c. The Result of Pre-Action test
To know the students’ descriptive writing score before implementing
RAFT strategy, the writer did a pre-action test during preliminary study in VII A on Saturday, February 7
th
2015. The number of students in the class was 41 students, five students were absent and there were only 30 students who
collected their writing. In this pre-action test, the students were assigned to write descriptive paragraph about their chair mate consisting of five sentences
or 50 words. To get the result of the pre-action test, the writer calculated the mean of the pre-action test score such following:
Mx =
Mx = Mx = 64.5
Next, to know the students’ who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion or Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM the writer used the following formula:
P = 100
P = 100
P = 43.3 Based on the result of the pre-action test, the data showed that the mean
score of the test was 64.5. From 30 students who submitted their writing, there were 13 students or 43.3 who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion or
Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM meanwhile the other 17 students or 56.7 got the score below the criterion which is 70.0. Then, the score of the
rest of students was unknown. From the calculating and analyzing, it could be concluded that VII A students of SMP Paramarta was still low.
2. Findings of the First Cycle a. Planning
The first phase in Classroom Action Research was planning. The writer planned what she would do by herself. Planning phase is designed after the
preliminary study before. The writer prepared all things concerning on the implementation of RAFT strategy to improve students’ descriptive writing
skill. It covered by designing lesson plan, setting the criteria of success, and preparing the materials and the instruments. The lesson plan made in this cycle
was two lesson plans. The first step was designing lesson plan, the writer designed it based on
the English syllabus of seventh grade of junior high school. The following items developed by the writer are the instructional objectives, the instructional
material and media, the procedures in teaching-learning process, and the assessment.
To know the students’ descriptive writing improvement by using RAFT strategy, the writer made the criteria of success. The criteria of success were
75 of the students achieved the Minimum Mastery Criterion or Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM of English subject 70.0. The aim is to determine
the extent of students increase in descriptive writing before and after the implementation of classroom action research.
The materials that the writer prepared in this cycle are the example of RAFT reading was taken from the English text book. Besides, the writer
prepared the instruments for research such as: writing rubric for scoring post- test 1, observational notes, and teacher
’s journal.
b. Acting
Action in the first cycle was done on February 21
th
, and 26
th
2015. The acting phase is the implementation of what writer had been prepared in the
planning phase. The writer implemented the teaching-learning process based on the lesson plan that had been made. In the first meeting, the writer reviewed
descriptive writing to the students because it had been delivered a month ago. Then, the writer explained about RAFT strategy that has four elements Role,
Audience, Format, and Topic and the students had to determine the elements after they read two descriptive passages. The last is they had to apply the
strategy when they made their first draft about their hobby; the writer had prepared the prompt. In the second meeting, the students were asked to work
on their first draft, revise their draft, and collect their final writing.
c. Observing
In this phase, the writer observed the students’ participation through observational sheet and observed the teaching learning process through journal.
During the first cycle within two meetings, students already understood using the elements of RAFT strategy for writing descriptive text. The obstacles that
the writer found in the class such as: In each meeting, there were some students who did not come, and it affected the number of students who collected their
writing. From 41 students, there were only 30 students who submitted their post-action test 1. Since the writer worked on herself, she had difficulty in
observing each students’ participation in class. Moreover, related to the writing
process, the class still had problems such as: First, in the first meeting of the first cycle when the teacher introduced the students with RAFT strategy, some
of the students still confused about the concept of the strategy, so they asked the teacher until they understood. Second, the students lacked of vocabulary
and they did not have any idea how to use correct grammar, but they did not bring dictionary and they did not try to ask the teacher. Third, some of the
students were chatting with their friends while the teacher explained, and they did not pay attention to the class activities. Fourth, the post-test writing was not
collected in time because some of the students were practicing in some competitions.
In o bserving phase, the data of students’ achievement score were obtained
from post-test in the Cycle I. The writer calculated the mean of the post-action test score such following:
Mx =
Mx = Mx = 68.0
Next, to get the percentage of student who passed the KKM score, the writer calculated by using the formula can be seen as follow:
P = 100
P = 100
P = 50 The data showed that the mean score of post-action test 1 was 68.0. There
was only half of the student or 50 who got the score above KKM. Meanwhile, the other half or 50 were still below the criterion. The number of
students who collected their writing was added, but the criteria of success has not fulfilled.
Based on the result of the students’ descriptive writing in the Cycle I, there was a slight improvement of students’ mean score from students’ writing on
the preliminary study or before implementing classroom action research. The mean score of the pre-action test was 64.5, and the mean score of the post-
action test 1 was 68.0. It means there were 3.5 points or 5.43 of score improvement. The improvement percentage derived from formula:
P = 100
P = 100
P = 5.43 On the other hand, based on the observation sheet made to record students’
activities during teaching and learning activities, the writer listed three aspects to be observed by the observer, as follows: Keaktifan Siswa, Perhatian Siswa, and
Penugasan. The first aspect was Keaktifan Siswa which covered three indicators the students who made some notes, the students who asked question, and the
students who gave their idea. The second aspect was Perhatian Siswa which also
covered three indicators the students who were quiet, students who focused on material and the students who were enthusiast. The third aspect was Penugasan
the hstudents who did all assignment, the students who submitted assignment in time, and the
students who did an assignment based on teacher’s instruction. Moreover, the sheet also had scale t
o score students’ activities: 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Very Good. The result of observation in the first and second
meeting of first cycle done by the observer can be seen below:
Table 4.2 The Result of Observation Checklist 1I
No. Hal yang diamati
Skor Siswa
1 2
3 4
1. Keaktifan Siswa:
a. Siswa aktif mencatat materi
pelajaran b.
Siswa aktif bertanya c. Siswa aktif mengajukan ide
√ √
√
2. Perhatian Siswa:
a. Diam, tenang
b. Terfokus pada materi
c. Antusias
√ √
√
3. Penugasan
a. Mengerjakan semua tugas
b. Ketepatan mengumpulkan
tugas sesuai waktunya c.
Mengerjakan sesuai dengan perintah
√ √
√ ∑ = 1
4 4
Kategori