Table 4.4 The Result of the Students’ Reading Comprehension Test in Cycle 1 and Cycle 2
No The
Students’ Initial
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Score Achieved
Not Achieved
Score Achieved
Not Achieved
1. MAR
60 √
70 √
2. ARS
90 √
96 √
3. CDP
76 √
80 √
4. FS
80 √
83 √
5. SAN
80 √
86 √
6. WRD
56 √
70 √
7. AF
63 √
73 √
8. AKF
76 √
83 √
9. AAH
76 √
80 √
10. MAS
53 √
66 √
11. YRS
86 √
86 √
12. DKR
66 √
80 √
13. MAN
70 √
76 √
14. MKN
76 √
76 √
15 NQA
83 √
86 √
16. MJ
83 √
83 √
17. NZF
86 √
90 √
18. RI
76 √
80 √
19. AK
80 √
80 √
20. DRS
73 √
83 √
21. IK
83 √
86 √
22. JFR
76 √
76 √
23. QR
83 √
83 √
24. TNP
66 √
73 √
25. HIM
70 √
86 √
26. IH
76 √
76 √
27. EV
76 √
83 √
18 9
22 5
E = x 100
66.6 33.3
81.4 18.6
From the chart and the table above, the results of students’ reading
comprehension test improved from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2. The results of the percentage of students who got 75 or higher in reading comprehension test increased from 66.6
to 81.4. In Cycle 1, the percentage of the students who gained the reading test score at least 75 had not fulfilled the standard requirement of the research that was 75.
There was only 66.6 who got score of at least 75. It meant that the criteria of this research were not reached yet. Therefore, the action was proceed to Cycle 2 after
having revised some of necessary aspects that caused failure in Cycle 1. The second cycle was implemented with some revisions to get better result
because the first cycle had not fulfilled the objective of the research. After the action in the second cycle, the result of the reading comprehension test showed an
improvement. It was prov en by the percentage score of the students’ reading
comprehension test that was 81.4 of the students got score 75 or higher. There were the examples of the highest and the lowest scores of the students’
reading test see Appendices P and Q. In the first cycle, the highest score was reached by student number 2. His score was 90. During the teaching learning process,
this student was categorized as an active participant. He could fulfill the indicators of active participation both in meeting 1 as well as in meeting 2. Student number 10 got
the lowest score. His score was 53. This student was categorized as passive participant during the teaching learning process. He only fulfilled 4 to 5 indicators of
active participants. In the second cycle, student number 2 also got the highest score that was 96.
He was also categorized as an active participant during the teaching learning process. He fulfilled six to seven indicators of active participants in meeting 1 and meeting 2.
Meanwhile, the student who got the lowest score was also the same as the one in the first cycle. He was student number 10. His score was also 66. During the teaching
learning process, he still could not fulfill the indicators of active participation. He only fulfilled 4 to 5 of 7 indicators.
From the result of observation in both cycles, it could be seen that the number of students who actively participated in the teaching learning process of reading
increased from 74 to 89. It was followed by the improvement of the studen ts’
score in reading test. The students who got 75 or higher of reading comprehension test had improved from 66.6 to 81.4. There was an improvement 14.8 from the
first Cycle to the second Cycle. The percentage of the students’ participation and their
score on reading test had met the research target. Finally, the action was stopped.
4.3 Discussion
