CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
           In this chapter, the writer discusses (a) background of the study; (b) problem of the study; (c) objective of the study; (d) significances of the study; (e) hypothesis; (f) criteria for testing hypotheses

A.	Background of the Study 
	Language is a tool of communication that is used to speak with other people. With language, people can talk and understand each other and communicate with other group of nations. Generally, communication can be divided into two forms; oral and writing. According to Siahaan (2008: 1), Language is a set of rules used by human as a tool of their communication. The use of language is governed by the conventional rules shared by the speakers of the language. Each of them must obey the rules; otherwise, they cannot use it effectively for the sake of their communication.  They cannot communicate well. Even worst, they cannot understand each other. Therefore, in order to become successful to join a communicative interaction, the members of a speech community must use their language according to the conventional rules. They share among themselves.  

1

In the world, there are many languages. One of them is English. English is an international language and a global language which is spoken by more people in the world. People who are able to communicate in English will be easier to get more information, knowledge and find a job. According to Richards (2007:  2) English is the language of globalization, international communication, commerce and trade, the media and pop culture, different motivation for learning it come in to play language.  
 In Indonesia, English is foreign language that had taught in Elementary School, Junior High School, Senior High School, and University Level. Based on the English curriculum in Indonesia, the English teaching is focused on the four language skills; they are listening, speaking, reading, and writing. In this research, the writer focuses on writing ability.
Writing is student’s ability in expressing their idea to tell something and give information to the other. According to Pincas (1987:4) as cited in Agisia (2012: 7) expressed that writing enables human being to communicate and express their feeling and opinions, writing is means of both communication and self-expression. In other words, writing means producing or reproducing message into written language. It involves an active process to organize and formulate the ideas or feeling on the paper so that the reader can follow the writer’s message. But we should know that writing requires an accurate and practical grammar, appropriate word choices and spelling, and various vocabularies as well. Furthermore, Heri (2009: 1) said that of the four of language skills, writing is more complicated for students to master because it needs long process. In writing students need to know the way of how to write well so that they can produce a good composition. If students have no good idea, they got bored and were not interested to write something. 
Based on the writers’ experienced in PPL II  in MA PARADIGMA two years ago,  from informal interview to the English teacher of MAN 3 Palembang and the result from students report book, it was found that some difficulties are also gotten by the students in studying writing. First, there were many spelling errors in writing that made students complicated. For example, students were difficult to know when the grammar used. The second, the students faced difficulty in expressing topic or ideas to be paragraph because they had the limitation of vocabulary and they didn’t know how to make the connection one paragraph to the other paragraph.   
	To solve the problems, the teacher must be able to choose suitable technique to the implementation of teaching writing. There are some techniques used in teaching writing English, one of them is EGRA (Experience, Generalization, Reinforcement, and Application). By using this technique, the students were given opportunity to find out the form and function of the sentence by themselves. According to Adrian (1998) as cited in Syahara (2012: 4) says that every stage of EGRA has a particular objective. The objective of the experience unconsciously learners to expose a particular structure item in use; the objective of generalization is that learners better remember conclusion about form and function, they make by themselves; the objective of the reinforcement helps the learners to check or revise their generalization; and the objective of the application uses or applies structure items learned in the previous stage to communicate information or massages.
	Based on the description above, the writer decided to conduct a research entitled “Teaching Writing Ability by Using EGRA (Experience, Generalization, Reinforcement and Application) Technique for The Eleventh Grade Student of MAN 3 PALEMBANG”. In this research, the writer find out whether there is any significant difference on the student’s writing ability taught by using EGRA technique. 
B.	Problem of the Study
	Based on the explanation above, the problem of the study is formulated in the following question:”Is there any significant difference on students’ writing ability taught by using EGRA technique for the eleventh grade students of MAN 3 Palembang?” 
C.	Objective of the Study 
	Due to the problem above, the objective of the study is to find out whether or not there is significant difference on students’ writing ability taught by using EGRA technique for the eleventh grade students of MAN 3 Palembang.
D.	Significances of the Study
	There are three significances that expect to be used as a feedback for increasing students’ ability in learning English especially in writing narrative text through EGRA technique, it is also expected to be useful for:
1.	For English teacher of MAN 3 Palembang, EGRA Technique gives a positive contribution to English teaching and learning process. It has an alternative way to teach writing, especially in motivating and helping students in improving their writing ability.
2.	For students, EGRA Technique is encouraged students to motivate and increase their interest in writing subject.
3.	For other researchers, this research is expected to be used as an additional source. Especially, it is beneficial for those who conduct a study on students’ writing ability. It can enrich the teachers’ technique in teaching writing.

E.	Hypothesis
	There are two hypotheses in this research, the null hypothesis (H0) and the alternative hypothesis (Ha).
H0:	There is no significant difference on students’ writing ability that taught by using EGRA technique.
Ha:  	There is significant difference on students’ writing ability that taught by using EGRA technique.

F.	Criteria for Testing Hypotheses
The criteria for testing hypotheses were followed:
	If the p-output (Sig.2-tailed) is lower than 0.05 and the t-value is higher than the t-distribution table, it means that there is significant difference. But, if the p-output (sig.2-tailed) is higher than 0.05 and the t-value is lower than the t-distribution table, it means that there is no significant difference. Then, the t-value in experimental and control group are compared. If the t-value in experimental group is higher than the t-value in control group, the null hypotheses (Ho) is rejected, and the alternative hypotheses (Ha) is accepted. While, if the t-value in experimental group is lower than the t-value in control group, the null hypotheses (Ho) is accepted, and the alternative hypotheses (Ha) is rejected. 

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW AND RELATED PREVIOUS STUDY
		In this chapter, the writer discusses (a) the concept of teaching; (b) the concept of teaching writing; (c) the concept of teaching writing narrative text; (d) the concept of EGRA technique; (e) the research setting of the school; (f) previous related studies.
A.	 The Concept of Teaching 
		According to Moore (2001) teaching defines as “the actions of someone who is trying to assist others to reach their fullest potential in all aspects of developing”. Furthermore, Richards and Renandya (2003: 20), teaching is viewed as something that is constructed by individual teacher. In this perspective, teaching is viewed as driven by teachers’ attempt to integrate the practice. Teacher-education programs give teachers grounding in academic the research, which they test out against the practical realities of teaching. In so doing create their own new understanding of teaching, which are expanded and revised tackle new problems and deepen their experiential and knowledge base of teaching.
		From the explanation above, it can be concluded that teaching is a way to teach or actions that was done by teacher in giving knowledge to students. It is interpreted as an interaction in teaching and learning process. It also occurs as a process to have interaction between teachers and students.

B.	The Concept of Teaching Writing
Writing is the most difficult subject in the school since the students have to produce a text by using English. They have to write about what they think in their mind and state it on a paper by using the correct procedure. 
According to Hedge (2000: 302), writing is the result of employing strategies to manage the composing process, which is one of gradually developing a text, it involves a number of activities: setting goals, generating ideas, organizing information, selecting appropriate language, making a draft, reading and reviewing it, then revising and editing. It is complex process which is neither easy nor spontaneous for many second language writers.
	According to Heaton (1990: 135), the writing skills are complex and sometimes difficult to teach, requiring mastery not only of grammatical and rhetorical devices but also of conceptual and judgmental elements. The following analysis attempts to group the many and varied skills necessary for writing good prose into five general components or main ideas. 
a)	Language use: the ability to write correct and appropriate sentences
b)	Mechanical skills: the ability to use correctly those conventions peculiar to the written language. e.g. punctuation, spelling
c)	Treatment of content: the ability to think creatively and develop thoughts, excluding all irrelevant information
d)	Stylistic skills: the ability to manipulate sentences and paragraphs, and use language effectively.
e)	Judgement  skills: the ability to write in an appropriate manner for a particular purpose with a particular audience in mind, together with an ability to select, organize and order relevant information.		
From the definitions above, the writer can conclude that writing is a way to produce language that comes from our thought. It is written on a paper or a computer screen.
	According to Nunan (1999: 272), one of the most controversial aspects of writing pedagogy has been the tension between process and product approaches to the teaching of writing. Product-oriented approaches focus on the final product, the coherent, error-free text. Process approaches focus on the steps involved in drafting and redrafting a piece of work. Product-oriented approaches to writing focus on tasks in which the learner imitates, copies, and transforms models provided by the teacher and/or the textbook. The focus was also very much on the sentence level grammar, the belief being that sentences were the building blocks of discourse, and that discourse was created by fitting one building block on the next text.
Furthermore, according to Harmer ( 2001: 255-257), in the teaching of writing the writer can focus on the product of that writing or on the writing process. when concentrating on product, the writer is only interested in the aim of a task and in the end product. There are three elements in product approach, they are handwriting, spelling and layout and punctuation.
a.	Handwriting
Handwriting is a personal issue. Students should not all be expected to use exactly the same style, despite copying exercises like the one above. Nevertheless badly-formed letters may influence the reader against the writer; something which is undesirable whether the work is the product of some creative task or more seriously, work that is going to be assessed in a test or exam. The teacher should encourage students with problematic handwriting to improve it.
b.	Spelling
Although incorrect spelling does not often prevent the understanding of a written message, it can adversely affect the readers’ judgement. All too often bad spelling is perceived as a lack of education or care. One of the reasons that spelling is difficult for students of English is that the correspondence between the sound of a word and the way it is spelt is not always obvious, and same spelling may have many different sounds. when students work on different phonemes, the teacher need to draw students attention to the common spellings of those phonemes. One of the best ways to help students to improve their spelling is through reading, especially extensively. Teachers also draw student’s attention to spelling problems and explain why students occur. Copying from written models is one way to do this; when students see and reflect on their copying mistakes, their spelling ‘consciousness’ is raised (Porte 1995).
c.	Layout and Punctuation
	Different writing communities (both between and within cultures) obey different punctuation and layout conventions in communications such as letters, reports, and publicity. These are frequently non-transferable from one community or language to another. Such differences are easily seen in the different language use, or the way in which commas are used instead of/as much as full stops in certain language, while comma ‘overuse’ is frowned on by many writers and editors of English. Some Punctuation conventions, such as the capitalization of names, months, and the pronoun I, are specific to only one or a few languages. Though punctuation is frequently a matter of personal style, violation of well-established customs makes a piece of writing look awkward to many readers. To be successful as writers in our own or another language, we need to be aware of these layouts and use/modify them when appropriate to get our message across as clearly as we can.
	In syllabus, there are many kinds of text for writing ability of the Senior High School in second semester. To make clear information, this is syllabus for writing ability. It shows in table 1.
Table 1.
Syllabus for Writing
Standard of Competence	Basic of Competence / Material	
Writing 
Understanding meaning in short written functional text and narrative, spoof, hortatory exposition simple essays in daily activity contexts.	Understanding in meaning and rhetoric steps in essay by using a variety of written language accurately, smooth and acceptable in the context of everyday life in texts: narrative, spoof and hortatory.	

C.	The Concept of Teaching Writing Narrative Text
	According to Hopper and Thomson (1980: 280) as cited in Baryadi (1980: 97) say that narrative is composed of two kinds of structures: temporal structures, which charts the progress of the narrative through time by presenting a series of events which are understood to occur sequentially; and durative/descriptive structure, which provides a spatial, character-logical, and durational context for which the temporal structure marks time and changes of state. Furthermore, according to Pardiyono (2007: 94), narrative is a kind of texts that tell activities or events in the past time which show the problematic experience and resolution with having means of amusing and giving the lesson to the reader.
	According to Smalley and Ruetten (1982: 58), narrative paragraphs describe a sequence of events or tell a story in other words, narrative paragraph describe an experience. The logical arrangement of ideas and sentences in a narrative paragraph is chronological-according to time order. Furthermore, they (1982: 24) said that there are principally two types of writing that require chronological development: narration and process description.  Although narration usually refers to the telling of a story, the term is here used to describe the relating of an experience. An experience may be in the past (past narration) or it may be a typical experience (what people usually do) or it may be going on now (present narration).
	According to Pardiyono (2006: 163), the content of narrative gives information and amuse or entertain and deal with actual or various experiences. The topic is about real happening or fiction. Novel and short story is one of texts with narrative category. Writing focus is in events, happenings (real or fiction). The grammatical pattern is to repeat of subject in sequence, to use past tense sentence, and to use sequence markers: first, then, after, etc.
Generic structures (text elements):
Text elements	Example	
Orientation: introduce who, where, when, and what happened	One day, a huge snake got in my aunt’s living room.	
Sequence of events: contents sequence of events, usually use past tense form	First, she was very frightened, but she tried to manage herself to be quiet. Unfortunately, she failed to do it, so she screamed out very loudly and then called some neighbors for some help.
After that, she ran out and in try to chase the snake out of the room, but she failed to do so.	
Resolution : contents the events or story and solve the problem	Some neighbors suggested using salt to chase it away. Then she went to the kitchen to get a cup of salt. Using her right hand, she spread the salt over the snake and the floor of the living room. Not long after that, the snake slowly began to move its body and through the opened door, it began to leave the room.	
Coda (colling down) : contents about moral lesson that can be taken of that events.	My aunt was so relieved to see the snake leaving the room without making any harm to anybody	

Kinds of narrative text, they are:
a.	Legend: Sangkuriang, Malin Kundang, etc.
b.	Fable: Mouse deer and crocodile.
c.	Fairy tale: Cinderella, Snow white, Pinocchio, etc.
d.	Science fiction
From the definition above, the writer can conclude that narrative story is a story tells us about something interesting that has purpose to amuse, entertain or the readers. The writer uses narrative when the writer tell a friend about something interesting that happen to the writer at work or at school, when the writer tells someone a joke too. The writer will use narrative text in improving writing. Students can feel more relax in learning writing lesson and it will be easier for them to produce narrative texts.

D.	The Concept Of EGRA Technique
	In oxford learner’s pocket dictionary (2000: 443) states that technique is way of doing something especially one that needs special skills. Furthermore, Brown (2001: 16) says that technique is any of a wide variety of exercises, activities, or tasks used in the language classroom for realizing lesson objectives. It can be concluded that technique is procedures that’s teacher used in teaching and teacher used it as an activity in the classroom.
	In learning and teaching process in the classroom, the teacher must master in using some certain techniques. For example is EGRA technique.  EGRA is a technique of teaching English that was firstly introduced in teachers training program (PKG) for English teachers in Indonesia. This technique consists of four steps such as experience, generalization, reinforcement, application. For teacher who join PKG training program, EGRA is not the new trend in English teaching and learning technique. It is developed from communicative approach. Through this technique students are engaged to practice their ability to communicate naturally. 
	According to Tomlinson (1990: 31), PKG has been experimenting with a student active discovery approach which has become known as EGRA, where the letters stand for Experience, Generalization, Reinforcement, and Application. One of the assumptions behind this approach that if the students are exposed to English in use through reading and through the teacher using English as the medium of instruction, then they will eventually acquire formal and functional communicative competence in the main structures of the curriculum. The other is that focusing their conscious attention on aspects of structure which are problematic to them to contribute to the development of their communicative competence, providing they do so through discovery activities which actively involve them in analysis and application rather than through receiving information passively from textbook or teacher. In these EGRA lessons the teacher uses English throughout, so that even if the students do not significantly develop their understanding of the highlighted structure they can at least benefit from exposure to meaningful English in use. However, the students use Indonesia language in their discussions and in their generalizations to facilitate their analysis and the formulation of their conclusions. The detail explanations of each stage of EGRA technique are as follows:
a)	Experience
	Experience is effective stage to present the previously taught of structure which have some functions, because in this stage, the students are subconsciously expose to the meaningful use of particular structure item. This learning experience makes the students more active from the beginning of the teaching process where they will come into a great discovery. According to Wernon (1980) as cited in Syahara (2012: 26) states that activity involving direct experience is highly inquiry oriented. The student is an active participant rather than the passive observer of the teacher. The experience in this research refers to guiding the students to learn every element of writing. For example. Content organization, and the structure used in writing and so on
b)     Generalization
	In this stage the students are led through tasks to discover form, meaning and function of a structure they have been exposed to. The rational for the generalization is the learner better remember conclusion about the form and function(s) they make for themselves. The generalization is the central of EGRA technique where students are expected to make a discovery of language structure. According to Rivers (1968: 77) as cited in Syahara (2012: 27) says that generalization become more comprehensive as the students advanced in knowledge of language and is able to recognize characteristics feature of the language structure. In this step the teacher will guide through leading questions to find out the generic structure of the text, for example, the form, meaning, and function of the sentence. Learning experience, which the students have gained, will facilitate them in the discovery process, which becomes the main purpose of the generalization.
c)	Reinforcement	
		Reinforcement is a learning stage where students are provided with correct and conscious knowledge of the form, and functions of the structure item that they have been exposed to. The objective of this stage is to help learners to check or revise their generalization that students should have corrected and consciousness of the form and function of a certain structure item. In this step, the teacher explains again what the students have discovered so that they get reinforcement. According to Alexander (1975: XXII) says that the aim behind all explanation should be to reinforce theoretically what the students has already practiced orally. After the students have got self confidence through teacher’s reinforcement or explanation, they will do task again. In other words, reinforcement sharpens the individual’s attention or concentration for the second task. It is stated above that the real form or example of this reinforcement stage is that the writer gave more tasks to the students so that what they have learned before can again be sharpened. This can make them better understand the material.
d)	Application
	Application is learning stage where students are given opportunities to use or apply the structure item that they have learned in communication either receptively or productively.
	According to Kenneth (1976: 83) as cited in Syahara (2012: 29) says that the objective of the application is to determine whether the students know how to apply grammatical forms that have previously been presented. From the statement above, it is clear that language, which has been taught, must be applied in its situation. This step also mirrors about the importance of the application in learning and teaching process, especially in teaching English structure. This is the moment of truth where they can compose narrative text by themselves well.
	The advantage of EGRA technique is the teacher doesn’t speak too much because the student look for, conclude concept and practice in applying concept. The teacher is as motivator, advisor and evaluator. EGRA technique uses students centered; it makes students to be active and creative students
	Based on the explanation of EGRA above, the writer thinks that every step of EGRA which stands for Experience, Generalization, Reinforcement, and Application will lead the students to be better at writing skill. Dealing with the process of writing as revealed above, the writer wants to make it sure that running all the steps of the EGRA technique in writing process will lead the students to have a good writing. 
E.	Research Setting of MAN 3 Palembang
In this research, the writer did the research in MAN 3 as writer’s place of research. The writer did research in 14 meetings, 12 meetings for treatment, 1 meeting for pretest and 1 meeting for posttest. This is research setting of MAN 3 PALEMBANG. Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 3 Palembang is the name of school that writer choosen. This school is SSN (Sekolah Standar Nasional) with 96 (A+) as status acrediation of school. It is located at Jl. Inspektur marzuki No.1480, Kelurahan: Siring Agung, Kecamatan: Ilir Barat I, Kota/Kabupaten: Kotamadya Palembang, Province: Sumatera Selatan 30138, e-mail: man3plg@gmail.com, website : man3plg.sch.id, Telepon/Fax: 0711-411712 / 0711-421008. The Headmaster is DR.H. Ahmad Zainuri, M.Pd.I., there are 50 people as civil servant teachers, and 61 people as honorer teachers and employees. The total students are 731,  they consist of 282 male and 449 female. In this school, there are three classes, they are excel class, bilingual class, and regular class. In excel class, the student just study on 2 years, in bilingual class, the students study on 3 years but they must use two languages in their daily activity, the languages are english and arab language. Finally, in regular class, the students study on 3 years same as other schools.

F.	Previous Related Studies
	Another researcher found out that writing support one’s education. first is done by Idrus (2008). The title was increasing narrative text writing achievement of the eleventh grade students at SMA SETIA DARMA Palembang through herringbone strategy. The objective were to find out whether or not there was a significant in narrative text writing between the students of SMP SETIA DARMA Palembang who were taught by the application of herringbone strategy and that of those who were taught by traditional strategy and to know whether or not there was a significant difference in narrative text writing between the students of SMA SETIA DARMA Palembang in writing achievement before and after taught by using herringbone strategy. The study applied quasi-experimental method and used pre and posttest design approach. The results of the tests were analyzed by using t-test through SPSS program. The result of the study shows that it was found; (1) there were a significant difference in narrative text writing between the students who were taught by using application of herringbone strategy and those who were taught by traditional strategy based on the independent sample t-test. (2) All of the 11th grade students of SMA SETIA DARMA Palembang applied herringbone strategy in narrative text writing.
	The second research is done by Agisia (2011).  The title was the use of EGRA Technique to Increase Students Writing Skill of CLASS VIII B at SMP Mulawarman Tarakan Academic year 2011/2012. The objective was the objective of the research was to find out whether the use of EGRA technique can increase the eighth year students in writing skill of SMP Mulawarman Tarakan. The result was The result of this research showed that the mean score gained by the students in the first cycle was 60.32 or 10 students got the succeeded level while in the second cycle was 71.32 or 20 students got succeeded level from 25 students. This rate showed that the students got improved after leading the process of the implementation of EGRA technique in the first and the second cycle. The result of the test in the first cycle increased in the second cycle and it was greater than the minimum pass criteria (70.00). The study concluded that the use of EGRA technique can increase the writing skill of Class VIII B at SMP can be Mulawarman Tarakan academic year 2011/2012."	
	There are similarities and differences between those previous studies and the writer’s present study. First, the similarity between Idrus thesis and the writer’s study is same text and same skill namely narrative text and writing ability. But the difference is the Idrus thesis used herringbone strategy to increase narrative text writing achievement but in the writer’s study, the writer uses the EGRA Technique to teach writing ability. Second, the similarity between Agisia thesis and the writer’s study is the same skill and same technique namely writing skill and EGRA technique. But the difference is in the writer’s study, the writer uses narrative text as the material. 

CHAPTER III
METHOD AND PROCEDURE
	In this chapter, the writer discusses (a) method of research; (b) variable of research; (c) operational definition; (d) population and sample; (e) technique for collecting data; (f) The scoring system; (g) Validity and Reliability of the Test; (h) technique for analyzing data

A.	Method of the Research 
	In doing this research, the writer used quasi experiment. According to Frankel and Wallen (1990: 275) states that quasi experimental design does not include the use of random assignment. Researcher who employs these designs relies instead to other techniques for controlling or at least reducing threats to the internal validity. In addition, Ary (1976: 316) states that quasi experimental is similar to randomized experimental design in that they involve manipulation of an independent variable but differ in that subjects are not randomly assigned to treatments groups. Because it does not provide full control, it is extremely important that researchers be aware of the threats to both internal and external validity and considers these factors in their interpretation. The writer used the matching only pretest- posttest control group design.  Fraenkel and Wallen (2012: 275) explained that, this design offers an alternative to random assignments, because even though the researcher matches the subjects in experimental and control groups on certain variables, the subjects already are in intact group. After the groups have been randomly assigned to the different treatments, the individuals receiving one treatment are matched with the individuals receiving the other treatments.
This design presented as follows:
Experimental group		M	O1	X	O2		
		Control group 		M	O3	C	O4
Where:
M	: the subjects in each group have been matched
O1	: pretest of experimental groups
O2	: posttest of experimental groups
O3	: pretest of control groups
O4	: posttest of control groups
X	: treatment for experiment group
C	: treatment for control group
(Frankel and Wallen, 2012: 275)
	In this study, the writer divided the samples into 2 groups, as experimental and control group. For those who were in experimental group, the writer applied the EGRA technique in the treatment in order to improve their narrative writing ability, and for those who were not in experimental group or who were in the control group, the writer did not apply this strategy. In other words, the writer did not give any treatment for those who were in control group. The writer gave the same pretest to the two groups. The students who got the same score will be matched and they were as a sample. Then, the writer asked to an English teacher to choose which group belongs to experimental and control group. Finally, the writer got XI A 1 as an experiment group and XI A 3 as an control group. 
B.	Variable of the Study
	There are two kinds of variables in this research; they are dependent and independent variables. According to Frankel and Wallen (1991: 35-36), independent variables are those the investigator chooses to study and often manipulate in order to assess their possible effects on one or more other variables. An independent variable is presumed to have an effect on, to influence somehow. The variable that the independent variable is presumed to affect is called the dependent variable. In commonsense terms, the nature of the dependent variable “ depends on “ what the independent variable does to it. How it affects it. The relationship between the independent and dependent variables can be portrayed graphically as follows:
	Independent variables 			Dependent variables
        (Presumed or possible cause)			  (Presumed results)
 In this study, the independent variable was EGRA technique. The dependent variable was the students’ writing ability in narrative text.	
C.	  Operational Definition
	For the purpose of the study, the following terms are defined: writing, narrative, EGRA technique. The word Writing refers to written activity. You can learn to write and improve your writing only by writing. There is no other way and Writing is one activity that the students do in almost of their study. Through writing assignment, they can express their ideas, tell stories and give information. Besides, they are also expected to be able to produce a good writing. Writing skill is considered difficult because it is more formal and compact. Writing is the process of thinking once, too.  It starts to set goals, generate ideas, organize information, select appropriate language, make a draft, read and review what  we have written, and the last revise and edit it. Then the word of Narrative refers to one Kind of text that tells a story in the past. In narrative, the writer presents events in a time order. The focused of this written was an event that happened to you or no. Although, you may get mistake from that events. The word EGRA is an abbreviation from Experience, Generalization, Reinforcement, and Application. Through this technique students are engaged to practice their ability to write more meaningful and naturally  
D.	Population and Sample
1. Population
	Population is a set (or collection) of all elements possessing one or more attributes of interests (In encyclopedia of educational evaluation cited in Arikunto’s book:, 2010: 173).  Furthermore, Frankel and Wallen (1991: 129) said that population is the group of interest to the researcher, the group to which the researcher would like to generalize the results of the study.  This study was done at MAN 3 Palembang, the writer chose all of the eleventh grade of science in MAN 3 Palembang as the population. The total number of them was 127 students. There were four classes of eleventh graders. The distribution of the population is presented in table 2. 
Table 2.
THE POPULATION OF STUDY IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-2013
No.	Classes	Number of students	
1.	XI A 1	31	
2.	XI A 2	33	
3.	XI A 3	31	
4.	XI A 4	32	
Total	127	
		  (Source: MAN 3 Palembang in Academic year 2012/2013
2.	Sample
	According to Ary et al. (1976: 148) states that sample are the small group that is observed and a portion of a population. Furthermore, Frankel and Wallen (1991: 129) said that sample is any group on which information is obtained. To select the sample, the writer used purposive sampling technique; because the writer tried to find the sample that were at least nearly the same result in English subject, especially in writing skill. The writer got some information from the teacher and the results of students report book. The writer took classes XI IPA 1 and XI IPA 3 because these two classes have the same good English competence in eleventh grade and have the same number of the students as considerations. The total number of them was 62 students. They were chosen purposively. The writer asked to an English teacher to determine which group belongs to experimental and control group. The writer then got the class XI IPA 1 as the experimental group and XI IPA 3 as the control group. Finally, the writer found some pairs that have the same scores then the writer matched it from pretest score and they were as sample in this study. 
	Among 62 students, the writer took 40 students from 20 pairs who have the same scores between two groups. It was described in Table 3
Table 3
The sample of the study
NO	GROUP CLASS	TOTAL	Matched group	
1	XI IPA 1 (experimental group)	31	20	
2	XI IPA 3 (control group)	31	20	
TOTAL	62	40	
	Based on the match group above, the writer got 20 students in the XI science 1(experimental group) and another 20 students in the class XI science 3 (control group) as the sample of the study. The higher score was 77 that achieved by one pair student and the lower one was 51 that achieved by one pair student too. (see appendices D)
E.	Technique for Collecting Data
	The data were gathered from the result of the pretest and posttest of writing tests. This was done to find out the differences of the students’ progress after the treatment whether there is or not improvement on student’s writing ability. Firstly, the writer gave the pretest before doing the treatment to two classes. By using the pre-test result, the writer matched their scores. Secondly, the writer did the treatment for 12 times (meetings) in experimental group. It was done to know the result of scores that taught by using EGRA and who weren’t taught by EGRA technique. It was found out the significant improvement between the experimental group and control group technique. The writer used different title of the narrative text during treatment (lesson plan) (see appendices E). The writer took the narrative text title from the English book. Finally, the writer gave the post-test to the both group. The pre-test items would be same from the post-test one, but it was different from treatment material. The tests are in form of asking the students to compose well-organized narrative essay.
F.	The Scoring System
	In scoring the students’ answers, the writer follows the following systems: there are five items to know the scoring students’ answer; they are contents, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics. According to Heaton (1990: 146)
 Content
30-27   EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: knowledgeable-substantive-etc.
26-22   GOOD TO AVERAGE: some knowledge of subject-adequate range-etc.
21-17   FAIR TO POOR: limited knowledge of subject-little substance-etc.
16-13   VERY POOR: does not show knowledge of subject-non-substance-etc.	
Organization
20-18   EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: fluent expression-ideas clearly stated- 
            etc.
17-14   GOOD TO AVERAGE: somewhat choppy-loosely organized but main  
             ideas stand out-etc.
13-10   FAIR TO POOR: non-fluent-ideas confused or disconnected-etc.
9-7       VERY POOR: does not communicate-no organization-etc.	
Vocabulary
20-18   EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: sophisticated range-effective 
            word/idiom choice and usage-etc
17-14   GOOD TO AVERAGE: adequate range-occasional errors of word/idiom 
             form, choice, usage but meaning not obscured.
13-10   FAIR TO POOR: limited range-frequent errors of word/idiom form,  
            choice, usage-etc
9-7      VERY POOR: essentially translation-little knowledge of English 
           vocabulary.	
Language use
25-22  EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective complex constructions-etc
21-10  GOOD TO AVERAGE: effective but simple constructions-etc
17-11	FAIR TO POOR: major problems in simple/complex constructions-etc
10-5	VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules-etc. 	
Mechanics
6	   EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates mastery of conventions-etc
      GOOD TO AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation-etc
      FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization- 
        etc
2	VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions-dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing-etc 	

G.	 Validity and Reliability of the Test 
	A test is considered good if it is valid and reliable. In order to find its validity and reliability, the writer did the try out the test item before doing experiment.
1.	Validity of the Test
		According to Frankel and Wallen (1991: 85), the validity refers to the extent to which an instrument gives us the information was want. A less obvious example is the assessment of students’ knowledge by means of tests item that require student to read and analyze written passage. Furthermore, Heaton (1975: 153) said that validity is the extent to which it measures what it is supposed to measure and nothing else. Every test, whether it is short, informal classroom test or a public examination, should be valid as the constructor can make it. The test must aim to provide a true measure of the particular skill which it is intended to measure: to the extent that it measures external knowledge and other skills at the same time, it will not be a valid test. To make the test has a high degree of the content validity; the writer had checked the curriculum and syllabus from the school. Then, the writer asked two experts to judge the difficulty and appropriateness of the writing test. The two experts are lectures of English  that have more experiences in teaching writing ability, they judged independently by relating the topic of writing test and the writing aspects such as content, organization, vocabularies , language use, mechanics to the test of specification which was correlated to the syllabus. The result analysis in content validity is described in table of specification test. It includes: objectives of the test, material, and indicator, type of test, number of item, and total number.
Table 4
Test of Specification Table
Objectives	Indicator	Material	Type of Test	Number of Item	Total number	
The students are able to write some paragraphs in the form of narrative entitled “TIMUN EMAS”, “JOKO TOLE”, and “SITU BAGENDIT”	-	Use past continuous sentence in writing spoof
-	Use the complex sentence in making a story
-	Use modal ‘ should’ for writing advice in hortatory exposition texts.
-	Produce spoof texts
-	Produce narrative texts
-	Produce hortatory exposition texts.
	Write a narrative paragraph that includes about 4 paragraphs. Each paragraph consists of 5 sentences.	

Written test	

1	

1	

2.	Reliability of the Test 
	According to Heaton (1975: 155-156) states that Reliability is a necessary characteristic of any good test: for it to be valid at all, a test must first be reliable as a measuring instrument. Reliability is of primary importance in the use of both public achievement and proficiency tests and classroom tests. An appreciation of the various factors affecting reliability is important for the teacher at very outset, since many teachers tend to regard tests as infallible measuring instruments and fail to realize that even the best test is indeed an imprecise instrument with which to measure language skills. One method of measuring the reliability of a test is to re-administer the same test after a lapse of time. Furthermore, Frankel and Wallen (1991: 95) said that reliability refers to the consistency of scores or answers-how consistent they are for each individual from one administration of an instrument to another, and from one set of items to another. Notice that scores obtained from an instrument can be quite reliable, but not valid.
	Before the writer gave pretest to the experimental and control groups, the writer have done the try out in two different schools. The schools were MAN 1 Palembang in Jakabaring of the XI IPA 3 and MAN 2 in IAIN’s neighbor of the XI IPA 1. The purpose of taking the school is to show the appropriateness of the writing item. After that, the results of test were given to the raters in order to know the scores of test. The writer used two raters to give the scores of students writing test. The writer took the two English teachers from different school to be raters in giving score to the students’ writing test. They are Pipit Aman Septiana, S.Pd and Nina Fitriyani, S.Pd. Before the raters gave the score for the students’ test, the writer gave the instruments of scoring systems in scoring writing to the raters. Finally, after the writer got all the scores of test from the two raters, the writer analyzed the scores by using Range Order Correlation to see the reliability of the test.  According to Hollandyah (2013: 70) argue that for research purpose, a rule of thumb is that reliability should at least 0.70 and preferably higher. The results will show in the table (see appendices H).
	From the results, it could be seen the results of reliability were 0.995622. The analysis results of the data showed that the students’ score was very reliable. Furthermore, according to Frankel and Wallen (1990: 136) states that reliability should be at least 0.70 and preferably higher. Since the results were higher than 0.70. It means that the assessment was reliable.
H.	Techniques For Analyzing Data
	The data was taken from pretest and posttest of writing tests are analyzed by using paired samples t-test. The writer wanted to find the significant improvement of the result from pretest and posttest of both of experimental and control group. All the computation was analyzed by using SPSS 17.0 version. In analyzing the data obtained from the text, the writer used the following stages.
1.	 Data Descriptions
	In the data description of frequency data and description statistics were analyzed.
1.1	Distributions of frequency table
In this part, the students’ scores are described by presenting a number of
student who got a certain score, and its score’s percentage.
1.2	Descriptive statistic
	In this part, the data is obtained to get the lowest score (minimum), the highest score (maximum), mean score and the score of standard deviation.
2.	Prerequisite Analysis
	Prerequisite analysis is an analysis done before testing the research hypothesis. It estimates whether or not obtained the data from students’ pretest and posttest scores in both groups (experiment and control) are distributed normal and homogeny. The following is prerequisite analysis in terms of analyzing normality and homogeneity test.
2.1	Normality Test
	It is used to measure the obtained data whether it is normal or not. The data is obtained from students’ pretest and posttest in control and experimental groups. According Hollandyah (2013: 82) states that the test is considered normal whenever it is higher than 0.05 Furthermore, Basrowi and Soenyono (2007: 78) stated that the significance or probability score is > 0.05, the distribution is normal (symmetries). The writer used Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to analyze the normality test. 
2.2	Homogeneity Test
	It is used to measure the obtained data whether it is homogen or not. According to Hollandyah (2013: 88 ) states that The data can be categorized homogen whenever it is higher than 0.05. Furthermore, Basrowi and Soenyono (2007: 106) stated that if the probability or significance score is > 0.05, it is homogeny. The writer used Lavene Statistic to analyze the homogeneity test.
3.	Hypothesis Testing
	In testing the research hypothesis, the following testing instruments are used. The writer used paired sample t-test. It is used to measure means significant improvement from students’ pretest to posttest in each group. According to McMillan and Schumacher (2010: 298) state that If the calculated significance is less than the predetermined level (< .05) or p-output (sig.2-tailed) is lower than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypotheses (Ha) is accepted. It means that there is means significant improvement. However, if the calculated significance is higher than the predetermined level (< .05) or the p-output (Sig.2-tailed) is higher than 0.05, the null hypotheses (Ho) is accepted, and the alternative hypotheses (Ha) is rejected. It means that there is no means significant improvement. It can be concluded that if the p-output (Sig.2-tailed) is lower than 0.05 and the t-value is higher than the t-distribution table, it means that there is a significant improvement. But, if the p-output (Sig.2-tailed) is higher than 0.05 and the t-value is lower than the t-distribution table, it means that there is no significant improvement. Then, the t-value in experimental and control group are compared. If the t-value in experimental group is higher than the t-value in control group, the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted. While, if the t-value in experimental group is lower than the t-value in control group, the null hypothesis (Ho) is accepted and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is rejected.

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION
In this chapter, the writer discusses (a) findings; and (b) interpretation of the study.
A.	 Findings
	The findings of study were to find out: (1) Data Descriptions; (2) Prerequisite Analysis; and (3) Hypothesis Testing in measuring significant improvement on students’ writing ability using paired sample t-test.
1.	Data Descriptions
In data description, the data analyzed were distribution of frequency data and descriptive statistics on students pretest and posttest scores of experimental and control groups 
1.1	Distributions of Frequency Data
	In description of frequency data, score, frequency and percentage were analyzed. The scores were got from; (a) students’ pretest scores in control group, (b) students’ posttest scores in control group, (c) students’ pretest scores in experimental group, (d) students’ posttest scores in experimental group.

a.	Students’ Pretest Scores in Control Group
Based on the analysis of the pretest in the Control group, it was found that there was 1 student (5.0%) who got 51, 1 student (5.0%) who got 56, 1 student (5.0%)  who got 56.5, 2 students (10.0%) who got 58.5, 2 students (10.0%) who got 59,  1 student (5.0%) who got 61.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 62, 1 student (5.0%)  who got 66, 2 students (10.0%)  who got 67, 2 students (10.0%) who got 67.5, 1 students (5.0%) who got 68.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 70, 1 student (5.0%) who got 71.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 72, 1 student (5.0%) who got 72.5, 1 student (5.0%)  who got 77. The distribution of frequency data in pretest of control group is figured out in Table 5.
Table 5
Result Analysis in Distributing the Frequency Data in Pretest Control Group

Pretest_Ctrl	
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent	
Valid	51.00	1	5.0	5.0	5.0	
	56.00	1	5.0	5.0	10.0	
	56.50	1	5.0	5.0	15.0	
	58.50	2	10.0	10.0	25.0	
	59.00	2	10.0	10.0	35.0	
	61.50	1	5.0	5.0	40.0	
	62.00	1	5.0	5.0	45.0	
	66.00	1	5.0	5.0	50.0	
	67.00	2	10.0	10.0	60.0	
	67.50	2	10.0	10.0	70.0	
	68.50	1	5.0	5.0	75.0	
	70.00	1	5.0	5.0	80.0	
	71.50	1	5.0	5.0	85.0	
	72.00	1	5.0	5.0	90.0	
	72.50	1	5.0	5.0	95.0	
	77.00	1	5.0	5.0	100.0	
	Total	20	100.0	100.0		

b.	Students’ Posttest Scores in Control Group
Based on the analysis of the posttest in control group, it was found that there was 1 student (5.0%) who got 42,  1 student  (5.0%) who got 48, 1 student (5.0%) who got 49,  1 student (5.0%) who got 52, 1 student (5.0%) who got 53.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 54.5,  1 student (5.0%) who got 58, 1 student (5.0%) who got 61,  1 student (5.0%) who got 63.5, 3 students (15.0%) who got 64, 1 student (5.0%) who got 65, 1 student (5.0%) who got 66.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 67,  1 student (5.0%) who got 68, 1 student (5.0%) who got 68.5,  1 student (5.0%) who got 69.5,  1 student (5.0%) who got 74.5, and 1 student (5.0%) who got 80.5. The distribution of frequency data in posttest in control group is figured out in Table 6.
Table 6
Result Analysis in Distributing the Frequency Data in Posttest Control Group
Post_Ctrl	
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent	
Valid	42.00	1	5.0	5.0	5.0	
	48.00	1	5.0	5.0	10.0	
	49.00	1	5.0	5.0	15.0	
	52.00	1	5.0	5.0	20.0	
	53.50	1	5.0	5.0	25.0	
	54.50	1	5.0	5.0	30.0	
	58.00	1	5.0	5.0	35.0	
	61.00	1	5.0	5.0	40.0	
	63.50	1	5.0	5.0	45.0	
	64.00	3	15.0	15.0	60.0	
	65.00	1	5.0	5.0	65.0	
	66.50	1	5.0	5.0	70.0	
	67.00	1	5.0	5.0	75.0	
	68.00	1	5.0	5.0	80.0	
	68.50	1	5.0	5.0	85.0	
	69.50	1	5.0	5.0	90.0	
	74.50	1	5.0	5.0	95.0	
	80.50	1	5.0	5.0	100.0	
	Total	20	100.0	100.0		

c.	Students’ Pretest Scores in Experimental Group
Based on the analysis of pretest in the experimental group, it was found that there was 1 student (5.0%) who got 51, 1 student (5.0%) who got 56, 1 student (5.0%)  who got 56.5, 2 students (10.0%) who got 58.5, 2 students (10.0%) who got 59,  1 student (5.0%) who got 61.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 62, 1 student (5.0%)  who got 66, 2 students (10.0%)  who got 67, 2 students (10.0%) who got 67.5, 1 students (5.0%) who got 68.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 70, 1 student (5.0%) who got 71.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 72, 1 student (5.0%) who got 72.5, 1 student (5.0%)  who got 77. The distribution of frequency data in pretest of experimental group is figured out in Table 7.
   Table 7
Result Analysis in Distributing the Frequency Data in Pretest Experimental Group
Pretest_Exp	
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent	
Valid	51.00	1	5.0	5.0	5.0	
	56.00	1	5.0	5.0	10.0	
	56.50	1	5.0	5.0	15.0	
	58.50	2	10.0	10.0	25.0	
	59.00	2	10.0	10.0	35.0	
	61.50	1	5.0	5.0	40.0	
	62.00	1	5.0	5.0	45.0	
	66.00	1	5.0	5.0	50.0	
	67.00	2	10.0	10.0	60.0	
	67.50	2	10.0	10.0	70.0	
	68.50	1	5.0	5.0	75.0	
	70.00	1	5.0	5.0	80.0	
	71.50	1	5.0	5.0	85.0	
	72.00	1	5.0	5.0	90.0	
	72.50	1	5.0	5.0	95.0	
	77.00	1	5.0	5.0	100.0	
	Total	20	100.0	100.0		

d. Students’ Posttest Scores in Experimental Group
Based on the analysis of posttest in the experimental group, it was found that there were 3 students (15.0%) who got 64.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 69, 3 students (15.0%) who got 70, 1 student (5.0%) who got 73, 1 student (5.0%) who got 74.5, 3 students (15.0%) who got 74.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 73, 1 student (5.0%) who got 74.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 75.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 77,
1 student (5.0%) who got 77.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 79, 1 student (5.0%) who got 79.5, 1 student (5.0%) who got 80, 1 student (5.0%) who got 81, and 1 student (5.0%) who got 81.5,. The distribution of frequency data in posttest of experimental group is figured out in Table 8.
Table 8
Result Analysis in Distributing the Frequency Data in Posttest Experimental Group

Posttest_Exp	
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent	
Valid	68.50	3	15.0	15.0	15.0	
	69.00	1	5.0	5.0	20.0	
	70.00	3	15.0	15.0	35.0	
	73.00	1	5.0	5.0	40.0	
	74.00	1	5.0	5.0	45.0	
	74.50	3	15.0	15.0	60.0	
	75.50	1	5.0	5.0	65.0	
	77.00	1	5.0	5.0	70.0	
	77.50	1	5.0	5.0	75.0	
	79.00	1	5.0	5.0	80.0	
	79.50	1	5.0	5.0	85.0	
	80.00	1	5.0	5.0	90.0	
	81.00	1	5.0	5.0	95.0	
	81.50	1	5.0	5.0	100.0	
	Total	20	100.0	100.0		

1.2  Descriptive Statistics
a. Pretest Scores in Control group
	Based on the analysis of pretest score in control group, it was found out that the total numbers of students were 20 with the minimal score was 51.00, the maximal score was 77.00, the mean score was 64.4250 and the standard Deviation score was 6.76927. Then, descriptive statistic is shown in Table 9
Table 9
Result Analysis of Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics	
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation	
Pretest_Ctrl	20	51.00	77.00	64.4250	6.76927	
Valid N (listwise)	20					

b. Posttest Scores in Control Group
	Based on the analysis of students posttest in control group, it was found that the total number of students were 20 with the minimal score was 42.00, the maximal score was 80.50, the mean score was 61.6500 and the standard Deviation score was 9.48558. Then, descriptive statistic is shown in Table 10
Table 10
Result Analysis of Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics	
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation	
Post_Ctrl	20	42.00	80.50	61.6500	9.48558	
Valid N (listwise)	20					

c. Pretest Scores in Experimental Group
	Based on the analysis of students’ pretest in experimental group, it was found that the total number of students were 20 with the minimal score was 51.00, the maximal score was 77.00, the mean score was 64.4250 and the standard Deviation score was 6.76927. Then, descriptive statistic is displayed in Table 11
Table 11
Result Analysis of Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics	
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation	
Pretest_Exp	20	51.00	77.00	64.4250	6.76927	
Valid N (listwise)	20					

d. Posttest Scores in Experimental Group
	Based on the analysis of students’ posttest in experiment group, it was found that the total number of students were 20 with the minimal score was 68.50, the maximal score was 81.50, the mean score was 74.3000 and the standard Deviation score was 4.49386. Then, descriptive statistics is figured out in Table 12
Table 12
Result Analysis of Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics	
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation	
Posttest_Exp	20	68.50	81.50	74.3000	4.49386	
Valid N (listwise)	20					

2. Pre-requisite Analysis
2.1 Normality Test
a. Normality Test of Students’ Pretest Scores in Control Group
In analyzing of the data test of pretest scores, the writer used one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Based on the analysis data of pretest in control groups, it was showed that the significance in control group was 0.663. Since p value was higher than 0.05, it can be concluded that the data obtained were considered normal. The table of normality test in pretest scores of the control group can be seen on Table 13
Table 13
Test of Normality of Pretest Scores of the Control Group
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test	
		Pretest_Ctrl	
N	20	
Normal Parametersa,,b	Mean	64.4250	
	Std. Deviation	6.76927	
Most Extreme Differences	Absolute	.148	
	Positive	.139	
	Negative	-.148	
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z	.663	
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)	.772	
a. Test distribution is Normal.	
b. Calculated from data.	

b. Normality Test of Students’ Posttest in Control Group
In analyzing of the data test of posttest scores, one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used. Based on the analysis data of posttest scores in control group, it was showed that the significance in control group showed the significance was 0.793. Since p value was higher than 0.05, it can be concluded that the data obtained were considered normal. The table of normality test in posttest scores of the control group can be seen on Table 14.
Table 14
Test of Normality of Posttest Scores of the Control Group

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test	
		Post_Ctrl	
N	20	
Normal Parametersa,,b	Mean	61.6500	
	Std. Deviation	9.48558	
Most Extreme Differences	Absolute	.177	
	Positive	.104	
	Negative	-.177	
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z	.793	
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)	.556	
a. Test distribution is Normal.	
b. Calculated from data.	

c. Normality Test of Students’ Pretest Scores in Experimental Group
In analyzing of the data test of pretest scores, the writer used one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Based on the analysis data of pretest in experiment groups, it was showed that the significance in control group was 0.663. Since p value was higher than 0.05, it can be concluded that the data obtained were considered normal. The table of normality test in pretest scores of the experimental group can be seen on Table 15
Table 15
Test of Normality of Pretest Scores of the Experimental Group
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test	
		Pretest_Exp	
N	20	
Normal Parametersa,,b	Mean	64.4250	
	Std. Deviation	6.76927	
Most Extreme Differences	Absolute	.148	
	Positive	.139	
	Negative	-.148	
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z	.663	
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)	.772	
a. Test distribution is Normal.	
b. Calculated from data.	

d. Normality Test of Students’ Posttest in Experimental Group 
In analyzing of the data test of posttest scores, one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used. Based on the analysis data of posttest in experimental group, it was showed that the significance in Experimental group showed the significance was 0.808. Since p value was higher than 0.05, it can be concluded that the data obtained were considered normal. The table of normality test in posttest scores of the experimental group can be seen on Table 16.
Table 16
Test of Normality of Posttest Scores of the Experimental Group
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test	
		Posttest_Exp	
N	20	
Normal Parametersa,,b	Mean	74.3000	
	Std. Deviation	4.49386	
Most Extreme Differences	Absolute	.181	
	Positive	.181	
	Negative	-.102	
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z	.808	
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)	.531	
a. Test distribution is Normal.	
b. Calculated from data.	

2.2. Homogeneity Test
a. Students’ Pretest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups 
Based on measuring homogeneity test using Lavene Statistics, it is found that p-output was 1.000. Since it was higher than 0.05, it can be stated that the students’ pretest scores in control and experimental group are considered homogeny. Then, the result of measuring homogeneity test of students’ posttest in control and experiment group is figured out in Table 17
                                    
                                             Table 17
Result Analysis of Measuring Homogeneity Test Using Lavene Statistics of Students Pretest in Control and Experimental Groups
Test of Homogeneity of Variances	
SS_Score	
Levene Statistic	df1	df2	Sig.	
.000	1	38	1.000	

b. Students Posttest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups 
Based on measuring homogeneity test using Lavene Statistics, it is found that p-output was 0.06. Since it was higher than 0.05, it can be stated that the students’ posttest scores in control and experimental group are considered homogeny. Then, the result of measuring homogeneity test of students’ posttest in control and experiment group is figured out in Table 18
Table 18
Result Analysis of Measuring Homogeneity Test Using Lavene Statistics of Students Posttest in Control and Experiment Groups
Test of Homogeneity of Variances	
SS_Score	
Levene Statistic	df1	df2	Sig.	
8.618	1	38	.006	

3.	Hypothesis Testing in Measuring Means Significant Difference on Students Writing Narrative Ability Taught Using EGRA 
In order to know whether or not there was means significant difference  in writing narrative ability between the students who were taught using EGRA technique and those who were not, the result of students’ pretest to post test scores of writing narrative ability in the experimental group were compared by using paired sample t-test. Based on the analysis using paired sample t-test, it was found that in control group, the p-output is 0.037 and t-value is 2.246. It means that there is a significant difference since the p-output is lower than 0.05 level of significance and t-value is higher than the t-distribution table with 19 df at 0.05 level of significant for two-tailed test, 2.093. While in experimental group, the p-output is 0.000 and t-value is -5.321. It means that there is also a significant difference since the p-output is lower than 0.05 level of significance and t-value is higher than the t-distribution table with 19 df at 0.05 level of significant for two-tailed test, 2.093. it can be stated that there is means significant difference on students’ writing narrative ability score taught using EGRA technique since the p-output was lower than 0.05. Then, the result of analysis using Paired Sample T-Test is figured out in Table 19

Table 19
Result Analysis of Significant Difference from Students’ Pretest and Posttest Score that Taught by Using EGRA Technique
EGRA Technique 	Pretest to Posttest
in Control Group	Pretest to Posttest
in Experimental Group	Result 
(t-value)	
	T	Df	Sig. (2-tailed)	T	df	Sig. (2-tailed)		
	2.246	19	0.037	-5.321	19	0.000	Experimental
>
Control	

B.	 Interpretation of the study
Based on the findings above, some interpretations could be drawn to strengthen the value of the study as follow.
First, the writer analyzed the result of analyzing the data in frequency which showed in appendix I. It can be concluded that teaching writing narrative text by using EGRA technique is more effective. It can be proven that students in experimental group got higher score than students in control group.
Second, the writer analyzed the descriptive statistics which showed in table 9 and table 10. It can be interpreted that the mean of pretest and posttest in control group were 64. 4250 and  61.6500.  It means that teaching writing narrative text didn’t taught by using EGRA technique was not interested for students. However, the results of pretest and posttest in experimental group which is displayed in table 11 and table 12. It showed that the mean of pretest and posttest in experimental group were 64.4250 and 74.3000. It can be concluded that teaching writing narrative text taught by using EGRA technique was interested for students.
Third, the writer analyzed the normality from the result on students’ pretest and posttest scores of the experimental and control group, it showed that the result of normality in control and experimental group were 0.636, the result of normality in control group was 0.793 and the result of normality in experimental group was 0.808. According to Hollandyah (2013: 82) stated that the test is considered normal whenever it is higher than 0.05. Furthermore, Basrowi and Soenyono (2007: 78) stated that the significance or probability score is > 0.05, the distribution is normal (symmetries). Since they were higher than 0.05, it could be stated that the students’ pretest and posttest scores of experimental and control groups were normal. 
Fourth, the writer analyzed the homogeny test. From the result of homogeneity test on students’ pretest scores of the experimental and control group showed that the p-output was 1.000. The result of homogeneity test on students’ scores posttest of experimental and control group showed that the p-output was 0.06. According to Hollandyah (2013: 88) stated that the data can be categorized homogeny whenever it is higher than 0.05. Furthermore, Basrowi and Soenyono (2007: 106) stated that if the probability or significance score is > 0.05, it is homogeny. Since the two significances (1.000 and 0.06) were higher than 0.05, it could be stated that the students’ pretest and posttest scores of experimental and control group was homogeneous. 
Fifth, the hypothesis testing in measuring the means significant difference on students writing narrative ability using paired sample t-test showed that p-output was 0.000 (see table 19). According to McMillan and Schumacher (2010: 298) state that If the calculated significance is less than the predetermined level (< .05) or p-output (sig.2-tailed) is lower than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypotheses (Ha) is accepted. It was found that in control group, the p-output is 0.037 and t-value is 2.246. It means that there is a significant difference since the p-output is lower than 0.05 level of significance and t-value is higher than the t-distribution table with 19 df at 0.05 level of significant for two-tailed test, 2.093. While in experimental group, the p-output is 0.000 and t-value is -5.321. It means that there is also a significant difference since the p-output is lower than 0.05 level of significance and t-value is higher than the t-distribution table with 19 df at 0.05 level of significant for two-tailed test, 2.093. It was interpreted that there was means significant difference on students’ ability in writing narrative after the implementation of EGRA technique
Finally, the means significant difference between the experimental group and control group were believed that it was influenced by the technique applied by the writer. The experimental group used EGRA technique, whereas the control group used teachers’ technique. These different techniques caused different ways of teaching writing narrative ability. However, the students in the experimental group made a better progress in writing if compared to those of the students in control group after giving the treatment. It might be because the students in the control group lacked of practice in writing, especially in writing narrative text. In contrast, the students in experimental group were given enough practice during the treatment. Moreover, the teacher in control group not only focused in teaching writing narrative text, but also she had to pay attention to other skills.
From the previous description, it can be interpreted that EGRA technique contributed to the student’s progress in writing narrative text. It could be seen from the result of the pretest scores (before treatment) and posttest scores (after treatment). One group had a progress, it was experimental group. And in control group, it had not a progress. 

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
	In this chapter, the writer shows the conclusion and suggestion based on the findings presented in the previous chapters.
A.	Conclusion
	Based on the result of the data analysis and interpretations, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the students who were taught by using EGRA technique and who were not taught by this technique while the result of narrative writing in experimental group was significantly higher that control group. EGRA technique gives positive effects on students’ writing narrative text. It can be seen from the result of the experiment.  Therefore, the writer assumed that EGRA technique has increased the score in students writing ability. EGRA technique can stimulate, develop and improve the writing ability of the second year students of MAN 3 Palembang in composing narrative text. Through this technique, students looked for; concluded concept and practiced in applying concept. It made them to be active students, because they could share their concept, they worked in the group. The teacher may use other strategy which suitable with the condition of the students in the school. Finally, the teacher and students will pass on KKM of the subject.

B.     Suggestion 
    Based on the conclusion, the writer offered some suggestions to the English teachers, students, and the next researcher in order to develop English teaching and learning process more interesting and effective in the classroom. 
The following suggestions are offered to the English teachers.
1.	The teacher must master in choosing the technique on teaching writing in
order to enhance students’ narrative text writing. One of the strategies that the writer proposed as EGRA technique. 
2.	The teacher should encourage the students to write and express students’  
      ideas, thought, and feelings by giving them motivations. 
The followings suggestions are offered to the students
1.	The students must increase their knowledge of English grammar,
vocabulary, and other aspects of writing in order to have good narrative text writing.
2.	The students must practice a lot in writing narrative text both in the 
classroom and outside of classroom. 
The following suggestion is offered to the next researcher
1.	The researcher can use this study for theoretical reference for the next studies.

REFERENCES
Agisia. 2012. The Use of EGRA Technique to Increase Students Writing Skill of Class VII B at SMP Mulawarman Tarakan Academic Year 2011/2012. Unpublished Thesis. FKIP Universitas Borneo Tarakan Kalimantan Timur. http://repository.borneo.ac.id/xmlui/browse?value=Agisia&type=author
Alexander, L.G. 1975. Practice and Progress. Yogyakarta: KANISIUS
Arikunto, Suharsimi. Prof, Dr. 2012. Prosedur Penelitian. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.
Ary Donald, et. Al. 1976. Introduction to Research in Education. Canada: Nelson Education, Ltd.
Baryadi,M,Hum I. Praptomo. 1980. Dasar-dasar Analisis Wacana Dalam Ilmu Bahasa. Universitas Michigan: Pustaka Gondho Suli. 
Basrowi Dr. and Soenyono, SH.M.Si Dr. (2007). Metode Analisis Data Sosial. Kediri : CV jenggala Pustaka Utama
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. White Plains: Longman. 
Frankel, Jack R. and Wallen, Norman E. 1990. Educational Research: A Guide To The Process. United states: McGraw-Hill.
Frankel, Jack R. and Wallen, Norman E. 1991. Educational Research: A Guide To The Process. United States: McGraw-Hill.
Frankel, Jack R. and Wallen, Norman E. 2012. Educational Research: A Guide To The Process. United States: McGraw-Hill.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. How to teach writing. Malaysia: Longman.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The Practice of English Teaching. Malaysia: Longman
Heaton. J.B. 1975. Writing English Language tests. London: Longman.
Heaton. J.B. 1990. Writing English Language tests. London: Longman.
Hedge, Tricia. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Classroom. New York:   Oxford University Press. 
Hollandyah M, 2013. How to Design and Evaluate Quantitative Research. Palembang: Noer Fikri Offset
Idrus, Zulman. 2006. Increasing Narrative Text Writing Achievement of the Eleventh Grade Students at SMA SETIA DARMA Palembang through Herringbone Strategy. Unpublished thesis. Graduate School of UNSRI Palembang 

Irfan, Heri. 2009. Teaching Recount Text to Improve the Writing Ability of the Second Year Students of MTS Ma’had Ponpes Ddi Pangkajene Through EGRA Technique. Unpublished Thesis FKIP UMPAR: Parepare

McMillan, James H. and Schumacher Sally. 2010. Research in Education Seventh Edition. United States: PEARSON

Moore, Kenneth D. 2001. Effective Instructional Strategies. London: SAGE Publications

Nunan, David. 1999. Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers
Oxford Learner’s Pocket Dictionary. 2000. China: Oxford University Press
Pardiyono, M.Pd. 2006. 12 Writing Clues for Better Writing Competence. Yogyakarta: Andi
Pardiyono, M.Pd. 2007. Pasti Bisa !! Teaching Genre-Based Writing. Yogyakarta: Andi
Richards, Jack C, and Renandya Willy A. 2003. Methodology in Language Teaching. United States of America: Cambridge University Press 
Richards, Jack C, 2007. 30 Year of TEFL / TEST: A personal Reflection. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 
Siahaan, Sanggam. 2008. The English Paragraph. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Smalley, Regina L. and Ruetten, Mary K. 1986. Refining Composition Skills. United Stated, America : Macmillan Publishing Company.
Sudarwati TH. M, and Grace Audia. 2007. Look A Head 2. Jakarta : Erlangga.
Syahara, Fia Renny. 2012. Improving the Student’s Grammar Mastery Through Egra Technique, Surakarta University. Unpublished thesis. FKIP Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
Tomlinson Brian. 1990. “Managing Change in Indonesian High Schools: ELT Journal Volume 441, January 1990 © Oxford University Press. http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/1/25.abstract.. 
Wijaya. 2003. Increasing SMA N 10 Palembang students’ Writing Achievement by Using STAD Method. A Thesis. Universitas Sriwijaya Palembang 2008.