53 “Adanya koreksi udah bagus, tapi harus warna-warni biar seru yang
bacanya. ” The existence of the correction is already good, but it must be colorful in
order to make it fun in reading the correction. “Pendapat saya koreksinya sangat baik. Seharusnya lebih sering lagi
memberi koreksi. ” In my opinion, the correction is very good. It should have been
done more often in giving the correction. The Raw Data of Questionnaire, see appendix 8
After processing the data from the questionnaire and analyzing the students‟ writing products, the researcher found out that the results were satisfying. The results
of the students‟ writing products in the first cycle were presented in the appendix 14. From the results of the writing products
, it could be seen that the students‟ errors in spelling accuracy decreased. It meant that the students had made good improvements.
The percentage of errors in the preliminary study was 38,5 and in the first cycle the percentage became 1
0,2 . In other words, it showed that the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback could improve
the students‟ spelling accuracy.
C. Data Presentation and Discussion on the Second Cycle
The second cycle was held on January 26, 2016. At first, there were 28 students of VIII-H class who participated in this cycle since 5 students attended a
meeting relate d to the school‟s scout activity and 1 student did not come to school.
However, the researcher then gave the 5 students who attended the meeting an assignment which was similar to the other students who came to the class after the
54
meeting had finished. The researcher also waited for them while they were doing the assignment as in the first cycle. The second cycle was conducted in order to verify the
result in the first cycle. The researcher wanted to make sure whether direct written corrective feedback as the strategy that was used in the first cycle would work well or
not in the second cycle. As in the first cycle, the students made good improvements. The percentage of
errors in their spelling accuracy decreased into 10,2 from 38,5 . Hence, in the second cycle the researcher employed the same teaching strategy and made it better
by giving direct written corrective feedback with some comments and suggestions in the students‟ writing products in order to improve their spelling accuracy in writing
English. Similar to the first cycle, there were four steps in the second cycle. They were planning, action, observation, and reflection that would be discussed as follows.
a. Planning
Based on the result of the first cycle‟s reflection, the researcher concluded that there were good improvements in the first cycle as the students could improve their
spelling accuracy in their writing products. In addition, the students showed better changes in their behavior during the implementation in which they were more aware
of their mistakes and tried to avoid making other mistakes by checking the spelling of some English words at the dictionary. They also made fewer errors in the first cycle.
Therefore, the researcher planned to employ the same strategy which was giving direct written corrective feedback in the second cycle. In the second cycle, she did not
55
only give direct written corrective feedback to the students‟ writing products but the
researcher also added comments and suggestions to motivate the students besides giving the direct correction. The reason of using direct written corrective feedback in
the second cycle was because the action was successful. The students realized their mistakes and knew the correct form of the errors
from the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback.
In the beginning, the researcher played a video and asked the students to follow the person in the video singing and dancing together. The video and the lyrics
of its song was actually describing about people. The purpose of this activity was to make the students feel fresh and energetic in learning. Besides, it was done in order to
recall the students‟ memories about descriptive text which they had learned last week. In the next activity, the resea
rcher returned the students‟ writing products that they made in the first cycle and reviewed about their common mistakes. Their writing
products had been given direct written corrective feedback equipped with comments and suggestions by the researcher. The students made fewer errors in their spelling
accuracy, but they also made some grammatical mistakes. However, the researcher did not pay attention to those grammar errors since the focus of this study was
spelling accuracy. Hence, the researcher just focused on their spelling in writing and explained their grammatical mistakes orally.
Then, the students were asked to write a new descriptive text in the main activity. The researcher planned to give them example of describing someone whom
the researcher admired before they write their own description. Next, the researcher PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
56
asked them to write a descriptive text about someone whom they admired for 40 minutes. After the students had finished writing, the researcher planned to give them
handout that contained of brief explanation about descriptive text as the summary and its reading exercises to make the students more understood about the material. In this
cycle, the researcher also prepared teaching procedures and the field notes in order to write anything that happened during the implementation.
b. Action
The action was conducted on January 26, 2016. There were 28 students who participated in this cycle. In this step, the researcher also employed the same teaching
strategy as in the first cycle. She gave direct written corrective feedback to the students‟ writing products in order to improve the students‟ spelling accuracy.
However, the researcher also gave comments, explanations, and suggestions besides giving the correction so that the students could be more motivated.
The researcher greeted the students as usual and asked about their feeling before starting the lesson. In order not to make them feel sleepy, the researcher
played a video and asked the students to follow the person in the video singing and dancing together. After the students finished singing and dancing, the researcher
asked the students‟ opinion about the video. There was one student who said that the video was funny. Then, the researcher asked again whether they still remembered
about descriptive text or not and the students said that they still remembered about it. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
57
Next, the researcher did not forget to check the attendance list. The students could not wait to see the result of their writing products, so the researcher returned
the students‟ writing products that had been given direct written corrective feedback with its explanation, comments, and suggestions by the researcher and did a review
about the most common mistakes made by the students in their writing products after checking the attendance list.
Then, in the main activity the researcher asked the students whether they had an idol or someone whom they admire the most and all of them said that they had
one. The researcher later told the students about someone whom she admired in order to give them example before they wrote their own description. After that, the
researcher distributed the students‟ worksheet and explained the detailed instruction to the students. The researcher gave the students 40 minutes to write the descriptive
text about their idol. However, the students could not finish it in 40 minutes, so the researcher gave them another five minutes to finish their writing and submit it to the
researcher. In the next activity, the researcher distributed handouts to the students. The
handouts contained of brief explanation about descriptive text as a review and reading exercises of descriptive text about someone so that the students could identify
detailed information found in the text. The students then were asked to read the handout and do the reading exercise. The researcher helped them and decided to
discuss the exercise together because the time was almost over. After the researcher PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
58
finished discussing the reading exercise with the students, the researcher ended the lesson by summarizing all that they had learned.
c. Observation
The observation was done in the same time as the action. While the researcher implemented the direct written corrective feedback, the researcher also wrote
everything that happened as a field note so that it would help her remember what had happened in the class during the implementation.
The first activity was watching a video in order to make the students feel fresh and energetic before starting the lesson. It was great since the students looked very
excited to follow the person in the video singing and dancing. “When the students watched the video and listened to the song in the
beginning, they laughed so hard but then they started to sing and follow the movement made by the person in the video.” The field note of the second cycle, see
appendix 7 After the students finished singing and dancing, the researcher asked the
students‟ opinion about the video. The video and the lyrics of its song was actually describing about people. The researcher played that video in order to remind the
students about descriptive text which they had learned last week and based on the students‟ answer, it could be seen that the students had understood about descriptive
text, especially describing about people. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
59 “There was one student who gave his opinion that the video was funny. Then,
the researcher asked “What was the video about?” and most of them answered with a loud voice “Describing people”. The researcher asked again whether they still
remembered about descriptive text an d they said, “Yes, miss..”.” The field note of the
second cycle, see appendix 7 While the researcher was checking the attendance list, the students could not
wait to see the result of their writing products so that the researcher returned the students‟ writing products that had been given direct written corrective feedback with
its explanation, comments, and suggestions by the researcher. “When the researcher almost finished checking the attendance list, one student
asked the researcher “Pekerjaan yang kemarin nggak dibagiin, miss?” “Will you distribute our assignment, miss” and the researcher answered “I will distribute it
later. ”. Then, the researcher asked two students to help her to distribute the students‟
writing products that had been given direct written corrective feedback with some comments and suggestions by the researcher after she finished checking the
attendance list.” The field note of the second cycle, see appendix 7 After that, the researcher was quite surprised at the students‟ actions. They
initiatively revised their own writing products and asked the researcher about what she wrote in their writing products. It was great because the students made good
changes in their behavior. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
60 “When the students got their own writing products, some of them directly
revised their errors just like what they did in the previous meeting without being asked by the researcher. Meanwhile, some of them also asked the researcher about the
translation of the researcher‟s comments and suggestions in their writing products. Their face expression showed that they were eager to read and know more about the
researcher‟s comments and suggestions.” The field note of the second cycle, see appendix 7
The next activity was writing a new descriptive text about someone whom the students admired the most. As usual, the researcher went around the classroom while
the students were writing. It was done in order to check the students‟ writing and help them when they had difficulties. Not only the researcher but also the students helped
each other when they were doing the writing assignment. “When they were writing, the researcher went around the classroom to
monitor their work. There was one student who asked the researcher about the spelling of the word „straight‟, but suddenly one of his friends loudly answered his
question correctly before the researcher answered it. The researcher remembered that the one who answered the question was the student who had ever made an error of the
word „straight‟ in the previous writing task.” The field note of the second cycle, see appendix 7
61 It could be seen clearly that the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback
could remind the student about the correct spelling of a word. When the time for writing the description was already over, the students asked the researcher to give
them more time to finish their writing. It showed that the students really wanted to make better writing products. After the students had finished writing, the researcher
asked them to submit their writing products to the researcher. The researcher analyzed the students‟ writing products at home. In this cycle,
the students made good improvements again. The researcher found that the students made fewer errors in their spelling accuracy. The students did not write many
incorrect spelling as they did in the first cycle which could also be seen from the sample of the students‟ writing products in the appendix 12. Below are the examples
of the students‟ sentences in their writing products of the second cycle.
1. She is also helpful, generous, and diligent. Student 13
2. He is tall and has a well-built body. Student 29
3. She has long straight black hair and wars glasses. Student 15
4. She has brown light skin. Student 6
5. Her color favorite is black. Student 20
6. She has medium straight blond hair, small brown eyes, and pointed nose.
Student 3 The sentences above show that the students did not make a lot of spelling
errors. Moreover, they had started to make longer sentences even though there were PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
62
still grammatical errors in their sentence. It was such a significant improvement. The first and the second examples were correct. There was no incorrect spelling and the
students had understood the use of the verb „has‟ and „is‟ in the sentence.
In the third example, there i s one spelling error. The word „wars‟ should be
written into „wears‟ since the intention was using glasses and not a kind of conflict. It
showed that this kind of spelling error could make a different meaning and thus, the students really need to avoid errors in spelling in order to communicate their ideas
well to the readers. Then, the fourth, fifth and sixth example show no spelling error. However,
those sentences were incorrect since the students made wrong structure of the sentences and lack of article
. The correct sentence for number 4 should be “She has light brown skin.” and the correct answer for number 5 should be “Her favorite color
is black.” and for number 6, it was wrong since the lack of article „a‟ in the words „pointed nose‟. As the word „nose‟ is singular, so there should be an article „a‟ before
the singular noun. Therefore, it shou ld be written „a pointed nose‟. Since the focus of
this study was spelling accuracy, the researcher did not really pay attention to this kind of grammatical mistake.
Hence, the researcher could say that the students made improvement in their spelling accuracy after receiving the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback.
They made fewer errors in the second cycle than the previous cycle. In addition, the PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
63
students made better changes of behavior during the implementation of the direct written corrective feedback. They knew their mistakes and became more aware of
spelling errors. They also tried to avoid making errors in the spelling accuracy. It meant
that the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback could improve the students‟ spelling accuracy in writing English.
d. Reflection
Reflection was the last step in this cycle. The researcher reflected the implementation of the direct written corrective feedback in this step. She intended to
find out whether the direct written corrective feedback was successful or not. She also found out whether the direct written corrective feedback from the researcher
improved the students‟ spelling accuracy or not. In the beginning, the researcher greeted the students and played a video in
order to make the students feel fresh and energetic. It went well as the students were excited to follow the person in the video singing and dancing. This activity made the
students e nthusiastic to start the lesson. The video also recalled the students‟ memory
of descriptive text since the lyrics of the song was describing about someone. The next activity was reviewing about common mistakes that were made by
the students in their previous writing products. After the researcher returned the students‟ writing products, the students initiatively revised their errors and asked
about the meaning of the researcher‟s comments and suggestion that were written in their writing products. When the researcher explained about the common mistakes
64
made by the students, the students paid attention to researcher. This activity worked well because the students were aware of their mistakes by directly revising their
errors based on the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback. After that, the students were asked to make a new descriptive text about
someone whom they admired the most. This activity also went well since the students tried to make better writing products. They also helped each other when they found
any difficulty. After they had finished writing, the researcher asked them to submit their writing products. Then, the researcher analyzed their writing products at home.
The result of the students‟ writing products in the second cycle could be seen in the appendix 14.
The result of the students‟ writing products in the appendix 14 showed that
the students‟ errors in their writing products of the second cycle decreased into 3,2 . It proved that the students had made a significant progress. The percentage of errors
in the preliminary study was 38,5 . In the first cycle, the percentage of errors decreased into 10,2 and in the second cycle, it decreased again becoming 3,2 . It
was clear that the direct written corrective feedback from the researcher could improve the students‟ spelling accuracy in writing. Besides, the researcher did not
only see the improvement from the students‟ writing products, but she also saw the improvement from the changes in the studen
ts‟ behavior during the implementation of the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback in each cycle. The students
became more aware of their mistake and avoided making other mistakes as they wanted to produce better writing products.
65
D. Research Results
