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, teachers observation sheet, students observation sheet, students journal, and evaluation sheet. findings. This chapter also discusses the result of the

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. 1. 2. Scale 90A100 80B89 Description Excellent Satisfactory

65

3. 4. 5.

70C79 60D69 50E59

Average Unsatisfactory Very Bad

Interview was divided into two part; pre-interview and post-interview. Preinterview 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 others 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 Researchs (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, teachers observation sheet, students observation sheet, students journal, and evaluation sheet.

65

4.2.1 CARs 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; teachers observation sheet and students observation form. The teachers observation sheet was used to observe teachers 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 students 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 teachers observation sheet to monitor it. In the other hand, the teacher as the researcher used students observation sheet to watch students 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 CARs Activities in Cycle 2 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.

4.2.2.2 Action and Observation 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 CARs Activities in Cycle 3 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 teachers 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.

4.2.3.2 Action and Observation 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. Pretest 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.

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

pre-test

Figure 4.5 Students' Score in 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 considered 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 Teachers observation sheet Teachers observation sheet was made to watch teachers activity during the instruction. The teacher was observed by partner whether she conveyed the material well or not, and to improve the teachers performance. This observation form contained of many indictors (see Appendix). Teachers 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 teachers 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 Students Activity in Cycle 1

Group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Total Score 9 11 9 7 10 11 7 11 9 12 Ideal Score 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percentages 75% 92% 75% 58% 83% 92% 58% 92% 75% 100% The highest The lowest The lowest Description

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

Group 1. 2. 3. Total Score 10 11 10 Ideal Score 12 12 12 Percentages 83% 92% 83% Description

65

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

9 11 11 10 11 10 12

12 12 12 12 12 12 12

75% 92% 92% 83% 92% 83% 100%

The lowest

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.

Figure 4.13 the Result of Students Observation Sheet Cycle 2 in Percentage

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
Group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Total Score 11 12 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 12 Ideal Score 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percentages 92% 92% 92% 83% 92% 100% 92% 100% 92% 100% The highest The highest The highest The lowest Description

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

Figure 4.14 the Result of Students Observation Sheet Cycle 3 in Percentage

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 teams 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

65

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.

65