26 the discussion part, due to keep the neutrality and to respect these participants,
they are then called as P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, and P10.
C. Research Setting
The research was conducted in Theology Faculty of Sanata Dharma University. It is because the students of Theology Faculty are all Catholic priest
candidates who have accustomed to reflection writing activity. The researcher then believes that the data, which are the writings of the students, are relevant to
the study. Further, the location of the campus where the participants are studying is reachable for the researcher. That was very helpful since the researcher also
needed to meet the students to gather the data. The researcher gathered the writings
which were sent from the lecturer‟s email. The data started to be gathered on September 26
th
2015 of which are the writings of first topic “experience of being forgiven”. The writings with the
second topic which is “learning strategies” were received via email on November
4
th
2015. After that, on November 13
th
2015, the third writings on topic “reflection
on children story” were received. The fourth writings on topic “homily based on the Bible” were received on November 23
th
2015.
All data were analyzed during November 2015 until February 2016. The interviews towards three participants were conducted in three different places and
time. The first interview was conducted to P2, on Saturday, 16 April 2016, at 11 a.m. in Realino stage, Kampus I USD Mrican. The second interview was
conducted to P9, on Monday, 18 April 2016 at 11 a.m. in Kampus V USD PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
27 Kentungan.
While the last interview was conducted to P1 on Wednesday, 20 April 2016 at 3 p.m. in Scolatikat SCY, Kentungan.
D. Research Instruments
1. Document Merriam 2009
defines document as „a ready-made source of data easily accessible
to the imaginative and resourceful investigator‟ Merriam, 2009 p. 139. Further, Dalen 1979 explains that the materials used in document analysis
can be in form of „official records or any written, printed, verbal, or pictorial form para 290. In this research, the documents are the students‟ sets of written
reflection. The writings were gathered by the researcher through email. All the writings were sent by the students via email to the lecturer then were forwarded
by the lecturer to the researcher. After gathering the data, the researcher classified the writings according to the topics and the writers. In analyzing the writings, the
researcher then adapted a rubric proposed by Brown Bailey 1984 entitled „analytical scale for rating composition tasks‟ as the standard used to assess the
writings. 2. Interview Guide
In order to gather the data for answering the second research question, the researcher made use of interview guide as one of the instruments in this research.
Ary et. Al 2010 mentions some advantages in using interview to collect data in a qualitative research. According to him, the first advantage is for the researcher. By
conducting an interview, a researcher can gain „large volume of in depth data‟ in
28 relatively short time. In this research, the researcher conducted interview typically
semi-structured interview. It is chosen for its flexibility and appropriateness in this study. Merriam 2009 states that semi-structured interview enables the researcher
to give response directly upon the answers of interviewee. Ary et. al 2010 agrees that the interview which conducted in qualitative research typically more probing
and less structured than that in quantitative research. However, in this research, the researcher still used questions list as a guide to keep the allure of the interview
on the track, as can be seen in Appendix A. 3 Tools
In gathering the data, the researcher also used some tools. Those tools are notebooks for taking notes, pen, and a voice recorder to record the interview.
E. Data Analysis Technique
The data gathered were analyzed in the form of description. Yet before that, the researcher had done some important steps. First, the researcher collected
the writings and divided them based on the topics by looking at the title of the writing. Second, the researcher read the writing one by one to confirm the topic
and to make sure that the four topics were already complete. Third, the researcher made a list of the fixed writing and put codes. Then, the researcher went to the
writing one by one to read and assess them using the rubric see Appendix C. The rubric was adapted by the researcher from „analytical scale for rating composition
tasks‟ by Brown Bailey 1984. Then, to clarify the points the researcher read the writings for about two to three times each. The researcher also spent some
