CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion of the research above, the researcher has some suggestions to the teacher and the student. First, POW+TREE strategy was effective in improving students‟ writing achievement. Therefore, the teachers are suggested to use the strategy in teaching writing. Second, POW+TREE strategy was suitable to be used in teaching writing, because this strategy let the students share the ideas in their writing activity. Third, for the students, POW+TREE strategy can be used in learning writing especially
at eight grade Junior High School 1 V Kalaena, Luwu Timur. This strategy will make you easy to write a text. The last, this research is greatly expected will become an important input to solve the students‟ problem in writing.
Based on the suggestions above, it can be concluded that the researcher suggests the students in Junior High School 1 Kalaena, Luwu Timur especially for eight grade V students, to be interested in writing because it is a skill to write and express some information and knowledge that is needed.
Then, for English teachers, it is suggested to use POW+TREE strategy in teaching writing because it can help the teachers to improve students’ writing achievement.
46
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antika , R.R. 2014. Proses Pembelajaran Berbasis Student Centered Learning ( Study deskriptif di sekolah menengah pertama Islam Baitul „Izzah, Nganjuk). Journal biokultur, 3, 251-256.
Apriyanti, D. 2014. Teaching Writing by Combining Cubing and POW+TREE strategy at Eighth Grade of Junior High School. Journal of English Education Study Program STIKP PGRI Sumatera Barat,1 (1), pp. 1-12.
Chang. S. C. 2011. A Contrasive Study of Grammar Translation Method and Communicative Approach in Teaching English Grammar.English Language Teaching.
Dahniar, U.M. 2014.Teaching Writing Descriptive Text by Combining Guided Writing Strategy with POW+TREE strategy at Junior High School.
Journal of English Education study program STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat, 4(2), pp. 1-12.
Dinata, Iskandar. 2018 .The Effect of Pow Tree strategy towards student’s writing skill in descriptive text at Grade XI State Senior High School 1 VII Koto Sungai Ngarik. Journalof English and Education.Padang ,3(2), pp.
Nasrul, Thauva L. 2018. The Effect of Pow Tree strategy towards student’s writing ability inrecount text at eight grade of SMP 1 X Koto Singkarak.Journalof English and Education.Padang.
Gay, L.R, G.E. Mills. 2006. Educational Research (Competencies for Analysis and Applications). USA: Pearson.
Gillespie A,Graham S &McKeown D. 2013. Writing: Importance, development, and instruction. Reading and Writing 26 (1) pp. 1-15.
Harris K. R & Graham, S .2005.Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers: Theoretical and pragmatic research from the center on accelerating student learning. Journal of Special Education, 39, 19-33.
Jeffrey, R. 2015. About Writing: A guide.Oregon: Klamath Community College Kartika Suci, Rugaiyah, &Marhamah.. 2017. The Effect of POW+TREE Strategy
towards Students‟ Writing Ability of The Second Year Students at SMAN 14 Pekanbaru. Internasional Seminar Proceeding. International Seminar on Education, Language, Literature and Art (ISELLA).
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 2013. Kurikulum 2013 UntukSekolahMenengahPertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah.
Kompa, J. S. 2012 Disadvantages of teacher-centered learning. Retrieved from (http://joanakompa.com/2012/06/25the-key-disadavantages-of-teacher- centered-learning/ .
Kroeger, R.P. 2005. Analyzing Grammar:An Introduction .USA : Cambridge University Press.
Lienemann, O.T., & Reid, R. 2006. Strategy Instruction with Students Disabilities, New York :Gullford Publications, Inc.
Mason, L. H,.Kubina, R,.& Taft, R.J. 2011. Developing Quick Writing Skills of Middle School Students with Disabilities.Journal of Special Education, 44(4), 205-220
Nasrul, T.L. 2018.The Effect OfPow + Tree Strategy Toward Students’ Writing Ability In Recount Text At Eighth Grade Of SMP 1 X Koto Singkarak.
Journal of English and Education.Padang. 3(2), pp. 1-12
Nunan,D. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Richard, C. J., &Renandya, A.W .2002.Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Suryanti S &AzianYacob. 2016. Exploring Teacher Strategies in Teaching Descriptive Writing in Indonesia. Malaysia Journal of Learning and Instruction Vol. 13 (2) pp. 71-95.
Wiyanti, D. 2013. The Effect of Using POW+TREE Strategy towards Students’
Writing Skill at Eleventh Grade Students Of SMA N 4 Padang. Journal of English Education study program STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat, 2(2), pp.
1-12.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Instrument of the Research
PRETEST AND POST-TEST
“Descriptive Text”
Directions:
1. The researcher will show a topic for all students in the class
2. Students will give time 10 minutes for prepare themselves to explain their favorite teacher
3. In pre-test, students will describe their favorite teacher and write down in the paper
4. In post-test, students will describe their favorite teacher and write down in the paper
5. The time that will give is 45 minutes to all students
A. Task activity in Pre-test
Describe orally based on the topic (about Favorite teacher)
B. Task activity in Post-test
Describe orally based on the topic after taught by POW+TREE strategy (about favorite teacher)
Appendix 2: Lesson Plan
RENCANA PELAKSANAAN PEMBELAJARAN (RPP)
Nama Sekolah : SMPN 1 Kalaena, Luwu Timur Mata pelajaran : Bahasa Inggris
Kelas/ Semester : VIII/ 1 Alokasi waktu : 6 x 45 menit
Aspek/ Skill : Menulis
Standar Kompetensi Mengungkapkan makna dalam teks tulis fungsional dan esai pendek sederhana berbentuk descriptive untuk berinteraksi dengan lingkungan sekitar.
Kompetensi Dasar Mengungkapkan makna dan langkah retotika dalam esai pendek sederhana dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis secara akurat, lancar untuk berinteraksi dengan lingkungan sekitar dalam teks berbentuk descriptive.
1.Mengidentifikasi ciri kebahasaan teks descriptive 2.Memahami penggunaan simple present tense 3.Memahami penggunaan huruf besar, tanda baca,
dan pengejaan kata
4.Menggunakan pilihan kata yang tepat dalam menyusun kalimat
5.Menyusun kata-kata menjadi kalimat dengan benar
6.Menyusun kalimat menjadi paragraf descriptive dengan benar.
Indikator
A. TujuanPembelajaran
Pada akhir pembelajaran siswa dapat:
- Mengidentifikasi ciri kebahasaan teks descriptive - Memahami penggunaan simple present tense
- Memahami penggunaan huruf kapital, tanda baca, dan pengejaan kata - Menggunakan pilihan kata yang tepat dalam menyusun kalimat - Menyusun kata-kata menjadi kalimat dengan benar
- Menyusun kalimat menjadi paragraf descriptive dengan benar.
B. Materi Pembelajaran
a. Text Type: Descriptive b. Grammar :
- Simple Present Tense - Noun Phrase
- Adjective Phrase - Degree of Comparison
C. Metode Pembelajaran : Diskusi, Tanya-Jawab, dan Presentasi D. Langkah-langkah kegiatan pembelajaran
Pertemuan Pertama Kegiatan Awal
1. Guru mulai mengkondisikan kelas dan mengecek daftar hadir.
2. Apersepsi dan motivasi siswa: guru melakukan tanya jawab untuk memancing pengetahuan siswa tentang topik yang akan dibahas.
3. Menyebutkan topik dan tujuan pembelajaran : Our topic today is
“describing favorite teacher ”. We are going to learn how to describe someone using the appropriate noun phrases and adjectives. At the end of the class, you are expected to be able to write a simple descriptive paragraph. I hope it will be useful for you.
Kegiatan Inti
1. Guru memberikan gambaran mengenai favorite teacher setelah itu para siswa diberikan tugas untuk menulis apa saja yang mereka tahu tentang favorite singer tersebut
2. Pada pertemuan ini, guru belum memberikan penjelasan tentang apa saja yang harus ditulis, ataupun bagaimana pola kalimat yang digunakan dalam menulis descriptive text.
3. Setelah selesai, guru akan mengumpulkan hasilnya.
Kegiatan Akhir
1. Guru dan siswa melakukan refleksi dan mengambil kesimpulan terhadap kegiatan yang telah dilakukan.
2. Guru menanyakan kesulitan apa yang dirasakan selama mengerjakan tugas yang diberikan.
3. Penutup
Pertemuan Kedua Kegiatan Awal
1. Guru mulai mengkondisikan kelas dan mengecek daftar kehadiran siswa 2. Apersepsi dan motivasi siswa: guru melakukan tanya jawab untuk
memancing pengetahuan siswa tentang topik yang akan dibahas.
3. Menyebutkan topik dan tujuan pembelajaran.
4. Mereview aktivitas di pertemuan sebelumnya.
Kegiatan Inti
1. Guru memberikan penjelasan tentang materi descriptive text.
2. Guru memberikan sebuah contoh text descriptive dengan bantuan pengggunaan POW+TREE strategy kemudian membahasnya bersama siswa
3. Guru memberikan kesempatan bertanya kepada para siswa jika ada materi yang belum dipahami atau kurang jelas.
Kegiatan Akhir
1. Guru dan siswa melakukan refleksi dan mengambil kesimpulan terhadap kegiatan yang telah dilakukan.
2. Guru menanyakan apakah siswa mengalami kesulitan dalam penggunaan POW+TREE strategy
3. Penutup
Pertemuan Ketiga Kegiatan Awal
1. Guru mulai mengkondisikan kelas dan mengecek daftar kehadiran siswa.
2. Apersepsi dan motivasi siswa: guru melakukan tanya jawab untuk memancing pengetahuan siswa tentang topik yang akan dibahas.
3. Menyebutkan topik dan tujuan pembelajaran.
Kegiatan Inti
1. Mereview pelajaran tentang pertemuan sebelumnya.
2. Guru memberikan tugas kepada siswa untuk membuat paragraph descriptive mengenai “ your favorite teacher” dengan tepat sesuai dengan langkah-langkah POW+TREE strategy pada penjelasan pertemuan sebelumnya.
3. Siswa diberikan kesempatan untuk melakukan editing terhadap hasil tulisannya.
4. Siswa mengumpulkan hasil tulisannya.
Kegiatan Akhir
1. Guru dan siswa melakukan refleksi dan mengambil kesimpulan terhadap kegiatan yang telah dilakukan.
2. Guru menanyakan apakah siswa mengalami kesulitan.
3. Guru mengapresiasi partisipasi siswa.
4. Penutup
E. Penilaian
Penilaian yang digunakan adalah menggunakan rubrics of writing. Aspek aspek yang dinilai adalah content (C), organization (O), grammar (G), vocabulary (V), dan mechanics (M).
F. Pedoman penilaian
Nilai sempurna : 20(C)+20(O)+20(G)+20(V)+20(M)=100
Luwu Timur, 25 Agustus 2020
Teacher
Muni’ Asniati, S.Pd NIP.
Researcher
Rahel Melisa Sampe NIM. 4516101005
Appendix 3: Pre-Test and Post-Test Score
Pre-Test Score
No Students’ Name
Score of each component of writing
Final score pre-
test Pre-test
C O V G M
1 PutuRangga 22 14 14 12 3 66
2 Muh . Al Ibra 22 13 14 10 3 62
3 KadekRaditya 17 7 11 11 2 48
4 MankDarolLina 17 10 11 11 2 51
5 Komang Jaya Satya 17 10 11 5 2 44
6 Indah 17 10 10 5 2 44
7 KadekRistaAmbarwati 17 10 10 5 2 44
8 I PutuRega Adnan Jaya 13 7 11 5 2 38
9 KetutKurniati 17 10 10 5 2 44
10 IGustiAyuGitariusGustiani 17 11 14 12 2 56
11 NiluhNindiaArtini 17 8 10 6 2 43
12 Ni Komang Olivia 17 7 10 5 2 41
13 KomangRiski 13 7 7 5 2 34
14 KomangSutarmayasa 13 7 7 5 2 34
15 PutuArditiya 13 7 10 5 2 37
16 PutuAgusPramawibawa 17 10 10 5 2 44
17 Rifaldi 13 7 7 5 2 34
18 I Made Putra Arya 13 7 7 5 2 34
19 Fadlan Alfa risi 13 7 7 5 2 34
20 Nursaipa 13 7 12 5 2 39
21 Muh. Abdul Alik 13 7 7 5 2 34
22 Putry Ajar Diana 13 7 7 5 2 34
23 KadekSelpiani 22 14 14 12 3 66
24 Sur Hafida 13 7 10 5 2 37
25 PutuGerlinia 24 11 17 8 2 62
26 YudiSitira 22 14 14 13 3 66
27 PutuPuspaFiantika 17 7 14 11 2 51
28 Tia Shintya 17 15 15 12 3 62
29 GustiAyu KD. Indriyani 17 8 11 6 2 44
TOTAL 476 256 303 209 63 1327
Post-Test
No Students’ Name
Score of each component of writing
Final score post-
test Pre-test
C O V G M
1 PutuRangga 28 20 20 24 5 97
2 Muh . Al Ibra 29 20 20 23 5 97
3 KadekRaditya 27 15 20 18 4 84
4 MankDarolLina 26 20 20 18 3 87
5 Komang Jaya Satya 26 17 17 18 4 83
6 Indah 26 17 17 18 4 82
7 KadekRistaAmbarwati 26 17 17 18 4 82
8 I PutuRega Adnan Jaya 26 17 17 11 4 75
9 KetutKurniati 26 17 17 18 3 81
10 IGustiAyuGitariusGustiani 27 19 18 22 4 90
11 NiluhNindiaArtini 23 17 15 17 3 75
12 Ni Komang Olivia 28 17 20 19 4 88
13 KomangRiski 27 17 20 18 4 86
14 KomangSutarmayasa 22 15 16 18 3 74
15 PutuArditiya 25 18 20 19 3 84
16 PutuAgusPramawibawa 27 18 20 22 4 91
17 Rifaldi 21 17 14 11 3 65
18 I Made Putra Arya 21 13 20 17 3 74
19 Fadlan Alfa risi 26 17 17 13 3 66
20 Nursaipa 27 17 20 18 4 86
21 Muh. Abdul Alik 21 17 14 17 4 73
22 Putry Ajar Diana 26 14 18 21 3 76
23 KadekSelpiani 27 20 20 18 4 89
24 Sur Hafida 22 17 17 18 4 78
25 PutuGerlinia 27 18 20 22 5 93
26 YudiSitira 28 20 20 22 5 93
27 PutuPuspaFiantika 27 18 20 21 3 90
28 Tia Shintya 23 17 20 18 4 81
29 GustiAyu KD. Indriyani 26 17 17 18 4 82
TOTAL 716 503 531 513 110 2402
Appendix 4.Students‟ Score Classification in pre-test and post-test No Students’ Initial Pre-
test
Classification Post- test
Classification
1 P.R 66 Fair 97 Very Good
2 M.A.I 62 Fair 97 Very Good
3 K .R 48 Less 84 Good
4 M.D.L 51 Less 87 Good
5 K.J.S 48 Poor 83 Good
6 I 44 Poor 82 Good
7 K .R. A 44 Poor 84 Good
8 I. P. R. A. J 38 Poor 75 Fair
9 K.K 44 Poor 81 Good
10 I.G.A.G.G 56 Less 90 Good
11 N.N.A 43 Poor 75 Fair
12 N.K.O 41 Poor 88 Good
13 K.R 34 Poor 86 Good
14 K.S 34 Poor 74 Fair
15 P.A 37 Poor 84 Good
16 P.A.P 44 Poor 91 Very Good
17 R 34 Poor 65 Fair
18 I .M. P. A 34 Poor 74 Fair
19 F. A.R 34 Poor 66 Fair
20 N 39 Poor 86 Good
21 M.A.A 34 Poor 73 Fair
22 P.A.D 34 Poor 76 Good
23 K.S 66 Fair 89 Good
24 S.H 37 Poor 78 Good
25 P.G 62 Fair 93 Very Good
26 Y.S 66 Fair 93 Very Good
27 P.P. F 51 Less 90 Good
28 T. S 62 Fair 81 Good
29 G.K. I 44 Poor 82 Good
Total 1331 2404
Appendix 5: Data Analysis
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Sum Mean Std. Deviation
Pre-Test 29 34 66 1329 45.83 11.113
Post-Test 29 65 97 2402 82.83 8.320
Valid N (list wise) 29
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic Df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Pre-test .186 29 .012 .866 29 .002
Post-test .103 29 .200* .973 29 .646
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Paired Samples Test Paired Differences
t Df
Sig. (2- tailed) Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 pretest –
posttest -37.000 7.290 1.354 -39.773 -34.227 -27.332 28 .000
Frekuensi Pre-test
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid 34 7 24.1 24.1 24.1
37 2 6.9 6.9 31.0
38 1 3.4 3.4 34.5
39 1 3.4 3.4 37.9
41 1 3.4 3.4 41.4
43 1 3.4 3.4 44.8
44 5 17.2 17.2 62.1
46 1 3.4 3.4 65.5
48 1 3.4 3.4 69.0
51 2 6.9 6.9 75.9
56 1 3.4 3.4 79.3
62 3 10.3 10.3 89.7
66 3 10.3 10.3 100.0
Total 29 100.0 100.0
Frekuensi Post-test
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid 65 1 3.4 3.4 3.4
66 1 3.4 3.4 6.9
73 1 3.4 3.4 10.3
74 2 6.9 6.9 17.2
75 2 6.9 6.9 24.1
76 1 3.4 3.4 27.6
78 1 3.4 3.4 31.0
81 2 6.9 6.9 37.9
82 3 10.3 10.3 48.3
83 1 3.4 3.4 51.7
84 2 6.9 6.9 58.6
86 2 6.9 6.9 65.5
87 1 3.4 3.4 69.0
88 1 3.4 3.4 72.4
89 1 3.4 3.4 75.9
90 2 6.9 6.9 82.8
91 1 3.4 3.4 86.2
93 2 6.9 6.9 93.1
97 2 6.9 6.9 100.0
Total 29 100.0 100.0
Appendix 6: Documentation
Picture 1: The researcher was giving the guidance before doing pre-test
Picture 2: The researcher was giving pre- test to the students
Picture 3: the researcher was giving treatment
Picture 4: The researcher explaining about the materials
Picture 5: The researcher was giving Post-Test to the students
Picture 6: the Students were doing Post-test
Appendix 7: Students Worksheet In Pretest
Appendix 8: Students worksheet in Posttest
`