Theoretical Framework REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

20

B. Research Setting

The research was conducted in the second semester of the 20152016 academic year. The setting was in Sanata Dharma University. It was chosen because the researcher is a student in Sanata Dharma University and this helped the the research to process the research. The researcher chose to do a research in Structure II because that was a transition experience from the first prerequisite subject. The reflection as a process in the learning process which occurs after important activity has taken place, towards a one-semester course, for instance Taylor, 1981 as cited in Boud et al., 1985. The data gathering was done five times for each participant since there were three respondents in this research. Therefore, there were fifteen meetings in this research. Besides, the time for meeting was flexible in purpose of making participants feel comfortable and free to share their experiences. The research began from the middle of February until the beginning of April. The meeting was explained in the following table. Table 3.1 The Meeting Schedule AL February 19 2016 February 26 2016 March 11 2016 March 18 2016 April 1 2016 DE February 20 2016 February 27 2016 March 12 2016 March 19 2016 April 2 2016 SA February 21 2016 February 28 2016 March 13 2016 March 20 2016 April 3 2016 21

C. Research Participants

The researcher used non-probability and purposive sampling. According to Parahoo 1997, in non-probability sampling researcher uses their judgment to select the subjects to be included in the study based on their knowledge of the phenomenon. In addition, the sample of purposive sampling has been chosen for a specific purpose Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2007. The researcher chose the samples which fulfilled the researcher‟s specific needs. In order to answer the research problems, the participants of this research were three students of ELESP, Sanata Dharma University who received a D in the prerequisite subject. The researcher chose the students who received a D because the researcher thought that it was easier to identify the progress of the research. There were three students accepted and confirmed that they were willing to be participants in this research. Holloway and Wheeler 2002 say that sample size does not influence the importance or quality of the study and there are no guidelines in determining sample size in qualitative research.

D. Research Instrument and Data Gathering Technique

In this section, the researcher discusses the instruments used in this research. The researcher used the students‟ reflection and interview technique to collect the data, so the data were in the form of reflections and interview transcript. In descriptive research, the researcher was the primary data collection instrument because the data from participants were words in the context of the research problem Holloway Wheeler, 2002. The advantages of the „human 22 instruments ‟ are the researcher can have adaptability, responsiveness, knowledge, ability to handle sensitive matters, ability to see the whole picture, ability to clarify and summarize Lincoln and Guba, 1985. It aims to collect the detailed description of participants‟ experience. According to Fraenkel Wallen 2012, the participants‟ written and oral self-report can also be evaluated. The researcher used two instruments for the data gathering techniques. The researcher used reflection and interview from the participants.

1. Reflection

In order to get information about the use of reflection to enhance students‟ self-awareness, the researcher asked the students to write some reflections. In this research, the researcher used the students‟ reflections as the document to collect data. Documents are good data collection because they can provide good descriptive information Ary et al., 2010. In addition, Bernard 1988 has similar description about document study that it has always been an important component of qualitative research. The document study has advantages such as it is flexible and it allows the access to subjects that may be difficult to research through direct personal contact. There were some questions of the reflection to know the par ticipants‟ experience in details during Structure II. The question of the reflection should c over participants‟ understanding of the experience so they would get benefits. The first benefit is reflection allows us to put and to use what students learn from experience Gardiner as cited in Tarvin, 1991. The second benefit is reflection helps raise students‟ awareness as learners and to see that we can direct and change our learning Biggs, 1999. Then, reflection increases