Research Question THE STUDY
15 The first part of the questionnaire presented a short introduction, covering my
identity, the purpose of the study, and also a promise to keep the respondents‟ identity as confidential. Still in this part, 21 close-ended items in the form of a Likert scale and 1
regular close-ended item were presented. These items were implicitly categorized under 4 themes, namely social, academic, and fairness aspects, as well as conditions for
successful group work. This categorization was done to assist me to obtain more organized data to be analyzed later on.
The second part asked for the demographical information of the students, including their age, gender, length of studying English, as well as length of experiencing
group work learning strategy in the school. Furthermore, the last part questioned about the optional inf
ormation on the respondents‟ name and phone number. This information could be later used as a way to have some personal communications with some
respondents if there were parts needed to figure out more. As discussed earlier, a Likert scale was used. As Likert 1932 points out, to use a
Likert scale, the researcher has to present a set of statements along with the space for the respondents‟ judgments, ranging from extremely positive to negative ones. Following this
model, I designed a series of statements related to the advantages and disadvantages of group work derived from the previous studies and some informal conversations with
several twelfth graders. In each statement, I provided spaces for each statement in the form of a table to ease the respondents to respond, regarding to what extent they agreed
or disagreed with each written statement.
16 In this study, I used an even-number Likert scale since I believed that the use of
an odd-number scale would enlarge the unreliability level of the data due to the inclination of the respondents to select the middle options Cronbach, 1950. Responding
to this, I applied a 4-point scale in the study, ranging from strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. In that way, it was hoped that the respondents were triggered to
think more critically before judging the available options for each statement.