E. Data Collection Technique
The data of this research were in the form of qualitative data and quantitative data. The qualitative data were collected through two techniques.
Those data were obtained through observation and interview techniques. The instruments that were used to collect the data were an observation sheet, interview
guidelines, a camera and a pre-test and a post-test. The observation was done in the teaching-learning process which was collecting data in the form of field notes.
To get more valid data, the researcher interviewed some of the students and the teacher. The data of interview were in the form of interview transcripts.
Meanwhile, the quantitative data were collected through scoring the students’ work. The researcher used a pre-test and a post-test to take the students’ score.
F. Data analysis Technique
To analyze the qualitative data, Miles and Huberman 1994: 10 state that there are three concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and
conclusion drawingverification that should be done. Data reduction refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data
that appear in the written-up field notes or transcriptions Miles and Huberman, 1994: 10. In this regard, the researcher collected all data in the form of field notes
of observation and interview transcripts during the teaching learning process. Next, the researcher reduced the data in order to simplify and summarize the form
of data that is in the field. Data display is an organized, compressed assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and action Miles and Huberman,
1994: 11. In this stage, the researcher decided to choose the data from the
selected data reduction to understand and to look for what happen in the data displays to be analyzed and reported. The third step is drawing the conclusion. In
drawing the conclusion, the researcher held the discussion with the teacher and the students of class VII C which is to avoid subjectivity to analyze the finding.
For the quantitative data, the researcher used the SPSS software version 20 to analyze the data. It is used in order to know whether there were any changes or
not after implementing the action.
G. Validity and Reliability of Data
Anderson in Burns 1999: 161-162 proposes five validity 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
Democratic validity was related to stakeholders’ chances to give their opinion, idea, and comment about the implication of the action research. In order
to get democratic validity, the researcher interviewed the stakeholders of SMP N 2 Depok such as the teacher and the students. In the interview, the teacher and the
students were given a chance to give their opinion, idea, and comment to find out the problem that they are faced with.
b. Outcome validity Outcome validity was 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. To get the outcome validity, the
researcher did the reflection about the result of the study.
c. Process validity Process validity meant that actions that are done in the research were
believable. To get the process validity, the researcher collected the data by doing observation, and noted the events during the implementation of the action
research. The researcher took note and recorded anything that happened in the teaching learning process of the class VIIC students at SMP N 2 Depok.
d. Catalytic validity Catalytic validity relates to the extent to which the research allows
participants to deepen their understanding of the social realities of the context and how they can make changes within it. In order to fulfill this validity the researcher
interviewed the English teacher and the students by asking about their responses to the changes occurring to themselves.
e. Dialogic validity Dialogic validity means that the stakeholders could participate in the
process of the research. To get the dialogic validity, the researcher did peer review in action research. It would mean dialogue with practitioner peers, either through
collaborative enquiry or reflective dialogue with ‘critical friends’ or other practitioner researchers who can act as ‘devil’s advocates’.
To get the trustworthiness of the data and to avoid subjectivity in analyzing the data, the researcher uses triangulation. Furthermore, Burns 1999:
164 proposes four forms of triangulation namely time triangulation, space triangulation, investigator triangulation, and theoretical triangulation. The
researcher used three of them as follows:
Kategori