Second meeting

2) Second meeting

The second meeting was held on Wednesday, 26 th May 2016. The time allocation was 2 x 40 minutes, based on the school arrangement. The topic of the

lesson was “Expository text”. To conduct the research the researcher followed some procedure:

a) Planning

In the second meeting, the researcher arranged everything needed during the research. They were lesson plan, observation sheet, evaluation sheet, and the material. The planning was made to avoid misconception of the action that would be done in the classroom especially during the teaching-learning process. The researcher had used the items in planning phase in order to help the researcher in conducting a good research.

b) Action

In the second meeting, the researcher began by greeting the students in order to give reinforcement to the students. The English teacher also entered the classroom as the teacher collaborator who observed the whole activities made by the researcher and the students during the teaching-learning process. The researcher asked the students to review the material of the last meeting and seek about the students’ ability in understanding the previous meeting. The researcher straightened some of the review in order to give a correct understanding about the lesson to the students.

Furthermore, the researcher gave the evaluation sheet to the students. The researcher asked the students to write the missing words based on the text by using Word Wish Game in order to help them in finishing their task. When the students finished their task, the researcher asked the students to collect their tasks to the researcher. The researcher asked for the problem faced by the students during working the task, and tried to solve the problem with the students.

At last, the researcher gave a conclusion about the lesson material, and the researcher motivated the students to prepare themselves for the next meeting. Finally, the researcher closed the meeting by greeting the students.

c) Observation

During the teaching-learning process, the researcher and the observer made an observation about the students’ activities in the classroom. Based on the researcher observation, it was found that the students were more enthusiasts in following the lesson. Based on the result of the observation, the researcher obtained the data about the students who had been done and did not do the activities during implementing the action in the classroom. the students who had done the activities were 20 students (74%) and the students who did not do the activities were 7 students (26%). To understand the percentage of the students who had been done and undone the activities could be viewed in the graphic on the next page.

Percentage 40 20 Frequency

Graphic 3: Percentage of the students who had been done and undone the activities in the second meeting of Cycle I Based on the result of the observation, in the first meeting of Cycle I the

researcher’s activities had done were 26 activities of 30 activities (87%) and there were 4 activities had not done of 30 activities (13%). Clearly, the observation result of the researcher’s activities could be viewed on the graphic.

Percentage 40 4 Frequency

Graphic 4 : Percentage of the researcher’s activities that had been done and 0

undone in the Cycle I in the second meeting Undone In the second meeting, the students could achieve the requirement of the

Done

research. This situation happened because there were some strengths found by the researcher in the classroom, as follows.

(1) The students were lack to pronounce vocabularies. (2) The students were lack to write vocabularies. (3) The students did not master expository vocabularies. (4) The students could not do the procedure of Word Wish Game.

However, there were some students’ strengths found by the researcher during the teaching-learning process, as follows. (1) Some of the students could pronounce vocabularies. (2) Some of the students could write vocabularies. (3) Some of the students master expository vocabularies. (4) Some of the students could do the procedure of Word Wish Game.

d) Reflection

After doing the action in the classroom, the researcher noted, analyzed and concluded the result of the research. Then, the researcher analyzed the students’ evaluation sheet. The result of the students’ evaluation sheet in the second meeting of Cycle I could be showed in the table below.

Table 2

The STUDENTS’ MASTERING VOCABULARY by Using Word Wish Game in the SECOND MEETING of the CYCLE I

MCC Level

Percentage Very Good

Value

Frequency

2 7% Good

85-100

75-84

75 Enough

8 30% Less

60-74

14 52% Fail

40-59

0-39

Total

The data from the table above explained that the students’ ability in writing expository text was in the less level. It showed that there were 2 (two) students (7%) who could be classified in “Very good” level, 2 (two) students (7%) who could be classified in “Good” level, 8 (eighth) students (30%) who could be classified in “Enough” level, 14 (fourtheen) students (52%) who could be classified in “Less” level and 1 (one) student (4%) who could be classified in “Fail” level. The highest score that the students got was 100 and the lowest score that the students got was 30. The average value that the students got was 58.8.

Based on the explanation above, the researcher concluded that the students’ ability in mastering vocabulary by using Word Wish Game was still unable to increase the students’ ability in the cycle I. It was indicated by looking at the Minimum Competence Criterion (MCC) of the English subject at the eighth grade which was 75 could not be achieved by the students. Therefore, the researcher decided to continue to the next cycle by doing some improvements, there were:

(1) The researcher suggested the students to find out how to pronounce the words in dictionary. (2) The researcher suggested the students to find detail how write vocabularies. (3) The researcher taught the students about expository text (4) The researcher suggested the students to learn more how to followed the

procedure of Word Wish Game.

b. Cycle II

Cycle II was done in two meetings, first meeting and second meeting. First

meeting was done on Tuesday, 29 th May 2016. While second meeting was on 02 2016. The time that was used by the researcher in the meeting was 4x 40 minutes

th

based on the schedule that was provided in SMP Swasta NUPELA. In the cycle, the researcher prepared one topic for one meeting, in order that the students could think and get the continuation of the last material that they had learnt.