In analysing data gained from students’ writing score, the researcher firstly tried to find the mean score of each test by calculating the score. Then, based on the table
above, it could be seen that the mean score of pre-action was 72.1, of post-action I was 84.74, and of post-action II was 87.19. It could be concluded that
students’ mean score of pre-action to post-action I was
improved 12.64 points and students’ mean score of post-action I to post-action II was also improved 2.45 points.
In addition, after getting the mean score of each test, the number of students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion was also calculated. Then, based
on the table above, it could be seen that 11 students 35 could meet the Minimum Mastery Criterion but 20 students 65 could not in the pre-action test. However,
in the first and second cycle, it could be seen that all students 100 could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion.
B. Interpretation of the Results
After calculating the data above, the result was interpreted. In the pre-action,
the mean score of pre-action writing test before implementing Classroom Action Research CAR was 72.1 which meant that there were still some students who
could not pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion. It was proved that 20 students 65 could not meet the Minimum Mastery Criterion in the test.
However, the mean score of post-action I writing test scores were increased up to 84.74 17.53. It meant that, by applying teacher indirect feedback, students
got improvement on their writing skills. Moreover, the percentage of students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion was also increased. While in the pre-
action test, there were only eleven students who could pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion, in the post-action test I, all students could pass the Minimum Mastery
Criterion. Therefore, it could be concluded that after applying teacher indirect feedback in the learning of writing discussion text, the mean score and the
percentage of the students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion was improved. However, the overall improvement had not achieved the target yet as the
results of observation sho wed that students’ attitudes in the classroom still needed
to be improved. It could be seen as the overall students’ activities was categorised
as “Good” which meant that there were still some aspects that needed to be improved. To sum up, the next cycle should be conducted to cover the problems
having not yet been solved. After the second cycle had been conducted, based on table 4.6 and 4.8, it could
be concluded that there were a huge improvement on students’ overall activities and achievement. Firstly, t
he result of observation showed that students’ attitudes in the classroom improved as it could be categorised as “Very Good” 93.07.
Some aspects that needed to be improved could be improved in this cycle. Moreover, the mean score of the students’ post-action test II also gained
improvement about 2.13. While the mean score of post-action test I was 94, that of the post action test II was 96. Lastly, again, all students could also pass the
Minimum Mastery Criterion. Thus, based on the results of the second cycle that had met all the criteria of success requirements, it could be concluded that the next cycle
did not need to be conducted. Lastly, to get more information about students’ responses after implementing
the teacher indirect feedback, questionnaire sheets were distributed. Then, the result of which could be concluded that students’ response was “Very Good”. They agreed
that teacher indirect feedback could guide them in revising their writing, broaden their knowledge, be used to monitor their improvement during the writing process,
and help them evaluate their writing skill.
54
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter presents conclusion and suggestion. The conclusion and suggestion is drawn based on the findings of the research.
A. Conclusion
