CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
F. Data Collection
Data is a note of facts or information that processed in the research’s activity. Data in this research collected by the researcherwith the students’ score of pretest and posttest. Procedures of the data collection involved the following steps:
1. The students gave a pretest on writing 2. The students treated by applied Story Circle 3. After the treatment, the students gave a posttest.
In scoring writing the researcher used some of Nurgiantoro’s (2001:105) formula and simplified to score this writing in this research. The formula was as follows:
Table 3.2: Writing Scoring
NO Aspect Score Criteria Indicators
1. Content
41 - 50 Very good
Complete information, substantive, complete in
developing writing relevant with a problem.
31 - 40 Good
Enough information, less substantives, not enough in developing writing problem.
21 - 30 Fair
Limited information, there is not substantial , not enough in developing writing problem.
0 - 20 Bad There is no content and problem Substantives.
2. Mechanic
41 - 50 Very good
Mastery in writing rule, only some
spelling error.
31 - 40 Good
Sometimes there is spelling error, but it does not change the meaning
21 - 30 Fair
Sometimes there is spelling error,
uncertain meaning.
0 - 20 Bad
Not mastery in writing
especially: Many spelling error, unreadable writing, invaluable.
H. Data Analysis
Data analysis was used to know the effectiveness of story circle to improving writing ability. There were some steps in the data analysis:
The data was analyzed by using the following formulas as follow:
1. Scoring the students’ answer:
Score: the correct answer X 100 Total number of item
(Sudjana in Yasin, 2010) 2. Classifying the score of the students into the following criteria:
Table 3.3: Classifying the score of the students
No. Classification Score
1. Excellent 96-100
2. Very Good 86-100
3. Good 76-85
4. Fairly Good 66-75
5. Fair 56-65
6. Poor 36-55
7. Very Poor 0-35
3. Calculating the mean score of the students’ answer by using formula:
N X X
Notification: X = Mean score
= the raw of all score N = the number of subjects
(Gay, 2006)
4. Finding out the significance difference between the pre-test and pos-test by calculating the value of the test. The following formula is employee:
t = :
∑
∑
t : test of significant
: The difference of the mean score
∑ : The sum of the difference : Total number of sample
(Gay, 1981) 5. Calculating the mean difference score by using the formula:
N D D
Notification:
D = the mean of the difference score
D = the sum of the difference score N = the total number of students
(Gay, 2006) After computing the t-test, the writer consulted the t-test result, the mark was higher than the value on the t-table; it means that there was a difference between the writing results of students has teach using story circle and those who has not teach using story circle. In other words, we can say that story circle was effective to improve students’ writing.
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with the finding of the research and discussion of the research. The findings of the research cover the result of the data collected through the pre-test and post-test.
A. Findings
1. The rate percentage of the students’ pre-test and post-test
The findings of the research deals with the students’ score of pre-test and post-test, the frequency and rate percentage of the students score, the mean scores and the students improvement of pre-test and post-test, and hypothesis testing.
These findings were described as follows:
Table 4.1 The Rate Percentage of Content of the Pre-test
No Criteria Score Frequency Percentage
2 Very good 41-50 1 4%
3 Good 31-40 3 12%
4 Fair 21-30 1 4%
5 Bad 0-20 20 80%
Total 25 100%
Table 4.2 The Rate Percentage of Mechanic of the Pre-test
No Criteria Score Frequency Percentage
2 Very good 41-50 0 0
3 Good 31-40 2 8%
4 Fair 21-30 5 20%
5 Bad 0-20 18 72%
Total 25 100%
Table 4.3 The Rate Percentage of the Pre-test
No Classification Score Frequency Percentage
1 Excellent 96-100 0 0
2 Very good 86-95 0 0
3 Good 76-85 1 4%
4 Fairly good 66-75 1 4%
5 Fair 56-65 2 8%
6 Poor 46-55 1 36%
7 Very poor 0-45 20 48%
Total 25 100%
Figure 4.1 The Rate Percentage of the Pre-test
Based on the Table 4.3 and figure 4.1 percentage of the students pre-test.
above shows that no one from the total number of the students who got excellent score, very good score, and poor score. The other, there were 1 (4%) student from the total number of the students who got good score, 1 (4%) student who got fairly good score, 2 (8%) students who got fair score, 1 (4%) student who got poor score and 20 (80%) students who got very poor score. From the result, it can be concluded that the students’ writing ability achievement on pre-test were low because 20 (80%) students from 25 total number of the students who got very poor score.
Excellet Very good Good Fairly good Fair Poor Very poor
0% 0% 4% 4% 12% 36% 48%
Frequency Percentage (%)
Table 4.4 The Rate Percentage of Content of the Post-test
No Criteria Score Frequency Percentage
2 Very good 41-50 3 12%
3 Good 31-40 22 88%
4 Fair 21-30 0 0%
5 Bad 0-20 0 0%
Total 25 100%
Table 4.5 The Rate Percentage of Mechanic of the Post-test
No Criteria Score Frequency Percentage
2 Very good 41-50 0 0%
3 Good 31-40 24 96%
4 Fair 21-30 1 4%
5 Bad 0-20 0 0%
Total 25 100%
Table 4.6 The Rate Percentage of the Post-test
No Classification Score Frequency Percentage
1 Excellent 96-100 0 0%
2 Very good 86-95 0 0%
3 Good 76-85 5 20%
4 Fairly good 66-75 0 0%
5 Fair 56-65 20 80%
6 Poor 46-55 0 0%
7 Very poor 0-45 0 0%
Total 25 100%
Figure 4.2 The Rate Percentage of the Post-test
Table 4.6 and figure 4.2 above shows that in post-test, there were 5 (20%) students got good score and 20 students got fair score (80%). Based on the result above, it can be concluded that the rate percentage in the post-test was higher than the rate percentage in pre-test.
Based on the result above, it can be concluded that the rate percentage in the post-test was higher than the percentage in pre-test.
Excellet Very good
Good Fairly good
Fair Poor Very
poor
0% 0% 20% 0% 80%
0% 0%
Frequency Percentage (%)
2. The mean score and the improvement of Pre-test and Post-test
Table 4.7 The Mean Score and the Students Improvement of Pre-test and Post- test
Test Mean Score Improvement
Pre-test 42.6%
69%
Post–test 72.36%
Based on the table 4.7. above, it showed that the mean score of the students in pre-test were 42.6%. Little of the students were got good score in writing narrative test, after the researcher gave treatment by using story circle and the score of the students’ had improved. It showed that the mean score of the students in post-test was 72.36%.
The result of pre-test and post-test had improvement which was 69%. The data showed that using story circle in teaching writing narrative could improve the students’writing narrative ability.
3. Hypothesis testing
The researcher had used t-test analysis on the level of the significance (p) 0.05 with the degree of freedom (Df) = N-1, where N = number of students (25 students) and then the value of t-table was 2.064. The t-test statistical analysis for independent sample was applied. The following table showed the result of t-test calculation.
Table 4.8 The t-Test Analysis of The Students’ Improvement
No. t-Test Value t-Table Value Description
1. 12.79 2.064 Significance
The table 4.8 above showed that t-test value of writing narrative was greater than t-table value (12.79 > 2.064). It meant that there was significance difference between the students’ writing narrative ability before and after researcher used story circle in teaching writing narrative at the eight grade students of SMP Negeri 1 Sungguminasa Kab. Gowa . It was show that the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.
B. Discussion
This part presents a discussion dealing with the interpretation of the research findings derived from the result of the Effectiveness of Story Circle to Improve Students Writing Ability. The description of the data collected through writing test. It was supported by the score frequency and rate percentage in the result of the students’ before and after applying Story Circle. They are explained as follows:
1. The students’ writingAbility before applying Story Circle.
Based on the data, the rate percentage and score frequency of the students’ before applying Story Circle showed that no one from the total number
of the students who got excellent score, very good score, good score and fairly good score. The other, there were 3 (12%) students from the total number of the students who got fair score, 9 (36%) students who got poor score and 12 (48%) students who got very poor score.
2. The students’ writingAbility after applying Story Circle.
Based on the data, the rate percentage and score frequency of the students’ after applying story circle, there were 5 (20%) out of 25 students got good score, 20 (80%) students got fair score. Based on the result above, it can be concluded that the rate percentage in the post-test was higher than the rate percentage in pre-test.
3. The difference of the students’ writing ability before and after applying story circle.
Based on the previous page, there was a significance difference of the students’writing ability before and after applying story circle. The mean score of the students’ writing ability before applying story circle was 42.6 and the mean score of the students’ writing ability after applying story circle was 72.36. It shows that the mean score of the students’ writing ability after applying story circle is higher than the mean score of the students’ writing ability before applying story circle.
The value of the t-test was higher than t-table value (12.79>2.064). Based on the result of t-test, the researcher found that there was a significant difference
between the result of the students’ writing ability before and after applying story circle.
Based on the data above, the researcher concluded that using story circle in teaching writing could imporve the students’ writing ability, because before implementing this approach the students’ writing ability still low, but after implementing this approach the students’ writing could increase the students ability.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter deals of two parts. The first part is conclusion based on the research findings and discussions. The second part was suggestion based on the conclusion.
A. Conclusion
Based on the finding and discussion in the previous chapter, the researcher concluded as follows:
1. The students’ writing narrative ability before applying story circle was poor. It was proved by the result of the pre-test. No one of the students got, excellent, very good, good, and fairly. The categorized of the students’ writing narrative before applying story circle was fair, poor, and very poor classification. There were 3 (12%) students’ in fair classification, 9 (36%) students’ in poor classification, and 12 (48%) students’ in very poor classification.
2. The students’ writing narrative ability after applied story circle was improved.
It was proved by the result of the post-test. The rate percentage and score frequency of the students’ writing narrative in post-test was categorized good, and fairclassification. There were 5 students’ (20%) in good classification, and
20 students’ (80%) in fair classification. Thus, the researcher concluded that the students’ writing narrative ability was improved after applied story circle from very poor to good classification.
3. The story circle was effective to improvethe students’ writing narrative,it was proved by the result of the mean score of the students’ post-test was higher than the mean score of pre-test.
The effectiveness of story circle to improve students writing ability at the eighth grade students’of SMPN 1 Sungguminasa was proved by the result of the mean score of the students’ post-test was higher than the mean score of pre-test.
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above the researcher would like to give some suggestions to the English teacher, the students (learners), and the next researchers as follows:
1. For the English Teacher
a. The effectiveness of story circle to improve students writing ability, the teacher should give more guidance and motivation.
b. It is suggested that the teachers, used Story Circle as one alternative among other teaching methods that can be used in teaching writing narrative ability.
c. The teachers should be creative in teaching English especially writing because to be master English it needs more strategy, technique, method or approachin improving the students’writing narrative ability.
2. For the Students (learners)
a. Students need practice and learn more not only in the informal education, but also the formal education to improvement their writing narrative ability.
b. The effectiveness of story circle to improve students writing ability, because it is interesting and efecient to improve the students’ writing narrative ability.
3. For the next Researchers
a. For the next researcher to improve the students’ writing ability, should create another method, strategy or technique which would to applicated in the classroom in order to make students more active and interesting in learning English.
b. The result of this research can also be used as an additional reference or further research with different discussion for the next researchers.
c. For the next research using story circle in researching other materials.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aline, Gubrium. 2009. Digital Storyteling: An Emergent Method for Health Promotion Research and Practice. Health Promotion Practice 10.2: 186-91. USA: University of Illinois.
Anderson, Mark and Anderson, Kathy. 1997. Text Types in English 2.
South Yarra: Macmillan Education Australia PIY LTD.
Arikunto, S. 1998. Prosedur Penelitian. Yogyakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
Breveton. 1982. Writing, Process and Teaching. Books.google.co.id/book isbn=041577116…
Caudery, T. 1990. The Validity of Timed Essay Test in Assessment of Writing Skill. ELT Journal 44/2:122-32.
Curthoys Lesley, Cuthbertson Brent & Clark Julie. 2012. “Community Story Circles: An Opportunity to Rethink the Epistemological Approach to Heritage Interpretive Planning”. Canada: Lakehead University.
Damayanti. 2009. The Effectiveness of Peer Response in Writing Process to Improve Students Writing Ability. A Thesis. Makassar:
Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Derewianka, Beverly. 1990. Exploring How Text Work. London: Primary English Teaching Association.
Dumais.1998. Writing in English.
http://www.pbspsma.org/content/blog/english-materials-reading- narrative.
Fatmawati. 2009. Increasing the Students Writing Proficiency Through Think-Talk-Write Method. Unpublished Thesis. Makassar: Faculty of Teachers Training and Education. Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Gay, L.R. 2006. EducationalResearch: Competencies for Analysis and Aplication Second Edition, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing.
Gay, L.R. 1981. EducationalResearch: Competencies for Analysis and Aplication Second Edition, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing.
Goodman, Vera. 2014. The Story Circle Model of Education. Canada:
Calgary.
Graham and Perin. 2007. A Plan for Writing Skill. New York: CBS College Publishing.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2004. How to Teach Writing. England: Long Man.p.35.
Irawati. 1999. Using E Dialogue Journal to Im[prove the Students Writing Skill. Unpublished Thesis. Makassar: Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Ismayanti. 2008. Implementation of Portofolio Assessment to Increase the Students Writing Skill. Unpublished Thesis. Makassar: Faculty of Teachers Traning and Education.
Ismi. 2016. Using Schema Activation Strategy To Increase The Students Reading Comprehension. Unpublished Thesis. Makassar: Faculty of Teachers Traning and Education.
Keraf.1989. Narrative in Writing. Cambridge, England.
Lyons, John. 1987. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Millan. 2009. English Materials : reading narrative.
http://www.pbspsma.org/content/blog/english-materials-reading- narrative.
Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Languange Teaching. Singapore:
Mc. Graw Hill.
Nurgiyantoro. 2001. Teori Pengkajian Fiksi. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
Nurjannah, Siti. 2012. Improving Writing Skills of Tenth Grade Students of SMA N 1 Prambanan by Using Picture Series in the Academic Year 2011/2012. Yogyakarta: State University of Yogyakarta.
O’Neal, John. 2006. The Rules of the Story Circle are the Rules of Civil Participation in Society. You Agree to Listen. You Agree to Respect. New Orleans: Junebug Productions.
Oshima, Alice and Ann Haque. 1987. Introduction to Academic Writing.
London: Longman Group.
Raimess, Ann. 1983. Technique in Teacing Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roadside, Theater. 2014. “About: Story Circles”.
https://roadside.org/asset/about-story-circles.
Saleha. 2008. Improving the Students Reading Comprehension by Using Know-Want-Learn (K-W-L) Strategy of the Second Year Students
of SLTP 5 Bulukumba. Unpublished Thesis. Makassar:
Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Sumirat, Rah Seto. 2014. The Effectiveness of Story Circle Method in Teaching Reading Viewed From Students’ Risk Taking Behavior.
Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University.
Tonarely, Katie. 2012. Classroom Project.
www.jstor/org/projectbasedlearning/819842.
Walker and Riu. 2008. Reading and Writing Resources (RAW). Help with
Teaching Reading Online.
(http://www.laspositascollegeed/RAW/HelpwithTeachingReading.
php.htm). Retrieved on june 2012.
West. 1973. Basic Skills in English. New York: United States of America.
Yasin, Nur. 2010. Improving Students’ Ability in Writing Narrative Text Using Short Animated Stories. Yogyakarta: State University of Yogyakarta.
Yarber. 1985. Enchance my riting A guide to general writing style guides.
http://www.pbspsma.org/content/blog/english-materials-reading- narrative. accessed on June 2012.
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with the finding of the research and discussion of the research. The findings of the research cover the result of the data collected through the pre-test and post-test.
A. Findings
1. The rate percentageof the students’ pre-test and post-test
The findings of the research deals with the students’ score of pre-test and post-test, the frequency and rate percentage of the students score, the mean scores and the students improvement of pre-test and post-test, and hypothesis testing.
These findings were described as follows:
Table 4.1 The Rate Percentage of the Pre-test
No Classification Score Frequency Percentage
1 Excellent 9.6-10 0 0
2 Very good 8.6-9.5 0 0
3 Good 7.6-8.5 1 4%
4 Fairly good 6.6-7.5 1 4%
5 Fair 5.6-6.5 3 12%
6 Poor 4.6-5.5 9 36%
7 Very poor 0.0-4.5 12 48%
Total 25 100%
Graphic 4.1 The Rate Percentage of the Pre-test
Based on the Table 4.1 and graphic 4.1 percentage of the students pre- test. above shows that no one from the total number of the students who got excellent score, very good score, good score and fairly good score. The other, there were 3 (12%) students from the total number of the students who got fair score, 9 (36%) students who got poor score and 12 (48%) students who got very poor score. From the result, it can be concluded that the students’ writing ability achievement on pre-test were low because 12 (48%) students from 25 total number of the students who got very poor score.
Excellet Very good
Good Fairly good
Fair Poor Very
poor
0% 0% 4% 4% 12% 36% 48%
Frequency Percentage (%)
Table 4.2 The Rate Percentage of the Post-test
No Classification Score Frequency Percentage
1 Excellent 9.6-10 0 0%
2 Very good 8.6-9.5 0 0%
3 Good 7.6-8.5 5 20%
4 Fairly good 6.6-7.5 0 0%
5 Fair 5.6-6.5 20 80%
6 Poor 4.6-5.5 0 0%
7 Very poor 0.0-4.5 0 0%
Total 25 100%
Graphic 4.2 The Rate Percentage of the Post-test
Excellet Very good
Good Fairly good
Fair Poor Very
poor
0% 0% 20% 0% 80%
0% 0%
Frequency Percentage (%)
Table 4.2 and graphic 4.2 above shows that in post-test, there were 5 (20
%) students got good score. Students got fair score 20 (80%). Based on the result above, it can be concluded that the rate percentage in the post-test was higher than the rate percentage in pre-test.
Based on the result above, it can be concluded that the rate percentage in the post-test was higher than the percentage in pre-test.
2. The mean score and the improvement of Pre-test and Post-test
Table 4.3 The Mean Score and the Students Improvement of Pre-test and Post-test
Test Mean Score Improvement
Pre-test 42.6%
69%
Post–test 72.36%
Based on the table 4.3. above, it showed that the mean score of the students in pre-test were 42.6%. Little of the students were got good score in writing narrative test, after the researcher gave treatment by using story circle and the score of the students’ had improved. It showed that the mean score of the students in post-test was 72.36%.
The result of pre-test and post-test had improvement which was 69%. The data showed that using story circle in teaching writing narrative could improve the students’writing narrative ability.