1, 2, and 3, such as “but” which indicated a contrast connector, “because”
which indicated a causal connector, and “besides” which indicated an addition connector. Another finding that obtained a good cohesion score was presented in
fragment 2.
2 ... In some cases, syllabus only needs to be known by a teacher 1. Sometimes, the teacher did not give the syllabus to the students 2.
However, it is known that communication between the teacher and students is also important 3. As a matter of fact, syllabus is considered
to be a way to communicate in which it conveys the expectation of the teachers and requirement for the students through the course 4.
Therefore, it is necessary to distribute the syllabus before the course begins 5...
In fragment 2, it could be seen that the use of a proper indefinite article
“a” in sentence 1 was good since it indicated new information. The same case also happened in sentence 2 that the participant also used a definite article “the”
for “the teacher” since the information had been mentioned in sentence 1. For
the reference, the writer found the use of cataphoric reference in which the word
“it” in sentence 3 and 5 did not refer to any reference in the preceding sentences. As a matter of fact, “it” in sentence 3 referred to “communication
between teacher and students”, while “it” in sentence 5 referred to “distribute the
syllabus before the course begins.” The other cohesive devices used properly in
fragment 2 were the use of conjunctions “however” to show contrast between sentence 2 and 3, emphasis “as a matter of fact” in sentence 4, and result
“therefore” as in sentence 5.
Conversely, fragments 3 and 4 showed fair level of cohesive devices produced by the research participants.
3 The university student more understands about the content and the
structure of syllabus 1. He knows how to comprehend the syllabus, how to prepare the course, and how to gather the information or
resources 2.
The use of article “the” in sentence 1 was considered an inappropriate tie
since there was no information about “university student” on the previous sentences. Hence, using indefinite article, such as “a” before “university student”
would be appropriate. However, there was still found a sufficient and appropriate cohesive device which was signaled by the use of pronouns reference. The
participant wrote “he” in reference to “university student.” As a result, this fragment obtained fair level of cohesion.
Another writing which obtained fair level of cohesion was found in fragment 4.
4 ... a critical thinker must interest in argument first and evaluate whether the arguments provide good reason for acting or be believed or not be
believed 1... People sho uld evaluate the claim carefully so that they can separate issues which are relevant and not relevant 2...
Fragment 4 was judged to be inappropriate by the use of word repetition
in sentences 1 and 2. Actually, this fragment was not extremely wrong.
However, it was not effective since they were compound sentences that
contributed parallel information, such as “believed” in sentence 1 and “relevant” in sentence 2. It was suggested to use ellipsis devices by omitting the repeated
words. Alternatively, the phrase would be “be believed or not” and “relevant or not.” This fragment was also determined at a fair level of cohesion since it was
shown that the participant was still able to use sufficient conjunction properly in
sentence 2 by using “so that” which indicated a causal conjunction.
On the other hand, the writer also found some writings which obtained poor level of cohesion. One of them was presented in fragment 5 that indicated
problems in the use of conjunction. 5 By first, the writer conducted many surveys in the library and the internet
to search the sources as many as possible in order to answer the problems 1. Twice, the writer consulted the paper to the lecturer to get
some feedback for a revision 2.
Enumeration was indicated by the use of expressions, such as first, firstly, first of all, in the first place, to begin with, next, second, secondly, finally, and
many more. In this case, there was inappropriateness device in the use of “by
first” in sentence 1 in which it was not permitted to use “by” before the word
“first.” Next, there was also inappropriateness in the use of “twice” in sentence
2. Ordinal number in showing number in series should be applied in
Kategori