The Research Findings
A. The Research Findings
1. The Research Setting
The location of the research was SMP Negeri 2 Hiliserangkai in Lolofaoso village. There were 9 (ninth) classes in the school, where the seventh class was three classes, eighth class was three classes, and the ninth class was three classes. The total numbers of teachers were 20 (twenty) and 1 (one) officer in administration. There were 3 (three) English teachers and one of them was the teacher-collaborator in the research in order to help the researcher to observe the teaching-learning process in the classroom. The total numbers of the students were 288.
The subject of this research was Class VIII-2 which consist of 30 students. There were 17 girls and 13 boys. The researcher chose eighth class because most of the students were lack of vocabulary based on the information got by the researcher from the observation and English teacher-collaborator.
Implementation of this research was held based on the previous planning of the researcher. However, before the researcher conducted it, the researcher asked the headmaster’s agreement first. In doing the research, the researcher followed the
procedure, such as planning, action, observation and reflection. During implementing the research, the researcher was helped by the English teacher-collaborator. The English teacher-collaborator was as the observer of the students’ and researcher’s activities during in teaching-learning process.
2. The Explanation of the Research Findings for Each Cycle
The research consisted of two cycles. Each cycle was divided into two meetings. The time allocation for each meeting was about 2 x 40 minutes, which means each cycle consisted of 4 x 40 minutes, as the arrangement made by the
school. The first meeting was held on 19 th August 2016 and the second meeting was held on 26 th August 2016. During the meetings held by the researcher in the
classroom, all of the students were present in the classroom. In order that the students could follow the material and get the continual of their study based on the research, the researcher arranged cycle as follows:
a. Cycle I
Cycle I was divided into two meetings. The first meeting was held on Friday,
19 th August 2016, while the second meeting was held a week after the first meeting, on Friday, 26 th August 2016. The time allocation for each meeting was 2 x 40
minutes, based on the school arrangement. In Cycle I some of the students cannot achieve the Minimum Competence Criterion required by the research. In details, it can be seen as follows:
1) First meeting
Some activities that the researcher did in the first meeting of Cycle I can be seen on the next page: Some activities that the researcher did in the first meeting of Cycle I can be seen on the next page:
In the first meeting, the researcher arranged everything needed during the research. They were lesson plan, attendance list, observation sheet both of the researcher and the students, box and cards, and the material. The planning was made to avoid misconception of the action that would be done in the classroom especially during the teaching-learning process. The researcher had used the items in planning phase in order to help the researcher in conducting a good research.
b) Action
At the first meeting, the researcher together with the teacher collaborator entered the classroom. The English teacher-collaborator gave the chance to the researcher to start the activities based on the procedures in lesson plan. The researcher greeted the students and all of students gave responses. After that, the researcher introduced herself to the students and asked their condition. Then, the researcher checked the students’ attendance list. Before the researcher began explaining the material to the students, the researcher motivated the students to learn English so they were spirit to study.
Then, the researcher introduced the material about descriptive text to the students. Before the researcher continued explaining the material to the students, the
researcher asked the students’ prior knowledge related to the topic. After that, the students gave their opinion. Furthermore, the researcher explained the definition of descriptive text, generic structures and language features to the students.
At the midst of teaching-learning activities, the researcher drill the students to implemented the procedures of Guessing Game using the text that already distributed by the researcher before. Most of the students still not enthusiast following the teaching-learning process.
c) Observation
During the teaching-learning process, the researcher and the observer had made an observation about the students’ activities in the classroom. Based on the researcher’s and the observer’s observation, the researcher and the observer found
that most of the students were fewer enthusiasts in following the lesson. Based on the result of the observation, the researcher obtained the data about the students who had been done and did not do the activities during implementing the action in the classroom. The students who had done the activities were 16 students (53.3%) and the students who did not do the activities were 14 students (46.6%). To understand the percentage of the students who had been done and undone the activities could be viewed in the graphic.
Percentage
6 Frequency
Done
Undone
Graphic 1: Percentage of the students who had been done and undone the activities in the first meeting of Cycle I
Furthermore, in the first meeting of Cycle I the researcher’s activities had done were 25 activities of 32 activities (78%) and there were 7 activities had not done
of 32 activities (21.8%). Clearly, the observation result of the researcher’s activities could be viewed in the graphic on the next page.
Graphic 2 : Percentage of the researcher’s activities that had been done and undone in the Cycle I in the first meeting
In the first meeting, the researcher found some weaknesses happened in the classroom, as follows. (a) Some of the students could not pronounce vocabularies. (b) Most of the students could not identify the generic structure and language
features of descriptive text. (c) Most of the students did not master descriptive text vocabularies. (d) Most of the students were difficult to get meaning of new words.
(e) Most of the students could not do the steps of procedure of Guessing Game.
However, there were some students’ strengths found by the researcher during the teaching-learning process, as follows. (a) Most of the students could pronounce vocabularies correctly. (b) Some of the students could identify the generic structure and language
features of descriptive text. (c) Some of the students had mastered descriptive text vocabularies. (d) Some of the students could get the meaning of new words. (e) Some of the students could do the procedure of Guessing Game.
d) Reflection
Since there were some weaknesses during the lesson in the first meeting, the researcher made a consideration to improve for the next meeting as follows. (a) The researcher suggested the students to find out how to pronounce the words in dictionary. (b) The researcher would explain more the generic structures and language features of descriptive text. (c) The researcher would teach the students about descriptive text vocabularies. (d) The researcher suggested the students to learn the new words from the
dictionary. (e) The researcher suggested the students to learn more how to followed the procedure of Guessing Game.
2) Second meeting
th The second meeting was held on Friday, 26 August 2016. The time allocation was 2 x 40 minutes, based on the school arrangement. To conduct the
research the researcher followed some procedure:
a) Planning
In the first meeting, the researcher arranged everything needed during the research. They were lesson plan, attendance list, observation sheet both of the researcher and the students, material, and test. The planning was made to avoid misconception of the action that would be done in the classroom especially during the teaching-learning process. The researcher had used the items in planning phase in order to help the researcher in conducting a good research.
b) Action
In the second meeting, the researcher conducted the research in the classroom and continued the first meeting activities. The researcher entered the classroom together with English teacher-collaborator and greeted the students. Then, the
researcher checked the students’ attendance list. Before continuing for the next activities, the researcher reviewed and reminded the last material by giving some
questions to the students orally to seek the students’ ability in understanding the previous meeting. Then, the students responded the researcher’s questions. The next,
the researcher did were re-explained the material to the students. The next activities that the researcher did were continued in the next steps of Guessing Game that were; the researcher showed all unknown words and the meaning of words to the students and asked them to read it aloud. After that, the the researcher did were re-explained the material to the students. The next activities that the researcher did were continued in the next steps of Guessing Game that were; the researcher showed all unknown words and the meaning of words to the students and asked them to read it aloud. After that, the
Furthermore, the researcher gave the evaluation sheet to the students. The researcher asked the students to match the words with the correct answer based on their comprehension of the text. After the students finished their task, the researcher asked the students to collect their tasks to the researcher.
At last, the researcher gave a conclusion about the material and closed the meeting by greeting the students.
c) Observation
The observation was done by English teacher-collaborator during the teaching-learning process. The English teacher-collaborator observed all the
researcher’s and students’ activities in the classroom. The data that the English teacher- collaborator had gotten about the students’ activities had been done and
undone. The students who had done activities were 20 (66.6 %) students. The students who did not do activities there were 10 (33.3 %) students.
To make it clear the percentage of the students who had done and undone activities could be viewed in the graphic on the next page.
Graphic 3 : The percentage of students’ activities that had been done and undone during teaching and learning process
Based on the result of the observation, in the second meeting of Cycle I the researcher’s activities had done were 22 activities of 27 activities (81.4%) and there
were 4 activities had not done of 27 activities (15%). Clearly, the observation result of the researcher’s activities could be viewed on the graphic.
0 Graphic 4 : Percentage of the researcher’s activities that had been done and
Done
Undone undone in the Cycle I in the second meeting
In the second meeting, the students could achieve the requirement of the research. This situation happened because there were some weaknesses found by the researcher in the classroom, as follows.
(a) Some of the students could not pronounce vocabularies. (b) Most of the students did not master descriptive text vocabularies. (c) Most of the students were difficult to get meaning of new words. (d) Most of the students could not do the steps of procedure of Guessing Game.
However, there were some students’ strengths found by the researcher during the teaching-learning process, as follows. (a) Most of the students could pronounce vocabularies correctly. (b) Some of the students had mastered descriptive text vocabularies. (c) Some of the students could get the meaning of new words. (d) Some of the students could do the procedure of Guessing Game.
d) Reflection
After doing the action in the classroom, the researcher noted, analyzed and concluded the result of the research. Then, the researcher analyzed the students’ evaluation sheet. The result of the students ’ evaluation sheet in the second meeting of Cycle I could be showed in the table on the next page.
Table 2
The STUDENTS’ MASTERING VOCABULARY by Using Guessing Game in the SECOND MEETING of the CYCLE I
MCC Level
Percentage Very Good
The data from the table above explained that the students’ ability in writing descriptive text was in the less level. It showed that there were 2 (two) students (7%) who could be classified in “Very good” level, 2 (two) students (7%) who could be classified in “Good” level, 6 (sixth) students (20%) who could be classified in “Enough” level, 16 (sixtheen) students (53%) who could be classified in “Less” level and 4 (fourth) student (13%) who could be classified in “Fail” level. The highest score that the students got was 90 and the lowest score that the students got was 20.
The average value that the students got was 52.33.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher concluded that the students’ ability in mastering vocabulary by using Guessing Game was still unable to increase
the students’ ability in the cycle I. It was indicated by looking at the Minimum Competence Criterion (MCC) of the English subject at the eighth grade which was 70 could not be achieved by the students. Therefore, the researcher decided to continue to the next cycle by doing some improvements, it could be seen on the next page:
(a) The researcher suggested the students to find detail how to pronounce the words in dictionary. (b) The researcher taught the students about descriptive text vocabularies. (c) The researcher suggested the students to learn the new words from the
dictionary. (d) The researcher suggested the students to learn and practice more how to follow the procedure of Guessing Game.
b. Cycle II
Cycle II was done in two meetings. First meeting was done on Friday, 2 nd
September 2016 and second meeting was done on Saturday, 10 September 2016. The time allocation that was used by the researcher in the meeting was 4 x 40 minutes.
th
First Meeting
To conduct the research the researcher followed some procedure:
a) Planning
In the first meeting, the researcher arranged everything needed during the research. They were lesson plan, attendance list, observation sheet both of the researcher and the students, box and cards, and the material. The planning was made to avoid misconception of the action that would be done in the classroom especially during the teaching-learning process. The researcher had used the items in planning phase in order to help the researcher in conducting a good research.
b) Action
At the first meeting, the researcher together with the teacher collaborator entered the classroom. As usual, the English teacher-collaborator gave the chance to the researcher to start the activities based on the procedures in lesson plan. The researcher greeted the students and all of students gave responses. After that, the researcher checked the students’ attendance list. Before the researcher continued explaining the material to the students, the researcher motivated the students to learn English so they were spirit to study.
Then, the researcher continued to explain the material about descriptive text to the students. Before the researcher continued explaining the material to the students, the researcher asked the students’ prior knowledge related to the topic. After that, the
students gave their opinion as they know. Furthermore, the researcher gives compliment about the students’ opinion to make them aware about the material.
At the midst of teaching-learning activities, the researcher drill the students to implemented the procedure of Guessing Game using the text that already distributed by the researcher before. Firstly, the researcher asked the students to made several group. And then, the researcher asked the students to read the text and classified new words from the text. After that, the researcher chooses 10 words that has related with the descriptive vocabulary from the students’ unknown words and wrote the words on
the cards. Then, the researcher begun to drill the students to implement the procedure of Guessing Game by asked each of the group’s leader to describe and explain the
unknown word to their member until they could guessed what the word. The researcher and the students repeated the activities until the 10 words could be guess unknown word to their member until they could guessed what the word. The researcher and the students repeated the activities until the 10 words could be guess
In the post teaching-learning activities, the researcher concluded the teaching material. Then the researcher ended the meeting by greeting the students.
c) Observation
Based on the result of the observation, the researcher obtained the data about the students who had been done and did not do the activities during implementing the action in the classroom. The students who had done the activities were 26 students (86.6%) and the students who did not do the activities were 4 students (13.3%). To understand the percentage of the students who had been done and undone the activities could be viewed in the graphic below.
Graphic 5: Percentage of the students who had been done and undone the activities in the first meeting of Cycle II
Furthermore, in the first meeting of Cycle II the researcher’s activities had done were 29 activities of 31 activities (93.5%) and there were 2 activities had not Furthermore, in the first meeting of Cycle II the researcher’s activities had done were 29 activities of 31 activities (93.5%) and there were 2 activities had not
Graphic 6 : Percentage of the researcher’s activities that had been done and undone in the Cycle II in the first meeting
In the first meeting, the students could not get the requirement of this research purpose. This situation happened because there were some weaknesses found by the researcher in the classroom, as follows.
(a) Some of the students could not pronounce vocabularies. (b) Some of the students did not master descriptive text vocabularies. (c) Some of the students were difficult to get meaning of new words.
However, there were some students’ strengths found by the researcher during the teaching-learning process, as follows. (a) Most of the students could pronounce vocabularies correctly. (b) Most of the students had mastered descriptive text vocabularies. (c) Most of the students could get the meaning of new words.
d) Reflection
Since there were some weaknesses during the lesson in the first meeting, the researcher made a consideration to improve for the next meeting. There were: (a) The researcher suggested the students to find detail how to pronounce the words in dictionary. (b) The researcher taught the students about descriptive text vocabularies. (c) The researcher suggested the students to learn the new words from the
dictionary.
Second Meeting
The implementation of Word Wish Game in the second meeting of Cycle II was held on Saturday, 10 th September 2016. To conduct the research the researcher
followed some procedure:
a) Planning
In the second meeting, the researcher arranged everything needed during the research. They were lesson plan, attendance list, observation sheet both of the researcher and the students, box and cards, and the material. The planning was made to avoid misconception of the action that would be done in the classroom especially during the teaching-learning process. The researcher had used the items in planning phase in order to help the researcher in conducting a good research.
b) Action
In the second meeting, the researcher conducted the research in the classroom and continued the first meeting activities. The researcher entered the classroom together with English teacher-collaborator and greeted the students. Then, the researcher checked the students’ attendance list. Before continuing for the next activities, the researcher reviewed and reminded the last material by giving some questions to the students or ally to seek the students’ ability in understanding the previous meeting. Then, the students responded the researcher’s questions
The next activities that the researcher did were continued in the next steps of Guessing Game that were; the researcher showed all unknown words and the meaning of words to the students and asked them to read it aloud. After that, the researcher showed one by one unknown word to the students and the students said the meaning of the word. The researcher did the activities repeatedly until the students know the meaning of words.
Furthermore, the researcher gave the evaluation sheet to the students. The researcher asked the students to match the words with the correct answer based on their comprehension of the text. After the students finished their task, the researcher asked the students to collect their tasks to the researcher.
At last, the researcher gave a conclusion about the lesson material and closed the meeting by greeting the students.
c) Observation
During the teaching and learning process, the researcher and the teacher- collaborator had made the observation about the students’ activities in following the
teaching and learning process. The teacher-collaborator also had made the observation about the r esearcher’s activities during the teaching process. The researcher found that there was no more weakness of the students in teaching and learning process. Based on the English teacher- collaborator’s observation, there were
28 students (93.3%) done all acti vities. To understand the percentage of students’ activities can be seen as follows.
Graphic 7: Percentage of the students who had been done and undone the activities in the second meeting of Cycle II
Based on the result of the English teacher-collaborator there were 27 activities of 27 activities (100%) that the researcher had done. Clearly, the percentage can be seen in the graphic.
Graphic 8 : Percentage of the researcher’s activities that had been done and undone the activities in the second meeting of Cycle II
As well as, there was no more weakness of the researcher during the teaching process. The researcher found the strengths and advantages in teaching and learning process, as follows.
(1) The students mastered the generic structures and language features of descriptive text. (2) The researcher could pronounce the words. (3) The students could get the meaning of new words. (4) The students mastered descriptive text. (5) The students could do the procedure of Guessing Game.
d) Reflection
After doing the action in the classroom, the researcher noted, analyzed and concluded the result of the research. Then, the researcher analyze d the students’ evaluation sheet . The result of the students’ evaluation sheet in the second meeting of Cycle II can be showed on the table below.
Table 3
The STUDENTS’ MASTERING VOCABULARY by Using Guessing Game in the SECOND MEETING of the CYCLE II
MCC Level
Percentage Very Good
The students’ value classification above, it showed that there were 22 students (73%) wh o got the value classified in “Very Good” level. There were 8 students (27%) who got the value classifi ed in “Good” level. There was not student
(0%) who got the value classified in “Enough”, “Less” and “Fail” level. The students’ high value in the first meeting of Cycle II was 100 and the lowest value was 80. Then, the average of the students’ value was 90.33. In order to make a better vision, the comparison can be seen in the graphic on the next page:
Pass Students
Not Pass Students
Students' Score
Percentage
Graphic 7. The Comparison of the Students’ Ability
Based on the graphic above, it is clearly seen that there was a gap between the ‘Successful’ students and ‘Failed’ students. In Cycle II, the percentage of ‘Successful’ students were larger than ‘Failed’ students. Based on the data above, the researcher fo und the students’ ability in vocabulary was 90.33 which categorized in “very good” level. Since all of the students were successful in passing Minimum Competence Criterion, the research was stopped by the researcher.
3. The Students’ Activities for All Cycles
In the first meeting of Cycle I, the students who had been done the activities were 16 students (53.3%) and the students who did not do the activities were 14 students (46.6%). Furthermore, in the second meeting of Cycle I, the students who had been done the activities were 20 students (66.6%) and the students who did not do the activities were 10 students (33.3%). In the first meeting of Cycle II, the In the first meeting of Cycle I, the students who had been done the activities were 16 students (53.3%) and the students who did not do the activities were 14 students (46.6%). Furthermore, in the second meeting of Cycle I, the students who had been done the activities were 20 students (66.6%) and the students who did not do the activities were 10 students (33.3%). In the first meeting of Cycle II, the
Table 4
The STUDENTS’ ACTIVITIES for ALL CYCLES
No. Cycle
4. The Researcher’s Activities for All Cycles
In the first meeting of Cycle I, the researcher’s activities that had been done were 25 activities (78%) and there were 7 activities (21.8%) that were not done by the
researcher. Then, in the second meeting of Cycle I, the researcher’s activities that had been done were 22 activities (81.4%) and there were 4 activities (15%) that were not done by the researcher.
I, the researcher’s activities that had been done were 29 activities (93.54%) and there were 2 activities (6.4%) that were not done by
In the first meeting of Cycle I
the researcher. Then, in the second meeting of Cycle I I the researcher’s activities that the researcher. Then, in the second meeting of Cycle I I the researcher’s activities that
Table 5
The RESEARCHER’S ACTIVITIES for ALL CYCLES
No. Cycle
5. The Students’ Mastering Vocabulary by Using Guessing Game for All Cycles
The students’ ability in mastering vocabulary in Cycle I showed that there were 2 students (7%) who got the value classified in “Very Good” level. There were
2 students (7%) who got the value classified in “Good” level. There were 6 students (30%) who got the value classified in “Enough” level. There were 16 students (53%) who got the value classified in “Less” level, and there were 4 students (13%) who got the value classified in “Fail” level. The students’ high value in the second meeting of Cycle I was 90 and the lowest value was 20. Then, the average of the students’ value was 52.33.
Moreover, in Cycle II showed that there were 22 students (73%) who got the value classified in “Very Good” level. There were 8 students (27%) who got the value classifi ed in “Good” level. There was not student (0%) who got the value classified in “Enough” “Less” and “Fail” level. The students’ high value in the second meeting of Cycle II was 100 and the lowest value was 80. Then, the average of the students’ value was 90.33 . Thus, the students’ ability in mastering vocabulary for all cycles can
be described in the table below.
Table 6
The STUDENTS’ MASTERING VOCABULARY after APPLYING Guessing GAME
No. Cycle
Meeting