b Space triangulation, the data are collected across different subgroups of people,
to avoid the limitations of studies being conducted within one group. c
Investigator triangulation, more than one observer is involved in the same research setting to avoid researcher being biased and to provide checks on the
reliability of the observations. In this research, I worked together with English teacher and collaborator.
d Theoretical triangulation, the data are analyzed from more than one
perspectives to get trustworthiness. I would use the triangulation techniques in which I would gather from several points of view from students and the
English teacher. The reliability of the data would be gained by giving genuine data, such as the field notes, interviewing transcripts and other records.
G. Indicator of Success
The indicator of success of this research was based on
the writing scoring rubric by Jacobs et al. in Weigle 2002.
This scoring rubric specified five major categories and a description of four different levels in each category as follows:
Table 4: Writing Scoring Rubric by Jacobs et al. in Weigle 2002. Aspect of Writing
The range of
the score Level
CONTENT 30-27
Excellent to Very good: Knowledgeable – substantive – thorough
development of thesis – relevant to assigned topic
26-22 Good to Average :
Some knowledge of subject – adequate range – limited development of thesis – mostly
relevant to topic, but lacks of detail
21-17 Fair to Poor :
Limited knowledge of subject – little substance – inadequate development of topic
16-13 Very poor :
Does not show knowledge of subject – non- substantive – not pertinent – not enough to
evaluate
ORGANIZATION 20-18
Excellent to Very good: Fluent expression –
idea clearly statedsupported – well-organized – logical
sequencing – cohesive
17-14 Good to Average :
Somewhat choppy – loosely organized but main ideas stand out – limited support –
logical but incomplete sequencing
13-10 Fair to Poor :
Non-fluent – ideas confused or disconnected – lacks logical sequencing and development
9-7 Very poor :
Does not communicate – no organization – not enough to evaluate
VOCABULARY 20-18
Excellent to Very good : Sophisticated range – effective wordidiom
choice and usage – word form mastery – appropriate register
continued
continued Aspect of
Writing The
range of the score
Level
VOCABULARY 17-14
Good to Average : Adequate range – occasional errors of
wordidiom form, choice, usage, but meaning not obscured
13- 10 Fair to Poor :
Limited range – frequent errors of
wordidiom form, choice, usage meaning confused or obscured
9-7 Very poor :
Essentially translation –little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word form – not
enough to evaluate
LANGUAGE USE
25 -22 Excellent to Very good:
Effective complex construction – few errors of
agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns,
prepositions.
21 – 18 Good to Average :
Effective but simple construction – minor problems in complex constructions – several
errors of agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction,
articles, pronouns, prepositions, but meaning seldom obscured
17 -11 Fair to Poor:
Major problems in simplecomplex, constructions – frequent errors of negation,
agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns,
prepositions andor fragments, run-ons, deletions – meaning confused or obscured.
10 -5 Very poor:
Virtually no mastery of sentence construction rule – dominated by errors – does not
communicate – not enough to evaluate
5 Excellent to Very good:
Demonstrated mastery of conventions – few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization,
paragraphing
4 Good to Average :
Occasional errors of spelling, punctuation,
MECHANICS capitalization, paragraphing, but meaning not
obscured
3 Fair to Poor :
Frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, poor
handwriting but meaning not obscured
2 Very poor:
No mastery of conventions – dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization,
paragraphing – handwriting illegible – not enough to evaluate
44
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the findings and discussion which refer to the efforts to improve students’ writing skills through the use of mind mapping. These are
presented in three headings: reconnaissance, the implementation of the actions and discussions, and the result of pretest and post test of students’ writings.
A. Reconnaissance
There were several things that researcher did before conducting the research. The first one was conducting an observation related to English teaching and
learning process, especially in writing skills of class VIII B SMP Negeri 3 Depok Yogyakarta. The second was identifying the problems that occurred in the
teaching and learning process. The next step was interviewing the English teacher and students of class VIII B. Then, some problems were selected to be overcome.
The last step was determining the actions to overcome those problems.
1. Identification of the Field Problems
In this stage, several steps were done to identify the problems of the research in the field. In order to collect detailed information about teaching and
learning process of class VIII B in SMP N 3 Depok, first, an observation was conducted concerning the English teaching and learning process. Next, the
English teacher and some students were interviewed. Lastly, a pre-test was also conducted to know more about the students’ writing skills.
