47
field notes and interview transcripts.
3. Drawing conclusion and verification
After reducing and displaying the data, the researcher was drawing conclusion and was doing verification. Drawing conclusion
involves stepping back to consider what the analyzed data mean and to assess their implications for the existing questions. Moreover,
verification involves revisiting the data as many times as necessary to verify the emergent conclusions.
In this last step, the researcher made some conclusions of her own research. Then, she verified her conclusion by doing a discussion
with the collaborator of the research. This was done by looking from the students’ performances, field notes, and interview transcripts.
Meanwhile, to analyze the quantitative data, the researcher compared the stude
nts’ scores in the pre-test and post-test. The data were gained by applying inter-rater. Both of the researcher and the teacher scored the
stude nts’ performance by implementing an analytical scoring. By comparing
the stude nts’ scores in both tests, the researcher could see the improvements
of stude nts’ speaking skills.
F. Research Validity and Reliability
According to Anderson et al. 1994 in Burns 1999: 161-162, there are five types of validity that can be used to evaluate the quality and the
acceptability of the research. They are democratic validity, outcome validity,
48
process validity, catalytic validity, and dialogic validity. 1.
Democratic validity Democratic validity relates to the extent to which the research is
truly collaborative and allows for the inclusion of multiple voices. To fulfill this validity, the researcher was having discussions with the
English teacher as the collaborator. The collaborator was free to give opinions, thoughts and ideas related to the research.
The discussions were held at the end of Cycle I to evaluate the actions that had been implemented and to plan the next cycle.
Moreover, the students were also involved in some interviews after each meeting. This was done to see their opinions and suggestions for
the next actions. 2.
Outcome validity Outcome validity is referred to the successful results of the
actions within the research context. The researcher was formulating some indicators that show the improvement of the stude
nts’ speaking skills in order to fulfill this validity.
3. Process validity
This criterion raises questions about the ‘dependability’ and ‘competency’ of the research. To accomplish the process validity, both
the collaborator and the researcher collected data by observing and taking notes during the research.
49
4. Catalytic validity
This validity is related to the extent to which the research allows the participants to deepen their understanding of the social
realities of the context and their capability to make change within it. To fulfill this validity, the researcher tried to learn more about the
realities in the English teaching and learning process of grade X Nursing class of SMK Muhammadiyah 3 Klaten Tengah.
5. Dialogic Validity
Dialogic validity parallels the processes of peer review which are commonly used in academic research in order to monitor the value of
the research. To fulfill this validity, I did some discussions regarding the research findings with the collaborator, supervisor, and some
students of English Education Department of Yogyakarta State University.
Moreover, in enhancing the trustworthiness of this research, several triangulation techniques were applied. They were time triangulation,
investigator triangulation and theoretical triangulation. Time triangulation was used to see the factors that were involved in the change process. Then,
the investigator triangulation was used to avoid the subjectivity by employing the English teacher, as the collaborator, to collect the data.
This research also applied theoretical triangulation that analyzed the data from more than one perspective. The researcher tried to see the
50
students’ speaking ability through the aspects of grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. Then, to ensure the reliability of
the data, some genuine data were provided in the forms of field notes, interview transcripts, photographs a
nd students’ speaking scores.
Meanwhile, to know the result of the students’ performance in
speaking, the researcher used a speaking rubric. In using the rubric, the researcher used inter-rater. It means that there were two or more raters who
evaluated the result of t he students’ speaking. By doing this, the reliability
of the research could also be achieved. Furthermore, to make the quantitative data reliable, as it used a collaborator, the data were analyzed
by using inter-rater reliability.
G. Research Procedure