studies above. This section attempts to describe those similarities and differences in details.
The first similarities and differences are seen in the light of the research variables investigated. In this case, the present study can be considered as a more
specific study than the study conducted by Wang because the present study only focuses on creative thinking ability in association with writing ability whereas
Wang employed Reading and Writing as the independent variable which is associated with creative thinking. Meanwhile, although Rababah et al,
Pishghadam, and Soleimani and Najafgholian’s studies applied the same independent variable, i.e. writing, the present study is considered different from
their studies because it more specifically focuses on investigating writing recount text. Moreover, the present study quite different in terms of the independent
variable employed from the study conducted by Anwar et al who investigated academic achievement as the independent variable which was correlated with
creative thinking. The next similarities and differences are seen in terms of the research
methods. In this case, the present study is similar to the studies conducted by Wang, Pishghadam, Soleimani and Najafgholian, and Anwar et al who employed
a correlational research method. However, it is different from the method used by a study conducted by Rababah et al who applied descriptive method.
The next similarities and differences are seen based on the research instruments used. In this case, all the previous relevant studies who investigated
writing i.e. Wang, Rababah et al, Pishghadam, and Soleimani and Najafgholian as the independent variable applied the same writing instrument, namely writing
test, whereas in terms of the instrument used to measure creative thinking, the present study is different from a study cinducted by Pishghadam who used
questionnaire to gauge creative thinking, whereas it is partially similar to the studies conducted by Wang, Rababah et al, Soleimani and Najafgholian, and
Anwar et al who used test that assessed FFOE of creative thinking ability.
D. Conceptual Framework
Writing is the important language skill to be learned. Through writing, people can communicate, particularly in the written form, their ideas, feelings, or
opinions about things to others. However, to learn this language skill is not easy because there a number of things that deserve some attention from the writers.
To master and to be proficient in writing is not easy because the writers are required to generate and organize the ideas as well as make them into a
readable text.
39
The readable text can be interpreted as the product of writing which is considered meaningful as well as entertaining as the readers read it. To
attain the quality of readable text, one of the apparatus that may be useful and facilitating is the ability to think creatively. Through thinking creatively, more
new and unique ideas and other solutions to figure out the problems as the writers are writing can be obtained.
As a result, although learning writing is not an easy matter, through creative thinking ability the writers may have a number of advantages as they are
writing. Therefore, as one is writing, one’s creative thinking ability should be surely entailed. Consequently, it is supposed that creative thinking ability has a
significant relationship with writing skill. In this case, the better the writer’ creative thinking ability, the better their writing skill will be.
E. Theoretical Hypothesis
Based on the theories discussed and elaborated above, a theoretical hypothesis is proposed. In this case, it is supposed that there is a significant
relationship between creative thinking ability and students’ writing recount text skill. Consequently, if the students have poor creative thinking ability, they might
not be able to write a recount text well; in contrast, if they have good creative thinking ability, they might be able to write a recount text well. Therefore, the
more creative the students are, the more skillful they write a recount text.
39
Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Renandya Eds., Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 303.
31
Y X
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the place and period in and on which this study was conducted. In addition, it provides the explanation of the research design and
instruments employed as well as the description of the way the data was collected and analyzed. Also, the synthesized hypotheses of this study are discussed here.
A. Place and Time of the Study
1. Place This study was carried out at the eleventh grade of MA Khazanah
Kebajikan Tangerang Selatan. 2. Time
This study was conducted in October 2015. This was conducted to investigate the relationship between students’ creative thinking ability and
their writing recount text skill.
B. Research Design
The design employed in this study was a correlational research which is included as a quantitative research. It was used to find out the relationship
between two variables encompassed a dependent variable and an independent variable. Next, the research paradigm—the model depicting the relationship
between the research variables—is presented in Figure 3.1 as follows: r
Figure 3.1 Research Paradigm
1
Notes: X: independent variable i.e. creative thinking ability
Y: dependent variable i.e. writing recount text skill r: relationship
1
Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan RD, Bandung: Alfabeta, 2009, p. 42.
Based on the Figure 3.1 represented above, this study seeks to find out the relationship between the independent variable i.e. creative thinking ability
indicated by X and the dependent variable i.e. writing recount text skill indicated by Y.
C. Population and Sample
The population of this study encompasses all the students in the eleventh grade of MA Khazanah Kebajikan Cirendeu, Tangerang Selatan academic year
20152016. There were two classes in the eleventh grade, i.e. XI IPA and XI IPS. Class XI IPA consisted of 18 students, whereas class XI IPS consisted of 22
students. So the total population of this study was 40 students. From the 40 students, only 26 students were taken as the sample of this study. The 26 students
were determined through a purposive sampling technique. In this case, the 26 students were those who did not participate in the instrument try-out i.e. test of
creative thinking ability, section 3 about making analogies.
D. Research Instrument
The research instruments used in this study were tests. The explanations of the tests employed are discussed in details as follows:
1. Test of Creative Thinking Ability The creative thinking test used in this study was structured based on the
components constructing creative thinking ability comprising acquiring
competencies, taking risks, solving problems, embracing contradictions, innovative thinking, and connecting, synthesizing, transforming, fluency,
flexibility, originality, and elaboration, as well as metaphorical thinking. All the dimensions or components above are manifested into three sections. The first
section, focusing on the dimensions such as acquiring competencies, taking risks, solving problems, embracing contradictions, innovative thinking, and connecting,
synthesizing, transforming, asks the participants to take into account of and deal with a matter provided through making it into an essay based on the available
topic. The second section focuses on the four dimensions comprising fluency,
flexibility, originality, and elaboration; in this case, the participants are asked to use their creative thinking verbally; they are asked to name as many as possible of
new uses i.e. maximum of 10 uses for an everyday object given along the time constraint available. The third section specifically focuses on metaphorical
thinking; in this case they are asked to answer a multiple choice questions associated with analogy. To facilitate the participants answer the creative thinking
test, the participants’ native language, i.e. Bahasa Indonesia, are employed. Next, the creative thinking test used is explained and summarized into the test matrix
presented in Table 3.1 below:
Table 3.1 Test Matrix of Creative Thinking Ability
Research Variable
Indicator Total of
Items Percentage
Distribution Section
Total of percentage
for each section
Creative Thinking
Ability Acquiring competencies
1 4
1 24
Taking risks 1
4 Solving problems
1 4
Embracing contradictions 1
4 Innovative thinking
1 4
Connecting, synthesizing, transforming
1 4
Fluency 1
10 2
60 Flexibility
1 10
Originality 1
20 Elaboration
1 20
Metaphorical thinking 16
16 3
16 Total
100 3
100
2. Test of Writing Recount Text Skill The test of writing recount text skill is intended to find out students’
writing skill on a recount text. There are three topics provided. Then, the
