CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the researcher presents the implementation of the action. The structure of the writing contains introduction, research implementation, and discussion. Introduction contains
the problem faced by the students and the possible causes of the problem. Research implementation contains the implementations of the actions of the research in the field.
A. Research Findings 1. Introduction
As presented in chapter I, some problems were found in the teaching of English for students of the X1 IPA 4 of SMA N 8 Surakarta. The main problem faced by the students was
the lack of grammar mastery. Their grammar was still low. It can be seen from the aspects like: 1 the low score of the students; 2 the grammatical mistakes on students’ composition.
The difficulties of mastering grammar were caused by some reasons. Firstly, the students were still confused in some grammar points like the use of modal, the use of pronoun, and the
use of past tense. Secondly, the students had low level of grammar mastery so that they found difficulties in developing their ideas into written language. The indicators of this problem could
be seen from their attitudes towards writing lesson. They always complain whenever they were asked to write because they were afraid of making mistakes.
There were also several possible causes of the problem that could be identified by the researcher, among others: 1 The teacher never used certain method to correct mistakes on
50
student’s writing, 2 The teacher seemed never encourage the students to write and told them not to be afraid of making mistakes because they could learn from the mistakes they did before.
2. Research Implementation
The implementation of the action planned in this research was held in two cycles. Each cycle included several meetings. Each meeting took 90 minutes. The researcher divided the first
cycle into three meetings. It was conducted from 10 to 24 of April 2010. In this cycle, the researcher used “Funny Experience” as the topic. Meanwhile, the second cycle included three
meetings. The researcher chose “Funny Story” as the topic. The researcher conducted the second cycle from 1 to 29 of May 2010. Every cycle in this research consisted of series of steps, namely
identifying the problems, planning the action, implementing the action, observing or monitoring the action, evaluating and reflecting the result of the observation, and revising the plan. They are
explained in the following parts.
1. Identifying the Problem
The writer did some observations to know the pre-condition before the implementation of the action research. Based on the result of the pre-research done in class XI IPA 4 in SMA
Negeri 8 Surakarta, the researcher could identify the problem faced by the eleventh year students in learning writing. In the beginning of the research, the researcher conducted pre-observation
toward the teaching-learning process and interview with the teacher. He found some problems arose in that class. The first was the students were not interested in English class; they thought
that English was a difficult lesson. The second, the students had low level of writing skill so that they found difficulties in developing their ideas into the written language. The indicators of this
problem could be seen from their attitudes towards writing lesson. They always complained
whenever they were asked to write. The third, the students seemed to be discouraged to have writing lesson. In short, they tried to avoid it because they were afraid of making many errors in
writing and got a bad score. According to the teacher, the problem faced by the students was actually resulted from the lack of vocabulary and grammar mastery.
In this step, the researcher also conducted a pre-test of writing to know the condition of the students’ grammar mastery. In this test, the students were asked to make a simple
composition based on their experience. The mean score of the pre test was 5.4. This score showed that the students’ grammar mastery was still low.
In addition, based on the interview with the teacher and the pre-test result, the researcher identified that the students’ grammar mastery needed to be improved. He decided to
improve it through a technique working in a non-threatening condition called teacher’s feedback. Teacher’s feedback is the teacher’s act to the students’ performance on writing by marking the
errors on their composition by giving certain marks to the errors so that the students recognize their errors and can discover deviant forms and structures of the target language learned. It helps
the students to become more accurate in their use of language. The focus of teacher’s feedback is to improve the students’ grammar mastery on the aspect of sentence construction dealing with
grammar structure and vocabulary since it became the major problem faced by the students. The goal of feedback is to teach skills that help students improve their writing proficiency to the point
where they are cognizant of what is expected of them as writers and are able to produce it with minimal errors and maximum clarity.
2. The First Cycle 1. Planning the action
After finding the problems faced by the students, the researcher prepared to conduct the research. He made lesson plans for the first cycle. He also chose the appropriate techniques
supporting the process of the teaching writing. Here, the researcher used lecturing, and question and answer. The lecturing technique helped the students to understand about the spoof text and
the essence of teacher’s feedback. The researcher also prepared the teaching aids such as hand- made poster which was containing about the list of the codes and its meaning. He prepared the
teaching material based on the topic stated in the curriculum. The material was about Spoof text and the theme was Funny Experience. For the first cycle, he planned three meetings. The
meeting was conducted once a week. Before doing the teaching in the class XI IPA 4, the researcher gave the students pre-test. The test was aimed to know their grammar mastery on the
composition. The test was also given in the end of the first cycle as a post-test.
2. Implementing the action
In implementing the action, the researcher played a role as the teacher. Meanwhile, the real English teacher helped the researcher in observing the students and in overcoming the
problems faced by the researcher in the class during the teaching and learning process. The researcher also asked one of his fellow reserachers to observe the teaching and learning process.
So, there were two observers in the class.
The researcher did the teaching-learning process in three phases: pre-activity, main activity, and post-activity. The pre-activity phase covered all the things done as the opening such
as greeting, checking the students’ attendance. In this phase, the researcher also did brainstorming or gave some questions to students to stimulate their participation in the lesson. In
the main activity, the researcher gave explanation about the material. Then, the researcher also asked students to tell their experience about everything dealing with the material spoof text. In
the post activity, the researchers summarized the lesson, did reflection, and closed the lesson.
1. The first meeting
The first meeting was conducted on Saturday
,
April 10, 2010. The topic was Funny Experience. In short, the teaching and learning process ran as follows. Firstly, the researcher
introduced the topic and stated the goal of the lesson. Then, he distributed the copy of the material that was spoof text with the title Penguin in the Park. The researcher asked the students
to comprehend the copy of the material: spoof and its example. After that, he asked one of the students to read the text loudly and then discussed the content and the generic structure of the
text. Then, the researcher gave explanation about spoof. The students had learned about spoof text before so that the researcher didn’t find any difficulty in explaining about Spoof.
The time was about 45 minutes. Before the researcher asked the students to make a composition in the form of spoof text, he explained the step of writing namely pre-writing,
writing, and post-writing. As pre-writing activity, then he gave an example by writing the first sentence of spoof text as an orientation. The sentence was; “Once, a man was walking when he
came across a penguin”. He explained it to the students that this sentence could be the topic of their composition.
Later, the researcher asked some students to tell their past funny experiences. At the first time, all of the students refused to do that. They said “Nggak bisa mas, susah nhu mas kalo
disuruh menceritakannya pake bahasa Inggris, pake bahasa Indonesia saja ya mas?. Then, the researcher encouraged the students that it would be OK if they tried it. Nevertheless, none of
them would tell their story in English. So, the researcher asked some students to tell it Indonesia. The researcher said “Ya sudah, disampaikan dalam bahasa Indonesia saja, paling tidak kita bisa
mengetahui apa yang akan kita pelajari sebenarnya”.
Finally, some students did what the researcher asked them to do. There were some students who willingly told their amusing experiences. Two of them were Siti and Riris. Siti
talked about his grandfather who had already been senile. She said “ Saya punyah mbah kakung yang sudah tua. Pernah suatu malam, beliau mencari kaca mata nya yang hilang. Penghuni
rumah pun dibuat kebingungan mencari nya. Dicari kesana-sini pun tak ada. Gak tau nya ditaruh dikepala nya. Semua anggota keluargapun tertawa atas kejadian itu”. Hearing that
story, all students laughed. Then, the researcher gave a little comment to that story “Grandfather” Dasar mbah kakung. Later Siti talked about her shameful story. She said
“Pengalaman ku sebenernya memalukan buat saya mas. Kejadian nya ketika saya disuruh ibu bikin sup ayam. Karena ini yang pertama kali, saya pun gugup banget pas bikin nya. Sampai
akhirnya saya salah menakar bumbu. Saya memasukan garam lebih banyak. Ya hasilnya pasti asin banget. Terus ibu saya pun tertawa”. Hearing that story, one of students commented “ Wah,
kalo itu bukan dia yang gugup mas, tapi dia nya aja yang udah pengen nikah.” And other students agreed by saying “Bener itu mas, hehehe”. Then, all students laughed too.
Then, to make learning process run well, the researcher stopped the retelling session because the class was so noisy. It lasted for about 35 minutes. On ten minutes remaining, the
researcher explained that what we did before would actually be performed next in writing form. So, “Don’t forget to bring the material I had given next week”, he said. In the post-activity
phase
,
AS reviewed the lesson of that day by asking some questions to the students. AS gave a chance for the students to recall what had been learned and then they made a conclusion
together. AS asked the students whether they had questions or not. But no students asked question. When the time given was over, AS asked the students whether they were happy or not
in the lesson. The students answered “Yes”. Then the teacher said “ Thank for your attention,
Good morning and see you later” . AS closed the lesson.
2. The second meeting
The second meeting was conducted on Saturday, April 17, 2010. The topic was still Funny Experience. The researcher started the lesson by praying. AS prepared the teaching
instruments then greeted and checked students’ attendance. The researcher reviewed what they learnt in the last meeting to refresh students’ memory about what spoof text is. The researcher
explained the same example of spoof text that had been distributed in previous meeting. Then, he explained the spoof text again; namely its generic structure, communicative purpose and
characteristics. He wrote the explanation on the whiteboard in order that students understood with what they would learn.
The time was about 45 minutes. After having given the explanation, the researcher asked students to make a composition. First, all of the students refused to do that they said “Ngga
bisa mas, kan mengarang bahasa inggris susah, nanti kalau salah semua gimana mas?”. Then, the researcher encouraged the students that it was OK if they produced many errors in writing.
The researcher said “tidak apa-apa kalau membuat kesalahan, namanya juga belajar. Jangan takut, nanti kalian malah bisa belajar dari kesalahan itu dan jadi tahu mana yang benar”
Finally, the students did what the researcher asked them to do, that was making a composition in form of spoof. Then, the researcher distributed worksheet to the students. The
students started to write and the researcher walked around the class to make sure that all students wrote the composition.
After the students finished writing, the researcher asked them to check their writing again before they collected it to the researcher. He told the students that their writing would be
returned the following week. He summarized the lesson on that day and then closed it by saying goodbye.
3. The third meeting
The third meeting was conducted on Saturday, April 24, 2010. The topic was still Funny Experience. The researcher reviewed the last meeting to refresh the students’ memory. Then he
distributed the students’ writing from the last meeting. Before asking the students to correct their writing, the researcher explained about what kind of error they often made and he took the
example from the students’ writing. He also took some grammatically wrong sentences on their composition to be written on the white board. Then, he asked the students to correct their own
writing based on the underlining feedback given and then rewrite it under the underlining feedback. Later, the students started to correct their writing. As usual, the researcher walked
around the class to make sure that all students were correcting their writing and helped the students who was still confused about the underlined feedback.
Having finished correcting their writing, the students collected their writing to the researcher. Finally, the researcher closed the lesson by thanking the students for their attention
and then saying goodbye.
3. Observing the action
During the teaching and learning process, the researcher did not only teach the students, but also observed the things happening in the class. The following is the detail
explanation about the result of the observation based on the test, observation and interview to the students as a consideration to make decisions dealing with the next steps.
1. The first meeting
In the first meeting, the students still looked shy to the researcher and they were not serious and active to follow the teaching and learning process. During the activities, they paid
attention to the researcher’s explanation. When the researcher gave them the opportunity to ask questions dealing with the material, they said they have learned about the spoof before, so they
were not confused. Some boys and girls were kept talking while the researcher explained the material. A lot of time was wasted to make them listen. The class became very noisy when the
researcher asked them to tell their funny experience. Most students refused to do that. It was supported by this statement;
“Nggak bisa mas, susah nhu mas kalo disuruh menceritakannya pake bahasa Inggris, pake bahasa Indonesia saja ya mas? “Ya sudah, disampaikan dalam bahasa Indonesia saja,
paling tidak kita bisa mengetahui apa yang akan kita pelajari sebenarnya”. fieldnote 1
2. The second meeting
In this meeting, the researcher explained once again about spoof especially about its language feature for about 15 minutes to refresh the students’ memory. He gave the same
example of spoof text. Then, he asked students to make a composition. At first, all students refused to do it. But, they did it finally. The following statement shows their unwillingness to
write;
“Ngga bisa mas, kan mengarang bahasa inggris susah, nanti kalau salah semua gimana mas? Tidak apa-apa kalau membuat kesalahan, namanya juga belajar. Jangan takut,
nanti kalian malah bisa belajar dari kesalahan itu dan jadi tahu mana yang benar” fieldnote2
When the students were writing, many of them asked about the vocabulary and the correct form of verb which would be used. One example question is as follow;
“Mas, bentuk kata kerja kedua berfikir apa trus Bahasa Inggris nya senang apa?” fildnote2
Most of the students did not re-check their writing before they collected it to the researcher.
3. The third meeting
In the third meeting, the students and the researcher started to have a good relationship. The students were not shy anymore to ask questions if they did not understand.
However, a few students did not understand the researcher’s instruction dealing with the
underlined feedback which covered their composition. One of the students’ questions is as follow;
“Mas, kita disuruh ngapain dengan karangan kita yang sidah diberitanda garis bawah?” fieldnote 3
It could happen because the researcher didn’t give enough explanation and examples of kind of errors they made.
4. Reflecting the result of the observation
The researcher did reflection to evaluate the teaching and learning process he had done in cycle one. After the implementation of teacher’s feedback, the researcher saw some
positive results.
Firstly, the students started to show the positive attitudes toward writing. It could be seen from the students’ activeness and seriousness in performing the steps of writing. They
became more active in joining the lesson. They were also actively involved in brainstorming session; some of them were very enthusiastic and also gave some inputs during the activity. In
writing activity, some students looked very serious; they did not cheat or imitate someone’s work like most of their friends did. They used their own idea. They just asked about the vocabularies
and the verb in past form to the researcher. The researcher marked the names of those students in observation paper. And the result, there were 17 students from 33 students or 51.5 of the
whole students who showed the activeness and seriousness in performing the steps of writing. This number was better than when they did pre test.
The improvement of students’ grammar mastery can be seen from the students’ ability in correcting the errors which had been given underlining feedback.
The researcher counted the number of students who could make use the teacher’s underlining feedback to
improve the grammar and vocabulary of the composition. As the result, there were 18 students from 33 students or 54.54 who could improve grammar mastery of the composition based on
the feedback given by the teacher.
There were a lot of students who got score 30-50. In the pre test, the students who got score 30-50 were fourteen students or just 42.42. In the end of the first cycle, the number of
students who got score 30-50 was decreasing, from fourteen to nine students or 27.27. In other words, there was little improvement from the students who got bad score.
Nevertheless, the improvement of the students’ grammar mastery was not effective yet since the main targets had not been achieved. The researcher had formulated the indicators of
success of this research that covered two aspects; 1 The students’ activeness and seriousness in performing the steps of writing; 2 The students’ ability in correcting the errors of the
composition based on the feedback given by the teacher. The target of achievement for each aspect is 60 . And from the result of the first cycle, it can be seen clearly that those two aspects
had not reached the target, namely; 1 The students’ activeness and seriousness in performing the steps of writing which was only 51.5 ; 2 The students’ ability in correcting the errors
based on the underlining feedback given by the teacher which was only 54.54 .
There were also several problems that the researchers found in the first cycle, among others are,
1. There were some students who were reluctant to write. They seemingly did not have self-confidence to write because they were still afraid of making many errors. One
example question as follows;
“Ngga bisa mas, kan mengarang bahasa inggris susah, nanti kalau salah semua gimana mas?fieldnote 2
2. The students still found difficulties in constructing sentences. It is based on researcher’s observation;
“ Banyak siswa ramai, tanya pada teman sebangku dan beberapa tanya pada guru nya. Karangan ini pake kata kerja keberapa,mas? fieldnote 2
3. The researcher did not give enough explanation about the way to construct sentence and about the essence of underlining feedback. It was caused by some students who ignored
the feedback given on their composition. They corrected their work but a few students seemingly did not understand. One example question as follow;
“Mas, kita disuruh ngapain dengan karangan kita yang sudah diberitanda garis bawah?” fieldnote 3
This problem is also supported by the researcher observation.
“Beberapa siswa tampak kesulitan dalam memahami penjelasan tentang feedback karena ditulis dalam bentuk garis bawah fieldnote 3
4. The researcher did not manage the class well enough so that sometimes the students
were busy with themselves and finally they did not join and understand the lesson well. Even, they were not serious and active to follow the teaching and learning process.
This problem is also supported by the researcher’s observation;
“Para siswa berbicara sendiri karena tidak begitu tertarik dengan cara AS menyampaikan materi. Terlalu monoton” fieldnote 1
5. Editing and revising phase did not run optimally. It means that almost of the students did not edit their writing result with their own awareness. They submitted their writing result
directly without editing and revising it first. Sometimes students disregarded the importance of editing and revising in their writing process. It was caused by the
students’ hastiness to submit their writing. This problem is supported by the student’s statement;
“Kita masih bingung mas dengan penjelasan feedback pada kesalahan yang digarisbawah, jadi ya kita cuma mengerjakan sebisa nya saja” fieldnote 3
Referring to what he identified as the weaknesses above, the researcher decided to take the second cycle in order to make better improvement of the students’ grammar mastery.
3. The Second Cycle
a. Revising the Plan
Based on the result of the first cycle, it was found that there were several remaining problems which needed to be solved. The researcher decided to take the second cycle and revised
the plan.
In this cycle, the researcher tried to overcome the barriers. He decided to teach the students by presenting the same topic, namely Funny Experience and the example of text entitled
It’s None of Your Business. He taught the students by giving enough explanation about the grammar structure and by explaining again about the guidelines of teacher’s feedback. Before the
students corrected their writing based on the feedback given on their worksheet, the researcher gave sometime to explain new teacher’s feedback, namely coded feedback and he took the
examples directly from the students’ writing so that it would be easier for them to understand. Moreover, he gave two codes to the students’ writing. In this case, he gave an underlining
feedback to the wrong sentence structure and put a code on it so that the students knew the errors they made.
The researcher became more active in managing the class so that the students could join the class optimally.
b. Implementing the Action
The researcher implemented the action in two meetings.
1. The first meeting
The first meeting was conducted on Saturday, May 08, 2010. The topic was Funny Experience. The researcher started the lesson by reviewing the last discussion and then
explaining more about teacher’s coded feedback. He also wrote some of the coding feedback on the whiteboard though all students had got the copy of coded feedback.
Having finished explaining about teacher’s feedback, the researcher asked the students, “Do you understand?”
They answered together, “Yes”
In order that students understood to what the researcher wanted, he took some examples of student’s errors which were given both underlining and coding feedback. There
were five coding feedback presented, namely V Verb Error, NE Noun Ending, WW Wrong Word, Art Article, SS Sentence structure.
Then, the researcher distributed the material entitled “A Private Conversation”. He discussed the generic structure and language features.
Since there were a lot of errors in verb formation of past tense, the researcher decided to make a simple game to recognize which the verb was and to make students more serious and active in
following teaching and learning process. The result was most students were interested in this game while others weren’t. Considering that errors found were the forming of past verb, the
teacher explained one of the language features of spoof text, that was the usage of Simple Past Tense.
The time was about ten minutes. Before AS closed the lesson, he reviewed the lesson of that day. AS gave a chance for the students to recall what had been learnt and then they made
a conclusion together. AS also asked students to remember the coded feedback given because it
would be used to sign errors on their composition in the next meeting. Then the teacher said “
thank for your attention, Good morning and have a nice weekend” . AS closed the lesson.
2. The second meeting
This meeting was conducted on Saturday, May 22, 2010. The topic taught was Funny Experience. The researcher distributed one of the students’ compositions from the last meeting
which was given both underlining feedback and coding feedback. Before asking the students to correct their writing, the researcher explained once again about the feedback codes given on their
worksheet. He also took examples directly from the students’ worksheet.
Having finished the explanation, the researcher asked the students to correct their writing and write it under the errors which were given feedback. He walked around the class to
make sure that all students were correcting their writing and also give individual feedback to the students. After the students finished correcting their writing, some of the students showed it to
the researcher in order to ask whether they had made the correct writing.
Finally, the time was up and the researcher closed the lesson by asking some questions first. He asked, “Is there any question?”. The students answered,” No” Then, the researcher
asked in Indonesia, ”Menurut kalian teacher’s feedback itu membantu kalian dalam menulis bahasa inggris tidak?” They answered, “Yes” Then he asked one of the students to say his
reason. He said so ” Ya, Theo menurut kamu kenapa teacher’s feedback sangat membantu?” then Theo answered “karena tulisan kita tidak langsung disalahkan, dan kita bisa mengoreksi
kesalahan grammar kita sendiri jadi nanti nya kita tidak takut salah”. “Ok, thank you Theo” said the researcher. Then, he closed the lesson by saying thanks and goodbye.
c. Observing the action
The result of the observation done during the teaching-learning processes in the second cycle is as follows.
1. The first meeting
In this meeting the students seemed to have better attitudes towards teaching and learning process and teacher’s feedback since the researcher had explained it more clearly. It can
be seen from their expression and their response towards the researcher’s explanation about it. Most of the students did not complain anymore when they were asked to write and they also
made use the feedback given to improve their grammar mastery
They also seemed to have better understanding about how to construct simple sentences. Most of the students could construct sentences correctly when they were asked to
write a simple composition.
The students were more serious and active in joining teaching and learning process since the researcher gave them a game in recognizing the verb in a sentence. This is supported by
the researcher’s observation;
“Beberapa siswa berebut untuk menuliskan kata kerja yang mereka temukan diteks yang diberikan oleh AS. Salah satu dari mereka pun berteriak, “saya mas, saya bisa mencari
kata kerja yang ada dikalimat pertama” kata Andi. Kemudaian Hanin pun tak mau kalah dengan siswa lain nya, langsung dia maju ke depan dan menuliskan beberapa kata kerja.” fieldnote 4.
2. The second meeting
The essence of this meeting was just to ask the students to check and correct one of the compositions they had collected in the previous meeting. Therefore, the topic was still Funny
Experience. The students found it easier to correct their writing since the researcher had put two feedbacks, underlined and coded feedback. This is supported by the researcher’s observation.
“Para siswa tampak serius dan tertantang untuk mengoreksi kesalahan-kesalahan grammar yang sudah diberi tanda garis bawah dan kode feedback oleh AS. Setelah selesai
mengerjakan dan mengumpulkan, AS pun bertanya pada salah seorang siswa, Theo nama nya. AS bertanya, menurut mu teacher’s feedback itu membantu kalian dalam meningkatkan
penguasaan grammar, khususnya dalam writing? Theo pun menjawab, Iya, mas. Karena tulisan kita tidak langsung disalahkan dan kita bisa megoreksi kesalahan grammar kita sendiri, jadi
nanti nya kita tidak takut salah.” Fieldnote 5
d. Reflecting the result of the observation
Referring to the target the researcher wants to achieve, which is improving students’ grammar mastery. He finds the result of the treatments and evaluations satisfying. Overall, he
can say that teacher’s feedback works well in improving students’ grammar mastery. The improvements can be seen from some points.
The first point is the number of students who shows activeness and seriousness in performing the steps of writing raises, from 17 students or 51.5 in the first cycle becomes 26
students or 78.78 in the second cycle.
The second point dealing with the achieved target is the students’ ability in correcting the errors on composition is better. It can be seen from the numbers of the students who could
make use both teachers’ feedbacks to improve the form of the language of their composition. In the second cycle, there were 30 students or 90.90 who could make use teacher’s feedback in
correcting the errors of composition. Compared with the first cycle, there were only 18 students or 54.54 who could make use the teacher’s underlined feedback in correcting the errors of
their composition. This improvement is satisfying for the researcher, because it is a proof that the students finally knew the essence of teacher’s feedback that is they could self-correct their own
writing.
The third point is the mean score of the second post test result done at the end of the action shows that there is significant improvement of the students’ grammar mastery. The mean
score of the second post test is 70.60. It is better than the mean score of the first post test result which is 58.78. It means that the percentage rises.
The fourth point which shows the positive progress of students’ ability in correcting errors is they are able to revise the error correctly. In this case, the errors they revised were based
on the researcher’s explanation and examples. The researcher explained to them which parts went wrong and showed them the correct form. The positive progress of students’ grammar
mastery is also the enrichment of students’ vocabularies which happened during the process of revising
The fifth point is that the students were actively involved in the teaching and learning process. They asked question whenever they did not understand about the material or the
feedback given. They also could make use of both teachers’ feedbacks so that they found it
easier to revise their writing. All students were active in joining the lesson since the researcher did better class control.
However, these achievements do not mean that the actions done by the researcher is already perfect and final. The use of teacher’s feedback is only one of the ways of improving the
students’ grammar mastery. It can still be improved by the teacher as long as she or he is willing to do betterment on herhis teaching, especially in teaching writing. She or he can make use of
any techniques appropriate to the teaching of writing skill.
3. Findings
After analyzing the data, such as photographs of teaching and learning process, field notes, interview result, lesson plan, and the score of students’ pre-test and post-test; the writer
gets some findings which answer the questions as mentioned in chapter one.
There are two findings related to research questions. The first finding is the improvement of students’ grammar
mastery . The students’ achivement of grammar
mastery can
be seen from the students’ score of the tests. The mean score of pre-test was 53. 9 and it increased up to 58.78 in post-test 1. While, the mean score of post-test 1 was 58.78 and it
increased up to 68.48 in the final post-test .
From these scores, it can be seen that there was a difference between the score of pre-test and pos-test. It proves that teacher’s feedback can
improve student’s grammar mastery. The second finding is the strenghts and the weaknesses of of the teacher’s feedback implemented in the class.
B. Research Discussion and Justification of Research Findings
Kategori