Appendix E
A. Findings
1. Literal Reading
a. The Increase of the Students’ Literal
The result of diagnostic test indicated that the mean score of the students’
literal reading comprehension was still low. The researcher then began to teach in the cycle I through “Journal Entry Technique”. In each meeting, the researcher gave each students a text then did some activities based on the procedure of
“Journal Entry Technique”. In the activities, the researcher gave some questions to build up the students’ prior knowledge before they read the text and explained about how to identify the main idea in the text and know the supporting idea. The researcher asked the students to do excercises about identify the main idea and sequence of details. After did teaching and learning process for some meeting, the
37
researcher then gave tested to the students. The result of this test indicated that the mean score of students in terms of main idea and supporting idea in reading comprehension was still out of target. So, the researcher continued the action to the cycle II. And the result of the cycle II there was significant improvement.
The increase of the students’ literal reading comprehension in terms of main idea and sequence of details through “Journal Entry Technique” can be seen clearly on the following table:
No Indicators
The students’ mean
score of literal Increase (%) D–
test
Cycle I
Cycle
II DT-CI CI-CII
1 Main Idea 4.2 6.1 7.7 45.23% 26.22%
2 supporting
idea 4.26 5.8 7.5 36.15% 29.31%
8.46 11.9 15.2 81.38% 55.53%
4.23 5.95 7.6 40.69% 27.77%
Table 6: The Students’ Increase in Literal
The table above shows that there was a significant increase of the students literal reading dealing with main idea and supporting idea through “Journal Entry Technique”. The students’ mean score in diagnostic test (D-test) before applied those strategies was 4.23 classified into poor. But after applied those strategies in cycle I, the assessment of their literal increased became 5.95 classified into fair. It was greater than mean score of diagnostic test but it’s not significant from the target expected based on criteria of minimum completeness (KKM) was 7.5. So, the researcher decided to organize cycle II, the mean score of cycle II was 7.6 and researcher then gave tested to the students. The result of this test indicated that the mean score of students in terms of main idea and supporting idea in reading comprehension was still out of target. So, the researcher continued the action to the cycle II. And the result of the cycle II there was significant improvement.
The increase of the students’ literal reading comprehension in terms of main idea and sequence of details through “Journal Entry Technique” can be seen clearly on the following table:
No Indicators
The students’ mean
score of literal Increase (%) D–
test
Cycle I
Cycle
II DT-CI CI-CII
1 Main Idea 4.2 6.1 7.7 45.23% 26.22%
2 supporting
idea 4.26 5.8 7.5 36.15% 29.31%
8.46 11.9 15.2 81.38% 55.53%
4.23 5.95 7.6 40.69% 27.77%
Table 6: The Students’ Increase in Literal
The table above shows that there was a significant increase of the students literal reading dealing with main idea and supporting idea through “Journal Entry Technique”. The students’ mean score in diagnostic test (D-test) before applied those strategies was 4.23 classified into poor. But after applied those strategies in cycle I, the assessment of their literal increased became 5.95 classified into fair. It was greater than mean score of diagnostic test but it’s not significant from the target expected based on criteria of minimum completeness (KKM) was 7.5. So, the researcher decided to organize cycle II, the mean score of cycle II was 7.6 and researcher then gave tested to the students. The result of this test indicated that the mean score of students in terms of main idea and supporting idea in reading comprehension was still out of target. So, the researcher continued the action to the cycle II. And the result of the cycle II there was significant improvement.
The increase of the students’ literal reading comprehension in terms of main idea and sequence of details through “Journal Entry Technique” can be seen clearly on the following table:
No Indicators
The students’ mean
score of literal Increase (%) D–
test
Cycle I
Cycle
II DT-CI CI-CII
1 Main Idea 4.2 6.1 7.7 45.23% 26.22%
2 supporting
idea 4.26 5.8 7.5 36.15% 29.31%
8.46 11.9 15.2 81.38% 55.53%
4.23 5.95 7.6 40.69% 27.77%
Table 6: The Students’ Increase in Literal
The table above shows that there was a significant increase of the students literal reading dealing with main idea and supporting idea through “Journal Entry Technique”. The students’ mean score in diagnostic test (D-test) before applied those strategies was 4.23 classified into poor. But after applied those strategies in cycle I, the assessment of their literal increased became 5.95 classified into fair. It was greater than mean score of diagnostic test but it’s not significant from the target expected based on criteria of minimum completeness (KKM) was 7.5. So, the researcher decided to organize cycle II, the mean score of cycle II was 7.6 and
classified into good. The result of cycle II was well enough from the target expected. a figure is presented as follows:
Figure 2: The Tabulation of the Students’ Score Improvement in Literal The Figure above indicates that the improvement of the content from diagnostic test to cycle I was 40.69 %, and the increase of the students’ literal from cycle I to cycle II was 27.7%. It indicates that there was significant increase for the students’ literal reading dealing with main idea and sequence of details in applying “Journal Entry Technique” at the tenth grade of SMA Pesantren Putri Yatama Mandiri Kabupaten Gowa.
b. The Classification of the Students’ Score in Literal
The classification of the students’ score in literal reading comprehension through “Journal Entry Technique” in diagnostic-test, cycle I and cycle II was shown in the table as follows:
0,00%
5,00%
10,00%
15,00%
20,00%
25,00%
30,00%
35,00%
40,00%
45,00%
1 2
Series1
No Classification Score
The Students’ Literal Score
D-Test Cycle I Cycle II
F % F % F %
1. Excellent 9.6 - 10 0 0 % 0 0 % 1 4 %
2 Very Good 8.6 – 9.5 0 0 % 0 0 % 4 16%
3. Good 7.6 – 8.5 0 0% 1 4% 9 36%
4. Fairly Good 6.6 – 7.5 0 0% 8 32% 6 24%
5. Fair 5.6 – 6.5 0 0% 8 32% 3 12 %
6. Poor 3.6 – 5.5 13 52% 7 28 % 2 8%
7. Very Poor 0 – 3.5 12 48% 1 4% 0 0%
Total 25 100 % 25 100 % 25 100 %
Table 7: The Classification of the Students’ Score in Literal The table above shows the classification of the students’ score in literal.
The classification of the students’ score in diagnostic test was 12 (48 %) students got very poor score, 13 (52%) students got poor and none students got fair, fairly good, good, very good and excellent score. In cycle I, 1 (4 %) student got very good score, 7 (28 %) students got poor, 8 (32%) students got fair, 8(32%) students got fairly good score and 1 (20 %) student got good score, none students got very good and excellent. In cycle II, 2 ( 8%) students got poor score, 3 (12 %) students got fair score, 6 (24%) students got fairly good score, 9(36%) students got good score, 4(16%)students got very good score, 1(4%) student got excellent score and
none students got very poor score. From the result, it can be concluded that the students literal achievement from D-test to cycle II ranges “very poor” to
“excellent” score. The data was also shown in a figure below:
Figure 3: The Tabulation of the Students’ Score Classification in Literal The figure shows that the percentage of the students’ classification score in literal from the ranges very poor to excellent was the students score in diagnostic test were very poor and poor and most of the students got poor score. In cycle I, the students ranges score was very poor to good, there was the increase of the students score from D-test to cycle I. In cycle II, most of the students got good score from the ranges score was poor to excellent score. It was better than cycle I and D-test because none students got very poor in this cycle. Based on the classification score above indicates that there was the increase of the students score in literal.
2. Interpretive Reading Comprehension