9 65
80 85
10 55
65 70
11 30
40 60
12 70
75 90
13 55
80 80
14 35
65 70
15 60
65 70
16 50
80 85
17 50
65 80
18 50
70 70
19 45
65 80
20 45
55 60
21 50
70 75
22 35
45 60
23 30
35 55
24 50
50 60
25 75
80 95
26 60
75 80
27 45
55 65
28 50
75 75
29 65
65 80
30 45
75 95
31 55
70 70
32 35
45 70
33 65
80 85
34 35
65 70
35 35
55 65
36 35
50 65
37 50
80 80
38 45
55 60
39 40
65 70
40 50
75 80
41 50
55 65
42 45
70 80
43 50
75 75
44 70
80 85
45 40
60 65
46 30
45 55
Mean:
_
∑x X =
── n
48.36 64.34
73.04
: The student who passed the KKM 65
To compare the test result between pretest and posttest of each cycle, the writer uses some steps. Those steps are calculating the students mean score of the
test, calculating the class percentage, and calculating the percentage students’
improvement score from pretest to posttest 1 and 2. In analyzing the data of pretest, the first step is to get the mean score of the
class. It is calculated as following:
_ ∑x
X = ──
n _
2225 X =
─── 46
_ X = 48.36
From that calculation, the mean score of the class in pretest is 48.36. It is showed that the students’ reading mean score before using group work or before
implementing Classroom Action Research CAR is 48.36. The second step is to know the percentage of
students’ score who passed the KKM 65. It is calculated as following:
F P =
── X 100 N
6 P =
── X 100 46
P = 13.04
From the calculation above, it is known the students’ score percentage in the
pretest is 13.04 . It means that there are 6 students who pass the KKM and there
are 40 students are still below the KKM.
Next in the cycle 1 of Classroom Action Research CAR, the writer calculates the result of posttest 1 to know the students’ score improvement from
the pretest to posttest 1 result. There are three steps to get this improvement. Those are calculating the students’ mean score of the class, calculating the
students’ improvement score into percentage and calculating the class percentage.
The first step is to calculate the mean score of posttest 1. It is calculate as following:
_ ∑x
X = ──
n _
2960 X =
─── 46
_ X = 64.34
From that calculation, the students’ mean score of posttest in cycle 1 is 64.34. It shows that there are some improvements from the pretest mean score. It could be
seen from the pretest mean score 48.36 to the mean score of posttest 1 64.34. It improves 15.98 64.34
– 48.36. The second
step is to get the percentage of students’ improvement score from pretest to posttest 1. It is calculate as following:
y1 - y P =
─── X 100 y
64.34 – 48.36
P = ───────── X 100
48.36 15.98
P = ──── X 100
48.36 P = 33.04
Based on that calculation, the percentage of the students’ improvement score from pretest to posttest 1 is 33.04. It shows that the score in the cycle 1 has improved
33.04 from the pretest score. The third step is to know the percentage of students who pass the KKM.
The calculation by using as follow: F
P = ── X 100
N 30
P = ── X 100
46 P = 65.21
From that calculation, the class percentage which passes the KKM is 65.21. It means that in the cycle 1 of Classroom Action Research CAR, there are 30
students who passed the KKM and there are 16 students who got score are below the KKM. The class perce
ntage of posttest 1 shows some students’ improvement of the class percentage in the pretest 13.04. The students’ improvement which
passes the KKM is 52.17 65.21 - 13.04. Even though it is still needed more improvement because it could not achieve yet 75 as the target of success
Classroom Action Research. Moreover, in the cycle 2 of Classroom Action Research CAR the writer
also calculates the result of posttest 2 to know further the score improvement either from the result of pretest or posttest 1. There are three steps to know this
improvement. Those are to calculate the mean score of the class, to calculate the percentage of the students’ improvement score, and to calculate the class
percentage which pass the KKM 65. Firstly is to calculate the mean score of the class in posttest 2. The
calculation using as follows: _
∑x X =
── n
_ 3360
X = ───
46 _
X = 73.04
From that calculation, the students’ mean score of posttest 2 is 73.04. It shows that there are some improvements from the pretest mean score. It could be seen
from the posttest 1 mean score 64.34 to the mean score of posttest 2 73.04. It improves 8.7 73.04 - 64.34.
The second step is to know the calculation of the percentage of students’
improvement score. Here, the writer calculated by using the formula: y2 - y
P = ──── X 100
y 73.04
– 48.36 P =
───────── X 100 48.36
24.68 P =
──── X 100 48.36
P = 51.03
Based on that calculation, it could be seen that the posttest 2 improves 51.03 from the pretest or 17.99 51.03
– 33.04 from the pretest 1. The last step is the writer tries to get the class percentage of students who
pass the KKM. It uses the calculation as following: F
P = ── X 100
N 37
P = ── X 100
46 P = 80.43
From that calculation, the class percentage is 80.43. It means that in the cycle 2 there are 37 students who pass the KKM and there are only 9 students are below
the KKM. The class percentage of posttest 2 shows some improvements from the previous test; the improvement is 67.39 from the pretest 13.04 or 15.22
from the class percentage of posttest 1 65.21.
D. Interpretation of Test Result
As a whole, the interpretation of the data results among the pretest, the posttest of cycle 1 and the posttest of cycle 2 are as followings:
In the pretest, the mean score of students on reading test before carrying out Classroom Action Research CAR is 48.36. It is the students’ reading score
before they use group work technique. Meanwhile, the class percentage which
passes the KKM is 13.04. It means that that there are only 6 students who are able to pass the KKM 65 and there are 40 students who are not able to pass the
KKM. Furthermore, the mean score in the posttest of cycle 1 is 64.34. It means
that there are some students’ score improvement from the previous test pretest, that is 15.98 64.34
– 48.36 or 33.04 It is not enough to reach the research target and still need to be developed. Meanwhile, the class percentage which
passes the KKM in posttest 1 is 65.21. It shows there are 30 students who pass the KKM and there are 16 students whose score still under KKM. It means that
still needed more improvement because it could not achieve the target yet of success CAR, that is 75 or at least 34 students from the class percentage. That
is why the writer and the teacher continue to the second cycle. Next, the mean score in the posttest of second cycle is 73.04. It shows the
improvement students’ score 8.7 73.04 – 64.34 from the posttest 1 in cycle 1 64.34 or 51.03 students’ improvement in the score percentage from the pretest
or 17.19 students’ improvement from the pretest 1. Meanwhile, the class
percentage which passes the KKM is 80.43. It means there are 37 students whose score pass the KKM and there are 9 students who are under the target of
KKM. This class percentage shows some improvements 67.39 from the pretest 13.04 or posttest 1 65.21 in the class percentage. The posttest of cycle 2
has fulfilled the target of Classroom Action Research CAR success, that is above
75 students could pass the KKM. Automatically, it can be said that the Classroom Action Research CAR is success and the cycle can be stopped.
62
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
After finishing the Classroom Action Research CAR, the writer gives some conclusions based on the result of this research. Furthermore, the writer also
gives some suggestions related to the conclusion. However, the writer would like to give her summary of this research, before giving conclusion and suggestion.
The writer would like to summarize her study. This study uses the Classroom Action Research CAR method to identify students’ problem in
reading comprehension, it is begun by interviewing the English teacher and observing in the VII - 1 class at MTsN 19 Pinang Kalijati which is considered as
the class that sufficient to study by using group work technique. The number of students consist of 46 forty six which is divided 25 twenty five for female
students and 21 twenty one for male students. In this study, the writer uses the Kurt Lewin’s design which consists of four phases. Those are planning, acting,
observing, and reflecting. Meanwhile, the data is taken among from the test,
interview and observation. It could be summed up as; first, related to the test result, there was 17.19 improvement of students’ mean score from pretest to the
posttest of the second cycle. In the pretest, there were six students who passed the KKM. Then in the result of posttest in cycle 1, there were 30 or 65.21 students
in the class who passed the KKM considering their mean score of the test is 64.34. Next in the result of posttest in the cycle 2, there are 37 or 80.43 students who
passed the KKM in which their mean score of reading test derived 73.04. Second,
