Subjects of the Research Procedure of the Research

1999: 157-160 were applied. They were assembling the data, coding the data, comparing the data, building interpretation, and reporting outcomes. 1. Assembling the Data In this step, the data were collected by doing interview and observation. Then, the data were presented in the form of interview transcripts and vignettes. 2. Coding the Data According to Burns 1999: 157, coding data is a process of reducing all the data and collected them into more manageable categories of concepts, themes or types. In this phase, the data were identified and coded into more specific categories. 3. Comparing the Data In this stage, comparing some categories of the collected data by using some data collection techniques was implemented. It was aimed at identifying the relationship between different sources of data. 4. Building Interpretation Researcher, in this phase, dealt with creative thinking responding to what the data imply. He discussed with the collaborator to pose questions, to identify connections, and to develop explanations related to the meaning of the collected data. 5. Reporting Outcomes In this last stage of data analysis, researcher reported the result of this study by considering some aspects. They were a discussion about the issues related to the study, a description of the context of the research, an analysis of the findings, and an interpretation of how this research leads to the others. Meanwhile, to analyze the quantitative data which were in the form of score transcripts, the researcher calculated the mean scores of the pre-test, the progress test, and the post-test. Then, the mean scores of each test were compared to find out whether the participants had an improvement on their writing skills or not. The increase of the mean scores indicated that the writing skills of the participants improved.

G. Validity and Reliability of the Data

The validity of the data was by completing the democratic, outcome, process, catalytic, and dialogic validity as cited by Anderson in Burns 1999:161. 1. The democratic validity concerns to the extent to which the research is truly collaborative. Democratic validity is related to the participants’ opportunity to give their opinions, ideas and comments about the teaching and learning process. There were some discussions held to support this study. The discussions were done after the meetings and at the end of each cycle. It was aimed at providing clear information of the research progress to make sure that the study was running well by evaluating the previous meeting and planning for the next meetings or cycle. 2. The outcomes validity is related to notions of actions leading to the successful outcomes within research context. To make sure that the actions were on the right track, there were some indicators that should be passed. They were as follows. a. The researcher focused on the teaching and learning of writing by implementing tiered activities. b. The participants enjoyed the classroom activities. c. The participants were active during the English teaching and learning process. d. Facilitated with some activities, the participants wrote some English texts. 3. The process validity relates to the dependability and competency of the research. It is related to activating participants to be involved in every stages of research process. Researcher was helped by collaborator who observed and note everything happened during the process of this research. The process validity was completed by reflecting on the data collection and modifying the strategies to have better treatment for the next meetings. 4. The catalytic validity is related to the extent to which the study allows participants to deepen their understanding of the social realities of the context and how they can make changes within it. This criterion was completed by