Head of Science Lab
4) Reflecting
In this step, the researcher concluded that cycle I did not run well because most of students did not achieve the minimum mastery criteria (KKM). It could be seen from the result of pre-test and post- test I score. However, most of the students‟ score had improved although the condition of learning process was uncontrolled enough.
From the result of observation in cycle I, there were some problems that found, as follows:
1) There were some students that shown unenthusiastic to the teacher‟s explanation
2) Some students did not ask and answer the teacher‟s questions Based on the result of reflection in cycle I, there were some problems to be revised in cycle II, such as:
1) The teacher gave more motivation to the students in order to study harder and made the learning process more attractive 2) The teacher gave more detail explanation and questions after
explaining the materials to control the students‟.
Furthermore, the result of the learning result of cycle I before and after doing the treatment could be analyzed in the following table:
Table 17
Students’ Score at Pre-test and Post-Test I
No Name Pre-test
Score
Post-Test I
Score Improvement Explanation
1 AWS 50 70 20 IMPROVED
2 AFF 70 70 0 CONSTANT
3 ASP 60 65 5 IMPROVED
4 EN 40 55 15 IMPROVED
5 EF 40 55 15 IMPROVED
6 EM 40 68 28 IMPROVED
7 ENP 35 50 15 IMPROVED
8 IF 35 40 5 IMPROVED
9 JS 40 65 25 IMPROVED
10 KW 55 75 20 IMPROVED
11 MS 50 62 12 IMPROVED
12 OK 50 63 13 IMPROVED
13 PA 60 75 15 IMPROVED
14 RDS 55 75 20 IMPROVED
15 SBFN 45 60 15 IMPROVED
16 SHT 70 70 0 CONSTANT
17 S 40 62 22 IMPROVED
18 THP 55 57 2 IMPROVED
19 TDA 50 68 18 IMPROVED
20 VYH 60 70 10 IMPROVED
Total 1000 1285 275
Average 50 64 14
In this research, pretest and post-test I had done individually. It was aimed to know the students‟ writing skill before and after the treatment. From the result of pretest and post-test I, it can be analyzed that there was an improvement from the students‟ result score. It could be seen from the average score in pre-test 50 and post-test I 64 Although there was an improvement of the students‟
achievement, cycle I was not successful yet because only 7 students (35%) who passed in post-test I. It can be concluded that cycle I was not successful yet because the indicator of success was not reached
yet and the researcher had to revise the teaching and learning process in the next cycle. Therefore, this research would be continued in the next cycle.
b. Cycle II
The cycle II was similar with cycle I. It divided into planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. It would be explained more, as follows:
1) Planning
Based on observation and reflection in cycle I, it showed that cycle I was not successfully yet. Therefore, the researcher and collaborator tried to revise the several problems that appeared in cycle I arranged the planning for continuing in cycle II. The researcher prepared the lesson plan, material, media, answer sheet, observation sheet and the test for post-test II.
2) Acting
The researcher and collaborator arranged the schedule of action in cycle II. It can be seen on the table below:
Table 18
The Meeting Schedule of Action in Cycle II
Meeting Day/Date Time
1st Tuesday, November 28th, 2017 07.25 a.m 2nd Thrusday, November 30th, 2017 10.25 a.m
a) The First Meeting
The first meeting was conducted on Tuesday, November 28th, 2017 at 07.25 – 09.45 a.m. At the beginning of the class, the
researcher greeted the students friendly. The students answered it friendly also.
The learning process in the cycle II was focused on the weakness of cycle I. The researcher founded the students‟ problems were in mechanic, content, organization and also grammar. The researcher asked about the previous material before. After that, the researcher explained again what is descriptive, the generic structure and the language features of descriptive paragraph. Then, the researcher gave an example of descriptive paragraph.
Next, the researcher assigned the student into four groups. Than the researcher wrote the new topics on the whiteboard to discuss.
After the student finished, the wirter gave some question and motivation to the students. The students looked very enthusiastic learn by using STAD and some of them very serious. In this second meeting, the students seemed more active than previous meeting.
Finally, the bell rang after 2 x 40 minutes. It means that the time was up and the researcher closed the lesson and reminded the students to study again about descriptive text.
b) The Second Meeting
The second meeting was conducted on Thursday, November 30st, 2017 at 10.25 -11.45 a.m. The researcher started the class by greeted the students. After that, the researcher asked about their condition and checked the attendance list. The researcher asked to
the students whether they have any question about the material.
Then, the researcher gave feedback to the students about their question.
After that, the researcher gave pos-test cycle II with the similar task on post-test cycle I before. The score of post-test cycle II can be seen on the table below:
Table 19
The Students’ Score at Post-test Cycle II
NO NAME POST-TEST II NOTE
1 AWS 77 COMPLETE
2 AFF 80 COMPLETE
3 ASP 75 COMPLETE
4 EN 70 COMPLETE
5 EF 72 COMPLETE
6 EM 71 COMPLETE
7 ENP 67 INCOMPLETE
8 IF 64 INCOMPLETE
9 JS 76 COMPLETE
10 KW 80 COMPLETE
11 MS 72 COMPLETE
12 OK 74 COMPLETE
13 PA 75 COMPLETE
14 RDS 73 COMPLETE
15 SBFN 74 COMPLETE
16 SHT 78 COMPLETE
17 S 74 COMPLETE
18 THP 62 INCOMPLETE
19 TDA 75 COMPLETE
20 VYH 80 COMPLETE
Total Score 1471
Lowest Score 62
Highest Score 80
Average 73
Based on the table above, it could be seen that the students‟
average score in post-test II was 73. The highest score was 80 and
the lowest score was 62 Most of students could improve writing skill. It mean that cycle II was successful.
Based on the table below, there was 17 students got 70 and 3 students got < 70. The following were the table of students‟ score mark of post-test II:
Table 20
Frequency of Students’ Mark of Post-test II of Writing Skill
No Mark Frequency Percentage Category
1 70 17 85% COMPLETE
2 < 70 3 15% INCOMPLETE
Total 20 100%
Source: The result of post-test II on November 30th, 2017
Figure 6
Graph of Students’ Post-test II of SMP Purnama Trimurjo
3) Observing
An observation was conducted with the same in cycle II. After doing the treatment and observation, the researcher got the result of the students‟ learning activities from the collaborator as follows:
85,00%
15,00%
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
90,00%
Complete Incomplete
Table 21
The Table of Students’ Activities in Cycle II
No Students activities Frequency Percentage 1 The students pay attention
of the teacher explanation 20 100%
2 The students ask/answer the question from the teacher
17 85%
3 The students were active
in building teamwork 19 95%
4 The students understand
the writing skill by STAD 15 75%
Total Students 20
The table above showed that the students‟ activity in cycle II was increase. The students‟ activity that had high percentage were pay attention of teacher‟s explanation was 100%, the students ask/answer the question from the teacher was 85%, the students active in building teamwork was 95% and the last the students understand writing skill by STAD was 75%. Based on the result above, the researcher indicated that learning process in cycle II was successful because the students‟ activity got percentage 70%.
Based on the result of the research in cycle II, it could be inferred that cycle II was successful. The researcher felt satisfied about the result of the research. There were >70% of students passed the examination. It means the students‟ writing skill had increase.
From the result above, the researcher concluded that this research was successful and would be not continued in the next cycle. The
students score on writing skill from pre-test I to post-test II could be seen on the table below:
Table 22
Students’ Score at Post-test I and Post-Test II No Name Post-test I
Score
Post-Test II
Score Improvement Explanation
1 AWS 70 77 7 IMPROVED
2 AFF 70 80 10 IMPROVED
3 ASP 65 75 10 IMPROVED
4 EN 55 70 15 IMPROVED
5 EF 55 72 17 IMPROVED
6 EM 68 71 13 IMPROVED
7 ENP 50 67 17 IMPROVED
8 IF 40 64 24 IMPROVED
9 JS 65 76 11 IMPROVED
10 KW 75 80 5 IMPROVED
11 MS 62 72 10 IMPROVED
12 OK 63 74 11 IMPROVED
13 PA 75 75 0 CONSTANT
14 RDS 75 75 0 CONSTANT
15 SBFN 60 74 14 IMPROVED
16 SHT 70 78 8 IMPROVED
17 S 62 74 12 IMPROVED
18 THP 57 62 5 IMPROVED
19 TDA 68 75 7 IMPROVED
20 VYH 70 80 10 IMPROVED
Total 1285 1471 206
Average 64 73 10
Based on the result above, it could be inferred that STAD as a technique in learning process could improve the students‟ writing skill because there was improvement from average in post-test I was 64 became 73 in post-test II. In the cycle II, most of the students could develop their writing skill. It means that cycle II was successful.
Therefore, the researcher concluded that the research was successful
because the indicator of successful had been achieved in this cycle. It means that it would be stop in this cycle.
Based on the result of students‟ activities in cycle I and cycle II, the researcher indicated that learning process in cycle II was successful. This table was to describe the comparison of the students‟
activities in cycle I and cycle II.
Table 23
The Table of Students’ Activities in Cycle I and Cycle II
No Students activities Cycle I Cycle II
F Percentage F Percentage 1 The students pay attention
of the teacher explanation
14 70% 20 100%
2 The students ask/answer the
question from the teacher 9 45% 17 85%
3 The students werea ctive in
building teamwork 9 45% 19 95%
4 The students understand the
writing skill by STAD 7 35% 15 75%
Based on the result of the students activities in cycle I and cycle II was improved. Pay attention of the teacher explanation from 70%
became 100%, the students ask/answer question from 45% became 85%, the students were active in building teamwork from 45%
became 95% and the students understand thw writing skill by STAD became 35% became 75%.
B. INTERPRETATION