




































32 

 ELT FORUM 3 (1) (2014) 

 

Journal of English Language Teaching 
 

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

 

 

TEACHING WRITTEN ANNOUNCEMENT THROUGH GALLERY WALK 

TECHNIQUE (An Experimental Study of Eighth Grade Students at SMP 

Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri, Kabupaten Kendal, in the Academic Year of 

2013/2014) 

 

A’in Ratna Mulyani  

 

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

 

Article Info 

________________ 
Article  History: 

Received in April 2014 

Approved in Mei 2014 

Published in Juni 2014 

________________ 
Keywords: 

Writing Skill, 

Announcement Text, 

Gallery Walk Technique 

____________________ 

Abstract
 

___________________________________________________________________ 

The objective of this study was to find out whether there was significant difference in the achievement 

of writing announcement text between the eighth grade students of SMP Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri 

in the academic year of 2013/2014 who were taught by using Gallery Walk technique and those 

who were taught by using conventional method. To meet this objective, an experimental research 

design called pretest-posttest control group design was applied. The research was carried out at SMP 

Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri. The subjects of the research were two classes. The experimental group 

was the students of VIII-A which consisted of 28 students and was taught by using Gallery Walk 

technique. The control group was the students of VIII-B which consisted of 28 students and was 

taught by using conventional method. The data of the research were obtained from the writing test 

on pre-test and post-test. Based on the pre-test analysis, the value of tvalue was 0.38, while the value 

of ttable was 1.67. Since the value of tvalue was lower than the ttable, it meant that there was no significant 

difference in the students’ achievement of writing announcement text between experimental and 

control groups on pre-test. Meanwhile, based on the post-test analysis, the value of tvalue was 1.76. 

Compared with the value of ttable, 1.67, the tvalue was higher than the ttable. It meant that there was 

significant difference in the students’ achievement of writing announcement text after the treatment 

was given where the students’ achievement in experimental group was higher or better than the 

control group. The result above indicates that the use of Gallery Walk technique in teaching writing 

announcement text brought about significant improvement.  

 

© 2014 Universitas Negeri Semarang 

 
 Correspondent Address:  

   B3 Building FBS Unnes   

   Sekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, 50229 

   E-mail: ainratnam123@yahoo.co.id 

ISSN 2252-6706 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

A’in Ratna Mulyani / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

33 

INTRODUCTION 

 

In educational system in Indonesia, 

English is included in curriculum for both junior 

and senior high school levels. In the Kurikulum 

Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) for 

SMP/MTs which is also called 2006 

Competence-Based Curriculum, the teaching 

learning of English has the purpose to develop 

four language skills: listening, speaking, reading 

and writing.  

Writing is a skill that is required in written 

communication. It requires complex thinking. A 

good writing is not always easy and may be a 

challenge even for the best students. Palmer, 

Hafner, and Sharp (1994:7) state that “if the goal 

of writing is to communicate meaning to 

ourselves and others, thinking will occur as the 

writer (1) generates ideas, thoughts, and images; 

(2) creates an order to those thoughts; and (3) 

communicates this meaning to others through 

interesting text that, ideally, is well written.” 

If we take a look at the teaching learning 

process at schools, writing is difficult to be 

learned by students. Like the researcher have ever 

experienced when she became a teacher trainee at 

a junior high school, many students got difficulty 

in writing English. At that time, the researcher 

explained about a short functional text especially 

announcements then the students were 

demanded to make them by their own, the 

researcher found that they faced some difficulties. 

Usually, they got difficulties in choosing 

appropriate words, combining sentences, and 

communicating their ideas or thought into good 

sentences or text. Beside that, several of them still 

got confused in using the grammar. 

In this case, the researcher realized that the 

students’ achievement is not only affected by their 

ability and skills in writing but also influenced by 

the method which is used. Slameto (2010:65) says 

that “teacher usually teaches using classical way 

and the students feel bored, sleepy, passive, and 

only write down on their note. It is mentioned 

that a progressive teacher will try a new method 

which can be used to improve the teaching 

learning process and to motivate students to 

learn.” 

In this study, the researcher would like to 

use Gallery Walk technique to teach writing 

announcement text. Based on the competence 

standard of the eighth grade of Junior High 

School, in the sixth competence standard, it is 

stated that “Mengungkapkan makna dalam teks 

tulis fungsional dan esei pendek sederhana 

berbentuk descriptive, dan recount untuk 

berinteraksi dengan lingkungan sekitar.” And in 

the point 6.1 of basic competence, it is stated that 

“Mengungkapkan makna dalam bentuk teks tulis 

fungsional pendek sederhana dengan 

menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis secara akurat, 

lancar, dan berterima untuk berinteraksi dengan 

lingkungan sekitar.”  

It could be seen that the students of junior 

high school should master short functional texts. 

One kind of short functional texts that students 

have to master is announcement text. 

Announcement is a statement in spoken or 

written form that makes something known 

publicly. It should be brief and could answer 

what, when, where, and who. Often it includes 

why and how. It seems that it is easy to make 

announcement, but most of students always feel 

difficult when they are asked to make their own. 

In order to help students in writing 

announcement text, the researcher will try to use 

Gallery Walk technique. 

“Gallery Walk is a discussion technique 

that gets students out of their chair and actively 

involved in synthesizing important science 

concept, writing, and public speaking” (Francek, 

2006). The advantage of this technique is its 

flexibility. It can be organized for a simple 15-

minutes ice breaker or a week-long project 

involving graded oral or written reports. It can be 

used with introductory or advanced material and 

with a variety of class sizes. Finally, a Gallery 

Walk gives chance to move around the 

classroom, directing students’ focus and 

interrupting the lethargy that sometimes results 

from being seated for long periods.  

Francek (2006) further explains the 

common procedures in conducting a Gallery 

Walk. They are as follows: 

1) Create and post questions 



 

A’in Ratna Mulyani / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

34 

2) Group students, assign roles, and stress team 

building 

3) Assign stations and begin comments 

4) Rotation 

5) Begin oral presentation 

Meanwhile, Bowman (2005) suggests the 

general instructions for teaching using Gallery 

Walk as follows: 

1) Tape a number of large sheets of paper to the 

wall of the training room. Space the chart pages 

so that learners can walk from one chart to 

another.  

2) Label each chart with question, statement, or 

issue related to the topic. 

3) Learners walk around the room writing their 

responses on the charts.  

4) Assign a direction to move or they can move 

randomly. They can do the activity as individuals 

or in groups. 

5) After the learners have written on all the charts 

and jotted down their observation on a work 

sheet, learners then spend a short period of time 

in small groups discussing their observation. 

6) Finally they discuss the activity with the whole 

group.  

From this brief explanation, the researcher 

will modify a bit the steps in conducting the 

Gallery Walk technique in teaching writing 

announcement text. In this research, the 

researcher will divide the students into five 

groups. Each group will rotate and answer some 

questions based on the announcement given. 

Here, the group will practice as a small group 

discussion. After they have finished answering all 

questions, there will be a class discussion. By 

using Gallery Walk, each group also can leave a 

comment or feedback to other groups’ works. 

The aim of this study is to find out in 

whether there is significant difference in the 

achievement of writing announcement text 

between the eighth grade students of SMP 

Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri in the academic year 

of 2013/2014 who are taught using Gallery Walk 

technique and those who are taught using 

conventional method. Thus, to meet this 

objective, there are two hypotheses that are 

drawn. The first hypothesis is the working 

hypothesis (H1): there is significant difference in 

the achievement of writing announcement text 

between the eighth grade students of SMP 

Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri in the academic year 

of 2013/2014 who are taught using Gallery Walk 

technique and those who are taught using 

conventional method. The second hypothesis is 

the null hypothesis (Ho): there is no significant 

difference in the achievement of writing 

announcement text between the eighth grade 

students of SMP Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri in the 

academic year of 2013/2014 who are taught 

using Gallery Walk technique and those who are 

taught using conventional method. In this study, 

the researcher hopes that using Gallery Walk 

technique can improve the students’ skill in 

writing announcement text. 

 

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 

 

This study used pre-test post-test control 

group design which is included in true 

experimental design. The design of this study is 

presented as the following:  

 

 E O1 X O2 

 C O3 Y O4 

     (Tuckman in Saleh, 2011) 

 

Where:  

E : Experimental group 

C : Control group 

O1 : Pre-test for the experimental group 

O2 : Post-test for the experimental group 

O3: Pre-test for the control group 

O4: Post-test for the control group 

X :Treatment using Gallery Walk 

technique 

Y :Treatment without Gallery Walk 

technique 

This study consisted of pre-tests, 

treatments, and post-tests. Pre-tests were given to 

measure the students’ skill in writing 

announcement text before the treatments were 

given. Meanwhile, the post-tests were given after 

the treatments. Both, the pre-tests and the post-

tests were in a form of writing test. The 

experimental group was taught by using Gallery 



 

A’in Ratna Mulyani / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

35 

Walk technique, while the control group was 

taught by using conventional method. 

The population of this study was the eighth 

grade students of SMP Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri 

in the academic year of 2013/2014 which was 

divided into three classes: VIII-A, VIII-B, and 

VIII-C. Every class consisted of 28 students, so 

the total of those three classes were 84 students. 

The samples were class VIII-A as the 

experimental group and class VIII-B as the 

control group. Those two classes were chosen 

based on the English teacher’s recommendation 

because in SMP Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri there 

is no stratification in dividing the population. 

Furthermore, they were chosen in order to make 

it easy in labeling the group. The researcher took 

those two classes from the eighth grade students 

of SMP Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri because 

announcement text material which is included in 

short functional text, as it is insisted in 

curriculum, is given in the first semester and is 

included in writing competence of the eighth 

grade in junior high school.  

The instrument used was writing test 

because it is the most appropriate instrument to 

measure the students’ mastery in writing 

announcement text. In collecting data, the 

researcher took the students’ scores in writing 

announcement text through pre-tests and post-

tests. There were five aspect of writing that were 

scored based on Brown’s rubric assessment: (a) 

organization, (b) content, (c) grammar, (d) 

punctuation, spelling, mechanics, and (e) style 

and quality of expression (Brown and Bailey cited 

in Brown 2004:244). 

After the data were obtained, then the data 

from pre-tests and post-tests were analyzed by 

using t-test formula. The t-test was used to find 

out whether there was significant difference in the 

achievement of writing announcement text 

between the eighth grade students of SMP 

Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri in the academic year 

of 2013/2014 who were taught using Gallery 

Walk technique and those who were taught using 

conventional method.  

 

RESULTS OF THE STUDY 

 

3.1 Pre-test Analysis 

The aim of the pre-test was to know the 

basic or prior knowledge that the students had in 

writing announcement texts before they were 

given the treatments. The pre-test for 

experimental group was held on Friday, 23rd of 

August 2013; while the pre-test for control group 

was held on Saturday, 24th of August 2013. They 

were 28 students in each group. This pre-test was 

in a form of writing test. Both the experimental 

and the control groups had the same writing test. 

The students were asked to make announcement 

texts by choosing one of the given themes. The 

time allotment in doing pre-test was 60 minutes. 

From the result of the pre-test scores, the 

highest score for the experimental group was 79 

and the lowest score was 20. Meanwhile, the 

highest score for the control group was 71 and the 

lowest score was 12. The next step was calculated 

the mean. The mean of the experimental group 

was 53.61, while the mean of the control group 

was 51.75. Below was the figure of comparison 

between the mean of the experimental and the 

control groups on the pre-test.  

 

Figure 3.1 The Mean of the Experimental and the Control Groups on Pre-test 

 

0

100 53,61 51,75

Experimental group Control group



 

A’in Ratna Mulyani / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

36 

The figure above showed that the students’ 

achievement of both groups were relatively the 

same before they were given the treatment. In 

order to prove that there were similarities in pre-

test data in the experimental and the control 

groups, t-test was needed. However, before the t-

test was calculated, the normality and 

homogeneity of the pre-test scores were analyzed 

first.  

To test the normality of the pre-test scores, 

the Chi Square formula was used. The result of 

the calculation showed that the value of X2
data for 

the experimental group was 2.59, while the value 

of X2
data for the control group was 6.09. 

Meanwhile, the value of X2
table with degrees of 

freedom (dk) = k – 3 = 6 – 3 = 3 and α = 5% is 

7.81. Since the value of X2
data for the experimental 

group (2.59) and the control group (6.09) were 

lower than the value of X2
table (7.81), it meant that 

the pre-test scores for both of groups were said to 

be normally distributed.  

 To test the homogeneity of the pre-test 

scores, F test was used. From the calculation, the 

value of Fdata for the pre-test scores was 1.82. 

Meanwhile, the value of Ftable with dk numerator 

V1 = n1 – 1 = 28 – 1 = 27, dk denominator V2 = 

n2 – 1 = 28 – 1 = 27 and α = 5%, squared to V1 = 

28 and V2 = 28 is 1.87. Since the value of Fdata was 

lower than the Ftable, it could be concluded that the 

variances of the pre-test scores in experimental 

and control groups fulfilled the condition of 

homogeneity.  

 

3.2 T-test for Pre-test 

In order to find out that there were 

similarities in pre-test data in the experimental 

and the control groups, t-test was used. Here, the 

first step was to obtain the tvalue using the 

following formula (Sudjana 2005:243): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on the formula above,  

the result of tvalue was: 

𝑡 =
53.61 − 51.75

18.25 √
1

28
− 

1
28

 

𝑡 = 0.38  

It could be seen from the calculation that 

the value of tvalue was 0.38. Meanwhile, the value 

of ttable with level of significance (α) = 5% and 

degrees of freedom (dk) = 54 was 1.67. Since the 

value of tvalue was lower than the ttable, thus we 

could conclude that the t-test was not significant, 

meaning that there were similarities in pre-test 

data in the experimental and the control groups. 

In other words, the null hypothesis (Ho) was 

accepted. 

 

3.3 Treatment for Experimental Group 

The researcher was applying a Gallery 

Walk technique as a treatment to teach how to 

write announcement texts. The treatment was 

given to the experimental group, which consisted 

of 28 students, in four meetings. Each meeting 

was done in 2 x 40 minutes. The following were 

the learning activities during the treatment for the 

experimental group: 

Opening 

1. The class was opened by praying together. 

2. Teacher checked the students’ attendance. 

Main Activities 

(1) Meeting 1 (2x40’) 

It was divided into two activities, they 

were: pre-test and exploration. 

 Pre-test (60’)  

1. Students were told that they would be given 

a pre-test on that day. The aim of the pre-test 

was to measure their ability in writing 

t : t-test 

𝑋1
̅̅ ̅  : the mean of the pre-test of the experimental group 

𝑋2
̅̅ ̅  : the mean of the pre-test of the control group 

𝑛1  : the number of the experimental group 

𝑛2  : the number of the control group  

𝑆  : standard deviation  

𝑆1  : standard deviation of the experimental group 

𝑆2  : standard deviation of the control group  

 

𝑡 =
𝑋1
̅̅ ̅ − 𝑋2

̅̅ ̅ 

𝑆√
1
𝑛1

+
1

𝑛2

 



 

A’in Ratna Mulyani / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

37 

announcement texts before they were given 

the treatment. 

2. Students were given a piece of paper 

containing the instruction, the themes of 

announcement text that should be 

chosen to write, scoring rubric, and a 

piece of worksheet. 

3. Students submitted their work. 

 Exploration (20’) 

4. Students were asked questions about 

announcement texts and the Gallery 

Walk technique that they would practice. 

5. Students and teacher discussed about 

announcement text and how to use 

Gallery Walk technique in writing 

activity. 

(2) Meeting 2 (2x40’) – Elaboration  

1. Students and teacher reviewed about the 

previous meeting, that was about 

announcement text and how to use the 

Gallery Walk technique in writing 

activity. 

2. The class was divided into five groups. 

3. In class there were five stations, each 

station was provided with example of 

announcement text and question. 

4. Each group was rotated from station one 

to five to answer all questions based on 

the example of announcement on the 

answer sheet in a given time. 

5. After all groups had finished rotating and 

answering all questions based on the 

example announcements, there was class 

discussion. 

6. The students were told that in the next 

meeting they would practice to make 

announcement texts. 

(3) Meeting 3 (2x40’) – Elaboration 

1. Students and teacher reviewed about the 

previous meeting. 

2. The students were divided into five 

groups (the same groups with the 

previous meeting). 

3. In groups, the students tried to make 

announcement texts. 

4. After that, they attached their group 

work on the wall. 

5. The students did Gallery Walk like the 

previous meeting, each group rotated 

visiting the other groups’ work. However, 

this time they did not answer the questions 

but they gave feedback or comment to the 

other groups’ work. 

6. The students went back to their desks and 

did a class discussion. 

7. The students were asked about difficulties 

they found.  

8. The students were told that they would be 

given a post-test in the next meeting.  

(4) Meeting 4 (2x40’) – Confirmation  

It was divided into two activities, they 

were: review and post-test. 

 Review (20’)  

The students and teacher reviewed about 

the all activities they had done before in the 

previous meetings.  

 Post-test  (60’) 

The students did the post-test (the 

instrument of the post-test were similar with those 

on the pre-test), then they submitted it to the 

teacher. 

Closing 

1. Students told the teacher what they had 

learnt in class, the teacher gave some 

feedback. 

2. Teacher closed the lesson.  

 

3.4 Treatment for Control Group 

The control group, consisted of 28 

students, was taught the same material as the 

experimental group. It was about announcement 

text. Here, the researcher was applying 

conventional method. This method was the 

method that their teacher usually used. The 

learning activities for the control group were also 

conducted in four meetings. Each meeting was 

done in 2 x 40 minutes. The following were the 

learning activities for the control group: 

Opening 

1. The class was opened by praying together. 

2. Teacher checked the students’ attendance. 

Main Activities  

(1) Meeting 1 (2x40’) 

It was divided into two activities, they 

were: pre-test and exploration. 



 

A’in Ratna Mulyani / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

38 

 Pre-test (60’) 

1. Students were told that they would be given 

a pre-test on that day. The aim of the pre-test 

was to measure their ability in writing 

announcement texts before they were taught 

using conventional method.  

2. Students were given a piece of paper 

containing the instruction, the themes of 

announcement text that should be chosen to 

write, scoring rubric, and a piece of 

worksheet. 

3. Students submitted their work.  

 Exploration (20’) 

4. Students were asked some questions about 

announcement texts as an introduction.  

(2) Meeting 2 (2x40’) – Elaboration  

1. Teacher asked the students about 

announcement text as a building 

knowledge.  

2. Teacher explained about what 

announcement text was, its social function 

and its parts. 

3. Teacher gave some examples of 

announcement text then students tried to 

analyze it about its function and its parts. 

4. Students learnt new vocabularies, spelling, 

and punctuation. 

5. Students mentioned the content of 

announcement texts. 

6. Teacher explained about the grammar 

(simple future tense and simple past tense).  

7. Teacher gave some exercises.  

8. Students were told that in the next meeting 

they would practice to make 

announcement texts.  

(3) Meeting 3 (2x40’) – Elaboration  

1. Students and teacher reviewed about the 

previous meeting.  

2. Teacher gave other examples of 

announcement text and students tried to 

mention the content of announcement. 

3. Teacher gave some exercises in a form of 

fill in the blank.  

4. Students filled in the blank of some 

announcement texts.  

5. Students tried to make announcement texts 

with the given theme guided by the teacher.  

6. Students were told that they would be given 

a post-test in the next meeting.   

(4) Meeting 4 (2x40’)  

It was divided into two activities, they 

were: review and post-test. 

 Review (20’)  

The students and teacher reviewed about 

the all activities they had done before in the 

previous meetings.  

 Post-test  (60’) 

Students did the post-test (the instrument 

of the post-test were similar with those on the pre-

test), then they submitted it to the teacher.  

Closing 

1. Students told the teacher what they had 

learnt in class, the teacher gave some 

feedback. 

2. Teacher closed the lesson.  

 

3.5 Post-test Analysis  

The aim of the post-test was to measure the 

students’ skill in writing announcement texts after 

the treatment was given. The post-test for 

experimental group was held on Saturday, 31st of 

August 2013; while the post-test for control group 

was held on Monday, 2nd of September 2013. 

They were 28 students in each group. The form 

of the post-test was exactly the same as the pre-

test. It was in a form of writing test. The students 

were asked to make announcement texts by 

choosing one of the given themes. The time 

allotment in doing post-test was 60 minutes. 

From the result of the post-test scores, the 

highest score for the experimental group was 96 

and the lowest score was 34. Meanwhile, the 

highest score for the control group was 88 and the 

lowest score was 30. The next step was 

calculating the mean. The mean of the 

experimental group was 71.32, while the mean of 

the control group was 63.89. 

Below was the figure of comparison 

between the mean of the experimental and the 

control groups on the post-test.  



 

A’in Ratna Mulyani / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

39 

 

Figure 3.5 The Mean of the Experimental and the Control Groups on Post-test 

 

The figure above showed that the students’ 

achievement in the experimental group was 

higher than the students’ achievement in the 

control group. However, the t-test was still 

needed. It was used to check whether the 

difference of the students’ data on post-test was 

significant or not. Before the t-test was calculated, 

the normality and homogeneity of the post-test 

scores were analyzed first.  

To test the normality of the post-test 

scores, the Chi Square formula was used. The 

result of the calculation showed that the value of 

X2
data for the experimental group was 1.18, while 

the value of X2
data for the control group was 1.15. 

Meanwhile, the value of X2
table with degrees of 

freedom (dk) = k – 3 = 6 – 3 = 3 and α = 5% is 

7.81. Since the value of X2
data for the experimental 

group (1.18) and the control group (1.15) were 

lower than the value of X2
table (7.81), it meant that 

the post-test scores for both of groups were said to 

be normally distributed.  

To test the homogeneity of the post-test 

scores, F test was used. From the calculation, the 

value of Fdata for the post-test scores was 1.34. 

Meanwhile, the value of Ftable with dk numerator 

V1 = n1 – 1 = 28 – 1 = 27, dk denominator V2 = 

n2 – 1 = 28 – 1 = 27 and α = 5%, squared to V1 = 

28 and V2 = 28 is 1.87. Since the value of Fdata was 

lower than the Ftable, it could be concluded that the 

variances of the post-test scores in experimental 

and control groups fulfilled the condition of 

homogeneity. 

 

3.6 T-test for Post-test 

In order to find out that there was 

significant difference in post-test data in the 

experimental and the control groups, t-test was 

used. Here, the first step was to obtain the tvalue 

using the following formula (Sudjana 2005:243): 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on the formula above, 

 the result of tvalue was: 

𝑡 =
71.32 − 63.89

15.86 √
1

28
− 

1
28

 

𝑡 = 1.76 

0

20

40

60

80

100

71,32
63,89

Experimental group Control group

t : t-test 

𝑋1
̅̅ ̅  : the mean of the pre-test of the experimental group 

𝑋2
̅̅ ̅  : the mean of the pre-test of the control group 

𝑛1  : the number of the experimental group 

𝑛2  : the number of the control group  

𝑆  : standard deviation  

𝑆1  : standard deviation of the experimental group 

𝑆2  : standard deviation of the control group  

 

𝑡 =
𝑋1
̅̅ ̅ − 𝑋2

̅̅ ̅ 

𝑆√
1
𝑛1

+
1

𝑛2

 



 

A’in Ratna Mulyani / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

40 

It could be seen from the calculation that 

the value of tvalue was 1.76. Meanwhile, the value 

of ttable with level of significance (α) = 5% and 

degrees of freedom (dk) = 54 was 1.67. Since the 

value of tvalue was higher than the value of ttable, 

thus we could conclude that the t-test was 

significant, meaning that there were differences in 

post-test data in the experimental and the control 

groups. In other words, the null hypothesis (Ho) 

was rejected and the working hypothesis (H1) 

was accepted. 

 

3.7 Discussion of the Research Findings 

Based on the analysis of the pre-test data, 

the t-test result was not significant. It meant that 

there was no significant difference in the students’ 

achievement of writing announcement text before 

the treatment was given. In other words, there 

was similarity in pre-test data in the experimental 

and the control groups. Thus, it was concluded 

that both of groups had the same initial condition. 

After that, the experimental group was 

given a treatment in a form of Gallery Walk 

technique to teach writing announcement texts. 

Based on Francek (2006), Gallery Walk 

technique was “a discussion technique that gets 

students out of their chairs and actively involved 

in synthesizing important science concept, 

writing, and public speaking.” 

After the treatments were given, the post-

test data were analyzed. Based on the analysis of 

the post-test data, the t-test result was significant. 

It meant that there was significant difference in 

post-test data in the experimental and the control 

groups where the students’ achievement in 

experimental group was higher or better than that 

in the control group. In other words, the 

application of Gallery Walk technique to the 

experimental group improved the students’ 

achievement in writing announcement texts. 

In this matter, it meant that the working 

hypothesis which stated that “There is significant 

difference in the achievement of writing 

announcement text between the eighth grade 

students of SMP Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri in the 

academic year of 2013/2014 who are taught 

using Gallery Walk technique and those who are 

taught using conventional method” was 

accepted.  

 

CONCLUSION 

 

Based on the research findings and the 

analysis, the results of the research were:  

1) There was significant difference in the 

achievement of writing announcement text 

between the eighth grade students of SMP 

Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri in the academic 

year of 2013/2014 who were taught using 

Gallery Walk technique and those who were 

taught using conventional method. 

2) The students’ achievement of writing 

announcement text who were taught by 

using Gallery Walk technique was higher or 

better than those who were taught by using 

conventional method. 

Based on those results, it could be 

concluded that using Gallery Walk technique 

improved the students’ achievement in writing 

announcement texts for the eighth grade students 

of SMP Muhammadiyah 1 Weleri in the 

academic year of 2013/2014.  

 

REFERENCES 

 

Bowman, Sharon L. 2005. The Gallery Walk: An 

Opening, Closing, and Review Activity. 

Available at  

http://www.bowperson.com/BOWPERSON/Galler

yWalk.pdf [accessed April 2013] 

Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment. New 

York: Longman.  

Francek, Mark. 2006. Promoting Discussion in the 

Science Classroom Using Gallery Walks. 

Journal of College Science Teaching, September. 

Page 27-31 Available at  

http://blog.stetson.edu/jrseminars/wp-

content/uploads/Gallery-Walk.pdf [accessed 

May 2013] 

Palmer, C. Barbara, Mary L. Hafner, and Marylin F. 

Sharp. 1994. Developing Cultural Literacy through 

the Writing Process. Massachusetts: Allyn and 

Bacon. 

Saleh, M. 2011. Linguistics and Educational Research. 

Handout and Assignment of Semarang State 

University. 



 

A’in Ratna Mulyani / Journal of English Language Teaching 3 (1) (2014) 

41 

Slameto. 2010. Belajar dan Faktor-faktor yang 

Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. 

Sudjana. 2005. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito. 

 

 

 


