the data of the field notes also were collected. The field notes were made based on the descriptions in the observation guidelines which were completed by the
collaborator during the researcher implementing the actions. In the reflection steps, the data of interviews which were interview transcripts were collected and
then analyzed with the other data in the previous steps. Here, the interview transcripts were used to give clear description about the students’ responses, the
students’ behaviors, and the collaborator’s responses about the class activities during the actions. After all data had been collected, the researcher analyzed them
to find the successful and unsuccessful result of the actions and to make the conclusion of the research.
G. Data Analysis Technique
After conducting the research, the researcher analyzed the data from the field notes of the observations, interview transcripts, and from the questionnaire
given to the students. The researcher also used triangulation in avoiding the subjectivity of the data analysis. The triangulation was done by comparing the data
from the observations, interviews, and questionnaires, and also by comparing the data from all of the research members.
The data were gained from the action conducted in the field. The data were analyzed from the field notes of observations and interview transcripts. The
analysis of data was represented by the reflection of the cycles of the research. By doing the reflection, the researcher had authentic data, which can help her in
interpreting the data. To assess the validity and reliability of the data, the researcher followed the criteria proposed by Burns 1999: 161-162. The validity
of the research was democratic validity, result validity, process validity, catalytic validity, and dialogic validity.
H. Research Validity and Reliability
Burns in Madya 2006: 37 -45 states that there are five validity criteria that can ensure data validity of action research. The five validity criteria are democratic
validity, outcome validity, process validity, catalytic validity, and dialogic validity. a.
Democratic Validity Burns in Madya 2006 : 38 states that democratic validity was related to
stakeholders’ chances to give their opinion, idea, and comment about the implication of the action research. In other to get democratic validity, the
researcher interviewes the stakeholders of MAN LAB UIN Yogyakarta head master, teachers, and students. In the interview, the stakeholders are given
chances to express their ideas, opinion, and attitudes toward the problems faced where the focus is to look for the solution of the problems. The
interview is conducted during the research runs. b.
Outcome Validity Outcome validity is related to the outcome achieved by the
researcher. The achievement of the outcome involved not only problem solving but also appearing new questions in the related research Burns, in
Madya 2006: 40. To get the outcome validity, the researcher puts back the problems at the X gade of MAN LAB UIN Yogyakarta in a scheme in order
to make new questions. The researcher does this when the researcher does the reflection in the end of the action.
c. Process Validity
