the research finding, it was clear that there was significant influence of Tea
party strategy towards students’ vocabulary mastery. It was proved by the result of test both in
experimental and control class. In this case, the researcher compared the result of post-test in
order to see whether the class who was taught by using Tea party strategy had better score than
the class which was taught by using Conventional technique memorizing vocabulary. The
material in experimental and control class were the same about vocabulary mastery. The
research finding showed that there was significant influence of Tea party strategy towards
students’ vocabulary mastery.
The researcher gave treatments to the experimental class by using Tea party strategy.
the researcher prepared the theme of vocabulary namely noun. Then, the researcher applied the
procedure of Tea party strategy. The researcher prepared teaching materials, namely
vocabulary about noun person and profession. Then, provided brainstorming regarding the
material that will be taught to students, namely about noun person and profession, especially
with material on giving and asking for information related to suggestions and offers. Students
form two lines so that each person faces their partner. One of the lines is called the “moving
line”. The researcher indicated that students will have two minutes to discuss each number of
questions/topics. Once each item's time is up, the moving line moves down one person and the
person at the end moves forward so that everyone now has a new partner. Students were asked
to greet their new partner and introduce themselves before the topic/question is revealed by the
researcher. After that, students were asked to mention vocabulary and its meaning in the
 7

material that has been given about giving and asking for information related to suggestions and
offers. In the end, the researcher provided feedback on learning.
Meanwhile in control class, the researcher applied Conventional technique
memorizing vocabulary. The students were given the same material about noun but with
different steps of learning. In control class, the students were given lists of vocabularies of
noun, then they were asked to remember and fill the meaning of vocabularies given by the
researcher. After that, the researcher asked them to pronounce the vocabularies given. There
were no specific steps of learning because conventional technique is general and old technique
used for teaching learning. Therefore, there was no specific procedure in conventional
technique.
The result of teaching vocabulary by using Tea party strategy was good because the
students could learn many vocabularies about noun such as chalk and white board, knife and
plate, blanket and pillow, glass and bottle, singer, carpenter, executioner, designer, teacher,
farmer, lawyer, buyer, chef, servant, waitress, guest, etc. It was proved by the result of the
mean score in experimental class was higher than control class. It was obtained 63.86 > 58.00.
it was also proved by the result of hypothetical test where the Sig (2-tailed) = 0.010 < α = 0.05.
So, Ha was accepted and it can be concluded that there was significant influence of Tea party
strategy towards students’ vocabulary mastery.
This finding is in line with a theory stated by Febriani, et al that Tea Party strategy is a
strategy to improve students’ thinking ability through teacher’s questions, create dynamic
cooperation among students, create a fun to learn atmosphere, improve students’ activeness,
and improve student learning.1 It means that Tea Party strategy can be used for general
teaching, including teaching vocabulary because this strategy provides critical thinking that
makes the students are able to think the material given by the teacher. It also makes them fun
in learning because they work with friends.
Furthermore, the findings showed that Tea party strategy had influence to the
students’ vocabulary mastery. It is in line with theory stated by Jensen that Tea Party is a good
strategy that teachers can apply in learning process, this strategy will give advantages to
students and help understand more about their lesson. 2 It is clear that Tea Party makes the
students able to understand more about lesson because they work together with group to solve
their problems in learning. This strategy is good to be used as an optional for teaching learning
vocabulary.

1
Vina Pebriani, Dedi Sutedi, and Nuria Haristiani, ‘Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Tea Party Untuk
Meningkatkan Penguasaan Kosakata Bahasa Jepang (Eksperimen Murni Terhadap Siswa Kelas X Sma Bpi 1 Bandung Tahun
Ajaran 2015/2016)’, JAPANEDU: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran Bahasa Jepang, 1.2 (2014), 87–98.
2
Rony Jensen, ‘Building Content Literacy Strategies for the Adolescent Learner’ (United States: Parton Publisher, 2000),
p.100.
8
 9

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
A. Conclusion
At the end of the research, the post-test was given to measure the influence of Tea
party strategy towards students’ vocabulary mastery after treatments done. The result can be
seen from sig. (2-tailed) of the equal variance assumed in the independent sample test table
where the sig. (2-tailed) obtained 0.010. It is lower than α = 0.05 and it means that H a was
accepted.
Based on the result of data analysis, the researcher concluded that there is significant
influence of Tea party strategy towards students’ vocabulary mastery at the eleventh grade at
SMAN 1 Seputih Banyak Lampung Utara in the Academic Year of 2023/2024.

B. Recommendation
Based on the research findings, the researcher would like to give some
recommendations as follows:
1. For the English Teacher
It is hoped this research can give insight for teaching and it is expected to give an
alternative contribution and information about the strategy in teaching vocabulary. The
teacher is recommended to use this strategy as essential in teaching and primarily to
improve the students’ vocabulary through Tea Party strategy.
2. For the Students
The students are recommended to get more spirit and know how to increase their
vocabulary in a vocabulary activity. There are many ways to get the success of learning
vocabulary one of them by using Tea Party strategy.
3. For Further Research
This research is expected to be able to give significance to the other researcher as a
reference for further studies on the similar topic.
 10

Appendix

VALIDITY OF TEST

Pre-test

Post-test
 11

RELIABILITY OF TEST

Pre-test
 12

Post-test
 13

R-TABLE PRODUCT MOMENT

 14

STUDENTS SCORE

EXPERIMENTAL CLASS 8A

PRE-TEST RESULT POST-TEST RESULT

NO SCORE NO SCORE
1 40 1 75
2 25 2 85
3 50 3 55
4 45 4 50
5 25 5 60
6 35 6 60
7 30 7 70
8 45 8 50
9 30 9 45
10 50 10 85
11 40 11 75
12 55 12 60
13 45 13 80
14 35 14 70
15 30 15 65
16 40 16 60
17 60 17 70
18 70 18 60
19 45 19 60
20 50 20 80
21 40 21 90
22 40 22 75
23 45 23 55
24 60 24 65
25 50 25 75
26 55 26 80
27 30 27 50
28 40 28 55
 15

CONTROL CLASS 8B

PRE-TEST RESULT POST-TEST RESULT

NO SCORE NO SCORE
1 25 1 60
2 35 2 70
3 40 3 50
4 50 4 50
5 20 5 55
6 30 6 65
7 40 7 45
8 45 8 40
9 55 9 70
10 40 10 75
11 45 11 60
12 45 12 60
13 40 13 50
14 50 14 45
15 25 15 45
16 20 16 50
17 30 17 60
18 30 18 75
19 35 19 65
20 20 20 50
21 25 21 60
22 45 22 50
23 40 23 40
24 35 24 50
25 50 25 60
26 45 26 65
27 40 27 70
28 40 28 60
 16

RESULT OF FREQUENCY PRE-TEST

Statistics
Pretest Experimental Class
N Valid 28
Missing 0
Mean 43.04
Std. Error of Mean 2.095
Median 42.50
Mode 40
Std. Deviation 11.084
Variance 122.851
Range 45
Minimum 25
Maximum 70
Sum 1205

Pretest Experimental Class

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 25 2 7.1 7.1 7.1
30 4 14.3 14.3 21.4
35 2 7.1 7.1 28.6
40 6 21.4 21.4 50.0
45 5 17.9 17.9 67.9
50 4 14.3 14.3 82.1
55 2 7.1 7.1 89.3
60 2 7.1 7.1 96.4
70 1 3.6 3.6 100.0
Total 28 100.0 100.0

Statistics
Pretest Control Class
N Valid 28
Missing 0
Mean 37.14
Std. Error of Mean 1.880
Median 40.00
Mode 40
Std. Deviation 9.947
 17

Variance 98.942
Range 35
Minimum 20
Maximum 55
Sum 1040

Pretest Control Class

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 20 3 10.7 10.7 10.7
25 3 10.7 10.7 21.4
30 3 10.7 10.7 32.1
35 3 10.7 10.7 42.9
40 7 25.0 25.0 67.9
45 5 17.9 17.9 85.7
50 3 10.7 10.7 96.4
55 1 3.6 3.6 100.0
Total 28 100.0 100.0
 18

RESULT OF FREQUENCY POST-TEST

RESULT OF HOMOGENEITY
 19

RESULT OF HYPOTHETICAL TEST

Group Statistics
Code N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Vocabulary mastery Pretest Experimental Class 28 43.04 11.084 2.095
Posttest Experimnental Class 28 66.43 12.237 2.313

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Vocabulary Equal 1.026 .316 - 54 .000 -23.393 3.120 -29.648 -17.137
mastery variances 7.497
assumed
Equal - 53.480 .000 -23.393 3.120 -29.650 -17.136
variances not 7.497
assumed
 20

RESEARCH DOCUMENTATION