Students’ Number Post-Action II Scores S28
88
S29 88
S30
86
S31
90
Total 2703
Mean: 87.19
Students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion 75
Based on the result of Students’ Post-Action II Writing Test Scores above, it could be concluded that after revising their writing, all students could pass the
Minimum Mastery Criterion 75. Besides of that, the average score was also
increased to 87.19.
4 Reflecting
After the second cycle had been conducted, the conclusion of this cycle was drawn. It could be seen that students’ activities and achievement had met the
requirements that the result of observation was categorised as very good 93.07 and the Minimum Mastery Criterion could be passed by all of the students 100.
Besides of that, the problems having not yet been solved in the previous cycle could be solved in this cycle. Thus, after reflecting the teaching and learning process in
the second cycle and based on the data gained from this cycle, it could be concluded that the next cycle did not need to be conducted.
3. Findings after the Implementation of CAR
After implementing the research, there are two data that needed discussing. Those were the result of teacher interview, the comparison of observation sheet
results, and the comparison of the students’ scores of pre-action test, post-action I
test, and post-action II test.
a. Result of Questionnaire Sheets
The post-questionnaire sheets was distributed on Tuesday, February 10
th
, 2015 after the implementation of the research. Each sheet consisted of fifteen questions
which were used to know students’ responses about the implementation of teacher indirect feedback. The following table was the results of post-questionnaire sheets:
Table 4.9 Results of Questionnaire Sheets about Students’ Responses toward the
Implementation of Teacher Indirect Feedback
No. Indicators
Items Number
Percentage per Item
Percentage per
Indicator Criteria
1. Guidance
1 90.3
91.61 Very Good
4 86
5 92.5
6 100
7 89.2
2. Help
8 100
88.60 Very Good
9 79.6
10 86
14 77.4
15 100
3. Information
2 96.8
92.47 Very Good
3 88.2
4. Knowledge
11 83.9
88.17 Very Good
12 100
13 80.6
Overall Percentage 90.22
Very Good
Based on table 4.9, it could be concluded that students’ response towards the
implementation of teacher indirect feedback was Very Good 90.22. Firstly,
students’ response toward the use of teacher indirect feedback as guidance gained 91.61. It could be concluded that by getting teacher indirect feedback, most
students agreed that they were well-guided in revising their writing. Moreover, the use of teacher indirect feedback as help in their learning process gained 88.60. It
could be concluded that most students felt that teacher indirect feedback was helpful in enhancing their skills and participation in learning process. In addition, the
function of teacher indirect feedback which could be used as a tool of information for students gained 92.47. Most students felt that feedback provided by the
teacher could inform their strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, the use of teacher indirect feedback as a tool to increase students’ knowledge in writing skills gained
88.17. It could be concluded that this kind of feedback could increase students’
knowledge related to their own writing skills and help them understand what errors they made so that they would not do the same errors later.
b. Result of Writing Tests Score
Besides distributing the questionnaire sheets, it could also be important to show students’ overall score started from pre-action writing test scores until post-action
II writing test scores. The table below presented the comparison of the scores:
Table 4.10 The Comparison of Students’ Writing Scores of Pre-Action Test, Post-Action
Test I, and Post-Action Test II Students’
Number Pre-Action
Test Scores Post-Action I
Test Scores Post-Action II
Test Scores S1
73 87
83
S2 76
78 87
S3
86 93
95
S4 61
92 92
S5 79
89 96
S6 78
79 83
S7 77
85 87
Students’ Number
Pre-Action Test Scores
Post-Action I Test Scores
Post-Action II Test Scores
S8 75
77 85
S9 57
94 95
S10 72
82 82
S11
73 89
79
S12 71
76 84
S13 73
86 93
S14 53
81 86
S15 68
78 84
S16
86 93
93
S17 74
76 78
S18 72
89 87
S19 72
82 84
S20 77
92 87
S21
74 84
90
S22 72
76 76
S23 78
86 90
S24 63
93 92
S25 82
91 93
S26
59 79
84
S27 57
90 86
S28 69
85 88
S29 81
81 88
S30 73
78 86
S31
74 86
90
Mean: 72.1
84.74 87.19
Students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion 75
In analysing data gained from students’ writing score, the researcher firstly tried to find the mean score of each test by calculating the score. Then, based on the table
above, it could be seen that the mean score of pre-action was 72.1, of post-action I was 84.74, and of post-action II was 87.19. It could be concluded that
students’ mean score of pre-action to post-action I was
improved 12.64 points and students’ mean score of post-action I to post-action II was also improved 2.45 points.
In addition, after getting the mean score of each test, the number of students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion was also calculated. Then, based
on the table above, it could be seen that 11 students 35 could meet the Minimum Mastery Criterion but 20 students 65 could not in the pre-action test. However,
in the first and second cycle, it could be seen that all students 100 could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion.
B. Interpretation of the Results
