A SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS’ ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING :A Case Study in Bandar Lampung.

(1)

APPROVAL PAGE ………..………. i

DECLARATION ……….………….………… ii

PREFACE ………..………. iii

ACKNOLEDGEMENT ………...……….….….. iv

ABSTRACT ………..….…….………. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……….…..…….………….….. vii

LIST OF TABLES ………..………. xi

LIST OF APPENDICES ……… xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ………..…………..………. 1

1.1 Background of the Study ………. 1

1.2 The Research Questions ………...……..………. 3

1.3 The Aims of the Study ………..…………...……….. 3

1.4 The Significance of the Study ………...………….. 4

1.5 The Scope the Study ……….………...………. 5

1.6 Clarifications of Key Terms ………..……... 5

1.7 Organization of the Paper …….………...…… 6

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ………. 7

2.1 The Nature of Essay Writing ……….………..…….. 7

2.2 Expository Writing ……….…...………..…….. 8

2.2.1 The Definition and Purpose of Expository Texts …...………..… 9

2.2.2 The Types Schematic Structure of Expository Texts ……….….... 10

2.2.3 The Language Features of Expository Texts ………....… 11

2.3 Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) ….………...…..….. 15

2.3.1 Defining the Systemic Functional Grammar …..……..………….... 15

2.3.2 Theme System ……….………….………….….. 17

2.3.3 Thematic Progression ……….... 20

2.3.4 Transitivity System ……….. 21

2.3.4.1 Process Types ……… 22

2.3.3.2 Participants and Circumstances ..………. 23

2.3.4 Conjunctions System ………..……….. 25

2.3.5 Modality ……….……….. 26

(2)

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ………..……… 30

3.1 Research Design ………..…….………..…….. 30

3.2 Research Site and Participants …..………...……….. 31

3.3 Data Collection Techniques ………...…..…………..…….. 32

3.3.1 The Documentation of Participants’ Written Texts ………..……. 33

3.3.2 The Use of Interviews …..……….……..…..…...….. 33

3.4 Data Analysis ………..…………..…….. 34

3.4.1 The Teachers’ Argumentative Texts ………...………. 34

3.4.2 The Interviews ………...………. 35

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ………. 36

4.1 Introduction ………...………..…………..….. 36

4.2 Analysis of the Teachers’ Argumentative Essays ……….……..….……. 36

4.2.1 General Descriptions of Teachers’ Analytical Expository Texts... 37

4.2.2 The Purpose and Schematic Structure of Teachers’ Analytical Expository Texts ….………. 38

4.2.3 Lexico-Grammatical Analyses of Elements in Teachers’ Analytical Expository Texts …..………. ₄₁

4.2.3.1 Thesis Elements ……….….. 42

4.2.3.1.1 The Theme System ………..………. 42

4.2.3.1.2 The Transitivity System ……….… 44

4.2.3.1.3 The Mood System ………..… 47

4.2.3.2 Argument Elements ………..… 48

4.2.3.2.1 The Theme System ………...… 48

4.2.3.2.2 The Transitivity System ………..….. 51

4.2.3.2.3 The Mood System ………..… 55

4.2.3.3 Reiteration of Thesis/Conclusion Elements ………..…… 58

4.2.3.3.1 The Theme System ………...….... 58

4.2.3.3.2 The Transitivity System ………..……….. 59

4.2.3.3.3 The Mood System ……….. 61

4.2.4 Summary of Discussion of Teachers’ Analytical Expository Texts ……….. 62

4.2.5 General Descriptions of Teachers’ Hortatory Exposition Texts ………. 63

4.2.6 The Purpose and Schematic Structure of Teachers’ Hortatory Exposition Texts ……….... 64

(3)

4.2.7 Lexico-Grammatical Analyses of Elements in Teachers’

Hortatory Exposition Texts …..………. 67

4.2.7.1 Thesis Elements ……….……… 67

4.2.7.1.1 The Theme System ………….……… 67

4.2.7.1.2 The Transitivity System ……….………. 69

4.2.7.1.3 The Mood System ……….……...…… 71

4.2.7.2 Argument Elements ……….…………... 72

4.2.7.2.1 The Theme System ………. 72

4.2.7.2.2 The Transitivity System ………... 75

4.2.7.2.3 The Mood System ……… 78

4.2.7.3 Recommendation Elements ………..… 79

4.2.7.3.1 The Theme System ……….. 79

4.2.7.3.2 The Transitivity System ……… 82

4.2.7.3.3 The Mood System ………. 84

4.2.8 Summary of Discussion of Teachers’ Hortatory Exposition Texts ………...……….. 86

4.2.9 Conclusions of Discussions of Teachers” Argumentative Texts ………. 87

4.3 Finding and Discussion of Interview Data ……….……… 88

4.3.1 Teachers’ Ability of Writing ………... 90

4.3.2 Teaches’ Problem in Writing the Texts ……….. 95

4.3.3 Possible Solutions Suggested by Teachers ………...… 97

4.3.4 Summary of Discussion of Interview Data ………. 97

4.3.5 Conclusion of Discussion of Interview Data ……… 98

4.4 Conclusion of Chapter 4 ………. 99

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ……… 100

5.1 Introduction………...………….………… 100

5.2 Conclusions ………...………….….…… 100

5.3 Recommendations ……….……….…...………...……… 102

REFERENCES ……….………..…… 104

(4)

(5)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the general issues related to the present study. These include the background of the study, research questions, aims of the study, significance of the study, scope of the study, and clarifications of key terms related to this study.

1.1 Background of the Study

The curriculum of English teaching in Indonesia stated by Ministry of National Education has been concerned with communicative competence of the students (Depdiknas, 2003). Further, it is stated that the communicative competence has been programmed to be gradually mastered from junior up to high school level. In turn, in high school level, the students are targeted to be able to communicate through spoken and written language appropriately. Concerning the communicative competence through written mode, the national curriculum prescribes that the writing competence to be achieved by the high school students is not determined by the number of words that the students can produce but more on the quality of the writing they produce which is characterized among others through the application of genre based writing (Depdiknas, 2003;13).

In order to pursue this goal, teachers are expected to take appropriate roles in developing students’ writing competence. Consequently, the teachers themselves are required to have adequate writing competence in order to carry out their tasks well. To this point, there have been insufficient efforts to investigate the teachers’ writing skills condition in Indonesia, and then contribute certain aspects they need to focus on to improve their writing

(6)

performance which in turn expectedly will give rise to the betterment of the teaching learning process in the classroom. Thus, it is necessary to examine teachers’ writing competence in various genres prescribed in the national curriculum including the Exposition genre.

With regard to Indonesian teaching learning context, Emilia (2005) has conducted research related to this issue. Her research involving 18 participants of semester six student teachers of a Bachelor degreeindicates that there is room for teachers’ proficiency improvement in this field. Other research which takes teachers as the participants indicates a similar condition. Other studies also show that teachers in Indonesia still need to evaluate their writing performance. The national education office of Bandung mentions that writing for Indonesian teachers is still a matter to be carefully concerned by the ministry of national education (Kompas.com, 2009a). In a wider sense, the government reveals that Indonesian English teachers are of inadequate mastery related to their roles as teachers to teach writing skills. The research which involved 600 teachers from international standard schools of junior and senior high levels indicates that 60% of the teachers are even in the poorest writing proficiency standard as required by the government (Kompas.com, 2009b). These facts indicate that the need of developing and maintaining teachers writing skill is still a relevant issue to evaluate.

In some other countries, studies have been conducted to examine some related aspects of the teachers’ writing competence in various perspectives by taking prospective teachers and teachers into account. For instance, Veal (1981) carried out research and found that that assessment of

(7)

the writing skill of prospective teachers might identify their writing ability. In addition, Cherednichenko (1987) as well as Gilfert (1999) found that teachers writing performance can reveal the teachers’ professional development. Atay and Kurt (2006) have also carried out research concerning with 85 Turkish prospective teachers writing quality related to their anxiety. The research indicates that most of the teachers had difficulties in organizing their thoughts and producing ideas while writing in L2, especially those with high and average anxiety level. In addition, Holmes (2010) reveals that writing is still viewed as a daunting task by some teachers. His research which was conducted within EFL context shows that the teachers are still in need of evaluating and developing their writing performance

On the ground of this condition, this study aims to get more ideas of the teachers’ ability and problem in writing as well as to find possible solutions to cope with the problems.

1.2 Research Questions

This research addressed the following questions:

1. What is the ability of the teachers in composing Exposition essays? 2. What problems do the teachers have in writing the essays?

3. What solutions can be proposed to help teachers improve their writing skills?

1.3 Aims of the Study

As mentioned above, this study was aimed at:

(i) analyzing teachers’ ability in writing Expository essays

(8)

(iii) proposing relevant possible solutions to improve the teachers’ writing ability.

1.4 Significance of the study

This study reported here theoretically has attempted to provide a reference on the study on Expository writing. It was expected that this study can enrich the literature related to the teachers’ ability in composing Expository texts. Furthermore, this study might be preliminary inputs for other researchers to further study in the similar area of research in different context.

Professionally, the results of this study expectedly can be beneficial for English teachers themselves to review their writing performance. This study may provide information on what problems they encounter. This will give them ideas to work on the betterment for their writing skills which in turn give rise to their awareness of teaching writing practices.

This study has been carried out to provide some features of teachers’ writing performance which is necessary to be taken into consideration related to developing teachers’ writing ability. Thus, to some extent, this study can also provide ideas for the government which is in charge of developing teachers’ quality in dealing with teachers’ development program. This may provide inputs for them to specify the matters to deal within in the teachers’ training as well as up grading programs.

(9)

1.5 Scope of the Study

This study is a case study researching writing ability of high school teachers’ of English in Bandar Lampung. This research used text analysis to investigate the teachers’ writing performance in composing argumentative text especially Hortatory and Analytical Expositions. The analysis focused on the schematic structure and the linguistic features employed in the writing of the argumentative texts. The analysis attempted to view the teachers’ ability and problems in writing Exposition texts, the possible causes of the problems as well as the possible way of coping with the problems. Interviews were also conducted to confirm the findings gained from the texts analyses.

1.6 Clarifications of Key Terms

For the sake of clarity, key terms in this study were defined and specified as follows:

Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL): a model of text analysis as a point of reference and theoretical framework for the analysis of teachers’ writing in terms of linguistic features particularly for the transitivity system. This model is developed by among others Halliday (1985, 1994); Martin and Rose (2007, 2008); and Eggins (1994).

Expository writing: a writing genre which comes with the purpose which is to take a position on some issues and justify it. This genre concerns with the analysis, interpretation and evaluation of the world around us. In this study, this genre covers Hortatory and Analytical Expositions as characterized by Derewianka (1990); Gerot and Wignell (1994); Gerot

(10)

(1995); Knapp and Watkins (2005); Macken and Horarik - cited in Johns - (2001) and Martin (1985).

1.7 Organization of the Paper

This thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter One covers general description of the introduction of the study. It provides background of the study, research questions, purpose of the study, and significance of the study, definition of key term and organization of the thesis. Chapter Two discusses relevant theories by which the present study underpinned, especially the theory of Argumentation and SFL as well as and related research. Chapter Three provides the methodological aspects of this thesis which consists of research design, research site, participants, data collection and data analysis. Chapter Four elaborates data presentation and discussion of each research finding. Finally, Chapter Five is the conclusion part and possible recommendation derived from this research.

(11)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the general elaboration related to the method of this study. These include the descriptions related to Research Design, Research Site and Participants, Data Collection Techniques and Data Analysis.

3.1 Research Design

In order to cope with the purposes of this research, this study applied a qualitative research design for some considerations. First of all, this research has the characteristics of qualitative research as stated by Nunan (1992); Kvale (1996); Holliday (2005); Setiyadi (2006); Dornyei (2007); Frankel (2007); and Alwasilah (2009). As they mention that qualitative research is characterized by the nature of the data which may be originated from various source, among others are document and data processing which elaborate the findings into textual form. In addition, this research is also characterized by the nature of qualitative research which tries to describe social phenomena as they occur naturally.

Besides, qualitative research concerns subjective interpretation of the data into the findings. In this case, the research analyzed the data collected and attempted to describe certain phenomena appear from the research findings. It is considered appropriate as this study dealt with analyzing and describing the pattern of grammar found in the text produced by the teachers. Furthermore, this research was also characterized as a case study as it met the following reasons. First, the research was carried out in a limited or small scale single case and not to be generalized as indicated by Patton

(12)

(1987); Merriam (1988) as cited in Nunan (1992); Creswell (1994); Setiyadi (2006); Frankel (2007); and Alwasilah (2009). In this study, the research only dealt with analyzing particular written document from six teachers in a region, in this case in Bandar Lampung. Then the results were not to be generalized as general conditions of the whole teachers in Bandar Lampung.

The second feature that constitutes this study as a case study is that the study was to examine a case mainly to provide insight into an issue (Stake: 1995 and Dornyei: 2007). In this case the study focused on examining the writing performance from the case of the participants only. In addition, Yin (1989) as cited in Creswell (1994) mentioned that case study works with the search for “patterns” by comparing results with patterns predicted from theory or literature. In this case, the patterns of writing problems were in search and compared to the pattern proposed by the experts in the field. The third characteristic is that this study used text analysis which is another method of qualitative study as mentioned by Patton (1987); Yin (1989) cited in Creswell (1994); Nunan (1992); and Setiyadi (2006).

3.2 Research Site and Participants

The choice of the place of the participant was determined as considering of the accessibility of the researcher to carry out the research. Alwasilah (2009) mentioned that convenience factor should be taken into consideration to support the researcher to carry out the research. As the researcher is originated from Bandar Lampung, then he into certain extent understands the field of research condition and accessibility. For this reason, the study took place in Bandar Lampung region of Lampung province.

(13)

As expected, it enabled the researcher to collect the data needed. The researcher is also familiar with the participants intended to be contacted for this research since he has access and personal as well as professional relationship with the participants, which also helped the researcher to carry out the data collecting process.

The participants were six English teachers in the region who were chosen considering that they are potential to take advantage of the study and thus give rise to any implication for evaluating their teaching processes. Another reason to work with those teachers was related to the genre focus, the argumentative genre, which can be considered difficult one (Emilia, 2005). It was assumed that the teachers were expected to deal with certain level of mastery of the genre. Considering this reasons, it is expected that the participants would be appropriate to fulfill the need of the research as indicated by Supriyoko (2008) and Marisi (2008).

However, to anticipate the possible constraints concerning with their availability of time to cooperate, the participants then were recruited by asking them voluntarily to be involved the research. So, after listing the possible participants to work with, the researcher contacted the teachers until the number needed for this research fulfilled. Moreover, voluntary-based participation was expected to have more motivated participants to cooperate in carrying out this research in a natural sense which in turn will affect the reliability of the findings (Emilia, 2005).

3.3 Data Collection Techniques

The study collected data through documentation in this case the writing texts written by the teacher participants and interviews. The data

(14)

gained from this study were be analyzed at the end of the research. The data were categorized, analyzed and interpreted to answer the research questions.

3.3.1 Documentation of Participants’ Written Text

The main method of data collection in this research was the documentation of the participants’ written texts. The texts were considered important in that in most cases actual achievements can be gauged through the productions of such kinds of documents (Freebody as cited in Emilia, 2005).

In this case each of the participants was to write a 500 word argumentative essay. For this purpose, the researcher met the expected teachers either individually or in group as they joined the English teachers forum namely Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran (MGMP), and asked for their willingness to cooperate for the study. Every teacher who was willingly able to cooperate was given a task to write a text in accordance with the topic given i.e National Education. This task was carried out individually at their respective place – at home or school. The task was expected to be carried out through recursive writing processes.

3.3.2 The Use of Interviews

The research also made use of interviews in order to verify the data gained through written text of argumentative essay documents. As an alternative data collecting technique (Patton, 1987; Nunan, 1992; Kvale, 1996 and Dornyei, 2007) interview is defined as “any written documents that present respondents with a series of questions or statements to which they are to react either by writing out their answers or selecting among existing answers” (Brown, 2001 as cited in Dornyei, 2007: 102).The interviews in this

(15)

research applied factual questions type which was used to find out certain facts about the respondents (Dornyei, 2007).

For this study, the interviews were arranged in form of open-ended interviews (Kvale, 1996; Setiyadi, 2006; and Dornyei, 2007. This type of interview was employed to gain the needed information – such as the participants’ background experience and knowledge related to the genre writing, problems encountered during the process of writing and possible solutions suggested in attempt to answer the research questions of this research.

The data collection was carried out within two steps. In this case the writing work were administered first and then followed by the interviews. Through this way, hopefully, the writing process which was intended to provide the major data source was not disturbed by any condition which might be resulted from the interviews.

3.4 Data Analysis

Data analyses in this study were conducted over the course of the study. Ongoing data analyses and interpretation were based on the data from document analysis which were teachers’ argumentative essays and interviews.

3.4.1 The Teachers’ Argumentative Texts

In this research, then the documented respondents’ texts were analyzed to examine the quality of teachers’ writing. The argumentative essays written by the teachers were classified and presented in accordance with the types of the texts namely Analytical and Hortatory Expositions. They are then analyzed using Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) to do with

(16)

textual, ideational and interpersonal metafunctions as suggested by systemic functional linguists (see among others Halliday, 1985; Gerot and Wignell, 1994; Lock, 1996; Martin and Rose, 2007; and Eggins, 1994). This analysis allows the researcher to get the teachers’ strengths and weaknesses in composing an argumentative essay.

In analyzing the documents, the data were coded in order to categorize the pattern of the writing problems appear in the documents. These categories then were interpreted to formulate certain pattern of findings related to the aims of the research in accordance with existing theories related to the research.

3.4.2 The Interviews

The research also analyzed the interviews distributed in order to gain more information related to the teachers writing performance. The interviews were more about the schemata of the writers related to their writing command. It was expectedly useful to understand their educational background, teaching experiences, as well as their familiarity with the topic of the text to write. That information was later incorporated to determine the quality of the text they produced; as such information also determined the maturity of the text resulted.

(17)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This study sought to investigate the teachers’ ability and problems in composing argumentative texts as well as possible solutions for the problems encountered by the teachers. After exploring the issues to investigate through texts analyses and interview data as presented in the previous chapter, this chapter highlights the conclusion of the present study that is closely related to the research problems presented earlier in Chapter 1. This chapter also offers suggestion both for further researchers and practitioners. On the basis of the findings, which may not be generalisable to other settings, several conclusions and recommendations can be proposed below.

5.2 Conclusions

Three research problems investigated in this study include teachers’ ability in composing the argumentative texts, the problems encountered by the teachers in composing the texts and possible solutions to overcome the problems emerged. As discussed in detail in the previous chapter, it can be observed that the teachers show their ability to make use of appropriate features required to compose good Expository texts. However, the analyses also indicate that there should be serious efforts of improving the teachers’ professional competence.

With regard the first research problem, it is found that the teachers – with varied results among them – to some extent have been able to demonstrate appropriate strategies to compose the targeted texts. Referring to what has been suggested by Martin (1985), Derewianka (1990), Anderson

(18)

and Anderson (2003), Paltridge (in Johns, 2001), Knapp and Watkins (2005), Rose (2008), Uribe (2008) and Christie and Derewianka (2008), it can be concluded that the teachers possess successful grasp and understanding of the demands of the generic form of arguing genre, to achieve the purpose and the function of the genre. In addition, the grammatical analyses indicate that the writers had successfully attempted to use some of the main conventions of written language and argumentative discourse with consistency and accuracy. To construe textual metafunction, the teachers could efficiently employ linguistic devices as well as a combination of thematic progression (the theme reiteration, zigzag and multiple theme progression), which is a feature of more written-like texts, to strengthen the text’s coherence and cohesion. Meanwhile, referring to experiential metafunction investigated, it is found that the teachers could demonstrate their ability to use various linguistic resources, which again show the teachers’ capacity to create a more written-like compositions. Finally, interpersonally, the writers could efficiently use various linguistic resources to create forceful but objective arguments, and to effectively communicate with an audience or the readers.

Despite the findings above, the discussions also reveal that not all of the teachers’ texts can be considered successful texts. This can be identified as few errors in syntactical matter occur within the texts of some of the teachers. It can be concluded that the teachers have weaknesses related to the ability of developing better paragraphs through appropriate use of multi-layer Theme strategy, the use of conjunctive adverbs to convey modality and the use of inappropriate linguistic features such as the use of universal/realis

(19)

statement, inconsistency of representing himself within the text, as well as a use imperative mood which may disturb the quality of the texts of such genre which are also underlined by the experts mentioned above.

With regard to the second research problem, it is found that the teachers had problems mainly with managing their time to carry out the task which gave rise to their inability to give maximum efforts to work with the texts. In addition, their background knowledge and language competence as well as their commitment to carry out the task also appeared to be problems in producing the texts. As for the third question, the possible suggestions elicited deal with the idea of providing efforts to motivate the teachers to write, and training to improve the teachers’ ability. Those suggestions will be elaborated and presented in the subsection below as it will be formulated as suggestions as the teachers urged.

5.3 Recommendations

The recommendations formulated below are derived from what the teachers suggested as well as what could be inferred from the experts and previous studies. These are practically for teachers themselves and methodically for any related further studies in the future.

First of all, it is advisable that the teachers derive their own intrinsic motivation and commit themselves to improve their professional competence, particularly in writing. Technically this commitment can be realized by attempting more writing practices as it would benefit themselves as professional school teachers as suggested by such experts as Johnson (2004) and Ramet (2007) and previous studies carried out by among others

(20)

Rahman (2005), Ediger (2006), Mendelsohn (2006), Liu (2007), Ebata (2008), and Wu (2008).

In addition, effective teacher trainings need to be carried out in order to maintain and improve the teachers’ professional competence. This could be held by optimizing the functions of the existing teachers association in the region or by joining other appropriate programs initiated by government. Such programs may concern the issue of SFL and GBA within the curriculum development as well as practical knowledge related to writing ability. This has been urged by Kuncoro (2009) in The Jakarta Post daily as he mentioned that “Giving more chance for teachers to have professional development training is a need to boost education quality”.

The last recommendation is related to further studies concerning this subject matter. It is suggested that the next related research deals with a bigger number of participants within different contexts to get richer and more reliable data. It is also necessary to consider the effective teachers’ time to execute the project to minimize any potential external factors which may hamper the process, such as teachers’ regular activities and schools’ agenda.

(21)

References

Alwasilah, C. A. 2009. Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT. Dunia Pustaka Jaya. Alonso, I. 2003. Improving text flow in ESL learner compositions. The

Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 2, February 2003. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Alonso-ImprovingFlow.html. Accessed on September, 14th 2011.

Anderson, M and Anderson, K. 2003. Text Types in English (Book Two). Oxford: Macmillan Education.

Atay, D. and Kurt, G. 2006. The prospective teachers and L2 writing anxiety. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, December 2006 Volume 8, Issue 4, pp. 100-118.

Bailey, S. 2003. Academic Writing: A Practical Guide for Students (e-book edition). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Bazerman, C., and Prior, P (eds). 2004. What Writing Does and How It Does: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. London: Lawrence Erlebaum Associates Publisher.

Brown, H. D. 2000. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education.

Burns, A., and Coffin, C. (Eds). 2001. Analyzing English in a Global Context: a Reader. London; Routledge.

Byrne, D. 1988. Teaching Writing Skills. New York: Longman Group Ltd. Celce-Murcia, M., and Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and Context in

Language Teaching: A guide for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cherednichenko, B., et al. 1987. The practice of beginning teachers: identifying competence through case writing in teacher education. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol. 22 No. 2, 1997, pp.20-27.

Christie, F. and Derewianka, B. 2008. School Discourse. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Clark, I. L. 2003. Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing. London: Lawrence Erlebaum Associates Publisher.

Coffin, C., et al. 2003. Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education. London: Routledge.

(22)

Coleman, C. 2003. Simple steps to successful revision in L2 writing. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 5, May 2003. Available at:

http://iteslj.org/Technique/Coleman-Writing Revision .html. Accessed on

September, 14th 2011.

Creswell, J. W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Dawson, C. 2009. Introduction to Research Methods: A Practical Guide for Anyone Undertaking a Research Project. Oxford: How To Books Ltd.. Depdiknas. 2003. Standar Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris

Sekolah Menengah Atas dan Madrasah Aliyah. Jakarta: Depdiknas. Derewianka, B. 1990. Exploring How Texts Work. Newton: Primary English

Teaching Association.

Dornyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ebata, M. 2008. Motivation factors in language learning. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XIV, No. 4, April 2008. Available at:

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ebata-MotivationFactors.html. Accessed on September, 14th 2011.

Ediger, A. M. 2006. Developing strategic L2 readers by reading for authentic purposes . In Uso´-Juan, Esther and Alicia Martı´nez-Flor (Eds). Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.

Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter Publisher inc.

Emilia, E. 2005. A Critical Genre Based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. (PhD Dissertation). Melbourne University.

Emilia, E. 2010. Teaching Writing: Developing critical learners. Bandung: Rizqi Press.

Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse : Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Rotledge.

Feez, S., and Joyce, H. (2000). Creative Writing Skills. Literary and Media Text Types. Melbourne: Phoenix Education Pty. Ltd.

Fowler, A. 2006. How to Write. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Frankle, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. 2007. How to Design and Evaluate

(23)

Gerot, L., and Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.

Gerot, L. 1995. Making Sense of Text. Sydney: Gerd Stabler, Antipodean Educational Enterprise.

Gilfert, S. 1999. Let’s write in English: teachers we never learned that. The Internet TESL Journal Vol V No 4 April 1999. Available at:

http://iteslj.org/ Teachers/Susan-NeverLearnedThat.html. Accessed on September, 14th 2011.

Gray, R. 2000. Grammar correction in ESL/EFL writing classes may not be effective. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 11, November 2004. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Technique/Gray-WritingCorrection.html. Accessed on September, 14th 2011.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press..

Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Melbourne, Deakin University.

Hasan, R. (1985). Linguistics, Language, and Verbal Art. Melbourne: Deakin University.

Ho, C. M. L. 2003. Empowering English teachers to grapple with errors in grammar. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 3, March 2003. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Ho_Grammar_Errors.html.

Accessed on September, 14th 2011.

Holliday, A. 2005. Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications Inc.

Holmes, N. 2010. The use of a process-oriented approach to facilitate the planning and production stages of writing for adult students of English as a Foreign or Second Language. Available at: http://www.

developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/ processw1nicola.htm.

Accessed on June 23, 2011.

Johns, A. M (ed). 2001. Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. .

Johnson, M. 2004. A Philosophy of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Vail Ballou Press.

(24)

Knapp, P. and Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, Texts, Grammar: Technologies for Teaching and Assessing Writing. Sydney: UNSW press.

Kompas.com. 2009a. Guru Masih Terkendala Menulis . Available at:

http://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2009/11/06/20273165/Guru.Masih. Terkendala.Menulis. Accessed on 17 March 2011.

Kompas.com. 2009b. Waduh,Bahasa Inggris 600 Guru RSBI Ternyata “memble”. Available at: http://edukasi. kompas.com/read/xml/ 2009/06/24/ 17410455. Accessed on 17 March 2011.

Kress, G. 1985. Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Melbourne: Deakin University

Kuncoro, E. A. 2009. How to boost the quality of education in Indonesia. The Jakarta Post Daily. Saturday, December 19, 2009.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. An introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Lee, C. 2004. Seeing is understanding: improving coherence in students' writing. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 7, July 2004. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Lee-Writing.html. Accessed on

September, 14th 2011.

Liu, M. 2007. Chinese students’ motivation to learn English at the tertiary level. Asian EFL Journal, Volume 9, Number 1, 2007. Pp. 126-146 Lock, G. 1996. Functional English Grammar: An Introduction for Second

Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Marisi, A. K. Profesionalisme Guru di Abad Kebangkitan Bangsa. Accessible in: http//lpmpjoga.diknas.go.id

Martin, J. R., Mathiessen C.M.I.M., and Painter, C. 1997. Working with Functional Grammar. New York: Arnold (Hodder Headline Group). Martin, J.R. 1985. Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality.

Melbourne: Deakin University Press.

Martin, J. R. 1992. English text. System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.

Martin, J.R and Rose, D. 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.

Martin, J.R and Rose, D. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum Publisher.

McCarthy, M., and Carter, R. (1994). Language as Discourse. Perspectives for Language Teaching. London: Longman.

(25)

Mendelsohn, D. J. 2006. Learning how to listen using learning strategies In Uso´-Juan, Esther and Alicia Martı´nez-Flor (Eds). Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co..

Murphy, E. 2007. Essay Writing Made Simple. Sydney: Pearson Education. Nunan, D. 1992. Research Method in Language Learning. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Oshima, A., and Hogue, A. 1998. Introduction to Academic Writing. New York: Pearson Education Inc.

Patton, M. Q. 1987. How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Peters, P. (1986). ‘Getting the theme across: A study of dominant function in the academic writing of university students.’ In Couture, B. (1986). (Ed). Functional approaches to writing. Research perspectives. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Rahman, S. 2005. Orientations and motivation in English language learning: a study of Bangladeshi students at undergraduate Level. Asian EFL Journal March, 2005. Vol. 7, Issue 1. Pp.29-55

Ramet, A. 2007. Creative Writing: How to Unlock your Imagination, Develop your Writing Skills and Get Published. Begbroke: How To Books Ltd. Ravelli, L. J. and Ellis, R. A. (eds). 2000. Analyzing Academic Writing:

Contextualized Frameworks. New York: Continuum.

Rose, D. 2008. Reading to Learn: Accelerated Learning and Closing the Gap. (Book 4: Assessing Reading and Writing). Available at: www.readingtolearn.com.au. Accessed on 19 February 2011. Schirato, T., and Yell, S. (1996). Communication and Cultural Literacy. An

Introduction. New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.

Setiyadi, A. B. 2006. Metode Penelitian untuk Pengajaran Bahasa Asing: Pendekatan Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif. Jogjakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Stake, R. E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Supriyoko, K. 2008. Revitalisasi Pendidikan Indonesia. Available at: http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0608/10/opini/2872196.html Accessed on 17 September 2010.

(26)

Tang, R. 2006. Helping Students to see "Genres" as more than "text types". The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XII, No. 8, August 2006. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Tang-Genres.html. Accessed on

September, 14th 2011.

Thompson, G. 2004.Introducing Functional Grammar (second edition). London: Arnold.

Toulmin, S. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Travers, M. (2001). Qualitative Research Through Case Studies. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Uribe, D. 2008. Characteristics of academic English in the ESL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XIV, No. 3, March 2008. Available at:

http://iteslj.org/Articles/UribeAcademic. English.html. Accessed on

September, 14th 2011.

Veal, R. 1981. Assessing the writing skills of prospective English teachers. Available at: http://www.eric.ed. gov/PDFS/ED205986.pdf. Accessed on 11 August 2010.

van Eemeren, F., et al. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Wang, W. 2006. Intertextuality across Languages and Cultures: a

Contrastive Study of Chinese and English Newspaper Commentaries on September 11. Proceedings of the International Conference on Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory into Research. Tasmania: Faculty of Education University of Tasmania.

Wu, W. 2008. Creating an Authentic EFL Learning Environment to Enhance Student Motivation to Study English. Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4: Conference Proceedings, pp.211-226.

Zemach, D and Rumisek, L. A. 2003. Academic Writing: from Paragraph to Essay. Oxford: MacMillan Education.

(1)

104 References