Table 3: The Students’ Writing Scores in the Pre-test
No Nama
Aspects of writing Total
Score Note
C 0-30
O 0-20
V 0-20
L 0-25
M 1-5
1. S1
20 13
10 12
4 59
2. S2
20 15
8 5
3 51
3. S3
15 12
10 5
3 45
4. S4
25 18
18 15
4 80
5. S5
23 12
14 13
3 65
6. S6
20 11
13 15
3 63
7. S7
24 15
10 10
3 62
C 8.
S8 28
13 15
13 3
72
9. S9
24 8
10 13
2 57
10. S10
28 13
7 10
2 60
11. S11
28 20
16 14
3 81
12. S12
20 15
8 10
4 57
C 13.
S13 27
18 18
20 5
88
14. S14
20 17
13 23
2 75
15. S15
16 13
11 18
4 62
16. S16
26 17
15 16
3 77
17. S17
23 18
13 12
2 68
18. S18
23 16
10 15
2 66
19. S19
20 16
8 15
4 63
C 20.
S20 23
20 20
15 4
82
21. S21
25 15
18 18
3 79
22. S22
16 10
3 6
2 37
23. S23
30 15
18 15
4 82
24. S24
15 13
15 6
2 51
25. S25
20 12
11 13
4 60
C 26.
S26 28
20 15
14 3
80
27. S27
21 12
10 18
2 63
28. S28
20 15
8 15
2 60
29. S29
18 11
7 10
2 48
30. S30
24 18
14 19
3 80
C 31.
S31 27
15 15
15 4
76
32. S32
16 13
13 14
4 60
Mean 22.28
14.65 12.31
13.5 3.06
65.90
Nb. The standard Score for English lesson is 70
S = Student
XX = the Score below the Standard
XX = the Revised Score
C = the Student who did the cheating Shehe did pre-test once
more. From 32 students who took part in pre-test, only twelve students passed
the standard score. Five of them did the cheating so they did the second pre-test to get the real score. The scores were analyzed using score scheme adapted from
Brown and Bailey 1984, 39-41 in Brown 2004. From the standard score set, the researcher found that the ideal score was
above 70. In fact the students’ mean score was 65.9. It was still lower than the standard score. It means that the students’ writing skills needed to be improved.
From the finding of the problems based on the interviews, the observations, and the pre-test, the researcher identified and selected the problems
to overcome. The field problems which occurred during the teaching and learning process can be seen in Table 4.
Table 4: Field Problems in the English Teaching and Learning Process of Class D SMPN 2 Playen
No Field Problems
Code
1. Students’ comprehension about the organization of the text,
language use and mechanism was still low. S
2. Students lacked of vocabularies.
S 3.
The acts of cheating were identified in the students writing. S, T
4. Few students brought dictionary.
S 5.
Inappropriate insufficient dictionary brought by students. S
6. Students got some difficulties in understanding the teachers’
explanation. S
7. Students were very noisy and hardly focus on the materials
S 8.
The use of student worksheet was dominant at class. T
9. The students were rarely did task in pairs groups.
T 10.
The students’ cooperation in group pair work was low. S
11. Students were less encouraged to work in groups.
S
12. The teacher focused on text rather than using fun media.
T 13.
The activities that the teacher gave were less varied. T
14. The teacher did not give the effective feedback.
T S: Students
T: Teacher From the identified problems above, the English teacher and the researcher
then discussed the crucial problems to solve.
2. Selection of the Problems Based on the Urgency Level
