Research Results RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

65

D. Research Results

The researcher would discuss the result of the research in this part. The researcher was satisfied of the result as almost all the students showed better changes in their behavior and improvement in their writing products. It meant that the use of the direct written corrective feedback from teacher could help the students to improve their spelling accuracy in their writing. The researcher used direct written corrective feedback to improve the students‟ writing products over period of time. She gave the direct written corrective feedback regularly on the students‟ writing products from the preliminary study until the second cycle. There was a good improvement in the students‟ spelling accuracy. The students‟ incorrect spelling decreased and they showed good changes in their behavior during the implementation of the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback in each cycle. The students‟ improvement of their writing products from the preliminary study until the second cycle could be seen in the appendix 14. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 66 Figure 4.1 The Error Percentages of Students’ Spelling Accuracy Based on the Result of Students’ Writing Products It could be seen from the figure 4.1 above that the students made a good progress. The average of the students‟ error percentage of their spelling accuracy in their preliminary study was 38,5 . However, after the implementation of direct written corrective feedback, the average of the students‟ error percentage in the first cycle became 10,2 . Then, in the second cycle the average became 3,2 . It could be concluded that the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback improved the students‟ spelling accuracy in their writing products since the error percentages of their spelling accuracy decreased from the preliminary study until the second cycle. In the second cycle, the students wrote more words than in the previous cycle and almost all the spelling of the words were correct. Each student did not make more 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 Preliminary Study 38,5 First Cycle 10,2 Second Cycle 3,2 The error percentage of students spelling accuracy 67 than 5 errors in spelling. Many of them only made 1 spelling error. There was even 1 student who did not make any error in spelling after the student got direct written corrective feedback equipped with comments and suggestions from the researcher. The improvement could not only be seen from the result of the stude nts‟ writing products but it could also be seen from the students‟ behavior in the class during the implementation of the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback. As stated by Ahmed 2012, the purposes of written corrective feedback were to enable students to revise their own writing, to assist students to acquire correct English, and to provide learners to correct errors. In term of enabling the students to revise their own writing, the researcher provided time for the students to revise and check their writing before submitting it to the researcher. The students seemed so serious when they were revising and checking the spelling in their writing. It showed that they really wanted to make a good writing product as they understood the importance of spelling accuracy in their writing. Then, in term of assisting students to acquire correct English, the researcher gave corrections on the students‟ errors in their writing products. The researcher gave direct written corrective feedback by crossing the s tudents‟ errors in spelling and writing the correct form near the errors. The students looked happy to receive the researcher‟s correction. They knew that they had made mistakes. From the transcript of the focus group which could be seen in the appendix 9, the students also stated that the use of direct written corrective feedback was necessary. They said “Perlu banget dikasih koreksi, miss. Karena kalau cuma dicoret atau dilingkari kita gak tau kok itu 68 bisa salah, kalau dikasih tau benarnya kan kita jadi tau seharusnya gimana. Jadi gak bingung miss. ” It‟s really necessary to be given correction, miss. When the errors were only crossed or circled, we did not know how they could be wrong. If corrections were provided, we could know the right ones so that we were not confused, miss. Meanwhile, in term of providing learners to correct errors, the researcher asked the students to write the correct form of their errors even though the researcher had given the correction. It was done in order to make the students remembered the correct form of the errors and did not do the same mistakes. While rewriting the correction of their errors, the students were very enthusiastic. They looked at the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback earnestly. They even initiatively revised their errors without being asked by the researcher in the second cycle. It meant that the students were aware of their mistakes and they wanted to remember the correct form of their errors. Besides, the researcher also wrote some incorrect w ords on the whiteboard. Those were taken from the students‟ example of errors. When the students were asked to correct the error words, they were so active and could correct the error that their friend had made.

E. The Other Findings