28 contain one character on each card. Each group was asked to pick two cards as
their main characters in short stories. The time allocation to do the assessment was 90 ninety minutes when the English subject took place on Thursday. According
to the circumstance made, the researcher claimed that the sample data were focused samples in clinical elicitation because it involved learners to influence
some specific linguistic usage such as language feature of narrative text, without abandoning the message construction.
E. Data Analysis Technique
There were several steps which had been done in analysing the data, the learners‟ short stories. Firstly, 16 samples were collected and selected. Only 7
samples were chosen to analyse in this research because it depended on how the students finished the short stories. Those sample data were analysed and
reconstructed. The reconstructed version was made by the researcher. After that, in an attempt at data triangulation, the researcher consulted an English native
speaker about the reconstructed version. The errors were identified by then. In identifying errors in samples, the researcher limited the focus. The
researcher focused only on Surface Strategy Taxonomy to analyse the data. However, how the students were dealing with punctuation, paragraph and
indentation was ignored in this research. As soon as the errors were identified, the researcher proceeded to describe
and analyse the data found. The errors found were calculated and analysed based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy as superficial level according to Dulay et al 1982,
29 p. 154, and li
nguistic operation based on „Let the Errors Determine the Categories‟ approach by Norrish 1983, p. 83 as Corder has suggested 1981, p.
36. In the step of description of errors, the researcher coded each error into superficial and linguistic level as the table form provided Appendix E. Then, the
researcher described the errors separately based on Surface Structure Taxonomy as superficial level. Furthermore, description of linguistic level was integrated into
those categories of superficial level in order to get an adequate description of errors.
Errors were also calculated and analysed based on source of errors in an attempt to reach the explanation of errors. The researcher distinguished whether it
was error or mistake and analysed how the errors occurred. After that, the researcher explained the number of occurrence of interlingual and intralingual
with integrating linguistic level. Lastly, as a reflective teacher, the researcher analysed the implication for
teaching as well. To reach the implication, the researcher followed the step of error evaluation. The researcher chose the criterion on which the error categories
would be judged, and then analysed them to draw out the implication of the errors for teaching.
