in Ronggowarsito Museum were also obtained by interviewing the visitor of the museum and the officers.
3.6 Method of Analyzing Data
I used some method in order to analyze the data obtained. Since the concerns of this research were the linguistic competence of the students and their cultural awareness, I
use different rating scale to measure both of them. The elaboration can be seen below.
3.6.1 Analyzing the Test
To assess the students‟ test result in term of the mastery of the linguistic competence of recount texts, I would classify the test items into some categories. Those elements
were: a.
content, b.
organization, c.
vocabulary, d.
language use, and e.
mechanics To analyze the students‟ written texts, the analytical scale for rating
composition tasks used is:
Table 3.3 Students’ Rating Scale of Writing
Area Criteria
Level Score
Comment
C o
n te
n t
EXELLENT TO VERY GOOD: Knowledgeable; very closely follows
assigned topic. 30-27
GOOD TO AVERAGE: some knowledge of subject; limited
development of topic; lack depth of detail.
26-22 FAIR TO POOR: limited subject
knowledge; not enough development of topic.
21-17 VERY POOR: shows little knowledge
of subject,; not related to topic; not enough to evaluate
16-13
O rg
a n
iz a
ti o
n
EXCELENT TO VERY GOOD: follow the generic structure of recount text;
ideas clearly stated and supported; well organized and sequence
20-18
GOOD TO AVERAGE: follow the generic structure of recount text;
loosely organized with main ideas clear; logical order but not complete
17-14 FAIR TO POOR: does not follow the
generic structure of recount text; ideas confused or disconnected; lack logical
order to writing 13-10
VERY POOR: does not communicate; unorganized; not enough to evaluate
9-7
V o
ca b
u la
ry
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: high range of words; use a lot of adjectives
and verbs, good word choice and usage 20-18
GOOD TO AVERAGE: enough range of words, use some adjective and verbs;
occasional errors in words choice or usage, but meaning is clear
17-12 FAIR TO POOR: limited range;
frequent errors in words choice or usage, meaning is confused
11-7
L a
n g
u a
g e
U se
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD:
complex sentence construction; few errors of agreement, tense ,etc
25-22
GOOD TO AVERAGE: effective but simple construction; several errors in
agreement, tense, etc 21-18
FAIR TO POOR: major problem in construction; frequent errors; meaning
often confused 17-12
Me ch
a n
ic s
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: very few or zero mistakes
5-4 GOOD TO AVERAGE: minor
mistakes in mechanic 3-2
FAIR TO POOR: numerous mistakes that make sentences choppy
1
Harvey, 2010:1
After getting the students‟ score, then I used the classification of students‟ achievement according to Harris 1969: 134. The classification was as follow:
Table 3.4 Students’ Classification Level
Test Score Level of Achievement
80-100 60-79
50-59 0-49
Good to excellent Average to good
Poor to average Poor
3.7.1.1 The Cultural Awareness of the Students
To assess the cultural awareness of the students, I analyzed the students‟ work of
writing recount texts according to the indicators I had defined before. Referring from those compositions I saw that the students reflected their cultural awareness on the
content of the writing. The indicators of the quality can be seen as follow.
Table 3.5 Indicators of Cultural Awareness No.
Indicators
A. Aware the importance of visiting museum
B. Aware that Indonesia consists of multicultural
C. Aware to preserve culture
D. Aware to be tolerant to others‟ culture
E. Honesty no plagiarism detected
From those indicators, the next step was analyzing students‟ writing according
to the indicators to see the quality of their cultural awareness reflected on their texts. Therefore, I used this table below as the m
echanism of assessing students‟ quality of cultural awareness.
Table 3.6 Rubric of Assessing Cultural Awareness No.
Students Indicators Comment of Students’ works
Quality
1 S-1
A B
C D
E
As the guidance to classifying the level of quality of students‟ cultural
awareness, I used the rating scale as shown by table below.
Table 3.7 Rating Scale of Students’ Cultural Awareness No.
Level Criteria
1. Excellent
Student reflected those all five indicators in their writing followed by logical reasoning related to
each indicator. Student had good affection toward the activity.
2. Good
Student reflected at least four from those five indicators followed by logical reasoning related to
each indicator. Student had good affection toward the activity.
3. Average
Student reflected at least three from those five indicators, followed by some logical reasoning
related to each indicator. Student had good affection toward the activity.
4. Poor
Student reflected at least one or two from those five indicators followed by some logical reasoning
related to the indicator. Student had less affection toward the activity.
3.6.2 Interview and Field Note Interpretation
Kategori