The quantitative data were obtained by analyzing the students’ reading scores.
It was analyzed using SPSS 16.0 program to find the significance of the scores and presented in the form of means. The means of each score were compared to see the
significance.
H. Validity and reliability
The criteria proposed by Burns 1999:161 were employed to assess the validity of the data. They are democratic validity, outcome validity and process
validity. The catalytic validity which refers to how the stakeholders respond to their own internal changes was not applied because the limitation of time in
conducting this research. The ways to fulfill those validities are presented as follows:
1. Democratic validity Democratic validity related to the
stakeholders’ chance to give their personal opinions, ideas, and comments about the implication of the action
research. The democratic validity is fulfilled by having discussion with member of the research, namely the students, the English teacher, and the
collaborator. They are given opportunity to give their ideas, comments, and suggestions toward the research. The discussion result is the consideration in
evaluating the cycles.
According to this validity, some actions during the research, especially in cycle 1, were evaluated. They were modified and added based on the personal
opinions of the participants for the next implementation in cycle 2. 2. Outcome validity
Outcome validity of action research leads to outcomes achieved within the research context. Outcome validity also depends on the process of
conducting the research. To fulfill this validity, some indicators will show the improvement of
the students’ reading comprehension. Based on this validity, the students can achieve some indicators, presented as follows:
the student were able to generate the main idea of a text, the students were able to identify the detail information of the text,
the students could make a prediction of the next segments of the text, by predicting, the students could relate the information between the
one segments and another segments, the students were actively participating in group discussion.
3. Process validity Process validity relates to the criterion to make the actions done in action
research valid. This validity is fulfilled by reflecting on the data collection and modifying the strategies to answer the questions occurred during the process.
The data is examined and identified whether the participants are able to go on learning.
Meanwhile, to assess the reliability of the data, the researcher involved more than one source in gathering the data. The researcher involved the
English teacher, the observer, and the students of grade VIII G. Regarding to this validity, some modification were applied so that the
implementation of DRTA could be followed by the participants. 4. Dialogic validity
Dialogic validity was fulfilled by discussing the research process and finding with the collaborators. The collaborators are the researcher’s
colleague in the university. They gave their opinions and criticism about the action every time the meeting was ended. The researcher also had dialogues
with the English teacher to ask her opinions and suggestions for the next meeting improvement. Through the dialogic validity, suggestions and
correction were proposed by the English teacher and the observers. They were highly useful to evaluate the actions so that modifications could be made to
provide the more suitable actions. Meanwhile, the trustworthiness was obtained from the triangulation
technique. According to Burns 1999:163 the aim of triangulation is to gather multiple perspectives on the situation being studied.
In this research, the researcher employed two forms of triangulation which are described as follows:
