28
B. Research Setting
The research is conducted in SMP Pangudi Luhur St. Vincentius Sedayu. It is located at Jalan Wates Km 12, Sedayu, Bantul, Yogyakarta. In this research,
the researcher wants to conduct two cycles for two meetings. Each cycle consists of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.
C. Research Participants
The participants are the students of class VII B in 20162017 academic year. There are 33 students who consist of 12 girls and 21 boys. The researcher
found that the students needed more learning activities especially for improving reading competence.
D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Technique
In this research, the researcher used five instruments to conduct the research. The instruments were interview, field notes, observation checklist,
questionnaire, and test.
1. Interview
In this research, the researcher interviewed the English teacher as a single participant. The interview aimed to get the clarification and deeper information
from the teacher as a preliminary study. In the interview, the researcher asked several questions
related to class situation, students‟ learning activity, students‟ reading competence, test, curriculum, syllabus, and lesson plan see appendix C4.
29 Based on Cohen, Manion, Morrison 2011, interviews enable participants
– be they interviewers or interviewees
– to discuss their interpretations of the world in which they live, and to express how they regard situations from their own point of
view.
2. Field Notes
According to Ary et al. 2010, field note is the most common method of recording the data collected during observation. In this research, the researcher
would use field notes to describe the situation of the class during the research implementation. The researcher would note the important things occurred in the
class; students‟ learning activity, students‟ situation in the class, difficulity found, things that worked well, and things that should be improved see appendix C3.
The researcher also noted the problems that were found in the class.
3. Observation Checklist
Best and Khan 1986 state that observation checklist is a prepared list of items. In this research, the items were the statements about the learning teaching
process observation see appendix C1. The statements consisted of students‟
learning activity in the process of learning and teaching using the implemented jigsaw method. In this research, the researcher designed the observation checklist
using semantic differential. Developed by Osgood in 1957, the semantic differential usually takes the form of a 5 or 7 point bipolar adjectival scale, but a
number of different forms are commonly used. These forms usually differ according to the number of points on the scales, and the degree and type of
labeling of these points. In this research, the researcher used 5 scales for twenty PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
30 20 statements. The scales were 1 absolutely negative comment, 2 negative
comment, 3 neutral, 4 positive comment and 5 absolutely positive comment. Moreover, the researcher also added the quantity of the students to know the
number of the students who followed every activity. Furthermore, after conducting the observation, the observers and the teacher had discussion related to
the findings of the observation checklist.
4. Questionnaire
In this research, the researcher would distribute the questionnaires to all students of class VII B SMP Pangudi Luhur St. Vincentius Sedayu after the
implementation of jigsaw method in order to obtain students‟ perspective whether or not jigsaw method could develop better learning activity for improving reading
competence. The researcher would use attitude scale which was Likert scale. According to Ary et al. 2010, Likert scale is:
A Likert scale assesses attitudes toward a topic by presenting a set of statements about the topic and asking respondents to indicate for each
whether they strongly agree, agrees, are undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree. They various agree
– disagree responses are assigned a numeric value, and the total scale score is found by summing the numeric responses
given to each item. This total score assesses the individual‟s attitude toward the topic p.209.
The researcher developed the questionnaire into two major topics: students‟ learning activity and students‟ reading competence see appendix C2.
Questions 1 until 8 were related to students‟ learning activity. The statements of
the students‟ learning activity were based on the learning activity in jigsaw method. Next, questions 9 until 16 were related t
o students‟ reading competence after the implementation of jigsaw method.
31
5. Test
This instrument was used to measure students‟ progresses in their reading
competence after the action research. It would be conducted before and after the action research. From the test, the researcher would know the improvement of
reading competence before and after jigsaw method implementation. The test was in a form of multiple choices see appendix D. According to Johnson
Christensen 2012, the tests are commonly used in the quantitative research to measure the attitudes, the personality, the self-perceptions, the aptitude, and the
performance of the research participants.
E. Data Analysis Technique
In this section, the researcher would discuss the technique for analyzing the data.
1. Qualitative Data Analysis
Cohen, Manion, and Morrinson 2011 state that qualitative data analysis makes sense of data in terms of participants‟ definitions of the situation, the
nothing patterns, the themes, the categories and the regularities. In this research, the researcher employed a narrative discourse as the data analysis from the
interview, the field notes, and the discussion that was held after the observation. Cohen et al. 2011 state that a narrative analysis reports the personal experiences
or the observation. Next, the narrative discourse brings the original insights to the familiar situations. Thus, in this research, the researcher elaborated the interview,
the field notes, and the discussion by interpreting the English teacher utterances in PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
32 the interview, adding the additional notes from the observers, and interpreting the
discussion result. Moreover, a narrative discourse was strongly interpretative, with meanings constructed through the observations and language.
2. Descriptive Statistics
In this data analysis, the researcher employed the questionnaire result, observation checklist result, and individual test result with the measures of the
central tendency. According to Ary et al. 2010, measures of central tendency or averages is a convenient way of reviewing data to find single index that can
represent a whole set of measurement. Central tendency of a series of scores is the way in which they tend to
gather round the middle of a set of scores, or where the majority of score are located Cohen et al. 2011. The researcher applied the total mean score from the
questionnaire results, observation checklist results, and individual test results. According to Ary et al.
1979, “the mean is the sum of all the scores in a distribution divided by the number of cases,” in terms of formula, it is:
̅ Besides, the researcher classified the results of the individual test by using
the category from Masidjo 1995. The classification was listed below:
Table 3.1. Masidjo’s category of scores
Category Scores
Very good 9
– 10 Good
8 – 8,9
Sufficient 6,5
– 7,9 Bad
5,5 – 6,4
Very Bad ... 5,5
33
F. Research Procedure
There were eight steps in conducting this classroom action research. They were 1 asking permission from the school principal, 2 conducting the
preliminary study, 3 finding the problems and planning for the action, 4 planning, 5 acting, 6 observing, 7 reflecting, and 8 success of the research.
The explanation was presented below:
1. Asking Permission from the School Principal
The researcher would ask for permission from the school principal to conduct the research in SMP Pangudi Luhur St. Vincentius Sedayu. In this step,
the researcher would give a permission letter from Sanata Dharma University to the researcher do the research.
2. Conducting the Preliminary Study
The observation of the preliminary study had been done by the researcher. The researcher did the preliminary study in class VII B SMP Pangudi Luhur St.
Vincentius Sedayu when the researcher did Praktik Pengalaman Lapangan PPL. Besides, the researcher used interview to have clarification and further
information from the teacher. The preliminary study was conducted to observe the situation in the class when the students did and followed the learning activity in
the class. Based on the observation and the interview, the researcher saw that the students needed more learning activities for improving reading competence.
Besides, the researcher got the result of the quiz that was given by the teacher in the preliminary study, as followed:
34
Table 3.2. Reading quiz result
No Category
Scores Frequency in Preliminary
Study 1
Very good 9
– 10 2
Good 8
– 8,9 6
3 Sufficient
6,5 – 7,9
5 4
Bad 5,5
– 6,4 12
5 Very Bad
5,5 10
Based on table 3.2, the researcher found that there were only 6 students from 33 students who were in good category. Besides, there were more than 20
students who were in very bad to bad category. It meant that more than twenty students had low reading competence. Moreover, the mean score of the quiz in the
preliminary study was 55, 3. Besides, according to Masidjo, the mean score was categorized bad.
Based on the result of the observation, interview, and quiz, the researcher tried to formulate a set of activity to overcome the problem by implementing
jigsaw method. Jigsaw seemed as the most appropriate method to overcome this problem. First of all, the teacher and the students should know and understand the
basic concept of jigsaw method. Then, the researcher and the teacher combined the method with the existent material. Furthermore, the success of jigsaw method
implementation in this research was defined through the development of better learning activity for improving reading competence in SMP St. Vincentius
Sedayu.
3. Finding the Problems and Planning for the Action
In this step, the researcher would list some important things that occurred in the class VII B SMP Pangudi Luhur St. Vincentius Sedayu. After the researcher
found the problem faced in the class, the researcher tried to find an appropriate PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
35 method to solve the problem. Then, the researcher decided to use jigsaw method
to develop better learning activity for improving reading competence.
4. Planning
The researcher would make a plan of learning activity by making lesson plan and teaching materials. The researcher would consult with the teacher in
making lesson plan and teaching materials.
5. Acting
In this step, the researcher implemented jigsaw method from the help of the teacher. The learning teaching process was divided into three parts; pre-
activity, whilst activity, and post-activity. Jigsaw method was implemented in whilst activity which was divided into 3 sections; home group section 1, expert
group section, and home group section 2.
6. Observing
It would be conducted in the same time with the acting step. The researcher used some instruments; observation checklist, field notes,
questionnaire, and individual test. In this step, the researcher would show the results through those instruments. Besides, in observing step, the researcher
became the first observer. The researcher was also being helped by a teacher who had experienced in using jigsaw method as the second observer.
7. Reflecting
In this step, the researcher would discuss the results of the observation. Moreover, the researcher made a reflection in order to get better results in the next
cycle. The reflection was made based on the field notes results, observation PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
36 checklist results, questionnaire results, and individual test results. Furthermore,
the researcher would make the problem solutions for the next cycle.
8. Success of the Research
After the researcher collected and analyzed the data from the research, the researcher would measure the success of the research. The research was called
successful if the result of the research indicated the better changing in every cycle. It was called successful if there was development of better learning
activity since the students became active learners. Moreover, it was called successful if the students show their improvement in reading competence in
every cycle. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
37
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the researcher presents the research result and the research discussion. The result and discussion are in a form of explanation of several steps
in the classroom action research. Furthermore, in this chapter, the researcher presents the answer from the research question with the evidence from the
research result. Before the researcher did the classroom action research, the researcher did
the preliminary study. The observation had done when the researcher did Praktik Pengalaman Lapangan PPL. Then, the researcher continued the preliminary
study by interviewing the English teacher. From the interview, the researcher found that in English class, especially in reading class, the students needed to be
more active. Besides, the students needed more learning activities. In this class, the students
‟ learning activities were listening, reading, and taking notes. As a result, the students were bored. Besides, they did something that was not related to
the lesson. They were drawing, talking, sleeping, and doing nothing. Furthermore, the students‟ reading competence was low. There was a possibility that made the
students got low reading competence. The possibility was the lack of learning activity in the learning and teaching process. It was because learning activity
affected students‟ outcomes. After doing the preliminary study, the researcher did every step of classroom action research.
38
A. The Implementation of the Use of Jigsaw Method to Develop Better
Learning Activity for Improving Reading Competence in SMP St. Vincentius Sedayu
Below are the explanations of the implementation of the use of jigsaw method to develop better learning activity for improving reading competence as
the answer of the research question. The implementation itself is in the form of two cycles of the classroom action research.
1. Cycle 1
The researcher conducted the first cycle in one meeting on Saturday, February 27, 2016. This cycle was consisted of four steps: the planning, the
action, the observation, and the reflection.
a. Planning
In this step, the researcher prepared the lesson plan to conduct and control the material, activity, and time allocation in the first cycle. The researcher
discussed the material and time allocation with the teacher. The teacher gave the material about describing person for the first cycle. Next, the researcher consulted
the lesson plan and material before the teacher taught the lesson in the first meeting.
b. Action
The action was done on Saturday, February 27, 2016. The action was done at 07.30 a.m. The action of the research was done by the teacher while the
researcher became the first observer. The researcher also invited a teacher who PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
39 had experienced in using jigsaw method to be the second observer. In the action
step, the learning teaching process was divided into 3 steps, as followed:
Chart 4.1. Students’ learning activity in cycle 1
In the pre-activity, the teacher invited the researcher as the first observer and the second observer to enter the class. The teacher greeted and introduced the
researcher and the observer to the students. After that, the teacher did recalling about the previous meeting material which was describing thing. The teacher gave
a thing to the students and asked the students to describe it. The teacher also used pointing to ask the students described the thing.
Next, in the whilst activity, the teacher implemented jigsaw method. At the beginning, the teacher explained about describing person. The teacher gave some
adjectives which were used to describe person. After that, the teacher informed the students that they would use jigsaw method in the process of learning and
teaching. Then, the teacher divided the students into eight groups which consisted of 4 or 5 members. The teacher told to the students that the groups were called
home groups. The teacher asked every student in the home groups to read their own text. Next, the teacher asked the students to arrange the jumbled paragraph.
While the students arranged the jumbled paragraph, the teacher gave the rules of
Pre-Activity
• Greeting • Recalling
Whilst Activity
• Explanation about material • Home group section 1
• Giving rules of jigsaw method spoken
• Expert group • Home group section 2
• Class discussion • Individual test
Post-Acivity
• Closing PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
40 jigsaw method. Besides, the students should identify the generic structure of the
texts. In the next activity, the teacher asked the students to move to the same text
groups. Here, the students looked confused. However, the teacher guided and helped the students to make the expert groups. There were four big expert groups
which consisted of 8 to 9 students. The teacher told to the students that they were expert groups. After that, the teacher asked the students to share their works
which was jumbled paragraphs. The teacher also asked the students to share and discuss the content of the texts.
The last activity, which was home group section two, was done by the students. However, the teacher did not ask the students to share their own texts.
The teacher only asked the students to identify the main idea of every paragraph. So, the students did not share and tell their own texts. There were only some
students who shared their texts while others did it individually. Here, the teacher only gave the students 5 minutes to do the activity. It was because the time was
almost up. Then, the teacher invited the students to discuss all texts with the class. First, the teacher and the students discussed the paragraph arrangements. Then,
they identified the generic structure of the texts. Next, the teacher asked the students whether or not they found unfamiliar words. The teacher gave the
meaning of the unfamiliar words that students got. The next activity was doing the individual test. The test was made based
on the four texts that were given. The test was used to measure students‟ reading competence and knows whether or not the students did and followed the activities.
41 Besides, the teacher also gave the questionnaire that was made by the researcher
for the students. After a few minute, the teacher asked the students to submit their test and questionnaire.
In the post-activity, the teacher and the students did not make the conclusion of the lesson. It was because the time was up. Then, the teacher closed
the lesson. After that, the researcher, the observer, and the teacher went out from the class and had discussion about the learning teaching activity and what should
be improved for the next cycle.
c. Observation
The observation was done at the same time with the action. In this step, the researcher observed the students with the help from a peer observer who was a
teacher who had experienced using jigsaw method. It was done to have the objective result from the accumulation of the two observers. In this step, the
researcher tried to see the progress of the students from the learning activity that had been planned in the lesson plan by using jigsaw method. The progress could
be seen from the development of learning activity since the students became active learners. Besides, the improvement of reading competence indicated the
progress of the students. The discussion from the observation would be explained in the reflection.
The observers used observation checklist to see the progress of the students see appendix C1. The observation checklist was designed using
semantic differential. It was designed to help the observers got the data easily. The observation checklist provided five 5 scales for twenty 20 statements. The
42 scales were 1 totally negative comment, 2 negative comment, 3 neutral, 4
positive comment and 5 totally positive comment. In the observation checklist, the observers also noted the number of students in every activity. The researcher
wanted to elaborate the total mean score from the observation checklist. The highest mean was 100, the lowest mean was 20, and the median mean was 50.
From the observation, the researcher got the data from the observation checklist as followed:
Table 4.1. Observation checklist result in cycle 1
From the table 4.1, both observers gave consistent comments. It was shown from the total mean score of the observers. The total score of the observer
one was 78. Consistently, the total mean score of observer two was 79. Thus, the total mean score of both observers was 78, 5. However, there were some
Statement Description
Obsv. 1 Obsv. 2
̅ 1
Students‟ respond
4 4
4 2
Students‟ interest
4 4
4 3
Answering question
5 5
5 4
Paying attention
5 5
5 5
Asking question
3 3
3 6
Home grouping section 1
5 5
5 7
Reading texts
4 4
4 8
Arranging paragraphs
4 4
4 9
Expert grouping
5 5
5 10
Sharing works
4 4
4 11
Discussing text
4 4
4 12
Home grouping section 2
5 5
5 13
Telling the content of texts
3 3
3 14
Students‟ chance
2 3
2,5 15
Discussing texts in home group
3 3
3 16
Doing test
5 5
5 17
Discussing texts with class
4 4
4 18
Concluding the lesson
2 2
2 19
Following learning activity
4 4
4 20
Students‟ activeness
3 3
3 X1 = 78
X2 = 79 ̅ = 78,5
43 statements that got neutral and negative comments. They were statements 5, 13,
14, 15, 18, and 20. In the statement 5, both observers gave 3 which was neutral score. There were only 5 students who asked to the
teacher based on observers‟ writing. In the statement 13 of the observation checklist, the two observers also
gave 3. It was because there were only some students who did it. It was same with the statement 14. Observer one gave negative comment which was 2, while
observer two gave 3. In the statement 15 of the observation checklist, both observers gave neutral scores. Based on observer one, there were 3 students who
discussed the texts in the home group, while observer two wrote there were 4 students. Besides, 2 observers gave negative comments in the statement 18.
Furthermore, in the statement 20, the two observers gave 3 which was neutral score. It was because half of the students were active in the learning activity and
half of them were not. After doing the observation, the two observers and the teacher had
discussion to give clarification about the observation. From the discussion, the researcher got some data related to time allocation, rules of jigsaw, learning
activity, movement space, and individual test. The data from the discussion was also used to strengthen the data from observation checklist that would be
explained more in the reflection. Besides, in doing the observation, the researcher used field notes to
complete the data. The field notes were also used to see what worked well and what should be improved in the next cycle. From the field notes, the observer one
wrote that there were three activities that were done by the students. There were PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
44 home grouping section one, expert grouping, and individual test. Meanwhile, the
observer two said that there were four activities that were done by the students. There were reading a text, home grouping and sharing, expert grouping and
sharing, and doing individual test. Besides, based on the two observers, the situation in the class was still conducive. However, there were some students who
were passive and did not follow the activities. The observer two added that the teacher was successful in managing the class. The group movements from home
groups to expert groups and from expert groups to home groups were efficient and fast. Moreover, the students could follow the lesson orderly. However, there were
some difficulties found in teaching reading using jigsaw method. The observer one wrote that the difficulty was the limited time. Besides, the students were still
confused because they did not know the rules of jigsaw method. Meanwhile, the observer two wrote that the difficulty came when grouping. The students were in
hurry and had not discussed maximally. There was limited time in sharing in the home grouping section 2. However, there were some parts which worked well.
The observer one stated that in the home group section 1, all students read the text and the group movement was fast. The observer two also agreed that the situation
when the students read worked well. Almost all students read the text. Although, there were some parts that should be improved. Observer one saw that in the
home group section 2, every student should have hisher chance to tell hisher own text. Moreover, based on the observer two, in home group and expert group
section should be improved in order to communicate the reading result. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
45 In the end of the observation, the teacher gave the questionnaire and the
individual test. The questionnaire was used as other instrument to confirm and check the data. The questionnaire provided four 4 scales for sixteen 16
statements. The scales were 1 totally disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 totally agree. The questionnaire was divided into two parts: students‟ activity
statements 1 - 8 and students‟ reading competence statements 9 - 16. The
researcher wanted to elaborate the total mean score from the observation checklist. The mean score of the questionnaire was gotten from the average of 33
students‟ result that filled the questionnaire. The highest mean for each part was 32, the lowest mean was 8, and the median mean was 16. From the questionnaire,
the researcher got the data as followed:
Table 4.2. Questionnaire result in cycle 1
St. Description
Mean Score
St. Description
Mean Score
1
Reading text
3,4 9
Able to understand text
3,2 2
Arranging paragraph
3,3 10
Able to identify text structure
2,9 3
Discussing paragraph
3,2 11
Able to arrange paragraphs
3,1 4
Discussing texts
3 12
Able to identify main idea
3,1 5
Explaining texts
2,7 13
Able to understand text content
3,1 6
Doing test
3,5 14
Able to retell text
2,7 7
Discussing texts with class
2,9 15
Able to understand all texts
2,9 8
Following learning activity
3,1 16
Able to do test
3,2 ̅
25 ̅
24,18
From the table 4.2, the total mean score of the questionnaire of students‟ activity statement 1
– 8 was 25 and students‟ reading competence statement 9 – 16 was 24, 18. Thus, the position of the total mean score from cycle 1 had
already above the median. From the mean score of each statement, there were some statements which got low scores. They were statements 5, 7, 10, 14, and 15.
The explanation of the statements would be discussed in the reflection. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
46 In cycle 1, all students did the individual test based on the texts that they
had read and shared. The test was used to measure students‟ reading competence. The type of the test was multiple choices. There were 25 questions that were made
by the researcher. The highest mean score was 100, the lowest mean score was 0, and the median mean score was 50. Besides, the researcher categorized students‟
score by using the category from Masidjo 1995. From the individual test, the researcher got the data as followed:
Table 4.3. Individual test result in cycle 1
No Category
Scores Frequency
1 Very good
9 – 10
2 Good
8 – 8,9
9 3
Sufficient 6,5
– 7,9 9
4 Bad
5,5 – 6,4
8 5
Very Bad 5,5
7
From the table 4.3, the data showed that there were no students who were
in very good category. There were only 9 students who were in good category. Besides, there were 24 students who were in under good category. The total mean
score of the individual test was 63, 27. The position of the total mean score from cycle 1 had already above the median. However, according to Masidjo, the total
mean score in cycle 1 was still bad.
d. Reflection
After conducting the first cycle, the researcher found several things related to the better learning activity and reading competence. In the reflection, the
researcher discussed the results from the observation. Based on the observation checklists, the researcher found that some
students did not follow the activity. There were limited students who asked to the PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
47 teacher. Furthermore, students who asked to the teacher did not ask about the
material. They asked about jigsaw rules. It was because in the middle of the first activity, the teacher gave jigsaw rules. As a result, there was chaos. Moreover, the
students were still confused about the rules of jigsaw. From the observation checklist, in statement 5, both observers gave 3 which was neutral score. There
was no positive or negative comment from the observer. There were only 5 students who asked to the teacher based on observers‟ writing. However, from the
discussion that was held after the observation, the observer two said that “Mereka
tidak tanya tentang materi tetapi tentang rules jigsawnya.” In translation: “the students
do not ask about the material, but about jigsaw rules.” Meanwhile, observer one said that
“Tadi mereka terlihat bingung dengan rulesnya.” In translation: “the students look confused with the rules.” According to the teacher,
“saya tadi lupa ngasih rulesnya di awal, jadi chaos deh ditengah, pada bingung.” In translation: “I forget to give the rules in the beginning. As a result, it makes
chaos in the middle of the process and the students are confused.” Moreover, from the field notes, the researcher found some data related to the issue. There
were some difficulties that were found in using jigsaw method. One of the difficulties was about the rules of jigsaw. Consistently, from the field notes,
observer one noted that some students are still confused because they do not know the rules of jigsaw method.
Next, in the home group section 2, the researcher found that the students did not work in groups. It was because the teacher changed the activity in the
home group section 2. In statement 13 of the observation checklist, which was PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
48 “the students tell the content of their texts to their home groups,” the two
observers gave 3 which was neutral score. It was because there were only some students who did it. According to observer one, there were 3 students who did it,
while observer two wrote only 4 students. It was same with statement 14 which was “every student has hisher chance to tell the content of hisher text.” Observer
one gave negative comment which was 2, while observer two gave 3. It was because observer one saw that there were 3 students who did it. Meanwhile,
observer two wrote that there were 4 students who had the chance. In the planning, the teacher and the researcher planned to have retelling the content in
the home group section 2. However, from the discussion that was held after the observation, the observer one said that
“Oya pak, home group section 2 belum terlaksana.” In translation: “home group section 2 has not been done.” Another
observer said that “Iya, harusnya di home group section 2 siswa berbagi
informasi tentang teks mereka.” In translation: “in home group section 2, students should share the information about their own texts.” The teacher said
that “Iya, tadi kelewatan. Soalnya karena kurang waktu juga jadi kayak dikejar-
kejar. Ja dinya gak ada waktu untuk siswa retelling.” In translation: “there is
limited time so that it is in hurry. As a result, there is no time to students in retelling their own texts.” Besides, the teacher added, “Tadi aktivitasnya saya
ubah jadi mencari main idea di setiap paragraf, tapi individu.”In translation:
“The activity is changed into looking for the main idea in every paragraph individually.” However, according to the observer one, “Tapi tadi ada satu
49 kelompok yang saling bertanya satu sama lain te
ntang teksnya.” In translation: “there is one group who asks about the texts to one another.”
The activity that was changed by the teacher in home group section 2 affected students‟ activeness. It was because they worked individually. However,
there were some students who worked in a group. It was consistent with statement 15 of the observation checklist. Both observers gave neutral scores. Based on
observer one, there were 3 students who discussed the texts in the home group, while observer two wrote there were 4 students. The number of the students who
were active in the home group section 2 was very low. It was because the activity in the home group section 2 did not provide opportunity for the students to
communicate their own texts. From the field notes, the researcher found some data related to this issue. Observer one wrote that in the home group section 2,
every student should have their chance to tell their own text. It was also consistent with observer two who noted that sharing experience was limited in the last home
group section. In the post-activity, the teacher and the students did not make the
conclusion because the time was up. It was shown from the observation checklist. 2 observers gave negative comments in the statement 18. From the discussion, the
teacher said that “Iya, karna waktunya habis jadi gak sempat buat conclusion.”
In translation: “the time is up. As a result, there is no time to make the conclusion.”
From overall learning activity, the researcher saw that there were some students who followed the activity and some did not. It was seen from the
50 observation checklist results. In the statement 20, the two observers gave 3 which
was neutral score. It was because half of the students were active in the learning activity and half of them were not. Furthermore, the researcher found some data
related to this issue from the discussion. The observer two said that “Oya, untuk
overall pembelajaran menurut saya sebagian siswanya aktif sebagian enggak.” In translation:
“for the overall learning process, half of the students are active and half of them are not.” Observer two added that “Iya saya setuju. Tadi waktu
home grouping, 4 group benar-benar melakukan diskusi. Untuk 4 group yang lain mereka membicarakan topik lain dan cenderung bekerja sendiri-
sendiri.” In translation:
“when the students are in home groups, there are 4 groups who did discussion seriously. The other 4 groups discuss about other topic and do it
individually.” After conducting the first cycle, the researcher checked the questionnaire
and the individual test. From the questionnaire, the researcher found that some students did not follow the learning activity. Besides, they did not understand the
texts. It was seen from statements 5, 7, 10, 14, and 15 of the observation checklist which had low scores. In statement 5, the mean score was 2, 7. It meant that not
all students explained their content of the texts in the home groups. It was also in line with the data from the observation checklist and discussion. Besides, in
statement 7, the total mean score was 2, 9. There were some students who did not follow discussing all texts with friends and the teacher. In statement 10, the total
mean score was 2, 9. The statement was “the students are able to identify the generic struc
ture of descriptive text.” It meant that there were some students who PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
51 could not identify the generic structure of the texts. Besides, in statement 14,
which was “in home group, students are able to retell their content of the texts”, the total mean score was 2, 7. It meant that there were still some students who
could not retell their own texts. It could also be seen from the observation checklist and the discussion where there was only 1 group which retold their own
texts in the home group section 2. In statement 15, the total mean score was 2, 9. It meant that not all students understood their friends‟ texts in the home groups
text 1, 2, 3, 4. Thus, the researcher concluded that the students still did not follow all learning activities which also affected their reading competence.
However, from the individual test results, the researcher saw the improvement of reading competence that was made by the students in cycle 1, as
followed:
Table 4.4. Individual test result in preliminary study and cycle 1
No Category
Scores Frequency in
Preliminary Study Frequency in cycle 1
1 Very good
9 – 10
2 Good
8 – 8,9
6 9
3 Sufficient
6,5 – 7,9
5 9
4 Bad
5,5 – 6,4
12 8
5 Very Bad
5,5 10
7
From the table 4.4, there was improvement in the students reading
competence using jigsaw method compared to the preliminary study. The total mean score of the individual test in preliminary study was 55, 3 while in cycle 1
was 63, 27. Moreover, the number of the students in good category was increasing in cycle 1. Besides, the number of the students who were in under good category
was decreasing in cycle 1. However, in making the questions in the individual test, the teacher suggested to have 20 questions which focused on the detail
52 information of the texts. It was shown from the discussion. The teacher said that
“besok dibuat 20 soal aja, tapi fokusnya ke detail information ya.” In translation: “later it should be 20 questions but focuses on its detail information.” The teacher
added that “kalau mereka tau detailnya kan berarti mereka benar-benar paham
isi teksnya.” In translation: “if they know the detail, it means that they really understand about the content of the texts.”
From the observation checklist, discussion, field notes, and test in the first cycle, the researcher saw that the students learning activity and students‟ reading
competence were better than the preliminary study. It was because some students became active learners since the use of jigsaw method. They also followed the
learning activity; home group, expert group, and individual test. Besides, the result of the individual test was improving. However, there were some crucial
things that should be improved in cycle 2. The first thing was about time allocation. It was because there was limited time in the first cycle. Second, it was
about the rules of jigsaw method. The students should be informed the rules first before the implementation of jigsaw method. Next, it was about learning activity.
The students should follow every step of the learning activity in jigsaw method. The last one, it was about individual test. The question of the individual test
should be design only 20 questions which focused on the detail information of the text.
53
2. Cycle 2
The researcher conducted the second cycle on Saturday, March 5, 2016. In this cycle, there are four steps similar to the previous cycle. The steps were: the
planning, the action, the observation, and the reflection.
a. Planning
In this step, the researcher made the lesson plan based on the first cycle result which could be seen from the observation checklist results, the discussion,
the field notes results, the questionnaire results, and individual test results. Based on those results, the researcher found that there were some problems in the
classroom activity. The problems were not only from the students but also from the lesson hour which were reduced because of the school authority. Therefore, in
the second cycle, the researcher tried to make a better lesson plan. However, the lesson plan could achieve the learning goals, make changes for better learning
activity, improve students‟ reading competence, and use jigsaw as a learning method.
In making the lesson plan in cycle 2, the researcher asked the teacher about the time schedule. After knowing the time schedule, the researcher and the
teacher divided the time into three big activities; pre-activity, whilst activity, and post-activity. The researcher and the teacher also planned to give the students
jigsaw method rules in the beginning of the lesson. So, the students would not be confused about the rules of jigsaw method. Besides, the teacher would give some
clues to the students about what they should underline from the texts. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
54 Next, the researcher and the teacher planned to have different way of
implementing jigsaw method. Jigsaw method would be done outside the class. It was because there was large space to the students to gather in groups. The teacher
would give the instruction first to the students. Then, the teacher would divide the students into 8 groups. The teacher would use whistle as a code for the students to
move to the next activity. In the end of the lesson, the teacher would give the individual test and questionnaire to the students.
In the learning activity, the researcher and the teacher underlined the activities that would be done by the students. In the home group section 1, the
students would arrange the jumbled paragraph and underline the clues that were given by the teacher. Then in the expert group, the students gathered to discuss
about the jumbled paragraph, the clues, and the content of the texts. In the home group section 2, the students should tell their own texts and share the information
they had gotten from the expert groups. Moreover, the researcher and the teacher planned to make individual test
which focused on the detail information of the texts. The questions in the individual test would be only 20 questions. The questions would be designed
multiple choices.
b. Action
The action in cycle 2 was done on Saturday, March 5, 2016. The action was done at 07.15 a.m. In this meeting, the teacher asked the students about the
previous material. From the observation checklists the researcher saw that there was an improvement from cycle 1 to cycle 2 that students looked attentive in
55 following the learning teaching process. The action in cycle 2 was divided into 3
main activities as followed:
Chart 4.2. Students’ learning activity in cycle 2
In the pre-activity, the teacher greeted the students. Then, the teacher and the students did recalling about the material in the previous meeting. After that,
the teacher explained the new material about describing place. Next, the teacher gave the rules of jigsaw method. The teacher wrote on the board about the rules of
jigsaw and the clues that students should underline and discuss in the groups. Then, the teacher made a map about the place distribution. The teacher gave the
students opportunity to ask about the instruction that they had not understood. Next, in the whilst activity, the teacher divided the students into 8 groups
as home groups which consisted of 4 to 5 students. Then the teacher asked every group to go outside, find their place, and do the task. In the home groups, the
Pre-Activity
Greeting Recalling and
explanation the new topic
Giving the rules of jigsaw spoken and
written Giving some clues to
the students to underline
Giving the map of place distribution
Whilst Activity
Home group section 1 Expert group section
Home group section 2 Class discussion
Individual test
Post-Activity
Conclusion Closing
56 students should read the text, arrange the jumbled paragraph, and find the clues
that were informed before. After a few minutes, the teacher blew the whistle as a code for the students
to move to the expert groups. Then, the students moved to their expert groups. In the expert group, the students discussed the paragraph arrangements and also the
content of their texts. The students identified the main idea and the detail information of the texts; the person, the famous things, the time, and the
supporting idea. However, the teacher was going around seeing the student‟s work and helping the students if they found difficulties.
Next, the teacher blew the whistle again to indicate that the students should go back to their home groups. In the home group section 2, the students
told and shared their own texts to the group members. Every student had chance to tell the text. The students also discussed what they had gotten from the expert
groups. So, they could complete the information from different text groups. After that, the teacher blew the whistle again and asked the students to go
back to the class. In the class, the teacher and the students discussed the texts arrangements, the unfamiliar words, the main idea, and the detail information of
the texts. Besides, the students did the individual test. The test was used to measure students‟ improvement in reading competence. Before leaving the class,
the teacher asked the students to fill the questionnaire which was similar with the first questionnaire.
In the post-activity, the teacher and the students concluded the activity and the lesson that they had gotten. Then, the teacher greeted and closed the lesson.
57
c. Observation
In this step, the researcher asked for help from the same previous observer. The observation was done in the same time with the action. The researcher used
the same observation checklist and field notes to see the improvement of the students‟ learning activity. Besides, the researcher used individual test to see the
improvement of students‟ reading competence. The same questionnaire was also used to see the improvement of the learning activity and reading competence. In
the observation, the researcher showed the data that was gotten from observation checklist, discussion, field notes, questionnaire, and individual test. The
discussion of the observation would be explained in the reflection. From the observation in cycle 2, the total mean score of observation
checklist was 97, 5. In the first cycle, statements 5, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 20 were given neutral and negative comments. However, in cycle 2, the comments from
both observers improved. The explanation of the statement would be explained in the reflection. Furthermore, the result of the observation checklist in cycle 2 was
presented below:
Table 4.5. Observation checklist result in cycle 2
Statement Description
Obsv. 1 Obsv. 2
̅ 1
Students‟ respond
5 5
5 2
Students‟ interest
5 5
5 3
Answering question
5 5
5 4
Paying attention
5 5
5 5
Asking question
4 4
4 6
Home grouping section 1
5 5
5 7
Reading texts
5 5
5 8
Arranging paragraphs
5 5
5 9
Expert grouping
5 5
5 10
Sharing works
5 4
4,5 11
Discussing text
5 5
5 12
Home grouping section 2
5 5
5
58
13
Telling the content of texts
5 5
5 14
Students‟ chance
5 5
5 15
Discussing texts in home group
5 5
5 16
Doing test
5 5
5 17
Discussing texts with class
5 5
5 18
Concluding the lesson
4 4
4 19
Following learning activity
5 5
5 20
Students‟ activeness
5 5
5 X1 = 98
X2 = 97 ̅ = 97,5
After doing the observation, the observers and the teacher had discussion
to give clarification about the observation in cycle 2. From the discussion, the researcher got some data related to time allocation, the rules of jigsaw, students‟
activeness, learning activity, and movement space that improved in cycle 2. The data from the discussion was also used to strengthen the data from observation
checklist that would be explained more in the reflection. From the field notes, the researcher got some data. The observer one and
the observer two wrote that there were four activities that were done by the students. There were home grouping section one, expert grouping, home grouping
section two, and individual test. Besides, two observers agreed that the situation in the class was still conducive. It was consistent with the first cycle. The observer
two added that the teacher was successful in managing the class. The students could follow all activities. This meeting was better than the first cycle. However,
there were some difficulties found in the teaching reading using jigsaw method in cycle 2. The observer one wrote that the difficulty was the size of the class was
too wide. As a result, the teacher needed extra energy to walk around and guide the students. This situation also affected the time allocation. Meanwhile, the
observer two wrote that the difficulty was dividing the limited time to absorb the PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
59 material deeper. It was because the students only had limited time to discuss and
share. However, all activities were done well. There were some parts which worked well. The two observers stated that all students did all activities. They
were not bored and looked attentive in following the learning activity. The observer two added that the students were more active and motivated because they
had responsibility to tell and share in the home groups and expert groups. It was in line with Slavin 1995 who says that “students are made to feel important
because they have information that is indispensable to the group” p.20. In cycle 2, the teacher distributed the questionnaire which was same with
the first cycle. The questionnaire was used to see the improvement from cycle 1 to cycle 2. In cycle 2, all students filled the questionnaire. From the questionnaire
result, the researcher found that there were improvement in learning activity and students‟ reading competence since the students gave positive perspective to all
statements in the questionnaire. The mean score of the questionnaire in cycle 2 was shown as followed:
Table 4.6. Questionnaire result in cycle 2
St. Description
Mean Score
St. Description
Mean Score
1
Reading text
3,7 9
Able to understand text
3,4 2
Arranging paragraph
3,4 10
Able to identify text structure
3,1 3
Discussing paragraph
3,5 11
Able to arrange paragraphs
3,5 4
Discussing texts
3,3 12
Able to identify main idea
3,4 5
Explaining texts
3,1 13
Able to understand text content
3,4 6
Doing test
3,6 14
Able to retell text
3,1 7
Discussing texts with class
3,3 15
Able to understand all texts
3,1 8
Following learning activity
3,2 16
Able to do test
3,4 ̅
27,15 ̅
26,45
The first category was students‟ learning activity. The researcher made 8 statements for it. There were statements 1 to 8. The data from the table 4.6
60 showed that the total mean score of learning activity was 27, 15. Besides, the total
mean score of the statements 1 to 8 were above the median. The means were also above cycle 1 result. Meanwhile, statements 9 to 16 were about students‟ reading
competence . The total mean score of students‟ reading competence was 26, 45.
The total mean score in cycle 2 was above the median and above the total mean score of cycle 1. From the result, the researcher concluded that there was an
improvement from cycle 1 to cycle 2. The improvement was shown from the positive perspective of the students about learning activity and reading
competence. In this cycle, the researcher also gave the students the individual test. The
test consisted of 20 questions. The type of the test was multiple choices. The questions based on the texts that they had read and shared in their home groups
and expert groups. From the result of the individual test, the researcher got the data, as followed:
Table 4.7. Individual test result in cycle 2
No Category
Scores Frequency
1 Very good
9 – 10
8 2
Good 8
– 8,9 20
3 Sufficient
6,5 – 7,9
5 4
Bad 5,5
– 6,4 5
Very Bad 5,5
From the table 4.7, the data showed that most students were in good category. The total mean score of the individual test in cycle 2 was 83, 03. The
improvement from cycle 1 to cycle 2 was 19, 76. Besides, the position of the total mean score from cycle 2 had already above the median and above the mean
61 score of cycle 1. Furthermore, according to Masidjo, the mean score in cycle 2
was categorized good.
d. Reflection
In the reflection, the researcher tried to elaborate the data from the observation checklist results, discussion, field notes, questionnaire results, and
individual test results. In cycle 2, the students look more active and attentive in following the learning activity. Besides, the students made positive changes in
every cycle. Based on the observation checklist, the students were more active compared to the first cycle. The results of the observation checklists showed the
improvement of the students‟ learning activity from cycle 1 to cycle 2. In cycle 1, the total mean score result of the observation checklist was 78, 5 while in cycle 2
was 97, 5. The students‟ learning activity was improving 19. The changes of every statement could be seen as followed:
Table 4.8. Observation checklist result in cycle 1 and cycle 2
Statement Description
Mean Score in Cycle 1
Mean Score in Cycle 2
1
Students‟ respond
4 5
2
Students‟ interest
4 5
3
Answering question
5 5
4
Paying attention
5 5
5
Asking question
3 4
6
Home grouping section 1
5 5
7
Reading texts
4 5
8
Arranging paragraphs
4 5
9
Expert grouping
5 5
10
Sharing works
4 4,5
11
Discussing text
4 5
12
Home grouping section 2
5 5
13
Telling the content of texts
3 5
14
Students‟ chance
2,5 5
15
Discussing texts in home group
3 5
16
Doing test
5 5
17
Discussing texts with class
4 5
62
18
Concluding the lesson
2 4
19
Following learning activity
4 5
20
Students‟ activeness
3 5
̅ =78, 5 ̅ = 97,5
From the table 4.8, the researcher found that there was an improvement of the total mean score in every statement. All students followed the learning activity
orderly. From the observation checklist result, the researcher tried to elaborate the improvement in cycle 2. There were statements 5, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 20 which
got neutral and negative comments in cycle 1. However, in cycle 2, the result improved. The improvement could be seen in the statement 5. In cycle 1, the
mean score was 3, while in cycle 2 became 4. From the discussion that was held after the observation, the teacher said that
“Setengah siswa di kelas bertanya tentang materi. Mereka tanya tentang kata-kata asing, main idea, sama struktur
teks.” In translation: “there are half students in class who ask about the material. They ask about the unfamiliar words, the main idea, and the general structure of
the texts.” Meanwhile, the observer one said that “Siswanya sangat aktif. Mereka berani bertanya tentang materi yang dipelajari.” In translation: “the students are
active. They are brave to ask about the material they learnt.” Moreover, the observer two added that
“Iya, siswanya sangat antusias mengikuti aktivitas belajarnya.
” In translation: “the students are attentive in following the learning activity.” However, in the beginning of the whilst activity, which was home
group section 1, there were 32 students who followed the activity while 1 student walked around. It was seen from the observation checklists of the observers.
When the researcher asked the teacher about this student, the teacher told that this student had problem in the self-confidence and mentality. However, the teacher
63 tried to invite the student to gather in the group. Then, the student gathered in the
home group. Next, the student did the activity which was reading a text. The teacher facilitated and gave opportunity to the student to gather and follow the
activity in the home group. It was in line with Aronson et al. 1978 who say that jigsaw “provides opportunities for students to work in racially and culturally
mixed groupings in a way facilitating interracial and intercultural trust and acceptance while promoting the academic achievement of minority students” as
cited in Kessler 1992, p.137. Next, in the home group section 2, all students did the activity in groups.
They told the content of their texts to others. Here, every student had opportunity to share the content of the text. It was seen from the progress that was made by the
students. In the statement 13, the two observers gave absolutely positive comments. The mean score in cycle 1 was 3. The mean score of cycle 2 improved
5. Besides, from the discussion, the observer one told that “Di home group section
2 tadi mereka sudah menceritakan hasil diskusi mereka di expert group.” In
translation: “in home group section 2, they have told their discussion result from the expert groups.” Besides, there was an improvement in statement 14. The
mean score in cycle 1 was 2, 5 while in cycle 2 was 5. The observer two said that “Setiap anak juga memiliki waktu dan kesempatan untuk mempresentasikan isi
teks mereka.” In translation: “every student has time and chance to present the content of the text.” Moreover, in statement 15, the students discussed their own
texts in home group. There was an improvement from cycle 1 to cycle 2. The main score in cycle 1 was 3, while in cycle 2 was 5. From the discussion, the
64 teacher said that
“Tadi ketika berkeliling, saya juga melihat bahwa semua kelompok tidak hanya mempresentasikan bacaan mereka, tetapi juga
mendiskusikannya bersama di home group.” In translation: “when walking around, I see that all groups not only present their reading, but also discuss it
together in the home groups.” In the post-activity, the students concluded the lesson. However, there
were still some students who were busy with themselves. From the observation checklist result, both observers gave positive comment in statement 18. For the
class condition, the two observers agreed that all students were active in the learning activity. According to the field notes of the observer one, all students did
all activities. Students looked attentive in following the learning activity. The observers gave absolutely positive comments because of that.
From the observation checklist results, discussion, and field notes results, the researcher saw that the students learning activity was much better. There were
a lot of changes that were shown by the students. All students were paying more attention to the teacher and their friends. They were more active and cooperative
in the group discussion. It was because they had responsibility to understand their own texts. Then, they should tell their understanding to others. It was in line with
Slavin 1995 who describes that “another way to insure participation is to make students expert on some parts of the topic, as in group investigation, co-op, and
jigsaw, by having them do research on their area of expertise.” Moreover, the students followed all activities. Besides, all students could finish the individual
65 test. These changes showed that there was an improvement from the students who
followed all activities. sNext, from the questionnaire the researcher found the improvement in
cycle 2. The researcher could see the increasing of the learning activity and students‟ reading competence. The data showed that the total mean score of
learning activity improved 27, 15, while in cycle 1 was 25. Moreover, the total score of students‟ reading competence improved 26, 45, while in cycle 1 was 24,
18. The researcher found that the change of total mean score of the students‟ learning activity was 6, 7. Meanwhile, the total mean score of the students‟
reading competence was 7, 09. From the result of the questionnaire, the researcher found that there were all categories got increased. However, there were
statements 5, 7, 10, 14, and 15 which got low scores in the first cycle. Therefore, the researcher tried to elaborate the changes for each category. The changes of
every statement could be seen as followed:
Table 4.9. Questionnaire result in cycle 1 and cycle 2
Statement Description
Mean Score Cycle 1
Mean Score Cycle 2
1
Reading text
3,4 3,7
2
Arranging paragraph
3,3 3,4
3
Discussing paragraph
3,2 3,5
4
Discussing texts
3 3,3
5
Explaining texts
2,7 3,1
6
Doing test
3,5 3,6
7
Discussing texts with class
2,9 3,3
8
Following learning activity
3,1 3,2
9
Able to understand text
3,2 3,4
10
Able to identify text structure
2,9 3,1
11
Able to arrange paragraphs
3,1 3,5
12
Able to identify main idea
3,1 3,4
13
Able to understand text content
3,1 3,4
14
Able to retell text
2,7 3,1
15
Able to understand all texts
2,9 3,1
16
Able to do test
3,2 3,4
66 From the table 4.9, the statement number 5 improved 3, 1 in cycle 2, while
in cycle 1 was 2, 7. It meant that the students gave positive perspective in telling the content of the texts in the home groups. In statement 7, the students also gave
positive perspective in discussing all texts with their friends and the teacher. From the statements 1
– 8, which were learning activity, the researcher saw that all students did all activities. Furthermore, from the field notes, the observer one
noted that all students did all activities. The students‟ understanding of the text was improved in cycle 2. They
could identify the generic structure of the texts, retold their own texts, and also understood their friends‟ texts. It was shown from the improvement in every
statement from the questionnaire. In statement 10, the researcher saw the improvement score from 2, 9 to 3, 1. The students gave positive perspective in
this statement. Besides, in statement 14, the students also gave positive perspective. This statement improved 3, 1. Consistently, in statement 15, the
students gave positive perspective. They understood a ll friends‟ texts in the home
groups text 1, 2, 3, 4. From the statements 9 – 16 in the questionnaire, the
researcher concluded that all students could improve their reading competence. Moreover, according to the field notes of the observer two, students were more
active and they were motivated to understand the material. It was because they were demanded to retell in the expert groups and home groups.
Next, from the individual test result, there was improvement of students‟ reading competence that was made by the students in cycle 2, as followed:
67
Table 4.10. Individual test result in preliminary study, cycle 1, and cycle 2
No Category
Scores Frequency in
Preliminary Study Frequency in
cycle 1 Frequency in
cycle 2 1
Very good 9
– 10 8
2 Good
8 – 8,9
6 9
20 3
Sufficient 6,5
– 7,9 5
9 5
4 Bad
5,5 – 6,4
12 8
5 Very Bad
5,5 10
7
From the table 4.10, there were 8 students who were in very good category. The number of students in good category was also increased 20 students
in the second cycle. Besides, there were only 5 students who were in sufficient category. Moreover, the total mean score of the individual test in preliminary
study was 55, 3 while in cycle 1 was 63, 27. In cycle 2, the total mean score of the individual test result improved 83, 03. It meant that there was improvement in the
students reading competence using jigsaw method. It was because the result of the individual test in every cycle was increasing.
In conclusion, the students made positive changes in cycle 2. They were active in the learning teaching process. It could be seen from the changes of the
students in every cycle. They followed all activities which were home group section 1, expert group section, home group section 2, and individual test.
Moreover, the changes of the students in the learning activity affected the reading competence. All of them got better scores and it could indicate their improvement
in their reading competence. It also could be seen from the changes of the individual test result in every cycle. It was in line with Wasserman et al. who say
that “learning activities are designed to develop learning that supports course outcomes” p.277. Besides, European Commission 2006 also adds that learning
68 activities are any activities of an individual organized with the intention to
improve hisher knowledge, skills and competence p.9.
B. Lesson Learned of A Study of the Implementation of the Use of Jigsaw
Method to Develop Better Learning Activity for Improving Reading Competence in SMP St. Vincentius Sedayu
This study emphasized the implementation of the use of jigsaw method to develop better learning activity for improving reading competence. The research
method used in this research was classroom action research CAR which consisted of four main steps: the planning, the action, the observation, and the
reflection. The researcher conducted the classroom action research in class VII B of SMP Pangudi Luhur St. Vincentius Sedayu. In the beginning, the researcher
observed the class when the researcher did Praktik Pengalaman Lapangan PPL. Then, the researcher did the preliminary study by interviewing the English
teacher. Next, the researcher made some plans to conduct the first cycle. In doing the first cycle, the researcher was doing the observation that was also helped by
another observer in every cycle. After conducting the first cycle, the researcher elaborated the observation
checklist results, discussion, field notes, questionnaire results, and individual test results. In the first cycle, the researcher found that the students had followed the
learning activity. However, there were still some students who did not follow the activity in cycle 1. It could be seen from the observation checklist results, field
69 notes, and questionnaire results. The result from observation checklists and
questionnaires represented that the observers and the students agreed with the statements.
From the first cycle, there were several points to consider; time allocation, the rules of jigsaw method
, students‟ learning activity, and individual test. Based on those points, the researcher made several changes in the second cycle. The
researcher planned to ask the teacher about the time schedule. Next, the researcher and the teacher made the time allocation for every activity. Besides, in cycle 2, the
teacher would use different way in implementing jigsaw method. The activities would be done outside the class. At the beginning the teacher gave spoken and
written instruction about jigsaw method and what students should underline from the texts. Then, the students would be divided into several groups. The teacher
also used whistle to indicate the movement for the next activity. Another important point was the teacher gave every student chance to explain hisher text
in the home group section 2. Furthermore, the researcher gave the individual test which consisted of 20 questions and focused on the detail of the texts.
After doing cycle 2, the researcher elaborated the observation checklist results, field notes, questionnaire results, and individual test results, same as what
the researcher did after conducting cycle 1. The researcher found that the mean score of the observation checklist in cycle 1 was 78, 5 and in cycle 2 was 97, 5.
The result showed that there was 19 change. The change was successful. Then from the questionnaire results, the mean score in cycle 2 of the students‟ learning
activity was 27, 15 and for the students‟ reading competence was 26, 45. Besides, PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
70 the positive changes of the students‟ learning activity affected students‟ reading
competence. The researcher did not use this research only for experimental research, but also it helped the students to develop their learning activity and
improve reading competence. It could be seen that the action did not make negative impact to the students. The students‟ mean score of the individual test
result in cycle 2 was 83, 03. There were 19, 76 change from cycle 1 to cycle 2. Thus, from the results, the researcher saw the development of better learning
activity and the improvement of students‟ reading competence since the students were active learners. It was in line with Fink 2003 who say that “students learn
more and retain their learning longer if they acquire it in an active rather than a passive manner” p.16.
On the other hand, from the observation checklist results, field notes, questionnaire results, and individual test results, the researcher summed up that
the students made convincing changes related to their learning activity which affected their reading competence. In conclusion, this action research about the
implementation of using jigsaw method to develop better learning activity for improving reading competence was successful and made sufficient changes to
students‟ learning activity and reading competence. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
71
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter, the researcher presents the conclusions and recommendations from the research conducted. In the conclusions part, the
researcher explains about the content of the thesis briefly. In the recommendations part, the researcher delivers the recommendations for the English teacher and for
the future researchers who are going to conduct similar research.
A. Conclusions