The Technique of Analyzing the Data

F. The Technique of Analyzing the Data

The data analyzed were qualitative and quantitative data. Clearly, to analyze the data in the research had be done in two ways, as follows.

1. Qualitative data is the data of the students’ activities and also the researcher’s activities during the teaching-learning writing skill. The data is derived through the observation result of each action that is done by the students in responding the learning materials during teaching and learning process is run or social events include the resarcher’s and students’ activities.

The researcher analyzed the qualitative data in three steps, they are as follows.

a. Reduction of data: evaluating and classifying the data based on the information and must be organized based on the statement of the research.

b. Explanation of data: all the data that have been organized by the researcher must

be classified to get the meaning in the table, graphic or narration forms.

c. Conclusion: after the explanation of data is made, the researcher will take some conclusions about the data.

The sources of the data above had been more clearly explained below. The observation sheets had been analyzed and evaluated through this percentage formula adapted from Tuckman (1975) in Nurgiantoro (1986:345-347) namely.

To analyzed the qualitative data, the researcher used the theory of Nurgiyantoro (2001:399) say s, the researcher’s activities were classified to the following scale (%). 0% - 39%

: the degree of teaching level is fail.

40% - 59%

: the degree of teaching level is less.

60% - 74%

: the degree of teaching level is enough.

75% - 84%

: the degree of teaching level is good.

85% - 100%

: the degree of teaching level is very good. While the students’ activities are classified to the following scale (%)

0% - 39% : the degree of the students’ activities level is fail. 40% - 59%

: the degree of the students’ activities level is less. 60% - 74%

: the degree of the students’ activities level is enough. 75% - 84%

: the degree of the students’ activities level is good. 85% - 100%

: the degree of the students ’ activities level is very good.

2. Quantitative Data To find the students’ ability related to the quantitative data, the researcher analyzed the data by scoring all of the students’ answers. Then, the researcher used the formula written by Weir (1990) in Weigle (2002:117) to assess the students through a personal writing.

In giving the score, the researcher focused on several criteria as follows.

Table 2

ANALYTICAL EVALUATION RUBRIC of PERSONAL WRITING (Suggested by Weir (1990) in Weigle (2002:117))

Point Score

Information

A Relevance and Adequacy of content

0 The answer bears almost no relation to the task set. Totally

inadequate answer.

1 Answer of limited relevance to the task set. Possibly major gaps in

treatment of topic and / or pointless repetition.

2 For the most part answers the tasks set, though there may be some

gaps or redundant information.

3 Relevant and adequate answer to take set.

B Compositional organization

0 No apparent organization of content.

1 Very little organization of content. Underlying structure not

sufficiently controlled.

2 Some organizational skills in evidence, but not adequate controlled.

3 Overall shape and internal pattern clear. Organizational skills

adequately controlled.

Continued of Table 2…

C Cohesion

0 Cohesion almost totally absent. Writing so fragmentary that comprehension of the intended communication is virtually impossible.

1 Unsatisfactory cohesion may cause difficulty in comprehension of

most of the intended communication.

2 For the most part satisfactory cohesion although occasional deficiencies may mean that certain parts of the communication are not always effective.

3 Satisfactory use of cohesion resulting in effective communication.

D Adequacy of Vocabulary for purpose

0 Vocabulary inadequate even for the most basic parts of the intended

communication.

1 Frequent inadequacies in vocabulary for the task. Perhaps frequent

lexical inappropriate and / or repetition.

2 Some inadequacies in vocabulary for the task. Perhaps some lexical

inappropriate and / or circumlocution.

3 Almost no inadequacies in vocabulary for the task. Only rare

inappropriate and /or circumlocution.

E Grammar

0 Almost all grammatical patterns inaccurate.

1 Frequent grammatical inaccuracies.

2 Some grammatical inaccuracies.

3 Almost no grammatical inaccuracies.

F Mechanical Accuracy I (Punctuation)

0 Ignorance of conventions of punctuation.

1 Low standard of accuracy in punctuation.

2 Some inaccuracies in punctuation.

3 Almost no inaccuracies in punctuation.

G Mechanical Accuracy II (Spelling)

0 Almost all spelling inaccurate.

1 Low standard of accuracy in spelling.

2 Some inaccuracies in spelling.

3 Almost no inaccuracies in spelling. Obtained Score = A + B + C + D + E + F + G Maximum Score = 7 x 3 = 21 Maximum Value = 100

Then the students’ mark is calculated through formula as suggested by Arifin, (2012:140) like as.

Furthermore, the students’ average mark will be decided by using the formula, as follows

X = the students’ average mark ∑X = the sum of all of the students’ scores ∑N = the amount of the students

Aqib (2009: 204)

Scales:

100 = Excellent 85-99

=Very good 75-84

= Good 65-74

= Good enough 55-64

= Enough 45-54

= Bad 0-44