First Meeting The Implementation of Classroom Action Research CAR

In the first meeting, the observer realized that the teacher had to do a lot of effort to make or to change the students‘ attitude toward English. Some of them were quite active and enthusiasm with the teacher and followed the instruction given by her. However, some of them were quite hard to work with, they tend to make some noise to distract other students. So, the teacher gave some rules for anyone who disturbed or did not follow the instruction from the teacher to make the class became effective for both in teaching and learning process. In the second meeting, the observer watched a better classroom condition. They did not make a lot of noise because of that rules, it was quite effective to them. Then, they were noises when they working in groups, they asked a lot of questions about the rules and the teacher answered them patiently. Actually, students rarely learning using group work technique, so as the result, some of students were confused and nervous while doing group work but the rest of them were interested and anticipated. In the middle of activity, they still did not finish the task, some of the students even walked to the other groups, sleeping, talking with other student. So, it was messed up for a moment. Fortunately, the teacher can handle and fix that problem with a little punishment. In the third meeting, the observer watched the class was in a good mood condition, the students anticipated about the new material from the teacher. So, the second time was given, the students still asked several questions regarding the task but that was quite better because they were slowly understood about how to play the game. The students followed and enjoyed the activities in the class. In addition, after teaching and learning process finished in the first cycle, it was also carried out the post-test 1. It was held the day after the third meeting because the writer thought there was no more time when it used in English Class. Based on the result of the post-test 1, the mean score of the class derived 70.8 in which there were 21 students or 52.5 of the students who got score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion. Meanwhile the other students were below of that criterion. It implied that the first criterion has not fulfilled. The participation students in the teaching learning through group work teaching technique can be described as the table below: Table 4.3 The Result of Students’ Activities at the Cycle I NO The Aspects are Observed Total Notes 1 2 3 4 5 I √ √ √ 3 Satisfactory II √ √ √ 3 Satisfactory III √ √ √ 3 Satisfactory IV √ √ √ 3 Satisfactory V √ √ √ √ 4 Good VI √ 1 Bad VII √ √ √ 3 Satisfactory VIII √ √ 2 Enough Notes: 46 NO Notes for the number check list Rating Scale Quality 1 Active students in interaction 1 Bad 2 Team Work 2 Enough 3 Participation do the task 3 Satisfactory 4 Responsibility for the group work 4 Good 5 Complete the task on time 5 Very Good

d. Reflecting Phase

The reflecting in cycle 1 is the writer still had difficulties in implementing the group work in the class. Based on the table above shows that the class was noisy because some students did not do their task together, they just walked to cheat or to disturb the other groups and also chatted each other. Hence, the writer should give more attention to all groups and warning in order the students did their task with their own group, did not walk around the class, did not cheat, did not disturb, and did not chat each other about another topic. Third, students gave up if they found unfamiliar words. In this case, the writer should advice the 46 Hess, op,cit., pp. 112 —113.