The Result of Post Interview The Result of Post Test

M = 43.13 From that calculation, the mean score of the class in pretest was 43.13. It meant that the students’ mean score before using jigsaw technique or before implementing Classroom Action Research CAR is 43.13. Then, to know the percentage of students’ score who achieved the KKM 55 the writer used the calculation as follow: P = � � x 100 P = 8 32 x 100 P = 25 From that calculation, the students’ score percentage in the pre test was 25 that means there were 8 students who achieved the KKM score ≥ 55 and there are 24 students were below the KKM ≥ 55. After calculating the result of posttest 1 in the cycle 1 of CAR, the writer calculated the students’ score improvement from the pre test result. There were three steps to know this improvement. The steps were calculating the students’ mean score of the class, calculating the students’ improvement score into percentage and calculating the class percentage. The first step was to calculate the mean score of posttest 1. The calculation as following: M = ∑x � M = 1920 32 M = 60.00 From that calculation, the students’ mean score of posttest in cycle 1 was 60.00. It proved that there were some improvements from the pretest mean score. It could be seen from the pretest mean score 43.13 to the mean score of posttest 1 60.00. It improved 16.87 60.00 - 43,13. The second step wa s to get the percentage of students’ improvement score from pretest to posttest 1. The writer computed by using as follows: P = �1−� � x 100 P = 60,00 −43,13 43,13 x 100 P = 16,87 43,13 x 100 P = 39.11 Based on that computation, the percentage of the students’ improvement score from pretest to posttest 1 was 39.11. It showed that the score in the cycle 1 has improved 39.11 from the pretest score. The third step was to know the percentage of students who passed the KKM. The calculation used the formulation as follow: P = � � x 100 P = 20 32 x 100 P = 62.50 From the calculation, the class percentage which passed the KKM was 62.50. It meant that in the cycle 1 of Classroom Action Research CAR, there were 20 students who passed the KKM and there were 12 students whose score were below the KKM. The class percentage of posttest 1 showed some students’ improvement of the class percentage in the pretest 25. The st udents’ improvement which passed the KKM is 35.25 62.50 - 25. Even though it is still needed more improvement because it could not achieve yet 75 as the target of success Classroom Action Research. Next in the cycle 2 of CAR, the writer also calculated the result of the posttest 2 to know further the score improvement either from the result of pretest or posttest 1. There were three steps in order to know this improvement. The steps were to calculate the mean score of the class, to calculate the percentage of the students’ improvement score, and to calculate the class percentage which passed the KKM ≥ 55. Firstly was to calculate the mean score of the class in posttest 2. The calculation used as follows: M = ∑x � M = 2690 32 M = 84.06 Based on the calculation, the mean score of post test 2 was 84.06 which means there were some students’ improvement score 24.06 from the mean score of post test 1 84.06 – 60.00. The second step was to know the calculation of the percentage of students’ improvement score. It used the calculation as following: P = �2−� � x 100 P = 84,06 −43,13 43,13 x 100 P = 40,93 43,13 x 100 P = 94.89 Based on that computation, it could be seen that the posttest 2 improved 94.89 from the pretest or 58.15 94.89 – 60.00 : 60.00 from the posttest 1. The last step was to know the percentage of students who passed the KKM. It used the calculation as following: P = � � x 100 P = 32 32 x 100 P = 100 The calculation showed that there were 100 students who passed the KKM in the cycle 2. It meant that in the cycle 2 there were 32 or all of the students passed the KKM. The class percentage of posttest 2 obviously shows improvements from the previous test; the improvement is 75 from the pretest 100 - 25 or 37.50 from the class percentage of posttest 1 100 - 62.50. Table 4.6 No. X1 X2 D D-D D-D 1 8.0 4.0 4.0 -0.1 0.01 2 8.0 4.5 3.5 -0.6 0.36 3 8.0 5.5 2.5 -1.6 2.56 4 8.0 5.5 2.5 -1.6 2.56 5 8.0 4.0 4.0 -0.1 0.01 6 8.0 3.5 4.5 0.4 0.16 7 8.0 3.5 4.5 0.4 0.16 8 9.0 3.5 5.5 1.4 1.96 9 9.0 4.5 4.5 0.4 0.16 10 9.0 4.0 5.0 0.9 0.81 11 9.0 5.5 3.5 -0.6 0.36 12 9.0 4.0 5.0 0.9 0.81 13 9.0 4.0 5.0 0.9 0.81 14 8.0 5.5 2.5 -1.6 2.56 15 8.5 4.5 4.0 -0.1 0.01 16 8.5 4.0 4.5 0.4 0.16 17 8.5 3.5 5.0 0.9 0.81 18 8.0 4.0 4.0 -0.1 0.01 19 8.0 3.5 4.5 0.4 0.16 20 8.0 3.5 4.5 0.4 0.16 21 8.5 5.5 3.0 -1.1 1.21 22 9.0 5.5 3.5 -0.6 0.36 23 8.5 4.5 4.0 -0.1 0.01 24 8.5 4.0 4.5 0.4 0.16 25 8.5 3.5 5.0 0.9 0.81 26 8.5 3.5 5.0 0.9 0.81 27 8.5 4.5 4.0 -0.1 0.01 28 8.5 5.5 3.0 -1.1 1.21 29 8.5 6.0 2.5 -1.6 2.56 30 8.5 3.5 5.0 0.9 0.81 31 8.5 3.5 5.0 0.9 0.81 32 8.5 4.0 4.5 0.4 0.16 Amount 132.0 23.52 D = ∑ D n = 132 32 = 4.1 S D 2 = ∑ D−D n −1 = 23.52 32 −1 = 23.52 31 = 0.76 S D = √0.76 = 0.87 t o = D- μ o √n SD = 4.1-0 √32 0.87 = 4.1 x 5.66 0.87 = 23.206 0.87 = 26.7 α = 0.05, t 0.0531 = 1.696 t o = 26.7 t 0.0531 = 1.696 D. The Testing of the Action Hypothesis In order to prove the hypothesis of the action that jigsaw technique can improve students’ reading comprehension of narrative text significantly, the writer used t-test formula with two different assumptions. If “t o ” is higher than “t-table”, the hypothesis of action that jigsaw technique can improve students’ reading comprehension of narrative text is accepted. But if “t o ” is lower than “t-table”, the hypothesis of action that jigsaw technique can improve students’ reading comprehension of narrative text is not accepted. According to the calculation of the result of “t” test, the writer found that the value of “t-table” is 1.69 for degree of significance 5. By comparing the value of “t o ” 26.7 and “t-table” on the degree of significance 5, the writer summarizes that “t o ” is higher than “t-table”. It means that the hypothesis of action is accepted. The writer concludes that jigsaw technique can improve students’ reading comprehension of narrative text.

E. The Interpretation of The Result

Based on the calculation of the students mean score and the class percentage, the interpretation of the data result among the pre-test, the post- test of cycle I and post-test of cycle II as following: Before implementing CAR, students’ mean score of the pre-test is 43.13. Meanwhile, the class percentage of students who passed the KKM is 25. It can be said that from 32 students, there were only 8 students who passed the KKM 55. Furthermore, the mean score of the post-test after implementing jigsaw technique by CAR, there we re some students’ score improvement from the previous test pre-test that was 16.87 60.00 – 43.13. Meanwhile the class percentage which passed the KKM in post-test I is 62.50. It showed there were 20 Students who passed the KKM and other was still under KKM. That condition could not achieve the target yet of success CAR, because the criterion of action success at least 24 students who must passed the KKM. That was why the writer and the teacher continued to the second cycle. After calculating the res ult of students’ score post-test II, the mean score in the post-test of second cycle was 84.06. Meanwhile the class percentage that passed the KKM is 100. It meant that, there were 32 students whose score passed the KKM and there were no students whose score still under the KKM. The class percentage showed some improvement 75 from the pre-test 25 or 12.50 from post test I 62.50. The post test of the cycle 2 had fulfilled the target Classroom Action Research CAR success, it was above 75 students could passed the KKM. Automatically that the Classroom Action Research CAR was success and the next cycle is stopped. 57 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

In this chapter, after accomplishing the whole steps of the CAR, the writer concluded and suggested based on the result of the research. For the first, the writer focused for summarizing this research. Based on the research carried out in VIII grade at SMP Ash-Sholihin Kebon Jeruk, it can be concluded that jigsaw technique can improve the students’ reading comprehension of narrative text. It can be seen from students’ score, and students’ participation in group or class. Those are improved by its activity included ‘expert team’ and ‘home team’ that makes the students involved in the discussion and everyone is responsible to teach the member of the group. Jigsaw increases the students’ vocabulary development because they can get difficult words by asking their group members, so the students can comprehend the material better. Besides, jigsaw is interesting and it can make the class environment getting life, so students’ motivation for study is raise up. Related to the test result, there were some progressions of the students’ score from pretest to posttest of the second cycle. In the pretest, there were 8 or 25 students who passed the KKM and the mean score of pretest were 43,13. Then in the result of posttest in cycle 1, there were 20 or 62,50 students who passed the KKM. And then in result of posttest in cycle 2, there were 32 or 100 students who passed the KKM considering their mean score of reading test derived. Moreover, the observation result show ed that the students’ participation were more active and interested in learning reading activity in the classroom. In the result of students’ improvement participation average in each cycle were 30,83: in cycle 1 there were 31,04 students who participated in teaching learning process, in cycle 2 there were 61,87 students who participated in teaching learning process.

B. Suggestion

Based on the result of the classroom action research, the writer would like to give some suggestions. 1. Jigsaw can be applied in English teaching learning process as one of the technique in teaching learning, particularly the attempt to improve students vocabulary development related to students’ reading comprehension of narrative text. 2. In teaching reading narrative text by using jigsaw, the teacher has to make sure that everyone is involved in the expert team, because what they got in the expert team would be taught to other members of home team. And the explanations of each student affect the comprehension of the whole idea of a text. 3. The teacher should use any technique in teaching English, especially in teaching vocabulary related to reading comprehension. The teacher should not teach their students monotonously, for example translating the passage using the dictionary, because it may make the students getting bored. Teachers may use the other technique in teaching English for example jigsaw technique.