32
F. Data Analysis
The data in this research were analyzed qualitatively. Nunan 1992
declares that qualitative research involves insights towards human behaviours that come up directly from the performer’s own frames or references. It was applicable
to analyze the data because the data were formed in field notes and transferred in description form to perform the development of the student’s behaviour especially
in their speaking skill. First of all, the researcher observed the activities in the class and
interviewed the teacher to get the real situation of the students, and collected the data observation in order to formulate the problem. After getting the data from the
observation and formulate the problem, the researcher discussed the problems with the teacher and designed some actions related to the problem.
The researcher participated in the action as the teacher. While doing the action, the researcher observed the students. The data observation were in the
form of field notes. To validate the data the researcher did some interviews with the students. Then the researcher made a temporal conclusion. After making a
conclusion, the researcher discussed the conclusion and the action that have been done with the English teacher to get the final conclusion. The discussion was
useful to avoid subjectivity in analyzing data and to get trustworthiness.
G. Validity and Reliability of the Data
Anderson, et al in Burns 1999: 161-162 states that there are five criteria of validty: democratic validity, outcome validity, process validity, catalytic validity,
33
and dialogic validity. In this research, the researcher used those five validity criteria explained below.
1. Democratic validity
Democratic validity relates to the extent to which the research is truly collaborative and allows for the inclusion of multiple voices such as teachers,
administrators, students, parents. To reach the democratic validity in this research, the English teacher and the students gave their ideas, suggestions
and comments about the implementation of conversational videos. Those were used to improve the next action.
2. Outcome validity
Outcome validity relates to the notion of actions leading to outcomes that are ‘successful’ within the research context. To reach the outcome
validity, the researcher and the teacher discussed the success and the failure of the action.
3. Process validity
Process validity raises questions about the ‘depend-ability’ and ‘competency’ of the research. The process validity was reached by gathering
information about the progress of the action from three different points of view. They are the English teacher, the students and the researcher.
4. Catalytic validity
Catalytic validity relates to the extent to which the research allows participants to deepen their understanding of the social realities of the context
and how they can make changes within it. Catalytic validity was obtained by
34
giving chance to the English teacher and the students to deepen their understanding on the use of conversational videos in the speaking teaching
and learning process. 5.
Dialogic validity Dialogic validity parallels the processes of peer review which are
commonly used in academic research. To reach the dialogic validity, the researcher did reflection with the English teacher and the students to improve
the next action. To avoid the subjectivity in analyzing the data and to get trustworthiness, the
researcher used triangulation through interviews with a collaborator and observation, as Burns 1999: 63 said that triangulation is a way of arguing if
different methods of infestigation produce the same result. The data are trusted to be valid.
H. Research Procedure