CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD
H. Technique of Data Analysis
The data analysis in cycle 1 and cycle 2 collected through the following steps as follow:
1. Reading Text
a. Rubric assessment of literal reading comprehension by using this formula:
1) Supporting details
Table 1: Rubric of supporting details
Criteria Scores The answer is grammatically content and the idea is true 4 Some grammatical is errors but the idea si true 3 Many grammatical errors and the idea is not really true 2
Many grammatical error and the idea is false 1
34
2) Main ideas
Table 2. Rubric of Main Ideas
Criteria Scores
The answer includes a clear generalization or implies the main idea 4 The answer states or implies the main idea from the story 3 Indicator inaccuracy or incomplete understanding of main idea 2 the answer include minimal or no understanding of main idea 1
c. Rubric assessment of summarizing by using this formula:
content
Table 3. Rubric of Content
Criteria Scores
Content reflects resource reading in development on idea it is excellent
4
Content reflect reading in development of idea 3
Content reflects only reading in development of idea. It is poor 2 Content there is answer but do not reflect any reading of resource in development idea
1
http://www.irubric.com a. Scoring the students’ answer:
Score = X 10
(Depdikbud 1985:5)
35
b. Calculating the mean score of the students’ reading test by using the following formula:
X = Where:
X = Mean score
∑x
= Total raw score N = Number of students(Gay, 1981:298)
c. From the table classification, the researcher calculated the value of percentage get test through following formula:
P = F 100 N Where :
P = Percentage
F = Number of Correct N = Number of Sample
(Sujana in Sarpiah, 2012) d. Calculating the percentage of students’ improvement by applying the
following formula:
P = X2– X1 X 100 X1
36
Notes:
P = Percentage of the students X1 = The mean score of cycle 1 X2 = The mean score of cycle 2
(Sujana in Sarpiah, 2012) 2. Observation
Analyzing the students’ participation in research toward material and activities in teaching and learning process, it was used observation sheet by checklist. The students’ active participation is described as follows:
Table 4. Rubric of the students’ activeness
No
The students’
active participation Scores Indicators
1. Very active 4 Students’ respond to the material very active
2. Active 3 Students’ respond to the material actively
3. Fairly active 2 Students’ respond to the material just once or twice
4. Not active 1 Students just sit down during the activity without doing something.
http://www.irubric.com
Percentage the students’ participation through the following formula:
P = FqX 100 N
Where:
P = Percentage
37
Fq = Sum of all the students’ score N = Total score
(Sudjana in Sarpiah, 2012)
After collecting the data of the students, we can clarify the score of the students. We classify the score of the students into the following criteria:
No Range Classifications
1 9.6 – 10 Excellent
2 7.6 – 8.5 Good
3 6.6 – 7.5 fairly good
4 5.6 -6.5 Fair
5 3.6 – 5.5 Poor
6 0 – 3.5 very poor
(Depdikbud 2012,23)
38
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with two sections. The first section deals with research findings. The findings of this research cover the description of the result of data analysis through test. The second section deals with discussion.
A. Findings
The findings of a Classroom Action Research (CAR) deals with the answer of the problem statement which aims to improve students’ reading comprehension. Where in this research is divided into two variables namely:
literal comprehension and summarizing. The result of data analysis found that teaching reading by using Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique can improve the students reading skill in terms of literal comprehension and summarizing at the eleventh grade students of SMA Muhammadiyah 4 Mariso Makassar. Therefore for the clear explanation about the students’ improvement can be seen in the following table:
1. The Improvement the Students’ Literal Reading Comprehension in Terms of Main Idea and Supporting Details.
The application of Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique in improving the students’ literal reading comprehension deals with main idea and supporting details. In order to make it clear, all the result of the students’ literal reading comprehension can be seen clearly in the following table:
38
39
Table 4.1: the improvement the students’ literal comprehension
The table above indicates that there is the improvement of students’ literal comprehension from D-test to cycle I and cycle II, where D-test is students’
means score achievement in literal comprehension in term main idea is 5.07 and supporting details is 5.20.
In the cycle I, the students’ mean score of main idea is 6.31. But after conducting action for four meeting the means score becomes 7.78 in the cycle II the improvement is 53.45%, it indicates that target to improve the students’ literal comprehension in term main idea has been successful.
In case of supporting details, the target to improve the students’ means score has been successful as well. It is proved by the significant improvement of the students’ mean score from cycle I to cycle II. In the cycle I the students’ mean score is 6.38 and it becomes 7.84 in the cycle II. The improvement from D-test to cycle II is 50.76%
The improvement of the students’ literal reading comprehension in terms of both main idea and sequence details by using Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique can also be shown in the following chart:
No Indicators
D-test Cycle I Cycle II Improvement Mean
score
Mean score
Mean score
DT-CI (%)
CI–
CII (%)
DT-CII (%) 1 Main ideas 5.07 6.31 7.78 24.45 23.29 53.45 2 Supporting
details
5.20 6.38 7.84 22.69 22.88 50.76
∑x 10.27 12.69 15.62 47.14 46.17 104.21 X 5.13 6.34 7.81 23.57 23.08 52.10
40
Figure 4.1: The Improvement of the Students’ Literal Comprehension The chart above shows that the students’ means score of main ideas and supporting details had significant improvement from D-test 5.23 to cycle I is 6.29 and in Cycle II is 7.78 for main idea. The improvement of main ideas is 8.46%
and the improvement of sequence details from D-test is 5.29 to cycle I is 6.23 and 7.80 for cycle II. It indicates that the target to improve the students’ literal reading comprehension has been reached.
Relating to the findings, the researcher also presented the students’
percentage in literal comprehension in terms of main idea and supporting details.
It is presented as follows:
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00
D-Test Cycle I Cycle II 5.13
6.34
7.81
41
No Classifications Range
Non IWR The Aplication of IWR D-test Cycle I Cycle II Freq % Freq % Freq %
1 Excellent 9.6 – 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Very good 8.6 – 9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Good 7.6 – 8.5 0 0 0 0 6 50%
4 Fairly good 6.6 – 7.5 1 8.33% 7 58.34
%
6 50%
5 Fair 5.6 –6.5 2 16.67
%
4 33.33
%
0 0
6 Poor 3.6 – 55 9 75% 1 8.33% 0 0
7 Very poor 0 – 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 12 100 12 100 12 100
Table 4.2: The Percentage of the Students’ Literal Comprehension The table above shows that the percentage of the students’ literal comprehension in Diagnostic-test indicates that there are 9 students (75%) get poor, 2 students (16.66%) get fair, 1 student (8.33%) bet fairly good and none of the students get other classifications.
After taking in action in cycle I by using Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique, the percentage of the students’ literal comprehension is 1 student (8.33) get poor, 4 students (33.33%) get fair, 7 students (58.33%) get fairly good and none of the students for other classifications.
The cycle II, the percentage of the students’ literal comprehension in reading is 6 students (50%) get fairly good, 6 students (50 %) get good, and none of the students for other classification. The result above also proves that the use of
42
Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique is able to improve the students’ main idea where the result of the cycle II is higher than cycle I and diagnostic-test.
To know the percentage of the students achievement of literal comprehension clearly, following chart is presented:
Figure 4.2: The Percentage of the Students’ literal comprehension The chart above shows that the result of the students’ literal comprehension.
After applying IWR technique in cycle I and cycle II, the result of the literal comprehension achievement improves significantly where cycle II is higher than cycle I and D-test. The students’ literal comprehension achievement in cycle II is 50% as categorized as a fairly good and 50% is categorized as a good. While in cycle I, is lower than cycle II where the students’ literal comprehension achievement in cycle I is 8.33% is categorized as poor, 33.33% is categorized as a fair and 58.33% is categorized as a fairly good. The D-test is lowest where the students’ main idea achievement is 75% is as a categorized poor, 16.67% as a
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
D-Test Cycle I Cycle II
0 0
50%
8,33%
58,33%
50%
16,67%
33,33%
0 75,00%
8,33%
0
Good Fairly Good Fair
Poor
43
categorized fair, 8.33% as categorized fairly good and none of the students for other classifications.
2. The Improvement of the Students’ Summarizing in Term of Content The application of Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique in improving the students’ summarizing in term of content. In order to make it clear, all the result of the students’ summarizing can be seen clearly in the following table:
Table 4.3: the improvement of the students’ summarizing in term of content The table above indicates that there is the improvement of the students’
summarizing from D-test to cycle I and cycle II, where in D-test mean score achievement in summarizing is 5.27, and in the cycle I, the students mean score of content is 6.31. But after conducting action for four meeting the mean score becomes 7.91 in the cycle II. The improvement from D-test to cycle II is 50.09%.
It indicates that the target to improve the students’ summarizing in term content has been successful.
The improvement of the students’ summarizing in terms content and topic sentence by using Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique can be seen in the following chart:
No Indicators D-test Cycle I Cycle II Improvement Mean
score
Mean score
Mean score
DT- CI (%)
CI- CII (%)
CI- CII (%) 1 Summarizing
(Content)
5.27 6.31 7.91 19.73 25.35 50.09
∑x 5.27 6.31 7.91 19.73 25.35 50.09 X 5.27 6.31 7.91 19.73 25.35 50.09
44
Figure 4.3: The Improvement of the Students’ Summarizing in Term of Content
That chart above shows that the students’ mean score of had significant improvement from D-test to is 5.27 cycle I 6.31 and in cycle II is 7.91 for content.
The improvement of the content is 50.09%. It indicates that the target to improve the students’ summarizing has been reached.
Relating to the findings, the researcher also presented the students’
percentage in literal comprehension covering main idea of the text. It is presented as follows:
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00
D-test Cycle I Cycle II 5.27
6.31
7.91
45
No Classifications Range
Non (IWR) The Aplication of IWR D-test Cycle I Cycle II Freq % Freq % Freq %
1 Excellent 9.6 – 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Very good 8.5 – 9.5 0 0 0 0 2 16.67
%
3 Good 7.6 – 8.5 0 0 0 0 7 58.33
%
4 Fairly good 6.6 – 7.5 0 0 2 16.7
%
3 25%
5 Fair 5.6 –6.5 6 50% 9 75% 0 0
6 Poor 3.6 – 55 6 50% 1 8.33
%
0 0
7 Very poor 0 – 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 12 100 12 100 12 100
Table 4.4: The percentage of the students’ summarizing
The table above shows that the percentage of the students’ summarizing text in Diagnostic-test indicates that there are 6 students (50%) get poor, 6 students (50%) get fair, and none of the students get other classifications.
After taking in action in cycle I by using Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique, the percentage of the students’ summarizing is 1 student (8.33%) get fair, 9 students (75%) get fair, 2 students (16.67) get fairly good and none of the students for other classifications.
The cycle II, the percentage of the students’ summarizing is 3 students (25%) get fairly good, 7 students (58.33 %) get good, and 2 students (16.67%) get very good and none of the students for other classification. The result above also proves that the use of Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique is able to
46
improve the students’ where the result of the cycle II is higher than cycle I and diagnostic-test.
To know the percentage of the students’ achievement of summarizing clearly, following chart is presented:
Figure 4.4: The Percentage of the Students’ Summarizing
The chart above shows that the result of the students’ summarizing. After applying IWR technique in cycle I and cycle II, the result of summarizing achievement improves significantly where cycle II is higher than cycle I and D- test. The students’ summarizing achievement in cycle II is 25% as categorized as a fairly good, 58.33% is categorized as a good and 16.67% is categorized as very good. While in cycle I, is lower than cycle II where the students’ summarizing achievement in cycle I is 8.88% is categorized poor, 83.33% is categorized as a fair and 16.7% is categorized as a fairly good. The D-test is lowest where the
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
D-Test Cycle I Cycle II
0 0
50%
8,33%
50% 50%
25% 25%
0 66,67%
25%
0
Good Fairly Good Fair
Poor
47
students’ summarizing achievement is 83.33% is as a categorized poor and 16.66% as a categorized fair and none of the students for other classifications.
3. The Improvement of the Students’ Reading Comprehension.
In this the ultimate improvement of students’ reading comprehension is calculated through the combination of the students’ improvement in both literal comprehension and summarizing. From the whole result of the students’ literal comprehension and summarizing which are presented in the table above, the improvement of the students’ reading comprehension in general is formulated then presented in the following table:
Table 4.5: The Improvement of the Students’ Reading Comprehension The table above shows the result of the students’ means score both of literal comprehension and summarizing in D-test to cycle I and cycle II. In the D-test the students’ literal comprehension achievement was 5.13, In the cycle I the students’
literal comprehension is 6.34 it is still lower than 7.00 as target to achieve. Then in the cycle II, it is improve significantly becomes 7.81. the improvement of the students literal comprehension is 52.10%.
N o
Indicators
D-test Cycle I Cycle II Improvement Mean
score
Mean score
Mean score
DT- CI (%)
CI- CII (%)
DT- CII (%) 1 Literal
comprehension
5.13 6.34 7.81 23.57 23.08 52.10 2 Summarizing 5.27 6.31 7.91 19.73 25.35 50.09
∑x 10.4 12.65 15.75 43.3 48.43 103 X 5.20 6.33 7.86 21.65 24.21 51.5
48
In term of summarizing, the students’ mean score also improve significantly from D-test to cycle I and cycle II. It is proved by the significant difference between the students’ mean score in the D-test to cycle I and cycle II. In the D-test the students just could get 5.27. Then In the cycle I the students’ mean score still fewer than 7.00, it is only 6.31, but almost get mean score 6.50. After conducting teaching process along four meeting, the students’ mean score then improve in the cycle II. The mean score in the cycle II becomes 7.91. The improvement of the students’ summarizing is 50.09%.
By combining the whole score of literal reading comprehension and summarizing in the D-test to cycle I and cycle II, the improvement of the students’
reading comprehension in detail finally can be formulated. In the D-test 5.20 and in cycle I, the students’ mean score is 6.33, and then it becomes 7.86 in the cycle II. The improvement is 51.5%.
The table above shows that there is significant improvement of the students’
reading comprehension after taking an action in the cycle I and cycle II by using Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique. the ultimate mean score of the students reading comprehension is 7.86 that is 1.4 greater than the mean score in the cycle I indicates that mean score of the students improve significantly and the target to improve the students’ mean score to 7.00 as minimal criteria can be reached.
To see the clearly improvement of the students’ reading comprehension in both literal comprehension and summarizing can also be seen in the following chart:
49
Figure 4.5: The Improvement of the Students’ reading comprehension
The chart above shows the improvement of the students’ reading comprehension. In D-test the students’ mean score just could get is 5.20, and in cycle I the students’ mean score is 6.33. And then in cycle II the students’ mean score become 7.86.
It also shows that the result of D-test is the lowest achievement, after evaluation in cycle I and cycle II, there is significant improvement of the students’
reading comprehension that shown clearly in the chart after taking an action in every cycle by using Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique, so the target to improve the students’ reading comprehension is successful.
Relating to the findings, the researcher also presented the students’
percentage in literal comprehension covering main idea of the text. It is presented as follows:
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00
D-test Cycle I Cycle II
5.20
6,33
7,86
50
No Classifications Range
Non IWR The Aplication of IWR D-test Cycle I Cycle II Freq % Freq % Freq %
1 Excellent 9.6 – 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Very good 8.5 – 9.5 0 0 0 0 1 8.33%
3 Good 7.6 – 8.5 0 0 0 0 7 58.34
% 4 Fairly good 6.6 – 7.5 1 8.33
%
6 50% 4 33.33
%
5 Fair 5.6 –6.5 2 16.67
%
4 33.33
%
0 0
6 Poor 3.6 – 55 9 75% 2 16.67
%
0 0
7 Very poor 0 – 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 12 100 12 100 12 100
Table 4.6: The percentage of the students’ reading comprehension The table above shows that the percentage of the students’ reading comprehension in Diagnostic-test indicates that there are 9 students (75%) get poor, 2 students (16.67%) get fair, 1 student (8.33%) get fair and none of the students get other classifications.
After taking in action in cycle I by using Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique, the percentage of the students’ reading comprehension is 2 students (16.67%) get poor, 4 students (33.33%) get fair, 6 Students (50%) get fairly good and none of the students for other classifications.
The cycle II, the percentage of the students’ reading comprehension is 4 students (33.33%) get fairly good, 7 students (58.34 %) get good, and 1 student (8.33%) get very good and none of the students for other classification. The result above also proves that the use of Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique is
51
able to improve the students’ where the result of the cycle II is higher than cycle I and diagnostic-test.
To know the percentage of the students’ achievement of reading comprehension clearly, following chart is presented:
Figure 4.6: The Percentage of the Students’ Reading Comprehension The chart above shows that the result of the students’ reading comprehension both literal comprehension and summarizing. After applying IWR technique in cycle I and cycle II, the result of the reading comprehension achievement improves significantly where cycle II is higher than cycle I and D- test. The students’ reading comprehension achievement in cycle II is 33.33% as categorized as a fairly good, 58.34% is categorized as a good and 8.33% is categorized as very good. While in cycle I, is lower than cycle II where the students’ reading comprehension achievement in cycle I is 16.67% is categorized poor, 33.33% is categorized as a fair and 50% is categorized as a fairly good. The D-test is lowest where the students’ reading comprehension achievement is 75% is
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
D-Test Cycle I Cycle II
0 0
8%
0 0
58%
8,33%
50,00%
33,33%
16,67%
33,33%
0 75,00%
16,67%
0
Very Good Good Fairly Good Fair
Poor
52
as a categorized poor, 16.67% as a categorized fair, 8.33% as categorized as a fairly good and none of the students for other classifications.
4. The observation result of the students’ activeness in learning process.
The result of the observation of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process by using Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique at the eleventh grade students of SMA Muhammadiyah 4 Mariso Makassar which was conducted in two cycles during eight meetings was taken by the observation through observation sheet.
The following table shows the students’ participation in learning in cycle I and cycle II.
Cycle
Meeting I
(%)
II (%)
III (%)
IV (%)
I 45.83 54.16 58.33 66.66
II 75 81.25 87.5 93.75
Table 4.7: The Result of the Students’ Activeness
The table above explains the result of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process through observation sheet by the observer. The table above shows the process the students’ activities in each meeting in learning process by using Immediate Written Recall (IWR) technique in every meeting in cycle I to cycle II get improvement. It is proved by the percentage of the students’
activeness is getting higher in every meeting in both cycle I and cycle II. In the first meeting, in the cycle I, the students’ participation was 45.88%, the second
53
meeting of the students’ participation was 54.16%, and then the third meeting and fourth meeting of the students’ participation were 58.33% and 66.66%.
In the cycle II, in the first meeting, the students’ participation was 75%, the second meeting of the students’ participation was 81.5%, and then the third meeting of students’ participation was 87.5%, then in the fourth meeting of also shows a significant improvement where the improvement of the cycle II is 93.75%. The result of the students; activeness can be seen in the following chart:
Figure 4.7: The Observation of the Students’ Activeness.
From the chart above the researcher concludes that there is significance improvement of the students’ activeness in teaching and learning process. It is proved by the percentage of the students’ activeness is getting higher in every meeting in both cycle I and cycle II. In the first meeting, in the cycle I, the students’ participation was 45.88%, the second meeting of the students’
participation was 54.16%, and then the third meeting and fourth meeting of the students’ participation were 58.33% and 66.66%.
0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00 100,00
First Meeting Second Meeting
Third Meeting
Fourth Meeting 45,83
54,16 58,33
66,66
75 81,25 87,5 93,75
Cycle I Cycle II