THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND STUDENTS LEARNING MOTIVATION ON STUDENTS NARRATIVE WRITING ACHIEVEMENT.
ABSTRACT
Asrina Sari Br Sembiring. 082188330078. The Effect of Teaching Methods and Students’ Learning Motivation on Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State University of Medan. 2012
The objective of this study are to investigate whether (1) Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching significantly affect the students’ narrative writing achievement (2) The students’ learning motivation significantly affect the students’ narrative writing achievement (3) There is interaction between Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching and the students’ learning motivation to students’ narrative writing achievement. This study was conducted by using experimental research with factorial design 2x2. The population of the study was all the students of grade IX of 2010/2011 of SMP Muhammadiyah -01 Medan. There were six parallel classes namely T1, T2, U, A, B, and C. By applying multistage cluster random sampling four classes namely T1, U, A, and B were chosen as the sample. The samples consist of 120 students, and 30 students were taken from each of the classes. Class T1 and A were treated by using Cooperative Language Learning, then U and B were treated by using Task Based Language Teaching. The students’ learning motivation was measured by using questionnaire. The students’ achievement in writing narration was measured by using responsive writing test based on the topic chosen. The data were analyzed by using Two Way Anova. The result reveals that (1) Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching methods significantly affect students’ narrative writing achievement with F Observed is bigger than F Table at the level of significance = 0,05 ( FOA = 35,43 > F Table = 3,92, (2) Students’ learning motivation is significantly affect students’ narrative writing achievement with F Observed is bigger than F Table at the level of significance = 0,05 ( FOB = 5,93 > F Table = 3,92, (3) There is interaction between teaching methods and students’ learning motivation on students’ narrative writing achievement with F Observed is bigger than F Table at the level of significance = 0,05 ( FOAB = 25,55 > F Table = 3,92 ). Thus, teaching methods and students learning motivation significantly affect the students’ narrative writing achievement. It implies that English teachers should apply various teaching methods, such as CLL and TBLT and pay more attention to the students’ learning motivation in their attempt to improve the students’ narrative writing achievement.
(2)
ABSTRAK
Asrina Sari Br Sembiring. 082188330078. The Effect of Teaching Methods and Students’ Learning Motivation on Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Negeri Medan. 2012
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah (1) Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching secara signifikan mempengaruhi hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis naratif (2) motivasi belajar siwa secara signifikan mempengaruhi hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis naratif (3) terdapat interaksi antara metode pembelajaran dan motivasi belajar siwa terhadap hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis naratif. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan eksperimen menggunakan desain faktorial 2x2. Populasi penelitian ini adalah semua siswa kelas IX tahun ajaran 2010/2011 SMP Muhammadiyah -01 Medan. Ada enam kelas paralel yakni T1, T2, U, A, B, dan C. Dengan menggunakan teknik multistage cluster random sampling, empat kelas yakni T1, U, A, dan B dipilih sebagai sampel. Jumlah sampel ada 120 orang, dan 30 orang siswa diambil sebagai sampel dari tiap-tiap kelas. Kelas T1 dan A akan diajar dengan menggunakan Cooperative Language Learning, kemudian kelas U dan B akan diajar dengan menggunakan metode Task Based Language Teaching. Motivasi belajar siswa akan di ukur dengan menggunakan angket. Hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis naratif akan diukur dengan menggunakan tes menulis sesuai topik yang dipilih. Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan Anava 2 jalur. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa (1) metode Cooperative Language Learning dan Task Based Language Teaching secara signifikan mempengaruhi hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis naratif dengan nilai F Observed lebih besar dari F Table pada level signifikansi = 0,05 ( FOA = 35,43 > F Table = 3,92, (2) Motivasi belajar siswa secara signifikan mempengaruhi hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis naratif dengan nilai F Observed lebih besar dari F Table pada level signifikansi = 0,05 ( FOB = 5,93 > F Table = 3,92, (3) terdapat interaksi antara metode pembelajaran dengan motivasi belajas siswa terhadap hasil belajar sowa dalam menulis dengan nilai F Observed lebih besar dari F Table pada level signifikansi = 0,05 ( FOAB = 25,55 > F Table = 3,92 ). Dengan demikian metode pembelajaran dan motivasi belajar siswa secara signifikan mempengaruhi hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis naratif. Ini berarti guru-guru seharusnya menerapkan berbagai metode pembelajaran seperti CLL dan TBLT dan lebih memperhatikan motivasi belajar siswa di dalam usaha mereka untuk memperbaiki hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis naratif.
(3)
THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS
AND STUDENTS' LEARNING MOTIVATION
ON STUDENTS’ NARRATIVE WRITING ACHIEVEMENT
A Thesis
ASRINA SARI BR SEMBIRING
Registration Number: 082188330078
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POST GRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2012
(4)
(5)
(6)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,
First and foremost, praise and thank be to Allah SWT for all blessing, who has granted countless opportunity, strength and knowledge to the writer so that she has been finally able to accomplish her thesis. Then, the writer owes a real debt of gratitude to her first advisor Prof. Lince Sihombing M. Pd., whose advice, encouragement, reviews, comments, suggestions, and patience have been feature of the writing process from the very beginning of this thesis. She also grateful to her second advisor, Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani M. Pd., for his robust, criticism, reviews, and assistance were extremely helpful.
She would like to thank to all lectures of English Applied Linguistics Program for the treasure of knowledge they have transferred to her during the course of her study. In particular, she would like to thank Prof. Busmin Gurning M. Pd., Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Prof. Dr. Sumarsih M. Pd., Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M. Hum., Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, who offered many valuable ideas and helped sharpen her observation.
Then, she would like to express her sincere appreciation and love to her parents for constant inspiration, guidance, unflagging love, and support throughout her life. She is indebted to her beloved father Selamat Sembiring for his support, care, and love. The heartfelt thank to her beloved mother Dahlia Br Barus who always shows power to give her motivation and endless pray. She has no suitable words that can fully describe her mother everlasting love to her. Next,
(7)
she owes her thanks to her older brother Hendra Jaya Sembiring S. Sos. I., who inspired her to go forward.
Special thanks are extended to the Headmaster of SMP Muhammadiyah -01 Medan, Paiman S. Pd, who permits her to conduct the treatment in the school, and all professional teachers who give supports and being cooperatively during the research.
Last but not least, her heartfelt thanks also go to her friends for their encouragement, friendship, and cooperation during the academic years and the completion of her thesis, especially to all friends in intake XIV.
It would be difficult to find adequate words to convey how much she owes the people. Lots of love and thank to all of you.
May Allah bless us.
Medan, June 14 th, 2012 The Writer,
Asrina Sari Br Sembiring Registration Number: 082188330078
(8)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v
LIST OF TABLE ... LIST OF FIGURES ... LIST OF APPENDIX ... CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1.1Background of the Research ... 1
1.2Problem of the Research... 4
1.3Objectives of the Research ... 5
1.4Scope of the Research ... 5
1.5Significance of the Research ... 6
CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 The Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement ... 7
2.2 Writing ... 9
2.2.1 Writing Process ... 12
2.2.2 Narrative Writing ... 14
2.2.2.1 Grammatical Feature of Narrative Writing ... 17
(9)
2.3 Teaching Methods ... 19
2.3.1 Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) ... 20
2.3.1.1 The Design of CLL ... 24
2.3.1.2 Types of Learning and Teaching Activities ... 25
2.3.1.3 Roles of Learner ... 27
2.3.1.4 Roles of Teacher ... 28
2.3.1.5 The Role of Materials in CLL ... 28
2.3.1.6 The Procedures of CLL ... 29
2.3.2 Task – Based Language Teaching (TBLT) ... 30
2.3.2.1 The Design of TBLT ... 34
2.3.2.2 Roles of Learner ... 35
2.3.2.3 Roles of Teacher ... 36
2.3.2.4The Role of Materials in TBLT ... 38
2.3.2.5 Types of Tasks ... 39
2.3.2.6 The Procedures of TBLT ... 41
2.4 The Students’ Learning Motivation ... 43
2.4.1 High and Low Students’ Learning Motivation .... 47
2.4.2 The Measurement of Learning Motivation ... 48
2.5 Relevance Studies ... 48
2.6 Conceptual Framework ... 51
2.6.1 The Differences between Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching on Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement ... 51
(10)
1.6.2The Differences Effect of High and Low Learning Motivation Students
on their Narrative Writing Achievement ... 53
1.6.3The Interaction between the Teaching Methods and Students’ Learning Motivation on Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement ... 55
2.7 Hypotheses of the Research ... 57
CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHOD 3.1 Research Design ... 58
3.2 Population and Sample... 59
3.2.1 Population ... 59
3.2.2 Sample ... 59
3.3 The Instrument of Data Collection ... 60
3.3.1 Students Learning Motivation Questionnaire ... 60
3.3.2 Narrative Writing Achievement Test ... 61
3.4 The Instrument of Validation ... 62
3.4.1 Validity ... 62
3.4.1.1 Validity of Questionnaire... 62
3.4.1.2 Validity of Writing Test... 64
3.4.2 Reliability ... 65
3.4.2.1 Reliability of Questionnaire ... 65
(11)
3.5 Scoring System of the Test... 67
3.6 Procedures of Treatment ... 67
3.7 Control of the Treatment ... 68
a. Internal Validity ... 68
b. External Validity ... 69
3.8 The technique of Analyzing Data ... 69
3.9 Statistical Hypotheses ... 70
CHAPTER IV : DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 Description of the Research Data ... 71
4.1.1The Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement taught by using Cooperative Language Learning ... 72
4.1.2 The Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement taught by using Task Based Language Teaching ... 73
4.1.3 High Learning Motivation Students’ Achievement in Writing Narration ... 74
4.1.4 Low Learning Motivation Students’ Achievement in Writing Narration ... 76
4.1.5 High Learning Motivation Students’ Achievement in Writing Narration taught by using Cooperative Language Learning ... 77
4.1.6 Low Learning Motivation Students’ Achievement in Writing Narration taught by using Cooperative Language Learning ... 78 4.1.7 High Learning Motivation Students’
(12)
Task Based Language Teaching ... 80
4.1.8 Low Learning Motivation Students’ Achievement in Writing Narration taught by using Task Based Language Teaching ... 81
4.2 Requirements of Data Analysis ... 83
4.2.1 Normality Test ... 83
4.2.2 Homogeneity Testing ... 84
4.2.2.1 Groups of Teaching Methods ... 84
4.2.2.2 Groups of Learning Motivation ... 85
4.2.2.3 Groups of Interaction ... 85
4.3 Hypotheses Testing... 86
4.3.1 The Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement taught by using Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching ... 87
4.3.2 The Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement with High and Low Learning Motivation ... 88
4.3.3 There is significant interaction between Teaching Methods and Learning Motivation on Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement ... 89
4.4 Research Findings ... 93
4.5 Discussion ... 94
4.5.1 The Effect of Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching on the Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement ... 94
4.5.2 The Effect of Learning Motivation on Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement ... 95 4.5.3 The Interaction between Teaching Methods
(13)
and Students’ Learning Motivation to
Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement ... 97 4.6 Limitation of the Research ... 99
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions ... 101 5.2 Suggestions ... 102 REFERENCES ... 103
(14)
LIST OF TABLE
TABLE PAGE
Table 3.1 The Factorial Design ... 59
Table 3.2 The Blue Print of the Questionnaire of Learning Motivation ... 61
Table 3.3 The Writing Test Indicators ... 61
Table 3.4 The number of Test Item Valid ... 63
Table 3.5 The Reliability of the Questionnaire ... 65
Table 3.6 The Result of Computation of Inter Rater Reliability ... 66
Table 4.1 Summary of Data Description ... 71
Table 4.2 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Scores taught by using Cooperative Language Learning ... 72
Table 4.3 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Scores taught by using Task Based Language Teaching ... 73
Table 4.4 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Scores with High Learning Motivation ... 75
Table 4.5 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Scores with Low Learning Motivation ... 76
Table 4.6 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Scores with High Learning Motivation taught by using Cooperative Language Learning ... 77
Table 4.7 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Scores with Low Learning Motivation taught by using Cooperative Language Learning ... 79
Table 4.8 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Score with High Learning Motivation taught by using Task Based Language Teaching ... 80
(15)
Table 4.9 Frequency Distribution of the Students’ Scores with Low Learning taught by using Task Based Language
Teaching ... 82
Table 4.10 Summary on the Result of Normality Test ... 83
Table 4.11 The Result of Homogeneity Test of Teaching Methods ... 84
Table 4.12 Result of Homogeneity Test of Learning Motivation ... 85
Table 4.13 Summary on the Result of Homogeneity test on groups of Interaction ( = 0,05) ... 85
Table 4.14 The Result of Homogeneity Test on Each Groups ... 86
Table 4.15 Two-Way ANOVA with 2 x 2 Factorial Design ... 86
Table 4.16 Summary on the Calculation Result of Two-Way ANOVA ... 87
(16)
LIST OF FIGURE
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 2.1 Procedures Involved in Producing a Written Text ... 13 Figure 4.1 Histogram of Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement
taught by using Cooperative Language Learning ... 73 Figure 4.2 Histogram of Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement
taught by using Task Based Language Teaching ... 74 Figure 4.3 Histogram of Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement
with High Learning Motivation ... 75 Figure 4.4 Histogram of Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement
with Low Learning Motivation ... 77 Figure 4.5 Histogram of high learning motivation students’ achievement
in Writing Narration taught by using Cooperative Language
Learning ... 78 Figure 4.6 Histogram of Low Learning Motivation Students’ Achievement
in Writing Narration taught by using Cooperative Language Learning ... 80 Figure 4.7 Histogram of High Learning Motivation Students taught
by using Task Based Language Teaching ... 81 Figure 4.8 Histogram of Low Learning Motivation Students’ Achievement
in Writing Narration taught by using Task Based
Language Teaching ... 83 Figure 4.9 Interaction between teaching methods and learning motivation ... 92
(17)
LIST OF APPENDIX
APPENDIX PAGE
Appendix A : Learning Motivation Questionnaire ... 106
Appendix B : Learning Scenario Using Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) “Lesson Preparation Sheet” ... 108
Appendix C : Learning Scenario Using Cooperative Language Teaching (CLL) “Lesson Preparation Sheet” ... 110
Appendix D : Validity and Reliability of Questionnaire ... 112
Appendix E : Scoring System of the Narrative Writing Test ... 116
Appendix F : Description of the Students’ Score in Writing Narration ... 117
Appendix G : The Reliability Computation of the Writing Test ... 120
Appendix H : Testing Hypotheses ... 122
Appendix I : Description of the Research Data ... 126
(18)
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1Background of the Research
English, as one of the foremost languages in the world, is the medium of International communication. English plays a very important role in education, business and administration. It is the medium of instruction for higher education. People have a great motivation to learn in order to have a good skill in using the language.
Language skills cover four aspects, namely: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. This is in line with the aim of English learning as stated in Educational Unit Level Curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan 2006: KTSP 2006 or 2006 Curriculum) that the students should have written and spoken ability in communication. The ability to communicate is the ability to understand and produce the spoken and written text realized in the four language skills.
Writing is probably the hardest skill to be learnt, because the complexity of the written language compared to the spoken one is much greater. Writing is related to text-making activities; such as generating and arranging ideas, and developing ideas in sentences; like drafting, shaping, rereading the text, editing, and revising. Then, to produce a good piece of writing demands standard forms of grammar, paragraph, content, the writing process, purposes, and mechanics.
The problems and difficulties of students are realized in their poor achievement in writing. Martha (2003) has conducted a research on the Students’
(19)
Ability in Writing Composition. The result showed that among 40 students; there were only 11 students (27,9 %) that could get a good score in writing, while the other, 29 students (72,5%) were unable to write well. The phenomenon shows that writing is the hardest skill for the students, and they have low learning motivation and not interested in writing class.
There are many theories on how second language (L2) is learned and how to implement various methods in the classroom. These theories are intended to help teachers to improve teaching-learning process achievement. Two of them are Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) and Task - Based Language Teaching (TBLT). CLL is a method where students working together to attain group goals which cannot be obtained by working alone or competitively. Students work in group as a team to solve a problem, complete a task or achieve a common goal. So, cooperation is not only a way of learning but also a theme to be communicated. TBLT on the other side is a teaching method which uses tasks as its core programs to organize language teaching. It advocates learning language knowledge and training skills in the process of completing tasks. Teacher are no longer just instructor, but also guides, nor are learners just receives but also principal agents who use their communicative abilities to transfer from their mother language to the target language.
It is assumed that these methods are the best methods in teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) to overcome the classroom’s problems in writing, like narrative writing. Kagan and High (2002) explain that one of the method which shows positive result in boosting the students’ writing skill is the
(20)
incorporation of Cooperative Learning. CLL gives positive impacts such as greater effort to achieve more positive relationship among pupils and greater psychological health. Legenhausen and Wolff (1990) concur that writing in small groups is an efficient way to promote writing abilities and it was an excellent interaction activity. Collaborative work between learners is encouraged to increase the students’ motivation and develop positive attitudes towards the writing activities (Nunan, 1991). The students should responsible in their writing and give the opportunity to share their work with others.
On the other hand, a study by Zhu Lin (2009) shows if comparing to traditional teaching methods, TBLT can give learners better initiative and make them more active in writing class. In TBLT, teacher designs some familiar activities in everyday life to create real or relatively real environment to stimulate learners’ interests in writing and teach them how to socialize and communicate in certain occasions. It is an effective teaching method whose tasks can improve the structure of classroom teaching, propel learners to learn and utilize English in activities and help learners get together to cooperate and experience the success and joy in learning English.
Besides teaching methods, students' achievement in writing is also influenced by many factors. One of them is motivation. Many studies about the most appropriate learning methods that can be applied for all situations have failed because the students do not have motivation to study. Motivation is defined as which arouses and sustains a person's behavior. Motivation has been called the neglected heart of language teaching (Rost, 2000). Motivation either exists within
(21)
the students (intrinsic motivation) or comes outside the students (extrinsic motivation). The students with high learning motivation are the students with high desire to learn in teaching learning process, while the students with low learning motivation are the students who always have less effort in their study. All of learning activities such as writing are filtered through students' motivation. In this sense, students’ motivation controls the flow of classroom. Without students' motivation, there is no pulse or life in the class.
Based on the underlying facts, this research is intended to discover the effect of teaching methods and students' learning motivation on students’ narrative writing achievement. It means that the effect of applying these two teaching methods and students' learning motivation will be proven whether they are effective towards achievement in narrative writing.
1.2Problems of the Research
Based on the background of the research, the problems of this research are formulated in question forms as follows:
1. Do CLL and TBLT significantly affect the students’ narrative writing achievement?
2. Does students’ learning motivation significantly affect their achievement in narrative writing?
3. Is there any interaction between CLL and TBLT methods and students' learning motivation to their achievement in narrative writi
(22)
1.3Objectives of the Research
In line with the previous problems, the objectives of the research are: 1. To find out whether CLL and TBLT significantly affect the students’ narrative
writing achievement.
2. To find out whether students’ learning motivation significantly affects their achievement in narrative writing.
3. To find out the interaction between teaching methods and students' learning motivation to their achievement in narrative writing.
1.4Scope of the Research
There are many methodologies that the teachers can use in enhancing the students' achievement in English, especially in writing. This research limited on the application of CLL and TBLT which assume can help the students' achievement in writing. In relation to these methods, there are many factors affect the students’ learning such as motivation, interest, personality, etc. In this case the writer chose motivation factor, because it is one of fundamental essence of language teaching. Motivation helps develop greater language - learning skills and encourages greater overall effort and results in greater success in terms of language achievement like writing. The writing text chosen was narrative text which is one of the most widely used genre text in writing of Standard Competency on Educational Unit Oriented Curriculum (Kurikulum tingkat Satuan Pendidikan; KTSP) for grade IX of Junior High School (Sekolah Menengah Pertama: SMP).
(23)
1.5Significance of the Research
Through this research, it is expected that the effects of CLL, TBLT and students' learning motivation will be clearly revealed out. It is hoped that it can provide valuable information, which may have theoretical as well as practical value for English language teachers and learners. Theoretically, the result of the research will support the theory of CLL and TBLT in improving the students’ ability in writing. Meanwhile, practically the result of the research will guide the English language teachers in their attempt to decide the appropriate methods that should be applied in enhancing the students' narrative writing achievement. It is also expected to give contribution for those who are interested in performing further study in other field of research.
(24)
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the data analyses presented, some conclusions are derived
through meaningful interpretation of the findings in this study, as stated in the
following:
1. Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching
significantly affect the students’ narrative writing achievement. Therefore
these methods can be used to increase the students’ narrative writing
achievement.
2. The students’ learning motivation significantly affects their achievement in
writing narration. The higher learning motivation students have the higher
achievement in writing they will get.
3. There is an interaction between teaching methods and learning motivation to
the students’ narrative writing achievement. The students with high learning
motivation showed significant effect on their writing achievement, when they
are taught by using Cooperative Language Learning or Task Based Language
Teaching. Whereas, the students with low learning motivation showed
significant effect on their achievement in writing when they are taught by
(25)
5.2 Suggestions
In line with the conclusions drawn,
1. For English teachers are recommended:
a. To use Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language
Teaching in their attempts to improve students’ narrative writing
achievement because the application of these methods can improve
students’ achievement in writing narration.
b. To use Task Based Language Teaching for the class dominated by high
learning motivation students, and using Cooperative Language Learning
for the class with low learning motivation.
c. To encourage low learning motivation students to participate in study
English in order to get the better achievement in writing narration.
2. Other researchers can develop further study in the area of Cooperative
Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching that will improve the
(26)
REFERENCES
Altman, Steven, et. al.1985. Organizational Behavior Theory and Practice.
United States: Academic Press. Inc
Ary, Donald. 1979. Introduction to Research In Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd edition). White Plains: Addison Wesley Longman. Inc
Byrne, D. 1984. Teaching Writing Skills. London: Longman Group UK Limited Company
. 1988. Teaching Writing Skills. (Newed).Longman
Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Asessment: Principles Classroom Practices: New York: Longman
Cantoni, Gina, and Harvey. 1987. Language Interaction-approaches and
strategies. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
Educational Unit Level Curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan: KTSP or Curriculum 2006)
Gebhard, J.G. 2000. Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language: A
Teacher Self-Development and Methodology guide. Ann Abra: The
university of Michigan Press
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Harmer, Jeremi. 2010. The Practice of Language Teaching. United Kingdom: Longman
Heaton, J.B. 1988. Writing English Language Tests. London: Longman
Richards, Jack. C and Rodgers, Theodore S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in
Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press
(27)
Johnson, D.,R. Johnson, and Holubec. 1994. Cooperative Learning in the classroom. Alexandria va.: Association for supervision and curriculum development
Joyce, Bruce. 2000. A guide to a Cooperative Language Learning. Retrieved on November 2009 from http://www.pgcps.pg.k12.md.us/~elc/learning1. html
Kagan, S. 1991. Cooperative Language Learning. San Juan Capistrano, Calif.: Resources for Teachers
Kagan, S. and High, J. 2002. Kagan Structures for English Language Learners.
Retrieved from http: www. Kagan Online. Com April 19th , 2011
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices of second language acquisition
Oxford: Pergamon Press
Leganhausen, L & Wolff, D. 1990. Text production in the Foreign Language
Classroom and the World Processor, System 18 (3) 325 -334
Lin, Zhu. (2009). Task Based Approach in Foreign Language Teaching in China. Seminar paper research presented to Graduate Faculty University of Wisconsin; Platteville
Long, M., and Crookes. 1993. Units of analysis in course design-the case for task. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds.), Task in pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Manfred, K. Narartive Writing, (http” //www. the writing side, org/ resources/ genre/ narrative. asp.) retrieved on September 18th, 2010
Martha, S. 2003. The Students’ Ability in Creating a Writing Composition.
Unpublished Thesis. Medan: Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan.
Mc. Andrews, S. L. 2008. Diagnostic Literacy Assessment Strategies. International Reading Association
McGroarty, M. 1989. The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in second language instruction. NABE Journal
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for Communicative Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press
. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Newbury House
(28)
. 2003. Practical English Teaching. New York: Inc. Graw Hill
Knap, Peter and Watkins, Megan. 2005. Genre, Text Grammar. Sidney: University of New South Wales.
O’Malley, J.M & Pierce, L. V. 1996. Authentic Assessment for English Language
Learners. Massachusetts; Addison –Wesley Publishing
Plough, I., and S. Gass. 1993. Interlocutor and task familiarity: effect on interactional structure. In G. Crooks and S. Gass (eds). Task Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilinguagal matters. 35.36
Prabu, N. S. (1987). "Language Education, equipping or enabling", in Das, B. K.
(Ed). Language Education Human Resource Development. Anthology
Series 20. Singapore: RELC.
Raymond, Wlodkowski and Judit, Jaynes. 1991. Eager to learn. Retrieved from http://hhpublishing.com/onlionenursers/studystrategies/BSL/motivation/ B1.HTML on May 24th, 2011
Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore. S. 2001. Approaches and Methods and
Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press
Rost, Michael. Series Editor of Worldview. Retrieved on January 2011 from http: //www. piersonlongman. com/ worldview/ motivation. Pdf
Tangkas, I Wayan Dirgayasa. 2005. Academic Writing the Essay: Concepts and Practices. Medan: Universitas Negeri Medan
Willis, J. (1996). A flexible frame work for Task – Based Learning. Oxford: Heinemann.
Wrightsman, Lawrens S. at al. 1979. Psychology. California: Brooks/ Cole Company
(1)
1.5Significance of the Research
Through this research, it is expected that the effects of CLL, TBLT and students' learning motivation will be clearly revealed out. It is hoped that it can provide valuable information, which may have theoretical as well as practical value for English language teachers and learners. Theoretically, the result of the research will support the theory of CLL and TBLT in improving the students’ ability in writing. Meanwhile, practically the result of the research will guide the English language teachers in their attempt to decide the appropriate methods that should be applied in enhancing the students' narrative writing achievement. It is also expected to give contribution for those who are interested in performing further study in other field of research.
(2)
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the data analyses presented, some conclusions are derived through meaningful interpretation of the findings in this study, as stated in the following:
1. Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching significantly affect the students’ narrative writing achievement. Therefore these methods can be used to increase the students’ narrative writing achievement.
2. The students’ learning motivation significantly affects their achievement in writing narration. The higher learning motivation students have the higher achievement in writing they will get.
3. There is an interaction between teaching methods and learning motivation to the students’ narrative writing achievement. The students with high learning motivation showed significant effect on their writing achievement, when they are taught by using Cooperative Language Learning or Task Based Language Teaching. Whereas, the students with low learning motivation showed significant effect on their achievement in writing when they are taught by using Cooperative Language Learning.
(3)
5.2 Suggestions
In line with the conclusions drawn, 1. For English teachers are recommended:
a. To use Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching in their attempts to improve students’ narrative writing achievement because the application of these methods can improve students’ achievement in writing narration.
b. To use Task Based Language Teaching for the class dominated by high learning motivation students, and using Cooperative Language Learning for the class with low learning motivation.
c. To encourage low learning motivation students to participate in study English in order to get the better achievement in writing narration.
2. Other researchers can develop further study in the area of Cooperative Language Learning and Task Based Language Teaching that will improve the students’ narrative writing achievement.
(4)
REFERENCES
Altman, Steven, et. al.1985. Organizational Behavior Theory and Practice. United States: Academic Press. Inc
Ary, Donald. 1979. Introduction to Research In Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd edition). White Plains: Addison Wesley Longman. Inc
Byrne, D. 1984. Teaching Writing Skills. London: Longman Group UK Limited Company
. 1988. Teaching Writing Skills. (Newed).Longman
Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Asessment: Principles Classroom Practices: New York: Longman
Cantoni, Gina, and Harvey. 1987. Language Interaction-approaches and strategies. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
Educational Unit Level Curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan: KTSP or Curriculum 2006)
Gebhard, J.G. 2000. Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language: A Teacher Self-Development and Methodology guide. Ann Abra: The university of Michigan Press
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Harmer, Jeremi. 2010. The Practice of Language Teaching. United Kingdom: Longman
Heaton, J.B. 1988. Writing English Language Tests. London: Longman
Richards, Jack. C and Rodgers, Theodore S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press
(5)
Johnson, D.,R. Johnson, and Holubec. 1994. Cooperative Learning in the classroom. Alexandria va.: Association for supervision and curriculum development
Joyce, Bruce. 2000. A guide to a Cooperative Language Learning. Retrieved on November 2009 from http://www.pgcps.pg.k12.md.us/~elc/learning1. html
Kagan, S. 1991. Cooperative Language Learning. San Juan Capistrano, Calif.: Resources for Teachers
Kagan, S. and High, J. 2002. Kagan Structures for English Language Learners. Retrieved from http: www. Kagan Online. Com April 19th , 2011
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices of second language acquisition Oxford: Pergamon Press
Leganhausen, L & Wolff, D. 1990. Text production in the Foreign Language Classroom and the World Processor, System 18 (3) 325 -334
Lin, Zhu. (2009). Task Based Approach in Foreign Language Teaching in China. Seminar paper research presented to Graduate Faculty University of Wisconsin; Platteville
Long, M., and Crookes. 1993. Units of analysis in course design-the case for task. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds.), Task in pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Manfred, K. Narartive Writing, (http” //www. the writing side, org/ resources/ genre/ narrative. asp.) retrieved on September 18th, 2010
Martha, S. 2003. The Students’ Ability in Creating a Writing Composition. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan.
Mc. Andrews, S. L. 2008. Diagnostic Literacy Assessment Strategies. International Reading Association
McGroarty, M. 1989. The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in second language instruction. NABE Journal
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for Communicative Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press
. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Newbury House
(6)
. 2003. Practical English Teaching. New York: Inc. Graw Hill
Knap, Peter and Watkins, Megan. 2005. Genre, Text Grammar. Sidney: University of New South Wales.
O’Malley, J.M & Pierce, L. V. 1996. Authentic Assessment for English Language Learners. Massachusetts; Addison –Wesley Publishing
Plough, I., and S. Gass. 1993. Interlocutor and task familiarity: effect on interactional structure. In G. Crooks and S. Gass (eds). Task Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilinguagal matters. 35.36
Prabu, N. S. (1987). "Language Education, equipping or enabling", in Das, B. K. (Ed). Language Education Human Resource Development. Anthology Series 20. Singapore: RELC.
Raymond, Wlodkowski and Judit, Jaynes. 1991. Eager to learn. Retrieved from http://hhpublishing.com/onlionenursers/studystrategies/BSL/motivation/ B1.HTML on May 24th, 2011
Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore. S. 2001. Approaches and Methods and Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press
Rost, Michael. Series Editor of Worldview. Retrieved on January 2011 from http: //www. piersonlongman. com/ worldview/ motivation. Pdf
Tangkas, I Wayan Dirgayasa. 2005. Academic Writing the Essay: Concepts and Practices. Medan: Universitas Negeri Medan
Willis, J. (1996). A flexible frame work for Task – Based Learning. Oxford: Heinemann.
Wrightsman, Lawrens S. at al. 1979. Psychology. California: Brooks/ Cole Company