4. Building interpretation 5. Reporting the outcomes
The quantitative data obtained from speaking performances were analyzed by using quantitative descriptive analysis. The quantitative data were presented in the
form of tables and mean scores.
G. Research Procedure
The researcher used the procedure of action Research proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart1998 in Burns 2010. The procedure is as follow:
1. Reconnaissance
In this stage, the researcher found out valuable information concerning on the students’ speaking skills. The researcher identified the problems and obstacles in
teaching speaking by observing in the class and interviewing the teacher and the students.
2. Planning
After doing observations and interviews in reconnaissance stage, the researcher made some plans to determine feasible actions to be implemented in the
field. In planning the actions, the researcher worked together with the English teacher. The action plan was using videos as teaching media and was aimed at
improving the students’ speaking skills.
3. Action and Observation of the Action
The researcher carried out the actions in the class that had been planned before. The actions would be implemented in some cycles depends on the needs of
the research. All emerging and detected activities in the classroom during the implementation of the action were recorded, documented and analyzed.
4. Reflection evaluation and recommendation
In this stage, the researcher made some notes and reviews on the changes during the implementation with the collaborators. This reflection was carried out to
decide whether there would be another cycle or not. If the actions were successful, the researcher would continue to implement it. If the actions were not successful, the
actions would be modified or the researcher would try to find other suitable actions.
H. Validity and Reliability of Data
To get the validity of the data, Anderson et al. 1994 in Burns 1999 propose five criteria of validity.
1. Democratic validity, which is related to the extent to which the research is truly collaborative. It was obtained through interviewing the English teacher and the
students to find out their ideas and comments the action or activities during the implementation of cooperative learning carried out in the writing process.
2. Outcome validity, which is related to notion of actions leading to outcomes that are “successful” within the research context. In this research, the processes were
related to the improvement of students’ speaking skills through the use of video. 3. Process validity, which raises questions about process of conducting the
research. In this research, the process was done in two cycles and each cycle consisted of planning, actions, and observation and reflection steps. The process
involved some different data sources and followed by some evidences that show the believable process.
4. Catalytic validity, which is related to the extent to which the researcher allows participants to deepen their understanding of the social realities of the context
and how they can make changes in the teachers’ and learner’ understanding of their role and the actions taken as a result of these changes, or by monitoring
other participant’ perceptions of problems in the research setting. 5. Dialogue validity, which parallels the process collaborative enquiry or reflective
dialogue with “critical friends” or other practitioners. The researcher collaborated with the teacher to observe the research process.
To obtain the trustworthiness, Burns 2010: 97 suggest three-triangulation techniques:
1. Time triangulation, the data are collected at one point in time or over a period of time to get sense of what are involved in the processes of the changes. This
research was done in two months.
