CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
B. Discussion
In this part, discussion deals with the interpretation of findings derive from the result of findings about the observation result of the students‟ speaking ability in terms of accuracy dealing with grammar and vocabulary and fluency dealing with smoothness and self-confidence toward the application of Think-Pair-Share Method.
1. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Accuracy Dealing With Vocabulary and Grammar.
a. Vocabulary
The Think-Pair-Share Method improved the students‟ speaking accuracy in terms of vocabulary can be seen the difference by considering the result of the students‟ improvement after D-test, taking action in cycle I and cycle II through the application Think-Pair-Share Method in teaching learning process.
The improvement of the students‟ speaking vocabulary through Think Pair Share Method had effective method. After using the method, the researcher found that the students‟ score in cycle I is 6.85 % and in the cycle II became 7.97 %.
During the teaching and learning process in cycle I, the researcher finds that the students are difficult to speak in a correct vocabulary it caused by their language still influence by mother tongue and most of them do not have vocabulary stock for delivering their ideas. To solve this problem the researcher
has done cycle II and revise the previous lesson plan, give them deep explanation and repeated the word still they can get it.
From the explanation above the researcher analyzes that the think pair share method can improve students‟ speaking vocabulary where the students mean score in cycle II higher than cycle I. The scores are acquired from the presentation of data analysis, and the improvement is presented in higher number of the students to show that the improvement is significant such as: In the test cycle I where 6 students (22.22%) was fair, 20 students (74.07%) was fairly good and 1 students (3.70%) was good (table 7). In cycle II, it improves again where 20 students (74.07%) was good and 3 students (11.11%) was very good (table 4.5).
These score percentage above indicated that the use of Think-Pair- Share Method can improve the students‟ speaking accuracy in term of vocabulary. The vocabulary that students use when they are speaking is more varieties after giving action I and action II than before giving the action where the students‟ vocabulary when they are speaking was very limit. Based on the explanation above can be seen that the students speaking accuracy dealing with vocabulary improved significantly.
b. Grammar
The Think-Pair-Share Method improved the students‟ speaking ability in terms of grammar can be seen the difference by considering the result
of the students‟ achievement after D-test, taking action in cycle I and II (the application of think pair share method).
The improvement of the students‟ speaking grammar through Think- Pair-Share Method was an effective method. The researcher found that before the use Think-Pair-Share Method the students score in cycle I was 6.59 % and in the cycle II became 7.73 %.
During the teaching and learning process in cycle I , the researcher found that the students were difficult to speak in a correct grammar it caused by their language still influenced by mother tongue and most of them did not have knowledge about grammar for delivering their ideas. To solve this problem the researcher had done cycle II and revised the previous lesson plan, give them deep explanation related to what becomes problem that the students‟ faced.
From the explanation above the researcher analyzed that the strategy of Think-Pair-Share Method can improve students‟ speaking grammar where the students mean score in cycle I was higher than cycle II. The scores are acquired from the presentation of data analysis, and the improvement is presented in higher number of the students to show that the improvement is significant such as: in the cycle I where 14 students (51.85%) got fair, 13 students (48.14%) got fairly good and 1 student (2.85%) got good (table 8). In
cycle II, it improves again where 8 students (29.62%) got fairly good 18 students (66.66%) get good and 1 student (3.70%) got very good (table 4.6).
The percentage above showed that the researcher does cycle I where the number of the students who speak fair of grammar still dominate. It means that the indicator has not achieved yet. So the researcher continues to the second cycle and through testing almost all students speak fairly good of grammar and it proves that the indicator has improved.
The score percentage above indicated that the use of Think Pair Share Method can improved the students‟ speaking accuracy in term of grammar, where the percentage above also showed that the improvement of the students‟ grammar in speaking moves from the lower percent to the high percent and it absolutely proved that the students‟ grammar in speaking improved significantly.
2. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Fluency Dealing with Smoothness and Self-Confidence.
a. Smoothness
The Think-Pair-Share Method improved the students‟ speaking fluency in term of smoothness can be seen the difference by considering the result of the students‟ improvement after getting action in each cycles.
The improvement of the students‟ smoothness in speaking think pair share method had effective method. The researcher found that the use of
Think-Pair-Share Method the students score in cycle I was 7.10 % and in the cycle II became 8.22% so the improvement of the students score of the test cycle I was 1.12 %.
During the teaching and learning process in cycle I, the researcher found that the students were difficult to speak fluently it caused by their language still influenced by mother tongue and most of them seldom speak in English which actually can help their fluency. To solve this problem the researcher had done cycle II and revised the previous lesson plan; give them more activity in speaking to train their fluency.
From the explanation above the researcher analyzed that the Think Pair Share Method can improve students‟ speaking smoothness in speaking where the students mean score in cycle I higher then cycle II.The scores are acquired from the presentation of data analysis, and the improvement is presented in higher number of the students to show that the improvement is significant such as: in the improves consist cycle I where 3 students (11.11%) got fair, and 24 students (88.88%) get fairly good (table 9). In cycle II, it improves again where 26 students (96.29%) got good, and 1 students (3.70%) got very good (table 4.7).
The percentage above showed that the researcher does cycle I where the number of the students who speak hasty and fair of smoothness still dominate.
It means that the indicator has not achieved yet. So the researcher continues to
the second cycle and through testing almost all students speak fairly good of smoothness and it proves that the indicator has improved.
These score percentage above indicated that the Think-Pair-Share Method can improve the students‟ speaking fluency in term of smoothness and the improvement is significant.
b. Self-Confidence
The Think-Pair-Share Method improved the students‟ speaking fluency in term of self-confidence can be seen the difference by considering the result of the students‟ improvement after getting action in each cycles.
The improvement of the students‟ self-confidence in speaking Think Pair Share Method had effective method. The researcher found that the application of think pair share method the students score in cycle I was 6.62
% and in the cycle II became 8.54 % so the improvement of the students score of the test cycle I was 1.92 %.
During the teaching and learning process in cycle I, the researcher found that the students were difficult express their to speak fluently it caused by their language still influenced by mother tongue and most of them seldom speak in English which actually can help their fluency. To solve this problem the researcher had done cycle II and revised the previous lesson plan; give them more activity in speaking to train their fluency.
From the explanation above the researcher analyzed that the Think Pair Share Method can improve students‟ speaking self-confidence in speaking where the students mean score in cycle II higher then cycle I. The scores are acquired from the presentation of data analysis, and the improvement is presented in higher number of the students to show that the improvement is significant such as: in the improves consist cycle I where 3 students (11.11%) got poor, 12 students (44.44%) got fair, and 12 students (44.44%) got fairly good. (table 9). In cycle II, it improves again where 8 students (29.62%) got good, 19 students (70.37%) got very good, (table 4.8).
These score percentage above indicate that the application of Think Pair Share Method can improve the students‟ speaking fluency in term of self- confidences and the improvement is significant.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion
Based on the findings and discussion in the previous chapter it can be concluded that “Think Pair Share Method” can improve the students‟ speaking ability at the Eight Grade Students of SMP Pesantren Guppi Samata. It Based on the research findings and discussion in the previous chapter. This research was implemented to the eight grade students of SMP Pesantren Guppi Samata in academic year of 2017-2018. This method was successful to improve students‟ speaking ability using Think Pair Share Method of cooperative learning for the eight grade students of SMP Pesantren Guppi Samata in academic year of 2017-2018. The researcher that was carried out in two cycles was successful in improving the students vocabulary, grammar, self confidence and smoothness.
The researcher findings and discussion in Chapter IV show that the students‟
speaking ability was improved through the use Think Pair Share Method. In cycle I, the researcher implemented the Think Pair Share Method and some additional actions namely using classroom English, devided students into some pair, vocabulary and grammar practice such as make a dialogue. Those actions gave an improvement in the students‟ speaking skill. However, there were some unsuccessful actions in Cycle I needed to be improved. Therefore, the researcher decided to conduct Cycle II.
The actions in Cycle II were using Think Pair Share Method, classroom English, vocabulary and grammar practice, self confidence and smoothness. There were some actions from Cycle I that were revised in Cycle II. In Cycle I the researcher using classroom English in Cycle II after devided students into some pair, the researcher explain material in English but after that the researcher explain into the Indonesian language, give feedback and explain about the summary material that have learn. It helped the passive students to be active. The class management was also improved during Cycle II.
Based on the result of observation sheet and speaking test, the students made a better improvement in their speaking ability. It could be seen from the improvement of the students‟ speaking ability in terms of accuracy dealing with vocabulary was indicated by the students‟ mean score in D-test was 6.53, cycle I was 6.85, and cycle II was 7.97 the improvement of vocabulary was 1.12. The improvement of the students‟ speaking ability in terms of accurcay dealing with grammar was indicated by the students‟ mean score in D-test was 5.81, cycle I was 6.95, and cycle II was 7.73. The improvement of grammar was 1.14.
The improvement of the students‟ speaking speaking ability in terms of fluency dealing with smoothness was indicated by the students‟ mean score in D-test was 5.9, cycle I was 7.10, and cycle II was 8.22 the improvement of smoothness was 1.12. The improvement of the students‟ speaking ability in terms of fluency dealing with self confidence was indicated by the students‟ mean score in D-test was 6.1,
56
cycle I was 6.62, and cycle II was 8.54. The improvement of self confidence was 1.92.
B. Suggestions
Some suggestions are given to the participants who are closely related to this research. The suggestions are made based on the conclusions and implications of this research. They are presented as follows :
1. For English teacher
The English teacher should consider the students‟ needs and interest before designing the speaking materials. It is important for the teacher to use various methods that are appropriate with the students‟ needs because it can reduce the students boredom and monotonous during teaching and learning process.
It is useful for them to use Think Pair Share Method as one of the appropriate methods in teaching speaking.
2. For Students
Through the Think Pair Share Method, the students have opprotunities to share their ideas. It also improves students‟ ability and motivation.
3. For Other Researchers
The weakness of this study is its limited time in implementing the actions, other researchers who are interested in the same field are recommended to implement the actions in a longer period of time to get more maximum results so that the improvement will be more significantly seen.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Azlina, NA Nik. "CETLs: Supporting Collaborative Activities among students and teachers through the Use Of Think-Pair-Share Techniques." International Journal of Computer Science Issues 7.5 (2010): 18-29.
Alexander. 2007. Cooperative Learning in Technology Education. Monograph of the Virginia Council on Technology Teacher Education.
Banikowski and Mehring. 2010. “Cooperative Learning”.
Brown, H Douglas. 2010. Principles of Language Teaching (4th ed). New York : Addison Wesley Longman.
Brown. H. Douglas. 2004. “ Assessment Principle and Classroom Practice”. New Jersey San Fransisco State University.
Erlinna, Dewi Sanjani. Improving Students’ Speaking ABILITY USING THINK- pair-share of cooperative learning for the 8thgrade students of mts n karangmojo in the academic year of 2014/2015. Diss.Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2015.
Homby. 2005. Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary of Current English. Walton Street : Oxford University Press.
Istarani. The procedure of Think Pair Share Strategy. (2011:67).
Kagan, S. 2009. Cooperative Learning Resources for Teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA:
Resources for Teachers.
Kusrini, Endang. "TEACHING SPEAKING FOR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING “THINK PAIR SHARE „." AKTIF 18.3 (2012).
Kwok, Andrew P., and Alexandria Lau. "An Exploratory Study on Using the Think-Pair- Share Cooperative Learning Strategy." Journal of Mathematical Sciences 2 (2015):
22-28.
Lyman., 1981. Strategies for Reading Comprehension (Think-pair-Share):
(Online), (http://www.Readingquest.org/strat/tps .html), accessed in 23 April 2013).
Lie. 2008. Practical English Language Teaching. New York : Mc Graw Hill.
Liao. 2009. Improving Students Speaking Ability using Think-Pair-Share Strategy.
Miftahul Huda, M.Pd. 2011. Cooperative Learning.
Mohammad Adnan Latief, 2010. Tanya Jawab Metode Penelitian Pembelajaran Bahasa.
Millis and Cottrell. (2006), Cooperative Learning learning for higher education faculty.
Prof. Dr. Emzir, M.Pd. 2007. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan, Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif.
Robertson. 2006. Increase Students Interaction with Think-Pair-Share and Circle Chats”.
Rosmiati. 2010. ”Improving The Students’ Speaking Ability Through Think-Pair-Share TPS) At the First Year of SMA Negeri 14 Makassar”. English Department Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Risnawati. 2014.“The Effect of Using Think Pair Share Technique in Increasing Students Speaking Ability on Descriptive Text”. English Department of FKIP UMMY SOLOK.
Richards, J, & Rodgers, T. 2007. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Sampsel, Ariana. "Finding the Effects of Think-Pair-Share on Student Confidence and Participation." (2013).
Slavin, Karweit, and Madden. 1989. “Cooperative Learning “.
Sormin, Fenny Friska, and Siti Aisah Ginting. "IMPROVING STUDENTS’ACHIEVEMENT I N READING COMPREHENSION THROUGH THI]NK PAIR SHARE TECHNIQUE.
" GENRE Journal of Applied Linguistics of FBS Unimed 1.1 (2012).
Suparno. 2000. Pedoman Penulisan Karya Ilmiah.
Syahputra, Adly, and Elia Masa Ginting. "IMPROVING STUDENTS’ACHIEVEMENT IN WRITING DESCRIPTIVE TEXT THROUGH THINK PAIR SHARE." REGISTER Journal of English Language Teaching of FBS-Unimed 1.1 (2012).
Templeton. 2010. Effective Classroom Teamwork. London: Routledge.
Utama, I. M. Permadi, A. A. I. N. Marhaeni, and I. Nyoman Adi Jaya. "THE EFFECT OF THINK PAIR SHARE TEACHING STRATEGY TO STUDENTS‟SELF CONFIDE NCE AND SPEAKING COMPETENCY OF THE SECOND GRADE STUDENTS OF SMPN 6 SINGARAJA." Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris 1 (2013).
Yerigan. 2008. “The Use of Think Pair Share Technique”.
A P P E N D I C
E
S
2 Muh. Fadel Std-02
3 Muh. Iril Std-03
4 Muhajir Std-04
5 Nur Alim Std-05
6 Nur Hasmira Std-06
7 Nur Hikma Std-07
8 Nur Indri Std-08
9 Nurhidayah Std-09
10 Putri Std-10
11 Rahmat Std-11
12 Rahmatia Std-12
13 Rangga Prawira Std-13
14 Resky Amelia Std-14
15 Rezky Angresa Std-15
16 Rian Std-16
17 Rian Ahmad Std-17
18 Rina Std-18
19 Risna Std-19
20 Sahara Std-20
21 Sherliani Std-21
22 Suci Std-22
23 Surya Std-23
24 Syahir Std-24
25 Wahyu Std-25
26 Winda Std-26
27 Xania Std-27
Score Classification
a. Diagnostic Test (D Test)
The score of Students‟ Speaking Accuracy and Fluency in Diagnostic Test
No Name Accuracy Fluency
Vocabulary Grammar Smoothness Self
confidence
1. Std-01 6.5 6 5.5 5.5
2. Std-02 6.5 6.5 5.5 5.6
3. Std-03 5 5.5 6.5 5.6
4. Std-04 6.5 6 5.5 6.6
5. Std-05 7 7 6.5 6.6
6. Std-06 5.5 5 5.5 6.6
7. Std-07 7 6 6 6.6
8. Std-08 7 7 6 6
9. Std-09 6.5 6 6 5.6
10. Std-10 6 6 5.5 5.6
11. Std-11 5.5 5.5 6 6.5
12. Std-12 6 6 7 6.6
13. Std-13 6 6 6.5 6.6
14. Std-14 6 6 6 5.6
15. Std-15 5 5 6 5.6
16. Std-16 5.5 5 6 6
17. Std-17 7 7 6.5 5.6
18. Std-18 6.5 6 6 6
19. Std-19 6 6 6.5 6.6
20. Std-20 5 5 6 6.6
21. Std-21 6.5 6 6 5.5
22. Std-22 6 5.5 5.5 5.5
23. Std-23 6.5 6.5 6 6.6
24. Std-24 5.5 5 6 6.6
25. Std-25 5.5 5 5.5 6.6
26. Std-26 5.5 5 5 5.6
27. Std-27 6.5 6 6 6.6
Total score 164 157 161 165
Mean score 6.07 5.83 5.96 6.11
Maximum score
7 7 7 6.6
Minimum score
5 5 5 5.5
b. Cycle I
The score of Students‟ Speaking Accuracy and Fluency in cycle I
No Name Accuracy Fluency
Vocabulary Grammar Smoothness Self confidence
1. Std-01 7 6.6 6.6 5.6
2. Std-02 7 7 6.6 6
3. Std-03 6.5 6.5 7.5 6.6
4. Std-04 7 6.6 6.6 7
5. Std-05 7.5 7.5 7 7
6. Std-06 7 6.5 6.5 7
7. Std-07 7.5 6.6 7 7.5
8. Std-08 7 6.6 7.5 7
9. Std-09 7 6.6 7.5 6.6
10. Std-10 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.6
11. Std-11 6.5 6.6 7 6.6
12. Std-12 6.5 6.5 7.5 6.6
13. Std-13 6.6 6.5 7.5 6.6
14. Std-14 6.6 6.5 7.5 7
15. Std-15 6.6 6.6 7.5 6.6
16. Std-16 6.5 6 7.5 7
17. Std-17 7.5 7 7 7
18. Std-18 7 6.5 7.5 6.6
19. Std-19 7 6 7 7
20. Std-20 6.5 6 7 7
21. Std-21 7 7 7 6.6
22. Std-22 7 6.5 7.5 6.5
23. Std-23 7 7 7.5 6.5
24. Std-24 7 6 6.5 6.6
25. Std-25 7 6.5 7 5.6
26. Std-26 7 6 7 6
27. Std-27 7.7 7 7 6.6
Total score 187 178 191 179
Mean score 6.92 6.6 7.10 6.64
Maximum score
7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5
Minimum score
6.5 6 6.5 5.6
b. Cycle II
The score of Students‟ Speaking Accuracy and Fluency in cycle II
No Name Accuracy Fluency
Vocabulary Grammar Smoothness Self confidence
1. Std-01 8 8 8 8
2. Std-02 8.5 8 8.5 8
3. Std-03 8.5 8 8.5 8
4. Std-04 8 8.5 8.5 8
5. Std-05 8.8 8 8 8
6. Std-06 8 8 8.6 8.5
7. Std-07 8 8 8 8.6
8. Std-08 8 8.5 8 8.6
9. Std-09 7.8 8.5 8.5 8.7
10. Std-10 8 8.6 8 8.8
11. Std-11 7.5 7.6 8 8.8
12. Std-12 7.5 7 8 8.7
13. Std-13 7.6 7 8 8.7
14. Std-14 7.6 7 8 8.8
15. Std-15 7.6 7.6 8 8.8
16. Std-16 7.5 7 8.5 8.8
17. Std-17 7.6 7.6 8.5 8.8
18. Std-18 7.6 7 8.5 8.6
19. Std-19 7.5 7.7 8.5 8.6
20. Std-20 8 7 8.5 8.6
21. Std-21 8 7.7 8 8.6
22. Std-22 8 7.5 8 8.6
23. Std-23 8 7.6 8 8.6
24. Std-24 8 7 8 8.5
25. Std-25 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.5
26. Std-26 8.6 8 8.5 8.6
27. Std-27 8.5 8 8 8.8
Total score 215 208 222 230
Mean score 7.97 7.73 8.22 8.54
Maximum score
8.8 8.6 8.6 8.8
Minimum score
7.5 7 8 8
A. Mean Score of th Students in Cycle I and Cycle II
After calculating the result of the students in cycle I and cycle II, the mean scores are presented below :
1) Mean Score of the students in D Test:
a. Fluency 1.
X
=
∑= 228,7 =6,53 27
2. Grammar X
=
∑= 157 = 5,81
27
b. Accuracy 1. Smoothness
X
=
∑= 161 = 5,9
27
2. Self confidence X
=
∑= 165 = 6,1 27
2) Mean score of the students in Cycle I a. Fluency
1. Vocabulary
X
=
∑= 185 = 6,85
27
2. Grammar X
=
∑= 187 = 6,92 27
b. Fluency 1. Smoothness
X
=
∑= 191 = 7,10
27
2. Self Confidence
X
=
∑= 179 = 6,62 27
3) Mean score of the students in cycle II a. Accuracy
1. Vocabulary X
=
∑= 215,3= 7,97 27
2. Grammar X
=
∑= 208,9 = 7,73
27
b. Fluency 1. Smoothness
X
=
∑= 222 = 8,22 27
2. Self Confidence
X
=
∑= 230,6 = 8,54
27
Note:
X = Mean score
X = Total score N = Number of student1. The Result of Percentage the Students Speaking Accuracy
Table 4.5 The Percentage of the Students‟ Vocabulary in Speaking
No Classification Range
The Application of TPS
Cycle I Cycle II
Freq % Freq %
1 Excellent 9.6 – 10 0 0 0 0
2 Very good 8.6 – 9.5 0 0 3 11.11
3 Good 7.6 – 8.5 1 3.70 20 74.07
4 Fairly good 6.6 – 7.5 20 74.07 4 14.81
5 Fair 5.6 – 6.5 6 22.22 0 0
6 Poor 3.6 – 5.5 0 0 0 0
7 Very poor 0 – 3.5 0 0 0 0
Total 27 100 27 100
Table 4.6: The Percentages of students‟ grammar in speaking.
No Classification Range
The Application of TPS
Cycle I Cycle II
Freq % Freq %
1 Excellent 9.6 – 10 0 0 0 0
2 Very good 8.6 –9.5 0 0 1 3.70
3 Good 7.6 –8.5 1 2.85 18 66.66
4 Fairly good 6.6 –7.5 13 48.14 8 29.62
5 Fair 5.6 –6.5 14 51.85 0 0
6 Poor 3.6 –5.5 0 0 0 0
7 Very poor 0 – 3.5 0 0 0 0
Total 27 100 27 100
2. The Result of Percentage the Students Speaking Accuracy
Table 4.7: The Percentages of students‟ speaking smoothness.
Classification Range
The Application of TPS
Cycle I Cycle II
Freq % Freq %
Excellent 9.6 – 10 0 0 0 0
Very good 8.6 – 9.5 0 0 1 3.70
Good 7.6 – 8.5 0 0 26 96.29
Fairy good 6.6 – 7.5 24 88.88 0 0
Fair 5.6 – 6.5 3 11.11 0 0
Poor 3.6 – 5.5 0 0 0 0
Very poor 0 – 3.5 0 0 0 0
Total 27 100 27 100
Table 4.8: The percentage of the students‟ speaking self-confidence
Classification Range
The Application of TPS
Cycle I Cycle II
Freq % Freq %
Excellent 9.6 – 10 0 0 0 0
Very good 8.6 – 9.5 0 0 19 70.37
Good 7.6 – 8.5 0 0 8 29.62
Fairy good 6.6 – 7.5 12 44.44 0 0
Fair 5.6 – 6.5 12 44.44 0 0
Poor 3.6 – 5.5 3 11.11 0 0
Very poor 0 – 3.5 0 0 0 0
Total 27 100 27 100
The Result of the Students Activeness in Diagnostic test in Teaching and Learning Process of SMP Pesantren Guppi Samata
No Students’
Code
Meeting
Cycle 1 Cycle II
M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4
1. Std - 01 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4
2. Std – 02 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4
3. Std – 03 2 2 2 2 S S 3 3
4. Std – 04 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3
5. Std – 05 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4
6. Std – 06 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
7. Std – 07 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4
8. Std – 08 1 2 A 3 3 2 3 3
9. Std – 09 2 3 S 3 3 4 3 4
10. Std – 10 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3
11. Std – 11 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4
12. Std – 12 S A 3 3 3 3 3 3
13. Std – 13 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
14. Std – 14 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
15. Std – 15 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4
16. Std – 16 2 2 2 3 A A 3 3
17. Std – 17 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4
18. Std – 18 2 2 2 2 S S 2 3
19 Std – 19 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4
20. Std – 20 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 4
21. Std – 21 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 4
22. Std – 22 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4
23. Std – 23 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4
24. Std – 24 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
25. Std – 25 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
26. Std – 26 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4
27. Std – 27 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4
Subject Total Percentage
26 26 26 27 24 24 27 27
57 63 67 78 73 76 93 97
54.41 61.76 64.06 72.22 75.00 78.33 79.16 86.11
MEAN SCORE OF THE STUDENTS’ ACTIVENESS IN TEACHING LEARNING PROCESS IN CYCLE I AND CYCLE II
Note : 4 = Very Active 3 = Active 2 = Less Active 1 = Not Active The Formula for Analysing :