THE ENGLISH INTERROGATIVE SENTENCE MASTERY OF THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS
OF SMPTRISULA NGLUWAR
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana PendidikanDegree
In English Language Education
By Dwi Agustina
Student Number: 031214114
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTEMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I would like to thank Allah SWT. who always gives me grace and love so that I could finish the writing of this thesis. Secondly, I would like to thank P. Kuswandono and Christina Kristiyani for giving me guidance, correction, and suggestions. Without them I would not have been able to improve and finish this thesis well.
Thirdly, I would like to thank Mujiono, the headmaster of SMP Trisula Ngluwar, who had given me his permission so that I could conduct the research. I also express my gratitude to Hartono, the English teacher whose students became my research participants. I could conduct the research successfully because of him.
Next, I would like to thank my beloved parents who always give me love, encouragement, and financial support. I will never forget the helps given by my best friends, Santy, Lia, Widya, and Mamik. Also, I give my special thanks to all Sanata Dharma librarians who always gave best services, especially when I was looking for reference books.
The last, I express my gratitude to YayasanSalim, Jakarta which has given me scholarship so that I could finish my study. Without its financial helps I would not be able to graduate this year.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Page
Title Page ... i
Approval Page ... ii
Statement of Work’s Originality ... iv
Acknowledgements ... v
Table of Contents ... vi
List of Tables ... ix
List of Appendices ... x
Abstract ... xi
Abstrak... xii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background ... 1
B. Problem Formulation ... 4
C. Problem Limitation ... 4
D. Objectives ... 5
E. Benefits ... 5
F. Definition of Terms ... 6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW A. Theoretical Description ... 8
1. Yes – No Questions ... 8
a. To Be ... 9
c. Modals ... 12
2. WH – Questions ... 14
3. Errors ... 18
a. Definition of Errors ... 18
b. Classification of Errors ... 18
1) Error Classification Based on Linguistic Category ... 19
2) Error Classification Based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy ... 19
3) Error Classification Based on Comparative Taxonomy ... 21
4) Error Classification Based on Communicative Effect Taxonomy ... 22
B. Theoretical Framework ... 23
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY A. Method ... 25
B. Research Participants and Setting ... 25
C. Research Instrument ... 26
D. Technique of Data Collection ... 28
E. Technique of Data Analysis ... 28
F. Research Procedure ... 30
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS RESULT A. The Test Reliability ... 32
B. The Student’s Individual Mastery of the English Interrogative Sentences ... 33
viii
D. Error Classification ... 37 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: To Be ... 9
Table 2: The students’ individual achievement in the pilot test ... 34
Table 3: The students’ individual achievement in the real test ... 35
Table 4: The group achievement in the real test ... 36
Table 5: Error classification and its percentage ... 37
x
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Permission letter ... 43
APPENDIX 2: The pilot test ... 44
APPENDIX 3: The key of the pilot test ... 45
APPENDIX 4: The students’ individual scores in the pilot test ... 46
APPENDIX 5: The students’ scores to obtain the reliability of half the test .. 47
APPENDIX 6: The reliability of the test ... 48
APPENDIX 7: The students’ errors in the pilot test ... 51
APPENDIX 8: The real test ... 52
APPENDIX 9: The key of the real test ... 53
APPENDIX 10: The students’ individual scores in the real test ... 54
APPENDIX 11: The students’ scores in the first part of the real test ... 55
APPENDIX 12: The students’ scores of the second part of the test ... 56
ABSTRACT
Agustina, Dwi. 2007. The English Interrogative Sentence Mastery of The Second Year Students of SMP Trisula Ngluwar. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
The main objective of English language teaching and learning is communicative competence. Communicative competence must be supported by grammatical competence since grammatical competence will facilitate the mastery of four language skills of English. If someone is to master English, she or he has to master English grammar.
The English interrogative sentence is one of English grammar elements which is very important for EFL students to master. The interrogative sentences are used to request information so the need to use them arises often. However producing the interrogative sentences is often confusing since there are To Do, To Be, and Modals which can be used to form “Yes or no questions.” Besides, there are several WH words which can be used to form “WH – questions.” To form the interrogative sentences, students need to deal with the sentence inversion as well as with the tense of the sentences. Producing the interrogative sentences is often difficult for students whose native language does not have the tense system.
This study is focused on the mastery of the English interrogative sentence of the second year students of SMP Trisula Ngluwar. The objective is to find,
first, to what extent the students master the interrogative sentence, and second, the difficulties students have in mastering the English interrogative sentences.
In this study, the writer used a survey research to collect the data and she used a cluster sampling in determining the research participants. She used a written test to measure the students’ mastery of the English interrogative sentences as well as to find the errors they made in producing the interrogative sentences.
The research findings show that the students’ mastery of the English interrogative sentences is still low. They have difficulties in mastering the material, and they made many errors in producing the interrogative sentences. The errors they made are syntactical errors, addition of grammatical elements, misformation of grammatical elements, misordering of grammatical elements, developmental errors, interlingual errors, global errors, and local errors.
xii ABSTRAK
Dwi Agustina. 2007. The English Interrogative Sentence Mastery of The Second Year Students of SMP Trisula Ngluwar. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Tujuan utama pengajaran dan pembelajaran bahasa Inggris adalah tercapainya kompetensi berkomunikasi. Kompetensi isi harus didukung oleh adanya “grammatical competence” atau kemampuan menggunakan struktur bahasa, karena kemampuan menggunakan struktur bahasa akan memfasilitasi penguasaan empat skill dalam bahasa Inggris. Jika seseorang ingin menguasai bahasa Inggris, dia harus menguasai struktur bahasa Inggris.
Kalimat tanya adalah salah satu elemen struktur bahasa Inggris yang sangat penting untuk dikuasai siswa. Kalimat tanya digunakan untuk meminta keterangan sehingga banyak dan sering digunakan. Namun membuat kalimat tanya sering mebingungkan karena dalam bahasa Inggris ada kata kerja bantu To Do, To Be, dan Modals untuk membuat kalimat tanya jenis ” Yes or no questions.” Disamping itu ada kata – kata berawalan WH untuk membuat jenis kalimat tanya ”WH – questions.” Untuk membuat kalimat tanya tersebut siswa harus memindah letak kata kerja bantu dalam kalimat dan menyesuaikan dengan
tenses kalimat tersebut. Bagi siswa yang bahasa aslinya tidak memiliki sistem
tensesmembuat kalimat tanya dalam bahasa Inggris tidaklah mudah.
Penelitian ini difokuskan pada penguasaan kalimat tanya dalam bahasa Inggris oleh siswa kelas VIII SMP Trisula Ngluwar. Tujuannya yang pertama untuk mengetahui seberapa jauh siswa menguasai kalimat tanya dalam bahasa Inggris dan yang ke dua untuk mengetahui kesulitan yang dihadapi siswa dalam mempelajari materi tersebut.
Dalam penelitian ini penulis menggunakan survey untuk mengumpulkan data. Dia menggunakan metode cluster sampling dalam menentukan subjek penelitian. Selain itu penulis memakai tes tertulis untuk mengukur seberapa jauh siswa menguasai kalimat tanya dalam bahasa Inggris dan untuk mencari jenis -jenis kesalahan siswa dalam membuat kalimat tanya dalam bahasa Inggris.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penguasaan kalimat tanya oleh para siswa masih rendah. Mereka memiliki kesulitan dalam menguasai materi tersebut. Mereka juga membuat banyak kesalahan saat membuat kalimat tanya berbahasa Inggris. Kesalahan mereka dapat dikategorikan dalam syntactical errors, addition of grammatical element, misformation of grammatical element, misordering of grammatical element, developmental error, interlingual error, global error dan
local error.
Selanjutnya penulis memberikan saran pengajaran bagi guru bahasa Inggris, khususnya guru di SMP Trisula Ngluwar. Namun dengan keterbatasan penulis, penulis hanya dapat memberikan saran untuk mengurangi kesalahan jenis
misformation of grammatical element, misordering of grammatical element, dan
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with the background information and rationale for the research. It consists of six important parts. They are background of the study, problem formulation, problem limitation, objectives, benefits, and definition of terms.
A. BACKGROUND
The main objective of language teaching is communicative competence which is defined by Hymes (1972) as “what a speaker needs to know in order to be communicatively competent in a speech community.” Communicative competence has four dimensions, they are grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. Building this communicative competence means building its four dimensions entirely.
Grammatical competence as one of communicative competence dimensions is important to build since to use a language well, people need to know its grammar. Greenbaum (1989:1) defines grammar as “the sets of rules that allow us to combine words in our language into larger units.” In this case, if we want to master English, we have to master English grammar as English grammar provides rules for us to produce correct utterances.
2
helps a student as a speaker, to express his ideas and grammar also helps other students, as listeners, to understand what is expressed by the speaker. It is clear, then, that students have to master English grammar if they are to master English. In short, the teaching of English grammar is necessary, even a must.
The teaching of grammar will help students master the four language skills stated above, however, at the same time it will create difficulties or problems for the learners. It is caused by the different element of the target language and the students’ native language. As stated by Lado (1961:17), “where the native language of the students and the foreign language differ structurally, there is a learning problem and the nature and the description of this problem depend on the comparison of the two language structures.”
This theory arises the writer’s interest to prove whether students have difficulties in mastering English grammar since English has a very different grammar from Indonesian. The writer is interested in studying the students’ mastery of English grammar. In this case, she studies the students’ mastery of the English interrogative sentences.
Moreover, the writer wants to investigate potential difficulties faced by the students in mastering the interrogative sentence of English. The students’ difficulties will be seen trough the students’ errors in producing the English interrogative sentences. Therefore, the kind of errors the students make is covered in this study.
In this study, it is the students’ mastery of producing interrogative sentences in written English which is investigated. The writer is interested in studying this case because there are To do, To be, and Modals that have similar meaning of Indonesian “Apakah” to form “Yes- no questions.” They are similar in meaning but far from being always interchangeable. Their similarity in meaning causes difficulties and problems for English learners, especially Indonesian students whose language does not have the concept of tenses. Besides, there are also question words to form another kind of interrogative sentences (WH -question) such as who, when, where, whose, which, what, whom, why, and how.
4 B. PROBLEM FORMULATION
There are two problems presented in this study. The two problems are 1. To what extent do the second year students of SMPTrisula Ngluwar master
the English interrogative sentences?
2. What are their difficulties in mastering the English interrogative sentences?
C. PROBLEM LIMITATION
The students who are learning English can produce interrogative sentences both in spoken and in written English. Since the writer cannot avoid some limitations in carrying out this study, the writer focuses her attention on students’ written English. It means that the discussion is limited in the area of students’ mastery of the English interrogative sentences in written English, and not in spoken English. The discussion will only cover the students’ mastery of the English interrogative sentences and the difficulties they have in producing interrogative sentences.
D. OBJECTIVES
This study deals with the students’ mastery of producing the English interrogative sentences. The objectives of this study are
1. To find out to what extent the second year students of SMP Trisula Ngluwar master the English interrogative sentences.
2. To find out the difficulties they have in mastering the English the English interrogative sentences.
E. BENEFITS
The research means so much for the writer. First, the research is the partial fulfillment of the requirements to obtain the Sarjana Pendidikandegree in English Language Education. Second, the research enlarges the writer’s knowledge of the English Interrogative sentences. Finally, through the research, the writer learns so many things about thesis writing and how to conduct a research.
6
As for the English teachers, this study can help them to find students’ difficulties in mastering the English interrogative sentences. The teacher can pay more attention to the difficult parts of this grammar. The teachers, then, will be able to help the students to improve their learning, for example by giving more drills on interrogative sentence production or by teaching grammar explicitly related to the interrogative sentences. Finally, for the further researchers, the result of this study can be used as a start for further research by improving and broadening the topic.
F. DEFINITION OF TERMS
There are some terms that will be frequently used in this study. Therefore, it is necessary to know their definitions.
1. Study
The term study used by the writer refers to research. According to Hatch and Farhady (1982: 1) “research is a systematic approach to finding answers to questions.” In this thesis, the study or the research is to investigate the students’ mastery of the English interrogative sentences among the second year students of SMP Trisula Ngluwar, Magelang Regency.
2. Mastery
According to Stern (1983: 346) someone has the mastery of a language when she or he has
b. the intuitive mastery of the linguistic, cognitive, affective and sociocultural meaning, expressed by the language forms,
c. the capacity to use the language with maximum attention to communication and minimum attention to form, and
d. the creativity of language use.
Someone who has those four aspects is considered as master the language.
In this study, to master the English interrogative sentences means that the students know the form, meaning, and the function of the interrogative sentences. Besides, the students do not have the difficulties in learning them. The students’ mastery is measured by a written test as the instrument.
3.Interrogative sentences
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter deals with the literature review of the research. In this part, the writer presents many relevant theories for her study. There are two main parts in this chapter namely theoretical description and theoretical framework.
A. THEORETICAL DESCRIPTION
In this part, the writer discusses the English interrogative sentences. According to Greenbaum (1989: 20) “the English interrogative sentences can be divided into two main types.” The two main types of interrogative sentences are “Yes – no question” and “WH- question.” The writer will discuss these two main types of interrogative sentences.
1. “Yes – no questions”
a. To Be
To Beor what some people may call “Be” consists of is, am, are, was, and were. They are used differently based on the subjects of the sentences and the adverb of time used in the sentences (present or past). To make it clear, the writer provides a table of To Be as follows:
Table 1: To Be
Subject To Be (present form) To Be (past form)
I You We They He She It Am are are are is is is Was were were were was was was
Based on the table above, it is clear that in present tense there are three forms of To Be (is, am, are) which change into two different forms in past tense (was and were). Those five forms of To Be are used differently according to the subject precedes them. For example, “am” is used for the subject I and “are” is used for the subject You, We, and They. While “is” is used with the subject He, She, and It.
Furthermore, according to Azar (1989: Appendix 1) “there are three basic patterns of sentences with To Beas the main verb.” They are
1) S + To Be+ A Noun Example: John is a teacher 2) S + To Be+ an Adjectives Example: John is clever
10 Example: John was at the library
In addition, To Becan also be used as an auxiliary verb. To Becan be used in both progressive verb tenses and the passive. The patterns are
4) S + To Be+ O + A
Example: John is writing a letter 5) S + To Be+ Past Participle
Example: The letter is written (by John)
In order to produce “yes – no questions,”To Be is placed in front of the sentence. Therefore, those five sentences above can be formed into “yes – no questions.” Their interrogative forms are
1) Is John a teacher? 2) Is John clever?
3) Was John at the library? 4) Is John writing a letter? 5) Is the letter written by John?
From the writer’s examples above, the pattern of the questions formed through the use of To Beare
1) To Be+ S + A Noun? 2) To Be+ S + An Adjective?
3) To Be+ S + A prepositional Phrase? 4) To Be+ S + V ing + O + A?
From the explanation above we know the patterns of “yes – no questions” to make the English interrogative sentences. However, it is not always an easy matter for Indonesian students in using To Befor making interrogative sentences. They will face difficulties and problems if they cannot differentiate the use of To Befrom To Do.
b. To Do
There are three forms of To Do. They are Do, Doesand Did. The use of To Do is also influenced by the subjects of the sentences and the adverb of time of the sentences. “Do” and “Does” are used in the present tense while “Did” is used in the past tense. “Do” is used for the subjects I, You, We, They and other plural subjects. While “Does” is used for the third singular person pronouns such as He, She and It and “Did” can be used for every subject of a sentence.
The following are the patterns of interrogative sentences through the use of
To Do.
1) Do + S + V1 + O + A?
Example: Do you live in Magelang? 2) Does + S + V1+ O + A?
Example: Does she study English everyday? 3) Did + S + V1 + O + A?
12
From the patterns and examples presented above, it can be concluded that the main verb in the interrogative sentence is its simple form, there is no final –s or –ed. Therefore, in learning “yes or no questions” concerning to the use of To Do, English learners should not be bothered with the verb. Rather, they should give more attention to the subject and adverb of time in the sentence since those elements will determine which form of To Do that must be used in order to produce grammatically correct interrogative sentences. Furthermore, if they master To Be and To Do, it will not be very hard for them to learn “yes – no question” which is formed through the use of modalauxiliaries.
c. Modals
According to Azar (1989: 68), “the modalauxiliaries in English consist of
can, may, must , shall, will, could, might, ought to, should, and would.” “Modal
auxiliaries generally express a speaker’s attitudes, or moods. For example, modals
can express that a speaker feels something is necessary, advisable, permissible, possible, and in addition, they can convey the strength of these attitudes.”
In sentences, modals never take final –s even when the subject of the sentence is the third singular person. Besides, they are followed directly by the simple form of a verb. In order to make “yes – no questions,” we can simply place
modalswhose position is after the subject to the initial position of the sentences. The details are as follows and they are taken from the Azar’s
form interrogative sentences, especially “yes – no questions.” The modals which are discussed here are those frequently used in “yes – no questions” by Junior High School students.
1)Can
Can is used, first, to ask one’s ability, and second, to request permission, especially if the speaker is talking to someone she or he knows fairly well.
Examples: Can you run fast? Can I borrow your pen? 2)Could
Couldis used to request permission. Examples: Could I borrow your pen?
Could we use this room? 3)May
Mayis used to request permission too. Examples: May I go now?
May I use your computer? 4)Might
Mightis used similarly to May. It is used to request permission. Examples: Might I borrow your computer?
Might I go? 5)Shall
14 Shall we go now?
6)Will
Willis used to express polite request. Examples: Will you please pass the salt?
Will you please buy me a bottle of tea? 7)Would
Wouldis used to request as well. Examples: Would you mind leaving early?
Would you mind opening the door?
Finish learning “yes – no questions” through the use of To Do, To Be, and
Modals, students still have another thing to learn. They will deal with “WH – questions.” “WH – questions” are not simpler than “yes – no questions.” In “WH – questions” the students must be able to master subject – operator inversion.
2. “WH – questions”
“WH – questions” are defined by Greenbaum (1989: 153) as “questions with interrogative word or phrase.” They are called “WH – questions” because most of the interrogative words begin with WH (the exception is how). Azar (1989: Appendix 1) defines a “WH question” as “a question that asks for information by using a question word.”
elicit specific information such as why, where, when, who, whom, whose, which, what, and how.” In this study, the writer discusses all of those words by citing explanation from Azar’s Understanding and Using English Grammar (1989: A10).
1) When
Whenis used to ask question about time. Example: When did they arrive?
2) Where
Whereis used to ask question about place. Example: Where is she?
3) Why
Whyis used to ask question about reason. Example: Why did he leave early?
4) How
Howgenerally ask about manner. Example: How do you go to school?
Howis used with much and many. Example: How much money do you have?
How many people came?
How longasks about length of time. Example: How long has he been here?
16
How farasks about distances.
Example: How far is it to Miami from here? 5) Who
Whois used as the subject of a question and it refers to people. Example: Who can answer this question?
6) Whose
Whoseasks questions about possession. Example: Whose book did you borrow? 7) Whom
Whom is used as the object of a verb or preposition. Whom is used in formal questions.
Example: Whom did you see? 8) What
Whatis used as the subject of a questions and it refers to things. Example: What made you angry?
Whatis also used as an object. Example: What do you need?
What kindasks about the particular variety or type of something. Example: What kind of soup is that?
What+ a form of dois used to ask questions about activities. Example: What did you do last night?
What + look likeasks for a physical description. Example: What does Ed look like?
9) Which
Which is used instead of what, when a question concerns choosing from a definite, known quantity or group.
Example: Which book should I buy?
The interrogative words in “WH- questions” represents a missing piece of information that speaker wants the hearer to supply (Greenbaum, 1989: 153). “WH – questions” generally require subject – operator inversion. For example
Doddy is going where? (Where is Doddy going?)
The exception occurs when the interrogative word or phrase is the subject. In that case the normal subject – verb order applies:
Who has taken my car? Which bus goes to Chicago?
18 3. Errors
a. Definition of errors
According to Dulay et al. (1982:138) “errors” are “the flawed side of learner speech or writing.” They are those parts of conversation or composition that deviate from some selected norm of mature language performance. Students who are learning a new language often made errors in the process of their learning. Therefore, Dulay et al. stated that people cannot learn language without first systematically committing errors.
According to Ellis (1997: 139) “errors” are “deviation in usage which results from gaps in learner’s knowledge of the target language.” Next, “mistakes” are defined as “deviation in usage that reflects learners’ inability to use what they actually know of the target language (Ellis, 1997: 141).” In this study, the writer uses “error” to refer to any deviation from a selected norm of language performance, no matter what the characteristics or causes of the deviation might be.
b. Classification of errors
1) Error Classification Based on Linguistic Category a) Morphological Errors
Morphological errors have many types, such as errors in using articles, verb form for third person singular, possessive case, simple past tense, past participle, comparative adjectives, or adverbs.
b) Syntactical Errors
In syntactical errors, second or foreign language learners may produce errors in phrases (determiner, nominalization, number, pronoun, and preposition), verb phrases (omission of verb, tenses, and subject – verb agreement), and transformations (negative transformations and interrogative transformation).
2) Error Classification Based on Surface Strategy Taxonomy a) Omission of Grammatical Elements
Omission errors are characterized by the absence of certain items that must appear in a well – formed utterance. Second or foreign language learners produce much more omission errors in grammatical morphemes rather than in content words, such as noun, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. The omission does not contribute much to meaning of the sentence. Omission of grammatical morphemes is commonly produced by beginner learners.
20
Addition errors are the opposite of omission errors. They are characterized by the presence of certain items that must not appear in a well – formed utterance. For example: *He does not knows my address
(He does not know my address) *This is the man whom I met him (This is the man whom I met) c) Misformation of Grammatical elements
Misformation errors are characterized by the use of wrong form of the morphemes or structures. The learners actually are capable of supplying a certain system of the target language, but it is still incorrect. For examples:
*He goed to the town (He went to the town) *Are you have much money? (Do you have much money?) d) Misordering of Grammatical Elements
Misordering errors are characterized by the incorrect placement of certain morphemes or a group of morphemes in an utterance. Thus, the learners produce these errors when they put words or phrases in incorrect orders in sentence construction. For example:
*He is all the time late (He is late all the time)
In the first example, we can see the group of morpheme “all the time” is misordered. Next, in the second example, the auxiliary “is” is misordered. It should be placed at the end of the sentence.
3) Error Classification Based on Comparative Taxonomy
This classification of errors is based on comparison between the structure of the second language errors and certain other types of construction. There are two major error categories in this classification. The first one is developmental errors and the second one is interlingual errors.
a) Developmental Errors
Developmental errors are similar to those made by children learning the target language as their first language. The omission of the grammatical elements may be classified as developmental errors, since the errors are also found in the speech of children learning English as their first language. For examples:
*Monkey eat banana (The monkey eats banana) *The baby cry
(The baby cried) b) Interlingual Errors
Interlingual errors are similar in structure to a semantically equivalent phrase or sentence in the learners’ native language. For examples:
22
4) Error Classification Based on Communicative Effect Taxonomy
Unlike the two other taxonomies that focus on the aspect of errors themselves, the communicative effects of errors deal with errors from the perspective of their effect on the listener or reader. It focuses on distinguishing between errors that seem to miscommunication and those who don’t.
a) Global Errors
Global errors are errors that affect overall sentence organization. This can significantly hinder communication. For example:
*English language use many people (English language is used by many people) *We amused the movie very much
(The movie amused us very much) b) Local Errors
Local errors are errors that affect single elements (constituent) in a sentence. They do not usually hinder communication significantly. These include errors in noun and verb inflection, articles, auxiliaries and the formation of quantifiers. For example:
B. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Most of us agree that the teaching and learning of a language aim at communicative competence or proficiency. Grammatical competence as one dimension of communicative competence is considered as the foundation to build grammatically correct sentences in the target language. However, since the grammar system of the target language, English, is different from our own language, Indonesian, difficulties in mastering English grammar always exist. As a result, grammatical errors often occur when English is being learned.
This study is focused on the student’s mastery of the English interrogative sentence. Students’ mastery of the English interrogative sentences as part of the mastery of the whole English grammar is important to research since interrogative sentences are very important structures for ESL and EFL students. They are used to request information, so the need to use them arises often. For instance, “yes – no questions” are used to query an entire proposition, and “WH – questions” are used when the speaker is missing one specific piece of information. For instance, “WH – questions” are used in social interaction, for getting directions, in seeking explanation, for eliciting vocabulary, and so forth.
24
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the methodology used in carrying out the research. It covers the research method, research participants, setting, research instrument, the technique of data collection, the technique of data analysis, and the research procedure.
A. METHOD
In this study, the kind of research the writer conducted was a survey research. Survey research is a method of research in which the writer learns about characteristics of an entire group of interest (a population) by examining a subset of that group. This survey was used to find out the data for the analysis, in this case, the students’ mastery of the English interrogative sentences.
The method of sampling used in this study was cluster sampling. Here, the unit chosen was not an individual but a group of individuals who were naturally together. In this case, the writer conducted a survey in a class and included all the students in the class as the research participants.
B. RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING
The participants of the research were the second year students of SMP
26
sentences since they were in the first year of Junior High School. This survey was conducted on May 2007 at SMPTrisula Ngluwar, Magelang Regency.
C. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
In order to answer the questions presented in the problem formulation, the writer used a test as the research instrument for collecting the data. The test consisted of two parts, “yes or no questions,” and “WH- questions.” Each part consisted of ten Indonesian questions which had to be translated into their English interrogative sentences. In constructing the test, the writer referred to examples from some Junior High School English books.
The test used in this study must be valid as well as reliable. According to Lado (1961: 321) “a test is valid if it measures what it claims to measure.” “The test is reliable if it is able to measure consistently whatever it measures. If the scores of the same students are stable, then the test is reliable (Lado, 1961: 330).”
types of criterion related validity. They are concurrent validity and predictive validity. Both are used to see how far the result of the tests agrees with the criterion measured. A test has concurrent validity when the criterion and the test itself are administered at the same time. A test has predictive validity when it is able to predict students’ future performance.
The test designed by the writer was valid in terms of having content validity, construct validity, and face validity. The test had content validity since it consisted of a representative sample of the English interrogative sentences. It had construct validity since it only measured students’ mastery of the English interrogative sentences, not something else. Finally, it had face validity since by looking at the test people knew that it was designed to test students’ interrogative sentence mastery.
Concerning the test reliability, the writer applied chance – half method and the Spearman – Brown formula to estimate the test reliability. The following is the formula.
Rxy2= [N. ∑XY – (∑X). (∑Y)]2 [N. ∑X2– (∑X)2] [N. ∑Y2 – (∑Y)2
] where
N= the number of the students
X= the number of correct items of odd number Y= the number of correct items of even number ∑X= the sum of X scores
∑Y= the sum of Y scores
28 ∑Y2
= the sum of the squares of Y scores
∑XY = the sum of the product of X and Y scores for each student
The writer used the formula above to estimate the reliability of half the test. In calculating the reliability of the entire test, the writer used the Spearman- Brown formula. The formula is
r11= 2r½½ (1+ r½ ½)
where r11= the obtained reliability coefficient of the entire test r½½= the obtained reliability of half test
D.TECHNIQUE OF DATA COLLECTION
In collecting the data, the writer asked for the help of the English teacher in SMPTrisula Ngluwar. It was done in order to avoid the observer paradox. First, the teacher explained the instruction of the test to the students. Then, he distributed the test to every student in the class chosen and asked them to do their best in the test given. After the students finished doing the test, the teacher collected the answers. The writer used two tests in collecting the data. The first one was the pilot test and the second one was the real test.
E. TECHNIQUE OF DATA ANALYSIS
the students’ test. After finding the percentages, the writer counted the number of students who achieved 75% or more of correct answers.
The following step was comparing those percentages to the standard of learning mastery of a certain study material by using the reference book proposed by Departemen Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan, in “Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Mata Pelajaran Pengelolaan Kurikulum (1986, 26).”This book stated that a student is considered successful (high) in mastering certain study material if she or he is able to achieve 75% or more of correct answers. In addition, the group achievement is determined by at least 85% of the students who have achieved 75% of correct answers. If the student is not able to achieve at least 75% of correct answers, she or he is still regarded unsuccessful (low) in understanding the study material. If the number of the students who achieve 75% of the correct answers is less than 85%, it is considered as having difficulties.
30 F. RESEARCH PROCEDURE
In conducting the research, the writer did some steps as the research procedure. They are as follows:
1. The writer conducted the library research. The writer tried to get relevant theories related to the study. The writer read many books on the English grammar, especially interrogative sentences.
2. The writer determined the method of the research.
3. The writer designed the research instrument. The instrument used was a test. The writer made the pilot test as well as the real test (see Appendix 2 and 3). 4. The writer determined the subject of the research. In this case, the writer list
some schools and chose SMP Trisula students as the subject of the research. Then she determined the class in which she did the research.
5. The writer asked permission from the headmaster of SMPTrisula Ngluwar. In asking for the permission, the writer met the headmaster of the school and gave him the permission letter the writer obtained from the university (see Appendix 1).
6. The writer asked the English teacher’s helps in collecting the data. 7. The writer analyzed the data.
8. The writer drew a conclusion from the analysis.
32 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS RESULT
This chapter deals with the presentation and discussion of the research findings. In this part, the writer discusses the answers of the questions presented in the problem formulation. To see the students’ mastery of the English interrogative sentences, the writer classified the test result based on the number of the students’ correct answer. To see the type of error made by the students, the writer also presents error classification and its percentage.
A. The Test Reliability
The test used to collect the data for the analysis must be reliable. Therefore, the writer estimated the reliability of the tests she used in this study. In calculating the test reliability, the reliability of half test was counted first by applying a formula called Split – Half Method. An empirical formula known as
the Spearman – Brown Formulawas used to estimate the reliability of the whole test. The following statistics were used to calculate the reliability of the test. The first one is Split – Half Formula and the second one is the Spearman – Brown Formula(see Appendix 6).
Rxy 2 = [N. • XY – (• X) (• Y)]2 [N. • X2– (• X) 2][N. • Y 2- (• Y) 2]
Based on the calculation, the reliability of the pilot test was 0. 87. In fact, no language test showed a reliability of 1.00 or perfect reliability. Therefore, the writer considered the reliability of the pilot test high. In other words, the test she used was reliable.
According to the reliability coefficient of the real test, which were 0.71, and 0.53, the writer realized that a lower coefficient indicates lower reliability. However, the writer did not mean to say that the real test she used was not reliable. The reliability coefficient of a given test was also determined by how difficult to test the performance was and how stable the actual performance of the students was. According to Lado, “a person does not always write even his native language with equal lucidity, and he does not always understand what is said to him with the same accuracy (1961: 331).” Such differences, then, would appear also in the students’ scores of the test. In other words, a reliability of less than 1. 00 could be a perfect reliability as far as the test concerned.
34
Table 2: The students’ individual achievement in the pilot test Student Number of correct items Percentage
1 4 40%
2 3 30%
3 1 10%
4 1 10%
5 8 80%
6 2 20%
7 2 20%
8 0 0%
9 1 10%
10 1 10%
11 6 60%
12 4 40%
13 5 50%
14 3 30%
15 4 40%
16 3 30%
17 5 50%
18 5 50%
19 5 50%
20 5 50%
21 1 10%
22 5 50%
23 6 60%
Table 3: The students’ individual achievement in the real test Student Number of correct items Percentage
1 2 10%
2 2 10%
3 12 60%
4 13 65%
5 3 15%
6 6 30%
7 4 20%
8 5 25%
9 4 20%
10 4 20%
11 7 35%
12 5 25%
13 4 20%
14 4 20%
15 5 25%
16 4 20%
17 4 20%
18 9 45%
19 7 35%
20 7 35%
21 7 35%
22 5 25%
23 6 30%
24 1 5%
25 6 30%
26 11 55%
27 11 55%
28 3 15%
29 3 15%
30 3 15%
31 3 15%
36
C. The Group’s Mastery of the English Interrogative Sentences
In this study, the group achievement was determined by the number of students who achieved 75% or more correct items in the test. In order to be considered successful in learning the English interrogative sentence, the students who achieved 75% or more correct items must achieve 85% of the total number of students in a class. The following table presents the data about the group achievement.
Table 4: The Group Achievement in the Real Test
Percentage of correct items Number of students Percentage
95 – 100% -
-85 – 94% -
-75 – 84% -
-65 – 74% 1 3.25%
55 – 64% 3 9.68%
45 – 54% 1 3.25%
35 – 44% 4 12.90%
25 – 34% 7 22.58%
15 – 24% 12 38.71%
0 –14% 3 9.68%
D. Error Classification
The students’ difficulties in learning the English interrogative sentences were reflected in the errors they made in the test. The following table shows error classification and its percentage based on the errors obtained from the students’ work. Next, some examples of the students’ errors are presented.
Table 5: Error classification and Its Percentage
Type of errors Number of errors Percentage
Morphological errors -
-Syntactical errors 22 4. 89%
Addition of grammatical element 56 12. 44%
Misformation of grammatical element 118 26. 22%
Misordering of grammatical element 21 4. 67%
Developmental errors 7 1. 56%
Interlingual errors 22 4. 89%
Global errors 42 9. 33%
Local errors 18 4. 00%
Complete failure 85 18. 89%
Incomplete answers 59 13. 11%
Table 6: Examples of each type of errors
Types of errors Examples
Syntactical error
Addition of grammatical element Misformation of grammatical element Misordering of grammatical element Developmental error
Interlingual error Global error Local error Complete failure
What is you name? (What is your name?) Do you lives in Magelang? (Do you live in Magelang?) Do you happy?
(Are you happy?)
When you will go to Muntilan? (When will you go to Muntilan?) Are they study?
(Are they studying?) What food favorite you? (What is your favorite food?) Is your mother like apple? (Does your mother like apple?) Why you like Peterpan? (Why do you like Peterpan?) Can you be help me?
38
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
In this chapter the writer would like to draw some conclusions based on the research findings and the discussions presented in Chapter IV. The writer would like to summarize major findings in the research. Next, the writer would state some suggestions regarding to the research implications.
A. CONCLUSIONS
1. The result of the mastery of the English interrogative sentences among the second year students of SMPTrisula Ngluwar clearly indicated that there was no student achieving 75% or more of the correct items. This result shows that the students in general have not mastered the English interrogative sentences. 2. The research shows clearly that the students who are learning the English
40 B. SUGGESTIONS
Through the research it is clear that students made many errors in learning English, especially the English interrogative sentences. The writer, therefore, would like to give some suggestions in teaching the material, especially for English teachers in SMPTrisula Ngluwar. Here are the suggestions.
1. To minimize misformation and misordering of grammatical element
a. The teacher introduces the students to positive, negative, and interrogative sentences at once. For example
1) (+) Ana isa student (-) Ana is nota student (?) IsAna a student? or 2) (+) You canhelp me
(-) You cannot help me (?) Canyou help me?
b. The teacher tells the students that a sentence containing To Be or Modal
can be negated by putting not after the To Be or Modal. If they want to make the interrogative forms of the sentence, the teacher tells them to place the first word after the subject in front of the subject.
initial position of the sentence. It is also important to tell them that in the interrogative sentences they should not put the word ”not.” For example: 1) (+) You live in Magelang
(-) You do not live in Magelang (?) Do you live in Magelang? 2) (+) You drank a glass of milk.
(-) You did not drink a glass of milk (?) Did you drink a glass of milk?
d. If they want to produce “WH – questions” the teacher can directly tell them to add the question word in front of the “Yes or no question.” For example:
1) Why do you live in Magelang? 2) When did you drink a glass of milk? 2. To minimize global errors
a. The teacher teaches the student to identify whether the sentence active or passive.
b. The teacher teaches the students to identify the adverb of time of the sentences.
c. The teacher asks the students to identify the subject of the sentence
d. Then, the teacher asks them to start with the positive, negative and then the interrogative sentences. For example:
Apakah ibumu suka apel? Your mother likes apple
42
44 Appendix 2: The pilot test
1. Apakah anda sedang belajar bahasa Inggris sekarang? 2. Apakah anda ingin menjadi seorang pemandu wisata?
3. Apakah sekolahmu mempunyai sebuah lapangan bulu tangkis? 4. Apakah anda pergi ke Borobudur kemarin?
5. Apakah mereka teman – teman sekelas anda? 6. Apakah mereka berada di sekolah setiap hari? 7. Apakah mereka sibuk kemarin?
8. Apakah mereka akan datang ke rumahmu besok? 9. Apakah anda telah mengerjakan tugas – tugas anda?
Appendix 3: The key of the pilot test
1. Are you studying English now? 2. Do you want to become a guide?
3. Does your school have a badminton court? 4. Did you go to Borobudur last Sunday? 5. Are they your classmates?
6. Are they at school everyday? 7. Were they busy yesterday? 8. Have you done your duties? 9. Can your sister ride a motorcycle?
46
Appendix 4: The students’ individual scores in the pilot test
SS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 CI ICI
1 1 1 1 1 4 6
2 1 1 1 3 7
3 1 1 9
4 1 1 9
5 1 1 1 3 7
6 1 1 2 8
7 1 1 2 8
8 0 10
9 1 1 9
10 1 1 9
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 4
12 1 1 1 1 4 6
13 1 1 1 1 1 5 5
14 1 1 1 3 7
15 1 1 1 1 4 6
16 1 1 1 3 7
17 1 1 1 1 1 5 5
18 1 1 1 1 1 5 5
19 1 1 1 1 1 5 5
20 1 1 1 1 1 5 5
21 1 1 9
22 1 1 1 1 1 5 5
23 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 4
Appendix 5: The students’ scores to obtain the reliability of half the test (split – half method)
Student X Y X2 Y2 X.Y
1 2 2 4 4 4
2 2 1 4 1 2
3 0 1 0 1 0
4 1 0 1 0 0
5 2 1 4 1 2
6 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1
8 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 1 0 1 0
10 1 0 1 0 0
11 4 2 16 4 8
12 2 2 4 4 4
13 3 2 9 4 6
14 1 2 1 4 2
15 2 2 4 4 4
16 2 1 4 1 2
17 3 2 9 4 6
18 3 2 9 4 6
19 3 2 9 4 6
20 3 2 9 4 6
21 1 0 1 0 0
22 3 2 4 4 6
23 3 3 9 9 9
48 Appendix 6: The reliability of the test 1. The reliability of the pilot test
R xy 2 = [23. 75 – 43. 32]2 [23. 109 – (43) 2][23. 58 – (32) 2] = [1725 – 1376] 2
[2507 – 1849][1334 – 1024]
= [349]2
658.310
= 121801
203980 = 0. 59712227
The next step was finding the square root of Rxy.2 The result was the obtained reliability of half the test.
Rxy = 0. 77273687
To estimate the reliability of the entire pilot test, the writer used the Spearman – Brown Formula.
R11 = 2 x 0. 77273687 1 + 0. 77273687 = 1. 54547374
1. 77273687 = 0. 87180098
2. The Reliability of the Real Test
a. The reliability of the first part of the real test (see Appendix 10) Rxy 2 = [31. 95 – 39. 53] 2
[31. 91 – (39) 2][31. 153 – (53) 2] = [2945 – 2067] 2
[2821 – 1521][4743 – 2809] = [878]2
1300. 1934 = 770884
2514200 = 0. 30661204 the square root of Rxy2was Rxy = 0. 5537256
The reliability of the entire test was R11= 2 x 0. 5537256
1+ 0. 5537256 = 1. 1074512
1. 5537256 = 0. 71277142
b. The reliability of the second part of the real test (see Appendix 11)
Rxy2 = [31. 52 – 36. 42] 2
[31. 48 – (36) 2][31. 70 –(42) 2] = [1612 – 1512] 2
[1488 – 1296][2170 – 1764]
= [100]2 192. 406 = 10000
50 = 0. 12828407
the square root of Rxy2was Rxy = 0. 35816766
The reliability of the whole test was R11 = 2 x 0. 35816766
Appendix 7: The students’ errors in the pilot test in each test item
Type of errors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Morphological errors 3 1
Syntactical errors 8
Addition of grammatical el. 1 1 5 5
Misformation of grammatical el. 7 8 11 8 3 21 11
Misordering of grammatical el. 1 Developmental errors
Interlingual errors 2 19 8 20
Global errors 1 2 1 1 1
Local errors
No answer 1 1 3
52 Appendix 8: The real test
UBAHLAH KALIMAT TANYA DI BAWAH INI KE DALAM BAHASA INGGRIS
Bagian pertama
No. Pertanyaan dalam bahasa Indonesia Pertanyaan dalam bahasa Inggris 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Apakah kamu bahagia? Apakah Rudi seorang pelajar?
Apakah Tia berada di rumah kemarin? Apakah mereka sedang belajar? Apakah buku itu dibaca oleh Eko? Apakah kamu tinggal di Magelang? Apakah ibumu suka apel?
Apakah kau minum susu tadi pagi? Apakah kau bisa membantuku?
Apakah aku boleh meminjam penamu?
Bagian kedua
No. Pertanyaan dalam bahasa Indonesia Pertanyaan dalam bahasa Inggris 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Siapa namamu? Dimana kau tinggal? Naik apa kamu ke sekolah? Apa makanan favoritmu? Siapakah dia?
Pensil siapa ini?
Buku yang mana yang kau suka? Berapa banyak uang yang kau punya? Mengapa kau suka Peterpan?
Appendix 9: The key of the real test Bagian pertama
1. Are you happy? 2. Is Rudi a student?
3. Was Tia at home yesterday? 4. Are they studying?
5. Is that book read by Eko? 6. Do you live in Magelang? 7. Does your mother like apples? 8. Did you drink milk this morning? 9. Can you help me?
10. May I borrow your pen?
Bagian kedua
1. What is your name? 2. Where do you live? 3. How do you go to school? 4. What is your favorite food? 5. Who is s/he?
6. Whose pen is this? 7. Which book do like?
54
Appendix 10: The students’ individual scores on the real test
N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CI ICI
1 1 1 2 18
2 1 1 2 18
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 8
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 7
5 1 1 1 3 17
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 14
7 1 1 1 1 4 16
8 1 1 1 1 1 5 15
9 1 1 1 1 4 16
10 1 1 1 1 4 16
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 13
12 1 1 1 1 1 5 15
13 1 1 1 1 4 16
14 1 1 1 1 4 16
15 1 1 1 1 1 5 15
16 1 1 1 1 4 16
17 1 1 1 1 4 16
18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 11
19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 13
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 13
21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 13
22 1 1 1 1 1 5 15
23 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 14
24 1 1 19
25 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 14
26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 9
27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 9
28 1 1 1 3 17
29 1 1 1 3 17
30 1 1 1 3 17
31 1 1 1 3 17
N = Student
1, 2, 3 = Test item (Part I)
Appendix 11: The students’ score of the first part of the real test
Student X Y X2 Y2 X.Y
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 1 0
3 3 5 9 25 15
4 3 5 9 25 15
5 1 1 1 1 1
6 3 0 9 0 0
7 0 1 0 1 0
8 1 1 1 1 1
9 0 1 0 1 0
10 1 1 1 1 1
11 3 1 9 1 3
12 2 1 4 1 2
13 0 2 0 4 0
14 0 2 0 4 0
15 2 1 4 1 2
16 0 2 0 4 0
17 0 2 0 4 0
18 3 3 9 9 9
19 2 2 4 4 4
20 2 3 4 9 6
21 2 3 4 9 6
22 1 1 1 1 1
23 1 2 1 4 2
24 0 0 0 0 0
25 1 3 1 9 3
26 3 4 9 16 12
27 3 4 9 16 12
28 1 0 1 0 0
29 1 0 1 0 0
30 0 1 0 1 0
31 0 0 0 0 0
∑N= 31 ∑X=39 ∑Y= 53 ∑X2
56
Appendix 12: The students’ scores of the second part of the test
Student X Y X2 Y2 X.Y
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 0 1 0 0
3 2 2 4 4 4
4 3 2 9 4 6
5 1 0 1 0 0
6 1 2 1 4 2
7 1 2 1 4 2
8 1 2 1 4 2
9 1 2 1 4 2
10 1 1 1 1 1
11 1 2 1 4 2
12 1 1 1 1 1
13 1 1 1 1 1
14 1 1 1 1 1
15 1 1 1 1 1
16 1 1 1 1 1
17 1 1 1 1 1
18 1 2 1 4 2
19 1 2 1 4 2
20 1 1 1 1 1
21 1 1 1 1 1
22 1 2 1 4 2
23 1 2 1 4 2
24 1 0 1 0 0
25 1 1 1 1 1
26 2 2 4 4 4
27 2 2 4 4 4
28 1 1 1 1 1
29 1 1 1 1 1
30 1 1 1 1 1
31 1 2 1 4 2
∑N= 31 ∑X = 36 ∑Y = 42 ∑X2
60
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Celce – Murcia, Mariane and Larsen – Freeman, Diane. 1983. The Grammar Book. USA: Newbury House Publishers
……. 1999.The Grammar Book 2ndEdition.USA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers Dulay, Heidi and Burt, Marina and Krashen, Stephen. Language Two. New York:
Oxford University press
Davies, Paul. 2000. Success in English Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press
Ellis, Rod. 1987. Second Language Acquisition in Context. London: Prentice -Hall International (UK)
……. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press Finegan, Erward. 2004. Language, Its Structure and Use, 4th Edition. USA:
Wadsworth
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1989. A College Grammar of English. New York: Longman Inc.
Harmer, Jeremy. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
H. Stern, H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Kolln, Martha. 1990. Understanding English Grammar, 3rd Edition. USA: Macmillan Publishing Company
Lado, Robert. 1961. Language Testing. London: Longman Larsen – Freeman. 2003. Teaching Language. Canada: Heinle
Larsen – Freeman, Diane and H. Long, Michael. 1991. An Introduction to 2nd Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman Inc.
M. Johnson, Donna. 1992. Approaches to Research in 2nd Language Learning. New York: Longman
Scrampfer Azar, Bety. 1989. Understanding and Using English Grammar. New Jersey: Prentice – Hall Inc.
Yalden, Jenice.1987. The Communicative Syllabus Evolution. London: Prentice – Hall International
