55 pronounce some words represented by teacher’s actions. If they were still
not perfect or made mistakes in pronouncing the words, they were asked by the teacher to make five times repetitions. The teacher also corrected
their pronunciations. From one cycle to the next cycle, their pronunciations were getting
better. In the first cycle, they got more difficulties in pronouncing some new words. Nevertheless, in the next cycle they could pronounce the
words and caught the teacher’s words better than in the beginning of the cycle. Seeing that the students can pronounce the English vocabulary
given in the last of each cycle better than before, the writer concludes that they can achieve a better progress in pronunciation.
3. The Result of Post Test
Before the students did the test, the writer had done the credibility of the test using discriminating power, difficulty item, validity of test and
reliability of test to identify the test was used or not in the pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2. it was found that there were two items should be dropped,
those are: items number 8 and 11, and two items should be revised, those are: items number 2 and 3 it could be seen in the appendix, then to check the
validity of the test the writer used the content validity, finally to know the result of reliability test the writer calculated the score by using the KR-
20
formula, it was known that the test which has been made was enough reliable, because the result was 0. 4737. See appendix.
a. The Result of Post-test I in the First Cycle
To check the students’ improvement in the first cycle, the writer evaluated them by giving a post-test in the last cycle I. The post-test was
conducted on Friday 20
th
August 2010. There were 24 students who followed this test; they did the test during 30 minutes. They had to answer
20 multiple-choice items given by the writer. The result of the students’ score was that 1 student got 40; 1 student got 45; 5 students got 50; 3
56 students got 55; 2 students got 60; 4 students got 65; 5 students got 70; 2
students got 75, and 1student got 80. The result of the post-test II can be seen in the table below.
Table 4.2 The Result of Post-test I
Students’ Number
Students’ Score
1 80
2
65
3 50
4 50
5
65
6 70
7 45
8 50
9 50
10 60
11 55
12 50
13 55
14 75
15
70
16
70
17 65
18 55
19
70
20 75
21 65
22 40
23 70
24 60
Mean: X = ∑ x
n 60.83
57 The student who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria
Ketuntasan Minimal KKM 65 Based on the result of the post-test I, the data showed that the mean
score of post-test I was 60.83. There were twelve 12 students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM
65. And twelve 12 students who still get the score below the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM. The highest
achievement gained score 80, and the lowest achievement gained score 40. It can be concluded that the students’ achievement of imperative sentences
improved from the pre-test. Therefore, the writer must continue to the next cycle because the students could not achieve yet the standard of the
Classroom Action Research CAR 75 of the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM 65.
b. The Result of Post-test II in the Second Cycle
After the cycle II had finished, the students’ ability in using imperative sentences was evaluated by giving a post-test II. It was
conducted on Saturday, 28 August 2010. Before giving the post-test II, the writer reviewed again all the materials given during those cycles by
performing some activities or pointing some objects and asking the students to guess them.
The result of the students’ score was that 2 students got 60; 2 students got 65; 3 students got 70; 7 students got 75; 3 students got 80; 4
students got 85; and 2 students got 90. The result of the post-test II in the second cycle can be seen in the table below:
Table 4.3 The Result of Post-test II
Students’ Number
Students’ Score
1 90
2 75
3 60
58 4
70
5
75
6 85
7 75
8 60
9 65
10 80
11
75
12 60
13 70
14 90
15
80
16 85
17 75
18
80
19 85
20 70
21
75
22
65
23 85
24 75
Mean: X = ∑ x
n 75.21
The student who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM 65
Based on the result of the pre test, the data showed that the mean score of post-test II was 75.21. There were only 3 students who still get the
score below the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM 65 and the others students are passed the Minimum
Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM. The highest achievement gained score 90, and the lowest achievement gained score 60.
It can be concluded that the students’ achievement in learning imperative sentences by Total Physical Response TPR has a significant
improvement, it can be seen in the result of pre-test, post test I and post- test II. Based on the result above the writer and the researcher stopped to
the next cycle, because the students could achieve the standard of criteria action success was 75 . To prove this statement the writer gave a table of
59 students’ score in pre-test, post-test I and post-test II to compare the result
of students’ score. Futhermore, the writer used quantitative descriptive technique to
analyze the data from the pre-test, post-test I and post-test II. The writer described the students’ imperative score in pre-test, post-test I in the first
cycle and post-test II in the second cycle in the table below:
Table 4.4 The Students’ Imperative Sentence Score of Pre-test,
Post-test 1 and Post-test II Students Number
Pre-Test Post-Test I
Cycle I Post-Test II
Cycle II
1
75 80
90
2 55
65 75
3 45
50 60
4 40
50
70
5 35
65 75
6
65 70
85
7 30
45
75
8 35
50 60
9 40
50 65
10 45
60 80
11 50
55
75
12 40
50 60
13 35
55 70
14
70 75
90
15 55
70 80
16 60
70 85
17 60
65 75
18 45
55 80
19 60
70 85
20 70
75 70
21 50
65 75
22 30
40 65
60 23
60 70
85
24 55
60
75 Mean:
_ X = ∑ x
n 50.21
60.83 75.21
