Research Methods Research Participants Research Instruments

29

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This chapter is about the methods of the study. It is also used to prove the research through the methodology from which the research obtains its ultimate interpretation according to the findings. This chapter consists of six parts. Those are research methods, participantsrespondents, research instruments, data gathering technique, data analysis techniques, and research procedure.

A. Research Methods

The research was a document analysis. Document analysis “focuses on analysing and interpreting recorded materials within its own context” Ary Razavieh, 2002. This document analysis was conducted to obtain data on the Research Paper Writing students’ mastery of complex sentences. This method was chosen because it was authentic and natural in the way that Research Paper Writing students were to write research reports for their Mid Test 1 as usual. This made students really show their ability in writing as they usually did for their curricular tests, and marks. Before conducting document analysis, the writer tried to find as many relevant references as possible to obtain sufficient theories on which the study would be grounded. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 30

B. Research Participants

The participants of the research were all 24 students of Research Paper Writing of class A in the 2010-2011 academic year of the English Education Study Programme of Sanata Dharma University.

C. Research Instruments

There were some instruments used in this document analysis. Those instruments can be noted as follows. 1. The Research Paper Writing students’ Mid Test 1 research reports The Research Paper Writing students’ Mid Test 1 research reports became the major source of data. The reports were from the selected Research Paper Writing class, which was class A. Through studying these documents, the writer would be able to describe students’ mastery of complex sentences as well as problems they faced in producing such sentences in their research reports. 2. Tables of classification There were some types of table used in analysing the students’ written work. The first table dealt with the total number of complex sentences each student wrote. In more detail, the table was a table showing the number of sentences students wrote according to sentence types, namely simple, compound, complex, and compound complex. This table was made in order PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 31 to know the number of written complex sentences that would be analysed further. The table can be seen as follows. Table 3.1: The number of written simple, compound, and complex sentences No Simple Compound Complex Comp-Complex Total Sentences Sentences Sentences Sentences Sentences Num Num Num Num 1 2 … The second one, then, dealt with the number of students’ complex sentences according to the type of the dependent clauses within. It was to show the number of sentences containing noun clauses, named type one, adjective clauses, named type two, and adverb clauses, named type three, and sentences containing multiple clause structures, named type four. The table can be seen as follows. Table 3.2: The number of sentences in each type of complex sentence No. Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Total of a noun clause an adjective an adverb multiple clause Complex clause clause structure Sentences Num Num Num Num 1 2 … The third type of tables, furthermore, was to determine students’ mastery of complex sentence. In these tables, then, there would be shown the number PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 32 and the percentage of correct complex sentences type one, type two, type three, and type four. From the percentage, then, each student’s mastery of complex sentences could, ultimately, be described. In this case, some criteria were given. If a student’s total grammatical sentences were 80 or more, it can be said that his mastery of complex sentences was “very good”. If they were lower than 80 but 70 at the least, the mastery was regarded enough or “good”. Lower than “good”, grade “fair” was given for those having 60 grammaticality at the least. When there was less than 60 grammaticality, the mastery was considered insufficient or “poor”. This consideration was made in accordance with the English Education Study Programme’s common marking criteria, A, B, C, and D, respectively. The third tables, to obtain findings about students’ mastery, can be seen in the following. Table 3.3: Sentences containing finite and non-finite noun clause Doc. Noun Correct Incorrect Grade No Clauses Number Number 1 2 … Table 3.4: Sentences containing finite and non-finite adjective clause Doc. Total of Correct Incorrect Grade No Adj. Clause Number Number 1 2 … PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 33 Table 3.5: Sentences containing finite and non-finite adverb clause Doc. Total of Correct Incorrect Grade No Adverb Clause Number Number 1 2 … Table 3.6: Sentences containing multiple clause structure Doc. Total Correct Incorrect Grade No Number Number 1 2 … After the writer obtained the data through the tables presented above, the writer made the summary of her findings in two summary tables. The first summary table was intended to summarize the overall number of complex sentences in each type as well as to show the number of correct and incorrect sentences in each of those types. In so doing, the writer would be able to present those numbers in the form of percentages. Table 3.7: Summary of the overall numbers of grammaticality Complex Sentences TOTAL Correct Incorrect Number Number Noun Clauses Adjective Clauses Adverb Clauses Multiple Clause Structures TOTAL PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 34 The second summary table, then, was made to present the data on students’ individual mastery on complex sentences in detail. The table enabled the writer to clearly observe students’ mastery, and their lack of it. In so doing, the writer could determine which type of complex sentences the students mastered the most, and the least, as well. The table can be seen as follows. Table 3.8: Summary of students grades Noun Clauses Adjective Clauses Adverb Clauses Multiple Clauses No Grade Grade Grade Grade 1 2 … The last tables, furthermore, were to show the ungrammatical complex sentences all students wrote. These tables would also show the possible corrections on how the sentences should be in order to be grammatical. To make the data analysis easier, later on, there would also be shown the locations of ungrammaticalities and the reasons for the sentence being ungrammatical. This would be placed somewhere at the right, outside the tables, as comments. The writer’s findings about the ungrammaticalities and the corrections here would also be triangulated by a language consultant. From the data analysis of these tables done by the writer and triangulated by the language PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 35 consultant, students’ lack on complex sentences would be described. The model of the tables can be seen as follows. Table 3.9: Ungrammatical complex sentences type one Doc. No No Ungrammatical sentences Possible Corrections 1 1 2 … 2 … … Table 3.10: Ungrammatical complex sentences type two Doc. No No Ungrammatical sentences Possible Corrections 1 1 2 … 2 … … Table 3.11: Ungrammatical complex sentences type three Doc. No No Ungrammatical sentences Possible Corrections 1 1 2 … 2 … … Table 3.12: Ungrammatical complex sentences type four Doc. No No Ungrammatical sentences Possible Corrections 1 1 2 … 2 … … PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 36 3. Human instrument a. The writer The writer acted as the instrument in which she analysed students’ level of mastery on complex sentences as well as analysed what problems the students faced in producing the sentences. To reveal the students’ mastery, the writer focused on the comparison between the number of correct complex sentences and the incorrect ones found in the students’ research reports. Upon knowing students’ mastery by means of the comparison, additionally, the writer could reveal what students lacked the most in dealing with complex sentence production in writing. b. Language Consultant Sr. Margaret O’ Donohue FCJ as the language consultant of the English Education Study Programme of Sanata Dharma University helped triangulate the analysis done by the writer in terms of ungrammaticalities found in Research Paper Writing students’ research reports. It was to make sure that the writer’s judgements on sentences being ungrammatical, on the locations of ungrammaticality as well as on the reasons why those sentences were considered ungrammatical were valid as the basis of further analysis in this study. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 37 4. Interview checklists The interview, which was conducted for eleven respondents only, consisted of two interview checklists. They dealt with respondents’ difficulties in learning complex sentences and their suggestions on the teaching of complex sentences. While the respondents answered, the writer wrote what they said on a paper and recorded them in an MP3 recording.

D. Data Gathering Technique