increased; there were 27 students or 90. It indicated that the criteria of success had been achieved. Based on the data got from the research, there was a
significant improvement after implementing RAFT strategy.
Figure 4.1 The Students’ Achievement in Writing Product
4. Journal Data
Unlike the observational notes, t he teacher’s journal content had more
detail because the writer wrote what she already did in the class, and she also made some notes related to the condition of the class, especially made notes of
some students who did not pay attention in the class. The writer started writing everything she found when coming to the class, teaching the students, giving
exercise to them, and reflecting the lesson that had been taught. Furthermore, the writer also wrote what students dealt with during teaching learning process, what
students’ response about the material that was being delivered, and their participation in the classroom.
The journal data showed that the students’ positive attitude toward teaching and learning writing using RAFT strategy increased in
the first meeting of cycle II when the writer gave them handout, and the students were more enthusiast. For further detail, the journal can be seen in Appendix 9.
20 40
60 80
64.5 68
73.5 Post-Action 2
Post-Action 1 Pre-Action
56
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
After presenting the research findings in the previous chapter, the writer will draw the conclusion and offer some suggestions based on the research that
was done in the seventh grade of SMP Paramarta Jombang.
A. Conclusion
Based on the classroom action research conducted in the seventh grade of SMP Paramarta in academic year 201420115; the research had an aim to improve
students’ descriptive writing through Role, Audience, Format, and Topic RAFT strategy, and the writer could make two conclusions that RAFT strategy has
successfully improved the students’ ability in writing descriptive paragraph in two cycles. Moreover, t
he students’ descriptive writing improvement can be seen from the increase of the writing score
s’ mean from 64.5 in the preliminary study, and 68.0 in the first cycle, to 73.5 in the second cycle where there were only 13
students 43.3, and 15 students 50 in the cycle one, to 27 students 90 in the second cycle who passed the KKM 70.0. From the observation checklist, the
students’ performance and participation increased in four meetings. In the first meeting of cycle I, there were one “Poor” score, four “Fair” scores, and four
“Good” scores and it increased to one “Fair” score, five “Good” scores, and three “Very Good” scores in the last meeting of cycle II. Furthermore, for the
questionnaire, the students’ response toward RAFT strategy was quite good and the data description from journal showed that the students’ participation increased
in each meeting especially in the first meeting of the cycle II when the teacher gave the students reading passages.
