Table 12: The students’ Writing Score in the post-test II
No Nama
Aspects of writing Tot.
0-100 C
0-30 O
0-20 V
0-20 L
0-25 M
1-5 1.
S1 30
20 16
19 5
90 2.
S2 23
17 15
20 5
80 3.
S3 30
20 17
19 5
91 4.
S4 30
20 18
23 4
95 5.
S5 23
20 20
23 4
90 6.
S6 30
20 17
22 5
94 7.
S7 30
20 19
23 5
97 8.
S8 30
20 16
21 5
92 9.
S9 30
20 18
18 5
96 10.
S10 30
20 20
25 5
100 11.
S11 26
20 18
20 5
89 12.
S12 30
20 20
25 5
100 13.
S13 27
20 18
23 5
93 14.
S14 30
20 18
25 5
98 15.
S15 27
20 16
16 5
84 16.
S16 30
20 18
23 5
96 17.
S17 30
20 10
17 5
83 18.
S18 30
20 17
13 4
84 19.
S19 27
20 16
17 5
85 20.
S20 30
20 20
25 5
100 21.
S21 30
20 25
23 5
98 22.
S22 20
18 15
17 5
75 23.
S23 30
20 20
12 5
88 24.
S24 30
20 15
15 5
85 25.
S25 17
20 18
17 4
76 26.
S26 30
20 18
25 5
98 27.
S27 26
20 10
12 4
72 28.
S28 30
20 18
18 3
89 29.
S29 28
20 13
15 5
83 30.
S30 30
20 20
25 5
100 31.
S31 30
20 18
25 5
98 32.
S32 26
17 18
23 5
89
Mean 28.12
19.75 17.34
20.12 4.78
90.25
Table 13: The Comparison among the Pre-test, Post-test I and Post Test II Scores
Test Writing Aspects
Tot. Score C
0-30 O
0-20 V
0-20 L
0-25 M
1-5
Pre-test 22.28
14.65 12.31
13.5 3.06
65.90 Post-test I
25.96 18.81
15.37 18.84
4.37 82.37
Post-test II 28.12
19.75 17.34
20.12 4.78
90.25 Gain score
5.84 5.1
5.03 6.62
1.72 24.35
The improvement
percentage
19.47 25.5
25.15 26.48
34.4 24.35
Nb. C
: Content O
: Organization V
: Vocabulary L
: Language Use M : Mechanics
Tot : Total Score
According to the comparison among the students’ mean scores in three tests, there was an improvement on their writing skills. Most of them got higher
score in post-test II that in post-test I. Generally, the students’ improvements were in all aspects. The most improvement made by the students was in
mechanics aspect. On the other hand, the least improvement was in content aspect. The least improvement was not because the students were low in this
aspect, but it was because they were actually mastered this aspect before. Vocabulary and language use were the two aspects that needed to be improved by
the English teacher in the next teaching and learning process.
C. Discussion
This part contains the findings of the research in the form of qualitative and quantitative data. The data show the findings obtained during Cycle I and
Cycle II, how the changes were made, and the results of the change after each cycle.
The main problem of the English teaching and learning process in the class before the implementation of the actions were the lack of feedback and the lack of
writing practice that resulted in the low writing skills of the students. The lack of vocabulary enrichment using context was also the other problems in the class.
Therefore, the actions to overcome the problems were needed to be applied to improve the situation.
Using cooperative learning strategy was then chosen as the technique to improve the students’ writing skills. The application of the cooperative learning
strategy was expected to help the students improve their writing by providing them with opportunities to have more tutorials and discussions not only from the
teacher but also from other students. Feedback in writing process is very crucial since the writers need to know
how to spell check and grammar check in editing phrase. In this stage, the writers have to correct their grammar, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing
experiences become even more powerful by having students read their work out in small group, to another classmate, or in a large group Graves, 1983 in Johnson,
2008. Before the implementation of the cooperative learning strategy, there were many errors in language use and mechanics in the students’ writing. Then, the
