The first test called by pre-test conducted before the implementation of the technique. The second test post-test performed after the implementation
of the technique.
4. Data Analysis Techniques
This research was qualitative in nature; however, the data collected in this study were in the form of quantitative and qualitative data. That made the
data analyze in two ways, quantitative and qualitative. The data obtained from the observation and interview analyzed
qualitatively. There are some steps to analyze qualitative data based on Burn 1999. Those steps are i assembling the data, ii coding the data, iii
comparing the data, iv building meaning and interpretation, and v reporting the outcomes.
Regarding the quantitative data, the researcher evaluated the students’ writing scores based on writing rubric. Then, she analyzed the students’ scores
by the use of mean scores of the students pre-test and post-test and the students’ score in cycle I and cycle II task. Mean score is the average of
students’ writing score. It was obtained by dividing the total of students’ scores with the number of the students.
5. Validity of the Data
According to Anderson et al. in Burns 1999, there are five criteria to fulfill the validity of research, i.e democratic validity, outcome validity,
process validity, catalytic validity, and dialogic validity. a. Democratic validity
It is related to the extent to which researcher is truly collaborative. This study tries to fulfill the criterion by doing such interviews with the students and
having discussion with the English teacher in finding and selecting problems to be solved and in planning, implementing, and observing the action.
b. Outcome validity It is related to the notion of action leading to outcomes that are
“successful” within the research context. This research is expected to be able to solve more than one problems in teaching-learning process, for example ones
which are related with writing skills, motivation and involvement. c. Process validity
It is related to the extent which raises questions about the process of conducting the research. Observing classroom activities, making field notes
during the lessons, interviewing students and the teacher, and having discussion with the school principal in the scheduled time will initiate the
process of this study.
d. Catalytic validity It is related to the extent to which the research allows participants to
deepen their understanding of the social realities of the context and how they can make changes within it. This may be addressed by their role and the
actions taken as a result of these changes, or by monitoring other participants’ perceptions of problems in the research setting.
e. Dialogic validity It is related to the extent that parallels the process of collaborative
enquiry or reflective dialogue with “critical friend” or other participants. Asking the teacher to act as an observer who observe and r
eport the students’ reaction during the teaching and learning process will fulfill this criterion.
For validating the quantitative data in this research, the researcher used two types of validity proposed by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2005. They
were content validity and face validity. Content validity was achieved by ensuring that the content of the test is relevant to what are taught during the
implementation. Face validity was achieved by ensuring the test appears to test what it is designed to test.
6. Reliability of the Data
