CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDING

In this chapter the writer tried to discuss about the description of data and
the interpretation of the data.
A. The Description of Data
Data is the important thing that must be in a research. It is used to know
how well the research is worked, to know how many students in the school are,
to know how the students interest in English material, to know the result of the
research, etc.
1. Finding of The Preliminary Research
In this section the writer discuss about the result of pre-questionnaire
and the result of the pre-test.
a. The Result of Pre-Questionnaire
The pre-questionnaire was conducted to know about the students
interest about English lesson, especially in writing skill. The
questionnaire was given to the students in the eleventh grader of MA
Abu-Darrin Bojonegoro on Wednesday, May 13th 2015. The description
of pre questionnaire as follow:
1. The students response toward The English Lesson
The result showed that 27.6% of the students liked English
lesson, 75.9% of the students felt fair to the English lesson and 0 %
of the students did not like the English lesson. It can be concluded
that most of the students still was less interested toward the English
lesson.
2. The students response toward the English skill (listening, speaking,
reading and writing)
It showed that 20.7% of the students liked the English skill,
79.3% of the students felt fair to the English skill and 3.4% of the

students did not like the English skill. It indicated that most of the
student was still little complicated in English skill.
3. The student response toward the difficulty in writing.
The result showed that 20.7% of the students felt difficult
towards the English writing, 34.5% of the students felt fair in writing
and 48.3% of the students felt difficult in English writing. It indicated
that the students was able to write in English although some of them
was still difficult about it.
4. The students response toward the solution in Writing skill.
The result showed that 34.5% of the students can be overcome
their difficulty, 68.9% of the students felt fair to overcome their
difficulty and 0 % of the students was not able to overcome their
difficulty in writing. So, the writer can say that most of the students
who felt fair were little bit able to overcome their difficulty in
writing.
5. The teachers style when teaching writing.
It showed that 31.0% of the students understood when was
teaching, 62.1% of the students felt fair when teacher teaching and
6,9 % of the students didnt understood when teacher teaching. Based
on this result we knew that the students were little bit understood
what the teacher taught in the class.
b. The Result of Pre-Test
The pre-test had done before the Classroom Action
Research (CAR). It was connducted in Wednesday, May 13 th 2015.
The students assigned to write narrative. To get the result of pretest, firstly, the writer calculated the mean score:

After that, to get the class precentage which pass Minimum

Mastery Criterion Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) 70 of 38
students, the writer use the formula below:
P=
P=
P = 7.41%
Based on the result of the pre-test, the data showed that the
mean score of pre-test was 31,16. There were only two students
who pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion Kriteria Ketuntasan
Minimal (KKM) meanwhile the other 25 students were beleow that
criterion.
2. Finding of The First Cycle
The first cycle included planning, acting, observing and
reflecting. For clearer, the following below are the explanation:
a. Planning
In this phase the writer and the teacher made a planning for
the action based upon the problems faced by the students toward
writing ability. In this case, the writer determined the selected
material and exercised into a lesson plan using Narrative-Scaffold.
The writer also prepared field notes to observe the students and
teachers activities in teaching and learning process whether in line
with the lesson plan had made before or not. And the writer also
prepared the post-test 1 to collect the data; to know whether there
are some students improvement scores from pre-test to post-test.
b. Acting

Action of the first cycle was on May 16 th and 20th 2015. The
writer implemented the teaching and learning process based on the
lesson plan that had been made. In the first meeting the teacher
started to give what material that would like to be learned by
students and explained the concept of Narrative-Scaffold. The
writer or teacher taught about narrative text and its characteristics.
Then the teacher explained about Narrative-Scaffold and asked the
students to make narrative text by using Narrative-Scaffold based
on the topic had given. In the second meeting the teacher tried to
evaluate the studentswriting and asked them about the difficulties
in writing narrative text by using Narrative-Scaffold.
c. Observing
In this step, the observer observed the teaching and learning
process through field notes; it might be about class situation,
students response, teachers preparation and teachers performance
in presented the material. In studens response, most of them payed
attention to the teachers explanation. But the students were still
confused about teachers explanataion. After the teacher gave some
explanation about the material, the teacher asked the students to do
the post-test 1.
In the second action of the first cycle, the teacher with the
students were together to evaluate what the students difficulties in
doing their writing. Based on the result of the post-test 1, the data
showed that the mean score of pre-test was 31,16. There were two
students who passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion Kriteria

Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) 70 (seventy). Meanwhile the other 25

students did not pass that criiterion.
d. Reflecting
In this phase, the teacher

discussed

about

the

implementation of the action. She tried to find out why the students
were still confused of doing their assignment. Further more, the
field notes showed that the teaching learning activities has done
well although there were some problems that should be solved. By
the reflecting phase, there must be more efforts to improve
students writing ability through Narrative-Scaffold. It needed to be
improved again in the next cycle.
3. Finding of The Second Cycle
In the second cycle, the stage was same as with the first cycle. There
were planning, acting, obeserving and reflecting.
a. Planning
The planning phase in the second cycle was implemented into a
lesson plan. In this case, the writer modified the previous lesson plan
based on the result of reflecting phase in the first cycle. The lesson plan
which was used still Narrative-Scaffold in learning writing. The material
still related with narrative text. However there were some modifications
in the second cycle; the teacher gave some key words to build students
vocabularies and asked them to bring their dictionary. Besides, still also
prepared field notes to observe classroom activities and also prepared the
post-test 2 to collect the data.
b. Acting
The action of the second cycle was done on May 25th 2015. Here,
the writer introduced a new topic about love. The writer also facilitated

students with dictionary and gave some keywords which related with the
topic have given. They asked to make a narrative draft by using
Narrative-Scaffold then made it into a good paragraph. It was the data for
the post-test 2.
c. Observing
In this second cycle, the class condition in learning process was
better than previous cycle. It could be seen from the field notes that the
students who were able to focus and to pay attention on the teacher
explanation and when they followed the wrriting lesson they enjoyed for
doing activities. They were more active to ask about what they did not
understand. It helped the teacher to know what they needed to.
Besides, the students were more ready to get new exercise than
before. It proved that in this phase they brought dictionary to do their
assignments where in their previous phase most of them did not bring
dictionary. Related to the teachers performance, she looked good in
delivering the mateials and leading the srutents in learning process. The
teacher explained to the students who had not understood yet about the
lesson patiently.
In the second action of cycle two, the teacher was held the posttest 2 regarding to the students writing ability of narrative text. Based on
the result of post-test 2, the mean score of the class in writing test was
75.41.
d. Reflecting
The reflection of Classroom Action Research (CAR) was carried
out after getting the result of field notes and post-test 2. The writer felt
satisfied in her efforts to improve the students writing ability. The result
of post-test 2 showed that 75.41%. So it had succeeded that 75% of the

students had to get the score the Minimum Mastery Criterion or above it.
Therefore the teacher decided to stop the Classroom Action Research
(CAR) because it had already succeeded.
2. Finding After Implementation The Action
The finding after implementation the action was consisted of two
parts. There were the result of post-questionnaire and the result of post-test.
For further description as following:
a. The Result of Post-Questionnaire
The post-quetionnaire was given to the students in the eleventh
grader on Monday 25th 2015. This quetionnaire have five quuetions. The
following was the description of the result of post-questionnaiire.
1. The students response toward teaching and learning writing through
Narrative-Scaffold
The result of questionnaire showed that 56.67% of the
students like using Narrative-Scaffold, 35.71% of the students felt
fair using Narrative-Scaffold and 3.57% did not like using NarrativeScaffold. It can be seen that most of the students like to learn writing
by using Narrative-Scaffold.
2. Narrative-Scaffold help the students to organize their writing.
It showed that 64.29% of the students felt helpful in learning
writing by using Narrative-Scaffold, 32.14% of the students felt fair
abot it and 3.57% did not feel helpful in learning writing by using
Narrative-Scaffold. It meant almost of the students agreed that
learning through Narrative-Scaffold was helpful to organize their
writing.
3. The students response toward learning writing
67.86 % of the students like writing, 28.57% of the students
felt fair toward learning writing, 3.57% of the students did not like

learning writing. It indicated that the students feeling about writing

was better than before.
4. Narative-Scaffold help the students in learning writing.
The result was 57.14% of the students felt helpful in writing by
using Narrative-Scaffold, 42.86% of the students felt fair about it. the
result showed tha most of the students agreed with the NarrativeScaffold could help them in learning writing.
5. Teachers style during teaching writing through Narrative-Scaffold
It was 57.14% of the students were interested in teacher style
during the action, 32.14% of the students felt fair about it and 10.71%
of the students were not interested in teacher style during the action.
It indicated that the teacher had done the action well.
b. The Result of Post-Test
The result of post-test 1 showed that the mean score of the class
derived 73.07 in which there were 16 students who passed the Minimum
Mastery Criterion-Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) 70 (seventy). The
following were the detail result of students writing in first in the first
cycle.
The writer need to calculate the mean score firstly to know the result of
students writing. The mean score derived from the following formula:

To get the class precentages which pass the Minimum Mastery

Criterion-Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) 70 (seventy) the writer
used the formula:
P=

P=
P = 59.26 %
The data showed that the men score of the post-test 1 was 69.00,
there were only eighteen students or 59.26 % of the students who got the
score above the Minimum Mastery Criterion - Kriteria Ketuntasan
Minimal 70 (seventy) meanwhile the other 11 students were below that
criterion.
There was a slight improvement of students mean score from the
students writing in the preliminary study of the students writing on the
first cycle. The improvement of the precentage derived from this
formula:
P=
P=
P = 57.35 %
The data showed that the mean score of the previous score was
43.85 and the mean score of the students writing on the first cycle was
69.00. That meant that there was 57.35 % of mean score improvement.
The following were the detail result of students writint on the
second cycle:
The calculation of the mean students score in writing post-test 2
gained 75.41. It was derived from:

Then the calculation of class precentage about the students who

passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal
(KKM):

P=
P=

P=

Finally the calculation of the improvement precentage

was gained from the following formula:
P=
P=
P = 71.92%
Based on the result of the students writing, there was better
improvement of students mean score from the students writing on the
preliminary study to the students writing in the second cycle. The mean

score of the first one was 43.85 and the mean score of writing post-test 2
in the second cycle was 75.41. It meant that there was 71.92 % of mean
score improvement. The students who passed the Minimum Mastery
Criterion Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) were 24 students or
88.89 % into class precentage. It indicated that the first criterion of
success has been achieved. The following was the table of studdents
writing score.
Table 4.1
The students writing score of pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2
No

Name

M1

Pre-test
49

Score
Post-test 1
75*

Post-test 2
77*

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
M16
M17
M16
M19
M20
M21
M22
M23
M24
M25
M26
M27
Total
Mean

60
35
40
56
40
65
35
30
30
40
69
75*
30
41
30
30
44
41
41
30
35
35
35
30
61
77*
1164
43.85

60
75*
75*
75*
75*
66
62
55
45
80*
75*
75*
60
60
60
60
75*
75*
65
75*
60
75*
75*
75*
75*
80*
1863
69.00

88*
75*
75*
75*
75*
79*
76*
75*
55
80*
88*
77*
62
75*
79*
62
76*
75*
75*
78*
75
75
77
75
77
80
2036
75.41

B. The Interpretation of Data

The students improvement in the writing ability from the preliminary
study to the second cycle was recapped in the figure below:

Figure 4.1
Students Improvement in writing score
In the preliminary study, the mean score of students on writing test
before carrying out Classroom Action Research (CAR) is 43.85. It was the
students writing score before they used Narrative-Scaffold. Meanwhile, the
class precentage which passed the Minimum Mastery Criterion-Kriteria
Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) were 7.41 %. It meant that there were only two
students who were able to pass the Minimum Mastery Criterion-Kriteria
Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) 70 (seventy) and there were 25 students were out
of the target.
Further more the mean score of the post-test in cycle 1 is 69.00. It
meant that there were some students score improvement from the previous
test that was 57.35%. Meanwhile the class precentage which passed the
Minimum Mastery Criterion-Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) in post-test
1 were 59.26%. It showed that there were 16 students who passed the
Minimum Mastery Criterion-Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) and there
were 11 students whose score were under the criterion. However the target of

75% of students should be passed the criterion had not achieved yet. So it was
still needed more improvement. That was way the writer or the teacher
continued to the second cycle.
The mean score in the post-test of the second cycle was 75.41. It
showed that there were improvement 4.19 (75.41 69.00) from the post-test
1 (69.00) or 59.26% students improvement in the score precentage from the
preliminary study. Meanwhile the class precentage which passed the
Minimum Mastery Criterion-Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) were
88.89%. It meant that there were 24 students who passed the criterion and
there were 3 students were under the target of Minimum Mastery CriterionKriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM). This class precentage showed some
improvements 88.89% from the preliminary (7.41%) and post-test 1
(59.26%). The post-test of cycle 2 has achieved the target of Classroom
Action Research (CAR), that was above 75% of the students could pass the
Minimum

Mastery

Criterion-Kriteria

Ketuntasan

Minimal

(KKM).

Automatically, it can be said that the Classroom Action Research (CAR) was
success and the cycle was stopped.