CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
G. Technique of Data Analysis
The data was analyzed through the following procedures:
1. Calculatedthe student’s correct answer of test;
Score = Total Correct Answer Total number of item × 10
2. Calculated the mean score of the students’ achievement. The researcher will use the following formula:
X = ∑ X N Where:
X = Mean Score
∑ X = Total Number
N = The number of sample
(Tiro, Muhammad Arif and Baharuddin Ilyas, 2002: 69) 1. The observer analyzed the research by applying percentage technique through
the following formula:
P = F N x 100 Where:
P = Percentage
F = Number of correct P = Number of sample
(Hatch and Faraday, 1982) 2. In this research, the categorizationscore of the students’as follows:
a. 96 - 100 classified as excellent b. 86 - 95 classified as very good c. 76 - 85 classified as good d. 66 - 75 classified fairly good e. 56 - 65 classified fair
f. 36 - 55 classified as poor g. 0 - 35 classified as very poor
(Depdikbud, 1985)
3. The mean score of students active participation was found out by using the following formula:
P = Fq 4xN x 10 where:
Fq = Frequency P = Percentage
N = Sum of the subject
(Sudjana in Saleha, 1999)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of findings of the research and its discussion. The findings of the research presents the result of the students’ activeness observation in teaching and learning process, the improvement of the students’ reading comprehension that covers main idea and making summary that covers organization and details, and the discussion of the research covers further explanation of the findings. All the data is presented based on the action that has been conducted.
A. FINDINGS
The findings of classroom action research deals with the answer of the problem statement which its aim was to improve students’ reading comprehension. The findings consists of students’ improvement in literal comprehension making summary. The data of literal comprehension consists of student’s improvement in finding the main idea of a text, and the data of summary consists of students’
improvement in making summary based on organization and details.
1. The Improvement of the Students’Literal Comprehension
The application of List-Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) strategy in improving the students’ literal comprehension deals with main idea. The improvement of such indicator can be seen by comparing the result of students’ diagnostic test and the
result of students’ cycle 1 and cycle 2 test. In order to make it clear, all the result of the students’ literal comprehension is presented below:
Table 1: The Students’ Improvement ofLiteral Comprehension
N
o Indicators
Diagnostic
Test Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Improvement Mean %
score % Mean
Score % Mean
Score %
1 .
Main Idea 5.75 57.5 6.37 63.7 7.86 78.6 21.05
The table above shows the students’ improvement of literal comprehension.
Before the application of List-Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) Strategy done, the mean score of students diagnostic test in case main idea is 5.75 with percentage 57.5%.
After the application Of List-Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) Strategy in the cycle 1, the students’ mean score becomes 6.37 with percentage 63.7%. An improvement is also reached in the cycle 2. It is proved by the mean score 7.86 which is greater than the mean score in the diagnostic and cycle 1 test.
The improvement of the literal comprehension can also be shown in the following chart:
Figure 1: The Improvement of Students’Literal Comprehension
The chart above showsthat the students’ mean scorein diagnostic test, cycle I and cycle II are different. It is because from diagnostic test to cycle I and cycle I to cycle II get a significant improvement. The improvement of students’ score from diagnostic test to cycle 1 is 6.2 % and cycle 1 to cycle 2 is 14.9%.
2. The Improvement of the Students in Making Summary
The application of List-Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) strategy in improving the students’ ability to make summary deals with organization and sentence details. The improvement of those two indicatorscan be seen by comparing the result of students’
diagnostic test and the result of students’ cycle 1 and cycle 2 test. It is presented in the following table:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Diagnostic Test
Literal Comprehension
Figure 1: The Improvement of Students’Literal Comprehension
The chart above showsthat the students’ mean score in diagnostic test, cycle I and cycle II are different. It is because from diagnostic test to cycle I and cycle I to cycle II get a significant improvement. The improvement of students’ score from diagnostic test to cycle 1 is 6.2 % and cycle 1 to cycle 2 is 14.9%.
2. The Improvement of the Students in Making Summary
The application of List-Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) strategy in improving the students’ ability to make summary deals with organization and sentence details. The improvement of those two indicatorscan be seen by comparing the result of students’
diagnostic test and the result of students’ cycle 1 and cycle 2 test. It is presented in the following table:
Diagnostic Test Cycle I Cycle II Improvement
Literal Comprehension
Figure 1: The Improvement of Students’Literal Comprehension
The chart above showsthat the students’ mean scorein diagnostic test, cycle I and cycle II are different. It is because from diagnostic test to cycle I and cycle I to cycle II get a significant improvement. The improvement of students’ score from diagnostic test to cycle 1 is 6.2 % and cycle 1 to cycle 2 is 14.9%.
2. The Improvement of the Students in Making Summary
The application of List-Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) strategy in improving the students’ ability to make summary deals with organization and sentence details. The improvement of those two indicatorscan be seen by comparing the result of students’
diagnostic test and the result of students’ cycle 1 and cycle 2 test. It is presented in the following table:
Improvement
Table 2: The Students’ Improvementin Making Summary
N
o Indicators
Diagnostic
Test Cycle I Cycle II
Improvement
% Mean
score % Mean
Score % Mean
Score %
1
. Organization 4.05 40.5 5,93 59.3 7.56 75.6 35.10
2 .
Sentence
Smoothness 4.07 40.7 6.21 62.1 7.22 72.20 31.5
∑X 8.22 82.2 12.14 121.4 14.78 147.8 66.6
X 4.12 41.2 6.07 60.7 7.39 73.9 33.3
The table above shows thatthere are significant improvement of students’ score in both organization and sentence smoothness. The improvement of organization from diagnostic test to cycle one is 18.8%. It is indicated by comparing the result of diagnostic test (40.5%) with the result of cycle I (59.3%). In the cycle two the students’ mean score of organization is 7.56 with percentage 75.6%. It is greater than the previous score in diagnostic test and cycle 1.
In case of sentence smoothness, the students’ score also gets improved. In the diagnostic test the students’ score is only 4.07 with percentage 40.7%. Then, it get improved in the cycle 1 with score 6.21 (62.1). This score is greater than the score in the diagnostic test. The improvement is 21.4%. In the cycle two the improvement is also reached. The students’ mean score of sentence smoothness reaches 7.22 with percentage 72.2%. It is 31.5% greater than the score of diagnostic test and 10.1 % greater than the score of cycle 1.
The improvement of the students in making summary can also be seen in the following chart:
Figure 3: The Improvement of Students In Making Summary
The chart above shows the improvement of the students in making summary from both diagnostic test to cycle I and cycle I to cycle II. From diagnostic test to cycle I the improvement is 19.5% and from cycle I to cycle II the improvement is 13.2%.
3. The Improvement of the Students’ Reading Comprehension (Literal Comprehension and Making Summary)
In this case, the ultimate improvement of students’ reading comprehension is calculated through the combination of the students’ improvement in both literal comprehension and making summary. From the whole result of the students’
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Diagnostic Test
The improvement of the students in making summary can also be seen in the following chart:
Figure 3: The Improvement of Students In Making Summary
The chart above shows the improvement of the students in making summary from both diagnostic test to cycle I and cycle I to cycle II. From diagnostic test to cycle I the improvement is 19.5% and from cycle I to cycle II the improvement is 13.2%.
3. The Improvement of the Students’ Reading Comprehension (Literal Comprehension and Making Summary)
In this case, the ultimate improvement of students’ reading comprehension is calculated through the combination of the students’ improvement in both literal comprehension and making summary. From the whole result of the students’
Diagnostic Test Cycle I Cycle II Improvement
Making Summary
The improvement of the students in making summary can also be seen in the following chart:
Figure 3: The Improvement of Students In Making Summary
The chart above shows the improvement of the students in making summary from both diagnostic test to cycle I and cycle I to cycle II. From diagnostic test to cycle I the improvement is 19.5% and from cycle I to cycle II the improvement is 13.2%.
3. The Improvement of the Students’ Reading Comprehension (Literal Comprehension and Making Summary)
In this case, the ultimate improvement of students’ reading comprehension is calculated through the combination of the students’ improvement in both literal comprehension and making summary. From the whole result of the students’
Improvement
literal comprehension and making summary which are presented in the table above, the improvement of students’ reading comprehension in general is formulated then presented in the following table:
Table 3: The improvement of theStudents’ Reading Comprehension
The tabel above shows the result of students mean score and its percentage of both literal comprehension and making summary from diagnostic test, cycle 1 and cycle 2. In the cycle 1, both the students’ literal comprehension and making summary score are greaterthan the score in diagnostic test. The students’ literal comprehension score of cycle 1 is 6.37 with percentage 63.7%. It is 0.62 (6.2%) greater than score of diagnostic test. Then, the score of the students’ making summary of cycle 1 is 1.35 (13.5%) greater than the result of diagnostic test which is only 4.72 (47.2%).
In the cycle 2, both the score of students’ integrative and making summary also get improved. The improvement is proved by the difference of the students’ score
NO VARIABLES
D-TEST CYCLE I CYCLE II IMP
Score % Score % Score % %
1 Literal Comp.
5.75 57.5 6.37 63.7 7.86 78.6 21.1
2 Making Summary
4.72 47.2 6.07 60.7 7.39 73.9 26.7
∑X 10.47 104.7 12.44 124.4 15.25 152,5 47.8
X 5.23 52.3 6.22 62,2 7.62 76.25 23.9
between cycle 1 and cycle two. The score of students’literal comprehension of cycle 1 is greater than the score of cycle 2.The score of students’ literal comprehension in the cycle 2 is 7.86 (78.6%). It is 1.49 (14.9%) greater than the score of cycle 1 which is only 6.37 (64.6%). In case of making summary, an improvement is also reached.
The students’ making summary score of cycle 2 is greater than the students’ score of cycle 1. It is 6.07 (60.7%) in the cycle 1 and it becomes 7.39 (73.9%) in the cycle2.
So, the improvement is 1.22 (12.2%).
By combining the whole score of literal comprehension and making summary of diagnostic test, cycle 1 and cycle 2, the improvement of students’ reading comprehension in detail finally can be formulated. In the diagnostic test the mean score of students’ reading comprehension is 5.23 with percentage (52.3%). It is fewer than the students’ mean score in the cycle 1 6.22 (62.2%). Then in the cycle 2, the students’ mean score of reading comprehension is greater than score of cycle 1. The students’ meanscore is 7.62 (76.20%). It is 1.4 (14%) greater than the score of cycle 1.
Based on the table above, it can be explained that the ultimate mean score of students’ reading comprehension is 7.62 (76.25%) which is 2.39 (23.9%) greater than the mean score of students reading comprehension of diagnostic test. So the improvement is 23.9%. This ultimate mean score which greater than the mean score of diagnostic test indicates that the target to improve the students mean score to 7.0 as the successful minimal criteria can be reached.
The improvement of the students reading comprehension in both literal comprehension and making summary can also be seen in the following chart:
Figure 3: The students Improvement of Reading Comprehension
The chart above presents the students improvement of reading comprehension in both literal comprehension and making summary. In the diagnostic test the percentage of students score is 52.3% and becomes 62.2% in the cycle I. The improvement is 9.9%.. Then in the cycle II the percentage becomes 76.25%. the improvement is 23.9% from diagnostic test.
4. The Result of the Students’Activeness in Teaching and Learning Process The result of observation of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process through List-Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) ) Strategy at the second year students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Guppi Dante Koa, Enrekang Regency which was
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Diagnostic Test
Reading Comprehension
The improvement of the students reading comprehension in both literal comprehension and making summary can also be seen in the following chart:
Figure 3: The students Improvement of Reading Comprehension
The chart above presents the students improvement of reading comprehension in both literal comprehension and making summary. In the diagnostic test the percentage of students score is 52.3% and becomes 62.2% in the cycle I. The improvement is 9.9%.. Then in the cycle II the percentage becomes 76.25%. the improvement is 23.9% from diagnostic test.
4. The Result of the Students’Activeness in Teaching and Learning Process The result of observation of the students’activeness in teaching and learning process through List-Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) ) Strategy at the second year students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Guppi Dante Koa, Enrekang Regency which was
Diagnostic Test Cycle I Cycle II Improvement
Reading Comprehension
The improvement of the students reading comprehension in both literal comprehension and making summary can also be seen in the following chart:
Figure 3: The students Improvement of Reading Comprehension
The chart above presents the students improvement of reading comprehension in both literal comprehension and making summary. In the diagnostic test the percentage of students score is 52.3% and becomes 62.2% in the cycle I. The improvement is 9.9%.. Then in the cycle II the percentage becomes 76.25%. the improvement is 23.9% from diagnostic test.
4. The Result of the Students’Activeness in Teaching and Learning Process The result of observation of the students’activeness in teaching and learning process through List-Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) ) Strategy at the second year students of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Guppi Dante Koa, Enrekang Regency which was
Improvement
conducted in 2 cycles during 8 meetings was taken by the observer through observation sheet. It can be seen clearly through the following table :
Table 4. The Observation Result of the students’ Activeness in Teaching and Learning Process.
Cycles
Activeness 1st
Meeting
%
2nd Meeting
%
3rd Meeting
%
4th Meeting
%
Cycle 1 54.62 66.67 69.44 73.14
Cycle 2 76.85 77.78 79.62 82.40
Based on the table above, it can be explained that the result of students’
observation in learning process through List-Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) Strategy in every meeting in cycle 1 to cycle 2 get improved. It is proved by the percentage of students’activeness is getting higher in every meeting in both cycle I and cycle II. In the first meeting of cycle I the students activeness is 54.62% and in the first meeting of cycle II 76.85%. In the second meeting of both the cycle I and II the students’
activeness are 66.67% and 77.78%. It indicates that the students more actively participate in the second meeting of cycle 1 than cycle II. In the third meeting of cycle 2 the students also more actively participate than in the third meeting of cycle I. In the cycle I the students’activeness is 69.44% and in the second cycle is 79.62%.
Then, in the fourth meeting of cycle I and cycle II also shows a significant improvement where the activeness in the cycle I is 73.14% and 82.40% in the cycle II.
The result of the students’activeness can also be seen in the following chart:
Figure 4: The students’ Activeness Observation in Teaching and Learning Process
B. DISCUSSIONS
In this part, discussion deals with the interpretation of findings derived from the result of findings about the students’ literal comprehension main idea, making summary dealing with organization and details, and the observation result of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process, through the application of List- Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) Strategy.
1. The Improvement of the Students’Literal Comprehension
The result of the data analysis through the readingtest shows that the students’
literal comprehension in term of main idea improved significantly. It is indicated by the percentage of the result of the students’ diagnostic test and the percentage of the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1st Meeting
The result of the students’activeness can also be seen in the following chart:
Figure 4: The students’ Activeness Observation in Teaching and Learning Process
B. DISCUSSIONS
In this part, discussion deals with the interpretation of findings derived from the result of findings about the students’ literal comprehension main idea, making summary dealing with organization and details, and the observation result of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process, through the application of List- Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) Strategy.
1. The Improvement of the Students’Literal Comprehension
The result of the data analysis through the readingtest shows that the students’
literal comprehension in term of main idea improved significantly. It is indicated by the percentage of the result of the students’ diagnostic test and the percentage of the
1st Meeting 2nd Meeting 3rd Meeting 4th Meeting
The result of the students’activeness can also be seen in the following chart:
Figure 4: The students’ Activeness Observation in Teaching and Learning Process
B. DISCUSSIONS
In this part, discussion deals with the interpretation of findings derived from the result of findings about the students’ literal comprehension main idea, making summary dealing with organization and details, and the observation result of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process, through the application of List- Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) Strategy.
1. The Improvement of the Students’Literal Comprehension
The result of the data analysis through the readingtest shows that the students’
literal comprehension in term of main idea improved significantly. It is indicated by the percentage of the result of the students’ diagnostic test and the percentage of the
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
result of the students’ test in cycle I and II that are difference one another. The mean score of the students’diagnostic test was 5.75 with percentage 57.5%. It is lower than the mean score of the students’ in
In order to see the students’ score achievement ofliteral comprehension in any level of scoring classification, it is presented as follow:
Table 5: The Percentage of the Students’Score in Literal Comprehension
No Classification Range
Non List- Inquire-Note- Know (LINK)
The Application of List- Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) D-Test Cycle I Cycle II
Freq % Freq % Freq %
1 Excellent 9.6–10
2 Very good 8.6–9.5 7 25.92
3 Good 7.6–8.5 1 3.70 8 29.62
4 Fairy good 6.6–7.5 4 14.81 7 25.92 7 25.92
5 Fair 5.6–6.5 13 48.14 16 59.25 5 18.51
6 Poor 3.6–5.5 10 37.03 3 11.11
7 Very poor 0–3.5
Total 27 100 27 100 27 100
The table above shows that the percentage of the students’ literal comprehension in diagnostic test (Non List-Inquire-Note-Know) 4 students (14.81%) got fairy good, 13 students (48.14 %) got fair 10 (37.03) students got poor and none of students for the other classification
And after taking action through List-Inquire-Note-Know (LINK) strategy in cycle I, the percentage of the students’literal comprehension were 1 student (3.70%) got good, 7students (25.92%) got fairy good, 16 students (59.25%) got fair, 3 students (11.11) got poor and none of the students for the other classifications.
And inthe cycle II, the percentage of the students’ literal comprehension were 7 students (25.92%) got very good,8 students (29.62%) got good, 7 students (25.92%) got fairy good, 5 students (18.51) fair good and none of the students for the other classification.
2. The Improvement of the Students in Making Summary
The result of the data analysis through the reading test shows that the students in making summary in term of organization and details improved significantly. It is indicated by the percentage of the result of the students’ diagnostic test and the percentage of the result of the students’ test in cycle I and II that were difference one another. The mean score of the students’ diagnostic test was 4.72 with percentage 47.20%. It is lower than the mean score of the students’ in cycle I was 6.07 with percentage 60.7% and cycle II was 7.39 with percentage 73.9%. These scores were got from three indicators; organization and smooth sentence.
In order to see the students’ score achievement in making summary at any levels of scoring classification, it is presented as follow:
Table 6: The Percentage of the Students’Score in Making Summary