4. finding and discussion

8/4/2019 4. Finding and Discussion

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/4-finding-and-discussion 1/26

65

CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

The chapter describes the findings and discussion of the classroom action

research that has been conducted. It deals with the data obtained from students’

writing test, teacher’s observation sheet, students’ observation sheet, students’

journal, and evaluation sheet. This chapter also discusses the result of the

findings.

4.1 Preparation Stage

Preparation stage carried on the first week of the research to identify

students’ writing difficulties in the class before starting cycle. This step was the

basic in formulating cycles. It consisted of planning, acting, observing, and

reflecting. Every cycle consisted of three meeting. The participants who took part

in this step were 30 students.

After conducting the interview and problem identification, the research

determined Minimum Mastering Criteria (MMC) or KKM (Kriteria Ketuntasan

Minimal) was 75, which the highest score was 90 and the lowest score was 50.

The table described the improvement scale of the score.

Table 4.1 Improvement Scale

No. Scale Description

1. 90≤A≤100 Excellent

2. 80≤B≤89 Satisfactory



65

3. 70≤C≤79 Average

4. 60≤D≤69 Unsatisfactory

5. 50≤E≤59 Very Bad

Interview was divided into two part; pre-interview and post-interview. Pre-

interview was conducted before the cycle began. To identify students’ writing

difficulties, the researcher chose the teacher who teach sample of the research (XI

IPA 5) as interviewee. In the interview, the teacher stated that writing was the

most complex skill. The students always found the difficulties to write and the

students score was merely in average scale, even in unsatisfactory scale. The

teacher also described that she used conventional method in teaching writing.

Based on the interview, the teacher agreed to use cooperative learning as

alternative method to improve the students’ writing ability.

In the other hand, the question in the interview was asked to the students

too. The students who were asked were three students (1%) from all of the

students. It was considered represent all of the students. The result of interview

showed diverse problems and perceptions related to teaching writing and group

work method, in this case was cooperative learning method.

The students said that they liked writing since it was interesting, but they

were not satisfied with the instruction given by the teachers because in their

opinion they did not have enough writing exercises in the classroom. Another

problem identified was the lack of the method usage. They usually did their

writing test individually, and they did not have changes to ask their friends, even



65

their teacher, especially for the students who had low achievement. They often

shy to ask their problems to be solved.

The interview also showed that the students were interesting with groups

work method. They thought that group work often helped them to write since the

students could help each other. In their opinion, writing was the most difficult

skill, since they were unfamiliar with the word and could not select the

appropriate vocabulary when they were writing.

Since cooperative learning is a variety of teaching methods in which

students work in small groups to help each other learn academic content.

Moreover, in cooperative learning, students are expected to help each other,

discuss and argue with one another, asses each other’s current knowledge and fill

in gaps in each other’ s understanding ( see Slavin, 1995:20). Therefore, the

researcher decided to use cooperative learning as a method which expected

significant in improving the students’ writing ability.

4.2 A Classroom Action Research’s (CAR) Activities

The findings of the study consisted of a classroom action research (cycle

1, cycle 2, and cycle 3) which included four activities; planning, acting,

observing, and reflecting, then students’ writing test, teacher’s observation sheet,

student’s observation sheet, students’ journal, and evaluation sheet.



65

4.2.1 CAR’s Activities in Cycle 1

4.2.1.1 Planning

The teacher formulated several instruments before conducting the

instruction. The instruments were lesson plan, teaching material, observation

sheet, students’ journal, and evaluation sheet. They helped the teacher in getting

instructional description in class.

The first instrument was lesson plan. The lesson plan was organized as a

guide for teaching writing process using Cooperative Learning method. It had

contents the aims, teaching steps, and evaluation of the instruction (see appendix

for detail).

The second instrument was teaching material. The teacher picked a poster

about “kick the meat habit” poster to be conveyed in classroom. The theme was

chosen because it encouraged the students’ critical thinking works to write

analytical exposition which needed their arguments. This instruction used

cooperative learning method, while the technique which was used was TAI. The

students were divided into 10 groups which consisted of three members for each

group, and they helped each other to master the lesson.

The next instrument was observation form. The observation sheet

consisted of two forms; teacher’s observation sheet and students’ observation

form. The teacher’s observation sheet was used to observe teacher’s activity. This

form was adapted from Brown (2001:432). Meanwhile, students’ observation

sheet was adapted from Kunandar (2007). It was used to observe students ’

activity. The last, the teacher prepared student’s journal and evaluation sheet (see



65

appendix for detail). It covers students’ opinion, suggestion, and impression

toward cooperative learning method.

4.2.1.2 Action and Observation

The action was conducted based on the lesson plan (see appendix for

detail) on 8-12 November 2010. The participants were 30 students. To monitor the

instruction, the teacher was assisted by observers who sat at back the desk in the

class. Observers used teacher’s observation sheet to monitor it. In the other hand,

the teacher as the researcher used students’ observation sheet to watch student’s

activity.

The first step, the teacher asked the students to sit with their group. Then,

the teacher showed poster entitled “Kick the Meat Habit”. The students should

catch the information from the poster, and they had to make draft of the analytical

exposition writing based on it. During the instruction, the students worked with

their group, while, the teacher checked them when they needed a help.

In the post activity, the teacher had asked the students to draw conclusion,

give suggestions, and put forward their impression on the journal and evaluation

sheet. The instruments helped the teacher to improve her instruction in the next

meeting. The next step, the technique of cooperative learning was used. In the

end, the students wrote the analytical exposition text about the poster individually.



65

4.2.1.3 Reflection

The observer found some weaknesses that must be corrected in the next

cycle, they were:

1. the teacher did not explain how cooperative learning method works, so the

students were confused,

2. the teacher could not help the difficulties of the whole students for their

difficulties,

3. the teacher did not manage the class well.

However, the students were very enthusiastic about the lesson, especially with

the poster untitled “kick the meat habit”. They were attractive when they argued

about it. Indicator 23 showed that the teacher provided a classroom atmosphere

where the students were encourage in giving opinion.

Figure 4.1 Students’ Activities in Cycle 1 using TAI Technique


4.2.2.1 Revised Plan

As usual, the teacher prepared material, lesson plan, observation sheet,

students’ journal, and evaluation sheet. These instruments helped the teacher in

getting the instructional description.



65

From the reflection on the cycle 1, it was decided that the teacher must

explained how the technique of cooperative learning method worked. While the

teacher used Jigsaw technique to convey the instruction in cycle 2, the teacher

also had to manage the students well to work in their group.

Meanwhile, the theme of the lesson had changed to keep students’ interest

and motivation. So, the teacher chose smoking as the theme of the lesson. It was

chosen because smoking was related to the students’ world, so they would be able

to give their arguments about it.


Both acting and observing were carried out on 15-19 of November 2010.

The participants of this research were 30 students. In the second cycle, the action

was conducted based on the lesson plan with some improvement based on

reflection in cycle 1 (see appendix for detail). During the instruction, the teacher

was observed by partner who sat at the back.

In the first step, the teacher showed video about the effect of smoking,

then the students were asked about their opinion about it as their background to

write analytical exposition text.

The students worked in their group which used jigsaw technique. In

jigsaw, each student in one group was divided into expert group for different

units. In this instruction, the expert group was related to structure of analytical

exposition text which consisted of thesis, arguments, and conclusion. Then, the

students sat in their expert group and help each other for mastering the material in



65

their specialist. After it, the experts came back to their each group and discuss

about what they learnt in their expert group. Finally, the students wrote analytical

text individually with smoking theme.

Figure 4.2 Students’ Activities in Cycle 2 using Jigsaw Technique

4.2.2.3 Reflection

The teacher showed some improvements, the observer found that the

teacher: (1) could manage the students; (2) could explain the cooperative learning

method well; (3) reviewed difficult words for students to comprehend them well;

(4) facilitated the students to be more active and supported them to participate as

often as; (5) the students began to understand what they needed to do and enjoyed

the project.

However, there were some problems found: (1) depend on indicator 12

(the teacher knew the students were having trouble understanding), the teacher did

not tell the students’ mistakes; (2) there were some students still could not work in

group.

Looking up both problems, the teacher should give them more

opportunities to be more active learner and showed them their mistake in their



65

writing. In the post activity, the teacher had done her best by asking them to give

conclusion, suggestion, and impressions on the journal and evaluation sheet.


4.2.3.1 Revised Plan

The teacher tried to improve her teaching from reflecting by the last

cycles. Even though the last two cycles indicated students’ score improvement

and teacher’s improvement, the cycle 3 was designed to be better that before.

The teacher also used different technique of cooperative learning method.

STAD technique was chosen to convey the instruction. The students were divided

into 3 members of one group and they had to help each other. The student was

divided based on their achievement. In a group, there were the students with high

achievement, middle, and low achievement. They were able to ask their friends

about their difficulties. In that group, they also competed with the other group. So,

the students had to do their best in mastering the instruction.


These activities were carried out on 22-27 November 2010. The

participants were 30 students. In this step, the action was accomplished based on

the lesson plan which referred to reflection in cycle 2 (see appendix for detail).

To monitor this instruction, the teacher was assisted by the observer who

sat at the back of the class. The first step, the teacher asked the students to sit with

their group. Then, the teacher displayed video about children crime. The students



65

were asked their arguments about all about children crimes. Then, they had to

make draft of the analytical exposition writing based on it.

During the instruction, the students worked with their group, while the

teacher checked them when they needed a help. For the last step, the students

were proposed to write analytical exposition text individually.

Figure 4.3 Students’ Activities in Cycle 3 using STAD Technique

4.2.3.3 Reflection

The teacher indicated better performances than cycles beforehand. The

observer found that the teacher: (1) organized and prepared the instruction well,;

(2) tried to the students to solve their difficulties; (3) encourage the students to

think about the arguments based on the theme; and (4) improve students’

motivation and facilitated them to build their knowledge.

Although there were some weaknesses in this activity, they did not

influence the instruction significantly. Technically, the learning process was better

than before. The observer considered that the teacher had performed well. The

students had already been skilled in writing analytical exposition text.



65

Cooperative learning method was success to improve student skill in writing,

because they could help each other to master the material given.

4.2.4 Students’ Writing Test

Students’ writing tests consisted of four tests, there were pre-test, post-test

in cycle 1, post-test in cycle 2, and post-test in cycle 3.For the pre- test, it was

conducted before the cycle began. It used to measure the prior knowledge of

students’ writing ability before the classroom action research was conducted. Pre-

test was conducted without cooperative learning method. Whereas, post-test in

cycle 1, post-test in cycle 2, and post-test in cycle 3 were conducted after each

cycle finished.

Figure 4.4 Students’ Writing Test in the end of Cycle

The result of pre-test displayed that the highest score of the students’ writing

was 81, and the lowest score was 50. The mean for the pre-test was 64.2.

Referring to the result of the students writing test in pre-test which was not used

cooperative learning method, three (10%) students got score around 70-79 and

were on the “average scale”, and two (6.66%) students got score above 80 and



65

were on the “satisfactory scale”, and twelve students (40%) got score below 70

and were on “unsatisfactory scale”. Minimum Mastering Criteria (MMC) was 75.

It was meant that 25 students (86%) did not pass the test. The teacher was not

very satisfied with the score. Therefore, she continued to go on to cycle 1 which

was used cooperative learning method. Figure 4.1 below described the result of

the pre-test.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Figure 4.5 Students' Score in Pre-Test

pre-test

In cycle 1, the instruction used cooperative learning method. This research

would compare between pre-test with post test in each cycle of the classroom

action research. The result of writing test in cycle 1 increased. The highest score is

82 and the lowest was 54. The mean for cycle 1 was 67.3 points. Referring to the

scale improvement, no one (0%) students was on the “excellent scale”, five

(16.6%) students were on the “above average scale”, and seven students (23.4%)

got above 70 and were on “average scale”. While, fourteen students (46.6%) were

on “unsatisfactory scale” and four students (13.4%) were on “very bad scale”. The



65

mean of cycle 1 increased 3.1 points from pre-test mean. Based on the scale,

although some students’ score improved, the teacher was not satisfied because

twenty four students (80%) still did not reach MMC. Thus she decided to do cycle

2. Figure 4.2 described the result of the post test in cycle 1.

In cycle 2, the students was had been familiar with the instruction. They had

already known what they were going to do in the instruction. In the second cycle,

the highest score was 85 and the lowest was 60. The mean for cycle 2 was 71.3

points. Referring to the scale improvement, five (16.6%) students were on the

“satisfactory scale”, sixteen students (53.4%) got above 70 and were on “average

scale”. In this cycle, there was no one (0%) on “very bad scale”. The mean of

cycle 2 compared cycles 1 increased 4 points. However, most of the students still

did not reach MMC; even they had already made an improvement in their writing



65

score. Thus she decided to do cycle 3. Figure 4.3 described the result of the post

test in cycle 2.

The students were familiar with the instruction in cycle 3, even though they

looked quite bored. Fortunately, the teacher could minimize their boredom. She

created a game to improve their motivation. The students were interested in cycle

3. Referring to the result of the test, there was student who got the highest score; it

was 92 and the lowest was 75, while the mean for the last cycle was 78.53.

Looking at the scale improvement, there were one (3.4%) students on “excellent

scale”, eight students (26.6%) was on “satisfied scale” and twenty one (70%)

students were on “average scale”. It means that (100%) students had reached

MMC. Thus, the cycle was ended and considered to be successful. Figure 4.4

point out the result of the test in cycle 3.



65

Since all the students’ score improved, the cycle stopped and conside red to

be successful. Figure 4.5 illustrated the comparison score among pre-test, cycle 1,

cycle 2, and cycle 3.



65

4.2.5 Observation Sheets

4.2.5.1 Teacher’s observation sheet

Teacher’s observation sheet was made to watch teacher’s activity during

the instruction. The teacher was observed by partner whether she conveyed the

material well or not, and to improve the teacher’s performance. This observation

form contained of many indictors (see Appendix).

Teacher’s observation sheet described the indicators that required careful

attention of observer. Indicators which were not mentioned were considered to be

well done.

After being analyze, in the first cycle, total points scored by the teacher

were 138 out of 160, while in the second cycle was 142, and 149 in the third

cycle. In the first and second cycles, indicator 1 (the teacher was well=prepared



65

and well organizes in class) was in average 3. It was due to the fact that the

teacher could not manage the class well, because there were many groups in one

class which had to organize. Meanwhile, indicator 2 (The lesson reviewed

material and looked ahead to new material) and 3 (The goal/objectives were

apparent) increased, because the teacher learnt form the mistake in previous

meeting.

While, indicator 7 (Instruction were clear and concise and students were

able to carry them out) arose; In the first cycle, the teacher got 3 since she did not

explain cooperative learning method to the students, therefore the students

confuse about what they had to do, while in cycle 2 and 3 increased. Next, for

indicator 12 (the teacher knew when the students were having trouble

understanding), showed improvement of the teacher, in the first cycle, the teacher

was not tell the students error and the teacher considered that the students had

already know what they had to do. While, in the second and third cycle, the

teacher tried to discuss students’ error.

Indicator 13 (the teacher showed an interest in and enthusiasm for the

subject taught) was remained in 4. The teacher tried to encourage students to be

more active and she used variety activities in teaching learning, such as doing fun

game in the middle of the instruction, displayed interesting video, discussion, etc.

While indicator 15 (the teacher was able to adapt to unanticipated situation)

increased from cycle 1 to the next cycle. In cycle 1, she got 3 and 4 in cycle 2 and

3. The teacher was being able to adapt when the students were not ready to do the

instruction.



65

For indicator 27 (Clarity, tone, and audibility of voice), in all of cycles, it

was remained in 4. It was because that the voice of the teacher was so clear, so

that the students could understand material well. While, indicator 37(the students

were encouraged to do their best), indicator 39 (the teacher was aware of

individual and group needs), and indicator 40 (digression were used positively

and not overused) in cycle 1 and cycle 2 considered as above average (3) since the

teacher seemed nervous thus sometimes the teacher was unable to control and

direct the class and to elicit students’ response. However, in the next two cycles

the teacher could handle the problems. In addition, the highest score which

contributed from the teacher’s observation was part three or method score. It was

the highest score compared the other (see Appendix). It means that the teacher

succeed in conveying the instruction used cooperative learning method.

In general, the teacher performance in the class was considered to be good

since the average result of the observation were 3.37 (135 points), 3.65 (145

points), 3.77 (151 points); thus cumulative score was 3.60. Figure 4.7 showed the

comparison of the points.

Figure 4.11 the Comparison Score of Teacher Observation



65

4.2.5.2 Students’ Observation Sheet

Based on students’ observation sheet, the students indicated that they were

interested in cooperative learning method. The students’ observation sheet

consisted of interest of the students, attention, and participation.

In cycle 1, the students were not very enthusiastic to the instruction; it was

because the teacher did not tell the method well to the student, so they did not

understand what they had to do. However, there were the students who were able

to follows the instruction and gave their attention to the teacher explanation. The

table below showed the scores of students’ activities in cycle 1.

Table 4.2 the Score of Student’s Activity in Cycle 1

Group Total Score Ideal Score Percentages Description

1. 9 12 75%

2. 11 12 92%

3. 9 12 75%

4. 7 12 58% The lowest

5. 10 12 83%

6. 11 12 92%


8. 11 12 92%

9. 9 12 75%

10. 12 12 100% The highest

In cycle 1, the group who achieved the highest score was group 10. It was

100%. This group was very enthusiastic and they gave their attention to the



65

teacher from beginning. In the other hand, group 4 and 7 got the lowest score. It

was based on their attention and interest to the instruction. This group had lack of

their curiosity of the instruction. The figure below displayed the result of students’

observation sheet in percentage in cycle 1.

Figure 4.12 the Result of Students’ Observation Sheet Cycle 1 in Percentage

While in cycle 2, all of the students made an improvement for their

attention, interest, and participation of the instruction. It was because the fact that

the teacher gave her attention to the group who had lack in it. The table below

described the score of students’ observation sheet in cycle 2.

Table 4.3 the Score of Students’ Activity in Cycle 2


1. 10 12 83%

2. 11 12 92%

3. 10 12 83%



65


5. 11 12 92%

6. 11 12 92%

7. 10 12 83%

8. 11 12 92%

9. 10 12 83%

10. 12 12 100% The highest

In the next cycle, the students’ activity increased. The highest score of the

group was still group 10, while the lowest score was group 4. Group 10 achieved

perfect score of the students’ activity. They were very interest, had good attention,

and always gave participation in the instruction. However, this group did not

achieve the highest score in writing test, because the individual score of each

member in this group was not enough to rise their group score.




65

. Figure 4.9 above described the result of students’ observation sheet in

percentage in cycle 2. In cycle 3, many groups had improvement in their activity.

The lowest score of the group; it was group 4, achieved 75%. This group had the

lowest score since they did not give their attention to the instruction, and was not

interested in English lesson. Next, in cycle 3, there were improvements of the

students’ in their activities. The following table showed the students’ activity in

cycle 3.

Table 4.4 the Score of Students’ Activity in Cycle 3


1. 11 12 92%

2. 12 12 92%

3. 11 12 92%

4. 10 12 83% The lowest

5. 11 12 92%

6. 12 12 100% The highest

7. 11 12 92%

8. 12 12 100% The highest

9. 11 12 92%

10. 12 12 100% The highest

In cycle 3, the students got the best in their activities. They knew that they

compete with the other groups and the teacher would give reward if they obtain

good mark. In the last cycle, the students helped the teacher to accomplish the

research. Figure 4.10 displayed the improvement of students’ activities in cycle 3.



65


In conclusion, students’ observation sheet showed improvement of

students’ activity of the instruction. During the instruction, the students tried to

involve and accomplish the test well. The usage of cooperative learning method

also helped the students to do the best of their selves. The student was being able

to warn their group mates to always stay on the track. In addition, the group was

divided based on students’ achievement. In a group, there were a student who got

high achievement, middle, and low achievement. It was formed to make the

students closed by and helped each other.

4.2.6 Students’ Journal

Based on students’ journal, cooperative learning method arise students’

interest and motivation, especially in writing. Most of them stated that they liked

to write since they could ask their friends about their difficulties, and the students



65

also got a help from their group mates. This instruction was more enjoyable than

conventional writing instruction. Cooperative learning method made the students

was able to understand material easily. They believed that the used of this method

in writing could help them improve their writing skill.

4.2.7 Evaluation Sheet

Students said that they got advantages during studying writing using

cooperative learning method. Twenty five (83%) students said that they knew how

to transformation the ideas into paragraph since they got a help and discuss with

their group mates, so that it could help them to be able write correctly. Around

sixteen (53%) students said that they got new vocabulary by writing analytical

exposition, since the students had to argue about the topic or theme in that text.

Meanwhile, five students (17%) assumed that they got both new vocabularies and

knew how to transformation their idea into paragraph. Therefore, they were able

to produce a good writing, especially analytical exposition text.

4.3 Discussion

The classroom action research in teaching writing through cooperative

learning method could improve students’ writing ability and helped teacher in

delivering writing material. It meant that more than 50% students achieved MMC.

The comparison of means between the result of students’ writing score in cycle 1,

cycle 2 and cycle 3 which improved from 67.3 to 78.53 was high enough. The

result showed that the students’ comprehension increased mostly on the fact and



65

details in analytical exposition text. As what has been stated in Chapter II that

cooperative learning creates condition leading to positive achievement or

outcomes by directly teaching students structured methods of working with each

other or teaching them learning strategies closely related to instructional objective

( especially in writing ) (Slavin, 1989, 1993: 45) .

Cooperative learning method made the teacher created lessons cooperatively,

so that students not only work in groups to accomplish a task but they also have

social skills to achieve the team’s goal. Moreover, they must help one another to

understand the material, make sure that the other members of the group master the

assignment, and encouraged each other to work hard.

Referring to the result score between cycle 1 students’ writing score and cycle

3 students’ writing score, the teacher concluded that students’ score improved. It

revealed that students’ writing ability based on their cognitive skill improved after

conducting the cycles.

In instructional process, the teacher activities and material changed as well. In

the first cycle, the teacher had several weaknesses. The teacher did not tell the

cooperative learning itself, and it made the students confused about what they had

to do. Then, the teacher could not help all of the students since she could not

manage the class well.

In the other hand, the teacher tried to make the material closed with the

students’ world. Since this research discovered the use of cooperative learning

method in improving students writing ability, especially in analytical exposition



text, so the teacher chose the material which made the students share their idea,

opinion, and arguments.

In cycle 2 and cycle 3, the teacher activities also improved. The teacher was

being able to manage the class and tried to solve the students’ difficulties in

writing analytical exposition text. The teacher encouraged the students to be

criticized to the theme of material.

Cooperative learning method helped the students to write. Based on their

journal and evaluation sheet, cooperative learning method improves their ability

to write, especially analytical exposition text. Since they were able to ask their

group mates and they were motivated to do their best in their group.

However, the students stated that sometimes their group mates could not

answer the question or he/she was not able to solve the problem. They were

usually confused to share their idea into paragraph and found the suitable word.

But, those difficulties could be solve by asking the teacher or tried to discuss with

the other friends.

This research discovered how students response toward cooperative learning

method. They stated that the method was very useful and activities of the

instruction were positive. They believed that the use of cooperative learning

method can improve their ability in writing, especially in analytical exposition

text.

4. finding and discussion

Documents