Description of Treatment RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Toba”. The researcher asked the students to discuss and identify the purpose, rhetorical structure, and language features of the text with their own groups. After that, the researcher explained again the procedure of making narrative text by using transition-action-detail TAD strategy. Then, the writer asked the students to make a narrative text by using transition-action-detail TAD and submit their text. As the last activity of this treatment, the writer gave chance to the students to ask if they had difficulty about the material and the task. The researcher and the students concluded the material has been studied together. The writer asked to the students if they had difficulty in understanding this lesson. Then, the researcher closed the lesson. 3. Description of the third treatment At the third treatment, the researcher greeted to the students, prayed together, checked the attendant list, and gave motivation to make them interested in teaching learning process. Before using transition-action-detail TAD strategy, the writer reviewed the material. In this treatment the students looked more enthusiastic to follow the learning process. The researcher asked to the students about the material in the previous meeting and discussed about the students’ task in previous meeting. The students were given an example of narrative text about legend with the title “Golden Snail”. The writer also explained again about the procedure of making narrative text by using transition- action-detail TAD strategy. The students felt easier to understand the example because they have studied about the purpose, rhetorical structure, and language features of the text and transition- action-detail TAD strategy in two previous meetings. In this treatment the students were asked to make a narrative text by using transition-action-detail TAD with their own group and presented their task in front of the class. Their task in third treatment was better than their task in second treatment. As the last activity of this treatment, the researcher gave chance to the students to ask if they had difficulty about the material and the task. The students looked more interested in the learning process. The researcher and the students concluded the material has been studied together. The writer asked to the students if they had difficulty in understanding this lesson. Then, the researcher closed the lesson. At the end of the research, post-test was administered on December 2 nd , 2016. It was given to measure the improvement of the students’ narrative text writing ability in both classes after treatment done.

C. Result of the Research 1. Result of the Pre-Test in Experimental Class and Control Class

After the first meeting, the researcher conducted pre-test in order to find out the previous students’ narrative text writing ability. The pre-test was administered on November 23 th , 2016. The analysis of the test score shown that the average score experimental class, the average score was 64.50, whereas control class was 54.80, that could be seen on figure 1 and figure 2. Source: the data of pre-test in experimental class Figure 1 The result of the pre-test in experimental class In experimental class, the mean of pre-test was 64.50, where there 7 students got score higher than 70, and 23 students got score lower than 70. Figure1 shows that there was out 2 students who got 56 score, 3 students who got 57 score, 1 student who got 58 score, 1 student who got 59 score, 3 students who got 60 score, 2 students who got 61 score, 2 students who got 62 score, 2 students who got 65 score, 1 student who got 66 score, 1 student who got 67 score, 2 students who got 68 score, 1 student who got 69 score, 4 students who got 70 score, 2 students who got 71 score, 2 students who got 72 score, and 1 student who got 74 score. 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 74 Source: the data of pre-test in control class Figure 2 The result of the pre-test in control class Based on the figure 2 in control class, the mean of pre-test was 54.80. Where there were 1 student got score higher than 70 and 29 students got score lower than 70. Figure 2 shows that there was 2 students who got 45 score, 3 students who got 46 score, 1 student who got 47 score, 2 students who got 48 score, 1 student who got 49 score, 2 students who got 50 score, 2 students who got 51 score, 2 students who got 52 score, 1 student who got 53 score, 1 student who got 54 score, 2 students who got 55 score, 2 students who got 58 score, 2 students who got 59 score, 1 student who got 60 score, 1 student who got 61 score, 1 student who got 63 score, 1 student who got 65 score, 1 student who got 67 score, 1 student who got 68 score, and 1 student who got 70 score. 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 58 59 60 61 63 65 67 68 70