B. Research Result
2) The Second Meeting
of the students’ activity, identified the problem and found the causes of problem at the beginning and the end of learning activities. The researcher also planned to give evaluation to measure the students’ mastery on the given materials.
b. Acting
and asking the students’ condition. The activity was continued by teaching writing with the implementation of Six Thinking Hats strategy.
In the second meeting, the researcher explains to students about the descriptive text. Starting from the understanding, parts of the descriptive text, and how to write descriptive text. The researcher asked students to create group of two members and explain how to write text using a hat- shaped draft. The researcher asked students to fill in the draft according to the topic and the researcher explains each available draft. After students do, students arrange the paragraph descriptive in accordance with the draft.
Furthermore, students can write and arrange paragraphs into full descriptive text.
Furthermore, on 5thNovember, 2019 the researcheradministered post test 1 conducted in cycle I with similar task on pre-test before. The kind of the test was writing test that asked the students to compose descriptive text. The topic of writing test in post-test 1 were elephant, lion, monkey, the students can choise one of the topic.
The result of the students’ test in post test 1 was better than test in pre-test before.
Table 9.
The Students’ Grade of Post-test 1
No. Name C O V LU M Total Grade
1. AAD 21 10 11 10 2 54
2. ADS 27 14 14 11 4 70
3. AKS 22 13 14 12 4 65
4. ARD 22 13 10 5 2 52
5. BFT 20 14 14 10 2 60
6. CPW 17 9 7 5 2 40
7. DAT 17 7 9 5 2 40
8. DAY 22 14 14 15 3 68
9. DAW 20 10 10 13 2 55
10. FAM 22 10 10 15 3 60
11. GAU 20 9 10 11 2 52
12. IDY 20 10 13 11 3 57
13. INK 24 14 14 19 4 75
14. MAA 18 10 11 9 2 50
15. MAD 20 9 14 10 4 57
16. MAF 22 14 14 15 4 69
17. MDM 22 14 14 12 3 65
18. MDN 20 10 15 11 2 58
19. NIY 20 9 9 10 2 50
20. NWK 22 12 14 10 4 62
21. RAA 20 10 10 10 2 52
22. RAB 20 10 10 10 2 52
23. RAC 22 12 14 14 3 65
24. RBA 22 14 15 12 4 67
25. RBD 20 10 14 10 2 56
26. RTR 20 9 14 9 3 55
27. SPA 20 9 10 9 2 50
28. TMA 22 10 11 10 2 55
29. WSS 18 9 13 9 2 51
30. YLW 20 10 14 10 3 57
Total of all students’ grade 1719
Total all of the students (n) 30
The highest grade 75
The lowest grade 40
Average 57.30
Table 10. Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Sum Mean
Score Post-test I 30 40 75 1719 57.30
Valid N (listwise) 30
Based on the table descriptive statistic, it could the maximum score was 75, minimum score was 40. Total score in the post-test I was 1719 and the average score in the post-test I was 57
Table 11.
Frequency of students’ grade in Post-test 1
No. Grade Frequencies Percentage Explanation
1. ≥ 65 8 27% Complete
2. ˂ 65 22 73% Incomplete
Total 30 100%
Source: The result grade of Writing pre-test at VII class of Junior High School PGRI01 Bandar Surabaya November 5th
Based on the table, it could be inferred that 73% were not successful and 27%were successful.
Figure 5.
The Percentage of the Students’ Grade on Post-test 1 Based on the result above, it could be seen that 8 students (27%) got grade up to the standard and 22 students (72%) got grade less than the standard. It was higher than the result of pre-test. The criterion of students who were successful in mastering the material should get minimum mastery criteria, at least 65. Learning process was said successful when 70% students got grade ≥65. The fact showed that the result was unsatisfied.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
≥65 < 65
Post-test 1
c. Observing
In observation of researcher action, the collaborator observed the students’ activities. While the treatment was being executed, the student activities during the learning process were also being observed by the observer. The students who were active in discussion would get the point by ticking it on the observation sheet for meeting 1 and meeting 2. The result of the students’ learning activities could be seen as follow:
Table 12.
The Students’ Learning Activity Observation in Cycle 1
No Name
The Learning Activity Aspects Pay attention
the teacher explanation
Asking to the teacher
Answer the teacher question
Active to giving an
idea
Can prsent their paper(result of
discussion) in front of class
1. AAD - √ √ - √
2. ADS √ - - √ √
3. AKS √ - √ √ √
4. ARD - - √ √ -
5. BFT √ - √ √ -
6. CPW √ √ √ - √
7. DAT - √ - - √
8. DAY √ √ √ √ √
9. DAW √ - √ - √
10. FAM - - √ √ √
11. GAU √ √ √ - √
12. IDY √ √ - √ √
13. INK - √ - √ √
14. MAA - √ - - √
15. MAD - √ - √ √
16. MAF - - √ - √
17. MDM - √ - - √
18. MDN √ √ - - √
19. NIY - √ - √ √
20. NWK - √ √ √ -
21. RAA √ √ √ √ -
22. RAB - √ √ - √
23. RAC √ √ - √ -
24. RBA - √ √ √ -
25. RBD - √ √ - -
26. RTR - - √ √ √
27. SPA - - √ √ √
28. TMA - - √ - √
29. WSS - - √ √ √
30. YLW √ √ - - √
TOTAL 12 19 19 17 23
Table 13.
The Frequency of Students’ Activities in Cycle 1
No Students Activities Frequency Percentage
1. Pay attention the teacher explanation
12 40%
2. Asking to the teacher 19 63%
3. Answer the teacher question 19 63%
4. Active to giving an idea 17 57%
5. Can prsent their paper(result of discussion) in front of class
23 77%
Total Students 30
The Average Percentage 60%
Source: The students’ activity at the seventh gradeof Junior High School PGRI 01 Bandar Surabaya on November 5th 2019
Based on the table show that students attention the teacher explanation 40%, students asking to the teacher 63%, students answer the teacher question 63%, students active to giving an idea 57%, students can present the result discussion in front of class 77%.
Figure 6.
The Percentage of Students Activities in Cycle 1 The figure showed that not all the students’ were active in learning process. There were 12 students (40%) who gave attention the teacher explanation, 19 students (63%) who asking to the teacher, 19 students (63%) who are answer the teacher question, 17 students (57%) who are active to gave an idea, and 23 students (77%) who can present their paper (result of discussion) in front of class.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Activity 1
Activity 2
Activity 3
Activity 4
Activity 5
the student's activity
d. Reflecting
From the result observation in learning process in cycle I, it could be concluded that in the learning process has not achieved Minimum Mastery Criteria (MMC) of the research yet. At the end of this cycle, the researcher analyzed and calculated all the processes like students’ pre-test grade and the result of students’ post-test I grade. The comparison between pre-test grade and post-test I grade was as follows:
Table 14.
The Comparison between Pre-test and Post-test 1 Grade in Cycle I
No. Name Pre-test Post-test 1
Deviation Explanation
1. AAD 54 54 0 Constant
2. ADS 49 70 21 Increased
3. AKS 49 65 16 Increased
4. ARD 49 52 3 Increased
5. BFT 57 60 3 Increased
6. CPW 34 40 6 Increased
7. DAT 34 40 6 Increased
8. DAY 65 68 3 Increased
9. DAW 52 55 3 Increased
10. FAM 51 60 9 Increased
11. GAU 52 52 0 Constant
12. IDY 61 57 -4 Decreased
13. INK 65 75 10 Increased
14. MAA 52 50 -2 Decreased
15. MAD 49 57 8 Increased
16. MAF 71 69 -2 Decreased
17. MDM 48 65 4 Increased
18. MDN 51 58 7 Increased
19. NIY 58 50 -8 Decreased
20. NWK 62 62 0 Constant
21. RAA 51 52 1 Increased
22. RAB 52 52 0 Constant
23. RAC 59 65 6 Increased
24. RBA 65 67 2 Increased
25. RBD 34 56 22 Increased
26. RTR 52 55 3 Increased
27. SPA 50 50 0 Constant
28. TMA 55 55 0 Constant
29. WSS 34 51 17 Increased
30. YLW 34 57 23 Increased
Total 1549 1719
Average 51.63 57.30
The highest Grade 71 75
The lowest Grade 34 40
Table 15.
The Comparison Frequency of Students’ Pre-test and Post-test 1in Cycle I
Interval Pre-test Post-test 1 Explanation
Frequency (F)
Percentage (P)
Frequency (F)
Percentage (P)
≥ 65 4 13% 8 27% Complete
˂ 65 26 87% 22 73% Incomplete
Total 30 100% 30 100%
Then, the graph of comparison students writingessay pre-test and post-test I grade in cycle I could be seen as follow:
Figure 7.
The Comparison of Percentage of the Students’
Completness Grade on Pre-test and Post-test 1 The table and the graphic above, it could be inferred that 26 students (87%) were not successful and 4 other students (13%) were successful. The successful students were those who got the minimum mastery criteria at Junior High School01 Bandar Surabayaat least 65. The successful students were fewer than those unsuccessful students. From the pre-test result, the researcher got the average of 51.63, so the result was unsatisfied. Meanwhile, based on the graphic of pot-test 1,it could be seen
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
≥65 <65
pre test post test
that 8 students (27%) got grade up to the standard and 22 students (73%) got grade less than the standard. It was higher than the result of pre-test.
The criterion of students who were successful in mastering the material should get minimum mastery criteria, at least 65. Learning process was said successful when 70% students got grade ≥65. The fact showed that the result was unsatisfied.