conducting the game; it causes their limited knowledge of the sub-topic. But in general, the students conducted the games smoothly and happily.
Whereas, the observation questionnaire result after teaching learning process in the cycle two, the data can be found as follows:
Table 4.2 Questionnaire Result of List Observation in Cycle II
No Total
Description
1 100 of students
Stating obviously with the rules of the scrabble game 2
100 of students Stating there was no difficulty in playing scrabble
3 72,3 of students Stating difficulty in arranging the words in the game
4 83,5 of students Stating the vocabulary that they had more recall in their
mind 5
89,3 of students Stating pleasure in playing scrabble game 6
85,9 of students Stating difficulty in continuing the arranging of words from their friends
7 97,8 of students Stating difficulty in grammar and vocabulary
4. Reflection
As the implementation of activities in the first cycle, then after conducting the observation of teaching learning process, further the analysis and reflection on all
activities that has been done. The result product of learning reflection on the second cycle is as follows:
The games run smoothly and students played it actively. The games more developed than first cycle. Students found difficulty in creating the words. To help it,
the contextual approach before the games is implemented. Therefore the students could know various vocabulary of the topic that will be played. Boredom that came
from some students who were clever, so they must be suggested to formulate more difficult words so that they became more creative in doing the games and there is a
sense of pride in conducting the game. In general, the implementation of learning in second cycle was quite good,
and the achievement of learning has been reached and also the students have already more creative in learning.
4. The Improvement of Students’ Vocabulary Achievement
To know whether the teaching vocabulary using scrabble game activities was successful or not and whether the scores were significantly increased or not to the
students of first grade at MTs Nurussalam Pondok Pinang, the writer described the result of pre-test and post-test. By this result, the writer wanted to know the result of
teaching action to the students in understanding of words, autonomy and success in playing scrabble game. The writer used quantitative descriptive technique to analyze
the data.
The test was given to the students before the teaching learning process was conducted pre-test and in every end of cycle post-test. In this research, the writer
held post test twice, first posttest held in the final cycle 1 and second posttest held in the final cycle 2. The students‟ score of pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2 can be seen
the table below:
Table: 4.3 The Scores of Vocabulary Pre-Test
No Students
Score X
1 1
62 2
2 57
3 3
61
4 4
70 5
5 73
6 6
68 7
7 75
8 8
68 9
9 59
10 10
61 11
11 60
12 12
61 13
13 64
14 14
55 15
15 55
16 16
55 17
17 55
18 18
64 19
19 64
20 20
65 21
21 58
22 22
58 23
23 59
24 24
64 25
25 64
26 26
69 The student who passed the KKM 70
1. Calculating the students mean score of the test. It is calculated by
using this formula:
41
_ ∑x X = ──
N Based on the table above, the writer concluded the lowest score of pre-test is
55 and the highest score of pre-test is 75. The average of students‟ scores of pre-test is:
∑ Pre-test X = 1634
Mean = ∑ X
N =
1634
26 = 62,84
From the calculation above, the mean of students‟ vocabulary score in pre-test
before implementing Classroom Action Research CAR or using the scrabble game is 62,84
2. Calculating the percentage of students‟ score who passed the KKM
70 by using this formula:
F P = ── X 100
N 3
P = ── X 100 26
41
Anas Sudijono.Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan, Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, 2001, p. 80
P = 11,53 Based on the calculation above, it shows that
the students‟ score percentage in the pretest is 11,53, because there are only 3 students who pass the KKM and 23
s tudents who still get the score below the KKM. It can be concluded that the students‟
score in pre-test still low and need the improvement to achieve the KKM.
Table: 4.4 The Score of Vocabulary Post-Test I
No Students
Score Y 1
1 1
69 2
2 65
3 3
68 4
4 74
5 5
77 6
6 74
7 7
78 8
8 73
9 9
65 10
10 67
11 11
64 12
12 68
13 13
66 14
14 59
15 15
60 16
16 61
17 17
67 18
18 71
19 19
74 20
20 73
21 21
63 22
22 65
23 23
68 24
24 70
25 25
69 26
26 77
The student who passed the KKM 70
1. Calculating the students mean score of the test. It is calculated by
using this formula:
42
_ ∑x X = ──
N Based on the table above, the writer concluded the lowest score of post-test 1
is 59 and the highest score of pre-test is 78. The average of students‟ scores of post-test 1 is:
∑ Post-test 1 Y 1 = 1785
Mean = ∑ X
N =
1785
26 = 68,65
42
Anas Sudijono.Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan, Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, 2001, p. 80
From the computation above , the students‟ mean score of post-test in cycle 1
is 68,65. It means that there are some students‟ improvements in conducting the
action by using scrabble game from the pretest mean score. It could be compared between the pre-test mean score 62,84 and the post-test 1 mean score 68,65. So it
can be concluded that there is improvement of students‟ score until 5,81 68,65 –
62,84.
2. Calculating the percentage of students‟ score who passed the KKM
70 by using this formula: F
P = ── X 100 N
10 P = ── X 100
26
P = 38,46 Based on the calculation above, it shows that
the students‟ score percentage in the post-test I is 38,46, because there are only 10 students who pass the KKM and
16 students who still get the score below the KKM. It can be concluded that the students‟ score in post-test 1 still low and need the improvement to achieve the KKM.
Table: 4.5 The Scores of Vocabulary Post-Test II
No Students
Score Y 2
1 1
74 2
2 70
3 3
73 4
4 83
5 5
85 6
6 78
7 7
84 8
8 73
9 9
71 10
10 78
11 11
80 12
12 75
13 13
77 14
14 68
15 15
71 16
16 70
17 17
69 18
18 73
19 19
81 20
20 74
21 21
80 22
22 78
23 23
79 24
24 81
25 25
83 26
26 78
The student who passed the KKM 70
1. Calculating the students mean score of the test. It is calculated by
using this formula: _ ∑x
X = ──
N Based on the table above, the writer concluded the lowest score of post-test is
69 and the highest score is 85 which indicated that the post-test scores is higher than the pre-test score.
The average of students‟ scores of post-test is: ∑ Post-test Y 2 = 1986
Mean =
∑ Y N
= 1986 26
= 76,38 Based on the calculation above, the mean of
students‟ score in the post-test II is 76,38. It showed that the mean
of students‟ vocabulary score in pre-test after implementing Classroom Action Research CAR or using the scrabble game is 13,54
from the mean score of pre-test is 62,84. The improvement of the average of students‟ scores in pre-test and pot-test II
is: ∑ Y 2- ∑ X = 76,38 – 62,84 = 13,54
2. Calculating the percentage of students‟ score who passed the KKM
70 by using this formula
F P = ── X 100
N
24 P = ── X 100
26 P = 92,30
Based on the calculation above, it shows that the students‟ score percentage in
the post-test is 92,30, because there are 24 students who pass the KKM and 2 s
tudents who still get the score below the KKM. It can be concluded that the students‟ score in post-test is higher than pre-test. And the percentage of students who achieve
the KKM shows that this CAR categorized success.
From the computation above, the percentage of students‟ score who passed
the KKM is 92,50. It showed that there are 24 students who passed the KKM and 2 students who still below the target of KKM. So there is 80,97 of improvement in
the students‟ percentage of posttest II score from the pre-test 11,53. Therefore, this Classroom Action Research CAR has enough successful, because it has
achieved the target of CAR 75. To know the improvement of students‟ vocabulary pre-test and post-test, the
writer used the standard of six by Gronlund and presented the data of the comparison between students‟ score in pre-test and post-test 2 in the table below
43
:
43
Robert L. Linn and Norman E. Gronlund, Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995, p.349
Table: 4.6 Standard of Six by Gronlund
Mark Classification
9 Very good
8 Good
7 More than enough
6 Enough
5 Bad
4 Very bad
Table: 4.7 The comparison scores of pre-test and post-test II
No Students
X Y
Improvement
1 1
62 74
12 2
2 57
70 13
3 3
61 73
12 4
4 70
83 13
5 5
73 85
12 6
6 68
78 10
7 7
75 84
13 8
8 68
73 5
9 9
59 71
12 10
10 61
78 17
11 11
60 80
20 12
12 61
75 14
13 13
64 77
13 14
14 55
68 13
15 15
55 71
16
16 16
55 70
15 17
17 55
69 14
18 18
64 73
9 19
19 64
81 17
20 20
65 74
9 21
21 58
80 22
22 22
58 78
20 23
23 59
79 20
24 24
64 81
17 25
25 64
83 19
26 26
69 78
9
The table above shows that the average score of pre-test is 62,84. in post-test II the average score is 76,38. The improvement result of the implementation is 13,54.
So, there is a significant improvement of students‟ achievement in vocabulary. It means that scrabble game activity is effective to be used in teaching vocabulary to
first grade students of MTs Nurussalam Pondok Pinang.
5. Students’ Responses on the Implementation of Teaching Vocabulary by Using Scrabble Game
