The Result of Post Observation The Result of Questionnaire
difficulty item and discriminating power to identify the test was used or not in the pre-test, posttest I and posttest II. Here, the writer used
quantitative descriptive technique to analyze the data. The writer described the students’ reading score in pre-test,
post-test I and post-test II in the table below:
Table 4.3 The Students’ Reading Score of Pre-Test, Post-Test I, Post-Test II
No Students
Number LP
Pretest Posttest 1
Posttest 2
1 1
L 55
50 60
2 2
P 60
70 85
3 3
L 45
65 70
4 4
L 50
50 65
5 5
P 70
80 85
6 6
P 55
60 70
7 7
L 40
55 65
8 8
P 55
55
70
9 9
L 50
50
70
10 10
P 70
75 85
11 11
L 45
55 70
12 12
L 50
60 65
13 13
L 55
50 60
14 14
L 60
75 80
15 15
L 55
75 75
16 16
L 50
50 60
17 17
P 60
60 70
18 18
P 65
65 70
19 19
P 60
70 75
20 20
P 70
70 80
21 21
P 50
60
70
22 22
P 50
60
70
23 23
L 50
75 85
The Result 1270
1435 1655
Mean
_ ∑x
X = ──
n y = 5.21
y1 = 62.39 y2 = 71.95
: The student who passed the KKM 70
Based on the data above, the writer gave bold numerical score to students who passed KKM 70, there are 3 students who passed KKM in
Pre-Test, 8 students in post-test I and 17 students in Post-Test II. The writer also concluded the lowest score in pre-test was 40, 50 in post-test I
and post-test II was 60. In numerical the data, the writer calculates the student mean of the
score, calculates the class percentage and also calculates the percentage of the achievement score from pre-test, post-test I and post-test II.