64
The researcher needed to give clearer instruction. If it was needed, the instruction could be written on the board.
Based on the reflection of the implementation in the first cycle, it could be seen that students‟ participation had increased. However, the researcher decided to
plan and conduct the second cycle. The aim of conducting the second cycle was to confirm and make the English learning process better during the implementation
of active learning. The planning of conducting cycle two was based on the reflection result of cycle one.
2. Cycle two
In making the planning on the second cycle, the researcher paid attention to the reflection result. There were some important things the researcher should
consider. They were about the grouping and the way of giving instruction to the students. However, the researcher should continue doing what run well during the
implementation of active learning in the first cycle. a.
Planning meeting one and meeting two The first meeting of cycle two was conducted on Thursday, October 21,
2010. The topic of the first meeting was about listening procedure. The learning activities included in this meeting were lecture, group discussion, and class
discussion. In this meeting, the students would listen to a procedure text and do the worksheet provided by the researcher. Before the implementation of the first
meeting, the researcher prepared the lesson plan, learning material including the audio material, the tape, and the worksheet for the students. In preparing this
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
65
meeting, the researcher needed to pay a greater attention for this was a listening class. Researcher should prepare everything well, especially the audio player
tape and should make sure that the tape could run well so that the volume was loud enough. This was done in order to make the English learning process run
well. Researcher also prepared the instruments to be used by the observer. The instruments were observation sheet and notes.
The second meeting of cycle two would be conducted after the implementation of meeting one. The topic of meeting two was about speaking
procedure. After having a listening procedure class, in the second meeting the students learned speaking English. They would have a practice on speaking
procedure. In the second meeting, the students had a game, group discussion, class discussion, and students‟ presentation. As what the researcher had done, the
researcher also paid attention to the evaluation of the first meeting. Therefore, the researcher would also paid attention to the evaluation of the first meeting later. If
there was something to be improved, the researcher should add it into the plan. Before conducting second cycle, the researcher prepared everything including the
stuff for the game, lesson plan, learning material, and all instruments needed by the observer to observe students‟ participation. They were observation sheet and
notes. b.
Implementing meeting one Since the topic was listening procedure, the students would have listening
class that they never had before in English class. In pre – activity, the students
were required to share to their friends about their favorite food and how to make
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
66
the food. In this activity, the students had group discussion and they also practiced speaking English. The class situation was noisy, but it was because the students
were practicing. In order to control the students and to make sure that the students practiced well, the researcher told that everyone should be ready whenever they
were asked about their partner‟s sharing related to their favorite food. By doing this, actually the students already practiced listening to a procedure text through
their friends ‟ sharing. In sharing, the students also asked their friends and
researcher about some difficult words. Some question s were “Miss, what is
mengupas in English?
” “Miss, what is menyiram in English?” “Miss, what is mengoleskan
in English?” “Miss, what is merebus in English?” Sometimes, the researcher needed to get closer to some students who did not share seriously to
ask the students about what their partners were talking about. This was done in order to make the students more serious in practicing. After sharing, the students
did the worksheet. The worksheet was about vocabularies used mostly in procedure, especially in cooking.
After that, the students and the researcher discussed the result together. Then the students tried to guess what they were going to study related to the
exercise they had done. In this class discussion, most of the students gave the right answer that they were going to study about procedure. The researcher and the
students reviewed briefly about what procedure was in order to let the students gain their background knowledge about procedure text.
In whilst – activity, the students prepared the worksheet and tried to
understand the task. The researcher gave instruction and gave explanation to the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
67
students about what they were going to do. Before the researcher played the audio, the students put themselves into the most comfortable seat. Even some students
moved to the other chairs in order to get closer with the tape, so that they would be able to listen to the audio more clearly. The researcher allowed the students to
do so, because the volume of the tape was limited. The students were to do the worksheet. They should fill the blanks based on the order of the ingredients given
in audio material. While the audio was being played, all students were listening to the audio seriously and doing the worksheet. When the audio ended, the
researcher checked whether the students had answered the worksheet completely or not. Some of the students had not completed the answers. Therefore, the audio
material was played three times. This was carried out in order to make the students complete the answers and make them sure about their answers. While the
audio was played, the researcher prepared the board for the students to write the answers on it. In finishing the worksheet, the researcher gave time limitation. The
students randomly wrote the answers on the board. After all questions were answered and written on the board, the researcher and the students discussed the
answers together. During the class discussion, the students actively gave comments on their friends‟ answers. They commented “the spelling is wrong,
Miss”, “I have different answer”, and “no, no, it is not the answer, Miss. It should be lettuce.”
After having a class discussion, the students prepared for the next exercise. On the next exercise, the students were to put the pictures in order. The students
should give the right number for the nine random pictures of the procedure of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
68
cooking a traditional food. The students should listen to the audio carefully since the speed of the audio was faster than the first audio material. In this section, the
audio was also played three times. The students listened to the audio material more seriously. After they had finished putting the pictures into the right order,
the researcher and the students discussed the answers together. Again, the students were required to write down the answers on the board. In this time, the students
who came in front were the students who had not come and written the answers on the board in the previous section. This was carried out in order to give
opportunities to the students who had not participated in writing the answers on the board. Then the researcher and the students were discussing the answers
together. Before conducting the class discussion, the researcher asked the students whether they had different answers and opinion or not. Some students had
different answers but they said “I don‟t know, Miss” and “I am not sure, Miss”. All students‟ answers on the board were right. In order to refresh students‟ minds,
the researcher asked the students to share with their partners about the food they did not like and the reason. While doing this activity, the students looked
enthusiastic. Students said “I hate lotek and gado – gado. It is full of vegetables,” “I don‟t like pineapple. It is not delicious,” and “The fruit that I don‟t like is
durian. I don‟t like the smell.”
In post – activity, the researcher and the students together reviewed the
materials they had learned on that day. They shared about their feeling of having a listening class. They also shared their opinion about listening procedure. Most of
them were happy.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
69
c. Implementing meeting two
In pre – activity, the researcher persuaded the students to review the
previous lesson together. The researcher asked some questions to the students related to procedure text they had learned in the previous meeting. This was to
gain students‟ background knowledge and to let the students recall procedure text. The students answered the questions well. Their answers were “procedure text”,
“how to make a food”, and “using conjunction”. After that, the students had a game. The whole class was divided into four groups. In dividing the group, the
researcher asked the students to count, so that the group members were random. This was carried out to avoid the students to talk each other. In this game, each
group would receive an envelope containing of a procedure of making or operating something randomly. The text of each group was different. Each
group‟s task was to arrange the procedure text in order. In arranging the text, the students worked together. The class situation was noisy since they discussed in
the group. The researcher gave time limitation for about five minutes to do the task. After finishing arranging the procedure text, one student of each group
presented the result of their work. All answers were correct. By conducting the game, the students got the idea about what they were going to learn in that
meeting. In whilst activity, the researcher distributed handouts contained the
material of procedure text to the students. The researcher and the students discussed together about procedure text. During the class discussion, the
researcher often asked questions to the students to let the students develop their
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
70
ways of thinking and develop their English speaking skill. Researcher asked questions like “What is procedure text?”, “What is the purpose of procedure
text?”, “What is temporal conjunction? Could you give some examples of temporal
conjunction?” and “What is action verb?” Some of the students raised their hands whenever they wanted to answer the questions, but some students
answered the questions directly. The researcher gave the chance for the students who tended to be quiet in class. Students answered the questions correctly. Before
continuing the lesson, the researcher asked the students whether they had understood or they still had difficulties in understanding the procedure text. In this
opportunities, some students asked questions to the researcher. One of the questions was “What if the steps are in a form paragraph, Miss?”
The next activity was practice speaking procedure. Before all students practiced, the researcher gave opportunities to the students who wanted to read a
dialogue provided an example of dialogue of procedure text. There were four students who practiced the dialogue in front of the class. The students who
practiced were not chosen. The students came in front voluntary. This was carried out in order to make the students confident and to make them get accustomed to a
dialogue of procedure text. The researcher provided lottery for the students. Each student took a lottery randomly. Then they had to find their partners who got the
same topic. The topic later would be the topic of the procedure text which the students made and practiced. There were six different topics. With their partners,
the students should make a dialogue of procedure in making or operating something. The researcher gave ten to fifteen minutes for the students to make the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
71
dialogue. In this activity, the students had group discussion. During the process of making the dialogue, the students were asking many questions related to the
vocabularies used in their dialogues of procedure. Their questions were “What is
mencampur in English?
” “What is menuang in English?” “What is sedikit gula in English?” “What is mengangkat telepon in English?” “What is menyalakan in
English?” The other questions were related to their performances. They asked the researcher whether they could use some objects to be presented when they
performed or not. They asked, “Miss, can I use this to perform?” Besides, they
also asked to confirm whether their work was correct or not. They asked, “Miss, is this correct?” After the students had finished making the dialogue, they came in
front of the class and presented their dialogue. It was free for the students to come in front of the class and present what they had made. Some students practiced
well. Some students used objects to present and some students did not read the text.
In post – activity, the researcher and the students had a class discussion
rel ated to students‟ performance. Some students gave comments on their
performances. They said “The voice is too low, Miss,” “The dialogue is not fair,”
and “I‟m not confidence, Miss.” The researcher also gave feed back on students‟ performance, including stu
dents‟ pronunciation, grammar, diction, and grammar. After that, the researcher and the students reviewed briefly about what they had
learned and what the purpose of learning speaking procedure text was.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
72
d. Reflecting cycle two
1 Meeting one
After implementing active learning in meeting one of second cycle, the researcher elaborated all data from observation conducted by the English teacher.
The researcher employed all data to carry out a reflection in order to see whether the English learning process could run well during the implementation of active
learning. Data in Table 4.4 showed the observation result of meeting one in second cycle.
Table 4.4 Observation Checklist of Meeting 1 of Cycle 2 No.
Aspects Existence
Notes Exist
No
1. Students pay attention to the teacher
√
Students listened to the teacher
2. Students do teacher‟s instruction
√
Students did what teacher asked them to
do. They practiced speaking, shared, and
did the worksheet. 3. Students try to speak in English
√
Students spoke in English and both
English – Indonesian
since they still found difficulties in speaking
English. The difficulties were related to the
vocabularies.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
73
No. Aspects
Existence Notes
Exist No
4. Students get involved in class discussion
√
Students were answering questions and
sharing their opinions. 5. Students get involved in group
discussion
√
Students discussed and shared in their small
groups. However, there were at least three
students who were not serious.
6. Students ask questions to the teacher
√
Most of the questions were related to students‟
difficulties in speaking vocabularies,
grammar. But some questions were related to
procedure text. 7.
Students answer
teacher‟s questions
√
Students answered teacher‟s questions
about procedure text pre
– activity, and the answers of the
worksheet. 8. Students do the task
√
Students shared in groups, listened to the
audio, and did the worksheet.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
74
Based on the result of the observation, all aspects existed. The students were actively participating. They paid attention to the researcher by listening to
the researcher. Therefore, whenever the researcher asked questions to the students, they could answer the questions. At the beginning of the class, the students were
required to share their favorite food and the procedure of making the food to their friends. The students seemed enthusiastic in conducting this activity. The first
observer‟s first note was the evidence of students‟ enthusiasm. In this meeting, the observer also found out that there were some students who were not serious.
However, the others participated. They did the learning activities such as sharing, listening to audio material, and doing the worksheet. Students were brave to ask
questions and answer questions. During the listening class, some students moved and placed themselves into the most comfortable place in order to make them
comfortable in listening to the audio and in doing the worksheet. Another reason was that they wanted to get closer to the audio player so they would be able to
listen to the audio more clearly. This enabled the students to do the worksheet well and get good score. Based on this fact, it could be seen that students had
initiative to do something in order to increase their abilities without being asked by the researcher.
In this meeting, there were some students who did not use English all the time. It was because they did not know some vocabularies in English. There were
students who spoke both English and Indonesian, even they switched the language from English to Indonesia. Based on the observation result, this was because the
students found difficulties in speaking English. Therefore, many students often
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
75
asked the researcher about some difficult vocabularies they did not know. It was proved by the field notes number eleven. Students also spoke English when they
asked or answered questions. When the audio material was played, all students were seriously listening to the audio and doing the worksheet.
From the field notes number five, there were two students who were sick during the class. However, they still got involved and they did their assignments.
Some students were critical. Whenever the students answered the wrong answers, other students gave correction to the wrong answers. They directly gave response
to something, especially to something they did not agree. They were able to share their opinion. Students had different ways of expressing their responses. Some of
them directly answered or said, but some students raised their hands first, and spoke after they were asked or allowed.
The students were willing to come in front of the class voluntary to do the assignment and to answer the questions. Based on the last number of the field
notes made by the observer, the students were nice and were not that arrogant towards a student whom they did not like. At the first time researcher
implemented active learning, it could be seen that there was a student whom other students did not like. Therefore, many students did not want to speak to and deal
with him. In this meeting it could be seen that now other students began to change their behavior towards the student whom they did not like. They felt more
comfortable and they seemed to welcome him.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
76
2 Meeting two
What students learned in the second meeting of cycle two was about speaking procedure. All students were present in this meeting.
Table 4.5 Observation Checklist of Meeting 2 of Cycle 2 No.
Aspects Existence
Notes Exist
No
1. Students pay attention to the teacher
√
Students listened to the teacher.
2. Students do teacher‟s instruction
√
Students did group discussion and paid
attention to the instruction.
3. Students try to speak in English
√
It was speaking class. Students practiced
speaking in English. 4. Students get involved in class
discussion
√
Students asked and answered questions
related to the material. Students shared opinion.
5. Students get involved in group discussion
√
Students discussed and work together to make a
dialogue of a procedure. 6. Students ask questions to the
teacher
√ Students‟ questions
were about vocabularies, tenses, rule of speaking
performances.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
77
No. Aspects
Existence Notes
Exist No
7. Students
answer teacher‟s
questions
√
Teacher asked questions related to students‟
k nowledge and students‟
opinion about procedure text.
8. Students do the task
√
Students had a game, discussed in group,
made dialogue, practiced and performed
speaking.
Table 4.4 showed that the students participated in English class during the implementation of active learning method. However, there were some students
who were not serious. Based on the field notes, there were four students who were noisy. Those students were the same students who were not serious in the
previous meetings. The other students were participating in game, group discussion, and presentation. They worked together with their friends to do the
task which was to arrange the procedure text. After that, they should present the result of students‟ discussion. The researcher chose the students who were to
present. Some of the students who presented in front of the class were the students who were less active in participating before. In class discussion, the students also
got involved in asking and answering the questions. Students were willing to give and share their opinion about something which they thought did not fit their
opinion. It was shown by observer‟s field notes number four.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
78
Based on the result of the field notes taken by the observer, the students could participate actively during English class. Moreover, the researcher
implemented active learning which had been reflected and evaluated before, in order to make it better. The students were working together cooperatively when it
came to the game in pre – activity. In order to control the students and manage
the class, the researcher decided to group the students randomly. In grouping the students, the researcher tried to make it better. The researcher grouped the
students randomly. Researcher asked the students to count to divide the students into four groups. The researcher placed the group much farer than before. This
was carried out in order to avoid the students to talk with others and to disturb other friends. In fact, it could minimize students‟ opportunities to talk too much,
especially with their close friends if they were in the same groups. It was shown by the note number two and seven. This enabled the students to focus and not to
disturb each other like what they did in the previous meeting. All answers were correct.
In whilst – activity, the students were to make a dialogue in pairs to be
presented in front of the class. Again, the researcher was trying to group the students randomly. The researcher employed lottery. This enabled the students to
get involved in finding their partners based on the topic they got. In making the dialogue, the students worked together. Some students who were usually noisy
could control themselves to not to talk too much since the partners they had were the quiet and serious students.
It was shown by observer‟s field notes number eight. During the process of making the dialogue, the researcher went around the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
79
class and saw students‟ dialogue. The class at that time was noisy, but it was because the students were discussing together. Students asked difficult
vocabularies when they made the dialogue. The observation result showed that students had willingness to present or
to perform without being asked first. It could be seen from the notes number eleven. Still, there were some students who did not pay attention sometimes, and
they were always the same students. It might be related to students ‟ attitude and
behavior. However, the students who were noisy in the beginning of the research then became more serious since they worked together with some students who
were also serious. Some students also enthusiastically asked questions to the researcher related to the material. There were many things they wanted to know at
that time. Those were the description of the implementation of active learning in
English learning process in cycle two. In brief, the researcher summarized the reflection result. The summary was as follows.
Students‟ participation increased. They asked many questions and often answered teacher‟s questions. Students‟ frequency of speaking English
increased than before. Due to the implementation of active learning, the students could build
good relationship between student – student and student – teacher.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
80
Students respected others more. Active learning could increase students‟ participation but could not totally
change students‟ behavior. Students who were noisy in class were always the same students all the time. Those students were talkative and they
often disturbed others.
3. Questionnaire result
