CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Research Findings
2. Cycle 2
d. Reflecting
In this stage, the researcher evaluated the implementation of direct method in the teaching and learning process. Based on the observation checklist of students’ and teacher activities, there are still many weaknesses. The students do not pay attention to the teacher explanation etc. Therefore, from the reflection above, there should be more efforts to enhance the students’ speaking skill by using direct method in cycle 2, like giving interesting teaching strategies and giving more motivation.
2. Cycle 2
cycle, the researcher explained the material related to direct method and the example of direct method. Finally, at this meeting remind students to prepare for the test at the next meeting based on the material that has been taught previously
2) Second Meeting
In this meeting, the researcher conducted post-test 2 to get the students' scores. Before doing the test, the researcher reviewed the students' understanding of the direct method to remind students' abilities. Then tell them about the test. The researcher gave tests to students and gave directions on how to answer the test.
c. Observation
1) Teacher activities Table 4.7
Teachers’ observation checklist
No Activities
Score 1 2 3 4 1. Teacher giving apperception related to the
material would be given
2. Teacher manage the class well 3. Teacher explained the direct method 4. Teacher and students discuss the material
that students have not understood 5.
The teacher responds to students' questions about the material that has not been
understood
6. Teacher asks students to prepare to do the
exercise
7. Teacher and students conclude the subject
material together
Total score 25
Maximum 28
Percentage of activities 89.28
Category Excellent
Note :
Score 4 : Excellent Score 3 : Good Score 2 : Sufficient Score 1 : Less
To gain the final score, the total score of each students and teacher’s activities would be times by 100 and divided by the maximum score.
Percentage of Activities: Total Score x 100%
Score max Category:
100% - 75% (Excellent) 74% - 50% (Good) 49% - 25% (Sufficient)
24% - 0% (Less/Not Implemented)
Mean = Max ScoreT Score × 100
= 2528× 100
= 89.28
From the observations of teacher activities above, the results show that the average score of teachers was 89.28, which means that teachers teach excellent. However, there are several aspects that need to be improved.
2) Students’ activity Table 4.8
Students’ observation checklist
No Activities
Score 1 2 3 4 1. Students attention to the explanation about
direct method
2. Students follow the teacher instruction and
pay attention
3. Students pay attention to the lesson 4. Students being active in following the
learning process well
5.
Students enthusiatics in asking the question related to teacher’s explanation about direct method
6. Students follow the teacher’s guide to
describe the object that has been given 7. Students listen to the teacher feedback
Total score 27
Maximum 28
Percentage of activities 96.42
Category Excellent
Note:
Score 4: Excellent Score 3: Good Score 2: Sufficient Score 1: Less
To gain the final score, the total score of each student’s and teacher’s activities would be times by 100 and divided by the maximum score.
Percentage of Activities: Total Score x 100%
Score max Category:
100% - 75% (Excellent) 74% - 50% (Good) 49% - 25% (Sufficient)
24% - 0% (Less/Not Implemented) Mean = Max ScoreT Score × 100
= 2728× 100
= 96.42
The observation of students’ activities above showed that students’ percentage score was 96.42%. It means the students' activities when following the teaching and learning process were enhanced from cycle 1 and obtained excellent category, which means the students’ participation was very well or good. This was the last observation of students’ activities because the students’
participation was excellent.
3) Test
Table 4.9
The Students’ Score in Post-Test cycle 2 No Initial
Name
Aspect Total
score
Final score
Pro Gr Vo Flu Com
1 ADM 5 3 4 4 4 20 80
2 BFZ 4 4 4 4 5 21 84
3 DMS 3 4 5 4 4 20 80
4 FAT 4 3 4 4 4 19 76
5 HH 4 4 5 3 4 20 80
6 HDS 4 3 3 3 4 17 68
7 IR 3 3 4 4 4 18 72
8 IDY 4 3 4 3 4 18 72
9 IF 4 4 3 4 4 19 76
10 LNJ 4 3 3 4 4 18 72
11 LS 4 3 4 4 4 19 76
12 MRR 4 3 3 4 4 18 72
13 MH 4 3 5 4 4 20 80
14 MRA 4 4 4 3 3 18 72
15 NR 5 3 4 3 5 20 80
Total Score 286 1.140
Means 76
From the table of post-test cycle 2, the total score of the students was 1.144 and the number of students who completed the
test was 15 students. To see the mean of the students in this test, the researcher applied the following formula:
X = ∑x 𝑁 Where:
X = the mean of students’ score
∑𝑥= the total score
N = the number of the students So the mean of the students were:
X= 1.140 15 = 76
The mean of the conversion was divided by the number of students and 76. It meant the students’ scores had reached the average score of KKM, which was 70. And to reach the average score of KKM. it meant the post-test in cycle two was a success.
Then to know the precentage of students improved will be calculated as follow:
P = RT× 100%
P 1= 1415× 100%
P1 = 93.33%
P2 = 151 × 100%
P2 = 6.66%
Where:
P = the percentage of students who get the point (70) R = the percentage of students who get point up to (70) T = the total number of the students who do the test So the percentage of students was:
Table 4.10
The Percentage of the students' Score in Post-Test cycle 2 P Criteria Total of students Precentages
P1 Pass 14 93.33%
P2 Fail 1 6.66%
Total 15 100%
The analysis above knew that the mean of students was 76.
From a score which got > 70 were 14 students, or it was 93.33%, and 1 student got a score of < 70, or it was 6.66%, it could be conducted that the student's speaking skill was classified on god level when doing the action research on cycle II. The students’
scores showed enhancement, which could be determined that they showed progress. They got the enhancing score in each cycle.
Table 4.11
Percentage of student scores
Meeting Total score Percentage
Cycle 1 976 65.06
Cycle 2 1440 76
The table above showed enhancing students' scores from the pre-test to the post-test of cycle I, post-test of cycle I to post-test of cycle II. In the first test (pre-test) the students got the score > 70 were 4 students of 15 students (26.66%). In the second test (post- test cycle I), the students who got a score > 70 were 7 students out of 15 students (46.66%). In the third test (post-test in cycle II), the students who got a score > 70 were 14 students of 15 students (93.33%). This means that the direct method was able to increase students' speaking skill. The enhancement of post-test of cycle I to the post-test cycle II is about 48%.
d. Reflection
After conducting post-test 2, the researcher analyzed the test results and the researcher was satisfied because the students experienced a significant improvement from pre-test, post-test 1, and post-test 2. In addition, most of the students responded actively to the teacher. After achieving the research target, which was at least 93% of students passing the Minimum Completeness Criteria score, the researcher decided to stop the research because it had been successful.