THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND GRAMMATICAL ABILITY ON STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT IN WRITING EXPOSITION ESSAY.

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND GRAMMATICAL

ABILITY ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT

IN WRITING EXPOSITION ESSAY

A THESIS

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

AHMAD SARDON

Registration Number: 082188330067

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN 2013

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND GRAMMATICAL

ABILITY ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT

IN WRITING EXPOSITION ESSAY

A THESIS

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

AHMAD SARDON

Registration Number: 082188330067

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN 2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, the writer would like to start off by thanking Allah SWT, the most gracious and the most merciful for blessing his to write this thesis. This study is concerned with The Effect of Teaching Methods on Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Assay. This study is submitted to Post Graduate School of State University of Medan in a partial fulfillment of the final academic requirements to obtain the degree of Magister of Humaniora from English Applied Linguistics.

In writing this thesis, the writer faced a lot of difficulty, trouble and without any help from the following people, it was impossible for his to finish this thesis. Therefore, the writer would like to thank all the people mentioned below.

The writer expresses his greater gratitude to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd as his first adviser for his valuable guidance, criticism, consultations and supports and Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd., as his second adviser for her valuable corrections and advices in finishing this thesis.

He also expresses his gratitude to Director of Post Graduate School, Head and Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program of State University of Medan, all lectures who have equipped his during the times of lecturing and finishing this thesis

Special thanks are expressed to Prof. Amrin saragih, M.A., Ph.D., Dr. Sri Minda Murni , Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M. Hum., as his reviewers and examiners, for the valuable input to improve the thesis.

A very special gratitude is given for his beloved parents; Adenan Hasibuan (Alm) and Suryani (Alm), his beloved family, especially his wife; Mrs. Dra. Dalila Haini and daughters; Annisa Sarah Hirmadhani Hasibuan, Ratih Virda Ramayani Hasibuan, Liana Sari Aulia Hasibuan for their sincere prayer, love and supports in moral and material during her academic year especially who have given motivation and prayer in completing his study. May Allah SWT always bless them forever.

Then, thanks to the headmaster of SMA N 1 Kisaran, Jumadi, S. Pd, M.M who had welcomed and given him chance to permits him to conduct the research in the school, and also thanks to B. Hutabarat, S.Pd and Suryani Gultom, S. Pd, as the English teacher of SMA N 1 Kisaran who have given support in conducting the research as source of data in this thesis. Finally, he would like to thanks to his classmates and anyone who cannot be mentioned here for giving support in finishing this thesis.

The writer realizes that every work has the weaknesses; hence he hopes the good critics and suggestions for the perfection of this thesis. And hopefully his thesis is useful for the readers.

Medan, Juli 2013 The writer,

AHMAD SARDON

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……….. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS.……….……….. iii

LIST OF TABLES……….……….………..…... vii

LIST OF FIGURES……….……….………..…. ix

LIST OF APPENDICES….……….………..…. x

CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION ………...…1

1.1 The Background of the Study………. …1

1.2 The Problems of the study………... …6

1.3 The Objective of the Study………...…7

1.4 The Scope of the Study ………...…7

1.5 The Significance of the Study………. ....8

CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE……….……. .. 9

2.1 Theoretical Framework. ………... .. 9

2.1.1 The Students Achievement in Writing ……...……… 9

2.1.2 Assessment of writing Achievement ………... ..14

2.1.3 Writing ………...……….…... ..15

2.1.4 Exposition Text………....21

2.1.5 Teaching Methods…....…...……...……….…... ..24

2.1.5.1 Content Based-Instruction (CBI)………... …………... ..29

2.1.5.1.1 Theory of Learning on CBI………..……….32

2.1.5.1.2 Types of Learning and Teaching Activities…..………....33

2.1.5.1.3 Roles of Learners……….………..………...34

2.1.5.1.4 Roles of Teacher……….………...35

2.1.5.1.5 Roles of Materials in CBI………...……….………..35

2.1.5.2 Task Based-Language Teaching………..36

2.1.5.2.1 Theory of Learning on TBLT…..………..……....40

2.1.5.2.2 The Objective of TBLT………....……….41

2.1.5.2.4 Learners’ Role………...44

2.1.5.2.5 Teacher’s Roles……….45

2.1.5.2.6 The Roles of Instructional Materials.……… 48

2.2 Grammatical Ability ………...50

2.3 Conceptual Framework…………..………..53

2.3.1 The Differences of Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay That Taught By Using CBI method and TBLT method………..53

2.3.2 The Difference of Students’ Achievement in Reading Comprehension that has high grammatical ability and that has low grammatical ability...55

2.3.3 The Interaction between CBI Method and Grammatical Ability on Students’ Achievement on Writing Exposition Essay………..……...59

2.4 Relevant Studies………...64

CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……….………….. ..68

3.1 Research Design .………..………..68

3.2 Population and Sample ………..………69

3.2.1 Population ……….……….69

3.2.2 Sample …….……….………..69

3.3 Instruments of Data Collection…….………...…………...70

3.3.1 Students’ Grammatical Ability Test …...………70

3.3.2 Students’ Writing Achievement Test…….……...………... 71

3.4 Calibration………...72

3.4.1 Validity……… 72

3.4.1.1 Validity of GA Test……… 72

3.4.1.2 Validity of Writing Test………74

3.4.2 Reliability of the Test……… 72

3.5 The Procedure of Data Collection..……….... 76

3.5.1 Preparation……….. 76

3.6 Control of Treatment ……….………..………...78

3.6.1 Internal Validity………….………....………….78

3.6.2 External Validity……….…...……….80

3.7 Technique of Analyzing The Data……….……….…………81

3.8 Statistical Hypotheses………..………… 82

CHAPTER IV: DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS……….………. 83

4.1 Description of Data………..……….. 83

4.1.1 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay Taught by using CBI Method………..……….. 84

4.1.2 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay Taught by using TBLT Method……..………..……….. 85

4.1.3 Students’ Score Description Having High Grammatical Ability……….. 87

4.1.4 Students’ Score Description Having Low Grammatical Ability ……….. 89

4.1.5 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay Having High Grammatical Ability taught by Using CBI Method……….90

4.1.6 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay Having Low Grammatical Ability taught by Using CBI Method………..92

4.1.7 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay Having High Grammatical Ability taught by Using TBLT Method.………..94

4.1.8 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay Having Low Grammatical Ability taught by Using TBLT Method………..96

4.2 Requirement of Data Analysis……… 98

4.2.1 Normality Test……… 98

4.2.2 Homogeneity Test……….. 99

4.2.2.1 Groups of Teaching Method and Grammatical Ability ……… …101

4.2.2.2 Group of Interaction………102

4.3Testing of Hypotheses………. 102

4.3.1Writing Exposition Essay Achievement of Students taught by CBI And TBLT Method……….... 103

4.3.2Writing Exposition Essay Achievement of Students having high

Grammatical Ability and Low Grammatical Ability ……….... 104

4.3.3The Interaction Between Teaching Methods and Grammatical Ability On Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay …………...… 104

4.4 Discussion……… 108

4.4.1 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay Taught by using CBI Method is higher than taught by using TBLT Method………. 108

4.4.2 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay Having High Grammatical Ability is higher than Having Low Grammatical Ability ...111

4.4.3The Interaction Between Teaching Strategies and Grammatical Ability On Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay …………....…. 112

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS………… 113

5.1 Conclusions……… 113

5.2 Implications……….. 114

5.3 Suggestions……… 115

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 1 Preliminary data of Achievement in Writing Exposition Essay

Of SMA Negeri 1 Kisaran………. 3

Table 2 Comparison between CBI and TBLT……… 49

Table 3 The Application of CBI and TBLT………..……….. 58

Table 4 Specification of Students’ Grammatical Ability………. 71

Table 5 Specification of Students’ Writing Indicator………...……… 71

Table 6 Grammatical Text Item………...……… 73

Table 7 The Procedure of the Treatment in two groups………...……… 76

Table 8 The Summary of Data Description………...……… 83

Table 9 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Taught by using CBI Method….………...……… 84

Table 10 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Taught by using TBLT Method………...……… 86

Table 11 Frequency Distribution of Scores of Students Having High GA……….. 87

Table 12 Frequency Distribution of Scores of Students Having Low GA……….. 89

Table 13 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Having High GA Taught by using CBI………...……… 91

Table 14 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Having Low GA Taught by using CBI………...……… 93

Table 15 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Having High GA Taught by using TBLT…...……….. 95

Table 16 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Having Low GA Taught by using TBLT…...……… 97

Table 17 Summary on the result of Normality Test………... 99

Table 18 Group of Teaching Method and GA………... 100

Table 19 Summary on the result of Homogeneity Test on group of interaction By using Tuckey-Test………... 101

Table 20 Two-Way ANOVA with 2x2 Factorial Design………... 102 Table 21 Summary on calculation result of Two-Way ANOVA………... 102 Table 22 Summary on the result on Tuckey-Test………... 106

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Taught by using CBI ……….… 85 Figure 2 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition Taught by using TBLT…………..87 Figure 3 Students Having High GA………. ……….…. 88 Figure 4 Students Having Low GA……… ……….…. 90 Figure 5 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition

Having High GA Taught by using CBI……… ……….…. 92 Figure 6 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition hension

Having Low GA Taught by using CBI………. ……….…. 94 Figure 7 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition

Having High GA Taught by using TBLT………...……….…. 95 Figure 8 Students’ Achievement in Writing Exposition

Having Low GA Taught by using TBLT……… ..……….….. 98 Figure 9 Interaction between Teaching Methods and GA...……….… 105

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

There are four major skills in communicating through verbal language often defined as listening, speaking, reading and writing. One who studies English and would like to converse well must master the four basic skills. Writing as one of the language skills seem to be a very difficult skill to be mastered. Experiences, events, histories, and ideas can be expressed through writing which is considered very difficult to many students. Sentences formations of ideas and vocabularies are important to be used correctly, so that the writers or the candidate writers can express the ideas freely and completely and the readers can perseive the message totally.

The difficulty of good writing is resulted from some aspects. The first is as (Peat, 2002: 9) stated that writing can be difficult if the writer’s learning experience is protractd process of trial and error. It is because the writer or the writing students just keep writing directly what exist in his mind without well prepared procedure from beginning to the end. And when the writer himself or some body else find some errors in the writing, he will of course cross it out and start another writing again and again.

The second difficulty of writing is caused by the general intervention, (Westwood, 2008: 47). For most readers, narrative text, with its settings, characters, actions, outcomes, and a conclusion is easier to read with

understanding than expository text. Most young children are familiar with narrative structure from having listened to stories read to them. However, researchers have discovered that some students with writing exposition difficulties seem to have a poor grasp of typical story structure and can’t use it to help them process, understand and remember information.

The next difficulty of writing resulting in the failure of the students in writing achievement has been empirically proved by some researchers. To mention some as (Suprinata, 2002) in the finding of his thesis clearly stated that many students of senior high school made errors in writing, especially in narrative and exposition paragraph. And similar conclusion was also taken by (Marta, 2003) stating that among 40 students, there were only 11 students (27.9%) that could get minimum standard of writing achievement, while the other 29 students (72.5%) failed to get the minimum standard. And the writer assumed that this failure is the result of trial and error way of writing done by the students without applying good procedure based on the nature or the principle of writing itself, and most of the students didn’t master adequate vocabularies to cover ideas to transfer into writing symbols.

Personal experience of the writer by analysing the English achievement of the students of grade XI in SMA Negeri 1 Kisaran shows that writing achievement mostly made up the failure of the students in English. Based on the evidence compiled from three academic years, it is found that student’s ability in writing is the lowest of the four language skills.

Table 1 Preliminary Data of Achievement in Writing Exposition essay of SMA Negeri 1 Kisaran

No Academic Year

Students’ score

Class XI

Lowest Score Highest score Average

1 2007/2008 55 75 60

2 2008/2009 58 75 67

3 2009/2010 60 80 70

(Source of data kumpulan nilai (DKN) SMA Negeri 1 Kisaran)

Seeing the evidence above it is concluded that there has been something wrong in the teaching of writing in high school especially in SMA Negeri 1 Kisaran. Consequently, the method of writing or the teaching of writing should not be as the activity of trial and error but must be based on good procedure and related to the principle or the nature of writing. Byrne (1980: 1) stated that writing refers to the skills in using graphic symbols (letter, word, phrase, and sentence), which have to be arranged to certain convention. It means that writing is to be done by appropriate rules related to the types of the writing itself.

Some factors influence students’ achievement in writing which are generally divided into social factors that covers attitude,interest, and motivation; and cognitive factors which consists of methods of teaching, material of learning, teacher competence, and facilities of learning process. And it is believed that teaching method is one factor that plays an important role which can affect the students’ achievement in writing.

There are many theories on how second or foreign language is learned and how to implement various methods in the classroom. These theories are intended to help teachers to improve teaching – learning process achievement. In addition to ensure that students respect one another in behavioral practices, teachers must

also find ways to engage the class with the lesson plan that they have planned. One of them is Content – Based Instruction (CBI) which has some models which focus on the content and language use based on the topic given and Task-Based Language Teaching which focus on grammar and linguistic competence. It is assumed that it is one of the best methods in teaching English as a Foreign Language(EFL) to overcome the classroom’s problems on writing. It is also believed that grammatical ability can positively affect students’ achievement in writing as to create self esteem in them.

Besides teaching methods, students’ achievement in writing is also influenced by many factors. One of them is gramatical ability. Grammar is extremely important for all lanuage skills including writing. Whatever is spoken or written, the main tool used to construct words or vocabulary is grammar. Mastering grammar will help us to use the correct version of the word for our intended purpose. (Sinclair: 2007: 6 ) The learners do this automatically, however, whether with grammar or not. If other people cannot understand what we are saying or think that we have not expressed ourselves clearly, then it may be because there is a grammatical error. People make judgments about others on the basis of the grammar they use; whether this is fair or right, it definitely happens and it is important that you know about it. The grammatical ability is the ability of all components of grammar of combining meaningful words up to complicated sentences and texts and to combine meaningful words until sentences, the high grammar ability one has.

On the other hand, Some linguists as (Barton, 2010: 1) states that knowing grammar is important for teachers and pupils but it is not an end in itself. He explains that he had gone for only bits of grammar in his teaching that he thought that would make a difference to pupils’ reading and writing skills. It was explicitly added that grammar shouldn’t dominate teaching rather than trying to have students be involved in active talking about literature, listening to peoples, reading great texts, watching worthwhile films, exploring language, having fun with it. Grammar can actually enhance all of those but it can’t replace them.

Thus it is badly needed to do some research about the appropriate difficulty of students in writing and to see the adequate effect of grammar ability on writing achievement. Based on the underlying facts and concept of explanation, this research is intended to discover the effect of teaching methods and students’ grammatical ability on students’ achievement in writing exposition essay. It means that the effect of applying the two teaching methods and students’ grammar ability in teaching writing will be proven whether they are effective towards the students’ writing achievement in exposition essay.

1.2 Problems of the study

Based on the background of the research, the problems of this research are formulated as follows:

1. Is the students’ achievement in writing exposition essay taught by using Content – Based Instruction (CBI) method significantly higher than taught by using Task – Based Language Teaching (TBLT) method?

2. Is the students’ achievement in writing exposition essay for those students with high grammatical ability significantly higher than those students with low grammatical ability?

3. Is there any interaction between Teaching methods and students’ grammatical ability to students’ achievement in writing exposition essay?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

In line with the problems of the study, the objectives of the research are discovering:

1. to find out whether the students’ achievement in writing exposition essay taught by using Content – Based Instruction (CBI) method significantly higher than taught by using Task – Based Language Teaching (TBLT) method. 2. to find out whether the the students’ achievement in writing exposition essay

for those students with high grammatical ability significantly higher than those students with low grammatical ability.

3. to find out whether there is a significant interaction between teaching methods and the students’ grammatical ability to students’ achievement in writing exposition essay.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This research focuses on the application of the Content – Based Instruction (CBI) and Task – Based Language Teaching (TBLT) as the teaching method in the classroom to help students improve teaching instruction and to help students increase their writing achievement. Among many factors which influence students’ achievemnet in writing, students’ grammatical ability is one factor

which is to be researched by the writer. The writing text chosen to be taught and tested is exposition text since it is one of the most widely used genre text in writing of Senior High School Standard Competency on Educational Unit Oriented Curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan / KTSP SMA, 2004 and revised in 2008). Exposition text (both in reading and writing) appears in all grades: ten to twelve and it was not one of the text type taught in junior high school. So the teaching and the assessment of exposition for senior high school is not influenced by the students’ knowledge taken from junior high school.

1.5 Significances of the Study

The findings of the study are expected to be useful theoretically and practically.

Theoretically: 1) to enrich the science specifically related to English teaching methods in Senior High School, 2) to be the input for the teachers and educational institutions in considering the dynamic students’ needs in students’ achievement in writing, 3) to give a lot of positive contribution to the improvement of teachers professionalism and the educational institutions and other researchers who want to discover an in-depth research as the follow-up of the result of applying the teaching methods.

Practically: 1) to assist the English teachers in their attempts to improve students’ achievement in writing, 2) these can also help teachers to teach writing because by using CBI and TBLT, it will be easy to motivate the students in solving their problems in writing tasks, 3) For the English teachers as one alternative methods when teaching exposition writing

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Based on data analysis, hypotheses testing, and discussion, it can be concluded that :

1) Both CBI and TBLT effect students’ achievement in writing exposition

essay. While, writing exposition essay achievement of students taught by using CBI strategy is significantly higher than those students taught by using TBLT.

2) Grammatical Ability effect students’ achievement in writing exposition

essay. While, writing exposition essay achievement of students having high grammatical ability is significantly higher than those students having low grammatical ability.

3) There is significant interaction between teaching methods and grammatical ability on students’ achievement in writing exposition essay. Students having high grammatical ability showed significant effect in their writing exposition essay achievement if they were taught by using CBI method while students having low grammatical ability showed significant effect in their writing exposition essay if they were taught by using TBLT method.

5.2 Implications

The findings of this study gives implication to the students who want to improve their writing exposition essay achievement and to the teachers who want to develop writing exposition essay skill of their students when learning and teaching process takes part in the classroom. This study has examined two writing teaching methods, namely CBI and TBLT. They are applied to students with high and low grammatical ability in order to know which teaching method is more suitable for them in improving their writing exposition essay achievement.

The research findings that have been discussed in the previous chapter can be used as the consideration for the teacher to choose an appropriate method to be applied in a certain class. Teacher should realize that every class has different condition and they should be aware of individual differences because the students as the member of the class come from different background of personality and ability. So the teacher should be able to choose different method that can encourage most students to get involved in the language learning teaching process.

There are various kinds of teaching methods that have been tried, researched, applied by linguists and language teacher in the process of learning and teaching foreign languages. Two of them are Content Based Instruction (CBI) and Task based Language Teaching (TBLT). By previous research and by the result of the research accomplished by the writer of this thesis, both of them are good methods to be applied in teaching writing for high school students by different characteristics and different result.

The result of this research showed that Content Based Instruction (CBI) is better than Task Based Language teaching (TBLT) in teaching writing to high school students. Besides the proof about teaching methods, grammatical ability of students also play important role to help them succeed in writing exposition essay. But even if the grammatical ability of the students is not good enough, Task Based language Teaching (TBLT) can still be applied since it is not only focused on the grammatical ability to construct ideas into sentences and text but the content of the topic that is going to be written also plays good role in writing.

5.3 Suggestions

In relation to the conclusions presented in previous chapter, it is suggested that:

1. It is suggested for the English teacher high school students to apply Content – Based Instruction (CBI) method and Task Based Language Teaching in teaching writing because it is significantly effective.

2. It is suggested for the English teacher, especially in teaching writing to consider students’ grammatical ability because it significantly and directly affects students’ achievement in writing.

3. If there must be combination of more than one method related to the students’ different grammatical ability, the combination of Content – Based Instruction (CBI) and Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is suggested and if the students are lack of grammatical ability, Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is suggested.

REFERENCES

Acar, Ahmet. 2006. Models, norms and goals for English as an international language pedagogy and task based language teaching and learning. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly September 2008, Volume 8, Issue 3 Anthony, T.P. (1985). Writing in EAP: Climate and process. ESP Newsletter, 95, 1-6. Arends, Richards. (1997). Learning to Teach. New York: Mc Grow Hill.

Ary, Donald, et al, (1979). Intruduction to Research in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ary, Jacobs and Sorensen. 2010. Introduction to Research Education (Eight Edition). USA: Wadsworth.

Barton, Geof. (2010). Grammar Survival. New York: Routledg

Brinton, D. (2003). Content-based instruction., Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.

Bruton, A. 2005. Task Based _{Language Learning: For the state secondary FL} classroom? Language Learning Journal, No 31, 55-68

Broady, Elspeth Winter. 2006. Learning and Interaction: Developing Through Talk. Language Learning Journal, No 34 0-00

Brown, H. Douglas (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Fourth edition, New York : Addison Wesely Longman. Inc.

_______________ (2001). Teaching by Principles. London: Longman Inc. Byrne, D. 1984. Teaching Writing Skill. London: Longman.

Crandall, J. 1999. Content-based instruction (CBI). Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics. Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press. Davies, S. 2003. Content based instruction in EFL contexts. The Internet TESL 31

Journal, 9(2), Retrieved September 20, 2012, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/ Davies-CBI.html

Duin, A.H., & Graves, M.F. (1987). Intensive vocabulary instruction as a prewriting technique. Reading Research Quarterly, 22 (3), 311-330.

Elbow, Peter. (1998). Writing with Power. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gerhard, J.G. (2000). Teaching English as A Foreign or Second Language. Ann Abrorr: The University of Michigan Press.

Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. 1997. Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. A.

Green Baum, Sidney & Nelson, Gerard. (2002). An Introduction to English Grammar. London: Longman.

Haliday, M.A.K. (2004). An Introduction to functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Harmer, Jeremy. (1998). How to Teach English. London: Longman.

_____________ (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Heaton, J.B. (1988). Writing English Language Tests. London: Longman.

Hillocks, G. (1987). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. Educational Leadership Hyland, Ken. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writing. London: The University of

Michigan Press.

Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jong. I.J. 2006. EFL teachers’ perceptions of Task Based Language Teaching: with a focus on Korean secondary classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly September 2008, Volume 8, Issue 3

Kasper,L.F. (2000). Content – Based College ESL Instruction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (2nd ed.). NY: Oxford University Press.

Linse, Caroline T. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Lonon – Blanton, L. (1992). A holistic approach to college ESL: Integrating language and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Newell, G.E. (1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 265-287.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

Nunan, David. 2006. Task Based Language Teaching in the Asia Context:

Defining “ Task”. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly September 2008,

Volume 8, Issue 3

Oxford, R.L 2006. Task Based Language Teaching and Learning: an overview. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly September 2008, Volume 8, Issue 3

O’ Malley, J.M. & Pierce, L.V.1996. Authentic Assessment for English Language

Learners. Massachussets: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Patel, M.F. (2008: 71) English Language Teaching (Methods, Tools, and Techniques). Jaipur: Sun Rise Publisher and Distributor.

Peat, Jennifer, (2002). Scientific Writing, Easy When You Know How. London: BMJ Publishing Group.

Purpura, James. (2004). Assessing Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press Raphan, D. & Moser, J. 1993/94. Linking language and content: ESL and art

history. TESOL Journal, 3, 17-21

Richards, Jack, and Roger, Theodore S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. 2001. Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rohim, F. (2007).Writing and Teaching Writing, Training Materials for SMA English Teacher, Jakarta: Dirjen P4TK, Depdiknas.

Setyaningrum, Rizky. 2011. Task Based Language Teaching to teaching writing for 7th grade students. An action research at SMPN 17 Surakarta.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Schuster, C.I. (1984). Situational sequencing. The Writing Instructor, 3, 177-184. Sinclair, Christine (2007). Grammar: A Friendly Approach. New York: Mc Grow Hill. Sholihah, Umi. 2011. Improving students’ writing ability using Task Based

Language Teaching. A classroom action research at the students of class X TKJ 1 SMKN 2 Sragen in 2010/2011 Academic Year. A Thesis.

Snow, M., & Brinton, D. 1988. Content based language instruction: Investigating the effectiveness of the adjunct model. TESOL Quarterly, 22(4), 553- 574.

Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283.

Stryker, Stephen B. (1997). Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education : Models and Methods. Washington DC: George Town University Press.

Thornburry, Scott. (2002). How to Teach Vocabulary. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Weigle, Sara C.(2002) Assessing Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Westwood, Peter. (2008). What Teachers Need to Know about Reading and Writing

5.2 Implications

The findings of this study gives implication to the students who want to improve their writing exposition essay achievement and to the teachers who want to develop writing exposition essay skill of their students when learning and teaching process takes part in the classroom. This study has examined two writing teaching methods, namely CBI and TBLT. They are applied to students with high and low grammatical ability in order to know which teaching method is more suitable for them in improving their writing exposition essay achievement.

The research findings that have been discussed in the previous chapter can be used as the consideration for the teacher to choose an appropriate method to be applied in a certain class. Teacher should realize that every class has different condition and they should be aware of individual differences because the students as the member of the class come from different background of personality and ability. So the teacher should be able to choose different method that can encourage most students to get involved in the language learning teaching process.

There are various kinds of teaching methods that have been tried, researched, applied by linguists and language teacher in the process of learning and teaching foreign languages. Two of them are Content Based Instruction (CBI) and Task based Language Teaching (TBLT). By previous research and by the result of the research accomplished by the writer of this thesis, both of them are good methods to be applied in teaching writing for high school students by different characteristics and different result.

school students. Besides the proof about teaching methods, grammatical ability of students also play important role to help them succeed in writing exposition essay. But even if the grammatical ability of the students is not good enough, Task Based language Teaching (TBLT) can still be applied since it is not only focused on the grammatical ability to construct ideas into sentences and text but the content of the topic that is going to be written also plays good role in writing.

5.3 Suggestions

In relation to the conclusions presented in previous chapter, it is suggested that:

1. It is suggested for the English teacher high school students to apply Content – Based Instruction (CBI) method and Task Based Language Teaching in teaching writing because it is significantly effective.

2. It is suggested for the English teacher, especially in teaching writing to consider students’ grammatical ability because it significantly and directly affects students’ achievement in writing.

3. If there must be combination of more than one method related to the students’ different grammatical ability, the combination of Content – Based Instruction (CBI) and Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is suggested and if the students are lack of grammatical ability, Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is suggested.

REFERENCES

Acar, Ahmet. 2006. Models, norms and goals for English as an international language pedagogy and task based language teaching and learning. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly September 2008, Volume 8, Issue 3 Anthony, T.P. (1985). Writing in EAP: Climate and process. ESP Newsletter, 95, 1-6. Arends, Richards. (1997). Learning to Teach. New York: Mc Grow Hill.

Ary, Donald, et al, (1979). Intruduction to Research in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ary, Jacobs and Sorensen. 2010. Introduction to Research Education (Eight Edition). USA: Wadsworth.

Barton, Geof. (2010). Grammar Survival. New York: Routledg

Brinton, D. (2003). Content-based instruction., Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.

Bruton, A. 2005. Task Based _{Language Learning: For the state secondary FL}

classroom? Language Learning Journal, No 31, 55-68

Broady, Elspeth Winter. 2006. Learning and Interaction: Developing Through Talk. Language Learning Journal, No 34 0-00

Brown, H. Douglas (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Fourth edition, New York : Addison Wesely Longman. Inc.

_______________ (2001). Teaching by Principles. London: Longman Inc. Byrne, D. 1984. Teaching Writing Skill. London: Longman.

Crandall, J. 1999. Content-based instruction (CBI). Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics. Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press. Davies, S. 2003. Content based instruction in EFL contexts. The Internet TESL 31

Journal, 9(2), Retrieved September 20, 2012, from

http://iteslj.org/Articles/ Davies-CBI.html

Duin, A.H., & Graves, M.F. (1987). Intensive vocabulary instruction as a prewriting technique. Reading Research Quarterly, 22 (3), 311-330.

Elbow, Peter. (1998). Writing with Power. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gerhard, J.G. (2000). Teaching English as A Foreign or Second Language. Ann Abrorr: The University of Michigan Press.

Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. 1997. Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. A.

Green Baum, Sidney & Nelson, Gerard. (2002). An Introduction to English Grammar. London: Longman.

Haliday, M.A.K. (2004). An Introduction to functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Harmer, Jeremy. (1998). How to Teach English. London: Longman.

_____________ (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Heaton, J.B. (1988). Writing English Language Tests. London: Longman.

Hillocks, G. (1987). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. Educational Leadership Hyland, Ken. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writing. London: The University of

Michigan Press.

Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jong. I.J. 2006. EFL teachers’ perceptions of Task Based Language Teaching: with a focus on Korean secondary classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly September 2008, Volume 8, Issue 3

Kasper,L.F. (2000). Content – Based College ESL Instruction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (2nd ed.). NY: Oxford University Press.

Linse, Caroline T. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Lonon – Blanton, L. (1992). A holistic approach to college ESL: Integrating language and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Newell, G.E. (1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 265-287.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

Nunan, David. 2006. Task Based Language Teaching in the Asia Context:

Defining “ Task”. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly September 2008,

Volume 8, Issue 3

Oxford, R.L 2006. Task Based Language Teaching and Learning: an overview. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly September 2008, Volume 8, Issue 3

O’ Malley, J.M. & Pierce, L.V.1996. Authentic Assessment for English Language

Learners. Massachussets: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Patel, M.F. (2008: 71) English Language Teaching (Methods, Tools, and Techniques). Jaipur: Sun Rise Publisher and Distributor.

Peat, Jennifer, (2002). Scientific Writing, Easy When You Know How. London: BMJ Publishing Group.

Purpura, James. (2004). Assessing Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press Raphan, D. & Moser, J. 1993/94. Linking language and content: ESL and art

history. TESOL Journal, 3, 17-21

Richards, Jack, and Roger, Theodore S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. 2001. Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rohim, F. (2007).Writing and Teaching Writing, Training Materials for SMA English Teacher, Jakarta: Dirjen P4TK, Depdiknas.

Setyaningrum, Rizky. 2011. Task Based Language Teaching to teaching writing for 7th grade students. An action research at SMPN 17 Surakarta.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Schuster, C.I. (1984). Situational sequencing. The Writing Instructor, 3, 177-184. Sinclair, Christine (2007). Grammar: A Friendly Approach. New York: Mc Grow Hill. Sholihah, Umi. 2011. Improving students’ writing ability using Task Based

Language Teaching. A classroom action research at the students of class X TKJ 1 SMKN 2 Sragen in 2010/2011 Academic Year. A Thesis.

Snow, M., & Brinton, D. 1988. Content based language instruction: Investigating the effectiveness of the adjunct model. TESOL Quarterly, 22(4), 553- 574.

Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283.

Stryker, Stephen B. (1997). Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education : Models and Methods. Washington DC: George Town University Press.

Thornburry, Scott. (2002). How to Teach Vocabulary. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Weigle, Sara C.(2002) Assessing Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Westwood, Peter. (2008). What Teachers Need to Know about Reading and Writing