writer had calculated the post-test 2 score, and the result can be seen below. In observing phase, the data of
students’ achievement score were obtained from post-action test 2 in the Cycle II. The writer calculated the mean of the pre-
action test 2 score such following: Mx =
Mx = 100
Mx = 73.5 Next, to get the percentage of student who passed the KKM score, the
writer calculated by using the formula can be seen as follow: P =
100
P = 100
P = 90 Finally, the calculation of improvement percentage gained from the
following formula: P =
100
P = 100
P = 13.9 Based on the result of the students’ writing product, there was better
improvement of the students’ mean score obtained from the students’ writing in the preliminary study to the students’ writing from the second cycle. The
students’ mean score before implementing RAFT strategy was 64.5 and the
mean score the latest post-action test was 73.5. It means that there was 9.0 points or 13.9 of mean score improvement. The number of students passed
the Minimum Mastery Criterion or Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM were
27 students or 90. It indicated that the criteria of success had been achieved. The following is the table of students writing score.
Table 4.4 The Stu
dents’ Writing Score of Each Writing Tests No.
Students’ Number Pre-Test
Post-Test 1 Post-Test 2
1. S1
75 80
85 2.
S2 70
70 75
3. S3
70 75
80 4.
S4 70
70 75
5. S5
70 65
70 6.
S6 65
70 75
7. S7
50 65
65 8.
S8 65
70 75
9. S9
55 65
70 10.
S10 65
60 75
11. S11
60 70
70 12.
S12 55
65 70
13. S13
65 65
70 14.
S14 75
65 75
15. S15
70 75
80 16.
S16 70
75 80
17. S17
60 75
80 18.
S18 70
65 70
19. S19
55 65
70 20.
S20 65
65 70
21. S21
70 75
75 22.
S22 60
55 70
23. S23
75 70
75 24.
S24 65
65 75
25. S25
60 70
75 26.
S26 75
80 75
27. S27
50 55
65 28.
S28 50
55 65
29. S29
70 75
80 30.
S30 60
65 70
∑x 1935
2040 2205
MEAN 64.5
68.0 73.5
: The students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion or Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM which is 70.0.
It could be seen from the table above that the number of students who passed the KKM in the post-action test 1 was bigger than the pre-action test.
Therefore, in the post-action test 2, the number of students who got the score above 70.0 increased significantly if it compared with the preliminary study
and the first cycle. On the other hand, data from observation sheet from the first and second meeting of cycle II can be seen below.
Table 4.5 The Result of Observation Checklist 1II
No. Hal yang diamati
Skor Siswa
1 2
3 4
1. Keaktifan Siswa:
a. Siswa aktif mencatat materi pelajaran
b. Siswa aktif bertanya c. Siswa aktif mengajukan ide
√ √
√ 2.
Perhatian Siswa: a. Diam, tenang
b. Terfokus pada materi c. Antusias
√ √
√ 3.
Penugasan a. Mengerjakan semua tugas
b. Ketepatan mengumpulkan tugas sesuai waktunya
c. Mengerjakan sesuai dengan perintah
√ √
√ ∑ =
2 4
3 To make an analysis based on the observation sheet above, the writer made
description to interpret the data recorded by the observer. In the first meeting of cycle II, the scores for the students who give their idea and the students who
kept quiet wer e “Fair”. Then, the scores for note taking, focused on the
material, did the assignment, and submitted the assignment in time were “Good”. Furthermore, the scores for asking question, being enthusiast, and
doing the assignment based on teacher’s instruction were “Very Good”.
Table 4.6 The Result of Observation Checklist 2II
No. Hal yang diamati
Skor Siswa
1 2
3 4
1. Keaktifan Siswa:
a. Siswa aktif mencatat materi pelajaran
b. Siswa aktif bertanya c. Siswa aktif mengajukan ide
√ √
√ 2.
Perhatian Siswa: a. Diam, tenang
b. Terfokus pada materi c. Antusias
√ √
√ 3.
Penugasan a. Mengerjakan semua tugas
b. Ketepatan mengumpulkan tugas sesuai waktunya
c. Mengerjakan sesuai dengan perintah
√ √
√ ∑ =
1 5
3
In the second meeting of cycle II, the data obtained from observation sheet showed that there was a slight improvement of the score. The aspect that got
“poor” score was the students who giving their idea, it indicated that the students’ were not brave enough to speak out. Then, there were 5 “good”
scores for note taking, students’ attention and enthusiasm, and students’
responsible in doing assignment aspects. Moreover, there were 3 “very good” scores for the students who asked question, students who collected the
assignment in time, and students who did assignment following the instruction.
d. Reflecting
After getting the result of the second cycle from observational notes and teacher journal, the writer did the reflecting phase. The main changing in this
cycle were the students’ vocabulary and grammar knowledged increased. Furthermore, the result of post-action test 2 showed that 90 of the students
got the score above the KKM, so the criteria of success that had been made by the writer where 75 of students must get 70.0 or more had been achieved.
Because of this result, the writer decided to end the action with only two cycles in four meetings.
f. The Result of Post-Questionnaire
The post-questionnaire was given after the students collected their second writing for the post-test 2 in the second cycle on Saturday, 7
th
March 2015. The kind of the question was the same that there were 10 questions covered in
three types of question. The description of the post-questionnaire as follow: First were two
questions about students’ response toward teaching-learning process. Second were
three questions about the result of students’ writing activity. Third were five questions about the solution of the problems in
writing. The result was shown in table as follow:
Table 4.7 Students’ Result of Post-Questionnaire
No. Student’s Answer
The Result of Students’ Answer
Yes No
1. Students’ were more interested in
learning writing after implemented RAFT strategy.
13 43.3
17 56.7
2. Students felt learning writing was
easier than before. 19
63.3 11
36.7 3.
Students were more motivated in learning writing.
30 100
4. RAFT strategy used by the
teacher helped students in writing. 17
56.7 13
43.3 5.
RAFT strategy used by the teacher helped the students in
generating their idea. 23
76.7 7
23.3 6.
RAFT strategy
solved the
students ’ problem in writing.
11 36.7
19 63.3
7. Students did writing exercise
easier. 21
70 9
30 8.
The teacher gave opportunities to the students to ask questions.
28 93.3
2 6.7
9. Students used the opportunity to
ask questions to the teacher. 25
83.3 5
16.7 10. Students writing ability improved
through RAFT strategy. 14
46.7 16
53.3
Based on the post-questionnaire answered by the students, for the first statement indicated that 17 students or 56.7 felt more comfortable with the
previous technique used by the writer. Perhaps, the students did not like to be burdened by many assignments. Besides, the aim of RAFT strategy was
actually to develop students ’ ability and creativity in writing. On the other
hand, 19 students or 63.3 felt that learning writing was easier than before and it indicated that the implementation of RAFT strategy was successful, and also
30 students or 100 were more motivated in learning writing. The students’
positive response also seen in two questions; there were 17 students or 56.7 agreed that RAFT strategy used by the teacher to help the students to write, and
23 students or 76.7 agreed that RAFT strategy could generate stu dents’ idea
easier. Therefore, there were 19 students or 63.3 disagreed that RAFT strategy could help them solve their problem in writing.
Related to the writing exercise, 21 students or 70 felt that they could do writing exercise easier. Then, 28 students or 93.3 agreed that the teacher
gave big opportunities to them to ask questions and 25 students or 83.3 realized to use the opportunities. The last was there were 16 students or 53.3
did not think that RAFT strategy improve their writing skill. From the result questionnaire above, the students could not easily adapt with the new
improvement in their class, so they thought that the strategy applied by the writer was not suitable for them but they thought that the teaching and learning
writing was better than before. Therefore, the result of the test was not in line with the students’ answer because the data from the test showed a positive
improvement toward students’ descriptive writing score.
B. Data Interpretation
In action research, as a researcher we should not rely on a single data but we have to look other data sources to sustain the result of the research. The kind
of the action is known as Triangulation. Triangulation is used to check whether the result of an instrument has the same result with other instruments. Therefore,
the researcher could prove that the research findings are valid.
