No. Partic
ipants Identification
and purpose Generic structure
Features Total
name purpose
thesis arguments
recomme ndation
subject tense
7. G
- -
- -
√ -
√
.
8. H
- -
- -
- -
√
.
9. I
- √
- √
- -
√
.
10. J
- -
- -
√ -
√
.
11. K
- -
- -
√ -
√
.
12. L
- -
√ √
√ -
√
.
13. M
√ -
- -
√ √
√
.
14. N
- -
- -
- -
- 15.
O -
√ -
- -
√ √
.
16. P
- √
- -
- -
√
.
17. Q
- √
- -
- √
√
.
Total
. .
.
Average
33.61 33.61
33.61 33.61
Table 4.11. showed the result of microteaching students’ level of
comprehension of hortatory expositions. The average score was 33.61 or in other words, there were 33.61 of all 17 participants, for about six participants,
comprehend hortatory exposition texts. For further details, there were 14.71 of all 17 participants, for about three participants, comprehend the social function of
hortatory expositions which was to persuade the reader or listener that something should or should not be the case. There were 25.49 of all 17 participants, for
about four participants, comprehend the generic structure of hortatory exposition texts and 64.71, for about 11 participants comprehend the lexicogrammatical
features of hortatory expositions.
c. Spoof
The spoof text was the text titled We Don’t Subscribe to Any Newspaper
which was on the fourth number of the test II.
Table 4.12. Spoof
No. Partic
ipants Identification
and purpose Generic structure
Features Total
name purpose
orientation events
twist subject
tense
1. A
- √
- -
- √
√
.
2. B
- -
√ √
- -
√
.
3. C
- √
√ -
- -
√
.
4. D
- √
- -
- -
√
.
5. E
- √
√ -
- √
√
.
6. F
- -
√ -
- -
√
.
7. G
- √
√ √
- -
√
.
8. H
- √
- -
- -
√
.
9. I
√ √
√ -
- -
√
.
10. J
√ √
√ -
- -
√
.
11. K
- √
- √
- -
√
.
12. L
- √
√ -
√ √
√
.
13. M
√ √
√ -
√ -
√
.
14. N
- √
√ √
- -
√
.
15. O
- √
√ √
- -
√
.
16. P
- √
√ -
- -
√
.
17. Q
√ √
- -
- √
√
.
Total
. .
.
Average
49.58 49.58
49.58 49.58
Table 4.12. showed the result of microteaching students’ level of
comprehension of spoofs. The average score was 49.58 or in other words, there were 49.58 of all 17 participants, for about eight participants, comprehend spoof
texts. For further details, there were 55.88 of all 17 participants, for about ten participants, comprehend the social function of spoofs which was to retell an
event with a humorous twist. There were 33.33 of all 17 participants, for about six participants, comprehend the generic structure of spoof texts and 61.76, for
about 11 participants comprehend the lexicogrammatical features of spoofs. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
d. Explanation
The explanation text was the text titled A Brief Summary of Speech Production which was on the first number of the test II.
Table 4.13. Explanation
No. Partic
ipants Identification
and purpose Generic structure
Features Total
name purpose
general statement
explanations subject
tense
1. A
- √
√ √
- √
.
2. B
- √
√ -
√ √
.
3. C
√ √
- √
- √
.
4. D
- -
- -
√ √
.
5. E
- -
- -
√ √
.
6. F
- -
- -
- √
.
7. G
- -
- -
- √
.
8. H
- √
- -
- √
.
9. I
- √
- -
- √
.
10. J
- √
- √
- √
.
11. K
- -
- -
- √
.
12. L
- -
- -
- √
.
13. M
√ √
- √
- √
.
14. N
- √
- -
- √
.
15. O
- -
- -
- √
.
16. P
- √
- -
- √
.
17. Q
- -
- -
- √
.
Total
. .
.
Average
36.28 36.28
36.28 36.28
Table 4.13. showed the result of microteaching students’ level of
comprehension of explanations. The average score was 36.28 or in other words, there were 36.28 of all 17 participants, for about six participants, comprehend
explanation texts. For further details, there were 32.35 of all 17 participants, for about six participants, comprehend the social function of explanations which was
to explain the processes involved in the formation or workings of natural or socio- cultural phenomena. There were 17.65 of all 17 participants, for about three
participants, comprehend the generic structure of explanation texts and 58.82, for about ten participants comprehend the lexicogrammatical features of
explanations.
e. Discussion
The discussion text was the text titled Homework which was on the sixth
number of the test II.
Table 4.14. Discussion
No. Partic
ipants Identification
and purpose Generic structure
Features Total
name purpose
issue argume
nts Conclu
sion subject
tense
1. A
√ √
√ √
- -
√
.
2. B
- √
- √
- √
√
.
3. C
- √
- √
- √
√
.
4. D
- -
- -
- √
√
.
5. E
- -
- -
√ √
√
.
6. F
- -
- -
√ √
√
.
7. G
√ -
√ √
- √
√
.
8. H
- -
√ √
- √
-
.
9. I
- √
- √
√ -
√
.
10. J
- √
- √
√ √
√
.
11. K
- -
- -
√ √
√
.
12. L
- √
√ √
- √
√
.
13. M
√ √
√ √
√ √
√ 14.
N -
√ -
- -
√ √
.
15. O
√ √
√ √
- √
√
.
16. P
√ √
√ √
√ -
√
.
17. Q
√ √
√ -
√ √
√
.
Total
. .
Average
62.18 62.18
62.18 62.18
Table 4.14. showed the result of microteaching students’ level of
comprehension of discussions. The average score was 62.18 or in other words, there were 62.18 of all 17 participants, for about 11 participants, comprehend
