Students’ Improvement in the Aspect of Content

49

2. Students’ Improvements in the Aspect of Organization

In this part, the Macro-structures of Narrative Writing by Labov and Waltezky 1967 was used as the additional frame of evaluation in order to find out the improvements of organization aspect from the first narrative writing tasks to the third narrative writing tasks. The results are described in Table 4.3. Table 4.3. The Results of Students’ Narrative Organization Macro-Structures SN Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 FIN ORI COM RES ORI COM RES ORI COM RES 1 - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ + 2 - √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ + 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 5 - √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ + 7 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 10 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 11 √ √ √ √ √ √ - √ √ - 13 - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ + 15 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 16 √ - √ - √ √ √ √ √ + 18 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ - √ - 20 - - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ + 24 - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ + 25 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 26 √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ √ + 27 √ √ √ √ - - √ √ √ + 31 - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ + 32 - - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ + 33 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 35 - - - √ √ √ - - √ - Notes: SN : Student Number ORI : Introduction COM : Complication RES : Resolution FIN : Finding + : Improve - : Not Improve ? : Already Good 50 From Table 4.3, it can be seen that most of the students had been good in their macro-structures organization. It is proven by the completeness of the macro-structural aspects found in their writing from the whole writing tasks. From those 20 students, there were 10 students who made mistakes on the first narrative writing task. Comparing to the second narrative writing task, the number of students who made mistakes decreased. There were 5 students who did not complete the following macro-structure aspects of narrative writing. While on the third writing task, there were only 3 students whose writing aspects were not complete. Based on the result, most of the students made mistakes on the orientation and the complication. They did not provide any introductory sentence in the very beginning of a paragraph. They did not give any detail about the main character of the story. Meanwhile, the complication they made was not understandable. They needed to provide clear reasons on how the conflicts appeared in their narrative writing tasks. Some of them even just wrote the complications in very short unclear sentences and then put the resolution of the story. Nevertheless, the improvement of the macro-structural organization done by the students could be seen from the first narrative writing task to third narrative writing task. In the next part, the writer chose three of the students to illustrate the detailed improvements in term of organization by considering the writing rubric assessment by Jacobs et al 1981. 51 S20 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 52 In the first narrative writing task, S20 got score 12 that was categorized fair to poor organization. There was an improvement in the second narrative writing task. He got score 17 that was categorized as good organization. In the third narrative writing task, he got 19 that were considered as an excellent to very good organization. Looking at the result of the first narrative writing task, his writing was lack of introduction. He did not introduce the main character of The Gingerbread Man and how it shaped. He did not give connector between each picture that could help him develop his idea. Most of the pictures were consisted of one paragraph only that could not describe the whole story of the first narrative writing task. The second narrative writing task was better than the first narrative writing task. He was able to develop his idea that could be proven through the logical sequencing he wrote. He started to write a story in detailed sequencing of events. For example, the second paragraph he wrote, “After that, Goldilocks ate porridge on bowl.” He should mention three bowls in the story, but he only described the main problem in the story without mentioning the detail. Comparing to fourth paragraph, he was able to write the whole problem of the story. On the third narrative writing task, he wrote the whole story with the fluent expression. All the ideas of sequencing events were clearly stated. It was such an improvement compared to the first narrative writing task that was confusing and the second narrative writing task that was lack of detailed sequencing events. The third narrative writing task had well-organized sequencing events of the story. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 53 S5 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI