# Findings by andriasbudipurwanto

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 16

This chapter sconsisted of the findings of the researh and discussion that contains of interperation of data analysis in the detail.the findings of the reseasch covers the result of data collected through the writitng test.

• pg 1
```									                                         CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter sconsisted of the findings of the researh and discussion that contains of

interperation of data analysis in the detail.the findings of the reseasch covers the result of data

collected through the writitng test.

A. Findings

SIKLUS 1

1. Planning

This activity was done before the action, where the researcher prepared the lesson

plan through implementing the clustering technique, and teaching material, and

evaluation for students.

2. Action

The activity in this stage was the implementation of the lesson plan. It means that the

implementation of every steps of the learning process through clustering technique which

had been arranged in the planning stage.

The stages were done in the lesson plan at the cycle 1 as follows:
3. Observation

The students collected their final writing, and it was analyzed as follows:

a. The Students’ Progress in Content

1) The students’ mean score in content

The use of clustering technique in the form of teaching strategy of English

Writing skill could assess the students’ achievement of content. It is proved by the

writing test as indicated by the significant difference between the score of the data

source and the result of cycle 1 in the following table.

Data Source                 Result of Cycle 1                Percentage

32                             33                         3.125%

The data in the table above shows the students’ writing skill in content as the

result of calculating of the data source and students’ test at the students’ improving

writing by using clustering technique, where the students’ score in data source is

different from the students’ test. The mean score in data source was 32 and the

students’ test was 33. In other that, the students’ progress different in content was

3.125%, it was shown in this following graphic.
33
32.8
32.6
32.4
Data Source
32.2
Cycle 1
32
31.8
31.6
31.4

2) The students’ tabulation of frequency in content

Based on the data and analysis was got the result of learning writing

content in the cycle 1 in the following table and graphic below.

No               Score                Frequency                    Percentage

1.               10                       -                             -
2.               15                       -                             -
3.               20                       -                             -
4.               25                       -                             -
5.               30                      16                         29%
6.               35                       5                          9%
7.               40                       7                         12%
8.               45                       -                             -
10.               50                       -                             -
Total                      28                         50%
Average                                  33
30
30

25

20

15                                        40
35
10
5
0

Based on the table and graphic above, it can show that there are 16

students (29%) got score 30, 5 students (9%) got score 35, 7 students (12%) got

score 40. The average score was 33. The data also indicates that there are still 16

students got under the average.

b. The Students’ Progress in Language use.

1) The students’ mean score in language use.

The application of clustering technique as one of teaching strategy of English

writing could assess the students’ progress of writing skill to the good organization with

the writing test as indicated by the significant difference between the mean score of the

data source and the result of the cycle 1 as shown in the following table.

Data Source                  Result of Cycle 1                   Percentage

32                                 33                        3.125%

The data in the table above shows the students’ writing skill score as the result of

the calculating of students’ data source and the result of test at the students’ writing skill
in making good language use by using clustering technique, where the students’ mean

score in the in the data source was 32 and in the result of the cycle 1 was 33. Therefore, it

can be concluded that the students’ progress different was 3.125%.It was shown in this

following graphic.

33
32.8
32.6
32.4
Data Source
32.2
Cycle 1
32
31.8
31.6
31.4

2) The students’ tabulation of frequency in language use

Based on the data and analysis was got the result of learning writing content in the

cycle 1 in the following table and graphic below.
No                Score               Frequency                    Percentage

1.                10                       -                           -
2.                15                       -                           -
3.                20                       -                           -
4.                25                       -                           -
5.                30                       18                        36%
6.                35                       4                          8%
7.                40                       6                         22%
8.                45                       -                           -
10.                50                       -                           -
Total                            28                         50
Average                                        33

40                30

30
40
20

35
10

0

Based on the table and graphic above, it can show that there are 18 students (36%)

got score 30, 4 students (8%) got score 35, 6 students (22%) got score 40. The average

score was 33. The data also indicates that there are still 16 students got under the average.
Based on the findings above the students’ mean score in writing was 66, it means

that the students improvement from the data source to the cycle 1 was 3.125%. While, the

successful minimal criteria (KKM) was 70. So, it means that the activity in the cycle 1

had not achieved yet the successful minimal criteria (KKM).

4. Reflection

The series of activity as like planning, action, and observation would be continued

by reflection, to analyze the fault and success in the learning and teaching process. The

difficulty that the researcher found in the cycle 1 was the students still difficult to get idea

and organize their writing to be a good paragraph. To correct the weakness was found in

the cycle 1, so the researcher revised the lesson plan in the cycle 2. This revision of the

writing was done before the activity would be done, where the teacher would change the

activity in prewriting by implementing clustering technique.

SIKLUS 2

1. Revision Planning

This stage was done before implementing the action. The researcher prepared the

action as like revision of lesson plan, and the evaluation that would be used to collect the

data.

2. Action

The activity in this stage was the implementation of the lesson plan. It means that

the implementation of every steps of the learning process through Clustering techniqe

which had been revised in the planning stage.

The stages were done in the lesson plan at the cycle 1 as follows:
3. Observation

The students collected their final writing, and it was analyzed as follows:

a. The Students’ Progress in Content

1) The students’ mean score in content

The use of clustering technque in the form of teaching strategy of English Writing

skill could assess the students’ achievement of content. The extended writing was

implemented after doing several corrections from the first cycle. It is proved by the

writing test as indicated by the significant difference between the score of the result

of cycle 1 and the result of cycle 2 in the following table.

Result of Cycle 1             Result of Cycle 2                 Percentage

33                             35                           6.06%

The data in the table above shows the students’ writing skill in content as the

result of calculating of the data source and students’ test at the students’ writing skill

by using clutering techniqe, where the students’ score in data source is different from

the students’ test. The mean score in the result of cycle 1 was 33 and the result of

cycle 2 was 35. In other that, the students’ progress different in content was 6.06%, it

was shown in this following graphic.
35

34.5

34
cycle 1
33.5
cycle 2
33

32.5

32

2) The students’ tabulation of frequency in content

Based on the data and analysis was got the result of learning writing

content in the cycle 1 in the following table and graphic below.

No             Score                 Frequency                     Percentage

1.             10                        -                            -
2.             15                        -                            -
3.             20                        -                            -
4.             25                        -                            -
5.             30                       9                           16%
6.             35                       12                          22%
7.             40                       7                           12%
8.             45                        -                            -
10.             50                        -                            -
Total                       28                          50%
Average                                          35

35
12
30
10

8                                           40
6
4
2
0

Based on the table and graphic above, it can show that there are 9 students

(16%) got score 30, 12 students (22%) got score 35, 7 students (12%) got score

40. The average score was 35. The data indicates that there is improvement from

the cycle 1 to the cycle 2. Even though, there are still 9 students got value under

the average.

b. The Students’ Progress in Language use.

1) The students’ mean score in Language use.

The use of clustering techniqe in the form of teaching strategy of English

Writing skill could assess the students’ achievement of language use. The extended

writing was implemented after doing several corrections from the first cycle. It is

proved by the writing test as indicated by the significant difference between the score

of the result of cycle 1 and the result of cycle 2 in the following table.

Result of Cycle 1               Result of Cycle 2                     Percentage
33                              35                            6.06%

The data in the table above shows the students’ writing skill score as the result of

the calculating of students’ data source and the result of test at the students’ writing skill

in making good language use by using clustering technique, where the students’ mean

score in the in the data source was 32 and in the result of the cycle 1 was 33. Therefore, it

can be concluded that the students’ progress different was 6.06%. It was shown in this

following graphic.

35

34.5

34
cycle 1
33.5
cycle 2
33

32.5

32

2) The students’ tabulation of frequency in language use.

Based on the data and analysis was got the result of learning writing content in the

cycle 1 in the following table and graphic below.
No               Score              Frequency                  Percentage

1.                10                      -                         -
2.                15                      -                         -
3.                20                      -                         -
4.                25                      -                         -
5.                30                      6                       11%
6.                35                      15                      27%
7.                40                      7                       12%
8.                45                      -                         -
10.               50                      -                         -
Total                           28                       50
Average                                      35

30                           35

25

20

15               30
40
10
5
0

Based on the table and graphic above, it can show that there are 6 students (11%)

got score 30, 15 students (27%) got score 35, 7 students (12%) got score 40. The average
score was 35. The data indicates that there is improvement from the cycle 1 to the cycle

2. Even though, there are still 6 students (11%) under the average score.

Based on the findings above the students’ mean score in writing was 70 and the

successful minimal criteria (KKM) was 70. So, it means that the activity in the cycle 2

the students can achieve the successful minimal criteria (KKM).

4. Reflection

The result of the reflection in the cycle 2 was shown that there was the significant

improvement from the cycle 1 to the cycle 2, where the students’ mean score could be

increase from 6.4 in the data source to be 7.00 in the cycle 2. So, the researcher

concluded that the indicator in writing could be achieved, it means that the researcher

didn’t need to do next cycle.

B. DISCUSSION

This part is divided into two elements of writing as follows:

1. Content

The improvement the students’ writing ability by using clustering tehnique had

effect that was effective. Where, the researcher found in the data source of content that

the students just could get score that was 32, it means that it was far from the target, but

after implemented the students could get the indicator score that was 35 in the cycle 2.

The researcher taught about the narrative paragraph in the cycle 1 through

implementation of clustering techniqe in the class. The researcher found that the students

still difficult to write, they are still confused what they want to write in the paper. So, the
result of their idea that they write in their writing was still less. For example in the

closing test of the theme “WENT TO BEACH” just contained one sentence, last week I

went to losari beach white my friends.

The difficulty of the students in writing had been analyzed, so the researcher had

to think the solution of the problem. So, the researcher decided to do the cycle 2 by doing

revision in the lesson plan which prepared in revision planning of cycle 2.

The result of revision planning to resolve the students’ difficulty in getting idea

was in the prewriting activity the researcher changed the method free writing to be

clustering. Besides changing the method in prewriting the researcher also change the

teaching material of narrative text. It was done to avoid the repetition in learning and

teaching process.

Based on the findings above, the researcher found there was a good response from

the students about the implementation revision planning of extended writing project

assessment. Where, the students’ mean score could get the target score that was 35.

2.    Language use

Implementation of clustering technique in the class, the researcher found that the

mean score of data source in language use was 32. In the cycle 1, the students just got 33,

and in the cycle 2, the students got 35. Meanwhile the target score was 35, it means that

the target score could be achieved in the cycle 2.

The researcher taught about the narrative test in the cycle 1 through

implementation of clustering echnique in the class. The researcher found that the students
had difficulty to organize the idea. The students have less skill in organization element of

writing.

Narrative test consists of introduction, complication and resolution. Meanwhile,

the result of the students’ writing is still vague the readers. They do not finish one space.

They have to tell about certain space then other. For example, the theme of “WENT TO

BEACH”, in the first paragraph the students should finish telling the orientation part of

narrative paragraph then they move to second paragraph as complication. The fact, they

had not finished yet the orientation part then they move to another paragraph. So, their

writing was still vague for the readers.

Based on the unsuccessful teaching in the cycle 1, the researcher decided to do

cycle 2. In the cycle 2, the researcher revised the lesson plan. Where, when the researcher

explained about the kind of paragraph the researcher should explain more clearly, if

needed gave the students occasion to ask about the material. Besides that, the researcher

had to give better guidance for the student in organizing their idea.

Based on the findings above, the researcher found that the students could be more

understand about the space of paragraph, for example: the descriptive paragraph of their

“HOME”, the students explained about their home regularly (Introduction-body-

conclusion).

Finally, the students’ mean score could get the target score that was 35. The

researcher concluded that the students’ writing mean score based on the elements of

content and language use was 70, it means that the target that had been said in the chapter

1 could be achieved.

```
To top