Research Findings

A. Research Findings

1. The Research Setting

The setting of the research was SMP Negeri 2 Hiliserangkai. This school is located at regency of Nias, subdistrict Hiliserangkai. This school consists of one headmaster, some teachers and staffs. The location of this school is very strategic to do the teaching and learning processes because it is in the education environment.

SMP Negeri 2 Hiliserangkai consisted of ninth classes. The seventh grade consists of 3 classes, the eighth grade consists of 3 classes, and the ninth grade consists of 3 classes. The total numbers of the teachers in SMP Negeri 2 Hiliserangkai are 21 persons. And the total numbers of students is 288 persons. There are three persons of English teachers.

The subject of this research was Class VIII-2 students, which the total numbers of students are 30 students consist of 16 girls and 14 boys. Before the researcher did the research, she asked permission to the headmaster of SMP Negeri 2 Hiliserangkai . From the headmaster’s agreement the researcher did the research. In performing the research, the researcher had some procedures. They were planning, action, observation and reflection.

To conduct the research, the researcher was helped by the English teacher of SMP Negeri 2 Hiliserangkai. She was as a teacher-collaborator. The teacher was as observ er of the students’ and the researcher’s activities. The researcher needed the teacher’s help in order that the activities of research could run well and the result

of the research has validation. The students were all present during the research. The researcher performed the research for two cycles that consisted of four meetings. Each cycle consisted of two meetings.

2. The Explanations of the Researcher Findings for Each Cycle

To increase the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph by using exclusion Brainstorming Strategy, the researcher did it in two cycles.

a. Cycle I

In conducting Cycle I, it was done two meetings. The process of the research in Cycle I as follows.

1) First Meeting

There were some activities that the researcher did in the first meeting of Cycle I, there are:

a) Planning

Before doing the action, the researcher prepared everything that was needed in teaching-learning process such as: lesson plan, teaching material, table of specification, observation sheet, field notes for the researcher and the students and attendance list.

b) Action

After planning, the researcher conducted the action in the classroom. The first meeting was held on Wednesday, 10 th August 2016. Allotted time was 2 x 40

minutes. The researcher entered the classroom together with the English teacher- collaborator.

The English teacher-collaborator gave the chance to the researcher to start the activities based on the procedures in lesson plan. The researcher greeted the students and all of students gave responses. After that, the researcher introduced herself to the students and the students listened to the researcher ’s introduction. Then, the researcher asked the students to fill their name in the attendance list and signed it. Before the researcher continued explaining the material to the students, the researcher motivated the students so they were spirit to study.

Furthermore, the researcher introduced a new material to the students about descriptive paragraph. Before the researcher continued explaining the material to the students, the researcher asked the students’ prior knowledge related to the topic. After that, the students gave their opinion. To appreciate the students’ effort, the researcher praised the students. After that, the researcher distributed the material to the students and the students took the material. Then, the researcher explained the definition of descriptive paragraph, generic structures and language features to the students and the students paid attention to the researcher ’s explanation. Next, the researcher gave the example about descriptive paragraph.

Before the researcher implemented the procedure of Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy, she explained the general information about the technique so the students could do the technique fluently. Therefore, to drill the students in writing descriptive paragraph, the researcher applied the steps of Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy procedure by writes a title of a selecting text on the whiteboard, the researcher list some words or pharases related to the topic, unrelated to the topic and some ambigious words pharases. After that, the researcher started to drill the students by asking them to eliminate any words or pharases they belive are not related to the topic, and then ask them to select the words or pharases they

belive are related to the topic and the words or pharases may be ambigious. The researcher are ask the students to write descriptive pharagraph by using the word or pharases which related to the topic.

At the last, the researcher continued by a sking the students’ difficulties in studying material and solving it together. In order that it was easy for the students to comprehend the material, the researcher gave a short explanation or made a conclusion about the lesson and then gaved them reinforcement. After that, the researcher asked the students to prepare themselves for the next meeting. and than the researcher closed the meeting by greeting the students.

c) Observation

In observation step, all social events happened in the classroom were investigated by the English teacher-collaborator. The English teacher-collaborator noted the students who had been done and undone the activity. The English teacher- collaborator also observed how many aspects of the researcher had been done and undone. Furthermore, the researcher noted the weakness, strength and everything had happened during applying Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy in the classroom.

Based on the result of the observation, the researcher obtained the data about the students who had been done and did not do the activities during implementing the action in the classroom. the students who had done the activities were 18 students (60%) and the students who did not do the activities were 12

students (40%). To understand the percentage of the students who had been done and undone the activities could be viewed in the graphic on the next page.

Graphic 1: Percentage of the students who had been done and undone the activities in the first meeting of Cycle I

Furthermore, in the first meeting of Cycle I the researcher’s activities had done were 22 activities of 28 activities (78,57%) and there were 6 activities had not done of 28 activities (21,42%). Clearly, the observation result of the researcher’s activities could be viewed on the next page:

Graphic 2 : Percentage of the researcher’s activities that had been done and undone in the Cycle I in the first meeting

In the meeting, the researcher founds the weaknesses of the students and researcher in doing the activities, there were:

a) Most of the students did not master to identify some words that related to the topic, unrelated to the topic and some umbigious words.

b) Most of the students did not identify the generic structures of descriptive Paragraph.

c) Most of the students still not masters language features in descriptive Paragraph.

d) Most of the students could not do the steps of procedure of Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy.

e) Most of the students did not master to write descriptive paragraph.

Besides, there were also some strengths of the student s’ and researcher’s activities as follows.

a) Some of the students master to identify some words that related to the topic, unrelated to the topic and some umbigious words.

b) Some of the students could identify the generic structures of descriptive paragraph.

c) Some of the students had mastered the language features of descriptive paragraph.

d) Some of the students could do the procedure of Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy.

e) Some of the students master to write descriptive paragraph.

d) Reflection

In first meeting of Cycle I, the researcher analyzed the result of observation and noted the result of observation of all the activities during conducting Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy. Based on the result of the research, the percentage of the students who had done the act ivities and the researcher’s activities that had done still poor. The bad result was caused of some weaknesses. Because of it, the researcher should do the improvements for the next meeting, such as:

1) The researcher asked the students to bring their dictionary in English subject to help them to find the meaning of the unfamiliar words.

2) The researcher write some vocabularies related to the topic to the students.

3) The researcher explained the generic stucture of descriptive paragraph to the students.

4) The researcher taught the language feature of descriptive paragraph to the students.

5) The researcher taught the students how to apply the procedure of descriptive paragraph.

6) The researcher taught the students how to write descriptive paragraph by gave the example.

2) The Second Meeting

th The second meeting was held on Saturday, 14 August 2016. The time allocation used at the second meeting was 2 x 40 minutes. The learning material was

same with the first meeting that was descriptive paragraph. The procedures of the second meeting as follows:

a) Planning

In the phase the researcher prepared all the needs during teaching and learning process in the classroom such as; lesson plan, teaching material, observation sheet for students and researcher, field notes, evaluation sheet and attendance list.

b) Action

In the phase, the researcher conducted the research in the classroom and continued the first meeting activities. The researcher entered the classroom together with English teacher-collaborator and greeted the students. Then, the researcher

checked the students’ attendance list. Before continuing for the next activities, the researcher reviewed and reminded the last material by giving some questions to the

students orally. Then, the students responded the researcher’s questions. The next activities that the researcher did were to distribute the material to the students.

Before the researcher drilled the students, the researcher re-explained the general information about descriptive text and asked the students to pay attention. After that, the researcher continued drilling the students by using the steps of procedure of Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy. For the next, after the researcher had drilled the students, s he improved the students’ mistakes during implementing the procedure.

Then, the researcher taught the students how to write descriptive paragraph correctly. In the last of whilst teaching-learning activities, the researcher gave test to

the students was aimed to know the students’ ability in writing especially in writing descriptive paragraph. After that, the researcher asked them to submit their paper.

In the post teaching-learning activities, the researcher concluded teaching materials but before that, she offered to the students to conclude first. After that, the researcher motivated the students to prepare themselves for the next meeting. Finally, the researcher closed the meeting by greeting the students.

c). Observation

The observation was done by English teacher-collaborator during the teaching-learning process. The English teacher-collaborator observed all the

researcher’s and students’ activities in the classroom. The data that the English teacher- collaborator had gotten about the students’ activities had been done and

undone. The students who had done activities were 21 (70 %) students. The students who did not do activities there were 9 (30 %) students.

To make it clear the percentage of the students who had done and undone activities could be viewed in the graphic below.

Graphic 3 : The percentage of students ’ activities that had been done and undone during teaching and learning process

Some weaknesses of the students and the researcher found during the teaching and learning process in the meeting, as follows. (a) Some of the students were still low ability to identify the words that related to the

topic, unrelated to the topic, and umbigious words.

(b) Some students were still low ability to identify generic structure of descrptive paragraph. (c) Some of the students still not masters language features in descriptive Paragraph. (d) Some of the students could not do the steps of procedure of Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy. (e) Some of the students did not master to write descriptive paragraph.

There were also some advantages found by the researcher in doing Cycle I at the second meeting as follows:

a) Most the students had know to identify the words that related to the topic, unrelated to the topic, and umbigious words..

b) Most the students had know to identify the generic structure of descrptive paragraph.

c) Most the students had master languafe features in descriptive paragraph.

d) Most the students had master to do the step of descriptive paragraph. Based on the researcher’s activities, the result of the researcher’s observation sheet in the second meeting in Cycle I. There were 12 activities had been done of 16 activities (75%) and there were 4 activities still undone of 16 activities (25%). It can

be seen of the graphic below.

Graphic 4 : The percentage of the researcher activities that had been done and undone in second meeting of Cycle I

d) Reflection

After doing the action in the classroom, the researcher noted, analyzed and concluded the result of the research. Then, the researcher analyzed the students’ evaluation sheet. The result of the students ’ evaluation sheet in the second meeting

of Cycle I could be showed in the table on the next page.

Table 2

The STUDENTS’ ABILITY in WRITING DESCRIPTIVE PARAGRAPH by using EXCLUSION BRAINSTORMING STRATEGY

in the SECOND MEETING of CYCLE I

Frequency Percentage

1. Very good

From the table above explained the students’ descriptive paragraph ability in writing through Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy in cycle I was failed. Some of the students did not pass of Minimum Competence Criterion (MCC) which stated at school was 70 score. There were 3 students (6.67%) who got the value classified in

“very good” level. There were 7 students (23,33%) who got the value classified in “good” level. There were 9 students (30%) who got the value classified in “enough” level. And there was 3 students (10 %) who got the value classified in “less” level.

And there were 9 students (30%) who got the value classified in “Fail” level. The highest score that the students got was 87,05 and the lowest score that the students got was 25. The average value that the students got was 56,33.

The clarrification of the students’ obtained value in the second meeting of cycle I could be showed into next page.

Very Good Good

Graphic 5: The Students’ Ability in Writing Descriptive Paragraph by using Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy in the Second Meeting in Cycle I Based on the explanation above, the researcher concluded that the stude nts’ ability in writing descriptive paragrahph using Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy was still unable to increase the students’ ability in the cycle I. It was indicated by

looking at the Minimum Competence Criterion (MCC) of the English subject at the eighth grade which was 70 could not be achieved by the students by looking at the average of the students’ value above.

Therefore, to make the students get development in writing descriptive paragraph, the researcher improved the planning of the teaching-learning activities. The researcher had done some improvements such as:

1) The researcher brainstormed the students’ vocabulary related to the strategy.

2) The researcher reminded the students about grammar.

3) The researcher reminded the students about adjective, noun and verb.

4) The researcher reminded the students about the additional of “-s”/”-es”.

5) The researcher reminded the students about punctuation.

b. Cycle II In conducting Cycle II, the research was done in two meetings by the following procedure:

1) The First Meeting

The implementation of Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy in first meeting of Cycle II was held on Saturday August 27 th 2016. The research was conducted based

on some steps.

a) planning

Before conducting the research in the classroom, the researcher prepared all the media that supported the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph, such

as; lesson plan, teaching material, observation sheet, field notes, evaluation sheet and attendance list.

b) Action

In conducting the action, the researcher did some activities. For the first the researcher entered the classroom together with the English teacher-collaborator and greeted the students. As usual the English teacher-collaborator advised the students then she gave the chance to the researcher to start. At the beginning of the activities of teaching and learning process, the researcher checked the students’ attendance list In conducting the action, the researcher did some activities. For the first the researcher entered the classroom together with the English teacher-collaborator and greeted the students. As usual the English teacher-collaborator advised the students then she gave the chance to the researcher to start. At the beginning of the activities of teaching and learning process, the researcher checked the students’ attendance list

Next, the researcher acquainted the new text to the students related to descriptive paragraph that was “My Sister”. Regarding to the text, the researcher began to drill the students in writing descriptive paragraph by using Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy procedure. The researcher listed some words or pharases which related to the topic unrelated to the topic and some ambigious words or pharses. The researcher are asks the students to eliminated the some words or pharases which unrelated to the topic and then ask the students to select the words or pharases that related to the topic and ambigious. After that, the researcher ask the students to write a new text by using the word which related to the topic. Next, the researcher gave the opportunities to the students to ask some their difficulties in understanding the teaching material directly the researcher responded it. After that, the researcher improved the students’ mistakes during implementing the steps of procedure of Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy.

In the post teaching-learning activities, the researcher concluded the teaching material. Then the researcher ended the meeting by greeting the students.

c) Observation

In the step of observation, all social events happened in the

classroom was investigated by the English teacher-collaborator. Furthermore, the researcher noted the weakness and strength during applying Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy.

Based on the result of investigation by the English teacher-collaborator, there were the students who had been done and undone the activities. There were

26 students (86,67 %) who had done activities and there were 4 students (13,33%) who undone the activities. To understand the percentage of the students’ activities could be seen on the graphic below.

Graphic 6 : Percentage of the students’ activities in the first meeting that had been done and undone of the Cycle II

Furthermore, based on the result of the English teacher-collaborator there were 28 activities of 29 activities (96,55%) that the researcher had done and there was 1 activity of 29 activities (3,45%) that the researcher did not do. Clearly, the percentage can be seen in the graphic below.

Graphic 7 : Percentage o f the researcher’s activities that had been done and undone in the first meeting of Cycle II

In implementing Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy in the first meeting of Cycle I, there were some students’ weaknesses, there were:

a. There were 3 of the students who still did not bring their dictionary because they did not have dictionary at home.

b. Some of the students were still unable make a personal descriptive paragraph.

c. Some of the students were not able to express their ideas in their writing correctly.

There were also some advantages in the second meeting in Cycle II, such as:

a. The students were interested in writing the paragraph because they wanted to find a good value.

b. The students were motivated in writing descriptive paragraph because they understood the explanations from the researcher well.

c. The students were interested to discuss their material and difficulties with the researcher because they had made a good cooperation to the researcher.

d. The researcher was serious and interested to teach the students because the students were very enthusiast to listen to the researcher’s explanations.

d) Reflection

In the first meeting in Cycle II, the researcher paid attention to students’activities, noted the result of observation and analyzed the result of

observation. Therefore, there were some improvements to be done by the researcher in the second meeting, they are:

(1) The researcher suggested the students to comprehend well the generic structure and language futures of descriptive paragraph. (2) The researcher would explaind detail about descriptive paragraph.

2) Second meeting

The implementation Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy in the second meeting of the cycle II was held on Saturday, 3 th September 2016. To conduct the

research the researcher followed some procedure:

a) Planning

In this phase, the researcher prepared all the need before implementing the action such as: lesson plan, teaching material, Evaluation Sheet, field notes, observation sheet, worksheet, and attendance list.

b) Action

In action phase, the researcher started to conduct the researcher in the classroom. The researcher went to the classroom with the English teacher- collaborator. In the pre teaching-learning activities, the researcher greeted and asked the students’ condition. Then, the researcher asked one of the students to guide in pray. Later, the researcher checked the students’ attendance list. Before the researcher would continue whilst teaching, the researcher motivated them and asked their prior knowledge about the last material.

In whilst teaching the researcher asked to the students what they already got during learned about descriptive paragraph especially describing person. After that, the researcher explain what their error, and what have to do. Before the researcher asked the students to find out the solution of their error and improve it, for the first the researcher review the material about descriptive paragraph and tried to recall the students prior knowledge about it. Later, the researcher continued guide the students In whilst teaching the researcher asked to the students what they already got during learned about descriptive paragraph especially describing person. After that, the researcher explain what their error, and what have to do. Before the researcher asked the students to find out the solution of their error and improve it, for the first the researcher review the material about descriptive paragraph and tried to recall the students prior knowledge about it. Later, the researcher continued guide the students

In the last of whilst teaching, the researcher improve the students’ mistakes during implementing Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy. In post teaching the researcher concluded the material to the students. After that the researcher motivated the students. Next, the researcher ended the meeting by greeting the students.

c) Observation

In the observation phase, the English teacher-collaborator observed all the happening in the classroom. She noted the all the students who had done and undone the activities during the teaching and learning process. Also she observed how many aspects that the researcher done and undone in the classroom. Furthermore, the researcher noted the weaknesses and strength during implanting the steps of procedure of Teacher’s Indirect Feedback.

Based on the English teacher- collaborator’s observation, there were 3 of 30 students (10%) who did not do activities. While there were 27 of 30 students (90%) who had done activities. To understand the percentage of students’ activities can be

seen in the graphic in the next page.

PERCENTAGE of the STUDENTS WHO HAD DONE and UNDONE ACTIVITIES in SECOND MEETING of the CYCLE II

Graphic 8 : Percentage of the students who had done and undone activities in

second meeting of cycle II

Moreover, in the second meeting of cycle II the researcher’s activities that had done were 17 activities (100%) and there was not activity (0%) that did not do

by the researcher. Clearly, the observation result of the researcher’s activities could

be viewed in graphic in the next page.

PERCENTAGE of the RESEARCHER’S ACTIVITIES that HAD DONE AND

UNDONE in the SECOND MEETING of CYCLE II

Graphic 9 : Percentage of the researcher’s activities that had done and undone in the second meeting of cycle II

In implementing Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy in the second meeting of cycle II, there were some strengths, namely: (1) The students had high participation in the teaching-learning process. (2) The students did the test without confesud. (3) The students could predict the content of the text. (4) Some of the students were able to give the right personal descriptive

paragraph (5) Most of the students could express their ideas in their writing correctly.

(6) Most of the students had known the function of generic structure and language features of descriptive paragraph. In field notes of English teacher-collaborator also, the researcher got some weaknesses during Teacher’s Indirect Feedback in field notes, namely: there was

one student who did not submitted the worksheet.

d) Reflection

After doing the action in the classroom, the researcher noted, analyzed and concluded the result of the research. Then, the researcher analyzed the students worksheet and showed the students error by put underlined or circle. Afterthat, the

researcher analyzed the students’ evaluation sheet. The result of the students’ evaluation sheet in the second meeting of cycle II could be showed in the table on

the next page.

Table. 3

The STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE PARAGRAPH ABILITY in WRITING by EXCLUSION BRAINSTORMING STRATEGY

in the SECOND MEETING of the CYCLE II

MMC Level

Very Good

The students’ value classification in the previous page, it showed that there were 18 students (60 %) who got the value classified in “ Very Good” level. There

were 10 students (33.33%) who got the value classified in “Good” level. There ware

2 students (6,67 %) who got the value classified in “Enough” level. There was not student (0%) who got the value classified in “Less” “and “Fail” level. The students’ high value in the second meeting of cycle II was 100 and the lowest value was 72,5. Then, the average of the students value was 86.33

Based on the result of the students’ ability in writing descriptive above, the researcher described it into graphic on the next page.

The STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE PARAGRAPH ABILITY in WRITING by EXCLUSION BRAINSTORMING STRATEGY in the SECOND MEETING of CYCLE II

Very Good

Graphic : The students’ descriptive paragraph ability in writing by Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy in the second meeting of cycle II

The result on the graphic above showed that the students’ descriptive paragrph ability in writing by Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy had achieved the MCC (Minimum Competence Criterion) that had been specified. It could be concluded that Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy could increase the students’ descriptive paragraph ability in writing. Thereby, the researcher did not continue to perform the research in the next cycle.

1. The Students’ Activities for All Cycles

In the first meeting of cycle I, the students who had done the activities were

18 students (60%) and the students who did not do the activities were 12 students (40%). Furthermore, in the second meeting of cycle I, the students who had done the activities were 21 students (70%) and the students who did not do the activities were

9 students (30%). In the first meeting of cycle II, the students who had done the activities were

26 students (86,67%) and the students who did not do the activities were 4 students (13,33%). Moreover, in the second meeting of cycle II, the students who had done the activities were 27 students (90%) and the students who did not do the activities were 3 students (10%). So, the entire students’ activities can be viewed in the table in the next page.

Table. 4

The STUDE NTS’ ACTIVITIES for ALL CYCLES

NNo. CCycle MMeeting CCriteria FFrequency Percentage (%)

2. The Researcher’s Activities for All Cycles

In the first meeting of cycle I, the researcher’s activities that had done were

22 activities (78,57%) and there were 6 activities (21,42%) that did not do by the researcher. Then, in the second meeting of cycle I, the researcher’s activities that

had done were 12 activities (75%) and there were 4 activities (25%) that did not do by the researcher.

In the second meeting of cycle II, the obtained result of the researcher’s activities that had done were 28 activities (96,55%) and there were 1 activities (3,45%) that did not do by the researcher. Moreover, in the second meeting of cycle

II, the researcher’s activities that had done were 17 activities (100%) and there was II, the researcher’s activities that had done were 17 activities (100%) and there was

Table. 5

The RESEARCHER’S ACTIVITIES For ALL CYCLES

NN CCycle

MMeeting

CCriteria FFrequenc Percentage

FFirst meeting

FFirst meeting

3. The Students’ Ability in Writing Descriptive Paragraph by Exclusion Brainstorming Strategy for All Cycles

The students’ descriptive paragraph ability in writing in cycle I showed that there were 2 students (6.67 %) who got the value classified in “very good” level.

There were 7 students (23.33 %) who got the value classified in “good” level. There were 9 students (30 %) who got the value classified in “enough” level. There ware 3

students (10 %) who got the value classified in “less” level. And There were 9 students (30 %) who got the value classified in “fail” level. The highest score that students (10 %) who got the value classified in “less” level. And There were 9 students (30 %) who got the value classified in “fail” level. The highest score that

Moreover, in cycle II showed that the stud ents’ value classification above, it showed that there were 18 students (60 %) who got the value classified in “ Very Good” level. There were 10 students (33,33%) who got the value classified in “Good” level. There ware 2 students (6,67%) who got the value classified in “Enough”. There was not student (0%) who got the value classified in “Less” “and “Fail” level. The students’ high value in the second meeting of cycle II was 100 and the lowest value was 72,5. Then, the average of the students value was 86.50. Thus, the students’ descriptive pragraph ability in writing for all cycle could be described

on the next page.

Table. 6 The STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE PARAGRAPH ABILITY in WRITING after

APPLYING EXCLUSION BRAINSTORMING STRATEGY

NNo. CCycle MMeeting

LLevel

FFrequency Percentage (%)

VVery Good

11 II EEnough

VVery Good