90
From the table above, it was found that the students‘ speaking score after action was categorized to high 1 students 4 , fair 21 students 84 ,
and low 3 students 12. In conclusion, the student‘s score in pre-action was categorized fair 84. There was an improvement of the student‘s
score in cycle one, but it did not significantly improve. It can be shown from the categorization of fair which just improved 8. Therefore, the
researcher decided to conduct cycle 2.
b. Categorization of Post-Test 2
The researcher combined the collected data in observation and used the teacher‗s suggestion. As suggested by the teacher, the researcher made some
actions plans to overcome the field problems. The results of planning, action and observation were clearly stated in report of cycle two. Based on the
observation was done in Cycle II, the researcher did not find significant problems. The students had good motivation in the speaking process. They
enjoyed the use of alternative rock songs. Most of students were actively involved in teaching learning process. They did the task seriously.
After implementing Cycle 2, the researcher found there was improvement on students‘ result. Then, the researcher got the reflection of cycle two. From
the Post-test 2, the researcher collected the data. The results of the data were the lowest score = 7.38, the highest score = 8.5, mean=7.73, and standard
deviation = 0.26.
91 The following table is the result of the test on the Post-test 1:
Table 16 : The Students’ Speaking Score in the Post-Test 2
Score Frequency
Percentage Category
X ≥ 7.98 4
16 High
7.47 ≥ X 7.98 20
80 Fair
X 7.47 1
4 Low
Mean 7.73
Standard Deviation 0.26
From the table above, it was found that the students‘ speaking score after action was categorized to high 2 students 8 , fair 19 students 76 , and
low 4 students 16 . In conclusion, the student‘s score in Post-action 2 was categorized fair 80. The improvement was in the category of high, which
is higher 16 than in post-test 1 4, however, there was no significant improvement from the category of fair in post-test 2 than in post-test 1. The
graphic below shows the equivalent between pre-test, post-test, and post-test 2.
Figure 6 : Students’ Pre Test, Post tes 1, and Post Test 2
0.00 10.00
20.00 30.00
40.00 50.00
60.00 70.00
80.00 90.00
Low Fair
High Pre-Test
Post Test 1 Post-Test 2
92
4. The Result of the Questionnaire of the Students’ Responses in
