THE EFFECT OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES AND STUDENTS PERSONAL TRAITS ON STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT IN DESCRIPTIVE WRITING.

(1)

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES AND STUDENTS’

PERSONAL TRAITS ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN

DESCRIPTIVE WRITING

A THESIS

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistic Study Program in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

LASTRI WAHYUNI MANURUNG Registration Number: 8106112034

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

(2)

(3)

(4)

ABSTRACT

Manurung, Lastri Wahyuni. Registration Number: 8106112034. The Effect of Teaching Techniques and Students’ Personal Traits on Students’ Achievement in Descriptive Writing.A Thesis. English Applied Linguistic Program. State University of Medan. 2013.

The objectives of this experimental research were to investigate whether: 1) students’ achievement in descriptive writing taught by using roundtable teaching technique was higher than taught by using clustering teaching technique. 2) students’ achievement in descriptive writing with introvert personal trait was higher than that students with extrovert personal trait, 3) there was interaction between teaching techniques and personal traits on students’ achievement in descriptive writing. The population of this research was the students in grade XI of SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik 2013/2014 school academic year.

The total number of population were 280 students. There were 80 students selected as sample of this research by applying cluster random sample technique. The research design was experimental research by using factorial design 2x2. The students were divided into two experimental groups. The experimental group 1 was treated by using roundtable teaching technique and experimental group II was treated by using clustering teaching technique. The questionnaire was conducted for classifying the students upon the introvert and extrovert personal traits. Students’ achievement in descriptive writing was measured by using writing test. The data were analyzed by applying two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the level of significance α_{= 0.05. The result reveals}

that (1) students’ achievement in descriptive writing taught by using roundtable teaching technique was higher than that taught by using clustering teaching technique, with Fobs= 4.59>Ftab=3.97, (2) students’ achievement in descriptive writing with introvert personal trait was higher than that with extrovert personal trait with Fobs= 4.90>Ftable=3.97, (3) there is interaction between techniques and personal traits on students’ achievement in descriptive writing with Fobs=6.58>Ftable=3.97. After computing the Tuckey-Test, the result showed that introvert students got higher achievement if they were taught by using roundtable teaching technique while extrovert students got higher achievement if they were taught by using clustering teaching technique.

(5)

ABSTRAK

Manurung, Lastri Wahyuni.. Pengaruh Teknik Mengajar dan Kepribadian Siswa terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa dalam Menulis Teks Deskriptif. Tesis. Program Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Medan, 2013.

Penelitian eksperimen ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah: 1) hasil belajar siswa dalam membaca yang diajarkan dengan teknik Roundtable lebih tinggi dari pada hasil belajar siswa yang diajarkan dengan teknik Clustering, 2) hasil belajar siswa yang memiliki kepribadian introvert daripada siswa yang memiliki kepribadian extrovert, 3) ada interaksi antara teknik pembelajaran dengan kepribadian siswa terhadap hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis teks deskriptif.

Populasi penelitian meliputi seluruh siswa kelas 11 SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik tahun ajaran 2013/2014 dengan jumlah siswa sebanyak 280 orang. Dua kelas yang berisikan 80 orang siswa diambil sebagai sampel dalam penelitian ini dengan menggunakan teknik cluster random sampling. Kelompok eksperimen diajarkan dengan teknik pembelajaran Roundtable dan kelompok kontrol diajarkan dengan teknik pembelajaran clustering. Desain penelitian ini adalah eksperimen dengan factorial 2x2 karena ada dua variabel bebas (teknik mengajar dan dua atributif (kepribadian siswa). Angket kepribadian siswa diberikan untuk mengelompokkan siswa sesuai dengan kepribadian mereka, instrovert dan extrovert. Kemudian, hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis teks deskriptif diukur dengan menggunakan ANAVA dua jalur pada tarif signifikansi α₌

0,05. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa (1) hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis teks deskriptif yang diajarkan dengan teknik mengajar Roundtable lebih tinggi daripada hasil belajar siswa yang diajarkan dengan teknik clustering dengan hasil Fhitung=

4.59>Ftabel=3.97,, (2) hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis teks deskriptif yang memiliki

kepribadian introvert lebih tinggi daripada hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis yang memiliki kepribadian ekstrovert dengan hasil hitung Fhitung= 4.90>Ftabel=3.97, (3)

terdapat interaksi antara teknik mengajar dengan kepribadian siswa terhadap hasil belajar siswa dalam menulis teks deskriptif, dengan hasil hitung Fhitung=

=6.58>Ftable=3.97. Setelah melaksanakan uji lanjut dengan menggunakan Tuckey-Test,

hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa siswa yang memiliki kepribadian introvert memperoleh hasil belajar yang tinggi dalam menulis teks deskriptif bila diajarkan dengan teknik Roundtabledan siswa yang memiliki kepribadian ekstrovert memperoleh hasil belajar yang tinggi jika diajarkan dengan teknik clustering.

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer would like to express her gratitude to Almighty God for the opportunity and possibility to complete this thesis. Someone to whom she owes real debt of gratitude is Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd, being the first adviser, for the valuable time spent and giving guidance, encouragement, criticism, and suggestions have been a feature of the writing process from the very beginning of this thesis.

The writer wishes to express her deepest gratitude to Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd, her second adviser, for motivation, attentions, suggestion, corrections of the organization and the concept of this thesis.

She would like to express her thanks to all lecturers who had given the valuable knowledge during her study at the English Applied Linguistics Study Program of Post Graduate Program, State University of Medan. Thanks are also directed to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, Syarifuddin, Ph.D, and Dr. Didik Santoso, M.Hum, her reviewers and examiners, for their valuable input to improve the thesis.

A special gratitude is also directed to her parents, (Alm) Timbul Manurung and beloved mom, Herlina Siallagan, her brothers Roy Manurung, Briptu. Monrad Manurung, SH, Paulo Arif Manurung S. Pd and her only one sister Herti Manurung thanks to their support, materials, praying and endless loves. And also to her sister in law Devi Ernita Simbolon with two of her children Kevan Blesselo and Keyla Manurung for their support and prayer.

Thanks to Christina Natalina Saragi for her support, loves, prayers to the writer. Thanks to her uncle Billy Sidabutar, to her friends Christian Neni Purba, Crisna Purba, Elisa Kander Purba, Leo Candra Mulia Gultom, S. Pd, Asima Rohana Sinaga, M. Pd, Evanansi Marpaung, M. Pd, Devi Melisa Napitu, Fernando Napitu, Josua Napitu

Finally, the writer must admit that the content of this thesis is still far from being perfect, but she warmly welcomes any constructive ideas and critics that will improve the quality of the thesis.

Medan, November28th 2013 The writer

LASTRI WAHYUNI MANURUNG Registration Number 8106112034

(7)

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... i

ABSTRACT ...ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... iii

LIST OF TABLE ... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ...v

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Background of Research ... 1

1.2 The Identification of the Research Problems ... 10

1.3 Problem of Research ... 11

1.4 The Objectives of Research ... 11

1.5 The Scope of Research ... 12

1.6 The Significances of Research ... 12

1.7 Operational Definition ... 13

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 14

2.1. Theoretical Framework ... 14

2.1.1 Writing ... 14

2.1.1.1 The Nature of Writing Process ... 15

2.1.1.2 Cognitive Process of Writing ... 17

2.1.1.3 Factors Affecting a Good Writing ... 18

2.1.1.4 Descriptive Writing ... 20

2.1.1.4.1 Components of Descriptive Writing ... 21

2.1.2 Achievement in Descriptive Writing ... 24

2.1.3 Assessment of Descriptive Writing ... 26

2.2 Teaching Writing ... 28

2.2.1 Cooperative Learning... 28

2.2.2 Roundtable Teaching Technique ... 30

2.2.1.1 Principles of Roundtable Teaching Technique ... 32

2.2.1.2 Procedures in Roundtable Teaching Technique ... 35

2.2.1.3 Advantages of Roundtable Teaching Technique ... 37

2.2.2 Clustering Teaching Technique ... 37

2.2.2.1 Principles in Clustering Teaching Technique ... 39

2.2.2.2 Procedures in Clustering Teaching Technique ... 40

2.2.2.3 Advantages of Clustering Teaching Technique ... 41

2.3 Personal Traits ... 42

2.3.1 The Traits Concept and Personality Theory ... 42

2.3.2 Introvert and Extrovert Personal Traits ... 43

2.3.2.1 Introvert... 43

2.3.2.2 Extrovert ... 44

2.3.2 The Difference between Introvert and Extrovert... 44

2.3.3 Measuring Extrovert and Introvert ... 47

2.4 Conceptual Framework ... 48

2.4.2 Students’ Achievement in Writing Taught by Roundtable and Clustering Teaching Technique ... 48

(8)

iii

2.4.3 Students’ Achievement with Introvert and Extrovert Personal Traits in Writing ... 50

2.4.4 Interaction between Teaching Techniques and Personality towards Writing ... 55

2.5 Hypotheses ... 56

2.6 Relevant Studies... 56

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 54

3.1 Research Design... 54

3.2 Population and Sample ... 55

3.2.1 Population ... 55

3.2.2 Sample... 55

3.3 Experimental Procedures ... 56

3.4 Control of Treatment... 58

3.5 The Instruments of Data Collection ... 62

3.5.1 Writing Test ... 62

3.5.1.1 Validity of Writing Test ... 65

3.5.1.2 Reliability of Writing Test ... 65

3.5.2 Students’ Personality Questionnaire ... 66

3.5.2.1 Validity of Questionnaire ... 67

3.5.3.2 Reliability of Questionnaire ... 69

3.6 Data Analysis ... 70

3.7 Statistical Hypothesis………...71

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ...72

4.1 Requirement of Data Analysis ...72

4.1.1 Normality Test ...72

4.1.2 Homogeneity Test ...72

4.1.2.1 Groups of Personal Traits and Teaching Techniques ...73

4.1.2.2 Groups of Interaction ...74

4.2 Testing Hypothesis ...74

4.2.1 The Effect of Teaching Techniques on Students’ Writing Achievement ...75

4.2.1 The Effect of Personal Traits on Students’ Writing Achievement ...76

4.2.2 Interaction between Teaching Techniques and Personal Traits on Students’ Achievement in Descriptive Writing ...77

4.3 Discussion ...79

4.3.1 Students’ Achievement in Descriptive Writing taught by Using Roundtable Teaching Technique is Higher than by Using Clustering Technique ...79

4.3.2 Students’ Achievement in Descriptive Writing between Students with Introvert and Extrovert Personal Traits ...81

4.3.3 The Interaction between Teaching Techniques and Students’ Personal Traits on Students’ Achievement in Descriptive Writing ...83

(9)

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ...86

5.1 Conclusions ...86

5.2 Implications...86

5.3 Suggestions ...87

REFFERENCES ...89

(10)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 The Writing Score of English Final Semester Test in SMA N 1 Sidamanik ... 2

Table 2 Scores of Writing on the Final Semester ... 3

Table 3 The Planning and Implementation of Cooperative Learning... 29

Table 4 The Advantages of Roundtable Technique as a Cooperative Learning ... 37

Table 5 Differences between Roundtable and Clustering Teaching Techniques ... 41

Table 6 Differences between Extrovert and Introvert based on the Cognitive Patterning ... 46

Table 7 The Differences between Extrovert and Introvert by Ewen (2006) ... 46

Table 8 The Study Design (Factorial Design 2x2) ... 54

Table 9 Teaching Using Roundtable Teaching Technique ... 57

Table 10 Teaching Using Clustering Teaching Technique ... 57

Table 11 Indicators of Students’ Personal Traits in Questionnaire ... 68

Table 12 Normality test (Liliefors) ... 72

Table 13 Homogeneity Test ... 73

Table 14 Homogeneity test between Interaction ... 74

Table 15 Two-way ANOVA with 2x2 Factorial ... 74

Table 16 the Calculation of the two-way ANOVA ... 75

(11)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 The Systematic Process in the Long-Term Memory when Someone is Writing ... 21 Figure 2 Example of Clustering by Rico (2000) ... 40 Figure 3 Model of Clustering by Rico (2000) ... 41 Figure 4 Histogram on the Effect of Teaching Techniques on Students’ Writing

Achievement ... 76 Figure 5 Histogram on the Effect of Personal Traits on Students’ Writing

(12)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Lesson Plan ... 94

Appendix B. Questionnaire Test... 99

Appendix C. Writing Test ... 104

Calculation of Try Out for Writing ... 105

Calculation of Try Out for Questionnaire ... 108

Calculation of Means and Variance (Population) ... 109

Calculation for Questionnaire’s Test ... 110

Descriptive Statistics for Introvert (A1) ... 116

Descriptive Statistics for Extrovert (A2) ... 116

Homogeneity Test (Introvert – Extrovert) ... 117

Writing Test ... 118

Descriptive Statistics for Roundtable Teaching Technique (B1) ... 119

Descriptive Statistics Clustering Teaching Technique (B2) ... 119

Homogeneity Test (Roundtable – Clustering) ... 119

Descriptive Data ... 121

Homogeneity test between Interaction ... 122

Homogeneity Test for Interaction between Sample ... 122

ANOVA (2x2 Factorial Design) ... 125

Hypotheses ... 127

The Data Description of Data Analysis ... 127

Appendix D. Summary of Research Data Description ... 128

Figure 3 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Descriptive Writing Taught with Roundtable Teaching Technique ... 128

Figure 4 Histogram on Students’ Achievement in Descriptive Writing Taught by Using Clustering Teaching Technique ... 129

Figure 5 Histogram on Introvert Students’ Achievement in Descriptive Writing Taught by Using Roundtable Teaching Technique ... 129

Figure 7 Histogram on Extrovert Students’ Achievement in Descriptive Writing Taught by Using Roundtable Teaching Technique ... 130

Figure 8 Histogram on Introvert Students’ Achievement in Descriptive Writing Taught by Using Clustering Teaching Technique ... 130

Figure 9 Histogram on Extrovert Students’ Achievement in Descriptive Writing Taught by Using Clustering Teaching Technique ... 131

Figure 10 Interaction between teaching techniques and personal traits on students’ achievement in descriptive writing ... 131

(13)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Background of Research

Writing is more than a medium of communication. It means that writing is not just the way to communicate to each other but also as means of ideas and emotional expression (Raymond, 1980). Writing makes word permanent, and thus expands the collective memory of human being. Spoken words disappear as soon as they are spoken, but writing freezes their thoughts, makes them visible and permanent so people can examine and test their quality. It can be seen that writing is a way of remembering because it makes word permanent and writing also is a good way to communicate because when writing, the writer really thinks about what he or she want to be communicated by writing it.

Writing is very important in today’s world life, as Graham (2006) stated that students who do struggle significantly with writing, and adults who cannot or will not engage in writing, are at a terrible disadvantage in today’s world. By upper elementary grades, writing becomes a critical tool both for learning and for showing what one knows. Students who do not write well cannot draw on its power to support and extend learning and development, and adults with inadequate writing skills will face significant barriers in further education and employment. The same idea is also noted by Boardman (2008: 3) that the paragraph is the basic unit of academic writing in English. Students who want to study in a college or in a university or to get a certain job, need to learn how to

(14)

2 write, because all other types of academic writing, such as reports, essays, compositions and research papers are based on the paragraph of a writing text.

Students in Indonesia have been taught writing course since they were in the first class of Senior High School. But, it was found that they face some difficulties in writing. As Hazanah (2003) found that commonly, students are difficult in starting the writing, they got confuse about what to write and also about how to generate ideas. This is because of the lack of knowledge about the steps on writing was procedural factors that cause the difficulties for all students. And the most important thing is that, writing is usually get least attention in teaching learning in classroom, which make students are rarely exposed to writing.

Meanwhile, most of students find it is difficult to develop ideas in their mindsas Campbell (cited in Budiarta, 2011) claims. Actually, they might have something to state in their mind, but they are often confused to express and develop their ideas into a good writing. Further, one of the students’ problems is that they have difficulty in arranging information or ideas logically to achieve coherence in their writing, which is the foremost requirement in writing.

This matter also happens to the students in SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik. As the researcher has observed the students in that school, the researcher found that many students think that writing is often considered as the most difficult and boring activity among the four language skills in English. This is because acquiring writing skill needs a lot of practice, and to produce a piece of essay needs long process. Most of researchers recognize this difficulty in writing is

(15)

3 caused by the complexity of writing (Urquhart, 2005). The complexity of writing encountered by students involves the level skills of planning and organizing as well as the level skills of spelling, punctuation, word choice, grammar and usage. The writer has observed the real condition of the students in writing in SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik and found that the students’ score of writing course was

under the Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM). It can be seen from the English

result study of the students in two semesters of final tests.

Table 1.1 The Writing Scores of English Final Semester Examination in SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik

No. Academic

Year

The Scores Average of Writing

(Social&Science Class)

Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal

(KKM)

1. 2010/2011 59.11 60

2. 2011/2012 59.4 60

3. 2012/2013 58.7 60

Based on the table above, the scores of the students’ achievement in English writing are not good enough or still cannot pass the passing grade. As the writer has also observed, the students’ score in writing course is also low. The researcher gets the score from the English teachers who teach in grade eleven of social and science class.The scores are taken from the written test in the final semester test. The scores of the eleventh grade students in writing are shown in this following table:

(16)

4 Table 1.2 Scores of Writing on the Final Semester in SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik

No Writing

Scores Academic Year 2010/2011 Academic Year 2011/2012 Academic Year 2012/2013 Number of Students

% Number

of Students

% Number

of Students

1 85-100 12 6. 03 10 4. 90 23 17. 29

2 75-84 33 16. 58 35 17.16 17 12.78

3 60-74 81 40. 70 80 39. 21 88 66. 17

4 50-59 69 34. 67 71 34. 80 5 3. 75

5 0-49 4 2. 01 8 3.92 - -

Total 199 100% 204 100% 133 100%

From the above table, it shows that only 4. 90 % of the eleventh grade students can achieve 85-100 scores on the year 20011/2012. In the year of 2012/ 2013, only 17.29% of students can reach above 85 scores in writing test. Most of the students can only achieve above 60 to 74. It means that the students’ achievement in writing at the eleventh grade of SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik is still low. This is regarded as low because the standard score in writing must be 60 which is specified by the teacher in SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik.

The unsatisfactory achievement in writing is in contrast with the expectation in curriculum that students are expected to be able to write in various genres. In addition, based on the syllabus - based curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan: KTSP) the students are required to learn some genre such as Narrative, Report, Spoof, Analytical Exposition, Hortatory Exposition, description etc. They must be able to express their ideas in the form of written text.In this study the researcher chooses description text as the genre in writing activity that needs to be improved.Descriptive text appertains into the academic writing. This

(17)

5 genre requires the students to have a critical thinking, scientific ideas, and clear expression toward a topic to be described. Those characteristics cause a lot of students getting frustrated in composing this text. Besides, referring to the syllabus of school - based curriculum (KTSP) this kind of text is only taught at the second grade of senior high school on the second term. Differ from other kinds of genres; Narrative, Report, Spoof, recount text, etc, however, they had been introduced and learned since junior high school level. So, many students regard that this text is still a new thing for them. For this reason, descriptive text is finally chosen as the genre to be focused in this research.

Description writing is a written text in which the writer describes an object trough the sensory experience—how something looks, sounds, tastes. Mostly it is about visual experience, but description also deals with other kinds of perception (Kane 2000). In describing an object, a writer may use some grammatical features in description writing. while the way descriptive text is elaborated is describing things from a technical or factual point of view, the present tense is predominantly used; for example:has, eats, sings, lays, swim. Although present tense may be used in literary descriptions, it is past tense that tends to dominate. Relational verbs are used when classifying and describing appearance/qualities and parts/functions of phenomena (is, are, has, have). Action verbs are used when describing behaviours/uses (Knapp 2005).

In literary and commonsense descriptions, action verbs are used

metaphorically to create effect; for example, Mia bubbled with enthusiasm.

(18)

6 literary descriptions. Adjectives are used to add extra information to nouns and may be technical, everyday or literary, depending on the text. Often adjectives used in literary descriptions can be considered to be affective due to the emotive impact they have on readers. This can also be the case with the way that some verbs and adverbs are used. Adverbs are used to add extra information to verbs to provide more detailed description. Literary descriptions use a range of devices to create effects such as similes, metaphors, personification and alliteration; for

example, Sally’s face shone like a beacon when she heard that she had won the

competition (Simile). The experience was a nightmare and something James

would remember for the rest of his life (Metaphor). The wind whistled through the

trees andHarry found it difficult to sleep (Personification). Descriptive text has two generic structure, such as: identification (to identify the object to describe) and description (describes parts, qualities, and characteristics of the objects).

In fact students in SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik face the difficulty in writing a descriptive text. There is no wonder if students in SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik think that writing is a boring and difficult activity because of its complexity. There is a complex requirement to be fulfilled by students in composing a descriptive text. Students think that it is a difficult writing assignment the students have. During the observation, the researcher found that students get difficulty in making identification (as the first generic structure). They spent a lot of time focusing only on how to start writing. How can the students compose a complete descriptive text, when they cannot successfully give a good identification in what they are going to describe. This factor may come from the students’ experience

(19)

7 about descriptive text which is still low. Besides that, lacking of scientific ideas and pre-writing activities are two causes that the students get depressed in composing a text. As Elbow (1998) stated that a good writer should have a good prewriting skill in composing text by transferring scientific ideas to convey feeling of experience.

From that case, both teachers and students need a significant way of teaching and learning in order to improve the student’s achievement in writing. However in the reality the teachers always use the conventional ways of teaching like giving some questions, discussion and homework without any challenges activities that will train their brain to think critically. And of course it will affect much the students’ achievement in writing. As writing is the most crucial skill for English learners, then, the low achievement in writing needs to be improved.

To enable teachers to increase students’ writing achievement the help of technique is crucial. Technique is any of wide variety of exercises, activities, or task used in the language classroom for realizing lesson objectives (Brown 2000). It means teaching technique can realize the learning objective of writing. Some researchers have found that using technique for writing is effective to make students’ writing better, as Safriyantinur (2008) said that the application of small group work technique in teaching writing is effective to make the students’ writing achievement better.

Indeed, there are many kinds of teaching techniques that can be applied by the teacher. But it is believed that they have their own strength based on the genre of writing, since in this thesis the genre to be discussed is descriptive writing, the

(20)

8 Roundtable teaching technique will be used. The idea of choosing this roundtable teaching technique is because the roundtable can be used for brainstorming, reviewing, or practicing while also serving as a teambuilder (Kagan, 2009).The brainstorming can reinforce ideas from the writing or can be used to set the stage for upcoming discussions.In addition, Roundtable Teaching Technique is one kind of cooperative learning that it is organized in group working and requires a group or team working in the teaching learning process in the classroom. The key here is the question or the problem teachers have asked the students to consider. It has to be one that has the potential for a number of different "right" answers. All members need to know and be ready to explain their group’s answer(s) and when students help their group mates, they help themselves and their whole group, because the response given belongs to the whole group, not just to the group member giving it.Roundtable is most effective when used in a carefully sequenced series of activities.

However, roundtable technique is not the only technique that can increase the students/ achievement in writing practically in descriptive writing. There is other technique can be used for this purpose namely clustering teaching technique. Rico (2000) tells that clustering can be used to generate ideas for writing any form: essays, poems, short stories, business reports, song lyrics even novels. Clustering is a powerful inspirational/organizational tool: it always reassures that someone has something to say. Best of all, someone doesn’t have to worry about the sequence of ideas, connections and relationships as the cluster unfolds effortlessly. “Clustering, as already suggested, is a design-mind function, just as

(21)

9 many natural forms come in clusters-grapes, lilacs, spider eggs, cherries-so thoughts and images, given free rein, seem to come in clusters of association.” (Rico 2000:15). Rico also describes clustering as a phenomenon of nonlinear connection around a “storm center of meanings” which she calls “nucleus”. A nucleus word or short phrase acts as the stimulus for recording all the associations that spring to mind in a very brief period of time.

Actually, those techniques can be applied in any content area of writing genre, but in this study those techniques are applied in descriptive writing genre. Genre is a term for grouping texts together, representing how writers typically use language to respond to recurring situations. Every genre has a number of features which make it different to other genres: each has a specific purpose, an overall structure, specific linguistic features, and is shared by members of the culture (Hyland, 2009).

However, the appropriate techniques in teaching writing is not the only factor that can increase students’ writing achievement. There is another point which is very important that a teacher should know when they are teaching writing in classroom that is personal traits. Personality of someone will influence the product of writing (Hyland, 2009: 25). He addedthat process-writing psychologically leads to significantly better writing. It does, however, and psychological factors will help guide problem-definition, frame solutions and ultimately shape writing. And it will influence to how they interpret something, this will create different perspective to the same topic on the writing.

(22)

10 In addition, in relation to writing, “personality is potentially important factors in the process of writing.” Brown (2007: 166). Personality of a writer will influence they way of expressing ideas, choosing vocabulariesthat this influence to the way they build their sentences, the way a writer interprets an object is different and also different perspectives towards an object. There are students who concerns of perceiving an object in more details therefore, there are students imagine a concrete perception and look for overall impression about something, rather than the details. There are students who like to make decision on the basis of principles and regard something as highly objective, while there are also students who like to think subjectively etc.

As the result, this description will bring to a conclusion that the personality or personal traits are as important ways to be considered by the teacher as to teach writing in the instruction process. It is because the more eligible technique with students’ need, the more significant the knowledge got by the students.

Personal traits cover two types namely introvert and extrovert. In psychology, an extrovert is a person concerned more about the practical realities of life, rather than restricting to one's inner thoughts and feelings. Basically, an individual with extrovert personality traits tends to be keener on what is happening around him. It is in contrast with introvert. Introverts more often appear to be quiet and thoughtful.In psychology, introversion is defined as "the state of, or tendency towards being wholly or predominantly concerned with an interest in one's own mental life". Introverts are more often self consciousness,

(23)

11 passionate, quiet and deliberate. They are not so social, and prefer to spend time in loneliness, doing a range of activities, such as reading, writing, painting, etc., which makes them happy.

In conclusion, this study is conducted to see the students’ achievement in descriptive writing by using roundtable and clustering teaching techniques which are suited to the students’ personal traits which are extrovert and introvert.

1.2 The Identification of the Research Problems

In relation with the background, the problems can be formulated as follows:

1. Why do the students in grade eleven of SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik

getdifficulties in writing skill especially in descriptive writing?

2. What are the techniques to make a good descriptive writing for the students of

grade eleven in SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik?

3. Are the techniques effective to guide the students in making a good writing for

students of grade eleven in SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik?

4. How is students’ achievement in writing descriptive texttaught by using the

techniques to the students of grade eleven in SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik viewed from students’ personal traits?

1.3The Problems of the Research

Based on the identification of the problems above, the problems of the research can be formulated as follows:

(24)

1. Is the students’ achievement in writing taught by usingRoundtable Teaching

Technique higher than taught by using Clustering Teaching Technique?

2. Is the students’ achievement in writing with introvert personal trait higher

than students with extrovert personal trait?

3. Is there any interaction between teaching techniques and personal traits in

teaching writing?

1.4The Objectivesof the Research

Based on the explanation on the background of the study before, the objectives of the research are formulated as in the following:

1. To find out whether the students’ achievement in writing taught by using

roundtable is higher than taught by using Problem Based Learning.

2. To find out whether the students’ achievement in writing with introvert

personal traits is higher than students with extrovert personal traits.

3. To find out whether there is an interaction between techniques of teaching and

personal traits.

1.5The Scope of the Research

This research is confined in using Roundtable and Clustering Teaching Techniques as teaching techniques in teaching writing. And they will be related with the personal traits of the students in the classroom which is limited to only introvert and extrovert on students’ writing achievement.The writing genre

(25)

13 observed in this study focuses on descriptive writing which shouldbe achieved by the students of grade eleven as what is required to be learnt in curriculum in SMA Negeri 1 Sidamanik.

1.6The Significances of the Research

The result of this research is significant theoretically and practically.for both

students and teachers. For teachers, this research provides whether using the techniques

can improve the achievement of writing and also to offer the more effective techniques

and suitable for students’ learning style.For students, this research can be used to increase their achievement on writing based on their own personal traits.

Theoretically, the result of the research is useful to give alternative for English teachers to apply the techniques of teaching that are suitable for the students’ personal traits, to provide the steps by steps of Roundtable and Clustering as Cooperative Learning in teaching English writing. It also gives a lot of positive contribution to the improvement of teacher’s professionalism and the educational institution. Finally, the researcher hopes that the result of this research can be used as a vehicle to develop theories in teaching and learning especially in English.

Practically, the result of this research is useful to enrich the models of learning used in teaching writing, to give ideas of considering the students’ personal traits when teaching writing and as a comparison for other researchers who make a research in techniques of teaching.

(26)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

1.1Conclusions

Based on the data analysis and the research findings, it is concluded that:

1) Students’ achievement in descriptive writing by using roundtable teaching technique is higher than that taught by using clustering teaching technique; 2) The introvert of students have higher achievement than students with extrovert

personal traits;

3) There is significant interaction between teaching techniques and personal traits on students’ achievement in descriptive writing. On the other words, it can be said that the students’ achievement in descriptive writing is influenced by the teaching techniques and students’ personal traits.

1.2Implications

The students’ achievement in writing descriptive text taught by using roundtable teaching technique is higher that taught by using clustering teaching technique. In this research, the techniques were matched with the students’ personal traits. The research findings and discussion indicate that the students’ achievement taught by using roundtable teaching technique is higher than by using clustering teaching technique especially when it is taught for students with introvert personal traits. It is because the students with introvert personal traits

(27)

presumably depend on structure in the composition process and are most likely to turn to mental or written outlines. The thinking types can overdo such structuring, worrying more about grammatical and logical format than about communication.

However, it does not mean that the clustering teaching technique is not as good as roundtable teaching technique. It is proven that the students’ achievement taught by using clustering teaching technique can also achieve satisfactory score when it is taught to students with extrovert personal traits. It is because the way of composing a text suited for students with extrovert personal traits. That’s why clustering teaching technique is suitable to be applied for students with extrovert personal traits.

The fact explained above also proves that actually all the personal traits of the students are good. Either introvert or extrovert had been able to achieve satisfactory score. Therefore, it cannot be argued that a personal trait is better than others because it comes naturally in the students’ selves. What should be done is how to find eligible techniques of teaching for the personal traits so that their ability can be explored maximally.

1.3Suggestions

There are some suggestions related to the conclusions and implications at the previous page. The suggestions are:

(28)

a. It is highly suggested for teachers to use roundtable and clustering teaching techniques since these two teaching techniques are able to improve students’ achievement in reading comprehension.

b. It is highly suggested for teachers to use roundtable teaching technique for a classroom dominated by students with introvert personal traits while for class dominated by extrovert students, teachers are recommended to use clustering teaching technique.

c. Teacher should realize that the students’ characteristics such as their personal traits before choosing the teaching techniques. Thus, the teaching techniques applied are matched with what they need. As the result, their brightness is able to be explored maximally.

2. Other Researchers

Other researchers may take a further research in the area Roundtable and Clustering teaching techniques that will improve students achievement in descriptive writing. While still many weakness of this research, for the other research who want to conduct these techniques, it is suggested to learn more about the principles of roundtable teaching technique and clustering’s principles in the application.

(29)

REFERENCES

Algarabel, S. 2001. The Definition of Achievement and the Construction of Tests for its Measurement:A review of the main trends. Universitat de València,

Spain. Psicológica (2001), 22, 43-66.

Allen, M. 2003. The Truth about Writing. Eastbourne Kingsfield: Antony Rowe. Ary, D. 2010.Introductionto Researchin Education. Canada: Nelson Education

Bailey, S. 2003. Academic Writing: a Handbook for international Students. New York: Routledge2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, NY 10016.

Boardman, C. A. 2008. Writing to Communicate Paragraph and Essay. 10 Bank Street, White Plains, NY 10606: Pearson Education.

Brown, H. D. 2007. Principles of language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Education.

Brown, S. (1998). Criterion-referenced assessment: what role for research. In Black, H. & Dockerell, W. New Developments in Educational Assessment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Monograph Series No. 3, 1-14. Budiarta. 2012. The Effect of Student Team Achievement Division Technique and

the Achievement Motivation on the Writing Achievement of the Tenth Year Students of SMA Negeri 4 Singaraja in the Academic Year 2011/2012. Language Education Department, Postgraduate Program: Ganesha University of Education.

Cordiner, M. 2011. Guidelines for Good Assesment Practice.Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching: University of Tasmania.

DiTiberio, John K. 1989. Personality and the Teaching of Composition. Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, Jan 1, 1989-Education-224 pages.

Elbow, P. 1998. Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York: Oxford University Press.

Elola, I. 2010. Collaborative Writing: Fostering Foreign Language and Writing

Conventions Development. Language Learning & Technology

http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num3/elolaoskoz.pdf October 2010, Volume 14, Number 3 pp. 51–71

Ewen, R. B. 2003. An Introduction to Theories of Personality. New Jersey London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah,

(30)

Felder, R. M. 2007. Cooperative Learning.Department of Chemical Engineering, N.C. State University,Raleigh, NC 27695-7905Education Designs, Inc.,

Cary, NC 27518 P.A. Mabrouk, ed., Active Learning: Models from the

Analytical Sciences, ACS Symposium Series 970, Chapter 4,pp. 34–53.

Washington, DC: American Chemical Society

Flower, L et al. 1981. A Cognitive Process, Theory of Writing. College

Composition and Communication, Vol. 32, No. 4. (Dec., 1981), pp.

365-387.Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010

Friedman, S et al. 2010. Writing the Critical Essay. Greenhaven Press.

Graham, S. 2006. Writing.In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.).handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 457-478). Mnawah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gillies, R. M. 2008. The Teacher’s Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom University of Queensland Brisbane, Qld 4072 Australia

Handayani, S. 2012. The Influence Of Roundtable Technique And Students’ Intelligence On Students’ Writing Skill (An Experimental Research On Descriptive Writing To The Tenth Grade Students Of Sma Negeri 1 Ngaglik, Sleman, Yogyakarta In The Academic Year Of 2011/2012). Surakarta: Universitas Negeri Semarang.

Harmer, J. 2001. How to Teach English: an Introduction to the Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education Limited. Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE Longman. England.

______2004.How to Teach Writing. Edinburgh Gate Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Hazanah, C.Y. (2003). The difficulties in Rendering Complex Sentences in

Interpreting Indonesian Discourse into English. Unpublished

AcademicPaper. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.

Henning, E. 2005.Finding your Way in Academic Writing.Hatfield, Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers1064 Arcadia Street.

Huber, G. L. et al., 2008. Structuring Group Interaction to Promote Thinking and Learning During Small Group Learning in High School Settings. Library of Congress Control Number: 2007920037Springer Science+Business Media.

Hyland, K. 2002. Teaching and Researching Writing. Harlow: Longman.

Iborra, A et al.,2005. Generating Collaborative Contexts. Departamento de Psicopedagogía y Educación Física. Universidad de Alcalá.

(31)

Inglehart, E. 2000.From Cooperative Learning to Collaborative Writing in the Legal Writing Classroom. Tennessee: University of Tennessee College of Law in Knoxville. Vol. 32, No. 4.(Dec., 2000), pp. 365-387.

Jacobs, G. M., & McCafferty, S. G. (2006).Connections between Cooperative Learning and Second Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jensen, G. H., & Ditiberio, J. K.1989.Personality and the Teaching of Composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Joliffe, W. 2007. Cooperative Learning in the Classroom; Putting it into Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Paul Chapman Publishing SAGE Publications. Jordan, M. E. 2011. Personality Traits: Theory, Testing and Influences. New

York: Science Publishers, Inc.

Kane, T S. 2000.Essential Guide to Writing; Step-by-Step Approach for Organizing and Completing Your Work. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group Oxford University press.

Kagan, S. (2009). Building character through cooperative learning. Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources, Inc.

Kendal, J. 2006. Writing Sense: Integrated Reading and Writing Lessons for English Language Leaners. Maine: Stenhouse Publisher Portland.

Kessler, G. at al. 2012. Collaborative Writing among Second Language Learners in Academic Web-Based Projects. Ohio UniversityFebruary 2012, Volume 16, Number 1 pp. 91–109

Knapp, P. 2005. Genre, Text, Grammar. Peter Knapp. Australia: University of

New South Wales Press Ltd. www.unswpress.com.au

Kumaravadivelu, B. The Post Method Condition: (E)merging Strategies for

Second/Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1.

(Spring, 1994), pp. 27-48. Stable URL: published by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL).

Kyriacou, C. 2009. Effective Teaching in Schools Theory and Practice. Delta Place United Kingdom: Nelson Thornes.

Larson, J. E. 2009. Educational Psychology: Cognition and Learning, Individual differences and Motivation. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Limniou, M. The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning. UK: University of Manchester. Vol. 20, no. 1. Luzzatto, 2010.Collaborative Learning; Methodology, Types of Interaction and

(32)

Manser, M. H. 2006. Guide to Good Writing. New York:Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.

Matthews, G et al. 2003.Personality Traits. University of Cincinnati University of Edinburgh: Cambridge university press.

McAndrews, S. L. 2008. Diagnostic Literacy Assessment Strategies. International Reading Association.

Meade, V. 2010.How to Use Clustering to Jump Start Your Writing.

http://www.meadecomm.com/ clustering.html. _{Accessed on March6, 2013.}

Nazario, L. A., et al. 2010. Bridges to Better Writing. Wadsworth 20 Channel Center Street Boston, MA 02210.Canada: by Nelson Education.

Nazir, M. 1988. Metode Penelitan. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.

Norwich, B. 2000.Education and Pshycology in Interaction. Canada: Routledge11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE.

Nunan, D. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. Singapore: Mc Graw Hill.

Odina, I. 2001. The Nature and Character Traits of Teachers Who Use Cooperative Learning Extensively in Their Classes. ISSN 1648-2824.

Panitz, T. Collaborative Versus Cooperative Learning- a Comparison of the Two Concepts Which Will Help us Understand the Underlying Nature Of InteractiveLearning.http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefiniti on.htm (1 of 15)25/5/2548 9:58:24 coop/collabdefinition.

Ratnawati.2011.The Use of Roundtable Technique to Improve Students’ Achievement in Writing Hortatory Exposition Text (A Case of Grade XI

Students of SMA N 1 Batang in the Academic Year 2010/2011)._Semarang:

IKIP Semarang Press

Raymond, C. 1980. Writing (Is Unnatural Act), New York: Harper & Row.

Rico, G. 2000. Writing the Natural Way. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc.

Reid, J. M., 1993. Teaching ESL Writing. New York: Prentice Hall Regents.

Roger, T. 1994. An overview of Cooperative learning.Baltimore: J. Thousand, A. Villa and A. Nevin (Eds), Creativity and Collaborative Learning; Brookes Press.

Safriyantinur, M. 2008. The Effect of Small Group Work Technique on Students’ Writing Achievement. Medan: Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan

(33)

Singaraja, Indonesia Ekap. 2010. Roundtable as Teaching Technique of Writing.

(www.homedei.polimi.it/matteucc/clustering/tutorial.html). Accessed on

March, 6, 2013.

Styati, E. W. 2010. The Effectiveness of Clustering Technique to Teach Writing Skill Viewed from Students’ Linguistics Intelligence (An Experimental Research on Descriptive Writing for the Second Semester of English Department of IKIP PGRI Madiun in the Academic Year of 2009/2010). Surakarta: Universitas Sebelas Maret.

Sundem, G. 2006. Improving Student Writing Skills. Corinne Burton Shell:

Education Oceanus Drive Huntington Beach, CA

92649-1030www.shelleducation.

Urquhart, Vicki and McIver. 2005. Teaching Writing in the Content Areas. Aurora: McREL.

Weigle, S. C. 2002. Assessing Writing. United Kingdom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zemach, D. E at al. 2009.Academic Writing from Paragraph to Essay. Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2

(1)

a. It is highly suggested for teachers to use roundtable and clustering teaching techniques since these two teaching techniques are able to improve students’ achievement in reading comprehension.

2. Other Researchers

(2)

REFERENCES

Algarabel, S. 2001. The Definition of Achievement and the Construction of Tests for its Measurement:A review of the main trends. Universitat de València, Spain. Psicológica (2001), 22, 43-66.

Allen, M. 2003. The Truth about Writing. Eastbourne Kingsfield: Antony Rowe. Ary, D. 2010.Introductionto Researchin Education. Canada: Nelson Education

Bailey, S. 2003. Academic Writing: a Handbook for international Students. New York: Routledge2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, NY 10016.

Boardman, C. A. 2008. Writing to Communicate Paragraph and Essay. 10 Bank Street, White Plains, NY 10606: Pearson Education.

Brown, H. D. 2007. Principles of language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Education.

Cordiner, M. 2011. Guidelines for Good Assesment Practice.Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching: University of Tasmania.

DiTiberio, John K. 1989. Personality and the Teaching of Composition. Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, Jan 1, 1989-Education-224 pages.

Elbow, P. 1998. Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York: Oxford University Press.

Elola, I. 2010. Collaborative Writing: Fostering Foreign Language and Writing Conventions Development. Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num3/elolaoskoz.pdf October 2010, Volume 14, Number 3 pp. 51–71

Ewen, R. B. 2003. An Introduction to Theories of Personality. New Jersey London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah,

(3)

Felder, R. M. 2007. Cooperative Learning.Department of Chemical Engineering, N.C. State University,Raleigh, NC 27695-7905Education Designs, Inc., Cary, NC 27518 P.A. Mabrouk, ed., Active Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences, ACS Symposium Series 970, Chapter 4,pp. 34–53. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society

Flower, L et al. 1981. A Cognitive Process, Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 32, No. 4. (Dec., 1981), pp. 365-387.Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010

Friedman, S et al. 2010. Writing the Critical Essay. Greenhaven Press.

Graham, S. 2006. Writing.In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.).handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 457-478). Mnawah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gillies, R. M. 2008. The Teacher’s Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom University of Queensland Brisbane, Qld 4072 Australia

Harmer, J. 2001. How to Teach English: an Introduction to the Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education Limited. Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE Longman. England.

______2004.How to Teach Writing. Edinburgh Gate Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Hazanah, C.Y. (2003). The difficulties in Rendering Complex Sentences in Interpreting Indonesian Discourse into English. Unpublished AcademicPaper. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.

Henning, E. 2005.Finding your Way in Academic Writing.Hatfield, Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers1064 Arcadia Street.

Iborra, A et al.,2005. Generating Collaborative Contexts. Departamento de Psicopedagogía y Educación Física. Universidad de Alcalá.

(4)

Jacobs, G. M., & McCafferty, S. G. (2006).Connections between Cooperative Learning and Second Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jensen, G. H., & Ditiberio, J. K.1989.Personality and the Teaching of Composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

York: Science Publishers, Inc.

Kane, T S. 2000.Essential Guide to Writing; Step-by-Step Approach for Organizing and Completing Your Work. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group Oxford University press.

Kagan, S. (2009). Building character through cooperative learning. Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources, Inc.

Kendal, J. 2006. Writing Sense: Integrated Reading and Writing Lessons for English Language Leaners. Maine: Stenhouse Publisher Portland.

Kessler, G. at al. 2012. Collaborative Writing among Second Language Learners in Academic Web-Based Projects. Ohio UniversityFebruary 2012, Volume 16, Number 1 pp. 91–109

Knapp, P. 2005. Genre, Text, Grammar. Peter Knapp. Australia: University of New South Wales Press Ltd. www.unswpress.com.au

Kumaravadivelu, B. The Post Method Condition: (E)merging Strategies for Second/Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1. (Spring, 1994), pp. 27-48. Stable URL: published by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL).

Kyriacou, C. 2009. Effective Teaching in Schools Theory and Practice. Delta Place United Kingdom: Nelson Thornes.

Larson, J. E. 2009. Educational Psychology: Cognition and Learning, Individual differences and Motivation. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

(5)

Manser, M. H. 2006. Guide to Good Writing. New York:Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.

Matthews, G et al. 2003.Personality Traits. University of Cincinnati University of Edinburgh: Cambridge university press.

McAndrews, S. L. 2008. Diagnostic Literacy Assessment Strategies. International Reading Association.

Meade, V. 2010.How to Use Clustering to Jump Start Your Writing. http://www.meadecomm.com/ clustering.html. _{Accessed on March6, 2013.} Nazario, L. A., et al. 2010. Bridges to Better Writing. Wadsworth 20 Channel

Center Street Boston, MA 02210.Canada: by Nelson Education. Nazir, M. 1988. Metode Penelitan. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.

Norwich, B. 2000.Education and Pshycology in Interaction. Canada: Routledge11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE.

Nunan, D. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. Singapore: Mc Graw Hill. Odina, I. 2001. The Nature and Character Traits of Teachers Who Use

Cooperative Learning Extensively in Their Classes. ISSN 1648-2824.

Ratnawati.2011.The Use of Roundtable Technique to Improve Students’ Achievement in Writing Hortatory Exposition Text (A Case of Grade XI Students of SMA N 1 Batang in the Academic Year 2010/2011)._Semarang: IKIP Semarang Press

Raymond, C. 1980. Writing (Is Unnatural Act), New York: Harper & Row. Rico, G. 2000. Writing the Natural Way. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc. Reid, J. M., 1993. Teaching ESL Writing. New York: Prentice Hall Regents.

Roger, T. 1994. An overview of Cooperative learning.Baltimore: J. Thousand, A. Villa and A. Nevin (Eds), Creativity and Collaborative Learning; Brookes Press.

Safriyantinur, M. 2008. The Effect of Small Group Work Technique on Students’ Writing Achievement. Medan: Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan

(6)

Singaraja, Indonesia Ekap. 2010. Roundtable as Teaching Technique of Writing. (www.homedei.polimi.it/matteucc/clustering/tutorial.html). Accessed on March, 6, 2013.

Sundem, G. 2006. Improving Student Writing Skills. Corinne Burton Shell: Education Oceanus Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1030www.shelleducation.

Urquhart, Vicki and McIver. 2005. Teaching Writing in the Content Areas. Aurora: McREL.

Weigle, S. C. 2002. Assessing Writing. United Kingdom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zemach, D. E at al. 2009.Academic Writing from Paragraph to Essay. Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521838801

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES AND STUDENTS PERSONAL TRAITS ON STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT IN DESCRIPTIVE WRITING.