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
Table 4.3 The Result of Observation Checklist 2I
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
√ √
√ ∑ =
3 6
Based on the result above, the writer concluded that in the certain indicator, the students’ activities improved in each meeting. In the first meeting of
first cycle, the students got “Poor” score in giving their idea. Then, they got “Fair”
score in asking question, their effort to keep quiet, focusing on learning and doing all exercises. On the
other hand, the students got “Good” score in making their own notes, being enthusiast, being discipline in submitting the assignment and
doing assignment based on teacher’s instruction. Therefore, in this meeting, there
were 1 poor score, 4 fair scores, and 4 good scores. Meanwhile, in the second meeting, t
he students got “fair” scores in giving their opinion, focusing on learning, and their effort to keep quiet.
Then, the “Good” scores were in making notes, asking question, being enthusiast, doing all exercises, being in time in
submitting assignment, and doing assignment following teacher’s instruction. So, the total score of the second meeting was 3 fair scores, and 6 good scores. In
conclusion, there was some improvement related to the learning process.
d. Reflecting
Based on the data found by the writer, it can be said that the result of the first cycle to improve students’ descriptive writing skill through RAFT strategy
has not reached the criteria of success , the students’ writing scores were still
below the KKM. Moreovere, based on the observation notes result, the students had low motivation when learning taken place. Because, there were some of
the students who did not understand and they did not pay attention while the material was being explained by the teacher. Furthermore,
students’ vocabulary mastery was still low and their knowledge about simple present tense was poor
even though the teacher explained it a few times in the class. Therefore, data from observation sheet showed that students’ activity and participation
increased in each meeting. The main changing in the first cycle was about students’ understanding of RAFT elements and their participation that was
increased in two meetings. Based on the explanation, the writer did the cycle II to overcome the problem related to the students lacked of vocabulary and
grammar and to get better result. Moreover, revising or modifying the plan was needed in order to achieve the criteria of success. Therefore, some changes
were done by the writer to make teaching learning process more focus and clear when the teacher delivering the material.
3. Findings of the Second Cycle a. Planning
In the second cycle, the writer repeated what she had done in the first cycle which was designing lesson plan. The lesson plan was developed likely the
same from the previous cycle. Moreover, the strategy used to improve students’ descriptive writing and the writing rubric did not change. It was only
the material prepared by the teacher that was changing, and the writer was going to give a hand-out to the students. The hand out for the first meeting
consisted of three reading passages and the students had to determine the RAFT elements in small groups. It was done to make the students more focus
on the exercise and they could work together with their friend. Besides, the teacher also could control and guide the students easily.
b. Acting
The acting phase in the cycle II was done in two meetings, the first meeting conducted on March 5
th
, and 7
th
2015. In the first meeting, the students were asked to make a small group, and the teacher gave them a RAFT reading
hand-out. It had a purpose to make students more understand about the concept of RAFT and to identify the grammar. When they had some difficulties, the
teacher would help them explained which point they did not get. Then, the teacher gave another hand-out with different topic, and the students were
assigned to write their first draft and their second writing about their family member, but they had to write the paragraph based on the RAFT elements
determined by the writer. The students could see the example to develop their idea and to get them easier to write. In the second meeting, the students
continued their work and they had to collect their last writing for post-test 2.
c. Observing
Similar with the previous cycle, in this cycle the writer also observed the students
’ participation and the teaching learning process through observational notes and teacher journal. The changing or modifying steps done by the teacher
in the cycle II for the class during teaching and learning process could show a better result and improvement compared with the previous cycle. From the
data, the writer found that the students worked on their task together and their understanding about RAFT concept was better than before. Even though some
of students did not pay attention to the teacher, yet the task was done in time. On the other hand, most of students in a class did not hesitate to ask the teacher
when they did not understand or did find difficulties in doing the task, and it showed that the students were quite motivated to
follow the class’ activities. Moreover, the number of words of students’ descriptive writing increased; they
could write a paragraph consisting 150 words. In fact, the writing example provided by the teacher helped the students to write although some of the
students only cop ied the idea from it. To know the students’ improvement, the
writer had calculated the post-test 2 score, and the result can be seen below. In observing phase, the data of
students’ achievement score were obtained from post-action test 2 in the Cycle II. The writer calculated the mean of the pre-
action test 2 score such following: Mx =
Mx = 100
Mx = 73.5 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 = 90 Finally, the calculation of improvement percentage gained from the
following formula: P =
100
P = 100
P = 13.9 Based on the result of the students’ writing product, there was better
improvement of the students’ mean score obtained from the students’ writing in the preliminary study to the students’ writing from the second cycle. The
students’ mean score before implementing RAFT strategy was 64.5 and the
mean score the latest post-action test was 73.5. It means that there was 9.0 points or 13.9 of mean score improvement. The number of students passed
the Minimum Mastery Criterion or Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM were
