Besides, the activities in the teaching and learning process of writing lacked
variation. The teacher mostly only asked the students to do the exercises based on the LKS.
ET then asked the students about the homework from LKS that she gave in the last meeting. She pointed some students to write their answers in the
write board. Field Note 03
In addition, a pre-test was also conducted before implementing the actions. It provided the valid data of the students’ writing abilities. The collaborator and I
became the raters to score the students’ writings in this stage. The table below presents the students’ means score in each aspect of writing.
Table 5: The Pre-test Mean Score of Each Writing Aspect C
O V
LU M
Total Mean
17 11.9
12.1 12.6
2.6 56.2
C : Content O: Organization
V : Vocabulary LU: Language Use
M: Mechanics
From the table above, it can be seen that the students’ scores in content aspect was 17 out of 30. It means that the content of their writings was still fair to
poor. Their writings in the pre-test had unorganized and inadequate development of the topic. Some of the students seemed to be lacked knowledge of the subject.
They wrote several non pertinent sentences in one paragraph. Although the time
given was sufficient, it seemed that the students still had difficulty in generating and developing their ideas.
Organization of their writings was still in fair to poor level since they only scored 11.9 out of 20. Most of the students had disconnected ideas in their
writings. They also barely had supporting details in each paragraph. Their results showed that they still lacked logical sequencing and development.
The vocabulary mastery of the students was in fair to poor level. Based on the result of their writings, they only scored 12.1 out of 20.It showed that they still
had limited range of vocabulary. They often made frequent errors of word choice that lead to unclear usage meaning.
In the terms of language use, the students score 12.6 out of 20. It showed that they were still in fair to poor level. They still had major problems in
simplecomplex constructions. They also often made frequent errors of tense, word orderfunction, pronouns, articles and prepositions. Those made their
writings often had confusing meanings. Based on the result of the students’ writings, they only scored 2.6in the
mechanics aspect. The score showed that the students’ mastery of mechanics aspect was quite low. They still had frequent errors of spelling, punctuation and
capitalization. For example, they wrote “populer” instead of “popular”. They often wrote capital letter in the wrong place and forgot to write it for certain types of the
words, such as “sambisari temple.” The results of the pre-test showed that the students still lack in almost every
aspect of writing. There were still many frequent errors in their writings. The
students often misspelled words and did not use the right tense. In addition, they also had problems with capitalization.
Figure 1: The result of a student’s writing in the pre-test
Figure 2: The result of a student’s writing in the pre-test
From the result of the observation, interviews and pre-test, there were some problems found in the teaching and learning process. The field problems occurred
in the teaching and learning process can be seen in the table below:
Table 6: The Field Problems in the English Teaching and Learning Process
at VIIIB Class of SMP Negeri 3 Depok Yogyakarta
No Field problem
Code
1. The students had difficulties in generating and developing their
ideas S
2. The students lacked vocabulary mastery.
S 3.
The teaching and learning process lacked learning media Md
4. The students had low grammar mastery
S 5.
The activities in teaching and learning writing lacked variations.
TT 6.
The students often made frequent errors in capitalization and spelling.
S 7.
The students had low motivation in learning writing. S
8. The topics were not interesting enough.
Mt 9.
The time allocation is limited. TT
10. The students tended to copy their friends’ works.
S
S: Students Md: Media
