the research, and the findings or outcomes were supported by examples from the data.
The report of this research was arranged systematically. It was also supported by examples from the data that had been
collected and analysed. For the qualitative data, the data from the test were analysed by
calculating the means, median, modes and standard deviations of speaking performance. The formula was;
M = Mean f = frequency ∑fx = total score x = Total score
∑ = Sum of the score N = Number of students It was also analysed by using percentage method such as follows;
P = Percentage
f = frequency of answer
N = total participants
100 = fixed number
To compare the pre-test and post-tests scores in order to see the improvement, the researcher used SPSS 16.0. The data were analysed
using Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance. They were given a test prior to score their speaking ability before the action the pre-test. They
P = fN x 100
were given tests again when they have done the detective games the post- test. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was used to investigate the
improvement of s tudents’ speaking ability.
G. Validity and Reliability of the Data
1. Validity
In research, validity is very important to evaluate the quality and acceptability of the data. Thus, There were some criteria to decide whether
a datum was valid or not. Anderson et al in Burns 1999: 161-162 propose five validity criteria that are most suitable for action research. They are
democratic validity, outcome validity, process validity, catalytic validity, and dialogic validity. The explanations are as follows.
a. Democratic Validity
This criterion relates to the extent to which the research is truly collaborative and allows for the inclusion of multiple voices.
In this research, democratic validity was gained through interview guideline. The researcher interviewed some students to find out
their feelings and attitude towards speaking and speaking activity before and after the action was conducted. The English teacher and
the collaborator were also interviewed to plan the next action of the research.
b. Outcome validity
This criterion relates to the notion of actions leading to outcomes that are „successful’ within the research context. Thus, it
wa s related to students’ score as the outcome. From this data, the
researcher framed the problem and carried it to the result of the research.
c. Process validity
It raises the questions of „dependability’ and „competency’ of the research. The researcher got the process validity through
classroom observations, student and teacher interviews, and field notes.
d. Catalytic validity
It is related to how the researcher allows participant to deepen their understanding of the social realities of the context and
how they can make changes within it. This research allowed all the parties involved in the research to get the benefits from the
implementation of the action. e.
Dialogic validity This criterion parallels the processes of peer review which
are commonly used in academic research. Peer review in action research would mean dialogue with practitioner peers. This
research allowed the results of the study to be discussed by the students, researcher, English teacher, and the collaborator.
In order to find out whether the data were valid or not, the researcher used a technique called triangulation. It was used to check the
trustworthiness of the data and to encourage ongoing reflections on them as part of the process of data analysis. R. B. Burns in Burns 1991: 163
states that triangulation is a way of arguing „if different methods of investigation produce the same result then the data are
likely to be valid’. Besides using multiple methods, to find out the data validity can also
use other forms of triangulation focusing on similar focus areas proposed by Denzin in Burns 1999: 164 as follows:
a. Time triangulation
: data are collected in one point in time or over a period of time to get a sense of what factors are
involved in change processes. In this research, the data analysed were the data from the very beginning of observation to the data
that were found last in the research. b.
Investigator triangulation : more than one observer is used in
the same research setting. It helps avoid observer bias and provides checks on the reliability of the observation. Thus, the
researcher did the research with an English teacher as the collaborator and observer.
c. Theoretical triangulation
: data are analysed from more than one perspective. In this research, the researcher reviewed the
theories from a number of different books.
49
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
The goal of this research is to improve the speaking skill of
G
rade XI students of Office Administration Department of SMK PGRI I Sentolo through
playing a game called detective game. The research was done through several steps prepared before. The steps were reconnaissance, planning, action and
observation, and also reflection. This chapter will describe the process of the research as well as the results.
A. Identification of the Problems
In the reconnaissance step, the researcher found some problems occurring during the teaching and learning process of speaking. The problems itself were
found out through conducting interviews with the English teacher and the
G
rade XI students of Office Administration Department, doing classroom observation,
and analyzing the results of the pre-test. The interview with the English teacher was done on August 3
rd
, 2015 in the teacher’s room. Based on the interview, the problems during the teaching and
learning process of speaking come from many aspects, such as from students’
aspect, teacher’s aspect, and the method used. According to the teacher, the problems of speaking were related to
students’ lack of interest and enthusiasm in English. It was very difficult to make them engaged in the teaching and learning
process. They were very anxious to speak during the lesson because their lack of
