CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
B. The Description of the Research Result
2) Second Meeting
led to their making those prediction. Then they should read on, check their prediction agains what did happen, make new prediction, dictate evidence for those predictions and read for the last section.
Afterwards the researcher gave each group the exercise to be discussed and finished in a group. Later on, the leaders in each group were invited to conclude the discussion result about the narrative text by the title “the rabbit revenge”.
In this session, the students were more active to follow the teaching learning process, because they enjoyed following the learning process. But, there were still some problem faced by students. Such as many students just silent when the teacher gave a question, there were some students who were passive when learning process and some student difficult to comprehend the story. To strengthen their result discussion the teacher gave some feedbacks and question as needed to check their understanding about the topic had been taught. Before the time was up, the researcher.
meeting is quiet similar with the first meeting. The teacher only reviewed the lesson which had been taught in the previous session. the researcher checked the attendance list. The activity continued by giving some explanation more about narrative text. The text was about The Magic Box. The researcher asked the students to read the text. After it the researcher asked student “do you understand about the text. Most of students did not understand. The researcher gave a picture about the story and then researcher gave the clue with said” after you looked the picture “what happened in this story?”. After gave the clue the researcher asked students to make their prediction about the story. Then, at the end of this meeting the researcher gave post-test cycle 1 with the similar task on pre-test before. The students had to answer the questions that are consist of multiple choice that was given in 40 minutes. The students did it seriously. It seemed that the students‟ score will be improved. the researcher gave a post-test I, in order to measure their ability. The post-test I instrument consisted of 20 questions in the form of multiple choices (see the appendix) which has same indicators as the previous test and it had to be completed for 60 minutes only. The result of post-test I could be seen on the table below :
Table 9
Table of the result Score of Students’ Reading Comprehension Abilities PostTest 1
No. Students’
Code Post Test 1 Score
1. ADP 75
2. ADMY 70
3. ARW 60
4. AML 65
5. DA 60
6. DPM 55
7. ENP 60
8. ERMS 65
9. FYR 70
10. HF 80
11. HSTH 75
12. HR 75
13. KSW 55
14. LIS 60
15. MSP 60
16. MTJH 65
17. NA 70
18. PTW 60
19. RV 60
20. RA 75
21. RI 60
22. SPS 55
23. SNH 75
24. TLA 70
25. VNS 50
Total 1625
Lowest Score 50
Highest Score 80
Average 65
Source:the result of post test 1 on July 27 2017 Table 10
Frequency of Students’Mark of Post test I of Reading Comprehension Abilities
No Mark Frequency Percentage Category 1 ≥ 75 6 24% Complete
2 < 75 19 76% Incomplete
Total 25 100%
Based on the result of student‟s post-test score, it could be inferred that there was 76% or 19 students for the score among the interval of 50-69 did not passed the Minimum Mastery Criteria (MMC) at least 75 while 24% or 6 students for the score among the interval of 70-89 passed the Minimum Mastery Criteria (MMC) or more than 75. In addition, the mean score of post-test I was 65. It indicated that the result of students reading comprehension was improved if it compared with the pre-test score that was 58 but viewed from the indicator of success of this research that 75% of the total students must pass the Minimum Mastery Criteria (MMC). It means that the result of post- test I was unsuccessful based on the indicator of success.
c. Observing
While the treatment was being executed, the student activities during the learning process were also being observed by the observer. In
observation of the teacher‟s action, the researcher presented two meetings in cycle I of learning to find information of text in reading lesson. The researcher explained narrative text and the strategy which can be used to read it. Although the researcher had explained the narrative text but the students still confused and get difficulty to find information of the text.
In doing the research at school, the researchers also observed the student actvities in learning process in the classroom, there were:
a) Student pay attention toward the teacher explanation.
b) Understanding the material c) Students give an idea.
d) Active in group e) Doing the task
Table 11
Observation Result of Student’s Learning Activities at Cycle I No Students Activity Frequency Percentage 1 Attention to teacher explanation 20 80%
2 Understanding the material 12 48%
3 Students give an idea 10 40%
4 Active in group 15 60%
5 Doing the task 22 88%
Total 79 316%
Average 15.8 63%
Total Students 25
The table showed that there were 20 students (80%) who paid attention to the teacher explanation, 12 students (48%) understanding the material in learning process, 10 students (40%) students given
idea about the material, 15 students (60%) students active in group and 22 (88%) students doing the task.
According to the result of observation above, it can be concluded that the learning process was sufficient. The weaknesses in the implementation of the learning process in cycle I were the some students made noisy and still confused with the material was given.
d. Reflecting
At the end of this cycle, the researcher and the collaborator had analyzed and calculated all the processes like student‟s post-test I score and student‟s observation activities. First, the comparison of student‟s pre-test and post-test score was as follow:
Table 12
The Comparison between Pre-test and Post-test I Score No
Student's Code
Pre-test Score
Post-test I Score
Improvement Score
Note
1 ADP 70 75 5 Improve
2 ADMY 70 70 - Constant
3 ARW 50 60 10 Improve
4 AML 60 65 5 Improve
5 DA 55 60 5 Improve
6 DPM 50 55 5 Improve
7 ENP 50 60 10 Improve
8 ERMS 55 65 5 Improve
9 FYR 60 70 10 Improve
10 HF 75 80 5 Improve
11 HSTH 75 75 - Constant
12 HR 70 75 5 Improve
13 KSW 45 55 10 Improve
14 LIS 55 60 5 Improve
15 MSP 50 60 10 Improve
16 MTJH 60 65 5 Improve
17 NA 65 70 5 Improve
18 PTW 50 60 10 Improve
19 RV 55 60 5 Improve
20 RA 60 75 15 Improve
21 RI 50 60 10 Improve
22 SPS 50 55 5 Improve
23 SNH 65 75 10 Improve
24 TLA 60 70 10 Improve
25 VNS 45 50 5 Improve
Total Score 1450 1625 170
Average 58 65 7,39 Improve
The table above showed that the average score of students in post- test I was 65 and the average improvement score was 7 point compared with the pre-test score and 76% or 19 students of the total
students passed the minimum criteria mastery (MMC) and 24% or 6 students did not fulfill the MMC. Besides, the majority score of the students was improve although there was also the students‟ score was constant. It could be concluded that the result was unsuccessful compared with the minimum mastery criteria that was 75 although there was an improvement of student‟s score because the indicator of success could be achieved yet that was 75% of the total students must pass the criteria.
Furthermore, from the result of observation sheet in cycle I, there were some problems identified. They are the following: The student‟s participation to join the learning process did not run enthusiastically and uncontrolled.
a) The students still did not focus on the material.
b) The students still less take a part in their group and made the condition be noise.
c) The students‟ participation in asking and answering the questions as well as in suggesting the idea were still low because they were ashamed to ask and to answer the question orally and thought the questions which given for them was difficult to be answered. So they would rather do other activities than answered it. In addition, not many of the students who gave their idea during the discussion.
Concerning to the problem identification found in the students‟
observation activity, there were some problems to be repaired such as:
1) The researcher gave more motivation to the students in order to stimulate them to study hard and to make the learning process more enthusiastic by inviting them to be involved in the brainstorming session or ice breaking as the stimulation before turned back to the discussion session.
2) The researcher gave more detail explanation and questions after explaining the materials to monitor the students‟
comprehension.
3) The researcher asked the students to focus on study and not make a noises.
Regarding to the result of student‟s post test score and the observation of student‟s activities in cycle I, it entirely could be concluded that although most of the students‟ score had improved but the condition of learning process was not run well because most of the students did not pass the minimum mastery criteria (MMC). So the researcher and collaborator determined to continue the cycle 2 which consisted of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting in order to repair the weaknesses or the problems identified in cycle 1.