CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
B. Discussion
In this part, the discussion covering the interpretation of finding derived from the result of findings was based on the problem statement. They were : 1) How does POWER Strategy improve the students’ writing ability in descriptive paragraph viewed from Grammar? 2) How does POWER Strategy improve the students’ writing ability in descriptive paragraph viewed from Organization?
The application of POWER Strategy at VIII.B class of SMP Negeri 2 Barombong can improve the students’ writing ability.
1. Grammar
The improvement of the students’ ability to write good descriptive paragraphs through POWER Strategy had an effective effect. Where the teacher was finds in the diagnostic test of grammar that the students just got score about 43.70%. It means that it was far from the target, but after implies the POWER Strategy; the students got mean score about 56.26 in the first cycle and 82.36 in the second cycle. It means that the target has been achieved.
Following was presented the improvement of students’ grammar percentage as the result of teaching learning observation:
Table 5: The Students’ Improvement Percentage in Grammar
No. Classification Score
D-test Cycle I Cycle II
F % F % F %
1. Excellent 90 -100 0 0 0 0 0 0
41
The table above shows that the percentage of the students’ grammar in writing diagnostic-test indicates that 15 students (60. %) get fair. 10 students (40%) get poor and none of students for the excellent. very good and good classification.
After taking an action in the first cycle through POWER strategy the percentage of the students’ content is 10 students (40%) get good. 9 students (36%) fair. 6 students (24%) get poor and none of the students for other classification.
In cycle II.The percentage of the students’ grammar is 7 students (28. %) get very good. 14 students (56. %) get good, 4 students (56%) get fair and none poor of the students for other classification. The result above also proves that the use of POWER strategy is able to improve the students’ content where the result of the second cycle is higher than the first cycle and diagnostic-test (Cycle II>Cycle I>Diagnostic-Test).
2. Organization
After implementation of POWER strategy in the class. The teacher finds that the mean score of diagnostic test in organization is 44.41. In the first cycle.
2. Very good 80 -85 0 0 0 0 7 28.00
3. Good 60 -70 0 0 10 40.00 14 56.00
4. fair 45 -55 15 60.00 9 36 4 16.00
5. Poor 30-40 10 40.00 6 24.00 0 0
Total 25 100 25 100 25 100
42
the students just get 56.34. In the second cycle, the students get 79. It means that the target score can be achieved in the second cycle.
Following is presented the improvement of students’ organization percentage as the result of teaching learning observation:
In the second cycle the percentage of the students’ organization is 18 students (56.25%) get very good. 16 students (47.05%) and none of the students for other classification. The result above also proves that the use of POWER Strategy is able to improve the students’ content where the result of the second cycle is higher than the first cycle and diagnostic-test (Cycle II>Cycle I>Diagnostic-Test).
3. The Implementation of POWER Strategy
The researcher observes the students’ activeness to asses the implementation of POWER Strategy in teaching and learning process to improve the students’ writing ability of SMP Negeri 2 Barombong in class VIII.E which was conducted in 2 cycles during 8 meetings was taken by the observer through observation sheet.
The researcher observes every meeting in two cycles where every cycle of four meetings. In the first cycle the students’ responses low but in the second cycle the students’ responses are classified into good.
Based on the result of the research the researcher found that the students’
participation in each meeting of the two cycles improves normally. The first meeting up to the fourth meeting in the first cycle, the students’ activeness is 48, 52% to 88, 23% with the average of students’ activeness is 69, 47%. The
43
researcher considers that the students’ activeness in the first cycle still fairly good.
The researcher results of observation in the first the second cycles were:
a. Most of students were still less active in carrying out the task.
b. Most group of student seems to be unaccustomed yet with the material.
c. The students got confuse in generating ideas.
d. Get difficulty to determine the generic structure of descriptive text The teacher then thought about the teaching material to be modified in order to derive a significant improvement of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process in the next cycle. Trough some revision, the teacher results of the students’ observation. In second cycle were:
a) The students have been active in learning, and even some of them very active in carrying out the task.
b) Each group of students has been sharing their ideas.
c) Some of the students prefer asked to the teacher when they get difficulties concerning the material.
d) The students were able to accomplish their task.
Trough the second cycle, the researcher indicated a significant improvement.
From the first meeting of the second cycle, the students’ activeness has been increased that was 55, 14% to 94, 85% with the average to the students’
activeness in the second cycle was 66, 87%. This result indicates if the students activeness has meet the teacher expectation to gain significant improvement 68, 30% from the first cycle and the second cycle. It was obviously improves because the teaching material has been provided more attractively with difference kinds of
44
topic in each meeting. So the students more interested to writing descriptive paragraph.
The students’ writing ability can be improved through POWER Strategy, because in this method they can find out the new ideas. And, if they got diffuclty of expressing ideas, POWER strategy can reduce this problem. So, it was fun and interesting. They can be motivated in learning the English writing ability.
50
50 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter presents the conclusion and suggestion the conclusion is drawn based on the findings and discussion. And suggestion is given based on the conclusion.
A . Conclusion
1. The students’ writing ability in writing grammar of diagnostic test is 44.88, in cycle I is 56.26, and cycle II is 82.36. The students’ progress from the diagnostic test to the cycle I is 25.35%, the cycle I to the cycle II is 46. 64%.
2. The students’ writing ability in writing organization of diagnostic test is 45.
06 the cycle I is 56. 62, and cycle II is 82.36 The students’ progress from the diagnostic test to the cycle I is 25%, the cycle I to the cycle II is 45.32%.
3. The implementation of POWER strategy can increase the students’ writing ability. This is led to the conclusion that implementing POWER strategy is needed in English language teaching and learning in increasing their skills to organize their ideas. Four by Four Technique gives them more chance and times to collect their ideas related to the topic and organize them into a paragraph. The implementation of POWER strategy also gives the students’ freedom to organize their ideas, so they can decide the contents that they want to write and they write the contents under the guidance of the teacher.
51
B. Suggestion
Based on the findings, the writer states suggestions as follows:
1. It is suggested to the English teachers that they apply POWER strategy as one of the alternative ways in writing skill.
2. The students are expected to increase their intensity in learning writing through POWER strategy.
3. It is suggested to the English teachers that they apply POWER strategy in giving guidance to the students in learning and teaching writing process.
4. Teacher should use Four by Four Technique in teaching English. The writer hopes that the next writers use Four by Four Technique in improving the other language skills, such as: reading, speaking, writing, and listening.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmadi, Jaber .2011.Evaluation of Integrative Grammar Teaching The Case of English Two-word verbs And Adjective /verb + Preposition For Iranian EFL Learners. Farsan Branch, Iran: Islamic Azad University Anderson,J.M (1997) on Case Grammar. Groom, Helm, London
Brown, Kristine. 1995. Writing Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Unpublished
Clark, Thomas, Dr. 1994. Power Communication. South-Western: Publishing.co C.S Englert, T.E., Raphael. 1988. POWER (Plan, organize, Write, Edit and
Revise). Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(2), 98-113.pdf:
David, Lodge. 1999. How we write. London-New Yoark: Roudledge
Delicia, Laura, Mandatori. A Study of the Use of the Simple Present Tense in The Reading Material of Esp Courses From a Genre-Based Perspective Glencoe. 2000. Writing Assessment And Evaluation Rubrics. The McGraw-Hill
Companies Inc: New Yoark.
Gay L. R. 2006. Educational Research. Columbus.Charles E. Merill Publishing Ca
Harmer, Jeremy.1988. How to teach english. England: Pearson longman
Harmer, Jemery. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. New York:
Longman Group UK Limited
Hayden, Kellie .2000. Descriptive Pagaraph Lesson: Creative Activity to Improve Writing that Shows not Tells Suite101, (OnLine), Vol.2, No. 3, (Http://Suite101.Com//Article/Decriptive-Paragarph-Lesson is accessed on 5 June 2012).
Heaton, J.B. 1989. Writing English Language Test. New York: Longman
Jacobs. 1981. ESL Composition Profile. http//eli.tamu.edu/resources/profile.hmtl.
Accessed on April 29th 2010.
Khron, Robert. 1971. English Sentence Structure; An Intensive Course in English, John Wiley & Son, Michigan,
Layman. 2007. Basic Skill in English. The Sixth Book: United States Of America Mayers, Alan. 2005. Gateways to Academic Writing: Effective Sentence
Paragraph and Essay. New York. Longman. Wikipedia. 2009. Paragraph.
The Internet Available On Line At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/paragraph is accessed on 5 July 2012 at 21:00 pm
Pavlik, Cheryl. 1949. Interaction 1 writing Process Book. Columbia University Pearson Education, Inc. 2007. The Descriptive Paragraph, (OnLine), Vol 1, No. 4
(http://mgmpbig.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/kinds-0f-paragraph- writing/ is accessed on 27 Jule)
Raimes, Ann. 1983. Techniques in Teaching Writing. England: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Stead, David, R. (2005). Using Practice Testes on a Regular Basis to Improve Students Learning. Alternative Strategies for evaluating Students learning,
(http://www.flaguide.org/cat/minutepapers7.ht. is accessed on 27 July 2012 at 13:45 pm
Sudjana.1990. Metode Stastistika. Bandung. PT Gramedia.
Terry, Dean. 2009. Step-Easy-Writing-System. Education Article, (online), vol. 3, no.2 ( http://www.terrydean.org/7-, Retrieved on July 12, 2010).
Raimes, Ann. 1983. Techniques in Teaching Writing. England: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Quirk, Randolph. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English: Longman, London,.
Wikipedia. 2009. Character Descriptive Paragraph Assignment, (OnLine), Vol 1, No. 4 (http://home.capecod.net/tpanitz/tedsarticles/descriptive.htm is accessed on 17 June 2012
Williams, Rebecca.1981. Basic Skill in English. Illinois: Mc Dougal, Little and Company.
Wishon, George and Burks. 2003. Let’s Write English. New York: Litton Education Publishing, Inc.