B. Analysis of the Data
In analyzing the comparison between the pre-test, post-test 1, and post-test 2 of each cycle, the writer used the calculation of the mean score
of the class, class percentage who passed KKM, and percentage of students‟ improvement score from pre-test, post-test 1, and post-test 2.
In order to get the mean score in the pre-test. The writer used the formula of :
Pre-test
Σx = 2330 n = 39
X = = 59,74
From the calculation above, it could be concluded that the result of pre-test before implementing an interactive technique in the classroom
action reseacrh was 59,74. The score was still under the KKM, it could be categorized that the result was still low.
The writer also calculated the percentage of the students who passed KKM 75. The writer used the formula of :
P = x 100
It was known that : F = 9 Students who have passed KKM
N= 39 Amount of the respondent
P= x 100 = 23,07
From the calculation above, it could be concluded that the students who have passed KKM was only 23,07 . There were only 9 students
who have passed in KKM 75. Then, the rest, there were 30 students who did not pass KKM.
The next was, the result of post-test 1. The aim of post-test 1 was to know about the improvement from the pre-test to post-test 1. The first
step that should be calculated was the mean score of post-test 1. In order to get the mean
score in the pre-test. The writer used the formula of :
Post-Test 1
Σx = 2920 n = 39
X = = 74,87
Based on the result above, the mean of the post-test 1 was 74,87. It meant that there was an improvement from the pre-test 59,74 to the post-
test 1 74,87. It was improved 15,13 points 74,87 - 59,74. The next step was to know the percentage if the students‟ score
who passed KKM. The writer used the formula of :
P = x 100
It was known that : F = 22 Students who have passed KKM
N= 39 Amount of the respondent
P= x 100 = 56,41
Based on the calculation above, the students‟ score who passed KKM was 56,41 . It could be concluded that there were 22 students who
passed KKM, the others 17 students did not pass the KKM, but there was an improvement from the pre-test 23,07 to the post-test 1 56,41.
The points increased 33, 34 56,41 - 23,07.
There was an improvement of students who passed KKM. In the pre-test there were only 9 students who passed KKM, but for the post-test
there were 22 students who could pass KKM. The
n, to get the percentage of students‟ improvement score from pre-test to post-test 1, the writer used a formula of :
P= x 100
It was known that : Y1 = 74,87 mean from post-test 1
Y = 59,74 mean from pre-test P =
x 100 = 25,32 Based on the result of calculation, the students‟s improvement
score from pre-test to post-test 1 was 25,32. The writer still needed to continue the cyle into cycle 2 because in
this research the students did not yet reachthe criteria of minimal criterion standard.
In cycle 2, the writer used the similar step of cycle 1 to calculate the result of post-test 2. The aim of calculating post-test 2 was to know the
improvement from post-test 1 to post-test 2. The first step that need to do was mean score from the post-
test 2. After that, the percentage of students‟ score who passed KKM 75, and the last was the percentage of students‟
improvement score from post-test 1 to post-test 2. In order to get the mean score in the pre-test. The writer
used the formula of :
Post-Test 2 Σx = 3360
n = 39 X =
= 86,15
Based on the calculation above, the writer got the mean score of post-test 2. It was 86,15. From that result, it could be concluded that an
improvement occured from the post test1 74,87 - post-test 2 86,15. The points were 11,28 86,15 - 74,87.
Next, in calculating the percentage of the students who passed KKM, the writer used the formula of :
P = x 100
It was known that ; F = 39
N =39
Post-test 2 : P =
x 100 = 100 Based on the result above, the improvement was significant
because all of the students were passed KKM. The last in calculating the percentage of students‟ improvement
score from pre-test 1 to post-test 2, the writer used the formula of :
P = x 100
It was known that : Y2 = 86,15 mean score from post-test 2
Y = 59,74 mean score from pre-test P =
x 100 = 44,2 From the result above, the percentage of students‟ improvement
score from pre-test to post-test 2 was 44,2. It showed an improvement from the score before, the scores were 18,88 44,2 - 25,32.
From all of the result above, it could be concluded that the Classroom Action research CAR succeed because it reached the target
of the Classroom Action Research successful criterion. The writer also did
not need to continue the next cycle because the students passed the KKM in 100.
C. Interpretation of the Data
Kategori