Syntax Literate: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia p�ISSN: 2541-0849
e-ISSN: 2548-1398
Vol. 6, No. 3, Maret 2021
THE EFFECTS OF GOOGLE CLASSROOM IN LEARNING SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE
Mungkap Mangapul Siahaan
Universitas HKBP Nommensen Pematangsiantar Sumatera Utara, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to respond to
the bold learning at HKBP Nommensen University Pematang Siantar in the middle
of compiling a strategic plan for implementing online education. At the same
time, the misconceptions and myths of the difficulties of online teaching and
learning, the technology available to support online support, the support and
compensation required for high-quality instructors, and the needs of online
students create challenges for such vision statements and planning documents. The method
of this study is quantitative research and adapted Shaharance
et.al (2016) questionnaire as the instrument to collect the data They are divided into four classes,
two classes learn using Google Class and the other 2 learn without learning
online. The research method used in this research is quantitative research and
a questionnaire is used as data. The results showed
that student achievement was higher after they studied Syntax Structure using
Google Class.
Keywords: google
classroom; online learning; teaching; learning snytactic structure
Coresponden Author
Email: [email protected]
Article with open access under license
Introduction
The expansion of technology development in teaching learning
activities has been rapidly increased in the circle of teaching learning
activities. There are some researches have shown that many web-based
collaborative activities facilitate the development of skills among college
students: team work (Smith et al., 2006), social
skills (Stoler et al., 2011), and basic
computing skills (Bottge, Rueda, Kwon, Grant, & LaRoque, 2009). Then the
effectiveness of using online application has also been evaluated from diverse
disciplines, information management (Rienzo & Han, 2009).
The technology acceptance model (TAM) which was
originally proposed by Davis in 1986 has inspired researchers to present
chronological progress of TAM. All those researches change the field of
education. Generally, during the late 1990s, new technologies were being
invented and designed almost frequently in education. There are also theories
of media uses are seen such as online applications, to enhance collaboration (Siahaan, Lumbangaol, et al., 2021). For
example, researchers have found that in some classes use of a wiki (an
essential component of Web 2.0) foster collaborative learning among students in
a quick and flexible way (Tamis‐LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, & Lamb,
2004).
Among the newly developed online applications, Google
classroom is an especially promising tool to exceed the need of teaching
collaboration. Google classroom allows individuals to work on a common task
without restrictions often imposed by traditional face-to-face contacts.
Furthermore, Google classroom is accessible to the general public, regardless
of location, as long as the internet is available (Rahmania
Natasya, Sulistyani, & Susanti, 2020)
Though these days online training or courses have
become extremely popular, as more and more universities are offering online
teaching methods however many universities consciously stay away from such
online teaching methods, mostly due to misconception and limited financial
resources. Over the years, our nation has changed the curriculum and many
private schools are struggling to facilitate facilities to meet the need of
accreditation. Therefore more budget are used to support conventional or
traditional teaching methods (Siahaan, Haloho, Guk-guk, & Panjaitan, 2021).
As the other universities facing the challenges and
opportunities of the revolution industry era 4,0 the University of HKBP Nommensen Pematangsiantar starts
to collaborate and implement technology in teaching process in order to create
teachers graduation who are able to teach both with online and traditional
teaching methods. Teaching is not more only about giving information or sharing
knowledge of different subjects to the students but also an automatic
collaborative system to produce innovation for the better life of people. Next,
all the skill probably will exceed curriculum target.
Indonesian has thousands of islands, hundreds
traditional languages and hundreds of tribes. The students of the university
come from some islands. They come from different tribes and languages. When
they graduate they will return to their each village. In each of their villages
they do not have internet access therefore it is impossible to do online
teaching. It is the other reason why traditional teaching methods are still
used in the university (Bi
& Jiang, 2020)
In order to achieve the goals of online teaching
methods, Google Classroom is implemented through the daily life of teaching
methods. Google Classroom is a free web service in internet which is creating
by Google Company for schools that aim to simplify distributing, creating and
grading assignments in a paperless way. The goal of the Google Classroom
service is to streamline the process of sharing teaching files or assignments
between teachers and students. It is as a new approach to encounter the needs
of creativity, simplicity and technology in teaching learning. Google Classroom
combines Google drive for assignments creation and distribution such as Google
Docs, Sheet and Slides for writing, Gmail for communication and Google Calendar
for scheduling. Students can be invited to join a class through a private code,
or automatically imported from a school domain.
In the 2018 and 2019 academic year, the researcher has
noticed the effects of Google Classroom in students learning. He has taught
some different lessons in the teaching faculty by traditional method and the
other classes by using Google Classroom. Teaching his lesson for some classes
by using technology Google classroom may stimulate the students� eagerness and
motivation to learn. It is looked from their scores that there is an impact of
using Google classroom technology in teaching. He also admitted that curriculum
and learning approach had been equally performed to all his classes. He taught
his classes which having the same subjects with no different curriculum. There
was also a responsibility and a sense of belonging controlled him doing his
teaching. He was motivated on how to increase the eagerness and motivation of
students to study. Therefore, he taught his classes of the same subject with
different teaching method. And the emphasis of this research is laid on to find
the differences between the class using of the Google Classroom and the
traditional teaching method.
Syntactic structure is an obligation lesson for every
student in English Language Education. It is studied at the second semester
after every student has passed some introduction lessons. Syntactic structure
by aiming to construct a grammar that can be viewed as a device of some sort
for producing the sentences of the language under analysis. The analysis is
where a man with a telescope is a constituent and one where is not. The work
assumes a use theory of meaning, that grammars are embedded in a broader
semiotic theory which uses the grammar to determine the meaning a reference of
expressions. Syntactic structure is the part of grammar that governs the form
of strings by which language users make statements, ask questions, give
directives, and so on. The study of syntactic structure addresses the structure
of sentences and their structural and functional relationships to one another. Here we use event-related potentials
(ERPs) to show that native-like processing can also be observed in the largely
under-researched domain of speech prosody � even when �learners are exposed to their second language
almost exclusively in a classroom setting. Participants listened to spoken
sentences whose prosodic boundaries would either cooperate or conflict with the
syntactic structure� (Nickels, Opitz, & Steinhauer, 2013).
Methods
The method of this study is quantitative research and
adapted Shaharance et.al (2016) questionnaire as the
instrument to collect the data. All of the data were analyzed by using
descriptive qualitative analysis in order to find a descriptive explanation. The
result of this research finds that the students� interest to study the
Syntactic Structure by using Google Classroom is bigger and satisfied. The
population of the subject research was 136 students in English Language
Education Department, University of HKBP Nommensen Pematangsiantar. They were divided into four classes, such
as class Group A, class Group B, class Group C and class Group D. The research
chose students of the classes because they already had experiences on using
Google. Each of the class consisted of 34 students.
In this
chapter the researcher discusses the method of investigation which consists of
subject of the research, object of the research, technique of collecting data,
instrument of the research, and the steps in research design, the criterion of
the assessments and data processing. To determine the effects of learning
Syntactic Structure by using Google Classroom media, the researcher centralized
his data to the 136 English students of the teaching faculty of the university.
All of them were the students of 2018 academic year. They were divided into
four classes, such as class Group A, class Group B, class Group C and class
Group D. The research chose students of the classes because they already had
experiences on using Google. Each of the class consisted of 34 students
(Zhang, 2018).
The researcher experiences teaching the lessons are very much influence
this research. That is the reason how this research is made so the researcher
can explore the function of Google Classroom in teaching activities. He seemed
that the presence of Google Classroom is not only about collaborative teaching
within technology or technology within teaching but also as a function of
teaching.
Result and Discusion
1.
Analysis Data
Related to
the assessment of the students� achievement, the researcher used an evaluation.
According to the Department of Education and culture (Depdikbud)
evaluation can be defined as: �..is a series activity to gain, analyze and
explain data about a process in teaching and learning done to systematic and
continues that it becomes significant to take decision (No, 2013).
From the
statement the researcher understood that evaluation is used to determine the
achievement of teaching and learning process. To assess the student�s
achievement, the researcher uses the criterion evaluation issued by the Department
of Education and Culture (Depdikbud, 1994) of Republic
of Indonesia. Through the statement the researcher decided that a student
achieves 65% of the score is qualified success.
2. Analysis of the pre-test
The total number of the students followed the pre-test
were 100 students because every class had 25 students. The researcher gave 50
multiple choice questions to each of the student. Every student worked on the
same questions and after they finished answering the questions the answer
sheets as well as the pre-test paper were collected. The schedule of the
pre-test was not taken at the same time but it was conducted at the first
meeting.
Table 1
Result of the Pre-test Group A
Group A |
|||
No. |
Test Code |
Score |
X |
1 |
A-'1801030036 |
������������ 24,0 |
��������������� 48,0 |
2 |
A-'1801030038 |
������������ 22,0 |
��������������� 44,0 |
3 |
A-'1801030040 |
������������ 20,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
4 |
A-'1801030042 |
������������ 28,0 |
��������������� 56,0 |
5 |
A-'1801030044 |
������������ 30,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
6 |
A-'1801030046 |
������������ 26,0 |
��������������� 52,0 |
7 |
A-'1801030047 |
������������ 24,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
8 |
A-'1801030048 |
������������ 28,0 |
��������������� 56,0 |
9 |
A-'1801030049 |
������������ 22,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
10 |
A-'1801030050 |
������� �����22,0 |
��������������� 44,0 |
11 |
A-'1801030051 |
������������ 24,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
12 |
A-'1801030053 |
������������ 28,0 |
��������������� 56,0 |
13 |
A-'1801030054 |
������������ 26,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
14 |
A-'1801030055 |
������������ 28,0 |
�������� �������56,0 |
15 |
A-'1801030059 |
������������ 30,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
16 |
A-'1801030061 |
������������ 28,0 |
��������������� 56,0 |
17 |
A-'1801030062 |
������������ 24,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
18 |
A-'1801030065 |
������������ 30,0 |
��������������� 60,0 |
19 |
A-1801030067 |
������������ 30,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
20 |
A-1801030069 |
������������ 28,0 |
��������������� 56,0 |
21 |
A-1801030070 |
������������ 30,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
22 |
A-1801030074 |
������������ 28,0 |
��������������� 56,0 |
23 |
A-1801030075 |
������������ 28,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
24 |
A-1801030078 |
������������ 30,0 |
��������������� 60,0 |
25 |
A-1801030081 |
������������ 28,0 |
��������������� 40,0 |
Total of the students = 25 |
�������� 666,0 |
�������� 1.180,0 |
|
Mean |
����������� 26,6 |
�������������� 47,2 |
����������� ��
���������������������������Ʃ
X
������������������������������������ �����Ʃ N
���� X = Students� mark
���� N = Number of the students
���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Ʃ X
���������������������������������������������������������������������������������
������Ʃ
N
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
1180
����������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������
��������25
�����������������������������������������������
���������������������������������= 47,2%
Related to the criterion provided by Education and
Culture of Republic of Indonesia (1994:34), learning process can be said
success if a student achieves score 65% and above. The column shows that 47,2 %
students did not understand the material well.
Table 2
Result of the Pre-test Group B
Group B |
|||
No. |
Test Code |
Score |
X |
1 |
A-1801030097 |
���������������� 20,0 |
���������������� 40,0 |
2 |
A-1801030098 |
���������������� 22,0 |
���������������� 44,0 |
3 |
A-1801030101 |
���������������� 26,0 |
���������������� 52,0 |
4 |
A-1801030102 |
�������� ��������24,0 |
���������������� 48,0 |
5 |
A-1801030106 |
���������������� 22,0 |
���������������� 44,0 |
6 |
A-1801030107 |
���������������� 28,0 |
���������������� 56,0 |
7 |
A-1801030109 |
���������������� 30,0 |
���������������� 60,0 |
8 |
A-1801030110 |
���������������� 22,0 |
���������������� 44,0 |
9 |
A-1801030111 |
���������������� 28,0 |
���������������� 56,0 |
10 |
A-1801030112 |
���������������� 26,0 |
���������������� 52,0 |
11 |
A-1801030113 |
���������������� 24,0 |
���������������� 48,0 |
12 |
A-1801030114 |
���������������� 18,0 |
���������������� 36,0 |
13 |
A-1801030117 |
���������������� 22,0 |
���������������� 44,0 |
14 |
A-1801030119 |
���������������� 26,0 |
���������������� 52,0 |
15 |
A-1801030121 |
���������������� 28,0 |
���������������� 56,0 |
16 |
A-1801030122 |
���������������� 24,0 |
�� ��������������48,0 |
17 |
A-1801030124 |
���������������� 22,0 |
���������������� 44,0 |
18 |
A-1801030126 |
���������������� 28,0 |
���������������� 56,0 |
19 |
A-1801030127 |
���������������� 30,0 |
���������������� 60,0 |
20 |
A-1801030129 |
���������������� 22,0 |
������ ����������44,0 |
21 |
A-1801030130 |
���������������� 26,0 |
���������������� 52,0 |
22 |
A-1801030133 |
���������������� 24,0 |
���������������� 48,0 |
23 |
A-1801030139 |
���������������� 22,0 |
���������������� 44,0 |
24 |
A-1801030140 |
���������������� 28,0 |
���������� ������56,0 |
25 |
A-1801030141 |
���������������� 30,0 |
���������������� 60,0 |
Total of the students = 25 |
������������� 622,0 |
�������� 1.244,0 |
|
Mean |
��������������� 24,9 |
�������������� 49,8 |
����������� ����������������������������� Ʃ
X
������ �������������������������������Ʃ
N
����
X = Students� mark
����
N = Number of the students
���� Ʃ X
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������Ʃ N
�������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������1244
����������� ������������������������������������������������������������
����������������25
�������� = ����49,8 %
Related to the criterion provided by Education and
Culture of Republic of Indonesia (1994:34), learning process can be said
success if a student achieves score 65% and above. The column shows that 49,8 %
students did not understand the material well.
Table 3
Result of the Pre-test Group C
Group C |
|||
No. |
Test Code |
Score |
X |
1 |
A-1801030094 |
30,0 |
����������
60,0 |
2 |
A-1801030099 |
22,0 |
����������
44,0 |
3 |
A-1801030100 |
26,0 |
����������
52,0 |
4 |
A-1801030115 |
24,0 |
����� �����48,0 |
5 |
A-1801030116 |
20,0 |
����������
40,0 |
6 |
A-1801030120 |
22,0 |
����������
44,0 |
7 |
A-1801030125 |
22,0 |
����������
44,0 |
8 |
A-1801030131 |
28,0 |
����������
56,0 |
9 |
A-1801030136 |
26,0 |
����������
52,0 |
10 |
A-1801030143 |
22,0 |
����������
44,0 |
11 |
A-1801030144 |
24,0 |
����������
48,0 |
12 |
A-1801030149 |
26,0 |
����������
52,0 |
13 |
A-1801030152 |
22,0 |
����������
44,0 |
14 |
A-1801030156 |
28,0 |
����������
56,0 |
15 |
A-1801030157 |
28,0 |
����������
56,0 |
16 |
A-1801030163 |
30,0 |
����������
60,0 |
17 |
A-1801030167 |
30,0 |
�� ��������60,0 |
18 |
A-'1801030045 |
22,0 |
����������
44,0 |
19 |
A-'1801030052 |
28,0 |
����������
56,0 |
20 |
A-'1801030056 |
28,0 |
����������
56,0 |
21 |
A-'1801030064 |
26,0 |
����������
52,0 |
22 |
A-1801030068 |
24,0 |
����������
48,0 |
23 |
A-1801030071 |
24,0 |
����������
48,0 |
24 |
A-1801030072 |
26,0 |
����������
52,0 |
25 |
A-1801030073 |
26,0 |
����������
52,0 |
Total of the students = 25 |
������������������������� 634,0 |
��� 1.268,0 |
|
Mean |
��������������������������� 25,4
|
��������� 50,7 |
������������������������������������� Ʃ X
������������������������������������� Ʃ N
X =
Students� mark
N = Number
of the students
��� Ʃ X
�������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������Ʃ N
����������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������
1268
������ ������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������25
���� = ��50,7
%
Related to the criterion provided by Education and
Culture of Republic of Indonesia (1994:34), learning process can be said
success if a student achieves score 65% and above. The column shows that 50,7 %
students did not understand the material yet.
Table 4
Result of the Pre-test Group D
Group D |
|||
No. |
Test Code |
Score |
X |
1 |
A-1801030087 |
24,0 |
����������
48,0 |
2 |
A-1801030088 |
24,0 |
����������
48,0 |
3 |
A-1801030091 |
26,0 |
����������
52,0 |
4 |
A-1801030095 |
28,0 |
����������
56,0 |
5 |
A-1801030096 |
26,0 |
����������
52,0 |
6 |
A-1801030103 |
24,0 |
����������
48,0 |
7 |
A-1801030104 |
22,0 |
����������
44,0 |
8 |
A-1801030105 |
30,0 |
����������
60,0 |
9 |
A-1801030108 |
28,0 |
����������
56,0 |
10 |
A-1801030118 |
28,0 |
����������
56,0 |
11 |
A-1801030123 |
22,0 |
����������
44,0 |
12 |
A-1801030128 |
24,0 |
����������
48,0 |
13 |
A-1801030132 |
24,0 |
����������
48,0 |
14 |
A-1801030134 |
22,0 |
����������
44,0 |
15 |
A-1801030135 |
20,0 |
����������
40,0 |
16 |
A-1801030137 |
20,0 |
���������� 40,0
|
17 |
A-1801030138 |
30,0 |
����������
60,00 |
18 |
A-1801030142 |
28,0 |
����������
56,0 |
19 |
A-1801030145 |
28,0 |
����������
56,0 |
20 |
A-1801030147 |
30,0 |
����������
60,0 |
21 |
A-1801030148 |
26,0 |
����������
52,0 |
22 |
A-1801030151 |
24,0 |
����������
48,0 |
23 |
A-1801030154 |
24,0 |
����������
48,0 |
24 |
A-1801030155 |
22,0 |
����������
44,0 |
25 |
A-1801030158 |
22,0 |
����������
44,0 |
Total of the students = 25 |
���������������������� 626,0 |
��� 1.252,0 |
|
Mean |
������������������������ 25,0 |
��������� 50,1 |
������������������� �������������Ʃ X
������������������������������������ Ʃ N
��� X = Students� mark
��� N = Number of the students
�� Ʃ X
����������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������Ʃ N
�����
������ 1252
����������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������25
������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������� �= ��50,1
%
Related to the criterion provided by Education and
Culture of Republic of Indonesia (1994:34), learning process can be said
success if a student achieves score 65% and above. The column shows that 50,1 %
students did not understand the material.
3. The analysis of the posttest
The sixth
meeting was the last session for the lesson to every class. The researcher
conducted the post-test to class or group A on January 22, 2019, B on January
23, 2019, C on January 25, 2019 and D on January 24, 2019. The questions on the
post-test were the same with the questions on the pre-test. There were totally
50 questions for the post-test.
Tabel 5
The analysis
of post-test Group A
Group A |
|||
No. |
Test Code |
X |
Score |
1 |
A-'1801030036 |
�������������
39 |
�������������
78 |
2 |
A-'1801030038 |
�������������
38 |
�������������
76 |
3 |
A-'1801030040 |
�������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
4 |
A-'1801030042 |
�������������
41 |
�������������
82 |
5 |
A-'1801030044 |
�������������
40 |
��� ����������80 |
6 |
A-'1801030046 |
�������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
7 |
A-'1801030047 |
�������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
8 |
A-'1801030048 |
�������������
41 |
�������������
82 |
9 |
A-'1801030049 |
�������������
45 |
�������������
90 |
10 |
A-'1801030050 |
�����������
��39 |
�������������
78 |
11 |
A-'1801030051 |
�������������
44 |
�������������
88 |
12 |
A-'1801030053 |
�������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
13 |
A-'1801030054 |
�������������
41 |
�������������
82 |
14 |
A-'1801030055 |
�������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
15 |
A-'1801030059 |
�������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
16 |
A-'1801030061 |
�������������
41 |
�������������
82 |
17 |
A-'1801030062 |
�������������
41 |
�������������
82 |
18 |
A-'1801030065 |
�������������
42 |
�������������
84 |
19 |
A-1801030067 |
�������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
20 |
A-1801030069 |
�������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
21 |
A-1801030070 |
�������������
44 |
�������������
88 |
22 |
A-1801030074 |
�������������
45 |
�������������
90 |
23 |
A-1801030075 |
�������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
24 |
A-1801030078 |
�������������
39 |
�����������
��78 |
25 |
A-1801030081 |
�������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
Total of the students = 25 |
�������
1.032 |
�������
2.064 |
|
Mean |
�������������
41 |
�������������
83 |
������������������������������������� Ʃ
score
��������������������������� �����������Ʃ N
��� Score = Students� score
N = Number of the student
�������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������Ʃ Score
���������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������Ʃ N
�2084
������ ���������������������������������������������������������������������
��������25
��������� = 83,3
%
Related to the criterion provided by Education and
Culture of Republic of Indonesia (1994:34), learning process can be said
success if a student achieves score 65% and above. The column shows that 83,3 %
students having scores more than 65.
Tabel 6
The analysis
of post-test Group B
Group B |
|||
No. |
Test Code |
�X |
�Score |
1 |
A-1801030097 |
������������� 42 |
������������� 84 |
2 |
A-1801030098 |
������������� 41 |
������������� 82 |
3 |
A-1801030101 |
������������� 39 |
������������� 78 |
4 |
A-1801030102 |
������������� 44 |
�� �����������88 |
5 |
A-1801030106 |
������������� 44 |
������������� 88 |
6 |
A-1801030107 |
������������� 39 |
������������� 78 |
7 |
A-1801030109 |
������������� 45 |
������������� 90 |
8 |
A-1801030110 |
������������� 40 |
������������� 80 |
9 |
A-1801030111 |
������������� 39 |
������������� 78 |
10 |
A-1801030112 |
������������� 40 |
������������� 80 |
11 |
A-1801030113 |
������������� 40 |
������������� 80 |
12 |
A-1801030114 |
������������� 43 |
������������� 86 |
13 |
A-1801030117 |
������������� 44 |
������������� 88 |
14 |
A-1801030119 |
������� ������45 |
������������� 90 |
15 |
A-1801030121 |
������������� 40 |
������������� 80 |
16 |
A-1801030122 |
������������� 44 |
������������� 88 |
17 |
A-1801030124 |
������������� 43 |
������������� 86 |
18 |
A-1801030126 |
������������� 44 |
������������� 88 |
19 |
A-1801030127 |
������������� 42 |
������������� 84 |
20 |
A-1801030129 |
������������� 41 |
������������� 82 |
21 |
A-1801030130 |
������������� 39 |
������������� 78 |
22 |
A-1801030133 |
������������� 39 |
������������� 78 |
23 |
A-1801030139 |
������������� 40 |
������������� 80 |
24 |
A-1801030140 |
������������� 42 |
������������� 84 |
25 |
A-1801030141 |
������������� 40 |
������������� 80 |
Total of the students = 25 |
������� 1.039 |
������� 2.078 |
|
Mean |
������������� 42 |
������������� 83 |
�������������� �������������������� �����Ʃ score
������������������������������������� ���Ʃ N
Score = Students� score
N = Number of the students
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
����������Ʃ Score
��������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������Ʃ N
�� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������2078
������ ��������������������������������������������������������������������
��������25
�������������������������������������������������������������
���������������� �= 83,0 %
According to the criterion provided by Education and
Culture of Republic of Indonesia (1994:34), learning process can be said
success if a student achieves score 65% and above. The column shows that 83,0 %
students having scores more than 65.
Tabel 7
The analysis
of post-test Group C
Group C |
|||
No. |
Test Code |
�X |
�Score |
1 |
A-1801030094 |
�������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
2 |
A-1801030099 |
�������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
3 |
A-1801030100 |
�������������
44 |
�������������
88 |
4 |
A-1801030115 |
������������
42 |
�������������
84 |
5 |
A-1801030116 |
�������������
41 |
�������������
82 |
6 |
A-1801030120 |
�������������
39 |
�������������
78 |
7 |
A-1801030125 |
�������������
39 |
�������������
78 |
8 |
A-1801030131 |
�������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
9 |
A-1801030136 |
�������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
10 |
A-1801030143 |
�������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
11 |
A-1801030144 |
�������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
12 |
A-1801030149 |
�������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
13 |
A-1801030152 |
�������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
14 |
A-1801030156 |
�������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
15 |
A-1801030157 |
�������������
40 |
������������
�80 |
16 |
A-1801030163 |
�������������
45 |
�������������
90 |
17 |
A-1801030167 |
�������������
45 |
�������������
90 |
18 |
A-'1801030045 |
�������������
44 |
�������������
88 |
19 |
A-'1801030052 |
�������������
44 |
�������������
88 |
20 |
A-'1801030056 |
�������������
43 |
������������� 86 |
21 |
A-'1801030064 |
�������������
39 |
�������������
78 |
22 |
A-1801030068 |
�������������
38 |
�������������
76 |
23 |
A-1801030071 |
�������������
38 |
�������������
76 |
24 |
A-1801030072 |
�������������
38 |
�������������
76 |
25 |
A-1801030073 |
�������� �����40 |
�������������
80 |
Total of the students =
25 |
������� 1.037 |
������� 2.074 |
|
Mean |
������������� 41 |
������������� 83 |
����� Ʃ score
��������������������������������������� Ʃ
N
Score =
Students� score
N = Number
of the students
�� Ʃ Score
������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������Ʃ N
2074
������ �������
��������������������������������������������������������������������25
�������� = 83,0 %
According to
the criterion provided by Education and Culture of Republic of Indonesia
(1994:34), learning process can be said success if a student achieves score 65%
and above. The column shows that 83,0 % students having scores more than 65.
Tabel 8
The analysis of post-test Group D
No. |
Test Code |
�X |
Score |
1 |
A-1801030087 |
����������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
2 |
A-1801030088 |
����������������
44 |
�������������
88 |
3 |
A-1801030091 |
����������������
43 |
�������������
86 |
4 |
A-1801030095 |
����������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
5 |
A-1801030096 |
����������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
6 |
A-1801030103 |
����������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
7 |
A-1801030104 |
����������������
41 |
�������������
82 |
8 |
A-1801030105 |
����������������
41 |
�������������
82 |
9 |
A-1801030108 |
����������������
41 |
��� ����������82 |
10 |
A-1801030118 |
����������������
41 |
�������������
82 |
11 |
A-1801030123 |
����������������
42 |
�������������
84 |
12 |
A-1801030128 |
����������������
42 |
�������������
84 |
13 |
A-1801030132 |
����������������
41 |
�������������
82 |
14 |
A-1801030134 |
���������������� 41 |
�������������
82 |
15 |
A-1801030135 |
����������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
16 |
A-1801030137 |
����������������
40 |
�������������
80 |
17 |
A-1801030138 |
����������������
39 |
�������������
78 |
18 |
A-1801030142 |
����������������
38 |
�����������
��76 |
19 |
A-1801030145 |
����������������
38 |
�������������
76 |
20 |
A-1801030147 |
����������������
39 |
�������������
78 |
21 |
A-1801030148 |
����������������
39 |
�������������
78 |
22 |
A-1801030151 |
����������������
39 |
�������������
78 |
23 |
A-1801030154 |
�������� ��������40 |
�������������
80 |
24 |
A-1801030155 |
����������������
45 |
�������������
90 |
25 |
A-1801030158 |
����������������
44 |
�������������
88 |
Total of the students = 25 |
��������� 1.021 |
������� 2.042 |
|
Mean |
��������������� 41 |
������������� 82 |
���� Ʃ score
�������������������������������������� Ʃ N
��� Score = Students� score
��� N = Number of the students
��� Ʃ Score
�������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������Ʃ N
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��� 2042
����������� �������������������������������������������������������������������
�����������25
����������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������= 82,0 %
According to the criterion provided by Education and
Culture of Republic of Indonesia (1994:34), learning process can be said
success if a student achieves score 65% and above. The column shows that 82,0 %
students having scores more than 65.
4. The analysis of the field notes
There were
some strong information influenced the data of the researcher that were shown
by the students. These feedback were very dominate to support the data of the
researcher that the students were very interesting studying Syntactic Structure
by using media Google Classroom. These are the specific results of the analysis
of the field notes, as:
1.
The performances of the students
during the lessons
Access to
Google Classroom needs laptop or smart phone and internet connection. During
the lessons, the researcher chose a class facilitated with a wifi and everyone had access to the internet. Related to
the data, there were 25 students chose for every class and all of them were
very enthusiastic for the lessons. All of them were very cooperative working in
teams to finish their team discussion. They also could connect their works with
other app and webs to their Google Classroom. Through the class notes for every
lesson, everyone gave their responses, such as giving questions, answering
questions and doing assignment before the final date. There was no absence
recorded.
2.
The result out of the box
There were
34 students for each of the class for every meeting. There was no one absent or
coming late. Everyone was joining the group presentation because there were
some presentation doing using Google Classroom and every student was actively
participated. It was proved through their commentaries left on the class work
stream.
Through the
analysis, the researcher concluded that everyone in the class was very
interesting studying Syntactic Structure.
5. Analysis of questionnaire
The analysis
of questionnaire was started differently for every class. Questionnaire for
group or class A was conducted on January 22, 2019, group B on January 23,
2019, group C on January 25, 2019 and group D on January 24, 2019. Every class
had 25 respondents. The researcher gave 5 questions to be answered. The
students asked to answer with �yes� or �no.�
Question for
number 1 was about the students� opinion whether the students were interested
to learn Syntactic Structure by using Google Classroom or not. There were 100%
students answering �yes� that they were interesting studying Syntactic
Structure by using Google Classroom.
Question
number 2 was about whether the Google Classroom helped the students to learn
Syntactic Structure or not. There were 100% students answering �yes� that
Google Classroom helped them to learn Syntactic Structure.
Question
number 3 was about whether there was an increasing achievement in learning
Syntactic Structure or not. There were 100% students answering �yes� that they
felt and saw their achievement in learning Syntactic Structure.
Questions
number 4 was about whether there was an influence of Google Classroom in
learning Syntactic Structure or not. There were 100% students answering �yes�
that they realized the influence of Google Classroom in learning Syntactic
Structure.
Questions
number 5 was about the students� opinion whether Google Classroom application
should be given continuously or not. There were 100% students answering �yes�
that they expected the teaching learning to be given by using Google Classroom.
6. Findings
Every
student responded on the use of Google Classroom. Totally there were 4 classes
and each of the class had 25 students. All of the students in the classes had
completed answering the pre-test, assignments, post-test and the questionnaire.
In class A there were 2 male and 23 female, in class B there were 3 male and 22
female, in class C there were 25 female and in class D there were 6 male and 19
female. There were 100 students totally participated in the research. Through
the result of the data analysis, the researcher concluded recommendation for
further research, as:
1. The
students� achievements in studying Syntactic Structure were increasing and
improving. It is proved by the comparative result between the pre-test and the
post-test for every class. Class A pre-test is 47,2% and the post-test is
83,3%; Class B pre-test is 49,8% and the post-test is 83,0%; Class C pre-test
is 50,7% and the post-test is 83,0% and Class D pre-test is 50,1% and the
post-test is 82,0%.
2. Based on the
questionnaire results, all of the students declared that studying Syntactic
Structure by using Google Classroom helped them in mastering the lesson.
Moreover, Google Classroom could increase the students� motivation to learn
Syntactic Structure.
3. Google
Classroom was the window of the knowledge because every student had a huge
access to explore everything about Syntactic Structure from other books, web
and library.
4. Every
student expected that teaching-learning activities should use Google Classroom
as media because it was easy and comfortable for everyone.
5. Class A
first assignment was 72,28%; second assignment was 77,64% and third assignment
was 79,80%. Class B first assignment was 68,44%; second assignment was 76,77%
and third assignment was 78,64%. Class C first assignment was 68,20%; second
assignment was 71,92% and third assignment was 74,52%. Class
D first assignment was 69,28%; second assignment was 69,92% and
the third assignment was 75,80%. Through the series of all the assignment
results, both the students and teachers sides felt satisfy with the
achievement. These show that Google Classroom is useful and helpful.
7.
Discussion
According to
the criterion provided by Education and Culture of Republic of Indonesia
(1994:34), learning process can be said success if a student achieves score 65%
and above. From the findings it is concluded that every student in group class
A, B, C and D have passed the standard score. The findings prove that teaching
Syntactic Structure by using Google Classroom has improved students�
achievement.
Conclusion
Chapter IV has proved that students achievement were
higher after they studied Syntactic Structure by using Google Classroom.
Students were very interesting to learn Syntactic Structure and they were
actively showed their interest through their activities in the class as well as
their assignment scores. Google Classroom has successfully helped the students
to understand and master the lesson. It is proved that both teacher and
students are totally useful to success teaching activities.
BIBLIOGRAFI
Bi, Peng, & Jiang, Jingyang. (2020). Syntactic
complexity in assessing young adolescent EFL learners� writings: Syntactic
elaboration and diversity. System, 91, 102248.
Bottge, Brian A., Rueda, Enrique, Kwon, Jung Min, Grant, Timothy, &
LaRoque, Perry. (2009). Assessing and tracking students� problem solving
performances in anchored learning environments. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 57(4), 529�552.
Brown, H. Douglas. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching
fifth edition. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Mehra, Mandeep R., Kobashigawa, Jon, Starling, Randall, Russell, Stuart,
Uber, Patricia A., Parameshwar, Jayan, Mohacsi, Paul, Augustine, Sharon,
Aaronson, Keith, & Barr, Mark. (2006). Listing criteria for heart transplantation:
International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines for the
care of cardiac transplant candidates�2006. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation,
25(9), 1024�1042.
Nickels, Stefanie, Opitz, Bertram, & Steinhauer, Karsten. (2013). ERPs
show that classroom-instructed late second language learners rely on the same
prosodic cues in syntactic parsing as native speakers. Neuroscience Letters,
557, 107�111.
No, Permendikbud. (2013). th 2013 tentang standar proses pada kurikulum 2013.
Depdikbud RI.
Rahmania Natasya, Putri, Sulistyani, Sulistyani, & Susanti, Yunik.
(2020). The Implementation Of Google Classroom To Teach Productive Skills In
New Normal Era. Journal of English Teaching and Research, 1�6.
Rienzo, Thomas, & Han, Bernard. (2009). Teaching Tip: Microsoft or
Google Web 2.0 Tools for Course Management. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 20(2), 123.
Siahaan, Kevin William Andri, Haloho, Uci Nursanty, Guk-guk, Maria Paulina
Angle Raja, & Panjaitan, Fitri Riana. (2021). Implementation of Discovery
Learning Methods to Improve Science Skills in Kindergarten B Children. Jurnal
Pendidikan Edutama, 8(1), 33�40.
Siahaan, Kevin William Andri, Lumbangaol, Sudirman T. P., Marbun,
Juliaster, Nainggolan, Ara Doni, Ritonga, Jatodung Muslim, & Barus, David
Patria. (2021). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Inkuiri Terbimbing dengan Multi
Representasi terhadap Keterampilan Proses Sains dan Penguasaan Konsep IPA. Jurnal
Basicedu, 5(1), 195�205.
Smith, Sidney C., Allen, Jerilyn, Blair, Steven N., Bonow, Robert O.,
Brass, Lawrence M., Fonarow, Gregg C., Grundy, Scott M., Hiratzka, Loren,
Jones, Daniel, & Krumholz, Harlan M. (2006). AHA/ACC guidelines for
secondary prevention for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic
vascular disease: 2006 update: endorsed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 47(10),
2130�2139.
Standage, Martyn, & Treasure, Darren C. (2002). Relationship among
achievement goal orientations and multidimensional situational motivation in
physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(1),
87�103.
Stoler, Mark H., Wright Jr, Thomas C., Sharma, Abha, Apple, Raymond,
Gutekunst, Karen, & Wright, Teresa L. (2011). High-risk human
papillomavirus testing in women with ASC-US cytology: results from the ATHENA
HPV study. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 135(3),
468�475.
Tamis‐LeMonda, Catherine S., Shannon, Jacqueline D., Cabrera,
Natasha J., & Lamb, Michael E. (2004). Fathers and mothers at play with
their 2‐and 3‐year‐olds: Contributions to language and
cognitive development. Child Development, 75(6), 1806�1820.
Zhang, Meixiu. (2018). Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The
effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 76, 1�12.