Setting Research participants METHODOLOGY

38 students’Report text. The researcher then grouped the errors into categories and subcategorizations. Afterwards, the researcher analyzed the data by calculating the total number of errors commited by all participants in the categories of content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. The researcher then drew a chart to clarify the results. Next, the researcher drew conclusion of the common errors from the chart presentation. Some categories which had the highest number of errors was regarded as the students’ common errors in composing report texts. Briefly, it served as the difficult areas of students’ learning of writing Report texts. 39

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the research results of the study based on the research problem formulated in the first chapter. In this chapter the researcher discusses the results of common errors in report texts written by the ninth year students of SMP N 2 Yogyakarta in terms of five categories of writing elements. Those are content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics.

A. Data Presentation Discussion of Common Errors on the Ninth Year

Students’ Report Texts of SMP N 2 Yogyakarta As elaborated in chapter III, the researcher conducted the research in January 2012 and selected the ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Yogyakarta as the research participants. The data was gathered from 42 copies of the ninth grade students’ documents of report text. It was analyzed in order to search for the common errors produced by the the ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Yogyakarta in terms of content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. In carrying out this study, the researcher employed categories of writing elements which were elaborated in checklist, proposed by Tribble 1996 as a guidance for specifying the errors categorization. As stated previously, the categories of the errors were grouped into the following: content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. Each category were then subcategorized into parts. Since each writing elements proposed by Tribble 1996 had its own criteria, the researcher determined the subdivisions of errors by mostly looking at

Dokumen yang terkait

An Error Analysis in Using Direct and Indirect Speech Made Twelfth Year Students of Hospitality Accomodation Program, SMK Raksana 2 Medan

13 80 139

An Error Analysis on The English Students’ Narrative Writing Texts

0 4 41

AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS OF ELEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS AT SMK MUHAMMADIYAH 2 SURAKARTA 2015/2016 ACADEMIC YEAR An Error Analysis on Descriptive Texts of Eleventh Grade Students at SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Surakarta 2015/2016 Academic Year.

0 4 12

AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS OF ELEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS AT SMK MUHAMMADIYAH 2 SURAKARTA An Error Analysis on Descriptive Texts of Eleventh Grade Students at SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Surakarta 2015/2016 Academic Year.

0 3 12

ERROR ANALYSIS ON DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS MADE BY THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS AT SMP N 2 COLOMADU Error Analysis Of Descriptive Texts Made By The Eighth Grade Students At SMP N 2 Colomadu In 2014/2015 Academic Year.

0 2 15

ERROR ANALYSIS ON DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS MADE BY THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS AT SMP N 2 COLOMADU Error Analysis Of Descriptive Texts Made By The Eighth Grade Students At SMP N 2 Colomadu In 2014/2015 Academic Year.

0 2 12

AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON DESCRIPTIVE TEXT An Error Analysis On Descriptive Text Made By Eighth Grade Students Of SMP N 2 Banyudono In 2013/2014 Academic Year.

0 1 13

AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON RECOUNT TEXTS WRITTEN BY THE STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 6 MADIUN.

0 2 7

AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON LEARNING PASIVE VOICE OF THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP N 1 POLANHARJO KLATEN An Error Analysis On Learning Passive Voice Of The Second Year Students Of Smp N 1 Polanharjo Klaten In Academic Year 2011/2012.

0 1 11

An error analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students` descriptive texts.

2 5 126