commit to user
Reflection +
The teaching and learning process in cycle 2 was improved.
+ The interaction among students in their group got better.
+ The researcher did his parts excellently as a controller, an
organizer, a resource, an observer and an assessor. +
The students can be considered as good participants. +
The students were braver to speak their ideas. +
They were no longer reluctant to write their sentences on the white board.
+ All their sentences were in English with minor mistakes.
+ Their reading comprehension was improved. It was
shown by improved scores. -
Some students still found difficulty in filling the K column. It happened because they had no prior knowledge about the topic.
- The process of filling the all columns took a long time. It made the
students get bored. -
There were still some students who did not read the whole text.
a. Planning Action
The researcher and the collaborator prepared for the next action in cycle 2 based on the result of the reflection in cycle 1. The preparation included:
designing lesson plan, preparing hand out, preparing slides on power point and preparing observation list such as filed notes and check list. The lesson plans were
designed for three meetings. It consisted: 1 Competence Standard; 2 Basic Competence; 3 Indicator; 4 Instructional Objective; 4 Learning Method; 5
Instructional Material; 6 Teaching and Learning Activities; 7 Assessment. The researcher and collaborator chose the topics which were familiar to the students.
The topics were “
Shark”
for the first meeting, “
Valentino Rossi”
for the second meeting, and “
Bali
:
The Gods’ Island
for the third meeting. After designing lesson plan, the researcher and the collaborator prepared
the hand outs which consisted of reading text and assessment. The assessments were in the form of essay with 10 questions that covered the instructional
commit to user
objectives in the lesson plan. Next activity was preparing slides on power point. The researcher made a chart of KWL on the slide, put pictures of the reading
topic, and wrote the indicator that the students had to achieve in the teaching learning process. After that the researcher and the collaborator prepared
observation instruments; field note and check list. The check list would be divided in to six categories. They were sharing ideas, asking questions, answering
questions, speaking out the ideas, coming in to the class on time, and in and out of the class. The researcher and the collaborator would use these two kinds of
instrument in observing the teaching and learning process done by the researcher and the students.
The next activity was forming the students’ group. Since there were 36 students, they were divided into 9 groups in which each group consisted of 4
students. The members of the groups were different from the ones in the cycle 1. The members of group 1 were PT, DV, AS, HER. Group 2 were BG, AD, AJ, SH.
Group 3 were RS, CC, MEY, KR. Group 4 were AM, ID, MN, NU. Group 5 were SN, RQ, FJ, DM. Group 6 were MD, NR, CH, FT. Group 7 were FR, FD, ST, AW.
Group 8 were AT, FU, AS, FL. Group 9 were AI, ML, AG, NV. The members of the group were mixed between the clever students and the students who were
considered lack in English. The purpose was to make the students help each other so that that process of teaching learning process could run as it was hoped.
To make the procedure more effective and efficient, the collaborator and the researcher agreed to divide the groups based on the steps and columns of
KWL. Group 1, group 2, group 3, group 4, and group 5 would be responsible for
commit to user
K column. Group 6, group 7, group 8, and group 9 would be responsible for W column. Finally, all the groups would fill the L column. The roles would be
changed in every meeting.
b. Action 1 First Meeting
