Instruments of the Research

happened when the researcher implementing the actions. After all data had been collected, the researcher analyzed them to find the successful and unsuccessful result of the actions and to make the conclusion of the research.

G. Data Analysis

The data were obtained from the action conducted in the field. Firstly, the researcher collected all the data such as interview transcripts, field notes and photographs of the teaching and learning processes. The second step was data reduction. In this step, the researcher chose, determined the focus, simplified, summarized and changed the form of the data that was in the field. The third step was classification in which the researcher classified all the data that had been passed the data reduction process. Meanwhile, the students’ performance tests were scored by using the speaking rubric proposed by Purwaningsih 2009 with some modification. The result of the students’ performances was analyzed by using Excel program to find out the mean and standard deviation of the students’ speaking performance. Then, the researcher determined whether there was any improvement on the students speaking ability or not based on the mean and standard deviation of the tests. In analyzing the data, the researcher held a discussion with the English teacher as the collaborator. It was used to see the data from different point of views and to avoid subjectivity in analyzing data and to get trustworthiness.

H. Data Validity and Reability

According to Burns in Madya 2006: 37-45, there are five validity criteria that can ensure data validity of action research. The five validity criteria are: 1 democratic validity, 2 outcome validity, 3 process validity, 4 catalytic validity and, 5 dialogic validity.

1. Democratic Validity

Burns in Madya 2006: 38, states that democratic validity was related to stakeholders‘chances to give their opinion, idea, and comment about the implication of the action research. In order to get democratic validity, the researcher interviewed the stakeholders of SMA N 2 Sleman teachers, students, and school administrators. In the interview, the stakeholders were given chances to express their ideas, opinion and attitudes toward the problems faced, then the focus is to look for the solution of the problems. The interview was conducted during the research.

2. Outcome Validity

Outcome validity was related to the outcome achieved by the researcher. The achievement of the outcome involved not only problem solving but also appearing new questions in the related research Madya 2006: 40. To get the outcome validity, the researcher put back the problems at the XI grade students of SMA N 2 Sleman in a scheme in order to make new questions. The researcher did this when the researcher did the reflection in the end of the action.

3. Process Validity

Process validity meant that actions that were done in the research were believable Madya 2006: 40. To get the process validity, the researcher collected the data by doing observation, and noted during the research process. The researcher notedrecorded anything happened in the teaching learning process of the XI IPS 1 students at SMA N 2 Sleman. It meant that during the process, the researcher observed the participants of the research which were the students of grade XI IPS 1. The researcher focused only on anything that could be caught by the researcher‘s senses. 41

4. Catalytic Validity

The catalytic validity was related to how the stakeholders respond to the changes occurring to themselves Burns, in Madya 2006: 43. The researcher got the catalytic validity through those 2 cycles of the observation, action plans, implementation, and reflection that were done at the eleventh grade students of SMAN 2 Sleman.

5. Dialogic Validity

Dialogic validity means that the stakeholders could participate in the process of the research Burns, in Madya 2006: 44. To get the dialogic validity, the researcher worked collaboratively with the teacher in action research. It would mean dialogue with practitioner peers, either through collaborative enquiry or reflective dialogue.