Appendix E
A. Findings
3. Reading comprehension Result
also shown in a figure below to see the clearly classification of the students’
interpretative:
Figure 5: The Tabulation of the Students’ Score Classification in Interpretive The figure above shows that the percentage of the students’ classification score in interpretative from the ranges very poor to exellent was increased. The students score in diagnostic test was most of students got poor score, It means that range the students score got very poor to poor score in diagnostic test. In cycle I, the students ranges score were very poor to fairly good score, most of the students got poor score and none students got excellent, very good,fair, and good. In cycle II, most of the students got fairly good score and none students got excellent, very good, good, fair, poor and very poor score. Based on the classification score above indicates that there was the increase of the students score in interpretive.
a. Improvement of the Students’ Reading Comprehension result The implementation of Journal Entry Technique in improving the students’ reading comprehension covered literal and interpretative. The improvement of the students’ reading comprehension could be seen clearly in the following table:
Indicators
The Result of Students’
Reading comprehension Improvement (%)
D-Test Cycle I Cycle
II D-test to CI CI to CII
Mean
score 4.1 5.8 7.6 41.46% 31.03%
Table 10: The Students’ Improvement in Reading Comprehension The table above shows that the significant improvement of the students reading comprehension viewed in literal and interpretative through “Journal Entry Technique”. The students’ mean score in diagnostic test (D-test) before applied those strategies was 4.1 classified into poor. But after applied this strategy in cycle I, the assessment of their reading comprehension result improved became 5.8 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.
To see the significant improvement of the students’ reading comprehension result, a chart was presented as follows:
Figure 6: The Students’ Improvement in Reading comprehension
The figure above indicates the tabulation of the students’ score improvement in reading comprehension while the improvement of the students’ reading comprehension from diagnostic test to cycle I was 41.46%, and the improvement of the students’ reading from cycle I to cycle II was 31.03 %. It indicated that there was significant improvement for the students’
reading comprehension applying “Journal Entry Technique” at the tenth grade of SMA Pesantren Putri Yatama Mandiri Kabupaten Gowa
b. The Classification of the Students’ Score in Reading Comprehension The classification of the students’ score in 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
No Classification Score
The Students’ Content Score
D-Test Cycle I Cycle II
F % F % F %
1. Excellent 9.6 – 10 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %
2 Very Good 8.6 – 9.5 0 0 % 0 0 % 2 8 %
3. Good 7.6– 8.5 0 0 % 1 4% 12 48 %
4. Fairly Good 6.6 – 7.5 0 0 % 7 28 % 9 36%
5 Fair 5.6 – 6.5 0 0 % 8 32 % 2 8 %
6. Poor 3.6 – 5.5 15 60% 6 24 % 0 0%
7. Very poor 0 – 3.5 10 40% 3 12% 0 0 %
Total 25 100 % 25 100 % 25 100 %
Table 11: The Classification of the Students’ Score in Reading Comprehension
The table above shows the classification of the students’ score in reading. The classification of the students’ score in diagnostic test was 10 (40%) students got very poor score, 15 (60%) students got poor score, and none students got excellent, very good, fair, fairly good and good score. In cycle I, 3(12%) students got very poor score, 6 (24%) students got poor score, 8 (32%) students got fair score, 7 (28%) students got fairly good score, 1 (4%) students got good score and none students got excellent and very
good. In cycle II, 2 (8%) students got fair score, 9 (36%) students fairly good score, 12 (48%) students got good score, 2 (8%) students very good score and none students got excellent, very poor and poor score. From the result, it can be concluded that the students’ reading skill score from D-test to cycle II ranges “poor” to “good” score. The data was also shown in a figure below:
Figure 7: The Tabulation of the Students’ Score Classification in Reading Comprehension
The figure shows that the percentage of the students’ classification score in reading from the ranges very poor to very good was the students score in diagnostic test were very poor to poor and most of the students got poor score. In cycle I, the students ranges score was very poor to good, there was the improvement 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 fair to very good score. It was better than cycle I and D-test. Based on the classification
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
D-Test
good. In cycle II, 2 (8%) students got fair score, 9 (36%) students fairly good score, 12 (48%) students got good score, 2 (8%) students very good score and none students got excellent, very poor and poor score. From the result, it can be concluded that the students’ reading skill score from D-test to cycle II ranges “poor” to “good” score. The data was also shown in a figure below:
Figure 7: The Tabulation of the Students’ Score Classification in Reading Comprehension
The figure shows that the percentage of the students’ classification score in reading from the ranges very poor to very good was the students score in diagnostic test were very poor to poor and most of the students got poor score. In cycle I, the students ranges score was very poor to good, there was the improvement 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 fair to very good score. It was better than cycle I and D-test. Based on the classification
D-Test Cycle 1 Cycle 2
good. In cycle II, 2 (8%) students got fair score, 9 (36%) students fairly good score, 12 (48%) students got good score, 2 (8%) students very good score and none students got excellent, very poor and poor score. From the result, it can be concluded that the students’ reading skill score from D-test to cycle II ranges “poor” to “good” score. The data was also shown in a figure below:
Figure 7: The Tabulation of the Students’ Score Classification in Reading Comprehension
The figure shows that the percentage of the students’ classification score in reading from the ranges very poor to very good was the students score in diagnostic test were very poor to poor and most of the students got poor score. In cycle I, the students ranges score was very poor to good, there was the improvement 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 fair to very good score. It was better than cycle I and D-test. Based on the classification
excellent very good good fairly good fair poor very poor
score above indicates that there was the improvement of the students score in reading comprehension.
Observation Result
The following table and graphic show the observation result of the students’ activeness in learning reading from cycle I to cycle II.
Cycles
Activeness
1stMeeting 2ndMeeting 3rdMeeting 4thMeeting
Cycle 1
47% 61% 64% 74%
Cycle 2
75% 81% 91% 95%
Table 12: The Result of the Students’ Activeness during Teaching and Learning Process
The table above shows that the result of students’ observation in learning process through team assisted individualization in every meeting in cycle 1 to cycle 2 gets improved. It is proved by the percentage of students’ activeness is getting higher in every meeting in both cycle I and cycle II.
In the first meeting of cycle I the students activeness is 47% and in the first meeting of cycle II 75%. In the second meeting of both the cycle I and II the students’ activeness were 61% and 81%. In the third meeting of cycle 2 the students also more actively participate than in the third meeting of cycle I.
In the cycle I the students’ activeness is 64% and in the second cycle II is
91%. Then, in the fourth meeting of cycle I and cycle II also shows a significant improvement where the activeness in the cycle I is 74% and 95%
in the cycle II.
The result of the students’ activeness can also be seen in the following chart:
Figure 8: The Improvement of the Students’ Activeness during Teaching and Learning Process
Based on figure 4.7 above show that in cycle I the students’ activeness in the 1stmeeting is 47%, the 2ndmeeting is 61%, the 3rdmeeting is 64% and the 4th meeting is 74%. In cycle II students’ activeness in the 1stmeeting is 75%, the 2ndmeeting is 81%, the 3 rd meeting is 91% and the 4thmeeting is 95%. Based on the interpretation of the table and the graphic above indicate that the activeness of students in learning process always grow up from the first meeting in cycle I and cycle II