22
4. Reflection
The researcher analyzed the data in this step. She did it by examining the student
s‟ works one by one in order to know the students‟ errors in the spelling accuracy. After that, the researcher tried to reflect whether the implementation
worked well or not. Then, the researcher made the next plan and prepared the next action for the next cycle.
B. Research Setting
The research was conducted in VIII H class of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta from January-February 2016. The researcher gave the material based on Kompetensi Dasar
basic competence that the students would achieve. In addition, the researcher focused on the students‟ spelling accuracy in their writing to be analyzed.
C. Research Participants
The students of VIII H class of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta in the academic year of 20152016 are the participants of the research. There were 34 students in the
classroom; 17 of them were girls and also 17 of them were boys. Most of them had a problem in writing, especially in the spelling accuracy. As it has been mentioned in
the research objective, the researcher intended to improve the eighth grade stude nts‟
spelling accuracy. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
23
D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique
1. Research Instruments
The data of the research were obtained through three kinds of instruments. Those instruments were
student‟s drafts, field note, and questionnaire. a.
Students‟ drafts Students‟ drafts were the main sources of the data. The researcher analyzed
the data by examining the work of the students one by one. Then, the researcher counted the spelling errors and gave written feedback on the students‟ work by
correcting the errors directly. b.
Field Note Field note was used to help the researcher to remember and record the
students‟ behaviors, activities, and the situation in the classroom in details when the implementation of direct written corrective feedback was conducted. The researcher
jotted down a few words or short sentences that could help her recall something that happened in the classroom.
c. Questionnaire
In gathering the data, the researcher also used questionnaire in order to know the students‟ opinions about the implementation of direct written corrective feedback.
The questions of the questionnaire were in the form of closed-ended questions and open-ended questions. The researcher used theories by Ahmed 2012 and Ferris
2010 which had been discussed in the Chapter II as the guidance to design and PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
24
develop the questions for the questionnaire. Through the questionnaire the researcher could collect the information whether direct written corrective feedback helped the
students or not in improving their spelling accuracy in writing.
2. Data Gathering Technique
It has been mentioned previously that the data were obtained through some instruments, such as students‟ drafts, field note, and questionnaire. The first one was
the data which was collected through the students‟ draft in every cycle. The data was
obtained by evaluating the writing products of the students from preliminary study until the second cycle at home
. The researcher counted the students‟ errors in spelling accuracy and also the total of words written by the students and made it in a
percentage form in order to figure out whether direct written corrective feedback could improve the students‟ spelling accuracy in writing or not.
Then, the second instrument was field note. The field note described the real situation when the method was implemented. In every cycle, the researcher made a
teaching procedure and gave notes to it at the same time while the researcher was teaching and observing the students. At home, the researcher made it in the form of
description to make it clearer. From this instrument, the researcher could identify the behavior of the students and figure out what happened in the teaching learning
process during the implementation. The next instrument was questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to
the students in the end of the first cycle after the researcher finished teaching. The PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
25 researcher gave the questionnaire in the first cycle in order to know the students‟
feelings, opinion or suggestions about the implementation of direct written corrective feedback so that the researcher could also make a better action for the next cycle. In
order to avoid misunderstanding in every statement written in the questionnaire, the studen
ts completed the questionnaire together with the researcher‟s explanation on each number. The researcher then analyzed the result of the questionnaire at home
and calculated it into a percentage form. Besides students‟ drafts, field note, and questionnaire, the researcher also
gathered data from focus group. There were eight students who were chosen randomly as the participants. The focus group was held outside the class after the
implementation of direct written corrective feedback. This was done in the end of the second cycle. In the focus group, the researcher asked some questions to the chosen
students and discussed about the implementation of direct written corrective feedback. The discussion was recorded by the researcher then she wrote the transcript
of the focus group and analyzed it at home. From the focus group, the researcher could get deeper information about the students‟ feelings and opinions on the
implementation of direct written corrective feedback so that the researcher could know whether direct written corrective feedback helped the students in improving
their spelling accuracy in writing or not. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
26
E. Data Analysis Technique
