HASIL PENELITIAN PTK BAHASA INGGRIS

CHAPTER VI

 RESEARCH FINDINGS

This chapter consists of two parts, namely research description of data and interpretation of data . Each part  described as follows :

A.   Description of Data

1.  Finding before Implementing the Action

Ø The Result of Interview

Pre interview of this research was held on Monday, January 7^th 2013 started at 09.00 A.M until 09.40 A.M. During interview, the writer asked some questions to the teacher. The questions are about the general condition in teaching learning process of English material especially in writing subject, and then the writer asked about the difficulties faced by the students in writing, and then about their participation, and the strategy that used by the teacher in writing descdriptive text. Furthemore, the writer asked about the clustering technique.

In general, teaching learning process was conducted as usual. In which there were pre activities like greeting, conveying the indicator of the subject after that explain the material and give example of the material. And then give the exrcise based on their text book. And last give them the homework.

The next question was about some difficulties faced by the students. The teacher gave some arguments, which were as it knows that writing was one of difficult skill among other skills to be learnt by the students. The students felt difficult in generating ideas into a paragraph. It may be caused of lack of vocabulary, grammar understanding, and choosing suitable word in a sentence.

The next question was about the strategy used by the teacher in writing subject, and asking the clustering technique. The teacher said that he never used clustering technique.

The conclusion of the interview in term of students’ difficulties in writing was the eight grade students of SMPN 19 Makassar had problems in writing in term of generating ideas, organizing ideas into paragraph, and grammatical Function. (see appendix 1b)

2.  Findings of first cycle

a. Planning

There were some activities conducting in this phase. First of all, writer and teacher designed a lesson plan and selested the approapriate material. The lesson plan was two lesson plans. The writer also prepared the model of clustering technique. The model of clustering technique was using shapes arrows. The writer also prepared the material and source of study, besides the writer also prepared the media of learning. The writer and teacher determined the criterion of success. The criterion of success was 80% of the students’ writing score achieved the Minimum Mastery Criterion-Kriteria Ketuntasan Minima (KKM).

                       

b. Acting

Action of the first cycle was done on January, 8^th and 11^th  2013 and 07.30. Before The writer explained the descriptive text and clustering technique, the first activity was writer greeted the students and asked their condition and their mentality to receive the material and checked how many students presented and absent. And then the writer explained the indicator and purpose of learning decriptive text. The second activity was the writer showed paris monument as media of learning descriptive and asked a glance about the picture by puposing to stimulate their brain. And then writer asked students about the descriptive text and clustering technique so that writer knew whether they had known desriptive text  and clustering technique or not. Then writer explained  about purpose, kinds and sturucure of descriptive text, then writer explained the clustering technique and how to use in describing about something. After that writer showed the media of clustering technique and paragraph based on the picture that had been made before implementing teaching and learning process. And then explained it. And asked students whether they understood or not. Then, the third activity was writer tried asking one of the students to stand up in front of the class as example to describe using clustering technique so that students could deeply understanding about how to describe something using clustering technique.The last activity was closing activity. Before writer closed the lesson before the ball rang, the writer asked students about their problems that they faced in learning English subject especially in learning descriptive text using clustering technique. And many students riplied that majority of them said that they do not know many vocalubary, using correct grammar and how to organize their idea, so they could not make a paragraph in readable text, but they was confortable with the clustering technique in describing somenthing. Before saying goodbye, he conveyed the next activity in the next meeting. In the second meeting, before the writer gave test, he explained a glance about the descriptive and clustering technique to remember their understanding. And then writer shew one of the picture was monas picture and the questions should be anwered by students. There were five questions, they were have you ever seen the picture above, what do you know about the pisture, where is it, please make clustering based on the picture and after that make a paragraph based on your clustering. And then students were asked to answer five questions that had been given by teacher. After that students were asked to edit their draft to be a good paragraph. The last activity was writer collected their first draft. The students’ draft was the data for the first cycle.

c.  Observing

The writer carried out the observation. The writer observed the teaching learning process by monitoring the students’ activites in this cycle. The writer saw that most of meeting were not running well. The students still looked confused, and still difficult to generate their ideas into a readable text of descriptive. It caused of most of students had problems in looking for vocaluraries and using correct grammar. (see appendix 3b)

        The result of first cycle showed that the mean score of the class derived 58 in which there were 55% students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) 68 (sixtieth eighth).

         The result of students’ writing

To know the result of students, writing, the writer needed to calculate the mean score firstly. The maen score derived from the following formula :

  _     ΣX

  X = ──

          N

  _    2540  

  X = ──

         44

 _            

 X = 58

          Then, the writer calculated the class percentage who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasa Minimal (KKM)  using the following formula :

          F

P = ── X 100%

        N

       24

P = ──  X 100%

       44

P = 55%

The data showed that the mean score of firts cycle was 58. There were only 24 of students or 55% of the students who got the score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion-Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal  (KKM) meanwhile the other 20 students were below that criterion. It implied that first criterion had not fulfilied (see appendix 3a)

Based on the result of the students’ writing in the first cycle, there was a little improvement of students’ mean score after students was taught through Clustering technique than before studnets was taught through Clustering Technique.

d. Reflecting

After analyzing the data by observing and evaluating the result of students’ writing showed that 55% of students who got the score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion – Criteria ketuntasan Minimal (KKM). From the data above, it can be concluded that the implementation of Clustering Technique has not given satisfactory result on the improvement of students’ writing ability. Therefore, it needs to be revised before the implementation of the the next cycle. So that it could achieve the criterion of seccess of this study.

Tabel 4.1

The students’ writing score of the first cycle

No	Students’ Number	First Cycle
1	S1	81.3
2	S2	75
3	S3	-
4	S4	81.3
5	S5	62.5
6	S6	81.3
7	S7	75
8	S8	81.3
9	S9	75
10	S10	75
11	S11	56.3
12	S12	75
13	S13	-
14	S14	62.5
15	S15	75
16	S16	62.5
17	S17	-
18	S18	81.3
19	S19	83.8
20	S20	83.8
21	S21	75
22	S22	81.3
23	S23	75
24	S24	68.8
25	S25	50
26	S26	50
27	S27	62.5
28	S28	62.5
29	S29	75
30	S30	56.3
31	S31	68.8
32	S32	62.5
33	S33	83.8
34	S34	81.3
35	S35	68.8
36	S36	-
37	S37	68.8
38	S38	-
39	S39	-
40	S40	-
41	S41	50
42	S42	81.3
43	S43	50
44	S44	-
MEAN		58

Note : The students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion – Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) (68)

3.  Finding of the second cycle

1.  Planning

After finding the facts that students’ writing ability was not satisfied, which was proven by their score on the first cycle, the writer helped by teacher made a lesson plan for the second cycle. Almost there were not significant differences with the previous lesson plan. The material still related to descriptive writing but it was focused on the describing a people, for example “ sule”.

The second cycle was carried out to solve the problem found in this the first cycle in which students were still difficult to produce the words and organizing their ideas into a good descriptive paragraph.

2.  Acting

In the implementation of this phase, the writer conducted the teachning learning process in the second cycle to get better result that was significant in improving writing ability by using clustering technique in order to improve students’ ability in writing descriptive text.

The action of the second cycle was done on Junuary 15^th and 18^th 2013. Before began to action, the writer greeted to students and asked students’ condition. Then the writer gave motivation in learning English lesson and conveyed the activities that would be done and explained the clustering techinique briefly to remember the students. After that, the writer showed the sule’s picture as example to enrich students’ knowledge about how to describe the people. And then the writer asked about the picture. After that the writer showed the media of clustering teschnique and paragrph based on the clustering. After that the writer asked their undertood about the materi that had been given. And then writer gave picture to know whether they had understood or not and to get good score. the students to make a draft using clustering technique which fasilitatied by dictionary based on the picture was given. After finished, the writer asked to collect it.

In the second meeting, the first activity, the students were asked to make the first draft based on their key words which were gathering in a cluster. The next the students were asked to edit their draft, and then collected it. The students’ draft was the data for the second cycle.

3.  Observing

The writer carried out the observing. He obeserved the teaching learning process by monitoring the students’ activities during this cycle. The observing was done get the data from the students’ progress during their activities when teaching learnning process occurred.

Students’ respond in first cycle was not good. Most of meeting were not running well. Some students still looked confused and felt difficult especially in gathering and organizing their idea into a good paragraph (see appendix 3b). however, in the second cycle, the writer found that the students’ progress in writing was better than in the first cycle (see appendix 4b).

The mean score of the students was 74 in which there were 37 of the students passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion – Kriteia Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) 68 (sixty eight). The following were the detail description about the result of students’ writing score in second cycle. (see appendix 4a)

      The result of students’ writing

The calculation of the mean of students’ score in writing in the second cycle gained 74 it was derived from the following formula :

_     ΣX

X = ──

  N

_    3262    

X =

   44

_     

X = 74

Then, the calculation of class percentage about the students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion – Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) :

                                         F

P = ── X 100%

                               N

                                       37

P = ──  X 100%

                             44

      P = 84 %

Tabel 4.2

The students’ writing score of the second cycle

No	Students’ Number	Second Cycle
1	S1	93.8
2	S2	93.8
3	S3	81.3
4	S4	87.5
5	S5	75
6	S6	100
7	S7	81.3
8	S8	100
9	S9	75
10	S10	81.3
11	S11	62.5
12	S12	93.8
13	S13	-
14	S14	75
15	S15	81.3
16	S16	81.3
17	S17	93.8
18	S18	87.5
19	S19	100
20	S20	98.3
21	S21	87.5
22	S22	93.8
23	S23	81.3
24	S24	87.5
25	S25	75
26	S26	75
27	S27	93.8
28	S28	75
29	S29	87.5
30	S30	81.3
31	S31	75
32	S32	-
33	S33	93.8
34	S34	93.8
35	S35	68.8
36	S36	93.8
37	S37	93.8
38	S38	-
39	S39	-
40	S40	-
41	S41	93.8
42	S42	87.5
43	S43	-
44	S44	81.3
MEAN		74

Note : The students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion – Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) (68)

                Finally, the calculation of the improvement percentage was gained from the following formula :

     y - y1

P = ─── X 100%

                              y

      74 – 58

P =                     X 100%

          58

P = 28%

        Based on the result of the students’ writing product, there was better improvement of students’ mean score from the students’ writing in the first cycle to the students’ writing in the second cycle. The mean score for the first cycle was 58 and the mean score of the second cycle was 74 it means that there was 16 points or 28% of mean score improvement. The students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion – Kriteria Ketuntase minimal (KKM) were 37 students or 84% if it calculated into class percentage. It indicated that the first criterion of success has been achieved. The following was the table students’ writing score.

Tabel 4.3

The students’ writing score of the first cycle and the second cycle

No	Students’ Number	First Cycle	Second Cycle
1	S1	81.3	93.8
2	S2	75	93.8
3	S3	-	81.3
4	S4	81.5	87.5
5	S5	62.5	75
6	S6	81.3	100
7	S7	75	81.3
8	S8	81.3	100
9	S9	75	81.3
10	S10	75	81.3
11	S11	56.3	62.5
12	S12	75	93.8
13	S13	-	-
14	S14	62.5	75
15	S15	75	81.3
16	S16	62.5	81.3
17	S17	-	93.8
18	S18	81.3	87.5
19	S19	83.5	100
20	S20	83.5	93.8
21	S21	75	87.5
22	S22	81.3	93.8
23	S23	75	81.3
24	S24	81.3	87.5
25	S25	50	75
26	S26	62.5	75
27	S27	62.5	93.8
28	S28	62.5	75
29	S29	75	87.5
30	S30	75	81.5
31	S31	68.8	75
32	S32	62.5	-
33	S33	83.5	93.8
34	S34	81.3	93.8
35	S35	83.5	75
36	S36	-	93.8
37	S37	68.8	93.8
38	S38	-	-
39	S39	-	-
40	S40	-	-
41	S41	50	93.8
42	S42	81.3	87.5
43	S43	50	-
44	S44	-	81.3
MEAN		58	74

        It could be seen from the table above that the numbers of students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion – Kriterial Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) also increases from the first cycle to the second cycle. In the first cycle there were only 24 students or 55% of students who got the score above the Minimum mastery Criterion – Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM), and in the second cycle the students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion – Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) were 37 students or 84%. It proved that the target of the first criterion of success in which minimum 80 of the students passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion – Kriteia Ketubtasan Minimal (KKM) could be achieved (see appendix 4a)

4.  Reflecting

The result of the second cycle showed that 84% of the students got the socre above the Minimum Mastery Criterion – Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM). So it had met the first ctriterion of success that 80% of the students must get the score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion – Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM). So the writer and the collabotor decided to stop the action.

2.  Finding after Implementing the Action

After the teaching action had been implemented, the writer carried out the interview to the English teacher who acted as observer. It was to know his respond about implementation the action.

   The result of Post Interview

This interview was held on january, 21^th 2013 after accamplishing the second cycle. It was started at 10.30 A.M until 11.00 A.M. the writer asked some questions to the teacher. It was begun with the general condition of the students during implementing the action. As far as he looked, clustering technique was good enough to be implemented in teaching descriptive writing. They looked anthusiast and spirit during teaching learning process. Although still there were a few students were not paid attention to the teacher. They felt easier to write their their draft because of this teschnique. In general, the students’ participation was good because the activity in the classroom involved students.

Other question was about the difficulties faced by the students and its solustion in implementing clustering technique during implementing the action. It was observer that the most of the students felt difficult in the vocabulary grammatical process of writing. Besides they felt difficult in gathering and organizing their ideas in the good paragraph. So, the teacher should give more motivation to the students to study hard. The teacher should gave them a perspective that writing is a skill, its need practice as much as possible.

The last category was about the opini of clustering technique, he said that clustering technique was a good technique in teaching descriptive writing. It can make students felt easer in writing descriptive paragraph. So, it can be an altarnative technique in teaching writing. Furthemore, it was able to improve students’ writing ability. It can be seen in the final score that there was significant differences before the technique implemented in teachning descriptive writing.

From the explanation above, it could be conclude from the post interview that the teacher a positive response toward the implementation of clustering technique in teaching descriptive writing. In addition, clustering technique gave a good impact for improvement of the students’ ability in writing descriptive text. (see appendix 2b)

B.   Interpretation of Data

1.  Data of Observation

Based on onservation conducted by the writer, it was known that English teacher taught writing by analyzing the text, then he asked the students to translate and comprehend the text, after that he asked the students to make a draft as same as possible with the example text that had been taught. Of course, this technique made students felt bored and hard to make a draft. They felt difficult in produced the words, they did nit know how to generate ideas or even less organize their ideas into a good paragraph.

They need a simple technique to help them in writing something that make them motivated and felt simple in writing. However, after the students are taught using clustering technique they felt easier to write. They assumed that clustering technique can help them in making descriptive writing (see appendix 2b)

2.   Data of interviews

The data of interviews with English teacher and the students of eighth grade of SMPN 19 Makassar showed that the teacher and the students have some problems and learning English writing. First of all, the teacher has a problems to get students’ attention and participation, they felt writing was a difficult skill to be learnt. Consequently, it needed the innovation in teaching writing. The writer suggested implementing clustering technique in teaching writing.

After conducting the action, the English teacher gave positive responses toward the action. He felt satisfied with the imptovement made by the students focus on writing ability and their participation. (see appendix 2b)

3.  Dat of Students’ achievement in the Test

Based on the result of students’ writing score, it was found that the students’ writing in a descriptive paragraph was gradually improving. It was showed that there was a good impact of clustering technique toward the increaseing of students’ ability in writing descriptive text.

The students mean in the first cycle was 58. Meahwhile, the mean score in the second cycle was 74. it means that there was 16 points or 28%  of  mean improvement from students’ score in the first cycle to the sedond cycle.

All of the result of instrument after accomplishing the classroom action research revealed good results from implementing clustering technique in descriptive writing. The students admitted that they were interested with this technique. They felt easier in writing descriptive text. The students looked motivated and confident in writing. Considering the explanation above, the writer concluded that the research was successful and the technique of clustering technique can improve the students’ writing ability in writing descriptive text. The improvement of students’ ability in writing descriptive text. The improvement of students’ ability in writing descriptive text can be supported by the improvement of students’ score. The result of the first cycle and the second cycle showed a significant inprovement. The use of clustering technique in teaching writing can overcoma the research problem that is how to improve students’ ability un writing descriptive text. The students also have a positive response to the implementation of teaching descriptive writing using clustering technique. The students’ writing ability can be improved through clustering technique.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

The result of this research showed that the use of clustering technique has successfully improved the eighth grade students of SMPN 19 Makassar in academic year 2012/2013. The conclusion could be drawn from the result of research as follows :

1.  The improvement of students’ ability in writing descriptive text could be seen from the increasing of students’ mean writing score from 58 in the first cycle, and 74 in the second cycle.

2.  The observation and interviews conducted by the writer during the action showed that the students were motivated and interested to participate and actively in writing activety.

3.  The teacher’s respond about the implemetation of clustering technique was positive and it would be an alternative technique in teaching writing. Therefore, clustering technique could improve the students’ ability in wiriting of descriptive text.

B. Suggestion

Having concluded the result of this research, the writer would like to arrange  some suggestion that hopefully will be useful, especially as follows :

1.  To the teacher

It is suggeted that the English teacher implement the clustering technique as an alternative technique in writing subject.

2.  To the students

It is suggested that the students can use this technique when need to write descriptive text and can use in sosial imviroment

3.  To the other researchers

For the researchers, the result of this study can be used as an addition reference with different discussion.