of Substitution Drills in learning Degrees of Comparison. There were ten questions stated in this questionnaire, and its result would be presented into a table
as follow:
Table 4.1 The Result of Pre Questionnaire
No Students’ Answer
The Result of Students’ Answer
Yes Percentage
No Percentage
1. Feeling satisfied with the English
achievement all this time. 6
18.18 27
81.82 2.
Feeling enjoy in learning English grammar, especially in Degrees of
Comparison by using the teacher’s technique all this time.
14 42.42
19 57.58
3. Feeling
enthusiastic in
teaching learning activity.
17 51.52
16 48.48
4. Understanding Degrees of Comparison
by using the teacher’s technique all this time.
14 42.42
19 57.58
5. Finding difficulties to distinguish and
to form the kinds of degrees of comparison.
22 66.67
11 33.33
6. Finding difficulties to make the
sentences in Degrees of Comparison. 27
81.82 6
18.18 7.
The teacher’s technique can improve the students’ understanding in Degrees
of Comparison. 3
9.10 30
90.90
8 Performing
the English
task individually.
14 42.42
19 57.58
9. Asking the question during the
teaching learning process. 33
100
10 The technique which is used by the
teacher all this time is boring. 20
60.61 13
39.39
According to the table of pre questionnaire above, the writer will try to give some explanations in order to make it more clearly. The result of pre
questionnaire revealed that from the first statement there were only 6 students or about 18.18 of them felt satisfied with their English score, it indicated that the
students’ English score before implementation of Classroom Action Research was low. Second statement showed that there were only 14 students or about 42.42
of them enjoyed the teaching learning process, especially in Degrees of Comparison by using the teacher’s technique all this time. It proved that more
than a half of students didn’t enjoy the teaching learning process because of the teacher’s technique.
Third statement revealed that there were 17 students or about 51.52 of them enthused with the learning activity before they were taught by using
Substitution Drills technique. Fourth statement showed there were only 14 students or about 42.42 of them can understand Degrees of Comparison after
learning it by using the teacher’s technique. Fifth statement stated that there were 22 students or about 66.67 found the difficulties in distinguishing and forming
Degrees of Comparison, it meant that more than a half of them still found the difficulties to distinguish and to form the positive, comparative and superlative
degree. Sixth statement stated that there were 27 students or about 81.82 of them
still found difficulties in making the sentences in Degrees of Comparison. This result indicated that more than two-third of students couldn’t make the sentences
in Degrees of Comparison. Seventh statement indicated that there were 30 students or about 90.90 of them didn’t agree to the statement said that the
teacher’s technique can improve their ability in Degrees of Comparison. Eighth statement showed that there were only 14 students or about 42.42 of them can
perform the task given by the teacher alone and the rest 19 students or about 57.58 of them can’t perform the task individually.
The ninth statement showed that all of students or 100 of them didn’t ask the question during teaching learning activity before the implementation of
Substitution Drills technique. The last statement revealed that 20 students or about 60.61 of them said that the technique which is used by the teacher all this time
was boring. From the result of pre questionnaire above, it can be concluded that most of the students’ responses toward the teaching learning activity before the
implementation of Classroom Action Research were negative. 4. The Result of Pre Test
The pretest had been done before he began the teaching learning activity in cycle 1; it was conducted on Friday, 15
th
of April 2011. It was used in order to
measure the students’ grammatical ability specifically in Degrees of Comparison. There were actually 20 questions in the form of multiple-choices, and the students
were hoped to finish the test in twenty five minutes. Based on the result of the pre test, the data showed that the mean score of
pretest was 68.18. Furthermore, there were 15 students who got the score above the minimal mastery level criterion; meanwhile the other 18 if it is altered into a
percentage there were only 45.45 of the students were below it. It is still far from the target of successful Classroom Action Research. In addition, the lowest
achievement gained score 30. From the analysis above, it could be concluded that more than a half of the first class of X Acountancy students were still low in
understanding the English grammar, especially in Degrees of Comparison.
B. The Implementation of Classroom Action Research
As it is stated in the previous chapter that this research has two cycles within each cycle has four phases, they are: planning, acting, observing and
reflecting. Here, the writer will try to explain what he and the teacher had done in each cycle and each phase of the Classroom Action Research clearly.
1. Cycle 1
a Planning In this phase the writer made a lesson plan for the action based on the
needs of the students. Furthermore, the lesson plan contained teaching material, teaching procedure and evaluation. In this case, the writer made one lesson plan
for each meeting and he did it collaboratively with the English teacher. Besides, the writer also prepared structured observation sheet to observe his performance,
students’ response, and class situation during the teaching learning process. The last, he prepared the posttest 1 to know whether there is any improvement in
students’ score from pretest to posttest 1 or not, and it was given at the end of the second meeting in this cycle.
b Acting The acting phase was conducted in two meetings, firstly on Friday, 15
th
of April 2011 and secondly on Saturday, 16
th
of April 2011. In the first meeting there were four absent students, meanwhile in the second meeting there was no absent
student. The teacher tried to implement the teaching learning process based on the
lesson plan had been made. He hoped all indicators stated in the lesson plan could be reached. In the first meeting, he began the lesson by greeting and called the
students’ role, and then he began to explain the material. In explaining the material, firstly he showed the students three mobile phones which have different
size, cost and function. So, he asked the students to make a sentence in the form of positive, comparative and superlative degree as they could orally. Next he
corrected the sentences had been made by the students. Afterward, he began to ask the students to substitute the cue word of the sentences which had been
determined with other appropriate words. To increase the students’ understanding, he made other sentences and asked the students to substitute its cue word. In
exercise, he gave the students some sentences in the form of positive, comparative and superlative degree. Afterward he asked them to substitute the cue word of the
sentences by other appropriate word. He asked them to finish the exercise in
fifteen minutes. Lastly in evaluation, he asked some students to make a sentence, and then asked their desk mate to substitute the cue word. Afterward, he
concluded the material. In the second meeting, the process of teaching learning was similar to the
previous meeting, and the media was the students’ bag. Besides, he focused more on the indicator which had not been reached yet and he also focused on the
students who had a problem in the first meeting. Lastly, he gave the students post test 1 in the last twenty five minutes of the second meeting.
1
c Observing In this phase, the English teacher who played a role as the observer, he
observed all activities that happened during teaching learning in acting phase. It was about the writer’s performance, students’ attention and response and also the
class condition. Firstly related to the writer’s performance in the first meeting, he filled the observation sheet and it showed that generally the writer had
accomplished the task in line with the lesson plan that had been made; he opened the lesson well and could convey the material based on the technique.
Nevertheless, his explanation seemed less clear and he was too fast in explaining the material. Secondly related to the students’ attention and responses, it was
stated that some of them didn’t listen to the writer’s explanation and there were only four or five of them who asked the questions. Lastly related to the class
condition, it was also less ordered. It could be seen that some of them looked sleepy and also cracked jokes with each other.
In the second meeting, it looked better than the previous meeting. He explained the material more clearly than before, and the students also gave
attention to the explanation given by writer although there were two or three sleepy students. Besides, there was found the indicator which hadn’t reached the
target yet.
2
And it needed further correction in the next cycle.
1
See Appendix 4
2
See Appendix 2
d Reflecting In reflecting phase, the writer and teacher discussed about the conclusion
of implementing the action in this cycle. Afterward, they tried to modify the action for the next cycle in order the students could get more understanding in
Degrees of Comparison and 75 of students in the class could pass the minimal mastery level criterion
because the result of posttest 1 showed that there were 72.73 students who passed minimal mastery level criterion. Furthermore, they
reflected the action in cycle 1 as follows: The writer still had difficulties in managing the class; it proved that there
were some students who didn’t pay attention to his explanation, even some of them looked sleepy and cracked jokes each other. The observer advised
him to focus more on the students who had problems when teaching learning activity was being conducted.
The students’ understanding in Degrees of Comparison is still below the expectation. It was proved by the percentage of the students who passed
the minimal mastery level criterion in pretest was only 45.45 and 72.73 in posttest 1. Although there were some improvements of the
percentage of the students who passed the minimal mastery level criterion, but it was still below the target of Classroom Action Research success.
Although there were some students who didn’t follow the lesson well and got the score below the minimal mastery level criterion, the teacher and
the observer taught that Substitution Drills technique was better than the technique which was used by the teacher before the implementation of
Classroom Action Research. It was proved by the amount of students who didn’t follow the lesson well were less than before the Classroom Action
Research. Besides, the amount of students who had passed the minimal mastery level criterion
was also more than before. From the reflecting phase above, there must be more efforts to develop
students’ understanding in Degrees of Comparison by Using Substitution Drill technique. Besides, it needed to be improved more in the next cycle in order to
