CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
H. Technique of Collection Data of the Research
In this study, the writer uses an observation checklist to provide qualitative data of the research that will be conducted. The writer uses this instrument to get some information about the teacher's performance during CAR, the situation of class activities. The contents of the observations are about student attendance, interest &
motivation, student activities during the teaching and learning process and student activities in focusing the attention to the teacher's explanation during the research conducted.
2. Interview
In this research, interview will be done twice, before and after implementing CAR. Before CAR, the writer interviews the teacher and students to know student difficulties in writing skill, students’
condition in writing activity, and the strategy that usually used by teacher in teaching writing. After finishing CAR, the writer interviews the teacher and students to know their response toward the idea of using mind mapping technique in teaching writing.
3. Test
The test used in this research is written test which from procedure short essay. The test is given before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the implementation. The pre-test is done before implementing the mind mapping technique. It is done to measure
students’ writing ability at first. Meanwhile, the post-test is done after implementing the mind mapping technique. To get writing score, the writer used criteria of scoring writing skill in each cycle by Arthur Huges.6
Table 3.1
Scoring in Writing Skill
Score Level Criteria
Content 16-20 Excellent to very good: Knowledgeable, substantive, thorough development of thesis, relevant to assigned topic.
11-15 Good to average: some knowledge of subject, adequate range, limited development thesis, mostly relevant to topic, but lack detail.
6-10 Fair to poor: limited knowledgeable of subject, title substance, and inadequate development topic.
1-5 Very poor: doesn’t show knowledgeable of subject, non-substantive, non-pertinent, or not enough to evaluate.
Organization 16-20 Excellent to very good: fluent expression, ideas clearly stated, succinct, well-organized, logical sequencing, cohesive.
11-15 Good to average: somewhat choppy, loosely organized but main ideas stand out, limited support, logical but incomplete sequencing.
6-10 Fair to poor: not-fluent, ideas confused/disconnected, lack logical sequencing and development.
6Arthur Hughes, Testing for Language Teachers: Second Edition, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.104.
36
1-5 Very poor: does not communicate, no organization, or not enough to evaluate.
Language use
16-20 Excellent to very good: effective complex construction, few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions.
11-15 Good to average, effective but simple construction, minor problem, in complex construction, several errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured.
6-10 Fair to poor: major problem /complex construction, frequent errors of negotiation, agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, preposition and/or fragments, run-ons, deletions, meaning confused or obscured.
1-5 Very poor: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules, dominated by errors, does not communicate, or not enough to evaluate.
Vocabullary 16-20 Effective choice of words and word forms.
11-15 Few misuses of vocabularies, word forms, but not change the meaning.
6-10 Limited range confusing words and word forms 1-5 Very poor knowledge of words, word forms, and
not understandable
Mechanic 16-20 Excellent to very good: demonstrates mastery of conversations, few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing.
11-15 Good to average: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, but meaning not obscured.
6-10 Fair to poor: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalizations, paragraphing, poor handwriting, meaning confused or obscured.
1-5 Very poor: no mastery of conversations, dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, handwriting illegible, or not enough to evaluate.
Total score 1-100
I. Technique of Data Analysis
In this research, the analysis of qualitative data in this research is the observation of the students’ activities during the process of learning and the interview before and after implementing the mind mapping technique. The analysis of quantitative data is used to measure data from the test (pre-test and post-test). In assessing students’ writing, the writer used the analytic scale for rating composition tasks which are adapted from scoring profile by Arthur Huges.7
In analyzing the numerical data, first the writer tried to get the average of students’ writing score within one cycle. It used the formula8:
X = n
xX : Mean
x : Individual Score n : Number of students 7 Ibid, p.102.
8 Sudjana, Metode Statistika, (Bandung: PT. Tarsito, 2002), p.67.
38
Second, the writer tried to get number students’ percentage who passed KKM 75 (seventy five). It uses the formula.9
P = N
F x 100 %
P : the class percentage F : students’ total score N : number of students
Third, after getting mean of students’ score per cycles, the writer identified the improvement of the students’ score on writing procedure text from pre-test up to post-test score in cycle 1 and cycle 2, the writer used the formula10:
P = y y y1
x 100 %
P : Percentage of students’ improvement y : Pre-test result
y1 : Post-test 1
9 Anas Sudijono, Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan, (Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, 2014), p.43.
10 David E. Meltzer, The Relationship between Mathematic Preparation and Conceptual Learning Gains in Physic: A Possible Hidden Variable in Diagnostic Pretest Sores, (Iowa:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2008), p.3.
P = y y y2
x 100 %
P : Percentage of students’
Improvement y : Pre-test result y2 : Post-test 2