A. Data Description
1. Keaktifan Siswa:
a. Siswa aktif mencatat materi pelajaran
b. Siswa aktif bertanya
c. Siswa aktif mengajukan ide √ √ √ 2. Perhatian Siswa:
a. Diam, tenang
b. Terfokus pada materi c. Antusias
√ √
√ 3. Penugasan
a. Mengerjakan semua tugas b. Ketepatan mengumpulkan
tugas sesuai waktunya c. Mengerjakan sesuai dengan
perintah
√ √ √ ∑ = 3 6
Based on the result above, the writer concluded that in the certain indicator, the students’ activities improved in each meeting. In the first meeting of first cycle, the students got “Poor” score in giving their idea. Then, they got “Fair” score in asking question, their effort to keep quiet, focusing on learning and doing all exercises. On the other hand, the students got “Good” score in making their own notes, being enthusiast, being discipline in submitting the assignment and doing assignment based on teacher’s instruction. Therefore, in this meeting, there were 1 poor score, 4 fair scores, and 4 good scores. Meanwhile, in the second meeting, the students got “fair” scores in giving their opinion, focusing on learning, and their effort to keep quiet. Then, the “Good” scores were in making notes, asking question, being enthusiast, doing all exercises, being in time in submitting assignment, and doing assignment following teacher’s instruction. So, the total score of the second meeting was 3 fair scores, and 6 good scores. In conclusion, there was some improvement related to the learning process.
d. Reflecting
Based on the data found by the writer, it can be said that the result of the first cycle to improve students’ descriptive writing skill through RAFT strategy has not reached the criteria of success, the students’ writing scores were still below the KKM. Moreovere, based on the observation notes result, the students had low motivation when learning taken place. Because, there were some of the students who did not understand and they did not pay attention while the material was being explained by the teacher. Furthermore, students’ vocabulary mastery was still low and their knowledge about simple present tense was poor even though the teacher explained it a few times in the class. Therefore, data from observation sheet showed that students’ activity and participation increased in each meeting. The main changing in the first cycle was about students’ understanding of RAFT elements and their participation that was increased in two meetings. Based on the explanation, the writer did the cycle II to overcome the problem related to the students lacked of vocabulary and grammar and to get better result. Moreover, revising or modifying the plan was needed in order to achieve the criteria of success. Therefore, some changes were done by the writer to make teaching learning process more focus and clear when the teacher delivering the material.
3. Findings of the Second Cycle a. Planning
In the second cycle, the writer repeated what she had done in the first cycle which was designing lesson plan. The lesson plan was developed likely the same from the previous cycle. Moreover, the strategy used to improve students’ descriptive writing and the writing rubric did not change. It was only the material prepared by the teacher that was changing, and the writer was going to give a hand-out to the students. The hand out for the first meeting consisted of three reading passages and the students had to determine the RAFT elements in small groups. It was done to make the students more focus
on the exercise and they could work together with their friend. Besides, the teacher also could control and guide the students easily.
b. Acting
The acting phase in the cycle II was done in two meetings, the first meeting conducted on March 5th, and 7th 2015. In the first meeting, the students were asked to make a small group, and the teacher gave them a RAFT reading hand-out. It had a purpose to make students more understand about the concept of RAFT and to identify the grammar. When they had some difficulties, the teacher would help them explained which point they did not get. Then, the teacher gave another hand-out with different topic, and the students were assigned to write their first draft and their second writing about their family member, but they had to write the paragraph based on the RAFT elements determined by the writer. The students could see the example to develop their idea and to get them easier to write. In the second meeting, the students continued their work and they had to collect their last writing for post-test 2. c. Observing
Similar with the previous cycle, in this cycle the writer also observed the students’ participation and the teaching learning process through observational notes and teacher journal. The changing or modifying steps done by the teacher in the cycle II for the class during teaching and learning process could show a better result and improvement compared with the previous cycle. From the data, the writer found that the students worked on their task together and their understanding about RAFT concept was better than before. Even though some of students did not pay attention to the teacher, yet the task was done in time. On the other hand, most of students in a class did not hesitate to ask the teacher when they did not understand or did find difficulties in doing the task, and it showed that the students were quite motivated to follow the class’ activities. Moreover, the number of words of students’ descriptive writing increased; they could write a paragraph consisting 150 words. In fact, the writing example provided by the teacher helped the students to write although some of the students only copied the idea from it. To know the students’ improvement, the
writer had calculated the post-test 2 score, and the result can be seen below. In observing phase, the data of students’ achievement score were obtained from post-action test 2 in the Cycle II. The writer calculated the mean of the pre-action test 2 score such following:
Mx =
Mx =
100%
Mx = 73.5
Next, to get the percentage of student who passed the KKM score, the writer calculated by using the formula can be seen as follow:
P = 100%
P =
100% P = 90%
Finally, the calculation of improvement percentage gained from the following formula:
P = 100%
P =
100% P = 13.9%
Based on the result of the students’ writing product, there was better improvement of the students’ mean score obtained from the students’ writing in the preliminary study to the students’ writing from the second cycle. The students’ mean score before implementing RAFT strategy was 64.5 and the mean score the latest post-action test was 73.5. It means that there was 9.0 points or 13.9% of mean score improvement. The number of students passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion or Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) were
27 students or 90%. It indicated that the criteria of success had been achieved. The following is the table of students writing score.
Table 4.4
The Students’ Writing Score of Each Writing Tests
No. Students’ Number Pre-Test Post-Test 1 Post-Test 2
1. S1 75* 80* 85* 2. S2 70* 70* 75* 3. S3 70* 75* 80* 4. S4 70* 70* 75* 5. S5 70* 65 70* 6. S6 65 70* 75* 7. S7 50 65 65 8. S8 65 70* 75* 9. S9 55 65 70* 10. S10 65 60 75* 11. S11 60 70* 70* 12. S12 55 65 70* 13. S13 65 65 70* 14. S14 75* 65 75* 15. S15 70* 75* 80* 16. S16 70* 75* 80* 17. S17 60 75* 80* 18. S18 70* 65 70* 19. S19 55 65 70* 20. S20 65 65 70* 21. S21 70* 75* 75* 22. S22 60 55 70* 23. S23 75* 70* 75* 24. S24 65 65 75* 25. S25 60 70* 75* 26. S26 75* 80* 75* 27. S27 50 55 65 28. S28 50 55 65 29. S29 70* 75* 80* 30. S30 60 65 70* ∑x 1935 2040 2205 MEAN 64.5 68.0 73.5
*: The students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion or Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal
It could be seen from the table above that the number of students who passed the KKM in the post-action test 1 was bigger than the pre-action test. Therefore, in the post-action test 2, the number of students who got the score above 70.0 increased significantly if it compared with the preliminary study and the first cycle. On the other hand, data from observation sheet from the first and second meeting of cycle II can be seen below.
Table 4.5
The Result of Observation Checklist (1/II)
No. Hal yang diamati Skor
Siswa 1 2 3 4
1. Keaktifan Siswa:
a. Siswa aktif mencatat materi pelajaran
b. Siswa aktif bertanya
c. Siswa aktif mengajukan ide √ √
√ 2. Perhatian Siswa:
a. Diam, tenang
b. Terfokus pada materi c. Antusias
√ √
√ 3. Penugasan
a. Mengerjakan semua tugas b. Ketepatan mengumpulkan
tugas sesuai waktunya c. Mengerjakan sesuai dengan
perintah
√ √
√
∑ = 2 4 3
To make an analysis based on the observation sheet above, the writer made description to interpret the data recorded by the observer. In the first meeting of cycle II, the scores for the students who give their idea and the students who kept quiet were “Fair”. Then, the scores for note taking, focused on the material, did the assignment, and submitted the assignment in time were “Good”. Furthermore, the scores for asking question, being enthusiast, and doing the assignment based on teacher’s instruction were “Very Good”.
Table 4.6
The Result of Observation Checklist (2/II)
No. Hal yang diamati Skor
Siswa 1 2 3 4
1. Keaktifan Siswa:
a. Siswa aktif mencatat materi pelajaran
b. Siswa aktif bertanya
c. Siswa aktif mengajukan ide √ √
√ 2. Perhatian Siswa:
a. Diam, tenang
b. Terfokus pada materi c. Antusias
√ √ √ 3. Penugasan
a. Mengerjakan semua tugas b. Ketepatan mengumpulkan
tugas sesuai waktunya c. Mengerjakan sesuai dengan
perintah
√ √ √
∑ = 1 5 3
In the second meeting of cycle II, the data obtained from observation sheet showed that there was a slight improvement of the score. The aspect that got “poor” score was the students who giving their idea, it indicated that the students’ were not brave enough to speak out. Then, there were 5 “good” scores for note taking, students’ attention and enthusiasm, and students’ responsible in doing assignment aspects. Moreover, there were 3 “very good” scores for the students who asked question, students who collected the assignment in time, and students who did assignment following the instruction. d. Reflecting
After getting the result of the second cycle from observational notes and teacher journal, the writer did the reflecting phase. The main changing in this cycle were the students’ vocabulary and grammar knowledged increased. Furthermore, the result of post-action test 2 showed that 90% of the students got the score above the KKM, so the criteria of success that had been made by the writer where 75% of students must get 70.0 or more had been achieved.
Because of this result, the writer decided to end the action with only two cycles in four meetings.
f. The Result of Post-Questionnaire
The post-questionnaire was given after the students collected their second writing for the post-test 2 in the second cycle on Saturday, 7th March 2015. The kind of the question was the same that there were 10 questions covered in three types of question. The description of the post-questionnaire as follow: First were two questions about students’ response toward teaching-learning process. Second were three questions about the result of students’ writing activity. Third were five questions about the solution of the problems in writing. The result was shown in table as follow:
Table 4.7
Students’ Result of Post-Questionnaire
No. Student’s Answer The Result of Students’ Answer
Yes % No %
1. Students’ were more interested in learning writing after
implemented RAFT strategy.
13 43.3% 17 56.7%
2. Students felt learning writing was
easier than before. 19 63.3% 11 36.7%
3. Students were more motivated in
learning writing. 30 100% 0 0%
4. RAFT strategy used by the
teacher helped students in writing. 17 56.7% 13 43.3% 5. RAFT strategy used by the
teacher helped the students in generating their idea.
23 76.7% 7 23.3%
6. RAFT strategy solved the
students’ problem in writing. 11 36.7% 19 63.3% 7. Students did writing exercise
easier. 21 70% 9 30%
8. The teacher gave opportunities to
the students to ask questions. 28 93.3% 2 6.7% 9. Students used the opportunity to
ask questions to the teacher. 25 83.3% 5 16.7% 10. Students writing ability improved
Based on the post-questionnaire answered by the students, for the first statement indicated that 17 students or 56.7% felt more comfortable with the previous technique used by the writer. Perhaps, the students did not like to be burdened by many assignments. Besides, the aim of RAFT strategy was actually to develop students’ ability and creativity in writing. On the other hand, 19 students or 63.3% felt that learning writing was easier than before and it indicated that the implementation of RAFT strategy was successful, and also 30 students or 100% were more motivated in learning writing. The students’ positive response also seen in two questions; there were 17 students or 56.7% agreed that RAFT strategy used by the teacher to help the students to write, and 23 students or 76.7% agreed that RAFT strategy could generate students’ idea easier. Therefore, there were 19 students or 63.3% disagreed that RAFT strategy could help them solve their problem in writing.
Related to the writing exercise, 21 students or 70% felt that they could do writing exercise easier. Then, 28 students or 93.3% agreed that the teacher gave big opportunities to them to ask questions and 25 students or 83.3% realized to use the opportunities. The last was there were 16 students or 53.3% did not think that RAFT strategy improve their writing skill. From the result questionnaire above, the students could not easily adapt with the new improvement in their class, so they thought that the strategy applied by the writer was not suitable for them but they thought that the teaching and learning writing was better than before. Therefore, the result of the test was not in line with the students’ answer because the data from the test showed a positive improvement toward students’ descriptive writing score.