The Research Findings

A. The Research Findings

1. Research Setting

The location of the research is SMA Negeri 1 Botomuzoi.The school is located in Hiliwaele I village, Center Nias Regency. It is about 27 kilometers from Gunungsitoli town school consisted of six classrooms, a library room, a laboratory room of computer, an office teacher, some courts of sport, and others buildings. There were 16 teachers which 2 of them were English teachers and 1official stuffs. The total numbers of the students were 136 students that were divided in three grades there are tenth grade, eleventh grade, and twelfth grade.

Botomuzoi as the English teacher-collaborator. The teacher was as observer of the students’ and the researcher’s activities in order that the activities could run well and get the valid result. The students were always present during this research.

2. The Explanation of the Research Findings for Each Cycle

a. Cycle I

In doing the first cycle, the researcher took two meetings. The process of the research in Cycle I:

1) First meeting

The first meeting was done on Monday, 28 th September 2015. It ran in 2x45 minutes. This meeting was started from the pre-teaching-learning activities, then

continued with the whilst teaching-learning activities and post teaching-learning

process consisted of the pre-teaching-learning activities, the whilst-teaching-learning activities and the post-teaching-learning activities. The researcher began the teaching- learning process by greeting the students, asked the students condition, and introducing herself to the students. Then she checked the students’ attendance. Next, in the whilst-teaching-learning activities; the researcher recalled and rebuilt the students’ prior knowledge. Next, the researcher distributed the material (narrative text) that has been already prepared, then she gave information about narrative text and the researcher explained about It Says, I Say and So strategy and the importance of the strategy. The researcher applied It Says, I Say and So strategy. Then the researcher distributed the story of narrative text to the students. Then, the researcher asked the students to find friends in group. The researcher asked the students to read the story of the narrative text. Then, the researcher provided some questions that

concludes the material and closed the teaching-learning process by greeting the students. In the first meeting of Cycle I, the researcher did not have enough time to finish all activities. So, it was continued in the second meeting.

c) Observation

The observation was done by the English teacher collaborator during the researcher was implementing the action in the classroom. The English teacher collaborator observed all of the activities happened in the teaching-learning process: including the researcher’s and the students’ activities.

(1) The result of the student’s activities: (a) The students who had done activities : 11 activities (57.90 %) (b) The students who had not done activities: 8 activities (42.10 %)

In the first meeting, the students could not get the requirement of the research purposes. This situation happened because there were some weaknesses found by the researcher in the classroom, as follows:

(1) There were some students did not know how to identify the characteristics, generic structure of narrative text such as: orientation, complication, and resolution and example of narrative text.

(2) There were some students who did not know how to fill each column of It Says, I Say, and So sheet. (3) They still found difficulties to differentiate implicit and explicit information from the narrative text. (4) Students still found difficulty in arranging their answer to fill I Say column. However, there were some students’ strengths found by the researcher during

However, the result of the observation showed that the students and the researcher had weaknesses in doing this research. Therefore, to make the students got increasing in learning narrative text the researcher improved the planning of teaching- learning activities. The researcher has done some improve the weakness such as: (1) The researcher would explain more how to identify the generic structure of

narrative text such as: orientation, complication, and resolution. (2) The researcher would review what the purpose and explained the steps of using It Says, I Say and So Strategy in comprehending a text. (3) The researcher would explain more how to fill I Say column by using their own opinion. (4) The researcher would tell more what are the implicit and explicit state information in the text and what the differentiate both of them.

The procedures of the second meeting were as follows:

a) Planning In doing the Cycle I at the second meeting, the researcher prepared many things, such as: (1) Preparing the lesson plan. (2) Preparing material (3) Preparing the students’ present list (4) Preparing the observation sheet for the researcher and the students. (5) Preparing the evaluation sheet. (6) Preparing field-notes.

b) Action The action was performed on Tuesday, 29 th September 2015. The meeting

the students to completed It Says column and the students filled It Says column by find the information in the text. After that, the researcher guided the students to discussed their questions (It Says) column and compare them with the true answers in the text (It Says). Then, based on the two columns (It Says and I Say) the researcher asked the students concluded the answer and put the conclusion in the So column. After they finished doing it, then giving the time to ask questions related to the material.

Next, the researcher gave the evaluation sheet to the students. Then, the researcher gave instructions how to answer the questions and asked them to answer it by their comprehension. The researcher asked the students to work the task individually without cheating with the other friends. After they finished, the researcher collected the students’ evaluation sheet and asked the students’ difficulties

(b) The students who had not done activities: 3 activities (20%)

(2) The result of the researcher’s activities: (a) The researcher activities which had been done :

18 (85,72%) of 21 activities.

(b) The researcher activities which had not been done: 3 (14.28%) of 21 activities.

However, the researcher found some weaknesses of this process , The students were not able to make conclusion/inference based on the answers in colums It Says, and I Say.

Then, the researcher found some advantages too of this process, namely: (1) Many of them knew how to filled column It Says. (2) Most of the students knew more how to comprehend the narrative vocabulary.

d) Reflection

Table 1

THE STUDENTS’ ABILITY in READING COMPREHENSION by USING IT

SAYS, I SAY, AND SO STRATEGY at the TENTH GRADE of SMA NEGERI 1 BOTOMUZOI in the SECOND

MEETING of CYCLE I

1. Very Good Level

2. Good Level

3. Enough Level

4. Less Level

5. Fail Level

The data from the table above explains that the students’ ability in reading comprehension during implemented It Says, I Say, and So in Cycle I failed. The

Table 2

THE STUDENTS’ ABILITY in READING COMPREHENSION by USING IT

SAYS, I SAY, and SO STRATEGY at the TENTH GRADE

of SMA NEGERI 1 BOTOMUZOI in CYCLE I

No The Name of the Students Score

Mark

Level

1. Asnitawati Waruwu

7 70 Enough

2. Calvin Waruwu

5 50 Less

3. David Candra S. Waruwu

5 50 Less

4. Deiswartini Ndraha

6 60 Less

5. Delianus Zebua

4 40 Less

6. Emika Lase

9 90 Very Good

7. Fanolo Lase

4 40 Less

8. Indah Yanti Lase

3 30 Fail

9. Intan Viktoria Lase

7 70 Enough

10. Funimawarni Lase

8 80 Good

11. Mariani Lase

8 80 Good

12. Mawartini Halawa

9 90 Very Good

13. Niberia Lase

3 30 Fail

Cycle I / Meeting 2

Fail Less

Enough

Good

Very good

Graphic 1 : The Students’ Ability in Reading Comprehension by Using It Says, I Say, and So Strategy in Cycle I

From the explanation above, the researcher concludes that the student’s ability in reading comprehension by It Says, I Say, and So Strategy was less, which means most of the students could not pass the Minimum Competence Criterion (MCC) it was 70. Therefore, the researcher decided to continue the research to Cycle II.

1) First Meeting

The procedures of the first meeting, they are:

a) Re-planning

Based on the result of reflection in Cycle I, the researcher improved the weaknesses by doing good preparation before conducting the action. The researcher prepared many things, such as: lesson plan, material, observation sheet, field notes, and evaluation sheet.

b) Action

The action was performed on Tuesday, 13 th October 2015. The meeting was done in 2 x 45 minutes. After planning, the researcher conducted the action in the

action in the classroom. The teaching and learning process consisted of pre teaching- learning activities, whilst teaching-learning activities and post teaching-learning

copied material to the students and explained the characteristics and example about narrative text.

The researcher asked the students to find friends in group. Then the researcher distributed the story of narrative text to the students. The researcher asked the students to read the story of the narrative text. Then, the researcher provided some questions that related to the story and showed for the students the It Says, I Say, and So Strategy sheet. Then, the researcher guided the students to fill each column. The researcher allowed the students to read the questions in the first column and the students answer the question then put the answer in I Say column the students answer by using their own opinions. Next, the researcher asked each group what their answer. At last, in the post-teaching-learning activities; the researcher gave time for the students to ask for a reflection, she concluded the material and closed the teaching-learning process by greeting the students. At last, in the post-teaching-

a) Observation

The observation was done by the English teacher collaborator during the researcher implemented the action in the classroom. The English teacher collaborator observed all the activities happened in the teaching-learning process, included the students’ and the researcher’s activities.

(1) The result of the student’s activities: (a) The students who had done activities : 16 activities (84.21 %) (b) The students who had not done activities: 3 activities (15.78 %)

(2) The result of the researcher’s activities: (a) The researcher activities which had been done: 25 (100 %) of 25 activities. (b) The researcher activities which had not been done: 0 (0%) activities.

Based on the result of the students’ and the researcher’s observation sheet, the researcher found the weakness in doing the first meeting in Cycle II, they were:

b) Reflection In the first meeting of Cycle II, the researcher did not give evaluation sheet to the students. The researcher just re-explained the narrative text, reading comprehension and re-applied It Says, I Say, and So Strategy. However, the researcher did some improvements in the activities of the teaching-learning, The researcher would tell more what are the implicit and explicit state information in the text and what the differentiate both of them.

2) Second Meeting

The procedures of the second meeting, they were:

a) Re-Planning In doing the cycle II at the second meeting, the researcher prepared many things, such as:

activities. The action was started with entered the classroom. The researcher greeted the students.

The researcher checked the presence of the students. After that, the researcher reminded the students about the last material and also their weaknesses in the first meeting of Cycle II. Then the researcher continued to apply It Says, I Say, and So strategy activities by divided students in groups. Then, the researcher gave instruction to the student to complete answers the questions on the column. Then, the researcher asked the students to completed It Says column and the students filled It Says column by finding the information in the text. After that, the researcher guided the students to discussed their questions (It Says) column and compare them with the true answers in the text (It Says). Then, based on the two columns (It Says and I Say) the researcher asked the students concluded the answer and put the conclusion in the So column. After they finished doing it, then giving the time to ask questions related to

c) Observation The results of the observation during the teaching-learning process in the second meeting of Cycle II as follows: (1) The result of the students’ activities (a) The students who had done activities

: 19 activities (100%) (b) The students who had not done activities: 0 activities (2) The result of the researcher’s activities: (a) The researcher activities which had been done : 21 (100 %) of 21 activities. (b) The researcher activities which had not been done: 0 (0%) activities.

In the second meeting of Cycle II, almost of the students did the activities during the teaching-learning process, but there were students who had less motivation and did not tell the difficulties in teaching learning process. Especially for the researcher, the researcher had done all the activities. So, the researcher had not

(2) The students were able to differentiate implicit and explicit information from the narrative text. (3) All the students were able to conclude the answers in column So questions. (4) All the students knew how to fill each column of It Says, I Say, and So

sheet.

d) Reflection After doing the action above, the researcher evaluated the result of the students’ ability in comprehending narrative text by using It Says, I Say, and So Strategy. The researcher examined the students’ comprehension by giving some questions related to the text. The result of the students’ evaluation sheet was classified by the researcher based on Nurgiantoro’s formula. The result of their evaluation is explained in Table 3:

Table 3

The data from the table above explained that the students’ ability in reading comprehension during implemented It Says, I Say, and So in Cycle II was successful . The classification result of the test was 11 students (45.83%) classified in the “very good”, 9 students (37.5%) in “good” level, 4 students (16,67%) and there was no students in “less” level, and fail level. The average of the students’ mark was 84.58.

The students’ mark can be viewed in Table 4 on the next page:

Table 4

THE STUDENTS’ ABILITY in READING COMPREHENSION by USING IT

SAYS, I SAY, and SO STRATEGY at the TENTH GRADE

of SMA NEGERI 1 BOTOMUZOI in CYCLE II

No The Name of the Students

1. Asnitawati Waruwu

Very Good

2. Calvin Waruwu

8 80 Good

3. David Candra S. Waruwu

8 80 Good

4. Deiswartini Ndraha

8 80 Good

5. Delianus Zebua

9 90 Very Good

6. Emika Lase

9 90 Very Good

7. Fanolo Lase

9 90 Very Good

8. Indah Yanti Lase

8 80 Good

9. Intan Viktoria Lase

7 70 Enough

10. Funimawarni Lase

8 80 Good

11. Mariani Lase

8 80 Good

12. Mawartini Halawa

9 90 Very Good

13. Niberia Lase

7 70 Enough

14. Niscaya Waruwu

9 90 Very Good

The result can be viewed in Graphic 2 such as below:

g e 60

ta n 50 45,83 %

Cycle II / Meeting 2

Very good

Graphic 2 : The Students’ Ability in Reading Comprehension by Using It Says, I Say and So Strategy in Cycle II

From the explanation above, the researcher concludes that the student’s ability in

1. The Students’ Activities in All Cycles

The result of the students’ activities in all cycles in this research can be seen in this following table:

Table 5

THE STUDENTS’ ACTIVITIES of ALL CYCLES

Frequency of No.

The table above explained that in Cycle I of the first meeting, there were 11

2. The Researcher’s Activities in All Cycles

Then, the result of the researcher’s activities in all cycles in this research can

be seen in this following table:

Table 6

THE RESEARCHER’S ACTVITIES of ALL CYCLES

Frequency of No.

The table above explained that in Cycle I of the first meeting, there were 16 activities (80%) done by the researcher and 4 activities (20%) not done by the researcher. In the second meeting, there were 18 activities (85.72%) done by the

3. The Students’ Ability in Reading Comprehension by Using It Says, I Say, and So of All Cycles

Based on the evaluation sheet, the researcher explained the students’ ability in reading comprehension. In Cycle I, it shows that there were 3 students (12.5%) classified in the “very good”, 2 students (8.33%) in “good” level, 4 students (16,7%) in enough level, 12 students (50%) in “less” level, and there was 3 student (12,5%) in fail level. The average of the students’ mark was 58.33. Based on the data above, it can be concluded that the students were still unable to comprehend the material of narrative text.

While the students’ ability in Cycle II was category “Good” level. The classification result of the test were 11 students (45.83%) classified in the “very good”, 9 students (37.5%) in “good” level, 4 students (16,67%) in “enough level” and there was no students in “less” level, and fail level. The average of the students’

Table 7

THE STUDENTS’ ABILITY in READING COMPREHENSION by USING IT SAYS, I SAY, AND SO STRATEGY of ALL CYCLES

Percentage Cycle

2 nd Meeting

Fail

I Less

Very Good

Very Good