REVIEW OF THE RELATED THEORIES
B. INTERPRETATION
4) Reflecting
Based on the result of observation learning process in cycle 2, it can be said that the instructional process through classroom debate technique has achieved criteria minimum of the research. This success caused the researcher has revised and improved the instructional process in cycle 2. In the cycle 2, the students were also active to speak up than before. They felt have motivation in doing task. Based on result, the students can increase the speaking performance and the researcher stopped in cycle 2.
8. ADR 50 65 Increased
9. AYS 40 55 Increased
10. AAN 50 60 Increased
11. ARD 55 65 Increased
12. AZM 40 50 Increased
13. DSA 60 60 Constant
14. FF 40 50 Increased
15. ET 50 50 Constant
16. GGR 65 65 Constant
17. HH 50 55 Increased
18. HA 65 65 Constant
19. HF 60 60 Constant
20. HMA 55 60 Increased
21. ISH 60 70 Increased
22. LSI 70 75 Increased
23 LDA 60 60 Constant
24 LSI 65 70 Increased
25 LDA 50 60 Increased
26 MHY 70 75 Increased
27 NPI 70 75 Increased
28 PAH 70 75 Increased
29 QSI 55 70 Increased
30 UM 55 70 Increased
Total 1627 1915 Increased
Average 54,23 63,8
Based on the table above, it can be seen that the students Pre-test the highest score was 70 and Post-test is 75. We know the progress score was 5.
And average of the students Pre-test was 54.23 and Post-test 1 was 63,8.
There was increse 9,5 point. Then the presentation of the students that pass in Pre-test was 16,7% and Post-test was 36,7% the progress was 20%. The result of Post-test 1 was higher that the result of Pre-test.
2. Interpretation and Learning Result at Cycle 2 Table 14
The Increasing of Students Score at Post-Test 1 and Post-Test 2
No Name Score (Post-
Test 1)
Score (Post- Test 2)
Note
1. AF 55 65 Increased
2. AI 60 70 Increased
3. ABM 65 70 Increased
4. AOI 70 70 Constant
5. AT 60 65 Increased
6. AFI 75 80 Increased
7. AS 70 75 Increased
8. ADR 65 75 Increased
9. AYS 55 60 Increased
10. AAN 60 70 Increased
11. ARD 65 75 Increased
12. AZM 50 60 Increased
13. DSA 60 65 Increased
14. FF 50 60 Increased
15. DFS 50 60 Increased
16. ET 65 75 Increased
17. GGR 55 65 Increased
18. HH 65 75 Increased
19. HA 60 70 Increased
20. HF 60 70 Increased
21. HMA 70 75 Increased
22. ISH 75 80 Increased
23 LSI 60 75 Increased
24 LDA 70 75 Increased
25 MHY 60 70 Increased
26 NPI 75 80 Increased
27 PAH 75 80 Increased
28 QSI 75 75 Constant
29 SLR 70 75 Increased
30 UM 70 75 Increased
Total 1915 2130 Increased
Average 63,8 71
3. Comparison of Pre-test, Post-test 1, and Post-test 2
To know the comparison of Pre-test, Post-test I and Post-test II it showed on the table bellow:
Table 16
The Comparison of Pre-test, Post-test 1, and Post-test 1
Pre-Test Post-Test 1 Post-Test 2
54.23 63,8 71
Figure 4
Based on the table above, it can be concluded that through classroom debate technique can improve students’ speaking performance . The table told about the significant improvement of the students’ average score from pre test, post test 1, and post test 2. From the average score of pre-test (54.23) to post- test 1 (63,8), it increased 9,5 point, and from post-test 2 (63,8) to post-test 2
017%
037%
073%
000%
010%
020%
030%
040%
050%
060%
070%
080%
Pre-Test Post-Test I Post-Test II
Chart of the Students’ Result in Pre-test, Post- test 1 and Post-test 2
(71) increased 7,2 point. Then the chart told presentation of the students that pass in pre-test was 16,7% and post-test 1 was 36,7% the progress was 20%, from post-test 1 (36,7%) to post-test 2 (73,3%), the progress was 36,6%. To sum up, it can be said that through classroom debate technique can improve students’ speaking performance.
4. Interpretation and students’ activities Result
This observation the students result was gotten when the teaching learning process happened in the classroom by the researcher. The comparison of the activities of cycle 1 and cycle 2 can be seen in the table below:
Table 17
The Table of the Students’ Activites in Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 No Students’ Activities Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Increasing
F Percentage F Percentage 1 The students Pay
attention to the teaher’s explanation
11 36,7% 21 70% 33.3%
2 The students Ask/answer the question from the teacher
15 50% 24 80% 30%
3 The students are creative in giving suggestion/feedback to the teacher
14 46,7% 20 66,6% 19%
4 The students are able to do the task
9 30% 19 63,3% 33.3%
Figure 3
The Graph of Students’ Result of Learning Activities in Cycle I and Cycle II
Based on the data had gotten, it can be explained as follow:
a. The students pay attention to the teachers’ explanation
The students’ attention to the teacher explanation from the first meetiung to next meeting was improved. In cycle I was only 36,7% and in cycle II 70%, it improved 33,3%.
b. The students ask/answer question from the teacher
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
Series 1 Series 2
The students who asked on answered question from the teacher was improved from first meeting to next meeting. it showed when teacher gave the question to the students could be answered well. For this activity was improved 30%, from cycle I 50%and cycle II 80%.
c. The students were active in giving suggestion /feedback
The students who had ben active in group also were improved, from cycle I 46,7% and cycle II 66,6%,soit improved 19%,
d. The students were able to do the task
The students who had done the task were improved. It could be seen on the cycle I 30%and cycle II 63,3%, it improved 33,3%.
Based on the data above, it could be concluded that the students felt comfortable and active with the learning process because most of the students shown good improving in learning activities when classroom debate technique was applied in learning process from cycle I up to cycle II.
From the explanation, the researcher concluded that the researcher was successful and it could be stopped in the cycle II because the indicator of success (70% of students got score ≥ 70).
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
In this chapter, some conclusions are drawn based on the findings and discussion the previous chapter and allowed by some suggestion.