CHAPTER IV

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses about the result and discussion of this research. The

researcher also explains clearly some data analyze in the result of the study. Then,

conclude and discuss it in the discussion.

A. Result of the Study

This part shows about the result of the study. The researcher describes pre-

test and post-test. The researcher asked to the students from both of classes to

write narrative text about place to get score. The researcher gives pre-test to know

students writing skill in narrative text about place. After that, the researcher gives

treatment which is mind mapping strategy to experimental class and without

treatment to control class. Then, the researcher gives post-test to both of classes.

The description of the data is explained below:

1. Pre-test Data

Pre-test is a test conducted on the group before being given treatment. The

researcher conducted a pre-test in both classes to determine the students'

understanding and skill in learning to write. This section presents about the score

of the students' writing skills which classified as pre-test data. This data was taken

before the treatment was given. The pre-test data have two classes which as a
simple, there are the experimental class 8A and control class 8B. These data are

described as follows:

Table 4.1 Pre – Test score of Experimental class

NO NAME ASPECT SCORE
C O V G M
1 ARM 19 18 14 10 9 70
2 ACLA 17 14 11 12 10 64
3 AFR 16 13 12 11 8 60
4 ADY 16 13 11 11 9 60
5 ASA 15 14 11 11 9 60
6 ANAA 16 15 12 9 8 60
7 AA 17 14 12 9 8 60
8 FJA 17 13 12 9 9 60
9 FAP 12 7 8 7 6 40
10 FRZ 16 13 12 10 9 60
11 HDNH 14 9 8 7 7 45
12 IA 19 16 14 11 10 70
13 ILS 13 7 8 7 6 40
14 JFD 19 17 14 10 9 69
15 JNL 18 18 15 10 9 70
16 JAB 16 11 9 8 4 48
17 KAV 16 11 9 8 5 49
18 MAK 15 9 10 8 9 51
19 MPR 15 10 8 9 7 49
20 MRRA 14 10 9 9 7 49
21 NFP 22 20 16 12 10 80
22 NIS 21 20 16 13 10 80
23 NDN 16 13 11 11 9 60
24 RSH 15 10 10 10 10 55
25 RAF 10 11 11 10 10 52
26 SMFD 12 12 9 9 9 51
27 SM 18 12 10 10 10 60
28 TB 12 10 10 9 9 50
29 UAN 15 14 11 11 9 60
30 UAP 20 10 12 12 10 64
31 VSPA 10 10 10 10 10 50
Total 1796
Mean 57.94
 It can be seen from the table shows the pre-test score of experimental

class. From the score, the researcher divided the aspect of score in five aspects to

asses. The aspects are Content, Organization, Grammar, Vocabulary, and

Mechanics. The assessing score that used by researcher based on the scoring

rubric by Setyati & Latief (2018). The maximum score for content is 28, the

maximum for organization is 24, the maximum score of grammar is 20, the

maximum score of vocabulary is 16, the maximum score for mechanics is 12, and

the maximum score for all these aspects is 100. Therefore, all the skills must be

mastered and applied properly to produce the good writing.

From the table above, the researcher finds out the result of the test. The

students who participated in this class are 31 students. Then students who got the

score around 40-70 are 29 students. The students who got the score up to 70 are 2

students. The total of pre-test in experimental group is 1796 and the mean of the

all score is 57.94. Meanwhile the minimum score is 40 and the maximum score is

80.

Besides, the researcher also describe about pre-test data from control class

also described as follows :

 Table 4.2 Pre – Test score of Control class
NO NAME ASPECT SCORE
C O V G M
1 ARMM 16 13 12 11 8 60
2 AARDF 15 10 10 10 10 55
3 ASY 19 17 14 7 9 69
4 AOS 20 20 16 13 10 79
5 AFSD 14 9 8 7 7 45
6 AP 12 7 8 7 6 40
7 ASA 12 7 8 13 6 40
8 CLI 21 20 16 8 10 80
9 DAS 14 9 10 10 9 50
10 DYS 15 10 10 10 10 55
11 DPAM 18 18 15 10 9 70
12 DA 18 18 15 11 9 70
13 ETN 15 14 12 10 8 60
14 FKAR 15 10 10 10 10 55
15 FNFW 15 15 10 10 5 55
16 GDAP 15 15 10 10 5 55
17 HAS 20 10 16 12 10 76
18 KBS 14 18 9 9 7 49
19 LD 10 10 10 10 10 50
20 MAR 15 10 8 9 7 49
21 NU 15 14 12 11 8 60
22 NW 18 17 16 10 9 70
23 NJ 14 10 9 9 7 49
24 RSP 15 14 12 11 8 60
25 RFCS 14 10 9 9 7 48
26 SFW 16 13 12 11 8 60
27 SAS 16 13 12 11 8 60
28 USN 21 20 15 13 10 79
29 YAS 22 10 15 13 10 80
30 YNP 17 17 16 10 9 69
31 ZAB 18 16 16 10 9 70
Total 1867
Mean 60,23
 It can be seen from the table 4.2 above that the table shows the pre-test

score of control group. From the score, the researcher divided the aspect of score

in five aspects to asses. The aspects are Content, Organization, Grammar,

Vocabulary, and Mechanics. The assessing score that used by researcher based on

the scoring rubric by Setyati & Latief (2018). The maximum score for content is

28, the maximum for organization is 24, the maximum score of grammar is 20,

the maximum score of vocabulary is 16, the maximum score for mechanics is 12,

and the maximum score for all these aspects is 100. Therefore, all the skills must

be mastered and applied properly to produce the good writing.

From the table above, can be seen that the researcher find out the result of

the test. The students who participated in this class are 31 students. Then the

students who got score around 40-70 are 26 students. The total score of pre-test in

control group is 1867 and the mean of the all score is 60,23. Meanwhile, the

minimum score of the students is 40 and the maximum score is 80.

After get the score pre-test data above, the researcher calculate the

descriptive statistic. This descriptive statistic is used to provide an overview of the

distribution and behavior of research sample data by looking at the minimum

value, maximum value, average (mean), and standard deviation of each

independent variable and the dependent variable. The descriptive statistic in this

research is by using Shapiro-Wilk test. The result of descriptive statistic as

followed :
 Table 4.3 The Result of Descriptive Statistic Pre-Test

Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
experiment 31 40 80 57.94 10.106
control 31 40 80 60.23 11.826
Valid N
31
(listwise)

It can be seen from the table 4.3 above that the table shows the pre-test

score of experimental group and control group. The students who participated in

experimental class and control class are 31 students. Meanwhile, the minimum

score of the students on experimental class is 40 and the maximum score is 80.

The total score of pre-test in experimental group is 1758 and the mean of the all

score is 1796. Then the minimum score of the students on control class is 40 and

the maximum score is 80. The total score of pre-test in control group is 1867 and

the mean of the all score is 60,23.

From the table above it can be concluded that there is a slight significant

difference in the scores of the pre-test experimental and pre-test control. After get

the pre-test data above, the researcher calculate the normality testing. This

normality test is used measure the score of students' writing is normal or not. The

data normality in this research is by using Shapiro-Wilk test. The result of

normality test as followed :

Table 4.4 The Result of Normality Test

 Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
pre test ex .162 31 .038 .948 31 .140
pre test con .153 31 .063 .943 31 .099

From the table 4.4 above, the researcher conclude that the data is normal.

The table shows that the result of the score from experimental class is 0,140. It

means that the data of experimental class is normally distributed because the

significance value is higher than a value (0,140 > 0,05). Then, the result of control

class score is also higher, that is 0,200 which is higher than 0,05 (0,099 > 0,05).

So, it can be concluded that the significance data of both classes are normal

because of the result more than a = 0,05 (0,140 > 0,05 ; 0,099 > 0,05).

After calculate the normality testing and get the normal data, the

researcher also calcite the homogeneity testing. The homogeneity testing is used

to know the homogeneous data. The homogeneity of the data can see by using

Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 16.0 version which used Levene's

test and employed 0,05 for the alpha value.

Tabel 4.5 The Result of Homogenity Testing

 Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Std. 95% Confidence
Mean Error Interval of the
Sig. (2- Differen Differen Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) ce ce Lower Upper
nila Equal
i variances 1.043 .311 -.820 60 .416 -2.290 2.794 -7.879 3.298
assumed
Equal
58.57
variances not -.820 .416 -2.290 2.794 -7.882 3.301
7
assumed
Based on the table 4.4 the significant value of writing score is 0,311. The

basic decisison of homogenity test is 0.05, if the significant value is less than 0.05

the data is not homogeneous. In table 4.4 significant value above 0,311 is more

than 0.05. It shows that the data have homogeneous distribution.

This test is important to find out is there any significant differences mean

score between experimental groups which taugh by using mind mapping strategy

with control class which was not taugh by using mind mapping strategy. Besides

that the researcher also describe post test both experimental and control class. The

data took after teaching learning process was done.

2. Post-test Data

Post-test is a test conducted on the group after being given treatment. After

being given treatment then collect the task. In this test to determine the results of

students' ability in writing recount texts after being given treatment. The purpose

of giving the post-test is to find out the results of students' improvement after
taugh by using mind mapping strategy for the experimental class and conventional

learning for the control class.

The test approach is the most widely used method for data collection. Pre-

testing is done before learning begins. After completing the experimental class,

the researcher conducted a post-test in both classes to find out the differences

between the two classes. Based have been carried out, researcher compared the

post-test results to see if there was a difference between the results before the

treatment.

This section presents about the score of the students' writing ability which

classified as post-test data. This data was taken after the treatment was given. The

post-test data have two classes which as a sample, there are the experimental class

and the control class. The experimental class is the group which got the treatment

and the control class is the group which got the conventional teaching. These data

are described as follows:

Tabel 4.6 Post – Test score of Experimental class

N NAME ASPECT SCORE
O C O V G M
1 ARM 27 23 18 15 12 95
2 ACLA 21 21 16 13 10 81
3 AFR 19 16 14 11 10 70
4 ADY 20 20 15 10 10 75
5 ASA 21 21 16 14 10 82
6 ANAA 22 20 16 12 10 80
7 AA 22 20 16 12 10 80
8 FJA 22 21 17 15 10 85
9 FAP 21 21 16 12 10 80
10 FRZ 21 20 15 13 10 79
11 HDNH 22 20 15 13 10 80
 12 IA 23 20 15 11 10 79
13 ILS 21 20 15 10 10 76
14 JFD 20 15 15 10 10 70
15 JNL 25 23 16 14 12 90
16 JAB 21 20 15 13 10 79
17 KAV 17 13 13 9 9 61
18 MAK 18 14 13 9 9 63
19 MPR 16 15 12 9 8 60
20 MRRA 18 14 13 10 10 65
21 NFP 22 20 16 12 10 80
22 NIS 22 21 17 15 10 85
23 NDN 19 16 14 11 10 70
24 RSH 16 15 13 9 9 60
25 RAF 17 17 16 10 9 69
26 SMFD 22 20 16 12 10 80
27 SM 20 20 15 10 10 75
28 TB 18 14 13 10 10 65
29 UAN 22 20 16 12 10 80
30 UAP 27 23 18 15 12 95
31 VSPA 18 16 14 11 10 69
Total 2357
Mean 76.06

From the table 4.6 above, the researcher seen that the sample of the post-

test experimental class as same as pre-test experimental class, that is 30 students.

The assessment of this also use scoring rubric by Setyati & Latief (2018). They

are Content, Organization, Vocabulary, Grammar, and Mechanics. The maximum

score for content is 28, the maximum for organization is 40, the maximum score

for vocabulary is 20, the maximum score for language use is 16, the maximum

score of mechanics is 12, and the maximum score for all these aspects is 100.

Therefore, all the skills must be mastered and applied properly to produce the

good writing.
 The descriptive of this post-test have some different from the pre- test. The

students who participated in this class are 31 students The differences are; first,

the score of the students mostly increase than in the pre-test, second is the total all

of the score also increase to 2357. Third the total mean of the score increase to

76,06. Besides, the maximum score in the pos-test experimental class is 95 and

the minimum score in this test is 60.

Then, the researcher also describe about post-test data from control class.

The data took after the teaching learning process was done. The result of the test

of this class can be seen as followed :

Tabel 4.7 Post – Test score of Control class

N NAME ASPECT SCORE
O C O V G M
1 ARMM 20 15 15 10 10 70
2 AARDF 27 24 18 15 12 96
3 ASY 10 10 10 10 10 50
4 AOS 16 15 12 9 8 60
5 AFSD 12 7 8 7 6 40
6 AP 23 20 15 11 10 79
7 ASA 16 15 11 9 9 60
8 CLI 20 15 15 90 10 70
9 DAS 12 10 10 9 9 50
10 DYS 20 15 13 11 11 70
11 DPAM 15 15 12 9 9 60
12 DA 22 21 17 15 10 85
13 ETN 18 14 10 9 9 60
 14 FKAR 23 20 15 11 10 79
15 FNFW 22 20 15 13 10 80
16 GDAP 15 10 10 10 10 55
17 HAS 26 24 18 15 12 95
18 KBS 20 15 15 10 10 70
19 LD 18 14 13 10 10 65
20 MAR 18 14 13 10 10 65
21 NU 22 20 15 13 10 80
22 NW 20 15 13 11 11 70
23 NJ 15 15 12 9 9 60
24 RSP 26 24 18 15 12 95
25 RFCS 18 14 10 9 9 60
26 SFW 12 10 10 9 9 50
27 SAS 22 20 15 13 10 80
28 USN 10 10 10 10 10 50
29 YAS 13 12 10 10 10 55
30 YNP 18 14 10 9 9 60
31 ZAB 10 10 10 10 10 50
Total 2069
Mean 66,74

Based on the table 4.7 above the researcher found that this class also has a

significant rise in some different with the pre-test. The differences are the score of

each student higher than pre-test, the total score and the mean of this test also

increase than before. From the table shows that the total is 2069 and the mean is

66,74. Then, the maximum score is 96 and the minimum score is 40. From here

can be concluded that after the student get the teaching learning process they more

understand about the material and make their score also increase.

Table 4.8 The Result of Descriptive Statistic Post-Test

 Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
experiment 31 60 95 76.06 9.373
control 31 40 96 66.74 14.588
Valid N
31
(listwise)
It can be seen from the table 4.8 above that the table shows the post-test

score of experimental group and control group. From the table above, can be seen

that the researcher find out the result of the test. The students who participated in

from the table above, can be seen that the researcher find out the result of the test.

The students who participated in experimental class and control class are 31

students. Meanwhile, the minimum score of the students on experimental class is

60 and the maximum score is 95. The total score of pre-test in experimental group

is 2357 and the mean of the all score is 76,06. Then the minimum score of the

students on control class is 50 and the maximum score is 90. The total score of

post-test in control group is 2069 and the mean of the all score is 73,60. From the

table above it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in the scores

of the post-test experimental and pre-test control.

Table 4. 9 The Result of Normality Testing

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
pre test ex .171 31 .021 .947 31 .127
pre test con .162 31 .038 .946 31 .118

From the table 4.9 above, the researcher get the conclusion that the data is

normal. From the table, it is presents that the significant result of the score from
experimental class is 0,124. It means that the data of experimental class is

normally distributed because the significance value is higher than a value (0,127 >

0,05). Then, the result of control class score is also higher, that is 0,153 which is

higher than 0,05 (0, 118 > 0,05). So that, it can be concluded that the significance

post-test data of both classes are normal because of the result more than a 0,05

(0,127 > 0.0 ; 0,118 > 0.05) and the independent sample t-test is done.

3. Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis thesis testing that needed in this research is by using

independent sample t-test. Before the researcher analyzing the data, the researcher

conducted the hypothesis which explained in the chapter 2 of this research. There

are two hypothesis that the researcher formulated, first is null hypothesis (Ho)

which declared "There is no significant difference in the students who are taught

using mind mapping strategy and using conventional teaching". Then, the second

hypothesis as alternative hypothesis (H) for this research is "There is a significant

difference in the students who are taught using mind mapping strategy and using

conventional teaching".

From here, the researcher concluded that the mean score of the both

classes is different. Meanwhile, the researcher could not concluded the

successfulness of the treatment of this research directly by this table, especially on

the experimental class. So that, to know the treatment, is success or not and also

the significance of both classes, the researcher needed independent sample t-test.

Table 4. 10 The Independent Sample T-Test of Post-Test Experimental and

Control Class
 Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Std. 95% Confidence
Mean Error Interval of the
Sig. (2- Differe Differe Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) nce nce Lower Upper
nila Equal
2.99
i variances 6.208 .016 60 .004 9.323 3.114 3.093 15.552
3
assumed
Equal
2.99 51.1
variances not .004 9.323 3.114 3.071 15.574
3 65
assumed

Table 4.10 shows about independent sample t-test from post-test data of

both experimental and controll class independent sample t-test, 0,004 < 0,05 it

means that H₀ was rejected and H1 was accepted. This means that there is

influence between the independent variables on the dependent variable. which

there is effect of using mind mapping strategy on students' writing narrative text

skilll for seventh grade students high school students is accepted and H. It can be

said that there is significant difference in the students' writing narrative text

between experimental class and control class. So that it can be said that the mind

mapping strategy brings effect for the students writing skill, especially in teaching

narrative text.

B. DISCUSSION

In this part, the researcher discusses about the result of this research about

the effect of using Mind Mapping strategy toward writing skills of the eight grade
students at SMPN 1 Geger. Based on the data that the researcher obtained and has

processed using the SPSS 20 program, there are differences in the results of the

ability of students who are taught by using Mind Mapping strategy with students

who are taught by using conventional teaching. The data were taken from the

results of the students' pre-test and post-test. The mean pre-test value of the

experimental class was 57.94, while the control class was 60.23. From these

results, the control class average is higher than the experimental class average.

Then the significance value is 0.311 because 0.311 > 0.05 for that Ho is accepted

and HI is rejected. This means that the experimental class and control class

students deserve to be sampled in this study. After the pre-test, students were

given treatment using mind mapping strategy. This is done to determine the

effectiveness of writing. After the treatment was completed, students were given a

post-test. The average post-test score for the experimental class was 76.06 while

the control class was 66.74. From these results indicate that the average value of

the experimental class is higher than the control class and the significance value of

0.004, 0.004 is less than 0.05, then Ho is rejected and HI is accepted. This means

that from these results there are significant differences in students' abilities in

writing narrative texts, both from classes using mind mapping strategy.

There are several reasons that the use of the Mind Mapping strategy is

very effective in teaching writing. First, by using Mind Mapping strategy in the

process of teaching learning, the students can evolve the topic easily. Students can

identify important ideas and make logical arrangements between key words
because mind maps maximize the use of both sides of the brain. This is supported

by similar research Hayati et al. (2015), they stated that by using Mind Mapping

strategy could develop their ideas to make good paragraph by the learners, it

means that they can visualize ideas by capturing information with a Mind Map

guide. They also mentioned that Mind Mapping can help students to expand the

text. Similarly. Paykoç et al. (2004) claimed that with the Mind Mapping strategy,

students become adept at organizing their thoughts and ideas and thus presenting

information in a clear and appealing way.

Second, using Mind Mapping strategy can solve students problem in

writing narrative text. The lack of understanding of the steps for writing narrative

text makes it difficult for students to compose the text. Using Mind Mapping as a

strategy is very useful for students. The concept of Mind Mapping in the form of

grouping several ideas structural is help to remember or analyze a problem makes

students found their ideas easily. So that it can solve student problems. Based on

the previous research which got the same result by Sinulingga and Marpaung

(2012) they stated that Mind Mapping could make students enthuastic in making

narrative text, it is can solve students problem when they're make narrative text.

Students could found their idea easily after they using Mind Mapping strategy. So,

in the end, they were able to produce a good narrative text. Besides, Saed and Al-

Omari (2014) also stated that by using the Mind Mapping strategy can improve

the writing performance of eleventh grade EFL students in Jordan.

 Third, Mind Mapping strategy can develop students' creative thinking

skill. The use of Mind Mapping in the form of mind mapping such as concept

maps, makes students more creative in expressing what is on their minds. More

specifically, the Mind Mapping strategy involves using information with pictures,

symbols, keywords, codes, and colors to an extent that each student wants to use

in the goal essay. Jones et al. (2012) stated that Mind Mapping is a fun and

engaging strategy that improves student essays. It is also supported by Miranti and

Wilujeng (2018) the use of Mind Mapping strategy students can develop their

creative thinking skills. By using Mind Mapping strategy students can enables to

construct and organize their ideas in the pre-writing phase.

Fourth, using Mind Mapping strategy can stimulate their motivation in

English teaching learning. Before they got the treatment using the Mind Mapping

strategy, students tend to be lazy to take part in the learning process or lazy to do

the assignments given by the teacher. However, after got the treatment using the

Mind Mapping strategy, students became motivated to write texts in English

because for students the Mind Mapping strategy was a fun strategy and something

new for them. With Mind Mapping they can map their ideas into written form in a

coherent way. It it also supported by previous research which got the same result

in their research, Riswanto and Putra (2012) they stated that by using Mind

Mapping strategy students could motivate to improve their writing achievement

significantly better.

Based on the description above, the researcher summarize the result of this

reserach that by using Mind Mapping strategy the teacher get the advantages that
is (1) The students can evolve the topic easily because they can visualize ideas by

capturing information with a Mind Map guide (2) The tudents can solve problem

in writing narrative text because students could found their idea easily after they

using Mind Mapping strategy (3) Students can develop creative thinking skills as

the Mind Mapping strategy involves using information with pictures, symbols,

keywords, codes and colors at a level that each student will want to use in the goal

essay.. The last (4) the students can an stimulate their motivation in English

teaching teaching learning because the Mind Mapping strategy was a fun strategy

and something new for students

From here, the researcher concludes that from those data above shows the

students' in writing skill is improve because they get material clearly. The

experimental class got the big influence because they got the treatment from the

teacher. The class which taught by using mind mapping strategy got positive

effect that is they can create their own text with their ideas after treatment by mind

mapping strategy. But, the control class which taught without mind mapping

strategy also has good score because they also get material clearly although the

teacher used conventional teaching. So that, the researcher concluded that mind

mapping strategy is effective to teach writing narrative text students grades

seventh junior high scholl of SMPN 1 Geger.

 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The researcher addresses a number of topics in this section. It begans from the

conclusion and the suggestion of this research.

A. Conclusion

This study concludes from the results of data analysis that the use of mind

mapping can have an effect on students' writing skills. The results of the analysis

showed that the average pre-test score for the experimental class was 57.94 and

the post-test mean score was 76.09. Meanwhile in the control class, the average

score of students after using the printed book was 60.23 for the mean pre-test and

66.74 for the post-test. From these results, it can be said that the treated class is

more effective and can have an effect on writing skills compared to the untreated

class. This study found that there was a significant effect on students' writing

skills when teaching narrative texts using mind mapping strategy to class 8th

students. This conclusion is evidenced by the use of IBM SPSS version 20. The

results of data analysis show a significance value of 0.004. This means that 0.004

is smaller than 0.05 (0.004 <0.05), so if it is smaller than 0.05 then Ho is rejected

and HI is accepted. This means that students who are taught mind mapping

strategy have better narrative text writing skills the students who are taught

conventional teaching. Teaching narrative texts utilizing the Mind Mapping

strategy has been shown to be effective for a number of reasons.

 First, using the Mind Mapping strategy has a positive impact on learners'

writing abilities. It aids them in improving their narrative text writing scores. The

data analysis from the study's pre-test and post-tests serves as proof. The outcome

of the data analysis indicates that He is rejected and H, is accepted when the

significance value is less than 0.05. It follows that learners who leam using the

Mind Mapping process write narrative texts better than those learn using

conventional method.

Second, the use of Mind Mapping strategy can enhance their competencies

in some aspects, that is from the Mind Mapping they can develop creative

thinking skill. Then, the use of Mind Mapping can evolve the topic easily. The

last, from the Mind Mapping strategy can stimulate their motivation in English

teaching teaching learning.

The last, the application of Mind Mapping strategy in the teaching learning

process is very useful for the teacher. It is because the teacher can get advantages

from the Mind Mapping. With the Mind Mapping strategy teacher will easy to

map each sub-chapter or section to be explained to students. In addition, Mind

Mapping is also useful for providing clear directions in the explanation of lessons

so that teachers can present subject matter systematically.

Based on the explanation above, it can be conclude there is a significant

Effect of Using Mind Mapping Strategy on Students Writing Narrative Skills of

SMPN 1 Geger.

B. SUGGESTIONS
The researcher has recommendations for the participant that are based on the

findings from the previous chapter of this investigation.

1. The teacher

The effect of learning strategy using Mind Mapping on the ability to write

recount text can help develop students' writing skills than learning using

conventional teaching. In the application Mind Mapping strategy in the classroom,

the teacher must explain first the steps for using the strategy, so that students can

easily understand it. Therefore, it is suggested for teachers to consider Mind

Mapping strategy to be used in the implementation of writing learning activities.

2. The Students

The students are expected to develop their initiative and courage in

expressing opinions in the learning process to increase knowledge so as to

improve learning achievement. In addition, to get the best results, they should

actively participate in the learning activity.

3. The Institution (School

Mind Mapping learning strategy on writing skills in this study can provide

a better contribution than use the conventional teaching. Therefore, the school is

advised to add books in the library, especially about books related to learning

activities. So, the teachers and students can obtain useful information for the

development of the quality of learning.

4. The Future Reserchers

This research discusses about the implementation of Mind Mapping as a

strategy to teach writing ability for the eightth grade students in SMPN 1 Geger.

The future researcher expected to do another research in teaching learning proces

by Mind Mapping strategy. It is important to do more study in order to provide

constructive comparisons or input for the perfection of research results. The future

researchers can be changed the skill or the genre of the text.