Theoretical Framework REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

18 to fi nd out the students’ perception on the video creating activity. In this study, the researcher used a rating scale presented in the questionnaire. Cohen, Manion, and Marrison 2005 stated that “rating scale is very useful device for the researcher to build a degree of sensitivity and differentiate of response whilst still generating numbers” p. 253. Having collected the questionnaire, the researcher began analyzing the data. The following table was the example of questionnaire. Table 3.1 Sample of the Questionnaire Form No. STATEMENTS SD D A SA 1. I am interested in making a video of how to make something as one of the learning activity Table 3.1 shows the sample of questionnaire that was used in this study. The statement is the example of closed-ended question. Besides, this table also explained th e ranging scale in which “SD” is for “strongly disagree”, “D” is for “disagree”, “A” is for “agree”, and “SA” is for “strongly agree”. Table 3.2 Questionnaire Blueprint NUMBER INDICATORS FORM THEORIES 1-5 Students’ perception about making a video Closed- ended Robbins 2001 The meaning of perception Fleming and Levi 1998 The meaning of perception Donnelly, Gibson, and Invancevich 1985 The factors that influence perception 6-10 Students’ experience in the process of making a video especially in speaking Closed- ended Richard and Renandya 2002 Speaking skill for EFL Lado 1965 Fluency in speaking skill 19 NUMBER INDICATORS FORM THEORIES 11-15 Students’ motivation about making a video Closed- ended Ormrod 2011 Motivation Schunk, Meece, and Pintrich 2014 Motivation and interest 1-3 The review of students’ opinion about a video creation Open- ended Table 3.2 indicates the questionnaire blueprint. The researcher tried to explain the indicators in the questionnaire. From the table, it could be seen that number 1 to 5 were about the students’ perception about making a video. Then, number 5 to 10 were related to the students’ experience in the process of making a video especially their speaking English experience. Meanwhile, the statement number 11 to 15 were about the students’ motivation on the video creating activity. The form of those questions was closed-ended questions. Besides, there were three numbers for open-ended questions. Those three numbers consisted of the revi ew on the students’ perception on the video creation activity.

2. Interview

The researcher also chose an interview as the instrument to gather the data. It was obvious that an interview helped the researcher to gather information to do this study. As noted by Cohen 2011, an interview is a flexible tool for data collection, enabling multisensory channels to be used: verbal, non-verbal, spoken and heard and a powerful implementation for the researcher. To deal with this, the researcher interviewed directly the respondents. 20 The researcher chose five Management students of class A by choosing them randomly. The five students were chosen because the researcher did not consider the positive or negative perception. However, the researcher focused on the general perception of the students. The researcher asked the students five questions related to their opinions about the video creating activity. The researcher also used the recording media to record the interview.

E. Data Analysis Technique

After collecting all of the required data, the researcher started to analyze them. Since the researcher used a mixed method, there were two kinds of data. The first data was taken from the questionnaire while the second data was from the interview. The result of the questionnaire was described in tables. Then, the result of the interview was presented in descriptive forms. The researcher analyzed the data from the results of the questionnaire and the interview and compared them to some theories in Chapter II. For the closed-ended questions of the questionnaire, the researcher counted the average score to show the major response. The researcher also made the result of the closed-ended answer into percentage. The presentation of percentage numbers from closed-ended questions was made to have clear data description. The researcher counted the percentage of the answer by using the following formula: PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI