A. Data Analysis
1. Analysis of Quantitative Data
The researcher took three writing scores from orientation test score to cycle II score to show the improvement of students’ achievement in writing recount text. It was found out that the students’ scores improved from orientation test, cycle I to cycle II by means of peer review technique.
The scores of the students’ writing were calculated based on these components: content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanic. The improvement of the students’ writing scores in recount text after applying peer review can be seen as the follows:
Table 4.2 The Range of Score Improvement
| Ranges of score Improvement | Total Students | Students’ Initials | Orientation Score | Cycle II Score |
| 30 – 38 | 6 students | AYP | 42 | 73 |
| DSAP | 34 | 71 | ||
| HAA | 38 | 68 | ||
| JP | 34 | 64 | ||
| LG | 43 | 74 | ||
| SMESH | 43 | 73 | ||
| 21 – 29 | 13 students | AP | 71 | 92 |
| DRSP | 71 | 92 | ||
| FG | 45 | 72 | ||
| HN | 57 | 84 | ||
| HS | 47 | 71 | ||
| IDU | 68 | 90 | ||
| JPT | 44 | 73 | ||
| MSS | 67 | 89 | ||
| NSRT | 59 | 86 | ||
| NDA | 61 | 86 | ||
| RS | 47 | 71 | ||
| SMM | 67 | 91 | ||
| YP | 55 | 76 | ||
| 12 – 20 | 21 students | AJ | 71 | 91 |
| CCP | 67 | 79 | ||
| DAR | 69 | 89 | ||
| EERS | 68 | 84 | ||
| ESRS | 70 | 88 | ||
| ERS | 67 | 85 | ||
| GS | 72 | 90 | ||
| GTNS | 68 | 87 | ||
| HA | 55 | 74 | ||
| IDHS | 63 | 76 | ||
| JNM | 53 | 71 | ||
| JMS | 53 | 72 | ||
| KAPR | 72 | 91 | ||
| LA | 70 | 87 | ||
| MKZH | 62 | 79 | ||
| MYR | 56 | 74 | ||
| MM | 64 | 83 | ||
| MAA | 81 | 94 | ||
| PN | 69 | 85 | ||
| RH | 74 | 93 | ||
| SNM | 71 | 91 | ||
| Number of student | 40 students | | ||
From the table above, there were 6 students whose scores improved around 30 – 38 points. This high improvement was apparent because of peer review technique. By doing peer review in pairs they could know what the things that should be revised from their writing. Although not all of the improvement of the scores made them reached the standard minimum score but it still kept improving. HAA and JP didn’t reach the standard minimum score because they were not too serious in revising their writing but AYP, DSAP, LG, and SMESH were very serious. They also paid attention to and listened to the researcher’s explanation and instructions. They always kept asking questions while teaching learning process and doing peer review.
There were 13 students whose scores improved around 21 – 29 points. These students mostly were serious when teaching and learning process was running and doing peer review under the researcher’s instructions and help. They were also very serious while revising their work after doing peer review. They always paid full attention and listened to the researcher’s explanation. Because of that, their scores kept improving and could reached the standard minimum score. AP, HN, HS, JPT, and RS actually were not too serious in teaching-learning process, but when they revised their writing they did it well. Sometimes AP, JPT, RS made some jokes during peer review session with their pair that made the class became a little bit noisy. But as far as they did it to learn, it was fine for the researcher and to made them not feel bored while teaching learning process.
Most of students got score improved around 12 – 20 points. Although they got the lowest improvement but it did not mean that all of them are bad students. First, CCP from 67 – 79 this student got the lowest improvement among them because he did not pay full attention and listen to the researcher’s explanation and instructions, but the others always paid attention and listen to the researcher’s explanation and instructions. They were very serious and active when teaching learning process was running. They always asked if they had problems especially during peer review session. Some of them were also very good in reviewing their pair’s writing like AJ, ESRS, GS, KAPR, LA, MAA, RH, and SNM. By reviewing their pairs’s writing their also could improve their writing themselves.
Based on the data analysis, there were variations on the students’ scores. In the orientation test score, the lowest score was 34 and the highest one was 81. In cycle I, the lowest score was 52 and the highest one was 90. In cycle II, the lowest score was 64 and the highest one was 94. The comparison of the students’ writing scores can be seen in Table 4.3 below:
Table 4.3 The Comparison of Students’ Writing Scores
| Types of Score | Orientation Test Score | Cycle I Score | Cycle II Score |
| The Lowest Score | 34 | 52 | 64 |
| The Highest Score | 81 | 90 | 94 |
| Mean | 59.7 | 73.8 | 81.4 |
| Number of Students | 40 | 40 | 40 |
From the table above, it was seen that students’ scores kept improving from orientation test until cycle II. It had increased from 59.7 to 81.4. The calculation can be seen in Appendix B.
In this research, the indicator of successful in writing was that the students have got score up to 70 based on the standard minimum score of English lesson at that school. The percentage of the students who got score up to 70 can be seen in the table 4.4 below:
Table 4.4 The Percentage of the Students’ who Got Score up to 70
| Evaluation | Students who got score up 70 | Percentage |
| Orientation Test | 8 | 20% |
| Cycle I | 26 | 65% |
| Cycle II | 38 | 95% |
In orientation test, there were only 8 students (20%) who got score 70 up. The percentage of students’ achievement in writing recount text kept increasing when peer review technique was applied. In cycle I, there were 26 students (65%) who got score 70 up and in cycle II, there were 38 students (95%) who got score 70 up. After analyzing the data, it can be concluded that all students got improvement in their writing scores and peer review technique effectively helped students in writing recount text.
2. Analysis of Qualitative Data
As explained before, the qualitative data were analyzed from observation sheets, questionnaire sheet, diary notes and interview.
a. Observation sheet
From the observation sheets, there were many things that had been observed. It can be concluded that teaching learning process became much better in cycle II. Teacher’s performance, students’ attitude and the class situation improved from the first meeting to the last one. For example, in the fourth meeting, the researcher was not too able to control and direct the class because it was the first time for the students did peer review so they had so many questions to the researcher and asked her to see their work one by one. In the third meeting, some students did not full pay attention to the researcher and they tend to talk to their friends that made the class became noisy, but the researcher admonished the students. However, in the next meeting especially in cycle II, the researcher could control and direct the class well and the students paid more attention to her and they learnt more active and seriously. The data of observation sheet can be seen in Appendix C and the result of observation sheets can be seen in the following table:
Table 4.5 The Result of Observation Sheets
| Focus | Description | Choices |  | Note | ||||||
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | ||||
| The writer as a teacher | The teacher prepares teaching material systematically. | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Very Good |
| The teacher attracts students’ attention. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.57 | Good | |
| The teacher explains teaching objective. | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Very Good | |
| The teacher motivates students to be brave in writing | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.85 | Good | |
| The teacher explains about peer review technique clearly | - | 3 | 3 | 3 | - | 3 | 3 | 2.14 | Good | |
| The teacher explains the lesson about recount text clearly | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.57 | Good | |
| The teacher gives all the students chance to ask about the lesson | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Very Good | |
| The teacher responds to the students’ questions well. | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Very Good | |
| The teacher pays attention to all individuals in the class | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.57 | Good | |
| The teacher monitors all pairs while peer review session | - | - | 2 | 3 | - | 3 | 3 | 1.57 | Poor | |
| The teacher gives feedback to the students | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2.57 | Good | |
| The teacher is able to control and direct the class. | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.42 | Good | |
| The teacher manages the time effectively and efficiently. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.57 | Good | |
| The Students | The students pay attention to the teacher’s explanation. | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.57 | Good |
| The students answer questions given by teacher. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.57 | Good | |
| The students ask questions to the teacher if there is something unclear. | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.85 | Good | |
| The students give good responses to the topic given. | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.85 | Good | |
| The students do peer review well in pairs. | - | - | 2 | 3 | - | 3 | 3 | 1.57 | Poor | |
| The students discuss about their writing actively. | - | - | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1.85 | Poor | |
| The students feel enjoyable and interested along teaching learning process. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.57 | Good | |
| The students help each other in understanding materials given | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.14 | Good | |
| All the students do their writing task | 2 | - | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2.28 | Good | |
| The Context | The classroom is safe from noisy. | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.42 | Good |
| The classroom is clean and comfortable | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Very Good | |
| The classroom has teaching aids (marker, duster, whiteboard, etc) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Very Good | |
| In which: Very Good : 3,0 Good : 2,0 – 2,9 Poor : 1,0 – 1,9 | ||||||||||
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar