The Background of the Study

54

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

Based on the result of data analysis presented in the previous chapter, it was found that the mean scores of students in cycle II is significantly higher than that of the scores in cycle I. It can be said that there is a significantly improvement on the students’ achievement in descriptive writing by using Somatic Auditory Visual Intellectual Method. It can be seen from the improvement of mean of students’ score namely; the name of the writing evaluation I 52.64 increased to the mean of the writing evaluation II in cycle I 60.76 and to the writing evaluaiton III in cycle II 82.21. The score continuously improved from the writing evaluation I to the writing evaluation III in cyucle II. Diary notes and observation result showed that the students gave their good attitudes and responses during teaching learning proccess by using SAVI method. Questionnaire and interview report showed that strongly agree that the implementation of SAVI had helped them in descriptive writing. So, it can be concluded that the application of SAVI meth od significantly improved students’ achievement in descriptive writing in class VII.

B. Suggestion

The study showed that the application of Somatic Auditory Visual Intellectual Method could improve students’ achievement in descriptive writing. In relation to the conclusion above, some points are suggested, as follow: a. For the English teacher are suggested to use Somatic Auditory Visual Intellectual Method in teaching writing because this method helps the teachers to develop their implementation and idea to make a sentence or paragraph and buid the students’ motivation to study. b. For the readers who are interested for futher study university students related to this research should explore the knowledge to enlarge their understanding about how to improve descriptive writing and research another reference. 56 REFERENCES Arsyad, Azhar. 1997. Media Pembelajaran. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada. Byrne, Donn. 1988. Teaching Writing Skills. New Edition. Pearson Education Limited. Longman. Carroll, Joyce Armstrong and friends. 2001. Writing and Grammar: Communication in Action. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Febriani, R.D. 2012. An Alternative Way to Teach Writing by Combining Three Different Learning Styles: SAVI Model. Jambi: Faculty of Languages and Arts State University of Jambi. Grabe , W and Stoller, F.L. 2002. Teaching and Researching Reading. Malaysia: Longman. Hairston, Maxine. 1986. Contemporary Composition. The United State of America: Houghton Mifflin Company. Harmer, Jeremy. 2004. How to Teach Writing. Pearson Education Limited. Longman. Heaton, J.B. 1975. Writing English Language Tests. New Edition. London: Longman. Hughey at al. 1983. Teaching ESL Composition: Principles and Techniques. Massachusetts: Newbury House. Johnson. 19993. Research in Education. New Delhi: Prentice Hall. Meier, Dave. 2000. The Accelerated Learning Handbook: A Creative Guide to Designing and Delivering Faster, More Effective Training Programs. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies. Olson, J.F. 2009. Writing Skills Success in 20 Minutes a Day. Fourth Edition. New York: Learning Express, LLC. Ontario Ministry of Education Training. 2005. A Guide to Effective Instruction in Writing; Kindergarten to Grade 3 .Ontario: Queen’s Printer. Pardiyono. 2007. Pasti Bisa Teaching Genre-Based Writing: Metode Mengajar Writing Berbasis Genre Secara Efektif. Yogyakarta: ANDI. Siahaan, S and Shinoda, K. 2008. Generic Text Structure. First Edition. Yogyakarta: Candidate Gebang Permai.