46
50 55
60 65
70
Writing 56,3
65,2 Preliminary
1st Cycle Based on the result of the students’ writing product, there was little
improvement of students’ average score from the students’ writing on the preliminary study to the students’ writing on the first cycle. The students’
improvement in writing a narrative text from the preliminary study to the first cycle recapped in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 The Students’ Improvement in Writing Product in the First Cycle
The mean score for the first one was 56.3 and the mean score of the students’ writing on the first cycle was 65.2. That means that there was 8.9
points or 15.8 of mean score improvement. The improvement percentage derived from the formula:
100
1
y y
y
100 3
. 56
3 .
56 2
. 65
8 .
15
The detail of all students’ scores in the first cycle can be seen in Appendix 7a.
47
d. Reflecting
In this phase, the writer and her collaborator talked about the result of the action. Based on
the analysis of the students’ writing product that the students have not achieved the criteria of success that 75 of students must
achieve the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM. It can be seen that only 28.6 of the students who got the score
above the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM. So, the implementation of Jigsaw technique has not given
satisfactory result yet on the improvement of students’ writing ability. From the analysis of the students’ writing product in the first cycle,
it was found that the contents of some students’ writing products were not
quite easy to understand. They did not presented some generic structure of a narrative text, the ideas are almost clearly stated although it had some
transition words. It was not also easy for them to find words related to the idea because of limited vocabulary. Moreover, there were some mistakes
made by the students in using past form. The samples of the students’ final
works in the first cycle can be seen in Appendix 7b. Therefore, it needed to be revised before the implementation of the
next cycle so that it could achieve the criteria of success of this study. In the other, the students’ participation in writing class has met the second criteria
of success that 79.3 of the students participated in writing class.
e. Revision of the First Cycle
Based on the analysis of the students’ motivation and the students’
writing product in the first cycle, the implementation of Jigsaw technique did not yet give satisfactory result on the improvement of students’ writing
ability. Therefore, the writer and the collaborator concluded some revision before the implementation of the next cycle in order to achieve the criteria
of success of this study. First, the revision was focused on the teaching procedure. In the first
cycle, the students had to move from Jigsaw or Home group to Expert
48
group. Having discussed and mastered their part of a story, the students had to move again to their home group. These activities were time-consuming
and made some students feel bored. Thus, modifyin g the teacher’s
procedure by organizing the students to expert group directly was a good way to eliminate students’ boredom and timesaving so that the students
could discuss and present their part of a story within their group longer. Details of the teacher
s’ procedure in the second cycle are presented in Appendix 11b.
Second revision was wordless picture sequence. Previously in the first meeting of the first cycle, each student was given a part of wordless
picture sequence. This aimed to involve the students in discussing and describing the event in the picture freely, but the students were
unaccustomed to doing such an activity. The students were not able to decide the events because of limited number of vocabulary. In the second
cycle, some key words were added on the picture sequence see Appendix 12b. Therefore, the students could develop their ideas based on the key
words on the picture sequence. The last, the students had to bring dictionary at least one dictionary
in one group in order to help them to find out the difficult word.
3. Findings of the Second Cycle
a. Planning
The planning phase of the second cycle was implemented into a lesson plan. In this case, the writer modified the previous lesson plan based
on the result of reflecting phase in the first cycle. The lesson plan which was used still related to Jigsaw technique in learning generic structure and
language feature of a narrative text which provided with the picture sequence related to the text. But, in this cycle, some key words were added
on the picture sequence. Beside, the writer still also prepared the observation checklist, camera, and the posttest 2 to collect the data
49
b. Acting
The action of the second cycle was done on February 2
nd
, 4
th,
and 7
th
2011. The action was done based on the lesson plan. In the first meeting, the writer gave the students a model of a narrative text and provided with the
picture sequence which added by some key words to stimulate and help students to describe the event. The student asked to write a description of a
picture or part of the story in the Expert group and asked each student to present and share her or his part of the story to the home group.
In the second meeting, the students were asked to make the first draft the complete story individually and asked them to revise their draft
on content and organization using the revising guide by peer correction. In
the third meeting, the students were asked to edit their writing in terms of grammar, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation using editing guide.
c. Observing
As in the first cycle, the observer observed the students’ participation in the process of writing in pre, whilst and post writing
activities through observation checklist see Table 4.2. In the first meeting, there were 86.0 students who participated
actively in discussing the events in the picture sequence. There were 89.0 students involved enthusiastically in writing and revising their first draft,
while in the third meeting, there were 92.8 students who participated actively in editing and completing their final draft. So, the result of
observation checklist in the first cycle was 89.3 of the students were involved in writing class activity. This was assessed by adding the
percentage of the students’ participation in the three meetings divided by 3
See Appendix 9b. From the students’ participation, it showed that the
students were motivated in the teaching and learning of writing. It indicated that the second criteria of success had been achieved.
