EFL WRITING STRATEGIES OF THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP IT DAARUL ‘ILMI KEMILING BANDAR LAMPUNG

ii

ABSTRACT

EFL WRITING STRATEGIES OF THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP IT DAARUL ‘ILMI KEMILING BANDAR LAMPUNG

By

MUHAMMAD RUDY

Analysing students’ writing process is a need in teaching English and it gives positive contribution to teaching English writing. Teacher can understand students’ writing difficulties and how they tackle the problem during the writing process by observing it. One of the writing processes that can be analyzed is writing strategies. The research is highly needed due to writing in Indonesia’s English curriculum is the most difficult skill.

By using Think-Aloud Protocol (TAP), the research data were obtained. The data taken from six subjects, second grade students of SMP IT Daarul ‘Ilmi, were analyzed. The researcher chose the six subjects out of 21 students randomly. He drew the subjects through lottery. The 21 students were trained to use TAP in the writing process but at the end of session each of them was asked to pick a piece of paper. The 21 papers were differed into to two groups; the six numbered pieces and 15 unnumbered pieces. Both paper groups were put in one box. Whoever

ii

ABSTRACT

EFL WRITING STRATEGIES OF THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF

By

MUHAMMAD RUDY

and it gives positive contribution to teaching English writing. Teacher can understand writing difficulties and how they tackle the problem during the writing process by observing it. One of the writing processes that can be analyzed is

English curriculum is the most difficult skill.

By usingThink-Aloud Protocol(TAP), the research data were obtained. The data taken from six subjects, second grade students of were analyzed. The researcher chose the six subjects out of 21 students randomly. He drew the subjects through lottery. The 21 students were trained to use TAP in the writing process but at the end of session each of them was asked to pick a piece of paper. The 21 papers were differed into to two groups; the six numbered pieces and 15 unnumbered pieces. Both paper groups were put in one box. Whoever picked the numbered one became the subject. At last, the six subjects were

iii

assigned to create descriptive writing based on the picture and verbalize what they think. The recorded Think-Aloud Protocol (TAP) data were coded based on

Result shows that the strategies which occur are only thirteen out of fourteen. There are three categories based on the occurrences; they are frequently used, sometimes used and rarely used. In this research, nine strategies are in the rarely used, and the teacher should work hard to activate those nine strategies. On the other hand, Planning, Monitoring, Evaluating, Resourcing, Repetition, Reduction and Use of L1 Strategies analysis can show the deeper information about the research subject condition. Through this research

iv

CURRICULUM VITAE

Muhammad Rudy was born on July 19, 1988. He is the sixth child of nine siblings. His parents, Nurjanah and Suratman, had their argumentations in giving his name. His mother wanted to name him Muhammad. On the other hand, his father named him Rudy Hartono. Finally, Rudy, nickname, was named Muhammad Rudy Hartono. Due to simplification, the researcher registered his name as Muhammad Rudy on every administrative matter.

He entered SD N 5 Raja Basa (now SD N 2 Raja Basa) and graduated from the elementary school in 2001 as the best student. He continued his study at SMP Negeri 22 Bandar Lampung. He received his first rank at school in every semester in that school until he graduated on 2004.

continued his study at SMA Negeri 2 Bandar Lampung. During his study at SMA Negeri 2, he had some achievement. He was the finalist of National Youth Research held by Brawijaya University on 2005. On 2006, he received his 3rd position when he joined Local Astronomy Olympic. He finished his study in 2007 from SMA Negeri 2 Bandar Lampung and in the same year he continued his study to Lampung University.

During his study at Lampung University, he actively took a part in ESo (English Society) Lampung University and MEC (Muslim English Club) FKIP Unila. In both student organizations, he was the chief of Education Department who organized training and education activity in the organization. He also represented the organizations in some English competitions which made him won FKIP Speech competition in 2009. He also helped several English competitions by becoming the adjudicator of speech, debate and drama contest.

He

Centre. Recently, he is required to assist his lecturer at English Department at Lampung University in teaching English Literature.

v

DEDICATION

To Emak and Abah , Nurjanah and Suratman,

for their pure love.

To my siblings; Neneng Suryati, Suherman, S.E.,

late-Hasbullah, Maria Ulfa, Sofyan, late-Muhammad, Aby

Firdaus and Nining Apriyanti,

our togetherness is our power.

To my advisors who activate my critical thinking and

show what dedication is.

To my almamater, a place of eternal friendship, challenging

destiny, unstoppable competition and the burning hope.

vi

Writers use what they have and move on from there.

(Raimes, 1983)

vii

Praise be to Allah, for His gracious mercy and blessing that enables me to

accomplish this script of the Second Year of

SMP IT Daarul Ilmi Kemiling Bandar Lampung.

I would like to express my special appreciation to my first advisor, Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. His advisory makes me understand and reveal the core of the script. The best gratitude also to my second advisor and my academic advisor, Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A. who has supported and activated my academic skill to achieve better writing. I am also grateful to Drs. Basturi Hasan, M.Pd. as the examiner of this thesis who gives many input and improvement. I acknowledge my debt to them whose attitude and patience always make me positively productive.

I also extend my gratitude to the k Deni

Harnova, S.Si., and i ,Roudatun Najihin class, in

which I elicited the data from them. Great thankfulness also goes to Peni Utami,

S.Pd., the English teacher of SMP IT D my

teaching capability and took the data from her class.

I extend my appreciation to my wonderful fellows, English Department 2007 (NERD), Apparel Sheka Risdanti, Deri Herdawan, Umi Azizah, Dian Irawan, Liliz Fauziah and Joko Setyo Puji Santoso whose attitudes color the meaning of friendship. My sincere prayer is addressed to the late-Akhirman whose spirit motivated me to finish the script soon. Special thankfulness to my seniors, especially to Kristian Adi Putra S.Pd., who gave me a challenging thesis subject and inspiration to finish the script.

Last but not least my great indebtless is dedicated to my parents, Suratman and Nurjanah, who help me understand about life, love and values. My love and thankfulness are also due to my amazing brothers and sisters, Neneng Suryati, Suherman, late Hasbullah, Maria Ulfa, Sofyan, late Muhammad, Aby Firdaus and Nining Apriyanti who play a big role in my life.

viii

Bandar Lampung, December 2011

Muhammad Rudy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT... ii CURRICULUM VITAE ... iv

ix

DEDICATION ... v

MOTTO ... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... viii

TABLE OF CONTENT ... x

LIST OF TABLE ... xi

LIST OF FIGURE... xii

I. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Problem ... 1

1.2. Research Problem ... 7

1.3. Objectives of the Research... 7

1.4. Uses of the Research ... 7

1.5. Scope... 8

1.6. Definition of Terms... 9

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Concept of Writing ... 10

2.1.1. Concept of Learning Writing in English... 13

2.2. Strategy ... 14

2.3. Writing Strategies ... 16

2.4. Method of Studying Writing Strategies ... 18

III. RESEARCH METHOD 3.1. Research Design... 25

3.2. Subjects of the Research ... 26

3.3. Research Procedure... 27

3.4. Data of the Research ... 30

3.5. Data Collection Strategy ... 30

3.6. Instruments of the Research... 31

3.7. Data Analysis ... 31

3.8. The Procedure of Thinking-Aloud Training ... 35

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Result ... 40

4.1.1 Strategies Used by the Subjects ... 40

4.1.1.1 Planning Strategies... 45

4.1.1.2 Monitoring Strategies... 49

4.1.1.3 Evaluating Strategies... 52

4.1.1.4 Resourcing Strategies... 57

4.1.1.5 Repeating Strategies... 58

4.1.1.6 Reduction Strategies... 59

4.1.1.7 Use of L1 Strategies ... 61

4.1.2 Length of Writing... 62

4.1.3 Additional Description ... 65

x

4.2.1 Strategies in Writing ... 66

4.2.2 Active Writer... 73

4.2.3 TAP and Composing ... 74

4.2.4 Writing Object... 75

V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions ... 76

5.2 Suggestions ... 78

REFERENCES... 80

APPENDICES... 84

LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1. Table of ... 22

Table 2.2 Table of Coding Classification ... 23

Table 3.1 Table of Specification of Data Analysis ... 29

... 35

xi

Table 3.4 Research Schedule ... 37

Table 4.1 Writing Strategies ... 43

Table 4.2 Table of Planning Content and Ideas ... 46

Table 4.3 Table of Planning Procedures ... 48

Table 4.4 Table of Planning Organization ... 49

Table 4.5 Table of Planning Linguistic Text ... 50

Table 4.6. Table of Task Monitoring Strategies ... 51

Table 4.7 Table of Self Monitoring Strategies... 52

Table 4.8 Table of Evaluating Strategies ... 53

Table 4.9 Table of Reviewing Strategies ... 55

Table 4.10 Table of Revising Strategies ... 56

Table 4.11 Table of Editing Strategies... 57

Table 4.12 Table of Resourcing Strategies ... 58

Table 4.13 Table of Repeating Strategies ... 60

Table 4.14 Table of Redution Strategies... 61

Table 4.15 Table of Use of L1 ... 62

Table 4.16 Table of Writing Length ... 65

Table 4.17 Table ... 75

LIST OF FIGURE Page Picture 4.1 Composing Strategies Graphic ... 63

1

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Problem

Writing is the top productive skill in language learning process; it comes after listening, speaking, and reading. It is believed as the most complicated activity. In this skill, the students must integrate their previous knowledge in order to create a good composition. Their background knowledge which is acquired through listening, speaking, and reading should support their writing ability. They must master the vocabulary and structure before composing. It is supported by Meyers (2005:2). He states that writing skill requires the skill of organizing ideas, putting the right vocabularies and using grammar as the structure of the composition.

As the researcher students had

difficulty in

difficulty in descriptive text writing. The sample was cited from one of SMP IT D

The faforite Cartoon he is always make me laugh.

He is 10 years old. He has yellow body. He has squere body. He has not really tall. He is so cute because him always make all person laugh. He work in the restaurant as ceff. It is the femose restaurant in the Bikini

2

There are some problems that the researcher found based on the above sample, among them are listed as follow:

1. The student found difficulties on using the appropriate grammar when writing the text. She wrote the text in her native language structure

( . He work in the restaurant as

ceff In this sentence, we can see that the student cannot use simple present tense which is the main tense in the descriptive text.

2. The student got difficulties on using the suitable generic structure of the text. She wrote the generic structure of the text in random, unarranged order, and it was not suitable with the rules of the text.

3. The student had lack of vocabularies. She did not have enough vocabularies in at hands; therefore, it took too much time in finding the words by dictionary. If there was no dictionary, she wrote the word based on her guessing which could lead to error, for example the word chefwas written asceffin the fifth sentence.

4. She made an error in the use of subject and pronoun, it could create confusion when the text was read; the use ofhimshould be replaced byhe.

He is so cute because him always make all person laugh.

Sari (2010: 58-59) writing weaknesses, they are: organization and vocabulary. In the organization aspect,

compositions were not fluent since their ideas in composition were confusing and disconnected one another. Frequent errors were found in their word choice and vocabulary. The student could not create write the correct form of chef. She used

3

she wrote inappropriate words to express her ideas. This problem exists because some factors which are explained on the following paragraphs.

Three problems facing a student on making good writing are informed by Byrne (1991: 3-4) in Qomarudin (2010: 31) are:

1. Psychological problem: there is no benefit of feedback from others directly. The problem happens because the student rarely gets writing training. It possibly happens because the limited learning writing English period. Consequently, the teacher teaches writing only some minutes in the class which causes the student evaluates his writing. He does not know whether his writing is correct or not.

2. Linguistic problem: we need to choose sentences and structure in such a way that can be understood by the reader. The student must explain about what they intended to mean on their writing by using good words order and structure. It is going to be big obstacle when the student does not know a specifically needed word which reflects what she meant. The problem can be seen in the previous sample.

3. Cognitive problems: to be able to write is not an instant process, but or strategy how to learn certain structures, organize ideas etc. In this way, the student uses their cognitive strategy as the process center in writing. The problem would be complicated if the student did not use cognitive strategy well.

The third problem above, cognitive problem, takes big role in the process of writing. It is the process that happens before the writing itself. The student tended to create errors when his cognitive (thought) was in doubt. Reid (1993:9) states

4

s thought sometimes create intelligence of their mistakes. What he thought was transferred in the wrong linguistic form if he had wrong writing strategy. He would use wrong vocabulary when he could not evaluate the appropriate vocabulary on his writing.

The other researchers also support the important role of cognitive strategy in writing. Raimes (1983:3) states that writing involves systematic way of thinking. What the students write reflect what they think. Through writing the students can share what they have in their mind to other people. In addition, Bell and Burnady in Nunan (1991:36) point out that writing is a complex cognitive activity in which the writer is required to demonstrate simultaneously such as control of content which cover the way of integrating information, coherent, paragraph unity, using sentence structure and the right vocabulary.

The importance of cognitive strategy in writing leads many researches done. Chen and Hu (2005: 1) state that since the early 1980s, second language (L2) writing teachers need to understand the process of L2 writing and take them into account

language writing.

One of the ways to analyze

Protocol (TAP). TAP is a method that allows researchers to understand, at least in part, the thought process of the subject as they use a product, device or manual as

5

Ericsson and Simon state (1996). The researcher observed the user while attempting to complete a defined task.

Scardamalia (1984) states that teacher can use the think aloud protocol as an

available from the finished product alone. Through thinking aloud protocol, teacher can define what happen in their mind because the students verbalize their thinking. Students will say anything in their mind during their writing processes.

By using Think Aloud Protocol the researcher analyze the

strategies in their writing. The researcher could reveal the dominant and less strategies used by the students in the writing process after transcribing and coding their verbalization. The strategies which were revealed in the research can be used to develop better writing instruction as the following information.

Wilhelm (2006) states that thinking aloud protocol helps teachers to develop strategic instructional techniques and how students take benefit of think aloud. Through thinking aloud, students are able to learn how to recognize problems when they occur, how to isolate problems and name the source of confusion, and how to use strategies to overcome their confusion. It means thinking aloud protocol not only gives benefit for the teacher but also gives advantages for the students.

After analyzing the how

the students utilized their strategies in the writing process. The researcher can identify the least and most frequent strategies. Then the researcher categorized the

6

strategies which influenced the writing and tried to create good writing instruction.

Beaton (2002) suggests that the researcher should specify a definite task which must be accomplished by the subject to get better thinking aloud protocol. To enable this, researcher used the guided writing task; that is descriptive writing based on the picture given. The students were required to verbalize their thinking in the descriptive writing process. They were not taught about the descriptive writing since it had been studied in the previous meeting with the teacher. To make the verbalization in descriptive writing was familiar with them, the researcher created training.

In this research, picture was used as the writing object to stimulate the students to

write Joyce,

2009:131). It can make students try to focus on one object because it collects . Students always try to find the words which are suitable so that they can start writing.

The whole background above affected the researcher to conduct a research EFL Writing Strategies at the Second Year Students of SMP IT

7

Based on the background above researcher focused on a problem; that is what are writing strategies engaged in writing process at the second year students of SMP

?

1.3. Objectives of the Research

The objective in doing this research was formulated from the research problem; the objective is to know the writing strategies at the second year students of SMP

.

1.4. Uses of the Research

Practical Uses

1. This research will be a reference for English teacher to know

strategies in writing descriptive paragraph. So, the teacher can consider what treatment that can be given to the learners.

2. This research also gives an opportunity to create future investigation which relates to Thinking Aloud Protocol and writing; either qualitative or quantitative research.

Theoretical Uses

1. This study can give a contribution to EFL writing strategies research at students of Junir High School in Indonesia.

2. This study can be used to support previous theories related to Thinking Aloud Protocol (TAP) on writing and teaching writing.

8

1.5. Scope of the Research

The research was a qualitative one. The research dealt with

process. riting strategies was the

researcher.

Roudatun Najihin Class consists of twenty one students. All of them were trained to practice Think Aloud Protocol (TAP) during their writing process. The subjects were asked to compose their descriptive writing which had been studied previously. From twenty one students, the researcher took six students as his subjects. The six students were taken from the lottery. Every student, from twenty one students, was asked to pick one paper out of twenty one papers. The twenty one papers were divided by two; six numbered pieces and fifteen blank pieces. The student, who got the numbered paper, automatically became the subject of the research.

While the subjects were doing the writing and thinking aloud, researcher recorded their verbalization. The research used one rater. The rater was the researcher himself, who concentrated on recording and transcribing. The data analysis was

one. Finally, the subjects were interviewed to find deeper observation about their L2 writing strategies.

1.6. Definition of Terms

To avoid misunderstanding in the context of research, the following key terms are defined as follows:

9

1. Writing is the skill of organizing words into sentences and sentences into paragraphs, which involves language capacity and thinking.

2. L2 writing strategy is a technique and procedures to conceptualize and fulfil second language task which consists of seven elements; they are

planning, monitoring, evaluating, resourcing, reduction, repetition, and use of L1 strategies.

3. Descriptive Text is a text that can be used to describe someone or something which is characterized by the generic structure (identification and description) and some language features (using present tense, focusing on specific object, using attributive and identifying process).

4. Descriptive Writing Process is a complete activity of the subject to

English proficiency, and difficulty.

5. Thinking aloud protocol is a method to gather data in which the users (subjects) are asked to say whatever they are seeing at, thinking, feeling, and doing. In this research, TAP is used as the data elicitation.

6. Verbalization is an activity of the subjects to tell everything they have on their mind. They speak their thinking as if they talk to themselves.

0

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents literature review related to the research problem. Therefore, a number of relevant topics are reviewed here; they are concept of writing, concept of learning writing, strategies, writing strategies, and concept of Thinking-Aloud.

2.1 Concept of Writing

Walters (1999:90) states that writing is a complex process since it is made of a large number of skills, not only one element that is used but also all of language elements need to be considered such as: spelling, grammar, diction, punctuation, etc. certainly, without all of these elements, it is difficult to write in a good composition of this language skill.

A writer must achieve good spelling, grammar, vocabularies and mechanics in order to organize a good composition. He must have known how to arrange some letters to create a word. If he has bad spelling he will make a disorder word which cannot be found in the list of vocabulary. For example a writer wroteceffwhen he wanted to tell about chef. Of course, the reader got a confusion reading the composition.

✁✁

The above problem also probably happens if the writer does not master the grammar, diction and punctuation. The reader will be confused when a composition has bad grammar. The reader can think different time event when a story is created without considering the time signal. For example, a writer created a past event story but he wrote it in the future form. The reader would think the story have not happened yet.

In the diction aspect, a reader will be bored easily when reading a composition which has similar word used for many times. For instance, a writer created a paragraph about shopping.

I hate shopping. My mother always asks me to shop. She asks me to carry all of heavy bags. I ask her to stop asking me to accompany her but she does not want to. I do not know why mother love to ask me.

From the paragraph above we can observe that the use of ask is repeated for five times. The word which is used frequently in a paragraph does not give impression to the reader. The word ask should be change by using request, demand and

command.

The reader also will get difficulty in reading a composition if the author put inappropriate punctuation in his writing. Takes for example the reader must take long breath if the writer did not put acommain a long sentence as you can see on the following sample.

A reference book is really important for college student if each student does not have book they will not study effectively. They will come to the class with the empty head while the lecturer telling many things the student will be only a passive learner who always listen what the lecturer said rather than trying to find the proof of the lecture.

✂ ✄

The reader will be easier to read a paragraph which is given an appropriate punctuation. As follow:

A reference book is really important for college student. If students do not have book they will not study effectively. They will come to the class with the empty head while the lecturer telling many things. The students will only be a passive learner who always listen what the lecturer said rather than trying to find the proof of the lecture.

Writing enables the students to describe their ideas in sequence and in communicative way. Raimes (1983:3) states that writing also involves a systematic way of thinking. In addition, the close relationship between thinking and writing makes writing a valuable part of any language course.

Ellis (1990:93) asserts that people generally write either to communicate something to other people (writing is a meant to be read by others), for example: when a person writes a letter and sends it to the others, or to be used for their own personal use (the writing is not usually meant to be read by other), for example: when a person writes his experience in his diary.

Writing is an instrument of both communication and self expression. In other words, writing can be used to deliver messages from the writer to the reader. Writing is also used as a media to express our thought or mind.

Writing is a continuing process of discovering how to find the most effective

language acquisition as learners experiment with words, sentences and larger chunks of writing to communicate their ideas effectively and to reinforce the grammar and vocabulary they are learning in class.

☎ ✆

From the statements by experts above, it can be inferred that writing is a way of searching for an effective way

Furthermore, in writing the students are also required to use their ability in combining words, sentences and grammar, so that, they can communicate their ideas effectively. In this way, when writing the students involve parts of speech including the use of adjectives correctly.

2.1.1 Concept of Learning Writing in English

Rivers (1983:249) comments that writing in a simple form, may be just a narration, copying in its conventional graphic form, something already written or reproducing in written form, something which has been read or heard. In its most highly developed form, writing refers to conveying of information or expression of the original ideas in a conclusive way in the new language. We call this expressive writing or composition. Therefore, writing is a productive and expressive skill. In the process of writing the students should use language structure and diction. Besides that, in writing we need much exercise and practice regularly.

From the explanation above, the writer would like to assert that writing is a process of rendering information by using a conventional graphic system to express idea, thought, and feeling which are arranged in the words, sentences, and paragraphs correctly based on English grammatical arrangement. Here, the student uses his eyes, hands, brain, and knowledge to perform his writing well.

✝ ✞

In the teaching learning process, language consists of four skills, they are listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Tarigan, 1981:1). The position of writing skill is in the last skill. It means that writing is a part of thesubject which is difficult because in writing we need special aspects of language, for instance: diction, structure, mechanics, and rhetoric.

In order to choose and use the suitable words that can be used in writing, the students should master many words and know how the words are used in writing. This statement means that by mastering how to use it, the result of writing made by students will be understandable to the readers.

According to Schult (1976:58), by mastering the structure in relation to writing skill, the students know the words that should be used and how to correlate them. This is aimed at understanding and comprehending the writing made by the students easily. By learning these skills in writing, the students must practice it in writing.

2.2. Strategy

Strategy is deliberate action or set of procedures that learners select, implement and control to achieve desired goals and objectives in the completion of learning or performance tasks (Manchon, 2001: 48). It can be stated that strategy is a personal trick in facing a problem. A learner has various tricks in solving a problem while they are studying. He can consult their book or friend when he got a difficulty in calculating in one subject. In learning English, he can consult his dictionary when he did not understand an English word.

✟ ✠

In the Second Language Acquisition (SLA), strategies are categorized into two types, they are learning strategy and communication strategy. There are some aspects which differ one to another. Learning strategy has its character which distinguishes it from communication strategy. However, both strategies facilitate language learning as the following explanations indicate it.

Learning strategy is a procedure undertaken by the learner in order to make their own language learning as effective as possible (Yufrizal, 2007). It is tru that language learners have their own strategies in solving problem they face. They create their solution in learning language.

learning strategy. The learners can find the strategies after getting an experience in their previous problem. Realizing the suitable strategies, students use it for several times for overcoming the next problem. For example a student who understood the meaning of punishment by creating derivation. He chunked the word into punish and ment. This strategy is used to solve other vocabulary difficulties such as agreement or statement

created a list of vocabulary which is added by the picture while the trick he got from the teacher is making list.

While learning strategies are the means adopted by the learners to maximize the effectiveness of the overall learning process, communication strategies are tactics used by the non-fluent learner during L2 interaction, in order to overcome specific communicative problems.

✡6

Communication strategy can occur both in spoken or written language. In the spoken, it possibly happens when the speaker wants to make the listener understand what he means while the listener gets difficulty to understand. They can negotiate the meaning during the conversation to achieve same perception. On the other hand, a writer does communication strategy during the process of writing. He tried to implement any strategies in order to make the reader understand what he intended in his composition.

In this research, the researcher tried to analyze the communication strategy engaged in the writing process. For the further elaboration about strategy, especially writing strategies, can be seen on the following part.

2.3. Writing Strategies

Regarding writing and strategies, the research which exists is about writing process. The research tries to capture the insight processes of mental in the composing process. Manchon (2001: 48) states that the characters of of writing correspond to the actions and procedures employed by the writer to control the on-line management of goals, compensate for the limited capacity of human pose to themselves.

The process of L2 writing has been a major focus of L2 writing research since the early 1980s (Chen and Hu, 2005). Chen and Hu (2005) add that early studies of the L2 writing process were inpired by developments in L1 writing research.

☛ ☞

Many researchers tried to find whether the strategies which are used in the L1 writing and L2 writing are same or not.

Into the 1990s, research on the L2 writing process increasingly focused on the processes of L2 writing, for example, reviewing and revising. While research looking closely at specific aspects of L2 composing process is valuable and allows us to develop an in-depth understanding of these aspects, there is a potential danger of losing sight of the big picture because of a narrow focus. Consequently, studies of specific aspects or sub-process of L2 writing need to be complemented by investigations that take a more holistic approach.

As an attempt to achieve holistic approach, Thinking-Aloud Protocol (TAP) is used as a data elicitation instrument. One of the reasons why TAP is appropriate to know writing process and strategy is stated by Weijen et.al (2009). They said that TAP is one of the best methods for observing the occurrence of conceptual activities such as planning, generating ideas, and evaluating, during the writing process.

The situation above inspired the researcher to investigate the research problem which is reported through this thesis.

2.4. Method of Studying Writing Strategies

✌8

writing and strategies. The reason occurs after a fair consideration. The research on writing cannot be seen from the achievement only; the process also affects the result of writing. The process orientation also enables the writing teachers see composing as the complex activity which needs more attention.

Chen (2005) lists at least ten researchers did writing process. The demand of examining writing process is getting higher because writing process research can give positive effect on the writing instruction in teaching writing. Hopefully, after knowing the insight of writing, the writing achievement can be improved.

Studying writing process is not easy. There is an aspect which should be considered during the research. It is needed to use a qualified method to get representative data. Bowles (2010) states that one of the method to get complete writing process data is by using Think Aloud protocol (TAP).

Both in L1 and L2 writing research, there are many researchers used TAP as the data elicitation; both at writing strategies research and writing process research. Bowles (2010) informs that at least 13 researches done such as comparing L1 and L2 strategies, L1 role in L2 writing strategies, composition feedback on L2 writing and thought process. She added that this method can give wider picture of writing process which is more than the writing result itself.

Thinking aloud protocol is a method that allows researchers to understand, at least in part, the thought process of the subject as they use a product, device or manual. The researcher observes while the user attempts to complete a defined task.

✍9

In addition to categorize verbal reports in terms of temporal space, Ericsson and Simon (1993) distinguish between reports become two types. The first type is non-metacognitive, reports that require the subject to verbalize their thoughts per se. The second type is metacognitive, reports that require subjects to verbalize additional information, such as explanations and justification.

The think aloud is one of the most commonly used methods for collecting data about the composing process. Using this method, writers are asked to verbalize everything that comes to their minds while performing the writing task; these verbalizations are recorded, then trancribed and analysed in a later stage. The data balizations as well as the texts produced by them are think aloud protocols.

By analysing protocols, researchers infer the strategies or behaviours used by writers while performing a specific writing task. Abdel Latif (2009) states that since the early 1980s, some works have been published on using think-aloud method in investigating the composing process. He adds that there are many published works on this such as Cooper and Holzman (1983), Flower and hayes (1985), Dobrin (1986) and Ransdell (1995).

The samples above have either discussed how to administer the think aloud method and analyze the protocols writers generate or debated its validity and reliability in investigating the composing process. These published works, however, have dealt with the schemes that have been used by researchers to

✎0

protocols. Abdel Latif reviewed thirty one coding schemes developed by writing researchers since the mid 1980 for analyzing the think aloud protocols generated by L2/FL writers performing hadwritten tasks, e.g. narrative, argumentative, expository, descriptive writing a picture prompt, letter writing etc. there are five types of identified schemes:

a.

b. Categorical schemes

c. Attention to aspects of writing schemes d. Problem-solving schemes

e. Language-switching schemes

While the first three schemes can be described as general ones used for analyzing the composing process as a whole, the last two schemes are regarded as specific ones describing a particular aspect of it.

aloud protocols is using a categorical coding scheme that includes a small number of categories representing the main components of the composing process with their subcategories, the researcher used coding scheme for the composing process developed by Wenden (1991) who divides her scheme into three categories: Planning, Evaluation, and

Monitoring.

Planning strategies can be seen from two aspects; metacognitive and cognitive strategies. The metacognitive strategies relate to writer ability to directly use the language in their writing without giving any reason or explanation about the writing he made. On the other hand, cognitive strategies show the ability of the

✏ ✑

writer to clarify the writing they made in the process of composing. The complete information about the classification of the strategies can be seen as follow.

at Congjun (2004)

Planning Metacognitive strategies

a. Knowledge retrieval

b. Decision making (related to world knowledge, rethorical knowledge and linguistic knowledge)

Cognitive strategies used in planning

a. Clarification strategies (self-questioning, hypothesizing, defining terms and comparing)

b. World knowledge retrieval strategies (reading what has been written, writing in a lead-word or expression, rereading the assigned

question, self-questioning, writing till the idea would come up, c. Linguistic knowledge retrieval strategies (circumlocution and written

rehearsing)

d. Resourcing (asking the researcher and using a dictionary) e. Deferral

f. Avoidance

Evaluation Metacognitive strategies

a. Reviewing or rereading what has been written

b. Identifying the criteria used for assessing the text (usually by questioning)

c. Applying the criteria to the text or verbalizing the assessment Cognitive strategies used in evaluation

a. Verification: checking dictionary or asking the researcher when not

Monitoring Metacognitive strategies

a. Problem recognition or identification b. Problem assessment

The table shows that the identified strategy, especiallyMonitoring, is not divided into two categories. Monitoring is only classified into one category, that is metacognitive strategies which focus on identifying whether the writing has problem or not and assessing the problem during the writing process. It is

✒✒

different with the second strategies;Evaluationwhich is divided into two classes, metacognitive and cognitive strategies.

(1991) coding scheme as Victori (1997)

ed and classified in the table 2.2 below.

Victori classifies the strategies which is used in the writing process into seven groups. They are planning strategies, Monitoring Strategies, Evaluating Strategies, Resourcing Strategies, Repeating Strategies, Reduction Strategies, and Use of L1 Strategies. Basically, she classifies th

Taxonomy (table 2.1). She elaborates the strategies deeper on the following table.

Table 2.2: Coding Classification

I. Planning Strategies

Strategies by which the writer plans and talks out what ideas will come next, and explicitly states his or her objectives for content organization and writing procedures. Under this type, there were included strategies for:

Planning overall content and ideas(PLid), such as retrieving ideas, relating new information to old information, making connections among existing ideas and setting general content goals either in the form of notes or verbalizations.

Planning procedures(PLpr), such as planning subsequent actions (procedures or strategies to be adopted) or planning delayed actions (postponing an action deliberately).

Planning organization(PLor), such as grouping ideas; deciding on the overall organization of the text (e.g. organizing according to rhetorical plan); deciding how to sequence ideas and how to structure the text as a whole or parts of it.

Planning linguistic text(PLtx), such as rehearsing or verbalizing several versions of the text to be produced.

II. Monitoring Strategies

Include strategies undertaken when checking and verifying progress in the

composing process and when identifying oncoming problems. They might involve:

Task-Monitoring strategies(TM), such as assessing how the task is progressing; how successfully the intended meaning is conveyed; tracking the use of how well a strategy is working or whether there is a need fr adopting new ones.

✓ ✔

task, becoming aware that one is having problems. III. Evaluating Strategies

Strategies undertaken when reconsidering the written text, previous goals, planned thoughts, as well as changes undertaken on the text.

Evaluating strategies(EV), such as questioning or evaluating the written text or planned thoughts.

Reviewing strategies(REW), such as reconsidering goals previously set (g), or reading the text, either the entire text (gl), the previous sentence (st) or paragraph (p).

Revising strategies(REV), making changes to the text in order to clarify meaning (the changes may involve problems with ideas, word choices, cohesion, coherence, and organization).

Editing strategies(ED), making changes to the text to correct the grammar, vocabulary (when the purpose is not clarifying meaning), spelling, and punctuation.

IV. Resourcing Strategies (RES)

Using available external reference sources of information about the target language, such as consulting the dictionary to look up or confirm doubts

(grammatical, semantic or spelling doubts), or to look for alternatives (synonyms). V. Repeating Strategies (RP)

Repeating chunks of language in the course of composing, either when reviewing the text or when transcribing new ideas.

VI. Reduction Strategies (RD)

Strategies to do away with a problem, either by removing it from the text, giving up any attempts to solve it, or paraphrasing with the aim of avoiding a problem. VII. Use of L1 Strategies (L1)

Using the mother tongue with different purposes: to generate new ideas, to evaluate and make sense of the ideas written in the L2 or to transcribe the right idea/word in the L1.

The above classification was used in this research as a way to categorize the strategies. The data which got from the transcription were coded based on

✕ ✖

III. RESEARCH METHODS

3.1. Research Design

In this research, the researcher used descriptive method. Descriptive research is concerned with providing descriptions of phenomena that occur naturally, without the intervention of an experiment or an artificially contrived treatment (Seliger and Shohamy, 1989:116) the method is intended to describe a phenomenon or problem in learning English.

In addition, Leedy (1974:79) implies descriptive method is a method of research that simply looks with intense accuracy at the phenomena of the moment and describes exactly what this research has observed. In this way, the data, which had been gathered from students, were analyzed in order to come to a conclusion. The description in this research discussed

writing process writing strategy.

Seliger and Shohamy (1989:117) add that descriptive research enables the researcher to focus on one aspect of language learning. The investigation did not go to the general material because the researcher limited the study by providing a specific aim, which is to find the EFL composing strategy used during the writing process.

✗6

To achieve the research goal, the researcher used one instrument, it is the researcher himself. The researcher combined both Think Aloud Protocol (TAP) and interview to reach a complete picture of subjects writing strategy, in which the result of TAP and interview were analyzed. In addition, the researcher acted as a participant observer who can observe and train the subject.

3.2. Subject of the Research

As Trulock (2005) suggests about participant number, the minimum number of participants are 4 subjects. In this research, six subjects were chosen by the researcher to find the answer of a research problem and get more comprehensive data.

The research subjects were

Bandar Lampung which consists of 21 students who had studied about descriptive writing. The researcher took six students as the subjects through lottery.

First of all, the twenty one students were trained how to practice Think Aloud Protocol (TAP) during their writing process. The 21 students were asked to pick a piece of paper one by one. The pieces of papers were divided into two groups; the six numbered pieces and 15 unnumbered pieces. Whoever took the numbered pieces became the subjects of the research.

3.3. Research Procedure

✘ ✙

By thinking aloud while attempting to complete the task, the subjects can explain their method to complete the task, and illuminate any difficulties they encounter in the process. The researcher asked the subject to think aloud during doing the descriptive writing. Both writing and thinking aloud protocol were administrated for fifteen minutes.

To create the secure situation for the subjects, the research subjects were asked to verbalize their thought during the writing activity in the place they chose. The s were recorded. The activity that must be done by the student was writing the descriptive model. The students were asked to verbalize their thought either in their L1, Bahasa Indonesia or second language/ English (L2), even the combination of both, as Bowles (2010:98) suggests.

2. Interview

After thinking aloud process, the researcher organized an interview. During the interview, the conversations were recorded. The researcher used some questions which were adjusted after transcription analysis. It was done to find the deeper analysis of their mind and clarify their composing strategies. Setiyadi (2006:243) states that the interview enables the researcher to go into more depth and better understanding of the individuals thinking process.

3. Transcribing the record

The students recorded verbalizations were

utterances were transferred into written material. Both L1 and L2 transcription were written.

✚8

4. Coding the transcription

The verbalization transcription was coded. To know the writing strategy during writing process, the transcription was coded based on two classes, they are number of written product (word, phrase or sentence) and type of strategy. The coding was arranged into underlined numbered and parenthesis. The written product on the paper were signed by number, for examplegood girl2_{, it means the}

subject was writing the second phrase on their paper. Strategies which were verbalized by the subjects were signed by underline, such as Dora dora dora. At last, type of strategies which was used was identified by the parenthesis e.g. Dora dora dora (RP). The following table of specification gives the complete description of the coding system.

Table 3.1. Table of Specification of Data Analysis

No Strategy and Code

Description Sample

1 Planning overall content and ideas (PLid)

Retrieving ideas, relating new information to old information, making connections among existing ideas and setting general content goals either in the form of notes or verbalizations.

And....they. . . .

2. Planning procedures (PLpr)

Planning subsequent actions (procedures or strategies to be adopted) or planning delayed actions (postponing an action deliberately).

Saya akan

mendeskripsikan gambar yg diberi mr rudy 3. Planning

organization (PL or)

Grouping ideas; deciding on the overall organization of the text (organizing according to rhetorical plan); deciding how to sequence ideas and how to structure the text as a whole or parts of it.

Selanjutnya . . . saya akan . .

4. Planning linguistic text (PLtx)

Rehearsing or verbalizing several versions of the text to be produced.

dia memegang memegang membawa

5. Task

Monitoring (TM)

Assessing how the task is progressing; how successfully the intended meaning is conveyed; tracking the use of how well a strategy is working or whether there is a need for adopting new ones.

Dah selesai

6. Self-Monitoring (SM)

becoming aware that one is having problems

ga make h lagi aduh.

7. Evaluating (EV)

Questioning or evaluating the written text or planned thoughts

Em... apa lagi ya? 8. Reviewing Considering goals previously set, reading the One day dora while play

✛9

(REW) text, either the entire, the previous sentence, or paragraph

in many plant flower and tree. Dora is use t-shirt pink and orange short. Dora have ransel and peta. Boot while bring a key color is blue 9. Revising

(REV)

Making changes to the text in order to clarify meaning (that changes may involve problems with ideas, word choice, cohesion, coherence and organization)

in beside oooo salah in front of

10. Editing (ED) Making changes to the text to correct the grammar, vocabulary (when the purpose is not clarifying meaning), spelling, and punctuation.

traveling eh salah ding. Dora still adventure5

adventure 11. Resourcing

(RES)

Using available external reference sources of information about the target language, such as consulting the dictionary to look up or confirm doubts (grammatical, semantic or spelling doubts), or to look for alternatives (synonyms)

.. . .bahasa inggrisnya

12. Repeating (RP)

Repeating chunks of language in the course of composing, either when reviewing the text or when transcribing new ideas.

Name..namanya.. name

13. Reduction (RD)

To do away with a problem, either by removing it from the text, giving up any attempts to solve it, or paraphrasing with the aim of avoiding a problem

Celana itu short kali. Ga tau (deleting)

14. Use of L1(L1) Using the mother tongue with different purposes: to generate ideas, to evaluate and make sense of the ideas written in the L2 or to transcribe the right idea/word in the L1

Boot sedang membawa

In order to get complete data, the researcher combined coded transcription with their writing results. As explained previously, the researcher used some codes for both. The sample can be seen as follows: Dora is2 _{Dora dora dora (RP). the}

From the sample we can know that to write Dora is, the subject used one Repeating Strategy (RP).

3.4. Data of the Research

✜0

verbalization happened because the subject practiced Think-Aloud Protocol (TAP). Researcher transcribed and coded the verbalization to identify the strategies.

3.5. Data Collection Strategy

In collecting the data, guided writing task (one topic writing) was given to the students. The students were asked to create descriptive writing. They were asked to describe a picture on their writing task. The writing process and verbalization

took 15 es were recorded.

They were asked to think aloud during their writing. The researcher collected the students work and processed it to achieve the aim.

In order to get deeper analysis, the interview was held after transcribing. The questions helped the students to tell everything which happened in their mind while they were writing. Besides that, interview enabled the students to tell everything which was left in the verbalization process.

3.6. Instruments

The instrument in this research was the researcher. The researcher gave information to the subjects about TAP and trained them to use it. After determining the six subjects, the researcher took the data.

The subjects were given a task to make them think aloud. The task was descriptive writing task. The students were provided a picture which should be

✢ ✣

described into descriptive model. They also were given a clear instruction to make them understand what they should do in the test.

The researcher used percentage in distributing the data. He counted the percentage of composing strategy types to consider which one was prominent and which one was less than others. The percentage can be drawn after coding.

To gain complete data, an interview was carried out. Students could tell the data which were left in the verbalization. The interview data were combined to

to get comprehensive analysis.

3.7. Data Analysis

Bowles (2010:123) states that there are three important aspects in analyzing the Think Aloud Protocol data, they are: transcription, representativeness and coding. Therefore the researcher took account on those aspects in order to get accurate analysis. The researcher added one other important aspect that is strategy categories. Here are the further explanations on analyzing the data:

1. Transcription

Transcription which was used by the researcher is the common transcription that is used in the socio-cultural theory and cognitivist approaches to SLA, which do not tend to use detail transcription. The transcription captured their spoken arguments while writing. The students who were studied were allowed to use their L1 (Bahasa Indonesia), L2 or combination of them, during the think aloud recording process.

✤ ✥

was regarded. They could say anything came to their mind about the object. All words that appeared from their mouths were recorded and transcribed. Each word they made was important because the research question was intended to analyze their thinking aloud to find their writing strategies.

Here is the sample of transcription which shows the participants are studying the L2 (Spanish) text.

Um, Ok. Uh, preventative medicine. How to live a healthy life. First, you have to eat well. Um,cada dia toma fruta y verduras. [each day eat fruit and vegetables] each day eat fruit and vegetables, meat, and uh, pescado[fish]

Haga y ponga,[do and put] hmm.

In this research the transcription was done on the English Foreign Learners (EFL) in SMP IT Daarul Ilmi at VIII Grade who verbalize their thinking during making their descriptive writing/ EFL writing. They wrote the task based on the picture they saw.

2. Representativeness

Ensuring the representativeness was started from writing instruction. All participants may not verbalize according to the initial instructions they received. They should verbalize after getting the complete instruction.

Here is the instruction sample:

In this experiment, I am interested in what you think about when you complete the task. In order to find out I am going to ask you to THINK ALOUD as you work through the task.

✦✦

Coding, in this research, was done to ease the process of analyzing data. Coding enabled the researcher to quantify the verbalization. He coded each think aloud into some categories

modified by Victori (1997). If the participant uttered sentences which show their Planning Strategies, it was coded as (PL). Next, Planning Strategies were divided into some categories, they are: Planning overall content and ideas (PLid), Planning procedure (PLpr), Planning organization (Plor), and Planning linguistic text (PLtx)

Protocol were found using Monitoring Strategies, which is devided into two types, they were coded as (TM) and (SM). TMrefers to Task-Monitoring strategy andSMrefers to Self-Monitoring Strategy.

The third part of the protocol analysis code is Evaluating Strategies. In this part, there are four categories of coding scheme. The first one is Evaluating strategy which is coded as (EV). The second is Reviewing strategy (REW). The third category is Revising strategy (REV) and the last is Editing strategy (ED).

The last four-aspects of coding are Repeating, Resourcing, Reduction and Use of L1. Each of them has their own code, they are (RP) for Repeating, (RES) for Resourcing, (RD) as Reduction and (L1) for Use of L1.

4. Strategy Categories

After coding, the researcher put the strategies into the table to enable him categorize the strategies. The strategy category was based on the occurrences. The occurrence was got from the tally. One strategy occurred in one sentence was counted as one tally. For example: saya mau nulisin tentang dora dan boot.(PLpr)

✧ ★

Dora1 _{dora(RP) (PLid) is adventurer girl}2_{. Adventurer girl adventurer girl} ad-ven-turer (RP) gimana tulisannya? (EV) Adven-turer girl (RP). From the sample we can create a table of occurrence as follow:

Occurrence

Strategy Occurrence

PLpr 1

RP 3

PLid 1

EV 1

From the table 3.2 we can get the data that, PLpr only occurred once which is same like two other strategies, PLid and EV. On the other hand, RP has higher frequency for its occurrence. It occurs three times.

As the last step of the analysis, the researcher created a rank. The rank is based on the occurrence. The rank can be seen as follow:

Table 3.3 Rank Category

Rank Frequency

Frequently Used

Sometimes Used 3 - 4

Rarely Used

The table 3.3 shows that if a strategy occurred five times or more, it would be categorized as frequently used by the subjects. The second category is sometimes used, it means that the RP strategy which is shown by table 3.2 is included in the second rank. And the last rank israrely used. It happened if the strategy occurred

✩ ✪

twice or less than twice. The strategies in table 3.2; PLpr,PLidandEV, are put in the third rank.

3.8. Procedure of Thinking-Aloud Data Collection

Sanz et al (2009:53) suggest that the procedures to ask the subject to think aloud are:

1.

2. The language(s) participants are allowed to use to verbalize their thoughts 3. The level of detail and reflection required in the think aloud.

Based on the above criteria, the researcher arranged Thinking-Aloud Training for the subjects. So that they were able to produce verbalization easily during the study. The first step before giving Think-Aloud Training, the researcher was started from arranging good instrument (writing task). In this part, researcher started by making clear writing instruction. Here is the sample of good instruction:

Instruction: I ask you to talk aloud as you go through the writing task. everything that you would say to yourself silently when you are seeing the picture. Just act as if you were alone in the room, speaking to yourself. The time limitation is only 15 minutes. Speak as clear as possible.

As recognition of Thinking Aloud Protocol that it is rarely used in the class, especially in writing, the researcher guided the student in order to familiarize with the procedure. The activity were done on two days. The first day was the training day and the second day as the data citation time.

✫6

In this study, two days were used as the research day. The researcher assigned different activity for each day. The information about data collection activity can be seen in the following research schedule.

Table 3. 4. Research Schedule

No Date Activity Time

1 2

July 26, 2011 July 29, 2011

Think-Aloud training Data Collection day

09.00 10.30 09.00 10.30

The more elaboration about data collection can be seen in the next explanation.

1.Day One

On the first day, the researcher introduced the using of Thinking Aloud Protocol among the students. This activity is important since the Thinking Aloud Protocol is not a common way in EFL writing for them. The students rarely verbalize their thoughts in the writing process.

In the Thinking Aloud Protocol introduction, the students were guided by giving the sample. The researcher pretended he would be writing a descriptive text based on the prepared material (picture). The students were asked to notice every activity conducted by the researcher. Then, the students were asked to write the descriptive text based on the picture.

Brain storming was used to train Thinking Aloud Protocol (TAP). Firstly, the researcher projected the picture on the white board by using LCD projector. He asked the students by using WH questions (What, Where, When, Who,

✬ ✭

The students were guided to verbalize their thinking naturally without realizing the type of verbalization. ho, When, Where, d them to verbalize their thoughts. Also, the use of WH questions made the students see the picture as a complete situation. The students were guided to think aloud when they saw the picture. After the students got thinking aloud practice they were required to do the exercise.

By giving training about Thinking Aloud practice in the class, the students were familiar and ready to do Thinking Aloud effectively when the investigation was really conducted. Hopefully, the students did thinking aloud easily while the writing process for the study was carried out.

2. Day Two

The second day was the data collection. The students were asked to create

were recorded. The recording and writing process were done in the class for 15 minutes.

The researcher recorded six students in the class while the other students also were verbalizing their thoughts. This situation could make the students feel comfortable because their friends were still in the class to accompany them. Hopefully, by using this, the subjects of research will think aloud naturally. As suggested by Ericsson and Simon (1996:256), the researcher should guard the subjects to make them think aloud. He should walk around the class to

✮8

make sure they verbalized their thought. This situation could make the student were being noticed; therefore they vocalized their thought.

After finishing their Thinking Aloud Transcription, the students were guided to have an interview session. The researcher asked the students some questions. The interview process was recorded to save the whole data.

As Sanz et al (2009:53) suggest, the researcher used the clear writing and thinking aloud protocol instruction as follow:

You are requested to write descriptive text dealing with the picture you see. You can write the descriptive text during fifteen minutes. There are some aspects that you should notice during the writing process, they are:

1. Write your text neatly!

2. You can use your dictionary or ask your friend and teacher if you get difficulties during the writing.

3. You should verbalize everything that you think along the writing process.

4. You speak to yourself by using English or Bahasa Indonesia to say everything you think. It is allowed also to use both languages (mixturing).

5. Just speak to your recorder as if you were alone in this room.

Leave your work if you think everything you want to write has been covered in your writing and verbalization.

✯6

V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESSTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Having the study, the researcher draws some conclusion related to results and discussions. Here are some conclusions and suggestions:

1. In producing a descriptive writing, including creating each sentence or line, several types of writing strategies are used by each subject of the research.

2. Regarding the occurrence, especially general average, the researcher has three categories; they are frequently used such as PLid (14.3), EV (10.0),

RP(14.2), and L1 (36.3),sometimes used which includesRD (3.5),rarely used PLpr (1.2), PLor (0.0), PLtx (0.2), TM (2.2), SM (2.8), REW (0.8),

REV(0.5),ED(1.8), andRES(2.0).

3. Planning Strategies, generally, take 17.5% (16% of PLid + 1.3% PLpr + 0.2% ofPLtx) out of 100% EFL writing strategies.PLid(Planning overall content and ideas) has big part that is 16%, which shows that the subjects have many ideas that could be expressed in their writing. PLpr (Planning procedures) which is 1.3% represents that the subjects did not plan clearly what they should do after one activity to the next activity, they let themselves write directly what they wanted to write. The zero PLor

✰✰

jumping from one idea to the next idea disorderly. 0.2% ofPLtx(Planning linguistic text) shows that the subjects did not mind on the text version, they write the text as they want.

4. Monitoring Strategies which consist of TM (Task-Monitoring strategies) and SM (Self-Monitoring strategies) have 5.6% percentage. After using TM it means the subjects are sure what they have written were correct and they are ready to create new sentences by using other strategies. On the other side, SM can be used as the problem identification of writing process.

5. The lack of Evaluating Strategies (11.1% for EV, 0.9% for REW, 0.6% for REV and 2.0% for ED) shows that subjects of the research were sure of what they had written. Unfortunately, the lower the Evaluating strategies are the poorer the writer is.

6. Though Resourcing Strategies have a small percentage (2.2%), they indicate that the subjects had difficulty in the vocabulary selection because they have limited vocabulary in their mind.

7. Repetition Strategies have an

process because it strengthens the memory about the intended meaning.

8. Reduction strategies occur because the students do not know how to express a specific word from L1 to L2.

9. Use of L1 is the most dominant strategy used; it takes 40.4%. It indicates the effort to plan, generate ideas, solve problems or prevent cognitive overloads. It shows they have process in their cognitive to produce the composition.

✱8

10. Active writer has rehearsed more strategies in the writing process because their cognitive keep working to generate ideas. It is shown by the three top strategies Use of L1 (L1), Planning Content and Idea (PLid), and

Repeating (RP).

11. As the extension, TAP does not affect writing quantity. In addition,

subjec the subjects to create additional

information on the object of writing.

5.2 Suggestions

Regarding the conclusion and teaching writing implication, the researcher tries to suggest as follow:

1. In teaching writing, the teacher should train the students to plan their writing in order to create systematic writing. The teacher can ask the students to create their design or draft before they come to the real writing. It is suggested to encourage the students to use Planning Strategies (PLid, PLpr, PLor and PLtx).

2. Peer Correction and Self Correction can be used to act

Monitoring Strategies and Evaluating Strategies. After learning to correct a composition, students will be common to the correct form of writing. 3. Regarding the Resourcing Strategy and Reduction Strategy, the teacher

✲ ✳

4. The teacher should not limit the use of Repetition and L1 Strategies

5. The teacher can use familiar picture as the writing object to activate writing strategies to gain active writer.

6.

80

REFERENCES

Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. 2008. The Problems Identified in the Previous -Aloud Protocols: http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/department/events/langue/ 2008/proceedings/pdfs/Abdel-Latif%20Muhammad-LangUE2008.pdf cited on June 30, 2011.

Ariesta Cs, Dika. 2010.

Achievement Through Word Field Card Game at the First Grade of SMPN 1 Hulu Sungkai. Bandar Lampung: FKIP Unila (Unpublished paper).

Beaton, Angus, Steven Nicholson, Neil Halliday, and Keith Thomas. 2002 HCI Lecture 5 Think Aloud Protocols. http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk /~steve /HCI/cscln/trail1/Lecture5.html, cited on February 23, 2011.

Bowles, Mellisa A. 2010. The Think Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research. New York: Routledge.

Chen, Bo and Guangwei Hu. 2005. A Protocol-Based Study of University-Level

http://www.englishaustralia. com.au/index.cgi?E=hcatfuncs&PT=sl&X=getdoc&Lev1=pub_jour_23_&Lev2=E AJ_23_2_hu, cited June 30, 2011.

Cox, Adam. 1991.Brain at Teaching English. London: Routledge.

Crimmon, Mc. James M. 1993. Writing With a Purpose. New York: Houghton Miffin Company.

Depdiknas. 2006.Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Depdikbud. Derewianka, Beverly. 1992. Exploring How Texts Work. Melbourne: Primary

English Teaching Association.

Ellis, Gail. 1990. Learning to Learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. Anders and Herbert Simon. 1996. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Report as Data. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Evans, David. 2009.How to Write a Better Thesis Report. Melbourne: Melbourne

81

Henjes, Lisa and Lincoln N. 2007. The Use of Think Aloud Strategies to Solve Word Problem: http://scimath.unl.edu/MIM/files/research/HenjesL.pdf. cited on January 06, 2011.

Idrus, Nila Wati. 2005.

Through Picture at the Second Year of SMA YP Unila Bandar Lampung. Bandar Lampung: FKIP Unila. Unpublished Script.

Joyce, Bruce., Marsha Weil., and Emily Calhoun. 2009. Models of Teaching. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Keraft, Gory. 1982.Exposition and Description. Jakarta: Erlangga. Kriswanto, Ari Sinar. 2005.

Business Letter (A Case Study at the Secretary Class of SMK Negeri 4 Bandar Lampung). Bandar Lampung: FKIP Unila: Unpublished Script. Leedy, Paul D. 1974. Practical Research: Planning and Design. New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co.Inc.

Mackey, A. 1985. Input, Interaction and Second Language Development: An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL. SSLA, 2(4): 557 587. Manchon, Rosa M. 2001. Trends in the Conceptualizations of Second Language

Composing Strategies: A Critical Analysis: http://www.um.es/ijes/ vol1n2/04-RMANCHON.pdf, cited on September 7, 2011.

Maxom, Michelle. 2009.Teaching English as a Foreign Language for Dummies. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

McDonald, Andrew and Gina Mc.donald. 1996. Mastering Writing Essentials,

New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regent.

Meyers, Allan. 2005. Gateways to Academic Writing-Second Edition. New York: Longman.

Mu, Congjun. 2004. A Taxonomy of ESL Writing Strategies: http://conference. nie.edu.sg/paper/new%20converted/AB00053.pdf, cited on September 7, 2011

Nunan, David. 1991. Designing Task Communicative Classroom. Sidney: Cambridge University Press.

Parera, J. Daniel. 1984.Menulis Tertib dan Sistematis. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Qomarudin, Achmat. 2010. Correlation between Extraversion Personality and English Writing Skill. Semarang. Fakultas Humaniora Undip.

Raimes, Ann. 1983. Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

82

Reid, Joy M. 1993.Teaching ESL Writing. Wyoming: Prentice Hall Regents. Rivers, Mary. 1983. Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Sanz, C., H. J. Lin., B. Lado., H. W. Bowden., and C. A. Stafford. 2009.

Concurrent Verbalizations, Pedagogical Conditions, and Reactivity: Two CALL studies. Language learning.

Sari, Tri Wulan. 2010. The Implementation of Picture Composition in Teaching Paragraph Writing at Second Grade of SMA Negeri 2 Bandar Lampung (A Classroom Action Research). Bandar Lampung: FKIP Unila (Unpublished paper).

Scardamalia, M. 1984.Teachability of Reflective Process in Written Composition. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal of Artificial Intelligence. Schult, Renerre. 1976. Teaching for Communication. Illinois: National Textbook

Company.

Seliger, Herbert W. and Elena Shohamy. 1989. Second Language Research Methods. Hongkong: Oxford University Press.

Setiadi, Ag. Bambang. 2006.Metode Penelitian untuk Pengajaran Bahasa Asing: Pendekatan Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Sulaeman. 1998. Media Audio Visual untuk Pengajaran, Peragaan, dan Penyuluhan. Jakarta: PT Gramedia.

Tarigan, Guntur. 1987. Menulis Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.

Trulock, Vivienne. 2005. Think Aloud Protocol. http://ilikecake.ie/ hci/eval_ thinkaloud.htm, cited on January 6, 2011.

Victori, Mia. 1997.EFL Composing Skills and Strategies: Four Case Studies:

http://www.um.es/langpsy/Publicaciones/Victori.pdf., cited on June 30, 2011.

Weijen, Daphne Van., Huub van de Bergh., Gert Ritjlaarsdam., and Ted Sanders. 2009. L1 Use during L2 Writing: An Emprical Study of A Complex Phenomenon: http://www.ilo.uva.nl/Projecten/Gert/Research/VanWeijen_ et-al_2009_SecondLanguageWriting.pdf, cited June 30, 2011.

Wilhelm, Jeffrey. 2006. A Study Guide for Improving Comprehension with Think-Aloud Strategies: http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/scholasticprofessional/ authors /pdfs /sg_Improve_Composition.pdf, cited on February 23, 2011.

Abbott, M. 8

addition 54–5, 57, 60, 62–4 Afflerbach, P. 8

Ahlum-Heath, M. E. 24–6, 41, 46 Allport, A. 127–8

Allwood, C. M. 24, 39, 40–2, 46 Alvermann, D. E. 6

anagrams 17–19, 23, 54–7, 60, 81 analogies 30, 35–6, 56, 60, 82,

147

Anderson, M. 5, 15–16, 19, 20 Anderson, N. J. 7, 128 Anderson, U. 37

artificial grammar 44–5, 56–7, 60 Bachman, L. 7

Barston, J. L. 43–4

Basili, L. A. 30, 57, 93, 142 Baumann, J. F. 6

Beare, S. 9

Berardi-Coletta, B. 24, 41, 46–8 Berg, H. P. 6

Bernardi, L. 6

Berry, D. C. 30–1, 34, 36, 38, 46, 61

Bhatt, R. 86 Biehal, G. 5, 43–5 Biggs, S. F. 15, 17, 19 Bistodeau, L. 8–9

Blanchard-Fields, F. 31, 43–5, 56–7, 83, 141, 146

Block, E. L. 128 Blum-Kulka, S. 8, 10 Bohning, G. 128 Bongaerts, T. 10

Bowden, H. W. 72, 75, 80, 87–8, 94, 103, 109, 115–18, 120, 142

Bower, A. C. 29, 30, 46 Bowles, M. 9, 11, 12, 13–14, 67,

69, 70–1, 74–5, 86, 88, 92–3, 113–14, 116–18, 120, 124–6, 141–42, 144, 146–7

Box, J. A. 7 Bozarth, J. 5

brand decision 44–5, 60 Braunstein, M. L. 14 Breetvelt, I. 6

Brehmer, B. 30, 37, 39, 43–4, 52–3, 61

Brinkman, J. A. 5, 15, 17, 19 Broadbent, D. E. 30–1, 34, 38, 46,

61

Brooks, K. 24, 31, 36–7, 46 Brunk, L. 5, 24–5, 29, 41, 47, 50,

51

Bryan, K. S. 6 Bullemer, P. 127 Burton, A. M. 34, 46, 61 Buss, R. R. 31, 44, 57, 141 Buyer, L. S. 24, 41, 46–8 Carey, M. H. 30, 32, 46 Carpenter, H. 10

Carpenter, P. A. 24–6, 29, 41, 46, 62

Carr, T. H. 127 Carrell, P. L. 8 Carroll, J. S. 14 Castoldi, S. 6 Castro, C. D. 9 Castro, D. 9 Cavalcanti, M. C. 8 Chakravarti, D. 4, 43–5 Chamot, A. U. 8–9

Index

Chan, R. C. 6 Chapin, L. 10 Chenoweth, N. A. 9 Cherry, R. D. 81

Cho, J. R. 31, 43–5, 56–7, 83, 141, 146

Chowning, F. 128 Clark, C. M. 5

classification of verbal reports 12 Cohen, A. D. 6–10

Cohen, J. 82

Collister, G. 5, 24–5, 29, 41, 47, 50, 51

concurrent (report) 1, 5, 8, 10–11, 13–15, 19, 23, 26–30, 33, 35–6, 39, 41–5, 47, 51–2, 54, 59, 72, 78–81, 117, 121, 130–1, 133–5 Cooper, H. 83

Corder, S. P. 7

critical thinking test 52, 60 Cuddy, C. L. 30, 57, 93, 142 cue-probability learning (CPL) task

30, 39, 44, 52, 60–1, 64 Curran, T. 127

Cushman, D. 7 Davids, K. 15, 22–3 Davis, J. H. 30, 32, 46 Davis, J. 8–9

de Larios, R. 9

Deffner, G. 15, 17, 18, 21–2, 56–7, 80, 149

Dellick, D. M. 30, 57, 93, 142 di Vesta, F. J. 24–6, 41, 46 Dickson, J. 47, 51, 61, 63 Dominowski, R. L. 24, 41, 46–8 Druhan, B. 31, 43–5, 56–7, 83,

141, 146 Dubin, R. 76 Durst, R. K. 6 Earthman, E. A. 6 effect sizes,

calculation of 82–3

Cohen’s d (interpretation) 82–3 combination of 84–6

definition of 77–8 El Dinary, P. B. 8–9 El Mortaji, L. 9 Ellis, R. 2, 12, 14, 118 Enkvist, I. 8–9

Ericsson, K. A. 2, 3, 5, 13–16, 18, 24–5, 27, 32, 43, 46, 52, 54, 56, 59, 64, 70–1, 110, 114, 117, 119, 138

Evans, J. S. B. T. 43–4 Evans, S. W. 30, 57, 93, 142 Ewert, P. H. 5

Færch, C. 8–9 Farrington-Flint, L. 6 faulty network 17, 19, 60 Fehrenbach, C. R. 6 Félix-Brasdefer, J. 10

Fidler, E. J. 24, 39, 40–1, 46, 63 Folger, T. L. 6

Foote, R. 86

forest fire-fighting (simulation) 47, 51–2, 60–1, 63–4

Fowler, L. P. 5

Foxman, P. N. 30, 32, 46 Fraser, J. 9

Fresch, M. J. 7 Friedman, P. 6

Gagné, R. H. 5, 24–8, 32, 46 gambles 54–5, 57, 60 Garcia, G. E. 128 Gardner, R. C. 78

Gass, S. 1, 8, 14, 113, 116–7 Gavin, C. A. 7

geometrical puzzles 17–18, 21, 57, 60

Goo, J. 78, 80–3, 89 Gordon, C. J. 6 Green, A. J. F. 7 Greenwood, J. 6 Hafner, J. 24–6, 28, 41 Hagafors, R. 37, 39, 61

Hamp-Lyons, L. 15, 22–4, 56, 58, 80, 149

Harmon, J. M. 6

Harvey, D. J. 24, 31–3, 46 Hashim, F. 9, 128–9 Hatasa, Y. A. 9 Hayes, J. R. 9 Hedges, L. 83–4 Hehir, J. 9 Herwig, A. 9

Heydemann, M. 15–18 Hines, A. M. 5

homogeneity test, use and calculation of 85–6; see also Qtest

Hoosain, R. 6 Hosenfeld, C. 8, 10 Huang, H.-T. 78, 82 Hughes, J. 6 Hyona, J. 6

Iberri-Shea, G. 78, 82, 89 insight problems 31, 37, 60 investment analysis 17, 19, 60 Jaaskelainen, R. 8–9

Jannausch, U. H. 9 Jeon, K. S. 10 Jimenez, R. T. 128

Johnson, E. J. 24, 54–7, 59, 62–3, 80, 84, 149

Jones, L. A. 6

Jourdenais, R. 2, 14–15 Just, M. A. 24–6, 29, 41, 46, 62 Kaimi, T. 9

Karsenty, L. 6 Kasper, G. 8–10

Katona card problem 46–8, 50, 60, 78

Katona,G. 1

Keck, C. M. 78, 82, 89 Kellerman, E. 10 Kern, R. G. 8–9 King, M. 6

King, W. L. 29, 30, 46 Kirby, K. 6

Klettke, W. 15, 17–19, 56–8, 96, 101, 105, 141

Knoblich, G. 15, 21–2 Ko, M. H. 9

Kojima, K. 9

Kotler-Cope, S. 31, 34–5, 44–6, 57, 61, 141

Krippendorf, K. 130 Kuylenstierna, J. 43, 53

Lado, B. 72, 75, 80, 87–8, 94, 103, 109, 115–18, 120, 142

Lambert, J. F. 5 Lapkin, S. 1, 9

Lass, U. 15, 17–19, 56–8, 96, 101, 105, 141

Lee Thompson, L. C. 9 Lee, D.-S. 9

Lee, S.-K. 78, 82 Lee, T. M. 6

Leow, R. P. 1, 2, 8, 11–13, 67–9, 71, 73–4, 88, 92–3, 108, 113–14, 117–18, 121, 124–5,139, 141, 144, 147

Light, R. 76–7, 83 Liljegren, J. E. 43, 53

Lin, H.-J. 72, 75, 80, 87–8, 94, 103, 109, 115–18, 120, 142 Liu, J. 10

logic problem 21–2, 60 Lomicka, L. 8

Long, M. 10

Lüer, G. 15, 17–19, 56–8, 96, 101, 105, 141

MacGregor, D. 10

Mackey, A. 1, 8, 10, 14, 78, 80–3, 86, 89, 113, 116–17

Maeng, U. 9 Marin, J. 9 Markee, N. 123–5 Marks, M. R. 5 Marsiglia, C. S. 6 Masgoret, A. M. 78

Mathews, R. C. 31, 43–6, 56–7, 83, 141, 146

McDonough, K. 8, 10 McGeorge, P. 34, 46, 61 McGuire, K. L. 6

McLennan, J. 47, 51, 61, 63 Meister, C. 6

meta-analysis,

characteristics of studies in 86–90

coding for studies in 81–2 selection criteria for studies in

80–1 types of 78

metacognitive report, definition of 13

metalinguistic (report) 13 Midanik, L. T. 5

Morgan-Short, K. 2, 67–9, 71, 73–4, 108, 114, 117–8, 121, 139, 141, 144

Mulhern, S.T. 6 Murphy, L. 9

Nabei, T. 8, 10 Naquin, P. J. 6 Nassaji, H. 8 Nevo, N. 8–9 Nisbett, R. E. 14 Nissen, M. 127 Nist, S. L. 6

non-metacognitive report, defini-tion of 13

non-metalinguistic (report) 13 Norris, J. M. 78, 80–2 Norris, S.P. 7–9, 52–4 Nurminen, A.-M. 6

O’Neill, M. 1, 8, 12, 114, 126–8 Ohlsson, S. 24, 31, 36–7, 46 Olive, T. 81

Olshtain, E. 10

Omodei, M. M. 47, 51, 61, 63 Ortega, L. 78, 80–2

Parkes, S. 6 Passino, C. 6 Payne, J. W. 14 Pearson, P. D. 128 Perkins, K. 7 Perpiñán, S. 86

personal interaction (simulator) 34, 38, 59–61, 64

Philp, J. 8, 11 Pillemer, D. 76–7, 83 Piolat, A. 81

Poehner, M. 1

Polio, C. 1, 9–10, 68–9, 73–4, 141, 145–6

Pollard, P. 43–4 Poulisse, N. 10 Pressley, M. 8 Pritchard, R. 8

probabilistic inference task 43, 60 Qtest, use and calculation of 85–6 Qi, D. 1, 9

ranking course preferences 36, 60 Raven’s (Standard Progressive)

Matrices 16–18, 26, 29, 54–5, 57, 60–2, 64

reactivity, definition of 13–17 reactivity studies,

in SLA 67–75

in non-SLA fields,

comparing metacognitive and non-metacognitive reports 46–58

comparing metacognitive reports and silent controls 25–46

comparing non-metacognitive reports and silent controls 15–24

Rellinger, E. R. 24, 41, 46–8 retrospective (report) 1, 5, 8, 10–11, 13–15, 19, 31, 36–7, 41–3, 54, 117, 130

Rhenius, D. 15–18, 21, 56, 80, 149

Robertson, B. 6

Robinson, K.M. 5, 24, 39–40, 42–3, 46, 62

Robinson, M. 10 Robinson, P. 11 Ronowicz, E. 9

Rosa, E. 1, 8, 12, 114, 126–8 Rose, K. 10

Rosenshine, B. 6 Rosenthal, M. C. 80 Rosenthal, R. 76, 82 Rosman, A. J. 15, 17, 19

Rossomondo, A. E. 70, 75, 88, 92, 118, 141, 145

Rott, S. 9

Ruhlender, P. 15, 17–19, 56–8, 96, 101, 105, 141

rule learning task 29, 60 Russell, J. 78

Russo, J. E. 24, 54–7, 59, 62–3, 80, 84, 149

Sachs, R. 1, 9, 68–9, 74, 83, 88, 98, 103, 105, 115, 118–19, 141–2, 145, 147

Sanz, C. 72, 75, 80, 87–8, 94, 103, 109, 115–18, 120, 142

Scardamalia, M. 7

Schatschneider, C. 30, 57, 93, 142 Schell, P. 24–6, 29, 41, 46, 62 Schmid, R. 86

Schmidt, R. 11–12, 127 Schooler, J. W. 24, 31, 36–7, 46 Seguinot, C. 9

Selinker, L. 7 Seng, G. H. 9, 128–9

sentence assembly 17, 56–7, 60 Sergenian, G. K. 15, 17, 19 Shlesinger, M. 9

Short, E. J. 30, 35, 46, 56–7, 83, 93, 100, 142, 144, 146 Shymansky, J. 83–4

Simon, H. A. 2, 3, 5, 13–16, 18, 24–5, 27, 32, 43, 46, 52, 54, 56, 59, 64, 70–1, 110, 114, 117, 119, 138

simulated soccer games 22–3, 60 single judgment task (GPA

predic-tion) 40–1, 60, 63 Smagorinsky, P. 1

Smith, E. C. 5, 24–8, 32, 46 Soeda, E. 9

Spada, N. 78 Spadacini, G. 6

Stafford, C. A. 72, 75, 80, 87–8, 94, 103, 109, 115–18, 120, 142 Stanley, W. B. 31, 34–5, 44–6, 57,

61, 141

statistics problems 41, 60

Stayton, S. 5, 24–5, 29, 41, 47, 50, 51

Steinberg, I. 128 Stencil Design Test 28 Stephens, D. L. 24, 54–7, 59,

62–3, 80, 84, 149

stimulated recall 1, 10–11, 14, 117 Stinessen, L. 31, 33–4

Storey, P. 7

Stratman, J. F. 15, 22–4, 56, 58, 80, 149

subtraction 40, 42, 60, 62, 64 sugar production (simulator) 34,

59–61, 64

Suh, B. R. 69, 74, 88, 118, 142, 145, 147

Swain, M. 1, 2, 8, 10, 137 Swift, C. 5, 24–5, 29, 41, 47, 50,

51

syllogistic reasoning 43–4, 60 Taguchi, N. 10

Tarr, D. B. 30, 32, 46 Taveggia, T. 76

temperature regulation (simulation) 21–2, 60

think-alouds, coding 126–36 instructions for 113–16 inter-coder reliability and,

simple percentage agreement method 136

Cohen’s kappa method 136 recording 120

transcribing 123–5

use in non-language fields 5–6 use in L1 research 6–7 use in L2 research 7–12 warm-up tasks for 117 Thomas, M. 82, 89 Tomlin, R. S. 11

Tower of Hanoi 25–8, 32–3, 46, 50, 59–60, 62, 64, 78

Tracy-Ventura, N. 78, 82, 89 Type 1 (verbalization) 14, 56 Type 2 and 3 (verbalization) 14,

56

Upton, T. A. 9 Uzawa, K. 9 Valenti, C. 6 valuation 20–1, 60 veridicality 13–14, 54 Villa, V. 11

Vygotsky, L. 2, 137 Wade, S. E. 6 Walczyk, J. 6 Walters, F. S. 1

Wa-Mbaleka, S. 78, 82, 89 Wang, H. 7

Wang, J. 73, 75, 87–8, 92–4, 106, 109, 118, 141, 146

Wang, W. 9 Warren, J. 8

Wason’s selection task 30, 36, 60

Wdowczyk-Szulc, J. 6 Weber, R. P. 130 Wen, Q. 9 Wheaton, A. 7 Wijgh, I. F. 7

Wilder, L. 24, 31–3, 46, Wilhelm, J. 6

Williams, A. M. 15, 22–3 Wilson, T. D. 14, 31, 36–7, 46

Witte, S. P. 81 Wood, C. 6

Woodfield, H. 130–1, 133–5 Woodworth, G. 83–4

word puzzles 17–18, 21, 57, 60 Wright, W. F. 37

Yamashita, J. 8–9

Yang, Y.-F. 8 Yewchuk, C. R. 6

Yoshida, M. 71, 75, 88, 118, 142, 145

Zambarbieri, D. 86 Zellermayer, M. 6 Zutell, J. B. 7