Findings METHOD OF RESEARCH

49 respondents have poor ability and 41 students 68,3 of the respondents have very poor ability. Based on classification criteria Table 4.4 above, then it is reconstituted the students ability as in table 4.5 as follows. Table 4.5 The Students’ Ability in Using Conditional Sentences No Name Initial Total of the Correct Answer Score X Level of Ability 1 01 Wid XI 16 53 Very poor 2 02 Be XI 16 53 Very poor 3 03 Lo XI 18 60 Poor 4 04 He XI 13 43 Very poor 5 05 Ev XI 11 36 Very poor 6 06 Ant XI 18 60 Poor 7 07 Ar XI 19 63 Poor 8 08 Vi XI 21 70 Average 9 09 Jo XI 17 56 Very poor 10 10 Lu XI 17 56 Very poor 11 11 Pe XI 11 36 Very poor 12 12 Ja XI 16 53 Very poor 13 13 Pu XI 21 70 Average 14 14 In XI 11 36 Very poor 15 15 Cr XI 12 40 Very poor 16 16 Je XI 12 40 Very poor 17 17 Ko XI 18 60 Poor 18 18 Un XI 22 73 Average 19 19 Dw XI 7 23 Very poor 20 20 Ra XI 17 56 Very poor 50 No Name Initial Total of the Correct Answer Score X Level of Ability 21 21 Fr XI 17 56 Very poor 22 22 Ma XI 17 56 Very poor 23 23 So XI 17 56 Very poor 24 24 Di XI 18 60 Poor 25 25 Ra XI 19 63 Poor 26 26 My XI 22 73 Average 27 27 Vi XI 20 66 Poor 28 28 Ma XI 19 63 Poor 29 29 Yo XI 19 63 Poor 30 30 Fi XI 28 93 Very good 31 31 Ra XI 15 50 Very poor 32 32 Ju XI 14 46 Very poor 33 33 St XI 17 56 Very poor 34 34 Ek XI 16 53 Very poor 35 35 Er XI 18 60 Poor 36 36 Ci XI 12 40 Very poor 37 37 Du XI 17 56 Very poor 38 38 Cy XI 10 33 Very poor 39 39 No XI 14 46 Very poor 40 40 Jo XI 10 33 Very poor 41 41 Am XI 13 43 Very poor 42 42 He XI 12 40 Very poor 43 43 Au XI 18 60 Poor 44 44 No XI 17 56 Very poor 45 45 Cl XI 20 66 Poor 46 46 Sa XI 13 43 Very poor 47 47 Ab XI 21 70 Average 48 48 Jo XI 19 63 Very poor 49 49 Ho XI 14 46 Very poor 51 No Name Initial Total of the Correct Answer Score X Level of Ability 50 50 Vi XI 17 56 Very poor 51 51 Mi XI 13 43 Very poor 52 52 Ke XI 13 43 Very poor 53 53 Fe XI 9 30 Very poor 54 54 El XI 9 30 Very poor 55 55 Eg XI 12 40 Very poor 56 56 Gr XI 12 40 Very poor 57 57 Ri XI 10 33 Very poor 58 58 Me XI 10 33 Very poor 59 59 Ch XI 9 30 Very poor 60 60 Ma XI 16 53 Very poor Total 3077 Mean Score 51,2 From Table 4.6, it can be reviewed distribution of students ability as the following chart. The percentage of Students’ Score in Using Conditional Sentences 52 According to the chart above, the ability of the grades XI students of SMA Cahaya Medan, it is stated that: • 1 student 1,7 of the respondents has very good ability in using conditional sentences. • 0 students 0 of the respondents have good ability in using conditional sentences. • 5 students 8,3 of the respondents have average ability in using conditional sentences. • 13 students 21,7 of the respondents have poor ability in using conditional sentences. • 41 students 68,3 of the respondents have very poor ability in using conditional sentences. Based on the data analysis, it is found that the ability of using conditional sentences by students of SMA Cahaya Medan is mostly very poor. Then, the researcher find out the problems of students of SMA Cahaya Medan in using conditional sentences by distributing questionnaire which some items as follows: 1. Did you learn the conditional sentences? a. Yes b. No c. I did know 2. Is the conditional sentences studied with exercises? a. Yes b. No c. I do not know 53 3. Do you think the conditional sentences is difficult to understand? a. Difficult to understand b. Easy to understand c. I do not know 4. Can you understand when the conditional sentences given in one meeting? a. Yes b. No c. I do not know Table 4.6 the Percentage of Questionnaire Items No Items Answers Percentage Explanation A B C 1 Did you learn the conditional sentences? 66,6 25 8,4 Choosing A greater than B and C 2 Is the conditional sentences studied with exercises? 8,3 66,6 25 Choosing B greater than A and C 3 Do you think the conditional sentences is difficult to understand? 83,3 6,7 10 Choosing A greater than B and C 4 Can you understand when the conditional sentences given in one meeting? 5 83,3 11,7 Choosing B greater than A and C Processed from Questionnaire Based on Table 4.6, there are 40 students 66,6 of respondents who choose A, 15 students 25 of respondents who choose B, and 5 students 8,4 of respondents who choose C in the first item. In the second item, there are 5 students 8,3 of respondents who choose A, 40 students 66,6 of respondents who choose B and 15 students 25 of respondents who choose C. In the third item, 50 54 students 83,3 of respondents who choose A, 4 students 6,7 of respondents who choose B, and 6 students 10 of respondents who choose C. In the fourth item, 3 students 5 of respondents who choose B, 50 students 83,3 of respondents who choose A, and 7 students 11,7 of respondents who choose C. In addition, the researcher also conducted interviews with English teachers. Answers were obtained generally equal to the results of the questionnaire submitted by the students. It is found that the teaching of conditional sentences is delivered in one meeting and the teacher didn’t give the exercises as much as possible so that the students did not drill the tenses which is found in conditional sentences. 55 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Having analyzed the data, the researcher answers the problem with some conclusions. It is to find out the problem of SMA Cahaya Medan students in using conditional sentences and to find out the ability of SMA Cahaya Medan students in using conditional sentences. Here are the results as follows: 1. Based on the result, the ability of using conditional sentences by students of SMA Cahaya Medan is: Most of students are in very poor ability 68,3 and there are no student in good ability 0. 1 student is in very good ability 1,7, 5 students are in average ability 8,3, and 13 students are in poor ability 21,7. It is concluded that the process of teaching and learning English in SMA Cahaya Medan is not good. 2. Based on Department of Education standarization Depdikbud, Dirjen Dikti,

19831994, PPS, 15, there are 68,3 41 students got 60 and 41,7 19

students got 60 from 60 students as sample. So in this research, it is concluded that the score of the students of grade XI of SMA Cahaya Medan have not reached the standarization set by the Department of Education. 3. Meanwhile, the total score of the whole respondents in using conditional sentences is 3.077. It means that the mean score of the whole respondents is 56 51,2 + 14 from standard deviation. The coefficient of reliability is 0,99 means the reliability of the test is very high. 4. Based on the questionnaire, the problem of SMA Cahaya Medan students in using conditional sentences is: The students are still difficult to understand the material of conditional sentences because the teaching of conditional sentences delivered in one meeting without exercises.

5.2 Suggestions

Related to the data analysis, teachers should give a special attention in teaching English by describing conditional sentences more than one meeting, giving them more English exercises to make students drill the structure of conditional sentences diligently, asking students if they do not understand, giving them a quiz by answering the questions about conditional sentences, giving visual pictures, videos or movies that related to the conditional sentences and creating discussion group which discuss the conditional sentences. Teachers should pay attention to the learning process, not merely providing score evaluation of school success, but it should always be evaluated based on the standardization set by the government, or in this case, the Department of Education. Students should also pay more attention in English component especially conditional sentences which is not understood, be active to ask questions and practice a lot about English grammar especially conditional sentences because it is very important for their future. 57 REFERENCES Achirani. 2011. An Error Analysis Of The Use Of Using Present Tense Made By Students of Second Year Junior High School Of Madrasah Tsanawiyah Al Wasliyah 16 Perbaungan. Medan. Allison, Desmon. 1999. Language Testing and Evaluation. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Arikunto, Suharsimi. 1993. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Azar, Betty Schrampfer. 1989. English Grammar. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Inc. Berry, Roger. 2012. English Grammar – A Resource Book for Students. New York: Routledge. Carrol, John B. 1993. Human Cognitives Abilities. America: Cambridge University Press. Calderon, J.F. and C. Gonzales. 2007. Methods of Research and Thesis Writing. Manila: National Book Store Inc. Depdikbud. 1983. Dirjen Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Douglas, Dan. 2000. Assesing Languages for Specific Purposes. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Djuharie, Otong Setiawan. 2007. Bimbingan Pemantapan BAHASA INGGRIS. Bandung: Yrama Widya. Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press Folsom and friends. 1838. A Short Introduction to English Grammar with Critical Notes. Madison: General Library System. Gay, L. 1987. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. Ohio: Merrill. Greenbaum, Sidney and Gerald Nelson. 2013. An Introduction of English Grammar Third Edition. New York: Routledge. Hornby. 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Sixth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Hasan, Iqbal . 2002. Pokok-Pokok Materi Metodologi Penelitan Dan Aplikasinya. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia. Lado, Robert. 1961. Language Testing: The Construction and Use of Foreign Language Tests. London: Longman Group Limited. Marlina P. Dona. 2010. An Analysis of Year IX Primagama Student’s Ability In Mastering Elliptical Construction. Medan. MGMP Bahasa Inggris SMA Kota Medan. 2012. English For SMA. Medan: CV. RG Pinem. Nurkancana, Wayan and P. P. N. Sumartana. 1986. Evaluasi Pendidikan. Surabaya: Usaha Nasional. Ortega, Lourdes. 2009. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge. Parrott. 2006. Grammar For English Language Teachers. America: Cambridge University Press.