commit to user 62
around, he reminded them that they only had five minutes to go. Some of them had finished it, then, they submitted their works while others were still finishing
their works. Finally, they all finished their works on time. Before ending the class, the researcher asked the students whether the
project given was difficult or not. Most of them said that they could construct a procedure text and picture series helped them much to put the ideas on. While
others felt a bit difficult. They still got difficulties in organizing the words to become a text. The researcher tried to accommodate their difficulties in order to
be able to give them a way out. Then, the researcher advised them to have more practice and reading. “Any more question, class?” the researcher asked “nothing,
sir” one student said. Ok then, “if there is no more question”, the researcher said good bye, he also reminded them to study harder and to do more exercises.
3. Observation of the Action
This part was very important since it was used as the indication to know the students’ achievement progress. It was also aimed to know how far the
effectiveness of Picture Series PS media in writing a procedure text. In this phase, both the researcher and his collaborator acted as the classroom observers
and they observed the teaching-learning process during the implementation of the action. The observation was concentrated on the teaching-learning process and
students’ learning progress during the teaching-learning process.
a. The teaching-learning process
commit to user 63
The result of the collaborator’s observation in the first meeting was the researcher was able to manage the class well: the class situation was absolutely
under his controlled. The students joined the lesson actively and they always gave responses to given questions. The researcher also tried to arouse the students’
attention and participation by treating those who were able to answer the teacher’s questions. It was a very effective way. This was proved by the fact that there were
many students who wanted to answer the teacher’s questions. Even one of them got one thousand for his correct answer. Two-way communications really
happened between the researcher and the student. Both of them listened attentively to each other. It meant that when the researcher asked questions the
students listened to him attentively and the researcher also listened attentively to them when they gave the answers of his questions. The researcher delivered the
lesson mostly using English. He also spoke Indonesian when it was necessary. It meant that when the students got difficulties to catch the ideas he delivered, he
explained them in Indonesian. The researcher also gave them opportunities to ask questions dealing with
what the researcher had explained. As usual, they tended to keep silent. Fortunately, there was a student who raised his hand. He wanted the researcher to
explain more about the generic structure of the procedure text. Then, the researcher explained it in detail. Basically, in the first meeting, the teaching-
learning process ran well in accordance with the plan. The teacher’s instruction and explanation were clear and well understood by the students.
The students were expected to be able to construct a procedure text similar to the model learned in the previous meeting. They were allowed to tell how to do
commit to user 64
or to make something they liked. The researcher explained the instruction clearly and after they had understood what a procedure text was, they started to work
seriously. They absolutely felt free to explore their ability and creativity. The researcher monitored them by moving around the class to make sure what they
did. b. Students’ Learning Progress
In the phase of building knowledge of a text in the first meeting, the students had started to take part in answering the teacher’s questions dealing with
their condition, the food they liked, the drink they liked, and the way how to make a procedure text. Unconsciously, what they answered was telling a procedure how
to do or to make something since they have been familiar with it. Consequently, the researcher could deliver the teaching materials smoothly. Then, he explained
the generic structure of a procedure text and its function. It seemed that what the researcher explained was easily understood by them.
In the phase of joint construction of text in the second meeting, the students were asked to do a group project in a group of four. They really enjoyed
this activity because they could get more understanding about the procedure text through the members of group and they did the task happily. They were asked to
construct a procedure text entitled “how to make a bowl of fried-noodle”. There were six texts written by the students in the phase of joint
construction of text. Basically, they could construct a procedure text as the researcher instructed. There was only one text which was not done well since they
missed the elaboration of the materials how to make a bowl of fried-noodle. The teacher, however, could say that students had made a lot of learning progress.
commit to user 65
The students’ learning progress in the stage of independent construction of text in the third meeting could be seen clearly from the result of their individual
project. The researcher had them construct a procedure text individually. They could do the individual project much better than the previous project in the phase
of joint construction of text since they had got enough experience. There were 32 texts written by the students in the meeting of the first cycle, the researcher could
report that 30 texts had fulfilled the generic structure of a procedure text. One text missed the elaboration of the materials, another text lacked of organization. They
succeeded to construct a procedure text. The last activity in the first cycle was a test done on Tuesday, February
2011. It seemed that they had enough confidence to have the test since they had got enough exercises and experience from the previous activities: building
knowledge of text, modeling of text, joint construction of text, and independent construction of text. The result of the first cycle test could be reported as follows.
The scores of the first corrector could be reported that the highest score was 75, the lowest score was 49, and the mean was 55.843. The complete data can be seen
on Table 5 below. Table 5
Average Score of Cycle 1 from the First Corrector
No Types of Scores
Score
1. The highest score
75 2.
The lowest score 49
3. Mean
55.843
commit to user 66
There were five writing elements that were scored: organization, content, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. The score of each element can be seen on
Table 6 below. Table 6
Scores of Writing Elements of Cycle 1 from First Corrector
No Writing elements
Average scores Percentage
1 Organization
17.625 58.75
2 Content
12.656 50.63
3 Grammar
10.125 50.63
4 Vocabulary
9 60
5 Mechanics
6.437 64.38
Writing score 55.843
56.88
The scores from the second corrector could be reported that the highest score was 80, the lowest score was 48, and the mean was 57.419. The complete data can be
seen on Table 7 below.
Table 7
Average Score of Cycle 1 from the Second Corrector
No Types of Scores
Score
1. The highest score
80 2.
The lowest score 48
3. Mean
57.419
commit to user 67
There were five writing elements that were scored organization, content, grammar, diction, and mechanics. The score of each element can be seen on the
Table 8. Table 8.
Average Scores of Writing Elements of Cycle I from the Second Corrector
No Writing elements
Average scores Percentage
1 Organization
16.312 54.38
2 Content
14.687 58.75
3 Grammar
10.375 51.88
4 Vocabulary
9.468 63.13
5 Mechanics
6.5 65
Average score 57.342
58.63
The average score of two correctors could be reported that the highest score was 77.5 the lowest score was 48.5 and the mean was 56.631. The complete data can
be seen on Table 9 below.
Table 9 Average Scores of Cycle I from the Two Correctors
No Types of Scores
Score
1. The highest score
77.5 2.
The lowest score 48.5
3. Mean
56.631
commit to user 68
There were five writing elements that were scored: organization, content, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. The score of each element can be seen on
Table 10 below. Table 10
Average Scores of Writing Elements of Cycle I from two correctors
No Writing elements Average scores Max. score
Percentage
1. Organization
16.9685 30
56.57 2.
Content 13.6715
25 54.69
3. Grammar
10.25 20
51.26 4.
Vocabulary 9.234
15 61.57
5. Mechanics
6.4685 10
64.69 Writing score
56.5925 100
57.75 Based on Table above, it could be concluded that the students still had a
problem on grammar, content, and organization since the average score of them were lower than other writing elements despite the fact that there was a bit
increase on the students’ achievement.
4. Reflecting
