IMPROVING THE STUDENTS’ ABILTY IN WRITING DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS THROUGH COLLABORATIVE WRITING TECHNIQUE
commit to user
iTHESIS
IMPROVING THE STUDENTS’ ABILTY IN WRITING DESCRIPTIVE TEXTS THROUGH COLLABORATIVE WRITING TECHNIQUE (A Classroom Action Research at Grade VIII A Students of SMP Negeri 1
Pelaihari, Tanah Laut Regency, South Kalimantan Province in the Academic Year of 2010/2011)
By: S U P I A N I NIM. S 890809027
Submitted to Graduate School Sebelas Maret University As a Partial Fulfillment for Getting the Graduate Degree in
English Education
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GRADUATE SCHOOL
SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY SURAKARTA
(2)
commit to user
iiABSTRACT
Supiani. 2011. S. 890809027. Improving the Students’ Ability in Writing Descriptive Texts through Collaborative Writing Technique (A Classroom Action Research at Grade VIII A Students of SMP Negeri 1 Pelaihari, Tanah Laut Regency, South Kalimantan Province in the Academic Year of 2010/2011). Thesis: English Education of Graduate Program. Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta. Consultants: (I) Dr. Abdul Asib, M.Pd, (II) Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd.
The main objectives of the research are (1) to improve the ability in writing descriptive texts of the grade VIII A students of SMPN 1 Pelaihari through collaborative writing technique; and (2) to know the strengths and weaknesses of the implementation of collaborative writing technique in improving students’ writing ability of descriptive texts in the grade VIII A students of SMPN 1 Pelaihari.
The classroom action research was employed in this research. The subject of the research is 28 of grade VIII A students of the SMP Negeri 1 Pelaihari in the Academic Year of 2010/2011. This action research was conducted in two cycles. Each consisted of planning, implementing, observing, and reflecting the action. In collecting the data, the researcher used quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data were taken from the writing tests scored by two scorers. The writing test was scored based on content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. The quantitative analysis that was used to analyze the students’ achievement before and after the cycle was implemented by using descriptive statistics, finding out the mean of the scores in the test and the improvement of the scores. Meanwhile, the qualitative data were taken from the questionnaire, interview, and observation which were done before and after the treatment. Those were analyzed by using Constant Comparative Method proposed by Strauss and Glasser consisting of the following steps: (1) comparing incidents applicable to each category; (2) integrating categories and their properties; (3) delimiting the theory; and (4) writing the theory.
The research findings are described in line with the problem statements as follows: first, by using collaborative writing technique the students’ ability in writing descriptive texts improves. This is proved by the significant increase of the mean score of the post-test cycle 1 and post-test cycle 2. Besides, they can also follow the writing process well which covers six steps in their activities namely idea generating/pre-writing, drafting, reading, editing, copying, and evaluating. Those steps help the students to produce their writing to be better. Second by implementing collaborative writing technique in teaching writing, the students’ behavior in learning writing changes and improves their motivation as well. Moreover, they are actively involved in pair work and the class situation becomes lively and also increases the students’ participation in writing class. In the teaching and learning process the students have interest and self-awareness in writing.
Third, based on the results of the research there are the strengths and weaknesses. The strengths are: (1) CWT can improve the students’ writing ability
(3)
commit to user
iiibecause they do in pair with his/her partner and every step of writing helps them to write better; (2) the students have become more motivated to study English; (3) the students have higher self-confidence and felt happy because the students were also actively involved in working in a pair; and (4) it builds the teacher or the collaborator’s awareness that there are many varied ways which can be used in teaching learning English. Besides, the weaknesses are: (1) the students have to spend a long time to complete every step of writing process in the classroom; (2) the condition of the class is noisy; and (3) sometimes the pair has different opinions or arguments in developing paragraphs so it can make a difficult working situation or poor finished product.
Based on the results of the research, it can be concluded that the use of the collaborative writing technique improves the students’ writing ability. Therefore, it is recommended that teachers apply collaborative writing technique in teaching writing.
(4)
commit to user
ivABSTRAK
Supiani. 2011. S.890809027. Meningkatkan Kemampuan Siswa dalam Menulis Teks Deskriptif melalui Teknik Menulis Kollaboratif (Sebuah Penelitian Tindakan Kelas yang Dilaksanakan pada Siswa Kelas VIII A SMP Negeri 1 Pelaihari, Kabupaten Tanah Laut, Provinsi Kalimantan Selatan di Tahun Pelajaran 2010/2011). Tesis: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta. Pembimbing: (1) Dr. Abdul Asib, M.Pd, (II) Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd.
Tujuan utama dari penelitian ini adalah (1) untuk meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa dalam teks diskriptif di kelas VIII A SMP Negeri 1 Pelaihari melalui Teknik Menulis Kollaboratif; dan (2) untuk mengetahui kelebihan dan kelemahan pada implementasi dari teknik menulis kollaboratif dalam meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa dalam teks diskriptif di kelas VIII A SMP Negeri1 Pelaihari. Penelitian tindakan kelas diterapkan di penelitian ini. Subjek penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas VIII A yang berjumlah 28 siswa di SMP Negeri 1 Pelaihari tahun pelajaran 2010/2011. Peneltian tindakan kelas ini dilaksanakan dalam dua siklus yang terdiri dari perencanaan, pengimplementasian, pengamatan, dan refleksi tindakan. Dalam mngumpulkan data, peneliti menggunakan data kuantitatif dan data kualitatif. Kuatitatif data diperoleh dari tes menulis yang dinilai oleh dua penilai. Tes menulis dinilai berdasarkan pada isi, organisasi, kosakata, struktur kalimat, dan penulisannya (pengejaan dan tanda baca). Data analisa kuantitatif digunakan untuk menganalisa pencapaian siswa sebelum dan sesudah siklus yang diimplentasikan melalui statistik deskriptif, menemukan nilai rata-rata atau nilai mean di tes dan peningkatan pada setiap nilai-nilainya. Sementara itu, data kualitatif diperoleh dari kuesioner, interview, dan observasi yang dilakukan sebelum dan setelah perlakuan. Kemudian dianalisa dengan menggunakan Metode Komparatif Konstan yang ditulis oleh Strauss dan Glasser terdiri dari: (1) membandingkan kejadian yang dapat diterapkan pada tiap kategori; (2) memadukan kategori dan cirri-cirinya; (3) membatasi lingkup teori; dan (4) menulis teori.
Penemuan penelitian dideskripsikan sejalan dengan pernyataan masalah yaitu sebagai berikut: pertama, dengan menggunakan teknik menulis kolaboratif kemampuan siswa dalam menulis meningkat. Peningkatan tersebut dikarenakan mereka dapat mengikuti proses penulisan dengan baik yang meliputi enam langkah yaitu memunculkan ide/pra-menulis, mendraf, membaca, mengedit, mengkopi, dan mengevaluasi. Langkah tersebut membantu siswa untuk menghasilkan penulisan yang lebih baik. Disisi lain, teknik menulis kollaboratif memberikan banyak peningkatan bagi kemampuan siswa dalam menulis teks deskriptif. Ini dibuktikan dengan peningkatan secara siknifikan yang telihat dari hasil nilai rata-rata atau nilai mean siswa di siklus post tes 1 dan siklus post tes 2. Kedua, pengimplementasian teknik menulis kollaboratif dalam pengajaran menulis, sikap siswa pada pelajaran menulis berubah baik dan meningkatkan motivasi mereka juga. Demikan juga, mereka lebih aktif terlibat dalam kerja berpasangan dan situasi kelas menjadi hidup serta partispasi siswa meningkat di
(5)
commit to user
vkelas menulis. Di proses belajar mengajarnya siswa tampak memiliki minat dan kesadaran diri dalam menulis.
Ketiga, berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini ada kelebihan dan kelemahan teknik menulis kollaboratif. Kelebihanny: (1) teknik menulis kollaboratif dapat meningkatkan kemampuan siswa menulis karena mereka melakukannya secara berpasangan dengan teman sebangku dan setiap langkah penulisan membantu mereka untuk menulis lebih baik; (2) siswa telah termotivasi untuk belajar bahasa Inggris; (3) siswa memiliki percaya diri yang tinggi dan merasa senang karena mereka juga aktif terlibat dalam menulis berpasangan; dan (4) ini membangun kesadaran guru bahwa cara-cara yang bervariasi dapat digunakan dalam belajar mengajar bahasa Inggris. Disisi lain, kelemahannya yaitu: (1) siswa menghabiskan waktu lama untuk menyelesaikan setiap langkah proses penulisan di kelas; (2) kondisi kelas lebih ramai; dan (3) kadang-kadang salah satu pasangan memiliki pendapat atau argument yang berbeda dalam mengembangkan paragraph sehingga membuat situasi kerja lebih sulit dan produk penulisan jadi tidak baik. Berdasarkan pada hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa penggunaan teknik menulis kollaboratif dapat meningkatkan kemampuan siswa menulis. Oleh karena itu, ini dapat direkomendasikan bahwa para guru dapat menerapkan teknik menulis kollaboratif di dalam pengajaran menulis.
Kata Kunci: Teknik Menulis Kollaboratif, Teks Deskriptif, Kemampuan Menulis.
(6)
commit to user
viTABLE OF CONTENT
COVER ... i
ABSTRACT ... ii
TABLE OF CONTENT ... vi
LIST OF TABLES ... x
LIST OF FIGURE ... xii
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ... 1
A. Background of the Research ... 1
B. Problem Statement ... 7
C. Objectives of the Research ... 8
D. Benefits of the Research ... 8
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERARURE ... 10
A. The Nature of Writing ... 10
1. The Definition of Writing ... 10
a. Micro and Macro Skills in Writing ... 11
b. Teaching Writing ... 13
1) The Meaning of Teaching Writing ... 13
2) Material in Teaching Writing ... 14
3) Writing Assessment ... 14
B. Concept of Collaborative Writing Technique ... 19
1. The Nature of Collaborative Writing Technique ... 19
2. The Implementation of Collaborative Writing Technique. 21 3. The Strengths and Weaknesses of Collaborative Writing Technique ... 25
C. Descriptive Writing ... 26
D. Rationale ... 29
(7)
commit to user
viiCHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY... 32
A.The Setting and Time of the Research ... 32
B.Research Method ... 33
C.Subject of the Research ... 37
D.Technique of Collecting Data ... 38
E.Technique of Analyzing Data ... 39
CHAPATER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 42
A.Introduction ... 42
B.Cycle 1 ... 46
1. Planning the Action ... 46
2. Implementing the Action ... 47
a. The first meeting ... 47
b. The second meeting ... 50
c. The third meeting ... 54
d. The fourth meeting ... 58
3. Observing ... 59
a. The teaching and learning process ... 59
b. The students’ learning progress ... 60
4. Reflecting the Action ... 65
a. The result of implementation of CWT in cycle 1 ... 65
1) The improvement of the students’ writing ability 66 2) The improvement of class situation ... 68
3) The improvement of the students’ behavior and motivation ... 68
4) The improvement of the students’ interest and self-awareness ... 69
b. The strengths and weaknesses of CWT in cycle 1 .... 69
c. Revised plan ... 71
(8)
commit to user
viii1. Planning the Action ... 72
2. Implementing the Action ... 73
a. The first meeting ... 74
b. The second meeting ... 76
c. The third meeting ... 80
d. The fourth meeting ... 83
3. Observing ... 84
a. The teaching learning process ... 84
b. The teaching learning progress ... 86
4. Reflecting the Action ... 90
a. The result of implementation of CWT ... 90
1) The improvement of the students’ writing ability . 91 2) The improvement of the class condition ... 93
3) The improvement of the students’ behavior and motivation ... 94
4) The improvement of the students’ interest and self-awareness ... 95
b. The strengths and weaknesses in cycle 2 ... 95
D.Discussion ... 99
1. The improvement of the students’ writing ability ... 99
2. The improvement of the students’ behavior ... 103
3. The improvement of the students’ motivation ... 104
4. The improvement of the class situation ... 105
5. The strengths and weaknesses of CWT ... 106
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION ... 107
A.Conclusion ... 107
B. Implication ... 111
C. Suggestion ... 112
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 114
(9)
commit to user
ix(10)
commit to user
xLIST OF TABLES
Tables
1.1. The Average Score of Each Aspect of Writing ... 4
2.1 Scoring Rubric for Aspects of Writing ... 18
3.1. Time Schedule of the Research ... 33
4.1. The Average Score of Each Aspect of Writing ... 44
4.2. The Students’ Post-test Average Score of Cycle 1 from the First Scorer 62 4.3. The Students’ Post-test Average Scores Based on the Writing Aspects of Cycle 1 from the First Scorer ... 63
4.4. The Students’ Post-Test Average Scores of Cycle 1 from the Second Scorer... 63
4.5. The Students’ Post-Test Scores Based on the Writing Aspects of Cycle 1 from the Second Scorer ... 63
4.6. The Students’ Post-Test Average Scores of Cycle 1 from the Two Scorers ... 64
4.7.The Students’ Post-Test Scores Based on the Writing Aspects of Cycle 1 from Two Scorers ... 64
4.8. The Result of the Statistical Account of Points Score in Cycle 1 ... 67
4.9. The Result of Statistical Account of Aspects of Writing from Pre-Test to Post-Test in Cycle 1 ... 68
4.10. The Students’ Post-Test Average Score of Cycle 2 from the First Scorer 88 4.11. The Students’ Post-Test Average Score Based on the Writing Aspects of Cycle 2 from the First Scorer ... 89
4.12. The Students’ Post-Test Average Score of Cycle 2 from the Second Scorer ... 89
4.13. The Students’ Post-Test Average Scorers Based on the Writing Aspects of cycle 2 from the Second Scorer ... 89 4.14. The Students’ Post-Test Average Scores of Cycle 2 from Two Scorers 90
(11)
commit to user
xi4.15. The Students’ Post-Test Average Scores Based on the Writing Aspects of cycle 2 ... 90 4.16. The Result of the Statistical Account of Points Score in Cycle 2 ... 92 4.17. The Summary of the Result of the Pre-Test, Post-Test of Cycle 1 and 2 93 4.18. The Summary of the Result of the Class Action Research ... 97
(12)
commit to user
xiiLISTS OF FIGURE
Figure
(13)
commit to user
xiiiLISTS OF APPENDICES
Appendix
1. The Questionnaire in the Preliminary Research... 118
2. Results of the Questionnaire in the Preliminary Research ... 120
3. Pre-Interview for the Teacher before Research and Pre-Test 122-123 4. Transkrip Hasil Wawancara Dengan Guru Sebelum Treatment ... 124
5. Pedoman Wawancara Dengan Siswa ... 127
6. Transkrip Hasil Wawancara Dengan Siswa Sebelum Treatment ... 128
7. Lesson Plan for Cycle 1 ... 134
8. Worksheet of Cycle 1 Meeting 1 ... 141
9. Worksheet of Cycle 1 Meeting 2 ... 142
10.Worksheet of Cycle 1 Meeting 3 ... 144
11.The Post-Test of the Research in Cycle 1 ... 146
12.Self-Assessment Checklist for the Post-Test in Cycle 1 ... 148
13.Lesson Plan for Cycle 2 ... 149
14.Worksheet of Cycle 2 Meeting 1 ... 156
15.Worksheet of Cycle 2 Meeting 2 ... 165
16.Worksheet of Cycle 2 Meeting 3 ... 167
17.The Post-Test of the Research in Cycle 2 ... 169
18.Self-Assessment Checklist for the Post-Test in Cycle 2 ... 171
19.Analytic Scoring Rubric for Writing Product ... 172
20.The Questionnaire after the Implementation of CWT ... 174
21.Results of the Questionnaire after the Implementation of CWT ... 177
22.Pedoman Wawancara Dengan Siswa Setelah Treatment ... 180
23.Panduan Wawancara Dengan Guru Setelah Treatment ... 182
24.Transkrip Wawancara Dengan Guru Setelah Treatment ... 184
25.Transkrip Wawancara Dengan Siswa Setelah Treatment ... 187
26.Sample Observation of Field Note ... 196
(14)
commit to user
xiv28.Sample of Students Writing on the Cycle 1 Post-Test ... 201
29.Sample of Students Writing on the Cycle 2 Post-Test ... 204
30.The Students’ Score of Pre-Test ... 207
31.The Teacher’s Scoring for Pre-Test ... 208
32.The Collaborator’s Scoring for Pre-Test ... 209
33.The Students’ Score of Post-Test in Cycle 1 ... 210
34.The Teacher’s Scoring for Post-Test in Cycle 1 ... 211
35.The Collaborator’s Scoring for Post-Test in Cycle 1 ... 212
36.The Students’ Score of Post-Test in Cycle 2 ... 213
37.The Teacher’s Scoring for Post-Test in Cycle 2 ... 214
38.The Collaborator’s Scoring for Post-Test in Cycle 2 ... 215
(15)
commit to user
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Research
Writing is one of the four skills- listening, speaking, reading, and writing- that plays an important role in a daily international communication. It is estimated that 75% of all international communication is in writing, 80% of all international information is the world’s computers, and 90% of internet contents are in English (Schutz, 2005: 1). This can be seen in the development of email, facsimile, short message service (SMS) via a mobile phone as increasingly popular forms of communication. Most developed and developing countries use them as a medium for transferring information and technology from one to another. Moreover, there are many books, magazines, and newspaper written in English. Since English has great importance in daily interpersonal communication, Indonesia, as a developing country, does not have much choice other than to teach students to be able to write in English. The mastery of writing is used for preparing students to acquire knowledge and technology in the globalization era.
It is stated in the 2006 School Based Curriculum (KTSP) that writing is one of the language skills that must be taught at Junior High Schools. The teaching of writing is aimed at enabling students to master the functional texts and monologue texts or paragraphs in the form of descriptive, narrative, recount, procedure, and report (Depdiknas, 2006). The work of writing is presented in the
(16)
commit to user
form of text types, usually known as genres, which are closely related to the purpose of each type. For especially the eighth grade, it is limited on descriptive, recount, and narrative. In writing descriptive text, the eight grade students are expected to be able to write a simple descriptive text correctly. They should be able to make sentences in the form of present tense and develop main idea into short descriptive text.
In the teaching and learning process, Ur (1996: 162) states that writing can be used as a means, as an end, and as means to an end. As a means, writing is widely used in foreign language courses as a tool for involving aspects of language other than writing itself. The objective of writing itself is used as a means of getting students to attend and to practice a specific language point or more frequently as a method of testing it. As an end, the writing itself is the main objective of the activities. At the micro-level, the students practice specific written forms at the level of word or sentence. At macro-level, they practice writing by focusing on content and organization. In this category, the writing tasks invite learners to express themselves using their own words, state a purpose for writing, and specify an audience. As both a means and an end, the students combine the original writing with the learning or practice of some other skills. In this case, writing is integrated with other skills such as listening, speaking, and reading. This view is supported by Harmer (2004: 33), who points out that writing is also frequently useful to help students perform different kinds of activities in listening, speaking, and reading. The teacher can use writing such as a free-writing related to the topic in pre-speaking. The teacher can also use writing related to activities
(17)
such as a dictation in listening and a composition in post-reading. Harmer (2004: 126) further states that writing can also be used as an integral part of a larger activity where the focus is on something else such as language practice, acting out, and speaking. The teacher often asks students to write short dialogues which they will then act out.
Even though writing is an important skill, most English foreign language students are not interested in writing and the performance on writing is unsatisfactory (Mukminatien, 1991: 130). The students regard that writing is the most difficult language skill to master (Richard and Renandya, 2002: 303; Widodo, 2007: 116). The difficulty in writing also happens among Indonesian students, especially at a Junior High School.
There are many reasons why writing is regarded difficult. According to Simpson (1998: 34), the difficulty is due to the fact that a writer needs to have enough language and general intellectual skills to generate and organize ideas and put those ideas into coherent, logically ordered, intelligible sentences, paragraphs and essays. Besides, Richard and Renandya (2002: 303) state that the difficulty lies on how to generate and organize ideas using an appropriate choice of vocabulary, sentence and paragraph organization, and translate these ideas into a readable text.
Related to the difficulty in writing, the students of grade VIII A of SMPN 1 Pelaihari have similar problems. Based on the preliminary research of the students of grade VIII A of SMPN 1 Pelaihari, the researcher finds the results of
(18)
commit to user
the pre-test were unsatisfactory. This distribution score of each aspect of writing can be seen in the table below:
Table 1.1
The Average Score of Each Aspect of Writing
No Writing Aspects Average Score
1 Content 61.43
2 Organization 57.86
3 Vocabulary 54.64
4 Grammar 43.21
5 Mechanics 49.64
Average score of writing aspects 53.36
The result showed that the students had low ability in writing. The low ability in writing a descriptive text could be seen from the low achievement of writing test. The mean of writing scores in preliminary test was low, namely
53.36. It is still far from the minimum requirement criterion or Kriteria
Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM). For English writing score is set up by the teacher is 64. The consideration of score 64 is based on the minimum standard of writing
success as stated in the minimum requirement criterion or Kriteria Ketuntasan
Minimal (KKM) at the school. The unsatisfactory students’ achievement in writing is a definite indicator of the problems.
In line with the statement above, the researcher also conducted questionnaire and gave interview to the students in order to find out the students perception toward writing ability. From the results of the questionnaire instruments, the researcher found the students’ difficulties in writing. They stated that they sometimes got difficulty in expressing the ideas into their writing 67.86 % and they always got difficulty in organizing them to become good paragraphs
(19)
64.28%. They often got difficulty in choosing and using appropriate words or vocabulary 46.42 %. So they did not know the meaning of words, it makes them difficult to explore their ideas. Moreover, their sentences were influenced by their mother tongue. They always got a difficulty in grammar to make sentences into paragraph 57.14 %. And the last, they always had a difficulty in determining mechanics (punctuation and spelling) 42.86 %. Therefore, it could be concluded that writing is regarded difficult.
In addition, the writing class before the research was also described in several conditions. The students’ attitude and motivation toward writing was still low. It appeared that the students were not active and enthusiastic to ask questions about writing to the teacher. They were shy and afraid to present their writings in front of the class. It means that they did not want their writings being read or known by other friends at the class. As said by their teacher in interview that:
“Tampaknya kalau writing mereka kurang antusias ketimbang speaking. Mereka tidak aktif dan malas untuk bertanya. Kalau kelas writing juga ramai dikelas. Tekadang mereka malu dan takut kalau disuruh untuk menulis beberapa kalimat dipapan tulis.”
Then, the students did not pay attention to the teacher’s explanation; they looked bored or sometimes made noise. When the teacher was explaining, the students tended to do their own activities. And the last, they needed a long time to write a composition.
The causes of the problems above were: (1) the teacher did not give adequate time, models, and practices for the students to write because the teacher thought that for revising the students’ compositions needed a long time while the other skills might be discussed not only for writing but also the others as well.
(20)
commit to user
(2) Writing got less attention from the teacher. This was because the teacher tended to underestimate writing rather than reading. She argued that writing was less important to help the students in National Examination (UN) which was usually dominated by reading items. (3) There were no creative or varied techniques used by the teacher in exploring the students’ ability in writing. The techniques used were monotonous. Monotonous writing activity caused the students’ motivation in writing to be low and not interested in learning English especially writing. It was seen in the interview with the teacher who said that:
“Ya, tidak ada yang special lah. Yang saya lakukan hanya dengan cara memberi pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang mana jawaban-jawaban mereka kemudian dirangkai sendiri oleh mereka menjadi paragraph. Dan lagian menurut saya, writing belum begitu penting bagi mereka, yang lebih penting itu saya pikir adalah reading karena kita dituntut untuk bisa meluluskan siswa di UN yang soal-soalnya lebih dominan teks bacaan.” As the result, the students did not have any strategies about how to find ideas or explore them. Consequently, the students could not revise their drafts because they thought that it was a final writing. In fact, the students’ drafts still had numerous errors.
Referring to the case above, the researcher takes one of techniques for solving the problem of writing that is collaborative writing technique. According to Alwasilah (2004: 108) collaborative writing is the ways in which students work in a community of readers and writers and negotiate meaning and symbols used in the text. Students are required to jointly discuss a topic, plan an outline, and contribute elements of the text (paragraphs, sentences, phrases, words) in a collaborative writing. By working in groups, students enjoy more opportunity to see how their peers think and create new ideas. Moreover, discussion in group can
(21)
provide less anxiety- producing context in which learners are likely to feel free to try out new ideas. Harmer (2002: 261) adds that generation of ideas is lively with two or more students involved than it is when the writers work on their own. In addition, Lyons and Heasley (1987: 2) state that collaborative writing provides a co-operative relationship between writer and reader and makes the writing task more realistic and interactive.
In this research, the researcher will apply the collaborative writing technique at the grade VIII A students of SMPN 1 Pelaihari to improve the students’ ability in writing a descriptive text. Hopefully, this technique can give a positive impact on students’ behavior and motivation in studying English as well as in developing their writing skill. In addition, the process of collaborative writing can encourage students to write a descriptive text in which they may initially be afraid to make errors. Furthermore, this technique can also be set to increase the students’ self-confidence in writing.
B. Problem Statement
Based on the description of the background above, the problems are:
1. Can collaborative writing technique improve the students’ ability in writing
descriptive texts?
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses when collaborative writing technique
(22)
commit to user
C. Objectives of the ResearchBased on the problems above, this research is directed to:
1. Improve the ability in writing descriptive texts of the grade VIII A students of
SMPN 1 Pelaihari through collaborative writing technique.
2. Know the strengths and weaknesses of the implementation of collaborative
writing technique in improving students’ writing ability of descriptive texts in the grade VIII A students of SMPN 1 Pelaihari.
D. Benefits of the Research
The result of the study can give some benefits as follows:
1. For the English teachers
This research can provide contribution for the English teachers to apply another technique dealing with the teaching learning process especially in teaching writing. And it will help English teachers not to use monotonous technique in teaching and learning process.
2. For students
The result of the research will help them to write better. By implementing collaborative writing technique, the students are able to write according the steps suggested. As a result, their writing will be much better. It means that this technique will improve the students’ writing ability, especially in writing a descriptive text.
(23)
3. For the researcher
This research gives the researcher understanding toward the implementation of collaborative writing technique in teaching writing directly. By implementing collaborative writing technique to improve students’ writing ability in a descriptive text especially, it will provide useful practical experience for the researcher himself.
4. For the other researchers
The other researchers can develop the research based on the result and use it as one of references to study about writing skill in the next research and its implementation in their research.
(24)
commit to user
10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATUE
A. The Nature of Writing 1. Definition of Writing
Writing is a complex process consisting of many constituent parts which have to be considered. According to White and Arndt (1997: 1) the writers are able to express ideas and feelings to persuade and convince other people. Heaton (1975: 127) states that in writing the writers manipulate words in grammatically correct sentences and link those sentences to form a piece of writing which successfully communicates the writers’ thoughts and ideas on a certain topic. In other words, the writers try to express their ideas in written form using grammatically correct sentences for the purpose of communication.
Ghaith (2002: 1) asserts that the writer has to explore thought and ideas and make them visible and concrete. The writer has to try to communicate his/her ideas in the form of a written text from which the reader will eventually understand the ideas and their meaning. The production of the written word that results in the text must be read and comprehended so that the reader can understand the message intended by the writer easily. Thus, the writer is demanded to pay attention to some aspects of the production of the written text which involves the content, organization, vocabularies use, grammatical use, discourse, and mechanical considerations such as spelling and punctuation.
(25)
In supporting definitions of writing, Sutanto, et al; (2007: 1) says that writing is a process of expressing ideas or thoughts in words which should be done at our leisure. He says that we cannot do something or express the ideas or feeling in words or in sentences while we are getting some interventions. The conditions of writer which is relaxing and enjoyable will be explorer of a long visible of ideas or feelings and the result of this, the writer can write well, it means he is able to move a pen, or find key words, remember rules of grammar and syntax, place the brain in order to make sense, and think a head to what to write next (Nathan, et al. 2002: 1), (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/misuderstood
mind/writing basics.html, accessed: July, 5th 2010).
a. Micro and Macro Skills in Writing
In order to be able to do such things in writing, learners need to acquire micro-skills and macro-skills of writing. Ur (1996: 162) states that writing should maintain between micro aspect and macro aspect. In micro aspect, the students practice specific written forms at the level of word or sentence (handwriting or typing, spelling, punctuation). On the other hand, in macro aspect, the students emphasize on content and organization. In this case, they express themselves using their own words, state a purpose for writing, and specify an audience. More detail description is given by Brown (2004: 220). He states that micro-skills are related to imitative and intensive types of writing task whereas macro-skills are related to responsive and extensive writing. The descriptions are as follows:
1) Micro-skills
a) Produce graphemes and orthographic patterns of English;
b) Produce writing at an efficient rate of speed to suit the purpose;
(26)
commit to user
d) Use acceptable grammatical systems (e.g. tense, agreement, pluralization),
patterns and rules;
e) Express a particular meaning in different grammatical forms; and
f) Use cohesive devices in written discourse.
2) Macro-skills
a) Use the rhetorical forms and conventions of written discourse;
b) Appropriately accomplish the communicative functions of written texts
according to form and purpose;
c) Convey links and connections between events, and communicate such
relations as main idea, supporting idea, new information, given information, generalization, and exemplification;
d) Distinguish between literal and implied meanings when writing;
e) Correctly convey culturally specific references in the context of the written
text; and
f) Develop and use a battery of writing strategies, such as accurately assessing
the audience’s interpretation, using pre-writing devices, writing with fluency in the first draft, using paraphrases and synonyms, soliciting peer and instructor feedback, and using feedback for revising and editing.
In writing, students will rely on at least four types of knowledge: knowledge of the content, procedural knowledge to organize the content, knowledge of conventions of writing, and procedural knowledge required to apply the three other types of knowledge in composing a written product (Hillocks in O’Malley, 1996: 136). It is also supported by Tribble (1996: 43) that in order to understand a specific task in writing, a writer requires the range of knowledge which can be summarized as follows:
1) Content knowledge : knowledge of the concepts involved in the
subject area.
2) Context knowledge : knowledge of the context in which the text
will be read.
3) Language system knowledge : knowledge of those aspects of the language
system necessary for the completion of the task.
4) Writing process knowledge : knowledge of the most appropriate way of
(27)
Therefore, in order to be able to produce a good written text, a writer should require the range of knowledge. Besides, the writer also focuses on the macro and micro skills of writing. In addition, Nunan (1998: 37) states successful writing involves:
1) Mastering the mechanics of letter formation;
2) Mastering and obeying conventions of spelling punctuations;
3) Using the grammatical system to convey one’s intended meaning;
4) Organizing content at the level of the paragraph and the complete text
to reflect given/ new information and topic/ comment structures;
5) Polishing and revising one’s initial efforts; and
6) Selecting an appropriate style for one’s audience.
Based on the definition above, the researcher concludes that writing is a process in which the writer uses some aspects of the production of writing that consists of the content, organization, vocabularies use, grammatical use, and mechanics in order to demonstrate knowledge and express the ideas, feelings, and thought in the written form so that other people can understand. It is very important to be considered by the teacher that writing is a complex process. The students need to explore or express their ideas, feeling, and thought in the form of texts that enable them to have a better writing and give them opportunities to see their own progress in writing, that is whether their writings are able to communicate their ideas and can be easily understood by the other people or not.
b. Teaching Writing
1) The Meaning of Teaching Writing
Teaching writing is like swimming; if we learn to swim, we need water in swimming pool and a teacher to teach us how to be a professional swimmer
(28)
commit to user
(Brown, 2001: 334). Like swimming, writing is taught if we are a member of a part of language society and there is someone teaching us.
Not everyone can be an excellent writer; writing needs a long time and hard work to create words, sentences, and arrange them in a good composition or paragraph. Then, writing as communicative language is not only taught fluently but also accurately and uses contextual and authentic materials in the classroom. Furthermore, motivate the students to learn to write so that the students study writing successfully.
2) Material in Teaching Writing
Teaching materials of the descriptive text in the class of Junior High School spread on three levels of classroom. They are presented in themes or topics. The themes or topics in the first grade are family life, school life, and plants, animals or things. In the second grade, the themes or topics are flora and fauna, travelling, recreation, and seasons. And in the third grade, the themes or topics are nature, art, and public service (Depdiknas 2005: 179-190).
3) Writing Assessment
Experience has shown testing practices in English are not static but dynamic and changing. One controversial area in testing writing requires that test construction and evaluation criteria be based on course objectives and teaching methodologies. In the English language classroom, especially at the junior high schools, teachers are always challenged by how to reliably and validly evaluate students’ writing skills, so that the students will be better prepared for internal and external proficiency and achievement exams.
(29)
There are many reasons for testing writing in the English language classroom, including to meet diagnostic, proficiency, placement, achievement, and performance. Each purpose requires different test construction. Referring to this, there are two kinds of assessment, which can be used in assessing students’ writing. They are process assessment and product assessment. Thus, a teacher will indicate that it is not only the product that is assessable, but that commitment to the process is also expected (Brookes and Grundy, 1950: 54).
Process assessment is a kind of on going assessment used to keep tract of students’ progress in writing or to monitor the students’ progress in writing in which counting the number (score) of the composition is not regarded (Brookes & Grundy, 1950: 54). The process assessment is designed to probe how the students write, the decision they make as they write, and the strategies they use. Therefore, the aim of process assessment is to give information about the students’ performance such as how far the students’ progress in writing is and whether any change is needed in the way of teaching strategy or not.
Brown (2001: 335) says product assessment focuses on assessing the students’ final composition, while Hyland (2003: 226) states that writing product can be assessed through employing some methods of scoring. There are three types of rating scales generally used in scoring writing. They are holistic, analytic, and trait-based scoring.
Hyland (2003: 227) states that a holistic scale is based on single, integrated score of writing behavior. A holistic judgment may be built into an analytic scoring rubric as one of the score categories. One difficulty with this
(30)
commit to user
approach is that overlap between the criteria that is set for the holistic judgment and the other evaluated factors cannot be avoided. When one of the purposes of the evaluation is to assign a grade, this overlap should be carefully considered and controlled. Holistic scoring would appear to be more subjective as it depends on the impressions formed by the markers. It is obviously to be preferred where the primary concern is with evaluating the communicative effectiveness of candidates in writing. The evaluator should determine whether the overlap resulting in certain criteria is being weighted more than what is originally intended. In other words, the evaluator needs to be careful that the student is not unintentionally severely penalized for a given mistake.
An analytic scoring rubric, much like the checklist, allows for the separate evaluation of each of these factors. Each criterion is scored on a different descriptive scale and assigned a numerical value. Analytic marking schemes are devised in an attempt to make the testing more objective, insofar as they encourage examiners to be more explicit about their impressions. It uses criteria of the items measured. The items measured are: relevance and adequacy of content, compositional organization, cohesion, adequacy of vocabulary for purpose, accuracy of grammar, and mechanical accuracy for spelling and punctuation.
Different from holistic and analytic scoring, trait-based scoring focuses on whether or not each paper shows evidence of the particular trait or feature you want students to demonstrate in writing. Trait-based instruments are designed to clearly define the specific topic and genre features of the task being judged (Hyland, 2003: 229). Therefore, the advantage of this approach is in focusing on
(31)
specific aspects of instruction that most reflect the objectives being covered when the writing assignment is given.
Based on the theories above the scoring rubric applied in this thesis is as follows:
(32)
commit to user
Table 2.1Scoring Rubric for Aspects of Writing Component
Of Writing
Scale Indicator Qualification
5 Main ideas stated clearly and accurately, change of opinion very clear
Excellent 4 Main ideas stated fairly clearly and
accurately, change of opinion relatively clear
Good
Content 3 Main ideas stated somewhat unclear or inaccurate, change of opinion statement somewhat weak
Average
2 Main ideas stated not clear or accurate, change of opinion statement weak
Poor 1 Main ideas stated not at all clear or
accurate, change of opinion statement very weak
Very poor
5 Well organized and perfectly coherent Excellent 4 Fairly well organized and generally
coherent
Good Organization 3 Loosely organized but main ideas clear,
logical, but incomplete sequencing
Average 2 Ideas disconnected, lacks logical
sequencing
Poor 1 No organization, incoherent Very poor 5 Very effective choice of words and use of
idioms and word forms
Excellent 4 Effective choice of words and use of
idioms and word forms
Good Vocabulary 3 Adequate choice of words but some
misuse of vocabulary, idioms and word forms
Average
2 Limited range, confused use of words, idioms and word forms
Poor 1 Very limited range, very poor knowledge
of words, idioms and word forms
Very poor 5 No errors, full control of complex
structure
Excellent 4 Almost no errors, good control of
structure
Good Grammar 3 Some errors, fair control of structure Average
2 Many errors, poor control of structure Poor 1 Dominated by errors, no control of
structure
Very poor 5 Mastery of spelling and punctuation Excellent 4 Few errors in spelling and punctuation Good Mechanics 3 Fair number of spelling and punctuation
errors
Average 2 Frequent errors in spelling and
punctuation
Poor 1 No control over spelling and punctuation Very poor
(33)
B. Concept of Collaborative Writing Technique 1. The Nature of Collaborative Writing Technique
Collaborative writing technique has been a trend in composition research and pedagogy since the 1970s. A great deal of attention began being focused on collaborative writing in early 1970’s when English and composition professor, Kenneth Bruffee, began arguing that by having students write essays and fiction in groups, students produced better work than when they worked alone. He argued that students learned more through group work than when they interacted only with their teacher (Spring, 1997: 2). It is also inspirited by psychologist, Vygotsky, (1896-1934 citied by Kellough and Kellough, 1999: 302) studying the importance of a learner’s social interactions in learning situations. Vygotsky argued that learning is most effective when learners cooperate with one another in a supportive learning environment under careful guidance of a teacher.
Murray (1992: 100) states that collaborative writing is essentially a social process through which writers looked for areas of shared understanding. To reach such an understanding, participants function according to several social and interactional rules as follows: First, the participants discuss the goals which they are going to write. They place the goals in rank order from high to low, and then they share a higher order goal. From the sharing, they set a common goal for the group. Meanwhile, specification of the goal is negotiated during the process. Secondly, the participants must have different knowledge and there must be a gap information between them. Because of this information gap, they (group members) have to negotiate content, style, and even the goal of writing. Thirdly,
(34)
commit to user
the participants interact as a group. They exchange thought, feeling, ideas between them, and result in reciprocal effect on each other. Fourthly, the participants distanced themselves from the text. To see their collaborative text, they produce many written drafts during one session and they move away from the text in time and space. Setting the text aside for a time will make them have a new perspective to find their mistakes in the text. In addition, Chin (1996: 5) asserts that collaborative writing is an area where group ware may provide significant benefit. It allows students to simultaneously work on different portions of the same document and/or to review and critique the written work of others.
It is clear that collaborative refers to a writing group but there are as many ways to write in group as there are combinations of individual. Accordingly, Frakas (1991 citied by Spring, 1997: 1) offers four possible definitions useful in approaching collaboration through an analysis of process, they are:
1. Two or more people jointly composing the complete text of a
document;
2. Two or more people contributing components to a document;
3. One or more person modifying, by editing and/or reviewing, the
document of one or more persons;
4. One person working interactively with one or more person and drafting
a document based on their ideas of the person or persons.
By breaking the common-sensical concept of group-based writing into a four distinct types of work, Farkas’s definitions paint a picture of what is, and what is not collaboration.
From the points of view above, it can be concluded that collaborative writing is the process of producing a written work as a group where all members
(35)
contributed to the content, style, and even the goal of writing and also the decisions how the group will function.
2. The Implementation of Collaborative Writing Technique
In response to the need for structured guidelines to make collaborative more effective, the researcher makes different roles of the students. One of them plays a role as a helper and the other as a writer. Specific tasks need to be done by the helper and the writer when they write collaboratively. These steps are described as follows:
Step 1 is idea generation. In this step, the students are hoped to understand important components of the descriptive text such as identification and description. The identification means the writer of the descriptive text identifies phenomenon to be described and the description means the writer of the descriptive text describes parts, qualities, and characteristics. To help the writer stimulate ideas their helper raise questions which mostly use wh-words as follows:
a. What tree/animal do you like?
b. What does it look like?
c. Where does it live? etc.
As the writers respond verbally to the questions, they jot down key words and are encouraged to add any relevant information they might want to write about. Then, the pair reviews the keywords in the notes and determines if the order or organization should be changed. This could be indicated by numbering the ideas. Alternatively, the ideas may seem to fall into obvious sections, which can be dealt with in turn. Such sections can be color-coded and the ideas belonging to them are
(36)
commit to user
underlined or highlighted with a marker. Pairs may also choose to draw lines linking or around related ideas, so that a "semantic map" is constructed.
In generating the students’ ideas is intended to motivate and brainstorm the students to get ideas or to generate ideas for the topic. The teacher leads the helper to raise questions about descriptive texts in order to stimulate the writer
ideas such as “What is your favorite animal/tree?”, “What does it look like?”,
“Where does it live?” etc. Then, the writer takes those three questions and makes a list to answer each one. He/she then assigns the helper to review the writer’s key words, to develop the ideas into paragraph, and to organize the ideas in order.
Step 2 is drafting. In this step, the teacher emphasizes that writers do not have to worry much about spelling as they write their drafts. Rather, the stress should be on allowing ideas to flow.
This step aims to give the writer chances to begin writing a rough draft based on the discovered ideas to review from the helper. To write the drafts, the writer is advised not care much more about the language, spelling or punctuation or neatness. During the activity, the teacher goes around the class to provide assistance, guidance, and comments if they are necessary.
Step 3 is reading. In this step, the writer reads the draft. If he/she reads a word incorrectly, the helper provides support and gives some corrections.
This step gives the student chances to read the rough draft. The researcher asks the student (helper) to correct the draft. The helper may comment on the clarity and relevance of the ideas and their coherence. The helper can give written
(37)
comment or in orals to the writer. The writer reorganizes what has been written in the first rough draft and to refine ideas based on the feedback from the helper.
Step 4 is editing. In this step, the helper and the writer look at the draft together and consider what improvement might be made. Error of words, phrases, or sentences could be marked. The writer and the helper inspect the draft more than once, check the five editing criteria:
1. Meaning
2. Order (organization of the separate ideas in the text, organization
within a phrase or sentence, and organization of order of sentences)
3. Spelling
4. Punctuation
5. Style (word choice and sentence structure)
While editing, the writer and helper consider the following question:
1. Does the helper understand what the writer wants to say? (idea and
meaning)
2. Does the writing have a clear beginning, middle, and end? (style)
3. Are the words spelled correctly?
4. Is the punctuation correct and the right place?
The order of question shows its relative important in writing. With the question in mind, the helper marks area the writer has missed, the helper can also suggest other changes.
In this step, the teacher asks the pair to look at closely the draft and edits them by using the five editing criteria which refer to aspects of writing such as content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanic. The pair is advised to check they used appropriate and varied linking devices and their work is cohesive and logical. Then they may add new ideas; delete irrelevant sentences and information and rearrange ideas to improve the organization. After that they look at vocabulary. They think about mere appropriate or specific vocabulary. Finally,
(38)
commit to user
they check content, organization, grammar, spelling and punctuation. The teacher provides editing guidelines for check list. After editing, they rewrite it for the final writing version.
Step 5 is best copy. The writer then copies out a neat or best version of the corrected draft. The helper provides help when necessary, depending on the skill of the writer. In this case, the teacher asks the student (writer) to write the best version of the product. The best copy is a joint product of the pair and is then hand in to the teacher.
Step 6 is the teacher evaluation. Teacher evaluation is the final step. In this step, students will have an opportunity to receive comments and instructive feedback directly from the teacher. When the writer and helper submit in their best copy, the teacher will meet them and provide them with explicit writing and grammatical instruction as well as corrective feedback. The teacher's comments
focus on meaning/idea, order, style, spelling, and punctuation, which are the five
editing criteria stated in Step 4. The writers are then expected to review the correction and feedback together as a pair.
In evaluating, the teacher holds a conference by assigning the pair to exchange their composition to be proofread by other pairs. After that, the pair discusses the corrections, feedback or comments from other pairs. If they still have problems with the corrections, feedback or comments from other pairs. At the end of conference the teacher and students discuss remaining problems together. Next he asks the student (writer) to revise the composition based on the correction, feedback given and comments from their friends or their teacher.
(39)
Finally he asks the student (writer) to write the final composition and submit to the teacher or researcher.
After the students know steps of writing, the researcher provides opportunities to the students to write a short essay of a descriptive text. The students are required to apply the technique in writing task to write a short essay about certain topic of descriptive texts.
So, in this research the researcher asks the students to make a pair and the student who plays as a helper or as a writer may have the more or less same writing level and the role of them may be interchangeable. Besides, there are additional activities in step 1, 4, and step 6. The researcher adds the activities for step 1, in which the students do the activities to generate the ideas for topic, then, the students elaborate the components of the text. In step 4, the five editing criteria- meaning, order, spelling, punctuation, and style are changed into content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanic since the components of writing which the teacher is going to score are the content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. In step 6, in giving some corrections and feedback, it is better for the teacher to hold a conference. In the conference, students have a chance to negotiate the meaning by describing what they to accomplish in the piece of writing and noticeable problems in doing this.
3. The Strengths and Weaknesses of Collaborative Writing Technique
Every technique has strengths and weaknesses. There is no technique which is perfect and the best one. In order to maximize the teaching learning
(40)
commit to user
process of writing descriptive texts, the teacher should be smarter to choose the technique used in the teaching learning process of writing descriptive texts.
There are some strengths of collaborative writing technique, they are as follows:
a) More than one student has more ideas, more works are done and thus the goals
are achieved more efficiently and collaborative writing technique stimulates students to creative new ideas and new directions.
b) It gives fun and happiness for the students to write a descriptive text.
c) The finished product may be better, etc.
In spite of the fact that there are some strengths of collaborative writing in the teaching learning process, collaborative writing technique has weaknesses as follows:
a) Pair work is likely noisy.
b) Sometimes between the helper and the writer have different opinions or
arguments in developing paragraph. So it can make a conflict between them.
c) Not all the students got the chance to consult and performed their writing to
the teacher because the time is limited in the class sessions, etc.
C. Descriptive Writing
One of the text types that should be learnt by the students in junior high schools level is descriptive writing. Descriptive writing is a skill that needs extra attention (Soejatmiko and Taloko, 2003: 62). A descriptive writing is used to create a vivid image of a person, place, or thing. It draws on all of the senses, not
(41)
merely the visual. Its purpose is to enable the reader to share the writer’s sensory experience of the subject. Descriptive writing portrays people, places, things, moments, and theories with enough vivid detail to help the reader create a mental picture of what is being written about (Abisamra, 2001: 6).
Tompkins (1994: 111) points out that descriptive writing is painting pictures with words, meaning that in writing a descriptive paragraph, a writer should try to visualize something or someone using vivid words in order to show a clear picture of what he or she is describing. Good description then should begin with close observation. The observation should be recorded with specific details to touch the reader’s senses, to picture out clearly of what is being described.
In addition, Smalley, et al., (2001: 66) support that descriptive writing uses sensory details to paint a picture of a place, a person, or an object. The details in descriptive writing should not only be logically arranged but also vivid. As a painter with words, we want to give the reader as precise a picture as possible; otherwise, the reader will have only a vague sense of what we are describing. To
make the details more vivid, we need to modify them (Modify means to restrict or
narrow down the meaning). According to Anderson and Anderson (1998: 26) a factual description describes a particular person, place or thing. Its purpose is to tell about the subject by describing its features without including personal opinions. A factual description differs from an information report because it describes a specific subject rather than a general group.
The general characteristics of descriptive writing include: elaborate use of sensory language – what is heard, seen, smelt, felt, and tasted; rich, vivid, and
(42)
commit to user
lively details; figurative language such as simile, hyperbole, metaphor,
symbolism, and personification; showing, rather than telling the reader what
something/someone is like through the use of active verbs and precise modifiers. According to Doddy, et al., (2008: 119) the structure of descriptive text is divided into two parts: identification and description. The identification part is the part where the writer of descriptive text identifies phenomenon to be described. The description part describes parts, qualities, and characteristics. Description text focuses on specific participants. It normally uses simple present tense.
From the opinions above, it can be concluded that descriptive writing is used in all forms of writing to create a vivid impression of a person, place, object or event e.g. to describe a special place and explain why it is special, describe the most important person in our life, and describe the animal’s habitat in our report. Descriptive writing is usually used to help a reader and writer develop an aspect of their work, e.g. to create a particular mood, atmosphere, or describe a place so that the reader can create vivid pictures of characters, places, objects etc.
Descriptive writing can be used in the following ways: to make scenes realistic and memorable, to help readers experience an emotion, to share your feelings more clearly, to bring characters to life, to convey key ideas, especially complex ones, and to help readers feel like they are on the scene. Therefore, these guidelines can be followed when we write descriptive pieces: (1) start by deciding on a method of organization, spatial organization, for example, works especially well if your details are mainly visual. If we are describing an animal, consider parts of the animal; (2) select a point of view, the vantage point from which we
(43)
will relate details; (3) clearly identify the subject; (4) use details to create a strong mood or feeling about the subject; (5) as we write, draw on all five senses: sight,
touch, hearing, taste, and smell; and (6) consider including figures of speech,
those imaginative comparisons that evoke feelings in our readers.
D. Rationale
A descriptive text is a text in which the writer draws his/her ideas and thought vividly based on his/her sense on the object he/she sees. The writer paints pictures with words or re-creates a scene or experience for the reader. A description must appeal to the reader’s senses and imagination. The writer’s goal is to make the reader see, hear, smell, or experience what is described. In a descriptive text, all parts of the paper work together to present a particular person, place, or thing. The organizations of descriptive texts are identification and description. In identification the writer mentions the name, occupation, a profession, and a career, and in description the writer mentions the physical features, the way he/she dresses, and his personality.
In writing a descriptive text, the students of the second grade are still getting difficulties in mastering it and the results of the test are unsatisfactory. Most of them found difficulties in organizing the ideas to become the paragraphs; they made a lot of grammatical mistakes. Moreover, their sentences were influenced by their mother tongue. They also found difficulties to choose the appropriate vocabulary. They did not know the meaning of words, so it makes
(44)
commit to user
them difficult to explore their ideas. They did not know the correct capital and spelling of some certain words.
In addition, the writing class before the research was also described in several conditions. The students’ attitude and motivation toward writing was still low. It appeared that the students were not active and enthusiastic to ask questions about writing to the teacher. They were shy and afraid to present their writings in front of the class. It means that they did not want their writings being read or known by other friends at the class. And the last, the students did not pay attention to the teacher’s explanation; they looked bored or sometimes made noise. When the teacher was explaining, the students tended to do their own activities.
The causes of the problems above were: (1) the teacher did not give adequate time, models, and practices for the students to write; (2) writing got less attention from the teacher. This was because the teacher tended to underestimate writing rather than reading. She argued that writing was less important to help the students in National Examination (UN) which was usually dominated by reading items; (3) there were no creative or varied techniques used by the teacher in exploring the students’ ability in writing. The techniques used were monotonous. Monotonous writing activity caused the students’ motivation in writing to be low and not interested in learning English especially writing. As the result, the students did not have any strategies about how to find ideas or explore them. Consequently, the students could not revise their drafts because they thought that it was a final writing. In fact, the students’ drafts still had numerous errors.
(45)
Therefore, it is important for the teacher to use an appropriate technique in teaching and learning process especially in writing a descriptive text. This technique is expected to arise the students’ motivation in writing. Motivated students will easily learn in class and lead them to reach the goal of the teaching and learning. Motivated students will also easily improve their writing ability.
Collaborative writing technique refers to a project where a composition is created by the pair together rather than individually. Collaborative writing technique is a pair or group of students working together on a piece of writing who can respond to each other’s ideas (both in terms language and content), making suggestions for changes and so contributing to the success of the finished product. This technique gives extra opportunity to write more by exchanging other ideas, giving suggestions and contributing the success of the final product. The chance to write in group or in pairs will motivate students and make students joyful to learn how to write well. Therefore, it is assumed that collaborative writing technique can be able to improve the students’ English writing ability.
E. Hypothesis
Based on the rationale of the research, the hypothesis is formulated as follows: collaborative writing technique can improve students’ ability in writing descriptive texts of the second grade students of SMPN 1 Pelaihari in the academic year of 2010/2011.
(46)
commit to user
CHAPTER IIIRESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Setting and Time of the Research
This action research is about improving the students’ ability in writing a descriptive text through collaborative writing technique. This research was conducted in the students of grade VIII A of SMPN 1 Pelaihari, South Kalimantan, in the academic year of 2010/2011. SMPN Negeri 1 Pelaihari is one of famous junior high schools which is located in the heart of Pelaihari town. Pelaihari is a town of Tanah Laut Regency in South Kalimantan province. It is exactly at Jl. Gembira No.04 Pelaihari 70811, phone number (0512) 22853. The location is very strategic and very good for learning area. It is easy to get the location by foot, bikes or motorcycles
SMPN 1 Pelaihari is a good and comfortable school. It has sixteen classrooms. It has been equipped with complete learning facilities such as language laboratory, computer laboratory, LCD, multimedia room, natural science laboratory, office administration laboratory, internet class and also comfortable classroom, library, a large office for teachers, some teachers’ and students’ bathroom, a mosque, a large parking, and some other facilities.
In addition, SMPN 1 Pelaihari is a small government school which has 480 students. The composition of the students in the classroom consists of
(47)
males and females students. In mixed classroom, the female students are sitting in front of rows of the male students.
The research was conducted from July 2010 to January, 2011. The following is the schedule for conducting the action research at SMPN 1 Pelaihari.
Table 3.1
Time Schedule of the Research in the Academic Year of 2010/2011
ACTIVITIES JULY AUGUS
T SE P T OC T
NOV DE
C
JAN FE
B
MAR
CH
APRIL
Pre Survey X
Making Proposal X
Reviewing Literatures
X X X
Developing Instruments
X X
Collecting and Analyzing the Data
X X X
Writing the Report X X X
Submitting the document
X X X X
B. Research Method
The research method used in this research is a classroom action research. In this case, the researcher wants to improve the students’ ability in writing a descriptive text through collaborative writing technique. Here, there are some definitions of action research. Kember (2000: 25) states that action research is
(48)
commit to user
portrayed as a cyclical or spiral process involving steps of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. Action research methodology offers a systematic approach to introduce innovations in teaching and learning. It is normal for a project to go through two or more cycles. Improvement is brought about by a series of cycles, each incorporating lesson from the previous ones. The cycle of Kember is the simplest and tidiest form.
Elliot (1991: 69) states that action research might be defined as the study of a social situation with a view to improve the quality of action within it. It aims at feeding practical judgment in concrete situation and the validity of theories or hypothesis. It depends not so much on scientific test of truth, as on their usefulness in helping people to act more intelligently and skillfully. In action research theories are not validated independently and then applied to practice. They are validated through practice. Furthermore, Ebbut (in Hopkin, 1993: 45) argues that action research is the systematic study of attempts to improve educational practice by groups of participants by means of their own practical actions and by means of their own reflection upon the effects of those actions.
Besides, classroom action research has characteristics that meet the need of the researcher. They are, according to Dick (in Nurkamto, 2002: 7) as follows:
1) Classroom action research is designed and applied in a certain classroom
setting; therefore, the research findings are applicable only to that classroom. The extent to which the findings may be applicable elsewhere depends on the empirical similarity of setting and receiving contexts.
(49)
2) Classroom action research is aimed at finding the solution for local and practical problems. Therefore, the researcher does not apply methodology as rigidly as that in other formal researches in developing universal theories.
3) Classroom action research tends to be cyclical, meaning that certain steps
(planning, acting, observing, and reflecting) tend to recur in a more or less similar sequence at different phases of an action research study.
4) Classroom action research tends to be participative. It means that the clients
and informants are involved as partner, or at least active participants, in the researcher process.
5) Classroom action research tends to be reflective. Critical reflection upon the
process and outcomes are important parts of each cycle.
From the definitions above, it can be concluded that a classroom action research in this study means the systematic study of attempts to improve educational practices in order that the students’ achievement is very satisfying. It tends to be cyclical, participative and reflective.
In addition, the design of classroom action research used in this research is a cyclical process adapted from the model proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (1992: 11). It consists of four main steps namely: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. Here is the Spiral Model by Kemmis and McTaggart:
(50)
commit to user
Figure 3.1The Model of Classroom Action Research
In each cycle, the procedures are:
1. Planning
The activities in planning are:
a. Conducting the diagnostic test, interviewing, and observing to identify the
real problem of the students in writing.
b. Planning the action program which will be conducted and preparing
everything dealing with the action research requirements such as: preparing the material which consists of students’ worksheet, making lesson plans, students’ questionnaires, preparing the sheets for classroom observation, preparing test instrument, etc.
2. Action
The activities in action are:
a. Carrying out activities step by step based on the lesson plan.
b. Conducting teaching writing by using collaborative writing technique.
(51)
3. Observation
The activities which are going to be observed are process of teaching and learning in the classroom and learning progress that students achieved. The field notes of both the researcher and collaborator and the result of recording will be the main resources for this observation.
4. Reflection
The researcher and the collaborator will analyze what is going on during the teaching and learning process and the result of the writing test. Through this activity, both the researcher and collaborator will hopefully find the strengths and the weaknesses found during teaching and learning process. Both the researcher and the collaborator will discuss the weaknesses and try to look for the solution of the problems found during the observation for the benefit of betterment of students’ writing ability.
C. Subject of the Research
The subject of the research is the students of second grade or grade VIII A of SMPN 1 Pelaihari in the academic year of 2010/2011. There are 28 students in this class. They consist of 12 boys and 16 girls. The students have different background. Mostly they come from low and middle social status and their parents’ professions are labors, farmers, and civil servants.
In general, the students of grade VIII A of SMPN 1 Pelaihari have low motivation especially in a writing English subject. This class is chosen as research subject because most of the students got writing mark under the school standard
(52)
commit to user
(64). It is based on the researcher’s observation during the English lesson and their daily test. It is difficult for them to express and organize their ideas in writing. Besides, they lack of vocabulary. They find difficulties to choose appropriate words or memorize the meaning of words and apply them in sentences. They find difficulties not only in vocabulary but also in tenses especially in present tense to write a descriptive text. So that is why, the researcher wants to improve it through collaborative writing technique in order that the students have high behavior and motivation in learning English especially writing English subject. As everyone knows that the teacher’s task is to develop the students’ ability to be able to participate in creating the descriptive text.
The students of grade VIII A of SMPN 1 Pelaihari in the academic year of 2010/2011 are taken as the subject of the research since the research is a classroom action research.
D. Technique of Collecting Data
There are two kinds of data that are used in this research. The data are both qualitative and quantitative data. To collect the qualitative data, the researcher conducts the observation at the classroom. The researcher observes classroom events, interaction in the classroom, and the students’ responses during the teaching learning process. The observation is an activity to watch and record action and behavior of research participants. The researcher and his collaborator observe the students’ activities and the progress of teaching and learning in writing subject.
(53)
Then, interview is also done to find out information from the students and the collaborator about the students’ writing ability and the implementation of collaborative writing technique in writing. The last one is questionnaire. It is given in the form of written questions with available answers. The researcher can analyze the result of questionnaire to know the students personal problem faced in writing. The students’ personal impression and responses about the implementation of collaborative writing technique.
Another type of data is quantitative data. The data are taken from pretest and posttest that are carried out before and after the cycles are implemented. The result of pretest and posttest show whether the students’ writing ability in writing a descriptive text improves or not.
E. Technique of Analyzing Data
There are two techniques in analyzing data, quantitative and qualitative. To analyze the quantitative data, the researcher uses the students’ previous marks (pretest) and in the end of the activity, the researcher gives the students posttest in order to know whether collaborative writing technique can improve the students’ ability in constructing a descriptive text.
In scoring the students’ writing, there are five aspects to be scored; they are content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. The value of each aspect ranged from 1 to 5. The maximum score of content is five, organization is five, vocabulary is four, grammar is four, and mechanics is two. So the total score of each aspect is twenty. Thus, the final score is one hundred derived from the
(54)
commit to user
maximum score times the total score of each aspect is one hundred or the students’ individual score were computed by the using a simple formula:
Gained score x 100 Max score
Furthermore, to obtain more valid score, the students’ writings were scored using inter-rater. It means that the students’ writings are scored by both teacher and his collaborator. So there are two sets of score results from teacher and his collaborator which are used to state the significance of collaborative writing technique in writing a descriptive text whether the students’ improvement occurs or not. The score from five aspects will help the teacher’s attention. It means that it provides the information about the difficulties that the students encountered.
The result of students’ writings is analyzed using descriptive statistics. Here, the researcher uses a formula proposed by Ngadiso (2007: 5- 7) by comparing the mean score, and then the researcher calculates the students’ score by using the following formula:
M =
∑
Where:
M= Mean (the score)
∑ = the total score
N= number of the students
If the mean score increases, the students’ writing ability is considered improving. It means that collaborative writing technique can be
(1)
writing ability because every step of writing process can be followed easier and more flexible by the students. In this case, the teacher can be more creative and innovative in teaching and learning especially writing lesson. Besides, it is also hoped that the products of writing have the good quality.
C. Suggestion
Here, the researcher would like to give some suggestions related to the research. He hoped that the suggestions would be useful for English teachers, students, and other researchers.
1. For English teachers
a. This research has revealed that the use of collaborative writing gave great
impact to the students’ writing performance. So it is suggested to English teachers to use this technique in teaching and learning process to reach the target of writing class.
b. English teachers should be more creative and innovative in using this
technique in teaching writing for the students to avoid getting bored and to empower their writing competence so that teaching writing will be more meaningful for developing their ability in writing.
2. Students
a. The students should realize that writing is one of the language skills that is
very important to be applied in daily life because expressing the ideas through writing bring a lot of benefits for the writers and the readers.
(2)
b. Students should realize that they actually have good abilities to be writers because every person was born to bring talented potentials. Being good writers brings the positive effects in self-correction and self-reflection so that the students will be cooperative and open minded people in the future.
c. The students should build their psychology in expressing ideas to public
bravely. So, they will be more motivated in writing something that is meaningful for everyone.
3. Other researcher
This research is just one effort to improve the students’ writing ability through collaborative writing technique in teaching and learning writing in the classroom. The findings of this research are expected to use it as starting point to conduct the further research in the different field and different text types.
(3)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abisamra, N. S. 2001. Teaching Writing: Approaches & Activities. Available at:
http://www.nadasisland.com/writing. Accessed on July 20, 2010.
Alwasilah, A. C. 2004. The Tapestry of English Language Teaching and Learning
in Indonesia. Malang: State University of Malang Press.
---, 2006. From Local to Global: Reinventing Local Literature
through English Writing Class. TEFLN Journal, 12 (1): 11-24.
Anderson, M. and Anderson, K. 1998. Text Types in English 3.South Yarra:
Maximillan Education Australia PTY LTD.
Barkley, F. Elizabeth, et. all. 2005. Collaborative Learning Technique. First
Edition, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Brookes, A. & Grundy, P, 1990. Writing for Study Purposes: A teacher’s guide to
developing individual writing skills. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
Brown, H. D, 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. Second Edition, San Francisco State University.
---, 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom
Practices. San Francisco: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Chin, G. Jr. 1996. Collaboration. http://csrgrad.cs.vt.edu/-chm. Accessed on June
20th, 2010.
Cohen, A. D. 1994. Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom, 2nd ed. Boston:
Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Depdiknas. 2005. Bahan Pelatihan Terintegrasi Berbasis Kompetensi Guru SMP.
Jakarta: Depdikbud.
Doddy, A. Sugeng, A. & Effendi. 2008. Developing English Competences 1: for
Junior High School.Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan
Nasional.
Elliot, John. 1991. Action Research for Educational Change. Open University
Press Milton Keynes. Philadelphia.
Grabe and Kaplan. 1996. Theory and Practice of Writing. Wesley Longman
(4)
Ghaith, G. 2002. Writing. Available at: http://www.nadasisland.com/writing. Accessed on July 20, 2010.
Hamp-Lyons, L. & Heasley, B. 1987. Study Writing: A Course in Written English
for Academic and Professional Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Harmer, J. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching: An Introduction.
New York: Longman Publishing.
Harris, John. 1993. Introducing Writing. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Heaton, J. B. 1975. Writing English Language Tests. London: Longman.
Hopkins, D. 1993. A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research.Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Hyland, K. 2003. Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Joko Nurkamto. An Introduction to Classroom Action Research. A paper
presented at a regional workshop for the English teachers of Madrasah Aliyah of Central Java in Madrasah Aliyah Model Magelang. Central Java, 12-13 January 2002.
Kellough, R. D. & Kellough, N. G. 1999. Middle School Teaching: A Guide to
Method and Resources. Third Edition, London: Prentice Hall
International (UK) Limited, Inc.
Kember, David. 2000. Action Learning and Research. Rutledge. New York.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R.1992. The Action Research Planner. Third Edition.
Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Kessler, C. (Ed). 1992. Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource
Book. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Murcia, et. al. 2000. Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mukminatien, N. 1991. Making Writing Class Interesting. TEFLIN Journal: An
EFL Journal in Indonesia, Volume 4 Number 2.
Nathan V, et al. 2002. Writing Basic, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/misuderstood
(5)
Ngadiso. 2007. Statistics. Surakarta: English Education Department Teacher Training and Education Faculty, UNS.
Nunan, David. 1998. Designing Task for the Communicative Classroom. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
---, 1992. Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. Great
Britain: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
O’Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. 1996. Authentic Assessment for English
Language Learners. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Publishing, Inc.
Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching: An
Anthology of Current Pranctise. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schutz, R. E. 1995. English-the International Language.
http://www.comp.br/sk-inst. Accessed on June 20th, 2010.
Simpson, M. J. E. 1998. Research in Language Teaching.
http://exchanges.state.gove/forum/vols/136/no2 Vol. 36 no 2, April-
June p. 34. Accessed on July 5th, 2010.
Soejatmiko, W. & Taloko, J. L. 2003. Teaching Writing Using Electronic
Portfolio in the Multimedia Lab at Widya Mandala Surabaya Catholic
University. TEFLIN Journal, Volume XIV, Number 2, P. 264- 278.
Smalley, R. L., Ruetten, M. K. & Kozyrev, J. R. 2001. Refining Composition
Skills: Rhetoric and Grammar.Fifth Edition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Thomson Learning.
Spring, M. 2007. Collaborative Literary Creation and Control: A Socio- Historic,
Technological and Legal Analysis.
http://mako.cc//Collablit/writing/BenjMako-Hill-Collablit and
Control/What is cw.html. Accessed on July 5th, 2010.
Strauss & Glaser. 1980. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. New York.
Steve, Peha. 2003. Writing Quality http://www.ttms.org/writing_quality.com.htm.
Accessed on April 12th, 2011.
Sutanto et. all. 2007. English for Academic Purpose: Essay Writing. Yogyakarta:
(6)
Tribble, Christropher. 1996. Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tompkins, Gail E. 1994. Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product. 2nd
Edition. New York: Macmillan College Publishing Company, Inc.
Ur, Penny. 1996. A Course on Language Teaching. Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press.
White, Ron., Arndt, Valerie. 1997. Process Writing. London: Addison Wesley
Longman Limited.
Widodo, P. H. 2007. Textbook Analysis on College Academic Writing. TEFLIN