The Discussion of Data After Classroom Action Research
In analyzing the numerical data, the writer compared the test result between pretest and posttest of each cycle. To compare the test result between
pretest and posttest of each cycle, the writer used some steps. Those were calculating the students mean score of the test, calculating the class percentage of
students who passed the minimal mastery level criterion, calculating the percentage of students’ improvement score from pretest to posttest 1 and posttest
2. In analyzing the pretest data, the first step was to get the mean score of the
class. And it used the calculation as follow: _
∑ x X = ──
N _
2250 X = ───
33 _
X = 68.18 Based on the calculation above, it was known that the mean score of the
class in pre test was 68.18. It meant that the students’ ability in learning Degrees of Comparison before using substitution Drills technique or before implementing
Classroom Action Research is 68.18. The score above was still below the minimal mastery level criterion
. The second step was to know the percentage of students’ score who passed
the minimal mastery level criterion 70. And it was computed by using formula as follow:
F P = ── X 100
N
15 P = ── X 100
33 P = 45.45
From the computation above, it showed that the percentage of students’ score who passed the minimal mastery level criterion is 45.45. Besides, it was
also known that there are only 15 from 33 students whose score above minimal mastery level criterion,
the other 18 students still got the score under seventy. It meant that there are more than a half of students who didn’t pass the minimal
mastery level criterion. The next was analyzing post test 1 which was done in the end of cycle 1. It
was used to know the students’ score improvement from the pretest to posttest 1 result. And there were three steps to get this improvement. Those were computing
the students’ mean score of the class, computing the students’ improvement score from pretest to posttest one and it is altered into percentage and the last was
computing the percentage of students’ score who passed the minimal mastery level criterion
70. The first step was computing the mean score of posttest 1. Its computation
was explained as follow: _
∑ x X = ──
n _
2545 X = ───
33 _
X = 77.12
The computation above showed that the mean score of students in posttest 1 is 77.12. It proved that there were some improvements from the pretest mean
score to the posttest 1 mean score. It could be seen that from the pretest mean score 68.18 to the posttest 1 mean score 77.12 improved 8.94; it was known
from the computation “77.12 – 68.18”. The second step was to get the percentage of students’ improvement score
from pretest to posttest 1. Its computation was explained as follows: y1 - y
P = ─── X 100 y
77.12 – 68.18 P = ───────── X 100
68.18 8.94
P = ──── X 100 51.50
P = 17.36 Based on the computation above, it showed that the percentage of the
students’ improvement from pretest to posttest 1 is 17.36. The third step was to get the percentage of the students whose score had
passed the minimal mastery level criterion. It used the computation as follows: F
P = ── X 100 N
24 P = ── X 100
33 P = 72.73
The computation above showed that the percentage of the students whose score had passed the minimal mastery level criterion was 72.73. It meant that
there were some improvements from pretest to posttest 1 in the case of percentage of the students whose score had passed the minimal mastery level criterion.
Besides, it was known from the table of the students’ score of pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2 above; that there were 24 students who passed the minimal mastery
level criterion and there were only 9 students whose score is still below it. It
improved 9 students, from 15 students in pretest became 24 students who passed minimal mastery level criterion
in posttest 1. And if it was altered into the percentage, there were 27.28 improvements from pretest to posttest 1. It was
known from the computation “72.73 - 45.45”. Notwithstanding any improvements of the students’ score who passed minimal mastery level criterion,
it was still needed more improvement because it had not achieved 75 yet as the criterion of successfull Classroom Action Research.
In cycle 2, the writer calculated the result of posttest 2. It was used in order to know the score improvement either from the result of pretest or posttest
1. It also used three steps to know this improvement as in the posttest 1. Those were to calculate the mean score of the class, to calculate the percentage of the
students’ improvement score from pretest to posttest 2, and to calculate the percentage of the students who passed the minimum mastery level criterion.
The first step is calculating the mean score of the class in posttest 2. It used the calculation as follows:
_ ∑ x
X = ── N
_ 2802
X = ─── 33
_ X = 84.90
According to the calculation above, it showed that the mean score of students in posttest 2 is 84.90. It meant that there were 7.78 points of
improvement from posttest 1 to posttest 2; it was gained from the calculation “84.90 – 77.12”. Besides, there were also 16.72 points of improvement from
pretest to posttest 2; it was gained from the calculation “84.90 – 68.18”. The second step is calculating the percentage of the students’ improvement
score from pretest to posttest 2. It used the calculation as follows: y2 - y
P = ──── X 100 y
84.90 – 68.18 P = ───────── X 100
68.18 16.72
P = ──── X 100 68.18
P = 24.52
The calculation above showed that the percentage of students’ improvement from pretest to posttest 2 was 24.52 or it improved 7.16 from
posttest 1 to posttest 2; it was gained from the computation “24.52 – 17.36”. The last step is computing the percentage of students who passed the
minimum mastery level criterion . It used the calculation as follows:
F P = ── X 100
N 32
P = ── X 100 33
P = 96.97 Based on the calculation above, it was known that the percentage of the
students whose score has passed the minimal mastery level criterion was 96.97. It improved from the pretest which gained only 45.45 and in the posttest 1
which had any improvement become 72.73. Therefore, based on the class percentage result from the pretest to the posttest 2 in the second cycle improved
about 51.52; it was gained from the calculation “96.97 – 45.45”. And it was improved 24.24 from posttest 1 to posttest 2; it was gained from the calculation
“96.97 – 72.73”. Besides, it was known that there were 32 students who passed the minimal
mastery level criterion and there was only 1 student whose score is still below it.
It improved 18 students, from 15 students in pretest became 32 students in posttest 2 who passed minimal mastery level criterion. Besides, it improved 9
students; from 24 students in posttest 1 became 32 students in posttest 2.
According to the percentage of the students’ who passed the minimal mastery level criterion
which had gained 96.97, it proved that the target of Classroom Action Research success in which minimum 75 students passed the
minimal mastery level criterion could be reached. It didn’t need any further cycle
and the writer could stop this research. 3. The Result of Post Questionnaire
Post Questionnaire was conducted on Friday, 6
th
of May 2011. It was aimed to know the students’ feeling and achievement after the implementation of
Substitution Drills in learning Degrees of Comparison. There were ten questions stated in this questionnaire, and its result would be presented into a table as
follow:
Table 4.3 The Result of Post Questionnaire
No Students’ Answer
The Result of Students’ Answer
Yes Percentage
No Percentage
1. Feeling satisfied with the English
achievement now. 18
54.55 15
45.45 2.
Using Substitution Drills technique in learning Degrees of Comparison is
better than
using the
previous technique.
33 100
3. Feeling enthusiastic more in learning
Degrees of Comparison by using Substitution Drills.
33 100
4. Understanding more about Degrees of
Comparison after using Substitution Drills.
33 100
5. Feeling easier to make the sentences in
Degrees of Comparison. 33
100 6.
Feeling easier to make the form of
positive, comparative and superlative degree.
26 78.79
7 21.21
7. The technique is suitable with the
students’ expectation. 31
93.94 2
6.06 8
Feeling easier to perform the task individually.
29 87.88
4 12.12
9. Asking the question during teaching
learning activity. 11
33.33 22
66.67 10
Substitution Drills technique is boring. 1
3.03 32
96.97 Based on the table above, the writer would like to give some explanations
in order to make it more clearly. The result of post questionnaire revealed that from the first statement there were 18 students or about 54.55 of all students
felt satisfied with their English score after learning Degrees of Comparison by using Substitution Drills. This result proved that the students felt more satisfied to
their English score than before the implementation of Substitution Drills, because in pre questionnaire there were only 6 students or about 18.18 of them felt
satisfied with their English score. The second statement revealed that all of the students thought that
Substitution Drills technique was better that the technique used by the teacher all this time. Furthermore, there were 33 students or 100 of them agreed with the
statement. The next statement was about the students’ enthusiast in learning Degrees of Comparison by using Substitution Drills technique, the table showed
that there were also 100 of students who felt more enthusiastic during the teaching learning process.
The next was about the students’ understanding of the material after the implementation of Substitution Drills in the classroom. It is showed that there
were 33 students or 100 of them said that they got more understanding in Degrees of Comparison after using Substitution Drills technique. The next two
points of the questionnaire related to the implementation of students’ understanding of Degrees of Comparison, firstly the table showed that there were
100 or all of students felt easier in making the sentences in Degrees of Comparison. Secondly there were 26 students or about 78.79 of them who felt
easier in making the form of positive, comparative and superlative degree than before the implementation of Substitution Drills technique.
The next statement stated whether Substitution Drills technique was suitable with the students’ expectation or not. And the table showed that there
were 31 students or about 93.94 of them who thought that Substitution Drills was appropriate with their expectation of the technique in learning English
grammar. The next was about the students’ ability in performing task given by the teacher individually without their friend’s help. It is stated that there were 29
students or about 87.88 of them who felt easier to do their task individually. The next statement was about the amount of students who asked the
question to the teacher during teaching learning activity. And the table showed that there were 11 students or 33.33 of them who felt asking the question during
the process of teaching learning in the classroom. It became the lowest positive response of all statements, but it was better than the statement of pre questionnaire
which showed that there is no student who asked the question to the real English teacher. And the last statement stated whether Substitution Drills technique made
them bored or not. The table showed that there were 31 students or about 96.97 of them refused that statement and only 1 student who agreed with the statement.
From the result of post questionnaire above, it can be concluded that most of students gave their positive responses toward the use of Substitution Drills
technique in learning Degrees of Comparison.
64