Reflecting The Report of Cycle II

75

c. Reflecting

After the researcher conducting Cycle II, a reflection about the action was made. First of all, the activities had fulfilled the process validity for the actions consisted of two meetings. Second, CF was very useful in improving students’ writing skills because it provided the students to write, and correct their friend’s work. It led the students to understand more about both indirect feedback, and past event text. There were some improvements identified during the research. Before, a problem about grammar was found in progress test as presented below. Figure 13: Student’s Work in Progress Test 76 4:08 4:08 In the first meeting, the students’ knowlegde about a past event text had improved. Most of them had known about how to form a past tense sentence. Moreover, their organisation and content were also improved. About the mechanics, they were still missed in some spellings, they also were not careful about the punctuation and capital letter. The Cycle II was conducted well, but there were some problems occurred. The students had not fully understood about the term of indirect feedback. They also had the difficulty in labelling the feedback. Some of them know that it was wrong, but did not know what that was categorised in. They kept asking the researcher, and that made the class crowded. The good point was that the time management in which being the problem in Cycle I was no longer occurred. The students did the tasks well and in time. Moreover, there was an improvement as presented below. Cycle II ini diawali dengan memberi feedback tentang kesalahan- kesalahan yang sering dilakukan oleh S. Beberapa siswa terlihat antusias dan mengajukan beberapa pertanyaan. Pemberian feedback tersebut berlangsung kurang lebih 10 menit. Cycle II was started by giving the students feedback about the common mistakes they did in the progress test. Some students seemed enthusiast, and ask some questions. This action was done in about ten minutes. AppendixAFN.0923.10.2013 After the researcher ended the class, she had a discussion with the English Teacher in relation with the first meeting’s reflection. The English Teacher said that the meeting was good and the students enjoyed the activities. The English 77 teacher also suggested the researcher to deepen the students’ knowledge about indirect feedback. In the second meeting, there were some problems occurred. The students asked a lot of questions and each of them wanted to be helped in correcting their friends’ work. As a result, the class was being crowded. Each of them asked if about what they did not understand or asking about the correction they were not sure. The point was that it made their skill in grammar improved. After the meeting, the researcher and the English teacher had a discussion about the meeting. The teacher comment and suggestion were that the meeting was good although the students were so crowded, but their intention was to study. So it was fine. Here was the comparison between the students’ work in progress test and post-test. 78 Figure 14: Students’ Work in Progress Test 79 4:09 Figure 15: Student’s Work in Post-Test Moreover, after conducting Cycle II, the researcher did an interview to the students. Here, all of the students felt that they had made some improvements after the CF was used as presented below. R : Apa yang kalian rasakan setelah saya ajar kemarin? What did you feel about our lesson last week? S1 : Seneng. I felt happy, Miss. S2 : Seneng soalnya bisa mendapat pengalaman baru soalnya sebelumnya belum pernah kayak gitu. Me too because I could get new experience as for I never had this experience before. S1 : Seneng-seneng capek sih kak soalnya disuruh ngarang terus. I felt happy and tired because there were too many continued 80 4:10 writing tasks. R : Apa kalian merasa kalau kemampuan menulis kalian meningkat? Do you feel that your writing ability improved? S1 : He em. Ya, iya. He em. Yes. S2 : Iya. Tapi saya kalo ngoreksi nggak bisa, kalo nggarap bisa. Yes. I cannot do the correction well, but I can do the task well. S1 : Kalo saya malah suka ngoreksinya kak. I prefer the correction , Miss. R : Ooo gitu. Ada yang lain nggak? OK. Any other things? S2 : Udah aja. That’s enough. S1 : Iya. Me too. AppendixBInterviewTranscript1026.10.2013 Besides, the researcher also did an interview about the Cycle II’s activities with the English teacher. The English teacher said that the component that had to be improved more was the vocabulary, as presented below. R : Apakah menurut Ibu Collaborative Feedback cukup membantu dalam peningkatan kemampuan siswa? Do you think that the Collaborative Feedback help in the students’ writing improvement? T : Ya jelas, Mbak. Of course. R : Kalau untuk aspek yang menurut Ibu masih perlu ditingkatkan apa ya Bu? What aspect which is still to be improved? T : Sebenarnya masalah vocabulary masih harus ditingkatkan. Kalau saya lihat sepertinya tenses nya sudah lumayan daripada tes yang pertama kali. Actually the vocabulary still needs some improvement. But the tenses have been better compared from the first test. AppendixBInterviewTranscript1426.10.2013 In conclusion, the use of CF with indirect feedback was successful. Moreover, the main problem in writing a past event text, the grammar was improved successfully. 81

3. The Students’ Scores