conducted in three meetings. The following was the explanation of the action research results.
2. Findings of the First Cycle Adapted from Ghony
90
a. Planning
1 The writer and collaborator decide the topic standard competency and basic competence that will be delivered to the student by using
Semantic Mapping strategy with the collaborator. 2 The writer make lesson plan with the collaborator
91
3 Thw writer and collaborator prepare model of Semantic Mapping using shape and picture.
92
4 The writer prepared materials taken from the English text book and media laptop, pictures, and paper.
5 The writer prepared student worksheet.
93
6 The writer prepared the instrument posttest 1 and observational note.
94
7 The writer determinined the criteria of success with the collaborator 75 of 28 students or 21 students achieve the Minimum Mastery
Criterion – Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM of English 70 or above.
b. Acting
First meeting Monday, November 8
th
2010 at 11.10 am – 12.20 pm
1 The writer implemented the teaching learning process based on the
lesson plan.
2 The writer taught describing technical object by introducing some new words firstly through semantic mapping and gave an example of
semantic mapping.
90
Djunaidi Ghony, Penelitian Tindakan Kelas, Malang: UIN Malang, 2008, pp.128- 135.
91
See Appendix 6, pp. 102-106.
92
See Appendix 7, pp. 113-114.
93
See Appendix 7, p. 117.
94
See Appendix 8 10, pp.135-137, pp. 132-134.
3 The writer asked the student to make a description of a technical thing through semantic map based on the object which they had chosen
individually. Second Meeting Thursday, November 11
th
2010 at 07.00 am – 08.20 am
1 The student continued their first mapping task and revise with the
teacher
2 Teacher made them a group of four to make a semantic mapping based on the given picture and paper fill in the map with some categories such
as: function, parts, picture, a description sentence and what the tool
moved by.
3 Students have to find many words that are related to the picture, minimum 10 words and these new words are expected not to be the same
with what the writer was given at the first meeting. Third Meeting Monday, November 15
th
2010 at 11.10 am – 12.20 pm
1 Reviewed the material and student task. 2 Collected their semantic mapping worksheet.
3 Posttest cycle 1. c.
Observing
All at once with the Action, the writer and collaborator: 1 Observed teaching learning process through observational notes.
Based on the observational note, in spite of the class done follow the main activity as said in the lesson plan but the class still had some
problems such as: there is three of the student became the trouble maker, they made the class noisy, so the other the student hard to get
concentration. Then student couldn‟t make a correlation among the
words yet and last they often cheat on their friends work.
95
95
See Appendix 8, pp.125-126.
2 Collected the data for posttest 1 Based on the result of posttest I showed that the mean score of the class
increased 66.5 in which there were 12 students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion or KKM 70.
96
The detail result of instruments used in the first cycle can be seen below:
1 The Result of Students’ Participation Cycle 1
Based on the observational notes start from the first meeting in this cycle
1 showed that most students didn‟t pay attention when the teacher explained the
materials. Most of the students often made noise. There just a few students only who paid
attention to the teacher‟s explanation. When the teacher explained the concept of semantic mapping for vocabulary learning, most of them did not
understand it because maybe it is a new strategy for the student, so they hadn‟t
accustomed to learn it. As a result, they were difficult when the teacher asked them to make a semantic mapping from the technical word which they chosen.
Then, data from the second meeting observation showed that there was
slight difference from the first meeting. Some students paid attention to the teacher explanation though there were few students still made noise. When the
teacher asked their previous task which became homework, there was only some student who did it. So, the teacher revised their work and repeated the same
explanation about learning vocabulary with semantic mapping. When teacher asked some questions related to the materials before, few of them could answer
correctly while some of them couldn‟t. There were few students asked questions when the teacher gave chance in order to check their worksheet. When the teacher
asked them to make a group of four to make a semantic mapping with the given, some of them cheated among the groups. Nevertheless, the student was more
involve when they work in a group than individually. Therefore, it can be said that there was slight improvement from the first
and second meeting observation in the cycle one. Also, it can be seen that the students become little active than the first meeting.
97
96
See Appendix 5, pp. 100-101.
97
See Appendix 8, pp.125-126.
2 The Result of Students’ Vocabulary Achievement Cycle 1
To know the result of students‟ vocabulary achievement, the writer needs
to calculate the mean score firstly. The mean score derived from the following formula:
n x
Mx
28 1861
Mx
5 .
66
Mx From that calculation, the students‟ mean score of posttest in cycle 1 is
66.5. It shows that there are some improvements from the pretest mean score. It could be seen from the pretest mean score 53.5 to the mean score of posttest 1
66.5. It improves 7 66.5 – 53.5.
Then, the writer calculated the class percentage that‟s passed the
Minimum Mastery Criterion, using the following formula: 100
x N
F
28 100
12x
P = 42.85
The data showed that the mean score of posttest 1 was 66.5. There were
twelve students or 42.85 of the students who got the score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion, meanwhile the other 16 students were below that criterion. It
implied that the first criterion has not fulfilled. Based on the
result of the students‟ vocabulary achievement in the cycle 1, there was a slight improvement of students‟ mean score from the students‟
vocabulary achievement on the preliminary study to the students‟ vocabulary
achievement on the first cycle. The mean score of the previous score was 53.5 and the mean score of the students‟ vocabulary achievement on the first cycle was
66.5. That means that there was 13 points or 24.3 of mean score improvement. The improvement percentage derived from the formula:
98 98
See Appendix 5, p. 100-101.
100
1
y y
y
P = 100
5 .
53 5
. 53
5 .
66
P = 24.3 From that calculation, the class percentage which passes the KKM is 24.3. It
means that in the cycle 1 of Classroom Action Research CAR, there are 12 students who passed the KKM and there are 16 students who got score are below
the KKM. The class percentage of posttest 1 shows some students‟ improvement of the class percentage in the pretest 7.14
. The students‟ improvement which passes the KKM is 17.24 24.3 - 7.14. Even though it is still needed more
improvement because it could not achieve yet 75 as the target of success Classroom Action Research.
d. Reflecting
1 Discussing the result of the action 42.85 of the students or 12 students got the score above the Minimum
Mastery Criterion, the implementation of Semantic Mapping strategy has not given satisfactory result yet on the improvement of students‟
vocabulary achievement. The students have not achieved the criteria of success that 75 of students must achieve the Minimum Mastery
Criterion. Therefore, it needed to be revised before the implementation of the next cycle so that it could achieve the criteria of success of this
study. 2 Talking about Students Participation
The student participation was increased during each meeting, at the first meeting their participation was not quite good, it because they still
adapted the new Semantic Mapping strategy. It was improved to the second and third meeting, which is proven from their motivation and
their involved in the learning activity. 3 Determining the observational notes
Teaching learning process has done unsatisfactorily more, there was something to improve from the teacher and students side. For the
students‟ side such as open student minds to explore their previous- known words, attract their motivation to follow the class gently and get
them to do the exercise confidently. Then, from the teacher, such as she has to make much atmosphere which
pursued to semantic mapping strategy in learning vocabulary, in other words she has to use it customary and more patient to repeat the steps
among the groups or the student themselves. All of these should be reached to get the criteria of success that
hadn‟t reached yet at this 1
st
cycle.
e. Revision of the First Cycle
Cooperating with collaborator, the writer conclude some revisions for the 1
st
cycle which is going to be done in the 2
nd
cycle, they are:
1 The writer should give more motivation to be more active.
2 The writer guide
students‟ work in their group intensively. 3 The writer get them to bring a dictionary.
4
The writer shouldn‟t push the student to finish their work soon.
5 The writer should give brief explanation about the semantic mapping
steps slowly and clarity. 3.
Findings of the Second Cycle a.
Planning
1 The writer ade the new lesson plan with same media and topic.
99
2 The student have to prepared a dictionary. 3 The writer gives more motivation to be more active.
4 The writer g uiding students‟ work intensively both in group and
individual 5 The writer have not to push the student to finish their work soon
6 The writer give them reward.
99
See Appendix 6, pp. 107-112.
7 The writer giving brief explanation about the semantic mapping steps slowly but with clarity.
8 The writer prepared Observational Notes
100
9 The writer and the collaborator compiled the post-test 2
101
b. Acting
First Meeting Thursday, November 18
th
2010 at 07.00am-08.20pm
1 The writer implementing the new lesson plan
102
2 The students make semantic mapping based on the picture facilitated by
the dictionary individually 3 The writerer revised their works
Second Meeting Monday, November 22
nd
2010 at 11.10am-12.20pm 1 Using moving class to get the new atmosphere.
2 The writer motivated the student. 3 Student developed their mapping through a group of four
4 Student presented their works to the other group 5 Teacher watched their process in making semantic mapping
6 Teacher praised their group works. Third Meeting Thursday, November 25
th
2010 at 07.00am-08.20pm
1 The teacher a
sked whether there‟s still problem or difficulty 2 Posttest 2
c. Observing
In line with the Action, the writer and collaborator:
1 Observed teaching learning process through observational notes. The class done very well, there were fewer trouble makers so the class
can drive easily. Despite, the noisy still exists but it came from their talking with their friends to find a new word, so the other the student
easy to more concentrate. Then student could make a correlation among
the words and no more cheating among the groups.
100
See Appendix 8, pp. 127-128.
101
See Appendix 10, pp. 138-141.
102
See Appendix 6, pp. 107-112.
2 Collected the data for posttest 2
The result of posttest 2 showed that the mean score of the class increased 72.6 in which there were 22 students who passed the Minimum Mastery
Criterion or KKM 70.
The detail result of instruments used in the first cycle can be seen below:
1 The Result of St
udents’ Participation Cycle 2
Based on the observational notes, starting from the first meeting in this cycle 2 showed that the teacher just explained when the students ask but some
student was more accustomed to the semantic map, it was proved from their self- learning, they work independently without asking the teacher first and they will
ask if they really on a problem, it may appear because of the using of dictionary which help them to do their task. When they work in a group, they work
corporately by giving their idea and share to their own group, even there‟s some student who work passively and ask the another group which has same main
word, but it‟s not too disturbing the class. Then, data from the second meeting observation showed that there was
slight difference from the first meeting. This slight difference was good improvement of their performance in the class both work individually and in a
group. Almost of the student work well and the teacher have known their characteristics which help the teacher to enter their world and get their interest to
make the class drive smoothly. Their concentration has already developed to the class and the teacher explanation. One thing that the teacher gives no punishment
like their English teacher but the teacher here give them reward or compliment or another thing like picture and the atmosphere of the moving class that attract them
to keen on their work. Therefore, it can be said that there was great slight improvement from the
first and second meeting observation in the second cycle and also from the first cycle. It can be seen that most of the students involved in the teaching-learning
process.
103
2 The Result of Students’ Vocabulary Achievement Cycle 2
103
See Appendix 8, pp. 127-128.
The result of students‟ vocabulary achievement in cycle 2, the writer needs to calculate the mean score firstly. The mean score derived from the following
formula: n
x Mx
28 2032
Mx
6 .
72
Mx From that calculation, the students‟ mean score of posttest 2 is 72.6. It
shows that there are some improvements from the pretest mean score. It could be seen from the posttest 1 mean score 66.5 to the mean score of posttest 2 72.6.
It improves 6.1 72.6-66.5. Then, the writer calculated the
class percentage that‟s passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion, using the following formula:
100 x
N F
28 100
22x
6
. 78
Based on that calculation, it could be seen that the posttest 2 improves 78.6 from the pretest or 35.75 78.8-42.85 from the pretest 1.
Last, the improvement percentage derived from the formula: 100
2
y y
y
P = 100
5 .
53 5
. 53
6 .
78
P= 35.7 Based on the result of students‟ vocabulary mastery, there was better
improvement of students‟ mean score from the students‟ vocabulary test in the preliminary study to the students‟ vocabulary in the second cycle. The mean score
for the first one was 53.5 and the mean score of vocabulary posttest 2 in the second cycle was 72.6. It means that there was 12.1 points or 35.7 of mean
score improvement. The students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion were 22 students or 78.6 if it calculated into class percentage. It indicated that
the first criterion of success has been achieved. The following was the table of students‟ vocabulary score.
104
Table 4.1 The Students’ Vocabulary Score of Pretest, Posttest 1, Posttest 2
No. Students’ Name
Pretest Posttest 1
Posttest 2
1 S1
60 63
70 2
S2 53
70 77
3 S3
63 70
74 4
S4 40
66 68
5 S5
50 70
75 6
S6 66
76 76
7 S7
46 53
65 8
S8 63
76 78
9 S9
56 66
70 10
S10 53
56 70
11 S11
56 60
68 12
S12 50
60 63
13 S13
56 76
77 14
S14 30
53 60
15 S15
66 73
80 16
S16 60
73 79
17 S17
46 63
68 18
S18 50
66 82
19 S19
40 60
70 20
S20 50
63 70
21 S21
53 70
70 22
S22 70
73 78
23 S23
46 66
74 24
S24 56
70 76
25 S25
73 80
82 26
S26 43
60 70
27 S27
56 63
72 28
S28 46
66 70
MEAN 53.5
66.5 72.6
The student who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion KKM 70
It could be seen from the table above that the number of students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion also increases from preliminary study and
104
See Appendix 5, pp. 100-101.
each cycle. There were only two students or 7.14 of the students who got the score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion in the preliminary study; There were
twelve students or 42.85 of the students who got the score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion in the first cycle; and in the second cycle, The students who
passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion were 22 students or 78.6. It proved that the target of action success in which minimum 75 of the students passed the
Minimum Mastery Criterion can be reached.
d. Reflecting
1 Students‟ activity has already followed the step to make semantic
mapping well.
Student could develop their cooperated within their group and also when they did the task alone. Almost all of them could participate in the
activity and they didn‟t need longer time to finish the task like in the first
cycle whereas the teacher didn‟t push them to finish their work soon. They could present their work in front of the class to share the new word
to the other students. The great development in student activity was supported by the better
teacher performances, the new atmosphere in moving class and helped by dictionary. Teacher guided them intensively, especially when they got
a difficulty. 2 Discussing the result of the action
78.6 of the students or 22 students got the score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion; the implementation of Semantic Mapping strategy has
given satisfactory result on the improvement of students‟ vocabulary achievement. The students have achieved the criteria of success that 75
of students must achieve the Minimum Mastery Criterion. Therefore, the cycle is finished and the criteria was achieved that semantic map could
be the one of the appropriate strategy of vocabulary mastery and enrichment.
Table 4.2
105
A Brief Scenario of the Result of Classroom Action Research in the First Year Electro B Class, Triguna Utama Vocational School Ciputat
C Y
C L
E
1 PLANNING
1. Decide the topic 2. Making lesson plan with the collaborator
3. Preparing model of Semantic Mapping using shape and picture.
4. Preparing materials and media 5. Preparing student worksheet.
6. Preparing the instrument posttest 1 and observational note.
7. Determining the criteria of success 75 or 22 students achieve the Minimum Mastery Criterion of English 70 or
above.
ACTING First meeting Monday, November 8
th
2010 at 11.10 AM –
12.20 PM 1. Implemented the lesson plan.
2. Taught describing technical object through semantic
mapping and gave an example of semantic mapping.
3. Asked the student to make a description of a technical
thing through semantic mapping individually. Second Meeting Thursday, November 11
th
2010 at 07.00 AM
– 08.20 AM
1. Continued their first mapping task and revise with the
teacher
2. Teacher made them a group of four to make a semantic
mapping.
3. Students has to find many words that are related to the
picture, and get minimum 10 new words Third Meeting Monday, November 15
th
2010 at 11.10 AM – 12.20 PM
1. Reviewed the material and student task. 2. Collected their semantic mapping worksheet.
Kategori