39 3. Consulting the findings to the language consultant
After finishing identifying ungrammatical complex sentences as well as giving the reasons of ungrammaticality and possible corrections, the writer
consulted her findings to the language consultant, Sr. Margaret FCJ. Seeing the consultant as a native English speaker who is very competent in language
field, the writer aimed to ascertain the validity of her judgements as well as corrections on students’ ungrammatical complex sentences.
Besides having a big role in correcting the writer’s judgement on ungrammaticality, the language consultant also corrected most parts of this
research report in terms of language, and to some extents, contents of the analysis. It was so considering the fact that the tables of ungrammaticality
consulted previously were essentially interrelated to some contents of the analysis of this study.
E. Data Analysis Technique
After the writer obtained the written documents of students’ works, she began to analyse it. The steps of the analysis can be noted as follows.
First of all, the writer counted the total number of sentences written by each student. Then, those sentences were classified into non-complex sentences,
including simple, compound sentences, compound-complex sentences and complex sentences, which became the focus of the analysis. From the obtained
number of complex sentences, the writer describes students’ mastery based on percentage of numbers of grammatical sentences, and ungrammatical ones based
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
40 on rules previously stated in Chapter II. This would end in categories of mastery
given to each student in each type of complex sentences according to the percentages of the grammatical ones.
The writer, then, rewrote the ungrammatical sentences found in students’ works, identified the errors, made the possible corrections and gave comments on
why the sentences were ungrammatical. In this stage of data analysis, a language consultant helped the writer in checking whether the writer’s judgements on the
ungrammaticality were correct or incorrect. Based on the language consultant’s feedback given to the writer, the writer revised any incorrect judgements so that
the ultimate findings after the language consultation process could be made as valid as possible.
The findings of document analysis would be clarified in open-ended interview conducted to some selected participants in regards to the results of the
document analysis. The interview was to obtain students’ viewpoint on the focus of the study and also data triangulation minimizing the writer’s possible biases. It
was, more specifically, aimed to see whether the errors were done accidentally or not and to know students’ difficulties in learning complex sentences as well as
suggestions on the teaching of complex sentences. By product, and also through more deliberate analysis on details through the
combination of document analysis, language consultation, and interview for some selected participants, furthermore, the writer would finally find out the problems
those students faced in producing complex sentences. The writer, hence, identified in what parts students often made errors.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
41 The rationale of the analysis above can be seen in the following flowchart.
Flowchart 3.1: The rationale of the analysis
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
42
F. Research Procedure
