AN ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST YEAR STUDENTS’ WRITING PHARAGRAPH ON TEACHER’S TECHNIQUE REVISION AT SMAN 1 SUNGAILALA I

  

DISCOVERY

JURNAL

Terbit tiga kali setahun pada bulan April, Juni, dan September. Berisi tulisan

yang diangkat dari hasil penelitian, pengajaran bahasa, linguistik, analisis

konseptual dan literary

  

PELINDUNG

DEKAN FKIP UIR

  Nazirun, M. Ed

PIMPINAN REDAKSI

  

Johari Afrizal, M.Ed

WAKIL PIMPINAN REDAKSI

  

Sri Yuliani, M.Pd

Khulaifiyah, M.Pd

SIRKULASI

  

Yulianto, M.Pd

Diah Ayu Rizqiani, M.Hum

DEWAN REDAKSI

  

Miranti Eka Putri, M.Ed

Aladin, Drs

Marhamah, M.Ed

Fitra Elia, M.Hum

  

Afrizal, M.Pd

Estika Satriani

Arimuliani Ahmad

  

REVIEWER

Seno Himala Putra, Prof

Syofianis, M.Ed

  

Betty Sailun, M.Ed

Rugaiyah, Dr

Design Cover

  

Miranti Eka Putri, M.Ed

Telp. 0761-674717 ext. 172

  Daftar Isi

  IMPROVING STUDENTS‟ ACHIEVEMENT IN WRITING RECOUNT

TEXT THROUGH PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT ........................................ 1 - 10

Oksilawati, Betty Sailun and Fitra Elia THE EFFECT OF THEMATIC LEARNING STRATEGY TOWARD STUDENTS‟ LEARNING ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT AT SDN 002

TERPADU SENAMA NENEK ...................................................................... 11 - 16

Leowaldi, Syofianis and Johari Afrizal AN ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST YEAR STUDENTS‟ WRITING PHARAGRAPH ON TEACHER‟S TECHNIQUE REVISIONAT SMAN 1

SUNGAI LALA INHU ................................................................................... 17 - 25

Andi Aprianto, Seno H. Putra and Miranti Eka Putri THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE THIRD YEAR STUDENTS ENGLISH

  VOCABULARY MASTERY AND READING

COMPREHENSION TEXT AT SMA YLPI PEKANBARU ........................ 26 - 33

Kurniawati B, Seno Himala Putra and Wistri Agus M.H THE EFFECT OF EXPLICIT

  VOCABULARY

  INSTRUCTION STRATEGY TOWARDS THE STUDENTS‟ ENGLISH

  VOCABULARIES OF FIVE YEAR STUDENTS OF ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL 10 OF TEBING TINGGI MERANTI ............................................ 34 - 40

Nia Rosiana, Syofianis and Khulaifiyah

  IMPROVING ST UDENTS‟ VOCABULARY BY USING REAL OBJECT OF GRADE III AT SDN 114 SUKAJADI, PEKANBARU (A CLASS

ROOM ACTION RESEARH) ........................................................................ 41 - 52

Nova Puspitasari, Syofianis and Sri Yuliani

  IMPROVING STUDENTS‟ VOCABULARY MASTERY BY USING MATCHING WORD GAME AT THE FOURTH GRADE OF SDN 018

KUBANG JAYA KAMPAR .......................................................................... 53 - 64

Rany Nur Annisa, Kurniawan and Yulianto

  THE EFFECT OF (PWIM) PICTURE WORD INDUCTIVE MODEL TOWARDS READING OF THE FIRST YEAR STUDENTS AT SMP N

  

25 PEKANBARU ........................................................................................... 65 - 71

Mia Jermianti, Rugaiyah and Sri Yuliani THE EFFECT OF WORD SPLASH STRATEGY ON STUDENTS‟ READING COMPREHENSION OF THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS

AT MTSN DALU-DALU ROKAN HULU ................................................... 72 - 79

Hana Pratiwi, Syofianis and Yusrizal AN ANALYSIS OF MEMBERS‟ PRONUNCIATION OF ENGLISH

WORDS AT ENGLISH ZONE COMMUNITY PEKANBARU ................... 80 - 85

Rica Handayani, Syofianis and Yusti Elida AN ANALYSIS THE SECOND YEAR STUDENT‟S ABILITY IN USE HOLTICULTURE TERMINOLOGY AT SMKN PERTANIAN

TERPADU PROVINSI RIAU ........................................................................ 86 - 92

Susilawati, Khulaifiyah and Sri Yuliani

  IMPROVING STUDENTS‟ READING COMPREHENSION OF NARRATIVE TEXT THROUGH FUN READING QUIZ OF THE

SECOND YEAR AT SMP TRI BHAKTI PEKANBARU ............................ 93 - 103

Siska Citra Dewi, Kurniawan and Amelia Roza USING SPELLING BEE GAME IN IMPROVING THE STUDENTS‟

  VOCABULARY MASTERY OF THE FIFTH YEAR AT SDN 008

KUALU (A CLASSROOM ACTION RESEARCH) ..................................... 104 - 113

Nirwana, Betty Sailun and Marhamah

  

AN ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST YEAR STUDENTS’ WRITING

PHARAGRAPH ON TEACHER’S TECHNIQUE REVISION

AT SMAN 1 SUNGAILALA INHU

• * Andi Aprianto, **Seno H. Putra, **Miranti Eka Putri

• ** Dosen FKIP Universitas Islam Riau

  * Mahasiswa FKIP Universitas Islam Riau

  Abstract

The objective of this research was to investigate the teacher technique in revising

students writing of the first students at SMAN 1 Seilala INHU and the components of

writing such as; spelling, article, preposition, word choice, article, grammar, tense,

and also preposition error. The design of this research is descriptive qualitative form.

  

The samples of the research were 24 students writing paragraph of the first students at

SMAN 1 Seilala INHU and also one teacher who teach them. The writer used two

kind of instrument to get the data, they were interview and portfolio. The researcher

was used six indicators in each instrument. The data was got from 24 students, and

also from one teacher who was given thirteen questions about six indicators and how

teacher revised students writing of letter paragraph. After analyzed the data from 24

students and interview one teacher, first, the researcher found that English teacher

used technique in revising students writing of letter paragraph of the first students at

SMAN 1 Seilala INHU, and the technique was Direct Feedback Revision. The

researcher also found that, the most error from six indicators was come from

punctuation. There are three types of revising that usually used by teacher, first by

using code, second by using symbols, and the last by using verbal comment. In this

research, teacher used underline, and giving code “add”, crossing, and the last giving

verbal comment in revising students writing and the component of writing such as;

spelling, punctuation, plural/singular, word choice, preposition, and also article.

  Keyword: Writing Achievement, Portfolio, Recount Text.

  Introduction

  English as a global language sets the important role in teaching English at school from elementary school until senior high school, and even in university. English is more like tool to communicate each other around the world, whether it is as second language or foreign language. From these facts, students are not only expected to speak English fluently but they also have to be able to fulfill four language skills; speaking, writing, reading, and listening. These four skills are integrated and related to each other. Based on curriculum KTSP, all skills in teaching and learning English that are integrated each other must be learnt and taught by both students and teacher, including writing skill. The philosophy of teaching is fostering student learning with helpful writing instruction and giving effective feedback is a central concern for any teacher of writing and the scaffolding provided by the teacher to build learner confidence, and an important area for both first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing research. It also helps students

• – become informed of errors and many writing European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 26, Number 4(2011) 495 problems that they failed to perceive (Frank berg- Garcia, 1999).

  Writing will help students mastering the other skills and of course in mastery English completely. The students are sometimes afraid and shy to speak what they want to say but they can tell what they think and what they want to say into draft or writing before speaking. Thus, if students are having problem in expressing an idea, he/she can write it down. Then, student itself or possibly the reader will understand it. While, there are still some teachers who haven„t given their attention on this case completely. If teacher want to help the students to be a good writer in English, he / she must be able to teach writing effectively in the classroom.

  Teaching writing is always related to how to give feedback directly or indirectly on writing in a good way, especially by the teacher. Roger (2001) tells that some feedback from teacher serves unhelpful feedback to student; they are too generalized or unclear, subjective and focused on some aspect of performance that make the students cannot change. That is why giving feedback to students„ writing is important skill that is seldom taught. Through feedback, we can help students compare their own performance with the ideal and to diagnose their own strength and weaknesses. Feedback that is given directly or indirectly can improve student„s writing. But there will always be of what feedback will give the best impact of the improvement toward the students„ writing itself not only in the short time but also in a long time of their life.

  The researcher thinks teacher feedback is one of positive support that can be given by an English teacher to their students in order to improve students„ writing and minimize their errors. Besides that, there are some reasons why feedback is so helpful for the students„ writing, it is because feedback can be durable, and it will keep in mind of receiver and the feedback can„t just lose in certain time. And then, feedback, the thought and comment will be saved for a very long time in the memories. Feedback will be read and resistant.

  Using teacher„ feedback might be a starting point to start the improvement for

students„ ability in writing. Because the researcher thinks that the evaluation in

writing process in classroom should be started by the teacher first before it can affect

the students„ ability to evaluate their writing by themselves. Teachers have to

evaluate their comprehension in writing, not only giving a material in every meeting,

but they have to learn more than what they have got in order to master all aspect

about writing. Also they have to receive student„s critics when they found any

mistakes or error on teacher writing. That„s why feedback not only must be

developing by students, but also both of them. The reason why the researcher wanted

to do this study at SMAN 1 Sei Lala, because the researcher had got some problem

related to this study in this School and wants to solve it. The researcher in doing this

action put the target on the first grade students at SMAN 1 Sei Lala with the purpose

of students were able to write a composition better than before and to apply their

knowledge into writing text.

  Methodology

This research is a descriptive research, which aims at describing the findings in a

qualitative ways. It is designed to ascertain the technique used by the English teacher

in Revising students writing error at the first year student„s of SMA N1 Seilala

  

INHU. In this research, it consist one variable that is English teacher„s feedback on

student„s writing paragraph.

  Participants of this study is the first year students at SMAN 1 Seilala INHU. There

  The population

are three classes with 40 students in each class. The total number is 120 students.

  

Because the total number of the students of the first year students at SMAN 1 Sailala

  

INHU was more than 100 students, the researcher will take 20 percent of the total

population become the sample. The technique that used is random sampling

technique. Thus, the total number of the sample of this research is 24 students.

  Instruments

  The instrument of this researcher will be portfolios and interview. It will describe as follows:

1. Portfolios

  In this research, the researcher will use the students writing task. The researcher will collect the stude nt„s writing which is revised by using teacher feedback techniques in revising students writing. In one semester, teacher will gives students one or two times, it based on the teacher and how far the ability of the students understanding the material in curriculum. Task will give by the English teacher after the lessons was end. Before teacher gives the task, usually teacher gives the explanation about the structure of the material until the students understand enough by asking them. The researcher will collect and analyzed the data based on the techniques and indicators.

  Results and Discussion

  Based on the data that the researcher got from the first students at SMAN 1 Seilala INHU, the students have mastered the English writing; include the component of writing such as tense, spelling, punctuation, plural/singular and capitalization. Even sometimes there are some students do some mistakes and error in applying those components in writing. So, the teacher needs to use the techniques in order to revise students writing error, there are two techniques usually used by the English teacher in revise students writing error, first by using code and the second by using written comment. There were 24 students„ writing tasks as sample; it„s including the teacher in interview. The result of the students writing task, can be seen and explained as follows:

  1. Student 01 had a very good letter writing arrangement. She had one punctuation error, one preposition error, and also has two spelling errors. The teacher only gives the underline mark and then writes the correct one above the underline words to revise student„s error. And sometimes give ―add‖ code in order to ask students to add the word with the suitable word according to the text. The teacher also use verbal comment in revising student„s writing, and the comment was ―Very good‖.

  2. Students 02 had a good letter writing arrangement. She had three spelling errors, and also she had two punctuation errors. The teacher only gives the underline mark and sometimes uses circling and then writes the correct one above the underline words to revise student„s error. And sometimes give ―add‖ code in order ask to the students to add the word with the suitable word and sometime gives code ―??‖ in order un- understanding word according to the text. The teacher also use verbal comment in revising student„s writing, and the comment was ―Good 3. Student 03 had a good letter„s writing arrangement. She had two punctuation errors, three word choice errors, and also had one singular/plural error. The teacher only gives the underline mark and sometimes uses crossing mark ―X‖ and Question mark ―?? then writes the correct one above the underline words to revise student„s error. And teacher sometimes gives code ―add‖ to announce the student about adding the word or pronoun and also adding article according to the text.

  4. Student 04 had a good letter„s writing arrangement. He had three word choice errors, six punctuation errors, and one spelling error. Teacher gives underline mark to revise the student„s writing error and then write the correct one above the word underlined. Sometimes the teacher gives cross mark ―X‖ in order to delete the wrong word that make the structure of sentence was gone wrong. And teacher always use ―add‖ code in addition, to remind the students about word that must be add to make the sentence is more suitable. And in the last revising, teacher gives verbal comment. And in this comment, teacher gives ―Good‖ comment.

  5. Student 05 had a very good letter„s writing arrangement. She had two spelling error, two plural/singular errors, two word choice errors, one preposition error, and also she had one punctuation error. In this case, teacher only give underline mark in revising student„s writing and then write the correct answer or word above the word underlined. And sometimes, teacher revises the student„s grammar directly, also by using underline mark and som etimes didn„t use underline mark. And in the last revising student„s writing, teacher gives verbal comment, and the comment was ―Very Good.

  6. Student 06 she had very good letter„s writing arrangement. She had one spelling error, and three punctuation errors. In revising student writing, teacher underline the error word or letter, and then directly write the correct one above the word or letter underlined. Sometimes teacher used question mark ―??‖ in order to ask student about what exactly she would like to write. And sometimes teacher correct the students grammar, for example the use of ‗to-be„ in her writing. In the last, teacher gives verbal comment in revising student„s writing. And the verbal comment to this writing task was ―Very Good.

  7. Student 07 had very good letter„s writing arrangement. He had one plural/singular error, one punctuation error, and also she had two word choice errors. In revising student„s error, teacher only gives underline mark and then writes the correct one above the word underlined, and sometimes teacher gives cross mark ―X‖ it means deleting the error word or letter. In the last, teacher gives verbal comment in revising student„s writing, the comment was ―Very Good‖.

  8. Student 08 had very good letter„s writing arrangement. She had two spelling errors, and she also had two punctuation error. In revising student„s error, teacher only give underline mark and then write the correct one or the suitable one above the underlined word/letter. Sometimes, teacher revises student„s grammar and also capitalization directly, but not deeply. In the last, teacher gives verbal comment in the end of revising. The comment was ―very Good‖.

  9. Student 09 had very good letter„s writing arrangement. She had one misspelling error, and also she had one plural/singular error. Teacher use underline mark and then write the correct answer above the text or word that must be revise by the student with the correct one. Sometimes, teacher must revise student„s tense and word structure. The teacher only gives the ―add‖ code to add the word, and sometimes crossing the error word and directly adding the word that unsuitable on the paper. I the last, teacher gives verbal comment on student„s task, and the comment was ―Very Good‖.

  10. Student 10 had a very good letter„s writing arrangement. She had one word choice error, and also one preposition error. In revising student„s error, teacher underlines the error word, and then writes the correct one above the word underlined. To make student„s writing more structure, sometimes teacher needs to revise student„s word structure and tense on their writing, but not deeply. And in the last, teacher gives the verbal comment. And the comment was

  ―very good‖.

  11. Students 11 had very good letter„s writing arrangement. She had one spelling error, one plural/singular error, two punctuation errors, and also four word choice errors. In revising student„s writing error, teacher only underlines the error one, and then writes the correct one above the word underlined. And sometimes, if there any word structures, and also grammar that contain an error, teacher also revises but not deeply, because considering the students capabilities. Usually, teacher used cross mark ―X‖ means delete, and ―add‖ code mean adding the word or letter. In addition, teacher gives verbal comment in revising student„s writing, and the comment was ―Very Good‖.

  12. Students 12 she had very good letter„s writing arrangement. She had three plural/sin gular errors. In revising student„s writing, teacher gives underline to the word or letter, and crossing the letter means delete and give code ―add‖ means add the letter. In the last, teacher gives verbal comment. And the comment was ―Very Good‖.

  13. Student 13 he had very good letter„s writing arrangement. He had two punctuation error, and one spelling error. To revise student„s error, teacher gives underline and revises the error by write the correct one or adding the letter if the error was need more letter to add. In the end, teacher used verbal comment to the task that was given; the comment was ―Very Good.

  14. Student 14 he had good letter writing„s arrangement. He had three punctuation errors, and also he had four word choice errors. In revising student„s error, teacher only gives underline and directly corrects the error by write the correct one above the word underlined. Sometimes teacher gives code ―add‖ in order to add the missing word or letter. In the end of revising, teacher gives verbal comment, and the comment was ―Good‖.

  15. Student 15 he had good letter„s writing arrangement. He had two punctuation errors, and also had two word choice errors. In revising student„s writing error, teacher only underlines the error and then write or adding the correct one, and sometimes give ―add‖ code. In addition, teacher use verbal comment in the end of revising. And the comment was ―Very Good‖.

  16. Student 16 she had very good letter writing„s arrangement. She had one preposition error, and also she had one punctuation error. In revising student„s error, teacher underlines the student„s error, and then writes the correct answer above the word underlined. Sometimes, teacher gives ―add‖ code in order to add the missing words or letters. And sometimes, teacher gives cross mark on the mistakes word. In the end, teacher gives verbal comment on student„s writing, and the comment was ―Good‖.

  17. Student 17 she had good letter writing„s arrangement. She had two word choice errors, and she also had six spelling error. In revising student„s writing error, teacher only underline the error, and then directly write the correct answer above the word underlined. In the end of revising, teacher gives verbal comment and the comment was ―Good‖.

  18. Student 18 he had very good letter writing„s arrangement. He had two punctuation errors, one article error, and also he had one preposition er ror. In revising student„s error, teacher only gives underline and then teacher writes the correct one above the word underlined. Sometimes teacher gives ―add‖ code in order to adding the word, and sometimes teacher use question mark ―??‖ in order to make clear the word un- understandable. In the end of revising, teacher gives verbal comment. And the comment was ―Very Good.

  19. Student 19 had very good letter writing arrangement. He had four punctuation errors, one word choice error, and also had two spelling er rors. In revising student„s error, teacher only gives underline and then teacher writes the correct one above the word underlined. Sometimes teacher gives ―add‖ code in order asking the students to add the word with the suitable one. In the end of revising, teacher gives verbal comment. And the comment was ―Very Good.

  20. Student 20 had very good letter writing arrangement. She had four spelling error, and one word choice error. In revising student„s error, teacher only gives underline and then teacher writes the correct one above the word underlined. Sometimes, teacher crosses the letter or word in order asking the students to delete the word or letter. In the end of revising, teacher gives verbal comment. And the comment was ―Very Good‖.

  21. Student 21 had very good letter writing arrangement. She had three spelling errors, and she had one punctuation error. In revising student„s error, teacher only gives underline and then teacher writes the correct one above the word underlined. Sometimes, teacher crosses the letter or word in order asking the students to delete the word or letter. In the end of revising, teacher gives verbal comment. And the comment was ―Very Good.

  22. Student 22 had very good letter writing arrangement. She had two spelling error, and also had one punctuation error. In revising student„s error, teacher only gives underline and then teacher writes the correct one above the word underlined. Sometimes, teacher crosses the letter or word in order asking the students to delete the word or letter. In the end of revising, teacher gives verbal comment. And the comment was ―Very Good‖.

  23. Student 23 had very good letter writing arrangement. She had six spelling errors, and also had one punctuation error. In revising student„s error, teacher only gives underline and then teacher writes the correct one above the word underlined. Sometimes, teacher crosses the letter or word in order asking the students to delete the word or letter. In the end of revising, teacher gives verbal comment. And the comment was ―Very Good‖.

  24. Student 24 had very good letter writing arrangement. She had one spelling error, one punctuation error, two word choice errors, and also had one prepositions error. In this error, teacher used underline to revise the students writing, after that the teacher writes the correct answer above the underlined word. For the some error cases, teacher cross the error means delete. In the end of revision, teacher gives verbal comment, and the comment for this writing was ―Very Good‖.

  Conclusion Based on the documents of students writing task, generally students are able

to produce and arrange a letter. They can make heading of the letter, body and also

they can make the closing of the letter. Their error sometimes comes from tense,

grammar, punctuation, capitalization, plural/singular and also article. Some of them

revise by teacher directly, and some of them corrected but not deeply. In giving the

writing task of letter, teacher only gives on time in one semester, it based on the

teacher syllabus. Generally, in revising students„ writing task English teacher corrects the students

writing of the letter based on the generic structure of letter. Start from the heading of

the letter, body, and also the conclusion or closing. But, teacher not fully focused in

correct ing students„ error of the generic structure of letter, but focused in revising

students„ error of punctuation, preposition, capitalization, plural/singular, word

choice and also article. Based on the way teacher revised students error, teacher

usually use s underline, crossing the word or letter, and sometimes gives ―add‖ code.

After teacher underline, crossing, and give ―add‖ code, teacher revise directly and

write above the error word or letter the correct one. In the last, teacher gives verbal

comment ba sed on the students„ error.

  References

Azar, Betty Schampfer. 2003. Fundamentals of English grammar second edition,

United State of America: Longman. Edge, Julian. Mistakes and correction.

  London – New York. Listya, Rafella. 2007.

  An analysis of teacher’s correction on the first student essay assigmentd st SMA N 1 RENGAT . Pekanbaru : Unpublished Thesis.

  

Lee, Ice. 2004. How Do Hongkong English Teacher Correct Error Writing?.Vol. 31,

No. 1 page-166. Hongkong : Educational Journal the Chinese University of Hongkong.

  

Sattayatham and Ratanapinyowong. 2008. Analysis of Errors in Paragraph Writing

in English by First Year Medical Students from the Four Medical Schools at Mahidol University. Vol. 8, page

• – 21. Silpakorn University International Journal.

  

Yang, Wenfen. 2010. A Tentative Analysis of Errors in Language Learning and Use.

  School of Foreign Languages, Qingdao University of Science &Technology, Qingdao, China. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 266-268.

Abeywickrama,Rohan. 2010. An Analysis of Errors in English Writing of Sinhala

. Sabaramuwa University

  Speaking Undergraduates.Volume 9 Number 1 Journal.

  

Dadashi, Mehdi. 2010. The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on

Students’Spelling Errors. Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 129-137. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras.

  

Liu, Yingliang. 2008. The Effects of Error Feedback in Second language writing.

  Vol. 15, 65-79 . Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching.

  

Bitchener, John. 2005. The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL

student writing . V. 14. 191 - 205. Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag, Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Second Language Writing.

  

Ellis, Rod. 2008. A typology of written corrective feedback types. Volume 63.

  Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. ELT Journal. 102

  

Lindquist, Angela. 2006. A study on feedback and error corrections in Swedish

upper- secondary students’ English essay. Swedish: Karlstads Universitet.

  America. Cambride University.

Nunan, david. 1992. Research methods in language learning. United States of

America. Cambridge University.

  

Rein, miles. 2004. Key to correction marks. Bentley collage. Treiman, R. and D.C

Bourassa. 2000. The development of spelling skill. Topics in Language Disorder. Sudijono, Anas. 2009. Pengantar Statistic Pendidikan. Jakarta, Rajawali.

Venesky, R.1999. The American Way of Spelling: The Structure and Origins of

American English Orthography . New York: the Guilford press.

  Wishon, George E. and Julia M.Burk. 1980.

  Let’s Write English Revised Edition.

  United State of America: Litton Educational Publishing International.

Weigle, Sara Causing. 2002. Assessing Writing. United State Of America:

Cambridge University Press.

  

Melzer, Dan. 2009. Writing Assignment Across Curriculum: A National Study of

College Writing. National Council of Teacher of English.