48
9. Reviewing conditional sentence type 2 at home
The result of questionnaire showed that 80.77 or 21 students reviewed the lesson, and there were only 19.23 or 5 students did
not review conditional sentence type 2. 10.
The students wanted contextual teaching and learning still be applied in teaching and learning process with their English
teacher. The result showed that all students of social class second grade of
MAN Tarumajaya Bekasi wanted Contextual Teaching and Learning was still applied in their learning process.
3. The Result of Post Test
“Posttest is a measure taken after experimental treatment has been applied
”.
5
It was given to the students in the end of every cycle. The amount of question in each test of each cycle was twenty 20 of
multiple choices. Besides, before those posttests were given to the students, the
writer had done the trustworthiness of the tests using discriminating power and difficulty item. There were thirty questions of each test,
but the writer threw ten questions of each test away. Furthermore, to support the explanation of the test result, the
writer had listed the students‟ score of pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2. The following table is a further explanation.
5
Wiersma . loc. cit.
49
Table 4.1 The Students’ score of Pretest, Posttest 1, and Posttest 2
Students’ Number
Pre Test Score
Post Test 1 Score
Post Test 2 Score
S1 55
70 80
S2 65
85 85
S3 60
85 90
S4 70
90 95
S5 45
55 65
S6 50
65 75
S7 65
70 90
S8 35
50 50
S9 55
75 85
S10 70
85 100
S11 65
65 85
S12 50
65 60
S13 65
75 90
S14 75
90 100
S15 50
60 75
S16 55
70 80
S17 65
60 75
S18 55
65 80
S19 40
55 60
S20 70
80 95
S21 45
65 70
S22 65
75 90
S23 70
80 95
S24 60
75 85
S25 70
75 100
S26 50
75 80
Total 1520
1860 2135
Mean: _
∑x X =
── N
58.46 71.54
82.12
: The student who passed the minimal mastery level criterion 70
50
B. The Analysis of the Data
To analyze the comparison between pretest and posttest of each cycle, the writer used the calculation of the mean score of the class, the calculation
of class percentage who passed the KKM, and the calculation of percentage of students‟ improvement score from pretest to posttest 1 and posttest 2.
So, to get the mean score of the class in pretest was used the formula as follows:
_ ∑x
X = ─
n It was known that:
∑x : 1520
n : 26
_ 1520 X =
─── 26
_ X = 58.46
From that calculation, it was known that the mean score of the class in pretest before using Contextual Teaching and Learning or before
implementing Classroom Action Research CAR is only 58.46. The score above is still below the KKM. It meant that the st
udents‟ ability in using conditional sentence type 2 is still low.
Then, the writer calculated the percentage of students‟ score who passed the KKM 70 in pretest. It was calculated by using formula as
follows:
F P =
── X 100 N
It was known that: F: 6
N: 26
51
6 P =
── X 100 26
P = 23.08 From the calculation above, it was showed that the percentage of the
students whose score passed KKM in pre-test was only 23.08 or there were only 6 students who passed the KKM 70 and the rest of them; those were 20
students could not passed it, or they were still below the KKM. The next was calculation of post-test 1. It was done to know the
students‟ score improvement from the pretest to posttest 1. There were three steps to know this improvement. They were; calculation the students‟ mean
score, the students‟ improvement score from pretest to post-test 1, the last was calculation the percentage of students‟ score who passed the KKM 70.
The first was calculation of the mean score of posttest 1. Here was the explanation:
∑x X =
── N
it was known that: ∑x
: 1860 n
: 26 _ 1860
X = _____ 26
_ X = 71.54
Based on the calculation above, the mean score of the class in postest 1 is 71.54. It meant that there were some improvements from pretest mean
score to post-test 1 mean score. It could be seen from the pretest mean score 58.46 to the posttest 1 mean score 71.54. It meant that was improved
13.08 points 71.54 – 58.46.
