THE COGNITIVE PROCESS OF THE SMA STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT MAJORS IN WRITING ARGUMENTATIVE TEXT.
ABSTRACT
Safitri, Reni. Registration Number: 809112038. The Cognitive Process of the
SMA Students of Different Majors in Writing Argumentative Text.
A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate
School. State University of Medan 2012.
The purpose of this study is to describe the cognitive processes of students
in writing argumentative text and to elaborate the reasons why the cognitive
process happens in writing argumentative text the way it does. The subjects were
the students of SMA Negeri 1 Padangsidimpuan from two different majors; they
were five students of Natural Science Major and three students of Social Science
Major. It was qualitative explanative research designs of which instrument are
both writing test and interview. The researcher administered writing test to the
subjects with five various topics in argumentative text form. A retrospective
interview was conducted to the students after analyzing their argumentative
writing in order to get the subjects’ cognitive process taking place during the
writing of their argumentative text. The results of the data analysis showed that
the cognitive processes of the students of the two majors were different in
planning, translating and reviewing. In the stage of planning, all students of
Natural Science major activate their cognitive process and did planning before
writing. While students of Social Science major did not activate their cognitive
process and did not do planning before writing a text. In the stage of translating,
the students of Natural Science transform their experience and their thinking into
their writing and directly in English language. While, the students of Social
Science did not relate their experience into their thinking and write in Indonesian
language first then translate into English language. In the stage of reviewing, the
students of Natural Science in writing Argumentative text did reviewing after
finishing writing a text while the students of Social Science did not do reviewing
after finishing writing a text. It seemed that they were unaware of the possibilities
for revision in their texts.
The cognitive processes of the students of the two majors were different
because they have different ability in the proficiency of writing ability, language
proficiency related to L2 oral expression ability, L2 vocabulary comprehension
ability, and L2 discourse comprehension ability.
iii
ABSTRAK
Safitri, Reni. Nomor Registrasi: 809112038. The Cognitive Process of the
SMA Students of Different Majors in Writing Argumentative Text.
Sebuah Thesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Universitas
Negeri Medan. 2012.
Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk menjelaskan proses kognitif siswa dalam
menulis teks argumentative dan memaparkan alasan kognitif siswa seperti itu
ketika menulis teks argumentative tersebut. Subyeknya adalah delapan orang
siswa SMU Negeri 1 Padangsidimpuan; lima orang siswa IPA kelas tiga dan tiga
orang siswa IPS kelas tiga. Kajian ini menggunakan desain penelitian kualitatif
yang instrumennya adalah test menulis dan wawancara. Peneliti memberikan test
menulis berupa teks argumentative dengan memberikan lima topik yang berbeda.
Wawancara terhadap subyek dilakukan setelah tulisan teks argumentatif siswa
dari dua jurusan yang berbeda yaitu IPA dan IPS dianalisa. Hal ini dilakukan
untuk memperoleh alasan subyek menulis dan mengekspresikan argument teks
argumentative seperti itu. Hasil kajian ini adalah: (1) Ditemukan bahwa dalam
menulis teks argumentative teks semua siswa IPA melakukan planning sebelum
menulis, (2) Ditemukan bahwa siswa dalam menulis teks argumentative
menghubungkan pengalamannya dengan apa yang dia pikirkan dan langsung
menulisnya dalam bahasa Inggris. (3) Ditemukan bahwa dalam menulis teks
argumentative semua siswa IPA melakukan reviewing setelah selesai menulis
teks. (4) Ditemukan bahwa dalam menulis teks argumentative semua siswa IPS
tidak melakukan planning sebelum menulis. (5) Ditemukan bahwa dalam menulis
teks argumentative semua siswa IPS tidak menghubungkan pengalamannya
dengan apa yang dipikirkannya dan cenderung menterjemahkan kata untuk
mendapatkan makna selama menulis teks dengan menulis bahasa Indonesia
terlebih dahulu baru ke bahasa Inggris. (6) Ditemukan bahwa dalam menulis teks
argumentative semua siswa IPS tidak melakukan reviewing setelah menulis teks.
Semua hasil penelitian diatas menggambarkan bahwa menulis
dipengaruhi oleh proses kognitif oleh perbedaan jurusan siswa. Realita ini
menunjukkan bahwa untuk meningkatkan kualitas tulisan siswa ada perbedaan
usaha atau pendekatan yang harus dilakukan berhubungan dengan jurusan siswa.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all the writer would like to express her very special deepest
gratitude to Allah SWT for blessing and love which is guiding her in completing
this thesis. Clearly, this thesis could not have been written without the many
visible and invisible contributions from her advisors. The writer would like to
thank:
To Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., as her first advisor for sharing his
concern from the beginning of this thesis, valuable time in giving the comments
and constructive criticism in completing this thesis.
To Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd., as her second advisor for spending
her time in giving her ideas in the process of finishing this thesis.
To Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd. as the Head of the English Applied
Linguistic and also as her reviewer, Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and Dr. Anni
Holila Pulungan, M.Hum. as also reviewers and examiners for their valuable
feedback and contribution.
To her parents, Abu Kosim Harahap, BA., and Mainun Siregar, S.Pd., for
their love and prayers to her for the success of her study.
To her brothers, Taufik and Mukhtar and sister Rahma for their support
and endless love in her life.
Finally, to her lovely friends, K’ Ita, Bu Mis, K’ Rahmi, K’Mas, K’ Cici,
and Vivi, thanks for the time and the great working together. I’m happy to know
you all.
Medan, 20 Januari 2013
Reni Safitri
Reg. Number: 809112038
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study ........................................................... 1
1.2 The Problem of the Study ................................................................ 2
1.3 The Objective of the Study .............................................................. 3
1.4 The Scope of the Study .................................................................... 6
1.5 The Significance of the Study .......................................................... 6
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Cognitive Process of Writing ........................................................... 7
2.1.1 Planning................................................................................ 14
2.1.2 Translating ............................................................................ 16
2.1.3 Reviewing............................................................................. 17
Factors Affecting the Process ........................................................ 18
2.2 Argumentative Writing .................................................................. 22
2.3 Cognitive Process of Writing Argumentative Writing................... 23
2.4 The Writer’s Psychological Attributes ........................................... 24
2.5 The Characteristics of Science and Social Students Major ............ 26
2.5.1 Characteristic of Science Students Major ............................ 26
2.5.2 Characteristic of Social Science Major ................................ 28
2.6 Previous Research .......................................................................... 29
2.7 Conceptual Framework .................................................................. 31
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design .............................................................................
3.2 The Subject of the Study ................................................................
3.3 Technique of Data Collections .......................................................
3.4 The Research Procedure .................................................................
3.5 Technique of Data Analysis ...........................................................
3.6 The Trustworthiness of the Study ..................................................
35
35
36
37
37
38
4. DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 The Students’ Cognitive Process in Writing Argumentative Text 41
4.1.1 Planning................................................................................ 42
4.1.2 Translating ............................................................................ 56
4.1.3 Reviewing............................................................................. 63
4.2 The Cognitive Process of Students Majoring in Social Science .... 79
4.2.1 Planning................................................................................ 79
4.2.2 Translating ............................................................................ 87
4.2.3 Reviewing............................................................................. 90
4.3 Reasons underlying the Cognitive Process of Students of Different
Major ............................................................................................. 92
4.3.1 Length of Writing ................................................................. 93
4.3.2 Thesis ................................................................................... 94
4.3.3 Coherence ............................................................................. 95
4.4 Findings ........................................................................................ 106
4.5 Discussion .................................................................................... 109
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Conclusion ................................................................................... 110
5.2 Suggestion .................................................................................... 110
REFERENCES ................................................................................. 112
List of Tables
Table 4.1 ............................................................................................... 56
Table 4.2 ............................................................................................... 66
Table 4.3 ............................................................................................... 83
Table 4.4 ............................................................................................. 101
Table 4.5 ............................................................................................. 107
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 ......................................................................................... 115
Appendix 2 ......................................................................................... 116
Appendix 3 ......................................................................................... 117
Appendix 4 ......................................................................................... 118
Appendix 5 ......................................................................................... 119
Appendix 6 ......................................................................................... 120
Appendix 7 ......................................................................................... 121
Appendix 8 ......................................................................................... 122
Appendix 9 ......................................................................................... 123
Appendix 10 ....................................................................................... 124
Appendix 11 ....................................................................................... 125
Appendix 12 ....................................................................................... 126
Appendix 13 ....................................................................................... 127
Appendix 14 ....................................................................................... 128
Appendix 15 ....................................................................................... 129
Appendix 16…………………………………………………………. 130
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
English has become an important language in the age of globalization.
It is a medium of communication among people throughout the world. In
Indonesia, students learn English as a foreign language (EFL). They are
taught four skills of English: listening, reading, speaking, and writing. The
national goal of teaching English in Indonesia is to develop the students’
ability in communication both in oral or written form. Of all the four skills,
writing has become more important in the era of Teaching English as a
Foreign Language (TEFL). Writing as one of the language skills must be
taught in English classes especially Senior High School students. Through the
teaching and learning of writing the students are expected to be able to
produce a text well. This is in line with the objective of writing instruction in
Senior High School, to develop the students’ writing skill in order they can
write into English effectively and accurately.
At the level of Senior High school, generally it has two majors,
Natural Science major (IPA) and Social Science major (IPS). The students of
the two majors have different cognitive process in doing something.
Cognitive process is something happening in the students’ mind. However,
there is an evidence or tendency that the IPA students are smarter than the
IPS students. Most of people or even the teachers themselves belief that the
students of Natural Science (IPA) are better especially in writing than the
1
students of Social Science (IPS) do. They propose that the IPA students will
have best quality in writing argumentative text than the IPS students do. We
could see that the problem did not lie in the cognitive abilities of the Natural
Science (IPA) students are better than Social Science (IPS) students have.
However, it is caused of the different way of their cognitive process of
processing something. The ways they express their ideas is not similar and
depend on their characteristics.
According to Stenbergh in Zabu & Davia (2004) the students who study in
Natural science tend to think logically and based on the fact. He also
categorized students who study in Natural Science (IPA) major into
conservative. In this category, they like adhering to existing rules and
procedures, minimize changes, avoid ambiguous situations as far as possible,
and prefer familiarity in life and work.
Actually, the students of Natural Science (IPA) major have such a way of
thinking because their activities during learning in the classroom are engaging
in investigations and activities that would allow them to develop deep
conceptual understandings of scientific ideas and of the process of inquiry.
They also read the work of others as their progress through an investigation to
help them make sense of their own findings. In addition, because
investigations are generally complex, the students of Natural Science often
act like scientists; must record data points, observations, and initial analyses
in writing. It is reflected through their activity in the laboratory, doing
experiments and other subjects that required them to think critically.
2
Meanwhile, according to Scharfersmen in Synder and Mark (2008),
students who study in Social Science major are accustomed to explain
something based on social phenomena. It is in line with Stenberg in Zabu
(2004) that proposed the students who study in Social Science major tend to
memorize and recall information. Related to the learning of thinking styles,
Stenberg in Zabu (2004) also categorized students who study in social major
into liberal. In this category, they like surpassing existing rules and
procedures and attempt to maximize changes. In addition, they also seek or
are at least comfortable with ambiguous situations, and accept to certain
degree unfamiliarity in life and work.
Actually, the students of Social Science (IPS) major have such a way of
thinking because their activities or the subjects during learning in the
classroom are engaging them in memorizing and arguing toward the social
phenomena that existing in the social life. They also consider of others’
opinion or ideas as they progress through a discussion and they respect the
differences as it is accepted by the society. The students of Social Science act
like politician who generally good in arguing in spoken and therefore want to
communicate their ideas to other people directly. Finally, students of social
studies programs construct a knowledge base and attitudes from academic
disciplines as specialized ways of viewing reality. They begin from a specific
perspective and apply unique processes for knowing to the study of reality.
The ability to comprehend arguments is a fundamental aspect of
human decision making and social interaction. It is also an ability that we
3
expect the educational system to impart to students during their schooling.
There is a national expectation that students become able to comprehend and
think critically within a domain. On the other hand, argumentative text is kind
of text in which the process of making what writers or speakers think clear to
themselves and to others are organized systematically. As proposed by
Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning in Chase (2011), argumentative text
requires the writer to embrace a particular point of view and try to convince
the readers in order to have the same perspective. The writers also have to
arise the problems and attempt to map language onto his or her own thoughts
and feelings as well as the expectations of the reader. It is in line with Saito’s
opinion (2010) that the production of argumentative text is a reflection of
cognitive process of problem solving. Intraprawat in Saito (2010) stated that
in order to make an argument in argumentative text, the writers need to
express their point of view on a controversial issue or claim, support it with
evidence including facts or their own opinions in order to convince the
readers.
As the previous research conducted by Halpern (2004) about the
cognitive process taxonomy based on the sex differences, the writer is
interested to do a research based on SMA majors, the students of Natural
Science major (IPA) and Social Science major (IPS) in writing argumentative
text. It is assumed that the students from both the two majors have their own
way in expressing their ideas in argumentative text as the students from the
two majors have their own characteristics. Their cognitive process will be
4
reflected in their argumentative text and at last, we should realize that every
student has same opportunity and no major is better than another major.
1.2 Research Problems
In relation to the background, the problems are formulated as the following:
1. How do students’ cognitive processes happen in writing argumentative
text?
2. Why does the process happen the way it is?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
Related to the problems, the objectives of the study are:
1. To explain the cognitive processes of students in writing argumentative
text.
2. To elaborate the reasons why a cognitive process happens in writing
argumentative text.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
The scope of this study is the cognitive processes’ theory; cognitive
processes based on the students major which consist of Natural Science major
(IPA) and Social Science major (IPS). Cognitive processes’ theory is related
with the act or process of knowing in the broadest sense; especially an
5
intellectual process by which knowledge is gained from perception or ideas.
The theory of writing is elaborated with the theory of argumentative text.
Thus, this study focused on the proving whether majors effectively affected
cognitive processes of the students in writing an argumentative text.
1.5 The Significances of the Study
The findings of the study are expected to be useful for theoretical and
practical aspects. Theoretically, the research finding is expected to enrich the
theories of writing strategies, specifically in writing genre text.
Practically, since this study focused on students of different majors,
Natural Science Major (IPA) and Social Science Major (IPS) and their
cognitive process in writing genre text, this study hopefully will help the
SMA students both IPA and IPS majors to construct an effective
argumentative text by using their individual writing processes in appropriate
context of genre. Besides, the teacher should concern of these differences;
they can help learners of the both majors in different ways in writing a text by
concentrating on learners’ characteristics and provide successful learning
situations.
6
Chapter V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After analyzing the data, the conclusions can be stated as the following:
5.1.1
The Cognitive process taking place in students of Natural Science and
Social Science is different. The difference occurs in the three stages;
in planning, translating, and reviewing.
5.1.2
The cognitive processes of the students of the two majors were
different becaused they have different ability in the proficiency of
writing ability, language proficiency related to L2 oral expression
ability, L2 vocabulary comprehension ability, and L2 discourse
comprehension ability.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the above conclusions, there are some suggestions are listed:
5.2.1 The teacher should encourage students to make full use of their L1 writing
ability and expertise and writing strategies to facilitate their L2 writing to
both students of the two majors. Due to the differences in rhetorical features
of the two languages, teacher should introduce the English rhetorical
features in the class especially argumentative text.
5.2.2 Based on the result findings, writing is influenced by cognitive processes of
the students of different majors. This reality indicates that in improving
107
writing quality, there is some different effort or approach that should be
done related to the students’ major. As a cognitive process, writing quality
can be improved by having more ideas or information in the writers’
memory storage related to the text being written and by improving the
skills or proficiency in grammar.
108
References
Alamargot, Denis & Levrave, Jean- L. 2009. The Study of professional writing. A
Joint contribution from cognitive psychology and genetic criticism. Journal
of Psychology. Vol.6, No.2.2009.
Barab, Sasha & Hay,E. Kenneth. 2000. Doing Science at the Elbows of Experts:
Issues Related to the Science Apprenticeship Camp. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Biasutti, Michele. 1999. Cognitive Process in Composition. Universita di Padova,
Italia Journal. Vol.19, No.16,1999.
Chase, Beth Jillian. 2011. An Analysis of the Argumentative Writing Skills of
Academically Underprepared College Students. Unpublished Disertation,
Columbia University.
Chaisiri, Tawatcihai. 2010. Implementing a Genre Pedagogy to the Teaching of
Writing in a University Context in Thailand. Language Education in Asia
Journal, Vol 1.No.6,2010.
Chen, Wain-Chin. 2007. Some Literature Review on the Comparison of the
Chinese Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He Writing Model and the Western ProblemSolution Schema. Whampoa- An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol.52,
No.2,2007.
ETS. 2008. Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex
Integrated Skill. Educational Testing Service Journal. Vol.5, No.3, 2008.
Fulkerson, D, Nichols, & Snow. 2011. Expanding the Model of Item Writing
Expertise: Cognitive Processes and Requisite Knowledge Structures.
National Science Foundation Journal, Vol 7, No.3, 2011.
Galbraith, David. 2009. Cognitive Models of Writing. German foreign language journal, Vol 2.No.3.2009.
Halpern, D.F. (2004). A Cognitive-Process Taxonomy for Sex Differences
Cognitive Abilities. Journal American Psychological Science.Vol 13, No 4,
2004.
Hyland, Ken. 2006. A Genre Description of the Argumentative Essay. RELC
Journal, Vol 21, No.1, 2006.
Kellog, Ronald. 2009. Cognitive Models of Writing. German foreign languagejournal, Vol 2, No.3, 2009.
109
Kellogg, R.T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental
perspective. Journal of writing research, Vol 1, No.1,2008.
Kieft,M, Rijlaarsdam,& van den bergh. 2006. Writing as a learning tool: Testing
the role of students’ writing strategies. European Journal of Psychology of
Education Vol.1, No.17,2006.
Kingfairgod. 2008. Psycological Attributes.Journal of Psychology. Vol 3, No.4,
2008.
Kyeong Hah Roh & Halani, Aviva. Analysis of Undergraduate Students’
Cognitive Processes When Writing Proof about Inequalities. Preliminary
Research Report Arizona State University.
Leager, Clair. 2005. Fostering Scientific Habit of Mind. Iowa Science Teachers
Journal, Vol 32, No.4,2005.
Liu Xinghua. 2010. An Investigation of Chinese University EFL Learners’
Knowledge about Writing. Language Studies Working Papers. Vol.2, No.51,
2010.
National Council for the Social Studies. “What Is Social Studies?” Expectations
of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies. Retrieved from
WhatIsSocialStudies.Pdf January 3, 2012, from WhatIsSocialStudies.Pdf
Olive, Thierry. 2004. Working Memory in Writing: Empirical Evidence From the
Dual-Task Technique. European Psychologist, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2004,
pp. 32-42 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
Saito, Siwaporn. 2010. An Analysis of Argumentative Essay of Thai Third- Year
English Majors Instructed By the Integrated Process- Genre Approach.
Unpublished master thesis, Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand.
Shih- Chieh Chien. (2005). A Cognitive Analysis of the Relationships between
Chinese EFL Writers’ Strategy Use and Writing Achievement Performance.
Retrieved May 13, 2011, from http://3- chien.pdf
Synder, Lisa Gueldenzoph & Snyder, Mark J.2008. Teaching Critical Thinking
and Problem Solving Skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, Vol L, No 2.2008
The Ontario Curriculum. 2004. Social Studies, History and Geography. Retroeved
May 13, 2011, from http://www.edu.gov.on.
Van den Bergh, H & Rijlaarsdam.2006. Writing Process Theory: A Functional
Dynamic Approach. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
110
Yanbin Lu. 2010. Cognitive Factors Contributing to Chinese EFL Learners’ L2
Writing Performance in Timed Essay Writing. Unpublished Disertation,
Georgia State University, Georgia.
Zabu, Vlasta & Davia Kobal. 2004. Psychology Science Journal.Vol 46, No,156.
2004.
Zhang Jun. 2008. A Comprehensive Review of Studies on Second Language
Writing. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol. 12,No.2, 2008
111
Safitri, Reni. Registration Number: 809112038. The Cognitive Process of the
SMA Students of Different Majors in Writing Argumentative Text.
A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate
School. State University of Medan 2012.
The purpose of this study is to describe the cognitive processes of students
in writing argumentative text and to elaborate the reasons why the cognitive
process happens in writing argumentative text the way it does. The subjects were
the students of SMA Negeri 1 Padangsidimpuan from two different majors; they
were five students of Natural Science Major and three students of Social Science
Major. It was qualitative explanative research designs of which instrument are
both writing test and interview. The researcher administered writing test to the
subjects with five various topics in argumentative text form. A retrospective
interview was conducted to the students after analyzing their argumentative
writing in order to get the subjects’ cognitive process taking place during the
writing of their argumentative text. The results of the data analysis showed that
the cognitive processes of the students of the two majors were different in
planning, translating and reviewing. In the stage of planning, all students of
Natural Science major activate their cognitive process and did planning before
writing. While students of Social Science major did not activate their cognitive
process and did not do planning before writing a text. In the stage of translating,
the students of Natural Science transform their experience and their thinking into
their writing and directly in English language. While, the students of Social
Science did not relate their experience into their thinking and write in Indonesian
language first then translate into English language. In the stage of reviewing, the
students of Natural Science in writing Argumentative text did reviewing after
finishing writing a text while the students of Social Science did not do reviewing
after finishing writing a text. It seemed that they were unaware of the possibilities
for revision in their texts.
The cognitive processes of the students of the two majors were different
because they have different ability in the proficiency of writing ability, language
proficiency related to L2 oral expression ability, L2 vocabulary comprehension
ability, and L2 discourse comprehension ability.
iii
ABSTRAK
Safitri, Reni. Nomor Registrasi: 809112038. The Cognitive Process of the
SMA Students of Different Majors in Writing Argumentative Text.
Sebuah Thesis. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Universitas
Negeri Medan. 2012.
Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk menjelaskan proses kognitif siswa dalam
menulis teks argumentative dan memaparkan alasan kognitif siswa seperti itu
ketika menulis teks argumentative tersebut. Subyeknya adalah delapan orang
siswa SMU Negeri 1 Padangsidimpuan; lima orang siswa IPA kelas tiga dan tiga
orang siswa IPS kelas tiga. Kajian ini menggunakan desain penelitian kualitatif
yang instrumennya adalah test menulis dan wawancara. Peneliti memberikan test
menulis berupa teks argumentative dengan memberikan lima topik yang berbeda.
Wawancara terhadap subyek dilakukan setelah tulisan teks argumentatif siswa
dari dua jurusan yang berbeda yaitu IPA dan IPS dianalisa. Hal ini dilakukan
untuk memperoleh alasan subyek menulis dan mengekspresikan argument teks
argumentative seperti itu. Hasil kajian ini adalah: (1) Ditemukan bahwa dalam
menulis teks argumentative teks semua siswa IPA melakukan planning sebelum
menulis, (2) Ditemukan bahwa siswa dalam menulis teks argumentative
menghubungkan pengalamannya dengan apa yang dia pikirkan dan langsung
menulisnya dalam bahasa Inggris. (3) Ditemukan bahwa dalam menulis teks
argumentative semua siswa IPA melakukan reviewing setelah selesai menulis
teks. (4) Ditemukan bahwa dalam menulis teks argumentative semua siswa IPS
tidak melakukan planning sebelum menulis. (5) Ditemukan bahwa dalam menulis
teks argumentative semua siswa IPS tidak menghubungkan pengalamannya
dengan apa yang dipikirkannya dan cenderung menterjemahkan kata untuk
mendapatkan makna selama menulis teks dengan menulis bahasa Indonesia
terlebih dahulu baru ke bahasa Inggris. (6) Ditemukan bahwa dalam menulis teks
argumentative semua siswa IPS tidak melakukan reviewing setelah menulis teks.
Semua hasil penelitian diatas menggambarkan bahwa menulis
dipengaruhi oleh proses kognitif oleh perbedaan jurusan siswa. Realita ini
menunjukkan bahwa untuk meningkatkan kualitas tulisan siswa ada perbedaan
usaha atau pendekatan yang harus dilakukan berhubungan dengan jurusan siswa.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all the writer would like to express her very special deepest
gratitude to Allah SWT for blessing and love which is guiding her in completing
this thesis. Clearly, this thesis could not have been written without the many
visible and invisible contributions from her advisors. The writer would like to
thank:
To Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., as her first advisor for sharing his
concern from the beginning of this thesis, valuable time in giving the comments
and constructive criticism in completing this thesis.
To Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd., as her second advisor for spending
her time in giving her ideas in the process of finishing this thesis.
To Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd. as the Head of the English Applied
Linguistic and also as her reviewer, Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and Dr. Anni
Holila Pulungan, M.Hum. as also reviewers and examiners for their valuable
feedback and contribution.
To her parents, Abu Kosim Harahap, BA., and Mainun Siregar, S.Pd., for
their love and prayers to her for the success of her study.
To her brothers, Taufik and Mukhtar and sister Rahma for their support
and endless love in her life.
Finally, to her lovely friends, K’ Ita, Bu Mis, K’ Rahmi, K’Mas, K’ Cici,
and Vivi, thanks for the time and the great working together. I’m happy to know
you all.
Medan, 20 Januari 2013
Reni Safitri
Reg. Number: 809112038
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study ........................................................... 1
1.2 The Problem of the Study ................................................................ 2
1.3 The Objective of the Study .............................................................. 3
1.4 The Scope of the Study .................................................................... 6
1.5 The Significance of the Study .......................................................... 6
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Cognitive Process of Writing ........................................................... 7
2.1.1 Planning................................................................................ 14
2.1.2 Translating ............................................................................ 16
2.1.3 Reviewing............................................................................. 17
Factors Affecting the Process ........................................................ 18
2.2 Argumentative Writing .................................................................. 22
2.3 Cognitive Process of Writing Argumentative Writing................... 23
2.4 The Writer’s Psychological Attributes ........................................... 24
2.5 The Characteristics of Science and Social Students Major ............ 26
2.5.1 Characteristic of Science Students Major ............................ 26
2.5.2 Characteristic of Social Science Major ................................ 28
2.6 Previous Research .......................................................................... 29
2.7 Conceptual Framework .................................................................. 31
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design .............................................................................
3.2 The Subject of the Study ................................................................
3.3 Technique of Data Collections .......................................................
3.4 The Research Procedure .................................................................
3.5 Technique of Data Analysis ...........................................................
3.6 The Trustworthiness of the Study ..................................................
35
35
36
37
37
38
4. DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 The Students’ Cognitive Process in Writing Argumentative Text 41
4.1.1 Planning................................................................................ 42
4.1.2 Translating ............................................................................ 56
4.1.3 Reviewing............................................................................. 63
4.2 The Cognitive Process of Students Majoring in Social Science .... 79
4.2.1 Planning................................................................................ 79
4.2.2 Translating ............................................................................ 87
4.2.3 Reviewing............................................................................. 90
4.3 Reasons underlying the Cognitive Process of Students of Different
Major ............................................................................................. 92
4.3.1 Length of Writing ................................................................. 93
4.3.2 Thesis ................................................................................... 94
4.3.3 Coherence ............................................................................. 95
4.4 Findings ........................................................................................ 106
4.5 Discussion .................................................................................... 109
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Conclusion ................................................................................... 110
5.2 Suggestion .................................................................................... 110
REFERENCES ................................................................................. 112
List of Tables
Table 4.1 ............................................................................................... 56
Table 4.2 ............................................................................................... 66
Table 4.3 ............................................................................................... 83
Table 4.4 ............................................................................................. 101
Table 4.5 ............................................................................................. 107
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 ......................................................................................... 115
Appendix 2 ......................................................................................... 116
Appendix 3 ......................................................................................... 117
Appendix 4 ......................................................................................... 118
Appendix 5 ......................................................................................... 119
Appendix 6 ......................................................................................... 120
Appendix 7 ......................................................................................... 121
Appendix 8 ......................................................................................... 122
Appendix 9 ......................................................................................... 123
Appendix 10 ....................................................................................... 124
Appendix 11 ....................................................................................... 125
Appendix 12 ....................................................................................... 126
Appendix 13 ....................................................................................... 127
Appendix 14 ....................................................................................... 128
Appendix 15 ....................................................................................... 129
Appendix 16…………………………………………………………. 130
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
English has become an important language in the age of globalization.
It is a medium of communication among people throughout the world. In
Indonesia, students learn English as a foreign language (EFL). They are
taught four skills of English: listening, reading, speaking, and writing. The
national goal of teaching English in Indonesia is to develop the students’
ability in communication both in oral or written form. Of all the four skills,
writing has become more important in the era of Teaching English as a
Foreign Language (TEFL). Writing as one of the language skills must be
taught in English classes especially Senior High School students. Through the
teaching and learning of writing the students are expected to be able to
produce a text well. This is in line with the objective of writing instruction in
Senior High School, to develop the students’ writing skill in order they can
write into English effectively and accurately.
At the level of Senior High school, generally it has two majors,
Natural Science major (IPA) and Social Science major (IPS). The students of
the two majors have different cognitive process in doing something.
Cognitive process is something happening in the students’ mind. However,
there is an evidence or tendency that the IPA students are smarter than the
IPS students. Most of people or even the teachers themselves belief that the
students of Natural Science (IPA) are better especially in writing than the
1
students of Social Science (IPS) do. They propose that the IPA students will
have best quality in writing argumentative text than the IPS students do. We
could see that the problem did not lie in the cognitive abilities of the Natural
Science (IPA) students are better than Social Science (IPS) students have.
However, it is caused of the different way of their cognitive process of
processing something. The ways they express their ideas is not similar and
depend on their characteristics.
According to Stenbergh in Zabu & Davia (2004) the students who study in
Natural science tend to think logically and based on the fact. He also
categorized students who study in Natural Science (IPA) major into
conservative. In this category, they like adhering to existing rules and
procedures, minimize changes, avoid ambiguous situations as far as possible,
and prefer familiarity in life and work.
Actually, the students of Natural Science (IPA) major have such a way of
thinking because their activities during learning in the classroom are engaging
in investigations and activities that would allow them to develop deep
conceptual understandings of scientific ideas and of the process of inquiry.
They also read the work of others as their progress through an investigation to
help them make sense of their own findings. In addition, because
investigations are generally complex, the students of Natural Science often
act like scientists; must record data points, observations, and initial analyses
in writing. It is reflected through their activity in the laboratory, doing
experiments and other subjects that required them to think critically.
2
Meanwhile, according to Scharfersmen in Synder and Mark (2008),
students who study in Social Science major are accustomed to explain
something based on social phenomena. It is in line with Stenberg in Zabu
(2004) that proposed the students who study in Social Science major tend to
memorize and recall information. Related to the learning of thinking styles,
Stenberg in Zabu (2004) also categorized students who study in social major
into liberal. In this category, they like surpassing existing rules and
procedures and attempt to maximize changes. In addition, they also seek or
are at least comfortable with ambiguous situations, and accept to certain
degree unfamiliarity in life and work.
Actually, the students of Social Science (IPS) major have such a way of
thinking because their activities or the subjects during learning in the
classroom are engaging them in memorizing and arguing toward the social
phenomena that existing in the social life. They also consider of others’
opinion or ideas as they progress through a discussion and they respect the
differences as it is accepted by the society. The students of Social Science act
like politician who generally good in arguing in spoken and therefore want to
communicate their ideas to other people directly. Finally, students of social
studies programs construct a knowledge base and attitudes from academic
disciplines as specialized ways of viewing reality. They begin from a specific
perspective and apply unique processes for knowing to the study of reality.
The ability to comprehend arguments is a fundamental aspect of
human decision making and social interaction. It is also an ability that we
3
expect the educational system to impart to students during their schooling.
There is a national expectation that students become able to comprehend and
think critically within a domain. On the other hand, argumentative text is kind
of text in which the process of making what writers or speakers think clear to
themselves and to others are organized systematically. As proposed by
Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning in Chase (2011), argumentative text
requires the writer to embrace a particular point of view and try to convince
the readers in order to have the same perspective. The writers also have to
arise the problems and attempt to map language onto his or her own thoughts
and feelings as well as the expectations of the reader. It is in line with Saito’s
opinion (2010) that the production of argumentative text is a reflection of
cognitive process of problem solving. Intraprawat in Saito (2010) stated that
in order to make an argument in argumentative text, the writers need to
express their point of view on a controversial issue or claim, support it with
evidence including facts or their own opinions in order to convince the
readers.
As the previous research conducted by Halpern (2004) about the
cognitive process taxonomy based on the sex differences, the writer is
interested to do a research based on SMA majors, the students of Natural
Science major (IPA) and Social Science major (IPS) in writing argumentative
text. It is assumed that the students from both the two majors have their own
way in expressing their ideas in argumentative text as the students from the
two majors have their own characteristics. Their cognitive process will be
4
reflected in their argumentative text and at last, we should realize that every
student has same opportunity and no major is better than another major.
1.2 Research Problems
In relation to the background, the problems are formulated as the following:
1. How do students’ cognitive processes happen in writing argumentative
text?
2. Why does the process happen the way it is?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
Related to the problems, the objectives of the study are:
1. To explain the cognitive processes of students in writing argumentative
text.
2. To elaborate the reasons why a cognitive process happens in writing
argumentative text.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
The scope of this study is the cognitive processes’ theory; cognitive
processes based on the students major which consist of Natural Science major
(IPA) and Social Science major (IPS). Cognitive processes’ theory is related
with the act or process of knowing in the broadest sense; especially an
5
intellectual process by which knowledge is gained from perception or ideas.
The theory of writing is elaborated with the theory of argumentative text.
Thus, this study focused on the proving whether majors effectively affected
cognitive processes of the students in writing an argumentative text.
1.5 The Significances of the Study
The findings of the study are expected to be useful for theoretical and
practical aspects. Theoretically, the research finding is expected to enrich the
theories of writing strategies, specifically in writing genre text.
Practically, since this study focused on students of different majors,
Natural Science Major (IPA) and Social Science Major (IPS) and their
cognitive process in writing genre text, this study hopefully will help the
SMA students both IPA and IPS majors to construct an effective
argumentative text by using their individual writing processes in appropriate
context of genre. Besides, the teacher should concern of these differences;
they can help learners of the both majors in different ways in writing a text by
concentrating on learners’ characteristics and provide successful learning
situations.
6
Chapter V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After analyzing the data, the conclusions can be stated as the following:
5.1.1
The Cognitive process taking place in students of Natural Science and
Social Science is different. The difference occurs in the three stages;
in planning, translating, and reviewing.
5.1.2
The cognitive processes of the students of the two majors were
different becaused they have different ability in the proficiency of
writing ability, language proficiency related to L2 oral expression
ability, L2 vocabulary comprehension ability, and L2 discourse
comprehension ability.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the above conclusions, there are some suggestions are listed:
5.2.1 The teacher should encourage students to make full use of their L1 writing
ability and expertise and writing strategies to facilitate their L2 writing to
both students of the two majors. Due to the differences in rhetorical features
of the two languages, teacher should introduce the English rhetorical
features in the class especially argumentative text.
5.2.2 Based on the result findings, writing is influenced by cognitive processes of
the students of different majors. This reality indicates that in improving
107
writing quality, there is some different effort or approach that should be
done related to the students’ major. As a cognitive process, writing quality
can be improved by having more ideas or information in the writers’
memory storage related to the text being written and by improving the
skills or proficiency in grammar.
108
References
Alamargot, Denis & Levrave, Jean- L. 2009. The Study of professional writing. A
Joint contribution from cognitive psychology and genetic criticism. Journal
of Psychology. Vol.6, No.2.2009.
Barab, Sasha & Hay,E. Kenneth. 2000. Doing Science at the Elbows of Experts:
Issues Related to the Science Apprenticeship Camp. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Biasutti, Michele. 1999. Cognitive Process in Composition. Universita di Padova,
Italia Journal. Vol.19, No.16,1999.
Chase, Beth Jillian. 2011. An Analysis of the Argumentative Writing Skills of
Academically Underprepared College Students. Unpublished Disertation,
Columbia University.
Chaisiri, Tawatcihai. 2010. Implementing a Genre Pedagogy to the Teaching of
Writing in a University Context in Thailand. Language Education in Asia
Journal, Vol 1.No.6,2010.
Chen, Wain-Chin. 2007. Some Literature Review on the Comparison of the
Chinese Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He Writing Model and the Western ProblemSolution Schema. Whampoa- An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol.52,
No.2,2007.
ETS. 2008. Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex
Integrated Skill. Educational Testing Service Journal. Vol.5, No.3, 2008.
Fulkerson, D, Nichols, & Snow. 2011. Expanding the Model of Item Writing
Expertise: Cognitive Processes and Requisite Knowledge Structures.
National Science Foundation Journal, Vol 7, No.3, 2011.
Galbraith, David. 2009. Cognitive Models of Writing. German foreign language journal, Vol 2.No.3.2009.
Halpern, D.F. (2004). A Cognitive-Process Taxonomy for Sex Differences
Cognitive Abilities. Journal American Psychological Science.Vol 13, No 4,
2004.
Hyland, Ken. 2006. A Genre Description of the Argumentative Essay. RELC
Journal, Vol 21, No.1, 2006.
Kellog, Ronald. 2009. Cognitive Models of Writing. German foreign languagejournal, Vol 2, No.3, 2009.
109
Kellogg, R.T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental
perspective. Journal of writing research, Vol 1, No.1,2008.
Kieft,M, Rijlaarsdam,& van den bergh. 2006. Writing as a learning tool: Testing
the role of students’ writing strategies. European Journal of Psychology of
Education Vol.1, No.17,2006.
Kingfairgod. 2008. Psycological Attributes.Journal of Psychology. Vol 3, No.4,
2008.
Kyeong Hah Roh & Halani, Aviva. Analysis of Undergraduate Students’
Cognitive Processes When Writing Proof about Inequalities. Preliminary
Research Report Arizona State University.
Leager, Clair. 2005. Fostering Scientific Habit of Mind. Iowa Science Teachers
Journal, Vol 32, No.4,2005.
Liu Xinghua. 2010. An Investigation of Chinese University EFL Learners’
Knowledge about Writing. Language Studies Working Papers. Vol.2, No.51,
2010.
National Council for the Social Studies. “What Is Social Studies?” Expectations
of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies. Retrieved from
WhatIsSocialStudies.Pdf January 3, 2012, from WhatIsSocialStudies.Pdf
Olive, Thierry. 2004. Working Memory in Writing: Empirical Evidence From the
Dual-Task Technique. European Psychologist, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2004,
pp. 32-42 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
Saito, Siwaporn. 2010. An Analysis of Argumentative Essay of Thai Third- Year
English Majors Instructed By the Integrated Process- Genre Approach.
Unpublished master thesis, Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand.
Shih- Chieh Chien. (2005). A Cognitive Analysis of the Relationships between
Chinese EFL Writers’ Strategy Use and Writing Achievement Performance.
Retrieved May 13, 2011, from http://3- chien.pdf
Synder, Lisa Gueldenzoph & Snyder, Mark J.2008. Teaching Critical Thinking
and Problem Solving Skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, Vol L, No 2.2008
The Ontario Curriculum. 2004. Social Studies, History and Geography. Retroeved
May 13, 2011, from http://www.edu.gov.on.
Van den Bergh, H & Rijlaarsdam.2006. Writing Process Theory: A Functional
Dynamic Approach. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
110
Yanbin Lu. 2010. Cognitive Factors Contributing to Chinese EFL Learners’ L2
Writing Performance in Timed Essay Writing. Unpublished Disertation,
Georgia State University, Georgia.
Zabu, Vlasta & Davia Kobal. 2004. Psychology Science Journal.Vol 46, No,156.
2004.
Zhang Jun. 2008. A Comprehensive Review of Studies on Second Language
Writing. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol. 12,No.2, 2008
111