53
from the observation, interviews, and the pre-test and the post-test. The data being compared were observation data in the form of field notes, interview data in the
form of interview scripts, and the pre-test and the post test’s scores.
H. Research Procedure
The research was conducted by following the action research procedure proposed by Kemmis and Mc Taggart in Burns 2010: 8. It included the
following four steps.
1. Reconnaissance
This step was conducted to identify the existing problems and to determine the most feasible problem to be solved. In this first step, the researcher conducted
classroom observations and interviews with the English teacher as well as the first grade students of SMK N 1 Depok. The researcher focused on the problems
related to teaching and learning of speaking in the classroom. Then the researcher and the English teacher selected some problems that were feasible to be solved. It
was to assess the democratic validity in which every participants were given opportunities to give their opinions, suggestions, and expectations during the
research.
2. Planning
After identifying the problems or issue, the researcher and the English teacher discussed to plan some actions as the efforts to improve the speaking
ability of the first grade students. The actions were planned based on the discovered problems, the Standard of Competence and Basic Competence, as well
54
as the condition of the school. It was decided to use jigsaw technique as the basic of the actions. The implementation of jigsaw technique would be supported by
applying other actions.
3. Action and Observation
The researcher implemented the actions that had been planned in the previous step. The actions were implemented in two cycles with three actions in
each cycle. Each cycle was done in three meetings. At first, the researcher conducted cycle one. Based on the reflection of cycle one, some weaknesses were
found. In that case, the cycle two was conducted with considering the reflection of the previous cycle. To find the weaknesses of the actions, the researcher, the
English teacher as the collaborator observed the teaching and learning processes. The researcher also interviewed the students after the actions were implemented.
Those processes were related to assess democratic validity. The results of observation, field notes, and interviews were analyzed to know the effectiveness
of the actions and to find problems that occurred. Besides that, the researcher took consideration about the current situation and plan new and alternative ways of
doing next action. To assess the process validity, the researcher examined the data and
identified it whether the students could continue learning from the process or not yet. It determined how adequate the process of conducting action is. To assess
catalytic validity, it meant that the collaborator and the students were given opportunities to give their responses to the change occurred after the
55
implementation of the actions. This may be addressed by recounting changes in teacher and learners’ understanding of their role and the actions taken as a result
of these changes.
4. Reflection
