22
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the methodology the writer used in this study. Thus, this chapter presents the method, research participants, setting, research instrument,
data gathering technique, and data analysis as well as research procedure.
A. Research Method
In this study, the writer employed descriptive research. The work of Ary et al 1990: 381 reveals that this sort of research is designed to obtain information about
the current status of phenomena. It means that descriptive research is designed to describe a certain phenomenon. On the face of it, in analyzing the data the writer
experienced the use qualitative research method. The work of Ary et al 2002: 22 points out that qualitative research method deals with understanding social
phenomena from the perspective of the human participants in the study. One major characteristic of this research method is the use of narrative description and
interpretation. This characteristic differentiates this research method from the
quantitative one in terms of data analysis Ary et al, 2002: 23.
B. Research Participants
The population of interest was the eleventh grade students of SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta from academic year 20062007. The number of the students was 169.
Due to the limitation of time as well as to school policy, the writer employed cluster
23
sampling in this study. Cluster sampling, in accordance with Cohen, Marion and Morrison 2000: 100, involves randomly selecting the samples from a list of
population. Further, the work of Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh 2002: 168 states that cluster sampling is the probability sampling in which the unit chosen is not an
individual but a group of individual that are naturally together. The probability sampling itself provides a nonzero chance for the entire population to be selected as
the samples. Employing the cluster sampling method, the writer randomly selected the
cluster or the class of the students and the choice went to the students of IPA 2 class. There were 35 students of IPA 2 class. However, since three students were absent in
the peer feedback session and one student did not submit his revision; the number of the samples became 31.
Having decided the samples, the writer then started to collect the data. The
research was conducted at the end of the even semester of academic year 20062007
in SMU N. 3 Yogyakarta on May 18, 2007 until June 5, 2007.
C. Research Instruments
To collect the data, there were two research instruments assigned in this study. They were a set questionnaires and students’ writing.
2. Students’ writing To answering the first problem formulation, the writer also made use of the
respondents’ writing. Pre–peer first writing and post–peer second writing were examined. Each student’s first and second draft were placed side by side and then
24
graded based on a weighted rubric. Then, the writer searched for the improvement on each aspect of the writing quality. The student’s post–peer second writing were
considered to show improvement when the score of the student’s post–peer second writing was better than the pre–peer first draft. Searching for the students’
improvement on each aspect, the writer investigated to what extent peer feedback contributed to the students’ improvement in their writing quality.
3. Questionnaire The data used to answer the second problem formulation was recorded using
this instrument as well. Ary et al 1990: 421 define a questionnaire as an instrument to gather information by having the respondents respond to a list of questions. They
then propose the advantage of using questionnaire. They claim that the data gained from the questionnaires is believed to be more truthful and reliable rather than the
data gained from personal interview, as there is possibility for the respondents to avoid telling the right information to the interviewer.
The items of the questionnaire are made up of selected-response items. The type of the questionnaire used in this study referred to as a likert scale. The
consideration why the writer applied this type is because this type generally works for getting at respondents’ views, judgments, or opinions Brown and Rodgers, 2002:
120. In other words, this type of questionnaire is appropriate to investigate the respondents’ perceptions.
There were fifteen statements in the questionnaire and there were four columns for each of the statement. The value of each column was from one up to
four, concerning the degree of agreement of: 4 for “totally agree”; 3 for “agree”; 2
25
for “disagree”; and 1 for “totally disagree”. The students were to value each statement to the degree of agreement of their own.
Integrated in the 15 statements, the three elements concerning the components of the students’ perception on the use of peer feedback covered up the
perception on the characteristics of peer feedback, on the benefits of peer feedback and on the responses to peer feedback. Statement number 1, 6, 7, and 8 were to find
out the students’ point of view of the peer feedback’s characteristics. The students’ agreement on the benefits of peer feedback was investigated through the statements
number 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Statement number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 15 were dealing with the students’ responses to peer feedback. To make it understandable,
questionnaire blue print is provided below.
Table 3.1 Questionnaire Blue Print Features Item
Number
The characteristics of peer feedback 1, 6, 7, 8
The benefits of peer feedback 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
The response to peer feedback 2, 3, 4, 5, 15
D. Data Gathering Technique
