The Design of Actions in Cycle I The Design of Actions in Cycle 2

mechanics improved from 2.06 to 2.90. They were not a great improvement. However, the scores improved consistently. Table 11: The Results of Pre- and Post-tests in Cycle I and Cycle 2 Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pair 1 Pretest 47.9032 31 7.82881 1.40610 Cycle1 57.5806 31 6.03752 1.08437 Pair 2 Cycle1 57.5806 31 6.03752 1.08437 Cycle2 73.8710 31 8.13528 1.46114 From the table above, it can be seen that the average score of pretest was 47.9032, the average score of Cycle 1 test was 57.5806 and the average of Cycle 2 test was 73.8710. It means that the average score of Cycle 2 test increased from the score of pretest. Furthermore, according to the t-test, the score difference of pretest, Cycle I and Cycle 2 test were significant at p0.05. The significance 2- tailed was 0.00. Meanwhile, the standard deviation of the students’ writing score in the pretest was 7.82881 while those of their score in Cycle 2 were 7.82881. Therefore, it can be concluded that their result in Cycle 2 was the most heterogeneous one, as compared to those of the scores in the other phases. Table 12: The Detail Quantitative Analysis of the Pre and Post-tests Paired Samples Correlations N Correlation Sig. Pair 1 Pretest Cycle1 31 .718 .000 Pair 2 Cycle1 Cycle2 31 .604 .000 Table 13: The Detail Quantitative Analysis of the Pre and Post-tests Paired Samples Test Paired Differences T Df Sig. 2- tailed Mean Std. Deviatio n Std. Error Mean 95 Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pai r 1 Pretest - Cycle1 - 9.677 42 5.46740 .98197 - 11.6828 8 -7.67196 - 9.855 30 .000 Pai r 2 Cycle1 - Cycle2 - 16.29 032 6.57872 1.18157 - 18.7034 2 - 13.8772 3 - 13.78 7 30 .000 Based on the results of the quantitative analysis above, the researcher and the collaborators concluded that the implementation of project-based learning in the classroom could improve students’ writing skills. 89

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents three main parts. They are conclusions of the research, implications of the findings and suggestions to the English teacher, the students and other researchers. The discussion of each section is presented below.

A. Conclusions

The research study conducted at SMPN 11 Magelang, was held from February to April 2015. The research involved 31 students of Grade VIII C as the research subject, the English teacher as the first collaborator and the researcher’s colleague as the second collaborator. The aim of this action research was to improve students’ writing skills through the use of project-based learning. The data were in the form of qualitative and quantitative. As stated in the discussion in the previous chapter, it shows that Grade VIII students’ writing skills improve through the use of project-based learning. There are some conclusions derived from each cycle. 1. The use of project-based learning is able to improve students’ writing skills. The data showed that students’ writing improved in the aspects of writing namely content, organization of the text, vocabulary, language use and mechanic. 2. The use of project-based learning can develop students’ motivation in learning the language. 3. The group works conducted during the implementation of project-based learning gave positive impact to the students’ involvement and