Findings - AND DISCUSSION - PDF THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION INTEGRATION MODEL TO IMPROVE STUDENTS .

CHAPTER IV.FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. Findings

1. The Improvement of the Students’Literal Comprehension.

The improvement of the students’ literal comprehension at the first grade students of Madrasah Aliyah Muhammadiyah Limbung through Construction Integration Model can be seen clearly in the following table:

Table 1: The improvement of the students’ literal comprehension

O Indicators

D–T Cycle I Cycle II Improvement

Score Score Score DT–CI CI-CII

1 Main idea 3.59 5.10 7.57 1.51 2.47

2 Details 3.10 5.54 7.95 2.44 2.41

∑X 6.32 10.64 15.52 3.95 4.88

3.16 5.32 7.76 1.97 2.44

In the table above, the improvement of the students’ main idea and details in literal comprehension before application of Construction Integration Model indicates that the diagnostic-test assessment is poor (3.16), and after application in cycle I, the assessment of the students’ literal comprehension improve become

higher than diagnosis-test, This mean (5.32) where classified as poor. The students’ assessment in cycle II (7.76), classified as good. The assessment of cycle II is greater than cycle I (7.76>5.32) and classified as good. And then, the improvement of students’ reading comprehension achievement from D– Test to cycle I was 1.97and cycle I to cycle II was 2.44.

Based on the percentages above there are significant improvement of the students by using Construction Integration Model. To see clearly the improvement of the students’ literal comprehension, the following chart is presented.

Figure 1: The Improvement of the Students’ Literal Comprehension From the chart above shows the improvement of students’ literal comprehension in cycle II is higher (7.76) than cycle I (5.32) and D-Test (3.16).

The result of D-Test is lowest achievement (D-Test-Cycle I-cycle II).

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

D-Test 3.16

The result of D-Test is lowest achievement (D-Test-Cycle I-cycle II).

D-Test Cycle I Cycle II

3.16

5.32

7.76

The result of D-Test is lowest achievement (D-Test-Cycle I-cycle II).

2. The Improvement of the Students’ Reading Comprehension dealing with main idea and details

a. Main idea

The application of Construction Integration Model in improvement of the students’literal comprehension in terms of main idea can be see the difference by considering the result of the students’ diagnostic-test and the students’

achievement after taking action in cycle I and cycle II through the application of Construction Integration Model in teaching and learning process.

Tabel 2: The percentage of the students’ main idea in literal comprehension

No. Classification Score D-test Cycle I Cycle II

F % F % F %

1. Excellent 9.6-10 0 0 5 15.63 12 37.5

2. Very good 8.6-9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Good 7.6-8.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Fairly good 6.6-7.5 3 9.37 7 21.87 11 34.37

5. Fair 5.6-6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Poor 3.6-5.5 8 25 14 43.75 7 21.87

7. Very poor 0-3.5 21 65.63 6 18.75 2 6.26

Total 32 100 32 100 32 100

The table above shows that the percentage of the students’ main idea in reading diagnostic-test indicates that 3 students (9.37%) get fairly good, 8 students (25%) get poor,21 students (65.63%) get very poor, and none of students for the other classification.

After taking an action in cycle I by using Construction Integration Model, the percentage of the students’ main idea is 5 students (15.63%) get excellent, 7 students (21.87%) get fairly good, 14 students (43.75%) get poor, 6 students (18.75%) get very poor and none of the students other for the other classification.

In cycle II, the percentage of the students’ main ideain literal comprehension is 12 students (37.5%) get excellent, 11 students (34.37%) get fairly good, 7 students (21.87%) get poor, 2 students (6.26) get very poor and none of the students for other classification. The result above also proves that the use of Construction Integration Model is able to improvement of the students’ main idea where the result of cycle II is higher in than cycle I and diagnostic-test (Cycle II>Cycle I>Diagnostic-Test).

To know the percentage of the students achievement in main idea clearly, the following chart is presented:

Figure 2:The Improvement of the Students’ Main Idea in Literal Comprehension.

D-Test 25

75 Excellent Very Good

In cycle II, the percentage of the students’ main idea in literal comprehension is 12 students (37.5%) get excellent, 11 students (34.37%) get fairly good, 7 students (21.87%) get poor, 2 students (6.26) get very poor and none of the students for other classification. The result above also proves that the use of Construction Integration Model is able to improvement of the students’ main idea where the result of cycle II is higher in than cycle I and diagnostic-test (Cycle II>Cycle I>Diagnostic-Test).

To know the percentage of the students achievement in main idea clearly, the following chart is presented:

Figure 2:The Improvement of the Students’ Main Idea in Literal Comprehension.

Cycle I Cycle II

41.66

20.83

58.33

45.33 75

33.33

Very Good Good Fairly Good Fair Poor

In cycle II, the percentage of the students’ main idea in literal comprehension is 12 students (37.5%) get excellent, 11 students (34.37%) get fairly good, 7 students (21.87%) get poor, 2 students (6.26) get very poor and none of the students for other classification. The result above also proves that the use of Construction Integration Model is able to improvement of the students’ main idea where the result of cycle II is higher in than cycle I and diagnostic-test (Cycle II>Cycle I>Diagnostic-Test).

To know the percentage of the students achievement in main idea clearly, the following chart is presented:

Figure 2:The Improvement of the Students’ Main Idea in Literal Comprehension.

Cycle II 58.33

Poor Very poor

The chart above shows that the percentageof the students’literalin reading comprehension in D-Test was lowest, and cycle II was higher than cycle I. There was a significant improvement of the students’ reading comprehension in literal comprehension deals with main idea that shown clearly in the chart after taking an action in two cycles through Construction Integration Model.

b. Details

The application of Construction Integration Model in improvement of the students’ literal comprehension in terms of details can be seen the difference by considering the result of the students’ literal Diagnostic test and the students’

achievement after taking action in cycle I and cycle II through the application of Construction Integration Model in teaching and learning process.

Table 3: The percentage of the students’ details achievement

No. Classification Score D-test Cycle I Cycle II

F % F % F %

1. Excellent 9.6-10 0 0 6 18.75 7 21.88

2. Very good 8.6-9.5 0 0 1 3.12 5 15.62

3. Good 7.6-8.5 0 0 3 9.37 5 15.62

4. Fairly good 6.6-7.5 0 0 7 21.88 6 18.75

5. Fair 5.6-6.5 1 3.12 9 28.12 7 21.88

6. Poor 3.6-5.5 6 18.75 6 18.75 2 6.25

7. Very poor 0-3.5 25 78.13 0 0 0 0

Total 32 100 32 100 32 100

The table above showedthe percentage of the students’ details achievement in Diagnostic-test indicated that 1 student (3.12%) get fair,6students (18.75%) get poor, 25 students (78.13%) get verypoor and none of the students for the other

classification. After taking in cycle I by using Construction Integration Model, the percentage of the students details’ achievement improve where 6 students (18.75.%) get excellent, 1 student (3.12%) get very good, 3 students (9.37%) get good, 7 students (21.88%) get fairly good, 9 students (28.12%) get fair, 6 students (18.75%) get poor and none of the students for the other classification. In cycle II, the percentage of the students’ achievement in detailsis highest than cycle I where 7 students (21.88%) get excellent, 5 students (15.62%) get very good, 5 students (15.62%) get good, 6 students (18.75%)get fairly good, 7 students (21.88%) get fair, 2 student (6.25%) get poor and none of the students to other classification.

Figure 3:The Improvement of the Students’ details in Literal Comprehension The result above proves that the use of Construction Integration Model is able to increase the students details in literal comprehension.

D-Test 3.12 Excellent

D-Test Cycle I Cycle II

18.75 21.88

3.12

15.62 9.3721.88 15.6218.75 3.12

28.12

18.75 18.75

78.13

Very Good Good Fairly Good Fair Poor

Cycle II 15.6215.6218.7521.88

6.25 Poor Very poor

3. The Improvement of the Students’Interpretative Comprehension

The application of Construction Integration Model in improvement of the students’ interpretative comprehensionwith deals conclusionat the first grade of Madrasah Aliyah Muhammadiyah Limbungcan be seen clearly in the following table:

Table 4: The Improvement of theStudents’Interpretative Comprehension

Indicators D–T Cycle I Cycle II Improvement

Score Score Score DT–CI CI-CII

Conclusion

3.90 5.62 7.42 1.72 1.8

The table above indicates that the improvement of the students’ conclusion from D-Test to cycle I and cycle II. D-Test of the students’ score achievement in conclusion (3.90). After evaluation in cycle I the students’ conclusion becomes (5.62) and in cycle II (7.42). The improvement of students conclusion achievement from D-Test to cycle I (1.72) and the improvement of students’

conclusion achievement from cycle I to cycle II (1.8).

a. The Improvementof the Students’ InterpretativeinConclusion

The application of Construction Integration Model increases the students interpretative in terms of conclusion, it can be seen clearly from the difference of the result of the students observation data and the students knowledge after taking action in cycle 1 and cycle II.

Table 5: ThePercentageof the StudentsConclusion in Interpretative.

No. Classification Score D-test Cycle I Cycle II

F % F % F %

1. Excellent 9.6-10 0 0 5 15.62 10 31.25

2. Very good 8.6-9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Good 7.6-8.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Fairly good 6.6-7.5 4 12.5 5 15.62 12 37.5

5. Fair 5.6-6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Poor 3.6-5.5 11 34.37 14 43.76 9 28.13

7. Very poor 0-3.5 17 53.13 8 25 1 3.12

Total 32 100 32 100 32 100

The table above showed the percentage of the students’ conclusion achievement in Diagnostic-test indicated that 4 students (12.5%) get fairly good, 11students (34.37%) get poor, 17 students (53.13%) get very poor and none of the students for the other classification. After taking in cycle I by using Construction Integration Model, the percentage of the students conclusion achievement improve where 5 students (15.62.%) get excellent, 5 student (15.62%) get fairly good, 14 students (43.76%) get poor, 8 students (25%) get fairly good, 10 students (31.25%) get fair, 6 students (18.75%) get poor and none of the students for the other classification. In cycle II, the percentage of the students’ achievement in conclusion is highest than cycle I where 10 students (31.25%) get excellent, 12 students (37.5%) get fairly good, 9 students (28.13%) get poor, 1 student (3.12%)and none of the students to other classification.

To see clearly the percentage score improvement of the students’ conclusion, following chart is presented:

Figure 4: The Improvement of Students’Conclusion in Interpretative Compehension

4. The Improvement of the Students’ ReadingComprehension

The application of Construction Integration Model in improvement of the students’ reading comprehension that deals with literal comprehension and conclusion. The improvement of students’ reading comprehension that dealing with literal and interpretative can be seen clearly in the following table:

Table 6: The Improvement of the Students’Reading Comprehension

O Indicators

D–T Cycle I Cycle II Improvement

(%)

Score % Score % Score % DT-CI CI-

CII

1 Literal 3.16 31.6 5.32 53.2 7.76 77.6 2.16 2.44

2 Interpretative 3.90 39 5.62 56.2 7.42 74.2 1.72 1.8

∑X 7.06 70.6 10.94 109.4 15.18 151.8 3.88 4.24

3.53 35.3 5.47 54.7 7.59 75.9 1.94 2.12

D-Test 12.5

34.37 excellent Very Good

Figure 4: The Improvement of Students’ Conclusion in Interpretative Compehension

4. The Improvement of the Students’ ReadingComprehension

Table 6: The Improvement of the Students’Reading Comprehension

O Indicators

D–T Cycle I Cycle II Improvement

(%)

Score % Score % Score % DT-CI CI-

CII

1 Literal 3.16 31.6 5.32 53.2 7.76 77.6 2.16 2.44

2 Interpretative 3.90 39 5.62 56.2 7.42 74.2 1.72 1.8

∑X 7.06 70.6 10.94 109.4 15.18 151.8 3.88 4.24

3.53 35.3 5.47 54.7 7.59 75.9 1.94 2.12

Cycle I Cycle II

15.62

31.25

15.62 34.37 37.5

43.76 53.13

Very Good Good Fairly Good Fair Poor

Figure 4: The Improvement of Students’ Conclusion in Interpretative Compehension

4. The Improvement of the Students’ ReadingComprehension

Table 6: The Improvement of the Students’Reading Comprehension

O Indicators

D–T Cycle I Cycle II Improvement

(%)

Score % Score % Score % DT-CI CI-

CII

1 Literal 3.16 31.6 5.32 53.2 7.76 77.6 2.16 2.44

2 Interpretative 3.90 39 5.62 56.2 7.42 74.2 1.72 1.8

∑X 7.06 70.6 10.94 109.4 15.18 151.8 3.88 4.24

3.53 35.3 5.47 54.7 7.59 75.9 1.94 2.12

Cycle II 37.5

28.13

3.12 Poor Very poor

The table above indicates that there is improvement of the students’ reading comprehension from D-Test to cycle I and cycle II, which in D-Testthe students’

mean score (35.3%) and categorized as poor achievement. After evaluation in cycle I the students’ reading comprehension becomes (54.7%) and categorized as fair and cycle II (75.9%) which categorized as good. The improvement of students’ reading comprehension achievement from D-Test to cycle I (1.94%).

There is also significant improvement of the students’ reading comprehension from cycle I to cycle II (2.12%).

The table above proves that the use of Construction Integration Model in teaching and learning process is able to improve of students’ reading comprehension after taking action in cycle I and II where the students’

achievement in cycle II is greater (cycle II>cycle I>Diagnostic-Test).

To see clearly the increase of the students’ reading comprehension, following chart is presented:

Figure 5: The Improvement of the Students’ Reading Comprehension

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The table above indicates that there is improvement of the students’ reading comprehension from D-Test to cycle I and cycle II, which in D-Testthe students’

There is also significant improvement of the students’ reading comprehension from cycle I to cycle II (2.12%).

achievement in cycle II is greater (cycle II>cycle I>Diagnostic-Test).

To see clearly the increase of the students’ reading comprehension, following chart is presented:

Figure 5: The Improvement of the Students’ Reading Comprehension

Reading Comprehension D-Test; 3.53

Cycle I; 5.47

Cycle II; 7.59

The table above indicates that there is improvement of the students’ reading comprehension from D-Test to cycle I and cycle II, which in D-Testthe students’

There is also significant improvement of the students’ reading comprehension from cycle I to cycle II (2.12%).

achievement in cycle II is greater (cycle II>cycle I>Diagnostic-Test).

To see clearly the increase of the students’ reading comprehension, following chart is presented:

Figure 5: The Improvement of the Students’ Reading Comprehension

The chart above shows that the improvement of the students’ reading comprehension in cycle II higher (7.59%) than cycle I (5.47%) and D-Test (7.59%). The result of Diagnostic-Test is lowest achievement. The students’

achievement in diagnostic-test is categorized as poor. After evaluation in cycle I and cycle II, there is significant improvement of the students’ reading comprehension where the result of cycle I is categorized as fair and in cycle II categorized as good (Poor- Fair- Good).

5. The Resultof the Students’Activeness in LearningProcess

The result of observation of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process toward the application of Construction Integration Model in improving the students’ reading comprehension at the first grade students` of Madrasah Aliyah Muhammadiyah Limbung which was conducted in 2 cycles during 8 meetings was taken by the observer through observation sheet. It could be seen clearly through the following table:

Table 7.The ObservationResult of the Students’ Presence and Activeness in Learning Process

Cycle The Students’ Activeness Mean

Score 1^st

Meeting

2^nd Meeting

3^rd Meeting

4^th Meeting

I 53.12% 64.84% 69.53% 71.09% 64.64%

II 71.09% 72.65% 69.53% 70.31% 70.89%

The table above shows that in cycle I the students’ activeness in each meeting was improved significantly. It can be seen clearly in table that the

students’ activeness in the fourth meeting is higher than the first, the second and the third meeting, where the first meeting in cycle I the students’ activeness is 53.12% and it aim to 64.84% in the second meeting, and then students’ activeness in the third meeting is 69.53% increases to 71.09% in the forth meeting, So the average percentage of the students’ activeness in cycle I is 64.64%.

In cycle II the improvement of the students’ activeness was going higher.

Where in the first meeting in cycle II the students’ activeness was 71.09% and it was 72.65% in the second meeting. In the third meeting in cycle II the students’

activeness decreased to 69.53%, then in the fourth meeting the students’

activeness increased to 70.31%. So the average of the students’ activeness in cycle II is 70.89%. Next, the result of students’ presence and activeness was presented inthe chart below that shows the average percentage of students’ activeness in the first cycle and the second cycle.

Figure 6: The Students’ Presence and Activeness in Learning Process

The chart above shows that there is improvement of students’ activenessin teaching and learning process where in cycle I was 64.64% lower than cycle II, but after conducting cycle II the students’ activeness in learning process becomes 70.89%.

In cycle II the improvement of the students’ activeness was going higher.

Where in the first meeting in cycle II the students’ activeness was 71.09% and it was 72.65% in the second meeting. In the third meeting in cycle II the students’

activeness decreased to 69.53%, then in the fourth meeting the students’

Figure 6: The Students’ Presence and Activeness in Learning Process

Cycle 1 Cycle2

64.64

70.89

In cycle II the improvement of the students’ activeness was going higher.

Where in the first meeting in cycle II the students’ activeness was 71.09% and it was 72.65% in the second meeting. In the third meeting in cycle II the students’

activeness decreased to 69.53%, then in the fourth meeting the students’

Figure 6: The Students’ Presence and Activeness in Learning Process

Dalam dokumen PDF THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION INTEGRATION MODEL TO IMPROVE STUDENTS ... - Unismuh (Halaman 48-60)