Based the result of pre-action test, it could be concluded that there were still 20 students having not yet met the Minimum Mastery Criterion 75. The minimum
score gained was 53, while the highest was 86. From the data above, it could be concluded that students of XII IPA 4 needed to improve their writing skills. Besides
of that, the range number of words students could write was between 220 —297
words, with the average number of words students could produce was 262 261.65. Then, as the test was also designed to standardise the range number of words for
the next cycles, the researcher decided the range number of words between 200 —
300 words.
2. Findings during the Implementation of CAR
a. Cycle 1
1 Planning
In this phase, a lesson plan was designed to try solving problems in the teaching and learning process of writing skills. The problems needed solving were not only
about the students’ achievement but also students’ attitude in the classroom. It was started from making a lesson plan consisted of standard competence, basic
competence, and indicators that will be reached by the students. In addition, the selected material and exercises were also determined into a lesson plan. Besides of
that, based on the findings in the pre-observation, as students liked to chat with their friends during the test and tended to do the test with their friends in group rather
than work individually, then they would be divided into some groups in order to make the learning process be more active. Lastly, the teacher decided to take three
meetings in this cycle. The first one is for teaching and learning about discussion text, the second one was for conducting the test, and the last day was used for
students to revise their writing the teacher had given feedback on.
2 Acting
The action in the first cycle was completely done in three meetings; January 7
th
, 13
th
, and 20
th
, 2015. The teaching and learning process was done based on the lesson
plan having been made. The first one was the introduction to the materials. Students were introduced with the schematic structure which they should also made.
Moreover, based on the findings in the pre-observation, as students liked to chat with their friends during the test and tended to do the test with their friends in group
rather than work individually, then they were divided into some groups in order to make the learning process be more active. The groups consisted of five students per
each and were freely chosen by students. Then, three topics to discuss were also distributed. After that, they were asked to make a framework of the text and then
presented it by choosing one representative person. After all, the teacher provided five topics for students to choose. Then, as a homework, they were asked to make
a framework based on the topics students chose. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they were studen
ts’ response to teacher’s explanation, active discussion in group, and active interaction with the teacher.
In the second meeting, firstly students were asked to submit their own framework they would use for their own writing. While teacher was examining the
frameworks, students were preparing for everything they needed for the writing test. After that, the frameworks were given back to students and then they were
asked to exemplify the framework they had made into a four-paragraph discussion text.
After this meeting, students’ writing was corrected and feedback was given by the teacher outside the classroom. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they
were students’ preparation, diligence in doing the test, and submission punctuality. In the third meeting,
students’ writing was distributed. Then, teacher explained the codes given on their paper in order to make students understand the meaning of
all codes. Then, they were asked to directly revise their own writing. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they were s
tudents’ response to teacher’s explanation, diligence, and submission punctuality.
3 Observing
In this phase, the teacher observed the four aspects that should be improved in the teaching and learning process. In the first meeting, findings showed that most
students paid little attention to teacher’s explanation. Though they listened to
te acher’s explanation, sometimes they preferred talking to their friends, playing
games on their gadgets. Even, some students paid no attention at all on teacher’s explanation. Two students were sleeping. Others went outside for the number one,
but went back to class very late. Besides of that, students’ interaction with the
teacher was also still low. Though some of them had tried to ask the teacher, the frequency was still rare. After that, when they were grouped, some students liked
to be in group with those who have sufficient knowledge about English, for example, Students 3, 5, and 16. However, when they had been in group, they did
not want to be involved in the group and spent more time joking and chatting with their friends. Besides, after observing some students, students 17 and 21 could be
classified as silent students. The positive thing was that they still did what teacher asked. In addition, while they presented the results of their discussion, the situation
were conducive and students paid full attention.
In the second meeting, generally overall activities could be categorised as Very Good
. All students could submit their work on time. When the bell rang as a sign that the subject was over, the submitted their work. However, while checking
students’ homework, teacher found that most students had a trouble making framework of the text. It could be seen as some of them actually brought their
framework but did not meet the criteria and some others, even, did not bring and make the framework. However, there were still some students bringing and making
a good framework. After that, generally, students did the test seriously though some of them should be supervised by the teacher. An important thing that should be
noted was that some students who did not bring or make the framework found difficulties in doing the test as they were confused about what they had to write.
This problem should be solved in the next cycle. In the third meeting, generally, students were very diligent in revising their
work though some of them still needed supervising. While teacher was explaining the codes or feedback codes on students’ paper, most students were seriously
listening to teacher’s explanation. However, teacher also noticed that some students
felt confused about the codes given by the teacher, then they prefer asking their peer than asking the teacher though sometimes they had to ask the teacher too. Lastly,
students’ submission punctuality still needed to be considered. There were still some students who could not submit their revised writing on time; they took two or
more than two days to revise their writing. To observe this aspect, observation was not only done in the classroom, but also outside classroom. To make it clear, below
is the results of observation sheets of the first cycle:
Table 4.3 Results of Observation Sheets of Cycle I
Students’ Number
Meeting I Meeting II
Meeting III A
B C
A B
C A
B C
S1 3
3 2
2 3
3 3
3 3
S2
2 2
2 2
3 3
3 2
2
S3 2
2 2
3 3
3 3
3 2
S4 3
3 2
2 2
3 3
3 2
S5 2
2 1
3 2
3 3
2 3
S6 2
2 1
2 3
3 2
2 3
S7
1 1
1 2
1 3
2 2
3
S8 2
2 1
2 3
3 2
2 2
S9 3
3 2
3 3
3 2
3 1
S10 2
1 1
2 2
3 2
3 1
S11 2
3 2
3 3
3 3
3 2
S12
2 2
2 2
3 3
2 3
3
S13 2
3 2
2 2
3 3
3 1
S14 1
2 1
1 2
3 2
2 3
S15 2
2 2
1 2
3 2
2 3
S16 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
S17
3 2
3 1
3 3
2 2
1
S18 1
1 1
1 1
3 1
1 3
S19 1
1 1
1 1
3 2
2 3
S20 2
2 2
1 2
3 3
2 1
Students’ Number
Meeting I Meeting II
Meeting III A
B C
A B
C A
B C
S21 3
3 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
S22 1
1 1
1 1
3 3
1 1
S23 2
2 1
3 3
3 2
2 3
S24 3
3 2
3 3
3 3
3 1
S25 1
1 1
1 1
3 3
1 3
S26
1 1
1 1
1 3
2 1
1
S27 3
3 2
3 2
3 3
2 3
S28 3
3 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
S29 2
2 2
3 3
3 3
2 3
S30 2
2 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
S31
2 3
3 1
3 3
3 3
3
Each Aspect’s Score in Each Meeting Total
64 66
54 64
73 93
79 72
72
Percent.
68.82 70.97 58.06 68.82 78.49 100 84.95 77.42 77.42
Overall Aspects’ Score in Each Meeting Total
184 230
223
Percent.
65.95 82.44
79.93
Overall Aspects’ Score for Overall Meetings Percent.
76.12
Notes: Table 4.4
Description of the Codes in Table 4.3 Codes
Meeting I Meeting II
Meeting III A
Students’ response to teacher’s explanation
Students’ preparation
Students’ response to teacher’s explanation
Codes Meeting I
Meeting II Meeting III
B
Discuss actively in group
Students’ diligence Students’ diligence
C
Active interaction with
the teacher
Students’ submission
punctuality
Students’ submission
punctuality
Based on the data analysis of table 4.3 above, it could be concluded that students’ overall activities in the first cycle was 76.12 which could be categorised
as Good.
In the first meeting, students’ overall activities was 65.95 which could be
categorised as Enough.
The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation
was 68.82 could be categorised as Enough, the second aspect was 70.97 which could be categorised as Good, however, the third aspects was only 58.06 which
could be categorised as Bad.
Moreover, in the second meeting, students’ overall activities was 82.44 which
could be categorised as Very Good.
The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s
explanation was 68.82 which could be categorised as Enough, the second aspect was 78.49 which could be categorised as Good, and the third aspects was only
100 which could be categorised as Very Good. Lastly, in the third meeting, students’ overall activities was 79.93 which could be categorised as Good. The
first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was 84.95 which could
be categorised as Very Good, the second aspect was 77.42 which could be categorised as Good, and the third aspects was only 77.42 which could be
categorised as Good.
Besides data from observation sheets, stud ents’ post-action writing test I scores
we re also used to observe students’ writing improvement. Below is the students’
post-action writing test I scores:
Table 4.5 Students’ Post-Action I Writing Test Scores
Students’ Number Post-Action I Scores S1
87
S2 78
S3 93
S4 92
S5 89
S6 79
S7 85
S8 77
S9 94
S10
82
S11 89
S12 76
S13 86
S14
81
S15
78
S16 93
S17 76
S18 89
S19 82
S20 92
S21 84
S22 76
S23 86
S24 93
Students’ Number Post-Action I Scores S25
91
S26
79
S27 90
S28 85
S29 81
S30 78
S31
86
Total 2627
Mean: 84.74
Students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion 75 Based on the result of Students’ Post-Action I Writing Test Scores above, it
could be concluded that after revising their writing, all students could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion 75. Besides of that, the average score was also
increased to 84.74 while in pre-action test, the average was only 72.1 which meant that it was still under the Minimum Mastery Criterion.
4 Reflecting
After the first cycle had been conducted, the conclusion of this cycle was drawn. It could be seen that students’ writing score in this cycle actually could be improved.
However, there were still many things that should be improved. In the first meeting, all of the aspects observed needed to be observed as they had not yet meet the
criteria of success . Moreover, in the second meeting, students’ preparation should
be improved in the next cycle. Lastly, in the last meeting, students’ submission punctuality should be noted to get improved. After reflecting the teaching and
learning process in the first cycle, it could be concluded that next cycle needed to be conducted to solve the problems having not yet been solved in the first cycle.
b. Cycle 2
1 Planning
In this phase, a lesson plan was designed to try solving problems having not been solved in the first cycle. Though students’ achievement had met the
requirement for criteria of success, there were still students’ response to teacher’s
explanation, student s’ participation in group, students’ interaction with the teacher,
students’ preparation, and students’ submission punctuality after revising their work that still needed to be improved. Thus, the next cycle should be done to solve
those problems. Generally, the second cycle was almost the same as the previous one. However,
some changes were planned and had been inserted in the lesson plan of the second cycle
in order to enhance students’ activities. Firstly, as students did not prepare well for the test, then in the second cycle the teaching process was focussed on
making the framework of what they wanted to elaborate. It was hoped that it might solve the problems of students’ preparation and submission punctuality as they
might be more prepared. Secondly, as students were tended to be more passive and to spend their time talking, joking, and chatting with their close friends in group,
the teacher himself divided the students to prevent students being with their close friend. It was hoped that it might solve
the problems of students’ participation in their group and also interaction with the teacher. Lastly, the teacher decided to take
three meetings in this cycle. The first one is for teaching and learning about making a good framework, the second one was for conducting the test, and the last day was
used for students to revise their writing the teacher had given feedback on.
2 Acting
The action in the second cycle was completely done in three meetings; January 27
th
, January 28
th
, and February 10
th
, 2015. The teaching and learning process was done based on the lesson plan having been made. The first meeting was about
making a good framework. Students were taught about how to make a good framework step by step. Moreover, based on the findings in the first cycle, as
students liked to chat with their friends in group they chose, then teacher himself divided the students into five group consisted of six students per each and each
group was given a chosen topic which they had to make the framework of. To make it clear, each students should make their own framework though they might discuss
their ideas with their peers. After they had done making the framework, students were asked to collect their
framework collectively per group. Then, they were asked to exchange their work to another group in order to get feedback or suggestion from their friends from another
group. While doing that activity, students were free to give their suggestion. After all, the teacher asked students to giv
e their peers’ work back. Then, as a homework, they were asked to revise their framework and reminded that they had to bring the
framework on the next day. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they were students’ response to teacher’s explanation, active discussion in group, and active
interaction with the teacher. In the second meeting, firstly students were asked to submit their own
framework they would use for their own writing. While teacher was examining the frameworks, students were preparing for everything they needed for the writing
test. After that, the frameworks were given back to students and then they were asked to elaborate the framework they had made into a four-paragraph discussion
text. After this meeting, students’ writing was corrected and feedback was given by the teacher outside the classroom. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they
were students’ preparation, diligence in doing the test, and submission punctuality. In the third meeting, students’ writing was distributed. Then, teacher explained
the codes given on their paper in order to do some review and to make students deeply understand the meaning of all codes. Then, they were asked to directly revise
their own writing. In this meeting, three aspects were observed, they were students’
response to teacher’s explanation, diligence, and submission punctuality.
3 Observing
In this phase, the teacher observed the four aspects that should be improved in the teaching and learning process. In the first meeting, findings showed that almost
all students paid full attention to teacher’s explanation because they were required to make a good framework that they would use in elaborating their writing. Though
some of them still did not show their full attention, they clearly listene d to teacher’s
explanation. Besides of that, while explaining the materials, it could be found that all students had stopped playing their gadgets. Changes could also be seen on
another aspect to observe, students’ participation in the group. As the group and theme for each group had been chosen by the teacher, students seemed to be more
active in their group. They shared their own ideas, thoughts, and opinion about the theme. Even, the teacher found that one of the groups tried to debate whether some
materials or ideas they had were relevant, good, or acceptable. Interaction with the teacher was also improved. It could also be seen that, in this activity, students
mostly preferred to focus on the contents than the form. Lastly, when students gave feedback
to their friends’ work, some students were confused with their friends’ idea. However, they also gave any suggestion to their friends about what their
friends should enhance and what to improve. In the second meeting, good changes could also be found
on students’ preparation.
While checking students’ homework, teacher were surprised that all students brought all their framework and they showed a good effort to make a good
one. Besides of that, while doing the writing test, they seemed to be more focus. The condition of the class was also so quiet that almost all students focussed on
their own paper. Though some students tried to use their gadgets, teacher found that they used it to look up some words in English they did not know rather than used it
for unimportant thing. Lastly, all students could submit their work on time. When the bell rang as a sign that the subject was over, the submitted their work.
In the third meeting, some positive changes could also be found. Firstly, while the teacher reviewed and gave deeper explanation about the feedback codes,
students were paying full attention. Most students were seriously listening to teacher’s explanation. Though some of them did not really pay attention, they still
caught what teacher said. Besides of that, while they were given chance to ask, some students seemed like they wanted to confirm their own opinion rather than
asked about the meaning of the symbols or codes. Moreover, while doing the
revision, almost all students were very diligent and serious as they wanted to finish their work on time. Lastly, students’ submission punctuality was increased. Many
students could finish their work on that day. Though some students could not submit their revised writing on time, but they directly submitted their writing on the next
day. Below is the results of observation sheets of the second cycle:
Table 4.6 Results of Observation Sheets of Cycle II
Students’ Number
Meeting I Meeting II
Meeting III A
B C
A B
C A
B C
S1 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
S2
2 3
2 3
3 3
3 2
3
S3 3
2 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
S4 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
S5 3
3 3
3 2
3 3
3 3
S6 3
2 2
3 3
3 2
3 3
S7
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 2
2
S8 2
2 2
3 3
3 2
3 2
S9 3
3 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
S10 2
3 3
3 3
3 2
3 2
S11 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
S12
2 3
3 3
3 3
2 3
3
S13 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
S14 3
2 2
3 3
3 3
3 2
S15 2
2 2
3 2
3 2
2 3
S16 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
S17
3 3
3 3
3 3
2 2
2
S18 2
2 2
3 2
3 3
3 2
S19 3
3 2
3 3
3 2
2 3
S20 3
2 3
3 3
3 3
3 2
S21 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
Students’ Number
Meeting I Meeting II
Meeting III A
B C
A B
C A
B C
S22 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
2 3
S23 2
3 2
3 3
3 2
2 3
S24 3
3 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
S25 3
3 2
3 3
3 3
2 2
S26 3
3 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
S27
3 3
2 3
2 3
3 3
3
S28 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
S29 3
2 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
S30 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 2
S31 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
Each Aspect’s Score in Each Meeting Total
86 85
79 93
89 93
85 85
84
Max. 93
93 93
93 93
93 93
93 93
Percent.
92.47 91.40 84.95 100
95.70 100 91.40 91.40 90.32
Overall Aspects’ Score in Each Meeting Total
250 275
254
Percent.
89.61 98.57
91.01
Overall Aspects’ Score for Overall Meetings Percent.
93.07
Notes: Table 4.7
Description of the Codes in Table 4.6 Codes
Meeting I Meeting II
Meeting III A
Students’ response to teacher’s explanation
Students’ preparation
Students’ response to teacher’s explanation
B Discuss actively in group
Students’ diligence Students’ diligence
C
Active interaction with
the teacher
Students’ submission
punctuality
Students’ submission
punctuality
Based on the data analysis of table 4.6 above, it could be concluded that students’ overall activities in the second cycle was 93.07 which could be
categorised as Very Good
. In the first meeting, students’ overall activities was
89.61 which could be categorised as Very Good. The first aspect,
students’
response to teacher’s explanation was 92.47 which could be categorised as Very Good
, the second aspect was 91.40 which could be categorised as Very Good, and the third aspects was 84.95 which could be categorised as Very Good.
Moreover, in th e second meeting, students’ overall activities was 98.57 which
could be categorised as Very Good.
The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s
explanation was 100 which could be categorised as Very Good, the second aspect was 95.70 which could be categorised as Very Good, and the third aspects was
100 which could be categorised as Very Good. Lastly, in the third meeting, students’ overall activities was 91.01 which could be categorised as Very Good.
The first aspect, students’ response to teacher’s explanation was 91.40 could be
categorised as Very Good, the second aspect was 91.40 which could be categorised as Very Good, and the third aspects was 90.32 which could be
categorised as Very Good.
Besides data from observation sheets, students’ post-action writing test II scores were also used to observe students’ writing improvement. Below is the students’
post-action writing test II scores:
Table 4.8 Students’ Post-Action II Writing Test Scores
St udents’ Number Post-Action II Scores
S1 83
S2 87
S3 95
S4 92
S5
96
S6 83
S7 87
S8 85
S9 95
S10
82
S11 79
S12 84
S13 93
S14 86
S15
84
S16 93
S17 78
S18 87
S19 84
S20
87
S21 90
S22 76
S23 90
S24
92
S25
93
S26 84
S27 86
Students’ Number Post-Action II Scores S28
88
S29 88
S30
86
S31
90
Total 2703
Mean: 87.19
Students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion 75
Based on the result of Students’ Post-Action II Writing Test Scores above, it could be concluded that after revising their writing, all students could pass the
Minimum Mastery Criterion 75. Besides of that, the average score was also
increased to 87.19.
4 Reflecting
After the second cycle had been conducted, the conclusion of this cycle was drawn. It could be seen that students’ activities and achievement had met the
requirements that the result of observation was categorised as very good 93.07 and the Minimum Mastery Criterion could be passed by all of the students 100.
Besides of that, the problems having not yet been solved in the previous cycle could be solved in this cycle. Thus, after reflecting the teaching and learning process in
the second cycle and based on the data gained from this cycle, it could be concluded that the next cycle did not need to be conducted.
3. Findings after the Implementation of CAR
