Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015.
ISSN 0216-0847
LEMBARAN
ILMU
KEPENDIDIKAN
http://journal.unnes.ac.id
Volume 44, Nomor 2, September 2015
LEMBARAN
ILMU
KEPENDIDIKAN
0126 0847
LIK
Volume 44
Nomor 2
Halaman
1-68
Semarang
September 2015
ISSN
0216-0847
NA
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan
Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
DESKRIPSI
Terbit dua kali dalam setahun pada bulan April
dan September. Berisi artikel yang bersumber
dari hasil penelitian maupun gagasan pemikiran
dalam rangka pengembangan pendidikan dan
pengajaran di Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga
Kependidikan (LPTK) maupun di satuan, jalur,
dan jenis pendidikan lain.
.
ISSN
0216 - 0847
Ketua Editor
Ahmad Sofwan
Anggota Editor
Heri Tjahyono
Amin Yusuf
Hari Bakti Mardikantoro
Dyah Rini Indriyanti
Priyantini Widiyaningrum
Moh. Yasir Alimi
Sutikno
Ali Formen
Rohani
Sugiharto
Eko Supraptono
Layout
Yoris Adi Aprilta
Pengelola E-Journal
Widiyanto
Sekretariat
Sunarti
ALAMAT PENERBIT
Kantor Pengembang Jurnal
Gedung G Perpustakaan Pusat Lantai 1
Kampus Unnes Sekaran, Gunungpati,
Semarang, Indonesia 50229
() (024) 70344630
() [email protected]
() http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/LIK
Daftar Isi
Students’ Participation in Learning Argumentative Writing
Through Writing Workshop
Triubaida Maya Ardianti Dwi Anggani L. Bharati, Dwi Rukmini ................1
The Unique Different Features of Vocabulary of The British
English (BrE) and American English (AmE): A Review
I Wy Dirgeyasa...........................................................................................................9
Pengembangan Model Pendampingan Guru yang
Mengintegrasikan Self Assessment dalam
Mengimplementasikan Kurikulum 2013
Sri Sulistyorini Parmin, Umar Samadi ............................................................. 22
Kontribusi Cara Belajar Mahasiswa terhadap Nilai Ujian
Akhir Mata Kuliah Pengantar Teknologi Pendidikan di
Universitas Baturaja
Eriyanti ..................................................................................................................... 35
Pengembangan Pembelajaran Daur Ulang Limbah
Berorientasi Bioentrepreneurship dengan Model Project
Based Learning
Erna Yuniartiek Dyah Rini Indriyanti, Siti Alimah ....................................... 41
Pelatihan Ketrampilan Berkarya Seni Kolase, Mozaik, dan
Montase pada Guru-Guru SD Kecamatan Karangawen
Demak
Kamsidjo Budi Utomo Mujiono.......................................................................... 48
Pengembangan Perangkat Pembelajaran Lingkungan Hidup
Bervisi Konservasi dengan Pendekatan Scientific Skill pada
Pengolahan Sampah Organik di Sekolah
Imam Baihaqi1 Andreas Priyono Budi Prasetyo2, Amin Retnoningsih2 . 54
Keefektifan Pembelajaran Bervisi SETS Melalui Praktikum
Identifikasi Bioindikator Sungai Cimanuk terhadap
Ketuntasan Hasil Belajar Aspek Keterampilan Siswa
Awan Usy Syuru Dyah Rini Indriyanti, Amin Retnoningsih....................... 61
Upaya Meningkatkan Kompetensi Profesional dan
Merencanakan Pembelajaran Tematik Bagi Guru Kelas III
Melalui Kegiatan Pelatihan Studi Kasus
Rr. Melinda Arryani .............................................................................................. 68
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
LIK 44 (2) (2015)
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/LIK
STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING
THROUGH WRITING WORKSHOP
Triubaida Maya Ardianti Dwi Anggani L. Bharati, Dwi Rukmini
Semarang State University, Indonesia
Info Artikel
Abstrak
_______________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Sejarah Artikel:
Diterima Juli 2015
Disetujui Agustus 2015
Dipublikasikan September
2015
Penelitian ini bertujuan mendeskripsikan dinamika partisipasi siswa dalam belajar karangan argumentasi
melalui lokakarya menulis. Subjek penelitian adalah 32 siswa kelas XI SMA. Angket dan observasi digunakan
untuk mengumpulkan data, dan pekerjaan siswa juga dikumpulkan untuk memperkuat analisa data. Hasil
penelitian menunjukkan bahwa partisipasi siswa dalam membangun wacana argumentasi lisan dan tulis
meningkat sepanjang siklus pembelajaran. Siswa berbicara lebih banyak ketika saling berargumen atas sebuah
isu, dan menjadi lebih aktif ketika menulis secara kolaboratif dengan siswa yang lain sehingga kemampuan
siswa dalam mengartikulasikan pemikiran mereka ke dalam karangan argumentasi meningkat ke arah yang
lebih baik. Hal ini ditunjukkan oleh peningkatan pada rata – rata nilai karangan argumentasi dan kualitas
argumentasi mereka.
_______________________
Keywords:
Students participation,
argumentative writing,
writing workshop
_____________________________
Abstract
__________________________________________________________________________________________
The present study aimed at describing the dynamics of the students participation in learning argumentative
writing through writing workshop. The subjects consisted of 32 eleventh graders of Senior High School.
Questionnaires and observation were used to gather the data, and the students works were collected to support the
data analysis. The results of the study showed that the students participation in establishing oral and written
argumentative discourse improved throughout learning cycles. The students produced more talk in arguing over an
issue, and became more active in writing collaboratively with their peersm so they got better in articulating their
thoughts in written argumentation. It was affirmed by the improvements on the mean of the students
argumentative writing and the quality of their argumentation.
© 2015 Universitas Negeri Semarang
ISSN 0216-0847
Alamat korespondensi:
E-mail: [email protected]
1
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
indicated that during oral debate, students were
positioned as a speaker of their own argument, at
the same time, a live critical audience p.
who provided rebuttals to opponents claims.
Therefore, oral debate gave students a real picture
of two-sided arguments which they could then
arrange in a written argument.
In addition, Felton and Herko provided a
chain of instruction throughout the writing
workshop to engage students in social practices as
a means to shape their argumentation skills. In this
case, Felton and Herko gave students multiple
opportunities to elaborate their argument in oral
mode through debates, and in written mode
through argumentative writing. Furthermore,
revision as part of instruction in writing workshop
helped students get direct feedback from their
peers to analyze their writing strengths and
weaknesses in constructing written argumentative
discourse. It shows that episodes of social practices
support students in fostering their argumentation
skills.
In sum, there are several theories operating
under the study of argumentation within social
paradigmatic notion such as classical theory, new
rhetorical theory, social genre theory, and
dialogic/discourse theory (Newell et al., 2011;
Fulkerson, 1996; Sheehy, 2003; Stay, 1999). These
theories reveal the same pattern showing that
learning to create argumentation in a socially
mediated setting
(Newell et al., 2011;
VanDerHeide & Newell, 2013) enables students to
consider audience (Stay, 1997) in constructing
their argumentative writing to the degree that it is
sufficiently persuasive (Fulkerson, 1996).
Newell, Beach, Smith, and VanDerHeide
(2011) argued that composing argumentative
writing engaged students in the complex thinking
process which included taking a stance,
formulating a claim, giving supporting evidence,
providing
warrant,
and
considering
counterarguments. It showed that students should
consider multiple points of view to defend their
stance in certain issues, and ensuring that each
element of the argumentative writing correlated to
one another. Similarly, Norris and Ennis (1989)
argued that through argumentative writing,
students could be able to consciously and
deliberately produce compelling evidence which
INTRODUCTION
VanDerHeide and Newell argued that
engaging students in a set of social practices to
learn argumentative writing helped students foster
their argumentative writing skills in a procedural
way. Crowhurts (1988) asserted that students
needed real audiences or readers to write about
real issues. In this case, without being involved to
interact within social practice, students had no
understanding about audience or readers actual
beliefs, attitudes, or experiences to gain audiences
identification
Newell et al.,
:
.
Consequently, although assertions were worth
arguing, argument needs opposition points of view
including qualifications and rebuttals (Fulkerson,
1996) to make the argument rational (Toulmin,
2003), so that it would be persuasive (Crowhurst,
1988; Stay, 1999). Joining the idea of VanDerHeide
et al. and Crowhurst, viewing the study of
argumentation as a set of social practices means
engaging students in episodes within a socially
mediated setting to provide opportunities for
direct interaction with their peers in order to
establish argumentative discourse. Not only can
students establish their argumentative discourse
in oral mode, but the episodes of social practices
also help students develop their writing over time
as the impact of the establishment of
argumentative discourse in oral mode, and
episodes within the writing stage itself such as
peer-engagement through peer-evaluation (Felton
& Herko, 2004).
The study of argumentative writing is also
viewed from a dialogic/discourse analysis theory
which emphasized the dialogic interaction within
social practices to establish a relationship with
audiences to create persuasive discourse (Evensen,
2002; Felton, & Herko, 2004). For example, Felton
and Herko (2004) conducted a case study to
engage 11th graders in learning argumentative
writing through workshop structured reading, oral
debate, reflection, and revision. Oral debate was an
example of the dialogic approach. Felton and
Herko argued that oral debates engaged students
in double-voicing in the degree that they
established their own claims; at the same time,
shifting their focus to attend opponents claims
through refutations. In this case, Felton and Herko
2
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
in the commitment of English teaching pedagogy
from grammar translation method in 1945 to
audiolingual method in 1968-1975, and then,
finally shifting to a communicative approach in
1984-2004. The commitment to implement a
communicative approach meant that the teacher s
domination in student learning should have been
decreased since then. However, Lie pointed out
that the practices within the curricula 1984-2004
showed that English was not portrayed as
language for active communication. Consequently,
learning tended to be teacher-centered. When
KTSP 2006 was implemented, they were not ready
to step out of teacher-centered learning which
tended to be a legacy. Despite not having
succeeded yet in achieving the purpose of KTSP
2006, Curriculum 2013 was implemented.
Even though Curriculum 2013 had a
different concept than KTSP 2006, both curricula
shared a similar purpose in challenging students to
demonstrate what they have learned in something
tangible (Sariono, 2013). In other words, both
curricula had a common purpose to encourage
student-centered learning. Related to this concept,
the present study encouraged students to
demonstrate their knowledge of argumentative
discourse by constructing an argumentative piece
of writing through an active interaction with their
peers. In the subject of English, KTSP 2006 and
Curriculum 2013 mentioned that grade 11
students should be able to master expository
composition such as argumentative writing. To this
extent, teachers should be able to promote student
active learning to help students achieve this
particular learning goal.
Pre-observation in the research site
indicated that the students tended to work in
solitute to complete their argumentative writing
project. Even though I encouraged them to discuss
their writing ideas with their peers, they appeared
to hesitate doing it. During the whole-class debate
which I used to help them generate arguments, the
students produced very little talk. The debate was
not engaging at all, and it did not optimally help
the students to produce solid oral argumentative
discourse. Consequently, the students faced
greater challenge in writing argumentation. This
affected the quality of the students final products.
As much as 68.75% of the students failed to
was reasonable and reflective of their ability to
prove their position on certain issues.
In fact, both argumentative writing and
narrative transfered discourse from oral to written
mode; however, it was more difficult to transfer
argumentative discourse from oral to written
mode since it required feedback from interlocutors
(Reznitskaya
et
al.,
2007).
Additionally,
Reznitskaya et al. (2007) elaborated that there was
no model of argumentation within oral mode since
argumentative discourse was produced in the
response of an immediate preceding point within
conversation. On the contrary, she emphasized
that written mode demanded a new solitary
ability to produce written discourse since there
was particular structure for it (Freedman, &
Pringle, 1984: 79 in Reznitskaya et al., 2007).
Hence, students have difficulty composing
argumentative writing because the particular
structure for argumentative written discourse is
not learned naturally in everyday lives.
Indonesia has been experiencing a national
curriculum shift since its independence was
proclaimed in 1945. The latest curricula
implemented in Indonesian education are
curriculum 2006 called KTSP 2006 (school-based
curriculum), and 2013 Curriculum (Kusuma,
2013). With all the attention to develop the quality
of Indonesian education through several changes
in curricula, starting with KTSP 2006, teachers
have been urged to provide meaningful learning
which encouraged students to be active learners in
discovering their own knowledge (Hasnawati,
2006; Kwartolo, 2007). Nevertheless, for almost a
decade since being implemented, the application of
KTSP
which demanded students knowledge
demonstration has not been in line with a lot of
recent teaching practices in Indonesia.
In the case of KTSP 2006, Indonesian
teachers were unprepared to implement KTSP
2006 (Sariono, 2013). This circumstance was
closely related to the previous educational
practices within the implementation of curricula
1984-2004 in English teaching. Lie (2007) claimed
that encouraging students to be independent
learners in English has emerged since Curriculum
1984. She reviewed previous studies on education
policy and EFL curriculum in Indonesia since 1945
to 2005. Then, she indicated that there were shifts
3
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
Peyton et al. found that as ESL students, among
individuals, they spoke different languages as their
mother tongues. Some spoke Arabic, others spoke
Spanish. At the same time, they had to deal with
their English proficiency. From her survey and
observations, Peyton et al. indicated that although
it used to be employed in the first language
classroom, writing workshop could be adapted to
teach writing for ESL students. In case, Peyton et
al. emphasized that teachers should provide more
instructional support to reduce students language
barriers due to their English deficiency. However,
since students spoke different languages, teachers
did not stress the use of the first language to help
students understand the English instruction.
On the contrary, there is no empirical
research in EFL contexts which investigates the
effectiveness of writing workshop. Nevertheless,
there is significant potential in writing workshop
to be applied in this context. Likewise students in
the ESL classroom, in the EFL classroom, students
were dealing with English proficiency and the
development of writing skills (Bacha, 2012; Yi,
2010). However, in the EFL classroom, teacher and
students speak the same language, and students
also communicate using the same language as their
peers. Therefore, even though there may be
language barriers to communicate in English,
teachers may be able to find ways to avoid and
solve misunderstanding using the same language
as the students use throughout the practice.
Several case studies indicated that because
of the notion of independent learning, and
subsequent
meaningful
activities,
writing
workshop motivated reluctant writers (MooreHart, 2006; Street, 2005); struggling adolescent
readers and writers (Casey, 2009), and students in
general to discover their identity through writing
practices. For instance, Street (2005) conducted a
case study involving a class consisting of reluctant
writers (participants were not specified). Street
applied shared-authority between teacher and
students in the writing process including choosing
the writing topic, and developing their ideas. This
shared-authority made students feel trusted;
therefore, they were motivated to develop their
writing responsibly.
Atwell (1998) introduced a series of tasks or
social activities within writing workshop to
achieve or surpass the minimum requirement in
constructing argumentative writing. To this extent,
I inferred that the students needed a learning
method which could enable them actively
participate in the learning process. So that, they
could feel motivated to establish oral and written
argumentative discourse collaboratively.
To overcome this problem, a writing
workshop is employed to help students learn
argumentative writing. Atwell (1998) defined
writing workshop as an approach consisting of a
series of meaningful tasks from three big sections
of reading territory, mini-lessons, and writing
territory. Writing workshop has been implemented
for decades to support students in writing.
Numerous studies indicated that writing workshop
could help students write in various genres
(Whitney, Ridgeman, & Masquelier, 2011) such as
creative writing (Atwell, 1998; Graves, 2004),
report (Moore-Hart, 2006), and argumentative
writing (Felton & Herko, 2004; VanDerHeide &
Newell, 2013). The practicality of writing
workshop to teach argumentative writing (Felton
& Herko, 2004; VanDerHeide & Newell, 2013)
became the reason for choosing writing workshop
as the strategy to help students construct
argumentative writing in the present study.
In early 1970s through late 1990s, writing
workshop had been initially employed to teach
students creative writing (Atwell, 1998; Strout,
1970). Nevertheless, recently, writing workshop
has been used to teach students various genres
(Whitney, Ridgeman, & Masquelier, 2011) such as
narrative (Atwell, 1989, 1998; Street, 2005; Kesler,
2012; Strout, 1970), report (Moore-Hart 2006),
and argumentative writing (Felton, & Herko, 2004;
Morgan, 2010). It shows that writing workshop has
functioned as a practicable approach that was
applicable for any genre.
Since the early 1970s to the late 1980s, the
study of writing workshop has primarily focused
on the first language classroom (Manion, 1988;
Strout 1970). In the early 1990s, one qualitative
case study examined the effectiveness of writing
workshop in the ESL classroom. Peyton et al.
(1994) conducted a qualitative case study
including 16 teachers in applying writing
workshop to teach English Language Learners
(ELLs) in The Book Projects in Washington, DC.
4
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
based on the students
responses. Both
quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed to
assess the students argumentation skill and the
students writing achievement.
scaffold students in producing writing products.
Those activities include reading territories, minilesson, and writing territories (Atwell, 1998).
Atwell elaborated that on one hand, reading
territories could be considered when designing
independent reading; on the other hand, writing
territories could become part of student-teacher
conferences as a means for students to
communicate their writing problems to the
teacher, and peer-evaluation to get feedback on
their writing. Nevertheless, previous empirical
research indicated that they can adapt the series of
activities within writing workshop (Felton &
Herko, 2004; Kesler, 2012; Whitney et al., 2011;
Moore-hart, 2006).
This study is meant to describe the
improvement of the students participation during
the implementation of writing workshop.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Newell et al. (2011) asserted that students
may engage in a set of social practices to learn
argumentative writing. In the questionnaire, the
students
expressed
concern
upon
their
participation in building oral argumentative
discourse and writing collaboratively with their
peers. All students in the class admitted challenges
in writing argumentation. It was hard for them to
exchange thoughts in discussion because they
were not used to actively participating in the
teaching and learning process. It was hard for
them to build oral argumentative discourse as they
produced little talk during the discussions.
Consequently, they faced greater challenge in
writing argumentation.
As the students got familiar with the
implementation of writing workshop to help them
learn argumentative writing, all students felt more
motivated and interested in reshaping their prior
knowledge on the topic, and actively participating
in both whole-class discussion and small-group
discussions. During the writing activities, the
students participation in writing collaboratively
including giving peer-evaluation had dramatically
improved as they became more familiar with it. We
may take a look at the following figure 1 to find out
the students positive respose to the subsequent
activities employed within writing workshop to
improve
their
participation
in
learning
argumentative writing.
METHODS
The present study took place in a senior high
school in Blora, Central Java. It was joined by 32
eleventh grade students. A classroom action
research design was used with three learning
cycles conducted in 3 weeks of participantobservation and data collection. Qualitativequantitative convergent parallel mixed methods
following Creswell (2014: 219) was used in both
data collection and analysis. The qualitative data
were collected from observation and open-ended
questionnaire and the quantitative data were
collected from closed questionnaires and writing
scores.
The video was transcribed, and decoded
using Reflective and Analytical Observation Notes
following Burns (1999, 2010). The open-ended
questionnaires were decoded and categorized
5
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
Discussions
Peer-evaluation
Collaborative writing
100
80
60
40
20
0
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Cycle 3
Figure 1 Students response to the subsequent activities employed within writing workshop
handed). Dilihat dari letak sendoknya (Seen from
the spoon position).
Student 2: Aku setuju (I agree). Yang bikin
bingung itu jejak kaki mereka itu lho.. (What makes
confused were their footprints..)
.............................................................................................
............
Student 30: Jangan – jangan ini pembunuhan
berencana (It might be a planned murder). Dan
Ernie juga turut membantu (And, Ernie was the
accomplice). Mungkin aja kan (It could be, couldn t
it)? Jejak kaki ini kaki Ernie yang ambil air dari
keran dapur (These footprints belonged to Ernie
who took water from the kitchen sink)? Lihat, ini
ada air (Look, there was water here).
Student 2: Nah, lha jejak kaki sing iki (What
about these footprints)? (Pointing at the other
footprints)
Figure 1 above showed that the majority of
the students affirmed the helpfulness of the
subsequent activities employed within writing
workshop to improve their participation in the
process of learning argumentative writing.
The students participation dramatically
improved across cycles. In cycle 1, the students
barely produced talk during the discussions. I
found out that the students concerned about using
English to express their argumentative ideas.
Further, range of writing topics was very large in
cycle 1; thus, it was hard for the students to engage
with their peers discussing their argumentative
ideas from different writing topics. As in cycle 2
and cycle3 I gained a control over their writing
topic and reading text, and allowed them to use
their native languages to deliver their thoughts
when they got stuck in finding out the English
vocabulary to define their ideas, the students
became more relaxed exchanging thoughts with
their peers and the teacher. We may take a look at
the following conversation.
Student 30: I think that the Customer C is
the murderer.
Student 8: Kok dirimu isa yakin banget?
(How could you be so sure?)
Student 30: Lihat ini, kebiasaan makannya
beda (Look, they had different eating habits).
Customer C itu left-handed (Customer C was left-
The conversation above showed the
students became more active participating in
small-group discussions. Across cycles, they
demonstrated more active participation in the
subsequent activities of completing their
argumentative writing project.
We may take a look at Figure 2 to see the
improvements on the mean of the students
argumentative writing scores and the quality of the
students argumentation.
6
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
Mean of scores
Quality of argumentation
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Cycle 3
Figure 2. The students improvements on the writing scores and quality of argumentation
)n terms of mean of the students scores, the
students could successfully improve their
argumentative writing scores from 65.55 in cycle 1
which was below the minimum requirement to be
80.86 in cycle 3 which surpassed the minimum
requirement. In terms of the quality of the
students argumentation, the students could
dramatically improve their quality from the level
of poor in cycle 1 to good in cycle 3.
There were two patterns of analysis that
could inferred from the analysis of the databases.
First, language barriers became one of the major
factors which obstructed the students active
participation in learning argumentative writing.
The students should go back and forth in the
continuum of Indonesian, Javanese, and English
languages to comprehend the reading text and
write
argumentation.
Considering
their
background as EFL students who did not use
English in everyday interaction, it was very hard
for them to articulate their thoughts in oral and
written modes. In this case, teacher should be
culturally
responsive
(Pacino,
2008)
in
understanding the social contexts of language
learning (Shin, 2013) in order to provide
comfortable class athmosphere in learning second
or foreign language. Consequently, as I allowed the
students to use their native languages when they
got stuck finding vocabulary to define their ideas,
the students became more relaxed delivering their
thoughts. Further, the discussions became more
dynamic and fluid.
Secondly, the nature of argumentative
writing which was more challenging than the other
genres became a bigger challenge for the students
to write better quality of argumentation. Like the
other genres, argumentative writing also required
transfer from oral to written discourse. However,
comparing to other genres, argumentative writing
was challenging for the students because there was
no model for oral argumentative discourse and
written argumentative discourse was not learned
naturally in everyday lives (Reznitskaya et al.,
2007). As a result of minimum interactions in
building oral argumentative discourse, the
students as novice writers faced greater barrier in
writing argumentation. Nevertheless, as I
diminished the students language barrier, it
helped the students to more actively participate in
establishing oral argumentative discourse. After
they became more knowledgeable about their
topic and could build more solid oral
argumentative discourse, it helped the students
lessen their challenge in writing argumentation.
Consequently, they could dramatically increased
the mean of their argumentative writing scores
across cycles from 65.55 to 80.86 and improved
the quality of their argumentation from poor to
good.
CONCLUSION
Students
participation
in
learning
argumentative writing had dramatically improved
across cycles. By lessening the students language
barriers (Shin, 2013), the students could be more
confident to exchange thoughts and ideas. Their
argumentation
skill
in
establishing
oral
argumentative discourse with their peers was
improving along the cycles. Further, as the
students became more familiar with the
application of writing workshop, they became
7
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
Lie, A.
more relaxed to engage in collaborative writing
throughout the teaching and learning process
across the cycles. Dramatically, discussing ideas,
communicating writing difficulties, and giving
peer-evaluation became common activities to help
them accomplish their writing project.
REFERENCES
Atwell, N. 1998. In The Middle: New Understanding
about Writing, Reading, and Learning (2nd ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bacha, N. N.
. Teaching the Academic Argument in
a University EFL Environment . Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, volume 9, pp.
229 – 241.
Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for
English Language Teachers. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. 2010. Doing Action Research in English
Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Casey, (. K.
. Engaging the Disengaged: Using
Learning Clubs to Motivate Struggling Adolescent
Readers and Writers . Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, Volume 52 No. 4, pp. 284 – 294.
Creswell, J.W.
. Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitativem and Mixed Methods Approaches .
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Crowhurst, M.
. Research Review: Patterns of
Development
in
Writing
Persuasive/
Argumentative Discourse . Department of
Language Education: The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Evensen, L. S.
. Convention from below:
Negotiating Interaction and Culture in
Argumentative
Writing .
Written
Communication, Volume 19 No. 3, pp. 382 – 413.
Felton, M. K., & (erko, S.
. From Dialogue to TwoSided Argument: Scaffolding Adolescents
Persuasive Writing . Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, Volume 47 No. 8, pp. 672 – 683.
Fulkerson, R. 1996. Teaching the Argument in Writing.
xx, The United States: The National Council of
Teachers of English.
Kesler, T.
. Writing with Voice . The Reading
Teacher, Volume 66 No. 1., pp.25 – 29.
Kusuma, D. C. 201 . Analisis Komponen – Komponen
Pengembangan Kurikulum 2013 pada Bahan Uji
Publik Kurikulum
. Jurnal Analisis
Komponen
–
Komponen
Pengembangan
Kurikulum, pp. 1 – 21.
8
. Education Policy and EFL Curriculum in
Indonesia: Between the Commitment to
Competence and the Quest for Higher Test
Scores . TEFL)N Journal, Volume
No. . Page
– 14.
Manion, B. B.
. Writing Workshop in Junior (ighSchool: )t s Worth the Time. The English Journal,
Volume 32 No. 2. Page 154 – 157.
Moore-Hart, M. A.
. A Writers Camp in Action: A
Community of Readers and Writers . The
Reading Teacher, Volume 59 No. 4. Page 326 –
338.
Morgan, D. N.
. Writing Feature Articles with
)ntermediate Students . The Reading Teacher,
Volume 64 No. 3. Page 181 – 189.
Newell, G. E., Beach, S., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. 2011.
Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading
and Writing: A Review of Research . Reading
Research Quarterly, Volume 46 No. 3. Page 273 –
304.
Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. 1989. The Practitioners Guide
to Teaching Thinking Series: Evaluating Critical
Thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking
Press & Software.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R.C., & Kuo, L. 2007.
Teaching and leaning an argumentation . The
Elementary School Journal, Volume 107 No. 5.
Page 449 – 472.
Sariono.
. Kurikulum
: Kurikulum Generasi
Emas . E-Jurnal Dinas Pendidikan Kota Surabaya,
Volume 3. Page 1 – 9.
Sheehy, M.
. The Social Life of an Essay:
Standardizing Forces in Writing . Written
Communication, Volume 20 No. 3. Page 333 –
385.
Stay, B. L. 1999. A Guide to Argumentative Writing. San
Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Street, C.
. A Reluctant Writer s Entry into a
Community of Writers . Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, Volume 48 No. 8. Page 636 – 641.
Strout, B.
. Writing Workshop: What is )t? The
English Journal, Volume 59 No. 8. Page 11281130.
Toulmin, S. E. 2003. The Uses of Argument. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
VanDer(eide, J., & Newell, G. E.
. )nstructional
Chains as a Method for Examining the Teaching
and Learning of Argumentative Writing in
Classrooms . Written Communication, Volume
No. 3. Page 300 – 329.
Whitney, A. E., Ridgeman, M., & Masquelier, G. (2011).
Beyond )s This Ok? : (igh School Writers
Building Understandings of Genre . Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Volume 54 No. 7.
Page 525 – 533.
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
LIK 44 (2) (2015)
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/LIK
THE UNIQUE DIFFERENT FEATURES OF VOCABULARY OF THE BRITISH ENGLISH
(BRE) AND AMERICAN ENGLISH (AME): A REVIEW
I Wy Dirgeyasa
English and Literature of FBS State University of Medan
Info Artikel
Abstract
_______________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Sejarah Artikel:
Diterima Juli 2015
Disetujui Agustus 2015
Dipublikasikan September
2015
It is a fact that there are some amazing differences between British English (BrE) and
American English (AmE) such as spelling, meaning, pronunciation, usage, and even
vocabulary. The two varieties of English, as a matter of fact, are often confusing especially
who study and use English as second and foreign language. Because of their differences
and distinctive features, the speakers often find difficulties which one to use. This
condition, then can lead to misunderstanding and misinformation and this finally causes
ineffective communication. This paper is attempting to review the unique features of
BrEand AmEfocusing on the vocabulary.
_______________________
Keywords:
American English, British
English, Vocabulary
_____________________________
© 2015 Universitas Negeri Semarang
ISSN 0216-0847
Alamat korespondensi:
E-mail: [email protected]
9
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
garbage or trash; London Laura also needs to take
out the rubbish. It s dark outside, so New York Nate
takes a flashlight, and London Laura takes a
torch.Ninth,it s been a long day, and New York Nate
thinks he s going to go crazy; London Laura thinks
she might gomad. Finally, it must be time for a
vacationfor New York Nate and a holiday for
London
Laura!
(http://www.espressoenglish.net/british-english-vsamerican-english-vocabulary/ the story goes as
follows).
INTRODUCTION
This is a story about the daily life of New
York Nate, who lives in the United States; and
London Laura, who lives in England. As you can
see, they have very similar lives but the vocabulary
words they use are very different! Take a look how
the women have different vocabulary usages. They
have a lot different and diverse vocabulary to
convey the same meaning in their lives.
First, New York Nate lives in an apartment,
and London Laura lives in aflat. Second, every
morning, when getting dressed, New York Nate puts
on a pair of pantswhereas London Laura puts on a
pair of trousers. Both New York Nate and London
Laura have babies, but New York Nate needs to
change the baby s diaper, and London Laura needs
to change the baby s nappy. Third,when it s time to
go to work, New York Nate takes the subway and
London Laura takes theunderground (which is also
called the tube).After getting off at the right stop,
New York Nate walks along the sidewalk and
London Laura walks along the pavementto reach
their offices. Fourth, New York Nate works on the
first floor of the building, and London Laura works
on the ground floor. This means neither of them
needs to take the elevator (for New York Nate) or
the lift (for London Laura). Fifth, At work, both Nate
and Laura need to send some important documents
to a client – but New York Nate sends them by mail
and London Laura sends them by post. Sixth, During
the day, New York Nate snacks on cookies, french
fries, and potato chips. London Laura eats the same
things, but she calls them biscuits, chips, and crisps.
Both Nate and Laura get stomachaches, so on
the way home from work New York Nate stops at the
drugstoreor pharmacy and London Laura stops at
the chemist s shop to pick up some medicine.
Seventh, After work, Nate and Laura go shopping.
They drive to the mall, and New York Nate puts his
car in the parking lot, whereas London Laura puts
hers in the car park.Both of them buy a lot of stuff,
so New York Nate puts his purchases in the trunk,
and London Laura puts hers in the boot. Eighth, on
the way home, New York Nate stops to fill up the car
with gas and London Laura fills up her car with
petrol. At the station, New York Nate sees a truck,
and London Laura sees a lorry.They both get home
late, and New York Nate needs to take out the
DESCRIPTION
Historically, most of the differences in lexis
or vocabulary between British and American
English are in connection with concepts
originating from the 19th century to the mid 20th
century, when new words were coined
independently. For example,almost the entire
vocabularies of the car/automobile and
railway/railroad industries are different between
the UK and US. Other sources of difference are
slang or vulgar terms (where frequent new coinage
occurs) and idiomatic phrases, including phrasal
verbs. The differences most likely to create
confusion are those where the same word or
phrase is used for two different concepts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Ame
rican_and_British_English.
Actually the differences in vocabulary
between British and American English may be able
to be classified into three categories such as 1) the
complexity of form of the vocabulary, 2) idioms,
and 3) social and cultural different by context.
The Complexity FormVocabulary of the British
English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
The complexity formof vocabulary of British
English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
actually can be divided into two patterns namely
single word and compound word. These two types
of British English (BrE) and American English
(AmE) vocabulary are different and unique.
First, single word form-refers to both British
English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
vocabulary that only consists of one single word
form in order to refer and convey the meaning.The
single form, in this context is originally based in
10
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
BrE which may or may not be single or compound
word in AmE. Table 1 shows the list of the
differentvocabulary between British and American
English of single form.
Table 1 The list of single form vocabularyof British English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
British English (BrE)
American
English
British English (BrE)
American English (AmE)
(AmE)
autumn
autumn, fall
lift
elevator
aerial
antenna
lorry
truck, semi, tractor
autumn
autumn, fall
luggage
baggage, luggage
accelerator
gas pedal, accelerator
mad
crazy, insane
anorak
jacket, parka
maize
corn
braces
suspenders
mark
grade
barrister
attorney
match
game
bath
bathtub/bath
nappy
diaper
bill (restaurant)
bill, check
pants, underpants
underpants, drawers
biscuit
cookie
pavement
sidewalk
booking
reservation
pylon
utility pole
bonnet (clothing)
hat
property
real-estate
bonnet (car)
hood
petrol
gas, gasoline
boot
trunk
post
mail
cap
guy/man/boy
pram
baby carriage; stroller
car
automobile/car
primary (school(
elementary (school)
caravan
trailer
pub
bar
cot
crib
remould (tyre)
retread
chips
fries, French fries
queue
line
chemist
drugstore
receptionist
desk clerk
cigarette or cigaret(in
the US fag or faggot
cigarette; fag (slang)
rubbish
garbage/trash
means
homosexual
man (rude, offensive)
cinema
the movies
shop
store
coffin
coffin, casket
serviette
napkin
crisps
potato chips
stater/entree
appetizer
surname
(British last name (American
cooker
stove
preferred)
preferred)
curtain
drapes
reception (hotel)
front desk
diamante
rhinestone
ring up/phone
call/phone
dairy
(personal
Journal/dairy
return (ticket)
round-trip
account)
eraser (rubber means
diversion
detour
rubber
condom in the US)
draught
draft
rubbish
garbage, trash
dummy (for baby)
pacifier
saloon (car)
sedan
dummy
pacifier
shop
shop, store
duvet
comforter
silencer (car)
muffler
engine
engine, motor
single (ticket)
one-way
film
film, movie
solicitor
lawyer, attorney
foyer
lobby/foyer
spanner
wrench
flat
apartment, flat, studio
sweets
candy
11
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
flannel
Floor
fringe
garden
grill
handbag
hire
holiday
hoarding
hob
hoover
indicator
jam
jam
jug
jumper
kennel
washcloth
storey
bangs
yard
broil
purse
rent
vacation
billboard
stovetop
vacuum cleaner
turn signal
jelly
jam, preserves
jug, pitcher
sweater
doghouse
taxi
term
tick
timber
tin
toilet
torch
trainers
tram
trolley
trousers
tube (train)
vest
wallet
zed (letter Z)
wing (of a car)
wagon (on a train)
taxi, taxi cab
semester (quarter)
check mark
lumber
can
rest room
flashlight
sneakers
streetcar; cable car
shopping cart
pants, trousers
subway
undershirt
wallet, billfold
zee
fender
car
or may not be single or compound word in AmE.
Table 2 shows the list ofthedifferentvocabulary
between British and American English of
compound form:
Second, compound word-refers to that both
British English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
vocabulary which are compound in order to refer
and convey the meaning.The compound form, in
this context is originally based in BrE which may
Table 2. The list of compound form vocabularyof British English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
British
English American
English
British English (BrE)
American English (AmE)
(BrE)
(AmE)
action replay
instant replay
jacket potato
baked potato
aerofoil
airfoil
Joe Bloggs
John Doe
aeroplane
airplane
jumble sale
yard sale
agony aunt
advice columnist
juggernaut
18-wheeler
Allen key
Allen wrench
ladybird
ladybug
American Indian
Native American
lay the table
set the table
at the weekend
on the weekend
letter box
mail box
asymmetric bars
uneven bars
lost property
lost and found
aubergine
eggplant
mackintosh
raincoat
CEO (chief executive
anti-clockwise
counter-clockwise
managing director
officer)
articulated lorry
trailer truck
mashed potato
mashed potatoes
baking tray
cookie sheet
mobile (phone)
cellphone
national
holiday,
bank holiday
main road
highway
federal holiday
base rate
prime rate
motorbike
motorcycle
(bathing) costume
swimsuit
motorway
freeway, expressway
breakdown van
tow truck
monkey tricks
Monkeyshines
breeze block
cinder block
mangetout
snow pea
bridging loan
bridge loan
market garden
truck farm
bumbag
fanny pack
marshalling yard
railroad yard
12
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
black economy
blanket bath
block of flats
boiler suit
boob tube
underground economy
sponge bath
apartment building
coveralls
tube top
naughts and crosses
number plate
needlecord
newsreader
noughts and crosses
bottom drawer
hope chest
off-licence
clothes peg
common seal
consumer durables
cornflour
candyfloss
car park
central reservation
chest of drawers
chemist's shop
opencast mining
ordinary share
oven glove
paddling pool
paracetamol
pay packet
pinafore dress
plain chocolate
common stock
oven mitt
wading pool
acetaminophen
pay envelope
jumper
dark chocolate
plain flour
all-purpose flour
physiotherapy
physical therapy
polo neck
turtleneck
positive discrimination
reverse discrimination
cot death
clothespin
harbor seal
durable goods
cornstarch
cotton candy
parking lot
median strip
dresser/bureau
drugstore, pharmacy
dresser,
chest
of
drawers, bureau
clothespin
intersection;
crossroads (rural)
cupboard (in kitchen);
closet (for clothes etc)
crib death
tic-tack-toe
license plate
pinwale
newscaster
tic-tac-toe
liquor store; package
store
open-pit mining
postal vote
cotton bud
cotton swab
public toilet
city centre
cloakroom
clothes peg
cotton wool
downtown, city center
checkroom, coatroom
clothespin
cotton ball
crossroad
(in
the
country)
intersection (town and
country)
pavement
pet hate
pocket money
postbox
absentee ballot
rest
room,
bathroom
sidewalk
pet peeve
allowance
mailbox
postcode
zip code
cotton wool
absorbent cotton
postman
council estate
court card
crash barrier
crocodile clip
cross-ply
crotchet (music)
current account
(housing) project
face card
guardrail
alligator clip
bias-ply
quarter note
checking account
résumé
curriculum
vitae
(depending on the
professional field)
potato crisp
power point
public school
public transport
punchbag
pushchair
quantity surveyor
mailman, mail carrier,
letter carrier
potato chip
electrical outlet
private school
public transportation
punching bag
stroller
estimator
reverse charge
collect call
tux, tuxedo
ring road
beltway,
freeway/highway loop
chest of drawers
clothes peg
crossroads
cupboard
crossroads
curriculum
(CV)
dinner jacket
vitae
13
public
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
directory enquiries
double cream
drawing pin
dressing gown
drink-driving
driving licence
dual carriageway
dustbin
dustman
danger money
demister (in a car)
dialling tone
diamante
double cream
draughts (game)
drawing pin
dressing gown
drink-driving
drinks cupboard
drinks party
driving licence
dual carriageway
dust sheet
earth wire
everywhere
expiry date
estate agent
estate car
estate agent
ex-directory
flannel
fancy dress
Father Christmas
fill in
fire brigade
first floor
fish-fingers
flick knife
fitted carpet
full board (in hotels)
flexitime
faith school
financial year
fire brigade/service
football
full
(punctuation)
stop
directory assistance
heavy cream
thumb tack
(bath) robe
drunk driving
driver's license
divided highway
garbage can, trash can
garbage collector
hazard pay
defroster
dial tone
rhinestone
heavy cream
checkers
thumbtack
robe; bathrobe
drunk driving
liquor cabinet
cocktail party
driver s license
divided highway
drop cloth
ground wire
everyplace,
everywhere
expiration date
real estate agent
station wagon
realtor
unlisted
face cloth, wash cloth
costumes
Santa Claus
fill out
fire department
second floor
fish-sticks
switchblade
wall-to-wall carpeting
American plan
flextime
parochial school
fiscal year
fire
company/department
soccer
road surface
roundabout
rubbish-bin
railway
return (ticket)
racing car
railway
real tennis
recorded delivery
registration plate
remould (tyre)
reverse the charges
reversing lights
right-angled triangle
ring road
room only
roundabout (at a fair)
roundabout (in road)
rowing boat
sailing boat
sandwich cake
sanitary towel
self-raising flour
semibreve (music)
pavement, blacktop
traffic circle, roundabout
garbage can, trashcan
railroad
round-trip
race car
railroad
court tennis
certified mail
license plate
retread
call collect
back-up lights
right triangle
beltway
European plan
carousel
traffic circle
rowboat
sailboat
layer cake
sanitary napkin
self-rising flour
whole note
semitone (music)
half step
share option
shopping trolley
show house/home
silencer (on a car)
silverside
skeleton in the cupboard
skimmed milk
skipping rope
skirting board
sleeper
sleeping partner
slowcoach
snakes and ladders
stockholder
single ticket
splashback
spring onion
stag night
stock option
shopping cart
model home
muffler
rump roast
skeleton in the closet
skim milk
jump rope
baseboard
railroad tie
silent partner
slowpoke
chutes and ladders
shareholder
one-way ticket
backsplash
green onion
bachelor party
Stanley knife
utility knife
state school
public school
period
storm in a teacup
tempest in a teapot
14
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
gear-lever
gear lever
Gents
goods train
ground
first floor
groundsman
goods train
floor
greaseproof paper
gearshift
gear shift
Men's Room
freight train
ground floor, first floor
second floor
groundskeeper
freight train
wax
paper/waxed
paper
green thumb
carryall
main street
timetable
toll motorway
toffee apple
touch wood
schedule
toll road, turnpike
candy apple
knock on wood
trade union
labor union
trading estate
transport cafe
industrial park
truck stop
takeaway (food)
takeout; to go
green fingers
taxi rank
holdall
high street
tea towel
high
school,
secondary
school, high school (junior
terrace house
high, senior high)
comprehensive
school
hire purchase
installment plan
third-party insurance
hairslide
barrette
underground (train)
hatstand
hatrack
wedding ring
hen night
bachelorette party
windscreen
hot flush
hot flash
zebra crossing
housing estate
housing development
wellington boots
hundreds
and sprinkles
(for
ice
windscreen
thousands
cream)
headmaster,
head
principal
water ice
teacher
hire purchase
installment plan
weatherboard
icing sugar
confectioners sugar
white coffee
lollipop lady (or
crossing guard
white spirit
man)
loudhailer
bullhorn
wholemeal bread
low loader
flatbed truck
windcheater
lucky dip
grab bag
luggage van
baggage car
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/british-and-american-terms
taxi stand
dish towel
row house
liability insurance
subway
wedding band/ring
windshield
pedestrian crossing
rubber boots, rain boots
windshield
Italian ice
clapboard
coffee with cream
mineral spirits
wholewheat bread
windbreaker
Linguistically, idioms can have a literal
meaning in one situation and a different idiomatic
meaning in another situation. It is a phrase which
does not always follow the normal rules of
LEMBARAN
ILMU
KEPENDIDIKAN
http://journal.unnes.ac.id
Volume 44, Nomor 2, September 2015
LEMBARAN
ILMU
KEPENDIDIKAN
0126 0847
LIK
Volume 44
Nomor 2
Halaman
1-68
Semarang
September 2015
ISSN
0216-0847
NA
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan
Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
DESKRIPSI
Terbit dua kali dalam setahun pada bulan April
dan September. Berisi artikel yang bersumber
dari hasil penelitian maupun gagasan pemikiran
dalam rangka pengembangan pendidikan dan
pengajaran di Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga
Kependidikan (LPTK) maupun di satuan, jalur,
dan jenis pendidikan lain.
.
ISSN
0216 - 0847
Ketua Editor
Ahmad Sofwan
Anggota Editor
Heri Tjahyono
Amin Yusuf
Hari Bakti Mardikantoro
Dyah Rini Indriyanti
Priyantini Widiyaningrum
Moh. Yasir Alimi
Sutikno
Ali Formen
Rohani
Sugiharto
Eko Supraptono
Layout
Yoris Adi Aprilta
Pengelola E-Journal
Widiyanto
Sekretariat
Sunarti
ALAMAT PENERBIT
Kantor Pengembang Jurnal
Gedung G Perpustakaan Pusat Lantai 1
Kampus Unnes Sekaran, Gunungpati,
Semarang, Indonesia 50229
() (024) 70344630
() [email protected]
() http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/LIK
Daftar Isi
Students’ Participation in Learning Argumentative Writing
Through Writing Workshop
Triubaida Maya Ardianti Dwi Anggani L. Bharati, Dwi Rukmini ................1
The Unique Different Features of Vocabulary of The British
English (BrE) and American English (AmE): A Review
I Wy Dirgeyasa...........................................................................................................9
Pengembangan Model Pendampingan Guru yang
Mengintegrasikan Self Assessment dalam
Mengimplementasikan Kurikulum 2013
Sri Sulistyorini Parmin, Umar Samadi ............................................................. 22
Kontribusi Cara Belajar Mahasiswa terhadap Nilai Ujian
Akhir Mata Kuliah Pengantar Teknologi Pendidikan di
Universitas Baturaja
Eriyanti ..................................................................................................................... 35
Pengembangan Pembelajaran Daur Ulang Limbah
Berorientasi Bioentrepreneurship dengan Model Project
Based Learning
Erna Yuniartiek Dyah Rini Indriyanti, Siti Alimah ....................................... 41
Pelatihan Ketrampilan Berkarya Seni Kolase, Mozaik, dan
Montase pada Guru-Guru SD Kecamatan Karangawen
Demak
Kamsidjo Budi Utomo Mujiono.......................................................................... 48
Pengembangan Perangkat Pembelajaran Lingkungan Hidup
Bervisi Konservasi dengan Pendekatan Scientific Skill pada
Pengolahan Sampah Organik di Sekolah
Imam Baihaqi1 Andreas Priyono Budi Prasetyo2, Amin Retnoningsih2 . 54
Keefektifan Pembelajaran Bervisi SETS Melalui Praktikum
Identifikasi Bioindikator Sungai Cimanuk terhadap
Ketuntasan Hasil Belajar Aspek Keterampilan Siswa
Awan Usy Syuru Dyah Rini Indriyanti, Amin Retnoningsih....................... 61
Upaya Meningkatkan Kompetensi Profesional dan
Merencanakan Pembelajaran Tematik Bagi Guru Kelas III
Melalui Kegiatan Pelatihan Studi Kasus
Rr. Melinda Arryani .............................................................................................. 68
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
LIK 44 (2) (2015)
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/LIK
STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING
THROUGH WRITING WORKSHOP
Triubaida Maya Ardianti Dwi Anggani L. Bharati, Dwi Rukmini
Semarang State University, Indonesia
Info Artikel
Abstrak
_______________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Sejarah Artikel:
Diterima Juli 2015
Disetujui Agustus 2015
Dipublikasikan September
2015
Penelitian ini bertujuan mendeskripsikan dinamika partisipasi siswa dalam belajar karangan argumentasi
melalui lokakarya menulis. Subjek penelitian adalah 32 siswa kelas XI SMA. Angket dan observasi digunakan
untuk mengumpulkan data, dan pekerjaan siswa juga dikumpulkan untuk memperkuat analisa data. Hasil
penelitian menunjukkan bahwa partisipasi siswa dalam membangun wacana argumentasi lisan dan tulis
meningkat sepanjang siklus pembelajaran. Siswa berbicara lebih banyak ketika saling berargumen atas sebuah
isu, dan menjadi lebih aktif ketika menulis secara kolaboratif dengan siswa yang lain sehingga kemampuan
siswa dalam mengartikulasikan pemikiran mereka ke dalam karangan argumentasi meningkat ke arah yang
lebih baik. Hal ini ditunjukkan oleh peningkatan pada rata – rata nilai karangan argumentasi dan kualitas
argumentasi mereka.
_______________________
Keywords:
Students participation,
argumentative writing,
writing workshop
_____________________________
Abstract
__________________________________________________________________________________________
The present study aimed at describing the dynamics of the students participation in learning argumentative
writing through writing workshop. The subjects consisted of 32 eleventh graders of Senior High School.
Questionnaires and observation were used to gather the data, and the students works were collected to support the
data analysis. The results of the study showed that the students participation in establishing oral and written
argumentative discourse improved throughout learning cycles. The students produced more talk in arguing over an
issue, and became more active in writing collaboratively with their peersm so they got better in articulating their
thoughts in written argumentation. It was affirmed by the improvements on the mean of the students
argumentative writing and the quality of their argumentation.
© 2015 Universitas Negeri Semarang
ISSN 0216-0847
Alamat korespondensi:
E-mail: [email protected]
1
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
indicated that during oral debate, students were
positioned as a speaker of their own argument, at
the same time, a live critical audience p.
who provided rebuttals to opponents claims.
Therefore, oral debate gave students a real picture
of two-sided arguments which they could then
arrange in a written argument.
In addition, Felton and Herko provided a
chain of instruction throughout the writing
workshop to engage students in social practices as
a means to shape their argumentation skills. In this
case, Felton and Herko gave students multiple
opportunities to elaborate their argument in oral
mode through debates, and in written mode
through argumentative writing. Furthermore,
revision as part of instruction in writing workshop
helped students get direct feedback from their
peers to analyze their writing strengths and
weaknesses in constructing written argumentative
discourse. It shows that episodes of social practices
support students in fostering their argumentation
skills.
In sum, there are several theories operating
under the study of argumentation within social
paradigmatic notion such as classical theory, new
rhetorical theory, social genre theory, and
dialogic/discourse theory (Newell et al., 2011;
Fulkerson, 1996; Sheehy, 2003; Stay, 1999). These
theories reveal the same pattern showing that
learning to create argumentation in a socially
mediated setting
(Newell et al., 2011;
VanDerHeide & Newell, 2013) enables students to
consider audience (Stay, 1997) in constructing
their argumentative writing to the degree that it is
sufficiently persuasive (Fulkerson, 1996).
Newell, Beach, Smith, and VanDerHeide
(2011) argued that composing argumentative
writing engaged students in the complex thinking
process which included taking a stance,
formulating a claim, giving supporting evidence,
providing
warrant,
and
considering
counterarguments. It showed that students should
consider multiple points of view to defend their
stance in certain issues, and ensuring that each
element of the argumentative writing correlated to
one another. Similarly, Norris and Ennis (1989)
argued that through argumentative writing,
students could be able to consciously and
deliberately produce compelling evidence which
INTRODUCTION
VanDerHeide and Newell argued that
engaging students in a set of social practices to
learn argumentative writing helped students foster
their argumentative writing skills in a procedural
way. Crowhurts (1988) asserted that students
needed real audiences or readers to write about
real issues. In this case, without being involved to
interact within social practice, students had no
understanding about audience or readers actual
beliefs, attitudes, or experiences to gain audiences
identification
Newell et al.,
:
.
Consequently, although assertions were worth
arguing, argument needs opposition points of view
including qualifications and rebuttals (Fulkerson,
1996) to make the argument rational (Toulmin,
2003), so that it would be persuasive (Crowhurst,
1988; Stay, 1999). Joining the idea of VanDerHeide
et al. and Crowhurst, viewing the study of
argumentation as a set of social practices means
engaging students in episodes within a socially
mediated setting to provide opportunities for
direct interaction with their peers in order to
establish argumentative discourse. Not only can
students establish their argumentative discourse
in oral mode, but the episodes of social practices
also help students develop their writing over time
as the impact of the establishment of
argumentative discourse in oral mode, and
episodes within the writing stage itself such as
peer-engagement through peer-evaluation (Felton
& Herko, 2004).
The study of argumentative writing is also
viewed from a dialogic/discourse analysis theory
which emphasized the dialogic interaction within
social practices to establish a relationship with
audiences to create persuasive discourse (Evensen,
2002; Felton, & Herko, 2004). For example, Felton
and Herko (2004) conducted a case study to
engage 11th graders in learning argumentative
writing through workshop structured reading, oral
debate, reflection, and revision. Oral debate was an
example of the dialogic approach. Felton and
Herko argued that oral debates engaged students
in double-voicing in the degree that they
established their own claims; at the same time,
shifting their focus to attend opponents claims
through refutations. In this case, Felton and Herko
2
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
in the commitment of English teaching pedagogy
from grammar translation method in 1945 to
audiolingual method in 1968-1975, and then,
finally shifting to a communicative approach in
1984-2004. The commitment to implement a
communicative approach meant that the teacher s
domination in student learning should have been
decreased since then. However, Lie pointed out
that the practices within the curricula 1984-2004
showed that English was not portrayed as
language for active communication. Consequently,
learning tended to be teacher-centered. When
KTSP 2006 was implemented, they were not ready
to step out of teacher-centered learning which
tended to be a legacy. Despite not having
succeeded yet in achieving the purpose of KTSP
2006, Curriculum 2013 was implemented.
Even though Curriculum 2013 had a
different concept than KTSP 2006, both curricula
shared a similar purpose in challenging students to
demonstrate what they have learned in something
tangible (Sariono, 2013). In other words, both
curricula had a common purpose to encourage
student-centered learning. Related to this concept,
the present study encouraged students to
demonstrate their knowledge of argumentative
discourse by constructing an argumentative piece
of writing through an active interaction with their
peers. In the subject of English, KTSP 2006 and
Curriculum 2013 mentioned that grade 11
students should be able to master expository
composition such as argumentative writing. To this
extent, teachers should be able to promote student
active learning to help students achieve this
particular learning goal.
Pre-observation in the research site
indicated that the students tended to work in
solitute to complete their argumentative writing
project. Even though I encouraged them to discuss
their writing ideas with their peers, they appeared
to hesitate doing it. During the whole-class debate
which I used to help them generate arguments, the
students produced very little talk. The debate was
not engaging at all, and it did not optimally help
the students to produce solid oral argumentative
discourse. Consequently, the students faced
greater challenge in writing argumentation. This
affected the quality of the students final products.
As much as 68.75% of the students failed to
was reasonable and reflective of their ability to
prove their position on certain issues.
In fact, both argumentative writing and
narrative transfered discourse from oral to written
mode; however, it was more difficult to transfer
argumentative discourse from oral to written
mode since it required feedback from interlocutors
(Reznitskaya
et
al.,
2007).
Additionally,
Reznitskaya et al. (2007) elaborated that there was
no model of argumentation within oral mode since
argumentative discourse was produced in the
response of an immediate preceding point within
conversation. On the contrary, she emphasized
that written mode demanded a new solitary
ability to produce written discourse since there
was particular structure for it (Freedman, &
Pringle, 1984: 79 in Reznitskaya et al., 2007).
Hence, students have difficulty composing
argumentative writing because the particular
structure for argumentative written discourse is
not learned naturally in everyday lives.
Indonesia has been experiencing a national
curriculum shift since its independence was
proclaimed in 1945. The latest curricula
implemented in Indonesian education are
curriculum 2006 called KTSP 2006 (school-based
curriculum), and 2013 Curriculum (Kusuma,
2013). With all the attention to develop the quality
of Indonesian education through several changes
in curricula, starting with KTSP 2006, teachers
have been urged to provide meaningful learning
which encouraged students to be active learners in
discovering their own knowledge (Hasnawati,
2006; Kwartolo, 2007). Nevertheless, for almost a
decade since being implemented, the application of
KTSP
which demanded students knowledge
demonstration has not been in line with a lot of
recent teaching practices in Indonesia.
In the case of KTSP 2006, Indonesian
teachers were unprepared to implement KTSP
2006 (Sariono, 2013). This circumstance was
closely related to the previous educational
practices within the implementation of curricula
1984-2004 in English teaching. Lie (2007) claimed
that encouraging students to be independent
learners in English has emerged since Curriculum
1984. She reviewed previous studies on education
policy and EFL curriculum in Indonesia since 1945
to 2005. Then, she indicated that there were shifts
3
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
Peyton et al. found that as ESL students, among
individuals, they spoke different languages as their
mother tongues. Some spoke Arabic, others spoke
Spanish. At the same time, they had to deal with
their English proficiency. From her survey and
observations, Peyton et al. indicated that although
it used to be employed in the first language
classroom, writing workshop could be adapted to
teach writing for ESL students. In case, Peyton et
al. emphasized that teachers should provide more
instructional support to reduce students language
barriers due to their English deficiency. However,
since students spoke different languages, teachers
did not stress the use of the first language to help
students understand the English instruction.
On the contrary, there is no empirical
research in EFL contexts which investigates the
effectiveness of writing workshop. Nevertheless,
there is significant potential in writing workshop
to be applied in this context. Likewise students in
the ESL classroom, in the EFL classroom, students
were dealing with English proficiency and the
development of writing skills (Bacha, 2012; Yi,
2010). However, in the EFL classroom, teacher and
students speak the same language, and students
also communicate using the same language as their
peers. Therefore, even though there may be
language barriers to communicate in English,
teachers may be able to find ways to avoid and
solve misunderstanding using the same language
as the students use throughout the practice.
Several case studies indicated that because
of the notion of independent learning, and
subsequent
meaningful
activities,
writing
workshop motivated reluctant writers (MooreHart, 2006; Street, 2005); struggling adolescent
readers and writers (Casey, 2009), and students in
general to discover their identity through writing
practices. For instance, Street (2005) conducted a
case study involving a class consisting of reluctant
writers (participants were not specified). Street
applied shared-authority between teacher and
students in the writing process including choosing
the writing topic, and developing their ideas. This
shared-authority made students feel trusted;
therefore, they were motivated to develop their
writing responsibly.
Atwell (1998) introduced a series of tasks or
social activities within writing workshop to
achieve or surpass the minimum requirement in
constructing argumentative writing. To this extent,
I inferred that the students needed a learning
method which could enable them actively
participate in the learning process. So that, they
could feel motivated to establish oral and written
argumentative discourse collaboratively.
To overcome this problem, a writing
workshop is employed to help students learn
argumentative writing. Atwell (1998) defined
writing workshop as an approach consisting of a
series of meaningful tasks from three big sections
of reading territory, mini-lessons, and writing
territory. Writing workshop has been implemented
for decades to support students in writing.
Numerous studies indicated that writing workshop
could help students write in various genres
(Whitney, Ridgeman, & Masquelier, 2011) such as
creative writing (Atwell, 1998; Graves, 2004),
report (Moore-Hart, 2006), and argumentative
writing (Felton & Herko, 2004; VanDerHeide &
Newell, 2013). The practicality of writing
workshop to teach argumentative writing (Felton
& Herko, 2004; VanDerHeide & Newell, 2013)
became the reason for choosing writing workshop
as the strategy to help students construct
argumentative writing in the present study.
In early 1970s through late 1990s, writing
workshop had been initially employed to teach
students creative writing (Atwell, 1998; Strout,
1970). Nevertheless, recently, writing workshop
has been used to teach students various genres
(Whitney, Ridgeman, & Masquelier, 2011) such as
narrative (Atwell, 1989, 1998; Street, 2005; Kesler,
2012; Strout, 1970), report (Moore-Hart 2006),
and argumentative writing (Felton, & Herko, 2004;
Morgan, 2010). It shows that writing workshop has
functioned as a practicable approach that was
applicable for any genre.
Since the early 1970s to the late 1980s, the
study of writing workshop has primarily focused
on the first language classroom (Manion, 1988;
Strout 1970). In the early 1990s, one qualitative
case study examined the effectiveness of writing
workshop in the ESL classroom. Peyton et al.
(1994) conducted a qualitative case study
including 16 teachers in applying writing
workshop to teach English Language Learners
(ELLs) in The Book Projects in Washington, DC.
4
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
based on the students
responses. Both
quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed to
assess the students argumentation skill and the
students writing achievement.
scaffold students in producing writing products.
Those activities include reading territories, minilesson, and writing territories (Atwell, 1998).
Atwell elaborated that on one hand, reading
territories could be considered when designing
independent reading; on the other hand, writing
territories could become part of student-teacher
conferences as a means for students to
communicate their writing problems to the
teacher, and peer-evaluation to get feedback on
their writing. Nevertheless, previous empirical
research indicated that they can adapt the series of
activities within writing workshop (Felton &
Herko, 2004; Kesler, 2012; Whitney et al., 2011;
Moore-hart, 2006).
This study is meant to describe the
improvement of the students participation during
the implementation of writing workshop.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Newell et al. (2011) asserted that students
may engage in a set of social practices to learn
argumentative writing. In the questionnaire, the
students
expressed
concern
upon
their
participation in building oral argumentative
discourse and writing collaboratively with their
peers. All students in the class admitted challenges
in writing argumentation. It was hard for them to
exchange thoughts in discussion because they
were not used to actively participating in the
teaching and learning process. It was hard for
them to build oral argumentative discourse as they
produced little talk during the discussions.
Consequently, they faced greater challenge in
writing argumentation.
As the students got familiar with the
implementation of writing workshop to help them
learn argumentative writing, all students felt more
motivated and interested in reshaping their prior
knowledge on the topic, and actively participating
in both whole-class discussion and small-group
discussions. During the writing activities, the
students participation in writing collaboratively
including giving peer-evaluation had dramatically
improved as they became more familiar with it. We
may take a look at the following figure 1 to find out
the students positive respose to the subsequent
activities employed within writing workshop to
improve
their
participation
in
learning
argumentative writing.
METHODS
The present study took place in a senior high
school in Blora, Central Java. It was joined by 32
eleventh grade students. A classroom action
research design was used with three learning
cycles conducted in 3 weeks of participantobservation and data collection. Qualitativequantitative convergent parallel mixed methods
following Creswell (2014: 219) was used in both
data collection and analysis. The qualitative data
were collected from observation and open-ended
questionnaire and the quantitative data were
collected from closed questionnaires and writing
scores.
The video was transcribed, and decoded
using Reflective and Analytical Observation Notes
following Burns (1999, 2010). The open-ended
questionnaires were decoded and categorized
5
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
Discussions
Peer-evaluation
Collaborative writing
100
80
60
40
20
0
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Cycle 3
Figure 1 Students response to the subsequent activities employed within writing workshop
handed). Dilihat dari letak sendoknya (Seen from
the spoon position).
Student 2: Aku setuju (I agree). Yang bikin
bingung itu jejak kaki mereka itu lho.. (What makes
confused were their footprints..)
.............................................................................................
............
Student 30: Jangan – jangan ini pembunuhan
berencana (It might be a planned murder). Dan
Ernie juga turut membantu (And, Ernie was the
accomplice). Mungkin aja kan (It could be, couldn t
it)? Jejak kaki ini kaki Ernie yang ambil air dari
keran dapur (These footprints belonged to Ernie
who took water from the kitchen sink)? Lihat, ini
ada air (Look, there was water here).
Student 2: Nah, lha jejak kaki sing iki (What
about these footprints)? (Pointing at the other
footprints)
Figure 1 above showed that the majority of
the students affirmed the helpfulness of the
subsequent activities employed within writing
workshop to improve their participation in the
process of learning argumentative writing.
The students participation dramatically
improved across cycles. In cycle 1, the students
barely produced talk during the discussions. I
found out that the students concerned about using
English to express their argumentative ideas.
Further, range of writing topics was very large in
cycle 1; thus, it was hard for the students to engage
with their peers discussing their argumentative
ideas from different writing topics. As in cycle 2
and cycle3 I gained a control over their writing
topic and reading text, and allowed them to use
their native languages to deliver their thoughts
when they got stuck in finding out the English
vocabulary to define their ideas, the students
became more relaxed exchanging thoughts with
their peers and the teacher. We may take a look at
the following conversation.
Student 30: I think that the Customer C is
the murderer.
Student 8: Kok dirimu isa yakin banget?
(How could you be so sure?)
Student 30: Lihat ini, kebiasaan makannya
beda (Look, they had different eating habits).
Customer C itu left-handed (Customer C was left-
The conversation above showed the
students became more active participating in
small-group discussions. Across cycles, they
demonstrated more active participation in the
subsequent activities of completing their
argumentative writing project.
We may take a look at Figure 2 to see the
improvements on the mean of the students
argumentative writing scores and the quality of the
students argumentation.
6
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
Mean of scores
Quality of argumentation
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Cycle 3
Figure 2. The students improvements on the writing scores and quality of argumentation
)n terms of mean of the students scores, the
students could successfully improve their
argumentative writing scores from 65.55 in cycle 1
which was below the minimum requirement to be
80.86 in cycle 3 which surpassed the minimum
requirement. In terms of the quality of the
students argumentation, the students could
dramatically improve their quality from the level
of poor in cycle 1 to good in cycle 3.
There were two patterns of analysis that
could inferred from the analysis of the databases.
First, language barriers became one of the major
factors which obstructed the students active
participation in learning argumentative writing.
The students should go back and forth in the
continuum of Indonesian, Javanese, and English
languages to comprehend the reading text and
write
argumentation.
Considering
their
background as EFL students who did not use
English in everyday interaction, it was very hard
for them to articulate their thoughts in oral and
written modes. In this case, teacher should be
culturally
responsive
(Pacino,
2008)
in
understanding the social contexts of language
learning (Shin, 2013) in order to provide
comfortable class athmosphere in learning second
or foreign language. Consequently, as I allowed the
students to use their native languages when they
got stuck finding vocabulary to define their ideas,
the students became more relaxed delivering their
thoughts. Further, the discussions became more
dynamic and fluid.
Secondly, the nature of argumentative
writing which was more challenging than the other
genres became a bigger challenge for the students
to write better quality of argumentation. Like the
other genres, argumentative writing also required
transfer from oral to written discourse. However,
comparing to other genres, argumentative writing
was challenging for the students because there was
no model for oral argumentative discourse and
written argumentative discourse was not learned
naturally in everyday lives (Reznitskaya et al.,
2007). As a result of minimum interactions in
building oral argumentative discourse, the
students as novice writers faced greater barrier in
writing argumentation. Nevertheless, as I
diminished the students language barrier, it
helped the students to more actively participate in
establishing oral argumentative discourse. After
they became more knowledgeable about their
topic and could build more solid oral
argumentative discourse, it helped the students
lessen their challenge in writing argumentation.
Consequently, they could dramatically increased
the mean of their argumentative writing scores
across cycles from 65.55 to 80.86 and improved
the quality of their argumentation from poor to
good.
CONCLUSION
Students
participation
in
learning
argumentative writing had dramatically improved
across cycles. By lessening the students language
barriers (Shin, 2013), the students could be more
confident to exchange thoughts and ideas. Their
argumentation
skill
in
establishing
oral
argumentative discourse with their peers was
improving along the cycles. Further, as the
students became more familiar with the
application of writing workshop, they became
7
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
Lie, A.
more relaxed to engage in collaborative writing
throughout the teaching and learning process
across the cycles. Dramatically, discussing ideas,
communicating writing difficulties, and giving
peer-evaluation became common activities to help
them accomplish their writing project.
REFERENCES
Atwell, N. 1998. In The Middle: New Understanding
about Writing, Reading, and Learning (2nd ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bacha, N. N.
. Teaching the Academic Argument in
a University EFL Environment . Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, volume 9, pp.
229 – 241.
Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for
English Language Teachers. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. 2010. Doing Action Research in English
Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Casey, (. K.
. Engaging the Disengaged: Using
Learning Clubs to Motivate Struggling Adolescent
Readers and Writers . Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, Volume 52 No. 4, pp. 284 – 294.
Creswell, J.W.
. Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitativem and Mixed Methods Approaches .
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Crowhurst, M.
. Research Review: Patterns of
Development
in
Writing
Persuasive/
Argumentative Discourse . Department of
Language Education: The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Evensen, L. S.
. Convention from below:
Negotiating Interaction and Culture in
Argumentative
Writing .
Written
Communication, Volume 19 No. 3, pp. 382 – 413.
Felton, M. K., & (erko, S.
. From Dialogue to TwoSided Argument: Scaffolding Adolescents
Persuasive Writing . Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, Volume 47 No. 8, pp. 672 – 683.
Fulkerson, R. 1996. Teaching the Argument in Writing.
xx, The United States: The National Council of
Teachers of English.
Kesler, T.
. Writing with Voice . The Reading
Teacher, Volume 66 No. 1., pp.25 – 29.
Kusuma, D. C. 201 . Analisis Komponen – Komponen
Pengembangan Kurikulum 2013 pada Bahan Uji
Publik Kurikulum
. Jurnal Analisis
Komponen
–
Komponen
Pengembangan
Kurikulum, pp. 1 – 21.
8
. Education Policy and EFL Curriculum in
Indonesia: Between the Commitment to
Competence and the Quest for Higher Test
Scores . TEFL)N Journal, Volume
No. . Page
– 14.
Manion, B. B.
. Writing Workshop in Junior (ighSchool: )t s Worth the Time. The English Journal,
Volume 32 No. 2. Page 154 – 157.
Moore-Hart, M. A.
. A Writers Camp in Action: A
Community of Readers and Writers . The
Reading Teacher, Volume 59 No. 4. Page 326 –
338.
Morgan, D. N.
. Writing Feature Articles with
)ntermediate Students . The Reading Teacher,
Volume 64 No. 3. Page 181 – 189.
Newell, G. E., Beach, S., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. 2011.
Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading
and Writing: A Review of Research . Reading
Research Quarterly, Volume 46 No. 3. Page 273 –
304.
Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. 1989. The Practitioners Guide
to Teaching Thinking Series: Evaluating Critical
Thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking
Press & Software.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R.C., & Kuo, L. 2007.
Teaching and leaning an argumentation . The
Elementary School Journal, Volume 107 No. 5.
Page 449 – 472.
Sariono.
. Kurikulum
: Kurikulum Generasi
Emas . E-Jurnal Dinas Pendidikan Kota Surabaya,
Volume 3. Page 1 – 9.
Sheehy, M.
. The Social Life of an Essay:
Standardizing Forces in Writing . Written
Communication, Volume 20 No. 3. Page 333 –
385.
Stay, B. L. 1999. A Guide to Argumentative Writing. San
Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Street, C.
. A Reluctant Writer s Entry into a
Community of Writers . Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, Volume 48 No. 8. Page 636 – 641.
Strout, B.
. Writing Workshop: What is )t? The
English Journal, Volume 59 No. 8. Page 11281130.
Toulmin, S. E. 2003. The Uses of Argument. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
VanDer(eide, J., & Newell, G. E.
. )nstructional
Chains as a Method for Examining the Teaching
and Learning of Argumentative Writing in
Classrooms . Written Communication, Volume
No. 3. Page 300 – 329.
Whitney, A. E., Ridgeman, M., & Masquelier, G. (2011).
Beyond )s This Ok? : (igh School Writers
Building Understandings of Genre . Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Volume 54 No. 7.
Page 525 – 533.
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
LIK 44 (2) (2015)
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/LIK
THE UNIQUE DIFFERENT FEATURES OF VOCABULARY OF THE BRITISH ENGLISH
(BRE) AND AMERICAN ENGLISH (AME): A REVIEW
I Wy Dirgeyasa
English and Literature of FBS State University of Medan
Info Artikel
Abstract
_______________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Sejarah Artikel:
Diterima Juli 2015
Disetujui Agustus 2015
Dipublikasikan September
2015
It is a fact that there are some amazing differences between British English (BrE) and
American English (AmE) such as spelling, meaning, pronunciation, usage, and even
vocabulary. The two varieties of English, as a matter of fact, are often confusing especially
who study and use English as second and foreign language. Because of their differences
and distinctive features, the speakers often find difficulties which one to use. This
condition, then can lead to misunderstanding and misinformation and this finally causes
ineffective communication. This paper is attempting to review the unique features of
BrEand AmEfocusing on the vocabulary.
_______________________
Keywords:
American English, British
English, Vocabulary
_____________________________
© 2015 Universitas Negeri Semarang
ISSN 0216-0847
Alamat korespondensi:
E-mail: [email protected]
9
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
garbage or trash; London Laura also needs to take
out the rubbish. It s dark outside, so New York Nate
takes a flashlight, and London Laura takes a
torch.Ninth,it s been a long day, and New York Nate
thinks he s going to go crazy; London Laura thinks
she might gomad. Finally, it must be time for a
vacationfor New York Nate and a holiday for
London
Laura!
(http://www.espressoenglish.net/british-english-vsamerican-english-vocabulary/ the story goes as
follows).
INTRODUCTION
This is a story about the daily life of New
York Nate, who lives in the United States; and
London Laura, who lives in England. As you can
see, they have very similar lives but the vocabulary
words they use are very different! Take a look how
the women have different vocabulary usages. They
have a lot different and diverse vocabulary to
convey the same meaning in their lives.
First, New York Nate lives in an apartment,
and London Laura lives in aflat. Second, every
morning, when getting dressed, New York Nate puts
on a pair of pantswhereas London Laura puts on a
pair of trousers. Both New York Nate and London
Laura have babies, but New York Nate needs to
change the baby s diaper, and London Laura needs
to change the baby s nappy. Third,when it s time to
go to work, New York Nate takes the subway and
London Laura takes theunderground (which is also
called the tube).After getting off at the right stop,
New York Nate walks along the sidewalk and
London Laura walks along the pavementto reach
their offices. Fourth, New York Nate works on the
first floor of the building, and London Laura works
on the ground floor. This means neither of them
needs to take the elevator (for New York Nate) or
the lift (for London Laura). Fifth, At work, both Nate
and Laura need to send some important documents
to a client – but New York Nate sends them by mail
and London Laura sends them by post. Sixth, During
the day, New York Nate snacks on cookies, french
fries, and potato chips. London Laura eats the same
things, but she calls them biscuits, chips, and crisps.
Both Nate and Laura get stomachaches, so on
the way home from work New York Nate stops at the
drugstoreor pharmacy and London Laura stops at
the chemist s shop to pick up some medicine.
Seventh, After work, Nate and Laura go shopping.
They drive to the mall, and New York Nate puts his
car in the parking lot, whereas London Laura puts
hers in the car park.Both of them buy a lot of stuff,
so New York Nate puts his purchases in the trunk,
and London Laura puts hers in the boot. Eighth, on
the way home, New York Nate stops to fill up the car
with gas and London Laura fills up her car with
petrol. At the station, New York Nate sees a truck,
and London Laura sees a lorry.They both get home
late, and New York Nate needs to take out the
DESCRIPTION
Historically, most of the differences in lexis
or vocabulary between British and American
English are in connection with concepts
originating from the 19th century to the mid 20th
century, when new words were coined
independently. For example,almost the entire
vocabularies of the car/automobile and
railway/railroad industries are different between
the UK and US. Other sources of difference are
slang or vulgar terms (where frequent new coinage
occurs) and idiomatic phrases, including phrasal
verbs. The differences most likely to create
confusion are those where the same word or
phrase is used for two different concepts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Ame
rican_and_British_English.
Actually the differences in vocabulary
between British and American English may be able
to be classified into three categories such as 1) the
complexity of form of the vocabulary, 2) idioms,
and 3) social and cultural different by context.
The Complexity FormVocabulary of the British
English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
The complexity formof vocabulary of British
English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
actually can be divided into two patterns namely
single word and compound word. These two types
of British English (BrE) and American English
(AmE) vocabulary are different and unique.
First, single word form-refers to both British
English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
vocabulary that only consists of one single word
form in order to refer and convey the meaning.The
single form, in this context is originally based in
10
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
BrE which may or may not be single or compound
word in AmE. Table 1 shows the list of the
differentvocabulary between British and American
English of single form.
Table 1 The list of single form vocabularyof British English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
British English (BrE)
American
English
British English (BrE)
American English (AmE)
(AmE)
autumn
autumn, fall
lift
elevator
aerial
antenna
lorry
truck, semi, tractor
autumn
autumn, fall
luggage
baggage, luggage
accelerator
gas pedal, accelerator
mad
crazy, insane
anorak
jacket, parka
maize
corn
braces
suspenders
mark
grade
barrister
attorney
match
game
bath
bathtub/bath
nappy
diaper
bill (restaurant)
bill, check
pants, underpants
underpants, drawers
biscuit
cookie
pavement
sidewalk
booking
reservation
pylon
utility pole
bonnet (clothing)
hat
property
real-estate
bonnet (car)
hood
petrol
gas, gasoline
boot
trunk
post
cap
guy/man/boy
pram
baby carriage; stroller
car
automobile/car
primary (school(
elementary (school)
caravan
trailer
pub
bar
cot
crib
remould (tyre)
retread
chips
fries, French fries
queue
line
chemist
drugstore
receptionist
desk clerk
cigarette or cigaret(in
the US fag or faggot
cigarette; fag (slang)
rubbish
garbage/trash
means
homosexual
man (rude, offensive)
cinema
the movies
shop
store
coffin
coffin, casket
serviette
napkin
crisps
potato chips
stater/entree
appetizer
surname
(British last name (American
cooker
stove
preferred)
preferred)
curtain
drapes
reception (hotel)
front desk
diamante
rhinestone
ring up/phone
call/phone
dairy
(personal
Journal/dairy
return (ticket)
round-trip
account)
eraser (rubber means
diversion
detour
rubber
condom in the US)
draught
draft
rubbish
garbage, trash
dummy (for baby)
pacifier
saloon (car)
sedan
dummy
pacifier
shop
shop, store
duvet
comforter
silencer (car)
muffler
engine
engine, motor
single (ticket)
one-way
film
film, movie
solicitor
lawyer, attorney
foyer
lobby/foyer
spanner
wrench
flat
apartment, flat, studio
sweets
candy
11
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
flannel
Floor
fringe
garden
grill
handbag
hire
holiday
hoarding
hob
hoover
indicator
jam
jam
jug
jumper
kennel
washcloth
storey
bangs
yard
broil
purse
rent
vacation
billboard
stovetop
vacuum cleaner
turn signal
jelly
jam, preserves
jug, pitcher
sweater
doghouse
taxi
term
tick
timber
tin
toilet
torch
trainers
tram
trolley
trousers
tube (train)
vest
wallet
zed (letter Z)
wing (of a car)
wagon (on a train)
taxi, taxi cab
semester (quarter)
check mark
lumber
can
rest room
flashlight
sneakers
streetcar; cable car
shopping cart
pants, trousers
subway
undershirt
wallet, billfold
zee
fender
car
or may not be single or compound word in AmE.
Table 2 shows the list ofthedifferentvocabulary
between British and American English of
compound form:
Second, compound word-refers to that both
British English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
vocabulary which are compound in order to refer
and convey the meaning.The compound form, in
this context is originally based in BrE which may
Table 2. The list of compound form vocabularyof British English (BrE) and American English (AmE)
British
English American
English
British English (BrE)
American English (AmE)
(BrE)
(AmE)
action replay
instant replay
jacket potato
baked potato
aerofoil
airfoil
Joe Bloggs
John Doe
aeroplane
airplane
jumble sale
yard sale
agony aunt
advice columnist
juggernaut
18-wheeler
Allen key
Allen wrench
ladybird
ladybug
American Indian
Native American
lay the table
set the table
at the weekend
on the weekend
letter box
mail box
asymmetric bars
uneven bars
lost property
lost and found
aubergine
eggplant
mackintosh
raincoat
CEO (chief executive
anti-clockwise
counter-clockwise
managing director
officer)
articulated lorry
trailer truck
mashed potato
mashed potatoes
baking tray
cookie sheet
mobile (phone)
cellphone
national
holiday,
bank holiday
main road
highway
federal holiday
base rate
prime rate
motorbike
motorcycle
(bathing) costume
swimsuit
motorway
freeway, expressway
breakdown van
tow truck
monkey tricks
Monkeyshines
breeze block
cinder block
mangetout
snow pea
bridging loan
bridge loan
market garden
truck farm
bumbag
fanny pack
marshalling yard
railroad yard
12
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
black economy
blanket bath
block of flats
boiler suit
boob tube
underground economy
sponge bath
apartment building
coveralls
tube top
naughts and crosses
number plate
needlecord
newsreader
noughts and crosses
bottom drawer
hope chest
off-licence
clothes peg
common seal
consumer durables
cornflour
candyfloss
car park
central reservation
chest of drawers
chemist's shop
opencast mining
ordinary share
oven glove
paddling pool
paracetamol
pay packet
pinafore dress
plain chocolate
common stock
oven mitt
wading pool
acetaminophen
pay envelope
jumper
dark chocolate
plain flour
all-purpose flour
physiotherapy
physical therapy
polo neck
turtleneck
positive discrimination
reverse discrimination
cot death
clothespin
harbor seal
durable goods
cornstarch
cotton candy
parking lot
median strip
dresser/bureau
drugstore, pharmacy
dresser,
chest
of
drawers, bureau
clothespin
intersection;
crossroads (rural)
cupboard (in kitchen);
closet (for clothes etc)
crib death
tic-tack-toe
license plate
pinwale
newscaster
tic-tac-toe
liquor store; package
store
open-pit mining
postal vote
cotton bud
cotton swab
public toilet
city centre
cloakroom
clothes peg
cotton wool
downtown, city center
checkroom, coatroom
clothespin
cotton ball
crossroad
(in
the
country)
intersection (town and
country)
pavement
pet hate
pocket money
postbox
absentee ballot
rest
room,
bathroom
sidewalk
pet peeve
allowance
mailbox
postcode
zip code
cotton wool
absorbent cotton
postman
council estate
court card
crash barrier
crocodile clip
cross-ply
crotchet (music)
current account
(housing) project
face card
guardrail
alligator clip
bias-ply
quarter note
checking account
résumé
curriculum
vitae
(depending on the
professional field)
potato crisp
power point
public school
public transport
punchbag
pushchair
quantity surveyor
mailman, mail carrier,
letter carrier
potato chip
electrical outlet
private school
public transportation
punching bag
stroller
estimator
reverse charge
collect call
tux, tuxedo
ring road
beltway,
freeway/highway loop
chest of drawers
clothes peg
crossroads
cupboard
crossroads
curriculum
(CV)
dinner jacket
vitae
13
public
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
directory enquiries
double cream
drawing pin
dressing gown
drink-driving
driving licence
dual carriageway
dustbin
dustman
danger money
demister (in a car)
dialling tone
diamante
double cream
draughts (game)
drawing pin
dressing gown
drink-driving
drinks cupboard
drinks party
driving licence
dual carriageway
dust sheet
earth wire
everywhere
expiry date
estate agent
estate car
estate agent
ex-directory
flannel
fancy dress
Father Christmas
fill in
fire brigade
first floor
fish-fingers
flick knife
fitted carpet
full board (in hotels)
flexitime
faith school
financial year
fire brigade/service
football
full
(punctuation)
stop
directory assistance
heavy cream
thumb tack
(bath) robe
drunk driving
driver's license
divided highway
garbage can, trash can
garbage collector
hazard pay
defroster
dial tone
rhinestone
heavy cream
checkers
thumbtack
robe; bathrobe
drunk driving
liquor cabinet
cocktail party
driver s license
divided highway
drop cloth
ground wire
everyplace,
everywhere
expiration date
real estate agent
station wagon
realtor
unlisted
face cloth, wash cloth
costumes
Santa Claus
fill out
fire department
second floor
fish-sticks
switchblade
wall-to-wall carpeting
American plan
flextime
parochial school
fiscal year
fire
company/department
soccer
road surface
roundabout
rubbish-bin
railway
return (ticket)
racing car
railway
real tennis
recorded delivery
registration plate
remould (tyre)
reverse the charges
reversing lights
right-angled triangle
ring road
room only
roundabout (at a fair)
roundabout (in road)
rowing boat
sailing boat
sandwich cake
sanitary towel
self-raising flour
semibreve (music)
pavement, blacktop
traffic circle, roundabout
garbage can, trashcan
railroad
round-trip
race car
railroad
court tennis
certified mail
license plate
retread
call collect
back-up lights
right triangle
beltway
European plan
carousel
traffic circle
rowboat
sailboat
layer cake
sanitary napkin
self-rising flour
whole note
semitone (music)
half step
share option
shopping trolley
show house/home
silencer (on a car)
silverside
skeleton in the cupboard
skimmed milk
skipping rope
skirting board
sleeper
sleeping partner
slowcoach
snakes and ladders
stockholder
single ticket
splashback
spring onion
stag night
stock option
shopping cart
model home
muffler
rump roast
skeleton in the closet
skim milk
jump rope
baseboard
railroad tie
silent partner
slowpoke
chutes and ladders
shareholder
one-way ticket
backsplash
green onion
bachelor party
Stanley knife
utility knife
state school
public school
period
storm in a teacup
tempest in a teapot
14
Lembaran Ilmu Kependidikan. Volume 44. Nomor 2. September 2015
gear-lever
gear lever
Gents
goods train
ground
first floor
groundsman
goods train
floor
greaseproof paper
gearshift
gear shift
Men's Room
freight train
ground floor, first floor
second floor
groundskeeper
freight train
wax
paper/waxed
paper
green thumb
carryall
main street
timetable
toll motorway
toffee apple
touch wood
schedule
toll road, turnpike
candy apple
knock on wood
trade union
labor union
trading estate
transport cafe
industrial park
truck stop
takeaway (food)
takeout; to go
green fingers
taxi rank
holdall
high street
tea towel
high
school,
secondary
school, high school (junior
terrace house
high, senior high)
comprehensive
school
hire purchase
installment plan
third-party insurance
hairslide
barrette
underground (train)
hatstand
hatrack
wedding ring
hen night
bachelorette party
windscreen
hot flush
hot flash
zebra crossing
housing estate
housing development
wellington boots
hundreds
and sprinkles
(for
ice
windscreen
thousands
cream)
headmaster,
head
principal
water ice
teacher
hire purchase
installment plan
weatherboard
icing sugar
confectioners sugar
white coffee
lollipop lady (or
crossing guard
white spirit
man)
loudhailer
bullhorn
wholemeal bread
low loader
flatbed truck
windcheater
lucky dip
grab bag
luggage van
baggage car
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/british-and-american-terms
taxi stand
dish towel
row house
liability insurance
subway
wedding band/ring
windshield
pedestrian crossing
rubber boots, rain boots
windshield
Italian ice
clapboard
coffee with cream
mineral spirits
wholewheat bread
windbreaker
Linguistically, idioms can have a literal
meaning in one situation and a different idiomatic
meaning in another situation. It is a phrase which
does not always follow the normal rules of