The Research Findings

A. The Research Findings

1. The Research Setting

The setting of the research was SMP Negeri 1 Lotu. It was located in Lawira Satua Village, Lotu Sub District, and North Nias Regency. The environment of the school is good because the school offs the beaten path. Thereby, the environment of the school supported the teaching and learning process to run well. The school consisted of 12 classes. The seventh grade consisted of four classes (Class VII-a, VII-b, VII-c and VII-d). Also, the eighth grade has four classes (VIII-a, VIII-b, VIII-c and VIII-d). The last, the ninth grade also has four classes (IX-a, IX-b, IX-c V and IX-d).

The subject of the research was the students at Class VIII C which consisted of 33 students of SMP Negeri 1 Lotu in 2016/2017. There were 16 male students and 17 female students. Their ages were varied from thirteen to fifteen years old. The researcher conducted the research in the class by implementing Project-Based Learning because their ability in learning English, especially in writing a descriptive text was low compared with the other classes.

The researcher did the research after getting agreement from the headmaster of SMP Negeri 1 Lotu. In doing the research, the researcher followed the procedures, such as planning, action, observation and reflection. During implementing the research, the researcher was helped by the English teacher- collaborator. The English teacher-collaborator was as the observer of the students’ and researcher’s activities during in teaching-learning process.

2. The Explanation of the Research Findings for Each Cycle

To increase the students’ ability in writing descriptive text through Project- Based Learning, the researcher did it into two cycles.

a. Cycle I

In conducting Cycle I, it was done three meetings. The process of the research in Cycle I as follows.

1) First meetings

There were some activities that the researcher did in the first meeting of Cycle I, there are:

a) Planning

Before doing the action, the researcher prepared everything that was needed in teaching-learning process such as: lesson plan, teaching material, table of specification, observation sheet for the researcher and the students, field notes.

b) Action

After planning, the researcher conducted the action in the classroom. The first meeting was held on Tuesday, August 23 rd 2016. Allotted time was 2 x 40

minutes. The researcher entered the classroom together with the English teacher- collaborator.

The English teacher-collaborator gave the chance to the researcher to start the activities based on the procedures in lesson plan. The researcher greeted the students and all of students gave responses. After that, the researcher introduced himself to the students and the students listened to the researcher’s introduction. Then, the researcher asked the students to fill their name in the attendance list and signed it. Before the researcher continued explaining the material to the students, the researcher motivated the students so they were so spirit to study.

Furthermore, the researcher introduced a new material for them about descriptive text. Before the researcher continued explaining the material, the researcher asked the students’ prior knowledge related to the topic. After that, the students gave their opinion. To appreciate the students’ effort, the researcher praised the students. After that, the researcher distributed the material. Then, the researcher explained the definition of descriptive text, generic structures and language features to the students and the students paid attention to the researcher’s explanation. Next, the researcher gave the example about descriptive text.

Before the researcher implemented the procedure of Project-Based Learning, he explained the general information about the Project-Based Learning so the students could do it fluently. Therefore to drill the students in writing descriptive paragraph the researcher applied Project-Based Learning because in this strategy forced the students to describe the pictures that had been stuck in the white board in such written form.

At the last, the researcher inferred the teaching material by telling to the students the important point of the teaching material. Then, the researcher ended the teaching-learning activity by greeting the students.

c) Observation

In observation step, all social events happened in the classroom were investigated by the English teacher-collaborator. The English teacher- collaborator noted the students who had been done and undone the activity. The English teacher-collaborator also observed how many aspects of the researcher had been done and undone. Furthermore, the researcher noted the weakness, strength and everything had happened during applying Project-Based Learning.

Based on the result of the observation, the researcher obtained the data about the students who had been done and did not do the activities during implementing the action in the classroom. the students who had been done the activities were 18 students (52.94%) and the students who did not do the activities were 15 students (45.45%). To understand the percentage of the Based on the result of the observation, the researcher obtained the data about the students who had been done and did not do the activities during implementing the action in the classroom. the students who had been done the activities were 18 students (52.94%) and the students who did not do the activities were 15 students (45.45%). To understand the percentage of the

40 Percent entage

20 Frequenc quency

Graphic 1 : P : Percentage of the students who had been done and and undone the activities in the first meeting of Cycle I a

Furthermore, i e, in the first meeting of Cycle I the researcher’s ’s activities had been done were 16 a 16 activities of 24 activities (66.66%) and there we were 8 activities had not done of 24 24 activities (33.33%). Clearly, the observation on result of the researcher’s activitie vities could be viewed in the graphic below:

60 Percent centage

Freque quency

Graphic 2 : : Percentage of the researcher’s activities that ha t had been done and undone in the Cycle I in the first meeting g

In the meeting, the researcher found some weaknesses of the students and the researcher in doing the activities, there were: (a) Some of the students were unable to identify kinds of descriptive text. (b) Most of the students did not understand the generic structures and language

features in the descriptive text. (c) Some of the students were unable to identify the identification of descriptive text. (d) Most of students were not able to identify the description of descriptive text. Besides, there were also some strengths of the students’ and the researcher’s activities as follows. (a) Most of the students could identify kinds of descriptive text. (b) Some of the students understand the generic structures and language features

of descriptive text. (c) Most of the students were able to identify the identification of descriptive text. (d) Some of the students were able to identify the description of descriptive text.

d) Reflection

In the first meeting in Cycle I, the researcher analyzed and noted the result of observation of all the activities during conducting Project-Based Learning. Based on the result of the research, the percentage of the students who In the first meeting in Cycle I, the researcher analyzed and noted the result of observation of all the activities during conducting Project-Based Learning. Based on the result of the research, the percentage of the students who

Therefore, the researcher should do the improvements for the next meeting, such as: (a) The researcher would teach the students kinds of descriptive text. (b) The researcher would teach the students the generic structures and language

features of descriptive text. (c) The researcher suggested the students learned more about the identification of descriptive text. (d) The researcher asked the students to learn more the description of descriptive text.

2) Second Meeting

Implementation of Project-Based Learning in the second meeting of Cycle

I was held on Thursday, August 25 th 2016. To conduct the research in the meeting, the researcher followed the procedure.

a) Planning

In the phase the researcher prepared all the needs during teaching and learning process in the classroom such as; lesson plan, teaching material, observation sheet for students and researcher, evaluation sheet, field notes, attendance list and teaching media.

b) Action

In action phase, the researcher started to conduct the research in the classroom. The researcher went to the classroom with the English teacher- collaborator. In the pre teaching-learning activities, the researcher greeted and asked the students’ condition. Then the researcher checked the students’ attendance list. Before the researcher would continue in whilst teaching, the researcher motivated them and asked their prior knowledge about the last material.

In whilst teaching, the researcher asked the students to sit based on their group had made. After that, the researcher asked the students weaknesses during applied Project-Based Learning in the first meeting, and the researcher improved it. To make clear the material that was going to teach, the researcher re-explained the generic structure and language features of descriptive text. After that, the researcher asked the students to revise their project and the description of an idol that they had made to make it better. Then, the researcher collected the student’s project and assessed it.

In the post teaching-learning activities, the researcher concluded material and informed the students’ mistakes during making the project. After that the researcher closed meeting by greeting the students.

c) Observation

The observati ation was done by English teacher-collaborator ator during the teaching-learning pr process. The English teacher-collaborator obs observed all the researcher’s and stude students’ activities in the classroom. The data tha that the English teacher-collaborator tor had gotten about the students’ activities had be d been done and undone. The student udents who had done activities were 24 (72.72 %) ) students. The students who did not d not do activities there were 9 (27.27 %) students. s.

To make it cle clear the percentage of the students who had done done and undone activities could be vi viewed in the graphic bellow.

Perc ercentage

9 Freque requency

Graphic 3 : the the percentage of the students’ activities that ha t had been done and undone during teaching and learning process a ess

Furthermore, i e, in the second meeting of Cycle I the researche cher’s activities had done were 13 ac 13 activities of 17 activities (76.47%) and there we were 4 activities had not done of 17 a 17 activities (23.52%).

Clearly, the obs he observation result of the researcher’s activit vities could be viewed on the graphi phic below:

Percentage Pe

17 Fr 20 Frequency

Done

Undone

Graphic 4 : The The percentage of the researcher’s activities that ha hat had been

done and undone in second meeting of Cycle I done I

In the meeting ting, the researcher founds the weaknesses of the the students in doing the activities, t s, there were: (a) Some of the stude students did not understand the generic structures es and language

features in the de he descriptive text. (b) Some of the stude students were unable to identify the identification on of descriptive text. (c) Most of student udents were not able to identify the description of des descriptive text. Besides, there re were also some strength of the students’ and the nd the activities as follows. (a) Most of the stude tudents could identify kinds of descriptive text. (b) Some of the stude students understand the generic structures and lang anguage features

of descriptive te text.

(c) Most of the students were able to identify the identification of descriptive text. (d) Some of the students were able to identify the description of descriptive text.

d) Reflection

In second meeting of Cycle I, the researcher analyzed the result of observation and noted the result of observation of all the activities during conducting Project-Based Learning. Based on the result of the research, the percentage of the students who had done the activities and the researcher’s activities that had done still poor. The bad result was caused of some weaknesses.

Because of it, the researcher should do the improvements in the third meeting, such as: (a) The researcher reviewed the students about generic structures and language

features of descriptive text. (b) The researcher suggested the students to learn about in identifying the identification of descriptive text. (c) The researcher suggested the students to practice in identifying the description of descriptive text.

3) Third meeting

Implementation of Project-Based Learning in third meeting of Cycle I was held on Tuesday, August 30 th 2016. To conduct the research in the meeting, the

researcher followed the procedure.

a) Planning

In the phase the researcher prepared all the needs during teaching and learning process in the classroom such as; lesson plan, teaching material, observation sheet for students and researcher, field notes, evaluation sheet, attendance list and teaching media.

b) Action

In the phase, the researcher conducted the research in the classroom and continued the second meeting activities. The researcher entered the classroom together with English teacher-collaborator and greeted the students. Then, the researcher checked the students’ attendance list. Before continuing for the next activities, the researcher reviewed and reminded the last material by giving some questions to the students orally. Then, the students responded the researcher’s questions. The next activities that the researcher did were to distribute the material to the students. Before the researcher drilled the students, the researcher re-explained the general information about descriptive text and asked the students to pay attention. After that, the researcher continued drilling the students by using the steps of procedure of Project-Based Learning. For the next, after the researcher had drilled the students, he improved the students’ mistakes during implementing the procedure. Then, the researcher taught the students how to read In the phase, the researcher conducted the research in the classroom and continued the second meeting activities. The researcher entered the classroom together with English teacher-collaborator and greeted the students. Then, the researcher checked the students’ attendance list. Before continuing for the next activities, the researcher reviewed and reminded the last material by giving some questions to the students orally. Then, the students responded the researcher’s questions. The next activities that the researcher did were to distribute the material to the students. Before the researcher drilled the students, the researcher re-explained the general information about descriptive text and asked the students to pay attention. After that, the researcher continued drilling the students by using the steps of procedure of Project-Based Learning. For the next, after the researcher had drilled the students, he improved the students’ mistakes during implementing the procedure. Then, the researcher taught the students how to read

In the post teaching-learning activities, the researcher concluded teaching materials but before that, he offered to the students to conclude first. After that, the researcher motivated the students to prepare themselves for the next meeting. Finally, the researcher closed the meeting by greeting the students.

c) Observation

The observation was done by English teacher-collaborator during the teaching-learning process. The English teacher-collaborator observed all the researcher’s and students’ activities in the classroom. The data that the English teacher-collaborator had gotten about the students’ activities had been done and undone. The students who had done activities were 26 (78.78 %) students. The students who did not do activities there were 7 (21.21 %) students.

To make it cle clear the percentage of the students who had done done and undone activities could be vi viewed in the graphic below.

P Percentage

30 F Frequency

Graphic 5 : the : the percentage of the students’ activities that ha t had been done

and undone in the third meeting of Cycle III a

Moreover, the the result of researcher’s activities in the third mee eeting of Cycle

I, there were 10 activi ctivities had been done of 12 activities (83.33%) a ) and there were

2 activities still undone undone of 12 activities (6.06%). It can be seen i n in the graphic below.

100 Perc ercentage

10 6.06% 2 Freque requency

Done

Undone

Graphic 6 : : the percentage of the researcher’s activities t s that had been done and undone of third meeting of Cycle I

In implementing Project-Based Learning in the third meeting of Cycle I, there were some students’ weaknesses, there were: (1) Some of the students did not know generic structures and language features in

descriptive text. (2) Some of the students did not know the kinds of descriptive text. (3) Some of the students could not identify the identification and description of

descriptive text. In implementing Project-Base Learning in the third meeting of Cycle I, there were some strengths, namely: (1) Most of the students knew generic structures and language features in

descriptive text. (2) Most of the students could identify the identification and description in descriptive text. (3) Most of the students could differentiate the kinds of descriptive text. .

d) Reflection

After doing the action in the classroom, the researcher noted, analyzed and concluded the result of the research. Then, the researcher analyzed the students’ evaluation sheet. The result of the students’ evaluation sheet in the third meeting of Cycle I could be showed in the table on the next page.

Table 2

The STUDENTS’ ABILITY in WRITING DESCRIPTIVE TEXT by USING PROJECT-BASED LEARNING in the THIRD MEETING of CYCLE I

MCC Level

Frequency Percentage Very Good

From the table above explained the students’ ability in writing descriptive text by using Project-Based Learning in Cycle I was failed. Some of the students did not pass on Minimum Competence Criterion (MCC) stated at school was 65 score. There was not student who got the value classified in “very good” and “good” level. There were 4 students (12.12%) who got the value classified in “enough” level. There were 24 students (72.72%) who got the value classified in “less” level, and there were 5 students (15.15%) who got the value classified in “fail” level. The highest score that the students got was 65 and the lowest score that the students got was 32.5. The average value that the students got was 36.77.

The clarrification of the students’ obtained value in the second meeting of Cycle I can be showed into graphic on the next page.

V Very Good

G Good2

E Enough

20 0% 0 L Less

0 Fail F

Very Ve Good Enough Less Fail

Good Good

Graphic 7 : The s The students’ ability in writing descriptive text by us y using Project- Based sed Learning in the third meeting of Cycle I

Based on the e he explanation above, the researcher concluded that hat the students’ ability in writing des descriptive text through Project-Based Learning w was still unable to increase the stude udents’ ability in the Cycle I. It was indicated by y looking at the Minimum Compete petence Criterion (MCC) of the English subject ct at the eighth grade which was 65 65 could not be achieved by the students by l y looking at the average of the stud students’ value above. Therefore, the researche cher decided to continue to the next c xt cycle by doing some improvements, there were: re:

(1) The resea searcher asked the students to learn more a about generic structured a ed and language features in descriptive text. (2) The resear earcher re-taught the students about identification on in descriptive text. (3) The resea searcher re-taught the students about the de description in descriptive ive text.

b. Cycle II

In conducting Cycle II, the research was done in two meetings by the following procedure:

1) First meeting

The implementation of Project-Based Learning in the first meeting of Cycle II was held on Thursday, September 1 st 2016. The research was conducted

based on some steps.

a) Planning

Before conducting the research in the classroom, the researcher prepared all the media that supported the students’ ability in writing descriptive text by using Project-Based Learning, such as; lesson plan, teaching material, observation sheet, field notes, evaluation sheet, teaching media and attendance list.

b) Action

In conducting the action, the researcher did some activities. For the first the researcher entered the classroom together with the English teacher-collaborator and greeted the students. As usual the English teacher-collaborator advised the students then she gave the chance to the researcher to start. At the beginning of the activities of teaching and learning process, the researcher checked the students’ attendance list by calling their name one by one. To ensure the students whether they had studied at home, the researcher reviewed and reminded the In conducting the action, the researcher did some activities. For the first the researcher entered the classroom together with the English teacher-collaborator and greeted the students. As usual the English teacher-collaborator advised the students then she gave the chance to the researcher to start. At the beginning of the activities of teaching and learning process, the researcher checked the students’ attendance list by calling their name one by one. To ensure the students whether they had studied at home, the researcher reviewed and reminded the

Next, the researcher acquainted the new text to the students related to descriptive text that was “My Best Friend”. Regarding to the text, the researcher taught students in writing the example of descriptive text through the steps of procedure of Project-Based Learning. Then, the researcher designs a plan for the project by asking the students to form a group and determine what project that should be done. After that, the researcher gave time to the students in a few minutes and asked them to submit their project after they had finished it, and then the researcher asked them to perform in front of the class. While the students presenting their project, the researcher analyzed and evaluated their ability.

In the post teaching-learning activities, the researcher improved their mistake in writing the example of descriptive text by using Project-Based Learning. After that, the researcher suggested them to learn more. Before ended the meeting the researcher gave chance to them to make questions. Then, the researcher concluded teaching material. Finally, the researcher closed the meeting by greeting them.

c) Observation

In the step of of observation, all social events happened in the c he classroom was investigated by the the English teacher-collaborator. Furthermore, t , the researcher noted the weakness ss and strength during applying Project-Based Le Learning. Based on the result of inve nvestigation by the English teacher-collaborator, t or, there were the students who had be d been done and undone the activities. There were 29 stude tudents (87.87%) who had done activities and nd there were 4 students (12.12%) who ) who undone the activities. To understand the perc percentage of the students’ activities c s could be seen on the graphic below.

60 Perc ercentage

Freque requency

Graphic 8 : P Percentage of the students’ activities in the first irst meeting that

had been done and undone of the Cycle II ha

Furthermore, ba e, based on the result of the English teacher-colla ollaborator there were 20 activities (95.23% (95.23%) that the researcher had done and there wa e was 1 activity (4.76%) that the resea searcher did not do. Clearly, the percentage can be n be seen in the graphic on the next pa page.

Graphic 9: The The percentage of the researcher’s activities that h t had been done and undone in the first meeting of Cycle II and undone

In implementi nting Project-Based Learning in the first meeting ting of Cycle II, there were some stude udents’ weaknesses, there were: (4) Some of the stude tudents got difficulties in identifying the generic eric structure of

descriptive text. t. (5) Some of the stude udents did not know language features in descriptive ptive text. (6) Some of the st students were not able in identifying the de description of

descriptive text. t. Moreover, in in implementing Project-Based Learning there here were some strengths, namely: (1) Most of the stude udents knew generic structures of descriptive text. t. (2) Most of the stude udents knew language features of descriptive text. t. (3) Most of the stude udents knew to identify the description of descriptive ptive text.

d) Reflection

In the first meeting in Cycle II, the students paid attention to students’ activities, noted the result of observation and analyzed the result of observation. Therefore, there were some improvements to be done by the researcher in the second meeting, they were:

(1) The researcher suggested students to learn about generic structure of descriptive text. (2) The researcher suggested the students to learn more about language features of descriptive text. (3) The researcher would explain detail about description of descriptive text.

2) Second meeting

The implementation of Project-Based Learning in the second meeting of Cycle II was held on Tuesday, September 6 th 2016. To conduct the research the

researcher followed some procedure:

a) Planning

In the phase, the researcher prepared all the need before implementing the action such as: lesson plan, teaching material, observation sheet, field notes, observation sheet, teaching media and attendance list.

b) Action

In action phase, the researcher started to conduct the research in the classroom. The researcher went to the classroom with the English teacher- collaborator. In the pre teaching-learning activities, the researcher greeted and asked the students’ condition. Then the researcher checked the students’ attendance list. Before the researcher would continue whilst teaching, the researcher motivated them and asked their prior knowledge about the last material. Then, the researcher asked each group to show back their project that they had brought as the researcher instructed them in the first meeting.

In the whilst-teaching activity, the researcher asked the students to sit down based on their group. Before the researcher continued to explain material, the researcher and the students discussed the weaknesses in the first meeting. Then, the researcher improved the students’ error during doing the procedure and gave feedback to the students based on what they had already done. After that, the researcher explained more about the topic by giving some examples like the student’s final product. To make it clear how to do the project, the researcher explained about generic structure and language features used in writing descriptive text by posting the other examples. Then, the usage of adjective in describing a person is continued to be explained by the researcher. And then, the researcher asked each group to revise their project and the description of an idol that they had made to make it better. The researcher collected the student’s project and assessed In the whilst-teaching activity, the researcher asked the students to sit down based on their group. Before the researcher continued to explain material, the researcher and the students discussed the weaknesses in the first meeting. Then, the researcher improved the students’ error during doing the procedure and gave feedback to the students based on what they had already done. After that, the researcher explained more about the topic by giving some examples like the student’s final product. To make it clear how to do the project, the researcher explained about generic structure and language features used in writing descriptive text by posting the other examples. Then, the usage of adjective in describing a person is continued to be explained by the researcher. And then, the researcher asked each group to revise their project and the description of an idol that they had made to make it better. The researcher collected the student’s project and assessed

In the post activities, the researcher asked the students to make question and the researcher answered it. Before ended the meeting, the researcher concluded teaching material. Finally, the researcher ended the meeting by greeting the students.

c) Observation

In the observation phase, the English teacher-collaborator observed all happened in the classroom. He noted the all the students who had done and undone the activities during the teaching and learning process. Also he observed how many aspects that the researcher did and did not do in the classroom. Furthermore, the researcher noted the weaknesses and strength during implementing the steps of procedure of Project-Based Learning.

Based on the English teacher-collaborator’s observation, there were 2 (6.06%) students who did not do activities. While there were 31 (93.93%) students who had done activities. To understand the percentage of students’ activities can

be seen on the graphic in the next page.

60 Percentage P

40 Series 2 S

Graphic10 : : The percentage of the students who had been done n done and

undone activities in the second meeting of Cycl ycle II Moreover, in t in the second meeting of Cycle II the researcher’s r’s activities that had been done were 17 e 17 activities (100%) and there was not activity ( ty (0%) that was not done by the rese esearcher. Clearly, the observation result of the the researcher’s activities can be viewe ewed in graphic on the graphic below.

60 Pe Percentage

40 17 Frequency Fre

Graphic 11 : : The percentage of the researcher’s activities t s that had been done and undone in the second meeting of Cycl ycle II

In implementing Project-Based Learning in the second meeting of Cycle II, there were some strengths, namely: (1) The students were able to identify the kinds of descriptive text. (2) The students were able to identify the generic Structure of descriptive text. (3) The students could identify language features of descriptive text. (4) The students could identify the identification of descriptive text. (5) The students were able to identify the description of descriptive text.

d) Reflection

After doing the action in the classroom, the researcher noted, analyzed and concluded the result of the research. Then, the researcher analyzed the students’ evaluation sheet. The result of the students’ evaluation sheet in the second meeting of Cycle II can be showed in the table below.

Table 3 The STUDENTS’ ABILITY in WRITINNG DESCRIPTIVE TEXT by USING

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING in the SECOND MEETING of CYCLE II MCC

Percentage Very Good

The students’ value classification above, it showed that there were 3 students (9.09%) who got the value classified in “ Very Good” level. There were

22 students (66.66%) 66.66%) who got the value classified in “Good” level. vel. There were 8 students (24.24%) who who got the value classified in “Enough”, and t nd there was not students who got value value in “Less” and “Fail” level. The students’ hig high value in the second meeting of Cy Cycle II was 87.5 and the lowest value was 66.25 66.25. Then, the average of the student udents value was 74.70.

Based on the r he result of the students’ ability in mastering voca cabulary above, the researcher describ ribes it into graphic below.

60 Very Good

Less Very ry

Good ood

Enough Less

Fail

Graphic 12 : The stude tudents’ ability in writing descriptive text by using ng Project- Based Le d Learning in the second meeting of Cycle II

The result on on the graphic showed that the students’ ability i y in writing had achieved the MCC (M (Minimum Competence Criterion) that had been been specified. It can be concluded tha that Project-Based Learning increases the student udents’ ability in writing descriptive te text. Thereby, the researcher did not continue to to perform the research in the next cy t cycle.

3. The Students’ Activities for All Cycles

In the first meeting of Cycle I, the students who had been done the activities were 18 students (52.95%) and the students who did not do the activities were 15 students (45.45%). Furthermore, in the second meeting of Cycle I, the students who had been done the activities were 24 students (72.72%) and the students who did not do the activities were 9 students (27.27%). Meanwhile, in third meeting of Cycle I there were 26 students (78.78%) who had been done activities and there were 7 students (21.21%) who did not done activities.

In the first meeting of Cycle II, the students who had been done the activities were 29 students (87.87%) and the students who did not do the activities were 4 students (12.12%). Moreover, in the second meeting of Cycle II, the students who had been done the activities were 31 students (93.93%) and the students who did not do the activities were 2 students (6.06%). So, the entire students’ activities can be viewed in the table on the next page.

Table 4 The STUDENTS’ ACTIVITIES for ALL CYCLES

No. Cycle Meeting

1 I meeting

2 II Second

4. The Researcher’s Activities for All Cycles

In the first meeting of Cycle I, the researcher’s activities that had been done were 16 activities (66.66%) and there were 8 activities (33.33%) that was not done by the researcher. Then, in the second meeting of Cycle I, the researcher’s activities that had been done were 13 activities (76.47%) and there were 4 activities (23.52%) that were not done by the researcher. Moreover, in the third meeting of Cycle I the researcher’s activities that had been done there were 10 activities (83.83%) and there were 2 activities (6.06%) still undone.

In the second meeting of Cycle II, the obtained result of the researcher’s activities that had been done were 20 activities (95.23%) and there were 1 activity (4.76%) that was not done by the researcher. Moreover, in the second meeting of Cycle II, the researcher’s activities that had been done were 17 activities (100%) and there was not activity (0%) that was not done by the researcher.

To make clearer the researcher’s activities for all cycles, it can be viewed in the table below.

Table 5 The RESEARCHER’S ACTIVITIES for ALL CYCLES

No. Cycle Meeting

Criteria

Frequency Percentage (%)

16 66.66% First meeting

1 I Second meeting

Undone

10 83.33 Third meeting

20 95.23% First meeting

17 100% Second meeting

Done

Undone

5. The Students’ Ability in Writing Descriptive Text by Using Project-Based Learning for All Cycles

The students’ ability in writing descriptive text in Cycle I showed that there was not student who got the value classified in “ Very Good” and “Good” level. There were 4 students (12.12%%) who got the value classified in “Enough” level. There were 24 students (72.72%) who got the value classified in “Less” level. And there were 5 students (15.15%) who got the value classified in “Fail” level. The students’ high value in the second meeting of Cycle I was 65 and the lowest value was 32.5. Then, the average of the students value was 36.77.

Moreover, in Cycle II showed that there were 3 students (9.09%) who got the value classified in “ Very Good” level. There were 22 students (66.66%) who got the value classified in “Good” level. There were 8 students (24.24%) who got the value classified in “Enough”. And there was not student who got the value classified in “Less” and “Fail” level. The students’ high value in the second meeting of Cycle II was 87.5 and the lowest value was 66.25. Then, the average of the students value was 74.70. Thus, the students’ ability in writing descriptive text for all cycles can be described in the table on the next page.

Table 6

The STUDENTS’ ABILITY in WRITING DESCRIPTIVE TEXT after APPLYING

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING

No. Cycle

Meeting

Level

Frequency Percentage (%)

1 I Enough

Very Good

2 II Enough

Very Good