BAB IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION
B. Discussion
2. The Result of Students Learning Activities
The students’ learning activities data is got from the whole students learning activities on observation sheet. The table improvement of it as follow:
Table 14
The Students’ Activity in Cycle I and Cycle II N
o
Students Activities
Cycle I Cycle II
Increasing F Percentage F Percentage
1 The
students pay attention of the teacher explanation
10 62,5 % 14 87,5 % 25 %
2 The
students are active in class
8 50 % 13 81,25 % 31,25 %
3 The
students are able
performanc e in the classroom.
6 37, 5 % 12 75 % 31,25 %
Figure 3
Graph of Students’ Result of Learning Activities in Cycle I and Cycle II
Based on the data had gotten, it can be explained as follow:
a. The students pay attention to the teacher’s explanation
The students attention to the teacher explanation from the first meeting to next meeting was improved. In cycle I was only 62,5 % and in cycle II 87.5 %, it improved 25 %
b. The students were active in class
The students who had activated in a group or pairs also improved. From cycle I 50 % and cycle II 81,25 % , so it improved 31,25 %.
c. The Students were able to Performance in the Classroom
The students who had done to Performance in the Classroom were improved. It could be seen on the cycle I 37, 5 % and cycle II 75%, it improved 43,75%.
62.50%
50%
37.50%
87.50%
81.25%
75%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
The Students Pay Attention
The Students Active in the
Class
The Students Perfome in the
Classroom
Cycle I Cycle II
Based on the data above, it could be concluded that the students felt comfortable and active with the learning process because most of the students shown good improving in learning activities when Learning Media Handout was applied in learning process from cycle I up to cycle II.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the result of the Learning Media Handout in Speaking Ability, it could be concluded that there is improving the students Speaking Ability by using of Learning Media Handout among the Scout at eighth graders of SMPN 4 Metro. Therefore, the of Learning Media Handout can be effective strategy and it could be used as alternative way in teaching Speaking because the Media easy for implementing and it was one of interesting technique which very closed to the students learning activities. The students were involved actively in teaching learning process. It made the students easier to understand the material so it could be improved the students Speaking ability.
It was supported by improving of students percentage from pre test 25% to post test I 43,75 % became 75 % in post test II. In cycle 1, there are 8 students passed the test. Moreover, in cycle II there were 11 students who got score ≥ 76. It means that the result of cycle II had already reached the indicator of success that was 70 % students fulfill the KKM. It was clear that Learning Media Handout could be used to improve the students Speaking ability.
B. Suggestion
Based on the result of the research, the researcher would like to give some suggestion as follows:
1. The students are suggested to be more active in learning English so they can comprehend the material that teacher given and improve their knowledge especially in Speaking Ability.
2. The students are suggested to improve their vocabularies mastery in order that can success Speaking.
3. It is suggested for the English teacher to use Learning Media Handout as alternative media in the classroom because this media is effective to improve the students Speaking Ability in the teaching and learning process.
4. The teacher is expected to give motivation to the students in order to be excited in English learning since many students regard that English is difficult subject to learn. Based on the observation of the class, the students will more active after the teacher gives motivation to the students.
5. It is suggested for the headmaster in order to persuade the teachers to use this media because it is effective in teaching the material for the teacher.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anne Burns, Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching, (New York:
Routledge, 2010)
Ary Donald, et all, Intoduction to Research in Education, (Canada:
WadsworthCengange Learning, 2010), 108-109
Biggs John, at al., Teaching Quality learning at University, Fourth Edition (New York : Open University Press, 2011)
Bligh, D., What’s the Use of Lectures? Fifth Edition (Great Britanian: Copyright, 1998)
Butcher, Christopher at al., Designing Learning From Module Outline to Effective Teaching (New York : Routledge, 2009)
Christoper Turk. Effective Speaking Communicating in Speech (Taylor and Prancis Group, Spoon Press, 2003)
Cryil J. Weir, Language Testing and Validation, (New York : Palgrave Macmillan), 102
David Colton & Robert W.Covert, Designing and Constructing Instrument for Social Research andEvaluation. (San Francisco: Jossey, Bass, 2007)
Douglas Brown, Language assessment Principles and Classroom Practices, (San Francisco: Longman, 2004)
Douglas Brown., Teaching By Principles An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Second Edition (San Francisco : Longman, 2000)
Fry, Heater et al., A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Third Edition (New York and London : Routledge, 2009)
Geoffrey Broughton, et. All, English as a Foreign Language Second Edition.
(University of London Institute of Education London and New York, 1980)
Gerald Munyoro, “An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Handout in Enhancing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,” ADRRI Journal Vol 5. No 5 .9 (2), pp 1-19, March, 2014
Huriah, “Implementing Speech Community Strategy To Enhance Students English Speaking Ability,” Indonesian EFL Journal Volume I Issue 2 2015
Jack C. Richards, Teaching Listening And Speaking,From Theory To practice, (NewYork :Cambridge University Press,2008)
Moh. Khaerul Azmy, “The Development of Chemistry Teaching Materials In the Form of Handout Based (PBL) In Class XI IPA Madrasah Aliyah (Ma) Kediri District,” IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education Vol. 8, Issue 3 Ver. III May-June 2018
Race, Phil, The Lecturer’s Toolkit, Third Edition (New York : Routledge, 2007) S. Nerita, “Students Analysis of Handout Development based on Guided
Discovery Method in Process Evaluation and Learning Outcomes of Biology,” Journal of Physics : Conf Series 895 (2017)
Sandra Combleet, Ronald Carter, The Language of Speech and Writing, (Amerika Serikat : Intertax, 2008)
Somayeh Ebrahiminejad, et all., Effect Of Using Short Story on Speaking Improvement of Iranian Pre-Intermediate EFL Learners, International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics World Volume 7 (3), November 2014; 42-56,
Appendices 3 : Observasion Sheet
Table
The Pre-Test Score
No Name Pre-Test Note
1 ALMN 76 Complete
2 AZL 60 Uncomplete
3 CND 40 Uncomplete
4 DRN 76 Complete
5 FHR 40 Uncomplete
6 FR 44 Uncomplete
7 JVN 68 Complete
8 MLY 44 Uncomplete
9 NV 64 Complete
10 RFF 40 Uncomplete
11 RFK 56 Uncomplete
12 RND 40 Uncomplete
13 RZ 40 Uncomplete
14 SHVR 52 Uncomplete
15 SSTY 40 Uncomplete
16 ZQ 44 Uncomplete
Total Score 824
Average 48,47
Percentage of Complete 25 % Percentage of Uncomplete 75 %
Highest Score 76
Lowest Score 40
Table
The Post-Test I Score
No Name Post- Test 1 Note
1 ALMN 84 Complete
2 AZL 52 Uncomplete
3 CND 68 Uncomplete
4 DRN 80 Complete
5 FHR 68 Uncomplete
6 FR 56 Uncomplete
7 JVN 52 Uncomplete
8 MLY 76 Complete
9 NV 64 Uncomplete
10 RFF 52 Uncomplete
11 RFK 76 Complete
12 RND 76 Complete
13 RZ 60 Uncomplete
14 SHVR 76 Complete
15 SSTY 56 Uncomplete
16 ZQ 76 Complete
Total Score 1072
Average 63,06
Percentage of Complete 43,75 % Percentage of Uncomplete 56,25 %
Highest Score 84
Lowest Score 52
Table
Students’ Score at Pre-Test and Post-Test
No Name Pre-Test Score
Post-Test I Score
Increasing Explanation
1 ALMN 76 84 8 Increased
2 AZL 60 52 -8 Descreased
3 CND 40 68 28 Increased
4 DRN 76 80 4 Increased
5 FHR 40 68 28 Increased
6 FR 44 56 12 Increased
7 JVN 68 52 -16 Decreased
8 MLY 44 76 32 Increased
9 NV 64 64 0 Constant
10 RFF 40 52 12 Increased
11 RFK 56 76 20 Increased
12 RND 40 76 36 Increased
13 RZ 40 60 20 Increased
14 SHVR 52 76 20 Increased
15 SSTY 40 56 16 Increased
16 ZQ 44 76 32 Increased
Total 820 1072 244
Average 48,24 63,06 14,35
Percentage 25 % 43,75 % 18,75 %
Table
The Post-Test II Score
No Name Post-Test II Note
1 ALMN 80 Complete
2 AZL 60 Uncomplete
3 CND 84 Complete
4 DRN 80 Complete
5 FHR 76 Complete
6 FR 88 Complete
7 JVN 76 Complete
8 MLY 72 Uncomplete
9 NV 84 Complete
10 RFF 80 Complete
11 RFK 76 Complete
12 RND 76 Complete
13 RZ 68 Uncomplete
14 SHVR 76 Complete
15 SSTY 64 Uncomplete
16 ZQ 88 Complete
Total Score 1228
Average 72,24
Percentage of Complete 75 % Percentage of Uncomplete 25 %
Highest Score 88
Lowest Score 60
Table
Students’ Score at Post-Test I and Post-Test II
No Name Post-Test I Score
Post-Test II Score
Increasing Explanation
1 ALMN 84 80 -4 Descreased
2 AZL 52 60 8 Increased
3 CND 68 84 16 Increased
4 DRN 80 80 0 Constant
5 FHR 68 76 8 Increased
6 FR 56 88 32 Increased
7 JVN 52 76 24 Increased
8 MLY 76 72 -4 Decreased
9 NV 64 84 20 Increased
10 RFF 52 80 28 Increased
11 RFK 76 76 0 Constant
12 RND 76 76 0 Constant
13 RZ 60 68 8 Increased
14 SHVR 76 76 0 Constant
15 SSTY 56 64 8 Increased
16 ZQ 76 88 12 Increased
Total 1072 1228 156
Average 63,06 72,24 9,18
Percentage 43,75 % 75 % 32,45 %
Table
The Comparison Between Students’ Speaking Ability Score In Post-Test I and Post-Test II
No Name Post-Test I Score
Post-Test II Score
Note
1 ALMN 84 80 Constant
2 AZL 52 60 Increased
3 CND 68 84 Increased
4 DRN 80 80 Constant
5 FHR 68 76 Increased
6 FR 56 88 Increased
7 JVN 52 76 Increased
8 MLY 76 72 Increased
9 NV 64 84 Increased
10 RFF 52 80 Increased
11 RFK 76 76 Constant
12 RND 76 76 Increased
13 RZ 60 68 Increased
14 SHVR 76 76 Increased
15 SSTY 56 64 Increased
16 ZQ 76 88 Increased
Total 1072 1228
Average 63,06 72,24
Table
Students’ Score of Pre-Test, Post-Test Cycle I, and Post-Test Cycle II
No Name Pre-Test Score
Post-Test I Score
Post-Test II Score
1 ALMN 76 84 80
2 AZL 60 52 60
3 CND 40 68 84
4 DRN 76 80 80
5 FHR 40 68 76
6 FR 44 56 88
7 JVN 68 52 76
8 MLY 44 76 72
9 NV 64 64 84
10 RFF 40 52 80
11 RFK 56 76 76
12 RND 40 76 76
13 RZ 40 60 68
14 SHVR 52 76 76
15 SSTY 40 56 64
16 ZQ 44 76 88
Total 824 1072 1228
Average 48,47 63,06 72,24
Percentage 25 % 43,75 % 75 %
Table
The Students’ Activity in Cycle I
No Students Activities Frequency Percentage 1 The students pay attention of the
teacher explanation
10 62,5 %
2 The students were active in class 8 50 % 3 The students able performance in
the classroom.
6 37, 5 %
Total Student 16
Table
The Students’ Activity in Cycle II
No Students Activities Frequency Percentage
1 The students pay attention of the teacher explanation
14 87,5 %
2 The students were active in class 13 81,25 % 3 The students able performance in
the classroom.
11 68,75 %
Total Student 16
Table
Observation Sheet of Student’s Activities Cycle I
No Name
Activity
Score Pay Attention
of Teacher Explanation
The Students Active In the
Class
The Students able to Performance in Classroom 1 ALMN
2 AZL 3 CND 4 DRN 5 FHR 6 FR 7 JVN
8 MLY
9 NV 10 RFF 11 RFK 12 RND 13 RZ 14 SHVR 15 SSTY 16 ZQ
Total Percentage
(%)
Note : Tick for each positive activity
Percentage of students activities : P = 1/n x 100 P : Percentage
1 : Indicators N : Total of Students
Metro, October 2019
The Collaborator The Researcher
Peni Jiwastiti, S.Pd. Fitria Eka Saputri NIP. 197801082005022004 NPM. 1501070154
Table
Observation Sheet of Student’s Activities Cycle II
No Name
Activity
Score Pay Attention
of Teacher Explanation
The Students Active In the
Class
The Students able to Performance in Classroom 1 ALMN
2 AZL 3 CND 4 DRN 5 FHR 6 FR 7 JVN
8 MLY
9 NV 10 RFF 11 RFK 12 RND 13 RZ 14 SHVR 15 SSTY 16 ZQ
Total Percentage
(%)
Note : Tick for each positive activity
Percentage of students activities : P = 1/n x 100 P : Percentage
1 : Indicators N : Total of Students
Metro, October 2019
The Collaborator The Reasearcher
Peni Jiwastiti, S.Pd. Fitria Eka Saputri
NIP. NPM. 1501070154
DAFTAR NILAI
N
O NAMA
PENILAIAN
TOTAL Prunonciat
ion (5-1)
Grammar (5-1)
Vocabu lary (5-1)
Fluency (5-1)
Comprehe ntion (5-1) 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Appendices 4 : Research Media
Appendices 5 : Documentation Of Research