CHAPTER III RESEACH METHOD
A. Finding
1. The Students’ Improvement in Determining Main Idea of the Test Through Quick on The Draw Technique.
The application of Quick on The Draw technique in improving the students’ literal reading comprehension in dealing with main idea and summarizing can be seen in the following table:
Table 1: The Students’ Improvement in Determining Main Idea of the Test Through Quick on The Draw
indicator
The students’ score Improvement
D- test Cycle I Cycle II D-test-CI CI- CII D-test – CII main idea 5.343 6.193 7.218 15.90% 19.18% 35.92%
32
The table above indicate that there is the improvement of the students’
literal reading comprehension from d-test to cycle l and cycle II where in d-test the students’ mean score achievement in literal reading comprehension is 5.343, but after evaluation in cycle l the students’ literal reading comprehension become 6.193 the improvement of students’ literal reading comprehension from d-test to cycle l is 15.90%.
There is also a significant improvement of the students’ literal reading comprehension from cycle I to cycle II where the students’ literal reading comprehension in cycle I is (6.193) and cycle II is (7.218) so the improvement of the students’ literal reading comprehension from cycle I to cycle II is (19.18%)
In the table above also indicate that the indicator of indicators of the students’ literal reading improve significantly where in d-test, the students’ main idea achievement (5.343), but after evaluation in cycle I, the students’
achievement in main idea become (6.193) and in cycle II became (7.218).
To see clearly improvement of the students’ literal reading comprehension (main idea) the following chart is presented:
Figure 1: The improvement of the students’ literal reading comprehensions.
The chart above shows the improvement of the students’ literal reading comprehension in cycle II is higher (7.218) that cycle I (6.193) and d-test (5.343) it also shows that the result of d-test is the low achievement. After evaluation in cycle I and cycle II, there is significant improvement of the students’ literal reading comprehension that shown clearly in the chart after taking an action in cycle through Quick on The Draw.
2. The Students’ Improvement in Understanding the content of the Text Through Quick on The Draw Technique.
The students’ improvement in understanding the content of the text through Quick on the Draw Technique is taken from the students’ score in diagnostic test, cycle I and cycle II, it is described as follow:
Table 2: The Students’ Improvement in Understanding The content of the Text through Quick on the Draw Technique.
Indicator
The students’ score Improvement
D-test Cycle I Cycle II D-test- CI CI - CII D-test- CII Content 5.375 6.281 7.656 16.85% 25.58% 42.43%
The table above indicates that there is the improvement of the students’
understanding the content of the text by using Quick on the Draw. From d-test to cycle I and cycle II, where in d-test the students’ mean score achievement in
understanding the content of the text is (5.375), but after evaluation in cycle I the students’ mean score become (6.281). so the understanding the content of the text from d-test to cycle I is (16.85%). There is also a significant improvement of students’ understanding the content of the text from cycle I to cycle II where the students’ mean score in cycle I is (6.281) and cycle II is (7.656). so the improvement of the students’ understanding the content of the text from cycle I to cycle II is (25.58%).
To see clearly the mean score improvement of the students’
understanding the content of the text. The following chart is presented:
Figure 2: The Students’ Improvement in Understanding the Content of the Text through Quick on the Draw Technique.
The chart above shows the improvement of the students’ in understanding the content of the text in cycle II is higher (7.656) that cycle I is (6.281) and d-test (5.375). it also shows that the result of d-test is the lowest achievement. After evaluation in cycle I and cycle II, there is a significant
5.375 6.281
7.656
improvement of the students’ in understanding the content of the text that shown clearly in the chart after understanding the content of the text in cycle through Quick on the Draw .
3. The Students’ Improvement in Reading Comprehension.
The students’ improvement in reading comprehension is taken from the data of their mean score in cycle I and cycle II. Those were calculated and divided to get the students’ mean score in reading comprehension. The data is explained as follow:
Indicator Cycle I Cycle II Improvement
CI – CII
Main Idea 6.343 7. 218 19.18%
Content 6.281 7.656 25.58%
Mean Score 6.321 7.437 22.38
Table 3: The students’ Improvement in Reading Comprehension.
The table above shows the students’ improvement in reading comprehension. The students’ mean score in cycle I is 6.321 and in cycle II is 7.437 it means that the students’ reading comprehension is significantly improvement trough Quick on the Draw from cycle I to cycle II, especially in determining main idea of the text is 19.18% and understanding the content 25.58%, so the improvement of mean idea 22.38% . to see the result clearly, the chart is presented bellow:
Table 3: The students’ Improvement in Reading Comprehension The chart above shows the students’ improvement in reading comprehension. The students’ mean score in cycle I is 6.321 and cycle II is 7.437 It means that the students’ reading comprehension is significantly improvement through Quick on the Draw, especially in determining main idea of the text and understanding the content of the text.
4. The Score Classification and Percentage of the Students’ Improvement in Determining the Main Idea of the Text Through Quick on the Draw Technique.
The classification and percentage of students’ improvement in determining the main idea of the text through Quick on the Draw technique is described as follows:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6.321 7.437 Cycle II
Cycle I
No Classification Score D-test Cycle I Cycle II
F % F % F %
1 Excellence 9.6 - 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Very good 8.6 - 9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Good 7.6 – 8.5 0 0 0 0 3 18.75
4 Fairly good 6.6 – 7.5 2 12.5 5 31.25 11 68.75
5 Fair 5.6 – 6.5 1 6.25 11 68.75 2 12.5
6 Poor 3.6 – 5.5 10 62.5 1 6.25 0 0
7 Very poor 0 – 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 16 100 16 100 16 100
The table above shows the percentage of the students’ reading comprehension in literal reading (main idea) d-test indicates that 10 students’
(62.25%) get poor, 1 students’ (6.25%) get fairly, 2 students (12.5%) get fairly good.
After taking action in cycle I by using Quick on the Draw technique the percentage of the students’ reading comprehension in literal reading (main idea) is 1 students (6.25%) get poor, 11 students (68.75%) get fairly, 5 students (31.25%) get fairly good.
And then cycle II the percentage of the students’ reading comprehension in literal reading (main idea) is 2 students (12.5%) get fairly, 11 students (68.75%) get fairly good, 3 students (18.75%) get good.
To know the percentage of the students’ achievement in reading comprehension (main idea) clearly, the following chart is presented:
Figure 5: The improvement of the students’ in literal reading comprehension.
The chat above shows the percentage of the students’ improvement in understanding the content of the text in diagnostic test. Indicates that there are 2 students (12.5%) got fairly good,1 students (6.25%) got fair, 10 students (62.5%) got poor.
After taking action in cycle I by using Quick on the Draw technique the percentage of the students’ improvement is improved significantly. There are 5 students (31.25%) got fairly good, 11 students (68.75%) got fairly, and 1 students (6.25%) got poor, and none of students’ classification and then, in cycle II, there are 3 students (18.75%) got good, 11 students (68.75%) got fairly good, 2 students (12.5%) got fairly, and none of the students for other classification.
6. The Score Classification and Percentage of the Students’ Improvement in Understanding the Content of the Text Through Quick on the Draw Technique.
The classification and percentage of students’ improvement in understanding the content of the text through Quick on the Draw technique is described as follow:
No Classification 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 0 0
3 Good 7.6 – 8.5 0 0 0 0 8 50
4 Fairly Good 6.6 – 7.5 0 0 6 37.5 4 25
5 Fairly 5.6 – 6.5 3 18.75 7 43.75 1 6.25
6 Poor 3.6 – 5.5 13 81.25 2 12.5 0 0
7 Very Poor 0 – 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Score 16 100 16 100 16 100
Figure 6: The Score Classification and Percentage of the Students’ of Improvement in Understanding the Content of the Text Through Quick on the Draw Technique.
The chart above shows the percentage of the students’ improvement in understanding the content of the text in diagnostic test. Indicates that 3 students ( 18.75%) got fairly, 13 students’ (81.25%) got poor in and none students for other classification.
After the taking action in cycle I by using Quick on the Draw, the percentage of the students’ improvement is improved significantly. There are 6 students (37.5%) got fairly good, 7 students (43.75%) got fairly, 2 students (12.5%) students got poor, and none of students for other classification. And then,
in cycle II, there are 8 students (50%) got good, 4 students (25%) got fairly good and none of the students for other classification
Figure 6: The Score Classification and Percentage of the Students’
Improvement in Understanding the Content of the Text Through Quick on the draw Technique.
The chart above shows the percentage of the students’ improvement in understanding the content of the text in diagnostic test. Indicates that 3 students (18.75%) got fairly, 13 students’ (81.25%) got poor in and none students for other classification.
After the taking action in cycle I by using Quick on the Draw, the percentage of the students’ improvement is improved significantly. There are 6 students (37.5%) got fairly good, 7 students (43.75%) got fairly, 2 students (12.5%) students got poor, and none of students for other classification. And then, in cycle II, there are 8 students (50%) got good, 4 students (25%) got fairly good and none of the students for other classification.
7. Observation Result
The result of observation of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process with Quick on the Draw technique in the observer through observation sheet too increasing the students’ reading achievement at the first grade of SMA 9 Muhammadiyah Perumnas Makassar. This was conducted in two cycle during 8 meetings. It can be seen clearly through the following table:
Table 3: the students’ observation result of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process in cycle I and cycle II.
Cycle Meeting percentages Averages Improvement
I I
II III IV
60.29%
63.23%
64.70%
69.11%
64.3325%
10.655%
II I
II III IV
72.02%
73.52%
75%
79.41%
74.9875%
The table above explains that the average of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process through observation sheet by observer. The table above show the process the students’ activity in each meeting. The percentages of the cycle I from the first meeting to the fourth meeting are 60.29% , 63,23%, 64.70% and 69.11% . Moreover, the percentage of the cycle II from the first meeting to the fourth meeting are 72.02%, 73.52%, 75% and 79.41% in addition, the average in every cycle, in cycle I is 64.3325% and cycle II is 74.9875%
therefore the improvement of the students’ activity 10.655%
To know the improvement clearly, look at the following chart:
Figure 4: The students’ observation in learning reading comprehension.
Based on the chart above shows the students’ observation in learning reading through Quick on the Draw technique by students’ at the first class SMA 9 Muhammadiyah Perumnas Makassar. In chart above, presented the students’
situation during teaching learning process in reading from cycle I to the cycle II from the chart, it is know that there is changing of the students’ in learning reading is low within the mean score 64.3325% and changed to be 74.9875% . from that, there is a significant increased of the students’ activity from cycle I to cycle II is 10.655%.
This can be proved by the result of findings about the students’ literal reading comprehension (mean idea) and summarizing (content) and observation result of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process.
64.33% 74.99%
10.66%