45
powerful. While the students pronounced the words, the teacher observed their pronunciation by listening to them carefully. If there were the wrong
pronunciation which pronounced by the students, she asked the other students to correct the
ir friend‟s pronunciation and asked that student to repeat hisher pronunciation. But if the students who corrected hisher
friend pronunciation was also wrong, so the teacher gave the opportunity to other students to do it, but if shehe also pronounced it not well, the
next correction would be done by the teacher. Next practice for this section was the students were classifying the
English words from the passage to the appropriate sounds of the available-phonetic symbol in the table. They did it with heir partner. After
they found the words and classified it into the English sound categories, they pronounced those words together.
c. Observation
All activities were recorded in the observation sheet. In this observation, the observer found the different atmosphere in the
classroom. The student is very excited in the activities entirely. They have already familiar with phonetic symbol. They were more active than
previous activity. Here, the teacher also played her roles to be a guide and facilitator.
She gave full attention to the students and she was fair to them. She motivates the passive student to be active, and it was well-done. Almost
all students looked confident to do their tasks and practice their pronunciation. When the teacher asked them to answer the question or to
do the practice, they existed.
d. Reflection on Teacher’s Improvement Cycle Two
The reflection was carried out after teaching learning process. The teacher and the writer evaluated CAR Procedures entirely whether it was
well-done or not. Yet, they felt satisfied because it was well-done. It was
46
proven by the student‟s action and their responses during teaching learning process. They exposed their English pronunciation actively. The
good-progressiveness was also showed from the classroom atmosphere and class-
management, and from the student‟s posttest 2 that proved their improvement. In their achievement gained score, it improved 34 from
their mean score. As the previous statement, the teacher and the writer argued that the criterion of CAR success was 30. For this cycle, the
students‟ achievement score proved that they have improved their score more than the criterion of CAR success.
Thus, the writer concluded that the implementing of CAR in improving students‟ pronunciation by using minimal-pair drills succeeded as a whole, and
based on this condition, the cycle of CAR is considerably stopped.
C. The Discussion of The Data After CAR
The Discussion of the data after implementing the action consisted of two parts. Those were the result of post interview and the result of posttest.
1. The Result of Post Interview
After doing CAR for 2 cycles, the writer and the teacher did the unstructured inte
rview; it was aimed to evaluate the result of teacher‟s actions. Here, the teacher and the writer agreed that the minimal pair drill
works in improving students‟ ability in pronunciation. She assumed that minimal pair drill was useful in helping students to recognize the similar
sound in English. She believes that the students could practice their pronunciation outside of classroom if they recognize the sounds of those
words. She values that the students‟ feedback is showing the progressiveness of her action during teaching learning activities. And the
teacher would be pleased to use the minimal pair drill technique continuously when she teaches pronunciation.
