ABSTRACT
In teaching, having control of the students in the classroom is very vital in order to keep the process of learning and teaching runs as planned. However, to get the class under control is not an easy thing to do. Students may behave against what teacher desires or expects toward the learning process. Some of the problems are students talk not in the target language, instead they speak in L1 (sometimes it can be very noisy); they exceed the time limit set for the task; they disturb other students. If these cases happen, it will hamper the learning-teaching process in the class. One way to solve the problem is by applying a Reward-Punishment treatment.
This research is to find out how effective is the Reward-Punishment Treatment to reinforce order in ET classes. The writer tries to use a comparative-quantitative study in which two classes of the same level and similar behavior (after two-week observation) are compared. One class is given the treatment and the other one is not. The research is done during term 1/2009, in LBPP LIA Cirebon. The kind of rewards here are free homework and loose deadline in submitting assignment. The kinds of punishments are tongue twister and storytelling. The data is collected based on the number of violation in the two classes starting session 5 until session 12. After 8 sessions the result is compared by seeing whether the number of violation in the two classes are increasing or decreasing. Increased number of violation shows that the class does not have good order and decreased number of violation shows that the class has good order.
In conducting the research, the writer is hoping that the classes can be controlled and learning-teaching process in the classes can be improved.
Background
Having ET classes for several times, I found out that I usually have problems with my ET students due to their behavior in the class. The common problems I usually have among others are their habit talking in their mother tongue, longer time to complete tasks and disturbing behavior like bothering their classmates. So far, I tried some regular methods I usually have with adult students, like giving them warning or remind them of the class rules. Unfortunately, these methods don’t always work. So, I talked to my Supervisor about my problems and she advised me to conduct an action research.
What interesting about ET students is that they are still “in between” stage. They are no longer children, but yet they are not fully adult which make the characteristic of teaching them also little bit different. They still like playing and have short concentration span, just like children. However, at times they want to be treated as responsible adults. These students are quite rebellious, self-centered but in the same time they want their existence to be acknowledged by others. They are competitive and environmentally receptive. They tend to compete with their peers almost in any occasion. They are also very receptive to their surroundings. They know when their friends do something, either bad or good. Sometimes, these students like to underestimate their peers since they think they are better. These kinds of behavior can be really disturbing in the class.
Finding out these unique characteristics, I was challenged to find a suitable method on how to control them in order that I can get better teaching-learning experience I the class. After discussing with some colleagues who have taught ET classes, I found some interesting methods that usually work in solving such problem I have with my ET students. Some say that giving them reward usually brings them more motivated. Some others say that giving them punishment can be very effective, especially with those ‘trouble-maker’ students. There must be something wrong with the way I usually teach my ET students. I normally never take their learning behavior deeply into my teaching. That is why I usually have problems with them.
Considering all the input I get and knowing these ET students’ behavior, I focus my research on finding out whether reward and punishment really work for these ET students and what kind of reward and punishment will be useful for them.
Methodology/Procedure
This action research project was conducted with two ET 7 classes, one a Mondays-Wednesdays class and the other a Fridays-Saturdays class. These two classes have been with different teacher before. The class teacher acts as the researcher. The research started by observing their behavior for two weeks, from session 1 until session 4, to check whether they have similar behavior or not. The observation is to check the number of students, the number of violations happen in the class and level of students’ competencies. From the observation, the researcher found out that both class have similar characteristics. And here are the researcher’s findings on their characteristics:
Mondays-Wednesdays Class
No Name of Student Characteristic
1 Nella Sri Puji R Calm, rather quiet, but bright
2 Edgar Riyadi Purnama Rather talkative, very active and noisy and bright, but is easily influenced by his peers
3 Riansyah Sumajaya Bright and rather talkative but prefer to work alone
4 Hilman Aldani Very quiet, dependent to his peer, but actually quite bright
5 Indri Liani Sartika Not so bright, but diligent, very cooperative with her peer
6 Rio Priatna Putra Not-so bright, very talkative(especially in Cirebonese) dependent to his peer and is easily influenced by his peer
7 Gabriella Stephanie Not-so bright, but diligent, dependent to her peer, quite talkative
8 Franky H Not-so bright, very talkative (especially in Cirebonese) and noisy, very rebellious
9 Karina Merdekawati Very talkative, not-so-bright, tardy, and dependent to her peer
10 Mia Dwi Susilowati Quite bright, rather talkative, and cooperative, rather dependent
11 Hardianti Bright and talkative, but rather shy, quite independent
12 Ekky Kurnisandy Very talkative and noisy (especially in Cirebonese), very dependent, not-so-bright,
13 Richardi Giri Santoso Quite bright and talkative but dependent,
14 Aras Sari K. Dewi Very bright and talkative and independent
15 Yola Rahmania Cahya Very quiet and shy, dependent to her peer
16 Dinni Nurul Kurnia I Quiet talkative but not-so-bright, quiet independent and diligent

Fridays-Saturdays Class
No Name of Student Characteristic
1 Muhammad Luqman Nurhakim Bright, cooperative and independent but rather shy
2 Lisa Alfiani Bright, talkative, and quiet active in class
3 Intan Widya Anugrah Very talkative and active in class, cooperative and diligent, but rather dependent
4 Nivika Tiffany Bright and active in the class, but rather shy and dependent
5 Andrew V. Halomuan Lumban Not-so-bright and noisy, very dependent
6 Weny Triani Quite bright but shy and very dependent
7 Yustika Surya Pratiwi Not-so-bright and dependent, but very active and cooperative and diligent
8 Rahmat Nurul Fauzi Very talkative and noisy, quite bright, but rather dependent and rebellious
9 Muhammad Irsyad Gifari Quite bright, Very talkative, very noisy and rebellious, rather lazy and very dependent
10 Agung Maulana Not-so-bright, talkative, noisy and dependent, but diligent and cooperative
11 M. Faisal Ramadhan Very bright, talkative and independent, but easily influence by his peer, very cooperative
12 Bayu Ramadhan Not-so-bright, noisy and dependent but cooperative and quite diligent
13 Alin Rizki Pratami Bright and talkative and noisy, but rather dependent
14 Rubila Very bright, cooperative and diligent but quiet, prefer to work alone
15 Siam Chandra Artista Very talkative, active and noisy, not-so-bright but diligent and cooperative
16 A. Ichwan Luthfi Rather quiet and shy, but bright, independent and cooperative
17 Moch. Rizal Rizki Subagio Quite bright, quiet and shy but diligent and cooperative
18 Muhammad Hafidz Ramadhan Not-so-bright, shy and tardy, rather dependent but diligent
19 Nurhasna Muthiah Not-so-bright and dependent, talkative and diligent
20 Haniyah Bright and quite talkative, but rather dependent

Both classes have averagely the same number of bright students compared to the number of not-so-bright students. Mondays-Wednesdays class, which has 16 students, has about 8 bright students. And the Fridays-Saturdays class which has 20 students has about 11 bright students. This means that each class has 50% bright students. Although the Fridays-Saturdays class has more students, both classes have different level of competencies (mixed students competency level). These classes have frequently similar number of violations.
Characteristics/Class Mondays-Wednesdays Fridays-Saturdays
Number of Students 16 students 20 students
Number of violations 25 26
Level of competency 3,2 class score Average 3,4 class score average
Appendix 1
During the research, the Fridays-Saturdays class gets the treatment, while the Mondays-Wednesdays class doesn’t get the treatment. The treatment here is each student will get a point reward that they get when they can complete his/her task according to the time allotment. When they get five points, they can get free homework or loose deadline in submitting assignment. However, for those who fail in completing the task according to the time allotment or violate the class rules, they will automatically get punishment; either it is tongue twister or storytelling. This research uses comparative-quantitative method, in which the result of the treatment given to the two classes will then be compared, based on the number of tasks completion and the number of violations committed in the classes. And to accommodate their competitive nature, some activities in the lesson are modified into competition activities that can be done in pairs or groups. In these kinds of activities, the point is given students as a team.
Result and Discussion
The data collected are taken from teaching logs. Every session the researcher note down the number of violation and points earn during class activities. The reward is given to students every time they can complete each task-One point for each task. The points then divided by the number of students in the class. For example, in activity 1 there are 12 students (out of 16 students) can complete the task, the points got is 12. 12 points are divided by 16, so each student gets 0.75 point. See Appendix 2.

No. of Task/Activity No of Student who get Point Average point Achieved
11 13 (11 x 13) / 16 = 8.9
10 12 (10 x 12) / 16 = 7.5
Appendix 2
1. Point Achieved
After conducting the research for 8(eight) sessions that covers 4 (four) lessons, it shows that the class which gets the treatment has 4, 92 points average, while the class which doesn’t get the treatment has 4, 55 points average. The class with the treatment gets slightly higher point average than that of non treatment (Approximately 0, 37 point difference).
Mondays-Wednesdays
Lesson/Session No. of Task No. of
Student Average Point Achieved
(divided by 16)
Lesson 4/session 5 5 13 4,0625
Lesson 4/session 6 6 13 4,875
Lesson 5/Session 7 5 12 3,75
Lesson 5/Session 8 6 14 5,25
Lesson 6/ Session 9 5 15 4,6875
Lesson 6/ Session 10 6 14 5,25
Lesson 7/ Session 11 5 13 4,0625
Lesson 7/Session 12 6 12 4,5
Average 13,25
4,5547

Fridays-Saturdays
Lesson/Session No. of Task No. of
Student Average Point Achieved
(divided by 20)
Lesson 4/session 5 5 17 4,25
Lesson 4/session 6 6 18 5,4
Lesson 5/Session 7 5 18 4,5
Lesson 5/Session 8 6 19 5,7
Lesson 6/ Session 9 5 18 4,5
Lesson 6/ Session 10 6 17 5,1
Lesson 7/ Session 11 5 18 4,5
Lesson 7/Session 12 6 18 5,4
Average 17,88
4,92

Appendix 3

Appendix 4
2. Number of Violation
From the number of violations that happen in the class, this research shows great improvement. The class that gets the treatment has fewer violations than that of non treatment. Appendix 5 can clearly describe a drop of violation after several sessions, while the class that doesn’t get treatment shows that the number of violations relatively the same.
At the beginning of the treatment Mondays-Wednesdays class has 25 violations in average, and after the treatment the number of violations remains constant between 25 to 26 violations averagely. However, with Fridays-Saturdays class the situation is totally different. At the beginning of the treatment, the number of violations still has 25 violations, but after the 3rd session of the treatment, the number of violations decreases rapidly to only 20 violations. Finally, at the end of the treatment, the number of violation becomes only 15 violations. This shows that the treatment has taken affect on the behavior of the students. In short, the treatment works to reduce the number of violations in the class.

Appendix 5
3. Other Finding
Beside the result of the research above, the research also shows other interesting findings. Although the research doesn’t aim to change their test score better, there are slightly improvements in the test score of the class with the treatment as a result of the treatment. The result shows in the score of their periodic tests (PT1-2). The students in the Fridays-Saturdays class have higher score than that of the students in the Mondays-Wednesdays class. The treatment apparently has influence the students’ absorption of the material learnt in the class. See Appendix 6.
Mondays-Wednesdays
No Name of Student Periodic Test 1 Periodic Test 2
1 Nella Sri Puji R 3,4 3,7
2 Edgar Riyadi Purnama 3,2 3,4
3 Riansyah Sumajaya 4,1 4,0
4 Hilman Aldani 3,7 3,7
5 Indri Liani Sartika 3,3 3,3
6 Rio Priatna Putra 3,3 3,4
7 Gabriella Stephanie 3,2 3,4
8 Franky H 3,4 3,4
9 Karina Merdekawati 3,5 3,4
10 Mia Dwi Susilowati 3,3 3,7
11 Hardianti 3,4 3,9
12 Ekky Kurnisandy 3,1 3,7
13 Richardi Giri Santoso 3,6 3,4
14 Aras Sari K. Dewi 4,0 3,9
15 Yola Rahmania Cahya 3,2 No News
16 Dinni Nurul Kurnia I No News No News
Score Average 3,23
3,14

Fridays-Saturdays

No Name of Student Periodic Test 1 Periodic Tst 2
1 Muhammad Luqman Nurhakim 3,8 4,0
2 Lisa Alfiani 3,8 4,0
3 Intan Widya Anugrah 3,7 3,8
4 Nivika Tiffany 3,7 3,9
5 Andrew V. Halomuan Lumban 3,3 3,5
6 Weny Triani 3,5 3,7
7 Yustika Surya Pratiwi 3,6 Transferred
8 Rahmat Nurul Fauzi 3,7 3,8
9 Muhammad Irsyad Gifari 3,7 3,8
10 Agung Maulana 3,6 3,8
11 M. Faisal Ramadhan 3,9 4,1
12 Bayu Ramadhan 3,5 3,7
13 Alin Rizki Pratami 3,7 3,9
14 Rubila 4,0 4,1
15 Siam Chandra Artista 3,6 3,7
16 A. Ichwan Luthfi 4,0 4,1
17 Moch. Rizal Rizki Subagio 3,8 3,8
18 Muhammad Hafidz Ramadhan 3,4 3,5
19 Nurhasna Muthiah 3,6 3,8
20 Haniyah 3,7 3,8
Score Average 3,68
3,84

Appendix 6
All in all, the research is proven to work. The research has shown that the treatment given can help improve their behavior in the teaching-learning process. So, teacher can use this treatment (technique) to control students who have problem mentioned in the background above.