writer gave any treatment. After did pre-test, the writer taught both of classes about descriptive text. In the control class, this learning-teaching activities runned
as usual without any treatment. Therefore, in the experimental class, the teacher used scaffolding technique as the treatment. For about 6 meetings, the writer
conducted the post-test in both of classes in 1
st
September 2014. All of students submitted their descriptive writing about their idols. There was a difference
between control and experimental class, for control class, the students just submitted their writing, but in experimental class they just have passed some steps
before submiting their writing as the post-test.
F. Data Analysis
Data analysis did after the writer got the students‟ writing scores in both
test: pre-test and post-test. To analyze the writing test and to prove the reliability of the instrument, the writer used analytic scoring. It means the method of scoring
which require a separate score for each of a number of aspects of a task are said to be analytic. The following scale by John Anderson:
3
Table 3.1 The Rubric of Writing Assessment GRAMMAR
6. Few if any noticeable errors of grammar or word order 5. some errors of grammar or word order which do not, however, interfere
with comprehension 4. Errors of grammar or word order fairly frequent; occasional re-reading
necessary for full comprehension 3. Errors of grammar or word order frequent; efforts of interpretation
sometimes required on reader‟s part
2. Errort of grammar or word order very frequent, reader often has to rely on own interpretation
1. Errort of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible
3
Arthur Hughes, Testing fo Language Teachers, London: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 101.
VOCABULARY
6. Use of vocabulary and idiom rarely if at all distinguishable from that of educated native writer
5. Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or relies on circumlocutions; expresion of ideas hardly impaired
4. Uses wrong or inappropriate words fairly frequently; expression of ideas may be limited because of inedequate vocabulary
3. Limited vocabulary and frequent errors clearly hinder expression of ideas
2. Vocabulary so limited and so frequently misused that reader must often rely on own interpretation
1. Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make comprehension virtually impossible
MECHANICS
6. Few if any noticeable lapses in punctuation or spelling 5. Occasional lapses in punctuation or spelling which do not, however
interfere with comprehension 4. Errors in punctuation or spelling fairly frequent; occasional re-reading
necessary for full comprehension 3. Frequent errors in spelling or punctuation; lead sometimes to obscurity
2. Errors in spelling or punctuation so frequent that reader must often rely on own interpretation
1. Errors in spelling or punctuation so severe to make comprehension virtually impossible
FLUENCY style and case of communication
6. Choice of structures and vocabulary onsistently appropriate like that of educated native writer
5. Occasional lack of consistency in choice of structure and vocabulary which does not, however impair overall ease of communication
4. „Patchy‟ with some structures or vocabulary items noticeably
