36 The detail performance of each student is presented in this following
figure. It is the smallest scope that the researcher in trying to provide in order to describe these students‘ written reflections.
Figure 4.2 Average Point of Each Student
The individual point presented in the chart has been accumulated from the points of the four writings. The researcher summed up all the four and divided
them by 4 so ended up with an average point. The average point in that way represents the performance of the writer. In terms of content based on the result of
assessment, all ten students achieve the average point between 50 and 70. Most of them even reach above 60. While in organization there is less than four who reach
50 and above. In term of diction, all of them achieve the average point between 44 and 71. Then for accuracy, among ten students, there is only one who achieves
more than 70. Other three are in between 50 to 59 and the other six are below 50. One out of the six even is below 40.
2. Error Analysis on the Writings
Based on the finding discussed in the previous section, in this section the research would report and discuss the error found in the writing, limited to error
37 made in using of past tense. This analysis would further give more detail data and
explanation of the description of these writings. According to Ellis 2005, teachers need to know that their students have
not yet mastered certain forms but are capable of self-correcting them. In this research, the researcher analysed the errors made by the students in using past
tense to map their mastery of past tense itself. Later, in the next sub chapter, the
researcher would also discuss whether these students also able to do self- correcting towards what they have produced using the personal narratives that
clarify it. The following points are elaborated as referred to what Corder 1979
proposes about the steps on error analysis. The report and discussion are presented in the way those steps were done.
1. Sample of learner language In order to collect the learner language as the sample in this researh, the
researcher took ten sets of written reflection with 4 topics in each set. The sets of writing were written by ten different students in Bahasa Inggris I class B who had
been assigned in writing activity as the part of their English learning process in class with the lecturer. The researcher chosen four sets on purpose. First, as what
Ellis has stated that in order to avoid the influence from the nature of the sample itself towards the distribution of error made in that sample, the researcher needs to
sample error more generally by collecting a broad sample reflecting different learners, type of language and different production conditions Ellis, 2005 p.57.
Second, four is considered properly to map the learner‘s mastery. Technically, PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
38 when an error is found in the first writing, the researcher considers it as an error if
it is found also in another writing written by the same person or in other word it is repeatedly appeared. That is why, four would be enough to make sure whether
the writter made an error or only a mistake. In differentiating mistakes from errors, we may take a look as what experts say.
Brown describes mistakes as what refers to a performance error either random guess, fatigue, inattention or a slip of tongue Brown, 1994 p.209. While
error as noted by Norrish 1978, 7-8 related to language teaching and learning, are caused by learners on the processing of knowledge in the second language rule
systems. This happens because the learners still have lack of competence in the rule systems of the language they are learning. Therefore, they would not be ready
to correct their errors. In this case, when the same errors are found in more than one writing written by the same person or even in all four writings, the
researcher may be sure of the existence of errors. The first topic given is about learning strategy. In giving this first topic,
lecturer asks the students to write about their experience in forgiving and being forgiven. Second, it is about students experience in learning something. In that
writing, specifically the students are asked to also elaborate their obstacles and challenges then share their strategy to overcome them. Third topic is reflection on
children story. In this topic, lecture gives the students some children stories in form of videos than after brief discussion in class, the lecturer asks the students to
write a reflection on the story, related to their existence as a person in living their PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
39 lives. As the forth writing, the lecturer asks students to pick certain reading from
Gospel and write a homily based on their own interpretation and further reflection. Generally, these students write about a half page as the minimum and one
and a half pages as the maximum. Those writings are typed and collected via email. The lecturer gave these topics to write to the students in every couple
weeks. There were no written feedbacks between the period of assigning and the time when this report is done.
b. Identification of Errors. From the sample, the researcher identified the errors using the concept of
error types based on surface taxonomy described by Dulay, Burt and Krashen 1982: 150. The error types found in the writings are omission, addition double
marking, archi-form misformation, regularization misformation, alternating form misformation, and misordering.
Omission errors made by five writers. Generally, they omitted grammatical morphemes, in this case in past form. The example of omission
errors made by P3 is: I was very scared to tell it to the others, ...
He omitted was as the to be in past form. The writer might understand that past
form already marked by the presence of scared. The word scared, which is an adjective in this context might be understood as a past form the presence of
– ed. Therefore, the writer might think that this sentence needs no other past forms.
The same form of omission error occurs twice in P2‘s writing. The figure below is an example of erroneous sentences made by one of the students.
40
Figure 4.3 Sample of Errors Identified in the Writings
Addition errors also found in some writings, especially in form of double marking. The writers double the past form or marks in certain sentences. For
example the one that is made by P2: I used to woke up late every day.
P2 understands that past form is used to every event or action that happenned and done in the past. Yet, he doubled the mark of past form itself without consider
other rule of forming a habitual past sentence. This is clarified by his personal interview as follows:
Pemahaman mengenai penggunaan past tense itu yang tahu adalah bahwa sesudah berlalu, walaupun sedetik yang lalu, itu menggunakan past tense.
Dan kalau ada –ed berarti itu waktunya sudah lewat. Jadi indikasinya ya
itu. Pokonya asal ada tanda bentuk past, nah bagi saya itu sudah benar. I understand that we use past form for every thing that had happened in
the past, even if it is just a second ago. The –ed form indicates the past. As
long as I have the past form in a sentence, I consider it as right —form of a
past PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
