Data Display Strategy Conclusion Drawing Strategy

41 data that direct you to cliques, friendships, romance, coalitions, enemies and mentorsstudents. Narrative Codes It describes the structure of talk itself. Method Codes It isolates material pertinent to research procedures, problems, joys, dilemmas and the like. Developed From Bogdan and Biklen 2003 Bodgan and Biklen 2003 say that after the researcher read the questionnaire and transcribe the recorded interviews, the researcher read the transcripts over and over again several times in order to get ideas for a coding scheme. It means that the researcher needed to record and sort all the answer before deciding the coding scheme. The researcher used this coding to analyze all the answers from the three instruments in this research. After coding all the data, the researcher used the narrative descriptive to display the data.

2. Data Display Strategy

Miles and Huberman 1994 state that data display has been considered as an important step during the qualitative data analysis. They also say that the most frequent form of displaying qualitative data in the past was extendeed text. Therefore, the researcher displayed the data in the form of a text. The results of a qualitative study should include themes derived from the data, a thorough description of the themes, and multiple perspectives from participants or detailed descriptions of the settings or individuals to support these themes Creswell, 2009.

3. Conclusion Drawing Strategy

After analyzing the data, the researcher tried to draw the conclusion of the research. Miles and Huberman 1984 say that from the start of data collection, 42 the qualitative analyst begins to decide what thing mean – it is nothing regularities, patterns, explanations, possible configurations, causal flows, and preposition. In this research, the researcher focused on the students‟ responses, students‟ achievement and students‟ suggestion to the use of mind mapping. The researcher also combined the answer from all of the data, which were from questionnaire, interview and the peer observer. Based on the questionnaire, the researcher read all of the answers from the result of the questionnaire. The researcher also made some guidelines which consisted of the questions that had been chosen in the data reduction. All of the answers for the questions were recorded as the final answer. The researcher concluded the answers by making a criterion for each question. Those answers helped the researcher to answer the first problem formulation. As in the last question, the researcher also made some criteria based on the answers. If there were similar answers in the questions, they were noted as one answer. The last question was the data for answering the second problem. The researcher also drew a conclusion fr om the interview‟s result. The answer from both research instruments was differentiated into two parts namely negative and positive answers. The positive answers were considered as the good motivation on the use of mind mapping. However the negative answers were considered as the bad motivation that the students had of the use on mind mapping. 43 Based on the peer observer, the researcher mixed and matched all of the answer from the peer observer and the resea rcher‟s result. The result from the peer observer and the researcher were considered as one result. If there were different answers from the peer observer and the researcher, those answers would be presented only based on the real condition. The researcher drew the conclusion from the interview, questionnaire and the result of the peer observer that had been returned by the students. Those data completed the data triangulation and presented only based on the real condition. The result answered both of the problem formulations on this research.

F. Research Trustworthiness