Findings before the Implementation of CAR

28 CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION This chapter presents research findings before, during, and after the implementation of classroom action research to improve students discussion text writing skills through teacher indirect feedback technique and also interpretation of the results.

A. Research Findings

1. Findings before the Implementation of CAR

Before implementing the research, any kinds of information were gathered through teacher pre-interview, pre-questionnaire, pre-observation, and also pre- action test.

a. Result of Interview

The English teacher was interviewed on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 10 am. It was done to know generally the class situation, students’ achievement, and also students’ and teachers’ attitude toward the teaching and learning process of writing. Three problems were pointed ou t based on teacher’s interview. Firstly, problem mentioned was that the students sometimes had not yet been interested to prepare what they were going to write; they preferred talking and joking with their friends until the class ended. They argued that they were depressed while working under pressure, and needed a lot of time to get the inspiration and the data needed. Thus, it was hard for them to collect their work in the end of the meeting and for the teacher to directly correct their work. Secondly, after the writing tasks became a homework, the teacher found that the students had not yet put their best performance in their writing. They just wrote what they wanted to write, neglected the text structure, and put little attention about what they wrote which led to some problems, for example, grammatical errors. It is true that they had not yet interested in writing because of its complexity. Thus, there were so many students that were hard to achieve minimum mastery criterion KKM made by the teacher. Lastly, the teacher said that it had been so hard when her students asked her to give them reasons for their score since she just gave them the score without any comments or feedback. Moreover, she argued that it took a lot of time to give them comments to each work since she taught more than three class per week. As a result, students became unmotivated since some of them felt like they were hard to have clear direction about how to write well, and some others felt like their teacher had not yet found appropriate techniques to improve their skills. It could be concluded that four aspects need considering; they are students’ preparation to write, diligence in doing writing tasks, involvement while learning writing skills, submission punctuality.

b. Result of Pre-Observation

Pre-observation was conducted to observe the process of pre-action writing test before implementing the action. It was held on Tuesday, January 6 th , 2015, and started from 07.00 —08.30 a.m. The class consisted of 31 students; 17 male students and 14 female students. Below is the result of pre-observation. Table 4.1 Results of Pre-Observation Sheets Students’ Number Diligence Submission Punctuality S1 2 3 S2 2 3 S3 3 3 S4 2 3 S5 2 3 S6 2 3 S7 2 3 S8 2 3 S9 1 3 S10 2 3 S11 2 3 S12 2 3 Students’ Number Diligence Submission Punctuality S13 2 3 S14 1 3 S15 1 3 S16 3 3 S17 2 3 S18 2 3 S19 2 3 S20 2 3 S21 2 3 S22 2 3 S23 2 3 S24 1 3 S25 3 3 S26 1 3 S27 1 3 S28 2 3 S29 3 3 S30 2 3 S31 2 3 Each Aspect’s Score Total 60 93 Percentage 64.52 100 Overall Aspects’ Score Total 153 Percentage 82.26 Based on the result of pre-observation above, generally, it could be concluded that the teaching and learning process was Very Good. However, the description could be seen in one aspect, submission punctuality. Another aspect, students’ diligence, could actually be concluded that they are diligent enough. Most students seriously did the test though teacher should always supervise what they were doing. Moreover, based on teacher’s observation journal, some students sitting in the first two front rows seriously did the test. However, those sitting in the next rows should always be supervised. Then if the teacher did not pay attention or supervise them, some students preferred to play games on their smartphone than to do the test. For example, four students in the right corner preferred to play games on their smartphone than to do the test. Besides of that, they also liked to chat with their friends during the test. For example, five female students sitting in the third and fourth row near the door liked to chat during the test. Lastly, some students tended to do the test with their friends in group rather than work individually. In conclusion, generally, they are diligent enough in doing the test though some of them really needed supervising.

c. Pre-Action Test

Lastly, pre-action test was done in January 6, 2015 at 07.00 —8.30 a.m. This test was actually conducted in order to mainly prove what the teacher had said about the class situation when writing test being conducted and about students’ achievement which were found below the standard. Findings showed that almost half of the class could not reach the Minimum Mastery Criterion 75. Below is the students’ pre-action writing test scores: Table 4.2 Students’ Pre-Action Writing Test Scores Students’ Number Scores Number of Words S1 73 231 S2 76 247 S3 86 297 S4 61 253 S5 79 289 S6 78 247 Students’ Number Scores Number of Words S7 77 260 S8 75 257 S9 57 225 S10 72 290 S11 73 220 S12 71 283 S13 73 281 S14 53 254 S15 68 280 S16 86 226 S17 74 292 S18 72 267 S19 72 239 S20 77 245 S21 74 241 S22 72 251 S23 78 289 S24 63 262 S25 82 243 S26 59 288 S27 57 294 S28 69 242 S29 81 296 S30 73 235 S31 74 287 Mean: 72.1 261.65 Students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion 75 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