28
For the focus group, the researcher presented the result of it in a transcript form. Then, the researcher analyzed the result of the focus group by
interpreting the information provided by the students and relating it to the main objective of this study
then drawing conclusions in order to get further information to answer the research question. From those instruments, the researcher could gain the information whether
direct written corrective feedback helped the students or not in improving their spelling accuracy.
By analyzing and concluding the result of those instruments, the researcher could answer the research problem. The criterion of success in this research was that
the students‟ error percentage of spelling accuracy decreased from preliminary study until the second cycle. Besides that, the criterion of success was the students made
improvement, which could also be seen from the analysis based on the purposes of written corrective feedback.
F. Research Procedure
The researcher conducted Classroom Action Research. This research was conducted in VIII-H class SMPN 15 Yogyakarta. There were 34 students in VIII-H
and all of them joined this research from preliminary study until the second cycle. There were two cycles in this research.
The researcher found the problem when she did Internship Program Program Pengalaman Lapangan in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta. During her teaching, she did
preliminary study by giving the students a writing assignment to sort out the problem PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
29
faced by the students. The researcher also observed the students while they were writing. After they had finished writing, the students were asked to submit their
writing products to the researcher. Then, the researcher analized their writing products at home and counted the errors and the total of words written by the
students. The researcher then started making plans to solve the problem of the students
by giving direct written corrective feedback to the students‟ writing products as the action.
Then, the researcher conducted the first cycle. She returned the writing products of the students that had been given direct written corrective feedback by the
researcher. Next, the students were asked to read the researcher‟s correction and
revise their writing products. After that, the researcher gave the students another writing assignment and asked them to submit it in the end of the class. The researcher
also observed the students while they were writing. At home, the researcher checked and analyzed the students‟ writing products. Besides giving direct written corrective
feedback, the researcher also gave feedback in the form of comments and suggestions that can motivate the students. In the end of the first cycle, the researcher asked the
students to fill questionnaire in order to know the students‟ perception in the implementation of teacher‟s direct written corrective feedback in this first cycle so
that the researcher could improve and revise her plan. In the second cycle, the researcher returned the students‟ writing products
which had been given feedback in the form of direct corrections, comments, and suggestions by the researcher. Then, the students were given new writing assignment
30
again and submit it to the researcher. The researcher also observed the students while they were writing. After that, in order to obtain more information about the
implementation of teacher‟s direct written corrective feedback, the researcher took eight students randomly to have focus group.
31
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
