Students’numb. N
Students’ Post test I Scores
y1
7. 85
8. 70
9. 60
10. 80
11. 65
12. 75
13. 75
14. 70
15. 70
16. 75
17. 70
18.
70 19.
55 20.
70 21.
65 22.
70 23.
75 24.
60 25.
80 26.
65 27.
65 28.
65 29.
70
Students’numb. N
Students’ Post test I Scores
y1
30. 65
31. 55
Note: for the student who passed the KKM 70 Based on the table of post-test I above, the writer concluded that the lowest
score is 55 and the highest is 85.The mean of students’ score of post-test I:
∑ Post-test I y1 = 2190
∑
It shows that there is an improvement in implementing guessing game. It can be compared from the data between pre-test mean score 63.70 and post-test I
mean score 70.64. Therefore, the students’ score improvement is up to 6.94
70.64 – 63.70.
2. To know the percentage of students ’ improvement from pre-test to post-test I,
the writer used:
Based on the calculation above, it shows that the percentage of students’ improvement from pre-test to post-test 1 is 10,89.
3. Calculating the percentage of students’ score who passed the KKM 70 by
using formula:
According to the calculation above, it can be seen that the students’ score
percentage in post-test I is 67.74. There are 21 students passed the KKM and 10
students below the KKM. Due to the target of CAR, the writer did the second cycle to reach 75.
c. The Result of Post-test II
1. Calculating the students mean ’ score of test. It is calculated by using formula:
∑
Table 4.3 Students ’ Score of Post-Test II
S tudents’numb.
N Students’ Post-
test II Scores y2
1. 90
2. 80
3. 75
4. 90
5. 90
6. 75
7. 95
8. 70
9. 75
10. 85
11. 70
12. 80
13. 75
14. 80
15. 75
16. 85
17. 70
S tudents’numb.
N Students’ Post-
test II Scores y2
18. 75
19. 60
20. 75
21. 85
22. 80
23. 80
24. 75
25. 85
26. 70
27. 75
28. 65
29. 70
30. 70
31. 65
Note: for the student who passed the KKM 70
Based on the table of post-test II above, the writer concluded that the lowest score is 60 and the highest is 95. It means that post-test II score is higher
than pre-test. The average
of students’ score of post-test II: ∑ Post-test II y2 = 2390
∑
From the result of the calculation above, the mean of students’ score in
post-test II is 77.09. It shows that there is an improvement. The mean of students’
listening score in pre-test is 63.70 and after implementing Classroom Action Research using guessing game in post-test I is 70,64. Thus, the improvement of
the average of students’ listening scores in post-test I and post-test II is ∑y2 - ∑y1 = 77.09
– 70.64 = 6.45. 2. To know the percentage
of students’ improvement from pre-test to post-test II, the writer use:
Based on the calculation above, it shows that the percentage of students’ improvement from pre-test to post-test II is 21.02.
3. Calculating the percentage of students’ score who passed the KKM 70 by
using formula:
According to the calculation above, it can be seen that the st udents’ score
percentage in post-test II is 90.32, because 28 students passed the KKM and the rest 3 students did not pass the KKM. To sum up, the improvement statistically is
22.58 90.32 - 67.74; the stu dents’ percentage of post-test II score is
90.32 while the percentage of post-test I score is 67.74. It can be concluded that this Classroom Action Research is successful because the percentage
improvement from th e students’ listening score reached the target of CAR 75.
5. Students ’ Responses on the Implementation of Teaching
Listening by Using Guessing Game
After implementing guessing game in listening class, the writer interviewed eight students to know about their feeling during the class and their
responses toward using guessing game in learning listening. The interview was done during the break lunch after taking post-test II.
Table 4.4 Students’ Opinions
Questions Students’ Responses
The process of teaching and learning process of listening in
MTs Annida Al Islamy.
Student 1
Kurang menarik sehingga siswa menjadi bosen. It is not interesting; the students
get bored. Student 2
Sulit dipahami
karena guru
mengajarkannya kurang jelas. English is hard to understand; the teacher does not
teach clearly.
Student 3
Cara mengajarnya membosankan. The teac
her’s way of teaching is boring.
The conclusion
Based on the data, most of the students do not like the process of
learning English
which is
conducted by their English teacher. Only one student like the process.
Mostly, the students think that the way of teaching and learning
English is not interesting and make them bored.
Student 4
Mr. X cara ngajarnya ngebosenin kalau lagi belajar pengen tidur.
The teacher’s way of teaching is boring; the student
feels sleepy while learning.
Student 5
Kurang jelas dan bosen. The teacher does not teach clearly and the learning
process is boring.
Student 6
Mr.X mengajarkannya kurang jelas. The teacher does not teach that clear.
