2. Description of the Second Treatment
On October 11
th
, 2016 the second treatment was better than the first. For this session, it was better than the first because the students did not look nervous
anymore and they felt enjoy with the materials. In the second treatment as usuall, The researcher greeted the students, prayed together, checked the attendant list,
and gave motivation to make them interested in teaching learning process and fo the next session the students were given treatment the similar technique that was
from common mistake game. Before giving from common mistake game the researcher reviewed the material.
In the second treatment the researcher explained more about conditional sentence type I but focus on the topic that was to express a habitual activity or situation,and
the simple future to express an astablished, predictable fact or general truth.Reminded them about the formula, example, and time signal of it. The
students were given the similar technique that was common mistake game, this time the researcher gave the students five pieces of paper that still contained five
sentences but with different sentences adjust about the topic. Then the researcher gave chance to each group to analyze and arrange the piece of paper on the answer
sheet correctly. After that, the researcher told each group to correct the mistake for one sentence in one minute. So for five sentences the group must be able to finish
the mistake sentences at least five minutes. Then the group collected the answer sheet to the teacher. After finishing in correction sentence, the researcher and the
students discussed it together. Then the researcher gave chance to the students to ask if they had difficulty in understand this lesson. The students seemed interested
in teaching learning process. Because they became having motivation to be the winner in this game. The student looked intersted in teaching learning process.
3. Description of the Third Treatment
The third treatment was held on October 18
th
, 2016. The researcher greeted the students, prayed together, checked the attendant list, and gave motivation to make
them interested in teaching learning process. In this session it was like in previous treatment, the researcher asked the students together with their own groups. In this
treatment the students looked more enthusiastic to follow the learning process. Before giving from common mistake game the researcher reviewed the material.
In the third treatment, the researcher reviewed again about the lesson before with some pieces of paper that contained some mistake sentences, and then the
researcher showed one sentence to the students and pointed one student to correct the sentence. After the students could correct the sentence well, the researcher
pointed one student again to change the sentence in to negative sentence form. After all sentences became correct and the student felt that they had understood
enough about conditional sentence type I. Then the researcher gave student exercise. And then, the students finished their exercise they collected their answer
sheet to the researcher.
The researcher made discussion about the result with the students, and the results of their exercise were good. After that, the researcher gave chance to the students
to ask if they had difficulties. The students thought the common mistake game could help them in understanding conditional sentence type I.
The post-test was held on october18
th
2016. In post-test activity, the researcher gave the students test about multiple choice tests.
C. Result of the Research 1. Result of Pre-test
The researcher conducted pre- test in order to see students‟ conditional sentence
mastery before the treatment. The scores of the students‟ conditional sentence
mastery that were tested in pre-test can be seen in Figure 3 and Figure 4
Kategori