36 made and possible causes of the students’ errors and also make suggestions to
improve students’ understanding of basic noun phrases. By working in a group, the students were stimulated to reflect on the issues together and bounce ideas of
one another. This made the students more willing to share their ideas than if they had been interviewed individually. As a focus group structure allowed the
researcher to gather a range of information, it was also useful and time-efficient way for the researcher to explore the possible causes of the students’ errors and
obtain suggestions to improve students’ understanding of basic noun phrases.
E. Data Analysis Technique
The researcher analyzed basic noun phrases based on the theories stated in the theoretical description and theoretical framework in chapter II. Based on those
theories, several kinds of errors could be found from the sub-classification of errors, while the possible causes and suggestions were obtained from interview
results. First, the researcher created tables of classification to analyze the data.
There are seven data analysis tables 1 a table of the number of basic noun phrases and the errors 2 a table of the number of type 1 basic noun phrase errors 3 a
table of the number of type 2 basic noun phrase errors 4 a table describing the students’ errors 5 a table of summarizing the students’ type 1 basic noun phrase
errors 6 a table of summarizing the students’ type 2 basic noun phrase errors 7 a table of possible error corrections.
37 The first table dealt with two types of basic noun phrases. Type 1 basic
noun phrase consists of head only, those are pronouns or numerals. While type 2 basic noun phrase, it is comprised of a noun as the head and determiners which
occur before the head. This table was created in order to identify the number of basic noun phrases and the errors made by the students. Then, the errors were
classified based on the error sub-classifications. The error sub-classifications were proposed by Dulay et al. 1982. The errors were classified into four sub-
classifications; omission, addition, misformation and misordering. The addition sub-classification had three types of addition namely, double marking,
generalization and simple addition p.150-163. There are some abbreviations written in the tables to shorten the words.
For instance, Doc to indicate number of document, Om. for omission, Add. for addition, Misf. for misformation, Misor. for misordering, d.m. for double
marking, gnr. for generalization, s.a. for simple addition, Num. for a certain amount or number and BNP for basic noun phrases. This first table dealt with the
number of BNP and the errors can be seen as follows.
Table 3.1: The Number of BNP and Errors
Doc Type 1
Type 2 Total
BNP Error Sub-classifications
Total Errors
Om. Add. Misf. Misor.
Num. Num.
Num. Num. Num. Num. Num.
Num. 1
2
Total
After counting the number of basic noun phrases and the errors Table 3.1, the researcher further distinguished between errors based on each type and
then counted them based on the error sub-classifications using table 3.2 and 3.3.
38
Table 3.2: The Number of Type 1 BNP Errors
Doc Om.
Addition Misf.
Misor. Total Errors
d.m. gnr.
s.a.
Num. Num.
Num. Num.
Num. Num.
Num. 1
2
Total
Table 3.3: The Number of Type 2 Errors
Doc Om.
Addition Misf.
Misor. Total Errors
d.m. gnr.
s.a.
Num. Num.
Num. Num.
Num. Num.
Num. 1
2
Total
Table 3.2 and 3.3 showed the number of errors made by the students in their descriptive writing based on each BNP type. Next, the researcher created a
table describing the students’ errors and gave detailed examples of the errors. The
table can be seen as follows. Table 3.4: Errors in each Student’s Writing
Doc Error Sub-
classifications Error Descriptions
Error Examples
1 2
After that the researcher summarized the errors in the students’ descriptive writing as seen in the table 3.5. and 3.6. These tables did not include the number
of the document Doc because it is a summary of the number of errors found in the students’ writing. The tables presented several errors which were
representatives of each error sub-classification.
39
Table 3.5: The Summary of Type 1 BNP Error Sub-classifications and Their Examples
No Error Sub-
classifications Error
Descriptions Error Examples
Number of Errors
1 2
Total
Table 3.6: The Summary of Type 2 BNP Error Sub-classifications and Their Examples
No Error Sub-
classifications Error
Descriptions Error Examples
Number of Errors
1 2
Total
Finally, the researcher was able to respond to the first research problem which is related to the several kinds of errors that the students made from table 3.2
to table 3.6. Then, the researcher made possible corrections of all students’ errors as seen in table 3.7 below. To validate the possible correction, the researcher
asked proofreaders and language consultants to recheck them.
Table 3.7: Possible Correction Doc
No Basic Noun Phrase Errors
Possible Correction
1 1
2 2
1
Next, to reveal the possible causes underlying the students’ errors and make suggestions to improve students’ understanding of basic noun phrases, the
researcher conducted interviews. The researcher interviewed three students and three English teachers. The three students were chosen because they represented
40 the average range and frequency of errors made by the class. Of the three students
who were chosen, one made the most errors, one made the fewest errors and one made the greatest range of different types of errors. The aim of conducting this
interview was to obtain a data triangulation which is as a way to establish the validity of the possible causes of the students’ errors. This was done by checking
and comparing analysis concerning the possible causes of the students’ errors with what was said in the interview by the students and the teacher. In addition, the
interview was also used to collect suggestions to improve students’ understanding of basic noun phrases.
F. Research Procedure
