THE USE OF FOUR-SQUARE WRITING TO IMPROVE THE WRITING ABILITY OF DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS BY THE FIRST YEAR (X.1) STUDENTS OF SMA NEGERI 4 PEKANBARU

This research aims to know whether Four-Square Writing Method could improve the students' ability in writing descriptive texts and also the factors that contribute to the improvement. The writer collected the quantitative data by using writing tests and qualitative by using observation sheets and field notes. The minimum criteria of the successful action were 75. Before applying the Four-Square Writing Method, the students were given a pre-test to know their writing ability or their base score. After applying the Four-Square Writing Method, the students' score increased from pre-test to post-test 1 and post-test 2. Based on the data analysis, the students' score improved from 68,97 in the pre-test, to 72,77 in the post-test 1 and 75,40 in post-test 2. Furthermore, based on the data analysis of students' observation sheet, there is a significant functional improvement of students' activities during teaching and learning process from Cycle 1 (58,05% ) to Cycle 2 (82,18%). Besides, based on the data analysis of teacher’s observation sheet, it also proved that there was a good improvement from teacher’s activities in Cycle 1 (72,22%) to Cycle 2 (91,67% ). Therefore, the use of Four-Square Writing Method can improve the ability to write descriptive texts by the first year (X.1) students of SMA Negeri 4 Pekanbaru.


INTRODUCTION
Writing skill has an essential role in learning English.   Step Teaching Procedure First The teacher asks the students to write the topic in the centre box (the topic has Second The teacher asks the students to write supporting sentences, which support the Third The teacher guides the students to add supporting details in each box (2, 3, 4). Fourth The teacher asks the students to add vivid language. Fifth The teacher guides the students to fill box number 5 by the conclusion of the Sixth The teacher asks the students to add transition words for each box put off the To analyze the quantitative data, the writer used the following formula to analyze the students'

Hatch and Farhady (1982)
Meanwhile, the qualitative data was gathered through the checklist of the observation sheets.
To analyze and measure the qualitative data, the writer adapted Gay (2000) technique as follows:

a. Prepare the data
The writer must make and organization of grouping data. The writer makes a format for the data from the observation sheets.

b. Read the data
The writer reads and analyzes the data from the observation sheets deeply. The writer describes the data that she will get from teaching and learning process in order to complete the information about arranging, participant and activity.

d. Classifying
The writer must put the data in categorizing it to the aspect of data.

e. Interpreting
In interpreting the data, the writer has to know the aspects and data connection to make a summary. The next step is writing a report of research in order to explain the research.

FINDING AND DISCUSSION
In order to get the data on the students' score of their ability in writing descriptive texts, the writer collected the data by giving tests (pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2).
Before conducting the treatment, the writer gave a pre-test to the students.
It was done to know the writing ability of the students before the treatment given. The writer asked three raters to evaluate the students' writing. The writer calculated their percentages in order to know whether they could reach 75 as the standard minimum criteria (KKM) or not. The result of each rater was combined and then divided by three.
The data was computed and shown in the following table: The writer also presents the data of the students' ability from average score according to five aspects of writing first year (X.1) students of SMA Negeri 4 Pekanbaru in writing descriptive text. The lowest aspects were "Organization" and "Grammar". It means the comprehension of the students about "Organization" and "Grammar" still low.

Findings of Post-Test in Cycle 1
After   Based on the table above could be seen that the teacher did the activities at the 1st meeting was 7 (58.33%) and the activities which was not done was 5 (41.67%). At the 2nd meeting, the teacher did 9 (75%) activities and did not do 3 (25%) activities. At the 3rd meeting, the teacher did 10 (83.33%) activities and did not do 2 (17%) activities.

Findings of Post-Test in Cycle 1
The average score in the pretest was 68.97. It means that the students could not reach score 75 as the standard minimum criteria. After conducted the treatment in the first cycle, the writer analyzed that there was increasing of students results in post-test 1. The students' score is computed, which is shown in the following table: Cycle 2 in order to improve the students who got a score under 75.
If we saw from the score interpretation for students' achievement (Cohen:1989), the data could be shown as follows:    were not done was 2 (16.7%). At the 2 nd meeting, the teacher did 11 (91.7%) activities and did not do 1 (7.3%) activities. At the 3 rd meeting, the teacher did 12 (100%) activities.

Findings of Post-Test in Cycle 2
After re-conducting Four- If we saw from the score interpretation for students' achievement (Cohen:1989), the data could be shown as follows: