2. Coding the data
Once assembling the data was done, the next step was coding the data. It was to reduce the large amount of data which could be collected to more
manageable categories. In developing the categories, the researcher managed the data into more specific patterns by labeling or giving codes.
3. Comparing the data
After the coding was complete, the patterns were compared to different sets of data e.g. interviews compared with questionnaires to see whether the
respondent said the same things or contradicted. 4.
Building meanings and interpretations The researcher interpreted the data based on the previous steps to make
some sense of the meaning of the data. In this step, there were some processes of posing questions, identifying connection and developing
explanation about what the research meant at the broadest level. It was followed by refination of the personal theories about the meaning of the
research. 5.
Reporting the outcomes This process was emphasized on how the data would be presented.
Meanwhile, to analyze the quantitative data, the researcher used descriptive analysis in the form of mean. In this way, the students’ scores in
pre-test and post- test were compared to see the improvements of the students’
writing skill.
H. Validity and Reliability of the Data 1. Validity
In terms of validity, the researcher employs the concept of Burns 1999 about criteria fulfillment of the research validity that are divided into five
points; democratic validity, outcome validity, process validity, catalytic validity, and dialogic validity. How the criteria were fulfilled are explained
as follows: a. Democratic Validity
Democratic validity is related to stake holders’ chance to give their personal opinions, ideas, and comments about the implication of the action
research. In the research, the researcher, the collaborators and the students were given the same opportunities to express their ideas, opinions and
suggestions. It was made feasible through conducting discussions among them. The results of the discussion became consideration in evaluating the
actions implemented.
b. Outcome Validity
Outcome validity is related to the notion of actions leading to the result that is successful within the research context. This validity is fulfilled
with some indicators showing the improvement of the stude nts’ writing
skills.
c. Process Validity
Process validity is related to the criterion of the research dependability. The research were conducted by doing classroom
observation, making field notes on what happened in the classroom, having interviews with students, and conducting discussion with the collaborators.
d. Catalytic Validity
Catalytic validity refers to the extent to which the research allows the participants to deepen their understanding of the social realities of the
context and how they can make change within it. In the research, changes that happened to both sides of students and teacher were taken into account
so that it was expected that both students and teacher will be more aware of their social roles in the classroom.
e. Dialogic Validity
Dialogic validity is related to the state that members of the research can participate in the research process. This validity was fulfilled by the
researcher regularly having dialogues with the collaborators about the future plans, exchanging opinions or ideas and reporting any steps that the
researcher ad done to the students.
2. Reliability
In order to obtain the trustworthiness of the research, the researcher used triangulation. According to Burns 1999, the aim of triangulation is to
