51
50 60
70 80
Writing 56,3
77,2 Preliminary
2nd Cycle
preliminary study to the students’ writing in the second cycle. The mean score of the pretest in the preliminary study was 56.3 and the mean score
of th e students’ writing on the second cycle was 77.2. Means that there
was 20.9 points or 37.1 of average score improvement. The students’
improvement in writing a narrative text from the first cycle to the second cycle recapped in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2 The Students’ Improvement in Writing Product in the Second Cycle
The students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM 70.0 were 28 students or 80.0 if it
calculated into class percentage, while 7out of 35 students 20.0 achieved bellow 70.0 of 35. It indicated that the first criterion of success which
required 75 of the students who got at the same as or above the minimum adequacy
criteria has been achieved. The following was the table of students’ writing score.
52
Table 4.4 The Studen
ts’ Writing Score of Pretest, Posttest 1, and Posttest 2
No Students’
Number Pre-Test
Post-Test 1 Post-Test 2
1 S1
56.3 62.5
75.0
2 S2
43.8 56.3
75.0
3 S3
56.3 75.0
81.3
4 S4
50.0 50.0
68.8
5 S5
75.0 75.0
87.5
6 S6
56.3 62.5
81.3
7 S7
50.0 50.0
68.8
8 S8
43.8 75.0
81.3
9 S9
62.5 62.5
75.0
10 S10
50.0 56.3
81.3
11 S11
56.3 62.5
75.0
12 S12
43.8 50.0
62.5
13 S13
75.0 62.5
75.0
14 S14
56.3 75.0
87.5
15 S15
50.0 62.5
75.0
16 S16
43.8 50.0
62.5
17 S17
62.5 81.2
87.5
18 S18
68.8 87.5
93.8
19 S19
43.8 68.8
81.3
20 S20
75.0 62.5
75.0
21 S21
43.8 50.0
62.5
22 S22
50.0 56.3
75.0
23 S23
56.3 68.8
81.3
24 S24
62.5 68.8
81.3
25 S25
75.0 75.0
87.5
26 S26
75.0 81.2
87.5
27 S27
43.8 62.5
75.0
28 S28
68.8 68.8
81.3
29 S29
50.0 62.5
75.0
30 S30
56.3 68.8
75.0
31 S31
50.0 81.2
87.5
32 S32
62.5 75.0
75.0
33 S33
56.3 62.8
75.0
34 S34
43.8 50.0
68.8
35 S35
56.3 62.5
62.5
MEAN
56.3 65.2
77.2
: The student who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM 70.
53
d. Reflecting
After getting the result of observation checklist and posttest 2, the writer and the collaborator carried out the reflection. They felt satisfaction
with the result of the action. The result of the posttest 2 showed that 80 of the students got the score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion- Kriteria
Ketuntasan Minimal KKM. So it has met the first criterion of success that 75 of the students must get the score above the Minimum Mastery
Criterion- Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal KKM . Also, the students’
participation in the second cycle achieved 89.3. It meant that the second criterion of success has achieved. Because of the satisfied result, so the
writer and the collaborator decided to stop the action.
4. Findings after implementing CAR
a. The Result of Post Interview
Unstructured interview was conducted on Monday, February 7
th
2011. It started at 10.00 A.M and finished at 10.30 A.M. In this case, the writer divided into three criteria of questions. First criterion talked about the
general condition in writing class during implementing the action. It was found that the students’ condition were better than before. In this sense, they
looked enthusiast and felt easier to write narrative text using Jigsaw technique
. The students’ participation was good because the activity in the classroom involved the students.
Second criterion was about the barrier and its solution in implementing Jigsaw technique during implementing the action. It was
observed that most of the students difficult in describing the event in the picture because of limited number of vocabulary. So, it was added some key
words on the pictures to help the students in developing their ideas. Also it was suggested for the students to bring dictionary to help them to find out
the difficult word. The last criterion is about the opinion of Jigsaw technique. It was
said that Jigsaw was a good technique in teaching writing. It could be an
54
effective way to help the students’ writing. Beside it might be able to improve the students’ writing; it could be an alternative strategy and could
motivate the English teacher to use it. See appendix 2b for detail result of interview
From the explanation above, it could be drawn the general conclusion from the post interview that the teacher gave a positive response
toward the implementation of Jigsaw technique. In addition, have a good impa
ct to improve the students’ ability in writing narrative text.
b. The Result of Post Questionnaire
The post- questionnaire was conducted to know about the students’
response after learning writing through Jigsaw technique. The questionnaire had ten questions which revealed in five issues:
The students’ liking for Jigsaw technique number 1 6, the usefulness of Jigsaw technique
number 2 3, t he students’ response about teaching writing through
Jigsaw number 4 7, t he extent of the role of peers’ responses in
improving writing quality number 8 9, and the teacher’ style during
teaching writing through Jigsaw number 5 10. The questionnaire was given to the students in the second year of English 2 class on Monday,
February 7
th
2010. The table below showed the result of post questionnaire.
Table 4.5 The Result of Post Questionnaire
No Perception
Percentage Strongly
Agree Agree
So-so Disagree Strongly
Disagree 1
The students’ liking for Jigsaw technique item numbers 16
17.1 64.3
17.1 1.4
2 The usefulness of Jigsaw technique item
numbers 23 17.1
64.3 15.7
2.9 3
The students’ response about teaching writing through Jigsaw item numbers 47
15.7 54.3
27.2 2.9
4 The extent of the role of peers’ responses in
improving writing quality item numbers 89
14.3 48.6
32.8 4.3
5 The
teacher’s style during teaching writing through Jigsaw item numbers 510
20 60
15.7 4.3
Total 84.2
291.5 108.5
15.8 Mean
16.8 58.3
21.7 3.2
