b. Acting
The action of the second cycle was done on Wednesday, January 28
th
2015 at 07.00 am
– 08.10 am then continued on Tuesday, February 3
rd
2015 at 07.00 am
– 08.10 am. In the first meeting, the researcher was teaching narrative text by using a short movie. The teacher also prepared two
movies for students‘ task. They
were ―Goldilocks and the Three Bears‖ and ―Ripple‖. As usual, the teacher
made the students‘ condition in order to do not make a noise in the class, ready to learn the material and also focused on the material
and teachers‘ explanation. The teacher explained about how to make narrative text using movie to the students that still confused and felt difficult when they got bad
score in writing test. The teacher also trained students to make narrative paragraph by using movie through collaborative working.
Collaborative working was chosen by the teacher because to make students collaborated in the team work when they wrote a narrative text but all of
them had to write on their own paper. Thus, the students, who still did not understand the material, could understand the material because they could ask the
explanation from their friends. The teacher gave students ―Goldilocks and the Three Bears‖ movie and had to find out the idea and rewrite the story. When they
were trained by the teacher, the students made a good narrative text by using movie. After the first meeting in the cycle two, the teacher gave the second movie
called ―Ripple‖ in the second meeting.
c. Observing
In this phrase, when the teacher taught in the class, she observed the students‘ activities See Appendix 11 and 12. In the cycle two, it was almost still
the same as in the cycle one. The students were noisy when they wrote the task. They still asked the researcher about English translation because they were too
lazy to bring the dictionary. Besides that, they were still active to give their idea about the movie and enthusiast to follow the learning process. They also were
walking around in the class to ask their friend about the task. Nevertheless, they felt bored by doing the assignment in every meeting, so they did not have question
to the teacher. In this phase, the observer also observed the teaching learning process through post-test 1 and post-test 2 See Appendix 8 and 9.
The Result of Students’ Writing Table 4.3
The Result of Students’ Writing Score in Post-Test 2 No.
Criteria Frequency
1. Below KKM
Score 74 5
2. Passed KKM
Score 74-89 19
3. Passed KKM
Score 89 12
Note For the detail, see Appendix 9. The calculation of the mean of students‘ score in writing post-test 2 gained
83.1. It was derived from:
In the post-test 2, the writer got the mean score. Thus the writer made a percentage in calculation:
The result of data from post-test 2 showed that the post-test 2 had 28.39 improvement from the pre-test. In the second cycle of post-test 2, there were 31
students who passed the KKM. If it was calculated into percentage, it was 86.11 through this formula:
Based on the data test above, the average students‘ writing achievement on this cycle is 83.1 and there were 31 students passed the KKM or 86.11 students.
On the other hand, there were 13.89 students who did not pass the KKM or 5 students. The improvement in this cycle was high and met the criteria of the action
research of CAR in which minimum 75 students passed the KKM could be achieved. From the result of this cycle, the writer stopped this research and would
not continue to the next cycle.
d. Reflecting
Kategori