CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION
2. Description of Research Data
Table 13
Students’ Pre-Test Grade
No Students’ Name Grade Category
1 AD 50 INCOMPLETE
2 AS 75 COMPLETE
3 AP 40 INCOMPLETE
4 AW 40 INCOMPLETE
5 BA 75 COMPLETE
6 DB 50 INCOMPLETE
7 DM 75 COMPLETE
8 DJ 75 COMPLETE
9 DA 60 INCOMPLETE
10 ER 40 INCOMPLETE
11 EA 60 INCOMPLETE
12 FR 40 INCOMPLETE
13 FA 56 INCOMPLETE
14 FM 50 INCOMPLETE
15 FV 60 INCOMPLETE
16 GP 40 INCOMPLETE
17 HA 45 INCOMPLETE
18 IA 50 INCOMPLETE
19 JH 50 INCOMPLETE
20 JW 58 INCOMPLETE
21 LP 45 INCOMPLETE
22 NP 55 INCOMPLETE
23 NE 60 INCOMPLETE
24 NJ 50 INCOMPLETE
25 NF 75 COMPLETE
26 NY 60 INCOMPLETE
27 OW 55 INCOMPLETE
28 RI 50 INCOMPLETE
29 RL 65 INCOMPLETE
30 RN 55 INCOMPLETE
31 SB 60 INCOMPLETE
32 SY 60 INCOMPLETE
33 SA 75 COMPLETE
34 YP 50 INCOMPLETE
Total 1904
Average 56
Source: The grade resultof writing pre-test at the tenth grade of SMAN 1 Punggur Central Lampung September 02th 2019.
Table14
Frequency of Students’ Grade in Pre-Test
No Grade Frequency Percentage Explanation
1 ≥75 6 students 18 % Complete
2 < 75 28 students 82 % Incomplete Total 34 students 100 %
Source: The grade result of writing pre-test at the tenth of SMAN 1 Punggur Central Lampung September 02th2019.
Figure 6
The Percentage of the Students’ Completeness Grade on Pre-test
Based on the data above, it could be inferred that 28 students (82%) were not successful and 6 other students (18%) were successful.
The successful students were those who got the minimum mastery criteria at SMAN 1 Punggur Central Lampung at least 75. The successful students were fewer than those unsuccessful students. From the pre-test result, the researcher got an average of 56 so the result was unsatisfied.
18%
82%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
≥75 <75
Pre-test
Pre-test
Therefore, the researcher used C-SPACE strategy to improve the students’ writing ability.
b. Cycle I 1) Planning
In the planning stage, the researcher and the collaborator prepared several things related to the teaching and learning process such as: prepared the lesson plan, made the instrument that would be examined as post test in the cycle I, prepared the material, made the observation sheet of the students’ activity, identified the problem and found the causes of problem at the beginning and the end of learning activities. The researcher also planned to give an evaluation to measure the students’ mastery of the given materials.
2) Acting
a) The first meeting
The first meeting was conducted on Friday, September 06th, 2019 at 10.00 until 11.30 and followed by 34 students. The meeting was started by praying, greeting and checking the attendance list. In this stage, the condition of the class was effective because the collaborator handled the researcher to make sure the students’ effectiveness before the researcher was doing research in the class. It showed that most of students gave their full nice attention to the researcher when the study time came.
For the beginning, the researcher started to introduce the procedure of strategy that was used in the learning process, then started to deliver the material. The researcher asked the students to open handbook on page 157 that is text about “Issumboshi” and asked the students to read it. Then, the researcher said “Well class, now I want to ask you. “What is the type of text?” Some students answered “recount text”, some students kept silent, and two students answered “narrative text”. The researcher said “Good!”
The type is narrative text. Today we will discuss together a
“narrative text.”
The researcher explained that the used text in the teaching learning was organized in the narrative form. The generic structure included orientation-complication-resolution. The purpose of the text is to amuse or to entertain the reader with a story. Then, a student asked, “Ms, what is the example of narrative text?” The researcher answered, “the example of the narrative text such as legends, fables, myths, etc”.
Moreover, in teaching narrative writing, the researcher implemented eight procedures of C-SPACE strategy. The first, the researcher introduced the students about C-SPACE strategy mnemonic. The second,the researcher divided seventeen pairs who sat on the same chair. The researcher and students discussed the benefit of the strategy and pair helped step improving narrative
writing in a pair. The third, the teacher described the direction for effective pair feedback, and gave the model to use C-SPACE strategy. Next, the researcher distributed the students’ worksheet that is provided in Appendix 3. The writing topic of worksheet is Sura and Baya. Each pair identified C-SPACE strategy steps elements in example narrative by filling the C-SPACE mnemonic chart. The students in pair evaluated the identification result provided in the C-SPACE mnemonic chart before developed idea to write a narrative text. Next, the students in pair developed the idea provided in C-SPACE mnemonic chart in to a simple narrative writing. The students gave feedback to the result of narrative writing in pair. After getting the feedback, the students revised their writing in pair.
In this stage, the students actively followed the teaching- learning process because they worked it with pairing, so they can discuss if they find the difficulties. However, there were still troubles faced with the students. Such as, some of the students were not confident to write the text by using C-SPACE Mnemonic Chart because they were confused that their result true or false. In addition, the students were lack of desire in writing English text for some students, they lost the time to work.
b) The second meeting
The second meeting was conducted on Monday, September 9th, 2019 at 13.55 until 15.15 for 2x45 minutes after the students given the action. The researcher began the lesson by praying, greeting, checking attendance list and asking the students’
condition. The activity continues by giving some explanation more about a narrative text on how to apply C-SPACE.
Moreover, in teaching narrative writing, the researcher implemented eight procedures of C-SPACE strategy. The first,the researcher introduced the students about C-SPACE strategy mnemonic. The second,the researcher divided seventeen pairs who sat on the same chair. The researcher and students discussed the benefit of the strategy and pair helped step improving narrative writing in a pair. The third, the teacher described the direction for effective pair feedback, and gave the model to use C-SPACE strategy. Next, the researcher distributed the students’ worksheet that is provided in Appendix 4. The writing topic of worksheet is Alladin. Each pair identified C-SPACE strategy steps elements in example narrative by filling the C-SPACE mnemonic chart. The students in pair evaluated the identification result provided in the C-SPACE mnemonic chart before developed idea to write a narrative text. Next, the students in pair developed the idea provided in C-SPACE mnemonic chart in to a simple narrative
writing. The students gave feedback to the result of narrative writing in pair. After getting the feedback, the students revised their writing in pair.
In this stage, the students were actively following the teaching-learning process, because they worked it in pair, so they can discuss if they find the difficulties. However, there was still trouble faced with the students. Such as, some of the students were not confident to write the text by using C-SPACE Mnemonic Chart because they are confused that their result true or false.
Furthermore, their desire and motivation to write the narrative text in the second meeting are higher than those in the first meeting.
c. Post-Test I Activity
Then,on Friday, September 13th 2019 at 10.00 until 11.30 the researcher conducted pos test 1 cycle 1, the researcher gave post-test of cycle I with a similar test on a pre-test before. Kind of the test was an essay test which consisted of 1 question item. The students were given some choices narrative text topics that include: Romeo and Juliet, The Mouse and Crocodile, Toba Lake. The result of the students’ test in post- test 1 was better than test in pre-test before.
Table 15
Students’ Post-test 1 grade
No Students’ Name Grade Category
1 AD 75 COMPLETE
2 AS 80 COMPLETE
3 AP 60 INCOMPLETE
4 AW 50 INCOMPLETE
5 BA 78 COMPLETE
6 DB 75 COMPLETE
7 DM 78 COMPLETE
8 DJ 65 INCOMPLETE
9 DA 75 COMPLETE
10 ER 75 COMPLETE
11 EA 54 INCOMPLETE
12 FR 75 COMPLETE
13 FA 75 COMPLETE
14 FM 75 COMPLETE
15 FV 50 INCOMPLETE
16 GP 75 COMPLETE
17 HA 51 INCOMPLETE
18 IA 50 INCOMPLETE
19 JH 53 INCOMPLETE
20 JW 75 COMPLETE
21 LP 50 INCOMPLETE
22 NP 75 COMPLETE
23 NE 75 COMPLETE
24 NJ 54 INCOMPLETE
25 NF 75 COMPLETE
26 NY 75 COMPLETE
27 OW 58 INCOMPLETE
28 RI 54 INCOMPLETE
29 RL 68 INCOMPLETE
30 RN 75 COMPLETE
31 SB 50 INCOMPLETE
32 SY 64 INCOMPLETE
33 SA 75 COMPLETE
34 YP 56 INCOMPLETE
Total 2248
Average 66
Source: The grade result of writing pos-test 1 at the tenth of SMAN 1 Punggur Central Lampung September 13th 2019
Table 16
Frequency of students’ grade in Pos-test 1
No Grade Frequency Percentage Explanation
1 ≥75 18 students 53% Complete
2 < 75 16 students 47% Incomplete
Total 34 students 100 %
Source: The grade result of writing pos-test 1 at the tenth of SMAN 1 Punggur Central Lampung September 13th 2019
Figure 7
The Percentage of the Students’ Completness Grade on Post-test 1
Based on the result above, it could be seen that 18 students (53%) got grade up to the standard and 16 students (47%) got grade less than the standard. It was higher than the result of pre-test. The criterion of students who were successful in mastering the material should get minimum mastery criteria, at least 75. Learning process was said success when 75% students got grade ≥75. The fact showed that the result was unsatisfied.
53%
47%
44%
45%
46%
47%
48%
49%
50%
51%
52%
53%
54%
≥ 75 < 75
Post-test 1
Post-test 1
3) Observing
In observation, the collaborator observed the students’
activities. The researcher as a teacher gave material about writing text especially narrative text by using C-SPACE strategy. While the treatment was being executed, the students' activities during the learning process were also being observed by the observer. The students who were active in discussion would get the point by ticking it on the observation sheet for meeting 1 and meeting 2.
The indicators of the students’ lerning activities were:
a) Paying attention to the teacher’s explanation.
b) Asking or answering the teacher’s question.
c) Being active in class.
d) Doing the task given by the teacher.
e) Being active in group activity.
The result of the students’ learning activities could be seen as follow:
Table 17
The Students’ Learning Activities Observation in Cycle I No Students
Name
The Indicatorof Students’ Learning Activities Paying
atention to the teacher’s
explanation
Asking or answering
the teacher’s
question
Being active in class
Doing the task given by
the teacher
Being active in
group activity
1 AD √ √ - √ √
2 AS √ √ √ √ √
3 AP √ - - - -
4 AW - √ - - -
5 BA √ √ √ √ √
6 DB √ - √ √ -
7 DM √ √ - √ √
8 DJ - √ - - -
9 DA √ - √ √ √
10 ER √ - - √ -
11 EA - √ - - -
12 FR √ √ - √ √
13 FA √ √ - √ √
14 FM √ - - √ √
15 FV - √ - - -
16 GP √ - √ √ √
17 HA - √ - - -
18 IA - - √ - -
19 JH - - √ - -
20 JW - √ - √ √
21 LP √ - - - -
22 NP √ √ √ √ √
23 NE √ - √ √ √
24 NJ √ - - - -
25 NF - √ √ √ √
26 NY √ √ - √ √
27 OW - - √ - -
28 RI - √ √ - √
29 RL √ - √ - -
30 RN √ - √ - √
31 SB - √ - - -
32 SY √ √ √ - √
33 SA √ √ √ √ √
34 YP - √ - - -
TOTAL 21 20 16 17 18
Source: The result grade of students’ activities observation in cycle I at the tenth of SMAN 1 Punggur Central Lampung September 9th2019.
Table 18
The Frequency of Students’ Activities in Cycle I
No Students Activities Frequency Percentage 1 Paying atention to the teacher’s
explanation
21 students 62%
2 Asking or answering the teacher’s question
20 students 58%
3 Being active in class 16students 47%
4 Doing the task given by the teacher 17 students 50%
5 Being active in group activity 18 students 53%
Total Students 34
Source: The result grade ofstudents’ activities in cycle I at class X of SMAN 1 Punggur Central Lampung September 09th 2019
Figure 8
The Percentage of Students Learning Activities in Cycle I
The table showed that not all the students’ active in learning process. There were 21 students (62%) who gave attention to the teacher explanation. 20 students (58%) who understood the materials, 16 students (47%) who active in the class, 17 students
62% 58%
47% 50% 53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Activity 1 Activity 2Activity 3Activity 4 Activity 5
The Student's activity
the student's activity
(50%) were able to do the task and 18 students (53%) who active in the group.
4) Reflecting
From the result observation in learning process in cycle I, it could be concluded that in the learning process has not achieved Minimum Mastery Criteria (MMC) of the research yet. At the end of this cycle, the researcher analyzed and calculated all the processes like students’ pre-test grade and the result of students’ post-test I grade. The comparison between pre-test grade and post-test I grade was as follow:
Table 19
The Comparison Between Pre-test and Post-test I Grade in Cycle I
No
Name Students
Pre Test
Post
Test I Improving Explanation
1. AD 50 75 15 Improved
2. AS 75 80 5 Improved
3. AP 40 60 20 Improved
4. AW 40 50 10 Improved
5. BA 75 78 3 Improved
6. DB 50 75 25 Improved
7. DM 75 78 3 Improved
8. DJ 75 65 -10 Declined
9. DA 60 75 15 Improved
10. ER 40 75 35 Improved
11. EA 60 54 -6 Declined
12. FR 40 75 35 Improved
13. FA 56 75 19 Improved
14. FM 50 75 25 Improved
15. FV 60 50 -10 Declined
16. GP 40 75 35 Improved
17. HA 45 51 6 Improved
18. IA 50 50 0 Constant
19. JH 50 53 3 Improved
20. JW 58 75 17 Improved
21. LP 45 50 5 Improved
22. NP 55 75 20 Improved
23. NE 60 75 15 Improved
24. NJ 50 54 4 Improved
25. NF 75 75 0 Constant
26. NY 60 75 15 Improved
27. OW 55 58 3 Improved
28. RI 50 54 4 Improved
29. RL 65 68 3 Improved
30. RN 55 75 20 Improved
31. SB 60 50 -10 Declined
32. SY 60 64 4 Improved
33. SA 75 75 0 Constant
34. YP 50 56 6 Improved
Total 1904 2248
Average 56 66 370
High Grade 75 80
Low Grade 40 50
Source: The result of writing comparison between pre-test and post-test I grade in cycle I at the tenth of SMAN 1 Punggur Central Lampung
Table 20
The Comparison of Students’ Pre-Test and Post-Test I in Cycle I Interval Pre-Test Post-Test I Explanation
≥75 18% 53% Complete
< 75 82% 47% Incomplete
Total 100% 100%
Then, the graph of comparison students writing ability pre-test and post-test I grade in cycle I could be seen as follow:
Figure 9
The Comparison of Percentage of the Students’ Completeness Grade on Pre-test and Post-test I
The table and the graphic above, in pre-test it could be seen that total from 34 students, it could be concluded that 18% or 6 students among the interval >75 students, achieved the minimum standard criteria.
Then the students did not achieve the minimum standard criteria were 82% or 28 students among the interval <75. In post-test I, it could be concluded that 53% or 18 students among the interval >75 students, achieved the minimum standard criteria. In addition, the students who did not achieve the minimum standard criteria were 47% or 16 students among interval <75. The average grade of pre-test was 56 and average grade of post-test I was 66. There was improvement between pre-test and post-test I but did not fulfill the indicator of success. It could be concluded that the result was unsuccessful, because of the indicator of success could not be achieved yet that was 75% of the total students must be passed the criteria.
18%
82%
53%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
≥75 <75
pre test post test
Regarding the result of student’s post-test I grade and the observation of student’s activities in cycle I it caused of giving a subject material was not run well, so some students could not clear to understanding the material. Some students were not satisfied because most of the students did not pay attention toward the teacher explanation and they did not get difficulties to answer the question and some students got failure in a test of cycle I. Therefore, the researcher had to continue in cycle II which consisted of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.
d. Cycle II
The action in the cycle I was not successful enough, the cycle must be continued to cycle II. Cycle II was used to repair the weakness in the cycle I the steps of the cycle II as follows:
1) Planning
Based on the activities in the cycle I, the process at cycle II was focused on the problem on cycle I. There were some weaknesses on cycle I. Then, the researcher and collaborator planned to give the material for students in writing ability by narrative text with the strategy of C-SPACE.
The researcher and collaborator prepared the lesson plan, observation sheet of the students’ activities, identified the problem, and found the causes of problem at the first and the last of learning activities. The researcher also planned to give evaluation to measure the students’ mastery on the given materials.
2) Acting
a) The first meeting
The first meeting was conducted on Monday, September 16th 2019 at 13.55-15.15 followed by 34 students. The researcher began the lesson greeting, praying, checking attendance list and asking the students’ condition. The researcher continued the material in the last meeting, explained the generic structure and tenses in the text.
Moreover, in teaching narrative writing, the researcher implemented eight procedures of C-SPACE strategy. The first, the researcher introduced the students about C-SPACE strategy mnemonic. The second, the researcher divided seventeen pairs who sat on the same chair. The researcher and students discussed the benefit of the strategy and pair helped step improving narrative writing in a pair. The third, the teacher described the direction for effective pair feedback, and gave the model to use C-SPACE strategy.
Next, the researcher distributed the students’ worksheet that is provided in Appendix 5. The writing topic of worksheet is Bawang Merah and Bawang Putih to write narrative text. Each pair identified C-SPACE strategy steps elements in example narrative by filling the C-SPACE mnemonic chart. The students in pair evaluated the identification result provided in the C-SPACE mnemonic chart before developed idea to write a narrative text. Next, the students in pair developed the idea provided in C-SPACE mnemonic chart in to a
simple narrative writing. The students gave feedback to the result of narrative writing in pair. After getting the feedback, the students revised their writing in pair.
In this stage, the students were very active in following the lesson. It might be caused they could adapt the condition of the class.
The students looked getting more spirit and enthusiasm in following the learning process. It was investigated from their activeness in the class. The good condition of the environment of the class was very helpful in the teaching-learning process.
b) The second meeting
The second meeting was conducted on Friday, September 20nd 2019 at 10.55 until 11.30. The researcher began the lesson by praying, greeting, checking attendance list and asking the students’ condition.
The activity was continued by giving some explanation more about a narrative text on how to apply C-SPACE.
Moreover, in teaching narrative writing, the researcher implemented eight procedures of C-SPACE strategy. The first, the researcher introduced the students about C-SPACE strategy. The second, the researcher divided seventeen pairs who sat on the same chair. The researcher and students discussed the benefit of the strategy and pair helped step improving narrative writing in a pair. The third, the teacher described the direction for effective pair feedback, and gave the model to use C-SPACE strategy.
Next, the researcher distributed the students’ worksheet that is provided in Appendix 6. The writing topic of worksheet is Prambanan Tample to write narrative text. Each pair identified C-SPACE strategy steps elements in example narrative by filling the C-SPACE mnemonic chart. The students in pair evaluated the identification result provided in the C-SPACE mnemonic chart before developed idea to write a narrative text. Next, the students in pair developed the idea provided in C-SPACE mnemonic chart in to a simple narrative writing. The students gave feedback to the result of narrative writing in pair. After getting the feedback, the students revised their writing in pair.
In this stage, the students actively followed the teaching- learning process, because they worked it in pair, so they can discuss if they find the difficulties. In this meeting, the students were excited in the process of writing the narrative text. Furthermore, their desire and motivation to write the narrative text in the second meeting are higher than those in the first meeting.
e. Post-test II activity
Then, on Monday, September 23th 2019 at 13.55 until 15.15 the researcher conducted pos test 2 of cycle 2 for 2x45 minutes. The researcher gave post-test to the students. The kind of test was an writing test in the form of the essay test that asked the students to write narrative text. The students were given some choices narrative text topics that