AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

Gratis

0
0
124
2 days ago
Preview
Full text
PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education By Yustian Pristantyo Student Number: 081214068 ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2013 PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education By Yustian Pristantyo Student Number: 081214068 ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2013 i PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS By Yustian Pristantyo Student Number: 081214068 Approved by Advisor Date July 30th, 2013 Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. ii PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on AN ERROR ANALYSIS ON SMP PANGUDI LUHUR YOGYAKARTA SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE WRITING By Yustian Pristantyo Student Number: 081214068 Defended before the Board of Examiners on August 15th, 2013 and Declared Acceptable Board of Examiners Chairperson : Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. ____________ Secretary : Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D. ____________ Member : Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. ____________ Member : Drs. Pius Nurwidasa Prihatin, M.Ed., Ed.D.____________ Member : Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd. ____________ Yogyakarta, August 15th, 2013 Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sanata Dharma University Dean, Rohandi, Ph.D. iii PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 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, August 15th, 2013 The Writer Yustian Pristantyo 081214068 iv PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS Yang bertandatangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Yustian Pristantyo Nomor Mahasiswa : 081214068 Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul: An Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta Seventh Grade Students’ Descriptive Texts beserta alat 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 royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis. Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta Pada tanggal: 15 Agustus 2013 Yang menyatakan Yustian Pristantyo v PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI ABSTRACT Pristantyo, Yustian. 2013. An Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta Seventh Grade Students’ Descriptive Texts. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University. Student’s writing ability is very important to sustain student’s achievement in English subject. Meanwhile, the students certainly make errors in their texts. The research utilized descriptive text to investigate students’ errors. This research also focused on the students’ errors in descriptive texts. This study discussed two problem formulations. The first one is SMP Pangudi Luhur seventh grade students’ errors in descriptive texts. The second one is possible causes of errors of SMP Pangudi Luhur seventh grade students. The researcher employed worksheets to gather the necessary data. The research instruments were 55 students’ worksheets. This research was an error analysis. To answer the first question, all students’ worksheets were examined in order to find sentences and words that contained errors. Afterward, the researcher classified the errors found in the students’ sentences to three main categories: syntax errors, morphological errors, and other findings. Each main category was also divided into some subcategories. The error categorization was based on Linguistic Category Taxonomy by Politzer and Ramirez as cited by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982). To answer the second question, the researcher finished examining and categorizing students’ errors and afterward, the researcher concluded the possible causes of errors from the result of students’ worksheets examination. There were five possible causes of errors based on Norrish’s (1983). Based on the result of this research, some conclusions were drawn. From the discussion on the first question, the researcher concluded that syntax errors are the students’ area of difficulty. Syntax errors (63.18%) had the highest percentage compared to morphological errors (19.81%) and other findings (17 %). Most of the found errors dealt with omission and addition. The possible causes of students’ errors were basic grammar understanding of the students, overgeneralization, students’ carelessness, incomplete application of rules, and first language interference. The suggestions for the teacher are to employ various techniques of teaching and to provide more exposure to grammar and English texts. The suggestions for the students are to grow students’ motivation and interest of English subject, to be aware of their English errors and to increases exposure of English texts. Keywords: errors, descriptive texts, error analysis, Linguistic Category Taxonomy. vi PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI ABSTRAK Pristantyo, Yustian. 2013. An Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta Seventh Grade Students’ Descriptive Texts. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma. Keahlian menulis siswa sangatlah penting dalam mempertahankan prestasi siswa dalam mata pelajaran bahasa Inggris. Sementara itu, para siswa pastilah membuat kekeliruan dalam karangan mereka. Penelitian ini terpusat pada kekeliruan-kekeliruan siswa dalam karangan deskriptif. Penelitian ini membahas dua rumusan masalah. Rumusan masalah yang pertama adalah kekeliruan siswa kelas tujuh SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta dalam teks deskriptif. Rumusan masalah yang kedua adalah penyebab-penyebab dari kekeliruan siswa yang mungkin. Peneliti menggunakan kertas kerja siswa. Instrumen penelitian yang digunakan berjumlah 55 kertas kerja siswa. Penelitian ini adalah analisa kekeliruan. Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah pertama, kertas kerja siswa yang terkumpul diperiksa untuk mencari kalimat-kalimat dan kata-kata yang keliru. Setelah itu, peneliti mengelompokkan kekeliruan yang ditemukan dalam tiga kategori utama: kekeliruan sintaks, kekeliruan morfologis, dan temuan lain. Pengelompokan kekeliruan ini berdasar dari Linguistic Category Taxonomy oleh Dulay, Burt dan Krashen (1982). Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah kedua, peneliti menyelesaikan pemeriksaan dan pengelompokan kekeliruan siswa dan setelah itu, peneliti menyimpulkan penyebab-penyebab kekeliruan dari pemeriksaan pekerjaan siswa. Terdapat lima penyebab kekeliruan siswa yang didasarkan pada pernyataan John Norrish (1983). Berdasarkan hasil dari penelitian ini, peneliti membuat beberapa kesimpulan. Dari pembahasan rumusan masalah pertama, peneliti menyimpulkan bahwa kekeliruan sintaks merupakan kesulitan utama siswa. Kekeliruan sintaks (61,6%) mempunyai persentase tertinggi dibandingkan dengan kekeliruan morfologis (20,7%) dan temuan lain (16,3%). Mayoritas kekeliruan yang ada berhubungan dengan penambahan dan pengurangan. Penyebab kekeliruan siswa yang mungkin adalah pemahaman dasar siswa akan tata bahasa, generalisasi berlebihan, kelalaian siswa, penerapan tidak lengkap dari aturan yang ada, dan pengaruh bahasa ibu. Saran untuk guru yaitu untuk menggunakan beragam teknik pengajaran dan memberikan paparan yang lebih banyak akan tata bahasa dan teks-teks bahasa Inggris. Saran untuk siswa yaitu untuk menumbuhkan minat terhadap pelajaran bahasa Inggris, sadar akan kekeliruan yang dilakukan dan meningkatkan pemaparan akan teks-teks bahasa Inggris. Kata Kunci: kekeliruan , teks deskriptif, analisa kekeliruan, Linguistic Category Taxonomy. vii PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the enormous help given in finishing this research. I would like to thank Jesus Christ for His unconditional love and mercy that brought me into this big step of mine. I would not be able to finish this thesis without His blessings surrounding me every single day. The completion of this thesis was definitely because of the support and encouragement from advisor, lecturers, family and friends. I would like to deliver my sincere and deepest gratitude to my research advisor, Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. for his great patience in my ‘come back’, guidance, constructive feedbacks, suggestions, encouragement, motivation and support for me in finishing this thesis. My gratitude also goes to all PBI lecturers of Sanata Dharma University who have given me great knowledge to support me in future life. I also would like to thank the headmaster SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta, Bruder Valentinus Naryo FIC, M.Pd., for his warm welcome, approval and support to me in conducting this research and the English teacher of SMP Pangudi Luhur, Bondan Rachmat Subagya, S.Pd., who has given me chances and great help in conducting this research. I also would like to thank Bu Priscillia Linawati, S.Pd., M.Pd., Maria Ivona Purwa Susanti, S.Pd., Margareta Okta Paulina, S.Pd., and Realino Oscar Artana, S.Pd., for providing me helpful information of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta and supporting me to conduct this research. viii PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI My special gratitude goes to My Father (Late) Toesmono who has guided and inspired me from heaven since I entered college and my Mother Endang Setyowati for the great compassion and everlasting love given to me during my college life. I would like to thank my sister, Adisti Herliningtyas, S.S., for supporting and encouraging me in finishing this thesis. I also dedicate this thesis to my budhe, (Late) Toesnindarti, who could not see my graduation and had great patience supporting me from heaven. My special thanks go to Caroline Niken Hapsari, who has accompanied me through difficult times in finishing this thesis with her great love and patience. I thank her for supporting and reminding me to finish this thesis. I also would like to thank ‘Wuluh Squad’ (Ahsan, Brian, Dimas, Novianto and Dodi) and ‘Tutul Squad’ (Ahsan, Dendot, Didin, Monjali, Galih, Deni) for giving me great help and support to finish this thesis. My gratitude also goes to Christian, Sebastian, Mari, Bruder Makus, Sekar and Leo as my ‘Brothers and Sister in Arms’ of thesis struggle for sharing togetherness and help. The last is I would like to give thanks to all my friends of English Language Education Study Program (especially Class A,B and C of PBI Batch 2008), Rendezvous team, Bright Company ( Ratna, Ika, Tania, Yosua), Micro Teaching Lab Assistants (Seto, Boni, Nico, Paskalis, Adit, Andri), FKIP Dean officers (Mas Antok, mas Agus, Mbak Agnes, Endarto and Dhea), and ‘Power Rangers’ (Beni, Adhi Vrater, Yosua, Adam and Sherly) for the friendship, laughter and care. Yustian Pristantyo ix PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE ............................................................................................................i PAGE OF APPROVAL ......................................................................................... ii PAGE OF ACCEPTANCE ................................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ......................................................iv PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ......................................................... v ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................vi ABSTRAK .............................................................................................................. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ x LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ ..xii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xiii LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................xiv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 A. Research Background .................................................................. 1 B. Research Problems ...................................................................... 4 C. Problem Limitation ...................................................................... 4 D. Research Objectives .................................................................... 5 E. Research Benefits ........................................................................ 5 F. Definition of Terms ..................................................................... 7 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................... 12 A. Theoretical Description .................................................................. 12 1. Error Analysis ...................................................................... 12 2. Error and Mistakes............................................................... 16 3. Sources of Error ................................................................... 18 4. Causes of Errors................................................................... 19 5. Types of Errors .................................................................... 24 x PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 6. Error Taxonomy (Linguistic Category Taxonomy) ............. 28 7. Descriptive Texts ...................................................................... 29 B. Theoretical Framework ................................................................. 30 CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................ 33 A. Research Method ............................................................................. 33 B. Research Setting .............................................................................. 34 C. Research Participant ........................................................................ 34 D. Research Instrument ........................................................................ 37 E. Data Gathering Technique ............................................................. 38 F. Data Analysis Technique................................................................ 38 G. Research Procedure ......................................................................... 40 CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................... 43 A. Errors Made on Descriptive Texts by Seventh Grade Students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta ................................................. 43 B. Possible Causes of Errors Made on Descriptive Texts by Seventh Grade Students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta .. 72 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ........................................ 75 A. Conclusions ...................................................................................... 75 B. Suggestions ...................................................................................... 77 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 79 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 82 xi PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI LIST OF TABLES Figures Page 3.1 A Weighted Descriptive Texts Rubric adapted from Brown (2007) ............... 35 3.2. The Error Classification Table ........................................................................ 39 4.1. Syntax Errors and Frequency .......................................................................... 45 4.2. Morphological Errors and Frequency ............................................................. 46 4.3. Other Findings and Frequency ........................................................................ 46 4.4. Number of Errors in Use of Determiners ....................................................... 48 4.5. Number of Errors in Use of Prepositions ....................................................... 53 4.6. Number of Errors in Use of Pronouns ........................................................... 54 4.7. Number of Errors in Use of Verbs ................................................................. 57 4.8. Number of Errors in Subject-Verb Agreement .............................................. 60 4.9. Number of Errors in Use of Lexical Categories ............................................ 62 4.10. Number of Errors in Possessive Case .......................................................... 67 4.11. Number of Errors in Noun (Singular and Plural) .......................................... 68 4.12. Number of Errors in Use of Suffix .............................................................. 70 4.13. The Examples of Ortographic Errors ............................................................ 71 4.14. The Examples of Lexico-Semantic Errors .................................................... 71 xii PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Examples of Students’ Errors ................................................................................ 82 APPENDIX B Students’ Exercise of Descriptive Text and a Brief Summary of Descriptive text ..................................................................................................... .91 APPENDIX C Examples of Students’ Descriptive Text ................................................................ 97 APPENDIX D Letter of Permission ............................................................................................. 109 xiii PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In this chapter, the researcher will introduce the field and the background of his research. There are six parts in which the researcher presents the basic information of the research. Those are the research background, problem formulation, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits and definition of terms used in the research. A. Research Background Students‟ writing ability is very important toward the students‟ progress. Students‟ writing ability is also very important for the students themselves in their upcoming years. As the students learn writing, there must be an outcome of that process. The outcome could be students‟ improved writing skill, students‟ writing scores and also students‟ writing errors. Brooks (1960) as cited by Hendrickson (1981: 1) stated that errors have relationship with learning: “Like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is to be expected”. Based on Brooks‟ statement (1960), it is known errors are things that normally happen in every part of learning. Errors are also beneficial in learning process as supported by Corder (1973: 265) as cited by Hendrickson (1981: 3) as follows. “Errors provide feedback, they tell the teacher something about the effectiveness of his teaching materials and his teaching techniques, and show what parts of the syllabus he has been following have been inadequately learned or taught and need further attention. They enable him to decide whether he must devote more time to the item he has been working on.” 1 PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 2 This research was an Error Analysis and conducted based on one purpose. It was to identify the errors in SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts. This research was conducted because the researcher proposed to investigate the errors in SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts. The researcher decided to conduct this research because students‟ errors in writing are important to be investigated. Students‟ errors are disastrous for the students if they are not immediately taken care of. This research also helped the teacher to pinpoint parts of his teaching which still needs more emphasis in order to overcome the students‟ errors. This research also provided feedback in form of list of errors for the teacher as stated previously by Corder (1973). Zydatiss (1974), Lange (1977), and Lantolf (1977) as cited by Hendrickson (1981) stated that errors are signals that actual learning is taking place and errors can serve as indicators of progress and success. Therefore, this research also presented indicators of students‟ writing achievement in descriptive texts. In this research, the researcher had three regular seventh grade classes consisting of 43-44 students each class for this research. The reason why the researcher chose regular classes was that because the teacher wanted to seek out the students‟ progress in writing, especially descriptive texts. It was because descriptive text was taught in both semesters. In the odd semester, the students were taught about describing person‟s appearances and characteristics. Then, in the even semester, the students were taught about describing places. Moreover, the teacher also wanted the students to recall what they had learned about PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 3 descriptive text in the odd semester by using material enrichment before they learned about describing places. In this research, the researcher utilized descriptive text for identifying the occurred errors. The reason why the researcher chose descriptive text was because the students of seventh grade junior high school were required to be able to make a good composition of descriptive text. That statement is stated in Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) syllabus. Descriptive text is also one important kind of texts because through this kind of text, the students can use and explore their sensory details like smells, sound, sights, feeling, tastes, and textures to create vivid images in reader‟s mind as stated by Henry, D. J. (2008). Descriptive texts enable the students to explore their vocabulary and senses, especially in describing a person. The researcher provided four famous characters and the students were required to describe one of them. In this research, there were errors found on the students‟ descriptive texts. One of the errors which mostly occurred in these three regular classes was that the omission of articles. That problem was quite serious, because the students‟ understanding of using article would affect the students‟ writing result in their upcoming time. Besides the use of article, there were found many other errors that also were important to identify such as the use of preposition, the omission of suffix and any other else. Those errors are important and valuable; because identifying those errors could locate in which part the students were facing difficulties and the teacher could take some follow-up actions toward the students‟ PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 4 difficulties. The teacher could also make preventive actions towards those errors for his future students. The benefit of this research toward the teacher was that it could help the teacher locate the students‟ weaknesses and the teacher could revise and emphasize on which the students were facing difficulties. This research also assisted the students with lists of students‟ errors. Therefore, the students could know which part to be fixed in their writing. The students were expected to be aware of their errors occurred in their descriptive texts and prevent their errors in their upcoming time. B. Research Problem This research comes up with two problems. They are formulated as follows. 1. What are the errors made on descriptive texts by seventh grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta? 2. What are the possible causes of errors made on descriptive texts by seventh grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta? C. Problem Limitation This research is limited only in an Error Analysis on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts academic year 2012/2013. The researcher chose this type of research because errors in writing would give a disastrous impact if these problems were not immediately taken care of. The students needed to know their weaknesses in all part of English subject, in this PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 5 case, descriptive texts. They needed to know the errors they made because the errors would show their weaknesses on a particular section. Therefore, they can improve their writing based on the Error Analysis‟ result. Furthermore, the researcher would examine the results of the material enrichment (materi pengayaan) which has been given in order to elaborate what kinds or errors and how many errors which appeared in students‟ descriptive texts. This research would be beneficial for the teacher in order to improve students‟ skills in writing. It also could make the students be aware of their grammar ability and through this research; they were expected to improve their writing skill and grammar acquisition afterwards. D. Research Objective This research objective is to find out the answers of the questions stated in problem formulation as follows. 1. The errors made on descriptive texts by seventh grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta. 2. The possible causes of errors made on descriptive texts by seventh grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta E. Research Benefit This research was expected to be beneficial for the teacher, the researcher, and the students. PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 6 1. The teacher This research was conducted based on students‟ errors. The problem was about writing errors in students‟ descriptive texts. The teacher will get the benefit of this research through the research result. The teacher can emphasize more on some parts of descriptive texts, grammar, or writing which the students were facing difficulties in. According to Corder (1973), errors analysis could provide useful information about the teacher‟s technique effectiveness. Therefore, the teachers could improve their technique in teaching, especially for writing. Using this research‟ result, the teacher could locate the students‟ weaknesses in descriptive texts, writing and also grammar. Corder (1981: 10) also stated the benefit of Error Analysis as follows. “First to the teacher, in that they tell him, if he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and, consequently, what remains for him to learn”. Afterwards, the teacher could take some preventive actions toward the students‟ errors. 2. The Researcher This research was conducted by the researcher as a thesis to obtain Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. This research was also beneficial for the researcher, because this research enabled the researcher to elaborate more SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ errors through Error Analysis. The problem of this research was errors in students‟ descriptive texts. The researcher attempted to identify and analyze the errors found on SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 7 grade students‟ descriptive text. Corder (1981: 11) also stated the Error Analysis benefit for the researcher as follows. “They provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learnt or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language”. 3. The Students The seventh grade students of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta were expected to be able to improve their writing skill, in this case, descriptive text. Corder (1981: 11) stated the Error Analysis benefit for the students as follows. “They are indispensable to the learner himself, because we can regard the making of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn. It is a way the learner has of testing his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning. The making of errors then is a strategy employed both by children acquiring their mother tongue and by those learning a second language.” This research also helped the students recognize their errors in their descriptive texts. The students also can elaborate on their errors with the teacher‟s assistance: why the errors happened in their writing, how to overcome those errors and etc. The students could conduct peer-assessment in their classes assisted by the teacher. Therefore, the students could correct their errors and improve their writing skill in future time. Through this research, the students were expected to overcome their errors and produce improved descriptive texts in the upcoming time. F. Definitions of Terms In order to avoid misconception and misunderstanding, the researcher gives the specific terms. PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 8 1. Writing In this study, writing is a method of expressing ideas about any subject content; it appears in classrooms everywhere and, therefore, must be the concern of every teacher (Tiedt, 1989). Writing is one kind of productive skill in English language acquisition. Maggie (2003) defined writing as both a process and a product. In writing, there is a process to make a writing composition. The processes are stated chronologically: imagining- organizing- drafting- editingreading and proofreading. Writing has a process to follow in order to obtain the best result. Besides a process, writing is also a product. This is called similar to that fact because writing skill is a productive skill and as a result, writing has a result in form of a writing composition. The researcher tended to assume that writing is a product, because in this research, the research samples were the SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade students‟ descriptive texts. In this research, the researcher only examined 55 students‟ descriptive texts in order to identify the errors and provide feedback for the teacher. 2. Descriptive Text In this study, the term descriptive text is understood as a kind of text that enables SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta seventh grade to visualize a person with all appropriate senses and describe the person‟s personality. McMurrey (1983: 239) points out that description is a way to enable the reader to visualize a person, place or things with some appropriate senses included. In this study, descriptive PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 9 texts enabled the students to visualize famous characters they were interested in. Therefore, the students were expected to be able to explore more their writing compositions through their descriptive texts. Other definition of descriptive text by Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994) as cited by Mursyid (n.d.) is that descriptive text is a kind of text which has a purpose to give information. The context of this text is the description of particular thing, animal, person or others. The social function of descriptive text is to describe particular person, place or thing. Descriptive text also has its generic structure as stated by Hammond (1992) as cited by Mursyid (n.d.). There are two main parts of the generic structure: Identification and Description. In identification, the phenomenon to be described is identified and in description, the phenomenon is described by parts, qualities, characteristics and etc. In this research, the researcher descriptive text about people‟s appearance and character. According to Berg (2011), descriptive texts can indicate who is in the picture. Descriptive texts actually can provide better face labeling in describing person. Berg (2011) also stated that descriptive texts can indicate appearance characteristics. Descriptive texts can discover visual attributes. Through descriptive, SMP Pangudi Luhur seventh grade students were expected to be able describe a person in details. This describing person‟s appearance and character material had been taught in the odd semester of academic year 2012-2013. In the even semester, the researcher still attempted to conduct a research related to descriptive texts and Error Analysis as the teacher intended to check students‟ progress before going on describing places topic. PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 10 3. Error Analysis In this study, Error Analysis was proposed by the researcher as a way to investigate the errors occurred in students‟ descriptive texts of seventh grade of SMP Pangudi Luhur Yogyakarta. Crystal (2003: 165) as cited by Abed (2012) defined Error Analysis as “technique for identifying, classifying and systematically interpreting the unacceptable forms produced by someone learning a foreign language, using any of the principles and provided by linguistics”. In addition, Keshavarz (2012: 168) as cited by Abed (2012) defined Error Analysis as “a procedure used by both researchers and teachers which involves collecting samples of learner language, identifying errors, classifying them according to their nature and causes, and evaluating their seriousness”. This research is an Error Analysis. The researcher took students‟ worksheets as the object of his research. The researcher intended to search for the errors that occurred in the students‟ descriptive texts. Corder (1967) as cited by Ellis (1994: 78) stated the differences between mistakes and errors. He stated mistakes as “mistakes are akin to slips of the tongue”. He also stated errors are systematic and likely to happen repeatedly. Norrish (1983) definederrors. An error is when a learner has not learnt something and consistently „gets it wrong‟. Error Analysis also has its own benefits. Norrish (1983) stated that Error Analysis can give a picture of the type of difficulty learners are experiencing. The other benefits of errors analysis stated by Norrish (1983) are an Error Analysis can give useful information about a new class, an Error Analysis can indicate problems common to all and problems common to particular groups, and the teacher can PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 11 assess objectively how his teaching helps the students. The researcher implemented the steps of Error Analysis by Corder (1974) as cited by Ellis (1994) in this research. Those steps helped the researcher conduct this research. The researcher also added additional steps of Error Analysis by Gass and Selinker (2001) in order to obtain a reliable research result. PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES In this chapter, the researcher presents the related theories and literatures that underline the research field. The related literatures are discussed here as the basis of answering the research question. There are two parts presented in this chapter. They are the theoretical description and the theoretical framework. In the theoretical description, the researcher presents theories related to error analysis, error and mistakes, sources of errors, causes of errors, error taxonomy, types of errors, and descriptive text. In the theoretical framework, the researcher presents the steps of conducting an error analysis on students‟ descriptive texts. A. Theoretical Description In this part the researcher discusses some fundamental theories of this research. 1. Error Analysis Crystal (2003: 165) as cited by Abed (2012) defined error analysis as “technique for identifying, classifying and systematically interpreting the unacceptable forms produced by someone learning a foreign language, using any of the principles and provided by linguistics”. Keshavarz (2012: 168) as cited by Abed (2012) defined error analysis as “a procedure used by both researchers and teachers which involves collecting samples of learner language, identifying errors, classifying them according to their nature and causes, and evaluating their 12 PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 13 seriousness”. In error analysis, there are steps to follow. Corder(1974) as cited by Ellis (1994) stated the steps of errors analysis. They are presented as follows. a. Collection of a sample of learner language Ellis (1994: 49) stated that “the starting point in EA is deciding what samples of learner language to use for the analysis and how to collect these samples”. Ellis (1994) also stated that there are three kinds of samples‟ size. They are massive sample, specific sample, and incidental sample. Ellis (1994: 49) stated the differences of three kinds of samples‟ size as follows. “A massive sample involves collecting several samples of language use from a large number of learners in order to compile a comprehensive list of errors, representative of the entire population. A specific sample consists of one sample of language use collected from a limited number of learners, while an incidental sample involves only one sample of language use produced by a single learner.” Besides the matter of samples‟ size, Ellis (1994) stated that the researcher also needs to pay attention on a variety of factors that the learners make errors.The researcher also has to decide regarding the manner in which the samples are taken. Ellis (1994: 50) stated that “an important distinction is whether the learner language reflects natural, spontaneous language use, or is elicited in some way. The researcher also has to decide whether to collect the samples cross-sectionally (one point at a time) or longitudinally (successive points over a period of time) (Ellis, 1994). Svartvik (1973b) as cited by Ellis (1994) stated that most error analyses use regular examination papers (composition, translations, etc.) b. Identification of Errors Identification of errors is carried out after all samples are taken. The first phase in identification is to decide which variety of target language should be the norm (Ellis, 1994). In this phase, the researcher also should consider the mother PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 14 tongue and the target language of the learners. In phase two, the researcher is required to differentiate between errors and mistakes. Then, in phase three, Corder (1971a) as cited by Ellis (1994) suggested that the researcher also has to concern whether the errors are overt (clear deviation form) or covert (superficially wellformed but not reflecting the learners‟ intention). In phase four, the researcher also has to decide to investigate deviations in correctness or also deviations in appropriateness. Those phases are the steps in identification of errors. c. Description of errors Ellis (1994: 54) stated that “the description of learner errors involves a comparison of the learner‟s idiosyncratic utterances with a reconstruction of those utterances in the target language”. Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) as cited by Ellis (1994) argue the need for descriptive taxonomies that focus only on observable, surface features of errors, as a basis for subsequent explanation. In description of errors, the researcher needs to use error taxonomy to describe the learners‟ errors in detail. One of error taxonomies is linguistic category taxonomy by Politzer and Ramirez (1973). Politzer and Ramirez (1973) as cited by Ellis (1994) set their taxonomy with more general categories: morphology, syntax and vocabulary. This taxonomy allows for both a detailed description of specific errors and also for a quantification of a corpus of errors. In description of errors, the researcher also needs to quantify the errors that occurred. Schachter and Celce-Murcia (1977) as cited by Ellis (1994: 57) point out “to say anything worthwhile about error PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 15 frequency we need to know the number of times it would be possible for learners to have committed different errors”. d. Explanation of Errors Ellis (1994) stated that explanation of errors is concerned with establishing the sources of the error. In explanation of errors, the researcher is required to seek out the sources of students‟ errors based on the collected errors. Taylor (1986) as cited by Ellis (1994) discovers three sources of errors. They are psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, epistemic and discourse. Psycholinguistic sources deal with the nature of the L2 knowledge system and the learners‟ difficulties in using the L2 knowledge system. Sociolinguistic sources deal with learners‟ ability in adjusting their language in accordance with the social context. Epistemic sources deal with learners‟ of world knowledge. Discourse sources deal with problems in organization of information into a coherent „text‟. Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994) also provides the sources of errors. The first one is interference errors. Interference errors occur as a result of the use of elements from one language while speaking another. The second is intralingual errors. Intralingual errors reflect the general characteristics of rule learning such as faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn conditions under which rules apply. The third is developmental errors. Developmental errors occur when the learner attempts to build up hypotheses about the target language on the basis of limited experience. Those sources of errors are for the consideration in explaining the students‟ errors. PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 16 e. Evaluating Errors Evaluating errors is the last step in error analysis. Ellis (1994: 63) stated that “error evaluation involves a consideration of the effect that errors have on the person(s) addressed”. Ellis (1994) also stated the design of error evaluation. Error evaluation involves addressees, judges, errors to be judged and how to judge. The error judgment covers semantic or lexical aspects of English, grammatical features and spelling. In this research, the error evaluation was carried out by the teacher based on the result of description and explanation of students‟ errors. The researcher only assisted the teacher to identify the students‟ errors, therefore, the teacher could take evaluate his teaching and take some precaution actions towards the result of students‟ errors. Other steps of error analysis were also proposed by Gass and Selinker (2001). The steps are: (1) data need to be collected, (2) identify errors, (3) classify errors, (4) quantify errors, (5) analysis of the source, and (6) remediation. The steps of error analysis both by Richards (1971b) and by Gass and Selinker (2001) share the same characteristics. In this research, the researcher primarily used Richards‟ (1971b) steps and also considered Gass and Selinker‟s (2001) steps. 2. Error and Mistakes The researcher considered that his research is an error analysis. Therefore, he provided the theories related to error. Corder (1974) as cited by Ellis (1994)stated that the researcher has to differentiate between errors and mistakes in identification of errors. Therefore, the researcher presents the theories related to PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 17 error and mistakes. Norrish (1983) distinguishes between error, mistake, lapse and careless slip as they are known as “types of error”. They are explained as follows. a. Error Error is when a learner has not learnt something and consistently „gets it wrong‟. Norrish (1983) also mentions that in the same way, an ESL student makes an error systemically, that is because the student has not learnt the correct form. Norrish (1983) calls errors as “systematic deviations”.Corder (1967) as cited by Ellis (1994: 51) stated that “an error takes place when the deviation arises as a result of lack knowledge. It represents a lack of competence”. Errors occur as the result of students‟ lack of competence. Gass and Selinker (2001: 78) state that “an error, on the other hand, is systematic. That is, it is likely to occur repeatedly and is not recognized by the learner as an error”. In order to differentiate between errors and mistakes accurately, Ellis (1994)stated that frequency of occurrence is regarded the distinctive point. Error has high frequency of occurrence. Corder (1967) as cited by Dulay et al (1982) stated that errors are obviously systematic deviations. b. Mistake Norrish (1983) stated that a mistake occurs when a learner has been taught an English sentence pattern, and he uses the correct pattern and sometimes he uses the incorrect pattern. If that situation happens quite inconsistently and later that situation is called “inconsistent deviation” or “mistake”.Gass and Selinker (2001) also define mistakes as akin to slips of the tongue. Mistakes are generally onetime-only events. The learner who makes mistakes is able to recognize it as a PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 18 mistake and correct it if necessary. Corder (1967) as cited by Dulay et al (1982) stated that performance errors are apparently mistakes. c. Lapse Norrish (1983) also presents lapse. Lapse happens because of the lack of concentration, shortness of memory, fatigue and other factors. Lapse happens when the students do not obtain a good atmosphere and situation of learning for example due to the weather, or other particular situations. Lapse is neither an error nor a mistake and lapse can happen to anyone at any time. d. Careless Slip Norrish (1983) also stated careless slip. Careless slip is caused by learner‟s inattentiveness in class. Learner‟s inattentiveness could be triggered by many factors. The factors are class‟ situation, learners‟ concerns and any other else. Careless slip is considered as a minor type of „errors‟. 3. Sources of Error In this research, the researcher also presents the theories about sources of error. The theories are presented in order to give clear explanation for the students‟ error in descriptive texts. Sources of errors are needed in the step of error analysis. The step is explanation of errors by Ellis (1994). Brown (1980) as cited by Hasyim(2002) presents the sources or errors. Brown (1980) classifies the sources of errors into four. They are: (1) Interlingual Transfer. This is negative influence of students‟ mother tongue. (2) Intralingual Transfer. This is negative transfer of items in the target language. In other word, PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI 19 this is the incorrect use of rules in the target language. (3) Context of Learning. This is the overlapping of the interlanguage transfer and intralingual transfer. The role of teacher and textbook is very important, because teachers and textbooks might make wrong generalization about the language.(4) Communication Strategies. Communication strategies are used as a conscious verbal mechanism for communicating when linguistics forms are not available to the students for some reasons. Richards (1971b) as cited by Ellis (1994: 58) also presents three sources of errors. They are (1)interference errors. „Interference errors occur as a result of the use of elements from one language while speaking another‟. (2) Intralingual errors. „intralingualerrors reflect the general characteristics of rule learning such as faulty generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn conditions under which rules apply‟. (3) Developmental errors.„Developmental errors occur when the learner attempts to build up hypot

Dokumen baru

Aktifitas terkini

Download (124 Halaman)
Gratis

Tags

Dokumen yang terkait

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
88
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
91
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
300
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
86
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
83
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
181
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
149
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
89
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
84
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
77
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
226
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
111
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
96
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
159
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
0
0
143
Show more