General Findings RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Table 10 shows that the use of PWIM technique could improve the students’ writing ability. From the table, it can be seen that the problems that were
found in the English teaching and learning process of writing in pre-cycle related to the students’ difficulties in generating, developing ideas, and organizing
paragraphs. They also had difficulties in using the grammar rules and choosing appropriate words for certain context. The students also ignored the mechanics
aspects. Based on those situations, the researcher and the collaborator implemented the actions which consist of Cycle 1 and Cycle 2.
After implementing the actions, the table indicates that there were some improvements concerning the content in Cycle 1. The students could generate
ideas although they had difficulties in elaborating their ideas. Although they made a lot of mistakes in using grammar in their writing, they became aware that in
writing narrative text, they should write in the past tense form. The words that they learnt in the steps of PWIM in Cycle 1 helped them to improve their
vocabulary mastery although they still had difficulties in the word choices. There were also improvements in mechanic aspect, but some misspelling words also still
could be found in their writing. In Cycle 2, there were some improvements in all aspects. The students
could develop their ideas to write a story and they started to add supporting details. They could construct a story in a good chronological order therefore the
communicative purpose of the text was attained. They followed the grammar rules especially simple past tense. Their vocabulary mastery was also improved because
they were reinforced to memorize the words through pictures. Their writings
became well written because the students began to pay attention related to spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing.
The quantitative data also supported the findings. The students’ writing works were assessed by using inter rater reliability. The scoring process was done
by researcher and her collaborator based on the scoring rubric of Jacobs et al. The following tables present the mean scores of each aspect gained from the pretest,
Cycle 1, Cycle 2, and post test.
Table 11. The students Mean Scores in the Aspect of Content
Rater Pre test
Cycle I Cycle II
Post test Researcher
16.69 17.94
19.16 20.03
Collaborator 16.88
18.22 18.75
19.88 Mean scores of the rater
16.78 18.08
18.95 19.95
Table 11 shows that the students’ writing ability in the aspect of content was improved. The mean scores increased from pre test until post test.
Furthermore, the gained score from pre test and post test was 3.17. It was a good progression.
Table 12. The students Mean Scores in the Aspect of Organization
Rater Pre test
Cycle I Cycle II
Post test Researcher
11.06 12.88
13.53 14.16
Collaborator 10.88
13.34 13.91
14.38 Mean scores of the rater
10.97 13.11
13.72 14.27
Table 12 indicates that the students’ writing ability in the aspect of organization was also improved. The mean scores of the students’ writing ability
in the aspect of organization increased from pre-test until post-test. Overall, the gained score obtained was 3.30.
Table 13. The students Mean Scores in the Aspect of Vocabulary Mastery
Rater Pre test
Cycle I Cycle II
Post test Researcher
10.50 12.88
14.34 15.09
Collaborator 10.22
13.38 14.66
14.88 Mean scores of the rater
10.36 13.13
14.50 14.98
Table 13 shows that the students’ vocabulary mastery also increased. The students got better scores in the aspect of vocabulary in their writing. The gained
mean score obtained was 4.62. It was a quite significant improvement.
Table 14. The students Mean Scores in the Aspect of Language Use
Rater Pre test
Cycle I Cycle II
Post test Researcher
9.69 11.97
13.66 14.25
Collaborator 9.38
12.63 14.47
15.06 Mean scores of the rater
9.53 12.30
14.06 14.66
Based on Table 14, the students’ writing ability in the aspect of language use increased. There was significant improvement in Cycle 2. The scores
increased from 12.30 up to 14.06. Overall the gained score that they obtained was 5.13. It was a quite significant improvement.
Table 15. The students Mean Scores in the Aspect of Mechanics
Rater Pre test
Cycle I Cycle II
Post test Researcher
2.84 2.97
3.22 3.31
Collaborator 2.69
3.19 3.28
3.38 Mean scores of the rater
2.77 3.08
3.25 3.34
Table 15 indicates that the students’ writing ability in the aspect of mechanics was also improved. The students paid attention more to the spelling,
capitalization, and punctuation in writing. The gained score that they made was
0.57. Overall, the scores above are presented in the following graph.
Figure 11. The Graph of Students’ Writing Score in the Five Aspect
Figure 7 shows that in reference to the students writing scores, the gain scores in the content aspect was 3.17, organization aspect was 3.3, language use
aspect was 5.13, vocabulary aspect was 4.62, and mechanic aspect was 0.57. It means that there was improvement of the students’ ability in writing narrative text
after they implemented PWIM technique. In conclusion, this research is considered successful.