19
3.4 Variables of the Study
Best 1981: 59 states variables are the conditions or characteristics that the experimenter manipulates, controls, or observes. Saleh 2001: 25-26 points out
there are five kinds of variables: 1 Dependent variable
2 Independent variable 3 Moderator variable
4 Control Variable 5 Intervening Variable
There are two kinds of variables in the study, namely dependent and independent variables. The independent variable is the students’ creativity and the
dependent variable is English learning achievement. The types of the data of the two variables are interval. For the independent variable, the data will be obtained
from the result of the creativity questionnaire. Meanwhile for the dependent variable, the data will be obtained from the result of the achievement test.
3.5 Instrument
The data for this study were collected by using two instruments. The first instrument is questionnaire and the second one is an achievement test. The
following presents the description of these instruments.
3.5.1 Questionnaire
Hornby 1995: 962 states that questionnaire is a written or printed list of questions to be answered by a number of people especially as part of a survey.
Arikunto 1998: 140 defines that a questionnaire is a number of within questions,
20 which are used to gain information from respondents about the respondents
themselves, or their knowledge, belief, etc. According to Arikunto 1998: 140 a questionnaire based on the way to
answer the question, there are two types of questions: 1 opened questionnaire, the respondent can answer the questions using
their own sentences. 2 closed questionnaire, the respondent can directly choose the
appropriate answer. In this study, the writer used the closed questionnaire to measure the
students’ creativity. This questionnaire is based on Munandar 1977: 276 who proposes an instrument to measure creativity called Creativity Attitude Scale
CAS. The questionnaire consists of 30 statements developed from 10 indicators. The characteristics measured are related to doing difficult and hard work, being
active, having high initiative, being self-confident, having rich knowledge, having high desire to study things, being imaginative, being open to new experiences,
openness to new experiences, being brave in expressing ideas and having ability to analyze and synthesize. Each item is followed by five closed options, namely
absolutely agree SS, agree S, undecided R, disagree TS and absolutely disagree STS.
To find the scores of the students’ creativity, score 5 was given to the answer of absolutely agree and score 1 was given to the answer of absolutely
disagree . The questionnaire is presented as follows:
21 Table 1
The questionnaire for obtaining the data on students’ creativity NO Indicators
Item Number Total
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
Having preference to do difficult and hard work Having high desire to study things
Having rich knowledge Being imaginative
Being open to new experiences Being brave in expressing ideas
Having ability to analyze and synthesize Being self-confident
Having high initiative
Being active
1, 9, 19 5, 15, 20
28 4, 11, 14
10, 12, 16 6, 22, 25
7, 17, 18 3, 8, 13, 26
23, 24, 27, 30 2, 21, 29
3 3
1 3
3 3
3 4
3 3
Total 30
3.5.1.1 Validity of Questionnaire
Best 1981: 153 state that validity is that quality of a data-gathering instrument or procedure that enables it to determine what it was designed to determine.
Furthermore, Arikunto 1998: 161 states that the steps are taken to obtain an instrument with logic validity, which means that instrument is a result from a very
careful effort in the part of the writer in order to acquire validity. In this study, the validity of the instrument was measured by applying the
Pearson Product Moment formula. The formula is as follows:
22 r
xy
=
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
− −
∑ ∑
− ∑
} }{
{
2 2
2 2
Y Y
N X
X N
Y X
XY N
r
xy
= validity of questionnaire N = the number of respondents
X = the score number of each items Y = the sum score number of each items
Arikunto, 1998: 174 After some revisions, the questionnaire was tried out to 20 students. Try
out was carried out to know whether the instrument was applicable. Based on the try out and the items analysis of the instrument, it was found that items 4, 11, 14,
and 25 were not valid. The complete results can be seen in appendix I table 1 and appendix II table 2.
3.5.1.2 Reliability of Questionnaire
Reliability deals with the reliance. It means that a test can have high reliance standard if it gives consistent and stable results about the subjects’ condition when
it is given repeatedly. Here, the reliability of the instrument was measured by applying the Alpha Cronbach formula. The formula is as follows:
r
11
=
⎟ ⎟
⎠ ⎞
⎜ ⎜
⎝ ⎛
− ⎟
⎠ ⎞
⎜ ⎝
⎛ −
∑
2 2
1 1
tt b
k k
δ δ
r
11
= reliability of questionnaire k = number of questionnaire item
∑
2
b δ
= the sum of item variance δ t
2
= total variance Arikunto,
1998: 174
23 The result is consulted to the r table with the level of significance of 95.
If the result is higher than r table in the level of significance 95, it is concluded that the item is reliable. From the computation, it was found that the reliability of
the instrument of the creativity was 0,902. The complete data on the analysis of the reliability of the instrument is enclosed in Appendix III.
3.5.2 Achievement Test
Best 1981: 193 says that achievement tests attempt to measure what an individual has learned-his or her present level of performance. They are
particularly helpful in determining individual or group status in academic learning. In this study, the achievement test is used to measure students’ English
achievement. The test covers reading, structure, and vocabulary. The reason for taking three aspects above is that one of the purposes of the English teaching in
SMU is to develop the students’ skill in reading, speaking, writing, and listening emphasizing on the reading skill kurikulum 2004, 2003: 7.
This test was in the form of a multiple-choice test that consisted of five alternative answers. It consisted of 40 items. The scores of the items were from 0
to 1 in which each right answer was scored as 1 and the wrong answer was scored as 0. The test is presented as follows:
24 Table 2
The content of achievement test
Aspects Themes
Item numbers Total
Reading
Vocabulary
Structure Health
Travel General
knowledge Synonym
Health Occupation
Past Continuous tense
Modal Degree of
comparison Relative clause
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 19, 20, 21, 22,
29, 38, 25, 23, 24
11, 30 6, 7
28, 32, 36 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 27, 34, 39 37, 40
8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 26, 31
35 5
4 5
2 2
3 8
2 7
1 Total
40
3.5.2.1 Validity of the test
Best 1981: 153 states that validity is that quality of a data-gathering instrument or procedure that enables it to determine what it was designed to determine.
Content validity provides the indication whether the data collection procedure is a good representation of content which needs to be measured Kerlinger, 1979:
417. The content of the test is reported in Table 2.
25 The test also has been tried out to 20 students. Here, the validity of the
instrument was measured by applying the Product Moment formula. The formula is as follow:
r
xy
=
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
− −
∑ ∑
− ∑
} }{
{
2 2
2 2
Y Y
N X
X N
Y X
XY N
In which:
r
xy
= validity of test N = the number of respondents
X = the score number of each items Y = the sum score number of each items
Arikunto, 1998: 174 Based on the items analysis, it was found that among the 40 items being
tried out, 8 items, numbers 11, 12, 22, 28, 29, 34, 36, and 40 were not valid. The complete analysis can be seen in appendix IV table 3 and appendix V table 4.
3.5.2.2 Reliability of test
Reliability means the stability of test scores. A test cannot measure anything well unless it measures consistently. To know whether the items are reliable or not, the
writer applied Kuder Richarson-20 formula. The formula is as follows: r
11
=
⎟ ⎠
⎞ ⎜
⎝ ⎛
− −
⎟ ⎠
⎞ ⎜
⎝ ⎛
− kVt
M k
M k
k 1
1 k = the number test item
M= the means of the scores Vt= the total of varians
Arikunto, 1998: 185
26 The table of ‘r’ product moment with N= 20 and level significance of 95
was 0.444. The computation shows that the reliability of the instrument was 0.922. Since the result of computation was higher than the ‘r’ in the product
moment table, the test was considered to have highgood reliability. The coefficient reliability of the whole test is listed in appendix VI.
3.6 Procedure of collecting data
The study was conducted in the field on May 9-10
th
, 2007. The instruments were administered in May or before the students had the final exam because the
teaching-learning process for the second quarter had been finished. Moreover, the instrument, in this case achievement test, can be used as preparation for students
to have the final exam. After the instruments were administered, the writer collected and analyzed it. Finally, the writer analyzed it completely.
3.7 Method of analyzing data
The analyzing is going to find out the correlation between the students’ creativity and their achievement in English learning. The data were obtained from the
questionnaire and the achievement test. The questionnaire was analyzed by using Creative Attitude Scale. To score the scale, the response options were credited 5,
4, 3, 2, and 1 from absolutely agree to absolutely disagree statements. The writer used the percentage description analysis to measure of the
students’ creativity is. The formula is as follows: The total value of answer
The percentage= X 100
Total value of ideal answer Arikunto, 1998: 244
27 Then, the writer categorized the scores resulted from calculation into the
following criteria: 1. Very high 84-100
2. High 68-83 3. Fair 52-67
4. Low 36-51 5. Very low 20-35
Yohanes, 1998:74 quoted by Miswadi 2000:54 While the students’ English learning achievements are classified into the
following criteria: 1. Excellent = 85-100 points
2. Good = 68-84 points 3. Fair = 60-67 points
4. Poor = 45-59 points 5. Fail 45 points
After getting the scores of the students’ creativity and the scores their achievement in English learning, the writer wanted to know whether or not every
student with high creativity also had good achievement in English learning. To answer the problem, the writer correlated the sum of the scores of the students’
creativity and their achievement in English learnings score. To find out the correlation coefficient between two variables, the writer applied the Pearson
Product-Moment formula as follows:
28 r
xy
=
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
− −
∑ ∑
− ∑
} }{
{
2 2
2 2
Y Y
N X
X N
Y X
XY N
r
xy
= correlation coefficient between X and Y N
= total number of the students
∑
X = sum of the scores for the strength of creativity
∑
Y = sum of the scores for the students’ achievement
∑
2
X = sum of the square of the strength of creativity
∑
2
Y = sum of the scores of the students’ achievement scores
∑
XY = total sum of the product multiplying the score for the strength of creativity and the scores for the students’ achievement
Arikunto, 1998: 256 The writer used this formula because the data in this research were
interval. The study can be said to have a statistically significant relationship if the coefficient correlation obtained is greater than that in the table. In this study, the
writer used 95 significance level and the number of the sample is 32 students. Furthermore, Arikunto 1998: 260 suggestts interpretation table toward
coefficient correlation. The table is as follows:
29 Table 3
Interpretation of coefficient correlation ‘r’
The ‘r’ value Interpretation
0.800-1.000 0.600-0.800
0.400-0.600 0.200-0.400
0.000-0.200 Very strong
Strong Fair
Weak Very weak
Based on the table above, the writer would apply it to interpret the coefficient correlation which was obtained. For example, if the obtained value was
0.85, the value of the coefficient correlation was categorized very strong. The result of the study will be discussed in chapter IV.
30
CHAPTER IV RESULT OF THE STUDY
4.1 The Data Collection
The writer did some preparation to analyze the data, they were: a.
Scoring the questionnaire. b.
Using percentage formula to find out the degree of the strength of the students’ creativity.
c. Scoring the students’ achievement in English learning.
d. Correlation analysis.
4.2 Scoring the Questionnaire
In the scoring questionnaire of the respondent, the scores were listed by summing up the item credit of their answers. As mentioned in the previous
chapter, each item had five response options; absolutely SS credited 5 points, agree S credited 4 points, undecided R credited 3 points, disagree TS credited
2 points and absolutely disagree STS credited 1 points. The result of questionnaire is presented as follows:
Table 4
Kategori