The use of Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL) to improve SMA students` writing skill.

Sanata Dharma University.

Writing requires a harder effort from the students compared to the other skills: listening,

reading, and speaking. Especially in Indonesia, students’ writing skill is still insufficient. They

tend to produce a lot of errors and had a lot of difficulties. Some researchers found that the error that frequently appeared in writing was grammatical error, while the most challenging part was developing the ideas in their writing.

Therefore, the researcher designed a set of activities named Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL) to help students produce better writing. GAIL works well with Eclectic Approach, the combination of Process-based writing and Genre-based writing, since it was made to reinforce every writing process.

The aim of this study was to prove whether GAIL improves SMA students writing skill. The population of this study was the students of SMA Kolese De Britto. For the study, only eleventh grade students of science class were observed as the sample.The main problem

formulation of this study was: does GAIL improve SMA students’ writing skill?

To answer the research questions, the researcher applied the quasi-experimental method. There were two groups in this study: experimental and control groups. Pre-test was conducted before both groups got the treatment. Post-test was conducted after the experimental group got the treatment. The mean score of the experimental group (M=5.1) was slightly higher than the control group (M=2.6). Then result of t-test to compare the performance of both groups showed that the group that used GAIL did not differ significantly (M=5.1,SD=12.4) from the control group that used ordinary teaching-learning activities (M=2.6,SD=14.9), t(103) = 0.95, p > 0.05.

Based on the results of the t-test, it can be concluded that the researcher had enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis: GAIL improves SMA students’ writing skill. In addition, the experimental group performed better in the writing organization than the control group. However, the researcher did not have enough evidence to claim that GAIL significantly better than other teaching methods.

Sanata Dharma University.

Menulis membutuhkan usaha yang lebih keras dari siswa dibandingkan kemampuan yang lain: mendengarkan, membaca, dan menulis. Khususnya di Indonesia, kemampuan menulis siswa masih belum mencukupi. Mereka cenderung melakukan banyak kesalahan dan menemui banyak kesulitan. Beberapa peneliti menemukan bahwa kesalahan yang umumnya dilakukan adalah kesalahan tata bahasa, sedangkan mengembangkan ide tulisan adalah hal yang dirasa paling menyulitkan.

Oleh karena itu, peneliti membuat sebuah kumpulan kegiatan bernama Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL) untuk membantu siswa dalam membuat tulisan yang baik. GAIL sangat sesuai bila digunakan bersamaan dengan Eclectic Approach, perpaduan antara Process-based writing dan Genre-based writing, karena GAIL didesain secara khusus untuk memperdalam setiap tahapan dalam menulis.

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah membuktikan apakah GAIL meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa SMA. Populasi dari penelitian ini adalah para siswa SMA Kolese De Britto. Dalam penelitian ini, hanya siswa kelas sebelas IPA yang diambil sebagai sampel. Rumusan masalah dari penelitian ini adalah: apakah GAIL meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa SMA?

Untuk menjawab pertanyaan tersebut, peneliti menggunakan metode eksperimen semu. Pre-test dilaksanakan sebelum kedua grup mendapatkan perlakuan khusus. Post-test dilaksanakan setelah kelompok percobaan mendapatkan perlakuan khusus. Hasil rerata nilai grup percobaan (M=5.1) sedikit lebih tinggi dari grup kontrol (M=2.6). Kemudian, hasil uji t untuk membandingkan nilai kedua grupmenunjukkan bahwa grup yang menggunakan GAIL tidak berbeda secara signifikan (M=5.1,SD=12.4) dari grup kontrol yang menggunakan kegiatan pengajaran biasa (M=2.6,SD=14.9),t(103)=0.95, p>0.05.

Berdasarkan hasil t-test, dapat disimpulkan bahwa peneliti memiliki cukup bukti untuk menolak null hypothesis: GAIL meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa SMA. Selain itu, grup percobaan menunjukkan performa yang lebih baik daripada grup kontrol dalam organization. Namun, tes signifikansi menunjukkan bahwa tidak ada bukti yang kuat untuk mengklaim bahwa GAIL lebih baik dari kegiatan pengajaran yang lain.

(GAIL) TO IMPROVE

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF

i

TO IMPROVE SMA STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL

A SARJANA PENDIDIKANTHESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Maria Agnes Evata Agustianie Student Number: 101214158

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERSS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

2015

STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

THE USE O「 GROUP OF ACil｀ lVITIES F()R IN-1)EPTII I′

EARNING

(GAII」)TO ILIPROVE S卜IA STUDENTS'ヽ

VRITINC SKlLL

By

脂[aia A響 ■es Evata A罫lstitlliC ‐

Student NtlillllCri 101214158

,\;rprovctl l.rr'

Datc Febttary 16,2015 Drs.Pius Nurwidasa PHhatin,ン I.Ed,Ed.D.,

THE USE OF GROUP OF ACTiVITIES FORIN―DEPTH LEARNING(GAIL)

TOIMPROVE SMA STUDEヽ

TS'WRITINC SKILL

Chairperson

Secretary

Member

Member

Member

雛

M8ria A騨

“

Evata角要菫

titti奪 Sttdent Nulllbcr:1012‡尋15霧

Dcた整ded be貴 〕re tllc 3観oFE脇鐵陽轟麟霧

on Februa町 20,20:聾 and Dcdlared A欽■露

ablt‐

Boaだ of E凛懸ine轟

P.Kuswttdono.恥,D.

Drs.3arli Bttm,M.F_d.,Pll_D

DFS.鞣議SN攀陶id凌豫Ptthati穐争

M.腱

予醸 。参´

P.Kuswandono、 Ph.D.

く:〕accilia TLltyandari,M.Pd.

YogyakanaF Fc― ・

20・2015

Factilty oF]=ξ溶嘘蜘ctt TFaining and Edtlcatioll Dharlna U霊ivc霧:サ

I honestly declared that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, February 20, 2015

The Writer,

Maria Agnes Evata Agustianie

10121,4158

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama

: Maria Agnes Evata Agustianie

Nomor Mahasiswa : l0l2l4l58

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan

Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

"The Use of Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL) to Improve SMA Students' Writing Skill"

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan

kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan,

mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan

data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di lnternet atau

media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta

ijin

dari saya maupun mernberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pemyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 16 Februari 2015

Yang menyatakan

脚

vi

Agustianie, M. A. (2015). The Use of Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL) to Improve SMA Students' Writing Skill.Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Writing requires a harder effort from the students compared to the other skills: listening, reading, and speaking. Especially in Indonesia, students’ writing skill is still insufficient. They tend to produce a lot of errors and had a lot of difficulties. Some researchers found that the error that frequently appeared in writing was grammatical error, while the most challenging part was developing the ideas in their writing.

Therefore, the researcher designed a set of activities named Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL) to help students produce better writing. GAIL works well with Eclectic Approach, the combination of Process-based writing and Genre-based writing, since it was made to reinforce every writing process.

The aim of this study was to prove whether GAIL improves SMA students writing skill. The population of this study was the students of SMA Kolese De Britto. For the study, only eleventh grade students of science class were observed as the sample.The main problem formulation of this study was: does GAIL improve SMA students’ writing skill?

To answer the research questions, the researcher applied the quasi-experimental method. There were two groups in this study: quasi-experimental and control groups. Pre-test was conducted before both groups got the treatment. Post-test was conducted after the experimental group got the treatment. The mean score of the experimental group (M=5.1) was slightly higher than the control group (M=2.6). Then result of t-test to compare the performance of both groups showed that the group that used GAIL did not differ significantly (M=5.1,SD=12.4) from the control group that used ordinary teaching-learning activities (M=2.6,SD=14.9), t(103) = 0.95, p > 0.05.

Based on the results of the t-test, it can be concluded that the researcher had enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis: GAIL improves SMA students’ writing skill. In addition, the experimental group performed better in the writing organization than the control group. However, the researcher did not have enough evidence to claim that GAIL significantly better than other teaching methods.

vii

Agustianie, M. A. (2015). The Use of Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL) to Improve SMA Students' Writing Skill.Yogyakarta: English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Menulis membutuhkan usaha yang lebih keras dari siswa dibandingkan kemampuan yang lain: mendengarkan, membaca, dan menulis. Khususnya di Indonesia, kemampuan menulis siswa masih belum mencukupi. Mereka cenderung melakukan banyak kesalahan dan menemui banyak kesulitan. Beberapa peneliti menemukan bahwa kesalahan yang umumnya dilakukan adalah kesalahan tata bahasa, sedangkan mengembangkan ide tulisan adalah hal yang dirasa paling menyulitkan.

Oleh karena itu, peneliti membuat sebuah kumpulan kegiatan bernama Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL) untuk membantu siswa dalam membuat tulisan yang baik. GAIL sangat sesuai bila digunakan bersamaan dengan Eclectic Approach, perpaduan antara Process-based writing dan Genre-based writing, karena GAIL didesain secara khusus untuk memperdalam setiap tahapan dalam menulis.

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah membuktikan apakah GAIL meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa SMA. Populasi dari penelitian ini adalah para siswa SMA Kolese De Britto. Dalam penelitian ini, hanya siswa kelas sebelas IPA yang diambil sebagai sampel. Rumusan masalah dari penelitian ini adalah: apakah GAILmeningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa SMA?

Untuk menjawab pertanyaan tersebut, peneliti menggunakan metode eksperimen semu. Pre-test dilaksanakan sebelum kedua grup mendapatkan perlakuan khusus. Post-test dilaksanakan setelah kelompok percobaan mendapatkan perlakuan khusus. Hasil rerata nilai grup percobaan (M=5.1) sedikit lebih tinggi dari grup kontrol (M=2.6). Kemudian, hasil uji t untuk membandingkan nilai kedua grupmenunjukkan bahwa grup yang menggunakan GAIL tidak berbeda secara signifikan (M=5.1,SD=12.4) dari grup kontrol yang menggunakan kegiatan pengajaran biasa (M=2.6,SD=14.9),t(103)=0.95, p>0.05.

Berdasarkan hasil t-test, dapat disimpulkan bahwa peneliti memiliki cukup bukti untuk menolak null hypothesis: GAIL meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa SMA. Selain itu, grup percobaan menunjukkan performa yang lebih baik daripada grup kontrol dalam organization. Namun, tes signifikansi menunjukkan bahwa tidak ada bukti yang kuat untuk mengklaim bahwa GAIL lebih baik dari kegiatan pengajaran yang lain.

viii

First of all I would like to thank God for giving me strength and courage in the process of completing my thesis.

I am also thankful to my major sponsor, Drs. Pius Nurwidasa P., M.Ed., Ed.D, for his guidance, patience, and encouragement. I would also like to express my gratitude to all PBI lecturers, who encourage and give me their meaningful knowledge.

My deep gratitude also goes to Pak A. Denny, S.Pd, and all the teachers in SMA Kolese De Britto Yogyakarta who helped me to collect my data. Without them, it was impossible for me to conduct the research and collect the data. I would like to thank SMA Kolese De Britto students, especially eleven science graders, for their great cooperation during the research.

I would like to thank my parents, who always support me mentally and financially. They always give me strength whenever I am down and are willing to listen to my stories.

My sincerest thanks go to my friends: Endang Ratmawati Parhusip (Sr. Ursula), Monica Surya Utami, Deliana Ciciliawati, Bayu Pamungkas and all my PBI friends 2010. During the process of completing my thesis, they encouraged and also supported me unconditionally. They were my candles when I was in the dark and feeling cold. I would like to thank Laurensia Prista Karina, who had helped me to assess the students’ writing. Last but not least, I also thank Bu Mita, Olin and Ryo, for their willingness to spare their time and proofread my thesis.

ix

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGES ...ii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ...iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI...v

ABSTRACT... ...vi

ABSTRAK... ...vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS... ...ix

LIST OF TABLES ...xii

LIST OF FIGURES ...xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES ...xiv

CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION... 1

1.1 Research Background ...1

1.2 Research Problems... 5

1.3 Problem Limitation ...5

1.4 Research Design ...5

1.5 Research Objectives...6

1.6 Research Benefits ...6

1.6.1 For Teachers ... 6

1.6.2 For the Researcher ... 6

x

1.7 Definition of Terms ...7

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW...9

2.1. Theoretical Description ...9

2.1.1 The Eclectic Approach as a Synthesis of Process-based Writing and Genre-based Writing ...10

2.1.2 Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL) ...12

2.1.3 Instructional Design in GAIL ...13

2.1.3.1 Identifying Goals, Topics and General Purposes ...14

2.1.3.2 Identifying Learners’ Characteristics ...15

2.1.3.3 Illustrating the Learning Objectives ...16

2.1.3.4 Identifying the Subject Content ...17

2.1.3.5 Collating Learning Activities and Resources ...18

2.1.3.6 Evaluating the Materials ...18

2.1.4 Material Development Theory in GAIL ...19

2.1.5 Deep Learning in the Classroom ...22

2.2 Theoretical Framework...24

2.3 Hypothesis ...26

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY...27

3.1 Research Method ...27

3.2 Research Setting ...29

3.3 Research Population and Sample...29

3.4 Instrument ...30

3.4.1 Pre-test and Post-test ...32

3.4.1.1 Reliability Test...32

3.4.1.2 Validity Test ...34

3.4.2 The Rubric for Pre-test and Post-test...36

xi

3.5.2 Conducting the Pre-test...38

3.5.3 Conducting the Post-test ...38

3.5.4 The Method of Collecting Data ...39

3.6 Data Analysis...39

3.7 Hypotheses ...39

3.7.1 Operational Hypotheses...40

3.7.2 Statistical Hypotheses...40

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION...42

4.1 Data Presentation ...42

4.1.1 The Descriptive Statistic of Pre-test result ...44

4.1.2 The Descriptive Statistic of Post-test result...47

4.2 Data Analysis...51

4.3 The Discussion...53

4.3.1 The Factors that Influenced the Result of the Experiment ...53

4.3.2 Analysis of the Aspect of Organization...56

4.3.3 The Other Findings ...57

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...58

5.1 Conclusions ...58

5.2 Recommendations...61

REFERENCES...64

xii

2.1. Techniques and Examples of Plus Category in Materials Adaptation...21

2.2. Techniques and Examples of Minus Category in Materials Adaptation...21

2.3. Techniques and Examples of Zero Category in Materials Adaptation ...22

3.1. Table of Coefficient Correlation Calculation Result ...34

4.1. The Comparison Table of Pre-test and Post-test Score of Experimental and Control Group ...43

4.2. The Distribution Table of Pre-test Result of Experimental Group ...44

4.3. The Distribution Table of the Pre-test Result of Control Group...46

4.4.The Distribution Table of Post-test Result of Experimental Group...47

4.5. The Distribution Table of Post-test Result of Control Group ...49

4.6. The T-test Result of Experimental Group...51

4.7. The T-test Result of Pre-test And Post-test of Control Group ...52

4.8. The Result of T-test...52

xiii

Page

2.1. Kemp’s Instructional Design Model ...14

2.2. The Theoretical Framework of the Research ...25

3.1. Pre-test and Post-test Control Group Design ...29

4.1. The Comparison of Pre-test and Post-test...43

4.2. The Distribution of Pre-test Result of Experimental Group ...45

4.3. The Distribution of Pre-test Result of Control Group...46

4.4. The Distribution of Post-test Result of Experimental Group...48

xiv

Page

1. GAIL Syllabus ... 68

2. Task of Pre-test ... 84

3. Task of Post-test ... 85

4. Assessment Rubric for Expository Writing ... 86

5. Score of Pre-test And Post-test by Raters... 87

6.Research Recommendation from Sanata Dharma ... 91

7. Script of Asking Permission to Conduct Research... 92

8. Research Schedule ... 93

9. The Pre-test Score of Experimental Group... 94

10. The Pre-test Score of Control Group ... 95

11.The Post-test Score of Experimental Group ... 96

1

INTRODUCTION

The writer presents in the first chapter the reasons why this study is conducted. In the following section, the writer presents the research background, the research questions and the problem limitation. The research objectives and research benefits are then presented before the writer finally closes the first chapter with the terminology used here.

1.1 Research Background

There are four skills in learning a language: speaking, listening, reading and writing. Among these skills, writing is generally the most challenging skill for the language learners; it is hard work (Tiedt, 1989). It is even more challenging for students in senior high school; they are trying to write about the topic that is not related to themselves (Davis & Winek, 1989). In addition, writings could cause misinterpretation for the readers when the writer fails to communicate his or her intention (Farooq, Uzair-Ul-Hassan, & Wahid, 2012).

In Indonesia, senior high school students’ writing skill is still inadequate; they produce a number of errors in their writing (Megaiab, 2014). In his research, Megaiab (2014) found that the most common error was grammatical mistakes. Another researcher, Siahaan (2013) also reached a similar conclusion to one additional point; sometimes the students were also confused with the schematic structure of the text. In addition to these problems, the students have difficulties in determining what to write (Lyman, 1943) due to the choices of topics that were

1989). Thus, to assist the students in improving their writing skill, the teachers may apply some approaches.

There are several writing approaches that can be applied. Badger and White (2000) highlighted the difference between two commonly used approaches; genre-based and process-writing. In a process writing, the students are expected to realize the importance of mastering each writing aspect. Unfortunately, it generally disregards the goal and also the reasons for writing the text. On the other hand, the genre based approach provides the clear purpose of writing. While applying this approach, the teachers at the same time undervalue the skills needed in a good writing. Even though both approaches are commonly used, they actually address only a particular problem in ESL writing (Min, 2009). Another approach that may be the “ideal approach which is now considered as the most effective and successful in the teaching of writing” is the Eclectic Approach (Farooq, Uzair-Ul-Hassan, & Wahid, 2012, p.185). It combines both approaches to teach writing (Min, 2009). As a result, writing will have a clear purpose, and should be completed through several prescribed steps.

The plus point of this approach is seen by SMA Kolese De Britto English teachers. Based on several discussions that took place during the course of this study, the teacher agreed that he implemented Eclectic Approach in the teaching – learning process. The result of the combined approaches helped the students to produce good writing. It can be concluded from the result of their writings; there are some students who get high grades for their writing assignment.

English. The language has become an international language spoken by almost all people in the world, which means it could provide better work opportunities for the students (Whaley, 2014). He also explains that the international companies would like to find the employee who is “adaptable and able to learn fast, someone eloquent who can write well [in English]” (par.7). In order to fulfill this demand, producing good and systematic ideas according to the standard is important (Laia, 2014). Furthermore, good writers have to be able to control their writings (Koeswologito, 2014). Based on the facts presented, certainly the education system must do something to open more opportunities (Whaley, 2014).

From the sources mentioned previously, it could be concluded that in order to meet the global expectation, the students need to be able to produce systematic writing which has good ideas. As the opposite of the expectation, in the beginning of the discussion it had been mentioned that in Indonesia, structuring the writing composition and developing ideas are the challenges for students. As the solution to the problems, the teachers need to vary their teaching approaches in any way that may help the students to achieve the highest score (Petrilli, 2011). Based on this suggestion, as one of the paths to meet the global demands of proficient human resources, the Eclectic Approach that is already applied in the school, especially SMA Kolese De Britto then needs to be strengthened. The researcher suggests deep learning as the supporting elements of the Eclectic Approach. Deep learning itself is a type of learning which leads students to solve problems through several steps of processing and analysing which in the end will change the way

prior knowledge to absorb or grab new materials (Weimer, 2012). Hopefully, by adding it, the writing product produced by students will be better than before.

In order to implement deep learning in the writing class, the teachers have to make the instructions applicable in the classroom context (Orlich, Harder, Callahan, Trevisan, & Brown, 2009). Jensen and Nickelsen (2011) have of several applicable activities. The researcher adapted some of these activities. The activities itself consist of planning the standard and curriculum, pre-assessing, building a positive learning culture, priming and activating prior knowledge, acquiring new knowledge, processing with a purpose and making the choices for processing. Due to the limitation of the time, the researcher only adapted the activities. These activities were later on used in the experiment and called Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL).

Noticing the learning phenomenon at De Britto, the researcher is interested to study the application of GAIL to enhance the Eclectic Approach that has already been used. Besides, the students here could produce better writing than they did before. Specifically, the participants are only eleven Science graders. The researcher chooses them by considering their English proficiency. Many of them also have many interesting ideas. Seeing the potential possessed by the students, the researcher would like to observe whether GAIL can improve the students’ writing skill.

Based on the research background mentioned previously, there is one major research question in this research:

1. Does Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL) improve SMA students’ writing skill?

However, this research would also like to answer this question:what aspect improves the most ?

1.3 Problem Limitation

There are several factors that may influence the students’ writing skills, such as writing motivation and background knowledge. However, this study will only focus on the use of GAIL in improving the students’ writing skills. Several other factors such as learning environment, age and experience may still be there, but they will not be counted in the research.

1.4 Research Design

This study was quasi-experimental research that was conducted in SMA Kolese De Britto. There were two groups in this research: the control group and the experimental group (Ary, Jacobs, Sorenson, & Razavieh, 2010). The researcher used GAIL to teach English in the experimental group. Meanwhile, the ordinary teaching and learning which was commonly used in this school was applied in the control group. The complete description of the research method will be explained in chapter III. However, the analysis method will be summarized briefly here. The results of the teaching and learning process of the experimental and the control group will be compared. After that, the researcher will determine

experimental group and the control group by applying a t-test.

1.5 Research Objectives

The first objective of this study was to observe the different results of the control group and treatment group. This difference was then calculated, to measure the significance. The second objective was observing the improvement in students’ writing skill after being treated using GAIL.

1.6 Research Benefits

1.6.1 For Teachers

This research may bring new alternative activities, such as Six Thinking Hats, Make Meaning, and Walk in Others’ Shoes to maximize the students’ potential in learning, especially writing. These activities may bring the students into higher achievement in the learning process.

1.6.2 For the Researcher

This research is expected to provide an emphirical data for the research. The data is a valuable input to determine the effect of applying GAIL in the control and experimental groups. Only after the research had been completed, the result could be obtained.

1.6.3 For the Future Researchers

This research provides several things to explore in the scope of learning skills. For instance, the researcher has already given a glimpse of deep learning and how to implement the activities in the class. Other researchers may explore further the application of deep learning in the classroom. In addition, some

a lot of new materials or methods, which may solve students’ writing problems. 1.6.4 For Students

The use of GAIL hopefully will maximize the potential of students’ writing. They may also have new or upgraded point of view about writing activities and processes. In the end, GAIL will bring new ways to guide the students to achieve their writings’ goals.

1.7 Definition of Terms

In this session, the researcher provides the definition of the terms used in the research. The complete explanation is provided in chapter II.

1. Deep Learning

The definition of deep learning is solving problems in more than one step and with multiple levels of analysis or processing so that students may apply the content/skills in ways that change thinking, influence, or behaviors.

2. Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL)

GAIL is a set of adapted learning activities from Jensen and Nickelsen’s (2011) concept to enhance deep learning. The researcher here adapts only the activities in order to meet the need of the students.

3. Writing

Writing is a form of comunication to deliver thought or to express feeling through written form (Harmer, 2001). There are two kinds of writing: writing as supportive skill, and writing as creation of meaning. In writing as supportive skill,

meaning involves arranging words, sentences, and paragraphs into a good text. All the explanations presented above provide sufficient information to get a glimpse of the research. The complete discussion of the theories that built this research will be provided in the next chapter.

9 CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL REVIEW

In this chapter, the researcher discusses the basic theories of the topic. The

discussions are divided into three major sections: the theoretical description, the

theoretical framework and the hypothesis. In the theoretical description section, the

writer provides the theories related to the topic. Then, to present how the theories

answer the research questions, there is the theoretical framework. At the end of this

chapter, the writer presents the hypothesis of this research.

2.1 Theoretical Description

Theoretical description provides the discussion of Eclectic Approach as the

writing approach that was applied in SMA Kolese De Britto, the school the researcher

observed. This section also discusses GAIL; the group of activities adapted from

Deep Learning Cycles (DELC) by Jensen and Nickelsen (2011). The researcher also

applied Kemp’s (1997) instructional design as a guidance to assess the learners’ type

and construct the learning materials. At the end of this chapter, an explanation on the

relation between Eclectic Approach, GAIL, Instructional Design and Material

2.1.1 Eclectic Approach As A Synthesis of Process-based and Genre-based Writing

The initial theory of Eclectic Approach comes from Brown (2001). He stated

that the teachers could apply the approach that could accomodate the learners’ need.

The Eclectic Approach is considered the most efficient and effective approach as it

can cover the disadvantages of using one approach only (Min, 2009). This new

approach may combine one or more approaches, as long as it accommodates the need

of the students (Petrilli, 2011). In addition, the approach can be applied in all

language skills (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Furthermore, it gives other benefits, such as

fun, enjoyable and innovative learning (Kumar, 2013).

Genre and process based writing are parts of Eclectic Approach in writing.

Process writing has several identifiable stages: pre-writing, outlining, drafting,

revising, editing and submitting (Sundem, 2007). Murray (1972) provides the

definition of each stage. Pre-writing takes place before the writing itself happens. It

allows the writer to pick a specific topic, audience, and form of writing. Drafting or

referred as “writing” by Murray (1972) is the fast-paced process where the writer

could know how much he or she knows. It produces a rough draft of what the writer

actually wants to write. The last stages, revising and editing, are simplified into one

term: rewriting. In this process, the writer will “research, rethink, redesign and

rewrite” (Murray, 1972: p.5) the draft. These four steps allow the students to

Another part of the Eclectic Approach is genre-based writing; it holds the idea

that writing serves a purpose and the language is used as a media to achieve this

purpose (Hyland, 2003). The purpose of the writing may vary: to get things done, to

tell a story, to describe something, etcetera. The writer here uses texts as the media to

convey certain information, to make relation with his or her readers, and to achieve

the purpose of the text itself. By combining these two approaches, the students will

set the purpose of their writing and also go through several steps in order to achive

the goal.

In the classroom, the Eclectic Approach encourages learner-centered activities

(Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Furthermore, Richards and Rodgers also suggest

specific roles of the teachers and learners in the class. For the learners, they have a lot

of opportunities to respond to the topic of discussion. In addition, they may also get

the information from the other students, not only from the teachers. Still from

Richards and Rodgers (2001), as the students are expected to be active (Brown, 2001),

the teachers then have to be creative in choosing the materials that would be given to

the students. The hardest job is combining the strengths from different activities into

an activity that will encourage students to learn independently (Jackson, 2011).

After understanding the nature of the Eclectic Approach, the researcher needs

to design the learning materials that will help the students to understand the materials

(Petrilli, 2011). This new material is called Group of Activities for In-depth Learning

2.1.2 Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL)

GAIL is a set of activities which will strengthen each writing step in the

Eclectic Approach. In the process of making this set of activities, the researcher

applies Kemp’s (1997) Instructional Design and Tomlinson and Matsuhara’s (2004)

Material Development in order to get a strong theoretical basis. The detailed

information about these theories is presented in the following section. Presented

below is the explanation of GAIL itself.

The activities in GAIL are especially designed for SMA Kolese De Britto

students to meet their needs. There are three things that should be considered : the

suitability of the activities to the recent curriculum (Davison & Dowson, 2003), the

students’ learning styles (Kemp, 1997), and also the outcomes (Swain, 1995).

Suitability deals with the goal that GAIL is trying to achieve; it should meet the goal

which was set by the curriculum (Davison & Dowson, 2003). When the researcher

conducted the study, the school was implementing curriculum 2006. Therefore, GAIL

was designed based on the goals that were mentioned in curriculum 2006. Then, the

researcher should also consider the students’ learning styles and the outcomes. Based

on the researcher’s experiences while doing the internship program, the students

tended to analyze the problems given to them and the school emphasized cognitive

and affective outputs. Considering students’ tendency and output preference, the

researcher set the activities that required them to give a lot of reasonings and also pair

discussions (Jackson, 2011). Besides these three requirements, GAIL has several

Each activity in GAIL is chosen based on the aforementioned considerations

and aims to ahieve a certain goal. The goal of choosing activities as the main course

is active learning (Jackson, 2011); all the teachers need to do is directing and

confirming their understanding (Jensen & Nickelsen, 2011). Even if the teachers need

to explain, it should only contain enough information so the students can tell when

they have solved the problems (Ohlson, 2011). In addition, activities help the students

to follow the writing processes based on the steps provided (Petrilli, 2011). Therefore,

the researcher should choose the activities which meet the students’ need (Davison &

Dowson, 2003).

The assessments for GAIL are conducted in the beginning and also in the end

of the study. They are a part of evaluations in order to be able to make improvement.

For the syllabus of GAIL, please refer to APPENDIX 1. In the following section, the

detailed explanation of the steps of designing GAIL is presented.

2.1.3 Instructional Design in GAIL

In designing the material for the students, either it is new or adapted, the

teachers should follow certain steps, usually the one made by Kemp (1997). There are

eight steps that should be completed. However the researcher only took six steps. The

reason was because the other two steps were integrated in the six chosen steps.

2.1.3.1 Identifying Goals, Topics a

There are three

the students and the

that the goals should be flex

after conducting a pre

students’ writing performance.

In this study,

Standard”, and the general

Standard and the Basic

applied at the school during

implementation of Curriculum

Identifying Goals, Topics and General Purposes

are three things that can be used as the sources of goals:

the subjects (Kemp, 1997). Still from Kemp, the

the goals should be flexible. Based on this suggestion, the researcher sets the goal

conducting a pre-test, as a form of an assessment of the SMA

students’ writing performance.

study, the researcher refers the goals in GAIL

the general purposes as “Basic Competencies”.

the Basic Competence were taken from Curriculum

school during this study. Further explanation in regards

implementation of Curriculum 2013 will be laid out in Chapter V.

Revise

Figure 2.1. Kemp’s Instructional Design Model

sources of goals: the societies,

he important thing is

Based on this suggestion, the researcher sets the goal

SMA Kolese De Britto

AIL as “Competence

Competencies”. The Competence

Curriculum 2006, as they were

in regards to the current

2.1.3.2 Identifying Learners’ Characteristics

The materials designed by the teachers should help the students to learn on his

their own pace (Petrilli, 2011); thus, it is important to consider the academic and

social factors of the students (Kemp, 1997). Furthermore, Kemp (1997) explains that

the teachers should also think about the learning conditions and cognitive styles

mappings. GAIL was applied in SMA Kolese De Britto with homogenous academic

and social factors. The research itself took place in the same place, so it can be

concluded that the students had the equal learning environment. These students were

the eleventh grader science students of SMA Kolese De Britto. At the time the

research was conducted, they were learning about exposition text.

While considering the students’ characteristics, the researcher noted that there

are “a lot of factors that may affect the students’ writing results” (Weigle, 2002:

p.79). Some of them are motivation, interest, and learning environment (Biggs &

Moore, 1993). In the research conducted by Marton and Saljo (1976), the students

can perform unexpectedly well in reading test merely because they were interested in

the topic. However, providing media to motivate the students may not work give

satisfying result. A research conducted by Warnock, Boykin, and Tung (2011)

showed that there was no significant difference in students’ performance, even

though the students loved the media. Considering these facts, the result of GAIL

implementation is still uncertain, since GAIL only provides activities to strengthen

The activities in GAIL encourage the students to use their analysis in the

writing text. As Kemp (1997) suggests, the teachers also need to consider four

cognitive styles mapping. Set one describes the students who tend to seek from

theoretical symbols to get the meaning of something new. Set two mentions about the

ability to give meaning from their own experiences. Set three defines the students

who like to analyze and give reasoning towards something unfamiliar. The last set,

set four, is those who can explain something based on their memories. When the

researcher conducted the internship program in SMA Kolese De Britto, she found that

the students belonged to set three.

Each learning activity should help the students in one or another way (Petrilli,

2011). Therefore, the researcher should also set clear learning objectives (Kemp,

1997).

2.1.3.3 Illustrating the Learning Objectives

In Kemp’s Instructional Design, the learning objectives become very

important because learning itself should be the product or outcome of an instruction.

There are three groups of learning objectives suggested by Kemp (1997): cognitive,

psychomotor, and affective categories. In the process of making GAIL, the researcher

considers two categories only: the cognitive and affective. In general, the

teaching-learning activities in the Senior High School level focus more on the cognitive

category rather than the affective.

To support the cognitive category, the researcher considers Bloom’s

domain; knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

As for the affective domain, it becomes one of the priorities because SMA Kolese De

Brittoembraces the ideas of working in pairs and groups with the aim to support each

other during the learning process. The significance of each of these domains will

relate closely to the subject content explained below.

2.1.3.4 Identifying the Subject Content

Kemp (1997) mentioned three things to consider in determining the subject

content: selection and organizing of the specific knowledge (facts and information),

skills (step-by-step procedures, conditions, and requirements) and attitudinal factors

of any topic. The first subject content (selection and organizing of the specific

knowledge) deals with the writing activities. The researcher here applies Tomlinson

and Matsuhara’s material development theory (2004). To choose the material in

GAIL, the researcher considered the result of the pre-test. At the same time, the

teachers’ expectation and the students’ writing skills are also included in the subject

content.

Skills described mainly about the processes and requirements of the Eclectic

Approach. The processes in the Eclectic Approach are pre-writing, outlining, drafting,

revising, editing, and submitting (Sundem, 2007). In the processes of writing, the

attitudinal facts in writing itself are integrated in the material design. Later on, the

steps in Eclectic Approach were strengthened by the activities in GAIL. Therefore, to

support the subject content, the researcer should choose the learning activities and

2.1.3.5 Collating Learning Activities and Resources

After listing the content, the teachers should find the most efficient and

effective activity and resource along with the best way to implement them (Kemp,

1997). Furthermore, Kemp also suggests that the teachers choose various materials,

each of them works best only in specific part. Referring to the recommendation, the

researcher adapted some activities from Jensen and Nickelsen (2001). These activities

are especially designed by the writers to enhance deep learning.

In adapting the materials for GAIL, the researcher also implemented Tomlison

and Matsuhara’s (2004) Material Development Theory. The teachers who adapt

materials from any resources sometimes make some changes in order to make them

work in the class (Jackson, 2011). Tomlinson and Matsuhara (2004) mention three

categories that are commonly used: plus, minus and zero. In this research, the

researcher applied minus category for the activities in GAIL, since there are some

modifications in the content of the adapted materials.

These adapted materials which are designed by the researcher may have some

flaws. Therefore, to make better materials, an evaluation process is needed.

2.1.3.6 Evaluating the Materials

After the materials are applied in the classroom, the outcomes need to be

written in the objectives. At the end of the meeting, the teachers need to assess the

students in order to know whether they have achieved the goal.

In this research, the evaluation was conducted two times; before (pre-test) and

after (post-test) GAIL (the treatment) was applied. The pre-test was done to measure

the students’ writing skill before the treatment. After the treatment was given, the

post -test was conducted. In order to maintain the equal aspects of the evaluation

(Kothari, 2004), both tests were assessed by using adapted rubric from Wagner

(2002).

As mentioned previously, the activites taken for GAIL were chosen by

considering material development theory by Tomlinson and Matsuhara (2004).

Presented below is the complete explanation of the theory.

2.1.4 Material Development Theory in GAIL

In designing GAIL, the researcher applied minus category. Applying this

category meant the researcher made some modifications in the content of the adapted

materials (Tomlinson & Matsuhara, 2004). The further reason for choosing minus

category was because the researcher decreased the level of difficulties of the

materials and omitted the part of sentences in the materials; these actions belonged to

minus category in Tomlinson and Matsuhara’s theory. In addition, these steps were

done in order to develop some materials that will meet students’ need (Jackson,

2011).

In developing the materials, the writer seeks to incorporate valid theories as

Matsuhara’s (2004) materials development theory into the theoretical framework. The

writer intended to utilize this theory to complement Kemp’s (1997) adapted

instructional design steps. The materials evaluation and revision of Kemp’s (1997)

steps were the focus of Tomlinson and Matsuhara’s (2004) adapted theory. The writer

employed two out of five steps of materials adaptation from the mentioned authors,

which were: 1) the evaluation, and 2) the adaptation theory. These steps were used as

guidances to strengthen Eclectic Approach and to adapt the relevant ones from Deep

Learning Cycles as part of Kemp’s revision processes.

Tomlinson and Matsuhara’s (2004) materials evaluation measurements and

adaptation techniques were employed and linked to the first and last steps of Kemp’s

adapted instructional design. The materials evaluation measurements covered seven

inquiry points which were: 1) the appeal or attractiveness of the materials, 2) the

validity or whether materials teach worth teaching, 3) the ability of materials to

interest the learners (and the lecturers), 4) the ability of the materials to motivate the

learners or to stimulate the learners so they want to give time and energy to the

materials, 5) the potential learning values, 6) the preparation, delivery and assessment

assistance given to the lecturers, and 7) adaptation flexibility of materials by lecturers

to suit a particular context .

Furthermore, the materials adaptation theory section that was implemented

has three main categories: a) Plus (+), b) Minus (-) and or c) Zero (0) i.e.

modification without changing quantity. Shown below are the adaptation techniques

a) Plus Category

Techniques Examples

Addition Lecturers may add different texts and or activities

Expansion Lecturers may expand texts and activities by increasing the length, difficulty, depth, etc.

Table 2.7. Techniques and Examples of Plus Category in Materials Adaptation (Tomlinson and Matsuhara, 2004: 15-16)

The plus category allows the teachers to add and also expand the materials.

Adding materials may include adding the text, or any other activities that are related

to the materials adapted. Expanding text may result in increasing level of difficulty.

b) Minus Category

Techniques Examples

Deletion Lecturers may delete some texts and/or activities altogether.

Subtraction Lecturers may decrease the number of sentences in a text or a part of an activity. Reduction Lecturers may reduce texts and activities by

decreasing the length, difficulty, depth, etc.

Table 2.8. Techniques and Examples of Minus Category in Materials Adaptation (Tomlinson and Matsuhara, 2004: 15-16)

Minus category allows the teachers to modify the materials by deleting some

texts and activities and also decreasing the level of difficulty. Deleting some texts and

activities may include shortening the text or even deleting the texts completely.

Decreasing the level of difficulty may include lowering the challenge for the students,

c) Zero Category

Techniques Examples

Modification Lecturers may make changes to instructions. Replacement Lecturers may swap one activity with another. Recognisation Lecturers may change the position of texts and

illustrations.

Resequencing Lecturers may change the sequence of activities.

Conversion Lecturers may change the genre of a text to move the content to a medium to another (e.g. from print to web page).

Table 2.9. Techniques and Examples ofZero Category in Materials Adaptation (Tomlinson and Matsuhara, 2004: 15-16)

Zero Category allows the teachers to use the materials as they are. Teachers

may change the sequence of the instructions and activities, but there is no need to add

or delete some parts of the materials.

Thus, by using both the evaluation and adaptation theory by Tomlinson and

Matsuhara (2004) within Kemp’s adapted instructional design steps, the writer had a

strong materials development theoretical basis in designing the writing materials in

GAIL.

2.1.5 Deep Learning in the Classroom

Deep learning is the type of learning in which the students solve problems

through several analysis and steps (Jensen & Nickelsen, 2011). It is related to

restructure the knowledge and to change the concept, which usually found in

cognitive learning theory (Chacon, 2005). Entwistle (2000), as cited from Chacon,

“In the deep approach, the intention to extract meaning produces active learning processes that involve relating ideas and looking for patterns and principles on the one hand (a holist strategy - Pask, 1976, 1988), and using evidence and examining the logic of the argument on the other (serialist).”(p.3)

The learning type also involves monitoring the development of one’s own

understanding (Entwistle, McCune & Walker, 2000). On the other hand, the surface

learning is just coping with the task and seeing the course as unrelated bits of

information which leads to much more restricted learning processes, in particular to

routine memorization (Weimer, 2012).

This description indicates that complex understanding will help the students to

solve complex problems. In order to do it, students should use their micro knowledge

(Weimer, 2012). Otherwise, “attempting to work with more complex principles

without a good grasp of the more basic principles from which they are built can only

lead to frustration” (Warren, 2004, p.3). Unlike the surface learning which can be

learned easily, getting into deep learning needs stairs (Rhem, 2010), or in the other

words, the teachers need to provide brief introduction about the topic. After that, the

teachers could give assessments that encourage and require the students to solve the

problems, in a way that the students will be encouraged to use and apply their

knowledge (Warren, 2004).

Why is it important to apply deep learning in the classroom? First, this

learning type will push the students beyond memorization of procedures and facts (a

report from the National Research Council, Education for Life and Work: Developing

condition where they can put or transfer their recent knowledge to think of a solution

of a new problem. Furthermore, Laird and his colleagues (2008), in their study found

that the more frequent deep learning practices improved the students’ self-reported

learning. From these two reasons, it can be concluded that deep learning helps the

students to develop themselves.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

Writing skill is the most difficult among four skills (Tiedt, 1989). Especially

for senior high school students, they encounter a lot of problems in their writing

(Megaiab, 2014). It is most likely because they write about something new or

different; the topic that is not related directly to themselves (Davis & Winek, 1989).

The researcher believes that by applying GAIL in the classroom, the students’

writing skill can be improved as shown from the experiment conducted during the

study. In addition to the aforementioned reason, GAIL can be utilized to strengthen

each writing step in the Eclectic Approach. Another advantage is that GAIL promotes

deep learning in the teaching-learning process. Deep learning itself is a type of

learning which helps the students to solve complex problems through several steps of

processing and analyzing which in the end will change the way the students think, act,

and behave (Jensen & Nickelsen, 2011). In the process of learning, the students use

their prior knowledge to work on any new material in a writing activity (Weimer,

2012).

To apply deep learning, Jensen and Nickelsen (2011) suggest that the teachers

new material that later on were used in the teaching process during the study. To

support the process, the Instructional Design Theory by Kemp (1997) was

implemented. There are eight steps of designing a material: goals, topics, and general

purposes, learner characteristics, learning objectives, subject content, pre-assessment,

teaching-learning activities and resources, support services. Out of these eight steps,

the researcher only took six steps: goals, topics, and general purposes, learner

characteristics, learning objectives, subject content and teaching/learning activities

and resources. The reason for doing so is because the other two steps are integrated in

the six steps chosen by the researcher.

The clear relation between the Eclectic Approach, Instructional Design and

Material Development, is presented in figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2. Theoretical Framework of the Research

Pre-Test

Make a new materials (GAIL ) by using Kemp’s Instructional

Design (1997)

GAIL (Group of Activities for In-depth Learning)

Eclectic Approach (Brown,2001)

Better Writing

St

re

n

gt

h

e

n

Group of Activities for In-depth Learning (GAIL) Adapted from Jensen and Nickelsen (2011)

2.3 Hypothesis

The conceptual hypothesis of this study is stated as follows: The use of GAIL

in senior high school will improve the students’ writing skills. The improvement can

be seen in the significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of the

experimental group.

After having the solid, relevant and related theories to construct the research,

the researcher needed to gather the data of the research. The questions about what

kind of research method used, what the population is, and also what kind of

27

METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researcher discusses the methodology of the research. The discussion covers five major sections: research method, research setting, research population and sample, instrument, and data gathering technique. In research method section, the writer provides the explanation of the method used. Research setting covers the explanation of the setting chosen by the researcher. Then, the research population and sample provides the researcher’s consideration for choosing the population and sample. The researcher also explains the instruments that are used to collect the data in one particular section. At last, the researcher presents the technique to collect the data.

3.1 Research Method

In order to answer the research problem, quasi-experimental research was used. There are two characteristics of the research. The first one is the direct manipulation of one or more independent variables by the researcher (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). The manipulation is the treatment given to the groups. For example, one group gets no treatment, and another group gets special or different treatment. This difference then would provide data for the researcher. Using the collected data, the researcher could determine the “treatment effect” by subtracting the result of each group (Kothari, 2004).

This research has two variables. The first one is independent variable. This variable will affect or change the dependent variable (Kothari, 2004). The independent variable in this research was the use of GAIL. These activities were

learning activities. The dependent variable is the variable that will be affected by the independent variable (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). The dependent variable in this research was students’ writing skill.

The particular feature of quasi-experimental design is the lack of random assignment (Gal, Joyce & Borg, 2007). Actually, the function of random assignment is to ensure the balance in both groups. Eliminating it means the researcher cannot randomly put the participants into the control and treatment group. In the other words, the participants were already grouped.

Quasi-experimental research needs two groups to compare: the control group and the experimental group (Ary, Jacobs, Sorenson, & Razavieh, 2010). Treatment group is the group that receives the special treatment, whereas control group is the group that receives either no or alternate treatment (Gal, Joyce, & Borg, 2007). Between these two groups, the one that was observed was actually the experimental group. It was because the experimental group received the special treatment. However, the control group was also important. This group provided the data for comparison. Later on, this data was calculated to determine the significance of the test result.

To see the significant difference between two groups, the researcher compared the mean of the pre-test (level of phenomenon before treatment) and the post-test (level of phenomenon after treatment) (Kothari, 2004). The pre-test was given to both groups before the students got the treatment. The purpose was to measure the students’ writing skill. After the students got the treatment, they had

the mean difference. In the end, the researcher was able to determine whether the mean difference found was significant.

Figure 3.1. is the illustration of the research design (quasi-experimental method):

Figure 3.1. Pre-test and Post-test Control Group Design

3.2 Research Setting

To see the effect of GAIL in senior high school students’ writing skill, the quasi-experiment was conducted at SMA Kolese De Britto. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) suggest that the sample represents the population. Therefore, this school was chosen. The students’ writing skill in this school is varied; there are some students who can write very well, some are good enough, and the others still need close guidance for their writing.

3.3 Research Population and Sample

In experimental research, there must be sample and population (Ary, Jacobs, Sorenson, & Razavieh, 2010). The population of this research was the students of SMA Kolese De Britto. For the sample, the researcher chose eleventh grader Science students. The sampling design applied here is cluster sampling. It requires small scale representation of the total population claimed as one sample which represents the universe (Kothari, 2004). In determining the sample, the

Experimental Group

Control

the control group. The experimental group consisted of 52 students and the control group consisted of 53 students. All of the group’s members had pre-test before they got the treatment and post-test after they got the treatment.

3.4 Instrument

The purpose of this study was to observe whether GAIL would improve SMA students’ writing skill. It could be seen from the different performance before and after the treatment (Kothari, 2004). Therefore, the tests before (pre-test) and after they got the treatment (post-test) were necessary. In the other words, the researcher used writing tests (APPENDIX 2 & 3) as the instruments to collect the data for this study. The students’ writings were then assessed by using a rubric (APPENDIX 4) explained further in the next paragraph. This rubric is the second instrument used during the study.

There are several things to consider in creating writing assessment. The first consideration is what scale that will be used. There are two kind of scales in language assessment: holistic scale, and analytical scale (Hyland, 2003). Weigle (2002) points out two basic considerations for choosing the scales. The first one is whether the scale is made to assess single or general tasks and the second, whether each script will be given a single or multiple scores. In each scale, the score represents how well the students’ performance is.

Holistic scale refers to comparing the students’ writing with the other students’ work in the class (Sundem, 2007). Weigle (2002) explains the advantages and disadvantages of this scale. Holistic scale is preferred because it gives the most

give useful feedback for the students’ writings. The analytical scale, on the other hand, provides the assessment of writing aspects (Brown, 2007). The advantage of this scale is that it gives clear pictures of the students’ weaknesses and strengths in writing, so the teachers could provide useful feedback (Hyland, 2003). The disadvantage then, is that the score of one aspect may influence the score of the other aspects (Weigle, 2002).

Another thing to consider is the criterion of the tests, since a good assessment must assess what is being tested (Brown, 2001). Each writing scale has different criterion which is designed based on the main focus of the scale (Weigle, 2002). These criteria can be found in a rubric, the assessment instrument “that specify how test takers are expected to proceed in taking the test” (Bachman, 1990: p.118). For example, the analytic scale assesses is several aspects of writing. Therefore, in the rubric, the detailed information for each score will be presented.

In choosing the scale and the criterion, the teachers should keep in mind that they do not only assess the textual aspect, but the contextual also (Broad, 2003). The teachers should adjust the points in the rubric, as it has to assess as many aspects expected, especially in content assignment (Sundem, 2007). Therefore, each school may have different writing rubric.

The English teacher in SMA Kolese De Britto applies the Eclectic Approach. Bachman and Palmer (1996), as cited by Weigle (2002), notes that the rubric should have the best possible combination of the relevant qualities in the given situation. Furthermore, the analytic score is “particularly useful for

second-writing. Students’ writings were then assessed by using the rubric adapted from Wagner’s book entitled Express Yourself. Presented below was the discussion of the detail of the tests and also the rubric.

3.4.1 Pre-test and Post-test

To get the accurate data of the students’ improvement in writing, the pre-test and the post-pre-test were similar (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). For both pre-tests, they had to write exposition text. The students chose the topic provided by the teachers. In completing the text, each student passed several steps: pre-writing, outlining, drafting, revising, editing, and submitting (Sundem, 2007). Another consideration for the pre-test and the post-test is the reliability and validity of the test itself (Brown, 2001). The explanation of the reliability and validity of the test is presented below.

3.4.1.1 Reliability Test

A good test should be reliable (Brown, 2001). It means that the test should be applied consistently to all student writings, and different readers or raters should give similar or identical scores (Weigle, 2002). Hudges (1989) mentions three commonly used methods to ensure a test reliability; the test-retest method, the split-half method, and the inter-rater method. Furthermore, he explains that in the test-retest method, the teachers need to conduct the test to the same groups after a period of time. If the score of the tests do not differ greatly, then the test is reliable. In this research, the test-retest method was not used because the students (the participants of the research) did not have enough time to do the second test.

are now in the twelfth grade.

The second method is the split half method. Cronbach (1947) describes this method as splitting or dividing the measurement scale into two matched halves. The teachers then need to calculate the correlation of these two tests results. Hyland (2003) mentions that a test reliability is higher when the result is closer to 1. Seeing the nature of spilt half method, it is best applied to multiple choices. Therefore, the researcher did not use this method.

The last method is inter-rater reliability, in which the students’ writings are assessed by several raters (Weigle, 2002). Similar to split half method, the teachers then calculate the correlation of the test score given by the raters (Lado, 1961). Hudges (1989) also adds that even though the writing test tends to be subjective, there will be fewer problem when the raters have agreement on the ratings and the way they assess.

The researcher applies this method to ensure the test reliabilty in the research. The raters are the researcher and one student of English Language Education Program 2010. She was chosen as the rater because a rater should have at least the basic knowledge of assessing writing and also get explanation of the rubric used (Wang, 2009). After the raters assessed the students’ writing, the researcher calculates the score by using SPSS ver.20 Full Version, applying Pearson statistical test. This test aims to measure the relation between two variables (the score from rater 1 and rater 2) (Norusis, 2000). Presented below is

the complete data of the score given by the raters, please refer to APPENDIX 5. Table 3.1.Table of Correlation Coefficient Calculation Result

Group Correlation Coefficient Pre-test Post-test Experimental Group 0.77 0.84

Control Group 0.84 0.88

The table above shows that the reliability coefficient of the pre-test for experimental group is 0.77 and for the control group is 0.84. While for the post-test, the reliability coefficient for experimental group is 0.84 and 0.88 for the control group. Lado (1961) explains that higher coefficient (closer to 1.00) indicates higher reliability. Taylor (1990) adds that 0.36 until 0.67 is the modest or moderate correlation. Therefore, it can be concluded that the result of correlation coefficient is strong, as it exceeds the moderate limit. Other than reliability, there is another thing that is also an essential requirement of an effective test (Heaton, 1975).

3.4.1.2 Validity Test

Validity of a test is the heart, the most important thing of the test itself (Kenyon, 1998). It refers to “the extend to which inferences made from assessment results are appropriate, meaningful and useful in terms of purpose of the assessment” (Gronlund, 1998: p. 226). Furthermore, validity is “the potential of the prompt for eliciting written products that span the range of the ability of interest among test-takers” (White, 1994: p.221). It means, the prompt (the writing task) given to the students should accommodate the slow learners to write something and also give the chance for the advanced learners to explore the topic

content, construct and criterion validity (Heaton, 1975).

Content validity deals with measuring what has been taught in the class and mentioning the objective of the test clearly (Brown, 2001). Based on this explanation, the researcher already ensures the content validity of the test. The reason is the researcher set the writing task by referring to the learning objectives written in Curriculum 2006. In addition, the researcher also mentioned clearly the objectives of the test. Therefore, the test in this research is valid in content. Another type of validity is presented in the following paragraph.

Criterion Validity is the degree to which result on the test agrees with those provided by some independent and highly dependable assessment of students’ ability (Hudges, 1989). On the other words, a test meets criterion validity if the scoring criteria has different range of assessment for each aspect assessed (Brown, 2001). The test made by the researcher has clear range for each aspect. Therefore, the researcher already fulfills the requirement of the criterion validity. Detailed explanation of the rubric will be discussed in the next sub topic.

The validity of a test also relies on the construction (construct validity) (Hughes, 1989). Weigle (2002) states that the construct validity must be demonstrated in at least three ways. They are mentioning the task of writing that is going to be tested, considering the scoring criteria which include the components of writing and following the criteria closely when scoring the writing, especially for the raters. In the writing test (APPENDIX 2 & 3), the researcher already mentioned the task that the students were going to do. While distributing the test,

their writing. Also, as mentioned in the previous sub topic, the raters used the rubric as the guidance for them to assess the students writing. In addition, the prompt (writing question) was made based on TWE (Test of Written English), which is well known for its validity (Brown, 2001). In conclusion, the test also has construct validity.

Previously, the scoring criteria (rubric) to assess students’ writing has been mentioned several times. To get detailed explanation of the rubric, the researcher discusses it in the following sub topic.

3.4.2 The Rubric of Pre-test and Post-test

To determine the score of the students’ writings, the researcher a needed rubric (Hyland, 2003). The researcher made some changes to the original rubrics made by Wagner (2002). Basically, it was because the words used were too difficult to understand. In making the adjustment or the changes to the rubric, the researcher asked for suggestions from two parties. The first party was the teachers and the facilitators of an English course. All of them graduated from English Language Education Study Program Yogyakarta State University (YSU). The second party was the English teachers for science program in SMA Kolese De Britto.

After the criteria for each aspect had been adjusted, the rubric was finally ready to use. There were four aspects to assess: focus, organization, sources and mechanical/grammar features (Wagner, 2006). Each aspect restricts the area that should be assessed (Hyland, 2003). The focus here was to assess the content of

the idea was. When the writer combined all the paragraphs together, the organization aspect was used. Then, the raters assessed the way the writer developed the paragraph, began the text, presented the arguments, and finally ended the discussion. On the other hand, sources tried to dig how much references or information the writer gathered to build the arguments. A persuasive text, especially exposition, would be better and convincing when it had a lot of supports, evidences, or proofs (Wagner, 2002). The last aspect was the mechanical or grammatical features. It assessed the writer’s grammar. Basically, it required the writer to write the sentences effectively in good English. In short, these four aspects were important to determine students’ writing skills in writing exposition text.

The aspects mentioned above were divided into four categories: excellent (A), good (B), acceptable (C), and attempted (D). From the order, it could be seen that a very good persuasive text belonged to excellent category. On the contrary, the writing which was not yet satisfying belonged to the attempted category. In order to be in certain category, there were several criteria.

3.5 Data Gathering Technique

In order to collect the data, the researcher took several steps. These steps of data gathering were discussed in the subsection below.

3.5.1 Preparation

Before the research could be conducted in the school, there were some preparations that should be done by the researcher (Kothari, 2004). The first step

6). Then, the researcher also asked permission from the English teacher (APPENDIX 7). After that, the researcher discussed the time to conduct the research. In this case, the researcher followed the schedule given by the teacher. Finally, an agreement about the time allocation was made (APPENDIX 8). The next step was designing an assessment sheet or rubric to conduct the pre-test and also the post-test. Last, the researcher came to school and conducted the experiment. The experiment lasted from April 30, 2014 until May 13, 2014.

3.5.2 Conducting the Pre-test

To measure the students’ level in writing before they got any treatment, the researcher conducted the pre-test (APPENDIX 2). It was done before the meeting began. The test was conducted for all the students in the treatment and control groups. In the pre-test, the students had to make an exposition text. The submitted writings were then assessed by using the rubric that had been prepared before. Then, the students received treatment based on their group.

3.5.3 Conducting the Post-test

After conducting the pre-test, the treatment was given to both groups. The treatment group was taught by using GAIL and the control group was taught by using the ordinary teaching-learning activities. The final result of these treatments was measured by the post-test (APPENDIX 3). Similar to the pre-test, the researcher gave the students an assignment to write exposition text. Then, their works were assessed by using the same rubric used to assess the pre-test.

the researcher then performed the data analysis. The result of pre-test was compared to the post-test (Kothari, 2004). This comparison was then used to determine whether GAIL improved the students’ writing skill. The detailed information about how the data was calculated would be explained in data analysis.

3.6 Data Analysis

The researcher collected the scores of the pre-test and post-test as the data of the research. Then, the purpose of the research was to observe the effectiveness of GAIL in improving students’ writing skill. Therefore, there were two types of data calculation applied here: the comparison of mean and strengthen it by using t-test for independent sample (Balnaves & Caputi, 2001). First, the data was calculated by using SPSS V.20 full version. After that, the mean of the pre-test and post-test for both groups was compared. Then, the researcher performed t-test by using the data. This test was used to determine whether the mean difference found was significant. The significance level was set at 0.05 for the analysis of the data.

3.7 Hypotheses

In this study, there were two hypotheses that were tested: the hypotheses of the first and the second research problems. The hypotheses were stated as follows:

The operational hypothesis no.1 of this study was:

H0 = The mean score of the post-tests is lower than or the same as the

mean score of the pre-tests.

H1 = The mean score of the post-test is higher than the mean score of the

pre-test

The operational hypothesis no.2 of this study was:

H0= The mean gain difference between the pre-tests and the post-tests of

the experimental group is lower than or the same as the mean gain difference between the pre-test and the post-tests of the control group.

H1 = The mean gain difference between the pre-tests and the post-tests of

the experimental group is higher than the mean gain difference between the pre-tests and the post-pre-tests of the control group.

3.7.2 Statistical Hypotheses

1. Ho= x 1 x 2

H1= x 1 < x 2

Where x1 is the mean score of the pre-test and x2 is the mean score of rhe post-test. Null hypothesis (Ho) will be rejected if there is a significant difference

between the pre-test and post-test mean score of the experimental and control group.

2. Ho= MDexp≤MDcon

is the substraction of post-test score and pre-test score. Null hypothesis (Ho) will

be rejected if the mean difference (gain) of experimental group is higher than the mean difference (gain) of the control group.

All the theories and explanations above discussed the methodology that was applied to collect and also calculate the data. Further explanation about the result of the calculation and findings will be provided in the next chapter.

42

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the result of the data calculation and also the summary of the data. There are two parts in this chapter. The first part discusses the result of the experiment. The pre-test scores, the post-test score and the statistical result are shown as well. The second part discusses the methods that may boost students’ writing.

4.1. Data Presentation

As a part of experimental research, the researcher had conducted several tests to measure the students’ writing skill. The tests were the pre-test and the post-test, which were conducted to both groups. By conducting the pre-test and post-test, the researcher was able to measure the students’ writing skills before and after the treatment. The experimental group was treated by using GAIL, while the control group applied ordinary teaching-learning activities. The results then were calculated by using SPPS ver.20. In the following paragraphs, the pre-test score, the post-test score, and the statistical result of the data will be discussed and analyzed.

Table 4.1. shows that the mean score of the pre-test and the post-test of both groups is different. The difference of post-test and pre-test of experimental group is 4.56 and 2.61 for the control group. The result suggested that the writing performance of the experimental group is higher than the control group.

Table 4.1. The Comparison Table of Pre-test and Post-test of Experimental and Control Group

In figure 4.1., the researcher presents the performance difference of the experimental and thec control group:

Statistic

Experimental Group Control Group

Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

Mean: 62.47 Mean: 67.64 Mean: 63.06 Mean: 65.67

Std. Deviation: 9.14

Std. Deviation:

11.71 Std. Deviation: 9.64

Std. Deviation: 13.09

Score Frequency Score Frequency Score Frequency Score Frequency

44 1 47 2 44 1 44 1

47 3 50 4 47 3 50 3

50 1 53 6 50 2 53 3

53 5 56 7 53 3 56 6

56 8 59 2 56 9 59 2

59 4 63 5 59 5 63 8

63 5 65 1 63 6 66 3

66 8 66 7 66 10 69 8

69 6 69 2 69 4 72 3

72 3 72 3 72 5 75 3

75 5 75 1 75 3 78 4

78 2 78 4 78 1 81 4

91 1 81 1 91 1 84 2

Total 53 84 2 Total 52 91 1

88 1 94 2

91 2 Total 52

94 1 97 1 Total 53 58 60 62 64 66 68 Pre-test Post-test Control Group Experimental Group

THE PRE―

TEST

SCORE OF THE

CONTROL

95

APPENDIX 10

THE PRE-TEST SCORE OF THE CONTROL GROUP

No. Name Pre-test Score No. Name Pre-test Score 1 Student 1 69 27 Student 27 69 2 Student 2 66 28 Student 28 63 3 Student 3 69 29 Student 29 56 4 Student 4 75 30 Student 30 53 5 Student 5 75 31 Student 31 72 6 Student 6 69 32 Student 32 56 7 Student 7 50 33 Student 33 53 8 Student 8 78 34 Student 34 63 9 Student 9 63 35 Student 35 53 10 Student 10 75 36 Student 36 66 11 Student 11 56 37 Student 37 72 12 Student 12 66 38 Student 38 69 13 Student 13 66 39 Student 39 66 14 Student 14 59 40 Student 40 53 15 Student 15 91 41 Student 41 59 16 Student 16 47 42 Student 42 63 17 Student 17 47 43 Student 43 56 18 Student 18 56 44 Student 44 56 19 Student 19 59 45 Student 45 59 20 Student 20 69 46 Student 46 53 21 Student 21 44 47 Student 47 78 22 Student 22 69 48 Student 48 75 23 Student 23 72 49 Student 49 66

THE POST―

TEST

SCORE OF THE

EXPERIMENTAL

96

APPENDIX 11

THE POST-TEST SCORE OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

No. Name Post-test Score No. Name Post-test Score 1 Student 1 69 28 Student 28 75 2 Student 2 69 29 Student 29 94 3 Student 3 56 30 Student 30 66 4 Student 4 63 31 Student 31 53 5 Student 5 63 32 Student 32 81 6 Student 6 72 33 Student 33 44 7 Student 7 69 34 Student 34 53 8 Student 8 53 35 Student 35 63 9 Student 9 63 36 Student 36 69 10 Student 10 72 37 Student 37 56 11 Student 11 63 38 Student 38 66 12 Student 12 78 39 Student 39 81 13 Student 13 63 40 Student 40 94 14 Student 14 81 41 Student 41 81 15 Student 15 63 42 Student 42 72 16 Student 16 84 43 Student 43 56 17 Student 17 59 44 Student 44 56 18 Student 18 91 45 Student 45 56 19 Student 19 69 46 Student 46 63 20 Student 20 56 47 Student 47 50 21 Student 21 75 48 Student 48 69 22 Student 22 50 49 Student 49 69 23 Student 23 78 50 Student 50 75 24 Student 24 69 51 Student 51 78

THE POST‐

TEST

SCOR、

E OF THE

CONTROL

97

APPENDIX 12

THE POST-TEST SCORE OF THE CONTROL GROUP

No. Name Post-test Score No. Name Post-test Score 1 Student 1 59 27 Student 27 63 2 Student 2 53 28 Student 28 78 3 Student 3 56 29 Student 29 47 4 Student 4 72 30 Student 30 63 5 Student 5 78 31 Student 31 66 6 Student 6 53 32 Student 32 53 7 Student 7 53 33 Student 33 69 8 Student 8 66 34 Student 34 66 9 Student 9 69 35 Student 35 63 10 Student 10 84 36 Student 36 66 11 Student 11 66 37 Student 37 75 12 Student 12 56 38 Student 38 50 13 Student 13 56 39 Student 39 78 14 Student 14 47 40 Student 40 50 15 Student 15 97 41 Student 41 53 16 Student 16 56 42 Student 42 72 17 Student 17 50 43 Student 43 63 18 Student 18 56 44 Student 44 66 19 Student 19 50 45 Student 45 56 20 Student 20 66 46 Student 46 56 21 Student 21 59 47 Student 47 91 22 Student 22 65 48 Student 48 91 23 Student 23 63 49 Student 49 94