




































1 

 

 ELT FORUM 2 (1) (2013) 

 

English Language Teaching Forum 

 

http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt 

 

 

The Use of Video as a Medium to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Narrative 

Texts 

Dewi Permatasari

 

Department of English, Faculty Language and Arts, Semarang State University, Indonesia 

 

Info Artikel 

________________ 
SejarahArtikel: 

DiterimaJanuari 2013 

DisetujuiFebruari 2013 

DipublikasikanJuni 2013 

________________ 
Keywords: 

video, writing, narrative 

texts, action research 

____________________ 

Abstract 
___________________________________________________________________

 
The aims of this study were to explain and describe how Video was used in teaching writing 

narrative texts and to find out the result of the teaching writing and learning process after the 

students were taught by using Video. The subject of this study was VIIIA students of SMP N 24 

Semarang. In this research, I used tests and questionnaires to collect the data. I designed an action 

research that consisted of pretest and two cycles of the treatment. The first meeting was for pretest, 

the second until the fourth meeting were for treatments using Video in teaching writing in 

narrative texts and the fifth meeting was for posttest. The result of the study showed that there was 

an improvement of the students’ writing after the students were taught by using Video. It could be 

seen from the average of the pretest was 59.8, the first cycle was 68.55, the second cycle was 79.03, 

and the posttest was 84.82. In conclusion, the use of fairy tail video as a medium worked well in 

writing class, especially for the VIIIA of SMP N 24 Semarang. The students also said that they 

were not bored during the teaching and learning process. They felt fun and their motivation to 

write the narrative texts increased after using Video.  Based on the results above, Video can be an 

interesting and appropriate medium to teach writing. 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2013UniversitasNegeri Semarang 

 
Alamatkorespondensi:  
GedungB3Lantai3 FBSUnnes 
KampusSekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, 50229 
 E-mail: dewi88niez@yahoo.co.id 
 
 
 
 
 

ISSN 2252-6706 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Dewi Permatasari / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

2 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

In teaching English, teachers must have 

four language skills, namely listening, speaking, 

reading and writing. Those skills are very useful 

in communication process. It has to be 

supported by language components, namely 

grammar, vocabulary, spelling, cohesion and 

coherent. Among those skills, writing is 

considered as the most difficult skill for 

mastering a language. 

Based on KTSP curriculum for Junior 

High School students, they are demanded to 

make a simple text in the spoken and written 

form. Furthermore, the objective of teaching 

English at Junior High School does not only 

teach vocabulary, grammar or introduce a new 

dialog with a certain topic but also impresses on 

the discourse level. For this level education, the 

students should learn writing based on the 

certain texts. Furthermore KTSP mentions the 

students of Junior High School are demanded to 

master written five text types. They are 

descriptive, narrative, recount, procedure, and 

report. 

Teaching the students of Junior High 

School is not the same as teaching adults. Those 

students can be categorized as young learners 

who are not concerned with jobs or university 

degrees that require knowledge of language. 

Their world is not as serious as adults’. 

Therefore, it is possible that the young learners’ 

motivation is lower than adults’. Brown 

(2001:160-166) states that, “a cognitive view of 

motivation includes factors such as the need for 

exploration, activity, stimulation, new 

knowledge, and ego enhancement.  The 

motivation can be built from many ways. 

Besides introducing the interesting text type, the 

motivation can be increased by using media in 

teaching”. Brown adds that using a variety of 

media will increase the probability that the 

students will learn more and retain better what 

they learn in improving the performance of the 

skills they are expected to develop. 

  A video is one of the visual aids 

that can be used in a writing class. It makes 

lesson more fun. “Video is the technology of 

electronically capturing, recording, processing, 

storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a 

sequence of still images representing scenes in 

motion” (Harmer, 2001:283). 

“When a class is working on an area of 

language, whether grammatical, functional, or 

lexical – or a mixture of all three – the lesson can 

be greatly enhanced by a video extract which 

shows that language in operation. Short video 

sequences of between one and four minutes can 

yield a number of exercises, demonstrate a 

satisfying range of language, are easier to 

manipulate, and can be highly motivating” 

(Harmer, 2001:283). 

Stempleski in Richards and Renandya 

(2002:362) also adds that “television and video 

are so closely associated with leisure and 

entertainment that many, if not most, students 

watching video in the classroom expect only to 

be entertained”. Teachers need to led students to 

an appreciation of video as a valuable tool for 

language learning and help them to develop 

viewing skills which they can apply to their 

video and television viewing experiences outside 

the classroom. The video will still remain 

entertaining, but the students will also come to 

recognition of how the medium can be used for 

learning. 

 Since writing still becomes a difficult skill 

for students, teachers should know the suitable 

method to teach writing. Using insufficient 

media and method makes the students not 

interested in learning writing. For example when 

teachers are teaching writing, they often use 

monotonous media. The monotonous teaching 

style such as explaining orally or writing down 

all the materials is a boring learning.  

A narrative text is the most interesting 

genre because it tells something imaginative. In 

addition, it involves imaginative thoughts and 

fictive stories to present an amusing and 

fascinating story. It tells a story to entertain or 

inform the reader or listener. In order to make 

students interested in narrative, I use video as 

the teaching media. I use video as a medium 

because it is easy to find, it is also sophisticated 

technology and easy to be understood. Those 



 

Dewi Permatasari / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

3 

 

videos can motivate and attract them in learning 

the lesson.  

 

 

DATA AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS 

 

This study is an action research which is 

concerned with the use of video in teaching 

narrative texts in improving students’ writing 

ability. An action research is a form of 

educational inquiry that uses real action of the 

teachers in response to a certain problem 

encountered during the teaching and learning 

process through cycles of action. A research 

method used in this study is an action research. 

According to Kurt in “Pedoman Teknis 

Pelaksanaan Classroom Action Research” 

Depdiknas (2003:4), there are four components 

in one cycle for doing classroom action research: 

planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. In 

planning activity, I began with arranging the 

lesson plan, the students’ attendance list, the 

teaching media (the teacher’s Video), classroom 

observation, questionnaires, and the pretest. 

Acting is the implementation of the planning, 

which is already made. The acting was done 

with the teaching narrative texts and learning 

process using Video. This third step was about 

trying to get the information of the students’ 

achievement after given the treatment. It was 

done by the teacher and me. The teacher 

observed the implementation of the teaching 

writing narrative texts and learning process 

using Video. Reflecting was about trying to 

analyze the students’ study result whether or not 

the teaching and learning process was successful. 

The result of the discussion, here, would be a 

foundation to determine the next plan. 

 

Subject of Study 

The subject of this study was the the VIII 

year students 24 Junior High School Semarang 

of Class VIIIA with Mrs. Siti Zulaekah S.pd as 

the English teacher. 

 

Instruments of the study 

Saleh (2001:31) states that “the word 

instrument refers to research tools for data 

collecting”. It’s therefore, a fundamental thing to 

be well through out by a researcher before she 

conducts an experiment. An instrument could be 

in the form of questionnaire, observation list, 

interview and test. I used writing test and 

questionnaire as instruments to collect the data 

for my research. Here I applied an achievement 

test to measure the students’ mastery of writing 

after they were given process approach in their 

English learning process. Related to the 

achievement test, there are many types of 

achievement test such as essay test, completion 

test, multiple choice tests, cloze test, and so on. 

In this research, I used essay test.  

 In this research, the tests that I would 

conduct were pretest, test in each cycle, and 

posttest. The pretest was conducted for checking 

whether or not the students could produce the 

narrative text well. The assessment tests were 

used for knowing whether there was 

achievement of the students in producing a 

narrative text. The posttest was used for 

knowing whether or not students could really 

produce a good narrative text. First 

questionnaire was delivered in the end of pretest. 

It was used to know the students’ attitude 

toward the teaching learning process before the 

treatment by using video as a medium in writing 

class. After conducting the posttest, the second 

questionnaires were given to the students to 

know their interests in Video which was used 

during the treatment. 

 Brown and Paul (1998:66) state that 

“questionnaire is a number of question for the 

researcher who wishes to collect information 

from a large number of people but has limited 

time and resources”. Considering the statements 

above, I conclude that questionnaire is a number 

of questions to get information from the 

respondents. 

 The purpose of giving questionnaire in 

this research was to gather information from the 

students about the factors that may affect their 

improvement in writing.  

 A questionnaire was given to gather 

information from the students based on their 

needs, interest, like and dislike, about teaching 

and learning process and about the students’ 



 

Dewi Permatasari / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

4 

 

opinion on the writing class using process 

approach. The questionnaires were used to find 

out: 

 The ability and problem faced by the students 

in writing activities. 

 The sustainability of the program conducted 

during the action research. 

 The advantages gained through the action 

research. 

 

  

Scoring Criteria 

I used rating scale to score or evaluate the 

students’ achievement in writing. In giving the 

score to the students’ writing, I used the 

analytical scoring guidance taken from Heaton’s 

grid and categories (1974:137). There were five 

aspects which were used as the consideration in 

giving scores. Those are: grammar, vocabulary, 

mechanics, relevance and fluency. 

In classifying the score, I used the 

measurement of students’ achievement 

suggested by Harris (1969:134) as interpreted in 

Table 3.3 below:  

 

Table 3.3 Scoring Criteria by Harris 

Grade Criteria of 

Mastery 
Level 

A 

B 

C 

D 

80 – 100 

60 – 79 

50 – 59 

0 – 49 

Good to Excellent 

Average to good 

Good 

Fair 

  

 

Pretest 

A pretest was conducted on 12 March 

2012. This activity was done to measure the 

students’ achievement in writing narrative texts. 

By conducting this activity, I knew whether the 

students understood narrative texts or not. 

 

Table 4.1 The Result of Pretest 

No  

Students’ 

Code 

Writing Assessment Components  

Score 

 

Total 

Score 

G V M R F   

1. S-01 2 3 3 4 3 15  60 

2. S-02 2 3 3 3 2 13 52 

3. S-03 4 3 4 4 4 19 76 

4. S-04 3 2 3 4 3 15 60 

5. S-05 2 2 3 3 2 12 48 

6. S-06 2 3 4 3 3 15 60 

7. S-07 2 2 3 3 2 12 48 

8. S-08 3 3 4 4 4 18 72 

9. S-09 4 3 4 4 3 18 72 

10. S-10 2 2 3 3 3 13 52 

11. S-11 2 3 3 3 2 13 52 

12. S-12 3 2 3 4 2 14 56 

13. S-13 2 2 3 3 3 13 52 

14. S-14 2 3 4 4 3 16 64 

15. S-15 2 2 3 3 3 13 52 

16. S-16 2 4 4 3 3 16 64 

17. S-17 2 3 3 3 3 14 56 

18. S-18 4 4 3 4 3 18 72 

19. S-19 2 2 4 4 3 15 60 

20. S-20 2 3 3 3 3 14 56 



 

Dewi Permatasari / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

5 

 

21. S-21 2 3 4 3 3 15 60 

22. S-22 3 2 4 4 3 16 64 

23. S-23 2 3 3 3 3 14 56 

24. S-24 2 3 3 3 4 15 60 

25. S-25 4 3 4 4 4 19 76 

26. S-26 2 2 3 4 3 14 56 

27. S-27 2 3 3 3 3 14 56 

28. S-28 3 3 4 3 3 16 64 

29. S-29 2 3 3 4 3 15 60 

∑ 29 71 79 98 100 86 434 1736 

 

Based on the table and the chart above, 

there were 16 students or 55.1% who were good 

in writing narrative texts. However, there were 

11 students or 38% who were in the average 

category and 2 students or 6.9% in the poor 

category. Furthermore, the average of students’ 

pretest was 59.86%. 

In this pretest, I found that the students 

were poor on the content of their writing. It was 

because I had not explained in detail about 

narrative texts yet, so they had not known 

narrative text was. Based on the result above, I 

prepared some treatments. The treatments were 

hoped to improve the students’ ability in writing, 

especially in writing narrative text. 

 

Result of Cycle 1 

In this activity I had two meetings; one 

meeting was used to treat the students with 

video for teaching them about narrative texts. It 

was conducted on March 19th 2012.  The first 

meeting was aimed for improving the students’ 

writing ability and also solving their difficulties 

that were found in the previous activity. 

In the first meeting, I explained the 

general knowledge of narrative texts such as the 

social functions and generic structure of 

narrative text by using Video “Cinderella” in 

teaching writing narrative text. The students 

paid attention to the explanation. I opened 

question and answer sessions after explaining 

the material. Then, I showed them another story 

and asked them to identify the social functions 

and generic structure of the text. 

In this stage I started by asking them 

whether they had ever watched fairy tail video 

or not. Many of the students said they had ever 

watched the fairy tail video from the CD.   

Giving the direction before the students 

watched the video actually would become the 

direction what they had to do during I played 

the video “Cinderella”.  Then I played the video 

once in the class. I saw that the students were 

still confused what the Cinderella said. The 

students of my subjects had difficulties in 

catching the ideas of the video by using their 

listening ability. After playing the video once, I 

explained them about what exactly narrative text 

is, the social function and the generic structure 

of narrative text are.  

After implementing Video in cycle 1, I 

conducted cycle 1 test to know the improvement 

of the students’ writing narrative text. The 

students made a paragraph of narrative text 

based on the video shown the screen 

individually. They had to write the story of 

“Cinderella“. The length of the story is not more 

than 250 words and the time allotment was 40 

minutes. 

 

 

 

 

  



 

Dewi Permatasari / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

6 

 

Table 4.3 The Result of Cycle 1 

No  

Students’ 

Code 

Writing Assessment Components  

Score 

 

Total  

Score 

G V M R F   

1. S-01 3 3 4 4 3 17 68 

2. S-02 3 3 4 4 4 18 72 

3. S-03 3 3 4 4 4 18 72 

4. S-04 3 3 3 4 3 16 64 

5. S-05 2 3 3 4 3 15 60 

6. S-06 3 4 4 4 4 19 76 

7. S-07 3 3 3 4 3 16 64 

8. S-08 3 3 4 4 4 18 72 

9. S-09 4 4 4 4 4 20 80 

10. S-10 3 3 4 4 4 18 72 

11. S-11 3 3 4 4 3 17 68 

12. S-12 3 4 3 3 4 17 68 

13. S-13 3 3 4 3 3 16 64 

14. S-14 3 3 4 3 3 16 64 

15. S-15 3 4 4 4 3 18 72 

16. S-16 4 3 3 4 4 18 72 

17. S-17 4 4 3 4 3 18 72 

18. S-18 3 4 3 4 4 18 72 

19. S-19 3 4 4 4 3 18 72 

20. S-20 3 3 4 3 3 16 64 

21. S-21 3 3 4 4 3 17 68 

22. S-22 3 4 3 4 3 17 68 

23. S-23 3 3 3 3 3 15 60 

24. S-24 4 4 4 3 4 19 76 

25. S-25 4 3 3 4 3 17 68 

26. S-26 3 3 3 3 4 16 64 

27. S-27 3 3 4 4 4 18 72 

28. S-28 3 3 3 3 3 15 60 

29. S-29 3 4 3 3 3 16 64 

∑ 29 91 97 103 107 99 497 1988 

 

The students’ achievement after doing the 

first cycle seemed improved. It could be seen 

from the average score of cycle 1 was 68.55%. It 

increased than the pretest result with the margin 

8.7. After being treated with Video, 28 students 

or 96.5% got the good score and one student or 

3.4% got the excellent score. 

 

Result of Cycle 2 

This cycle was conducted because the first 

cycle of this research had not been able to reach 

the research target yet. Therefore in this cycle, I 

had prepared some teaching improvement in 

order to help the students reach the target. 

First, before I played the video I gave the 

instructions as the guide during the students 

watched the video. Then I asked the students to 

list as much as information that found in 

“Mount Tangkuban Perahu“. 



 

Dewi Permatasari / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

7 

 

After watching the video, I asked the 

students how much information they could list 

from the video they watched. Some students 

were still confused with the vocabulary in video.  

Therefore, I played the video again in order to 

give more information to the students. After I 

played the video twice, I asked about the 

information they gained from the video. 

I asked the students to write a narrative 

text individually with the theme “Mount 

Tangkuban Perahu“. In this stage they were to 

use their own sentences and arranged the 

information they got from the video.  They 

should use the information that had been listed 

in the previous meeting to compose their own 

narrative text.  

After giving the instruction to the students 

about this writing activity, I distributed the paper 

and asked them to write their name, student 

number, and their class in the place existed on 

the paper. During the writing activity for about 

40 minutes, I helped them as I could and also 

observed the students’ activity. 

After waiting for about 40 minutes, the 

students submitted their work and arranged their 

writing based on their student number. This 

arrangement had a purpose to make the scoring 

process easier. 

 

 

Table 4.5 The Result of Cycle 2 

No  

Students’ 

Code 

Writing Assessment Components 
 

Score 

 

Total 

Score 

G V M R F   

1. S-01 4 4 4 4 4 20 80 

2. S-02 4 5 4 4 4 21 84 

3. S-03 3 4 4 4 4 19 76 

4. S-04 4 4 4 4 4 20 80 

5. S-05 3 3 4 4 3 17 68 

6. S-06 3 4 4 5 4 20 80 

7. S-07 4 4 4 4 4 20 80 

8. S-08 3 4 4 4 4 19 76 

9. S-09 4 5 5 5 4 23 92 

10. S-10 4 3 4 4 4 19 76 

11. S-11 4 4 3 4 4 19 76 

12. S-12 4 4 4 4 4 20 80 

13. S-13 4 3 4 4 4 19 76 

14. S-14 4 5 4 5 4 22 88 

15. S-15 4 3 4 4 4 19 76 

16. S-16 4 4 4 4 4 20 80 

17. S-17 4 3 4 4 4 19 76 

18. S-18 4 4 4 5 4 21 84 

19. S-19 3 4 4 4 3 18 72 

20. S-20 4 4 5 4 4 21 84 

21. S-21 4 3 4 4 4 19 76 

22. S-22 4 4 4 4 4 20 80 

23. S-23 4 4 4 4 4 20 80 

24. S-24 4 4 4 4 5 21 84 

25. S-25 4 4 5 4 4 21 84 



 

Dewi Permatasari / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

8 

 

26. S-26 4 3 4 4 4 19 76 

27. S-27 4 4 4 4 3 19 76 

28. S-28 3 4 3 4 4 18 72 

29. S-29 4 4 4 4 4 20 80 

∑ 29 110 112 117 120 114 573 2292 

 

The average of students’ score percentage 

was then calculated by using this formula; 

The average of the student result = 
                    

                         
 X 100% 

     

 =  
    

  
 x 100% 

                                                         

= 79.03 % 

 

Result of Posttest 

After giving the treatment for each group, 

I conducted a posttest. The posttest which was 

conducted on 2 April 2012 was aimed to 

measure whether there were differences on 

students’ score before and after getting the 

treatment. In this stage, I reviewed briefly about 

the lesson which had been given. The procedure 

of the posttest was the same as the pretest. The 

students had to write the story based on the 

components of writing and the generic structure 

of a narrative text.  

In this stage, I reviewed briefly about the 

lesson which had been given. The procedure of 

the posttest was the same as the pretest. The 

students had to write the story based on the 

components of writing and the generic structure 

of a narrative text. 

In pretest, the score of grammar was 71, it 

improved 91 in formative test 1, the formative 

test 2 was 110, and finally, it became 115 in the 

last test which was posttest. It was a good 

progress, gradually the students improved their 

grammar. Narrative text uses simple past tense, 

so it was not a big problem for them to learn that 

genre, it was very simple. Most of the students 

knew and mastered the tense. 

 

 

Table 4.7 The Result of Posttest 

No  

Students’ 

Code 

Writing Assessment Components 
 

Score 

 

Total 

Score 
G V M R F 

1. S-01 4 4 5 5 4 22 88 

2. S-02 4 4 5 4 5 22 88 

3. S-03 4 5 4 4 4 21 84 

4. S-04 4 4 4 4 3 19 76 

5. S-05 4 3 4 5 4 20 80 

6. S-06 4 4 5 5 4 22 88 

7. S-07 4 4 4 5 5 22 88 

8. S-08 4 4 4 5 4 21 84 

9. S-09 4 4 5 5 5 23 92 

10. S-10 4 5 4 4 4 21 84 

11. S-11 4 4 5 4 5 22 88 

12. S-12 4 4 4 5 4 21 84 

13. S-13 4 4 4 4 4 20 80 

14. S-14 4 4 4 5 5 22 88 

15. S-15 4 5 4 4 4 21 84 

16. S-16 4 4 5 5 4 22 88 

17. S-17 4 3 4 5 4 20 80 



 

Dewi Permatasari / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

9 

 

18. S-18 4 4 4 5 5 22 88 

19. S-19 5 4 4 5 4 22 88 

20. S-20 4 4 5 4 4 21 84 

21. S-21 3 4 5 4 3 19 76 

22. S-22 4 4 4 5 5 22 88 

23. S-23 4 5 4 4 4 21 84 

24. S-24 4 4 4 5 5 22 88 

25. S-25 4 4 5 4 4 21 84 

26. S-26 4 4 5 4 5 22 88 

27. S-27 4 4 5 5 4 22 88 

28. S-28 3 4 4 5 3 19 76 

29. S-29 4 4 5 4 4 21 84 

∑ 29 115 118 128 132 122 615 2460 

 

The Improvement of Students’ Test Result 

  

The result was shown in the chart as 

follows: 

 

 

 

Chart 4.9 The Improvement of Students Test Result 

 

 

The average score of pretest was 59.86. 

The average of students’ score percentage in 

cycle 1 test was 68.55. The average score of 

cycle 2 was 79.03. The average score of posttest 

was 84.82. 

 

Analysis of First Questionnaire 

 

First questionnaire was delivered in the 

end of pretest. It was used to know the students’ 

attitude toward the teaching learning process 

before the treatment by using video as a medium 

in writing class.  

 

 

 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pretest Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Post Test



 

Dewi Permatasari / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

10 

 

Table 4.9 The Result of the First Questionnaires 

 

No. Questions Answers 

Yes No 

1. Do you like English lesson? 83% 17% 

2. Do you like writing in English? 69% 31% 

3. Do you think that writing a narrative is difficult? 72% 28% 

4. Do you feel bored with your teacher’s method in teaching 

writing? 

93% 7% 

5. Do you like watching Fairy tail Video? 76% 24% 

6.  Do you agree if video is used as one of teaching methods? 93% 7% 

7. Do you think that the teacher had used the media? 0% 100% 

8. Are you willing to learn writing narrative by using video?  96% 4% 

 

4.2.6 Analysis of Second Questionnaire 

After conducting the posttest, the 

questionnaires were given to the students to 

know their interests in Video which was used 

during the treatment. There were eight questions 

in the questionnaires. Then the students should 

answer them with “yes” or “no”. The questions 

were written in English. In order to make the 

students understand my questionnaires, I 

translated the questions to Indonesian.  

 

Table 4.10 The Result of the Second Questionnaires 

No. Questions Answers 

Yes No 

1. Do you think that writing English is difficult to learn? 79% 21% 

2. Do you like learning English with Video? 90% 10% 

3. Do you think that the use of Video as a medium to teach 

writing narrative is necessary? 

93% 7% 

4. Video is available everywhere, so I can get it easily and use 

it anytime. 

96% 4% 

5. Does this treatment help you in answering the questions 

related to the texts? 

76% 24% 

6.  Does this treatment help you in mastering vocabularies 

and grammar? 

83% 17% 

7. Can this medium improve your motivation in learning 

English? 

93% 7% 

8. Does the situation of the class become enjoyable after 

using media? 

96% 4% 

 

The Advantages of Using Video in Teaching 

Writing Narrative Texts 

Using Video in teaching writing narrative 

texts has some advantages as follows: 

(1) Teaching using Video can increase the 

students’ motivation in writing the texts 

because the writing activities are not 

monotonous and more alive.  

(2) Using Video makes the students enjoy 

and interested in English teaching and 

learning activities. Therefore, they are 

not bored with the classroom activity. 

 

The Disadvantages of Using Video in Teaching 

Writing Narrative Texts 



 

Dewi Permatasari / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 

11 

 

The first was when the students were 

asked to write the text; some students did not 

understand the vocabulary. To overcome this 

problem, the teacher asked the students to open 

their dictionary.  

  The second was when the 

teacher was using Video. I need some well 

preparations in order not to spend a lot of time 

to use this medium in the class.   

 

CONCLUSION 

 

Based on the data analysis and the 

discussion about the use of Video in teaching 

narrative texts for Junior High School students 

especially for the eighth-year students of SMP N 

24 Semarang, the most difficulty that the 

students had in writing narrative texts was 

grammar, because they had difficulty in using 

verb past. Most of them had the same mistake. 

 The students got difficulty in writing 

narrative texts because they had less motivation. 

The reason was the teacher did not use any 

media that could make the students enjoy and 

relaxed in teaching and learning process.The 

action research on developing the students’ 

writing ability especially in writing a narrative 

text by using videos was successful. The 

computation result on pretest was 59.86%; 

68.55% on formative test 1, 79.03% on formative 

test 2,  and on posttest was 84.82%. It shows that 

the students’ ability in writing is influenced by a 

teacher’s way of teaching method. Teaching 

narrative writing by using video can give 

contribution to the success of teaching writing.  

Based on the research, the students 

showed the improvement in writing narrative 

texts by using video as a medium. It is because 

video has many advantages. Teaching using 

Video can increase the students’ motivation in 

writing narrative texts because the writing 

activities are not monotonous and more alive. 

Using Video as a medium makes the students 

fun and interested in English teaching and 

learning activities. Therefore, they are not bored 

with the classroom activity. 

Based on the research, the students 

showed the improvement in writing narrative 

texts by using video as a medium. It is because 

video has many advantages. Teaching using 

Video can increase the students’ motivation in 

writing narrative texts because the writing 

activities are not monotonous and more alive. 

Using Video as a medium makes the students 

fun and interested in English teaching and 

learning activities. Therefore, they are not bored 

with the classroom activity. 

 

REFERENCES 

 

Brown, D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An 

Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. San 

Fransisco: Longman. 

Depdiknas 2003. Pedoman Teknis 

Pelaksanaan Classroom Action Research (CAR). 

Jakarta : Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 

Harmer.J. 2001. The  Practice of English 

Language Teaching. Essex: Longman. 

 Heaton, J.B.1974. Writing English 

Language Test. Essex: Longman. 

Harris, D. 1969. Testing English as a Second 

language. New York: Mc. Graw  Hill book 

Company  

Richards, J. and W. Renandya. 2002. 

Methodology in Language Teaching. New York. 

Cambridge University Press. 

Robinson, A. 2003. The Origins of Writing. 

In David Crowley and Paul Heyer (eds). Pp.35-

36 

Saleh, M. 2001. Pengantar Praktek 

Penelitian Pengajaran Bahasa. Semarang: IKIP 

Semarang Press. 

 

. 

 


