A. Research Design
2. Sample
Sampling is the process of selecting a number of individuals for a study in such a way that represent the larger group from which they were selected (Gay and Airasian, 2000). In this research, the sample used was cluster random sampling. The five classes, with the same background knowledge in writing, were selected randomly. The stages as follow:
a. Collected the students‟ score that have been taken by the English teacher and arranged them from the lowest to the highest.
b. Did the normality by using Lilliefors testing to know whether the data were normally distributed or not.
c. Did the homogeneity testing by using Bartlett test. It was aimed to see whether the population homogeny or not.
d. Determined sample by writing the name of each class on five separate small piece of paper, placing them on hands, and shaking them. The first small piece of paper was assigned for experimental group. The second one was assigned for the control group. The other were not be assigned in this research.
C. Instrumentation 1. Writing test
According to Gay and Airasian (2009), “Test is designed to provide information about how well the test takers have learned what they have been taught”.
The test was used to know students‟ writing skill especially in recount text. The test was used in post test. It was important to see the effect of students‟ writing skill and reading habit. The test was used to measure students‟ writing skill in recount text.
In this research, validity testing involves content validity. Content validity is a particular importance for achievement test (Gay and Airasian: 2009). Since the purpose of this research was to see the effect of collaborative writing toward students‟
ability of recount text, the most suitable validity was content validity. Moreover, Bachman (1990) states that content validity refers to the faithful reflect the syllabus
or instructional program on which it is based. On the other word, it can be said that content validity is the extent to which the test covers the entire contents of the object region to be measures. The content validity of writing test was validated by using indicators.
This research used inter-rater reliability. As Gay (2009) defines that inter-rater reliability refers to the consistency of two or more independence scorers, rater, and observes. There were two scorers in this research in order to make the score can be reliable. The first scorer was the researcher and the second scorer was the English teacher at the location of the research. The score from the first scorer was added with the second scorer, and then the amount of the scorer was divided into two. Therefore, the average score was obtained. Finally, the average score was taken as the fixed score for writing test. Based on the explanation in chapter 2, the indicator of writing for recount text as follow:
Table 8
Indicators of Recount Text
Variables Indicators
Writing recount text
1. Orientations: background information needed to understand the text such as who was involved in, when it happened and where it took place
2. Series of events: chronological sequences 3. Re-orientation: state a closing of the story 4. Use correct simple past tense
In this research the researcher used the scoring rubric that developed by Brown (2004). They are organization, logical development of ideas (content), grammar, punctuation (include spelling and mechanics), and style. Based on the explanation, the researcher adapted the rubric for assessing writing especially recount text from the indicator of recount text and the scoring rubrics from Brown (2004).
Table 9: Rubric for Assessing Writing Skill 20-18
Excellent to good
17-15 Good to adequate
14-12 Adequate
to fair
11-6 Fair to poor
5-1 Poor to very
poor Organization Appropriate
title, effective orientation, topic is stated, leads to sequences of events;
transitional expressions used;
arrangement
of the
events; re- orientation
Adequate title, orientation,
and re-
orientation;
good series of events, some ideas are not fully developed, sequence is logical but transitional expressions
may be
absent or misused.
Mediocre orientation
or re-
orientation
; problems with the order of events; the generaliza tions may not be fully supported the events;
problem of
organizati on
Minimally recognizabl e
orientation;
organizatio n can be barely be seen; lack of
supporting details; re- orientation weak;
inadequate effort at organizatio n.
orientation
or re-
orientation;
no apparent organization of events;
severe lack of
supporting details;
writer has not made any effort to organize the composition
Logical development of ideas;
content
material well organized and clear , good
organization of
orientations, series of
some lack of organization of
orientations, series of events,
reorientation;
Paragraph s are not divided exactly right. ( not good in arranging the
orientation
just make a little
orientation, series of events, and also
reorientatio n
the
developmen t of ideas is completely inadequate, no
orientation, less series of events,
events, re- orientation
, series of events, reorientati on)
and no
reorientatio n
Grammar use simple past tense accurately
use simple past tense; no more than two mistake
use simple past tense more than two
mistake
use simple past tense almost inaccurate
not use simple past tense Punctuation,
spelling and mechanics
occasional lapses in punctuation or spelling which do not interfere with
comprehens ion
error in punctuation or spelling fairly
frequent
frequent errors in spelling or punctuatio n
errors in spelling or punctuation so frequent
errors in spelling or punctuation so severe as to make comprehens ion virtually impossible Style and
quality of expression
good choice of
vocabulary to develop ideas
a few minor difficulties appear from inappropriate vocabulary
Some vocabular y misused;
lacks of awareness of
register;
may be too wordy.
Poor expression of ideas;
problems in
vocabulary;
lacks variety of structure.
Inappropriat e use of vocabulary;
no concept of register of sentence variety.
Adapted from: Brown (2004) 2. Questionnaire
Questionnaire was used to measure the students‟ reading habit. The questionnaire was design based on the following indicators that are proposed by Rosidi (1983):
Table 10: Indicator of Reading Habits
No Indicator Sub-indicator Number of items
1 2 3 4 1. Intensity a. Intensity associated with
future opportunities b. Intensity associated with
the place of reading
1,5,6,7,8,and 9 2,3,4,and 10 2. Time a. Frequency of reading
b. Duration of time
11,12,13,14, and 15 16,17,and 18 3. Kinds of reading a. Reading from book
b. Reading from mass media
20 and 21 22 and 23 4. Attitude a. Material selecting
b. Get reading sources
24 and 25
26,27,28,29, and 30 5. Motivation a. Internal
b. External
31,32,34,37 36,40,41 6. Reading
techniques
a. Pre-reading b. Whilst-reading c. Post-reading
35,38,42,43 44,46,47,48,49,50 33,39,45
The questionnaire was determined by using Likert Scales model which indicated Always (A), Often (O), Sometimes (Sm), Seldom (S), or Never (N) with each statement responded by the students to a series of statement. Positive statements were assigned the points as follows: A=5, U=4, Sm=3, S=2, N=1. But, for negative statements that point values were A=1, U=2, Sm=3, S=4, N=5.
To know the questionnaires were valid and reliable, the researcher analyzed the questionnaire as follow: