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