Research Findings

A. Research Findings

1. The Research Setting

The setting of the research is SMP Negeri 1 Lahewa Timur. The school is located in Lahewa Timur sub district. The school had one headmaster and 21 teachers. There were 11 classes for 359 students, one Headmasters’ office, a unit of library, one teachers’ office, 2 canteens, and a large yard as a place of ceremony. Among the teachers in that school, there were two English teachers, one was civil servant and one was non-civil servant. The location of the school was strategic to do the teaching and learning process because it was far from the crowded and can be reached by any transportation.

The subject of the research was the students of class VIII-A, which the total numbers of the students was 36 students consisting of 17 girls and 19 boys. The researcher did the research by the agreement of the headmaster of SMP Negeri 1 Lahewa Timur. In performing the research, the researcher had some procedure which consisted of planning, action, observation, and reflection.

To conduct the research, the researcher had helped by the English teacher of SMP Negeri 1 Lahewa Timur as the teacher- collaborator. She observed the students’ and the researcher’s activities. The researcher needed the help of the teacher- collaborator in order that the activities of research could run well and the result of the the research could be valid. The students were all present during the research.

2. The Students’ Ability in mastering Vocabulary by Using Password Game

a. Cycle I

In Cycle I consisted of two meetings. The researcher did it on May 2016. The first meeting was held on Friday 13 th May 2016 and the second meeting was held

on Saturday 14 th May 2016. Both of the first meeting and the second meeting held at the class VIII-A of SMP Negeri 1 Lahewa Timur with the total number of the

students were 36 students and all of them were present. The allotted time was 4 x 40 minutes for two meetings. The researcher had prepared one topic in order that the students could think and get the continuation of the last material that they had learned. The two meetings of Cycle I was done by the following procedures, as follows.

1) The First Meeting

The first meeting was conducted on Friday 13 th May 2016. Before entering the classroom, the researcher had prepared many things needed in the teaching and

learning process. The meeting had been done by the researcher based on the agreement of the headmaster and the English teacher-collaborator.

a) Planning

In conducting the first meeting of Cycle I, the researcher had prepared many things, such as : lesson plan (See Appendix 2), the material descriptive text (See Appendix 3a) and the evaluation sheet (See Appendix 6) and the observation Sheet of the students ’ and the researcher’s activities (See Apendix 7 & 8). Also the field notes (See Appendix 9), flash cards and the students’ attendance list. The planning In conducting the first meeting of Cycle I, the researcher had prepared many things, such as : lesson plan (See Appendix 2), the material descriptive text (See Appendix 3a) and the evaluation sheet (See Appendix 6) and the observation Sheet of the students ’ and the researcher’s activities (See Apendix 7 & 8). Also the field notes (See Appendix 9), flash cards and the students’ attendance list. The planning

b) Action

After planning had been prepared by the researcher, the action of the researcher has conducted in the classroom. The action performed on Friday 13 th

May 2016. The meeting was done in 2 x 40 minutes. The teaching-learning process consisted of pre-teaching-learning activities, whilst-teaching-learning activities and post-teaching-learning activities. For the first meeting in the classroom, the researcher entered the classroom together with the English teacher- collaborator and told to them person who had come. After that, the teacher- collaborator gave the chance to the researcher to handle the class while she herself sat down and observed the researcher’s and the students’ activities, the researcher greeted the students and cheked the attendance list. Furthermore, the researcher

introduced herself to the students and taught the material entailing “My House”.

In the meeting the researcher introduced the material about desciptive text. After explained the function and the chronological order of the descriptive text and the researcher asked them to read the text entittled “My House”. Then, the researcher guided the students to comprehend the vocabulary through Password Game.

Then, the researcher introduced and explained the definition of Password Game for the students and the researcher divided the students into two teams, next the researcher gave a chance to one of the students in the team to choose one of word card to describe each vocabulary word based on concepts and ideas from the Then, the researcher introduced and explained the definition of Password Game for the students and the researcher divided the students into two teams, next the researcher gave a chance to one of the students in the team to choose one of word card to describe each vocabulary word based on concepts and ideas from the

tried to guess the word. But, the researcher allowed other students to say “Pass” and moved onto the next word if the students in the team could not guess the word.

Then, the researcher gave a limit time was 60 second to guess the word. Moreover, the researcher gave the turn to the second team to guess the word by using another card that had been prepared before. And the researcher determined how many words that the students got the word in the team. After that, the researcher decided the students who got the high score would be the winner.

The researcher came to the post teaching-learning activities. After that, the researcher asked the students to ask their difficulties and going to conclude the material. Then the researcher gave assignment to the students. Finally, the researcher closed the class by greeted the students.

c) Observation

The observation was done by the English teacher-collaborator during the researcher implemented the actions in the classroom. The English teacher- collaborator observed all of the activities happened in the teaching – learning process: including the researcher’s and the students’ activities.

The ob servation result of the researcher’s and student’s activities can be seen below. (1) The researcher’s observation activities

- Done Activities : 20 activities (74.07%) of 27 activities. - Undone Activities

: 7 activities (25.93%) of 27 activities.

The researcher’s activities can be seen in the following graphic.

Meeting I (cycle I)

Graphic 1 . The result of researcher’s observation sheet in the first meeting of Cycle I

Based on the result of the data above, the percentage of the researcher’s activities had been done was categorized into enough level (74.07%). (2) The students’ observation activities

- Done Activities : 10 students (27.78%) of 36 students. - Undone Activities

: 26 students (72.22%) of 36 students. It can be seen in the following graphic.

Meeting I (cycle I)

Graphic 2. The result of the s tudents’ observation sheet in the first meeting of Cycle I

Regarding to those results, the percentage of the students that had been done activities was categorized into fail level (27.78%). Based on result of two pieces of observation sheet, the researcher found some weaknesses in the first meeting of Cycle I, as follows. (1) Most of the students were unable to differentiate the part of speech. (2) It was difficult for most of the students to pronounce the words. (3) Most of the students were unable to identify the generic structure. (4) It was difficult for most of the students to know some of vocabulary. (5) Most of the students did not pay attention when the researcher introduced new

words. Besides, the researcher found some strength in doing the first meeting in cycle I, as follows. (1) Some of the students were able to differentiate the part of speech. (2) Some of the students were able to pronounce the words. (3) Some of the students were able to identify the generic structure. (4) Some of the students were able to know some of vocabulary. (5) Some of the students paid attention when the researcher introduced new words.

d) Reflection

In the first meeting, the researcher did not have enough time to evaluate the students’ ability in mastering vocabulary especially in reading descriptive text. She

just focused to introduce and explains the material and how Password Game looked like. Based on the result of the observation sheet that was explained in the just focused to introduce and explains the material and how Password Game looked like. Based on the result of the observation sheet that was explained in the

descriptive text. (4) The researcher asked the students to recognize meaning of vocabulary when the students desribed the word. (5) The researcher asked the students to pay attention when the researcher introduced new words.

2) The Second Meeting

The second meeting was conducted on Saturday 14 th May 2016. It was done in 2 x 40 minutes in the classroom. The researcher did some activities in the second

meeting such as planning, action, observation, and reflection. The explanation of the activities as follows:

a) Planning

The researcher made the plan again in this meeting; she prepared everything that was needed. The researcher arranged the lesson plan, prepared the material descriptive text to the students, the researcher prepared the observation sheet, evaluation sheet to collect the data, prepared the field notes of the researcher and students, the researcher prepared another flash cards to the students and prepared the students attendance list.

b) Action

In the stage of action, the researcher together with the English teacher- collaborator entered the classroom. The researcher directly handled the class. She started her teaching by greeting the students and asked their condition. After that, the researcher continued to explain about the last material to the students through Password Game. The researcher asked the students’ knowledge about the last material and some of them answered the researcher’s questions.

Then, the researcher distributed the evaluation sheet as final test in multiple choice question to the students. All the students were present. The researcher asked the students to answer the questions individually. The researcher controlled the students to make sure that all of the students did the task.

The researcher collected the students’ evaluation sheet. After that, the researcher made disscusion with the students about the answer of the questions. The students gave their opinion about the answer of the questions. The researcher took the conclusion and closed the meeting by greeting the students.

c) Observation

The observation was done by the English teacher collaborator during the researcher implemented the actions in the classroom. The English teacher- collaborator observed all of the activities happened in the teaching-learning process; involved the resea rcher’s and the students’ activities, it can be seen on the next page:

The observation results of the researcher’s and student’s activities can be seen below. (1) The researcher’s observation activities

- Done Activities : 19 activities (79.17%) of 24 activities. - Undone Activities

: 5 activities (20.83%) of 24 activities.

The researcher’s activities can be seen in the following graphic.

Meeting II (cycle I)

Graphic 3 . The result of researcher’s observation sheet in the second meeting of Cycle I

Based on the result of the data above, the percentage of the researcher’s activities that had been done was categorized into good level (79.17%). (2) The students’ observation activities

- Done Activities : 21 students (58.33%) of 36 students. - Undone Activities

: 15 students (41.67%) of 36 students. It can be seen in the graphic, as on the next page:

Meeting II (cycle I)

Graphic 4. The result of the s tudents’ observation sheet in the second

meeting of Cycle I

Regarding to those results, the percentage of the students that had been done activities was categorized into less level (58.33%). However, the researcher found some weaknesses in conducting the second meeting of Cycle I, they are: (1) Some of the students were unable to pronounce the words. (2) Some of the students were unable to identify the generic structure. (3) Some of the students did not pay attention when the researcher introduced new

words. (4) Some of the students did not understand the questions in the text because they could not translate the meaning of the questions. (5) Some of the students did not finish their evaluation by their own self. There are also the strengths after applying Password Game in the second meeting of Cycle II, they are: (1) Some of the students were able to pronounce the words. (2) Some of the students were able to identify the generic structure.

(3) Some of the students paid attention when the researcher introduced new words. (4) Some of the students understood the questions in the text because they could

translate the meaning of the questions. (5) Some of the students could finish their evaluation by their own self.

d) Reflection

After implementing the action, the researcher evaluated the result of the students’ ability in mastering vocabulary in descriptive text especially in

describing thing by using Password Game. The researcher gave twenty questions in multiple choice questions to the students. The result of their evaluation can be seen in the following table.

Table 2

The STUDENTS’ ABILITY in MASTERING VOCABULARY by USING PASSWORD GAME in CYCLE I

MCC The st udents’

Percentage Classification value 0-39

Level

Frequency

7 19.44% Unsuccessful 40-59

6 16.67% Successful 75-84

Very Good

Based on the data in the table above , it explained that the students’ ability in mastering vocabulary by using Password in Cycle I was failed. Most of the students could not pass the Minimum Competence Criterion (MCC). There were 7 students (19.44%) categorized into fail level, 15 students (41.67%) categorized into less level, 6 students (16.67%) categorized into enough level, 5 students

(13,89%) categorized into good level, and 3 students (8.33%) categorized into very good level. There were 22 unsuccessful students and 14 successful students in

reaching MCC. The average of the students’ value was 53.33. The result of the students’ ability in Cycle I can be viewed in the

following graphic as follows:

Less ta 60 50 41.67 Enough

ercen

P 40 Good 30 19.44 16.67 Very Good

Very Good

Graphic 5. The Students’ Ability in Mastering Vocabulary by Using

Password Game in Cycle I.

Since the result was still not satisfying, so the researcher would continue to the next cycle until all students would have achieved the Minimum Competence Criterion (MCC) that had been decided in the school.

The researcher would make some improvements to be implemented in the next cycle, such as: (1) The researcher asked the students to pronounce the words. (2) The researcher asked the students to identify the generic structure. (3) The researcher asked the students to pay attention when the researcher

introduced new words.

(4) The researcher asked the students to bring their dictionary and gave them some suggestions to be active in studying. (5) The researcher asked the students to finish their evaluation by their own self. (6) The researcher asked the students to convey their difficulties about the test.

Cycle II

In Cycle II consisted of two meetings. It was begun from 06 th June 2016

until 07 th June 2016. The first meeting was held on Monday, 06 June 2016 and the second meeting was held on Tuesday, 07 th June 2016. The allotted time was 4 x 40

th

minutes of each meetings. Below is the description of each meeting in Cycle II:

a. The first meeting.

The day was on Monday, 06 th June 2016. The time allocation was 2x40 minutes. Some stages that were done in the meeting as follows.

a) Re-Planning

In conducting the research in the first meeting of Cycle II, the researcher prepared the syllabus, re-arranged the lesson plan, the material, and the observation sheet of the researcher’s and the students’ activities, the evaluation

sheet, field notes, flash cards and attendance list of the students.

b) Action

The action was performed on Monday, 06 th June 2016. In the meeting, the researcher gave the new material of descriptive text entitled “My Classroom”. The

teaching-learning process consisted of pre-teaching-learning, whilst-teaching- learning, and post-teaching-learning.

Beginning the class, the researcher greeted the students, asked their condition and cheked the students’ attendance list. All of the students were present at that meeting. Before coming to the material, the researcher gave the students some motivations and reinforcements in order that they were always spirit in studying. The researcher told to the students about the result of their evaluation. The researcher told their weaknesses in the previous meeting and gave some improvements.

Then, the researcher introduced the material to the students. The students are asked by the researcher about their background knowledge related to the material. And then the researcher explained definition and generic structure of descriptive text. The researcher continued the activity by explaining again the material and introduced and explained the Password Game for the students.

The researcher divided the students into two teams, the researcher distributed the material to the students and explained the material descriptive text. After that, the researcher wrote an example of the word that connected into the concept and asked the students to describe the word by they own word, after that the researcher gave a chance to one of the students in the team to choose one of word card to describe each vocabulary word based on concepts and ideas from the lesson that had been prepared before. After that, the reseacher asked the student The researcher divided the students into two teams, the researcher distributed the material to the students and explained the material descriptive text. After that, the researcher wrote an example of the word that connected into the concept and asked the students to describe the word by they own word, after that the researcher gave a chance to one of the students in the team to choose one of word card to describe each vocabulary word based on concepts and ideas from the lesson that had been prepared before. After that, the reseacher asked the student

researcher allowed other students to say “Pass” and moved onto the next word if the students in the team could not guess the word. Then, the researcher gave a

limit time was 60 second to guess the word. Moreover, the researcher gave the turn to the second team to guess the word by using another card that had been prepared before. And the researcher determined how many words that the students got the word in the team. After that, the researcher decided the students who got the high score would be the winner.

The researcher guided the students who still got difficulties in finding the new words. After that, the researcher explained the words and gave conclusion to the students. Then the researcher gave assignment to the students. Finally, the researcher closed the class by greeting the students and reminding them about the next meeting in order that they would study hard at home.

c) Observation

The observation was done by the English teacher collaborator during the researcher implemented the actions in the classroom. The English teacher- collaborator observed all of the activities happened in the teaching-learning

process; involved the researcher’s and the students’ activities, as on the next page:

The observation results of the researcher’s and student’s activities can be seen below.

(1) The researcher’s observation activities

- Done Activities : 20 activities (83.33%) of 24 activities - Undone Activities : 4 activities (16.67%) of 24 activities.

The result can be seen in the following graphic.

rcent e

Meeting I Cycle II

Graphic 6 . The result of researcher’s observation sheet in the first meeting of Cycle II

Regarding to those results, the percentage of the researcher’s activities that had been done was categorized into good level (83.33%).

(2) The students’ observation activities - Done Activities

: 26 students (72.22%) of 36 students. - Undone Activities

: 10 students (27.78%) of 36 students. The result can be seen in the graphic, as on the next page:

Done e rcent 20

Undone

Meeting I Cycle II

Graphic 7. The result of students ’ observation sheet in the first meeting of Cycle II

Based on the results of the data above, the percentage of the activities that had been done was categorized in enough level (72.22%). The researcher found some weaknesses as follows. (1) Some of the students were unable to pronounce the words. (2) Some of the students were unable to identify the generic structure. (3) Some of the students did not pay attention when the researcher introduced new

words. Based on the result of the researcher’s and students’ observation sheet in the

first meeting of Cycle II, the researcher found some strengths, as follows. (1) Most of the students were able to pronounce the words. (2) Most of the students were able to identify the generic structure. (3) Most of the students paid attention when the researcher introduced new words.

d) Reflection

In the first meeting, the researcher did not have enough time to take the evaluation to the students. The researcher just focused on the teaching of the material by using Password Game to the students. Based on the result of observation sheet before, the researcher should do some improvement in the next meeting, such as: (1) The researcher asked the students to pronounce the words. (2) The researcher asked the students to identify the generic structure. (3) The researcher asked the students to pay attention when the researcher

introduced new words. (4) The researcher asked the students to bring their dictionary and gave them some suggestions to be active in studying. (5) The researcher asked the students to be brave to convey their opinion.

b) The second meeting

The day was on Tuesday, 07 th June 2016. That was the last meeting of Cycle

II. The time allocation was 2x40 minutes. Some stages that had been done, as follows.

a) Re-Planning

Before the researcher entered and conducted the researcher in the classroom, the researcher prepared; re-arranged the lesson plan, the material, and the observation sheet of the researcher’s and the students’ activities, the evaluation

sheet, field notes, flash cards and attendance list of the students.

b) Action

As usual the researcher entered the classroom accompanied by the teacher- collaborator. To open the class situation, she greeted the students, asked their condition, and checked the students’ attendance list. It was continued with

reminding the students through Password Game that they had learnt before. Some students gave their responses about that and the researcher asserted the students’

responses. The researcher distributed the evaluation sheet to the students in multiple- choice test. The researcher asked the students to answer the questions individually. The researcher walked around the class to make sure that the students did their task individually. There were some students who asked questions to the researcher about the questions and the researcher gave the explanation to them.

After they had finished to answer the questions, the researcher collected the evaluation sheet. Then, the researcher made discussion with the students about the answer of the questions. The researcher did not forget to ask the st udents’ difficulties about the material. After taking the conclusion, the researcher ended the class by greeting the students.

c) Observation

The observation was done by the English teacher-collaborator during the researcher implemented the actions in the classroom. The English teacher- collaborator observed all of the activities happened in the teaching-learning process; involved the researcher’s and the students’ activities.

(1) The researcher’s observation activities - Done Activities

: 22 activities (100%) of 22 activities. - Undone Activities

: No activity (0%) of 22 activities. The result can be seen in the following graphic below.

Done e g 60

Undone nt 40

rce

P e 20

Meeting II Cycle II

Graphic 8. The result of the researcher’s activities based on the observation

sheet in the second meeting of Cycle II.

Regarding to those results, the percentage of the researcher’s activities that had been done at all was categorized into very good level (100%).

(2) The students’ observation activities - Done Activities

: 31 students (86.11%) of 36 students. - Undone Activities

: 5 students (13.89%) of 36 students. It can be seen in the graphic, as on the next page: : 5 students (13.89%) of 36 students. It can be seen in the graphic, as on the next page:

rcent 13.89 e Undone

P 20

Meeting II Cycle II

Graphic 9. The result of the students’ activities based on the observation sheet in the second meeting of Cycle II.

Regarding to those results, the percentage of the students that had all done the activities was categorized into very good level (86.11%).

The researcher also still found some weaknesses in the meeting, such as :

A few of students cheated their friends answer. Beside the weaknesses, the researcher also found some advantages such as : (1) The students were able to pronounce the words.

(2) The students were able to identify the generic structure. (3) The students were serious to learn and to do their test. (4) The students understood what the meaning of Password Game. (5) The students were all present.

d. Reflection

After implementing the action, the researcher evaluated the result of the students’ ability in mastering vocabulary in descriptive text especially in

describing thing by using Password Game. The researcher gave twenty questions describing thing by using Password Game. The researcher gave twenty questions

Table 3

The STUDENTS’ ABILITY in MASTERING VOCABULARY by USING PASSWORD GAME in CYCLE II

MCC The students’

Frequency Percentage Classification value 0-39

Successful 75-84

Very Good

Based on the table above, it explained that the students had been able to reach MCC (Minimum Competence Criterion) in mastering vocabulary in reading, in which, it was 65 points. There were no students categorized into fail level and less level. There were 5 students (13.89%) categorized into enough level, 14 students (38.89%) categorized into good level, and 17 students (47.22%) categorized into very good level. All students reach Minimum Competence

Criterion. The average of the students’ value was 83.75. It can be seen in the graphic, as on the next page:

Good Very Good

Graphic 10 . The Students’ Ability in Mastering Vocabulary in Descriptive Text Especially in Describing Thing in Cycle II

Looking at the result, it was so clear that the students of the eighth grade of SMP Negeri 1 Lahewa Timur were able to master vocabulary by using Password Game. Since this result was satisfying, the researcher stopped to do the research and would make the report of the research.

3. The Researcher’s and the Students’ Activities in All Cycles

The result of the researcher’s activities in all cycles in the research can be seen in this following table, as follows.

Table 4

The RESEARCHER’S ACTVITIES in ALL CYCLES

No Cycle

Meeting

Criterion

Frequency of (%) Activities

1 st I 1 Done

2 nd Done

2 st II 1 Done

2 nd Done

Undone

The data in the previous table explained that in Cycle I of the first meeting, there were 20 activities (74.07%) that had been all done by the researcher and 7 activities (25.93%) that had not been done at all by the researcher. In the second meeting, there were 19 activities (79.17%) that had been all done by the researcher and 5 activities (20.83%) that had not been done at all by the researcher.

While in Cycle II of the first meeting, there were 20 activities (83.33%) that had been all done by the researcher and 4 activities (16.67%) that had not been done at all by the researcher. In the last meeting, there were 22 activities (100%) that had been all done by the researcher and there were no activity (0%) that had not been done at all by the researcher. Looking at this result, it also indicated that the researcher got improvement in each meeting. To make clear, it can be seen in the following graphic, below.

% ( 80 83.33 79.17% e g 74.07%

a 60 Cycle I

rcent e 40

Cycle II 20

The First The Meeting Second

Meeting

Graphic 11 . The Researcher’s Activities in All Cycles

Then, the research of the students’ activities in all Cycles in the research can

be seen in the table, as on the next page:

Table 5

The STUDENTS’ ACTIVITIES in ALL CYCLES

No Cycle

Meeting

Criterion

Frequency of (%) Activities

1 st I 1 Done

2 nd Done

2 st II 1 Done

2 nd Done

The previous table explained that in Cycle I of the first meeting, there were 10 students (27.78%) that had done the activities and 26 students (72.22%) that had not done at all the activities. In the second meeting, there were 21 students (58.33%) that had all done the activities and 15 students (41.67%) that had not done at all the activities. While in Cycle II of the first meeting, there were 26 students (72.22%) that had done the activities and 10 students (27.78%) that had not done at all the activities. In the last meeting, there were 31 students (86.11%) that had done the activities and 5 students (13.89%) that had not done at all the activities. Looking at the result, it indicated that the students did activities in each meeting better day by day. They got improvement in each meeting. To make clear, it can be seen in the graphic, as on the next page: The previous table explained that in Cycle I of the first meeting, there were 10 students (27.78%) that had done the activities and 26 students (72.22%) that had not done at all the activities. In the second meeting, there were 21 students (58.33%) that had all done the activities and 15 students (41.67%) that had not done at all the activities. While in Cycle II of the first meeting, there were 26 students (72.22%) that had done the activities and 10 students (27.78%) that had not done at all the activities. In the last meeting, there were 31 students (86.11%) that had done the activities and 5 students (13.89%) that had not done at all the activities. Looking at the result, it indicated that the students did activities in each meeting better day by day. They got improvement in each meeting. To make clear, it can be seen in the graphic, as on the next page:

Cycle II

P ercen 30 27.78

The First Meeting

The Second Meeting

Graphic 12 . The Students’ Activities in All Cycles

4. The Result of the Students’ Ability in All Cycles

The result of the students’ ability in mastering vocabulary in reading by using Password Game can be seen in the following table, as follows.

Table 6

The STUDENTS’ ABILITY in MASTERING VOCABULARY by USING PASSWORD GAME in ALL CYCLES

Cycle Level

Frequency

MCC

I Fail

Very Good

II Fail

Very Good

The previous table explained that in Cycle I, 19.44% there were 7 students (19.44%) categorized into fail level, 15 students (41.67%) categorized into less level,

6 students (16.67%) categorized into enough level, 5 students (13.89%) categorized into good level, and 3 students (8.33%) categorized into very good level. While in the Cycle II, there were no students categorized into less and fail level, there were 5 students (13.89%) categorized into enough level, 14 students (38.89%) categorized into good level, and 17 students (47.22%) categorized into very good level.

From the data, it showed that the students’ ability in mastering vocabulary in descriptive text in Cycle II increased than in Cycle I. All students passed on Minimum Competence Criterion in Cycle II.

It can be seen in the graphic below:

Cycle I rcent e 20

Cycle II 19.44%

Very Good

Graphic 9 . The Students’ Ability in Mastering Vocabulary by Using Password Game in All Cycles