36
Outcome validity requires that the action emerging from a particular study leads to the successful resolution of the problem
that was being studied, that is, your study can be considered valid of you learn something that can be applied to the subsequent
research cycle.
7
Based on the explanation above, the outcome validity could be seen from the result of the test. When the result of cycle two is better than cycle
one, it means that the study is successful. Then, Process validity is “the validity that requires a study has been conducted in a “dependable” and
“competent” manner.”
8
It could be seen from the outcome of observation. In this case, the writer notes all events happening during the CAR. When there
might have some mistakes in the method of teaching, then the writer discusses with the teacher to modify the further strategies. Next, the dialogic validity
; “it involves having a critical conversation with peers about research findings and
practices.”
9
In this case, the writer and the teacher discuss and assess the students’ test result of cycle one and cycle two together. It is done in order to
avoid invalid data. To analyze the examined test items, the writer implements the
credibility of the test. There are some phases including:
1. Discriminating Power
The analysis of discriminating power of test items is to know the performance of the test through distinguishing students who have high
achievement and low achievement. Discriminating power provides a more detailed analysis of the test items than does item difficulty, because it
shows how the top scores and lower scores performed on each item.
10
The computing of discriminating power uses the formula as following:
11
7
Geoffrey E. Mills, Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher, … p. 84.
8
Geoffrey E. Mills, Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher , … p. 84.
9
Geoffrey E. Mills, Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher , … p. 85.
10
Kathleen M. Bailey, Learning about Language Assessment: Dillemas, Decisions, and Direction, London: Heinle Heinle Publisher, 1998, p. 135.
11
Wilmar Tambunan, Evaluation of Student Achievement, Jakarta: Depdiknas, 1998, p. 139.
37
U – L
D = ────
N In which, D : The index of discriminating power
U : The number of pupils in the upper group who answered the item correctly
L : The number of pupils in the lower group who answered the item correctly
N : Number of pupils in each of the groups Next, the discriminating scale uses:
12
DP REMARK
0.6 – 1.0
Very good 0.4
– 0.6 Good
0.1 – 0.3
Ok -1
– 0.0 Bad
2. Difficulty Item
The difficulty item analysis concerns with the proportion of comparing students who answer correctly with all of students who follow
the test. Item difficulty is how easy or difficult an item is form the viewpoint of the group of students or examinees taking the test of which
that item is a part.
13
The formula as following:
14
R P =
── T
In which, P : Index of difficulty R : The total number of students who selected the correct answer
12
J. B. Heaton, Classroom Testing, New York: Longman Inc, 1990, p. 174.
13
John W. Oller, Language Test at School, London: Longman Group Limited, 1979, p. 246.
14
Norman E. Gronlund, Construction Achievement Test, New York: Prentice Hall, 1982, p. 102.
38
T : The total number of students including upper and lower group
The criterion using as follows:
15
ID REMARK
– 0.30 High
0.30 – 0.79
Medium 0.80
– 1.00 Low
15
John W. Oller, Language Test at School, …. p. 247
39
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the research findings and discussion based on the analysis of the data collected from the implementation of using Student Team
Achievement Division STAD to develop reading ability at VIII-6 class of SMPN 17 Tangerang Selatan academic year 20102011.
A. The Description of Data 1.
Findings of the Preliminary Study
There are three parts related to preliminary study. Those are pre- observation, pre-interview, and pre-test. Those explanations as following:
a. The Result of Pre Observation
Pre-observation was conducted to observe the process of teaching learning in reading activity before implementing the action. It was held
on 20th to 29th September 2010 at VIII-6 class of SMPN 17 Tangerang Selatan academic year 20102011. There consisted of 35 students in the
class. In general, during the teaching learning process in the classroom, the teacher liked to dominate the class. Therefore, there was less
opportunity for students to be active in the class. Next, the teacher merely asked the students to read orally the text then they had to
translate in the passage and finding the difficult words than traslating
40
whole passage into Bahasa Indonesia. After that, the students performed their works in front of the class to read that translation had been made.
When the teacher asked students to perform in front of the class, they seemed not to have motivation moreover most of them were hardly to
finish the task. In other words, they could not finish the work on time and the teacher often ignored that behavior. Instead, he asked students
to continue the task at home. The students also tended to be lazy to do the assignment individually, so they decided to cheat to their friend.
b. The Result of Pre Interview
Pre interview conducted in this study was the unstructured interview. It was held on Monday 4th Oktober 2010, started at 09.00
A.M and finished at 10.00 A.M. The writer asked to the teacher some questions which divided into three categories. Those were the general
condition in English class primarily on students’ reading achievement and performance, the difficulties faced by students in reading ability to
comprehend the text, and the kinds of strategies implemented by the teacher previously before Classroom Action Research CAR in solving
the students’ difficulties in reading ability. First category discussed about the general condition in English
class primarily on students’ reading achievement of the test and students’ reading activities. The teacher said that most of students who
did not like English class; they gained low competence in English. Besides, they still faced obstacle in following the English lesson. They
thought English as a complicated then considered that reading as the most difficult one in learning English primarily on VIII-6 class which
derived the lowest score of reading test among the other second grade classes. Moreover, the teacher stated that most of them were hardly to
pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM concerning the school policy.
41
The second category discussed about the students’ difficulties in reading. It related to their difficulties in grasping the author’s
message within a text. The teacher mentioned the difficulties for some students VIII-6 class in reading skill because students are unable to
comprehend the reading materials in the text; they only guess the meaning on the text. Next, they got noisy while reading because they
did not understand and they thought it was a kind of boring activity. Based on those phenomenons
of students’ difficulties in reading, the teacher believed that the major problems arose in they got less practice
and less motivation in reading, and the teacher also said that she did not find yet an appropriate teaching strategy to solve those problems.
The third category is related to the teacher’s strategy in teaching reading previously to solve the students’ difficulties in
reading comprehension. It was found that the teacher often took the reading materials from students’ handbook called LKS and the
English text book served by the school. Reading was focused on reading aloud, translating the entire words in the passage and finding
the difficult words then translating whole passage into Bahasa Indonesia. It made the students bored and loses interest in the subjects
which affect their reading ability. Next, The teacher had given sufficient time for students to arrange the students into group, but it did
not work well because they relied on the cleverest in their group to answer the question. Up to now; the teacher had been looking for an
alternative way to teach reading and to engage students actively in teaching learning process. At last, the writer proposed to implement
Students Team Achievement Division STAD in assisting students’
difficulties in reading comprehension and engage students actively in teaching learning process.
42
c. The Result of Pre Test
The pretest had done before the Classroom Action Research CAR. It was conducted on Friday, November 5th 2010. It started at
10.20 A.M. There were actually 25 questions in multiple-choice form in which the students carried out the test during 30 minutes.
Based on the result of the pre test, the data showed that the mean score of pretest was 50.85. There were only two students who derived
the score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM meanwhile the other 33 students were below that
criterion. The lowest achievement gained score 36. From that analyzing, it could be seen that almost of the VIII-6
students’ reading ability was still very low.
2. Findings of the First Cycle
a. Planning
In this phase, the writer and the teacher made a planning for the action based on the findings of preliminary study. In this case, the writer
determined the selected material and exercises into a lesson plan using Student Team Achievement Division STAD. Besides, making lesson
plan, the writer also prepared unstructured observation sheet to observe the students’ and the teacher’ activities in teaching learning process whether it
was in line with the lesson plan had made before or not. And the writer also prepared the post test 1 to collect the data; to know whether there are
some students’ improvement scores from pretest to posttest. The last is determining the criteria of success.
b. Acting
The action of cycle 1 was done on November 10th and 12th 2010. The teacher implemented the teaching learning process based on the lesson
plan had been made. Here, after the teacher started to convey what materials that would like to be learned by students and explain the concept
43
of Student Team Achievement STAD, she began class presentation. The teacher explain the concept and characteristics existed in recount text not
only the schematic structures but also little bit the explanation of the language feature considering the recount text. After explaining the
material, the teacher assigns students to teams; teams are composed of 4-5 students who represent a cross section of the class in term of academic
performance, sex, and race or ethnicity. In other word, teams should be heterogenous and team assign based on the previous score see appendix.
The teacher gave them some questions based on the text including main idea, supporting details, and schematic structures of the text. Then, to
make sure students understand the reading text the teacher gave them jumbled paragraphs to be arranged into a good passage and the teacher
monitoring the teams. In the last, the teacher give the individual quiz, to make sure students understanding of the materials.
c. Observing
In this phase, the observer tried to notice all activities in the physical classroom activity. It might be about the teacher’s performance,
class situation, and students’ response. Related to the teacher’s
performance, as a whole, she had accomplished the task in line with the lesson plan had been made. However, in a part of class presentation. It
probably seemed unclear because the teacher’s explanation was too fast and in part of explaining schematic structure, it is too complicated. It could
be seen from students’response which still asked what the teacher explained. Meanwhile, the class situation was still under control. It means
that most of students still did not pay attention to the teacher’s explanation, some of them also did not work together in their team,
moreover they cheated each other when they were given individual quiz and the teacher even ignored their behavior. Some students always asked
the teacher when they asked to find out the similiar meaning of the word, because they did not bring dictionary.
44
Furthermore, there were found some students who actively in answering the teacher’s questions correctly related to main idea,
supporting details, and schematic structures of the text. In the second action of the first cycle, the students seemed more enthusiastic to do the
exercise in team, they more cooperative to help each other in mastering the material. Then, the teacher grading the best team based on their
improvement see appendix, they more motivated to be the best team in next cycle.
After teaching learning process finished, in this observing phase was also carried out the post-test 1 exactly on the second action of the first
cycle to measure how well the students’ reading ability had been developed. Based on the result of the posttest 1, the mean score of the
class derived 66.62 in which there were 10 students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM 70
seventy.
d. Reflecting
The writer and the teacher discussed about the conclusion of implementing the action. Then, they tried to modify the action in order
students more comprehend in reading and in order 70 of students in the class could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan
Minimal KKM because in the result of post-test 1 showed only 31.01 of students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria
Ketuntasan Minimal KKM. However, regarding the first cycle, the writer and the teacher felt
satisfied enough because their efforts to improve students’ reading ability in term of recount text had been developed although not all the targets
could not accomplished yet. Besides, the students seemed to accept the material easily by using Student Team Achievement Division STAD
because they cooperative in mastering the material and they competate for ge
tting the grade of “SUPER TEAM”and get the reward from the teacher.
45
Next, the teacher and the writer had to still reflect the improper implementation of using Student Team Achievement division STAD.
Here, the observer gave her perceptions of the teaching learning process related to the last observation phase. First, the teacher still had difficulties
in explaining the schematic structure in the class. In this case, the observer suggested to the teacher to show the shematic structure of the text directly,
without explain them one by one explicitly. Second, the teacher’s
explanation toward the lesson was too fast; at times it led students confuse and asked her to repeat the explanation. To solve this problem, the
observer suggested giving explanation more clearly and slowly and using the slide show in order to make student more anthusiastic. Third, the
teacher still had difficulty in managing the class. In this case, the class was noisy even some students cheated each other in doing tasks. Hence, the
writer suggested to the teacher to give more attention and the teacher should be more strict in order the students did not cheat any longer.
Fourth, the teacher ask the students to bring dictionary to help them find the dificult word and similiar meaning of the word.
From the reflecting phase above, there must be more efforts to develop students’ reading ability by using Student Team Achievement
Division STAD. It needed to be improved again in the next cycle. This effort was done in the next lesson plan of cycle two.
3. Findings of the Second Cycle
