27
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
This research used quantitative method. It called quantitative method because it is related to the calculation and analysis of numerical data. The researcher used
quasi-experimental research design to identify the effectiveness of using clustering technique on students’ writing recount text. Here, the researcher gave
pre-test and post-test in two classes; experimental and controlled class. Pre-test was used to get the beginning score from the experimental and controlled class
before treatment. Post-test was used to measure the score after treatment. Then the result was compared after and before the treatment to get the effectiveness of
clustering technique. There was a different treatment between experimental and controlled class. In
experimental class, the researcher gave a treatment by using clustering technique for training students in writing recount text, whereas the students in controlled
class were taught without using clustering technique.
B. Place and Time of the Research
This research was conducted in the first grade of the first semester at SMA Al- Hasra Depok which is located on Jl. Raya Parung km 24, Bojongsari, Depok.
This research was carried out only for a month in August 2015. This research was held in six meetings each class; pre-test, treatment in four times, and post-test.
C. The Population and Sampling Technique of the Research
1.
Research Population
The population of the study consisted of all Tenth Grade students of the first year in SMA Al-Hasra Depok. There were four classes, X.1, X.2, X.3, and X.4 in
SMA Al-Hasra Depok. The total of the tenth grade students was about 120 students.
2. Sampling Technique
The samples of this research were; class X.1 as the experimental class and X.2 as the controlled class. In this study, the researcher used Purposive Sampling.
According to McMillan, “purposeful sampling sometimes called purposive,
judgment, or judgmental sampling, the researcher selects particular elements from the population that will be informative
about the topic of interest”.
1
It means that the researcher took the sample from the judgment that was representative of
the population or includes subjects with needed characteristics. In this study, the researcher took the sample by interviewing the English teacher in order to know
which classes that have the same ability in English lesson, had same facilities, on the same level and by asking permission to her to conduct the research in two
different classes.
D. Instrument of the Research
The instrument that the researcher used was test; pre-test and post-test. The pre-test was given before the treatment and the post-test was given after the
treatment. Here, the researcher gave the instruction of the tests based on Basic Competency-Kompetensi Dasar KD that the first year students of Senior High
School are expected to be able to express meaningful ideas in term of functional text and simple short essay in the form of recount, narrative, and procedure to
interact with people in their nearest environment. The given topic was about recount story, such as
“My holiday”. The students were asked to write their personal experience about their holiday in three short
paragraphs. Then for the scoring, the researcher used analytic score that was created by Jacobs, et al
.’s to make the scoring of students’ writing becomes more reliable.
2
1
James H. McMillan, Sally Schumacher, Research in Education Evidence-Based Inquiry 6
th
Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2006, p.126.
2
Sara Cushing Weigle, Assessing Writing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p.116.
Table 3.1 Analytic Score in Writing
Scoring Element
Scale Quality
Description
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 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 – or not enough to
evaluate
Organization
20-18 Excellent to
very good Fluent expression
– ideas clearly statedsupported
– succinct – well- organized
– logical sequencing – cohesive
17-14 Good
to average
Somewhat choppy
– loosely organized but main idea 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 – or not enough to
evaluate
Vocabulary
20-18 Excellent to
very good Sophisticated range
– effective wordidiom choice and usage
– word form mastery
– appropriate register
17-14 Good
to average
Adequate range – frequent 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 – or not enough
to evaluate
Language use
25-22 Excellent to
very good Effective complex constructions
– few errors of agreement, tense,
number, word
orderfunction, articles, pronouns, prepositions
21-18 Good
to average
Effective but simple constructions – 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 rules
– dominated by errors
– does not communicate – or not enough to evaluate
Mechanics
5 Excellent to
very good Demonstrates
mastery of
conventions – few errors of
spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, paragraphing 4
Good to
average Occasional errors of spelling,
punctuation, capitalization,
paragraphing, but meaning not obscured
3 Fair to poor
Frequent errors
of spelling,
punctuation, capitalization,
paragraphing – poor handwriting –
meaning confused or obscured 2
Very poor No
mastery conventions
– dominant by errors of spelling,
punctuation, capitalization,
paragraphing –
handwriting illegible
– or not enough to evaluate
From the analytical score table above, here is the formula to get the students’
writing recount text total score:
TOTAL SCORE = Content + Organization + Vocabulary + Language Use + Mechanics
E. Technique of Data Collecting