The Influence of CBI towards Students’ writing proficiency
communication between the readers and the writer, and thus can be regarded as the difficult part in writing, since it actually is a one-way communication.
Criterion Group
Mean t-test
Significance
Learners’ Awareness Pre-test N=20
Post-test N=20 1.90
2.50 -2.108 0.042
Significant p0.05 p0.10
Table 4.2 The Result of t-test for Learners’ awareness Seeing from the result of t-test, we can see that there is a significant
increase in this criterion, with the final score of 0.042 in the significance value. This value means only 4,2 of the total respondents who show no improvement.
Related to the rule of thumb in the social statistical research, this notes significance. Especially due to the fact that in the post-test, the score for this
criteria is the lowest among others. However, in the post-test result, the average learners’ awareness score is 2,5, not the lowest one.
In the pre-test, most of the mistakes done within this criterion is the lack of communication effort towards the reader. Most writers were busy with themselves
and seemed to forget that there will be many people reading their composition later. Thus, they went very straight to the point, and therefore, they only put and
wrote what they had in mind. Most of the cases, they even seemed not to have any clear purpose of writing, instead of only pouring the idea.
One of the examples in the pouring ideas without considering the purpose or even suitable tone came from Sumbadra’s all names of the respondents are
disguised work in pre-test, where she tried to explain about the process of photosynthesis.
“Plants is the example of living organism that can make their own food. There’re many way to make their food. It depends on the structure of the plants. One
example of that ways is photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process of making food substances which helped by the sunshine and carbon dioxide gasses. …”
Sumbadra, pre-test
From the quotation below, we can see that there were many facts that she tried to include, but not even a single effort to open the communication to the
readers. Thus, in the pre-test, she gained score 1 in the learners’ awareness criterion, which means “limited awareness of audience and or purpose”. It even
seemed like she did not notice that there are audiences out there. Hence, she had the difficulty in judging the attitude and the knowledge of the readers towards her
composition Hyland, 2003. However, in the post-test, her awareness of the audience increased and got
3 as the score. She was already aware that there are audiences who would read her composition, and so she began to ‘greet’ the audience. This kind of ‘greeting’
proved that she tried to establish and maintain the communication to the reader, as seen in the quotation below.
“... However, there is still many propose that we can get from watching television such as getting information, entertaining ourselves, and many others. We get the
hottest news from television so we know about what happen in that day. …” Sumbadra, post-test
By assuming the role as a part of the readers, Sumbadra then had no difficulty in judging the knowledge and attitude that the writer and readers share.
By assuming this role, the readers will also be indirectly drawn and absorbed into her mindset, while her mindset is also assumed as a part of collective mindset, just
like she is a part of the collective readers. Therefore, it facilitated an understandable interaction. The limited chance of misjudging here also decreased
the chance of miscommunications. Therefore, her awareness had improved. In relation to the content-based instruction, this criterion is partially
influenced by the method. The method plays an important role in providing some authentic material which is more communicative. Furthermore, the use of
authentic articles from the internet which are often quoted by the students as the reference in their practice report also provide the role model of the awareness. The
more exposure they got, the more aware they are indirectly.
4.2.3 Idea Development Idea development is not related closely to the implementation of the
Content-Based Instruction. Instead, this can be categorized as a tacit knowledge, which ca not be learned directly. However, this is still a great deal in scoring a
written composition.
Criterion Group
Mean t-test
Significance
Idea Development Pre-test N=20
Post-test N=20 2.45
2.50 -.191 0.849
Significant p0.05 p0.10
Table 4.3 The Result of t-test for Idea Development From the t-test result, we can see that there is no significant increase in
this criterion. The score 0.849 even indicates that the increase is not significant, as it is close to 1. Basically, the idea development in the pre-test has been good, with
the average score of 2,45. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Most of the students’ problem lies in the elaboration of the ideas. They had many ideas to write, but it ended up in a paragraph as a pile of facts without
further explanation and or elaboration. One example of this is reflected in Bima’s composition for post-test.
“… It’s the change which many parents take. This change make the children do the maximum. And they will get the maximum result. And the
children be the hard worker person. It happen cause they usual to give their maximum to do some thing.
But in other side, the children don’t have time without study and study. They don’t have time for playing with their friends. It’s not good for the children
because the never socialize with people in their environment. So they’ll be the individualized people. And in the globalization like present time many kids who
depretions with their life and end their life with suicide.
So as parents we don’t pushed the children study to hard. And we must give the children time to socialize and time to play with their friends.” Bima,
post-test
From the example above, we can see that there is a minimal idea development with limited supporting details. Most of the content is just a bunch of
ideas with very little elaboration. In the first paragraph, most reader will probably expect more explanation on the maximum result, on the process and example of
maximum effort. The second paragraph would also be more convincing if Bima could point out the authentic case of depression and suicide of children in a real
life. Even in the last paragraph, we are faced by the quick conclusion without any further explanation and details. It even seemed like two main sentences combined
into a paragraph. It lacks of examples, evidence, and supporting details. However, the expected elaboration is not merely on the example and
evidence, but also on the analysis, insight analysis, and even reflection. For example, Bima could still analyze the good impact of pushing children, how it
will affect them in a good way. Even further, he can still relate what happened in the reality and his composition.
4.2.4 Organization of the composition Organization of the composition is the criterion which has little relation to
the implementation of the Content-Based Instruction. This criterion is included simply to give a particular comparison between the regular English teaching-
learning activity and those indirectly happen because of the implementation of Content-Based Instruction. The organization of the composition is the main
emphasis of the regular English class in the second semester, so the students are drilled for this matter.
Criterion Group
Mean t-test
Significance
Organization Pre-test N=20
Post-test N=20 1.95
2.75 -2.507 0.017
Significant p0.05 p0.10
Table 4.4 The Result of t-test for Organization The result of the t-test for this criteria shows a very significant increase
with the score 0.017. The drilling of this criterion in the regular English class really boosted the average score in the post-test. This is the most significant
increase among all other criteria. In the pre-test, most students had the difficulty in arranging the idea. The
coherence in the composition was not considered. Most of the composition seemed like an unorganized pile on ideas. The lapses in focus and coherence
happened. One of the examples came from Duryudana’s composition. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
“We live on earth, And that you know? That the earth is in one of solar system sceme. Earth that we living on it now is on the one of the solar system.
Our solar system called “Bimasakti”. On the “Bimasakti” solar system that was at least 8 planet. Before 2006 world known that Pluto is the member of “Bimasakti”.
But after that, Pluto was discualifying from the “Bimasakti” solar system.
How the solar system works? Now we have 8 planets of one the planet is earth, the place that we living on it now. The biggest thing in the solar system is
sun. It’s give us sunshine that make the planet on the solar system bright. Sun is in the centre of the solar system and the eight’s planet’s other circlyng the Sun. Each
planet has a track when it circlyng the sun is called orbit. The orbit is possible the planet to circulate the sun with save and make it’s impossible for crash the other
planet. Planet that nearest from the sun has fastest periode to circlyng the sun and the farest planet from the sun, has the longest periode to circlyng the sun. Planet
cicrlyng the sun without stop, it’s make the scale that one planet’s periode to circlyng the sun is named year. One time circlying the sun is called one year. So
time in each planets that called year is different each others.” Duryudana, pre- test
As we can see from the example above, the focus of each paragraph is blurred. The first paragraph was supposed to act as the introduction, but the focus
is unclear. Duryudana talked about earth, and then moved to Bimasakti, indicating the main focus is the Bimasakti. However, this focus lapsed when he started
talking about Pluto. Though Pluto was part of Bimasakti, but its elaboration in this paragraph made the main idea unclear.
It is even harder to determine the main idea in the second paragraph. The first sentence hinted that the paragraph is going to discuss how the solar system
works. However, the elaboration about each planet’s orbiting period has hidden the main idea of the paragraph. Thus, the organization within the paragraph is
unclear. The organization of the whole composition is as bad as the organization
within the paragraph. Three basic elements of composition, namely Introduction, Body, and Closing, were absent. There were no clear distinction among each
elements. Duryudana did not even try to close his composition, hence eliminating the closing part. Thus, he got 1 as a score in the pre-test organization.
However, in the post-test, his score rocketed into 3. It means that his organization of composition has changed from random weak into the logical one.
He already made use of the basic writing organization. His first paragraph in the post-test really gave introduction to the topic, which is the parents’ desire toward
their children. His second and third paragraph are his argument on the matter. Each paragraph now carried different yet related main idea, unlike his piling idea
in one paragraph in pre-test. The fourth paragraph is his conclusion or closing. In terms of coherence, he already made use of communicative conjunction in the
composition. 4.2.5 Sentence Structure
Sentence structure or grammar is the criterion which caused many difficulties for students according to the result of the interview. However, if the
students are exposed and accustomed to the authentic grammar in the authentic material, subconsciously it will be internalized. However, since the authentic
materials are rarely used, they did not get much exposure on it. In fact, the sentence structure criterion has a strong relation with the implementation of
Content-Based Instruction, due to the nature of it and the role that the teacher should play. Since the discussion of sentence structure can make up a new thesis
by itself, thus in this section, the researcher only discusses the general problem happened in the class.
Criterion Group
Mean t-test
Significance
Organization Pre-test N=20
Post-test N=20 2.15
2.45 -.982 0.333
Significant p0.05 p0.10
Table 4.5 The Result of t-test for Sentence Structure An interesting fact came from the result of t-test for the sentence structure
criterion. The score .333 indicates that there is no significant increase in the grammar proficiency. This also means that the content-based instruction which is
implemented in the SMAN 3 Yogyakarta did not give significant influence towards students’ grammar proficiency.
Most of the sentence structures employed in their composition are simplistic and or awkward construction. This is due to the great deal of
interference from the L1. Many also failed to distinguish the class of word, whether it is noun, verb, adverb, or adjective.
The most common mistake in the sentence structure criterion is the passive construction. As generally known, to make a passive voice, we need to
have be and V3. However, many students seemed to forget be.
“… Not all plants are chlorophyll, only plants that include on highest division plant. …” Larasati, pre-test
“… The children behaviour included to important thing that can’t learned at school or other course. …” Semar, post-test
Another mistake came from the interference of L1, in which the modifier is located behind the headword D-M. This pattern is quite different with English
construction, in which most of the modifiers are located in front of the headword M-D. This result in this case is the Indonesian structure with English word.
“… In this era, era globalitation, we must be the best person because we must able to competition. …” Banowati, post-test
“… But what about the abnormal of heart? …” Arjuna, pre-test “… There are another planet outer. …” Anjani, pre-test
The mistake in classifying the class of word has lead many students into an awkward sentence construction too. Most of them used the noun form for verb or
verb form for noun. Some also used verb or noun form for adjective. This happened mostly after modal auxiliaries. They seemed to forget that the modal
auxiliaries are followed by bare infinitive. The confusion is also happened in the use of be.
“… It works to pump human’s bleed everyday. …” Widura, pre-test “… I felt that within my life, I felt get a strongly pushed from my parents. …”
Banowati, post-test “… May not enough send to school, usually they ring the child to privat study
like study leadership, examples : Primagama, Neutron, etc in order to make their child more brilliantly. …” Kresna, post-test
“… Some examples of the rules are students must wearing a uniform in school, students must arrived at school before the lesson started, and many
more that every students must obey that rules. …” Sadewa, pre-test “… They will didn’t happy in they life. …” Semar, post-test
“… I am is come into discipline student. …” Kresna, pre-test PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Surprisingly, from the examples above, we can also see that the plural form was not given much attention by the students. They seemed not to care about
plural form, for the plural form in L1 is different. Thus, the awareness of using the plural form was very minimal.
This proved to be a negative interference from L1, which hinders the mastery of L2. Most students still think and formulate sentence in an L1
construction, but with the vocabulary from L2. This negative interference, along with the imperfect implementation of Content-Based Instruction, had caused
students’ imperfect mastery of sentence structure.
4.2.6 Word choice Word choice is the criterion in which all students felt helped by the
implementation of Content-Based Instruction based on the interview result. All of them said that the implementation of this method enriched their vocabulary, since
they are exposed to these new words in their handout. Thus, students felt that their vocabulary items had been improving.
Criterion Group
Mean t-test
Significance
Organization Pre-test N=20
Post-test N=20 2.45
2.75 -1.055 0.298
Significant p0.05 p0.10
Table 4.6 The Result of t-test for Word Choice Surprisingly, the result of t-test for this criterion proves the insignificant
increase, with the value of 0.298. In the pre-test, this criterion had the highest average score compared to the other criteria. Even in the post-test, word choice
was still the highest, though not the only one. There was a possibility that the insignificant increase was caused due to the fact that they were in the second year
of senior high school, with the exposure to the similar terms for months. So, their background knowledge of the register had been good. The result might be
different if the research is conducted in the first year students, whose background knowledge of the special science register are not as good as the second year
students. Even though the average score is increasing, there was an interesting fact
due to the decreasing score in this criterion for some students. Three students underwent the decrease of score, from 4 distinguished to 3 proficient. These
three students took science theme in the pre-test and social theme in the post-test. Their wording in the science-related writing is more precise and richer than their
wording in the social-related composition. This is due to the continuous exposure of science-related register and lack exposure of social-related register.
This criterion also includes the use of vocabulary in the appropriate context. And despite the rich vocabulary from science-related register, some
students still found difficulty in using the appropriate vocabulary for certain context. The difficulty is due to the lack exposure of authentic material, which can
provide the role model of appropriate word in appropriate context. Therefore, the interference of L1 took place here, since they did not consider the different
semantic property of some word, thus used it arbitrary. One of the examples from the arbitrary use of word is reflected in
Srikandi’s and Sri’s pre-test work. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
“…… And if we don’t obey it, there are punishment according to the rules that we cross. …” Srikandi, pre-test
“… The rules are made for arrange students’ behaviour. School doesn’t want its students to do ugly things. …” Sri, pre-test
We can see from above, that Srikandi’s use of term cross is similar to the Indonesian structure. Cross can be translated as melanggar in Indonesia, but has
different sense with violate. Whereas in English, we will use violate or break for rules or law. The same thing also happened in Sri’s work. She used the term
arrange instead of control for students’ behaviour. Arrange can be translated as mengatur in Indonesian, just like control. However, arrange is basically used for
things or promise. In a post-test, however, the arbitrary use of words was minimized. There
were no students with minimum score 1 in the post-test, while 20 students scored 1 in the pre-test. Most of the students scored 3 in the post-test 55 .