35
The total participants of this study was 42 ninth year students of SMP N 2 Yogyakarta. It was from three classes: 9A, 9E, and 9F. The researcher took 14
students from each class as the research participants. There were six classes of ninth grade and each class consisted of 36
students, however, it was not possible to make use all the classes. The limited participants were taken since the English teacher commanded the researcher to
make use of three classes only to analyze the students’ documents of Report texts. The researcher had to returned the students’ Report texts soon so that the teacher
could give the marks. In the contrary, the English teacher handled to correct the writings from the three other classes. Due to the coming of National exam
preparation, there was a limited time to finish the learning material of the topic of Report texts. Therefore, the limitation of time and energy in analysing the
students’ document became the reason of selecting limited research participants. Furthermore, by taking specific participants, the researcher were able to focus on
the analysis of students’ errors in writing Report texts easily and effectively.
D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique
In order to gain the data, the researcher employed a checklist as the instrument. The checklist was developed to help the researcher to discover the
common errors of Report texts written by the ninth grade students and specified the errors into categorization of aspects. The checklist consisted of categories of
errors which were grouped into the following: content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. In addition, each category had several subdividisions.
The checklist was developed by observing and adapting a checklist proposed by
36
Tribble 1996. The researcher determined the subdivisions of errors by mostly looking at the criteria which were elaborated in each writing elements proposed
by Tribble 1996 and modify some. The Tribble’ s criteria of writing elements was relevant to the kinds of error found in the students’ writing of Report texts.
The checklist developed in carrying out this study was presented in Appendix D. The data gathering technique was described into some sections. Starting
with, the researcher compiled the students’ writings of Report text as the source of the data. Each student had to construct Report text once. The theme of the Report
text construction was “Mammal”. The students were free to develop the theme given to them. However, the students had to make at least 3 paragraphs of writing
and they had to produce 100 words at the minimum. After reading the students’ documents, the researcher corrected and found out the errors of students’ pieces of
writing. The most important section was classifying the errors into categories and subcategorizations.
E. Data Analysis Technique
The data analysis was started after categorizing the errors of the research participants’ writing into types using the checklist. It was started with calculating
the total number of errors commited by all partcipants in terms of content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. The researcher then
formulated a chart to illustrate the results. The next one is drawing conclusion of the common errors from the chart presentation. The numerical data of each case
served as the indicator of the difficult area of learning. Some categories which had the biggest number of errors was regarded as the students’ common errors in
37
composing report texts. In other words, it became difficult areas of students’ learning.
F. Research procedure
Conducting this study, the researcher did several beginning steps. The first step is identifying the research problems. The second one is identifying the
research participants. The researcher selected the ninth year students of SMP N 2 Yogyakarta to be the participants of this research. The third one is preparing
research instruments. The researcher prepared a checklist which was proposed by Tribble 1996, however, the researcher did some modification. Therefore it
would be relevant for this study. Fourth, the researcher consulted the research instruments with the advisor.
Keeping the ongoing steps, the researcher did some followings. First, the researcher asked a permission letter from the head of Department of English
Language Education Program and sent it to the head master of SMP N 2 Yogyakarta to conduct a study. Second, the researcher collected the students’
pieces of writings on Report texts. In the teaching and learning of writing Report texts, the researcher asked for a help from the English teacher of the ninth grade
students to give assignments to the students to make Report texts about mammals. The researcher compiled the students’ compositions on Report text from the three
classes: 9A, 9E, and 9F. Third, the researcher read the students’ documents, corrected them, and found out the errors of students’ pieces of writing. Fourth,
before classifying the errors, the researcher revised the checklist and consulted to the advisor so that it would be relevant to the kinds of error found in the
