37
4. Reflecting
Reflecting was the activity of evaluating critically about the progress or change of the students, class, and also the teacher. In this step, I and collaborator
could observe whether the “acting” activity had resulted any progress, what progress happened, and also about the positives and negatives, and so on.
In the planning, the writer wanted to improve the students’ speaking skill. I would use the audio-lingual method for improving the students’ achievement in
speaking. There would be some steps like a pre-test, the teaching-learning activities, and post-test.
B. Research Setting
The setting of the research was at SMK PI Ambarrukmo 1 Sleman. It is located on Jl. Cendrawasih 125 Mancasan Lor, Condong Catur, Depok, Sleman,
Yogyakarta. The reason of choosing this school is considering of the problems occur in that school based on my observation.
C. Participant of the Research
Sometimes, the number of population is too big so it is out of the reach. In this case, the research is conducted to a part of the whole population. This part must have
the characteristics that represent the whole population. The participants of the research were students at the first grade students of SMK PI Ambarrukmo 1 Sleman.
I choose X A class as the participant of the research randomly because from the information given by the English teacher.
38
D. Data Collection Techniques
In this research design, the collected data were qualitative in nature. However, there were quantitative data from students’ pre-test and post-test mean scores. The
qualitative data were obtained by interviewing the English teacher and the students in SMK PI Ambarrukmo 1 Sleman and observing the teaching learning process. The
data from the interviews and observation were transferred into interview transcripts and field notes. The quantitative data gained from pre-test and post-test and the
students’ performances in each meeting of the cycles. The table below shows the detail information on the data, instruments of the research and data collection
techniques.
Table 2. The data and data collection techniques
No Data Collection
Techniques Instruments
Data
1 -
Observation -
Interview -
Observation sheets -
Interview guidelines Qualitative
a. Field notes b. Interview
transcripts 2
- Test - Test of Speaking
Quantitative a. Mean Scores
E. Data Analysis Technique
The data in this research were analyzed through five steps data analysis proposed by Burns 2010. Those were assembling data, coding data, comparing the
data, building interpretation, and reporting the outcomes.
39
First, the data of the research were assembled for rereading the data to get the important points. Then broad patterns of data were created to see what fit together.
Second, the data were coded based on the broad patterns which had developed before. The data were refined by coding the data into more specific categories. Third, if the
coding was complete then the categories of data from different sets of data were compared to see the similarities or differences between the data. After that, some
tables were drawn to set out and show the data. Then, the data interpretations were built. The final stage was reporting the outcomes. It was done by presenting the report
of the research study to others. I followed the data analysis steps above. I collected the results of observation
in the form of field notes and reread them. After that, the board patterns were built and compared with other form of data, such as interview transcript, the students’
mean scores in pre-test, post-test and the students’ mean scores in each meeting. The students’ mean score of pre-test and post-test also compared to see the improvements.
And then, the results of the students’ speaking improvements from pre-test and post- test were compared to the result of the classroom observation. Then, I drawn the
tables to show the data. After that I interpreted the data which had been compared or contrasted. The last step was reporting the results.
F. Validity and Reliability
Related to the validity of the data, there were five criteria proposed by Anderson et al in Burns 1999: 161 called democratic validity, outcome validity,
