Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk meningkatkan keterampilan menulis paragraf siswa setelah menggunakan teknik Take and Give di kelas XI SMK Daarul Ulya Metro. Artinya dengan menggunakan teknik menerima dan memberi terbimbing dapat meningkatkan kemampuan siswa dalam menulis paragraf.
Indeed, with hardship(will be) ease
Al-insyirah, 6)
DEDICATION PAGE
This undergraduate thesis is especially dedicated to
This bachelor thesis is entitled "The Use of Take and Give Technique to Improving Paragraph Writing Skills at the Eleventh Grade of SMK Daarul Ulya Metro". Especially Mrs.Dwi Puspita Sari, English teacher for the tenth grades in SMK Daarul Ulya Metro.
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
Background of study
The result of the data writing test under the XI digits of SMK Daarul Ulya Metro. THE USE OF TAKE AND GIVE TECHNIQUE TO IMPROVE PARAGRAPHWRITING SKILL UNDER THE Eleventh GRADE OF SMK DAARUL ULYA METRO IN THE 2018/2019 ACADEMIC YEAR”.
Problem Identification
It is hoped to provide motivation and improve students' writing ability, especially in paragraph writing.
Problem Limitation
Problem Formulation
Object of The Study
Benefit of study
To provide input English teacher if the implementation of take and give can improve the students' skill in paragraph writing well or not. The result of this research can be used as information to another researcher and knowledge in learning English for the future.
Theoretical Review
- Concept of Paragraph Writing Skills
- Narrative
- Recount
- Report
- Procedure
- Argumentative
We went for a trip to the zoo) d) Using time conjunctions. eg: and, but, after, finally). e) Use of adverbs and adverbial phrases. eg: at my house, two days ago, slowly, carefully) f) Adjectives. If the information conveyed by the student is inaccurate (wrong) then the information received by other students will be less accurate.. c) Skill mismatches between students who have good academic skills and students who lack the skill academic. 28.
Action Hypothesis
RESEARCH METHOD
Location Setting and subject the research
Object of the Action Research a. Classroom Action Research
This means that the activities in the classroom action research were based on planning, doing and observing, and then the writer could reflect to determine the next cycle. This means that action research consists of four steps, which include planning, action, observation and reflection.
1. Planning
In this step, the researcher will observe the teaching learning process using the observation format, as well as the contours of the observation in this step, such as the student's ability to answer the question, the teacher's participation in the learning process, the student's good participation and student error. The researcher will analyze and discuss the result of the observation during the teaching process, such as weaknesses and strengths from the action in this step, the researcher uses the data from the evaluation to make improvements for the second cycle.
1. Planning
- Data collection technique
- Observation
- Tests
- Documentation
- Field note
- Data Analysis Method
- Indicators of Success
- A Brief History of Establishment of Daarul ‘Ulya Vocational School Metro
- The Description of Research Result
- Cycle 1 a. Planning
So the writer will use test in the form of pre-test and post-test in CAR. The pre-test takes place in the first meeting before the treatments to know the skills of the students before doing the action research. The improvement will be visible if the post-test average score is higher than the pre-test.
Data analysis will be performed by taking the average score of the pre-test and post-test in cycle 1 and cycle 2. Moreover, to know the result, the writer will compare the pre-test and post-test. To know the result, the researcher will then compare the pre-test and the post-test.
To know the usefulness of the data, the researcher will analyze the test result by taking the average score of pre-test and post-test. From the pre-test result, the researcher got an average of 58, so the result was unsatisfactory.
Pre-test
The researcher also planned to give evaluation to measure the students' mastery on the given material. At this stage, the condition of the class was effective because the collaborator handed over the researcher to check the students' effectiveness before the researcher conducts research in the class. This showed that most students gave their full attention to the researcher when the study time came.
The researcher explained that the section used in teaching learning was organized in the argumentative form. Then a student asked "Ma'am, what is supporting sentence?" The researcher answered "supporting sentence in one paragraph give information in another explain, describe and develop the main idea of the topic". The researcher started the lesson by praying, greeting, checking the attendance list and asking the students' questions.
The researcher broke the ice and reviewed the last material shortly after, then gave posttest 1. In observation, the researcher presented two meetings in cycle I of learning to find information about the section of a written lesson.
Post-test 1
The criterion for students who were successful in mastering the material was to have minimum mastery criteria of at least 70. Students were confused about what to do and had difficulty finding the information in the section. Although only 16 students passed the minimum score, but the result of the students' test was better than the students' pre-test before giving treatment.
The table and graph above showed that not all students were active in the learning process. The average percentage of student learning activity in the first meeting was only 51.5 and the second meeting was 60.8. Based on the above result, it can be concluded that the learning process was not successful related to the success indicator, at least 70% met the criteria.
From the observation in cycle I at the beginning of learning before the researcher used the take and give technique. Most of the students still seemed confused in class, most of the students who had difficulty taking the test were given and most of the students were not active in the learning process.
Average Score
- Cycle 2
The table and graph above showed that the mean pre-test score was 58 and the mean post-test score was 58. There was improvement between pretest and posttest 1, but he did not meet the success indicator. Regarding the result of the student's post-test result and the observation of the student's activities in the first cycle, it caused that the subject material was not well implemented, so some students could not understand the material.
So, the researcher and the collaborator should continue in the II cycle which consisted of planning, action and observation and reflection. Furthermore, to repair the weakness in cycle I, the researcher must be retained to continue in cycle II, because cycle I was not successful. So, the researcher and the collaborator try to fix the problem in cycle I and organize the planning for cycle II based on the problem that the students deal with in writing the argumentative paragraph.
The second meeting was held on Thursday 10 January 2019 at 13.14 – 14.45, this meeting used to post test 2 in the last of cycle II, for 2x45 minutes after the students gave the action, the researcher gave post test II to the students. Source: Result score of writing post test 2 in XI class of SMK Daarul Ulya Metro on January 10, 2019.
Post-test 2
Interpretation
- Result of Students Learning
- Observation Result of Students’ Activities
They were obtained from the results of the pre-test, post-test I and post-test II (product of student learning) and results of observation of student learning activities (student learning process). In this research, the researcher conducted a post-test I to find out the students' mastery of argumentative writing after the treatment. It showed that the majority of pupils had not yet passed the minimum standard criteria of at least 70.
At this stage, the researcher continued to cycle II, because the result of post test I in cycle I did not meet the minimum mastery criteria, but only 46% met the minimum standard criteria. The researcher introduced the post-test II to measure the student's ability after the implementation of the treatment. Comparison of pre-test, post-test I and post-test II scores The result from the implementation of cycle I and II can be seen in the result of the student learning table below.
The average score of students writing descriptive text in Pre-Test, Post-Test I, and Post-Test II. Based on the table and graph above, I have a progress average score of 58 to 66.1 in cycle I from pre-test to post-test.
Students Activities
Based on the table above it can be seen that from the cycle I to cycle II has significant improvement with the average score of students. The students' activity to understand the problem and determine topic sentence from cycle I to cycle II improved with the percentage, at least 76% in cycle I becomes 96% in cycle II and the improvement percentage was 20%. Then the students gather data that is needed and make supporting sentence improved from cycle I to cycle II.
The percentage of this activity in cycle I was 58% and in cycle II 81% and the improvement rate was 23%. The percentage of students solving the problem and drawing conclusions in Cycle I was 62% and in Cycle II was 86% and the improvement rate was 24%. The percentage of this activity in cycle I was 28% and in cycle II 51% and the percentage improvement was 23%.
Regarding the data, the students' activeness and enthusiasm to follow teaching and learning process showed significant improvement by applying take and give technique to teach argumentative writing from cycle I to cycle II with the average percentage consecutively of 56% to 78% in which the average percentage was 22%. Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that the give and take technique can improve the students' argumentative writing at eleventh grade of SMK Daarul Ulya Metro and this research was done on the cycle II, so it will not be continued on the next not. cycle.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
Conclusion
Suggestion
Douglas Brown, Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2. udgave), Addison Wesley, New York, 2001. Douglas Brown, Teaching by Principles an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, anden udgave, San Fransisco State University, 2001. Douglas Brown, Teaching by Principles an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Brown, Teaching by Principles Second Editions: An Interactive Approach to Langueage Pedagogy, (New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Jean, McNiff, et al. You and Your Action Research Project. (US and Canada: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002). LenySetiyana, “The Effectiveness of Peer Review to Provide Writing Education as Viewed from the Motivation of Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 1 Sekampung Academic Year in Pedagogy Journal of English Language Teaching, (Institut Agama Islam Negeri Metro), Vol.4, No.2, 2016 Leonardo da Vinci Program and European Commission, Writing in English A Practical Handbook for Scientific and Technical Writers, Pilot Project Group, 2000.
