THE EFFECT OF APPLYING SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION TECHNIQUE ON STUDENTS` ACHIEVEMENT IN WRITING HORTATORY EXPOSITION.
THE EFFECT OF APPLYING SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION
TECHNIQUE ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN WRITING
HORTATORY EXPOSITION
A THESIS
Submitted to Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By :
SARTIKA DEWI PANJAITAN
Registration Number: 2101121043
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE OF UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2015
DECLARATION
I have familiarized myself with the University’s Policy on Academic integrity. Except where
appropriately acknowledged, this thesis is my own work, has been expressed in my own words,
and has not been previously been submitted for assessment.
I understand that this paper may be screened electronically or otherwise for plagiarism.
Medan,
September 2015
Sartika Dewi Panjaitan
NIM. 2101121043
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, the writer would like to thank the almighty to
Allah SWT who has blessed the writer to complete her thesis and his
prophet Muhammad SAW because of their and blessing and great love, the
writer could do and finally complete this thesis
This thesis is aimed to fulfill one of the requirements for the degree
of Sarjana Pendidikan (S-1) at the English Department, Faculty of
Languages and Arts, State University of Medan.
During the process of writing, the writer realizes that she cannot
accomplish without God blessings and supporting from many people,
therefore the writer would like to express her sincere gratitude to:
1. Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of
Medan
2. Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Languages and Art
Faculty ,
3. Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Department.
4. Dra.Meisuri, M.A., as the Secretary of English Department.
5. Nora Ronita Dewi,S.S,M.Hum., the Head of English Education
Study Program.
6. Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd., her First Thesis consultant, and
Tiarnita Maria Sarjani br Siregar, M.Hum. as her Second Thesis
Consultant,
7. Dr. Lidiman Sahat Martua Sinaga, M.Hum., her Academic
Advisor and her Reviewer, Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum and
Dra. Sri Juriati Ownie,M.A, as her Reviewer
8. All the Lectures of English and Literature Department who have
taught, guided, and advised her throughout the academic years.
9. Eis Sri Wahyuningsih,M.Pd and Mr. Pantes, the Academic Staff,
and Administrative Staff of English Department, for her attention,
assistance, and information in completing it.
10. Drs. Suhairi, M.Pd, the headmaster of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan.
ii
11. The writer sincerely thanks to her Dad and her Mom ( Buchori
Panjaitan and Fatimah Husny) for never giving up on her and for
their tireless pray and love to the writer not only in completing this
thesis but also in along her life. The writer’s special gratitude also
goes to her dearest Brother (Muhammad Adlin Panjaitan), for
being so cute and relieving and her Sisters ( Rahmayanti Panjaitan,
S.Pd,
Ade
Irma
Suryani
Panjaitan,
S.Pd,
Elvinalinda
Panjaitan,S.Pd, ) for being so good her younger sister and younger
brother ( Leni Handayani Panjaitan, Zulfirman Panjaitan) and
also for all family members who supported her.
12. A lot of thanks all her beloved best friends reg A ( Mia Adilla
Panjaitan, S.Pd, Rabiah Al Adawiyah, S.Pd, Afrilza Aswani,
S.Pd, Suryani Hasibuan, S.Pd, Sabar Parsaulian Harahap,) for
many valuable times spend together at class and anywhere together
in love, and all helps and support in completing the thesis. and
understanding each other; (Hendrik, fida, dayah, Laila, Elvi, Widi,
Lili, Hana, Yuli, Grey, Junika, Mona, Zahra, Maisyaroh, Ridho,
for my friends in campus and best partner in medan.
13. Sudarsono Dabutar,for special care, kindness, great love, big
motivation and patience in accompanying the writer every time.
Medan, Agustus 2015
The Writer
Sartika Dewi Panjaitan
NIM. 2101121043
iii
ABSTRACT
Panjaitan, Sartika Dewi. 2101121043. The Effect of Applying Small Group
Discussion Technique on Students’ Achievement in writing Hortatory
Exposition Text. A Thesis. English Department. Faculty of Language and
Art , State University of Medan. 2015.
The purpose of this research was to know and to find out the effect of applying
small group discussion technique on students’ achievement in writing hortatory
exposition text. This study was conducted by experimental research. The
population of this study was the students of the XI IPA of SMA Negeri 1
Perbaungan. The total number of population was 240 in 8 classes. There were
eighty students chosen as the sample .The sample of the research was divided into
two groups, namely experimental group and control group. The grade XI IPA 3 as
experimental group was taught by using small group discussion technique while
grade XI IPA 2 as control group was taught without using discussion technique.
The instrument used in this study was a written test. The data were taken by
administering the pre-test and post-test to both control and experimental groups.
These data were analyzed by using t-test. The result of computing the t-test
obviously showed that t-observed is higher than t-table (2,711 > 1,673) with the
degree of freedom 58 (df = N-2) at the level significance 0,05 one tail test. It
showed that the using of science discussion technique significantly affects the
students’ achievement in writing hortatory text.
Keywords : Small Group Discussion Technique, Writing Hortatory Exposition
Text
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………..
ACKNOWLEDGMENT……………………………………………...
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................
LIST OF APPENDICES …………………………………………… .
Pages
i
ii
iv
vi
vii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................
A. The Background of the Study........................................................
B. The Problems of the Study ...........................................................
C. The Objectives of the Study ..........................................................
D. The Scope of the Study .................................................................
E. The Significance of the Study........................................................
1
1
4
4
5
5
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................
A. Theoretical Framework .................................................................
1. Student’s Achievement.............................................................
2. Writing......................................................................................
a. Process of Writing................................................................
b. Genre of Writing..................................................................
3. Hortatory Exposition Text .......................................................
a. Generic Structure of Hortatory Exposition Text …………
b. Language Feature of Hortatory Exposition Text …………
c.The Example of Hortatory Exposition Text…………………
4. Assesment of writing Hortatory Exposition text ……………..
5. Small Group Discussiom Technique…………………………….
a. The Advantages Small Group Discussion Technique ............
b.The Procedure of Small Group Discussion
Technique……………………………………………………..
B. Relevant Studies.............................................................................
C. Conceptual Framework……………………………………………
D. Hypothesis…………………………………………………………
7
7
7
8
9
11
13
14
14
15
16
18
21
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................
A. Research Design ............................................................................
B. Population and Sample ..................................................................
1. Population …………………………………………………….
2. Sample ......................................................................................
C. Instrument for Collecting Data .....................................................
D. The Scoring of the test...................................................................
E. The Procedure of Research…………………………………… ....
1 . Pre-test......................................................................................
2. Treatment ..................................................................................
3. Post-Test....................................................................................
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
35
iv
22
24
28
28
F. The Validity and Reliability of the Test………………………….
1. Validity of the Test ...................................................................
2. Reliability of the Test ................................................................
G. The Technique for Analyzing the Data .........................................
H. Statistical Hypothesis……………………………………………
35
35
36
37
37
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEACH FINDING…
A. Data Analysis ………………………………………………….
B. The Reliability of the Test …………………………………….
C. Testing Hypothesis ……………………………………………
D. Research finding ………………………………………………
E. Discussion ................................................................................
39
39
40
41
41
42
CHAPTER V. THE CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS .........
44
A. Conclusion ……………………………………………………..
B. Suggestions …………………………………………………….
44
44
REFERENCES .....................................................................................
46
APPENDIX ...........................................................................................
49
v
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix A Students’ The score of Pre-test and
Post-test of Experimental Group………………………….... 49
Appendix B Students’ The score of Pre-test and
Post-test of Control Group…………………………............. 50
Appendix C The Calculation of Pre-test and Post-test of Experimental
Group .................................................................................. 51
Appendix D The Calculation of Pre-test and Post-test of Control
Group. ................................................................................
53
Appendix E The Reliability Of The Test ………………………………
55
Appendix F The Calculation of t-test.....................................................
57
Appendix G Values of the Correlation Coefficient for Different Levels
of Significance ....................................................................
59
Appendix H Writing Test........................................................................
60
Appendix I The English Lesson Plan......................................................
61
vii
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
Writing belongs to an important activity in an English class. Writing as a
productive skills is very important to learn. Harmer (2004 : 86 ) states that
writing is a process and that we write is often heavily influenced by constraints of
genres, then these elements have to be present in learning.
Many students’ find difficulties when they learn writing. Based on
preliminary observation conducted in SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan, the writer found
that most of students’ of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan stated that writing is difficult
for them and the implication is they do not like to study English and they cannot
write a good text. It was proven when the writer asked for The list of students’
score for writing tests in two semesters, academic year 2013-2014 below. The
minimum criteria mastery (KKM) which is applied by the school is 75.
Table 1.1
Students’ Scores in Writing in Two Semesters
2013-2014
Class XI IPA 2
Semester
1st Semester 2012/2013
2nd Semester 2012/2013
Score
< 75
≥ 75
< 75
≥ 75
Students
26 Students
14 Students
28 Students
12 Students
Percentage
65 %
35 %
70 %
30 %
2
Class XI IPA3
Semester
Score
Students
Percentage
< 75
25 Students
69.4 %
1st Semester 2013/2014
≥ 75
11 Students
30.6 %
< 75
28 Students
77.8 %
2nd Semester 2013/2014
≥ 75
8 Students
22.2 %
Source: students’ accumulated score of grade XI IPA2 and XI IPA3 students at
SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan academic year 2013/014 and 2014/2015
The first problem was students didn’t have motivation to study English.
Moreover, they have problem with a lack of vocabulary, poor grammar and
unable ideas. The second problem was teaching method applied by the teacher.
The teacher still used the conventional method in teaching writing.
There are some reasons for making students practice writing inside or
outside the class. They can choose their own themes or topics to be written on a
certain type of text. Students have more opportunity for language processing, that
is thinking about the language. It is as stated by Hammer (2007:12) “Writing
gives them more ‘thinking time’ than they get when attempt spontaneous
conversation”. From this explanation, we can say that students will pay more
attention about the topic, suitable title, choice of words (diction), etc. They will do
revising again and again to get the satisfying result expected.
The tenth grades of senior high school at SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan
students are taught some types of English text. Each of them is different in its
social functions, generic structures and significant grammatical features that the
students should master. Furthermore, they should be able to achieve listening,
reading speaking and writing competence in each aspect to pass the examination.
3
The researcher chooses SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan as the subject of
research because the researcher found that many students there gotten some
difficulties in transferring their arguments in writing the text because of lack of
information about the topic. In addition, the researcher found some problems in
the teaching and learning processes. First, students feel bored when they are
learning because of unchangeable method from the teacher. In this case, teacher
uses lecturing method. Next, students are only asked to write without any clear
instruction and guidance. This is the problem facing by students in writing.
Based on this reality, the teacher needs an effective method in term of
teaching hortatory exposition text. The appropriate and comprehensive methods
for teaching writing related to teaching methods is applying Small Group
Discussion Technique. Small Group Discussion technique is a tool to make the
writing easier, because the main point is to make the teachers show tolerance to
students’ opinions and attitudes, which can help to develop rapport between
instructors and students listed as the topic to be discussed.
Small group discussion technique is one of the teachers’ technique in
teaching. Not only small group discussion show facts, but also show the overall
structure of a subject and the relative importance of individual parts of it. Small
Group Discussion technique is a tool to make the writing easier, because the main
point is to make the teachers show tolerance to students’ opinions and attitudes,
which can help to develop rapport between instructors and students listed as the
topic to be discussed. Further, Killen (1996: 36) highlights that small group
discussion technique is potential to be applied in teaching because: (1) it prompts
4
students for further responses; (2) it engages a reluctant students; (3) it focuses
student’s responses; and (4) it prompts students to think at higher level.
Additionally, Kelly (2010) explains three basic logical reasons for why small
group discussion technique is very applicable in teaching speaking: (1) instructors
maintain a greater control over what is being taught because they are able to steer
the discussion; (2) small group discussion technique is comfortable for the teacher
because it is a modified form of lecture; and (3) students have a tendency to stay
focused on the lesson because they might prepare to share their idea.
In line with background above, the writer would like to conduct a study
with title: the effect of applying small group discussion technique on students’
achievement in writing hortatory exposition text. The writer expects to find the
effect of small group discussion on students’ achievement in writing hortatory
exposition.
B. The Problem of the Study
The problem of this study can be stated as follows:
“Does the application of Small Group Discussion Technique significantly
affect the students’ achievement in writing hortatory exposition text ?”
C. The Objective of the Study
The objective of this study is to find out if there is a significant effect of
applying Small Group Discussion Technique in teaching hortatory exposition text.
5
D. The Scope of the Study
There
are
many
kinds
of
genres
in
writing
namely
narrative,
argumentative, descriptive, exposition, recount, report, procedure etc., and this
study is focused only on the writing of hortatory exposition texts. The teaching
hortatory exposition is along with the use of posters, with the 11th grade students
of SMAN 1 Perbaungan as the subject.
E. The Significance of the Study
The finding of this study was intended to give contribution in teaching English
both theoretically and practically.
1. Theoretically
a. The finding of this study is expected to be a basic knowledge for further
research of small group discussion technique in writing
b. The finding of this study is expected as reference to the other researcher who
wants to study more about descriptive writing text by using small group
discussion technique
2. Practically
a. For the teacher
1. The finding of this study is expected to be able to contribute any use for
language teachers in teaching English.
2. The finding of this study is expected to help the teachers solve the
problem in teaching especially writing skill.
6
b. For the students’
1. The finding of this study is expected as guidance for English teacher to
motivate the students’ in learning English better.
2. The finding of this study is expected as guidance for English teachers
in teaching English mainly to increase the students’ achievement in
writing.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusion
Based on the result of the data analysis, it was concluded that the use of Small
Group Discussion Technique was higher than that by using without Small Group
Discussion Technique in writing hortatory exposition text. It also built the
confidence of the students in expressing their ideas and opinions in their group. It
means that Small Group Discussion Technique has an effect on writing hortatory
exposition text. So, Small Group Discussion Technique is better used to increase
students’ achievement in writing hortatory exposition text than without Small
Group Discussion Technique.
B. Suggestions
Based on the conclusion drawn, the results of the findings contribute valuable
suggestions for those who are interested in teaching writing hortatory exposition
text. The writer point out some suggestions as following;
1.
English teachers are suggested to apply Small Group Discussion Technique in
teaching writing text especially hortatory exposition text because this
technique helps the students easy to understand and exchange their ideas with
their friend.
2.
The students can use this Small Group Discussion technique in group because
It helps them to share ideas and information before they write.
44
3.
Other researchers to develop the research by using small group discussion
technique on other writing genres or language skill in conducting further
research as it significantly affects the students’ writing achievement.
45
46
REFERENCES
Arikunto, S. 2006. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta:
Rineka Cipta
Ary, Donald. 2002. Introduction to Research in Education. Singapore:
Wardswirth
Ary, Donald. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education. Singapore:
Wardswirth
Azhari, Lubis. 2013. Improving Students’ Achievement in Speaking hrough the
Application of Small Group Discussion Method (SGD). Medan. State
University of Medan
Bennet, Judith. 2004. A Systematic Review of The Use of Small-Group
Discussions in Science Teaching With Students Aged 11-18, And Their
Effects on Students’ Understanding in Science or Attitude to Science.
University of York: UK
Best, J. W. & Khan, J. 2002. Research in Education 7th. New Delhi: Prentice Hall
Bloom, B.S. 1996 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the Classification of
Educational Goals. New York: Longman
Bonanno, H., Jones, J. & English, L. 1998. Making Groups Work in a First Year
Undergraduate Course, Journal of Teaching in Higher Education, 3:3, pp.
365-382
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001 Teaching By Principle: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. (2nd ed). San Francisco: Addison Wesley Longman.
Clark and Clark. 1997. Physicology and Language. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich:
USA
Coffin, C. et al. 2003. Teaching Academic Writing. London: Routledge
Carolyn Kessler. Cooperative Language Learning.New Jersey:Prantice-Hall
David Nunan, Paul and K. Donald. Method for Teaching, A Skill Approach. Ohio
Merril Company.
Gerrot, L. & Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar.Cammeray:
Antipodean Educational Enterprises.
47
Gunn, V.A. 2000. Transgressing the Traditional Teaching and Learning Methods
in a Medieval History Access Course, Teaching in Higher Education, 5:3,
pp. 311-322.
Hameed, S. and Khalid, T. 2013. Small Group Discussion Impact Students’ Score
in Undergraduate Pathology Course.JUMDC Vol. 4 (1), Issue 1.
Faisalabad
Hugely, Jane B et al. 1983. Teaching ESL Composition: Principle and Technique.
Massachusetts: Newbury House
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching (Third Edition:
Completely Revised and Updated). England: Longman.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2004. How to Teach Writing. England: Person Education
Kempa RF, Ayob A.1991. Learning Interactions in Group Work in Science.
International Journal of Science Education Vol. 13: 341-354.
Knapp, Peter.,& Watkins, Megan. 2005. Genre, Text and Grammar. Sidney:
University of New South Wales Kenneth Gangel. http bible-org/series
page/teaching discussion.Accessed on November 11th
Kelly, M. Stafford, K. 1993. Managing Small Group Discussion. Workshop Series
No. 9. (1993).1-18.
Linn, Robert L., Bond, Lloyd., Carr, Peggy., Harris, Douglas. 2000. Students
Learning, Students Achievement : How Do Teaches Measure Up.
Arlington: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Pardiyono. 2007. Teaching Genre Based Writing. Yogyakarta: Andi
Rasmussen, Ray V. 1994.Practical Discussion Technique for Intructiors. AACE
Journal. 1984. 12:2, pp 38-47
Richards, J.C. and Farrell, T. S. C. 2005. Professional Development for Language
Teachers Strategies for Teacher Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Robert A. Slavin .1995. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and
Practice.Second Edition. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Sagala, H. 2012. Improving Students’ Achievement In Writing Analytical
Exposition Text Through Guided Writing Technique. Medan: State
University of Medan
48
Slavin, Robert E. 1995. Cooperative Learning; Theory, Research, and Practise.
Englewood Cliiffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Siahaan, Sanggam & Shinoda Kisno. 2008. Generic Text Structure. Yogjakarta:
Graha Ilmu
Shlomo Sharon, Hand Book of Cooperative Learning Methods. London: Prager
Publisher
Siahaan, S. 2008. Issues in Linguistics. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Siahaan, S. & Shinoda, K. 2008.Generic Text Structure. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Tinambunan, Wilmar. 19988. Education of
Depdikbud
student achievement. Jakarta:
TECHNIQUE ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN WRITING
HORTATORY EXPOSITION
A THESIS
Submitted to Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By :
SARTIKA DEWI PANJAITAN
Registration Number: 2101121043
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE OF UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2015
DECLARATION
I have familiarized myself with the University’s Policy on Academic integrity. Except where
appropriately acknowledged, this thesis is my own work, has been expressed in my own words,
and has not been previously been submitted for assessment.
I understand that this paper may be screened electronically or otherwise for plagiarism.
Medan,
September 2015
Sartika Dewi Panjaitan
NIM. 2101121043
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, the writer would like to thank the almighty to
Allah SWT who has blessed the writer to complete her thesis and his
prophet Muhammad SAW because of their and blessing and great love, the
writer could do and finally complete this thesis
This thesis is aimed to fulfill one of the requirements for the degree
of Sarjana Pendidikan (S-1) at the English Department, Faculty of
Languages and Arts, State University of Medan.
During the process of writing, the writer realizes that she cannot
accomplish without God blessings and supporting from many people,
therefore the writer would like to express her sincere gratitude to:
1. Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of
Medan
2. Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Languages and Art
Faculty ,
3. Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Department.
4. Dra.Meisuri, M.A., as the Secretary of English Department.
5. Nora Ronita Dewi,S.S,M.Hum., the Head of English Education
Study Program.
6. Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd., her First Thesis consultant, and
Tiarnita Maria Sarjani br Siregar, M.Hum. as her Second Thesis
Consultant,
7. Dr. Lidiman Sahat Martua Sinaga, M.Hum., her Academic
Advisor and her Reviewer, Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum and
Dra. Sri Juriati Ownie,M.A, as her Reviewer
8. All the Lectures of English and Literature Department who have
taught, guided, and advised her throughout the academic years.
9. Eis Sri Wahyuningsih,M.Pd and Mr. Pantes, the Academic Staff,
and Administrative Staff of English Department, for her attention,
assistance, and information in completing it.
10. Drs. Suhairi, M.Pd, the headmaster of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan.
ii
11. The writer sincerely thanks to her Dad and her Mom ( Buchori
Panjaitan and Fatimah Husny) for never giving up on her and for
their tireless pray and love to the writer not only in completing this
thesis but also in along her life. The writer’s special gratitude also
goes to her dearest Brother (Muhammad Adlin Panjaitan), for
being so cute and relieving and her Sisters ( Rahmayanti Panjaitan,
S.Pd,
Ade
Irma
Suryani
Panjaitan,
S.Pd,
Elvinalinda
Panjaitan,S.Pd, ) for being so good her younger sister and younger
brother ( Leni Handayani Panjaitan, Zulfirman Panjaitan) and
also for all family members who supported her.
12. A lot of thanks all her beloved best friends reg A ( Mia Adilla
Panjaitan, S.Pd, Rabiah Al Adawiyah, S.Pd, Afrilza Aswani,
S.Pd, Suryani Hasibuan, S.Pd, Sabar Parsaulian Harahap,) for
many valuable times spend together at class and anywhere together
in love, and all helps and support in completing the thesis. and
understanding each other; (Hendrik, fida, dayah, Laila, Elvi, Widi,
Lili, Hana, Yuli, Grey, Junika, Mona, Zahra, Maisyaroh, Ridho,
for my friends in campus and best partner in medan.
13. Sudarsono Dabutar,for special care, kindness, great love, big
motivation and patience in accompanying the writer every time.
Medan, Agustus 2015
The Writer
Sartika Dewi Panjaitan
NIM. 2101121043
iii
ABSTRACT
Panjaitan, Sartika Dewi. 2101121043. The Effect of Applying Small Group
Discussion Technique on Students’ Achievement in writing Hortatory
Exposition Text. A Thesis. English Department. Faculty of Language and
Art , State University of Medan. 2015.
The purpose of this research was to know and to find out the effect of applying
small group discussion technique on students’ achievement in writing hortatory
exposition text. This study was conducted by experimental research. The
population of this study was the students of the XI IPA of SMA Negeri 1
Perbaungan. The total number of population was 240 in 8 classes. There were
eighty students chosen as the sample .The sample of the research was divided into
two groups, namely experimental group and control group. The grade XI IPA 3 as
experimental group was taught by using small group discussion technique while
grade XI IPA 2 as control group was taught without using discussion technique.
The instrument used in this study was a written test. The data were taken by
administering the pre-test and post-test to both control and experimental groups.
These data were analyzed by using t-test. The result of computing the t-test
obviously showed that t-observed is higher than t-table (2,711 > 1,673) with the
degree of freedom 58 (df = N-2) at the level significance 0,05 one tail test. It
showed that the using of science discussion technique significantly affects the
students’ achievement in writing hortatory text.
Keywords : Small Group Discussion Technique, Writing Hortatory Exposition
Text
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………..
ACKNOWLEDGMENT……………………………………………...
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................
LIST OF APPENDICES …………………………………………… .
Pages
i
ii
iv
vi
vii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................
A. The Background of the Study........................................................
B. The Problems of the Study ...........................................................
C. The Objectives of the Study ..........................................................
D. The Scope of the Study .................................................................
E. The Significance of the Study........................................................
1
1
4
4
5
5
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................
A. Theoretical Framework .................................................................
1. Student’s Achievement.............................................................
2. Writing......................................................................................
a. Process of Writing................................................................
b. Genre of Writing..................................................................
3. Hortatory Exposition Text .......................................................
a. Generic Structure of Hortatory Exposition Text …………
b. Language Feature of Hortatory Exposition Text …………
c.The Example of Hortatory Exposition Text…………………
4. Assesment of writing Hortatory Exposition text ……………..
5. Small Group Discussiom Technique…………………………….
a. The Advantages Small Group Discussion Technique ............
b.The Procedure of Small Group Discussion
Technique……………………………………………………..
B. Relevant Studies.............................................................................
C. Conceptual Framework……………………………………………
D. Hypothesis…………………………………………………………
7
7
7
8
9
11
13
14
14
15
16
18
21
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................
A. Research Design ............................................................................
B. Population and Sample ..................................................................
1. Population …………………………………………………….
2. Sample ......................................................................................
C. Instrument for Collecting Data .....................................................
D. The Scoring of the test...................................................................
E. The Procedure of Research…………………………………… ....
1 . Pre-test......................................................................................
2. Treatment ..................................................................................
3. Post-Test....................................................................................
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
35
iv
22
24
28
28
F. The Validity and Reliability of the Test………………………….
1. Validity of the Test ...................................................................
2. Reliability of the Test ................................................................
G. The Technique for Analyzing the Data .........................................
H. Statistical Hypothesis……………………………………………
35
35
36
37
37
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEACH FINDING…
A. Data Analysis ………………………………………………….
B. The Reliability of the Test …………………………………….
C. Testing Hypothesis ……………………………………………
D. Research finding ………………………………………………
E. Discussion ................................................................................
39
39
40
41
41
42
CHAPTER V. THE CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS .........
44
A. Conclusion ……………………………………………………..
B. Suggestions …………………………………………………….
44
44
REFERENCES .....................................................................................
46
APPENDIX ...........................................................................................
49
v
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix A Students’ The score of Pre-test and
Post-test of Experimental Group………………………….... 49
Appendix B Students’ The score of Pre-test and
Post-test of Control Group…………………………............. 50
Appendix C The Calculation of Pre-test and Post-test of Experimental
Group .................................................................................. 51
Appendix D The Calculation of Pre-test and Post-test of Control
Group. ................................................................................
53
Appendix E The Reliability Of The Test ………………………………
55
Appendix F The Calculation of t-test.....................................................
57
Appendix G Values of the Correlation Coefficient for Different Levels
of Significance ....................................................................
59
Appendix H Writing Test........................................................................
60
Appendix I The English Lesson Plan......................................................
61
vii
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
Writing belongs to an important activity in an English class. Writing as a
productive skills is very important to learn. Harmer (2004 : 86 ) states that
writing is a process and that we write is often heavily influenced by constraints of
genres, then these elements have to be present in learning.
Many students’ find difficulties when they learn writing. Based on
preliminary observation conducted in SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan, the writer found
that most of students’ of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan stated that writing is difficult
for them and the implication is they do not like to study English and they cannot
write a good text. It was proven when the writer asked for The list of students’
score for writing tests in two semesters, academic year 2013-2014 below. The
minimum criteria mastery (KKM) which is applied by the school is 75.
Table 1.1
Students’ Scores in Writing in Two Semesters
2013-2014
Class XI IPA 2
Semester
1st Semester 2012/2013
2nd Semester 2012/2013
Score
< 75
≥ 75
< 75
≥ 75
Students
26 Students
14 Students
28 Students
12 Students
Percentage
65 %
35 %
70 %
30 %
2
Class XI IPA3
Semester
Score
Students
Percentage
< 75
25 Students
69.4 %
1st Semester 2013/2014
≥ 75
11 Students
30.6 %
< 75
28 Students
77.8 %
2nd Semester 2013/2014
≥ 75
8 Students
22.2 %
Source: students’ accumulated score of grade XI IPA2 and XI IPA3 students at
SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan academic year 2013/014 and 2014/2015
The first problem was students didn’t have motivation to study English.
Moreover, they have problem with a lack of vocabulary, poor grammar and
unable ideas. The second problem was teaching method applied by the teacher.
The teacher still used the conventional method in teaching writing.
There are some reasons for making students practice writing inside or
outside the class. They can choose their own themes or topics to be written on a
certain type of text. Students have more opportunity for language processing, that
is thinking about the language. It is as stated by Hammer (2007:12) “Writing
gives them more ‘thinking time’ than they get when attempt spontaneous
conversation”. From this explanation, we can say that students will pay more
attention about the topic, suitable title, choice of words (diction), etc. They will do
revising again and again to get the satisfying result expected.
The tenth grades of senior high school at SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan
students are taught some types of English text. Each of them is different in its
social functions, generic structures and significant grammatical features that the
students should master. Furthermore, they should be able to achieve listening,
reading speaking and writing competence in each aspect to pass the examination.
3
The researcher chooses SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan as the subject of
research because the researcher found that many students there gotten some
difficulties in transferring their arguments in writing the text because of lack of
information about the topic. In addition, the researcher found some problems in
the teaching and learning processes. First, students feel bored when they are
learning because of unchangeable method from the teacher. In this case, teacher
uses lecturing method. Next, students are only asked to write without any clear
instruction and guidance. This is the problem facing by students in writing.
Based on this reality, the teacher needs an effective method in term of
teaching hortatory exposition text. The appropriate and comprehensive methods
for teaching writing related to teaching methods is applying Small Group
Discussion Technique. Small Group Discussion technique is a tool to make the
writing easier, because the main point is to make the teachers show tolerance to
students’ opinions and attitudes, which can help to develop rapport between
instructors and students listed as the topic to be discussed.
Small group discussion technique is one of the teachers’ technique in
teaching. Not only small group discussion show facts, but also show the overall
structure of a subject and the relative importance of individual parts of it. Small
Group Discussion technique is a tool to make the writing easier, because the main
point is to make the teachers show tolerance to students’ opinions and attitudes,
which can help to develop rapport between instructors and students listed as the
topic to be discussed. Further, Killen (1996: 36) highlights that small group
discussion technique is potential to be applied in teaching because: (1) it prompts
4
students for further responses; (2) it engages a reluctant students; (3) it focuses
student’s responses; and (4) it prompts students to think at higher level.
Additionally, Kelly (2010) explains three basic logical reasons for why small
group discussion technique is very applicable in teaching speaking: (1) instructors
maintain a greater control over what is being taught because they are able to steer
the discussion; (2) small group discussion technique is comfortable for the teacher
because it is a modified form of lecture; and (3) students have a tendency to stay
focused on the lesson because they might prepare to share their idea.
In line with background above, the writer would like to conduct a study
with title: the effect of applying small group discussion technique on students’
achievement in writing hortatory exposition text. The writer expects to find the
effect of small group discussion on students’ achievement in writing hortatory
exposition.
B. The Problem of the Study
The problem of this study can be stated as follows:
“Does the application of Small Group Discussion Technique significantly
affect the students’ achievement in writing hortatory exposition text ?”
C. The Objective of the Study
The objective of this study is to find out if there is a significant effect of
applying Small Group Discussion Technique in teaching hortatory exposition text.
5
D. The Scope of the Study
There
are
many
kinds
of
genres
in
writing
namely
narrative,
argumentative, descriptive, exposition, recount, report, procedure etc., and this
study is focused only on the writing of hortatory exposition texts. The teaching
hortatory exposition is along with the use of posters, with the 11th grade students
of SMAN 1 Perbaungan as the subject.
E. The Significance of the Study
The finding of this study was intended to give contribution in teaching English
both theoretically and practically.
1. Theoretically
a. The finding of this study is expected to be a basic knowledge for further
research of small group discussion technique in writing
b. The finding of this study is expected as reference to the other researcher who
wants to study more about descriptive writing text by using small group
discussion technique
2. Practically
a. For the teacher
1. The finding of this study is expected to be able to contribute any use for
language teachers in teaching English.
2. The finding of this study is expected to help the teachers solve the
problem in teaching especially writing skill.
6
b. For the students’
1. The finding of this study is expected as guidance for English teacher to
motivate the students’ in learning English better.
2. The finding of this study is expected as guidance for English teachers
in teaching English mainly to increase the students’ achievement in
writing.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusion
Based on the result of the data analysis, it was concluded that the use of Small
Group Discussion Technique was higher than that by using without Small Group
Discussion Technique in writing hortatory exposition text. It also built the
confidence of the students in expressing their ideas and opinions in their group. It
means that Small Group Discussion Technique has an effect on writing hortatory
exposition text. So, Small Group Discussion Technique is better used to increase
students’ achievement in writing hortatory exposition text than without Small
Group Discussion Technique.
B. Suggestions
Based on the conclusion drawn, the results of the findings contribute valuable
suggestions for those who are interested in teaching writing hortatory exposition
text. The writer point out some suggestions as following;
1.
English teachers are suggested to apply Small Group Discussion Technique in
teaching writing text especially hortatory exposition text because this
technique helps the students easy to understand and exchange their ideas with
their friend.
2.
The students can use this Small Group Discussion technique in group because
It helps them to share ideas and information before they write.
44
3.
Other researchers to develop the research by using small group discussion
technique on other writing genres or language skill in conducting further
research as it significantly affects the students’ writing achievement.
45
46
REFERENCES
Arikunto, S. 2006. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta:
Rineka Cipta
Ary, Donald. 2002. Introduction to Research in Education. Singapore:
Wardswirth
Ary, Donald. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education. Singapore:
Wardswirth
Azhari, Lubis. 2013. Improving Students’ Achievement in Speaking hrough the
Application of Small Group Discussion Method (SGD). Medan. State
University of Medan
Bennet, Judith. 2004. A Systematic Review of The Use of Small-Group
Discussions in Science Teaching With Students Aged 11-18, And Their
Effects on Students’ Understanding in Science or Attitude to Science.
University of York: UK
Best, J. W. & Khan, J. 2002. Research in Education 7th. New Delhi: Prentice Hall
Bloom, B.S. 1996 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the Classification of
Educational Goals. New York: Longman
Bonanno, H., Jones, J. & English, L. 1998. Making Groups Work in a First Year
Undergraduate Course, Journal of Teaching in Higher Education, 3:3, pp.
365-382
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001 Teaching By Principle: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. (2nd ed). San Francisco: Addison Wesley Longman.
Clark and Clark. 1997. Physicology and Language. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich:
USA
Coffin, C. et al. 2003. Teaching Academic Writing. London: Routledge
Carolyn Kessler. Cooperative Language Learning.New Jersey:Prantice-Hall
David Nunan, Paul and K. Donald. Method for Teaching, A Skill Approach. Ohio
Merril Company.
Gerrot, L. & Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar.Cammeray:
Antipodean Educational Enterprises.
47
Gunn, V.A. 2000. Transgressing the Traditional Teaching and Learning Methods
in a Medieval History Access Course, Teaching in Higher Education, 5:3,
pp. 311-322.
Hameed, S. and Khalid, T. 2013. Small Group Discussion Impact Students’ Score
in Undergraduate Pathology Course.JUMDC Vol. 4 (1), Issue 1.
Faisalabad
Hugely, Jane B et al. 1983. Teaching ESL Composition: Principle and Technique.
Massachusetts: Newbury House
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching (Third Edition:
Completely Revised and Updated). England: Longman.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2004. How to Teach Writing. England: Person Education
Kempa RF, Ayob A.1991. Learning Interactions in Group Work in Science.
International Journal of Science Education Vol. 13: 341-354.
Knapp, Peter.,& Watkins, Megan. 2005. Genre, Text and Grammar. Sidney:
University of New South Wales Kenneth Gangel. http bible-org/series
page/teaching discussion.Accessed on November 11th
Kelly, M. Stafford, K. 1993. Managing Small Group Discussion. Workshop Series
No. 9. (1993).1-18.
Linn, Robert L., Bond, Lloyd., Carr, Peggy., Harris, Douglas. 2000. Students
Learning, Students Achievement : How Do Teaches Measure Up.
Arlington: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Pardiyono. 2007. Teaching Genre Based Writing. Yogyakarta: Andi
Rasmussen, Ray V. 1994.Practical Discussion Technique for Intructiors. AACE
Journal. 1984. 12:2, pp 38-47
Richards, J.C. and Farrell, T. S. C. 2005. Professional Development for Language
Teachers Strategies for Teacher Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Robert A. Slavin .1995. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and
Practice.Second Edition. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Sagala, H. 2012. Improving Students’ Achievement In Writing Analytical
Exposition Text Through Guided Writing Technique. Medan: State
University of Medan
48
Slavin, Robert E. 1995. Cooperative Learning; Theory, Research, and Practise.
Englewood Cliiffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Siahaan, Sanggam & Shinoda Kisno. 2008. Generic Text Structure. Yogjakarta:
Graha Ilmu
Shlomo Sharon, Hand Book of Cooperative Learning Methods. London: Prager
Publisher
Siahaan, S. 2008. Issues in Linguistics. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Siahaan, S. & Shinoda, K. 2008.Generic Text Structure. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Tinambunan, Wilmar. 19988. Education of
Depdikbud
student achievement. Jakarta: