26
E. Data Analysis Technique
The researcher analyzed the data based on the result of the students‟ writing products, the transcript of the field note and its description, the questionnaire sheets,
and also the transcript of the focus group in order to know the improvement that the students achieved and whether the research was successful or not.
In this research, the analysis was done by using Mile s and Huberman‟s
interactive model of analysis 1984 which states that qualitative data analysis consists of three concurrent flows of activity; data reduction, data display, and
conclusion drawingverification.
Figure 3.2 Interactive Model of Analysis Miles Huberman, 1984
First, the researcher organized and reduced or reconfigured the mass of data. It refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and
transforming the data that appear in written up field notes, the questionnaire and the PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
27
transcription of the focus group. Second, the researcher displayed the data by providing an organized, compressed assembly of information that permits conclusion
drawing. Then, the researcher drew conclusion by stepping back to consider what the analyzed data mean and to assess their implications for the research question.
In analyzing the data from the students writing products, the researcher counted the students‟ errors of spelling accuracy in each word and the total of words
written by the students. Then, the researcher calculated it into a percentage form. The total of the errors was divided by the total of words written by the students and the
result was multiplied by 100. Then, in analyzing the researcher‟s field note, the researcher made it in the
form of description at home to make it clearer as she had written anything that happened in the class during the implementation. It was useful for the researcher
because the researcher could remember what had happened and identify the behavior of the students and also figure out what had happened in the teaching learning process
during the implementation. In order to know further about the students‟ perceptions and opinions about
the use of direct written corrective feedback, the researcher also used questionnaire and focus groups. For the questionnaire, the researcher counted the result and
presented it in a percentage form. The researcher calculated the result by dividing the total of choosen answers and the total of the answers in each statement then
multiplying it by 100. T he students‟ answers of open-ended questions were also
coded to fit the categories that were classified by the researcher. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
28
For the focus group, the researcher presented the result of it in a transcript form. Then, the researcher analyzed the result of the focus group by
interpreting the information provided by the students and relating it to the main objective of this study
then drawing conclusions in order to get further information to answer the research question. From those instruments, the researcher could gain the information whether
direct written corrective feedback helped the students or not in improving their spelling accuracy.
By analyzing and concluding the result of those instruments, the researcher could answer the research problem. The criterion of success in this research was that
the students‟ error percentage of spelling accuracy decreased from preliminary study until the second cycle. Besides that, the criterion of success was the students made
improvement, which could also be seen from the analysis based on the purposes of written corrective feedback.
F. Research Procedure