Data Analysis Technique RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Level Scale
Description
Emerging 40-59
The students ratings are at or near the average in relation to local comparisons and may be above
average for a specific task or project. Not Yet
Evident 0-39
The students ratings on specific creative thinking criteria or behaviors—completed by a qualified rater—
do not reflect evidence of creative thinking proficiency at the present time or in relation to the task, or the
specific talent area or domain being rated.
2. Assessing Writing Recount Text Skill The participants’ writing recount text is assessed through an adapted
holistic scoring of which range scale started from 0 to 6.
6
The scoring criteria of the adapted holistic scoring used are discussed in details in follows:
6 A recount writing at this level:
- Effectively addresses the writing task
- Is well developed and organized.
- Consistently displays facility of language features of recount text e.g. use
past tense and temporal connectives -
Use clearly appropriate details or specific examples to support or illustrate ideas.
- Correctly use structure and grammar of recount text
- Demonstrate the appropriate word choice or vocabulary of recount text,
e.g. past tense verb, etc. -
Correctly use punctuation, spelling, capitalization and readable handwriting.
5 A recount writing at this level:
- May address effectively some parts of the task more effectively than
others. -
Is generally well developed and organized. -
Display facility of language features of recount text e.g. use past tense and temporal connectives
- Use details or specific examples to support or illustrate an idea.
- Correctly use structure and grammar of recount text, though it will
probably have occasional errors -
Demonstrate the appropriate word choice or vocabulary of recount text,
6
Sara Cushing Weigle, op. cit., p. 113.
e.g. past tense verb, etc, though it will probably have occasional errors, but meaning not obscured
- Occasional errors of using punctuation, spelling, capitalization and
readable handwriting, but meaning not obscured.
4 A recount writing at this level:
- Addresses the writing topic adequately but may slight parts of the task
- Is adequately organized and developed
- Demonstrates adequate but possibly inconsistent facility of
language features of recount text e.g. use past tense and temporal connectives
- Use some details or specific examples to support or illustrate an idea.
- Demonstrates adequate but possibly inconsistent facility with structure
and grammar of recount text though may contain some errors that occasionally obscure meaning.
- Occasional errors of word choice or vocabulary of recount text, e.g. past
tense verb, etc, meaning sometimes obscured -
Occasional errors of using punctuation, spelling, capitalization and readable handwriting, but meaning not obscured.
3 A recount writing at this level:
- Inadequate organization or development
- A noticeably inappropriate choice of words or word forms of past tense,
etc., meaning obscured. -
Inappropriate or insufficient details to support or illustrate generalizations -
An accumulation of errors in sentence structure or grammar of recount text.
- Frequent errors of using punctuation, spelling, capitalization and poor
handwriting, and meaning confused or obscured.
2 A recount writing at this level:
- Serious disorganization or underdevelopment
- Little or no detail, or irrelevant specifics
- Serious and frequent errors in sentence structure or grammar of recount
text. -
Limited range and a noticeably inappropriate choice of words or word forms of past tense, etc., meaning obscured.
- Frequent errors of using punctuation, spelling, capitalization and poor
handwriting, and meaning confused or obscured.
1 A recount writing at this level:
- May be incoherent
- May be undeveloped
- May contain severe and persistent writing errors.
A recount writing is rated 0 if it contains no response, merely copies the topic, is off-topic, is written in a participants’ native language i.e. bahasa
Indonesia, or consists of only keystroke characters.
Also, the score above is converted into standard score by using the following formula:
Standard score= x 100
3. Assessing the Relationship between Creative Thinking Ability and Writing Recount Text Skill
In analyzing the data the relationship between two variables, i.e. creative thinking ability and writing recount text skill, a correlational analysis is used.
However, there are some steps employed before the correlational analysis is conducted. First, the linearity and normality distribution of each data set of the
two variables are tested. Next, the correlational analysis is conducted by seeing the result of the linearity and normality distribution tests. These encompass two
possibilities comprising: a As the data sets of the two variables are linear and normally distributed, the
parametric statistic can be used in analyzing the correlation. In this case, the Pearson’s Product Moment is employed. The formula for calculating the
product moment correlation is described as follows: r
xy
= Notes:
r
xy
: correlation coefficient
N: the total subjects or samples of the study
:
the total scores of creative thinking ability
:
the total scores of writing recount text skill xy:
the total of multiple scores of creative thinking ability and writing recount text skill
x2: the total of square scores of creative thinking ability
y2: the total of square scores of writing recount text skill.
b As the data sets of two variables are not linear and not normally distributed, the non parametric becomes the alternative to analyze the correlation of the
two variables. In this case, Spearman’s rho prefers to be employed. The formula to calculate the Spearman’s rho is described as follows:
ρ=
Notes:
ρ
: Spearman’s rho coefficient n: the total subjects or samples of the study
bi: the score of independent variable’s rank which subtracted with dependent variable’s rank.
In addition, the computer programs, such as Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS 17.0, were utilized to assist the writer in analyzing the data of this study.
Besides, the correlation coefficient obtained was interpreted with the table of correlation coefficient interpretation presented in Table 3. 4 as follows:
Table 3.4 Table of Correlation Coefficient Interpretation
7
The r score
Interpretation
0.800−1.000 Very High
0.600−0.799 High
0.400−0.599 Moderate
0.200−0.399 Low
0.000−0.199 Very Low