A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STUDENTS’ WRITING ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN EXTROVERT AND INTROVERT STUDENTS’ PERSONALITY AT THE SECOND YAR OF SMAN 7 BANDAR LAMPUNG

ii

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STUDENTS’WRITING ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN EXTROVERT AND INTROVERT STUDENTS’PERSONALITY

AT THE SECOND YAR OF SMAN 7 BANDAR LAMPUNG

By Deri Herdawan

English teaching is regarded to improve students’ ability in using English as a means of communication, in all four English skills. However, most students do not have equal achievement in all English skills. Some students perform better in one skill, while the rest do better in other skills.

This research was done in order to see whether there is a significant difference in writing achievement between students who are introvert and extrovert at the second grade of SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung.

The participants of the research were the students of the second grade of SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung in the academic year 2011/2012. Two classes were taken as the sample. Each class consisted of forty students. The research design was ex post facto and the data were taken from questionnaire and writing test, and then they were analyzed by using Independent T-Test to test the hypothesis.

The result of the data analysis shows that the students’ achievement in writing differs between extrovert and introvert students. The difference in mean score of writing was 4.3 in which the mean of extrovert students, 70.3, is higher than the introvert students, 66.0.

The researcher used Independent T-Test at the significance level (0.05) to prove whether the hypothesis was accepted or not. The computation showed that t-ratio (2.183) is higher than the t–table (1.671); it means t-ratio>t-table. It can be concluded that the introvert students’ achievement in writingis significantly higher than the introvert ones. In other words, the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

vi

Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamin. Praise to Allah SWT, the Almighty and Merciful God, for blessing the writer with faith, health, and opportunity to finish this script. This script entitled “A Comparative Study of Student’s Writing Achievement between Extrovert and Introvert Students Personality at the Second Year of SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung”. This script is presented to fulfill one of the

requirements in accomplishing the S-1 Degree at the Department of Language and Arts of Teacher Training and Education Faculty in the University of Lampung. The writer would like to express his gratitude to many people who have given their suggestion and help in writing this script. First, he delivers his gratitude and respect to Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd., his first advisor, and Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd., his second advisor, who have given their best criticisms, suggestions, and revisions during the accomplishment of this script. Then, he wants to deliver his gratitude to his examiner, Budi Kadaryanto, S.Pd., M.A., for his input and contribution.

The writer’sthankfulness is also extended to Drs. Suharto, M.Pd., the Headmaster of SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung, in which the writer did his research, Dra. Neneng Idawati as his tutor during the PPL, Dicky Kurniawan as shelter provider during the research, and all beloved students of class XI 1 Science and XI 4 Social Programs for their participation in this research.

The writer also would like to extend his appreciations to his beloved comrades of English ’07, especially Dian Irawan, Joko Setyo Puji Santoso, Muhammad Rudi, and Rio Alen Wicaksi. Thank you so much for all support and everything since his very first year in this department. The writer also owes special thanks to his beloved late best friend, Akhirman, for great times that he had ever shared with the writer that the writer could never have enough.

My grateful love is for my mother and my father. I thank you mom, for your unmeasurable love, and dad, for never stops praying for my success. I am in deep debt to you. I also thank my Uncle, Papah Pukuk, to whom I learn to be a better person. My thankfulness is also due to my brothers Ganda and Yuda for their cheer and encouragement. I will always wish you the best.

Similar to other novice research, the writer believes that his writing is still far from perfection. There may be drawbacks and weakness in the research, thus comments, critiques, and suggestions are always welcomed for the purpose of better research. Somehow, the writer hopes this script would give a positive

vii

Bandar Lampung, Maret 2012

Research Title : A Comparative Studyof Student’s Writing Achievement between Extrovert and Introvert Student Personality at the Second Year of SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung

Student’s Name : Deri Herdawan

Student’s Number : 0713042019

Study Program : English Education

Advisors : 1. Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. 2. Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd.

Bandar Lampung, January 2012

Advisor I Advisor II

Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd.

JURUSAN PENDIDIKAN BAHASA DAN SENI

Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No. 1 Kampus Gedung Meneng Bandar Lampung

Hal : Undangan Seminar Hasil Kepada Yth.

Bapak/Ibu … di

tempat

Dengan hormat,

Sehubungan dengan akan diadakan seminar proposal mahasiswa berikut:

Nama : Deri Herdawan

NPM : 0713042019

Judul : A Comparative Studyof Student’s writing Achievement between Extrovert and Introvert Students Personality at the Second Year of SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung

Pembimbing : 1. Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. 2. Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. Pembahas : Budi Kadaryanto S.Pd., M.A.

Maka kami mengundang Bapak/Ibu pada seminar yang akan dilaksanakan pada: Hari/tanggal : Jumat, Januari 2012

Pukul : 08.00 WIB s.d. selesai

Tempat : Ruang Seminar Bahasa FKIP Unila

Demikian undangan ini kami sampaikan. Atas perhatiannya kami ucapkan terima kasih.

Bandar Lampung, Januari 2012

Mengetahui,

Koordinator Seminar

Drs. Basturi Hasan, M.Pd. NIP 19540705 198603 1 003

iii

The writer’s name isDeri Herdawan. He was born in Gunung Batin, October 21 , 1989. He is the first child of three children of a couple, Baheram and Ida Kemala. He began his study at SD Negeri 6 Mulyo Asri in 1995. Having graduated from the Elementary School in 2001, he went to SLTP Negeri 1 Tulang Bawang Tengah and graduated in 2004. He finished his High School at SMU Negeri 1 Tumijajar in 2007. In the same year, he was registered as an S-1 college student of Lampung University at English Education Study Program of Teacher Training and Education Faculty.

From February 1stto April 4th, 2011 he carried on Teaching Practice Program (PPL) at SMA Negeri 7 Bandar Lampung.

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Types of Personality ... 12 Figure 4.1 Result of Questionnaire ... 42

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix

1. Questionnaire Try Out ... 65

2. Reliability Test of Questionnaire Try Out ... 69

3. Questionnaire ... 71

4. Reliability of Questionnaire ... 75

5. Validity of Questionnaire ... 77

6. Writing Test ... 80

7. Students’ Score of Writing Test ... 84

8. Inter-rater Reliability of the Writing Test ... 86

9. Random Test ... 90

10. Normality Test ... 91

11. Hypothesis Test ... 92

12. Hypothesis Test (Aspects of Writing) ... 93

13. Students’ Questionnaire ... 94

14. Students’ Writing ... 102

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Table of Specification (Questionnaire) ... 26

Table 3.2 Scoring System ... 37

Table 4.1 Average Score of Writing in Introvert Group ... 44

Table 4.2 Distribution of Frequency in Introvert Group ... 44

Table 4.3 Average Score of Writing in Extrovert Group ... 45

Table 4.4 Distribution of Frequency in Extrovert Group ... 45

iv

This script is dedicated to:

My beloved parents, Baheram and Ida Kemala

Thanks for your caring, your prayers, your forbearance and everything My beloved comradesEnglish ’07 of Lampung University; Liliz, Rudi, all

NERD ’07, and my late best friend, Akhirman. My Alma mater, UNILA

v

“Always be yourself, express yourself, have faith in yourself, do not go out and look for a successful personality and duplicate it.”

viii

TITLE... i

ABSTRACT... ii

CURRICULUM VITAE ... iii

DEDICATION ... iv

MOTTO ... v

ACKNOWLDGEMENT... vi

CONTENTS... viii

LIST OF TABLES ... x

LIST OF FIGURES ... xi

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xii

I. INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. Background of the Problem ... 1

B. Formulation of the Problem ... 4

C. Objective of the Research ... 4

D. Uses of the Research ... 5

E. Scope of the Research ... 5

F. Definition of Terms... 6

II. LITERATURE REVIEW... 8

A. Psychological Aspects in Language Learning ... 8

B. Personality... 10

C. Extroversion/Introversion and Its Characteristics ... 12

D. Concept of Writing... 15

E. Aspects of Writing ... 17

F. Concept of Writing Achievement ... 18

G. Theoretical Assumptions... 19

H. Hypothesis... 20

III. RESEARCH METHOD... 21

A. Research Design ... 21

B. Population and Sample... 23

C. Research Procedure ... 24

D. Research Instrument ... 25

E. Validity and Reliability of the Instruments ... 28

F. Criteria of EvaluatingStudent’s Test... 33

ix

B. Discussion ... 48

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 58

A. Conclusions ... 58

B. Suggestions ... 59

REFERENCES... 62

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STUDENTS’WRITING ACHIEVEMENT

BETWEEN EXTROVERT AND INTROVERT STUDENTS’

PERSONALITY AT THE SECOND YEAR OF SMAN 7 BANDAR LAMPUNG

(A Script)

By Deri Herdawan

0713042019

Advisors:

Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd.

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM ARTS AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter illustrates the reason of choosing the topic; why the research was conducted. It also covers formulation of problem, objectives of the research, uses of the research, scopes of the research, and definition of term; clarified as the followings.

A. Background of the Problem

English teaching is regarded to improve students’ ability in using English as a means of communication. Students should practice intensively so that they are able to use English communicatively both in oral and written form. However, in a class, none of the students make equal improvement in all English skills in

achieving the required goal although they receive the same treatment from the teacher. Based on the writer’s experience in teaching English, he found that each student has different achievement level in all four English skills. Some students perform better in a certain skill while the rest do better in other skills. It happens because there are many factors that influence the result of a study beside the treatment given by the teacher or the quality of teacher.

Among the factors which have much influence in language learning are cognitive and affective factors. It is not surprising that student who poses high quality of cognitive factor, such as intelligence, will do well in language learning. However, if we take only this single factor into consideration, the most fundamental side of human behavior will be omitted. Hilgard (1963:267) writes that purely cognitive theories of learning will be rejected unless a role is assigned to affectivity. The statement above is also supported by the psycholinguistic experts Brown (1980) in Rosita (1997:1) who say that success in second language learning cannot be separated from individual psychological factors, i.e. affectivity. They state that this factor also has equal influence, if not greater, as the cognitive factor does towardstudents’ achievement in second languagelearning.

Dealing with psychological factor, personality is the first facet of the intrinsic side. It is within a person that contributesin some way to one’s success in language learning. There are three general categories of personality factors, egocentric factors, transactional factors, and motivational factors (Suparman, 2010:64). Furthermore, Transactional factor is influenced by some variables which come up on language learning, they are imitation, modeling, identification, extraversion, aggression, and styles of communication. Among those variables, the writer will elaborate more about extraversion.

Extraversion is one of the variables in classifying type of personality. It refers to the relationship of extrovert-introvert personality. In this category, personality can be classified into two types, they are extroversion and introversion. Jung (1971)

cited in Purwati (1997: 4) says that extrovert is type of people whose attention is directed outside himself. Whereas introvert type belongs to people whose

attention are focused on themselves that is toward his ego. Furthermore, in his explanation, Jung classifies that extrovert type has the ability to socialize better than the introvert type due to the ability to build a communication.

If it is related to second language learning, the paragraph above implies that there is tendency of the extrovert students to have better achievement in speaking. Many studies have been done by researchers to prove that statement. Strong cited in Davies (2004: 541) states that out of eight studies that employ oral language test, six of them show that extroverts perform better than introverts. Meanwhile, still in the same book, Dewaele and Furnham (1999:532) analyze 30 researchers’ study and their conclusion shows that Extroverts were found to be generally more fluent than introverts in both the L1 and L2. They were not; however, necessarily more accurate in their L2, which reinforced the view that fluency and accuracy are separate dimensions in second language proficiency.

The conclusion above supports the study conducted by Strong and several other researchers. However, similar to Strong’s and Dewaele and Furnham’s, most research that the writer found show only the relationship between extraversion and speaking skill. There is less research whose focus is in “extraversion-writing”, even less research in that matter was done in Indonesia. By this reason, the writer tried to conduct a research dealing with extraversion-writing relationship.

Speaking is one of the productive skills in English competence. The other one is writing. Theories and results of research in chapter II will reveal that extrovert people tend to take risk of making mistakes and interact more with people so this helps them to learn better in Second Language, especially in oral communication aspect (Erhman and Oxford, 1995). However, in writing learners may face barriers such as linguistic forms and grammars where introvert people said to be better than extrovert people (Qomarudin, 2010:16). Therefore, in this research, the writer tried to find out whether introvert students are different from extrovert students or not in their writing achievement, or introvert students are even better in their writing achievement.

B. Formulation of the Problem

Based on the background above, the writer formulated the problem as follow: Do students with introvert personality have better achievement in writing than the extrovert ones?

C. Objective of the Research

This research was done in order to see whether there is a significant difference in writing achievement between students who are introvert and extrovert. Then, further analysis was done to find out which type of personality has better achievement in writing.

D. Uses of the Research

The uses of the research are:

1. Theoretically, this research may give contribution and also verify previous research and theories. This research may also contribute some information about understanding language learning. Furthermore, this research can be used as logical consideration for the next research.

2. Practically, the result of this research may give information as to the importance of understanding student’s type in learning a language for all related party, especially in writing. Teachers will be able to decide what technique or method suit best for their students. While students will know one of the factors that cause them to struggle or excel in writing.

E. Scope of the Research

Talking about personality within individuals, we may find several aspects such as empathy, anxiety, self-stem, inhibition, aggression, and motivation. However, this research explores only one trait of personality that is extraversion.

The writer conducted the research at SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung with students at the second grade; class XI, as the population. They were categorized into three levels or degrees of extraversion, which are extrovert, mediocre, and introvert,

based on one instrument to measure personality called Eysenck Personality Inventory. Two out of the three categorizations were then compared in their writing achievement.

F. Definition of Terms

Along the description above, the writer provided some definitions of terms that came across often during the research. The terms below will guide the readers in reading and understanding this research.

1. Personality : A dynamic organization from the psychophysics in individual, which can also determine his adaptation uniquely toward his environment (Allport in Lester, 1995:131)

2. Extrovert : The extent to which a person has a deep-seated to receive ego enhancement, self esteem, and a sense of wholeness from other people as opposed to receiving that

affirmation within oneself (Brown, 2000:115).

3. Introvert : The extent to which a person derives a sense of wholeness and fulfillment apart from reflection of this self from other people (Brown, 2000:115).

4. Extraversion : Shorter expression refers to extroversion-introversion (Qomarudin, 2010:10)

5. Writing : A process of discovering and organizing ideas, putting them on a paper and reshaping and revising them (Meyers, 2005:2)

6. Achievement : How well a learner performs a required course objective or set of such objectives, usually as measured by a test (Briggs in Rosita, 1997:14).

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Theories underlying extraversion will be elaborated in this chapter. Since relation between personality and language learning has become interest for so many years, this chapter mentions some research and their findings as well. Additionally, theories on personality in general, on second language learning, and writing skill are also presented in this chapter.

A. Psychological Aspects in Language Learning

Human beings are emotional creatures. All thought and meaning as well as action are emotions. In second language learning we have to see the domain which is important and has a big role in second language learning. It is called the Affective domain (emotional). The affective domain includes many factors: empathy, self-esteem, extroversion, inhibition, imitation, anxiety, and attitudes. Affective refers to emotion or feeling. The affective domain is emotional side of human behavior. The development of affective or feeling involves a variety of personality factors, feeling of about ourselves and about others with whom we come into contact (Brown, 1980 cited in Purwati, 1997:8).

Language is a phenomenon in humanity that cannot be separated from the whole person. As it is mentioned by Pike (1967) in Purwati (1997: 9) who states that language is behavior that is a phase of human activity which must not be treated in essence as structurally divorced from the structure of non verbal human activity. The activity of a person constitutes a structural whole in such a way that it cannot be divided into “neat” parts, or “level”, or “compartment” with language in behavioral compartment insulted in character, content, and organization from other behavior.

Furthermore, it is very important to understand how human beings feel and respond. It is as the aspect of the second language learning. Brown, cited in Purwati (1997:9) in his consideration of specific personality factors in human behavior, and how they relates to second language learning, states three general categories as the following:

1. Egocentric factor : it is based on one view of self and its relevance to language learning.

2. Transactional factor : it is the self transacted to others.

3. Motivational factors : it is commonly thought as an inner drive, impulse, emotion, or desire that moves one to particular action.

B. Personality

Personality is one of the main topics in psychology. There have been many scientists who tried to make discussion about the meaning of personality. Until recently, there is no definition which is agreed by all scientists as the standard definition to explain the meaning of personality according to their point of views.

One of the definitions which has been known by psychologist and is able to explain the term of personality is stated by Allport (1937) in Lester (1995: 131) who says that personality is a dynamic organization from the psychophysics in individual, which can also determine his adaption uniquely toward his

environment.

From the definition above, it is clearly explained by Allport, the dynamic organization here is the dynamism of the individual personality itself. Allport emphasizeson the reality that an individual’s personality always develops and changes even if there is a system ties and leads some components of personality. The personality organization consists of psycho– physic, that is body’s movement and soul which cannot be separated. Thus, personality is not merely dealing with mental or neutral.

The organization implies the work of body and soul, which is united and cannot be separated, becomes the unity of personality. Personality is called as a factor which determines, it means that personality consists of determinant tendencies which play active roles in behavior of an individual. Allport explains that there are

no two individuals who are really alike in adapting themselves toward the

environment. That is why there are no individuals who share the same personality.

There are several variables that will influence the way a person adapt himself to the environment, thus, creating a unique personality within oneself. Two experts of Educational Psychology field confirm this. Brown (2000: 142-154) mentions that personality has several features; they are:

1. Self esteem: the way a person sees himself 2. Inhibition: to adapt the language ego

3. Risk-taking: how to ‘gamble’ in learning new language 4. Anxiety: associated with uneasiness, frustration, or worry 5. Empathy: relation between language and society

6. Extroversion

Brown chooses the term ‘extroversion’ with ‘o’ rather than ‘extraversion’ with an ‘a’ to contrast with introversion. So this actually representssimilar item/ relation that are extrovert and introvert. Almost similarly, Ellis (1989) in Qomarudin, (2010: 27) explains several variables in personality i.e. anxiety, risk-taking, tolerance of ambiguity, empathy, self-esteem, and inhibition and extraversion.

Therefore, from the opinion of two experts above, we can then understand that Extraversion exists in personality.

C. Extroversion/Introversion and Its Characteristic

Eysenck in Purwati (1997: 14)divides individuals’ personality through the classification of typology. Personality types according to him can be divided into two types, they are extroversion and introversion. Each type has its own

indication, such as sociality, activity, expansiveness and etc. Personality types according to Eysenck are as follow:

Figure 2.1 Types of Personality

The two dimensions, extroversion-introversion, and emotional stability-instability, define those four quadrants. These are made up of:

1. Stable extroverts (sanguine qualities such as - outgoing, talkative, responsive, easygoing, lively, carefree, leadership)

2. Unstable extroverts (choleric qualities such as - touchy, restless, excitable, changeable, impulsive, irresponsible)

3. Stable introverts (phlegmatic qualities such as - calm, even-tempered, reliable, controlled, peaceful, thoughtful, careful, passive)

4. Unstable introverts (melancholic qualities such as - quiet, reserved, pessimistic, sober, rigid, anxious, and moody).

Then Eysenck expresses that the four personality types are separated based on the continuum scale. Thus, the division always plays every individual to extreme position. Eysenck cited in Purwati (1997: 15) says:“… it is implied that everyone must either a raving extrovert or withdrawn introvert, but nearly that away one can find on this particular continuum or dimension ….”

Referring to that statement, Eysenck explains the degree of an individual in

behaving according to his position in that scale. According to him, there is no pure extroversion or introversion of one’s personality. The personality can move from one pole into another one. In order to see one’s personality, we can only see the type that is more dominant, whether the type is extroversion or introversion, so that we can classify the individual to the type of extroversion or introversion.

Eysenck states the character of someone who is extroversion are easy to socialize, love making friend, make much interaction with others, active, optimistic,

aggressive, not always someone who can be trusted, emotional, the deed is often without previous thinking, easily lose control, need other people to chat, does not

like to read or study alone, wishy-washy, cheerful, like kind of works which full of challenge.

The characters of someone who is introversion are like to stay alone, not really friendly but to close friends, does not like interaction with other people, passive, pessimistic, not aggressive, like reading than chatting, shy typed, considerate, does not like crowd, calm, stable, love monotonous work.

Furthermore, Crow and Crow (1958: 187) explain some more details of the characteristics of extroversion and introversion. They state that extrovert people are usually fluent in speaking, free of feeling worry and not easily get ashamed and awkward, love to work with others, and good at adapting with their

surroundings. They also put interest in athletic. In the other hand, introvert people are more fluent in writing than speaking, tend to be serious and anxious, like working alone, often find difficulty in behaving, and love to read.

Whether extrovert or introvert an individual is, no scholars mention anything about ‘good’ or ‘better’ attitude. Douglas notes that Western views about introvert people need to be ‘reviewed’ since extrovert people in fact need other people to be convenient, to express themselves, while introvert is enough by their own. Even Adamopulous (2004) in Qomarudin (2010: 29) describes extrovert as in need to get energy from others.

In case of social life, perhaps extrovert people are considered more desirable. It is due to their open minded characteristic to communicate with many people; in parties, offices, neighborhood etc. However, this does not necessarily signify that introvert tend to be least person to converse with, since they are bad people for instance. It is just the way they express themselves differ from those who are extrovert.

Either way, by knowing the characters of personality of extroversion and introversion, it can be predicted the tendency of someone in giving response, giving us advantage when dealing with each type.

D. Concept of Writing

Generally, writing can be interpreted as the act of forming or tracing a character on paper or other suitable materials with a pen or pencil. Rivers (1968: 242) distinguishes writing from other skills according to the form; it was from the simplest form to the most highly developed one. The simplest form of writing can be conceived as the act of putting down in conventional graphic from something that had been spoken.

Meanwhile, Meyers (2005:2) says that writing is a way to produce language, which you do naturally when you speak. Writing is communicating with others in a verbal way. Writing is also an action–a process of discovering and organizing your ideas, putting them on a paper and reshaping and revising them.

In more details, Macdonald and Macdonald (1996:1) state specifically that writing process is a creative act of construction that seems to begin with nothing (blank page) and ends with coherent structures that express feelings, emotions, attitudes, prejudices, and values.

In addition, Tarigan (1987:17) says that writing is a language skill that is used for indirect communication. The students can communicate their ideas and their thoughts to others through written form such as letter, message, or invitation for communication. From these statements, it can be inferred that writing refers to a process in which its activities are not produced immediately. The writer must think first about the topic and find some information about the topic. Writing involves some efforts such as trying, selecting, adding, revising, and rearranging the words into sentences that have been written.

From the definitions above the writer concluded that writing is a way to produce language that comes from our thought in the written form. By using writing, we can share our idea, feeling or anything that exist in our mind. It is influenced both by the personal attitudes and social experiences that the writer brings to his writing.

E. Aspects of Writing

A writer will be said successful in writing if their writing contains some aspects of writing. According to Heaton (1991:135), there are five aspects of writing:

1. Contentrefers to the substance of writing, the experience of the main idea (unity), i.e., groups of related statements that a writer presents as unit in developing a subject. Content paragraph do the work of conveying ideas rather than fulfilling special function of transition, restatement, and emphasis.

2. Organizationrefers to the logical organization of the content (coherence). It contains sentences that are logically arranged and flow smoothly. Logical arrangement refers to the order of the sentences and ideas. 3. Vocabularyrefers to the selection of words that are suitable to the

content. It begins with assumption that t the writer want to express the ideas as clearly and directly as he can. As a general rule, clarity should be his prime objective. Choosing words that express his meaning is precisely rather than skew it or blur it.

4. Language Userefers to the use of the correct grammatical form of syntactic pattern on separating, combining, and grouping ideas in words, phrases, clauses, and sentences to bring out logical relationships in paragraph writing.

5. Mechanicrefers to the use of graphic conventional of the language, i.e., the steps or arranging letters, words, sentences, paragraphs by using knowledge of structure and some others related to one another.

In this research, the writer will apply those aspects of writing stated above in evaluating the students writing score becauseit provides a well defined standard

and interpretive framework for evaluating a compositions’ students’

communication effectiveness which is suggested to be used in evaluating

students’ writing.

F. Concept of Writing Achievement

Achievement indicates how far the learner has mastered a body of information as a mean to achieve the required goals. Briggs (1981) cited in Rosita (1997:14) says that achievement is how well a learner performs a required course objective or set of such objectives, usually as measured by a test; performance of individuals and group can then be judged as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory, based on

predetermined standard, or performance may be stated in reference to norms describing how other groups will be scored on the test.

In order to know the student’s achievement, we need to give a test to the students. The purpose of the test is to measure how far they mastered the information or the knowledge that has been given. Harris (1974:3) states that an achievement test indicates the extent to which an individual has mastered the specific in a formal way. In this research the writer took writing achievement in order to compare the writing achievement between those of extrovert students and those of introvert students. The writer got the result of students writing achievement by giving them writing test.

G. Theoretical Assumption

In classroom particularly, one needs to be able to master exercise, drills, and other analytical oral and written activities. Considering the characteristics of introvert students which is thoughtful and tend to be analytical, it is speculated that

introvert student will perform better in writing rather than extrovert student does.

Above statement is supported by the result of a research done by Smart (1970) in Kezwer (1987:48). His study done to intermediate students of University of French shows that overachiever in English language learning correlate negatively with extroversion. Students with introvert personality had better grade than the extroverted ones.

Similar result can also be found inCallahan’s (2000) in Kezwer (1987:49). Her study shows that extrovert student best respond to reflect about the outer world. As one might expect, they are better talkers than writers and so do not go for keeping journals or preparing portfolios, where Meta cognitive processes are involved. In a word, for these students, reflecting on their writing processes seems “awkward”. In the other hand, Reflection forintrovert students is pleasant and quite “natural.” Their journals tend to be quite “voluminous”as opposed to their extrovert counterparts.

The finding of research above may become what most Indonesian people see about how extrovert and introvert differ. Learner who loves talking like Extrovert

person may not be good in writing, but ones who read more (Introvert) will perform excellent. This is supported by opinion of Byrne (1991) cited in

Qomarudin (2010:35) that to master writing, one should read a lot because better writer tends to be better reader.

On the basis of the previous paragraphs, the writer assumed that introvert students would perform better in writing. It is due to the fact that introvert students pose those characteristics which are in line with writing process. In order to produce a good writing, one needs to consider many principles in order for the writing to be understandable by the readers. In short, it is a complicated process that requires time and a lot of thought, something that extrovert people do not really like.

H. Hypothesis

Based on the theoretical assumption, the writer proposed the hypothesis that students with introvert personality have better achievement in writing than the extrovert ones.

III. RESEARCH METHOD

How the research was done is examined in this chapter. This refers to what type or design of the research was, who the population and the samples were, and how the data were gathered. Judging the validity and reliability of the instrument is put prior to the treatment of data and data analysis which are coming subsequently.

A. Research Design

In this research, the writer used ex post facto research design. Ex post facto means systematic empirical enquiry in which the writer does not have direct control of independent and dependent variable. This is due to their manifestations have already occurred or because they are inherently not manipulable. Inferences about relations among variables are made without direct intervention, from concomitant variation of independent and dependent variables (Ary et al, 1979). The design of this research was as follow:

1( )

G1 = Group of Introvert Type G2 = Group of Extrovert Type T1 = Writing Test

Hatch and Farhady (1982:27)

There are two variables that were organized in this research: they are dependent and independent variables. Dependent variable is the main variable in a research. It is a “product” as a result of interaction between variables involved in that particular research. While independent variable is the variable whose function is to influence the dependent variable. From the explanation above, the writer determined the variables as follow:

1. The introvert and extrovert students were as independent variable. (x) 2. Students writing achievements were as the dependent variable. (y)

In order to find students who pose the independent variables, questionnaire was given to the students to be answered. Based on the result of the questionnaire, the writer classified the students into three groups; introvert, mediocre, and extrovert. The introvert and the extrovert groups were taken as the dependent variable. Meanwhile, the dependent variable of the research was obtained from the students’result of writing test. The reason of choosing test as the source of the data was in order to get primary data which are more reliable than students’ report card. The writer assumed that report cards had always been influenced by

B. Population and Sample

The population of this research was students in the first semester of the second grade, academic year 2011-2012, at SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung. There are eight classes of the second year which are divided into two groups, science and social. Each of the groups consists of four classes and each class consists of 40 students. Since using simple random sample upon the whole population was difficult to administer, the writer used intact-group sampling instead. The writer used the already existing groups within the population as the basis in determining the samples.

The writer decided to take two classes as the sample of the research. Each of the groups, science and social, was represented by one class. The sample class was selected randomly by using lottery. Each class was represented by a folded paper, so there were four papers in each group. The writer took one folded paper from each group with closed eyes. There was no priority class in picking the sample class from each group. It was based on the consideration that every class in the population had the same chance to be chosen and in order to avoid subjectivity in the research.

C. Research Procedure

The procedure of the research was as follows:

1. Determining the Population and Selecting the Samples

The population of this research was the second year of SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung in the 2011/2012 learning year that consisted of 8 classes. Two classes were taken as the sample. The sample class was selected using simple probability sampling through lottery drawing.

2. Selecting Writing Test

In selecting the writing test, the writer took a look at the syllabus used by the teacher of the sample class. Any material being taught which is

corresponding with writing could be taken into the writing test to see their achievement. The writer decided to choose Narrative and Descriptive writing as the writing test.

3. Distributing Questionnaire

The writer gave the students questionnaire for them to answer. The questionnaire consisted of 28 items. Students were given 10 minutes to answer the questionnaire. The result of this questionnaire was used to group the students based on their type of personality.

4. Conducting Writing Test

The next step was administering the writing test to the students to see their score. Scoring of their writing was based on the five components of writing; content, vocabulary, organization, language use, and mechanics. The writing test was conducted in two meetings since two type of text were taken as the test. The final writing score was obtained by averaging the score from both tests.

5. Analyzing, Interpreting and Concluding the Data

After collecting the data referring to the elements of writing, the analyzing interpreting, and concluding the data gained was done.

First, the data gained from the test were tabulated and calculated. Next, the data were divided into two group based on the students type of personality. Independent t-test was then used to see if the hypothesis are accepted or rejected.

D. Research Instrument

The instruments used for collecting data were as follows:

1. Questionnaire

In order to collect the data, the writer used questionnaire as the tool of measurement. The questionnaire was taken, and translated into Bahasa Indonesia in order to minimize the misinterpretation by the students.

The Questionnaire was originally consisted of 42 items. A try out test to test the reliability of the questionnaire was conducted prior the data

collecting sequences. SPSS 15 was used to see the reliability coefficient of the questionnaire. 14 items were dropped from the questionnaire in order to get more reliable set of questions in the questionnaire.

The questionnaire has 4 options in each question. It consists of positive and negative wordings. The positive wordings are written in bold form. The scoring system used was as follow:

• Positive wording : a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, d = 4 • Negative Wording : a = 4, b = 3, c = 2, d = 1

Further insight can be seen by looking at the following table:

Table 3.1 Table of Specification (Questionnaire)

Items Number Personality Total Items Percentage of Items Extroversion Introversion

Sanguine Choleric Phlegmatic Melancholic 3,4,7,9,10,

12,14,15, 18,21, 24

√ 11 39%

1,13,25,

26,27 √ 5 18%

2,5,17,

20,22 √ 5 18%

6,8,11,

16,19,28 √ 6 25%

By using the result of the questionnaire, the writer classified the students based on their extraversion level. The highest score that can be achieved by respondents is 112. The higher their scores are, the more extroverted they are. Respondents that have 72 or higher total score are classified into extrovert group. Those whose scores are lower than 56 are classified into introvert group. When their scores are 57 to 71, they are classified as mediocre.

2. Writing Test

The writer decided to administer writing test in order to get primary data from the students since it is more reliable than simply looking at students’ report card. It was done to avoid subjectivity of the teacher in relation with the data that were gathered.

After looking at the materials that had been taught to the students, the writer decided to administer two type of text as the writing tests, Narrative and Descriptive. It was based on assumption that two-time test is more reliable in measuring students writing achievement than one-time single test. The scores from bothstudents’writing were averaged in order to obtain their final writing score.

E. Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

1. Validity of the Instrument

Validity is a matter of relevance; it means that the test measures what is claimed to measure. To measure whether the test has a good validity, it can be analyzed from its face validity, content validity and construct validity. Face validity

concerns with how the test looks. Content validity is concerned whether the test is sufficiently representative for the rest of test or not. While construct validity focuses on the relationship between indicators within the test.

1.1 Validity of the Questionnaire

Face validity of the questionnaire was achieved by arranging the

questionnaire into the form of multiple choice-like arrangements. It made it easier to the students to understand when they were trying to answer the questionnaire.

The content validity of the instrument used by the writer, namely the questionnaire, was already achieved by simply looking at the table of specification. It is clear there that the questionnaire really wants to measure the extraversion level of the students.

Meanwhile, the construct validity of the questionnaire was achieved by looking at the relationship between indicators. If the indicators measure

the same aspect, they would have positive association. While negative association would be shown among indicators that measure different aspects.

In order to see the validity of the last two aspects aforementioned, the writer did item analysis for the questionnaire. It was done to make sure that the items do what the writer wants them to do, which is predicting the personality of each student, and what more important is that the items are able to differentiate extrovert students with introvert ones. The result of the analysis shows that the power of discrimination value of each item is high enough (see Appendix 5). It means that the items are capable of dividing the samples based on their personality.

1.2 Validity of the Test

In order to achieve face validity, the writer needed to arrange the test instructions and directions as clear as possible. He consulted his advisors to get the writing test examined, and later by the English teacher, to make the test looked right and the instructions were easily understood and not misleading.

The next is content validity. The test needs to reflect what had been taught to the students. Here, the writer tried to correlate the test with the syllabus used by the teacher. By taking a look at the syllabus, the writer made sure that his writing tests matched to the materials that had been given to the

students and had nothing to do with something that had not been taught until that semester.

Meanwhile, construct validity was achieved by looking if the test measured just the ability which it was supposed to measure. In this research, the writer measured writing skill referring to the aspects of writing (content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics). To make it clear to the students, the writer arranged the sentences of the directions by mentioning what aspects were being taken into score. This way, the students would get focused on those aspects when they were doing their writing.

2. Reliability of the Instrument

Reliability refers to the consistency of the measure. A test is said to be reliable if its scores remain relatively stable from one administration to another (Hatch and Farhady, 1982:144).

1.1 Reliability of the Questionnaire

First of all, the result of the questionnaire was scored based on Likert scale with range of score is 1 to 4. Then, in order to measure the consistency of items in the questionnaire, the writer used Cronbach Alpha Coefficient since it is the most commonly used one. The alpha ranges between 0 and 1. The higher the alpha, the more reliable the questionnaire is.

And for knowing the classification of reliability, the following scale is used:

a. Between 0.800 to 1.00 = very high reliability b. Between 0.600 to 0.800 = high reliability c. Between 0.400 to 0.600 = moderate reliability d. Between 0.200 to 0.400 = low reliability e. Between 0.000 to 0.200 = very low reliability

From the calculation of reliability analysis (using SPSS 15), it is found that the alpha is 0.840. It means that the questionnaire has very high reliability. The analysis of each item shows that if any of the items is deleted, it would make the alpha lower. For example, if item no 2 was deleted, the alpha lessened into 0.832 (see Appendix 4). With alpha 0.840, the writer reported that the questionnaire was reliable to be administered.

2.2 Reliability of the Test

To ensure the reliability of the writing score and to avoid subjectivity of the writer,inter-rater reliabilitywas used in this research. This reliability test is used when test score are independently estimated by two or more judges or raters. The first rater was the writer himself and the second rater was the English class teacher; Dra. Neneng Idawati.

In the writer consideration, the teacher was qualified to measure the students writing ability because she is experienced; being English teacher

more than 10 years and had graduated from university (S1 degree) in English major. Furthermore, she is also considered as a new teacher in SMAN 7 Bandar Lampung; transferred from SMAN 3 Metro in 2010. The writer assumes that this is a positive thing since the teacher will not be biased toward certain students in measuring their writing ability.

To find the coefficient of the correlation between the two raters, the formula ofrank-orders correlationwas used. It was as follows:

=

1

.

( )

(Hatch and Farhady, 1982:206) ρ : coefficient of rank correlation

N : number of students

D : the different of rank correlation 1- 6 : constant number

To interpret the correlation obtained from the above formula, the standard criteria below was used.

0.0000–0.2000 = very low 0.2000–0.4000 = low 0.4000–0.6000 = medium 0.6000–0.8000 = high 0.8000–1.0000 = very high

The result of the calculation showed that the reliability coefficients were acceptable. The coefficients were 0.811 and 0.750 for Introvert group and Extrovert group respectively (see Appendix 7). Both coefficients show that the first rater scoringsare close enough with the second rater’s.It implies that the first rater scoring is not biased and, therefore, could be used in this research.

F.Criteria of Evaluating Student’s Test

Basically, there are five aspects or criteria that were evaluated by the writer: 1. Content, referring to the substance of writing, the experience of the

main idea (unity). The aspects of scoring criteria are: knowledgeable, relevant to the assigned topic, and having good development of the topic.

2. Organization,the aspects that should be considered is having well organization refers to the generic structure of recount text, ideas clearly stated and supported, having logical sequencing, cohesive and

coherence.

3. Language use, viewing the use of correct grammatical and syntactic pattern refers to the language features of descriptive text.

4. Vocabulary,the teacher should consider several criteria, such as the errors of the word formation, improper word choice, and idiom usage. 5. Mechanics, the criteria evaluated in these aspects are the errors of

While the percentage of scoring from the writing components was derived as follows:

1. Content : 30 %

2. Organization : 20%

3. Language use : 25 %

4. Vocabulary : 20%

5. Mechanic : 5%

The ESL composition was used because it provides a well defined standard and

interpretive framework for evaluating a compositions’ students’ communication effectiveness which is suggested to be used in evaluating students’writing.

Here are the ESL composition profiles by Heaton (1991:146):

1. Content

Points 30-27shows that the learners are in the excellent to very good level: the content is knowledgeable, the thesis is developed properly and relevant to assigned topic in their writing. Points 26-22indicates that the learners are in the good to average level:

the content has some knowledge of subject, the thesis has limited development, mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail.

Points 21-17reveals that the learners are in the fair to poor level: the content has limited knowledge of subject, and the thesis is developed inadequately.

Points 16-13denotes that the learners are in the very poor level: the content does not show knowledge of the topic, the thesis is developed impertinently, and too little sentence to evaluate.

2. Organization

Points 20-18shows that the learners are in the excellent to very good level: the organization is expressed fluently, ideas are clearly stated/supported, well-organized, has logical sequencing and cohesiveness.

Points 17-14indicates that the learners are in the good to average level: the organization is sometimes developed stagnantly, loosely organized but main ideas stand out, limited support, logical but incomplete sequencing.

Points 13-10reveals that the learners are in the fair to poor level: the organization is developed non-fluently, ideas are confused or disconnect each other, lacks of logical sequencing and development.

Points 9-7 denotes that the learners are in the very poor level there is no communication, no organization, or not enough to evaluate.

3. Language Use

Points 25-22shows that the students are in the excellent to very good level: the sentence structure used is effective complete construction with few errors of agreement, tense, number, articles, pronoun, and preposition.

Points 21-18indicates that the learners are in the good to average level: the sentence structure used is effective but simple

construction with minor problems in complex construction, several errors of agreement, tense, number, articles, pronoun, preposition, but meaning seldom obscured.

Points 17-11reveals that the students are in the fair to poor level: major problems are in single/complex construction, communicate, or not enough to evaluate.

Points 10-5 denotes that the students are in the very poor level: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules, dominated by errors, does not excellent to very good level: demonstrate mastery of conventions, few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing.

4. Vocabulary

Points 20-18shows that the learners are in the excellent to very good level: the vocabulary used are effective word/idiom, word form mastery, and in appropriate register

Points 17-14indicates that the learners are in the good to average level: the vocabulary used have occasional errors of word/idiom form, choice, and usage but meaning is still intelligible. Points 13-10reveals that the learners are in the fair to poor level: the

vocabulary used have frequent errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage, meaning confused or obscured.

Points 9-7 denotes that the learners are in the very poor level: the vocabulary used are essentially translation of the first language, little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word form and not enough to evaluated.

5. Mechanics

Points 5shows that the learners are in the frequent errors in negation, agreement, tense, number, articles, pronoun, preposition and meaning confused or obscured.

Points 4indicates that the learners are in the good to average level: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but meaning not obscured.

Points 3reveals that the students are in the fair to poor level: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, poor handwriting, meaning confused or not obscured.

Points 2denotes that the learners are in the very poor level: no mastery of convention, dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation,

capitalization, paragraphing, handwriting illegible, or not enough to evaluate.

The possible score gained by students based on the criteria above ranked from 0

-100. To help the teacher in giving students’score, the arrangement of the score can be seen in the table below:

Table 3.2 Scoring System

No Students Name C (13-30) O (7-20) LU (5-25) V (7-20) M (2-5) Total (0-100) 1 2 3 4 5 6 … Where:

C = Content, O = Organization, LU = Language Use, V = Vocabulary, and M = Mechanic

G. Treatment of the Data

There are three underlying assumptions that need to be fulfilled if we are going to use t-test, namely:

1. The data is interval or ratio.

2. The data is taken from random sample in a population. 3. The data is distributed normally.

Therefore, the writer used the following procedures to treat the data:

1. Random Test

The random test was conducted on the students score to find out if he data is random or not. The writer used SPSS 15 to analyze the data. The hypotheses for the random test are as follow:

H0 :the data is not random H1 :the data is random

The criteria for the hypothesis is H1is accepted if sign> α, with the level of significance 0.05.

2. Normality Test

The normality test was used to measure whether the data from students score were normally distributed or not. The writer used SPSS 15 to analyze the data. The hypotheses for the normality test are as follow:

H0 :the data is not distributed normally H1 :the data is distributed normally

The criteria for the hypothesis is H1is accepted if sign> α, with the level of significance 0.05.

3. Hypothesis Test

Last, the writer tested the hypothesis proposed to prove the hypothesis whether it is accepted or rejected. First, the writer analyzed the data from the

questionnaire to categorize the students into three groups. Two groups (Introvert and Extrovert) were analyzed further. Their data from the writing test was analyzed to find out if the hypothesis is accepted or rejected by using the statistical analysis t-test with thelevel of significance α = 0.05. The formulation is as follow:

=

1

+

1

With :

=

(

1)

+ (

1)

+

2

x1 : the arithmetical mean of the introvert group. x2 : the arithmetical mean of the extrovert group. S : standard deviation

n1 :the number of students in extrovert group. n2 : the number of students in introvert group.

The proposed hypotheses were:

H0 : Students with introvert personality do not have better achievement in writing than the extrovert ones. H1 : Students with introvert personality have better

achievement in writing than the extrovert ones.

The writer used one-tailed T-test formula in SPSS 15 to make it easier in doing the calculation, with the level significant of 0.05.

The criteria are:

If the t-ratio is higher than t-table : H1is accepted If the t-ratio is lower than t-table : H0is accepted

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This final chapter offers the conclusion of the research findings and suggestions for the next similar research.

A. Conclusions

Referring to the discussion of the research in the previous chapter, the writer comes to this following conclusion:

There are so many factors influencing students’ achievement. Personality factor is just one of them, and Extraversion is just one of personality types. It is alone will not be able to completely decide how well a student will do in certain skill. But, it is definitely one of the most influencing factors there is, especially about writing and speaking.

Moreover, extrovert and introvert students really have different way in doing their writing. The differences caused by their personality clash have strong influence in their achievement, in this case writing. Students with introvert personality have better ways in doing their writing than the extrovert ones. Their characteristics as

an introvert contribute positive effect in their writing achievement in some ways, better than the extroverts’ characteristicsdo.

Among all aspects of writing, two aspects are showing significant difference that introverts are clearly better than the extroverts. Both of those are achieved by them by acting introverted-ly in doing the writing (Organization) and also outside the class (Vocabulary).

Based on the statements above, the writer concludes that personality factor here, focusing on extraversion, influences the students’achievement in writing skill. There was a significance difference of English writing achievement between extrovert students and introvert students in this research. And the writer found that introvert students were more successful in English writing achievement than the introvert students.

B. Suggestions

In reference with the conclusions above, the writer gives some suggestions as follow:

1. Suggestions for the Teacher

a. Since personality doesinfluence students’ achievement, English

teachers are suggested to pay more attention to their students in term of their personality type. It is not necessary to know all students’

personality, knowing, at least, those who struggle and need help in their study will definitely do.

b. Extrovert students’lower writing score can be used as a basis that they need more attention when it comes to writing. The teacher does not necessarily give all the attention needed by them. Teacher can make use of the introvert students in doing this. Pairing an introvert student with the extrovert in a group will be an effective move. The extrovert will benefit from the introvert’s ability in writingby learning from him, while the introvert can improvehis ability when he is “handling” his pair.

c. From the result, the biggest gap between introvert and extrovert lies in organization aspect. Therefore, the writer suggests that the teacher should pay more attention in this aspect. Asking them to write down first the idea that they want to write before they actually write it can be used in this matter.

2. Suggestions for Further Research

a. This research focused in one of four English skills. Other research can try to apply it in different skills, especially the receptive ones; listening and reading.

b. In this research, the writer used Narrative and Descriptive writing test as the tool to measure students’ writing achievement. Further research

can use wider range to get more reliable data about the students’skill in overall, or narrow down the writing test in one certain text to get a more focused result.

c. Developing a questionnaire in a different way may be a good idea. For example, using two sets of questionnaire to measure a student

personality. One set is answered by the student, while the other set is answered by his friend based on what his friend think of the student. This will lower the chance of a student to fake his personality.

REFERENCES

Ary, Donald and Jacobs, C., Lucia, and Razavich, Ashgar. 1979.Introduction to Research in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Brown, H. D. 2000.Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th Ed). New York: Longman.

Crow, Lester D. and Alice Crow. 1958.Educational Psychology. New York: American Book Company.

Davies, Alan, Catherine Elder. 2004. TheHandbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Ehrman, M. E. and Oxford, R. 1995.Cognition Plus: Correlates of Language Learning Success.Modern Language Journal, Vol 4; 67- 89.

Harris, David, P. 1974.Testing English as a Second Language. New Delhi: Tata Mc. Graw-Hill Publishing Company, Ltd.

Hatch, E. and Farhady. 1982.Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistic. Long Angeles: Newbury House Publisher.

Heaton, J. B. 1991.Writing English Language Test.New York : Longman. Hilgard, Earnest. 1963.Motivation in Learning Theory. In S. Koch (Ed.).

Psychology: A Study of Science.Vol.5. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Homstard, Torild and Helga Thorson. 1994.Writing Theory and Practice in the

Second Language Classroom. New York: American Book Company.

Kezwer, Paula. 1987.The Extroverted Vs. the Introverted Personality and Second Language Learning.TESL Canada Journal, Vol. 5; 45-58.

Lester, David. 1995.Theories of Personality: A Systems Approach. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Letth, M. 1973.Educational Research.Department for Educational Research and Development. University of Utrecht.

Macdonald, Andrew and Macdonald, Gina. 1996.Mastering Writing Essentials. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regent.

Meyers, Allan. 2005.Gateways to Academic Writing; Effective Sentences, Paragraphs, and Essays. New York: Longman.

Purwati, Agustin. 1997.A Comparative Study between Extrovert and Introvert Students Personality on Speaking Achievment at the Fourth of ABA YUNISLA Bandar Lampung. Bandar Lampung: Universitas Lampung, Unpublished Script.

Qomarudin, Achmat. 2010.Correlation between Extraversion Personality and English Writing Skill. Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro.

Rivers, W. M. 1968.Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosita, Godelipha. 1997.A Comparative Study between Field Independence and Field Dependence in Speaking Achievement at English Study Program of Lampung University. Bandar Lampung: Universitas Lampung, Unpublished Script.

Suparman, Ujang. 2010.Psycholinguistics: The Theory of Language Acquisition. Bandung: Arfino Raya.

Tarigan, G. 1987.Menulis Sebagai Suatu Ketrampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.

ADMITTED BY

1. Examination Committee

Chairperson : Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. ...

Examiner : Budi Kadaryanto, S.Pd., M.A. ...

Secretary : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. ...

2. The Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty

Dr. H. Bujang Rahman, M.Si. NIP 19600315 198503 1 003

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STUDENTS’ WRITING ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN EXTROVERT AND INTROVERT STUDENTS’

PERSONALITY AT THE SECOND YEAR OF SMAN 7 BANDAR LAMPUNG

(A Script)

BY

DERI HERDAWAN

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STUDENTS’ WRITING ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN EXTROVERT AND INTROVERT STUDENTS’

PERSONALITY AT THE SECOND YEAR OF SMAN 7 BANDAR LAMPUNG

BY

DERI HERDAWAN

A Script

Submitted in a partial fulfillment of The requirements for S-1 Degree

In

The Language and Arts Departement of Teacher Training and Education Faculty

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY

BANDAR LAMPUNG 2012

62

REFERENCES

Ary, Donald and Jacobs, C., Lucia, and Razavich, Ashgar. 1979.Introduction to Research in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Brown, H. D. 2000.Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th Ed). New York: Longman.

Crow, Lester D. and Alice Crow. 1958.Educational Psychology. New York: American Book Company.

Davies, Alan, Catherine Elder. 2004. TheHandbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Ehrman, M. E. and Oxford, R. 1995.Cognition Plus: Correlates of Language Learning Success.Modern Language Journal, Vol 4; 67- 89.

Harris, David, P. 1974.Testing English as a Second Language. New Delhi: Tata Mc. Graw-Hill Publishing Company, Ltd.

Hatch, E. and Farhady. 1982.Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistic. Long Angeles: Newbury House Publisher.

Heaton, J. B. 1991.Writing English Language Test.New York : Longman. Hilgard, Earnest. 1963.Motivation in Learning Theory. In S. Koch (Ed.).

Psychology: A Study of Science.Vol.5. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Homstard, Torild and Helga Thorson. 1994.Writing Theory and Practice in the

Second Language Classroom. New York: American Book Company.

Kezwer, Paula. 1987.The Extroverted Vs. the Introverted Personality and Second Language Learning.TESL Canada Journal, Vol. 5; 45-58.

Lester, David. 1995.Theories of Personality: A Systems Approach. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Letth, M. 1973.Educational Research.Department for Educational Research and Development. University of Utrecht.

63

Macdonald, Andrew and Macdonald, Gina. 1996.Mastering Writing Essentials. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regent.

Meyers, Allan. 2005.Gateways to Academic Writing; Effective Sentences, Paragraphs, and Essays. New York: Longman.

Purwati, Agustin. 1997.A Comparative Study between Extrovert and Introvert Students Personality on Speaking Achievment at the Fourth of ABA YUNISLA Bandar Lampung. Bandar Lampung: Universitas Lampung, Unpublished Script.

Qomarudin, Achmat. 2010.Correlation between Extraversion Personality and English Writing Skill. Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro.

Rivers, W. M. 1968.Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosita, Godelipha. 1997.A Comparative Study between Field Independence and Field Dependence in Speaking Achievement at English Study Program of Lampung University. Bandar Lampung: Universitas Lampung, Unpublished Script.

Suparman, Ujang. 2010.Psycholinguistics: The Theory of Language Acquisition. Bandung: Arfino Raya.

Tarigan, G. 1987.Menulis Sebagai Suatu Ketrampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.

64

ADMITTED BY

1. Examination Committee

Chairperson : Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja, M.Pd. ...

Examiner : Budi Kadaryanto, S.Pd., M.A. ...

Secretary : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. ...

2. The Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty

Dr. H. Bujang Rahman, M.Si. NIP 19600315 198503 1 003

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STUDENTS’ WRITING ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN EXTROVERT AND INTROVERT STUDENTS’

PERSONALITY AT THE SECOND YEAR OF SMAN 7 BANDAR LAMPUNG

(A Script)

BY

DERI HERDAWAN

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STUDENTS’ WRITING ACHIEVEMENT BETWEEN EXTROVERT AND INTROVERT STUDENTS’

PERSONALITY AT THE SECOND YEAR OF SMAN 7 BANDAR LAMPUNG

BY

DERI HERDAWAN

A Script

Submitted in a partial fulfillment of The requirements for S-1 Degree

In

The Language and Arts Departement of Teacher Training and Education Faculty

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY

BANDAR LAMPUNG 2012