42
c. The Result of Pre Test
The Pretest was conducted as the preliminary study to identify the students’ real competence and problems in writing narrative texts. In pretest,
the students assigned to write narrative text in line with pictures provided. To get the result of the pretest, firstly, the writer calculated the mean
score such following:
n xi
X
35 7
. 1969
X
3 .
56
X
Next, to know the class percentage that’s passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM using the following
formula:
100 x
N F
35 100
5x
3
. 14
Based on the result of the students’ writing product in pretest was 56.3. There were only five students or 14.3 of the students who got the
score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM meanwhile the other 30 students were below that criterion. From that
analyzing, it could be seen that almost of the English 2 students’ writing narrative text was unsatisfactory see Appendix 6a. They made some
mistakes in 1 content, the story has unclear information, 2 organization, the ideas were unevenly organized and weakly connected, 3 verb
agreement linguistics structure, the subject or verb in the sentence used incorrectly, and 4 verb forms, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. It
indicated that students’ writing narrative text was low. The samples of the students’ writing product in the pretest can be seen in Appendix 6b.
43
Based on the result of this preliminary study, it needs to set up a plan of action to solve the problems. The action was intended to improve the
students’ writing ability, as well as increased students’ motivation during writing activities. So, the writer introduced Jigsaw technique in teaching
writing as an innovation in teaching learning process. The action research conducted in two cycles. Every cycle followed the procedures of action
research involving planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. Every cycle was conducted in three meetings. The following was the explanation of the
action research results.
2. Findings of the First Cycle
a. Planning
The writer collaborated with her collaborator planned the action dealing with preparing Jigsaw technique, lesson plan, instructional materials
and media, and determining the criteria of success. First, the lesson plan for the first cycle designed into three lesson plans see Appendix 11a. Second,
the researcher employed Jigsaw technique as the technique of teaching of writing with the aim at facilitating the students to improve their writing
ability. Third, the writer prepared materials and media. The researcher took
some narrative texts from a number of writing materials based on the appropriateness of the materials and media with the instructional objectives
and the students’ interest and level. They were taken from the English text book, and downloaded from internet. While for media, the researcher used
laptop, paper, and the picture sequence that could be used in Jigsaw technique see Appendix 12a.
Next, the writer and collaborator determined the criteria of success. The criteria of success were 75 of the students’ writing score achieved the
Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM of English 70.0 or above and 75 of students participated in writing class.
44
Besides, the researcher prepared the instruments for the research such as: posttest 1, observation checklist, and camera to take a picture of the action.
b. Acting
The action of the first cycle was done on January 26
th
, 28
th
and 31
st
2011. The writer implemented the teaching learning process based on the lesson plan had been made. In the first meeting, before involving students in
Jigsaw technique, the researcher asked students to read the story given to build the students’ knowledge about narrative texts. Having known about
the characteristic of narrative texts the students were involved in Jigsaw technique. They discussed, described the events, and shared the ideas based
on the picture given. In the second meeting, the students were asked to make their first draft of narrative text and asked them to revise their first draft by
peer correction. In the third meeting, the students were asked to edit their draft, read their final draft, and collect the final draft. The final draft was the
data for the posttest 1.
c. Observing
In this phase, the observer observed the students’ participation in the
process of writing in pre, whilst and post writing activities through observation checklist see Table 4.2.
In the first meeting, there were 75.3 students who participated actively in discussing the events in the picture sequence. There were 80.0
students involved enthusiastically in writing and revising their first draft, while in the third meeting, there were 82.5 students who participated
actively in editing and completing their final draft. So, the result of observation checklist in the first cycle was 79.3 of the students were
involved in writing class activity. This was assessed by adding the percentage
of the students’ participation in the three meetings divided by 3 See Appendix 9a.
From the students’ participation, it showed that the
Kategori