CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
F. Procedure of Collection Data
The researcher used Pre-test before treatment and last is Posttest.
The researcher collected the data by giving a test to the students. The test technique was one of the data collecting techniques in a quantitative research. In collected the data, the researcher used the following procedures:
a. The researcher gave pre-test to the students, the researcher asked the students to made their own recount text about their last holiday
b. The researcher applied the treatment by using Web Blog. There are 4 meetings for the treatment.
First meeting:
1. The researcher explained about Web Blog and how to use Web Blog
2. The researcher explained what are the advantages and disadvantages of Web Blog to students
3. The researcher asked the students to make their own Web Blog 4. The researcher explained a little about what will the researcher
and students do using the Web Blog during the research
5. The researcher gave a link about recount text material that will be explained for the next meeting to the students
Second meeting:
a. The researcher explained the definition of recount text by using Web Blog
b. The researcher explained the generic structure of the recount text by using Web Blog
c. The researcher explained the purpose of the recount text by using Web Blog
d. The researcher explained the language structure of the recount text by using Web Blog
e. The researcher explained the grammar used in the recount text by using Web Blog
Third meeting:
1. The researcher and students review the material that has been explained in the previous meeting
2. The researcher continues the explanation of the grammar that used in the recount text
3. The researcher showed and explained the examples of recount texts to students
4. Students listen to examples of recount texts that have been prepared by the researcher
5. Students observed the social functions, structures and language features of recount text.
6. Students asked to the researcher about the new vocabulary, structure and also the language features contained in the example of recount text
7. The researcher asked students to comment on the Web Blog page that has been shared
Forth meeting:
1. The researcher and students review the material that has been explained in the previous meeting
2. The researcher gave students another example from a recount text
3. The researcher and students discuss together about the recount text given by the researcher
4. Students observed social functions, structures and the language features of recount text
5. Students asked to the researcher about the new vocabulary, structure and also the language features contained in the example recount text
6. The researcher asked the students to make their own recount text
c. After giving treatment, the researcher gave post-test to the students.
The researcher asked the students to make their own recount text about their last holiday and then the researcher asked the students to post it to their own blog.
d. The researcher analyzed and scored the data by using the following criteria. Assessment rubric used in this paper is based on (Jacobs et al., 1981, as cited in Akhid Lutfian, 2011). The writing assessment rubric is shown below:
Table 3.2 Jacobs et al. scoring profile (1981) Aspect of
Writing Level Criteria
Content
30-27 Excellent to very good: knowledgeable, substantive, thorough development of thesis, relevant to assigned topic 26-22 Good to average: some knowledge of subject, adequate
range, limited development of thesis, mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail
21-17 Fair to poor: limited knowledge of subject, little substance, inadequate development of topic
16-13 Very poor: does not show knowledge of subject, non-substantive, not pertinent, not enough to evaluate
Organization
20-18 Excellent to very good: fluent expressions, ideas clearly stated/supported, succinct, well-organized, logical, sequencing, cohesive
17-14 Good to average: somewhat choppy, loosely organized but main ideas stand out, limited support, logical but incomplete sequencing
13-10 Fair to poor: non-fluent, ideas confused or disconnected, lacks logical sequencing and development
9-7 Very poor: does not communicate, no organization, OR not enough to evaluate
Vocabulary
20-18 Excellent to very good: sophisticated range, effective words/idiom choice and usage, word form mastery, appropriate register
17-14 Good to average: adequate range, occasional errors of words/idiom form, choice, usage but meaning not obscured
13-10 Fair to poor: limited range, frequent errors of words/idiom form, choice, usage, meaning confused or obscured 9-7 Very poor: essentially translation, little knowledge of
English vocabulary, idioms, word form, OR not enough to evaluate
Language Use
25-22 Excellent to very good: effective complex construction, few error of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, preposition
21-18 Good to average: effective but simple construction, minor problem in complex construction, several errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, preposition, but meaning seldom obscured
17-11 Fair to poor: major problems in simple/complex construction, frequent error of negation, agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, preposition and/or fragments, run-ons, deletions, meaning confused or obscured
10-15 Very poor: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules, dominated by errors, does not communicate, or not enough to evaluate
Mechanics
5 Excellent to very good: demonstrates mastery of conventions, few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing
4 Good to average: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but meaning not obscured
3 Fair to poor: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, poor hand writing, meaning confused or obscured
2 Very poor: no mastery of conventions, dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, hand writing illegible, OR not enough to evaluate