Using direct written corrective feedback to improve eighth grade students` spelling accuracy in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta.

ABSTRACT

Firdauzia, Anisya Ayu Devinta. 2016. Using Direct Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Eighth Grade Students’ Spelling Accuracy in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Writing is one of the productive skills in learning English that should be mastered by students.However, while practicing teaching in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta, the researcher found that many eighth grade students had a problem while they were writing. They made a lot of erroneous spelling in writing English. This is fatal since errors in spelling can affect its meaning.

The fact above brings to an analysis about how to solve the problem. The researcher chose direct written corrective feedback as the strategy to solve the problem faced by the students that is the students’ spelling accuracy in writing English. This research attempted to answer one research problem. The research problem is: To what extent does the use of direct written corrective feedback improve the eighth grade students’ spelling accuracy in writing English? Thus, in line with the problem formulation, the aim of this research is to assess to what extent the direct written corrective feedback improved the eighth grade students’ spelling accuracy in writing English.

This research was essentially Classroom Action Research (CAR). The researcher conducted two cycles. Each cycle consisted of one meeting. The participants of the research were the students of VIII-H class SMPN 15 Yogyakarta 2015/2016 academic year. The data were gathered from the analysis of the students’ drafts, the field notes, the questionnaire and also the transcription of the focus group. The analysis was done by reducing or organizing the data, displaying the data, and drawing the conclusion.

The result of the data analysis showed that the students made fewer mistakes after receiving the direct written corrective feedback from the researcher. The direct written corrective feedback helped the students to know their mistake and the correct form of it. The students’ error percentage of spelling accuracy also decreased. In the preliminary study, the average was 38,5%. Meanwhile, the average of the students’ error percentage in the first cycle was 10,2% and in the second cycle the average became 3,2%. It could be concluded that the direct written corrective feedback helped the students to improve their spelling accuracy in writing. Therefore, it is suggested that English teachers give the direct written corrective feedback to the students’ writing products. The direct written corrective feedback should be clear to avoid misunderstanding by giving explanation and also suggestion in order to motivate the students to make better writing products. Keywords: Classroom Action Research, spelling accuracy, direct written corrective feedback

ABSTRAK

Firdauzia, AnisyaAyuDevinta. 2016. Using Direct Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Eighth Grade Students’ Spelling Accuracy in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Menulis adalah salah satu keterampilan produktif dalam belajar Bahasa Inggris yang harus dikuasai oleh murid-murid. Namun, pada saat praktek mengajar di SMPN 15 Yogyakarta, peneliti menemukan bahwa banyak murid kelas delapan mengalami kesulitan ketika mereka menulis. Mereka membuat banyak kesalahan dalam penulisan ejaan bahasa Inggris. Hal ini fatal karena kesalahan dalam penulisan ejaan kata dapat mempengaruhi maknanya.

Fakta di atas menuntun pada sebuah analisis tentang bagaimana memecahkan masalah tersebut. Peneliti memilih direct written corrective feedback sebagai strategi untuk mengatasi masalah yang dihadapi oleh murid-murid, yaitu ketepatan murid-murid dalam menulis ejaan bahasa Inggris. Penelitian ini mencoba untuk menjawab satu rumusan masalah. Rumusan masalah tersebut adalah sejauh mana penggunaan direct written corrective feedback dalam meningkatkan ketepatan murid-murid kelas delapan dalam menulis ejaan bahasa Inggris. Maka, sehubungan dengan rumusan masalah tersebut, tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menilai sejauh mana penggunaan direct written corrective feedback dalam meningkatkan ketepatan murid-murid kelas delapan dalam menulis ejaan bahasa Inggris.

Penelitian ini adalah Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Peneliti melaksanakan dua siklus. Setiap siklus terdiri dari satu pertemuan. Peserta penelitian ini adalah murid-murid dari kelas VIII-H SMPN 15 Yogyakarta tahun ajaran 2015/2016. Data penelitian dikumpulkan dari hasil analisa dari karangan murid, pengamatan di lapangan, kuesioner, dan rekaman focus group. Analisa dilakukan dengan mengurangi atau mengorganisir data, menampilkan data dan menarik kesimpulan.

Hasil dari analisa data menunjukkan bahwa murid-murid membuat sedikit kesalahan setelah menerima direct written corrective feedback dari peneliti. Direct written corrective feedback membantu murid-murid untuk mengetahui kesalahan mereka dan bentuk yang benar dari kesalahan tersebut. Presentase kesalahan murid dalam menulis ejaan juga berkurang. Pada studi awal, rata-rata presentase 38,5%. Sementara itu, rata-rata kesalahan murid dalam menulis ejaan pada siklus pertama 10,2% dan pada siklus kedua rata-ratanya menjadi 3,2%. Hal ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa direct written corrective feedback membantu murid-murid untuk meningkatkan ketepatan mereka dalam menulis ejaan. Oleh sebab itu, hal ini disarankan kepada guru bahasa Inggris untuk memberikan direct written corrective feedback pada karangan murid secara jelas untuk menghindari kesalahpahaman dengan cara memberi penjelasan dan juga saran supaya memotivasi murid-murid untuk membuat karangan-karangan yang lebih baik. Kata Kunci: Penelitian Tindakan Kelas, ketepatan menulis ejaan, direct written corrective feedback

USING DIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK TO

IMPROVE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS’ SPELLING

ACCURACY IN SMPN 15 YOGYAKARTA

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

By

Anisya Ayu Devinta Firdauzia Student Number: 121214152

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

i

USING DIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK TO

IMPROVE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS’ SPELLING

ACCURACY IN SMPN 15 YOGYAKARTA

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

By

Anisya Ayu Devinta Firdauzia Student Number: 121214152

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, 10 June 2016

The Writer

Anisya Ayu Devinta Firdauzia 121214152

v

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Anisya Ayu Devinta Firdauzia NIM : 121214152

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

USING DIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE

EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS’ SPELLING ACCURACY IN SMPN 15

YOGYAKARTA

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian, saya memberikan kepada perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat sebenarnya, Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 10 Juni 2016 Yang menyatakan:

vi ABSTRACT

Firdauzia, Anisya Ayu Devinta. 2016. Using Direct Written Corrective Feedback to

Improve Eighth Grade Students‟ Spelling Accuracy in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta.

Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. Writing is one of the productive skills in learning English that should be mastered by students. However, while practicing teaching in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta, the researcher found that many eighth grade students had a problem while they were writing. They made a lot of erroneous spelling in writing English. This is fatal since errors in spelling can affect its meaning.

The fact above brings to an analysis about how to solve the problem. The researcher chose direct written corrective feedback as the strategy to solve the

problem faced by the students that is the students‟ spelling accuracy in writing

English. This research attempted to answer one research problem. The research problem is: To what extent does the use of direct written corrective feedback improve the eighth grade students‟ spelling accuracy in writing English? Thus, in line with the problem formulation, the aim of this research is to assess to what extent the direct

written corrective feedback improved the eighth grade students‟ spelling accuracy in

writing English.

This research was essentially Classroom Action Research (CAR). The researcher conducted two cycles. Each cycle consisted of one meeting. The participants of the research were the students of VIII-H class SMPN 15 Yogyakarta 2015/2016 academic year. The data were gathered from the analysis of the students‟ drafts, the field notes, the questionnaire and also the transcription of the focus group. The analysis was done by reducing or organizing the data, displaying the data, and drawing the conclusion.

The result of the data analysis showed that the students made fewer mistakes after receiving the direct written corrective feedback from the researcher. The direct written corrective feedback helped the students to know their mistake and the correct form of it. The students‟ error percentage of spelling accuracy also decreased. In the

preliminary study, the average was 38,5%. Meanwhile, the average of the students‟

error percentage in the first cycle was 10,2% and in the second cycle the average became 3,2%. It could be concluded that the direct written corrective feedback helped the students to improve their spelling accuracy in writing. Therefore, it is suggested

that English teachers give the direct written corrective feedback to the students‟

writing products. The direct written corrective feedback should be clear to avoid misunderstanding by giving explanation and also suggestion in order to motivate the students to make better writing products.

Keywords: Classroom Action Research, spelling accuracy, direct written corrective feedback

vii ABSTRAK

Firdauzia, Anisya Ayu Devinta. 2016. Using Direct Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Eighth Grade Students’ Spelling Accuracy in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. Menulis adalah salah satu keterampilan produktif dalam belajar Bahasa Inggris yang harus dikuasai oleh murid-murid. Namun, pada saat praktek mengajar di SMPN 15 Yogyakarta, peneliti menemukan bahwa banyak murid kelas delapan mengalami kesulitan ketika mereka menulis. Mereka membuat banyak kesalahan dalam penulisan ejaan bahasa Inggris. Hal ini fatal karena kesalahan dalam penulisan ejaan kata dapat mempengaruhi maknanya.

Fakta di atas menuntun pada sebuah analisis tentang bagaimana memecahkan masalah tersebut. Peneliti memilih direct written corrective feedback sebagai strategi untuk mengatasi masalah yang dihadapi oleh murid, yaitu ketepatan murid-murid dalam menulis ejaan bahasa Inggris. Penelitian ini mencoba untuk menjawab satu rumusan masalah. Rumusan masalah tersebut adalah sejauh mana penggunaan direct written corrective feedback dalam meningkatkan ketepatan murid-murid kelas delapan dalam menulis ejaan bahasa Inggris. Maka, sehubungan dengan rumusan masalah tersebut, tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menilai sejauh mana penggunaan direct written corrective feedback dalam meningkatkan ketepatan murid-murid kelas delapan dalam menulis ejaan bahasa Inggris.

Penelitian ini adalah Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Peneliti melaksanakan dua siklus. Setiap siklus terdiri dari satu pertemuan. Peserta penelitian ini adalah murid-murid dari kelas VIII-H SMPN 15 Yogyakarta tahun ajaran 2015/2016. Data penelitian dikumpulkan dari hasil analisa dari karangan murid, pengamatan di lapangan, kuesioner, dan rekaman focus group. Analisa dilakukan dengan mengurangi atau mengorganisir data, menampilkan data dan menarik kesimpulan.

Hasil dari analisa data menunjukkan bahwa murid-murid membuat sedikit kesalahan setelah menerima direct written corrective feedback dari peneliti. Direct written corrective feedback membantu murid-murid untuk mengetahui kesalahan mereka dan bentuk yang benar dari kesalahan tersebut. Presentase kesalahan murid dalam menulis ejaan juga berkurang. Pada studi awal, rata-rata presentase 38,5%. Sementara itu, rata-rata kesalahan murid dalam menulis ejaan pada siklus pertama 10,2% dan pada siklus kedua rata-ratanya menjadi 3,2%. Hal ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa direct written corrective feedback membantu murid-murid untuk meningkatkan ketepatan mereka dalam menulis ejaan. Oleh sebab itu, hal ini disarankan kepada guru bahasa Inggris untuk memberikan direct written corrective feedback pada karangan murid secara jelas untuk menghindari kesalahpahaman dengan cara memberi penjelasan dan juga saran supaya memotivasi murid-murid untuk membuat karangan-karangan yang lebih baik.

Kata Kunci: Penelitian Tindakan Kelas, ketepatan menulis ejaan, direct written corrective feedback

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to give my deepest gratitude to Allah SWT for the blessing, love, guidance, and grace for I had accomplished this thesis. He always helps and gives me strength to keep struggling in doing this research. I realized that I am nothing and I cannot finish my thesis without Him.

I would like to thank my advisor, Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A., for the feedback, patience, and encouragement during the process of writing this thesis. I would also like to thank my academic advisor, Laurentia Sumarni S.Pd., M.Trans.St., for her guidance during my study in PBI Sanata Dharma University. My special thanks also go to Siti Maftukah, S.Pd. for the opportunity given to me to conduct the research in her class. I also thank the students of VIII H SMPN 15 Yogyakarta 2015/2016 academic year for their cooperation during the process of the research.

This thesis is dedicated to my beloved parents, Triyana Putra, S.E. and Dra. Endang Triningsih, M.Pd., also my lovely brother, Arifin Praditya Putra. I thank them for supporting me in finishing this thesis. I also owe many thanks to a very special person of my life, Adib Fauzan Rahman, for his love, patience, and motivation during these years. Millions of thanks also go to Patricia Vania who was willing to be my proofreader. I thank her for the corrections, comments, and suggestions for my thesis. My gratitude also goes to all of my friends in PBI Sanata Dharma University, especially the students of class F for the jokes, affections and unforgettable moments during my study in Sanata Dharma University. In addition, I would like to thank my best friends, Vicky Anugerah Trihantari and Nuansha Thufaila for always being there for me. I am very grateful to have them in my life.

Finally, my sincere gratitude goes to all people who are not mentioned here for all the help and the reader for reading my thesis. May God bless them.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGE ... ii

STATEMENT OF WORK‟S ORIGINALITY ... iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... v

ABSTRACT ... vi

ABSTRAK ... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix

LIST OF TABLES ... xi

LIST OF FIGURES... xii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Research Background ... 1

B. Research Problem ... 5

C. Problem Limitation ... 5

D. Research Objective ... 5

E. Research Benefits ... 5

F. Definition of Terms ... 6

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Description ... 10

1. Writing ... 10

a. The Nature of Writing... 10

b. Teaching Writing ... 11

2. Spelling Accuracy ... 13

3. Direct Written Corrective Feedback ... 14

a. Definition of Direct Written Corrective Feedback ... 14

b. Purposes of Written Corrective Feedback ... 15

c. Advantages of Direct Written Corrective Feedback ... 15

x CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Method ... 19

B. Research Setting ... 22

C. Research Participant ... 22

D. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique ... 23

E. Data Analysis Technique ... 26

F. Research Procedure ... 28

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Data Presentation and Discussion on the Preliminary Study ... 31

B. Data Presentation and Discussion on the First Cycle ... 38

C. Data Presentation and Discussion on the Second Cycle ... 53

D. Research Results ... 65

E. The Other Findings... 68

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions ... 71

B. Recommendations ... 72

REFERENCES ... 75

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures

Figure 3.1 The Planning-Reflection Cycle (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1998) ... 20 Figure 3.2 Interactive Model of Analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1984) ... 26

Figure 4.1 The Error Percentages of Students‟ Spelling Accuracy Based on the Result of Students‟ Writing Products ... 66

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

Appendix 1. Letter of Permission ... 80

Appendix 2. Teaching Materials of Preliminary Study ... 82

Appendix 3. Field Note of Preliminary Study ... 86

Appendix 4. Teaching Materials of First Cycle ... 91

Appendix 5. Field Note of First Cycle ... 94

Appendix 6. Teaching Materials of Second Cycle... 101

Appendix 7. Field Note of Second Cycle... 105

Appendix 8. The Raw Data of Questionnaire ... 111

Appendix 9. The Transcript of Focus Group ... 115

Appendix 10. The Sample of Students‟ Writing Products in Preliminary Study... 120

Appendix 11. The Sample of Students‟ Writing Products in First Cycle ... 123

Appendix 12. The Sample of Students‟ Writing Products in Second Cycle ... 126

Appendix 13. The Documentation ... 130

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the researcher discusses the background of the problem, the formulation of the problem, the limitation of the problem, objectives, benefits and definition of terms used in the thesis.

A.Research Background

In learning English, writing is one of the productive skills that should be mastered by students. According to Rivers (1981), writing is conveying information or expression of original ideas in a consecutive way in the new language (p. 294). Harmer (2004) states that writing encourages students to focus on accurate language use. It is because students consider the language use, especially its spelling when the students engage in their writing process. Graham et al. (2008) also states that spelling proficiency is important in reading and writing. It is also an important thing in the Communicative Language Teaching in which language is seen as a social tool that speakers use to make meaning and communicate about something to someone for some purpose, either orally or in writing (Berns, 1990). As stated by Boston (1998), the purposes of spelling are the purposes of language itself that is to make meaning, and to share meaning in a way that is clearly understood by readers. From the statements above, it can be concluded that students need to possess writing skill as

2

one of the productive skills in learning English and when they are writing, they need to pay attention to many things, especially spelling since errors in spelling can affect its meaning. Therefore, students need to get used to write the words with correct spelling in order to be able to communicate something to the readers.

However, in fact, based on the researcher‟s observation on the eighth grade students of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta, there were still many students who made spelling mistakes when they were writing English. This occurred continually every time the researcher gave those students writing assignments. Meanwhile, having problem in the spelling accuracy can inhibit their writing. According to Treiman (1997), learning to spell accurately and automatically is an important part of learning to read and write. If the students have problem in the spelling accuracy, they can be less willing to write out their assignments. It is also stated by Graham et al. (2008) that students who struggle with spelling can have obstructions of their thought process and ideas while reading or writing.

This thesis describes the action research in improving spelling accuracy in writing English of the students from VIII H of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta in the academic year of 2015/2016. Actually, the researcher was doing an Internship Program in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta. During the Internship Program, the researcher taught VIII H class. While practicing teaching in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta, the researcher found that almost all students of VIII H had a problem in spelling while they were writing English. They made a lot of incorrect spelling of English words. The students knew the pronunciation of some common words but when they were asked to write, they

3

misspelled some words such as „theng yu‟ instead of „thank you‟, „your welcom‟

instead of „you‟re welcome‟, „food ball‟ instead of „football‟, „see‟ instead of „she‟,

etc. Based on the researcher‟s observation, the root cause of these misspellings might be due to the lack of knowledge of the correct spelling.

Thus, the discrepancy between the ideal demand and the fact must be solved. The researcher intended to improve the eighth grade students‟ spelling accuracy in writing English by giving feedback to the students in order to support the basic competence (Kompetensi Dasar) in Curriculum 2013. There are many types of feedback that can be given to students related to the spelling skills students demonstrate. Feedback can be simply an "OK" or "X" written on a paper to indicate if the spelling is correct or incorrect. The feedback can be made more specific, by giving the correct answer, explaining the correct answer, or explaining what is wrong about the answer (Draper, 1999). The kind of feedback which was given to the students of VIII H is written corrective feedback. Written corrective feedback is written information given to learners regarding a linguistic error they have made (Loewen, 2012; Sheen, 2007). There are two forms of written corrective feedback namely direct and indirect. Direct corrective feedback is a teacher‟s written feedback which supplies the correct form of the erroneous part somewhere close to the error. This can include the deleting of an excessive part, the provision of a necessary section, and the insertion of the exact form. Conversely, indirect corrective feedback is the one given by the teacher to indicate that an error exists but does not provide the correction. This takes the form of underlining and use of cursors to show omissions in

4

the student‟s text. However, it is suggested by Ferris and Roberts (2001) that

direct written corrective feedback is probably better than indirect written corrective feedback with writers of low levels of language proficiency. Therefore, the researcher chose the direct written corrective feedback as the strategy to improve the spelling accuracy of VIII H students in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta since they were low level learners. The students were still beginners in learning English as their vocabulary knowledge was still limited. They could understand some classroom directions and do simple assignments, but with great hesitancy and misunderstanding. In addition, they also read and wrote with great difficulty so that they were included as low level learners.

Moreover, based on the researcher‟s observation in the classroom, the students of VIII H class in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta were ignorant of the indirect written corrective feedback. When the researcher observed the English teacher of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta, the researcher found out that sometimes the teacher gave indirect written corrective feedback to the students‟ writing products by circling on the errors that the students made without giving the correct form of the errors. Even though the teacher

had ever circled the students‟ errors in their writing, the researcher realized that many students still got problem in their spelling accuracy as they did not know the correct form of the errors. Therefore, the researcher expected that the students‟ spelling accuracy could be improved through the use of direct written corrective feedback since it provides the students with the correct form of the erroneous part.

5

B.Research Problem

In relation to the background mentioned above, the problem is formulated as follows: To what extent does the use of direct written corrective feedback improve the eighth grade students‟ spelling accuracy in writing English?

C.Problem Limitation

This research focused only on improving the eighth grade students‟ spelling accuracy. This was limited for the VIII H class of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta 2015/2016 academic year.

D.Research Objective

Considering the formulation of the problem, the objective of this study was to assess to what extent the direct written corrective feedback improved the eighth grade

students‟ spelling accuracy in writing English.

E.Research Benefits

The researcher would like to contribute to the development of education through this study since this is educational research. There are some benefits intended to the researcher, the teacher, and also the students.

6

1. The researcher

The researcher can get the knowledge and experience on improving the

students‟ spelling accuracy. Besides, the researcher can find out whether the direct

written corrective feedback from teacher can improve students‟ spelling accuracy in

writing English and how far the use of it improves the students‟ spelling accuracy.

2. The teacher

The teacher can use the method to improve other students‟ spelling accuracy.

It is expected that the teacher can help the students to solve their problems by applying this teaching strategy.

3. The students

The students can improve their spelling accuracy. It is expected that the students can know and master the correct spelling of English words. The students can apply the knowledge for the next writing activities.

F.Definition of Terms

There are some terms used in this study. The researcher gives the explanation of each term, in order to avoid misinterpretation. Those terms are spelling accuracy and direct written corrective feedback. The explanations of those terms are stated in the following part.

7

1. Writing

Sokolik (2003) describes writing as the mental work which involves inventing ideas, thinking about how to express them, and organizing them into sentences and paragraphs that will be clear to readers. In this study, writing refers to an activity of

inventing students‟ ideas and organizing them into clear sentences and paragraphs.

2. Spelling Accuracy

According to Coulmas (1996), spelling is the conventions which determine how the graphemes of a writing system are used to write a language. In addition,

Graham and Miller (1979) define spelling as “the ability to recognize, recall, reproduce or obtain orally or in written form the correct sequence of letters in words”

(p. 2). In this study, it refers to the act of forming a word or words of English from individual letters present in an accepted standard order.

While Skehan (1996), as cited in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005), defines

accuracy as referring “to how well the target language is produced in relation to the

rule system of the target language.” In this study, the accuracy refers to produce Standard English which uses American spelling system since American English is

more commonly used in Indonesia‟s textbooks used by teachers than British English.

According to B.D. Smith (as cited in Dewi, 2014), communication media in Indonesia has positioned American English as the main variety of English. Therefore, the students were trained to be consistent to use one of the spelling systems, which was American spelling system.

8

3. Direct Written Corrective Feedback

In this study, the term written corrective feedback is as defined by Lightbown and Spada (1999) an indication to the learners that his or her use of the target language is incorrect. It is written information given to learners regarding a linguistic error they have made (Loewen, 2012; Sheen, 2007). The forms of giving written corrective feedback can be direct and indirect. Ellis (2009) stated that indirect written corrective feedback is a feedback written by the teacher that involves indicating that the student has made an error without actually correcting it. This can be done by

underlining the errors or using cursors to show omissions in the student‟s text or by

placing a cross in the margin next to the line containing the error. In effect, this involves deciding whether or not to show the precise location of the error. Meanwhile, direct written corrective feedback is a written feedback in which the teacher provides the student with the correct form of the error. Thus in this research, when the researcher mentions direct written corrective feedback, it means a technique to give written feedback by actually correcting the error made by the students.

4. Eighth Grade

Junior High School (SMP) is the first level of high school. The students entering Junior High School are those who have passed Elementary School (SD). Junior High School is divided into grades. There are seventh grade, eighth grade, and ninth grade. The eighth grade means the second grade in Junior High School. In this

9

research, the participants were 34 students from VIII H of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta in the 2015/2016 academic year, which consists of 17 boys and 17 girls.

10 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter, the researcher presents a discussion on some theories that underlie the topic of this research. This chapter is divided into two major parts which are theoretical description and theoretical framework. The theoretical description consists of review of related theories which are discussed in the research, while the theoretical framework discusses the implementation of the theories which are used to answer the research problem.

A.Theoretical Description

This part discusses theories about writing, spelling accuracy, direct written corrective feedback, and also classroom action research.

1. Writing

a. The Nature of Writing

Bell and Burnaby (1984; as cited in Nunan, 1989) explain that writing is an extremely complex cognitive activity that demands the writer to demonstrate control of a number of variables simultaneously; at the sentence level, include control of content, format, sentence structure, vocabulary, punctuation, spelling and letter formation; beyond the sentence, structure and also integrate information into cohesive and coherent paragraphs and texts. From this explanation it is obvious that the students must be able to organize their ideas, use correct punctuation and also well

11

spelling in order to write something well. Besides, they have to be able to arrange the writing into cohesive and coherent paragraph or text.

According to Sokolik (2003), writing can also be defined by series of contrast. It is both physical and mental activity that is aimed to express and impress. It means that writing is the physical activity of committing words or ideas into passage and also a mental work of inventing ideas, thinking about how to express and organize them into statements and paragraphs which enables the readers as the audience in understanding the ideas of the written work. Besides, writing is also both a process and product since the writers experience cyclical process of writing, which is by imagining, organizing, drafting, editing, reading and rereading. It means that in order to produce a good writing, the students have to experience the writing process itself. Next, the researcher will discuss about teaching writing.

b. Teaching Writing

In order to deliver a meaningful learning to the students, teacher needs to consider some principles in teaching writing. As stated by Sokolik (2003), there are

four principles of teaching writing. The principles are understanding students‟ reason

for writing, providing many opportunities for the students to write, making feedback

helpful and meaningful, and clarifying how the students‟ writing will be evaluated. The first principle is understanding students‟ reason for writing. It is about the

12

convey goals to the students so that the students can apply the writing skills that they learn.

The second principle is providing many opportunities for the students to write. Since writing is in part a physical activity, the teacher should give more practice for the students in the learning activities and the practice itself should provide different types of writing. By practicing more, the students can construct correct English words and also sentences.

The third principle is making feedback helpful and meaningful for the students. In writing, students need feedback from their teacher. Teacher should give clear feedback to the students in which the students understand the vocabulary or symbol that is used by the teacher. If it is necessary, teacher can discuss the feedback with the students in the class so that the students can see the errors on their writing. In this way, the students can learn from their mistakes and be more aware of making errors.

The last principle is clarifying how the students‟ writing will be evaluated. The teacher should give an evaluation which is clear for the students such as how important creativity or originality of ideas is; how important following a particular written format is; how important grammatical accuracy is; how important that the assignment include recently taught material is; and how important accuracy is in spelling and punctuation. Besides, the teacher needs to make a scoring rubric so that the students know what kind of aspects and requirements that will be assessed in writing. Next, it will discuss spelling accuracy in the next part.

13

2. Spelling Accuracy

According to Coulmas (1996, 477), spelling is the conventions which determine how the graphemes of a writing system are used to write a language. In

addition, Graham and Miller (1979) define spelling as “the ability to recognize, recall, reproduce or obtain orally or in written form the correct sequence of letters in words”

(p. 2). It refers to the act of forming a word or words from individual letters present in an accepted standard order. While Skehan (1996 b: 23) as cited in Ellis and

Barkhuizen (2005: 139) defines accuracy as referring “to how well the target

language is produced in relation to the rule system of the target language.” It refers to how correct learners' use of the language system is. According to Simon (2004), accurate spelling is part of the overall process of learning language. It enables writers to fluently express messages that are easily read and understood by others.

However, it is known that English spellings are difficult to learn for the second language learners. Bannatyne (1971) believes that the difficulty is due to the fact that the language of English consists of irregular relationships between phonemes and graphemes. It is also believed by Peters (1970; as cited in Graham & Miller, 1979) that what makes the English spelling system so complex is the fact that there are only 26 alphabets that represent 44 different sounds. For example, the phoneme /i/ can be spelled with graphemes ee, ea, ei, e, and i. Similarly, graphemes are also pronounced in different ways depending on their position within a word (e.g. gh is

pronounced as /f/ in „rough‟, /g/ in „ghetto‟, and is silent in „though‟). Thus from the

14

mastered. The reason most often given for spelling failure is the supposed irregularity of English orthography. In the next part, the researcher will discuss direct written corrective feedback.

3. Direct Written Corrective Feedback

a. Definition of Direct Written Corrective Feedback

According to Ferris (as cited in Bitchener & Knoch, 2009), direct written corrective feedback is the provision of the correct linguistic form or structure by the teacher to the student above the linguistic error. It is a form of written feedback in which teachers provide correct form by crossing out an unnecessary word, phrase or morpheme, inserting a missing word, phrase or morpheme, and writing the correct form or structure above or near to the erroneous form. Additional forms of direct feedback may include written meta-linguistic explanation such as the provision of rules and examples at the end of the students‟ script with a reference back to places in the text where the error has occurred.

As already noted, there is another type of written corrective feedback named indirect corrective feedback. This indirect corrective feedback is the one given by the teacher to indicate that an error exists but does not provide the correction. This takes

the form of underlining and use of cursors to show omissions in the student‟s text.

However, Ferris and Roberts (2001) suggest that direct written corrective feedback is probably better than indirect written corrective feedback with writers of low levels of

15

language proficiency since it provides the learners with explicit guidance about how to correct their errors.

b. Purposes of Written Corrective Feedback

Ahmed (2012) states that there are three main purposes of written corrective feedback. The first one is to enable students to revise their own writing. The second is to assist students to acquire correct English. Then, the third is to provide learners to correct errors. Besides, Freedman (1987) also believes that if students fail in well performance in writing, further feedback is necessary to help the students take correct actions about their writing in order to improve it and reach an acceptable level of performance. It is clear that written corrective feedback is used to provide students with explicit guidance about how to correct their errors and help the students to improve their accuracy in writing English.

c. Advantages of Direct Written Corrective Feedback

Bitchener and Knoch (2010) suggest that only direct corrective feedback provides the students with explicit information that is necessary for testing hypotheses about the target language. As while learning a second language, second language learners discover the target language by hypothesizing about it and testing their hypotheses. Meanwhile, errors made by the learners might indicate that the learners actively learn the target language, as they occur whenever a hypothesis tested by the learners does not work. It has also been suggested that there are several

16

intervening factors which determine the relative effectiveness of direct and indirect corrective feedback methodologies. Some researchers argue that indirect corrective feedback might be less beneficial to lower proficiency language learners because they lack the level of meta-linguistic awareness that is necessary to correct their errors (Ferris, 2004; Hyland & Hyland, 2006). The learners whose errors are corrected indirectly do not know whether their own hypothesized corrections are accurate or not.

Besides, Ferris (2010) explains that direct correction might be considered as the most advantageous approach since it provides the kind of efficient and explicit input necessary for acquisition. It is efficient since it enables learners to instantly internalize the correct form as provided by their teacher. However, there might be a disadvantage of direct correction in which it requires minimal processing on the part of the learner and thus, although it might help them to produce the correct form when they revise their writing, it may not contribute to long-term learning. Nevertheless, there is a study showing the effectiveness of direct written corrective feedback done by Chandler (2003), which reports that in a study with intermediate ESL college students, there were significant gains in writing accuracy for the students who received direct written corrective feedback over those who received indirect written corrective feedback after 10 weeks of treatment on five essays. The students preferred direct correction because it was the fastest and easiest way for them. It is also stated by Leki (1991) who found that her students preferred direct written corrective

17

feedback. Hence, based on the studies above, it can be concluded that the direct written corrective feedback is superior to indirect written corrective feedback.

B.Theoretical Framework

In this theoretical framework, the researcher tried to relate the theory to this research in order to answer the research question. As stated by Bell and Burnaby (1984; as cited in Nunan, 1989, p. 36) writing is an extremely complex cognitive activity that demands the writer to demonstrate control of a number of variables simultaneously; at the sentence level, including control of content, format, sentence structure, vocabulary, punctuation, spelling and letter formation; beyond the sentence, structure and also integrate information into cohesive and coherent paragraphs and texts. In order to write something well, the students must be able to organize their ideas, use correct punctuation and also well spelling. Thus since writing needs to demonstrate control of variables, it is important for the students to learn to write.

In teaching writing, the researcher chose four principles of teaching writing as

stated by Sokolik (2003). The principles are understanding students‟ reason for

writing, providing many opportunities for the students to write, making feedback

helpful and meaningful, and clarifying how the students‟ writing will be evaluated. The researcher applied these principles to design the learning material and also the learning activity for the students.

The VIII H students of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta had difficulties in writing English. They misspelled many English words in their writing. It is believed by

18

Bannatyne (1971) that the difficulty is due to the fact that the language of English consists of irregular relationships between phonemes and graphemes. This theory was used by the researcher for analyzing the data. The researcher offered giving direct written corrective feedback in order to overcome this problem. As suggested by Ferris and Roberts (2001, as cited in Ellis, 2009), direct written corrective feedback is probably better than indirect written corrective feedback with writers of low levels of language proficiency since it provides the learners with explicit guidance about how to correct their errors.

The spelling accuracy of the students would improve because according to Ahmed (2012) there are three main purpose of written corrective feedback. The first one is to enable students to revise their own writing. The second is to assist students to acquire correct English. Then, the third is to provide learners to correct errors. Therefore, the researcher used direct written corrective feedback to improve their spelling accuracy since it also has many advantages. As stated by Ferris (2010), direct correction might be considered as the most advantageous approach since it provides the kind of efficient and explicit input necessary for acquisition. The researcher also used those theories to design the questionnaire and the questions for the focus group.

19

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researcher would like to present the methodology employed in this study in order to answer the research questions as mentioned in Chapter I. This chapter covers research method, research setting and participants, research instruments, data gathering technique, data analysis techniques, and research procedure.

A.Research Method

The study employed Classroom Action Research (CAR) as the method. This method was used in order to answer the research problem which was to what extent the direct written corrective feedback improved the eighth grade students‟ spelling accuracy.

According to Mills (2007) “action research is any systematic inquiry

conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school counselors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment to gather information about how their particular schools operate, how they teach, and how well their students learn. Action research is

done by teachers for themselves; it is not imposed on them by someone else” (p. 5). It

means that action research is a research which is done by gathering and analyzing the data in order to solve the problem in the environment of teaching and learning.

20

McDonough (1997) proposes four characteristics of „pure‟ action research. First, it is participant-driven and reflective. Second, it is collaborative. Third, it leads to change and the improvement of practice not just knowledge in itself. Fourth, it is context-specific. Hence, it means that an action research is implemented in a specific classroom by a particular teacher or group of teachers who work together and in collaboration with the students to pursue a change or improvement in their teaching and learning issues.

Action research also defined by Kemmis and McTaggart (1998) as a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out. It involves four broad phases in a cycle of research. They are planning, action, observation, and reflection as presented as follows.

Figure 3.1 The Planning-Reflection Cycle (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1998)

21

1. Planning

The researcher found the problem when she did Internship Program (Program Pengalaman Lapangan) in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta. Then, in order to make sure the problem which was faced by the students, the researcher did preliminary study. After

knowing the students‟ problems, the researcher started making plan. The plan was giving written corrective feedback on students‟ drafts. The researcher planned to give

feedback in order to remind and correct students‟ errors in spelling accuracy.

2. Action

The researcher applied and implemented the strategy in order to overcome the problem. She gave writing assignment to the students. Then, the researcher asked the students to submit their works and checked them at home. The researcher gave feedback by indicating the errors in their spelling accuracy, but did not provide the correction. In the next meeting, the researcher gave the works which had been given feedbacks back to the students and they were asked to revise their works.

3. Observation

While doing the action, the researcher also did the observation. She observed the effects of the action that was done by the researcher. When the students wrote the assignment, she also observed the class situation during the implementation by using field notes.

22

4. Reflection

The researcher analyzed the data in this step. She did it by examining the students‟ works one by one in order to know the students‟ errors in the spelling accuracy. After that, the researcher tried to reflect whether the implementation worked well or not. Then, the researcher made the next plan and prepared the next action for the next cycle.

B.Research Setting

The research was conducted in VIII H class of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta from January-February 2016. The researcher gave the material based on Kompetensi Dasar (basic competence) that the students would achieve. In addition, the researcher

focused on the students‟ spelling accuracy in their writing to be analyzed.

C.Research Participants

The students of VIII H class of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta in the academic year of 2015/2016 are the participants of the research. There were 34 students in the classroom; 17 of them were girls and also 17 of them were boys. Most of them had a problem in writing, especially in the spelling accuracy. As it has been mentioned in the research objective, the researcher intended to improve the eighth grade students‟ spelling accuracy.

23

D.Instruments and Data Gathering Technique 1. Research Instruments

The data of the research were obtained through three kinds of instruments. Those instruments were student‟s drafts, field note, and questionnaire.

a. Students‟ drafts

Students‟ drafts were the main sources of the data. The researcher analyzed the data by examining the work of the students one by one. Then, the researcher

counted the spelling errors and gave written feedback on the students‟ work by

correcting the errors directly. b. Field Note

Field note was used to help the researcher to remember and record the

students‟ behaviors, activities, and the situation in the classroom in details when the implementation of direct written corrective feedback was conducted. The researcher jotted down a few words or short sentences that could help her recall something that happened in the classroom.

c. Questionnaire

In gathering the data, the researcher also used questionnaire in order to know

the students‟ opinions about the implementation of direct written corrective feedback. The questions of the questionnaire were in the form of closed-ended questions and open-ended questions. The researcher used theories by Ahmed (2012) and Ferris (2010) which had been discussed in the Chapter II as the guidance to design and

24

develop the questions for the questionnaire. Through the questionnaire the researcher could collect the information whether direct written corrective feedback helped the students or not in improving their spelling accuracy in writing.

2. Data Gathering Technique

It has been mentioned previously that the data were obtained through some

instruments, such as students‟ drafts, field note, and questionnaire. The first one was the data which was collected through the students‟ draft in every cycle. The data was obtained by evaluating the writing products of the students from preliminary study until the second cycle at home. The researcher counted the students‟ errors in spelling accuracy and also the total of words written by the students and made it in a percentage form in order to figure out whether direct written corrective feedback

could improve the students‟ spelling accuracy in writing or not.

Then, the second instrument was field note. The field note described the real situation when the method was implemented. In every cycle, the researcher made a teaching procedure and gave notes to it at the same time while the researcher was teaching and observing the students. At home, the researcher made it in the form of description to make it clearer. From this instrument, the researcher could identify the behavior of the students and figure out what happened in the teaching learning process during the implementation.

The next instrument was questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to the students in the end of the first cycle after the researcher finished teaching. The

25

researcher gave the questionnaire in the first cycle in order to know the students‟

feelings, opinion or suggestions about the implementation of direct written corrective feedback so that the researcher could also make a better action for the next cycle. In order to avoid misunderstanding in every statement written in the questionnaire, the students completed the questionnaire together with the researcher‟s explanation on each number. The researcher then analyzed the result of the questionnaire at home and calculated it into a percentage form.

Besides students‟ drafts, field note, and questionnaire, the researcher also gathered data from focus group. There were eight students who were chosen randomly as the participants. The focus group was held outside the class after the implementation of direct written corrective feedback. This was done in the end of the second cycle. In the focus group, the researcher asked some questions to the chosen students and discussed about the implementation of direct written corrective feedback. The discussion was recorded by the researcher then she wrote the transcript of the focus group and analyzed it at home. From the focus group, the researcher

could get deeper information about the students‟ feelings and opinions on the implementation of direct written corrective feedback so that the researcher could know whether direct written corrective feedback helped the students in improving their spelling accuracy in writing or not.

26

E.Data Analysis Technique

The researcher analyzed the data based on the result of the students‟ writing

products, the transcript of the field note and its description, the questionnaire sheets, and also the transcript of the focus group in order to know the improvement that the students achieved and whether the research was successful or not.

In this research, the analysis was done by using Miles and Huberman‟s interactive model of analysis (1984) which states that qualitative data analysis consists of three concurrent flows of activity; data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification.

Figure 3.2 Interactive Model of Analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1984)

First, the researcher organized and reduced or reconfigured the mass of data. It refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data that appear in written up field notes, the questionnaire and the

27

transcription of the focus group. Second, the researcher displayed the data by providing an organized, compressed assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing. Then, the researcher drew conclusion by stepping back to consider what the analyzed data mean and to assess their implications for the research question.

In analyzing the data from the students writing products, the researcher

counted the students‟ errors of spelling accuracy in each word and the total of words written by the students. Then, the researcher calculated it into a percentage form. The total of the errors was divided by the total of words written by the students and the result was multiplied by 100%.

Then, in analyzing the researcher‟s field note, the researcher made it in the form of description at home to make it clearer as she had written anything that happened in the class during the implementation. It was useful for the researcher because the researcher could remember what had happened and identify the behavior of the students and also figure out what had happened in the teaching learning process during the implementation.

In order to know further about the students‟ perceptions and opinions about

the use of direct written corrective feedback, the researcher also used questionnaire and focus groups. For the questionnaire, the researcher counted the result and presented it in a percentage form. The researcher calculated the result by dividing the total of choosen answers and the total of the answers in each statement then multiplying it by 100%. The students‟ answers of open-ended questions were also coded to fit the categories that were classified by the researcher.

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 byinterpreting 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

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

31 CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Chapter four presents the data presentation and discussion of each cycle, the elaboration of the results from the data and other findings in order to answer the

research problem of this research. They were taken from students‟ draft analysis, teacher‟s field note, questionnaire analysis, and also focus group analysis.

In this study, the research problem that would like to be answered by the researcher is to what extent the use of direct written corrective feedback improved the

eighth grade students‟ spelling accuracy. In order to answer this research problem, the researcher provided the improvement of the students‟ spelling accuracy in a percentage form. Besides that, the researcher also presented the improvement by

showing the analysis of the students‟ behavior during the implementation based on

the purposes of the written corrective feedback. The description of the data presentation and discussion of each cycle, the elaboration of the results from the data and other findings would be explained as follows.

A. Data Presentation and Discussion on the Preliminary Study

The preliminary study was done by the researcher on January 19, 2016 in VIII-H class SMPN 15 Yogyakarta. The researcher conducted the preliminary study in order to make sure the problem which was faced by the students. There were 32

32

students who joined the class since two students were sick and did not come to school. The researcher taught them as a teacher. While the researcher was teaching, the researcher also observed the students and made a field note about anything that was happened during the preliminary study. Based on the field note, the students were so active during the preliminary study. Most of them asked the researcher about anything that was presented in the slide of PowerPoint. The teaching material was about a descriptive text. The researcher explained to the students about the way how to describe a person into a text. The students paid attention to the researcher and many of them were excited to read aloud some examples of a descriptive text about someone given by the researcher. While the students read the descriptive text aloud, the researcher listened to them then helped them to correct the pronunciation by drilling the words.

In the preliminary study, the researcher asked the students to write a description about a girl that they wanted to describe. However, there was no limit in writing the words so that the students could explore their creativity in writing the description. When the students were writing, many of them asked the researcher about the correct spelling of the words that they wanted to write. In the field note, the researcher wrote:

“Most of the students asked about the English translation of some words in Bahasa Indonesia such as „hidung pesek‟ (flat nose), „rambut bergelombang‟ (wavy hair), and „mata sipit‟ (slanted eyes). They also asked, “Miss, tulisannya yang benar gimana miss?” (“How is the correct spelling, miss?”). When I spelled the words by

33

using English alphabets, they said “Pakai bahasa Indonesia aja miss ngejanya.”

(“Please spell in Indonesian, miss.”). (The field note of the preliminary study, see appendix 3)

This showed that the students had low level of language proficiency since they could not remember the alphabet in English. Perhaps, this could be the reason why they did not know the correct spelling of certain words.

Then, when the students had finished writing the description, the students‟

writing products were submitted to the researcher in the end of the class. After that,

the researcher analyzed the students‟ writing products at home. The researcher

checked the students‟ writing products by giving direct written corrective feedback. The researcher crossed the misspelled words that were made by the students and gave

corrections below or above the misspelled words. The students‟ writing products that

have been given direct written corrective feedback by the researcher were returned to the students in the next cycle.

After giving corrections to the students‟ drafts, the researcher counted the

total of words that were written by the students and also the total of misspelled words that were made by the students in their writing products. The percentage of error in

the students‟ writing drafts was calculated by using the formula below:

Note: X = The error percentage of the misspelled words

34

Z = The number of words that were written by the students

The result of the students‟ writing products in the preliminary study was

shown in the appendix. It could be seen from the table 4.2 in the appendix 14 that all of the students made errors in their spelling accuracy. However, the total of words that were written by each student varied from 25 to 41. Since the students wrote different number of words, the researcher divided the number of errors and the number of words then multiplied the result by 100% in order to make the percentage of errors. From the result of the students‟ writing products that could be seen in the appendix 14, the average of the students‟ errors in the spelling accuracy was 38,5 %.

In the appendix 10, the researcher provided the sample of students‟ writing

products in the preliminary study and below are the examples of the students‟ sentence in their writing products that contained errors in spelling.

1. I have one yanger sister. (Student 21) 2. She has siort wifi broun hare. (Student 31) 3. Shi hes brown skin. (Student 12)

4. She hes flad nous. (Student 16) 5. Sis tol. (Student 6)

6. Evrywan like her bikaus she is frendly. (Student 15)

It could be seen from the examples of students‟ sentences above that many

students had problem in their writing, especially in their spelling accuracy. Some students might also have problem in their grammar, but the most common problem

35

which happened to all of the students was spelling. Other examples of the students‟

errors in their spelling accuracy that were found by the researcher in the students writing products would be presented as follows.

Table 4.1 The Examples of Students’ Errors in the Preliminary Study No. Correct Spelling

[in American English]

Erroneous Spelling written by the students

1. Wavy waifi (student 5)

wefy (student 15)

wifi (student 13, 17, 18, 31) weavy (student 11, 19) weave (student 1, 26)

2. Has hes (student 12, 17)

3. Hair her (student 21)

hare (student 15, 31)

4. Friendly frenly (student 21)

frendly (student 12, 15, 17, 19, 20) frendle (student 16)

franlly (student 29) freindly (student 5)

36

6. Tall tol (student 6,13)

7. Younger yanger (student 21)

youngger (student 3, 20)

8. Flat fled (student 17)

flad (student 2, 15, 16) fleit (student 21) fleat (student 31)

9. Nose nous (student 15, 16)

noos (student 21)

nouse (student 23, 25, 31)

10. Because bikaus (student 15)

becaus (student 13) bicause (student 6, 17) bicaush (student 31) bekos (student 18)

It could be seen from the examples above that each student could write different incorrect spelling for the same words. In the first example, the students

wrote the word „wavy‟ into many incorrect spelling such as ‘wifi’, wefy’, ‘waifi’, ‘weavy’, and ‘weave’. These errors could make a different meaning or no meaning in

37

English. This also happened to the example number 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 with different words.

Then, they also wrote the spelling of the word as what they pronounce the word. In the first example, two students wrote the word ‘hes’ instead of „has‟. They

wrote it since they pronounce the word „has‟ into [hes] instead of [hæz]. This

happened because the vowel sound of / æ / is unknown in Bahasa Indonesia. As said by Pallawa (2013), this phoneme / æ / is almost the same as [e] where the mouth is slender more open than for / e / where the quality of the phoneme / æ / is close to

cardinal vowel / ɛ / than to cardinal [a] that equals to [ɛ]. That is why the students

pronounce the / æ / sound into / e / and wrote the spelling equals to what they pronounce. It also happened to the other examples where the students wrote the spelling of the word equals to what they pronounce the word such as in the word

„wavy‟ into ‘waifi’, „hair‟ into ‘her’, „friendly‟ into ‘frenly’, „short‟ ínto ‘siort’, „tall‟ into ‘tol’, „younger‟ into ‘yanger’, „flat‟ into ‘fled’, „nose‟ into ‘nous’, and also

„because‟ into ‘bikaus’.

As noted by Kumar (2013), the difference in pronunciation of words is also a cause of spelling errors. As spelling is known to have influence on learners‟ pronunciation, pronunciation can also similarly affect the way learners spell words.

The effect is more likely in the context where learners don‟t look up the spelling of

38

The given examples show that the students really had problem in their spelling accuracy. This problem was still the same problem which the students faced when the researcher did the Internship Program (Program Pengalaman Lapangan). When the researcher observed the English teacher of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta, the researcher found out that sometimes the teacher gave indirect written corrective feedback to the students by circling on the errors that the students made without giving the correct form of the errors. Thus, many students still got problem in their spelling accuracy as they did not know the correct form of the errors.

B. Data Presentation and Discussion on the First Cycle

The researcher conducted the first cycle on January 22, 2016. At first, there were 27 students who participated in this cycle since 5 students attended a meeting

related to the school‟s scout activity and 2 of them were still sick. However, the researcher then gave the 5 students who attended the meeting an assignment which was similar to the other students who came to the class after the meeting had finished. The researcher also waited for them while they were doing the assignment. In the first

cycle, the researcher employed the teacher‟s direct written corrective feedback to

improve the students‟ spelling accuracy in their writing. There were four steps in this

cycle. They were planning, action, observation, and reflection. Those steps would be discussed as follows.

39

a. Planning

In this step, the researcher started to make a plan after knowing the results of

the students‟ writing products. From their writing it could be seen that the students‟

problem in writing was about spelling accuracy. In addition, some of them also made grammatical errors. After the researcher knew the problem that was faced by the

students, the researcher planned to focus on improving the students‟ spelling accuracy

first in their writing products.

In helping the students to improve their spelling accuracy, the researcher chose direct written corrective feedback as the strategy. It was chosen because direct written corrective feedback is probably better than indirect written corrective feedback with writers of low levels of language proficiency as suggested by Ferris and Roberts (2001). Moreover, based on the researcher‟s observation on the English teacher of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta when she did Internship Program (Program Pengalaman Lapangan), the researcher found out that sometimes the teacher gave indirect written corrective feedback to the students by only circling on the errors that the students made without giving the correct form of the errors. This kind of strategy did not really succeed in helping the students to write better. As the results, the students still got problem, especially in their spelling accuracy since they did not know the correct form of the errors. Therefore, the researcher intended to improve the

students‟ spelling accuracy by giving direct written corrective feedback to the

40

somewhere close to the error so that the students could know not only their errors in writing but also the correct form of their errors.

After several months of the Internship Program, the researcher started to do the research by doing the preliminary study first in order to make sure the problem that was faced by the students. Then, the researcher conducted the first cycle. In this cycle, the researcher returned the students‟ writing products which had been given direct written corrective feedback by the researcher. Then, the researcher asked the

students to revise the errors by looking at the researcher‟s correction. This was done in order to make the students notice their errors and remember the correct form of the errors as they change their errors into the correct form of the errors. Moreover, the researcher expected that the students could be more aware of their mistakes and did not do it again.

For the main activity, the researcher asked the students to make a new

descriptive text about one of their classmates without mentioning the person‟s name

based on the given instruction and they had to do it in 50 minutes then submitted it to the researcher. After submitting their writing products, the researcher asked five students voluntarily as the representatives to read the descriptions in front of the

classroom. Then, the other students guessed who the person‟s name is. In this cycle, the researcher also provided teaching procedure and field notes in order to help her to write anything that happened during the implementation of the research. The researcher also prepared digital camera for documentation while doing the research.

41

b. Action

The first cycle was conducted on January 22, 2016. There were 27 students as the participants. There were 5 students who did not join the class since they had to

attend a meeting related to the school‟s scout activity and 2 of them were still sick. The time allocation was 80 minutes. In the beginning of the class, the researcher

prepared teaching procedures, questionnaires, students‟ worksheets, students‟ writing

products that had been given direct written corrective feedback by the researcher, and also the media which was PowerPoint to remind the students about the generic structure of descriptive text. After that, the researcher greeted the students then checked the attendance list and at the same time the researcher distributed the students‟ writing products that had been given direct written corrective feedback by the researcher.

After that, the researcher wrote some incorrect words on the whiteboard that

were actually taken from the students‟ example of errors in their writing products of

the preliminary study such as „weavi, bunny, frenly, and helpfull‟ for the warming up. The researcher did this kind of warming up for the purpose of helping the students to be aware of inaccurate spelling. After warming up, the researcher asked the students

to look at the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback in their writing products

again. Since the concern of this research was about spelling accuracy, the researcher

more focused on checking the students‟ spelling in writing English. Then, the

42

researcher had given the correction, this was done in order to make the students notice their errors and remember the correct form of the errors as they change their errors into the correct form of the errors.

After reading the researcher‟s direct written corrective feedback and revising their errors, the students were asked by the researcher about the generic structure of descriptive text in order to remind the students about descriptive text. Next, they were asked to write a new descriptive text about one of their classmates by the researcher with an expectation that the students would make better writing products. Thus the

researcher distributed the students‟ worksheet that had been prepared by the

researcher and asked the students to think about one of their classmates that they wanted to describe.

After the students got the worksheet, the researcher asked them to read aloud

the instruction together in which they should not mention their classmate‟s name in

their writing so that they could guess who the person was in the end of the class. The researcher gave 50 minutes for the students to write the descriptive text. After the students had finished writing, the researcher asked them to submit their writing products. Then, the researcher asked five students voluntarily as the representatives to read the descriptions in front of the classroom and the other students guessed who the

person‟s name is. In the end, the students were asked to complete a questionnaire by the researcher.

134

Appendix 14

The Result of Students’ Writing Products in the Preliminary Study

No. Student Number of words Number of errors Percentage of

errors

1. Student 1 34 11 32,4 %

2. Student 2 39 20 51,2 %

3. Student 3 36 6 16,7 %

4. Student 4 34 9 26,5 %

5. Student 5 36 10 27,8 %

6. Student 6 31 16 51,6 %

7. Student 7

8. Student 8 41 15 36,6 %

9. Student 9 37 9 24,3 %

10. Student 10 29 20 69 %

11. Student 11 35 14 40 %

12. Student 12 30 19 63,3 %

13. Student 13 31 8 25,8 %

14. Student 14 35 8 22,9 %

15. Student 15 36 12 33,3 %

16. Student 16 32 23 71,9 %

17. Student 17 34 11 32,4 %

18. Student 18 33 14 42,4 %

19. Student 19 35 10 28,6 %

20. Student 20 37 10 27 %

21. Student 21 34 24 70,6 %

22. Student 22 35 13 37,1 %

23. Student 23 36 15 41,6 %

24. Student 24 35 13 37,1 %

25. Student 25 33 16 48,5 %

26. Student 26 25 5 20 %

27. Student 27

28. Student 28 34 11 32,4 %

29. Student 29 33 6 18,2 %

30. Student 30 39 15 38,5 %

31. Student 31 31 18 58,1 %

32. Student 32 40 13 32,5 %

33. Student 33 36 10 27,8 %

34. Student 34 35 16 45,7 %

Total 1231,8 %

The Result of Students’ Writing Products in the First Cycle

No. Student Number of words Number of errors Percentage of

errors

1. Student 1 35 6 17,1 %

2. Student 2 42 8 19 %

3. Student 3 58 5 8,6 %

4. Student 4 42 4 9,5 %

5. Student 5 45 5 11,1 %

6. Student 6 28 3 10,7 %

7. Student 7

8. Student 8 69 5 7,2 %

9. Student 9 56 3 5,4 %

10. Student 10 34 5 14,7 %

11. Student 11 40 6 15 %

12. Student 12 31 4 12,9 %

13. Student 13 51 3 5,9 %

14. Student 14 50 4 8 %

15. Student 15 79 5 6,3 %

16. Student 16 43 3 7 %

17. Student 17 39 4 10,2 %

18. Student 18 29 4 13,8 %

19. Student 19 54 5 9,3 %

20. Student 20 37 7 18,9 %

21. Student 21 65 5 7,7 %

22. Student 22 68 3 4,4 %

23. Student 23 70 4 5,7 %

24. Student 24 36 5 13,9 %

25. Student 25 34 2 5,9 %

26. Student 26 33 3 9,1 %

27. Student 27

28. Student 28 30 5 16,7 %

29. Student 29 71 3 4,2 %

30. Student 30 83 6 7,2 %

31. Student 31 49 4 8,2 %

32. Student 32 105 5 4,8 %

33. Student 33 38 8 21,1 %

34. Student 34 80 6 7,5 %

Total 327 %

The Result of Students’ Writing Products in the Second Cycle

No. Student Number of words Number of errors Percentage of

errors

1. Student 1 42 1 2,4 %

2. Student 2 51 2 3,9 %

3. Student 3 70 3 4,3 %

4. Student 4 62 1 1,6 %

5. Student 5 69 2 2,9 %

6. Student 6 76 2 2,6 %

7. Student 7 43 3 7 %

8. Student 8 98 4 4,1 %

9. Student 9 57 1 1,8 %

10. Student 10 48 4 8,3 %

11. Student 11 47 0 0 %

12. Student 12 57 1 1,8 %

13. Student 13 56 1 1,8 %

14. Student 14 89 1 1,1 %

15. Student 15 73 1 1,4 %

16. Student 16 50 1 2 %

17. Student 17 44 4 9,1 %

18. Student 18 36 2 5,6 %

19. Student 19 62 1 1,6 %

20. Student 20 94 2 2,1 %

21. Student 21 67 3 4,5 %

22. Student 22

23. Student 23 95 5 5,3 %

24. Student 24 77 1 1,3 %

25. Student 25 51 2 3,9 %

26. Student 26 81 2 2,5 %

27. Student 27 51 2 3,8 %

28. Student 28 45 2 4,4 %

29. Student 29 75 1 1,3 %

30. Student 30 80 1 1,3 %

31. Student 31 43 2 4,7 %

32. Student 32 102 1 1 %

33. Student 33 56 3 5,4 %

34. Student 34 91 1 1,1 %

Total 105,9 %

The Students’ Improvement Based on the Result of Writing Products

No. Student Percentage of

Errors in Preliminary

Study

Percentage of Errors in First Cycle

Percentage of Errors in

Second Cycle

Note

1. Student 1 32,4 % 17,1 % 2,4 % Succeeded

2. Student 2 51,2 % 19 % 3,9 % Succeeded

3. Student 3 16,7 % 8,6 % 1,4 % Succeeded

4. Student 4 26,5 % 9,5 % 1,6 % Succeeded

5. Student 5 27,8 % 11,1 % 2,9 % Succeeded

6. Student 6 51,6 % 10,7 % 2,6 % Succeeded

7. Student 7 7 %

8. Student 8 36,6 % 7,2 % 4,1 % Succeeded

9. Student 9 24,3 % 5,4 % 1,8 % Succeeded

10. Student 10 69 % 14,7 % 8,3 % Succeeded

11. Student 11 40 % 15 % 0 % Succeeded

12. Student 12 63,3 % 12,9 % 1,8 % Succeeded

13. Student 13 25,8 % 5,9 % 1,8 % Succeeded

14. Student 14 22,9 % 8 % 1,1 % Succeeded

15. Student 15 71,9 % 6,3 % 4,3 % Succeeded

16. Student 16 33,3 % 7 % 2 % Succeeded

17. Student 17 32,4 % 10,2 % 9,1 % Succeeded

18. Student 18 42,4 % 13,8 % 5,6 % Succeeded

19. Student 19 28,6 % 9,3 % 1,6 % Succeeded

20. Student 20 27 % 18,9 % 2,1 % Succeeded

21. Student 21 70,6 % 7,7 % 4,5 % Succeeded

22. Student 22 37,1 % 4,4 %

23. Student 23 41,6 % 5,7 % 5,3 % Succeeded

24. Student 24 37,1 % 13,9 % 1,3 % Succeeded

25. Student 25 48,5 % 5,9 % 3,9 % Succeeded

26. Student 26 20 % 9,1 % 2,5 % Succeeded

27. Student 27 3,8 %

28. Student 28 32,4 % 16,7 % 4,4 % Succeeded

29. Student 29 18,2 % 4,2 % 1,3 % Succeeded

30. Student 30 38,5 % 7,2 % 1,3 % Succeeded

31. Student 31 58,1 % 8,2 % 4,7 % Succeeded

32. Student 32 32,5 % 4,8 % 1 % Succeeded

33. Student 33 27,8 % 21,1 % 5,4 % Succeeded

34. Student 34 45,7 % 7,5 % 1,1 % Succeeded