43
the text seriously, helped each other to solve their problems in understanding the text, and could answer the questions from the teacher
about the text that they read. Then, the teacher reviewed the schematic structure and language
features of narrative text to the students. The teacher also explained about paraphrase, it could help the students to write the sentences from the text
into story mapping sheet. The teacher also asked students to discuss it and answered the written question. When every group finished answering the
written questions, teacher went to the students and asked them orally in order to know how well they had discussed with their groups. If there was
student who still got difficulties, teacher asked his or her member to explain about that.
The students went back to their desk group after they discussed in a group. After that, the teacher gave another story with the title Why do
Hawks Hunt Chicks? and asked the students to complete the story mapping sheet by identifying the schematic structures of narrative text
from the text. The teacher also gave students written questions about the text and they answered it individually.
Second meeting June 7
th
2013
In the second meeting, the title of the text was Sangkuriang. The narrative of the text was not different with the first meeting at the second
cycle. The teacher started the teaching-learning process by giving brain storming and reviewed what the students had learnt at the meeting before.
In this step the teacher did not explain again about schematic structure of the narrative text. The teacher just gave a little bit about how to make
paraphrase. After that, the teacher asked the students to read the text silently and then asked them to complete the story mapping sheet
according to the text that they read. During the students completed the story mapping sheet, the teacher did monitoring to them.
44
After finishing their task, the teacher gave question orally and doing simple quiz as in the first meeting. In the last meeting the teacher
and writer gave second post-test in order to know the improvement of students’ understanding in reading narrative text.
2.3 Observing
As in the first cycle, in this step the observer observed the students’
participation in the learning process in pre and post reading activities through observation and field note
.
In the second cycle, generally the class condition in learning process was better than before. The points of
observation were; the students were motivated in understanding the material. Many students were familiar with the question of the object of
text and detail information and they knew how to answer the questions based on the text they have read. Besides, another fact which showed the
students motivated during the lesson. It was showed where they tried to compete with other groups to finish the task and became the best group.
Those facts showed that the students enjoyed the lesson in doing the individual exercises and in a group. In the second cycle, the teacher
showed improvement in teaching technique. It could be seen from the fact during the lesson that students could understand easily and could write the
key words because the guiding and detail explanation from the teacher. In the last meeting of the second cycle, the teacher gave posttest 2.
The text and the question of the test were still same with the pre and post- test one. The difference was just on the formation of the choices and the
structural numbers of the questions. After calculating the result of the post- test 2, the writer found the result; there were 26 students who passed the
Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM 71 Seventy One. The writer needs to calculate the data to know the mean of
students’ score in reading comprehension posttest 2. It was derived from following formula:
45
n x
Mx
32 2480
Mx
5 ,
77
Mx
This data showed that the mean of students’ score in post test 2 was 77.5. It means that the students passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion-
Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM 71 Seventy One. Then, The calculation of class percentage about the students who passed the
Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM: 100
x N
F
32 100
26x
25 .
81
From this data, the writer found that 26 Twenty Six or 81.25 students passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion
– Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM. After that, the writer needs to calculate the data to know
the students’ improvement from the preliminary to the second cycle. In this step the writer used following formula:
P =
100
2
y y
y
P = 100
56 .
61 56
. 61
50 .
77
P =
9 .
25
The data showed that t here was better improvement of students’
mean score from the students’ reading comprehension in the preliminary study to the students’ reading comprehension in the second cycle. The
mean score for the preliminary study was 61.56 and the mean score of reading posttest 2 in the second cycle was 77.50. It means that there was
15.9 points or 25.9 of mean score improvement. The students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal
46
KKM were 26 students or 81.25 if it is calculated into class percentage. It indicated that the criterion of success has been achieved. The following
was the table of students’ reading comprehension score.
No Name
Pre Test Post Test 1 Post Test 2
1 S1
50 60
80 2
S2 45
55 75
3 S3
45 60
75 4
S4 70
75 75
5 S5
55 70
75 6
S6 75
80 85
7 S7
60 70
80 8
S8 90
100 100
9 S9
80 85
85 10
S10 40
50 60
11 S11
45 50
65 12
S12 60
70 75
13 S13
65 75
80 14
S14 35
50 65
15 S15
75 80
90 16
S16 80
90 100
17 S17
70 75
80 18
S18 45
55 75
19 S19
70 75
80 20
S20 70
75 75
21 S21
90 100
100 22
S22 55
65 75
23 S23
70 80
90 24
S24 50
65 75
25 S25
60 65
75 26
S26 55
60 65
47
27 S27
70 75
80 28
S28 40
45 50
29 S29
60 65
75 30
S30 60
60 65
31 S31
70 75
80 32
S32 55
60 75
Mean
61.56 68.90
77.50 : The student who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria
Ketuntasan Minimal KKM 71
Table 4.2 The Students’ Reading Score of Pretest, Posttest 1, Posttest 2
From the table above, it could be seen that there was improvement of the students’ number who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion-
Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM. It also increased from preliminary study and each cycle. In the preliminary study there were only 9 students
or 18.75 of the students who got the score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM; There were 14 students or
43.75 of the students who got the score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM in the first cycle; and in
the second cycle, The students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM were 26 students or
81.25. It proved that the target of the criterion of success in which minimum 75 of the students passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion-
Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM could be achieved.
2.4 Reflecting
After getting the result of observation and field notes and posttest 2, the writer and the collaborator carried out the reflection. They felt
48
satisfactory with the result of the action. The result of the posttest 2 showed that 81.25 of the students got the score above the Minimum
Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM. So it has achieved the first criterion of success that 75 of the students must get the
score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM
. Also, the students’ participation in the second cycle showed better than in the cycle 1. It could be seen from the notes and the
students result on experts’ and individual task. It meant that this criterion of success has achieved too.
Because of the satisfied result, so the writer and the teacher assumed that using story mapping technique in teaching reading of
narrative text could improve the students’ understanding.
C. The Discussion of the Data after Implementing Classroom Action Research CAR
After implementing the classroom action research, the writer carried out the interview to the English teacher who acted as the observer to know her
response about the implementation of the action. Then the writer gave the questionnaire to the students to know their response about the implementation of
story mapping technique in teaching reading narrative text.
1. The Result of Post Questionnaire
The post-questionnaire was held to know about the students’
response after teaching learning of narrative text through story mapping technique. The questionnaire used in this study was likert scales
questionnaire. The questionnaire was given to the students in the VIII-6 grade on Friday, June 7
th
2013. This questionnaire has ten questions. The table below showed the result of post questionnaire
.
49
N o
Questions Percentage
SS S
A TS
ST S
1
Saya senang belajar bahasa Inggris dengan menggunakan
tehnik story mapping.
15.6 53.1
28.1 3.1
2
Saya merasa lebih mudah belajar bahasa Inggris dengan
tehnik Story Mapping.
21.9 40.6
37.5
3
Saya merasa tidak termotivasi untuk belajar bahasa inggris
dengan menggunakan tehnik Story Mapping.
6.3 46.9
43.7 3.1
4
Saya merasa lebih mudah memahami bacaan bahasa
inggris dengan tehnik Story Mapping
12.5 50
31.3 6.3
5
Cara guru mengajar dengan menggunakan Story Mapping
tidak menyenangkan.
31.3 50
12.5
6
Saya merasa pasif dan terus mengandalkan teman saat
memahami narrative text dengan menggunakan tehnik
Story Mapping.
31.3 31.3
34.5 3.1
7
Saya merasa lebih aktif dalam belajar reading terutama
narrative text dengan menggunakan tehnik Story
Mapping.
15.6 46.9
34.5 3.1
8
Saya merasa tidak nyaman belajar memahami narrative
text dengan menggunakan tehnik Story Mapping.
40.6 40.6
15.6 3.1
9
Belajar dengan tehnik Story Mapping, meningkatkan
kemampuan saya dalam memahami narrative text.
12.5 40.6
40.6 6.3
10
Belajar dengan tehnik Story Mapping tidak membantu
saya untuk mengatasai kesulitan-kesulitan dalam
memahami narrative text.
18.8 40.6
34.5 3.1
3.1
Keterangan: SS : Sangat Setuju
50
S : Setuju A : Abstain
TS : Tidak Setuju
STS: Sangat Tidak Setuju
Table 4.3 The Result of Questionnaire after CAR
The description of the post questionnaire as follow:
1. The feeling toward teaching learning narrative text through Story
Mapping Technique. The result of the first question showed that 15.6 0f the
students like using Story Mapping very much, 53.1 of the students like to learn English through Story Mapping, 28.1 of the
students felt fair about it and 3.1 of the students or just a student who dislikes using Story Mapping to learn English. The result
indicated that most of students like to learn narrative text through story mapping technique.
2. The students’ response in learning English using Story Mapping
technique. The second question showed that 21.9 of students agreed
very much that they got easiness to learn English using Story Mapping. 46.9 of them also agreed about that. 37.5 of the
students felt fair. It meant that most of students felt that they got easiness in learning English using Story Mapping technique.
3. The Story Mapping technique gives motivation to the students in
learning English. The result showed that 50 of the students felt more
motivated in learning English using Story mapping technique. Then 3.1 of students or just one student did not agree about that. It
meant that many of students feel more motivated using Story Mapping as the technique to learn English.
