




































Putri Anggraeni, et al / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

10 

 

 
ELT FORUM 6 (1) (2017) 

 

Journal of English Language Teaching 

 
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt 

 
 

TEACHING VOCABULARY BY USING WORD 

BASEBALL GRAPHIC ORGANIZER TO THE 

ELEVENTH GRADERS OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 

 

Dian Nirwana, Sri Wahyuni 

 
English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia  

 

Article Info 
________________  
Article History: 

Received in June 

2017  
Approved in July 2017 

Published in August 2017 
________________  
Keywords: Word Baseball 
Graphic Organizer, 
Vocabulary, Quasi-
Experimental Study 
  
____________________ 

 
Abstract  
___________________________________________________________________  
This paper is based on a research which examined the eleventh graders’ achievement in vocabulary 

mastery. The study aimed to find out the significant difference of students’ vocabulary achievement 

between the students who were taught by using word baseball graphic organizer and those who were not 

and to investigate the effectiveness of using word baseball graphic organizer to teach vocabulary. The study 

adopted quasi-experimental non-equivalent control group design. The data were gained through pre-test 

and post-test scores and participants’ responses of the questionnaire. The results of the study showed that 

the mean score of the pre-test in the experimental group was 74.35, while in the control group was 74.62. 

In the post-test, the mean score of the experimental group was 83.09, and the control group was 79.29. The 

result of post-test increased. In addition, the t-test result was 1.990, and t-table was 1.787. It can be clearly 

seen that tvalue is higher than ttable. It means that the hypothesis of H1 was accepted and H0 was refused. 

According to the proven hypotheses, I can conclude that teaching vocabulary using word baseball graphic 

organizer was proven to be effective for the eleventh grade students of senior high school. 
 

 © 2017 Universitas Negeri Semarang 

  


 Correspondent Address: ISSN 2252-6706 
B3 Building FBS Unnes  

Sekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, 50229  

E-mail: unnes_english@yahoo.com  



D. Nirwana & S. Wahyuni / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

11 

 

INTRODUCTION 

This research investigated the effectiveness of using word baseball graphic organizer to 

teach students vocabulary to the eleventh graders in one of the State Senior High Schools in 

Semarang. In our daily life we need to communicate with others in order to deliver or gain 

some information or just for the sake of courtesy with surrounding. In this case, language 

plays an important role in succeeding the communication. The communication will not run 

smoothly if we do not know the meaning of the words. Rubin and Thompson (1994: 79) 

points out that “One cannot speak, understand, read or write a foreign language without 

knowing a lot of words”. According to Hatch and Brown (1995: 24), “Vocabulary is a list or 

set of words particular language or a list or set or words individual speakers of language might 

use”. From those definitions, it can be concluded that vocabulary is an essential aspect in 

learning a language. Vocabulary learning is at the heart of mastering a foreign language 

whether it is a spoken or written language. Thus, vocabulary is important to be learned in 

order to master English as the international language since vocabulary is the basic aspect of a 

language. 

 It seems not easy for students to learn English vocabulary as a foreign language, since 

it is absolutely different from Indonesian language. They find difficulties in enriching their 

vocabulary knowledge and memorizing new words because of the complexity of the words 

themselves. In fact, people who have low vocabulary mastery will have problem in learning 

English whether in gaining information or creating information. Therefore, they cannot use 

language accurately. 

 In addition, it is difficult for students to learn and memorize English vocabularies. I 

found the reason why the students have low vocabulary proficiency. It is because the teacher 

still uses the conventional method or grammar translation method in teaching vocabulary. 

The students are asked to write down some words from the textbook to their individual book. 

They get of learn English without any media. They just wait for the teacher to inform them 

about the meaning of the words they have just written. In fact, learning English can be fun if 

we apply attractive and appropriate techniques and media. Besides, it will motivate the 

students in learning English. 

 When we learn English vocabularies, we meet various words which have different 

part of speech, such as noun, verb, adjective and adverb. Those words are not only formed by 

a base word but also composed with other smaller elements, such as prefixes and suffixes. A 

prefix is a group of letters placed before the root of a word, while suffix is a group of letters 

placed after the root of a word. We can discover other words by adding a base word with 

prefix and/or suffix. This process is called affixation. The students can memorize the 

meaning of those words because the words are still in one family. It means that the meaning 

of the words is nearly the same but they absolutely have different function in a sentence. For 

example, the word “beauty” is added by suffix “-ful” so that it becomes a new word 

“beautiful”. Both of them have relatively different meaning, but they completely belong to the 

different part of speech. The words “beauty” and “beautiful” are related to the quality of 

being pleasing, “beauty” is something that gives a great pleasure and belongs to “noun”; 

however, “beautiful” belongs to “adjective” which means the state of being attractive or 

pleasant.  

 Because of that problem, I investigated whether or not the use of word baseball 

graphic organizer is effective in teaching vocabulary. According to Bromley et. Al., 1995 (as 



D. Nirwana & S. Wahyuni / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

12 

 

cited in Judit Bauer Stamper, 2006), Graphic organizer is a visual and graphic representation 

of relationships among ideas and concepts. This instructional tool comes in a variety of 

formats – from loose webs to structured grids - that help students in processing information 

they’ve gathered and organizing their ideas. To my knowledge, there has not been very much 

studies about it. 

 Word baseball graphic organizer can be stated as a medium to teach students 

vocabulary by adding prefixes and suffixes in a base word. Therefore, the students learn 

vocabulary based on the same family. It makes them easier to memorize because the words 

are still in the same family. Schmitt (2000: 148) argues that “We can maximize vocabulary 

learning by teaching word families instead of individual word forms. Teachers can make it a 

habit when introducing a new word to mention the other members of its word family”. 

Besides helping the students to enrich the vocabularies, word baseball graphic organizer gives 

more understanding about the function of the words or the words’ part of speech. 

 This research needs to be carried out because first, vocabulary mastery is the essential 

aspect in learning language. According to Ellis (1997) as cited in Schmitt (2000:143) “The 

main reason for believing that vocabulary knowledge can help grammar acquisition is that 

knowing the words in a text or conversation permits learners to understand the meaning of 

the discourse, which in turn allows the grammatical patterning to become more transparent”. 

 Second, interesting technique tends to be needed for teaching vocabulary in the 

classroom to boost students’ interest. The last, knowing the various words in the same family 

which has the same root is a powerful way of building vocabulary. Therefore, based on the 

explanation above, hopefully word baseball graphic organizer can be a successful way to 

solve those problems. It is in line with my objectives in conducting this study that by using 

word  baseball graphic organizer can be an appropriate medium to teach vocabulary. 

 

METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH 

To achieve the goal, I applied a quasi-experimental study with non-equivalent control 

group design. This study was conducted in one of the senior high schools in Semarang in the 

academic year of 2015/2016. The second grade students were chosen as the population. 

There were ten classes of eleventh grade students in that school. In determining the sample, I 

chose the existing class of eleventh grade by using purposive sampling or non-probability 

sampling. I applied this sampling technique because in the non-equivalent control group 

design, the experimental and control groups have not been equated by randomization. Both 

groups were tested in pre-test and post-test. The difference of these groups was treatment 

given in experimental group. The experimental group used word baseball graphic organizer 

while the control group used Grammar Translation Method without using word baseball 

graphic organizer. 

 In selecting the sample, I was helped by the leader of English teacher organization in 

that school. The classes were class XI IPA 2 as the control group and class XI IPA 3 as the 

experimental group. Those classes were chosen because of some considerations. First, both 

classes are given the same English materials by the same English teacher. Second, according 

to the score’s record, the students of those classes equals in level of English achievement in 

that school. 

 In this research, the independent variable was the use of word baseball graphic 

organizer in teaching vocabulary. While the dependent variable was the students’ 



D. Nirwana & S. Wahyuni / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

13 

 

achievement of vocabulary in the test score. There were two hypotheses in this study which 

were alternative hypothesis and null hypothesis. The alternative (H1) was the use of word 

baseball graphic organizer was effective to teach vocabulary to the eleventh grade students in 

one of the state senior high schools in Semarang; while the null hypothesis (H0) was the use of 

word baseball graphic organizer was not effective in teaching vocabulary. 

 The instruments used in this study were test and questionnaire. I conducted two 

kinds of test. They were pre-test and post-test. Pre-test and post-test were held in the 

beginning and the end of the research. The objective of using pre-test and post-test was to find 

out the students’ vocabulary mastery before and after the treatment.  There were 30 items in 

this test. The type of items used was multiple-choice items. The test itself consisted of some 

sentences which allowed the students to choose the proper word in order to complete the 

sentences given.  The options consisted of some words that belonged to the same family. 

They consisted of derivational prefixes and derivational suffixes. The derivational suffixes 

chosen in this instrument were the derivational suffixes which occurred more often or in the 

other words, the derivational suffixes which had relatively greater number of their usage 

frequency. This process of selection dealt with the students’ familiarity toward those 

derivational suffixes. Almost all the chosen derivational suffixes occurred often in the 

students’ books. They had relatively a great number of their usage frequency. Beside the 

consideration of the frequency of derivational suffixes occurred in the students’ books 

especially in the hortatory text, the process of selecting the derivational suffixes going to be 

used in this instrument was also based on the parts of speech they belonged to. After I read 

the hortatory texts in the student’s book, I found that the nominal suffixes occurred more 

often than the other suffixes. Meanwhile, the adverbial suffixes occurred less frequently than 

the other suffixes. Considering the aspects above, I decided to make the items that consist of 

60% of nominal suffixes, 20% of verbal suffixes, 20% of adjectival suffixes, and 10% of 

adverbial suffixes. Before the test was used as an instrument to collect the data, it was tried 

out first to the class in neither experimental nor control groups.  

 After the data was obtained, I calculated the normality and homogeneity of the test. 

Then, if the data was normal and homogenous, I continued to analyze the data to see 

whether there is a significant diferrence between the students taught by using word baseball 

graphic organizer and those who were not by using t-test. If the tvalue is higher than ttable, and 

sig (2-tailed) is lower than level of significance 0.05 then there is a significant difference 

between the control and the experimental groups. On the other hand, if tvalue is lower than ttable, 

and sig (2-tailed) is higher than level of significance 0.05, it means that there is no a significant 

difference between two means.  

 Besides using test as the instrument, I also used questionnaire in the form of close 

format question to support the data. It was the type of questionnaire which allowed the 

students to choose the optional answers given. The purpose of giving questionnaire in this 

research was to gain the description about students’ interest, the advantage of using word 

baseball graphic organizer, the the students’ achievement, the relevancy, and sustainability in 

teaching and learning vocabulary by using word baseball graphic organizer. The 

questionnaire was given to the experimental group after they finished doing the post-test. 

There were several steps in analyzing questionnaire. First, I graded the items, 3 for the answer 

yes, 2 for the answer doubt, and 1 for the answer no. Second, I tabulated the data and 

calculated the mean. The formula used to calculate the mean could be seen below:  



D. Nirwana & S. Wahyuni / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

14 

 

 

 

 

 Third, I matched the mean to criterion according to Heaton (1975: 172). The 

criterion can be seen on the next page: 

 

Table 2.1 Mean Criterion of Questionnaire by Heaton 

 

RESULT AND ANALYSIS 

 

Results of the Test 

I conducted try out on Thursday, March 3rd, 2016. Thirty four students of XI IPA 1 

were asked to complete the 45 multiple-choice items of vocabulary test in 40 minutes. The test 

scored 1 point for each right answer and 0 for the wrong answer. Then, I found out the 

validity, reliability, item facility, and item discrimination of the items. From the overall 45 

items, 31 items were valid and reliable. In designing a test, I considered not only validity, 

reliability, item facility, and item discrimination, but also practicallity of the test. According 

to Brown (2004: 19), “An effective test is practical. This means that is not excessively 

expensive, stays within appropriate time constraints, is relatively easy to administer, and has a 

scoring or evaluation procedure that is specific and time-efficient”. Therefore, to make the test 

is easy to administer I took only 30 items as the pre-test and post-test from 31 items that were 

classified as good items. 

 After tried out the test, I conducted pre-test for both groups. The pre-test for the 

control group was conducted on Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 to the students of XI IPA 2. 

While for the experimental group was held on Thursday, March 24th, 2016 to the students of 

XI IPA 3. The pre-test was scored 1 point for each correct answer and 0 point for the wrong 

answers. The mean score of pre-test for experimental and control groups were 74.4 and 74.6. 

To find out if those groups were at the same level of proficiency, I calculated the Independent 

Sample t-Test. I calculated the normality and homogeneity first before calculating the 

Independent Sample t-Test. 

 Based on the normality test by using Kolmogrov test for pre-test in the control group, 

the sig (2-tailed) was 0.695. Since the sig value was higher than level of significance (0.069 > 

0.05) it was concluded that the pre-test data in the control group was distributed normally. 

Then, in the experimental group, it was found the sig (2-tailed) value was 0.818. For it 

Range of 

Mean 

Students’ 

Interest 

The 

Advantage 

Students; 

Achievement 

The 

Relevancy 

Sustainability 

0,00 – 1,00 Low Not helpful Low Not relevant Not necessary 

1,01 – 2,00 Medium Helpful Medium Relevant Necessary 

2,01 – 3,00 High Very 

helpful 

High Very relevant Very necessary 

M = 
               

                          
 



D. Nirwana & S. Wahyuni / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

15 

 

showed that sig value was higher than level of significance (0.818 > 0.05), the pre-test of 

experimental group was also distributed normally. 

 After calculating the normality of pre-test, I computed the homogeneity of pre-test. 

Based on the homogeneity test by using SPSS 21.0 for Windows, the sig value was 0.336. 

Since the sig value was higher than level of significance (0.336 > 0.05), it was concluded that 

the experimental and control groups had the same variance or the population of both groups 

was homogenous. The data of pre-test were said to be normal and homogenous. Then, 

I calculated the Independent Sample t-Test to know if both groups were at the same level of 

proficiency before given the treatments.  

 

 

 Levene's 

Test for 

Equality of 

Variances 

t-test for Equality of Means 

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-

tailed) 

Mean 

Difference 

Std.Error 

Difference 

95% 

Confidence 

Interval of the 

Difference 

Lower Upper 

Pretest 

Equal 

variances 

assumed 

.598 .442 -.145 66 .885 -.265 1.822 -3.903 3.374 

Equal 

variances 

not 

assumed 

  -.145 65.435 .885 -.265 1.822 -3.904 3.374 

  

Table 3.1 The Independent Sample t-Test of the Pre-Test 

From the t-test, the sig (2-tailed) was 0.885. Since it was more than the level of 

significance (0.05), it meant that there was no a significant difference between the students 

pre-test score in experimental and control groups. It can be concluded that the initial 

vocabulary mastery of the two groups were at the same level. 

 The post-test for the control group was conducted on Wednesday, March 13th, 2016, 

while for the experimental group was on Thursday, March 14th, 2016. The purpose of  giving 

post-test was to measure students’ vocabulary achievement after they were given the 

treatment. The test was the same as in the pre-test. The table below shows the mean scores for 

pre-test and post-test for both groups.

 

 

 



D. Nirwana & S. Wahyuni / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

16 

 

 Pre-Test Post-Test The Mean Difference 

Control Group 74.62 79.29 4.67 

Experimental Group 74.35 83.09 8.74 

 

Table 3.2 Mean Scores Comparison 

 

The mean of pre-test of the control group was 74.62, and the mean of post-test was 

79.29. In the experimental group, the mean of pre-test was 74.35, and the mean of post-test 

was 83.09. The difference between pre-test and post-test of control group was 4.67 and the 

difference between the pre-test and post-test of experimental group was 8.74. The result of 

post-test on both groups increased, but there was higher improvement in the experimental 

group than the control group. 

 Before calculating the Independent Sample of t-Test by using SPSS, I found out the 

normality and homogeneity of the post-test. The post-test normality computation of the 

control group showed the sig (2-tailed) was 0.060. Since the sig value was higher than level of 

significance (0.060 > 0.05) it was concluded that the post-test data in the control group was 

distributed normally. Besides that, the sig (2-tailed) of experimental group was 0.274. Since 

the sig value was higher than level of significance (0.274 > 0.05), it was concluded that the 

post-test data in the experimental group were also distributed normally. 

 Based on the homogeneity test by using SPSS 21.0 for Windows, the sig value of 

post-test for experimental and control groups was 0.131. Since the sig value was higher than 

level of significance (0.131 > 0.05), it was concluded that the population of both groups was 

homogenous. 

 To know whether there is a significant difference between the two groups, I 

calculated the Independent Sample t-Test by using SPSS 21.0 for Windows. 

 

 

 Levene's 

Test for 

Equality of 

Variances 

t-test for Equality of Means 

F Sig. t Df Sig.(2-

tailed) 

Mean 

Difference 

Std. Error 

Difference 

95% Confidence 

Interval of the 

Difference 

Lower Upper 

posttest 

Equal 

variances 

assumed 

3.119 .082 1.990 66 .050 3.794 1.906 -.012 7.600 

Equal 

variances 

not 

assumed 

  1.990 58.823 .050 3.794 1.906 -.021 7.609 

 

Table 3.3 The Independent Sample t-Test of the Post-Test 

 



D. Nirwana & S. Wahyuni / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

17 

 

From the table above, it could be seen that the sig (2-tailed) value was 0.050. Since it 

equals to the level of significance (0.05) and the tvalue was higher than ttable with the df 66 

(1.990 > 1.787), it meant that there was a significant difference between the students who 

were taught by using word baseball graphic organizer and those who were not. Thus, the null 

hypothesis (H0) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the use of word baseball 

graphic organizer was effective to teach vocabulary, is accepted. 

After analyzing the mean score and the t-test results, I also analyzed the result of 

questionnaire. The conclusion of the questionnaire result can be seen on the following table. 

 

 

Number of Question Students’ Opinion Result 

1,2,3,4,5,6 Students’ interest High  

7,8,9,10,11,12 The advantage Very helpful 

13,14,15 The students’ achievement High  

16,17,18 The relevancy Very relevant 

19,20 Sustainability  Very necessary 

 

Table 3.4 Result of Analyzing Questionnaire 

 
CONCLUSIONS 

Due to the research finding and discussion, I would give some conclusions about this 

study.  

The first conclusion, there is a significant difference between the vocabulary 

achievement of the eleventh grade students in one of the State Senior High Schools in 

Semarang in the academic year of 2015/2016 who were taught by using word baseball 

graphic organizer and those who were not. According to the analysis of t-test result, it was 

obtained that the t-value was higher than t-table. It means that there is a significant difference 

between the vocabulary achievement of the students who were taught by using word baseball 

graphic organizer and those who were not. In addition, the research findings revealed that the 

result of the research was in line with my alternative hypothesis (H1) that “The use of word 

baseball graphic organizer is effective to teach vocabulary to the eleventh grade students.” 

Thus, this hypothesis is accepted and the null hypothesis is rejected. 

 Second, by considering the different average scores on both groups, I am able to 

conclude that the use of word baseball graphic organizer as a medium in teaching and 

learning vocabulary gave contribution to improve students’ competence of vocabulary. The 

mean scores difference between pre-test and post-test of the control group was lower than the 

experimental group. Moreover based on the questionnaire analysis, it showed that the 

students attracted with the medium that I used. This medium helped the students to enrich 

the vocabulary. The students’ response towards the teaching and learning was good. The 

students’ positive attitude toward the lesson was also good. The students were interested in 

the materials given during the teaching learning process. Thus, I come to the conclusion that 

the use of word baseball graphic organizer is effective to teach vocabulary at the eleventh 

grade students of senior high school 

REFERENCES 



D. Nirwana & S. Wahyuni / Journal of English Language Teaching 6 (1) (2017) 

18 

 

Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Pearson 

Education. 

Ellis, N. C. 1997. Vocabulary Acquisition:  Word Structure, Collocation,  Word- Class,and Meaning. 

In N.   Schmitt, Vocabulary in Language  Teaching (pp.143). Cambridge: 

 Cambridge University Press. 

Enchanted Learning. Online.  www.EnchantedLearning.com  [accessed 12/27/15]. 

Hatch, E., & Brown, C. 1995.  Vocabulary,  Semantics and Language  Education. Cambridge: 

Cambridge  University Press. 

Heaton, J.B. 1975. Writing English  Language Test. London: Longman  Group  Ltd. 

Rubin, J. & Thompson, I. 1994. How to be  Succesful Language Learner.  Boston,  Massachusetts: 

Heinle &  Heinle. 

Schmitt, Norbert. 2000. Vocabulary in  Language Teaching. Cambridge:  Cambridge University 

Press. 

Stamper, J.B. 2006. Vocabulary-Building  Graphic Organizers and Mini- Lessons. Online. 

Available at:  http://www.google.co.id/url?q=http s://michelleleba.wikispaces.com/fil

 e/view/Graphic%2BOrganizers%2 Bthat%2Bbuild%2Bvocabulary.pdf

 &sa=U&ei=0SEqVIKQKMfmuQS W3IC4DA&ved=0CCQQFjAD&us g=AFQjC

 NF4vJSqU_zLmS1X7tVLA20PO1 TG4Q  [accessed 12/27/15]. 


