In this research, the researcher gave pre-test to the students individually for the purpose to investigate the students’ writing ability in narrative text before giving a treatment. In the pre-test, there were 2 students (7,8%) who got a minimum score and 24 students (92,2%) who failed the pre-test. Futhermore, the lowest score in pre-test was 40 and the highest score was 75.
After did the pre-test, the researcher gave the treatment to the students in cycle 1. The treatment was conducted by teaching the students using roundtable technique. Futhermore, the researcher gave the post-test in the next meeting and the post-test was named post-test 1.
Afterward, by analizingg the result of the post-test 1, the researcher conducted there ware 9 students (32%) students passed the post-test 1, the lowest score was 61 and the highest score was 80 and the average score was 70,1 .
From the result of students’ score in pre-test and post-test 1, there was an improvment from the result score. It could be seen from the average score in pre-test 58 and post-test 1 was 70,1. Although there was an improvement of the students’ achievement, cycle 1 was not successful yet because only 9 students ( 32%) who passed in post-test 1. It means that cycle 1, the students’ achievement could improve
enough but it was not successful because the indicator of successful was not reached yet.
B. Cycle 2
After analyzing the students’ score in the post-test of cycle 1, the research had to conduct the next cycle because only 9 students (32%) passed the test and got the score ≥72.
In the next cycle, the researcher gave the treatment then post-test 2. Futhermore, the researcher analyzed the result of post-test 2 and inferred that there were 19 students (76%) passed the test beouse they got ≥72. In this post test, the lowest score was 65, the higghest score was 87, and the average score was 76,88.
From the result of the students’ score from post-test 2, it could be conducted that there were improve score. The average score could be seen on the average score. The average score in the post-test 1 and post-test 2 were 70,1 and 76,88. In the pre-test, post-test 1 and post- test 2, the total students’ who got the score ≥ 72 were 2, 9, and 19 students’. because the achievement of the students had improved enough and the indicator of successful was reached, the researcher was successful and could stop in cycle 2.
Table 16
Students score in pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2 No Name Pre-Test Post-Test 1 Post-Test 2
1 AF 44 68 72
2 AB - - -
3 AK 56 68 80
4 AA 46 70 81
5 AF 73 75 85
6 AF 60 74 75
7 AR 63 70 75
8 AA 40 61 65
9 AD 75 80 87
10 EP 71 74 82
11 EW 60 78 78
12 FH 40 62 70
13 F 50 65 76
14 FS 56 62 67
15 HJ 65 65 79
16 IK 69 74 78
17 IL 70 75 78
18 LY 53 72 76
19 M - - -
20 MS 55 68 73
21 NH 49 62 70
22 NS 53 80 83
23 TS 52 64 76
24 RN 64 70 81
25 WD 49 70 80
26 WM 67 74 78
total score 1381 1687 1845
average 58 70,1 76,88
Based on the result of pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2, it was known that there was a positive significant improvement of the students’ score. It could be seen from the average 58 pre-test. In post- test 1 the average was 70,1 and the average in post-test 2 became 76,88. Therefore, the researcher concluded that the research was successful bacouse the indicator of successful in this research has been achieved. The graph of the result of pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2.
Figure 8
Graph of the result of pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2
Based on the graph above , it could be conclude that using roundtable technique as a technique could improve the students’
writing ability in narrative text . it could be seen from the improvement score of pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2.
The studrnts’ learning activities in cycle 1 and cycle 2.
The students’ learning activities data was gotten from the whole sudents’ learning activities on observation sheet. The table as bellow:
Table 17
The table of students’ activities in cycle 1 and cycle 2
No Name Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Increasing
f Precentage f Precentage 1 pay attention to teacher
explanation
15 57,7 23 88,46 30,8
2 askeed/answer the question from teacher
10 38,5 17 65,38 26,9
3 active practis writing in narrative teaxt
17 65,4 24 92,3 26,9
4 active in group 12 46,2 21 80,76 34,6
Average 51,95% 81,73%
Figure 9
Students’ Activity in cycle 1 and cycle 2
Based on the data above, it can be explained as follows:
1. Paying attention to teacher explanation
The students attention to the teacher explanation from the fisrt meeting to the next meetig was increased.
2. Asked/ answer question from the teacher
The students who understood the material from the teacher improved from the first meeting to the next meeting. It can be known from the students answered the teacher is questions.
3. Active practice writing in narrative text
The students’ active practice writing in narrative text improved.
It can be seen from the result of cycle 1 and cycle 2.
4. The students’ active in group
The students’ active in group improved, it could be seen on the cycle 1 and cycle2.
Based on the result above, it could be concluded that there was an improvement of students’ learning activities during the study time cycle be cycle by using roundtable technique. It could be seen from the average result oof students’ observation sheet in cycle 1 and cycle 2. In cycle 1 the average 47,13 and became 80,76 in cycle 2. It means that roundtable technique had positive effect toword the teaching learning process.