class used cooperative learning method and controlled class used conventional method.
B. Time and Place
The writer conducted the research at SMAN 2 Kabupaten Tangerang that is located on Jl.Pendidikan no.10, Mauk-Tangerang. This research was
carried out for one month started from 11 November up to 5 December 2013 .
C. Population and Sample
The population of this research was all of the students of SMAN 2 Kabupaten Tangerang, in Grade 1 academic Year 2013-2014. There are
eight classes of the first grades. The sample was collected by using purposive sample, because it had specific purpose. This technique is
commonly used because of some reasons; limitation of time, energy, and cost. Fistly, the writer decided the sample based on the information of the
English teacher about the class, and knowing the average scores of writing of two classes. For that purpose, the writer took the sample based on the
situation of the class and students that have same characteristics and ability in learning English.
3
In this study the writer took two classes as the sample, namely X
1
and X
5
. Before the writer decided the experimental class and the controlled class, the writer checked the score of midterm of both classes. The scores of X
1
and X
5
were not too different but X
1
had lower score. Based on the interview with the English teacher, X
1
was the silent class and X
5
was the active class. Because of this, the writer wants to know the ability of X
1
after they get the treatment, whether they will get higher score than X
5
. Therefore the writer decided X
1
as the experimental class and X
5
as the controlled class. These classes have been treated with two different treatments. For
3
Suharsimi Arikunto, prosedur Penelitian, Jakarta: PT. Rieneka Cipta, 2011, p.183.
class X
1
is using cooperative learning as the experimental class and class X
5
without any treatment conventional method as the controlled class.
D. The Instrument
The instrument used by the writer in this research was written test. As stated in Arthur H
ughes’s book that the best way to test people’s writing ability is to get them to write.
4
The writer conducted the tests by using pre- test and post-test for experimental and control class.
In this research the writer gave different topic for pre-test and post- test. In the pre-test the topic is about
” the idol” and post-test the topic is about
“the interesting places” based on the syllabus and lesson plan. For experimental and controlled class, they have the same topic to measure their
achievement in test of writing eventhough they have different methods, for experimental class using cooperative learning and controlled class using
conventional method. The instrument of the pre-test and the post-test can be seen on the appendix.
The test was subjected to validity and reliability test. Validity is an essential criterion for evaluating the quality and acceptable of the research.
The validity of a test is the extent to which it measures what it is supposed to measure.
5
Every test, whether it is a short, informal classroom test or a public examination, should be as valid as the constructor can make it.
To acquire the validity, the writer used face validity and content validity. Hughes stated that a test is said to have face validity if it looks as if
it measures what it is supposed to measure.
6
The writer ensured that the instrument measured what should be measured. Before doing the research
the writer did consultation to her thesis advisors and the English teacher at school related to appropriateness of instrument in which the test would be
given to the students. To support the validity of the test, the writer had made the relevance of the topic of writing based on the SK-KD Standar
4
Arthur Hughes, Testing for Language Teachers Second Edition, Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 83.
5
J.B Heaton, Writing English Language Test, London: Longman, 1995, p.159.
6
Arthur Hughes, Op. Cit., p.33
Kategori