reach the target of Classroom Action Research success; that was 75 of students passed the minimal mastery level criterion.
2. Cycle 2
a Planning In the planning phase of second cycle, the teacher made lesson plan which
was modified based on the reflecting of the first cycle. Furthermore, the lesson plan was focused more on the indictor which hadn’t reached in the first cycle. He
would make the teaching learning activity more interesting than before in order to make the students paid more attention to his explanation. Therefore, here the
teacher tried to give the game in evaluation but it still related to the teaching Degrees of Comparison by using Substitution Drills technique.
Besides, the teacher also prepared the observation sheet that would be filled by the observer during the teaching learning activity. He also prepared the
posttest 2 that would be given to the students at the end of the second meeting in this cycle. The form of posttest 2 was same as the pretest and posttest 1; that was
twenty questions in the form of multiple choices. It was used to measure the improvements of the students’ score from pretest and posttest 1.
b Acting The acting phase of the second cycle was the same as the acting phase in
the first cycle; it was done in two meetings. The first meeting was conducted on Friday, 29
th
of April 2011 and there was no absent student in this meeting. The difference was the way to implement the action. The acting phase of cycle 2
became the correction of the acting phase of cycle 1. In this phase the writer corrected all problems occurred before. The complete explanation of the activities
in acting phase of cycle 2 will be discussed as follow. Firstly the teacher entered the classroom and opened the lesson. Then he
gave a game to refresh the student and to make them focused to the lesson. Next he asked about the previous lesson, some of them could answer the questions and
some of them couldn’t answer. After asking some questions randomly, he began
to explain the lesson. In explaining the lesson firstly he showed the students three pictures of house which had different size, beauty and cost. Next he asked some
students to make some sentences in the form of positive, comparative and superlative degree
based on those pictures and then he corrected the students’ answer. Afterwards, he began to ask some students to substitute the cue word of
the sentences; in this case he focused on asking the students who still had difficulties in understanding the material and who didn’t focus on the teacher’s
explanation in the first cycle, therefore he walk around the class in order to control the students. Besides, to manage the class condition which seemed less
controlled in cycle 1, he asked the students who became the trouble maker in the previous cycle to sit in the front row.
In evaluation, he gave the students a game related to the material and technique used by him. Firstly, he divided the students into four groups, and then
he patched three different pictures on the whiteboard and gave some words in pieces of paper. Afterward, he asked the students to make a complete sentence
from those words based on the pictures. Lastly, he asked them to substitute the cue word
of the sentence. The group which could complete the game earliest would be the winner. In evaluation, he concluded the material and then asked one
of them to conclude the material as heshe could. In the second meeting which was done on Saturday, 30
th
of April 2011, he did the activities in a line with the first meeting of this cycle. In exercise, he also
gave the students a game. Firstly, he divided the students into eight groups and then asked them to write a sentence in the form of positive, comparative and
superlative degree in a paper. Afterward, he exchanged the paper randomly and
asked each group to change the cue word of the sentences. The group which collected earliest and wrote the correct answer would be the winner.
The writer saw that the students were more interested in learning activity; it might because they were satisfied to the activities they had done. Finally in the
last twenty five minutes of the second meeting, he gave the students posttest 2.
3
3
See Appendix 4
c Observing In the observing phase of cycle 2, the observer filled the observation sheet
and it showed that there were some improvements. Firstly related to the writer’s performance, he explained the lesson better than the first cycle. He could explain
the material clearly and he also managed the class well. Next related to the students’ attention and response, it showed that they gave more attention and
response to the teacher explanation. Moreover there were more students who asked the questions to him. Lastly, related to the class condition, it seemed more
ordered. All of the students were paying attention to him seriously. As the result, no students looked sleepy and cracked a joke with each other. Besides, all
indicators in the lesson plan also had been reached.
4
d Reflecting In this phase, the teacher and the observer also discussed the teaching
learning activity that had been done in cycle 2. The results of discussion can be stated as follows:
The teacher could convey the material and also manage the class well. It was proved by the students’ attention and response which were improved
to be better. All students seemed pay attention on the teacher’s explanation and no students looked cracking a joke with each other.
The students’ understanding of Degrees of Comparison also had improved; most of them could distinguish 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 proved by the percentage of the students’ whose score had passed the minimal mastery level criterion. The
data showed that the percentage of students who passed the minimal mastery level criterion
in this cycle was 96.97. It was improved 51.52 from pretest which gained only 45.45, and improved 24.24 from
posttest 1 which gained 72.73.
4
See Appendix 2
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
