The teacher and observer assumed that the implementation of Classroom Action Research in developing students’ ability in Degrees of Comparison
by using Substitution Drills technique was appropriate with the planning that had been discussed by them. And it could also be assumed that the
Classroom Action Research which had been done by the writer and the teacher was success.
C. The Discussion of Data After Classroom Action Research
The data after the implementation of Classroom Action Research were gained from three sources, they are: post interview, post test and post
questionnaire. The complete explanation of the three sources above will be discussed as follows.
1. The Result of Post Interview Post interview in this research was done on Friday, 6
th
of May 2011. Different from the pre interview in which the writer interviewed the English
teacher, here he interviewed the students. In this case the writer chose some students randomly and asked them some questions. Generally, the questions
consisted of three points, those were: the students’ feeling and enjoyment in the teaching learning process after using Substitution Drills technique, the
development of students’ ability in Degrees of Comparison after using Substitution Drills and the students’ response about using Substitution Drills
technique in learning Degrees of Comparison. Firstly, related to the students’ feeling and enjoyment in the teaching
learning process after using Substitution Drills technique. Most of them said that they felt happy and easier in understanding Degrees of Comparison. Besides, the
condition of class was more controlled than before because they focused on the teacher’s explanation. Actually, this technique was appropriate to be used in their
class. Next, related to the development of students’ ability in Degrees of
Comparison after using Substitution Drills. Most of them said that their ability in
Degrees of Comparison had improved. Besides, they also said that they could understand better Degrees of Comparison after using this technique, it could be
proved that most of them had understood how to differ between the form of positive, comparative and superlative degree
in one, two or more syllables, and most of them could also determine the use of positive, comparative and
superlative degree in sentences. It was also proved from the result of posttest 1
and 2. The writer asserted that this technique was very good to be applied to the students.
The last, concerned with the students’ response about using Substitution Drills technique in learning Degrees of Comparison. Most of them gave the
positive response. They said that Substitution Drills could make them understand more about Degrees of Comparison. Moreover, they felt happy and enjoyed
learning and feeling more motivated in learning English. 2. The Result of Post Test
Posttest was a test which was given to the students in the end of every cycle. In this research, the writer conducted post test twice, first posttest was done
in the final cycle 1, precisely at the end of the second meeting of cycle 1. And second posttest was done at the end of the second meeting in cycle 2. In addition,
the amount of question in each test was twenty of multiple choices. Besides, the writer had done the trustworthiness of the test using
discriminating power and difficulty item among pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2 before it was given to the students. There were thirty questions of each test, and
finally the writer threw ten questions away of each test. Furthermore, to support the explanation of the result of test, the writer had
listed the students’ score of pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2 as follows:
Table 4.2 Students’
Degrees of Comparison Score of Pretest, Posttest 1, and Posttest 2 Students’
Number Pre Test
Score Post Test 1
Score Post Test 2
Score
1 80
95 85
2 65
80 85
3 85
70 85
4 50
80 85
5 65
75 100
6 45
65 70
7 80
80 90
8 80
90 85
9 55
65 75
10 80
90 95
11 65
65 70
12 50
65 85
13 65
75 85
14 80
85 85
15 85
95 95
16 80
90 95
17 65
80 80
18 85
95 90
19 75
90 90
20 60
65 85
21 45
60 85
22 65
75 95
23 70
80 95
24 60
75 85
25 65
80 85
26 85
85 85
27 65
40 70
28 75
90 100
29 80
90 95
30 65
60 75
31 85
90 95
32 30
50 45
33 65
75 80
Total 2250
2545 2802
Mean: _
∑ x X = ──
n 68.18
77.12 84.90
: The student who passed the minimal mastery level criterion 70
In analyzing the numerical data, the writer compared the test result between pretest and posttest of each cycle. To compare the test result between
pretest and posttest of each cycle, the writer used some steps. Those were calculating the students mean score of the test, calculating the class percentage of
students who passed the minimal mastery level criterion, calculating the percentage of students’ improvement score from pretest to posttest 1 and posttest
2. In analyzing the pretest data, the first step was to get the mean score of the
class. And it used the calculation as follow: _
∑ x X = ──
N _
2250 X = ───
33 _
X = 68.18 Based on the calculation above, it was known that the mean score of the
class in pre test was 68.18. It meant that the students’ ability in learning Degrees of Comparison before using substitution Drills technique or before implementing
Classroom Action Research is 68.18. The score above was still below the minimal mastery level criterion
. The second step was to know the percentage of students’ score who passed
the minimal mastery level criterion 70. And it was computed by using formula as follow:
F P = ── X 100
N
