the sake of the participants’ confidentiality. The second step, exploring and coding the data, refers to reading the transcriptions and coding them by assigning code
labels. In the third step, the codes were used to generate themes. The fourth step, reporting the findings, refers to making narrative from the findings. The fifth step
is interpreting the findings. From the narratives, I made the interpretation of meaning of the lived experience. In the last step, I validated the accuracy of the
finding by doing member checking. In labelling the texts to form the description of lived experience, I used a
coding system. The coding system consisted of five parts, namely appendix, participant’s name, the instrument to gather the data, and the unit of meaning. The
coding example can be seen in “Senja8-Intv1-ELT-EB”. In the example, Senja8 refers to conversation 8 by Senja, Intv1 refers to in-depth-interview 1, and ELT-EB
refers to English Language Teachers, Educational Background.
F. Trustworthiness
According to Creswell 2012: 259, throughout the process of data gathering and data processing in phenomenological research, the researcher needs to make
sure that the findings and interpretations are accurate and credible by validating them. The strategy used in this research to produce trustworthy, accurate, and
credible findings was by using member checking. Creswell 2012: 259 states that member checking refers to “a process in which the researcher asks one or more
participants in the study to check the accuracy of the account”. In this research, I did member checking by showing the transcription from the
previously conducted interview to the participants. I asked them to check whether PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
the transcription was accurate and complete. Moreover, I asked them to check whether the description was complete, if the themes were accurate, and if the
interpretation was representative and appropriate. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter presents the findings of the empirical truth of English teachers’ lived experience in developing an Android-based English language learning
application. There are two main sections in this chapter. The first section discusses the description of participants’ lived experienced. The second section presents the
interpretation of the lived experience.
A. Description Of Participant’s Lived Experience
In this research, there were two participants chosen based on the illumination
aspect. The participants involved were Senja and Amara; they were both pseudonyms. Each participant has a unique background and story that differ one
another.
1. Senja’s Story
The first participant was Senja. She was born in Yogya, 31 years ago. She is a curriculum developer in a private elementary school in Yogyakarta as well as a
private English tutor to school-aged children. Right after she graduated from a state senior high school in Bantul, she pursued her study in English Language Education
Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. Her interest in, language, literature, art,
and culture had brought her to English Language Education Study Program, Sanata
Dharma University. She had planned to take English education major since she was in the second grade of SHS. Having worked for some years as an English teacher
in a language institution, she decided to pursue her master degree in Sanata Dharma University.
64 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
