The effectiveness of process approach in teaching writing viewed from students’ learning interest TABLE OF CONTENT
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROCESS APPROACH IN TEACHING
WRITING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ LEARNING INTEREST
(An Experimental Study at SMK N 2 Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year)
By :
KASI N G
S 890908210
A THESIS
Written as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
Getting Post Graduate Degree in English Education
GRADUATE SCHOOL
SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY
SURAKARTA
2009
i
APPROVAL
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROCESS APPROACH IN TEACHING
WRITING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ LEARNING INTEREST
(An Experimental Study at SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor
in the 2009/2010 Academic Year)
A Thesis
By
KASING
NIM: S890908210
Approved by Consultants
Position
Consultan I
Consultant II
Name
Signature
Date
Prof. Dr. Sri Samiati Tarjana
NIP. 19440602 196511 2 001
______________
_____________
Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, M.A.
NIP. 130 516 332
______________
_____________
The Head of English Education
Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University,
Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd
NIP.19621231 198803 1 009
ii
LEGITIMATION
This thesis entitled “The Effectiveness of Process in Teaching Writing
Viewed from Students’ Learning Interest, An Experimental Study at SMKN 2
Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year”, has been examined by the board of
the thesis examiners on August 10th, 2010.
The Board of Thesis Examiners:
1. Chairman
: Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd.
………………….
NIP. 19621231 198803 1 009
2. Secretary
: Dr. Abdul Asib, M.Pd.
…………………
NIP. 195220307 198003 1 005
3. Member 1
: Prof. Dr. Samiati Tarjana
…………………
NIP. 19440602 196511 2 001
4. Member 2
: Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, MA. ………………….
N IP. 130 516 332
The Director of Graduate Program,
The Head of English Education
Graduate Program,
Prof. Drs. Suranto, M.Sc. Ph.D.
NIP. 19570820 198503 1 004
Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd.
NIP. 19621231 198803 1 009
iii
PRONOUNCEMENT
This is to certify that I write this thesis by myself, entitled “The Effectiveness
of Process Approach in Teaching Writing Viewed from Students’ Learning Interest,
An Experimental Study at SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year”.
It is not plagiarism. In this thesis, the others’ work and opinion have been written is
listed on the bibliography.
I will accept the academic punishment, if this pronouncement is proven
wrong.
Surakarta, 19 July 2010
KASING
NIM. S890908210
iv
ABSTRACT
Kasing, S890908210, Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University, July 2010. The
Effectiveness of Process Approach Compared to Product Approach in Teaching
Writing Viewed From Students’ Learning Interest (An Experimental Study at SMKN 2
Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year).
This research is aimed at finding out: (1) whether there is any difference in
English writing skill achievement between students who are taught by process
approach and those who are taught by product approach; (2) whether there is any
difference in English writing skill achievement between students who have high
learning interest and those who have low learning interest; and (3) whether or not
there is an interaction between teaching methods and students’ learning interest on
the students’ writing skill.
This experimental research is carried out at SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor in the
2009/2010 academic year from February to April 2010. The population is the
second graders of SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor which consists of six classes: two classes
of computer technology and network (XI TKJ), two classes of multimedia (XI MM),
and two classes of business and management (XI PJ). Each class consists of 40 to 45
students. The total number of population is 258 students. The samples, which are
selected by using cluster random sampling, are class XI PJ 1 as the experimental
group and class XI PJ 2 as the control group. The instruments are tried-out to other
students out of the samples having the same level as the samples. The questionnaire is
scored by using continuum score method and writing test is scored by using
readability formula. The scores are analyzed to know whether the instruments are
valid and reliable. The experimental group is taught writing using process approach,
while the control group is taught writing using product approach. The data are
collected by using writing post-test to get the data of students’ writing achievement
and questionnaire to measure the students’ learning interest. The data are classified
into six groups, they are: (1) the students who are taught by using process approach
(A); (2) the students who are taught by using product approach (B); (3) the students
having high learning interest who are taught using process approach (A 1 B 1 ); (4) the
students having low learning interest who are taught using process approach (A 1 B 2 );
(5) the students having high learning interest who are taught using product approach
(A 2 B 1 ); and (6) the students having low learning interest who are taught using
product approach (A 2 B 2 ). In analyzing the data, the writer used multifactor analysis
of variance (ANOVA). It, then, followed by prerequisite testing of normality testing
v
and homogeneity testing. At last, it needed to be followed by Tukey testing to know
the different mean of each group.
1)
From the results of the study, it can be concluded that: (1) the group of
students who are taught by using process approach have a difference English
writing skill achievement than those who are taught by using product approach. .
The main score of students who are taught by process approach (66.33) is higher
than those who are taught by product approach (59.58), so process approach
differs significantly from product approach; (2) the students having high learning
interest have a difference writing skill achievement than those having low
learning interest. The main score of students having high learning interest (66.75)
is higher than those who have low learning interest (62.15), so the students who
have high learning interest have a better writing skill achievement than the
students who have low learning interest.; and (3) Because F o interaction (4.659),
is greater than F t(.05) (3.96), the difference between rows and columns (cell) is
significant, so there is an interaction between teaching methods and students’
learning interest on the students’ writing ability.
Based on the result findings, the conclusion of this study is that process
approach is an effective method for teaching writing especially for students with
high learning interest. Therefore, it is recommended that: (1) teachers apply
process approach in teaching writing; (2) to promote students’ learning interest, it
is important to give students chance to develop their own ideas and share the
ideas with peer students; and (3) future researchers may conduct the same kind of
research with different sample and condition.
vi
MOTTO
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us
with our fellow-men; along those fibers, as sympathetic threads,
our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects."
vii
DEDICATION
To my beloved wife and children
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praise and honor be to Jesus Christ, the merciful Lord, the writer can
finish his thesis as one of the requirements for achieving the graduate degree of
English Education Department. The writer is aware that it would be impossible for
him to complete the thesis without help and encouragement from other people.
Therefore, he would like to express his special gratitude to:
1.
The Director of Graduate Program, Sebelas Maret University for giving the
writer permission to write this thesis.
2.
Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd, the Head of English Education of Graduate School, for
giving permission to write this thesis.
3.
Prof. Dr. Sri Samiati Tarjana and Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, MA., the writer’s
consultants, for the guidance, support, patience, and time in finishing this thesis.
4.
The Head of Bulungan Regency, East Kalimantan, for the grant of the writer’s
scholarship.
5.
Suriansyah, SST., the Headmaster of SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor who has allowed
the writer to carry out this experimental research.
6.
The students of class XI Penjualan, semester February – July 2010, for the
willingness to be experimental students.
7.
The writer’s parents, Ingan Lajing (R.I.P) and Uray Julung (R.I.P), for their
endless love.
8.
Sahabuddin and Igit Bilung, the writer’s parents in law, for their motivation and
pray.
9.
Marianti Karolus Hayon, Carold Firstionel, Michelle Ananta Christy, the writer’s
dearest wife and children, for their support, and motivation in doing the research.
10. All of my fondest brothers and sisters, especially Sadirin, Dorti Sirai Loly, F.M.
Aritonang, L.Laung, Robertus Jating Hayon and Yuli Karolus Hayon for their
support and love.
ix
11. All the writer’s friends, particularly Dina Destari and Erna Adita Kusumawati,
who have continuously supported the writer in completing his thesis.
Nothing in the world is perfect, and this thesis is not an exception. The writer
realizes that there are drawbacks in this thesis in spite of all efforts.
He, however,
hopes that this thesis will be of any use for anyone, particularly those who are
interest in this topic.
Surakarta, July, 2010
KI
x
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
TITLE…………………………………………………………………………….
i
APPROVAL……………………………………………………………………...
ii
LEGITIMATION ….............................................................................................
iii
PRONOUNCEMENT …………………………………………………………...
iv
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………...
v
MOTTO ………………………………………………………………………….
ix
DEDICATION …………………………………………………………………..
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………………
x
TABLE OF CONTENT…………………………………………………….........
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES ………………………………………………………..
xiv
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................
xvii
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
1
A. Background of the Study ………………………………...
1
B. Identification of the Problem …………………………….
6
C. Limitation of the Problems ………………………………
6
D. Statement of the Problems ...…………………………….
7
E.
Objectives of the Study ... ……………………………….
7
F.
Benefits of the Study …………………………………….
8
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
9
A. Theoretical Description ………………………………….
9
1. The Nature of Writing ...……………………………..
9
a. The Definition of Writing ………………………..
9
b. Writing Skill ……………………………………..
11
c. The Types of Writing ……………………………
16
xi
d. The Characteristics of Writing …………………..
20
2. The Teaching of Writing …………………………….
24
a. A Review of the Approaches to Teaching Writing
24
b. Process Approach ………………………………..
24
c. Product Approach ………………………………..
29
d. The Differences between Process Approach and
CHAPTER III
Product Approach ………………………………..
32
B. Learning Interest …………………………………………
34
1. Definition …………………………………………….
34
a. Learning ………………………………………….
34
b. Interest …………………………………………...
35
C. Some other Previous Study …..………………………….
39
D. Rationale …………………………………………………
39
E. Hypothesis ……………………………………………….
41
RESEARCH METHOD
43
A. The Time and Place of the Study ………………………..
43
B. The Method of the Study ………………………………...
44
C. The Subject of the Study ………………………………...
47
1. Population ……………………………………………
47
2. Sample ……………………………………………….
47
3. Sampling ……………………………………………..
48
D. The Technique of Collecting the Data …………………...
50
1. Writing Test ………………………………………….
50
2. Questionnaire ………………………………………...
51
3. Trying-Out the Instrument …………………………...
53
4. Documentation ……………………………………….
55
E. The Technique of Analyzing the Data …………………...
56
xii
THE RESULT OF THE STUDY
64
A. Data Description …………………………………………
64
1. Experimental Group …………………………………..
65
2. Control Group ………………………………………...
69
B. Prerequisite Testing ……………………………………...
74
1. Normality Testing …………………………………….
74
2. Homogeneity Testing …………………………………
77
C. Hypothesis Testing ………………………………………
78
D. Discussion ……………………………………………….
81
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION
85
A. Conclusion ……………………………………………….
85
B. Implication ………………………………………………
86
C. Suggestion ……………………………………………….
86
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………..
88
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………...
92
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER V
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1 : Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran ………………………..
93
Appendix 2 : The Blue Print of Learning Interest Questionnaire (Try-out)
108
Appendix 3 : Learning Interest Questionnaire (Try-out) ……………........
109
Appendix 4 : The Blue Print of Writing Skill Test (Try-out) …………….
114
Appendix 5 : Writing Skill Test (Try-out) ………………………………..
115
Appendix 6 : Validity and Reliability of Learning Interest Questionnaire
(Try-out) ……….………………………...............................
119
Appendix 7 : The Readability of Writing Test (Try-out) ……………….... 129
Appendix 8 : The Blueprint of Learning Interest Questionnaire
(Post-test) …………………………………………………... 130
Appendix 9 : Learning Interest Questionnaire (Post-test) …………….….. 131
Appendix 10 : The Blueprint of Writing Skill Test (Post-test) ……….……
135
Appendix 11 : Writing Skill Test (Post-test) ……………………................. 137
Appendix 12 : Analytic Scoring Rubric for Writing Test …………………. 140
Appendix 13 : The Scores of Learning Interest Questionnaire (Post-test)
142
Appendix 14 : The Distribution for Experimental Group ……………….…
144
Appendix 15 : The Distribution for Control Group …………………….….
150
Appendix 16 : Normality Testing for Experimental Group ….…...………..
156
Appendix 17 : Normality Testing for Control Group …………….………..
160
Appendix 18 : Normality Testing for Learning Interest …………………...
164
Appendix 19 : Homogeneity Testing ………………………………….…...
168
Appendix 20 : The Scores of Distribution …………………………….…...
170
Appendix 21 : The Computation of Multifactor Analysis of Variance ……. 171
xiv
Appendix 22 : The Tukey’s Formula ……………………………….……...
173
Appendix 23 : Table of r Product Moment Critic Value ………..………… 175
Appendix 24 : Table of Chi-Square ………………………………….…….
177
Appendix 25 : Table of Lilliefors Testing ……………………………….… 178
Appendix 26 : Table of Distribution F-Score ……………………………...
179
Appendix 27 : Table of Tukey Test ……………………………….……….
183
Appendix 28 : Table of Normality Curve ………………………………….
184
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1
:
The Comparison between Process Approach and Product
Approach ……………………….……………………………..
33
Table 2
:
Time Schedule of the Research ………………………………
43
Table 3
:
The Factorial Design of the Variables Being Studied ………..
46
Table 4
:
The Assessment of the Ease of Readability …………………..
55
Table 5
:
Groups of Data ………………………………………………..
56
Table 6
:
The Design of Multifactor Analysis of Variance ……………..
57
Table 7
:
The Data of Respondents Based on Their Sex Groups ……….
64
Table 8
:
The Frequency Distribution of the Test Scores of the
Experimental Group ………………………………….……….
Table 9
:
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
Experimental Group having High Learning Interest ………....
Table 10
:
:
Table 13
:
:
68
The Frequency of Distribution of the Test Scores of the
Control Group …………………………….…………………..
Table 12
67
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
Experimental Group having High Learning Interest ………....
Table 11
65
70
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
Control Group having High Learning Interest …………...…...
71
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
73
Control Group having Low Learning Interest …………..……
76
Table 14
:
The Summary of Normality Testing ………………………….
76
Table 15
:
The Homogeneity Testing ……………………………………
77
xvi
Table 16
:
The Summary of a 2 x 2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance …..
78
Table 17
:
The Tukey Test………………………………………………
79
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1
: Procedures Involved in Producing a Written Text ……………….
28
Figure 2
: The Relationship between Motivation and Interest ………………
38
Figure 3
: The Histogram and Polygon of The Frequency Distribution of the
Test Scores of the Experimental Group ……………………….…
Figure 4
66
: The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Experimental Group having High
Learning Interest ………………………………………...………..
Figure 5
67
: The Histogram and Polygon of The Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Experimental Group having Low Learning
Interest …………………………………………...……..
Figure 6
: The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Test Scores of the Control Group ……………………………..….
Figure 7
69
70
: The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Control Group having High Learning
Interest ………………………………………..…………………..
Figure 8
72
: The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Control Group having Low Learning
Interest ……………………………………………………..……..
xviii
73
WRITING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ LEARNING INTEREST
(An Experimental Study at SMK N 2 Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year)
By :
KASI N G
S 890908210
A THESIS
Written as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
Getting Post Graduate Degree in English Education
GRADUATE SCHOOL
SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY
SURAKARTA
2009
i
APPROVAL
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROCESS APPROACH IN TEACHING
WRITING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ LEARNING INTEREST
(An Experimental Study at SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor
in the 2009/2010 Academic Year)
A Thesis
By
KASING
NIM: S890908210
Approved by Consultants
Position
Consultan I
Consultant II
Name
Signature
Date
Prof. Dr. Sri Samiati Tarjana
NIP. 19440602 196511 2 001
______________
_____________
Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, M.A.
NIP. 130 516 332
______________
_____________
The Head of English Education
Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University,
Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd
NIP.19621231 198803 1 009
ii
LEGITIMATION
This thesis entitled “The Effectiveness of Process in Teaching Writing
Viewed from Students’ Learning Interest, An Experimental Study at SMKN 2
Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year”, has been examined by the board of
the thesis examiners on August 10th, 2010.
The Board of Thesis Examiners:
1. Chairman
: Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd.
………………….
NIP. 19621231 198803 1 009
2. Secretary
: Dr. Abdul Asib, M.Pd.
…………………
NIP. 195220307 198003 1 005
3. Member 1
: Prof. Dr. Samiati Tarjana
…………………
NIP. 19440602 196511 2 001
4. Member 2
: Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, MA. ………………….
N IP. 130 516 332
The Director of Graduate Program,
The Head of English Education
Graduate Program,
Prof. Drs. Suranto, M.Sc. Ph.D.
NIP. 19570820 198503 1 004
Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd.
NIP. 19621231 198803 1 009
iii
PRONOUNCEMENT
This is to certify that I write this thesis by myself, entitled “The Effectiveness
of Process Approach in Teaching Writing Viewed from Students’ Learning Interest,
An Experimental Study at SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year”.
It is not plagiarism. In this thesis, the others’ work and opinion have been written is
listed on the bibliography.
I will accept the academic punishment, if this pronouncement is proven
wrong.
Surakarta, 19 July 2010
KASING
NIM. S890908210
iv
ABSTRACT
Kasing, S890908210, Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University, July 2010. The
Effectiveness of Process Approach Compared to Product Approach in Teaching
Writing Viewed From Students’ Learning Interest (An Experimental Study at SMKN 2
Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year).
This research is aimed at finding out: (1) whether there is any difference in
English writing skill achievement between students who are taught by process
approach and those who are taught by product approach; (2) whether there is any
difference in English writing skill achievement between students who have high
learning interest and those who have low learning interest; and (3) whether or not
there is an interaction between teaching methods and students’ learning interest on
the students’ writing skill.
This experimental research is carried out at SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor in the
2009/2010 academic year from February to April 2010. The population is the
second graders of SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor which consists of six classes: two classes
of computer technology and network (XI TKJ), two classes of multimedia (XI MM),
and two classes of business and management (XI PJ). Each class consists of 40 to 45
students. The total number of population is 258 students. The samples, which are
selected by using cluster random sampling, are class XI PJ 1 as the experimental
group and class XI PJ 2 as the control group. The instruments are tried-out to other
students out of the samples having the same level as the samples. The questionnaire is
scored by using continuum score method and writing test is scored by using
readability formula. The scores are analyzed to know whether the instruments are
valid and reliable. The experimental group is taught writing using process approach,
while the control group is taught writing using product approach. The data are
collected by using writing post-test to get the data of students’ writing achievement
and questionnaire to measure the students’ learning interest. The data are classified
into six groups, they are: (1) the students who are taught by using process approach
(A); (2) the students who are taught by using product approach (B); (3) the students
having high learning interest who are taught using process approach (A 1 B 1 ); (4) the
students having low learning interest who are taught using process approach (A 1 B 2 );
(5) the students having high learning interest who are taught using product approach
(A 2 B 1 ); and (6) the students having low learning interest who are taught using
product approach (A 2 B 2 ). In analyzing the data, the writer used multifactor analysis
of variance (ANOVA). It, then, followed by prerequisite testing of normality testing
v
and homogeneity testing. At last, it needed to be followed by Tukey testing to know
the different mean of each group.
1)
From the results of the study, it can be concluded that: (1) the group of
students who are taught by using process approach have a difference English
writing skill achievement than those who are taught by using product approach. .
The main score of students who are taught by process approach (66.33) is higher
than those who are taught by product approach (59.58), so process approach
differs significantly from product approach; (2) the students having high learning
interest have a difference writing skill achievement than those having low
learning interest. The main score of students having high learning interest (66.75)
is higher than those who have low learning interest (62.15), so the students who
have high learning interest have a better writing skill achievement than the
students who have low learning interest.; and (3) Because F o interaction (4.659),
is greater than F t(.05) (3.96), the difference between rows and columns (cell) is
significant, so there is an interaction between teaching methods and students’
learning interest on the students’ writing ability.
Based on the result findings, the conclusion of this study is that process
approach is an effective method for teaching writing especially for students with
high learning interest. Therefore, it is recommended that: (1) teachers apply
process approach in teaching writing; (2) to promote students’ learning interest, it
is important to give students chance to develop their own ideas and share the
ideas with peer students; and (3) future researchers may conduct the same kind of
research with different sample and condition.
vi
MOTTO
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us
with our fellow-men; along those fibers, as sympathetic threads,
our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects."
vii
DEDICATION
To my beloved wife and children
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praise and honor be to Jesus Christ, the merciful Lord, the writer can
finish his thesis as one of the requirements for achieving the graduate degree of
English Education Department. The writer is aware that it would be impossible for
him to complete the thesis without help and encouragement from other people.
Therefore, he would like to express his special gratitude to:
1.
The Director of Graduate Program, Sebelas Maret University for giving the
writer permission to write this thesis.
2.
Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd, the Head of English Education of Graduate School, for
giving permission to write this thesis.
3.
Prof. Dr. Sri Samiati Tarjana and Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, MA., the writer’s
consultants, for the guidance, support, patience, and time in finishing this thesis.
4.
The Head of Bulungan Regency, East Kalimantan, for the grant of the writer’s
scholarship.
5.
Suriansyah, SST., the Headmaster of SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor who has allowed
the writer to carry out this experimental research.
6.
The students of class XI Penjualan, semester February – July 2010, for the
willingness to be experimental students.
7.
The writer’s parents, Ingan Lajing (R.I.P) and Uray Julung (R.I.P), for their
endless love.
8.
Sahabuddin and Igit Bilung, the writer’s parents in law, for their motivation and
pray.
9.
Marianti Karolus Hayon, Carold Firstionel, Michelle Ananta Christy, the writer’s
dearest wife and children, for their support, and motivation in doing the research.
10. All of my fondest brothers and sisters, especially Sadirin, Dorti Sirai Loly, F.M.
Aritonang, L.Laung, Robertus Jating Hayon and Yuli Karolus Hayon for their
support and love.
ix
11. All the writer’s friends, particularly Dina Destari and Erna Adita Kusumawati,
who have continuously supported the writer in completing his thesis.
Nothing in the world is perfect, and this thesis is not an exception. The writer
realizes that there are drawbacks in this thesis in spite of all efforts.
He, however,
hopes that this thesis will be of any use for anyone, particularly those who are
interest in this topic.
Surakarta, July, 2010
KI
x
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
TITLE…………………………………………………………………………….
i
APPROVAL……………………………………………………………………...
ii
LEGITIMATION ….............................................................................................
iii
PRONOUNCEMENT …………………………………………………………...
iv
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………...
v
MOTTO ………………………………………………………………………….
ix
DEDICATION …………………………………………………………………..
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………………
x
TABLE OF CONTENT…………………………………………………….........
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES ………………………………………………………..
xiv
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................
xvii
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
1
A. Background of the Study ………………………………...
1
B. Identification of the Problem …………………………….
6
C. Limitation of the Problems ………………………………
6
D. Statement of the Problems ...…………………………….
7
E.
Objectives of the Study ... ……………………………….
7
F.
Benefits of the Study …………………………………….
8
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
9
A. Theoretical Description ………………………………….
9
1. The Nature of Writing ...……………………………..
9
a. The Definition of Writing ………………………..
9
b. Writing Skill ……………………………………..
11
c. The Types of Writing ……………………………
16
xi
d. The Characteristics of Writing …………………..
20
2. The Teaching of Writing …………………………….
24
a. A Review of the Approaches to Teaching Writing
24
b. Process Approach ………………………………..
24
c. Product Approach ………………………………..
29
d. The Differences between Process Approach and
CHAPTER III
Product Approach ………………………………..
32
B. Learning Interest …………………………………………
34
1. Definition …………………………………………….
34
a. Learning ………………………………………….
34
b. Interest …………………………………………...
35
C. Some other Previous Study …..………………………….
39
D. Rationale …………………………………………………
39
E. Hypothesis ……………………………………………….
41
RESEARCH METHOD
43
A. The Time and Place of the Study ………………………..
43
B. The Method of the Study ………………………………...
44
C. The Subject of the Study ………………………………...
47
1. Population ……………………………………………
47
2. Sample ……………………………………………….
47
3. Sampling ……………………………………………..
48
D. The Technique of Collecting the Data …………………...
50
1. Writing Test ………………………………………….
50
2. Questionnaire ………………………………………...
51
3. Trying-Out the Instrument …………………………...
53
4. Documentation ……………………………………….
55
E. The Technique of Analyzing the Data …………………...
56
xii
THE RESULT OF THE STUDY
64
A. Data Description …………………………………………
64
1. Experimental Group …………………………………..
65
2. Control Group ………………………………………...
69
B. Prerequisite Testing ……………………………………...
74
1. Normality Testing …………………………………….
74
2. Homogeneity Testing …………………………………
77
C. Hypothesis Testing ………………………………………
78
D. Discussion ……………………………………………….
81
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION
85
A. Conclusion ……………………………………………….
85
B. Implication ………………………………………………
86
C. Suggestion ……………………………………………….
86
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………..
88
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………...
92
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER V
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1 : Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran ………………………..
93
Appendix 2 : The Blue Print of Learning Interest Questionnaire (Try-out)
108
Appendix 3 : Learning Interest Questionnaire (Try-out) ……………........
109
Appendix 4 : The Blue Print of Writing Skill Test (Try-out) …………….
114
Appendix 5 : Writing Skill Test (Try-out) ………………………………..
115
Appendix 6 : Validity and Reliability of Learning Interest Questionnaire
(Try-out) ……….………………………...............................
119
Appendix 7 : The Readability of Writing Test (Try-out) ……………….... 129
Appendix 8 : The Blueprint of Learning Interest Questionnaire
(Post-test) …………………………………………………... 130
Appendix 9 : Learning Interest Questionnaire (Post-test) …………….….. 131
Appendix 10 : The Blueprint of Writing Skill Test (Post-test) ……….……
135
Appendix 11 : Writing Skill Test (Post-test) ……………………................. 137
Appendix 12 : Analytic Scoring Rubric for Writing Test …………………. 140
Appendix 13 : The Scores of Learning Interest Questionnaire (Post-test)
142
Appendix 14 : The Distribution for Experimental Group ……………….…
144
Appendix 15 : The Distribution for Control Group …………………….….
150
Appendix 16 : Normality Testing for Experimental Group ….…...………..
156
Appendix 17 : Normality Testing for Control Group …………….………..
160
Appendix 18 : Normality Testing for Learning Interest …………………...
164
Appendix 19 : Homogeneity Testing ………………………………….…...
168
Appendix 20 : The Scores of Distribution …………………………….…...
170
Appendix 21 : The Computation of Multifactor Analysis of Variance ……. 171
xiv
Appendix 22 : The Tukey’s Formula ……………………………….……...
173
Appendix 23 : Table of r Product Moment Critic Value ………..………… 175
Appendix 24 : Table of Chi-Square ………………………………….…….
177
Appendix 25 : Table of Lilliefors Testing ……………………………….… 178
Appendix 26 : Table of Distribution F-Score ……………………………...
179
Appendix 27 : Table of Tukey Test ……………………………….……….
183
Appendix 28 : Table of Normality Curve ………………………………….
184
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1
:
The Comparison between Process Approach and Product
Approach ……………………….……………………………..
33
Table 2
:
Time Schedule of the Research ………………………………
43
Table 3
:
The Factorial Design of the Variables Being Studied ………..
46
Table 4
:
The Assessment of the Ease of Readability …………………..
55
Table 5
:
Groups of Data ………………………………………………..
56
Table 6
:
The Design of Multifactor Analysis of Variance ……………..
57
Table 7
:
The Data of Respondents Based on Their Sex Groups ……….
64
Table 8
:
The Frequency Distribution of the Test Scores of the
Experimental Group ………………………………….……….
Table 9
:
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
Experimental Group having High Learning Interest ………....
Table 10
:
:
Table 13
:
:
68
The Frequency of Distribution of the Test Scores of the
Control Group …………………………….…………………..
Table 12
67
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
Experimental Group having High Learning Interest ………....
Table 11
65
70
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
Control Group having High Learning Interest …………...…...
71
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
73
Control Group having Low Learning Interest …………..……
76
Table 14
:
The Summary of Normality Testing ………………………….
76
Table 15
:
The Homogeneity Testing ……………………………………
77
xvi
Table 16
:
The Summary of a 2 x 2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance …..
78
Table 17
:
The Tukey Test………………………………………………
79
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1
: Procedures Involved in Producing a Written Text ……………….
28
Figure 2
: The Relationship between Motivation and Interest ………………
38
Figure 3
: The Histogram and Polygon of The Frequency Distribution of the
Test Scores of the Experimental Group ……………………….…
Figure 4
66
: The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Experimental Group having High
Learning Interest ………………………………………...………..
Figure 5
67
: The Histogram and Polygon of The Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Experimental Group having Low Learning
Interest …………………………………………...……..
Figure 6
: The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Test Scores of the Control Group ……………………………..….
Figure 7
69
70
: The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Control Group having High Learning
Interest ………………………………………..…………………..
Figure 8
72
: The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Control Group having Low Learning
Interest ……………………………………………………..……..
xviii
73