Logical statement in student’s research proposal at English Teacher Education Department Islamic State University Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

LOGICAL STATEMENT IN STUDENT’S

RESEARCH PROPOSAL BACKGROUND AT

ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT ISLAMIC STATE

UNIVERSITY SUNAN AMPEL SURABAYA

THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirement for the

degree of Sarjana Pendidikan (S. Pd) in Teaching English

By

Zuhairah Ashida

D05210025

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHER TRAINING

SUNAN AMPEL STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

SURABAYA

2017

ABSTRACT

Ashida, Zuhairah. (2017). Logical Statement In Student’s Research Proposal At English Teacher Education Department Islamic State

University Sunan Ampel Surabaya. A Thesis. English Education Department, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training, Sunan Ampel State Islamic University, Surabaya. Advisors: Sigit Pramono Jati, M.Pd.

Writing is a form of expression and communication which enables learners to communicate ideas, feelings, and different attitudes in a written mode. Organizing ideas is needed to convey a logical sequence of thought. If logical connections are missing, the reader could not get the idea precisely as the writer intended. Therefore, this study is conducted of the logical statement in the student’s research proposal background of English Education Department students at UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya. The focus of this research is to observe the students logical statement in writing their research proposal background.

In this research, the research uses qualitative descriptive as the design of her research. Data collection technique uses in this research is Rhetorical Structure Theory by Mann and Thompson. The RST is to know the students’ Relational Proposition to help her analyze the student’s logical statement in their proposal background.

From the Rhetorical Structure analysis, the research finds that the students’ background proposals of English Education Department are built logically. The analysis shows that seven of eight analyzed background are structured coherently. Therefore, it can be concluded that the students of English Education Department have good foundation in writing their background proposal logically.

ABSTRAK

Ashida, Zuhairah. (2017). Logical Statement In Student’s Research Proposal At English Teacher Education Department Islamic State University Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Skripsi. Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa

Inggris, Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel, Surabaya. Dosen Pembimbing: Sigit Pramono Jati, M.Pd.

Tulisan adalah bentuk dari ekspresi dan komunikasiyang mana membantu pelajar untuk mengkomunikasikan ide, perasaan, dan perbedaan sikap dalam tulisan. Mengorganisir ide sangat diperlukan untuk menunjukkan runtutan logis dalam sebuah pemikiran. Jika ada yang hilang dalam kesinambungan tulisan, maka pembaca tidak akan dapat memahami atau mendapati ide yang ingin disampaikan oleh penulis. Oleh sebab itu, dalam kasus ini penelitian dialakukan pada kesinambungan di latar belakang riset proposal dari mahasiswa pendidikan bahasa inggris di UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Focus dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengeteahui koherensi dalam penulisan di latar belakang riset proposal mahasiswa.

Dalam penelitian ini, peneliti menggunakan metodologi kualitatif deskriptif sebagai desain penelitiannya. Teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan dalam proposal ini adalah Rhetorical Structure Theory yang di singkat dengan RST oleh Mann and Thompson. RST digunakan untuk mengetahui Relational Proposition dalam tulisan mahasiswa untuk membantu peneliti menganalisa koherensi dalam latar belakang riset proposal mahasiswa.

Dari Rhetorical Structure analysis, penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa latar belakang riset proposal dari mahasiswa Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris telah dituliskan secara logis. Hasil analisa menunjukkan bahwa 7 dari 8 latar belakang riset proposal tersusun secara koheren dan logis. Sehingga dapat disimpulkan bahwa mahasiswa pendidikan bahasa inggris memiliki landasan yang baik dalam menuliskan latar belakang riset proposalnya secara logis.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ADVISOR APPROVAL SHEET.………..…ii

EXAMINER APROVAL SHEET……….…iii

DEDICATION SHEET……….…….….iv

ABSTRACT………...v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………..….vi

PERNYATAAN KEASLIAN TULISAN………..…vii

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PUBLIKASI PERPUSTAKAAN…..viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……….ix

LIST OF FIGURES/GRAPHICS………..xii

LIST OF APPENDICES………xiii

CHAPTER I………1

INTRODUCTION………..1

A. Research Background………….……….1

B. Research Question………6

C. Objective of the Study………..6

D. Significance of the Study………..6

E. Scope and Limit of the Study………..7

F. Definition of Key Terms………...7

1. Logical statement………….………….……….7

2. Research proposal………...8

3. Rhetorical Structure Theory………...8

CHAPTER II……….10

REVIEW OF LITERATURE………..10

A. Review of Related Literature………10

2. Rhetorical Structure Theory……….….12

3. RST TOOL………...12

B. Review of Previous Study………..13

CHAPTER III………...15

RESEARCH METHOD………...15

A. Approach and Research Design………15

B. Researcher Presence……….………...15

C. Research Location……….……….16

D. Data and Source of Data……….……..16

E. Instrument of the Research……….……..17

1. Rhetorical Structure Theory……….……….17

2. RST TOOL……….……..18

F. Data Analysis Technique……….………..18

1. Data Collection……….………18

2. Data Analysis……….………...19

G. Research Stages………...19

1. Preliminary Research………..19

2. Designing Analysis………...19

3. Implementing Analysis………20

4. Analyzing data……….20

5. Concluding data ………..20

CHAPTER IV………...22

FINDING AND DISCUSSION………22

A. RESEARCH FINDING……….22

B. Discussion………50

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION………51

A. CONCLUSION………...51

B. SUGGESTION………...51

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the general issues related to the present study. These include the background of the study, research questions, purposes of the study, significance of the study, scope of the study and definition of key terms central to study.

A. Research Background

Writing is a form of expression and communication which enables learners to communicate ideas, feelings, and different attitudes in a written mode.1 If the writer could not pass the idea in a well form of writing text or passage, the reader would not be able to get the idea precisely as the writer want. Therefore, writing is categorized as the most difficult skill of language. In writing a formal text, there are many things that need to be concerned by the writer. Firstly, writers need to be formed sentences concerned with the word choices. Secondly, writers need to be able to produce well. And next, writer should be able to organize the ideas clearly and precisely. Organizing ideas is needed to convey a logical sequence of thought. If logical connections are missing, the reader could not get the idea precisely as the writer intended.

Logical connection in writing is commonly called as coherence. According to Hinkel, 2004 (cited in Ahmed, 2010) coherence is interpreted as “the organization of discourse with all

elements present and fitting together logically”.2 Coherence builds

logical and structural writing. “Writing cannot be achieved if there is no coherence between the words or the sentences which are

1 _{Nasira Gotheban, Magister Degree Dissertation “Identification and Analysis of}

Some Factors Behind Students’ Poor Writing Productions The Case Study Of 3rd Year Students At The English Department-Batna University” Algeria: (University of Sétif Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences Department of Foreign Languages, 2010) p.14

2

Abdel Hamid Ahmed, “Students’ Problems with Cohesion and Coherence in EFL Essay Writing in Egypt: Different Perspective” Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), Vol. 1, Issue 4, December 2010, p.211

2

arranged in a particular order and linked together in certain ways and above all, holding a meaning.”3

Producing a coherent piece of writing, in fact, is an

enormous challenge for EFL students.4 As student teacher of

English education department in UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya, they have four course steps during they learn writing. The first step was

taken in 2nd semester, where they learn paragraph writing. Then in

3rd semester they have to take essay writing, and argumentative

writing in 4th semester. Even though, they have learned writing to

this step, writing coherently is still become a very challenging task for them. It is known from Mimid’s (2016) research result stated that only 10% of 51 students who take argumentative course is able to make a very good coherent text. As the last step, is academic writing where the students’ were thought about how to write the proposal for a research purpose. For a university student, research proposal is very important as Prof. Nelleke Bak (cited in Devi Kusetyowati, 2014 p. 2) stated that Research Proposal is a planning document that outlines writer’s thinking about research problem and describes what is to be studied and how.5

After the students have learned all those writing steps, the students’ have to take seminar proposal course to prepare their thesis proposal seminar before they could do the research. As the outline of the research, thesis proposal needs to be well organized to convey a logical sequence of the writer thought. The researcher takes the data from students’ thesis proposal because it is the final preparation for students to conduct their research as their research plan. Beside the researcher also wants to know the students’ ability in building logical statement or coherency of it. As they are novice

3

Nasira Gotheban, Magister Degree Dissertation “Identification and Analysis………. p. 16.

4

Abdel Hamid Ahmed, “Students’ Problems with Cohesion and Coherence………….p. 211.

5

Devi Kusetyowati, Thesis: “Rhetorical Problem in Background of Research Proposal Writing (A Case Study of Research Proposal at English Teacher Education Department UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya)” Surabaya: (Islamic State University Sunan Ampel Surabaya, 2014) p.2

3

in writing a research proposal which will be presented before the examiner, it grows the researcher curiosity into the students’ ability in building logical statements in their writing.

According to Devi (2014), a good research proposal needs to follow certain rules to achieve its purpose. These include the language used, the grammatical structure, punctuation, the citing technique, quoting and referencing, the paraphrasing and

summarizing technique, and the ideas organization.6 Luna Jing Cai

(cited in Devi 2014) also stated that students have to follow some certain steps in order to make it easy for the readers to understand the proposal. A good Ideas organization could help to smooth the reader comprehension into the text.

Several studies, for example Muhammad Yusuf’s thesis (2013), Devi Kusetyowati’s thesis (2014), Nur Hasanah’s thesis (2015), Imaniar’s thesis (2016) have been performed on students’ research proposal. Research proposal writing has been used as an object in some research that been held in UIN Sunan Ampel yet none of them have been studying about the coherence.

Furthermore, the researcher have only found few study that held in UIN Sunan Ampel had analyzed coherence. For it is relatively new in the research on academic writing area. Beside unlike cohesion, coherence cannot be seen easily in written text. In one of the study about coherence in UIN Sunan Ampel has conclude that from 51 students who join argumentative course in English Teaching and Education Department of UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya only 10% who can build a very good coherence in their

writing.7 Thus, the researcher used the students’ research proposal

as the object of this research because there were no researchers whose study that focus on coherence in research proposal in UIN Sunan Ampel yet.

6

ibid 7

Mimid Anggi Apriliya, Thesis: “Students’ ability of building coherence and unity in argumentative writing at English education department of UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya”. Surabaya: (Islamic State University Sunan Ampel Surabaya, 2016)

4

Introduction, as part of research proposal, is important for the reader because reader will be evaluating a large number of the proposal from it. According to Khan, introduction provides an introduction and statement of the problem that will be studied or reviewed. In addition, it needs to show the reason why the issues are important to the study by providing brief background information. A coherence background of the research is also needed to make a good introduction.

Nadia Hellalet (2013) stated that coherence is a complex concept which has been subject to controversy among discourse analysts.8 According to the text-based approach, coherence refers to the semantic unity of the text that is achieved by means of cohesive ties (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). From this approach, coherence is described in terms of the linguistic features in the text that tell apart a text from a cluster of sentences. However, many researchers who think that coherence is achieved through the relationship among sentences and ideas in a text that contribute to its rhetorical unity criticize this approach. According to Fahnestock (1983), coherence is defined as the quality enabling a reader to get meaning from a text thanks to the paragraph organization which follows some model of development. Carrell (1982) points out “If a reader does not have, or fails to access, the appropriate schema underlying the text, all cohesive ties in the world won’t help that text cohere for that reader.”(p.485).

On the other hand, according to reader-based approach, coherence is achieved through the successful interaction between the reader and the text (Carrell 1982, cited in Hellalet 2013). Unlike the text-based approach, the achievement of coherence in the reader-based approach mainly focused on the meaning that the readers get from the text according to the schemata they activate and the expectation they have. Therefore the writer and the reader

8

Nadia Hellalet, “Textual coherence in EFL Student Writing” IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 15, Issue 3 (Sep. - Oct. 2013), PP 54-58

5

are expected to share content and formal schemata which lead to the coherence of the text.9

Textual coherence, though it cannot be seen easily, it has some way of measurement. Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) could be used to measure the text coherence. RST proposed by

Mann and Thompson10 studies that each text poses an underlying

rhetorical structure that allows the extraction of the communicative intention of the writer. According to RST coherence is defined as “the absence of non-sequiturs and gaps” (Mann, 1999). In other words, every part of a coherent text has some intended function or functions; that is, some plausible reason for its presence that is evident to the reader. Yet, if there are some parts that are somehow missing, this will affect the text’s coherence. In this method, rhetorical relations are defined to hold between two non-overlapping text spans called the nucleus and the satellite denoted by N and S. the nucleus (N) contain the most important pieces of information in the relations and are considered more relevant than the satellites. On the other hand, the satellites present additional information that helps the reader in the interpretation of the nuclei. 11

Rhetorical Structure theory was used in this study as a framework to assess coherence in the students’ research proposal’s introduction. This theory accounts for the text structure above the clause level. It deals with text as a medium of communication that is organized hierarchically. As Mann and Thompson (1988) put it, it “provides a general way to describe the relations among clauses in a text, whether or not are grammatically or lexically signaled” (p244). In fact, it is suitable in the study of text coherence as it

9

Nadia Hellalet,……….p.55

10

William C. Mann – Sandra A. Thompson, “Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization.” Technical Report from Information Sciences Institute (ISI),1987 pp. 1-91.

11

Marcio de S. Dias – Valeria D. Feltrim – Thiago A. S. Pardo, “Using Rhetorical Structure Theory and Entity Grids to Automatically Evaluate Local Coherence in Text” Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language 2014 pp 232-243

6

provides a framework for examining relational propositions, which coherence partially depends on. In addition, rhetorical structure theory is a functional account of the text as a whole. It analyzes text in terms of the effect the writer intends to get on the reader. Therefore, its main focus is the relations that exist among clauses rather than the explicit discourse markers. Rhetorical structure theory was adopted in this study because it gives a more objective analysis of coherence relations and a visual representation of these relations.12

B. Research Question

The problem in this research is:

How is students’ logical statement in their research proposal background at English Teacher Education Department in UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya?

C. Objective of the Study

The general objective of this study is to be aware of the students’ ability to build logical statements in their research proposal.

D. Significance of the Study

The aim of this study is expected to provide the following contribution:

1. Study may give novice research proposal writing students to

improve their ability in building coherency in their research proposal.

2. The result of the study is expected to indicate what English

Language Teacher Training department could do redesign the curriculum or courses to improve the students ability in building logical statement in their writing skill.

Finally this paper is expected to invite other scholars or researchers to conduct an organized and comprehensive research with regard to coherency in writing skill

12

7

E. Scope and Limit of the Study

This study wants to know how the students’ logical statements in their research proposals writing. It will measure the coherence in students’ research proposal. Isabel L. Beck et al stated that coherence is the extent to which the sequence of events makes sense and the extent to which the surface structure of the text makes the nature of these events and their relationship apparent. The way to make the text makes sense

This study limited to describe: first, students’ introduction in research proposal coherency. In this study, the researcher focuses on novice research proposal writing students in their writing ability to build logical and structural proposal writing. To get the data, the researcher observed the students’ research proposal.

F. Definition of Key Terms

To avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the meaning of terms in the study, the researcher will define the key term used in this research. It is expected to give the same understanding and interpretation between the writer and the reader. Those are:

1. Logical statement

Logical statement here means the coherency. As the meaning of coherence in writing refer to the logical connections that the reader perceives in a written text. 13

Coherence, according to RST, is defined as “the absence of non-sequiturs and gaps” (Mann, 1999). In other words, every part of a coherent text has some intended function or functions; that is, some plausible reason for its presence that is evident to

13

“What Is Coherence in Composition?”, About.com Education,

8

the reader. Yet, if there are some parts that are somehow missing, this will affect the text’s coherence.14

2. Research proposal

Research proposal is a document written by a researcher that provides a detailed description of the proposed program. It is like an outline of the entire research process that gives a

reader a summary of the information discussed in a project.15

Research proposal here is the research proposal written by novice researchers that just begin writing the research proposal in Academic Writing course at State Islamic University Sunan Ampel Surabaya 2016

3. Rhetorical Structure Theory

Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) is a descriptive theory

of a major aspect of the organization of natural text.16 It

provides a combination of features that has turned out to be useful in several kinds of discourse study. It identifies hierarchic structure in text. It describes the relations between text parts in functional terms, identifying both the transition point of a relation and the extent of the items related. Rhetorical Structure theory will be used in this study as a framework to assess coherence in the students’ research proposal’s introduction. This theory accounts for the text structure above the clause level. It deals with text as a medium of communication that is organized hierarchically.

Mann and Thompson provided in their paper, “Rhetorical

Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization” 1987, the definition of the elements of RST. They defines RST’s four kinds of defined object, they are Relations, Schemas, Schema

14

Nadia Hellalet,……….p.55 15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_proposal 29-09-2014/06.49 16

William C. Mann – Sandra A. Thompson, “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization”, Mouton de Gruyter 1988, Text 8(3) p.243-281

9

Applications, and Structure. Concisely, the relation definitions pinpoint particular relationship that can hold between two portions of a text. The schemas, based on the relations, explain patterns in which a particular span of text can be analyzed in term of other spans.17

As Mann and Thompson stated, that RST provides a general way to describe the relations among clauses in the text. It would be convenient to understand the proper definition of the relational proposition provided in the theory. Since the coherence of a text depends in part on these Relational Propositions. Relational propositions are propositions that arise from the text structure in the process of interpreting text which

are unstated but inferred.18 Moreover, RST provides a

framework for investigating Relational Propositions.

RST, in investigating Relational Propositions, provides a set of relations to represent the type of relations between the clauses and texts. For example the relation in the text 1:

1. I am bored, let’s go to Royal plaza.

This text has two clauses; the first one can be called as

nucleus (N) because it contains the most important pieces of information in the relations and are considered more relevant than the satellites. The second part here as the satellite (S) provide the solution for the problem stated in the N thus the predicate of the relational proposition in this example is called “Solutionhood”. In this case going to Royal Plaza “partially” solves the problem present. For the other definition of the relations19 is provided in the appendix 1.

17

William C. Mann – Sandra A. Thompson, “Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization”, Information Sciences Institute 1987, p.3 18

William C. Mann – Sandra A. Thompson, “Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization”, Information Sciences Institute 1987, p.3 19

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~billmann/rst-previewatusc/reldefs.htm#Listlink 21st November 2016

10

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In this chapter, the researcher reviews the related theories and literatures to understand the question theoretically.

A. Review of Related Literature 1. Coherence in writing

Coherence, according to some researcher, is achieved through the relationships among sentences and ideas in a text that contribute to its rhetorical unity. Thus, when the reader is able to reconstruct the writer’s implication on the basis of the information and strategies he/she brings to the comprehension

process and the text’s cues1. Li Fengjie et al also stated that

coherence means clear and sensible connection between parts and all the parts in a sentence are connected in smooth and logical order. Since the conceptual meaning of English sentences mainly depends on word order, so the arrangement of the parts of a sentence is especially important to accurate

expression of ideas.2 In order to make a clear and sensible

connection in the text, the writer needs to put some features in the text. Icy Lee in her paper stated there are five features that included in coherence. They are: 1) A macrostructure that provides a pattern characteristic and appropriate to its communicative purpose, 2) An information structure that guides the reader in understanding how information is organized and how the topic of text is developed, 3) Connectivity of the underlying content evidenced by relations between propositions, 4) Connectivity of the surface text evidenced by the presence of cohesive devices, and 5) Appropriate metadiscourse features

1

Nadia Hellalet, “Textual coherence in EFL Student Writing” IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 15, Issue 3 (Sep. - Oct. 2013), PP 54-58

2

Li Fengjie – Yuan Xiuying – Zhang Chuanze, “Analysis of the Problems on Coherence in College English Writing” international Journal of Language and Linguistics, Vol.2, No.6, 2014,pp.387-390

11

Icy Lee also explained that macrostructure is an outline of the main categories or functions of the text. The writer’s purpose plays an important role in determining it. For example, when the writer’s purpose is to tell a story, it is common to arrange the events using a chronological order.3 In this case, the introduction of research proposal’s purpose is to argue that the writer ideas are important, thus the writer could arrange the ideas’ strength and weakness, so that both sides are examined, followed by a conclusion in which the writer could confirm the importance of the ideas.

Furthermore coherence text usually developed from known topic to lead the reader and make them grasp the new topic easily. To make a smooth development a coherence text also need a proper proposition, because without a proper proposition it can easily become a mere generalization. Similar with proposition, the use of cohesive devices also help to establish relationships between different sentences or between different parts of a sentence.

The last feature that Icy lee has explained is appropriate metadiscourse. Icy Lee (2002) refers Metadiscourse to:

Linguistic material in texts that does not add anything to the propositional content, but is intended to help the reader interpret and evaluate the information given. Metadiscourse guides the reader through the text, linking individual propositions so that they form a cohesive and coherent whole. Pp.39

Thus she stated when writers understand how those elements of coherence work in text, they are more likely to use them appropriately to develop coherence in their writing.4

3

Icy Lee, “Helping Students Develop Coherence in Writing”, English Teaching Forum, Hong Kong, 2002. P.33

4

12

2. Rhetorical Structure Theory

According to Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), coherence is defined as the absence of non-sequiturs and gaps (Mann, 1999 cited in Hellalet, 2013). Since the coherence of a text depends in part on relational proposition, RST has been useful in the study of text coherence. Because RST provides a framework for investigating Relational Propositions, which are unstated but inferred proposition that arise from the text structure in the process of interpreting texts (Mann and Thompson 1988).

As noted before, rhetorical relations are defined to hold

between two non-overlapping text spans called the nucleus and

the satellite denoted by N and S. the nucleus (N) contain the most important pieces of information in the relations and are considered more relevant than the satellites. On the other hand, the satellites (S) present additional information that helps the reader in the interpretation of the nuclei. 5 The RST relations are divided into two classes: mononuclear and multinuclear relations. The mononuclear relations are composed of pairs of one nuclear and one satellite. On the other hand, multinuclear relations link between a nuclear with another nuclear (it could be more than 2 nuclear). Each of them are divided into more specific relations, those relations are important part in measuring coherence within a text.

3. RST TOOL

Rhetorical Structure Theory Tool, or commonly known as RSTTOOL, is graphical tool for annotating a text in terms of its rhetorical Structure6. It helps the study of discourse to make the

5

Marcio de S. Dias – Valeria D. Feltrim – Thiago A. S. Pardo, “Using Rhetorical Structure Theory and Entity Grids to Automatically Evaluate Local Coherence in Text” Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language 2014 pp 232-243

6

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~billmann/rst-previewatusc/toolnote.htm 23rd November 2016

13

study as it simplify the analysis and also make it easier to be analyzed by others. RSTTOOL can also be used as a diagram

preparation for inclusion in papers.7 It facilitates manual

analysis of a text’s rhetorical structure. Therefore the researcher will use this tool to help the study in analyzing the text’s coherence in the students’ research proposal background.

B. Review of Previous Study

Nasira Gotheban in her dissertation entitled “Identification and analysis of some factors behind students’ poor writing productions the Case study of 3rd year students at the English Department Batna University”, argued that students’ motivation and anxiety

could have effect to their writing ability.8 She also stated that

motivation makes writing pleasant and enjoyable. Therefore the students will be able to produce a good writing. a good writing is The majority of teachers in her dissertation interview admit that good writing means correct grammar, good ideas, specific vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, clarity, coherence, and focus.9

In addition, In “Student’s Problems with Cohesion and Coherence in EFL Essay Writing in Egypt: Different Perspective” Abdel Hamid Ahmed stated that there are some factors that affect EFL students’ coherency in writing. The factors that mentioned are: 1.) students’ background knowledge, 2.) students’ English proficiency, 3.) EFL students’ tend to follow certain techniques, usually the cultural influenced it, in their written English that make their writing incoherent, 4.) students’ overused coordinate sentences and misused topic sentences, 5.) students’ lack motivation, 6.) lack of self-confidence, 7.) writing anxiety. The last three factors are mainly caused psychologically which Ahmed analyzed it as the effect of the teaching techniques in the university

7

Michael O’Donnell, “RST TOOL 2.4 – A Markup Tool for Rhetorical Structure theory”.

8

Gotheban, “Identification and analysis of some factors Behind students’ poor writing productions the Case study of 3rd year students at the english

Department Batna university”. 9

14

and a number of socio-cultural issues. From those factors that Abdel Hamid Ahmed stated previously researcher will choose only two of them: 1.) Students’ background knowledge, and 2.) the cultural interference in the students’ writing.

15

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

A. Approach and Research Design

Research design is a plan made by researcher for the plan of action that be conducted.1 This study use explanatory approach, it is a research that emphasizes disclosure of the cases in certain scope and in particular issues. The disclosure is conducted comprehensively, integrative, deeply and sustained. This model is used directly as it can solve a problem practically. In short, qualitative research is to obtain meanings or to understand in depth the indications, incidents, facts or certain problem regarding social phenomenon and humanity with its complexities. It is not aimed to explain the correlation of variables or to proof the cause-effect of certain problem. The key to do such research is the richness of data and various perspectives because it used to seize the focus of the problem comprehensively.

In this study, the phenomenon that observed is logical statement in research proposal background. The researcher analyzed deeply the rhetorical relations and coherence which found in research proposal by the eight semester students in English Education Department, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya. To obtain the data, the researcher conducted a document study. Then finally the researcher withdraw conclusion for the findings.

B. Researcher Presence

In this study, the researcher is the key of instrument and as someone who collect the data. But to analyze the data, the researcher used a theory to support the research instrument. The theory would be used in this research is Rhetorical Structure Analysis by Mann and Thompson. Then to analyze the data

1

Suharsini Arikunto, “Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek”

16

researcher will use RSTTOOL to prepare the diagram in order to make it easier to analyze the data.

Moreover, the researcher is the fully participant in this study because she does a document study to get the result. She does an intensive reading by read the background which is as the subject of this research and she reads and compares it to the theory.

C. Research Location

This study will be conducted in English Teacher Education Department (ETED) at Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya. It is located in Jl. A.Yani 117 Surabaya.

The subject of this study is the research proposal background of the eight semester students of English Education Department. The reason, which supports the researcher to choose them based on the consideration that in eight semester, students have to write a research proposal before they start to write a thesis. A good proposal needs a clear and good background of the research. The background is an important part to convey the purpose of research and to motivate the readers to understand the research which will be done. The subject of this study is about the coherence of background in research proposal. To know the coherence, the researcher analyzes the rhetorical relation in the background of research proposal. Those are going to be the focus of the study in this research. Therefore, the researcher wants to know how the student’s coherence in their research proposal background. Those correspond to the statements of problems in Chapter 1.

D. Data and Source of Data

Data collection has function to gather the information used by researcher. The emphasis in data collection is to develop research evidence analytically, searching for a broad arrangement of evidence which search both confirming and disconfirming data. The sources data are from the research proposal background of the

17

eight semester students at English Teacher Education Department UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Proposal which are taken as source of data are those which is done of the eight students after they join proposal examination in UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya. There will be only one type of data to answer the problem in this research. The data of this study are the rhetorical relation in the research proposal background in the eight semester students. The researcher will use Mann and Thompson’s theory of Rhetorical Structure Analysis to analyse the relation of background of research proposal to know the rhetorical relation in students’ research proposal background.

E. Instrument of the Research

To get the empirical data and draw the conclusion or the result of research, the writer will use some instruments. Instrument here is a tool to measure which potentially make the researcher easier in collecting data and analysis. Thus, the researcher designs the instruments for investigating research questions in Rhetorical Structure Theory with the help of RSTTOOL.

1. Rhetorical Structure Theory

According to Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), coherence is defined as the absence of non-sequiturs and gaps (Mann, 1999 cited in Hellalet, 2013). Since the coherence of a text depends in part on relational proposition, RST has been useful in the study of text coherence. Because RST provides a framework for investigating Relational Propositions, which are unstated but inferred proposition that arise from the text structure in the process of interpreting texts (Mann and Thompson 1988).

As noted before, rhetorical relations are defined to hold

between two non-overlapping text spans called the nucleus

and the satellite denoted by N and S. the nucleus (N) contain the most important pieces of information in the relations and are considered more relevant than the satellites. On the other

18

helps the reader in the interpretation of the nuclei. 2 The RST relations are divided into two classes: mononuclear and multinuclear relations. The mononuclear relations are composed of pairs of one nuclear and one satellite. On the other hand, multinuclear relations link between a nuclear with another nuclear (it could be more than 2 nuclear). Each of them are divided into more specific relations, those relations are important part in measuring coherence within a text. The definition of those relations explained

2. RST TOOL

Rhetorical Structure Theory Tool, or commonly known as RSTTOOL, is graphical tool for annotating a text in terms of its rhetorical Structure. It helps the study of discourse to make the study as it simplify the analysis and also make it easier to be analyzed by others. RSTTOOL can also be used as a diagram preparation for inclusion in papers.3 It facilitates manual analysis of a text’s rhetorical structure. Therefore the researcher will use this tool to help the study in analyzing the text’s coherence in the students’ research proposal background.

F. Data Analysis Technique 1. Data Collection

In this study, data collected by techniques of conducting document study of the research proposal background of the eight semester students of English Education and Language program in UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya. In essence, to answer

the research question, How is students’ ability in building

2

Marcio de S. Dias – Valeria D. Feltrim – Thiago A. S. Pardo, “Using Rhetorical Structure Theory and Entity Grids to Automatically Evaluate Local Coherence in Text” Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language 2014 pp 232-243

3

Michael O’Donnell, “RST TOOL 2.4 – A Markup Tool for Rhetorical Structure theory”.

19

logical statement in their research proposal of the eight semester students in UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya?

To answer the question, the researcher will conduct the analysis of rhetorical relation of research proposal background by using Rhetorical Structure Theory and analyze it based on the rhetorical relation in RSTTOOL.

2. Data Analysis

In light of descriptive qualitative method, the researcher will analyze the data descriptively. Data obtained from the rhetorical structure analysis analyzed in statistic descriptive approach. It transforms the rhetorical relation of the data into the form of description data.

Finally, the researcher descriptively put the interpretation towards the data to be discussed into the findings of the research with consistently referring to the research question as ensuring way whether the questions are answered.

G. Research Stages

This research will be structurally conducted based on these following procedures:

1. Preliminary Research

In order to clarify the problems linked to this research, the researcher will begin this study by conducting preliminary research. This preliminary research review will be such great information obtained by the researcher about problem focus. Through this step, the researcher can ensure and figure out the real coherence phenomenon happened in eight semester students’ research proposal background in UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

2. Designing Analysis

In this step, the researcher will design the ways of analyzing the rhetorical relations in research proposal

20

background. It will be designed by adapting the instrument of Rhetorical Structure Theory and by RST TOOL. Those will be used by the researcher to analyze the rhetorical structure of research proposal background. Then to analyze the rhetorical problem, the researcher will use the finding of the primary data to analyze the rhetorical problem in research proposal background. To get the secondary data, the researcher is as the key instrument because the researcher will analyze the data by herself. Furthermore, it will be obviously corrected by the advisor of the researcher to meet the good instrument validity and to be applied for the test and re-test of reliability.

3. Implementing Analysis

In term of analyzing the coherence of research proposal background, the researcher will begin to analyze the relational propositions by using Rhetorical Structure Theory. The researcher will analyze each type of relation in the background to conclude the schematic structure in the students’ research proposal background. To help analyze each move in the background, the researcher will use Rhetorical Structure Theory Tool because it helps the researcher simplify the rhetorical relation diagram in order to reduce the complicated way in analyzing the background. After get the data of rhetorical relations of background, the researcher will analyze how the coherence in students’ background of research proposal.

4. Analyzing data

After obtaining data from some instruments used in this research, the researcher directly collect and analyze the data in attempt to get the answer of the research questions. Data analyzed from the results of the instruments.

5. Concluding data

In term of getting the research findings, concluding the data is a step to deal with the result of this study. It can be

21

obtained by reviewing back on the research questions and the data analysis from the Rhetorical Structure Theory tool. The researcher will directly be able to conclude the result obtained from data analysis as the research findings of this study.

22

CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

The objective of this study is to be aware of the students’ ability to build logical statements in their research proposal background. This chapter presents the data analysis, the finding and the discussion of the data. These include the analysis of the rhetorical relations structure in the analyzed research proposal background.

As stated before, the relations are defined to hold between

Nucleus (N) and Satellite (S). Its definition consists of four fields which is derived from the effect field and contains no additional information about the relation. Those fields are: Constraints on the nucleus (N), constraints on the satellite (S), constraints on the combination of N and S, the last is the effect. Each field specifies particular judgments that the text analyst must make in building the RST structure. Rather than certainty, these are judgments of plausibility. In the case of the Effect field, the analyst is judging whether it is plausible that the writer desires the specified condition.1

A. RESEARCH FINDING

Based on the data used in the Proposal background of the eight semester students (see appendix 1), it identify relational propositions in each background. It also shows some gaps and non-sequiturs in their Proposal background. In this research, analyzing the relational propositions in the background and draw the diagram structure used RST Tool to help the researcher identify the relational propositions and find the gaps and non-sequiturs. Relational proposition do not ascend independently of the relational definition. Rather, the findings of relational definitions hold are sufficient to establish the corresponding relational proposition.2

Analyzing the relations used in the background and identifies

the relation gap and non-sequitur use RST Tool helps the

1

William C. Mann – Sandra A. Thompson, “Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization”, Information Sciences Institute 1987, p.4 2

William C. Mann – Sandra A. Thompson, “Assertions from Discourse Structure”, Information Sciences Institute 1985, p.17

23

researcher to conclude the relational propositions which are unstated but inferred proposition that arise from the text structure in the process of interpreting texts. Since the coherence of a text depends in part on these Relational Proposition. The following tables represent statistic relations of each Proposal background of the eight semester students. The variable are the name of the relations, the number they occurs in the proposal background and the percentage of it. The first row is the Proposal number (8 analyzed proposal backgrounds) then the first column is the relations names set from Mann and Thompson.

The relations set in the RST has been developed from the first relation set, the classic set from Mann and Thompson, to the extension set by Mann and Thompson, which is used in this research. Another set are Marcu and Mick relations, each named after the developer of the relation. The researcher only uses the relations extension set by Mann and Thompson, because this set is much simpler than others.

24

Table 4.1

The statistic result from the analysis

No Relation name A B C D

N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean

Mono-nuclear Relations

1 Antithesis 1 1.5% 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 1 1.2%

2 Background 9 13.2% 5 9.6% 5 13.2% 9 10.8%

3 Circumstance 7 10.3% 3 5.8% 2 5.3% 1 1.2%

4 Concession 2 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2%

5 Condition 0 0.0% 2 3.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

6 Elaboration 13 19.1% 18 34.6% 2 5.3% 12 14.5%

7 Enablement 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.6% 0 0.0%

8 Evaluation 2 2.9% 2 3.8% 0 0.0% 2 2.4%

9 Evidence 4 5.9% 2 3.8% 2 5.3% 2 2.4%

10 Interpretation 1 1.5% 1 1.9% 4 10.5% 5 6.0%

11 Justify 7 10.3% 3 5.8% 2 5.3% 7 8.4%

12 Means 2 2.9% 3 5.8% 2 5.3% 1 1.2%

13 Motivation 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

14 Nonvolitional-cause 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

15 Nonvolitional-result 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

16 Otherwise 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

17 Preparation 3 4.4% 4 7.7% 3 7.9% 7 8.4%

18 Purpose 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

19 Restatement 4 5.9% 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 4 4.8%

20 Solutionhood 2 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.4%

21 Summary 4 5.9% 0 0.0% 1 2.6% 7 8.4%

22 Unconditional 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

23 Unless 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

24 Unstated-relation 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

25 Volitional-cause 3 4.4% 2 3.8% 0 0.0% 6 7.2%

26 Volitional-result 0 0.0% 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Multi-nuclear Relations

1 Conjuction 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

2 Contrast 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

3 Disjunction 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

4 Joint 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 7.2%

5 List 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 18.4% 4 4.8%

6 Restatement-mn 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.4%

7 Sequence 0 0.0% 2 3.8% 2 5.3% 0 0.0%

25

No Relation name E F G H

N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean

Mono-nuclear Relations

1 Antithesis 4 6.7% 0 0.0% 1 2.2% 1 1.4.%

2 Background 5 8.3% 10 9.4% 5 11.1% 10 14.3%

3 Circumstance 1 1.7% 3 2.8% 0 0.0% 1 1.4%

4 Concession 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.2% 0 0.0%

5 Condition 2 3.3% 2 1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

6 Elaboration 16 26.7% 26 24.5% 12 26.7% 21 30.0%

7 Enablement 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

8 Evaluation 0 0.0% 6 5.7% 1 2.2% 0 0.0%

9 Evidence 1 1.7% 6 5.7% 0 0.0% 4 5.7%

10 Interpretation 5 8.3% 4 3.8% 0 0.0% 4 5.7%

11 Justify 4 6.7% 7 6.6% 4 8.9% 2 2.9%

12 Means 1 1.7% 4 3.8% 0 0.0% 1 1.4%

13 Motivation 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

14 Nonvolitional-cause 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

15 Nonvolitional-result 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

16 Otherwise 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

17 Preparation 4 6.7% 1 0.9% 3 6.7% 2 2.9%

18 Purpose 0 0.0% 1 0.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

19 Restatement 3 5.0% 5 4.7% 5 11.1% 4 5.7%

20 Solutionhood 3 5.0% 2 1.9% 1 2.2% 2 2.9%

21 Summary 2 3.3% 4 3.8% 0 0.0% 3 4.3%

22 Unconditional 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

23 Unless 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

24 Unstated-relation 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

25 Volitional-cause 2 3.3% 4 3.8% 3 6.7% 6 8.6%

26 Volitional-result 0 0.0% 2 1.9% 0 0.0% 2 2.9%

Multi-nuclear Relation

1 Conjuction 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 8.9% 2 2.9%

2 Contrast 2 3.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.9%

3 Disjunction 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

4 Joint 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

5 List 4 6.7% 9 8.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

6 Restatement-mn 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

7 Sequence 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

26

The relational definition that commonly used in the students’ research proposal background is Elaboration. It can be seen from the statistic table above, which shows that elaboration has mostly more than 10% from the total relational definition in each data. Elaboration is a relation in which the satellite (S) constraint in giving additional information to the nucleus (N). It is plausible for the Reader (R) to recognize S as providing additional detail for N. this extract from the proposal background H has an example of the elaboration relation. The writer is providing the detail information of Indonesian’s reading score.

26. According to Programme for International Student Assessment

or known as PISA (2012) Indonesia’s reading is still in low level of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development or known as OECD,

27. Indonesia has mean reading score is 396 of the average of

OECD is 496.

28. The newest PISA in 2015 about Indonesia reading already

published and Indonesia had increasing 1 point from previous PISA.

29. It becomes 340 from the average of OECD and it is still in

below average.

PIC TUR E 1

From the diagram’s picture above, the span number 27 and 28 is additional information for the previous. The previous span

27

number 26 is the general information that the span number 27 and 28 give the detail information. In the span number 28 and 29, where the span number 29 provide the more detail information for the span number 28 and not for the span number 26. Because the

plausible judgment above, the nucleus is the span number 28 for

the Satellite spannumber29. The student writers, in their research proposal background, used some new information. Thus they added more additional information to give more understanding for the readers.

Another example for Elaboration can be found in the extra from the proposal background F.

81. It means that to achieve this aspect, the qualified professors,

lecturers, stuffs and selected students play important role to build high quality faculty.

82. The selected students are expected to do their best research

and be outstanding outcomes from the faculty.

83. To attract the most talented people in one of majors, the

faculty needs to show their best outcomes to the public.

84. This can be an evidence to attract people from many places.

PIC TUR E 2

The elaboration relation from the picture shows that it is plausible to the observer that it is plausible to the writer that the

28

satellite described the detail importance of the selected students to do their best and be outstanding outcomes from the faculty. As Elaboration relation is where the satellite is containing the more specific, detail, attribute, step, or part of subject matter which is presented in the nucleus.

Beside Elaboration, Background and justify are used more often rather than the other relations. Background is a relation that has effect on increasing the readers’ ability in comprehending the text. The satellite texts have piece information that is needed in order to understand the nucleus text. This extract from the proposal background A has an example of the Background relation.

50. Despite of that, UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya has also a vision,

as an Islamic university that prepares excellent and competitive students’ outcome as international students.

51. Furthermore, UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya is ongoing process

to be the World Class University after upgrading from Islamic State Institute several years ago.

52. Becoming the World Class University, it requires preparing

the students outcome as well.

53. Automatically, it boosts the students to have the writing ability be better continuously.

29

From the diagram picture 3 above it can be seen that the texts number 51 to 53 are the Satellite. It is plausible to the analyst that it is plausible to the writer that comprehending those texts number 51 to 53 will increase the reader understanding in text number 50. In a research proposal background, it is plausible that the writer added new information. It is in line with the purpose of research proposal background, which is proposing an idea, theory or problem to be subject of research. The writer needs to make the ideas presentable and understandable for the reader. Thus the writers need to put themselves in position of the reader who has no background knowledge of the ideas.

Therefore it is plausible if the writer added some more background and Elaboration in their Research Proposal writing. In addition, to justify the writer’s right to express the ideas, it is also plausible for the writer added some supporting text. The relation of these texts would be Justify, as it effect is to support the writer’s right to express the text. In this research, Justify relation has been found in all of the proposal background. And it can be seen from the table 4.1 that the usage of Justify relation is third mostly used after Elaboration and Background relation. This extract from the proposal background C has an example of the justify relation. The writer is providing the supporting information to increase the reader readiness to accept the writer right to present the ideas.

1. How do we know whether we have done something right or

not?

2. Generally, we rely on it to the feedbacks from other, because

seeing the weaknesses of the other is easier than their strengths, most of the people choosing the negative comment to be provided.

3. However, the positive or even the negative feedback, surely it

can to be our evaluation towards our works result.

4. Vibha Chawla in his research defines that feedback is the most

important component as it contributes significantly to behavior modification of the student teachers.

5. Hattie also defines feedback is one of the most powerful

30

6. Feedback must be provided to motivate each other, it can be

formed as advice and criticism.

7. Feedback can come from many sources, in the learning process,

especially in the class, we can get feedback from teacher and classmates ( Peer-feedback ).

PIC TUR E 5

From the diagram picture above, it can be seen that the third text relation with the second text is Justify. Thus it is plausible to the analyst that it is plausible that the writer intend to use the third text to support the writer’s right to express the second text. As Justify relation is important in argumentative type of text.

Justify, in relation of RST, is form a subgroup with Evidence; both involved the reader’s attitude toward the nucleus. As mentioned before, A Justify satellite is intended to increase the reader’s readiness to accept the writer’s right to present the nuclear material or idea. Almost similar to Justify, An Evidence satellite is intended to increase the reader’s belief in the nuclear material or idea. This extract from the proposal background D has an example

31

of the Evidence relation. The writer is providing the supporting information to increase the reader’s belief in the material or idea.

28. One effect of the different styles developed by men and women

is that certain features become very disturbing in cross-gender interactions.

29. In same gender discussion, there is little difference in number

of speakers interrupt each other rather than in cross-gender interaction which is men interrupt women with 96 percent amount of interruption.

30. The interruption of interaction can be one of factors that affect students’ self-confidence which also effect on learning speaking and students’ discussion in class.

PIC TUR E 6

The diagram Picture above shows that the relation for text number 28 and 29 is Evidence. It is plausible to the analyst that the writer intended to increase the reader belief in the different styles developed by men and women is become very disturbing in the cross-gender interaction. Thus, in the text number 29 the writer put some evidence that in cross-gender interaction which is men interrupt women with 96 percent amount of interruption.

From all the three previous relation, the Elaboration and Background relation are pointing on adding more information for the nucleus. Other than those two, there is also Interpretation relation that pointing the same as the previous two. But in Interpretation relation, the writer intends to give the meaning of the

32

situation in the nucleus. For the example, this extract from the proposal background E has an example of the Interpretation relation. The writer is providing the meaning of the situation in the nucleus.

16. If the teacher can make the students participate well in the

classroom,

17. it means that the teacher success make the students engage with

the lesson.

PIC TUR E 7

From the diagram picture above, it is plausible to the observer that it is plausible to the writer intend to interpret the situation in the nucleus. In the text number 16, the writer mentions a situation when the teacher can make the students participate well in the classroom. Then the writer explain in the text number 17, as the satellite, the teacher ability in engaging students in the class means that the teacher is success. The satellite in this interpretation relation does not concern with the Writer positive regard toward the nucleus.

Means relation is rather similar with the interpretation relation. But it more focus on presenting the method or instrument which tends to make realization of the nucleus, while the interpretation relation focus more to ascribe the particular situation in nucleus. The example of the Means relation can be observed in the extract from the proposal background E. The writer provides a

33

method or instrument which tends to make realization of the nucleus.

11. Students’ engagement can be created from the teacher

12. by providing fun activity and the activity involves the students’

participation.

P

I C T U R E

8

The method or instrument the writer added here tend to make the realization in the nucleus. Thus it is plausible to the analyst that it is plausible to the writer to make the reader realize the method in creating student’s engagement for the teacher is by providing fun activity which involves the student’s participation.

In the relation set which is used in this research, it contains 26

mono-nuclear relations and 7 multi-nuclear relations (see the table

4.1), but not all the relation are used in the analysis of this research. It is because not all the relations are compatible with this type of writing. For example Nonvolitional-cause and result, both are incompatible with this type of text. Nonvolitional-cause is a relation where the satellite is a situation which causes another situation in the nucleus but not by anyone’s deliberate action. In contrary the volitional-cause relation is caused by someone’s deliberate action. For example in the extract from proposal background F, the writer provides the cause of the volitional action in the nucleus.

42. Those tasks will facilitate the students to think more complex,

34

them to match the right expression of giving opinion or to summarize the paragraph.

43. It is because in giving opinion, the students will think critically about the information and then give judgment related to it.

44. This is in line with the learning objective to distinguish

problem may happen after the issue, the students might think critically and creatively to think about the answer.

PIC TUR E 9

From the text number 43, it is clearly provide the cause of the situation in the nucleus. Thus it is plausible to the analyst that it is plausible to the writer to provide the satellite as a cause of the students to think more complex, creative and critical as mentioned in the nucleus. While the nucleus in the Volitional-cause relation is being a result situation of the Satellite, in contrary the nucleus in the Volitional-result relation is provided as the cause of the situation in the satellite. The example of the Volitional-result relation can be observed in the extract of the proposal background F.

47. Their experiences of reading are built by reading habit before

they go to the real field in Education that is school.

48. That is why, knowing about student teachers’ reading habit as

the candidate of teachers is important.

49. Explaining about reading habit in student teacher, student

teacher should be aware and consider about their reading habit level.

35

50. According to American Library Association that stated in

Oguz’s journal, the level of reading habit here can be categorized as seldom, moderate or constant readers.

51. Knowing about their level of reading habit can help student

teacher to get ready when they go to the real teaching practice in Teaching Internship.

52. They can be aware about experienced with any kinds of reading

materials.

53. In addition, several factors can be influenced people’s reading

habit itself.

54. People can be categorized as seldom, moderate or constant

readers in their reading habit must be affected with some factors.

PIC TUR E 10

This volitional-result relation can be seen in the picture that shows number 51 and 52 as the satellite for the nucleus number 48. As explained before, the nucleus here provide situation in the importance of knowing the student teacher’s reading habit, and the result of knowing their reading habit level can help the student teacher to get ready when they go practice teaching in the real class, thus they can be aware about experienced with any kinds of reading materials. It is plausible to the analyst that it is plausible to the writer to provide the satellite as the result of the situation in the

36

nucleus. This volitional-result relation is rarely found in the analysis result in this research. As it can be concluded from the table 4.1 that total usage of Volitional-result relation is not more than five, on the contrary the Volitional-cause relation is used more than 20.

As Mann and Thompson stated before, that coherence is the absence of gap and non-sequitur, one example of good coherence according to RST in this research is the analysis of proposal background C. It can be seen in the diagram picture 11 that contain a full diagram analysis of the proposal background. When doing analysis using RST, it does not concern with the numbers of the sentences or the paragraphs. Because RST analysis is insensitive to the text size, as it more focuses to describe the relations among the clauses in a text whether or not they are grammatically or lexically signaled. It also has been used as an analytical tool for a wide range of text types. Those statement could be seen in analysis result that been done in this research. Therefore, it is not hinder this research to know the students’ ability in building logical statement in their research proposal background. As the logical statement is a statement structured logically from the first statement to the final statement. Structured logically here means that the statements need to be related with each other without a gap or non-sequitur, thus the research proposal background they write will have a good coherence.

PROPOSAL C

1. How do we know whether we have done something right or

not?

2. Generally, we rely on it to the feedbacks from other, because

seeing the weaknesses of the other is easier than their strengths, most of the people choosing the negative comment to be provided.

3. However, the positive or even the negative feedback, surely it

can to be our evaluation towards our works result.

4. Vibha Chawla in his research defines that feedback is the most

important component as it contributes significantly to behavior modification of the student teachers.

37

5. Hattie also defines feedback is one of the most powerful

influences on learning and achievement.

6. Feedback must be provided to motivate each other, it can be

formed as advice and criticism.

7. Feedback can come from many sources, in the learning process,

especially in the class, we can get feedback from teacher and classmates ( Peer-feedback ).

8. From that statement above, we can say that the effect of

feedback can be very strong and can improve the teaching-learning process.

9. It is important to realize that as the student-teachers must be

concerned more about feedback.

10. As student-teachers we must take the practice teaching class

before we experience the real teaching practice in the school and class that is called by internship program.

11. What is Internship Program? Based on the Pedoman Praktik

Pengalaman Lapangan ( PPL ) that published on 2016 by Tarbiyah and Teacher Training of UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya, PPL or Teaching practice is one of a program that made to apply all the teaching theories from the previous semester in a real-time school condition and situation.

12. Every pre-service teacher or student-teachers who will take on

the internship program need to be passed according to English Teacher Education Departement’s rule and the Tarbiyah Faculty.

13. In the teaching practice class, the pre-service teacher or

student-teachers will practice and apply all the material that have they got in the previous semester, individually.

14. In UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya, as one of state university

which has the Education Faculty inside, of course, they have this subject to be carried on it, exactly in the sixth semester the teaching practice or microteaching class will be held.

15. As stated in short explanation above, this class is a teaching

simulation that will contain 11 – 15 students in it to maximalize their learning also teaching-skill as the pre-service English teacher.

38

16. There are nine teaching practice classes in this year according

to the Siakad of UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

17. There is one phenomenon that interested this researcher to digs

in more about feedback.

18. As the researcher experienced, not all people like to accept the

comments from other especially from the same level in the learning process.

19. In the case of feedback and teaching practice the researcher

who takes the English Teacher Education Departement as her major of study, she had experience that in teaching practice class all of the students will be divided into three roles, those are ST as a Teacher, ST as Students-roleplay and ST as observers.

20. While student-teachers as a teacher have their turn to practice

their teaching skill, that is the time for the observer to observe how the way their friend teach in the microteaching.

21. After that, the student-teachers as an observer will give

feedbacks towards their teaching practice.

22. Max Praver, in his research entitled by “Attitudes and Affect

toward Peer Evaluation in EFL Reading Circles”, in his research background stated that there is potential for discomfort zone over the students in receive or give, such as feedback, especially from their friends.

23. Similarly of this research that will find out more about the

feedback especially peer-feedback in practice teaching class.

24. There, Max Praver stated that there is a relation between the

peer-feedback and their attitudes in receive and provide some feedback.

25. Firstly, what is called by attitudes?

26. Based on American Heritage Dictionary, Attitude is State of

mind.

27. Furthermore, Webster 9th New World Dictionary stated it as

Mental position related to a fact or statement.

28. Moreover McKeachie and Doyle in their book of Psychology:

The Short Course stated that an expectation or organization of concept, beliefs, habits and motivation related to a particular object.

39

29. In one of the dissertation the author found that the theory of

attitude stated by Oskamp and Schultz, they define an attitude as a predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given attitude object.

30. As has been stated by those arguments the researcher explains

that attitude here is stated as same as the respond of students-teacher towards their own peer-feedback.

31. Important to realize, as the observer of their friends, they need

to observe the ST’s Performance.

32. In short that the ST as the observer will provide some

comments towards their friend's performance in teaching practice class.

33. Back to the last statement of the researcher supported by Max

Praver research that not all people, especially learners, want to receive comments that usually called by feedback from others, even from their friends that have the same level in teaching-learning processes.

34. Those reasons constitute the researcher to investigate more

about what are ST Attitudes toward the Peer-feedback and also how far does peer-feedback can affect in ST following teaching performance in the practice teaching class, in a research entitled by “Student-Teacher Attitudes Towards Peer-feedback in Practice Teaching Class at UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya.”

40

V -c Bg R M e E vi Sum In t R Bg Bg P rep P rep Ci r El El Ci r In t M e Bg In t Se q L is t En Bg J J P rep In t R L is t

41

Note:

Prep = Preparation J = Justify

R = Restatement Int = Interpretation

Bg = Background En = Enablement

Me = Means Cir = Circumstance

El = Elaboration Seq = Sequence

Evi = Evidence Sum = Summary

V-c = Volitional-cause

From the proposal background C relation diagram, it is plausible to the analyst to assume that there is no gap or non-sequitur within the analysis result of the proposal background C. It is because the clauses in the proposal background contain the relational proposition with each of them. Thus, the diagram of proposal background C symbolizes the relation within. It is plausible to the observer that it is plausible to the writer to provide the text number 1 to 23 for facilitating understanding for the text number 34. Therefore, the background relation is plausible relation between text numbers 1-23 with text number 34.

For the text numbers 24-33, it is plausible to the analyst that it is plausible to the writer to provide it as the situation which causes the other situation in the text number 34, thus the volitional-cause relation is plausible relation between text numbers 24-33 and text number 34. It is in line with the writer statement in the text number 34 that the previous statements are the reasons constitute the writer to investigate more about what are ST Attitudes toward the Peer-feedback and also how far does peer-Peer-feedback can affect in ST following teaching performance in the practice teaching class.

Beside those mono-nuclear relations that mentioned before, there are also multi-nuclear relations that used in the result of this analysis. Multi-nuclear relation is a relation that does not carry a definite selection of one nucleus. From the diagram picture 11 the researcher found 2 types of nuclear relation. The first multi-nuclear relation that the analyst found in the proposal background C is in the text number 6 and 7. It is plausible to the analyst that it is plausible to the writer to add two comparable items linked by the list relation. The text number 6&7 are both contain comparable

42

information, thus it is plausible that text number 6 and 7 are linked by list relation.

The other list relation can be found in the text number 25 -29. It is plausible to the analyst that it is plausible to the writer to link the text number 25-29 by list relation because those text are contain comparable items. Beside multi-nuclear list relation, there also sequence relation found in the analysis of the proposal background C. sequence relation is a relation where the writer intends to put a succession relationship between the situations in the nuclei. The text number 20-21 have the sequence relation in between, thus it is plausible to the analyst that it is plausible to the writer to intend the reader recognizes the succession relationship among the nuclei.

As mentioned before, it is plausible to the analyst to conclude that the proposal background C could be categorized as a good coherence proposal background because the writer could arrange her statement logically. In addition, it is proved by the RST analysis that there is no gap and non-sequitur within proposal background C. On the contrary, the proposal background F contains some gaps and non-sequitur. It can be seen on the result of structure diagram analysis on picture 12.

Proposal F text number 61-88

61. However, we cannot deny that teachers’ ability in facilitating

higher order thinking skills will be reflected of the teachers’ competence.

62. It is also happened to the student teachers in this English

Teacher Education Department of UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya.

63. As the preliminary research data, the lesson plan in academic

year 2015/2016 that provide task in higher order thinking skills is only 5 lesson plans from 10 randomly chosen lesson plans.

64. The task design by the students teachers is analysed using

Bloom’s taxonomy to know whether their task facilitate higher order thinking skills or not.

65. The student teacher designed-task are mostly in the lower order

49

Note:

Prep = Preparation J = Justify

R = Restatement Int = Interpretation

Bg = Background Me = Means

Cir = Circumstance Pur = Purpose

El = Elaboration Cond = Condition

Evi = Evidence Eva = Evaluation

V-c = Volitional-cause V-r = Volitional-result

From the diagram picture 13, there is a gap that can be seen between text number 1-10 and text number 11-18. It is rather different from the example before, because the previous example shows that there is a non-sequitur. In contrary this example shows that there is a gap that happened because there is missing information between those texts. It is plausible to the analyst that it is plausible to the writer to miss some information to link between those texts.

50

B. Discussion

Since Mann and Thompson propose Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) as a descriptive framework for text which provides a combination of features that has turned out to be useful in several kinds of discourse studies, many studies have been used RST as a descriptive framework for investigating linguistic issues. This study also use Mann and Thompson RST as framework for investigating Relational Propositions, which are unstated but inferred propositions that arise from the text structure in the process of interpreting texts. Since the coherence of a text depends in part on these relational propositions. The investigation of proposal background proves that Rhetorical Structure Theory is a good way in analyzing the relational proposition, since coherence of a text depends in part on it.

Basically, a good Coherence text also needs to be good grammatically and lexically. Because this research found the difficulty when investigating the proposal background if it hard to understand because of grammatical errors and the wrong choice of words are within the text. The researcher also put in the position of the reader when analyzing the proposal background. The researcher found that using RST is good to analyze the relational proposition in the proposal background, but it would be better when the data used to be analyzed is not having problems grammatically and lexically.

From the analysis result, it shows that the students’ ability in building logical statement is considerably good because from eight proposal background that has been analyzed only one that contain the gap and non-sequitur. In addition, the from the proposal background which used as the data, all could be categorized as good research proposal background.

51

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

In this chapter, there are descriptions of how the research is summarized. They are include summarizing the analysis and giving the researcher’s suggestion viewing the problem

A. CONCLUSION

The conclusion that can be drawn toward the research question is that through the deep analysis of the research proposal background of the students of English Education Department in UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya, the researcher found that the students’ logical statement in their research proposal writing could be categorized as good. It can be seen from their ability in linking their ideas to be a whole proposal background, which is shown in the diagram of the relation structure in the RST analysis.

The relational propositions used mostly in their proposal background are Elaboration, Background and justify. That is because the purposes of the proposal background are; firstly to introduce the research problem and or theory to the reader, thus Elaboration and Background relation are important to guide the reader to understand better. The next is that in the proposal background the writers are intended to argue that the ideas they belief and or the problems they are going to do the research are important; therefore the writer used Justify relation to hold their argument for the reader.

B. SUGGESTION

52

information to lectures in teaching writing especially in writing research proposal background.

Besides, this study can be useful as reference to do the next research dealing with this research topic. The researcher hopes that this result of this study can acknowledge the next researchers and also help them to extend this study. So there will be many research findings dealing with this topic which can be useful for someone who wants to study coherence in writing.

Meanwhile in doing this study is not an easy task. So there are some suggestions which can be useful for the next researcher:

• Based on the rich theories of writing and rhetoric, and the

available materials that relate the two fields together, the researcher believe that further research into how the two fields related is needed.

• Rhetorical theory offers a unique set of terms that can help

the study of writing. Using a rhetorical structure, further research could help explain the importance of coherence in writing

• The next researcher have to be careful and patience in doing

an intensive reading.

• This study can be used as reference to extend the next

research dealing with rhetorical Structure and coherence in writing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmed, Abdel Hamid," Students' Problems with Cohesion and Coherence in EFL Essay Writing in Egypt: Different Perspectives", Literacy Information and Computer Educaton Journal (LICEJ). Vol. 1, No. 4 December 2010.

Apriliya, Mimid Anggi, Thesis: “Students’ ability of building coherence and unity in argumentative writing at English education

department of UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya”. Surabaya: (Islamic State University Sunan Ampel Surabaya, 2016)

Arikunto ,Suharsini. "Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek". Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2002.

Ary, Donald, Lucy jacobs, and Chris Sorensen, INTRODUCTION TO

RESEARCH IN EDUCATION 8th edition, 8th edition edition, 10 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002-3098 USA: © 2010, 2006 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Crossley, Scott A. and Danielle S. McNamara, “Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency”, Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX: Cognitive ScienceSociety, 2010,

Dias, Marcio de S. – Valeria D. Feltrim – Thiago A. S. Pardo, “Using Rhetorical Structure Theory and Entity Grids to Automatically Evaluate Local Coherence in Text” Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language 2014 pp 232-243

Fengjie, Li – Yuan Xiuying – Zhang Chuanze, “Analysis of the

Faculty of Letters and Social Science Department of oreign Languages, 2010.

Hamzah, Masputeriah and malini karuppiah,

IMPROVING_COHERENCE_IN_PARAGRAPH_WRITING_AM

ONG_ESL.pdf,

Hellalet, Nadia. “Textual coherence in EFL Student Writing” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 15, Issue 3 (Sep. - Oct. 2013), PP 54-58

jones, jeremy, losing and finding coherence in academic writing, http://faculty.edfac.usyd.edu.au/projects/usp_in_tesol/pdf/volume 02No2/Article01.pdf, accessed 13 Feb 2017.

Kusetyowati, Devi. Thesis: “Rhetorical Problem in Background of

Research Proposal Writing (A Case Study of Research Proposal at English Teacher Education Department UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya)” Surabaya: (Islamic State University Sunan Ampel Surabaya, 2014)

Lee,Icy. “Helping Students Develop Coherence in Writing”, English

Teaching Forum, Hong Kong, 2002. P.33

Mann, William C. – Sandra A. Thompson, “Rhetorical Structure

Theory: A Theory of Text Organization.” Technical Report from Information Sciences Institute (ISI),1987 pp. 1-91.

Mann, William C. – Sandra A. Thompson, “Rhetorical Structure

Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization”, Mouton de Gruyter 1988, Text 8(3) p.243-281

O’Donnell, Michael. “RST TOOL 2.4 – A Markup Tool for Rhetorical Structure theory”.