11.6 18.4 The Implementation of Word Games in Cycle Three

47 Nevertheless, it is important to notice that even though the percentage of the successful students seemed convincing, they had scored well before the implementation of the first game. It indicates that the increase they made was not too significant. Even though it was a successful cycle, the researcher still had to conduct at least one more cycle to confirm the increase. After Cycle One was completed, the researcher conducted Cycle Two. In Cycle Two, the focus was on identifying adverbs. Figure 4.2 shows the comparison between the number of students writing ≥50 of words, meanings, and parts of speech correctly in Cycle Two before the implementation and after the implementation. After analyzing the results of the students’ vocabulary list in Cycle Two, the researcher found that the students scored poorly, especially in the words section. Only 23 of them managed to write ≥50 adverbs correctly. This was caused by the fact that they had difficulties in identifying some words they knew as adverbs. The meeting was conducted during the last contact hour, which made the students’ focus distracted as they admitted that they wanted to go home as quickly as possible. After the implementation of the game, the students managed to score better in the words section. The number of the students who rewrote the correct words and meanings increased, but the percentage of the students rewriting the correct words was only 71. Because the number of the students rewriting ≥50 of the words correctly was lower than 75 the average of both sections was only 73.5, the 48 researcher had to conduct another meeting in order to be able to confirm whether or not their vocabulary mastery really improved. Figure 4.2 Number of Students Writing ≥50 of Words, Meanings, and Parts of Speech Correctly in Cycle Two In the third meeting, the researcher noticed that there was a significant increase in the number of students who rewrote correct meanings and parts of speech of the 25 words provided in the vocabulary list. Before the implementation, there were only 24 of them who were able to supply the words with ≥50 correct meanings and parts of speech. However, after the implementation, it increased to 79. Meanwhile, the number of students rewriting the correct meanings after the implementation increased from 69 to 97. Therefore, since both criteria had been fulfilled, it signified the end of the research. 23 71 71 76 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pre-Implementation Post-Implementation Words Meaning 49 Figure 4.3 Number of Students Writing ≥50 of Words, Meanings, and Parts of Speech Correctly in Cycle Three After comparing the results of students’ average scores from their pre- implementation and post-implementation vocabulary list sheets taken from all three cycles, the researcher found that there was a significant increase in the percentage of the average scores. This percentage was deducted from the difference between the overall average scores taken from their pre-implementation and post-implementation vocabulary list sheets in each cycle. The total number of words they had to write determined the percentage results. In Cycle One, for example, the difference was 0.2 points. It was converted into percentage by comparing the points to the total number of words the students had to write, i.e. 20 words. The percentage of the increase in students’ average scores in Cycle One, therefore, was 1. In Cycle Two, the percentage was 4.5. In Cycle Three which had 25 words as the total number of words the students had to write, the percentage was the highest among all cycles, i.e. 69 97 24 79 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pre-Implementation Post-Implementation Meaning Parts of Speech