After assembling the data was done, the next step was coding the data. The researcher identified the data by reducing large amount of data into more specific
categories and patterns. 3. Comparing the data
In this step, the researcher compared the different sets of data to see whether the answer from the respondent was contradicted or not.
4. Building meanings and interpretations The researcher interpreted the data based on the previous steps to make some
sense of the meaning of the data. She reflected the data with creative thinking about what the data were saying.
5. Reporting the outcomes In this process, the researcher reported and presented the data. She considered
some aspects in reporting the result. First, she discussed the issues or problems that prompted the research. Next, she described the context of the research. Then, she
analyzed the findings by providing the samples of the data and interpreted how the actions could solve the problems.
Meanwhile, the quantitative data was used to support the qualitative data. The data was gained from the questionnaires and the students’ writing score in pre-test
until post-test. The researcher used descriptive analysis in the form of mean to analyze the data. Then, to see the improvements of the students’ writing skills, the
researcher compared the students’ scores in pre-test, cycle 1, cycle 2, and post-test.
H. Validity and Reliability
Based on Anderson et al. 1994 in Burns 1999: 161-162, there are five types of validity that should be fulfilled in doing an Action Research study. They are
democratic validity, outcome validity, process validity, catalytic validity, and dialogic validity. The description is presented as follows.
1. Democratic Validity This validity allowed the inclusion of multiple voices from the participants of
the research. The voices were including feelings, opinions, thoughts, expectations, comments, and suggestions about the implementation of the actions during the
research. In the process, the researcher discussed with the English teacher and her friend, Amaliya as collaborator. Besides, she also involved the students by having
some interviews and fulfilling questionnaires in order to give their personal views related to the implementation of the actions and their expectations and suggestions for
the next actions. 2. Outcome Validity
This validity is related to the results of the successful actions within the research context. The outcome validity could be seen from the improvement of the
students’ writing ability. Therefore, the outcome of this research was the improvement of the students’ writing ability in grade eight of SMP Negeri 4
Yogyakarta.
3. Catalytic Validity This validity related to the influence of the research towards the researcher’s
understanding. The researcher reflected the process and thought about the experiences and advantages when collaborating with the collaborators.
4. Process Validity This validity is related to the research process. The researcher followed the
rules based on action research process. Firstly, the researcher did the reconnaissance. Then, she planned the actions, implemented the actions, observed the actions, and
made reflection of the actions. Moreover, the researcher involved other person to give their perspectives of the process.
5. Dialogic Validity This validity is the process of peer review. The researcher conducted some
discussions with the teacher and some students. Then, she wrote the data. After that, she shared the result of the research with other people by writing the report.
Furthermore, to obtain the trustworthiness, the researcher decided to implement triangulations. There are four forms of triangulations which is could be
valuable in collaborative action research based on Denzin 1978 in Burns 1999:164. They are time triangulation, space triangulation, investigator
triangulation, and theoretical triangulation. In this research, the researcher employed two of four kinds of triangulations. They are time triangulation and investigator
triangulation. The criteria of those triangulations are:
