THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE ON THE STUDENTS WRITING ACHIEVEMENT.

(1)

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND

LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE

ON THE STUDENTS’

WRITING ACHIEVEMENT

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in a Partial Fulfillment of the of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By

NURMALA

Registration Number: 810 6112016

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ABSTRACT

Nurmala. 8106112016. The Effect of Teaching Methods and LinguisticCompetence on the Students’ Writing Achievement.A Thesis.English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Post Graduate School State University of Medan. 2014.

The objectives of this experimentalresearch were to investigate whether: 1) the students’ achievement in writing narrative text taught by using task-based learninghigher than those taught by direct instruction, 2) the students’ achievement in writing narrative text with high linguistic competence is higher than those with low linguistic competence, 3) there is interaction between teaching methods and linguistic competence on students’ achievement in writing narrative text.It was an experimental research with the population of students at State Senior High School (Sekolah Menengah Atas Negeri: SMAN) 2 Kisaran 2012/2013 academic year, Grade XI, Natural Science. The sample was selected by applying multistage cluster random sampling. The first class chosen (XI-IPA1) was taught by using task-based learning while the second class (XI-IPA2) was taught by using direct instruction. The data collected were analyzed by applying two-way analysis of variance (2 x 2 ANOVA) at the level of significance α = 0.05. The findings indicated that: 1) the students’ achievement in writing narrative text taught by using task-based learning is higher using direct instruction (80 > 67), 2) the students’ achievement in writing narrative text with high linguistic competence is higher than students with low linguistic competence, (80 > 65), 3) there is interaction between teaching methods and linguistic competence on students’ achievement in writing narrative text (sig. = 0.00 < 0.05). Based on the findings, it is suggested that task-based learning method should be applied in English teaching to develop the students’ writing achievement.

(6)

ABSTRAK

Nurmala. 8106112016.

PengaruhMetodePembelajarandanKemampuanLinguistikdalamMenulisTeksNarat if.Tesis. Program Study LinguistikTerapanBahasaInggris. PascaSarjanaUniversitasNegeri Medan. 2014.

Penelitian eksperimenini bertujuan untuk mengetahuiapakah: 1) kemampuansiswamenulisteksnaratif yang diajardenganmenggunakantask-based learninglebihtinggidaripadasiswayang diajardengandirect instruction. 2) kemampuansiswayang memiliki kompetensi linguistik yang tinggi lebihbaikdibandingkandengan siswa yang memiliki kompetensi linguistik yang

rendah dalam menulis teks naratif 3)

adainteraksidiantarametodemengajardenganpenguasaanlinguistikpadakemampuan siswa dalam menulis teks naratif. Jenis penelitian iniadalaheksperimendenganpopulasipenelitianadalahseluruhsiswa SMA Negeri 2 Kisarantahunpelajaran2012/2013. Sampel penelitianinidiambilmelalui multistage cluster random sampling. Kelas yang pertama (XI-IA1) diajar dengan menggunakan metode task-based learning sementara kelas yang kedua (XI-IPA 2) diajar dengan menggunakan metode direct instruction. Data yang terkumpuldianalisadenganmenggunakan ANOVA 2 x 2 pada tingkat signifikan α = 0.05.Hasilpenelitianinimenunjukkanbahwa: 1) kemampuan siswayang diajardenganmenggunakanmetodetask-based

learninglebihtinggidibandingkandengankemampuansiswa yang diajardenganmenggunakanmetodedirect instructiondalammenulisteksnaratif(80 > 67), 2) kemampuansiswa yang memilikikompetensilinguistikyang tinggilebihbaikdibandingkandengansiswa yang bmemilikikompetensi linguistic yangrendah dalam menulis teks naratif (80 > 65), 3) adainteraksidiantarametodepembelajaradankompetensi linguistik (sig. = 0.00 < 0.05).Berdasarkan temuan tersebut, maka task-based learningsebaiknya diterapkan dalam pembelajaranbahasa Inggris untuk meningkatkan kemampuan siswadalammenulis.

(7)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.

First of all, praise and thank to Allah SWT, the Almighty, who has granted countless blessing, knowledge, and opportunity to the researcher so that she has been finally able to accomplish her thesis.

Praises are all also addressed to her Prophet, Muhammad SAW, his family, and companions for being the role model in her life.

This thesis could have been completed because of the guidance, encouragement, suggestions, and comments from several people, for which she would like to extend her sincere and special thanks.

The researcher wishes to express her deepest gratitude to Dr. Didik Santoso, M.Pd as her advisor for his advice, encouragement, suggestions and guidance and Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., as her co-adviser for her valuable advices and guidance in finishing this thesis.

She would also like to thank her deepest gratitude to the reviewers and examiners: Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum, and Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd for their valuable inputs to be included in this thesis.

Her great gratitude is extended to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd and Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S. as Head and Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program for their administrative assistance, and all lectures who have given her the valuable knowledge during the time of her study and finishing this thesis.

(8)

Furthermore, she would like to express her high appreciation to Syahruddin Lubis, S.Pd, M.M, as the principal of SMA Negeri 2 Kisaran for allowing her conducting research in there.

Finally, she conveys special gratitude for her beloved parents; Abdulsyah Panjaitan (Alm.) and Saamah Sinaga (Almh.), her beloved family, especially her husband; Drs. Parlaungan Siregar, M.Pd, her sons; Ahmad Jamhuri Siregar, STP. and Raja Salim Siregar, her daughters; Ade Irmayani Siregar, SE. and Noyakina Handayani Siregar, S.Pd., and her daughter-in-law; Ivon Zaenurlis, SP. for their sincere prayer, understanding, caring and support. In deep, special gratitude is also conveyed for Farid Ma’ruf Harahap for his kind in helping the writer during the process.

Medan, January 9th, 2014 The Researcher,

NURMALA

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENT

Page

ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS ... i

ABSTRACT ... iii

TABLE OF CONTENT ... v

LIST OF TABLES ... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ... x

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xi

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 The Background of the Research ... 1

1.2 The Problems of Research ... 5

1.3 The Objective of the Research ... 6

1.4 The Scope of the Research ... 6

1.5 The Significance of the Research ... 7

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE... 8

2.1 Theoretical Framework ... 8

2.1.1 The Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Text ... 8

2.1.1.1 Achievement in Writing ... 8

2.1.1.2 Writing ... 10

2.1.1.3 Assessment of Writing Achivement ... 18

2.1.1.4 Narrative Text ... 19

2.1.2 Teaching Methods ... 24

2.1.2.1 Task-Based Learning ... 26

2.1.2.1.1 Definition of TBL ... 27

2.1.2.1.2 Principles of TBL ... 31

2.1.2.1.3 Design of TBL ...32

(10)

2.1.2.1.5 Model of Syllabus... 35

2.1.2.1.6 The Role of Learner in TBL ... 35

2.1.2.1.7 The Role of Teacher in TBL ... 36

2.1.2.1.8 The Role of Instructional Material ... 37

2.1.2.1.9 The Procedures of TBL ... 38

2.1.2.1.10 The Strengths of TBL ... 40

2.1.2.1.11 The Weaknesses of TBL ... 41

2.1.2.2 Direct Instruction ... 43

2.1.2.2.1 Definition of Direct Instruction ... 43

2.1.2.2.2 The Principles of Direct Instruction ... 45

2.1.2.2.3 The Objective of Direct Instruction ... 45

2.1.2.2.4 The Role of Learner in Direct Instruction ... 45

2.1.2.2.5 The Role of Teacher in Direct Instruction ... 46

2.1.2.2.6 Procedures of Direct Instruction ... 46

2.1.2.2.7 The Strengths of Direct Instruction ... 47

2.1.2.2.8 The Weaknesses Direct Instruction ... 47

2.1.3 Linguistic Competence ... 48

2.2 Relevant Studies ... 52

2.3 Conceptual Framework ... 54

2.4 Hypotheses of Study ... 58

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY... 59

3.1 Research Design ... 59

3.2 Population and Sample ... 60

3.2.1 Population ... 60

3.2.2 Sample ... 61

3.3 Instrumentation ... 62

(11)

vii

3.3.2 Operational Definition ... 64

3.3.3 Specification ...65

3.3.4 Calibration ...65

3.3.4.1 Validity of the Test ...66

3.3.4.2 Reliability of the Test ...66

3.4 The Procedures of Treatment ...67

3.4.1 Preparation ...67

3.4.2 Administering Linguistic Competence Test ...68

3.4.3 Conducting Treatment ...69

3.4.4 Writing Achievement Test ...70

3.5 Control of Treatment ...74

3.5.1 Internal Validity...74

3.5.2 External Validity ...75

3.6 Technique of Analyzing Data ...75

3.7 Statistical Hypotheses ...76

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 77

4.1 Research Findings ... 77

4.1.1 The Data Description ...77

4.1.1.1 Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Taught by Using TBL ...78

4.1.1.2 Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Taught by Using DI ... 79

4.1.1.3 Students’ Achievement with High Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using TBL ...80

4.1.1.4 Students’ Achievement with Low Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using TBL ...82 4.1.1.5 Students’ Achievement with High Linguistic Competence

(12)

viii

in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ...83

4.1.1.6 Students’ Achievement with Low Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ...84

4.1.1.7 The Interaction between Teaching Methods and Linguistic Competence on Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative ....85

4.1.2 Analysis Requirement Testing ... 87

4.1.2.1 Normality Testing ... 87

4.1.2.2 Homogeneity Testing ... 88

4.1.2.3 Groups of Teaching Methods and Linguistic Competence ... 89

4.1.3 Testing of Hypothesis ... 90

4.1.3.1 Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Text Taught by TBL is higher than taught by DI ...90

4.1.3.2 Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative with High Linguistic Competence is higher than with Low Linguistic Competence ...91

4.1.1.3 Interaction between Teaching Methods and Linguistic Competence on Students’ Achievement in Writing ...91

4.2 Discussion... 93

4.3 Research Limitation... 98

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION ...100

5.1 Conclusion ...100

5.2 Implication ...100

5.3 Suggestions ...102

REFERENCES ...103

(13)

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 The English Score of the Students at SMA N 2 Kisaran ... 3

Table 2 The 2 x 2 Factorial Design ... 60

Table 3 The Procedures of Treatment ... 69

Table 4 The Writing Test Indicator ...70

Table 5 Summary of Research Data Description ... 77

Table 6 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using TBL ... 78

Table 7 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ... 79

Table 8 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement with High Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using TBL ... 81

Table 9 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement with Low Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using TBL ... 82

Table 10 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement with High Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ... 83

Table 11 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement with Low Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ... 85

Table 12 The Interaction between Teaching Methods and Linguistic Competence ... 86

(14)

Table 13 Multiple Comparisons of Dependent Variables ... 87

Table 14 The Result of One Sample of Kolmogorov-Smirnov ... 88

Table 15 Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances ... 89 Table 16 The Computation of Homogeneity of Teaching Methods

And Linguistic Competence ...89 Table 17 The Total Data Description with Factorial Design ... 90

(15)

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Process of Writing ... 14

Figure 2 Process Wheel ...14

Figure 3 Components of Task ... 33

Figure 4 Task-Based Learning Framework ...38

Figure 5 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in writing Narrative Text Taught by Using TBL ... 79

Figure 6 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ... 80

Figure 7 Histogram of the Students’ Writing Achievement with High Linguistic Competence Taught by Using TBL ...81

Figure 8 Histogram of the Students’ Writing Achievement with Low Linguistic Competence Taught by Using TBL ... 83

Figure 9 Histogram of the Students’ Writing Achievement with High Linguistic Competence Taught by Using DI ...84

Figure 10 Histogram of the Students’ Writing Achievement with Low Linguistic Competence Taught by Using DI ... 85

Figure 11 Interaction between Teaching Methods and Linguistic Competence ... 86

(16)

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

Appendix A Linguistic Competence Test ...107

Appendix B Writing Test ...115

Appendix C Answer Key ...116

Appendix D Lesson Plan of TBL ...117

Appendix E Lesson Plan of DI ...120

Appendix F Examples of Students’ Writing Products ...123

Appendix G The Students’ Score in Linguistic Competence ...126

Appendix H The Classification of High and Low Linguistic Competence ....127

Appendix I The Score of Writing Achievement (TBL) ...128

Appendix J The Score of Writing Achievement (DI) ...129

Appendix K The Descriptive Data Analysis ...130

Appendix L The Normality Testing ...133

Appendix M The Homogeneity Testing ...136

(17)

1 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Research

Writing in a foreign language is one of the most challenging skills for almost all learners. Developing the writing skill is thought to be the most complex in comparison to listening, speaking and reading. What makes writing a very troublesome task for EFL learners is the fact that it requires some criteria of acceptability relative to different aspects of writing which include content, organization, vocabulary, language use, spelling, punctuation and accurate capitalization and paragraphing.

Learning a foreign language requires learning the four skills of this language. Language teachers usually follow a certain order; beginning with listening, speaking, reading and then writing. The reason behind leaving writing at the end is that it is viewed as the most important, most difficult and most sophisticated one compared with the other language skills. The reading and listening skills are known as receptive skills, whereas the speaking and writing are productive skills.

Writing is an important skill in which someone can express his/her ideas, thoughts, and experiences through written language. Manfred (2010) claims that writing is one form of communication. Writing is a process of putting ideas, thought, and feeling in words into a sequence of words combined into sentences in the forms of paragraph. Writing proficiency does not develop instantaneously; it is a continuous process that adapts and changes with one’s experiences and education.

(18)

Harmer (2004 : 86) states that writing is a process and that we write is often heavily influenced by contraints of genres, then these elements have to be present in learning activities. It is a continuous process of thinking and organizing, rethinking, and reorganizing. Writing is a powerful tool to organize overwhelming events and make them manageable. Writing is really a form of thinking using the written word.

Writing, like speaking, is essentially communication. The message expressed should always be determined by the context of the whole communication situation. This is sometimes overlooked either dealing with the grammar side of writing or dealing with writing as the free expression side of thoughts and feelings.

But, in fact, many students are less competent in writing. They tend to avoid writing even before they try it. Writing skill in the context of EFL causes students to lack confidence to write in English. When they are asked to write, they face many problems in conveying what they want to say; selecting proper words, using correct grammar, generating ideas and developing them into a proper organizational pattern. More importantly, they have trouble using an acceptable writing format that conforms to a target language and they strive to manipulate proper language forms. It is very vital for the EFL students to grasp the whole knowledge of writing.

The failure of the students in writing has been empirically proved by some researchers. To mention some as Suprinata (2002) in his findings stated that many students of senior high school made errors in writing, especially in narrative and exposition. Similarly, Marta (2003) has also conducted a research on The

(19)

Students’ Ability in Creating a Writing Composition and the result showed that among 40 students, there were 11 students (27.9%) that could get good score in writing while the other 29 students (72.5%) failed to get the minimum standard. And the writers assumed that the failure in writing were caused by unadequate knowledge of the students on grammar and vocabulary to transfer their ideas into writing symbols.

As the researcher’s experience in analyzing the achievement of students of grade XI at SMA Negeri 2 Kisaran in writing shows that the achievement in writing skill of competence standard: expressing meaning in written short functional text and simple essay in the form of narrative in the context of daily life is still low. Based on the list of score found by the researcher at that school, it shows that the students’ achievement in writing is the lowest compared to three other language skills. It is described in table 1.

Table 1. The English Score of the Students at SMA Negeri 2 Kisaran, 2011/2012

No Language Skill

Mean Score of each Class

Mean XI IPA1 XI IPA2 XI IPA3 XI IPA4 XI IPA5 XI IPA6 1 2 3 4 Listening Speaking Reading Writing 72 68.8 75.2 62 72.4 68.2 74.8 65.4 70.2 66.6 74.6 58.2 68.2 66.2 72.2 60 68.4 64.2 70 55 65.4 65 70.2 53 69.4 66.5 72.8 58.9

Based on the score through the table above, it can be seen that the students’ score on writing is the lowest.

There are many factors causing the low writing achievement. They can be from students’ internal factors and external ones. The students’ internal factors are motivation, intelligence, interest, attitudes, personality, habits, and also linguistic

(20)

competence. Meanwhile, the students’ external factors are the teaching material, the total program of writing instruction, the environment outside their school, and also teaching methods.

Based on the situation, the researcher thinks of adding variety of teaching methods in the school. In teaching writing, it is better to measure how the students are able to write in their own words and elaborate their creativity and deliver their idea communicatively in writing. In order to make an active teaching learning process, Task-Based Learning is suggested to be compared to Direct Instruction method in the school.

In Task-Based Learning, learners made more rapid progress and were able to use their new foreign language in real-world circumstances with a reasonable level of efficiency after quite short courses. They were able to operate an effective meaning system, i.e. to express what they wanted to write, even though their grammar and lexis were often far from perfect.

Direct Instruction is different from task-based learning. In Direct Instruction, teacher gives set of explanation, demonstration, and gives examples then students are asked to make other examples based on the teacher’s instruction and guides.

Besides teaching methods, students’ achievement in writing is also affected by linguistic competence. They made a number of errors in terms of content, organization, language use, and also they were lack of vocabulary in expressing their ideas in writing. Linguistic competence is extremely important for all language skills including writing. In spoken or written language, the main tool used to construct words is vocabulary and grammar. It is believed that

(21)

linguistic competence affects the students’ achievement in writing as to create self-esteem in them.

Thus it is badly needed to do some research about the difficulties of students in writing and to see the adequate effect of linguistic competence on writing achievement. Based on the underlying facts and concept of explanation, this research is intended to discover the effect of teaching methods and students’ linguistic competence on students’ achievement in writing. It means that the effect of applying the two teaching methods (Task-Based Learning and Direct Instruction) and students’ linguistic competence (high and low) in teaching writing will be proven whether they are effective towards the students’ writing achievement.

1.2 The Problems of the Research

Based on the background of the research previously stated, the problems of the research are formulated as follows:

1) Is the students’ achievement in writing narrative text taught by Task-based Learning (TBL) higher than those taught by Direct Instructionn (DI)?

2) Is the students’ achievement in writing narrative text with high linguistic competence higher than those with low linguistic competence?

3) Is there interaction between teaching methods and linguistic competence on the students’ achievement in writing narrative text?

(22)

1.3 The Objectives of the Research

In line with the problems of the research, the objectives of the research are to find out:

1) whether the students achievement in writing taught by TBL higher than those taught by DI.

2) whether the students’ achievement in writing narrative with high linguistic competence is significantly higher than those with low linguistic competence. 3) whether there is interaction between teaching methods and linguistic

perfomance on students’ achievement in writing narrative text.

1.4 The Scope of the Research

There are many teaching methods can be applied in teaching writing but this research is limited on the application of Task-Based Learning (TBL) and Direct Instruction (DI) in teaching writing at SMAN 2 Kisaran of grade XI students 2012/2013 academic year. This school is chosen due to its feasibility to the researcher and it is the place where the researcher has observed their writing products and collected other prior data. To give focus to the research, the students’ linguistic competence is selected as the moderator variable. The linguistic competence will be categorized into two levels: high and low to the students’ achievement in writing. By controlling the students’ linguistic competence in writing narrative, the study is expected to give clearer description on the effect of TBL on teaching writing narrative text to the students with certain linguistic competence level. The narrative text is chosen as it is one of the genres in writing at Senior High School Competence Standard on Educational Unit

(23)

Oriented Curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan/ KTSP), 2004 and revised in 2008.

1.5 The Significance of the Research

This study is expected to provide information, which may have practical as well as theoretical values for English language teachers.

Theoretically:

1) The result of this research will enrich the theory of teaching how to write narrative text using Task-Based Learning and Direct Instruction.

2) The teachers will get the input which can make the students’ writing

improved.

3) The result of this research can be used as the references for those who want to conduct a research in improving the writing.

Practically:

1) The result of this research will give a lot of positive contribution for English teachers and other researchers to improve their professionalism.

2) The result of the research will help English teachers facilitate the students’ writing achievement.

3) It can help English teachers and the students in solving one of many problems in writing.

(24)

100 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion

Based on data analysis and research findings at the previous chapter, it can be concluded that:

1. Both TBL and DI affect students’ achievement in writing narrative text. Students’ achievement in writing narrative text taught by using TBL is higher than those taught by using DI;

2. The achievement of the students having high linguistic competence is higher than those having low linguistic competence in writing narrative text;

3. There is significant interaction between teaching methods and students’ linguistic competence in writing narrative text. Students with high linguistic competence showed significant effect in their writing achievement when they were taught by using task-based learning method while students with low linguistic competence showed significant effect in their writing achievement when they were taught by using direct instruction method.

5.2 Implication

The findings of this research gives implication to the students who want to improve their ability in writing narrative text and to the teachers who want to develop their students’ writing skill when teaching and learning takes part in the classroom. This study has examined two methods of teaching writing , namely task-based learning and direct instruction. They are applied to the students with

(25)

101

high and low linguistic competence in order to know which teaching method is more suitable for them in improving their achievement in writing narrative text.

The research findings that have been discussed in the previous chapter can be used as consideration for the teacher to choose an appropriate method to be applied in a certain class. A teacher should realize that every class has different condition and they should be aware of individual differences because the students as members of the class came from different background of personality and ability. So, the teacher should be able to choose suitable method that can encourage more students to get involved in the language learning teaching process.

There are various kinds of teaching methods that have been tried,

researched, and applied by linguists and language teachers in the process of learning and teaching foreign languages. Two of them are Task-Based Learning

(TBL) and Direct Instruction (DI). By previous research and by the result of the research accomplished by the writer, both of them are good methods to be applied in teaching writing for high school students by different characteristics and result. In this case, the students with high linguistic competence are suitable taught by TBL rather than by DI. It is because they will be more creative in creating narrative text.

However, it does not mean that DI is not as good as TBL. It is proven by the students’ achievement taught by DI can also achieve satisfactory score when it is used to teach students with low linguistic competence. It is because the way of the students in writing narrative text guided by the teacher can help them. That is why DI is more suitable to be applied for students with low linguistic competence.

(26)

102

The fact has proven that actually all teaching methods are good. Either TBL or DI methods had been able to achieve satisfactory score. Therefore, it cannot be argued that a teaching method is better than others since it comes naturally in the students themselves. What should be done is how to find an

eligible method for the level of students’ linguistic competence.

5.3 Suggestions

There are some suggestions related to the previous conclusion and implication. The suggestions are:

1. It is highly suggested for language teachers to apply task-based learning (TBL) since it is able to improve students’ writing achievement.

2. It is highly suggested for language teachers to know the level of student’s linguistic competence since it significantly affects the students’ writing achievement.

3. It is suggested for language teachers to apply task-based learning (TBL) for students with high linguistic competence while direct instruction (DI) for students with low linguistic competence.

4. Teachers should realize the students’ characteristics such as their linguistic competence before choosing teaching methods. Thus, the methods applied will be matched with what they need. As the result, their brightness is able to be improved maximally.

(27)

103

REFERENCES

Allen, V.F. 1983. Techniques in Teaching Vocabulary. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, M. & Anderson, K. 2003. Text Type in English 1. Australia: Macmillan.

Ary, D. 1979. Introduction to Research. America: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Ary, D., Jacobs, C., L., Sorensen, C. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education.

America: Wadsworth.

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Integrative Approach to

Language Pedagogy (2nd Ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practice. White Plains: pearson Education.

Byrne, D. 1984. Teaching Writing Skill. London: Longman.

Caroll, A., J., Wilson, E., & Forlini, G. 2001. Writing and Grammar. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Cresswell, W., J. 2008. Educational Research. Planning, Conducting, and

Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Ohio: Pearson.

Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2006. Standar Nasional Pendidikan Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris Sekolah Menengah Pertama.(National Standard English Subject of Junior High School). Jakarta.

Djiwandono, M., S. 1996. Tes Bahasa dalam Pengajaran. Bandung: ITB.

Ellen, D.E. & Rebecca, M.V. 1997. Classroom Techniques: Foreign Languages

and English as Second Foreign Language. USA: Hourcourt Brace

Jovanivich.

Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Southwood Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Language Structure and Language Function. In Lyons, J. (ed.) New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

(28)

104

Harahap. F.S. 2009. The Effect of Content-Based Instruction and Task-Based

Language Teaching on Students’ Writing Achievement. Thesis. Medan: PPS State University of Medan.

Harmer, J. 1998. How to Teach English: An Introduction of English Language

Teaching. London: Longman.

. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd Edition. London: Longman.

Heaton, J.B. 1990. Writing English Language Test. England: Longman.

Howatt, A.P.R. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hughey, J.B. 1983. Teaching ESL Composition: Principal and Techniques: Why

write? Writing is Lifetime Skill. Newberry House Publisher.

Ki, W. W. 2000. ICT Applications in Task-Based Learning. In N. Law and et. al. 6. Changing Classrooms & Changing Schools: A Study of Good Practices

in Using ICT in Hong Kong Schools (pp: 79-91). Hong Kong.

Knapp, P. & Watkin, M. 2005. Genre, Text, Grammar. Sydney: University of New South Wales.

Lightbrown, P. M. & Spada, N. 1999. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marta, S. 2003. The Students’ Ability in Creating a Writing Composition. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: Faculty of Languages and Arts. States University of Medan.

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

Morley, D. 2007. Creative Writing. Cambridge University Press.

Murray, E. & Christison. 2011. What English Language Teachers Need to Know. Volume 2. Facilitating Learning. Roudledge: New York.

Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

(29)

105

. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Malley, J.M. & Pierce, L.V. 1996. Authentic Assessment for English Language

Learners. Practical Approaches for Teachers. Massachusetts: Addison -

Wesley Publishing Company.

Patel, F., M. & Jain, M., P. English Language Teaching. Methods, Tools, & Techniques. Jaipur: Sunrise.

Popham, J., & Eva 2003. Teknik Mengajar Secara Sistematis. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy: A Perspective Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J., C.& Renandya, W., A. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching:

An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Santoso, D., 2008. Pengaruh Pendekatan Pembelajaran dan Gaya Belajar

terhadap Keterampilan Berbicara Bahasa Inggris. Medan: Duta Azhar.

Setyaningrum, R. 2011. Task-Based Language Teaching to Teaching Writing for

7th Students. An Action Research at SMP 17 Surakarta.

Shehadeh, A. 2005. Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In Edwards, C and Willis, J (Eds). Teachers Exploring Tasks

in English Language Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sholehah, U. 2011. Improving Students’ Writing Ability Using Task-Based

Language Teaching. A Classroom Action Research at the Students’ of

Class X TKJ 1 SMKN 2 Sragen. A Thesis.

Skehan, P. 1996. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sokolik, M. 2003. Writing Skill. David Nunan (Ed.). Practical English Language

Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.

Swan, M. 2005. Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction.

Applied Linguistics, 26 (3), 376-401.

Swarts, H., Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. 1984. Designing Protocol Studies of the Writing Process: An Introduction. In R. Beach, & L. S. Bridwell (Eds),

(30)

106

New Directions in Composition Research (pp. 54–71). New York:

Guildford Press.

Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-based Learning London: Longman.

American Journal of Scientific Research. 2012. “Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.” (http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.htm). Euro Journals Publishing Inc. (pp. 162 – 168). Accessed on October, 14th, 2012. Buzan, J. “Writing Skill.” (http://www.ukans.edu/~writing). Accessed on January,

15th, 2012.

Educational Psychology. (http://en.bookfi.org). “Direct Instruction”. Categories: Pedagogy. Accessed on September, 2nd. 2012.

Ellis, R. 2006. “The Methodology of Task-based Learning”. Asian EFL Journal

Quarterly. Vol.8 (3), 19-45.

Frost, R. 2004. “A Task-based Approach.” On line Documents at (http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/methodology/task_based.shtml). (Dec.12th, 2011)

Littlewood, W. 2004. “The Task-Based Approach: Some Questions and Suggestions”. ELT Journal, 58 (4), 319-326.

Lochana, M. & Deb. G. 2006. “Task-Based Learning: Learning English without

Tears”. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly. Vol.8 (3), 140-164.

Manfred, K. ” Narrative Writing”.

(http://www.thewritingsidea.org/resources/genre/narrative.Asp.) accessed on April 12th, 2012.

Morley, C. 2005. “Planning a Writing Lesson”. (Online). Accessed on June, 4th, 2012.

Nunan, D. 2006. “Task-Based Language Teaching in Asian Context: Defining

Task”. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly. Vol.8 (3), 12-18.

Saukah, Ali. 2000. “The Teaching of Writing and Grammar in English”. Bahasa

dan seni: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, Seni dan Pengajarannya. 28(2), pp.191 – 199.

Seedhouse, P. 1999. “Combining Meaning and Form”. ELT Journal: 51, 336-344. Solares, M. E. 2006. TBLT: Challenges and Problems in an Online Course Design

for 15. “Teacher’s Development”. On Line Documents at

(1)

high and low linguistic competence in order to know which teaching method is more suitable for them in improving their achievement in writing narrative text.

There are various kinds of teaching methods that have been tried,

researched, and applied by linguists and language teachers in the process of learning and teaching foreign languages. Two of them are Task-Based Learning

(2)

102

eligible method for the level of students’ linguistic competence.

5.3 Suggestions

There are some suggestions related to the previous conclusion and implication. The suggestions are:

1. It is highly suggested for language teachers to apply task-based learning (TBL) since it is able to improve students’ writing achievement.

2. It is highly suggested for language teachers to know the level of student’s linguistic competence since it significantly affects the students’ writing achievement.

3. It is suggested for language teachers to apply task-based learning (TBL) for students with high linguistic competence while direct instruction (DI) for students with low linguistic competence.

(3)

103

Allen, V.F. 1983. Techniques in Teaching Vocabulary. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, M. & Anderson, K. 2003. Text Type in English 1. Australia: Macmillan.

Ary, D. 1979. Introduction to Research. America: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Ary, D., Jacobs, C., L., Sorensen, C. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education.

America: Wadsworth.

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Integrative Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd Ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. . 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practice.

White Plains: pearson Education.

Byrne, D. 1984. Teaching Writing Skill. London: Longman.

Caroll, A., J., Wilson, E., & Forlini, G. 2001. Writing and Grammar. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Cresswell, W., J. 2008. Educational Research. Planning, Conducting, and

Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Ohio: Pearson.

Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2006. Standar Nasional Pendidikan Mata Pelajaran

Bahasa Inggris Sekolah Menengah Pertama.(National Standard English Subject of Junior High School). Jakarta.

Djiwandono, M., S. 1996. Tes Bahasa dalam Pengajaran. Bandung: ITB.

Ellen, D.E. & Rebecca, M.V. 1997. Classroom Techniques: Foreign Languages and English as Second Foreign Language. USA: Hourcourt Brace Jovanivich.

Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Southwood Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Language Structure and Language Function. In Lyons, J. (ed.) New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

(4)

104

Harahap. F.S. 2009. The Effect of Content-Based Instruction and Task-Based Language Teaching on Students’ Writing Achievement. Thesis. Medan: PPS State University of Medan.

Harmer, J. 1998. How to Teach English: An Introduction of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.

. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd Edition. London: Longman.

Heaton, J.B. 1990. Writing English Language Test. England: Longman.

Howatt, A.P.R. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hughey, J.B. 1983. Teaching ESL Composition: Principal and Techniques: Why write? Writing is Lifetime Skill. Newberry House Publisher.

Ki, W. W. 2000. ICT Applications in Task-Based Learning. In N. Law and et. al. 6. Changing Classrooms & Changing Schools: A Study of Good Practices in Using ICT in Hong Kong Schools (pp: 79-91). Hong Kong.

Knapp, P. & Watkin, M. 2005. Genre, Text, Grammar. Sydney: University of New South Wales.

Lightbrown, P. M. & Spada, N. 1999. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marta, S. 2003. The Students’ Ability in Creating a Writing Composition. Unpublished Thesis. Medan: Faculty of Languages and Arts. States University of Medan.

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

Morley, D. 2007. Creative Writing. Cambridge University Press.

Murray, E. & Christison. 2011. What English Language Teachers Need to Know. Volume 2. Facilitating Learning. Roudledge: New York.

Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

(5)

. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Malley, J.M. & Pierce, L.V. 1996. Authentic Assessment for English Language

Learners. Practical Approaches for Teachers. Massachusetts: Addison - Wesley Publishing Company.

Patel, F., M. & Jain, M., P. English Language Teaching. Methods, Tools, & Techniques. Jaipur: Sunrise.

Popham, J., & Eva 2003. Teknik Mengajar Secara Sistematis. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy: A Perspective Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J., C.& Renandya, W., A. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Santoso, D., 2008. Pengaruh Pendekatan Pembelajaran dan Gaya Belajar terhadap Keterampilan Berbicara Bahasa Inggris. Medan: Duta Azhar. Setyaningrum, R. 2011. Task-Based Language Teaching to Teaching Writing for

7th Students. An Action Research at SMP 17 Surakarta.

Shehadeh, A. 2005. Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In Edwards, C and Willis, J (Eds). Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sholehah, U. 2011. Improving Students’ Writing Ability Using Task-Based Language Teaching. A Classroom Action Research at the Students’ of Class X TKJ 1 SMKN 2 Sragen. A Thesis.

Skehan, P. 1996. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sokolik, M. 2003. Writing Skill. David Nunan (Ed.). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.

Swan, M. 2005. Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26 (3), 376-401.

Swarts, H., Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. 1984. Designing Protocol Studies of the Writing Process: An Introduction. In R. Beach, & L. S. Bridwell (Eds),

(6)

106

New Directions in Composition Research (pp. 54–71). New York: Guildford Press.

Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-based Learning London: Longman.

15th, 2012.

Educational Psychology. (http://en.bookfi.org). “Direct Instruction”. Categories: Pedagogy. Accessed on September, 2nd. 2012.

Ellis, R. 2006. “The Methodology of Task-based Learning”. Asian EFL Journal

Quarterly. Vol.8 (3), 19-45.

Frost, R. 2004. “A Task-based Approach.” On line Documents at (http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/methodology/task_based.shtml). (Dec.12th, 2011)

Littlewood, W. 2004. “The Task-Based Approach: Some Questions and Suggestions”. ELT Journal, 58 (4), 319-326.

Lochana, M. & Deb. G. 2006. “Task-Based Learning: Learning English without

Tears”. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly. Vol.8 (3), 140-164.

Manfred, K. ” Narrative Writing”.

(http://www.thewritingsidea.org/resources/genre/narrative.Asp.) accessed on April 12th, 2012.

Morley, C. 2005. “Planning a Writing Lesson”. (Online). Accessed on June, 4th, 2012.

Nunan, D. 2006. “Task-Based Language Teaching in Asian Context: Defining

Task”. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly. Vol.8 (3), 12-18.

Saukah, Ali. 2000. “The Teaching of Writing and Grammar in English”. Bahasa dan seni: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, Seni dan Pengajarannya. 28(2), pp.191 – 199.

Seedhouse, P. 1999. “Combining Meaning and Form”. ELT Journal: 51, 336-344. Solares, M. E. 2006. TBLT: Challenges and Problems in an Online Course Design

for 15. “Teacher’s Development”. On Line Documents at

THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE ON THE STUDENTS WRITING ACHIEVEMENT.