40
At the second meeting, writer explained the lesson better than previous meeting. She explained the structure of Conditional
Sentence Type 2 step by step, so the students‟ understanding in using Conditional Sentence Type 2 could be improved. Besides, in this
meeting the students looked more enjoy following the teaching and learning process. It could be seen from their cooperation in each
groups, their response to writer‟s questions, they looked more active than the first meeting.
After teaching learning process of cycle one, it was continued with post test 1. It was used to measure whether there were any
improvements or not from pretest to posttest 1. Based on the result of post test 1 there was 13.08 points of improvements. Because, the
mean score in pretest was 58.46 and the mean score of posttest 1 was 71.54 which were 16 students or about 22.37 of them who passed
the KKM. d
Reflecting In the last phase of this Classroom Action Research, the writer
and the English teacher discussed about what they had gotten collaboratively; they discussed the conclusion of implementing the
action in this first cycle. Then, they tried to continue the action for the next cycle in order the students could get more understanding in
using Conditional Sentence Type 2, and also 75 of students in the class could pass the minimal mastery level criterion because the
result of posttest 1 showed only 61.54 students who passed minimal mastery level criterion
. Furthermore, they had some reasons to continue to the next cycle. These are the descriptions:
3
In the teaching learning process, there were some groups could not finish their tasks and they could not use available time.
When the writer gave the opportunity for students, they were afraid to ask the questions, or to respond writer‟s statements.
3
See Appendix 8a and 8b
41
The writer still had difficulties in conditioning the students. It could be seen from t
he students‟ attention to the researcher‟s explanations, some of them made a joke with their friend, so they
didn‟t look serious in learning process. But in this situation the researcher tried to make the students more focus on the learning
process. Writer‟s explanation made students confused to understand the
lesson. It was hoped would be clearer on the next cycle. The students‟ understanding in using Conditional Sentence Type 2
is still low. It could be known by their score in evaluations, either in their individual task or grouping task, and their homework.
Although there were some improvements, but it was still below the target of Classroom Action Research CAR success.
From the reflecting phase above, there must be more efforts to improve students‟ ability in using Conditional Sentence Type 2
through Contextual Teaching and Learning. Besides, it needed to be improved more in the next cycle in order to reach the target of
Classroom Action Research CAR success; that was 75 of students must reach the KKM.
3. Findings of Cycle 2
a Planning
There was the identical way with the planning phase of the first cycle, the researcher made a lesson plan and it was corrected by the
English teacher absolutely. In addition, she prepared teaching media and some exercises for the students. In this planning phase of the
second cycle, the researcher modified and completed the previous lesson plan based on the result of reflecting phase in the first cycle.
She tried to make the teaching and learning process more interesting, so the students would get more understanding and more enthusiastic.
42
Then, she also prepared the observation sheet that would be filled by the observer during the teaching and learning activity. And she also
prepared the posttest 2 that would be given to the students at the end of the second meeting in this cycle. It was used to measure the
improvements of the students‟ achievement from posttest 1 to posttest 2.
b Acting
In this phase, the researcher tried to make the teaching and learning process clearly and they could understand the structure of
Conditional Sentence Type 2, she divided the students became some groups. Then, she gave a game with preparing a lot of papers
contained conditional sentence type 2. Then, one of the students from each group was asked to take those papers. They did the game
with their group collaboratively. She asked the students to take their answer onto the wall which had pointed by the researcher. She gave
only 7 minutes to make the students more active in the teaching and learning process. Consequently, she gave a reward for a group which
was the winner. The last, she gave contextual questions or the questions which were connected to what they were facing in the
classroom before closing the lesson. The next activity in this phase is evaluation. The researcher gave
a text for each student. They had to complete it with structure of conditional sentence type 2. She prepared the questions which
connected with the students experience in their real life, she prepared the text about Justin Bieber who was very popular in teenagers‟
circle. Most of them had known him so they were very enthusiastic to answer it. From this activity the class looked very pleasant.
The second meeting of this cycle, the researcher tried to give more interesting way to improve students‟ motivation in teaching
and learning process, with the aim is getting higher understanding in using conditional sentence type 2. So they would achieve higher
43
score or they could achieve KKM. The researcher showed a slide containing a song which is related to the Conditional Sentence Type
2. She asked the students to listen the song. While they were paying attention to the song, she explained the materials with pointing the
verb in conditional sentence type 2. Then she explained the pattern of conditional sentence type 2. The students looked so enthusiastic
and teaching and learning process looked very interesting. Almost the students followed the lesson. After explaining the lesson, she
presented another song. Almost all of lyrics of that song were conditional sentence type 2. So it would make easier the students in
understanding the change of the verbs in conditional sentence type 2. In evaluation of this meeting, she gave a song lyric, and they had
to complete it with the conditional sentence type 2. From the students‟ answer, the researcher concluded that they had understood
in using conditional sentence type 2. The last activity of this meeting is giving posttest 2. She gave them 30 minutes to do the test.
c Observing
The observation was done in teaching learning process involved researcher and students‟ activities and their improvements
in using conditional sentence type 2 through contextual teaching and learning.
The researcher observed what all happened during teaching and learning activity. In the beginning lesson in this cycle, students
looked more enthusiastic than before. It could be seen from the students who were ready to follow the lesson and when they
followed the grammar lesson, most of them were enthusiastic to answer some questions given by her. This condition showed that
grammar lesson is not always boring. To complete the data, the English teacher who became an observer filled the observation sheet.
It showed that there were some improvements. Based on his notes in the observation sheet, the researcher explained the lesson more
44
clearly, she could explain the structure of the conditional sentence type 2 step by step, and it meant that without confusing way to
explain it. Then, the students‟ attention showed significant improvement. It could be seen from their responses to answer the
researcher questions, and they were brave to give ideas and give the questions what they wanted to know or what they needed to convey.
They looked more active, more enthusiastic, and more serious than before.
d Reflecting
The last phase of this Classroom Action Research CAR is reflecting. This phase is to know what the researcher and
collaborator got during cycle 2 of Classroom Action Research CAR. Here are the explanations:
4
The students‟ understanding in using conditional sentence type 2 had improved. It could be seen from their evaluation in the end of
each meeting, their response to the researcher‟s questions either orally or written, and absolutely in posttest which got significant
improvement score. All groups of learning could work cooperatively. They looked so
enthusiast to follow the lesson. The teacher could handle the students well. They looked serious
in paying attention to the researcher‟s explanation.
4. Finding after Implementing the Action
The data of this research after implementing the Classroom Action Research were taken from three sources, they are: post interview, post
test and post questionnaire. Here are further explanations:
4
See Appendix 9a and 9b
