THE USE OF SCAFFOLDING IN TEACHING WRITING : Pre-experimental Study of Grade X Students at SMK Budhi Cendekia Bandung.

(1)

The Use of Scaffolding in Teaching Writing

(Pre-experimental Study of Grade X Students at SMK Budhi Cendekia Bandung)

A Research Paper

Submitted to the English Education Department of Faculty of Language and Arts Education of UPI as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

Daud Yusuf

0706368

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

The Use of Scaffolding in Teaching Writing

Oleh

Daud Yusuf

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana Pendidikan pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Juni 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian,

(3)

PAGE OF APPROVAL

The Use of Scaffolding in Teaching Writing

Daud Yusuf

0706368

Approved by

Supervisor I,

Prof. Emi Emilia, M. Ed., Ph. D. NIP. 196609161990012001

Supervisor II,

Rojab Siti Rodliyah, S. Pd., M. Ed. NIP. 197308062002122001

Head of Department of English Education,

(4)

STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION

I hereby certify that this paper entitled “The Use of Scaffolding in Teaching Writing: Pre-Experimental Study of Grade X Students at SMK Budhi Cendekia Bandung” is completely my original work. I am fully aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from other resources and they are stated and acknowledged properly.

Bandung, June 2014

(5)

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini mengkaji penggunaan scaffolding dalam pembelajaran menulis. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah penggunaan scaffolding

berkontribusi terhadap peningkatan kemampuan siswa dalam menulis teks recount

serta mengetahui pendapat siswa mengenai penggunaan scaffolding dalam pembelajaran menulis.

Penelitian ini menggunakan desain explanatory sequential, dimana studi eksperimental digunakan sebagai fase kuantitatif diikuti studi deskriptif sebagai fase kualitatif. Dalam fase kuantitatif, 20 orang siswa terlibat sebagai sampel dalam kelompok eksperimen. Sedangkan dalam fase kualitatif, penelitian ini menggunakan analisis dokumen dan wawancara sebagai pendukung hipotesis.

Uji hipotesis menunjukan bahwa skor post-test (M = 2.35, SD = .745) lebih tinggi daripada skor pre-test (M = 2.00, SD = .649) , dengan t(19) = -2.666, p < .05,

r2 = .272. Nilai effect size menunjukkan bahwa intervensi mempenyai kontribusi yang besar terhadap peningkatan kemampuan siswa, didukung dengan hasil analisis teks siswa yang menunjukkan indikasi serupa. Hasil wawancara menunjukkan bahwa penggunaan scaffolding telah membantu siswa dalam menguasai keterampilan menulis.

(6)

ABSTRACT

The study investigates the use of scaffolding in teaching writing. It aims to investigate whether the use of scaffolding contributes to the improvement of

students’ writing performance in writing recount texts. The study is also aimed at

finding out the way students perceive the use of scaffolding in teaching writing.

The study used a sequential explanatory design. It used experimental study as quantitative strand then followed by descriptive study as qualitative strand. In quantitative phase, the study involved a class consisting of 20 students as the experimental group. The data were obtained from seven meetings of teaching program. Therefore, in qualitative phase, the study used document analysis and interview to support the hypothesis testing result.

Hypothesis testing revealed that the post-test score (M = 2.35, SD = .745) was significantly higher than the pre-test score (M = 2.00, SD = .649), in

t(19) = -2.666, p < .05, r2 = .272 in 2-tailed direction. The effect size was also considered as large (r2 > .25), which indicated that the intervention had a large

impact to the students’ score. The analyses of student texts demonstrated that the use of scaffolding in teaching writing led to the improvement of students’ writing performance. The findings of interview showed that the use of scaffolding helped students to master writing skill.

(7)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Example of scaffolded writing plan ...16

Table 2.2 The categories of teacher feedback ...19

Table 2.3 Example of recount text ...22

Table 2.4 Example of topical theme ...24

Table 2.5 Example of textual theme ...25

Table 2.6 Example of conjunctions ...26

Table 2.7 Example of material process ...27

Table 2.8 Example of mental process ...27

Table 2.9 Example of relational process ...28

Table 2.10 Example of verbal process ...28

Table 2.11 Example of behavioural process ...28

Table 2.12 Example of existential process ...29

Table 2.13 Types of circumstances ...29

Table 3.1 Research Design ...34

Table 3.2 Students’ Population ...36

Table 3.3 Research Schedule ...39

Table 3.4 Recount scoring profile ...45

Table 3.5 r square coefficient interpretation ...47

Table 4.1 Paired sample t-test ...50

Table 4.2 Text 1.1 ...51

Table 4.3 Text 1.2 ...53

Table 4.4 Text 2.1 ...56

Table 4.5 Text 2.2 ...58

Table 4.6 Text 3.1 ...61

(11)

LIST OF FIGURES

(12)

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the introduction of the study presented. It covers the background of study, research questions, purposes of the study, scope of the study, significance of this study, and clarification of terms used frequently in the present study. Besides, the last section of this chapter presents the organization of the paper.

1.1 Background of Study

Writing is an important skill to be acquired. It is considered as the most difficult skill to master. In fact, many students consider that writing is the most difficult skill to acquire since they are not well equipped with writing skill (Gibbons, 2002; Alwasilah, 2010). Writing skill can only be developed through proper instructions in the class, especially for EFL learners. However, most teachers assign students to write and grade it, but they do not concern on the process of the teaching of writing itself (Alwasilah, 2010, p. 25). As a result, students are „blind‟ with their writing. It means that students do not know of what they do in writing. In other words, they lack of informed knowledge about writing and proper ways of mastering writing skill.

As well, proper ways of teaching writing enable students to achieve their goal, particularly, in writing. Consequently, the success of teaching writing relies on its process (Dorn & Soffos, 2001; Graham, 2010; Rodgers & Rodgers, 2004). In line with its process, the teaching writing to school-aged youngsters should rest as much as possible on evidence-based practices guided by theories of writing and development (Graham, 2010, p. 126). This point is sometimes being neglected by most of teachers (Alwasilah, 2010, p. 25).

(13)

2

participating in the learning process. In addition, Vygotsky points out the notion of interaction and social support in cognitive development (Bodrova & Leong, 1998; Emilia, 2010, p. 36) as children need guidance and support provided by adult (Bruner, 2006, p. 198). The main purpose of scaffolding is to help students in learning. With regard to Vygotsky‟s constructivism theory, Bruner implied that scaffolding is a tool to assist students moving across the zone of proximal development. It has been considered that one of the key of successful learning is the existence of scaffolding in the teaching and learning process (Acevedo & Rose, 2006; Laksmi, 2006; Burch, 2007; Harders & Horarik, 2008; Rizai & Rezaii, 2011).

There were some researches on the use of scaffolding in teaching learning process, which specifically showed how scaffolding was particularly influential for students‟ development in learning. A study on Reading (and Writing) to learn (Acevedo & Rose, 2006), which used the application of scaffolding, resulted on average literacy gains that were consistently twice to four times expected rates of development. Burch (2007) provides a report on the positive impact of scaffolding young children‟s acquisition of literacy in primary grades. A study on scaffolding literacy approach (Harders & Horarik, 2008) reflected on the implications of a language centred pedagogy for building students‟ capacities to read and write literate discourse.

Moreover, some studies on applying scaffolding based strategy on EFL context resulted in improvement of students‟ writing skill. The use of scaffolding in process approach (Laksmi, 2006) improved students in mastering writing skill. Furthermore, scaffolding within the sociocultural framework has resulted the positive effect of on EFL students‟ writing ability (Rizai & Rezaii, 2011).

(14)

3

1.2 Research Questions

The study is conducted to address the presented research questions.

1. Does the use of scaffolding in teaching writing lead to the improvement of students‟ writing performance?

2. What are the students‟ responses toward the use of scaffolding?

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of present study is to investigate whether the use of scaffolding contributes to the improvement of students‟ writing performance in writing recount texts and to find out the way students perceive the use of scaffolding in teaching writing.

1.4 Scope of the Study

The study limited the investigation into two issues. The first issue is the use of scaffolding in teaching writing, particularly in the teaching of recount text, which concerned on students‟ writing performance as the result. Furthermore, the second issue is the students‟ responses on perceiving the use of scaffolding in teaching writing recount text in grade ten students of a vocational high school.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The result of this study is expected to give a good contribution to the theoretical, practical, and professional benefits.

Firstly, in terms of theoretical aspects, the result of the study is expected to be used as the contribution towards the research about scaffolding in teaching writing particularly in teaching recount writing.

(15)

4

teaching writing. Furthermore, the results of this study present the alternative techniques of teaching recount writing for those who interested in teaching English.

Lastly, in terms of professional aspects, this study is expectedly advantageous for the teacher of English to improve the quality of teaching and learning, create a more collaborative classroom environment, and develop new ideas in improving the process of English learning.

1.6 Clarification of Terms

It is necessary to define operational terms used in this study to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation. This study entitled „the use of scaffolding in teaching writing‟.

The „use’ term in this study refers to the application of the model proposed. Furthermore, „scaffolding’ is the theory applied as treatment in this study. The model is aimed at helping students in comprehending basic literacy skills, that is to say, writing as the focus in this study. In addition, „scaffold/scaffolding’ term refers to support, instructions, or guidance which teacher gives. „Scaffolding’ is articulated into various forms such as instructions and model.

The „teaching writing’ term consists of set of activities to develop students‟ skill in writing. The goal of teaching writing is „students’ writing performance’ as measurable factor. Thus, „writing performance’ is defined as students‟ achievement and understanding based on writing assessment. The „performance’

term sometimes interchanged with the term „ability’, therefore it is measured by students‟ grade on the assessment given.

1.7 Organization of the Paper

(16)

5

study, a brief explanation of the terms used in this study, and the organization of the paper.

Theoretical foundation is discussed in chapter two. It consists of discussion dealing with the nature of writing, teaching writing, and the process of teaching writing. It also discusses the theory and practise of the use of scaffolding in teaching writing. An explanation of recount text is also presented in this chapter, as text type used in the presented study. Furthermore, a brief of explanation of Systemic Functional Grammar as a tool of analysing recount text is presented in this chapter.

Chapter three presents the conceptual framework of methodology, which covers the types of this study, formulation of problems, research design, hypothesis, data collection technique, research procedures, and data analysis.

Chapter four deals with findings and discussion of the study, described under the procedures that emerged from the data, and discussed under the research question or the data collection techniques that are used.

(17)

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the methodology of the present study. It comprises the formulation of problems in form of research questions. In addition, an explanation of research design consisting of research variables, and population and sample is discussed. This chapter further elaborates the hypotheses, data collection, research procedures, and data analysis of the presented study.

3.1 Formulation of Problems

As mentioned in the introduction, this study was conducted to answer presented research questions.

1. Does the use of scaffolding in teaching writing lead to the improvement of students’ writing performance?

2. What are students’ responses toward the scaffolded writing strategy?

3.2 Research Design

The study used a sequential explanatory design (Creswell, 2008). The sequential explanatory design combined quantitative and qualitative approach (Bryman, 2006). It started with the collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by subsequent collection and analysis of qualitative data. The focus of the study was on quantitative strand, whereas qualitative strand was aimed at supporting the result of hypothesis testing (Bryman, 2006; Creswell, 2008).

(18)

34

Pre-experimental design, in addition, has no external validity (Creswell, 2008). Therefore, this study limited the generalisation to the target population. This study attempts to provide a justification of established theory, in this case, scaffolding which is proposed as variable of the study (see further section).

In addition, pre-experimental, or one group experimental design, often referred as a quantitative case study (Watt & Berg, 2002, p. 206). The results may shows a certain phenomenon in a certain population through quantitative approach. When the direction is supported by the results of previous studies, the researcher can confidently draw the conclusions. However, when it has a reversed direction, the results may suggest hypotheses, which later can be tested under more controlled circumstances (Watt & Berg, 2002).

Furthermore, following table shows the illustration of research design of the study presented.

Table 3.1 Research Design (Creswell, 2008)

Time

Group Pre-test Intervention Post-test

Experiment µ1 x µ2

(19)

35

In qualitative phase, the study used analysis of student texts and interview. Analysis of student texts was used in order to support the result of hypothesis testing. Students’ texts were taken during the teaching program, in the pre-test and post-test. Furthermore, interview was conducted in order to find a deep investigation of students’ response and attitude toward the use of scaffolding in teaching writing. The interview was accomplished in form of group- focused interview. It was conducted after the teaching programs.

3.2.1 Research Variables

The variables in this study are categorized into two variables, namely independent and dependent variable.

Firstly, there was the program in the use of scaffolding in teaching writing as independent variable. Scaffolding was the treatment or manipulated variable. The aim was to investigate the effect of scaffolding on the dependent variable (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993).

Secondly, the dependent variable was students’ performance of writing recount text. The dependent variable was a variable that was observed and measured to determine the effect of the independent variable (Creswell, 2008).

3.2.2 The Population and Sample

The participants of this study were the tenth grade students of one private vocational high school in Bandung in the academic year of 2013/2014. The selection of participants was due to the following reasons. First, they had already studied English in schools. Second, it was possible to carry out the investigation, in which writing was taught for ten grader students. Third, the researcher was a teacher in the selected school, so it was viable to conduct the study. Last, the participants were available.

(20)

36

The business and management major had two skill programs, which were office administration and accounting program. Furthermore, the information communication technology major had one skill program consisting of multimedia. Then, the population data showed that there were 67 students of the tenth grade students. The data are presented in Table 3.2 as follow.

Table 3.2 Students’ Population

Major Program Class Number

Business and Management

Office Administration AP 14

Accounting AK 20 number of students taken as the sample was 20 students.

With regard to the illustration of the change between pre-test and post-test writing, the presented study used purposive sampling method (Creswell, 2008). Three student texts in pre-test and three student texts in post-test were used, in which there were two student texts from low achiever, two student texts from middle achiever, and two student text from high achiever students respectively which is grouped from the pre-test result. Hence, there were six student texts taken in analysis.

In order to find out the students’ responses, purposive sampling method (Creswell, 2008) was also used. There were nine students involved in the interview. It consisted of three high achiever, three middle achiever, and three low achiever students on treatment class based on post-test result.

3.3 Hypothesis

(21)

37

hypothesis to state the prediction of the research outcome (Creswell, 2008). Therefore, the hypothesis was formulated as follows:

H0: µ1 = µ2

Null hypothesis (H0) implied the use of scaffolding results no difference in

students’ writing performance before and after intervention. It failed to differentiate the student’s ability. Treatment was considered effective if null hypothesis was rejected (Creswell, 2008).

3.4 Data Collections

To obtain the data, there were two instruments used in this study. The first instrument was students’ writing test in which students were asked to write recount text based on the topic selected by the teacher. The second instrument was conducting the interview.

3.4.1 Writing Tests

Writing tests were used to measure students’ writing performance of writing recount texts. Writing tests were employed to the experimental group twice, in the first session (as pre-test) and the last session (as post-test) of teaching phase. In the beginning, students were given a diagnostic writing to collect the data about their initial writing ability. The tests contained a task where students were asked to write a recount story based on their experiences in forty minutes. The instruments can be seen in Appendix B.

3.4.2 Interview

(22)

38

Interview was conducted in order to find a deep investigation of students’ response and attitude toward the use of scaffolding in teaching writing. The interview was accomplished in form of group-focused interview. It was conducted after the teaching programs. Semi- structured interview has been applied since it allowed the researcher to respond to the situation at the time, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic (Nunan, 1992).

The interview schedule contains several open-ended questions to make students’ answer in line with the focus of the study. Generally, the interview consists of questions related to (1) students’ personal feelings, attitude, and goals; (2) the sensory nature of stimulus; (3) the background or setting of stimulus; and (4) students’ learning experiences as suggested by Harnad (1982, cited in Kusumandasari, 2012). The interview schedule is available in Appendix E.

3.5 Research Procedures

The research procedures of this study were preparing the lesson plan, administering pre-test, teaching program (interventio n), administering post-test, and conducting the interview, which elaborated as follows.

3.5.1 Preparing the Lesson Plan

The instrument used in this research for treatment purposes was lesson plan, which was designed for seven meetings. The lesson plan was developed to suit the curriculum for vocational high school (See Appendix A for the lesson plan). Recount text was selected, as it was appropriate with the basic competence, which was being taught. Recount text was used to tell something happened in the past (Gerot & Wignell, 1995). The lesson plan, furthermore, was applied to the intervention session (teaching program).

3.5.2 Administering Pre-test

(23)

39

performance in writing recount texts before the intervention. This test comprised an essay composition test in which students were asked to write a recount text based on their personal experience. In addition, the instrumentation and example of students’ pre-test can be seen in Appendix B.

3.5.3 Teaching Program

Teaching program as the intervention began after conducting the pre-test as diagnostic writing. The intervention in this study implemented the scaffolding in teaching writing in the classroom. As previously stated, the intervention was given to the treatment group in seven meetings. It was done in two cycles of the process of teaching writing, i.e. prewriting, drafting, and revising phases, and further the cycle went back to the prewriting phase respectively.

The prewriting phase involved class presentation, which emphasized the use of bridging, contextualizing, modelling, and offering explanations. Furthermore, the phase of drafting involved students’ writing practices both in-group and independently, which emphasized the use of schema building and iterative practise. Likewise, the revising phase involved some activities done both in- group and individually, which emphasized the use of developing metacognition and feedback scaffolds. Furthermore, the research schedule was conducted as follows.

Table 3.3 Research Schedule

Date Session Activity Description

Feb 19, 2014 Pre-test Feb 26, 2014 2 Implementation of modelling

and offering explanation

Class presentation, pre-writing phase Feb 27, 2014 3 Implementation of schema

building and iterative practices

Drafting

Mar 5, 2014 4 Implementation of developing metacognition and feedback

Revising

Cycle 2

Mar 6, 2014 5 Implementation of bridging, contextualizing, modelling, and offering explanation

(24)

40

Date Session Activity Description

Mar 19, 2014 6 Implementation of schema building and iterative practices

Drafting

Mar 20, 2014 7 Implementation of developing metacognition and feedback

Revising

Mar 26, 2014 Post-test

In addition, the teaching program is elaborated as following steps.

Step 1: the implementation of bridging and contextualizing

First step was the implementation of bridging and contextualizing. As discussed in chapter two, bridging and contextualizing might involve some activities, as suggested by Hammond (2001), Gibbons (2002), Derewianka (2003), and Emilia (2010), to explore students’ experience. The activities involved providing pictures or videos related to the topic given, providing discussion, guessing the content, and introducing relevant vocabulary. The pictures used in this activity should be meaningful and close to the students’ daily life.

In first meeting, some of “travel destination” pictures, and a documentary video about “travelling” were presented. Furthermore, providing discussion related to the topic was able to extend students’ understanding towards the topic. Teacher formulated several questions and let students discuss the topic, such as “What do you think about this place?, Did you ever go to the place?, Where did you go in

the holiday?”. Some recount texts were introduced to the students. Teacher let students guess the content of the text from its title. Students were encouraged to read aloud the text. Some relevant vocabularies in text were introduced and explored in order to give students opportunities in developing some simple understanding before they use complex discourse.

(25)

41

In addition, the use of bridging and contextualizing were mostly emphasized in first session and fifth session of teaching program. In the first session, the questioning activities were mostly used to invite students’ participation. Teacher had more control in this session. However, in the fifth session, the questions were developed by the students, which mean students took more control over the classroom activities.

Step 2: the implementation of offering explanation and modelling

Second step was the implementation of offering explanation, and modelling. As suggested by Knapp & Watkins (2005) and Emilia (2010). These types of scaffolding involved some activities such as read the text model, familiarize the students with the function and social context of the text, explain the schematic structure of the text, present an overview of grammatical features of the text, and use text model as a cloze exercise. There were two recount texts introduced in the second session entitled “My Holiday” and “Picnic near the River”. In the fifth session, some of texts from prior session such as “My Holiday”, “My Travelling to Bali”, “Trip to Anyer”, and “Birthday Surprise” were presented. The texts were discussed in terms of function, schematic structure, and grammatical features. Students further practiced to identify the schematic structure of the texts, find the main idea of the paragraph on the texts, and identify the past simple verb on the texts. Teacher provided a worksheet relating past simple to familiarize students with the linguistic features of recount in the end of meeting.

(26)

42

check students’ understanding of the recount text in general before they moved to the drafting phase.

Step 3: The implementation of schema building and iterative practices

Third step was the implementation of schema building and iterative practise. In this stage, teacher decided the topic for students’ writing (Gibbons, 2002). Students were grouped in to five groups (a group of four students). Teacher let the students discuss what they were going to write within the group as suggested by Emilia (2010). In order to apply schema building, a scaffolded writing plan was also used in this session, in which it used author language of the previous text to produce a new text (Axford, Harders, & Wise; 2009). Students were asked to create the framework of their writing plan within the group. In the end of session, teacher and students create a sample text recount collaboratively (Derewianka, 2003). Students use more than one text model in this step. This step was applied in the third and sixth session of teaching program. In the third session of program, mid and high achiever students could reconstruct the text model properly. In the sixth session of teaching program, almost all students could produce a new text based on writing plan. Some of them (students in high achiever group) could produce a new text without a writing plan.

Step 4: The implementation of developing metacognition and feedback

(27)

43

This step was applied in the fourth and seventh session of teaching program. In the fourth session, only students from high achiever group were actively to ask their friends to do a pair checking. Some of them were confused with the instructions, and some of them were not finishing their draft. However, in the seventh session, students were familiar with the instructions compared to the fourth session. Most of students could check their friends’ work, which indicated that they began to develop their metacognition ability in writing. They understood about their errors in writing and they knew the correct form. They could give feedback such as questioning and praising, but only high achiever students could give evaluative and instructional comments on their peer’s writing.

Likewise, it can be summarized that the use of scaffolding in teaching writing is useful in improving students’ understanding. It is supported by students’ score which proceeded by statistical procedure. In terms of writing performance, sample texts were taken from three students in pre-test and post-test, which further elaborated in the chapter four.

3.5.4 Administering Post-test

After the teaching program was done for seven meetings, the post-test was administered to experimental group at the end of the program. It aimed to find out the students’ writing performance in writing recount texts after the intervention. This test comprised an essay composition test as same as pre-test in which students were asked to write a recount text based on their personal experience. The example of students’ post-test can be seen in Appendix B.

3.5.5 Conducting Interview

(28)

44

researcher to respond to the situation at the time, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic (Nunan, 1992).

The interview schedule contains several open-ended questions to make students’ answer in line with the focus of the study. Generally, the interview consists of questions related to (1) students’ personal feelings, attitude, and goals; (2) the sensory nature of stimulus; (3) the background or setting of stimulus; and (4) students’ learning experiences as suggested by Harnad (1982, cited in Kusumandasari, 2012). The interview schedule is available in Appendix E.

There were nine students from three different levels of achievement involved, i.e. three from low, three from mid, and three from high achiever level. It was conducted informally after the teaching programs. The interview was conducted in Bahasa Indonesia (students’ first language) so that students could widely express their responses toward the use of scaffolding. The interview transcription is available on the Appendix F.

3.6 Data Analysis

As an explanatory sequential design study, the data analysis involved two phases of analysis, that is, analysis of quantitative and qualitative strand (Bryman, 2006). Quantitative strand involved scoring technique and hypothesis testing using paired sample t-test. Furthermore, qualitative strand involved analysis of student texts and interview results.

3.6.1 Scoring Technique

The test contained a task where students were asked to write a recount text story based on their experiences in forty minutes. The data were acquired to measure the ability of students’ recount text writing. The task was conducted in the beginning and last session of the teaching program.

(29)

45

numeric score based on criteria in accordance to the text type being assessed, that is, recount text as shown in following table.

Table 3.4 Recount Scoring Profile (Hyland, 2004, p. 231)

Score Content Structure Language

4

(excellent)

 Event explicitly stated  Clearly documents

(30)

46

3.6.2 Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing involved the analysis of data on pre-test and post-test. Pre-test was administered in the beginning session of teaching program, while post-test was administered in the end session of teaching program. Both pre-test and post-test were an essay composition assignment, in which students were asked to write a recount text based on their experience.

Furthermore, the first step in analysing the pre-test and post-test data was analysing the normality of distribution. In order to conduct a parametric test, both pre-test and post-test data had to meet the assumption of normal distribution. One sample Kolsmogorov Smirnov of non-parametric test was used to test the normality of distribution. The calculation was done using IBM SPSS Statistics 20 (see Appendix C for the result). The data was normal if the significant value of one sample Kolsmogorov Smirnov test were higher than the level of confidence, that is, 0.05.

The second step in analysing the pre-test and post-test data was conducting the paired-sample t-test, in case the data met the assumption of normal distribution. Paired sample t-test was used to measure the difference of students’ writing performance. Moreover, paired-sample t-test was used because only one group was involved on the intervention. The calculation was done using IBM SPSS Statistics 20, and presented in chapter four.

In case the difference was significant, effect size, thus, was calculated to measure the impact of the intervention to the treatment. Effect size used was r2 coefficient (Coolidge, 2000). SPSS did not calculate effect size automatically. Therefore, effect size was calculated using the equation as follows.

(31)

47

where,

r2 = effect size

= obtained t value

= degree of freedom

Likewise, the coefficient is interpreted as following table.

Table 3.5 r square Coefficient Interpretation (Coolidge, 2000)

Effect Size Value

Small .01

Medium .09

Large .25

3.6.3 Analysis of Student Texts

Analysis of student texts was used in order to support the result of hypothesis testing. Students’ texts were taken during the teaching program, in the pre-test and post-test. Students’ texts were first analysed using Hyland’s (2004) scoring profile of recount text.

First, the text were analysed in terms of structure, which analysing the availability of orientation, sequence of events and re-orientation or evaluation (which is realised by system of theme). Second, the text were analysed in terms of content, which covers the availability of events, personal comments, participants (which further realised from the system of transitivity). Third, the text were analysed in terms of language usage, which covers the control of language use, spelling and grammar, and some mechanics/techniques of writing. The style and tone were also analysed, which is realised by the modality system.

(32)

48

ideational and interpersonal meta- functions (Eggins, 1994; Halliday, 1994; Gerot & Wignell, 1995; Emilia, 2011; 2014). Analysis of student texts can be seen in Appendix D.

3.6.4 Analysis of Interview

There are several steps used in analysing the data from interview, i.e. transcribing and/or reviewing data, and analysing all interview data (Seidman, 2006). The first step was transcribing the data. The data from the interview were transcribed to ease the researcher processing the data. The second step was categorizing, in which the data from the interview were categorized based on the responses toward the use of each type of scaffolding proposed. The final step was discussing the data to find the answer of the research question. The transcription of interview data is available on Appendix F.

3.7 Concluding Remark

(33)

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

The following chapter concludes the result of presented study and covers the suggestions concerning the study presented.

5.1 Conclusions

This section is aimed at summing up overall chapter into some conclusions to get clear description about the effectiveness of the use of scaffolding in teaching writing and students’ response toward the use of scaffolding in teaching writing.

Hypothesis testing revealed that post-test score (M = 2.35, SD = .745) is significantly higher than pre-test score (M = 2.00, SD = .649) , in t(19) = -2.666,

p < .05, r2 = .272 in 2-tailed direction. The effect size is also considered as large (r2 > .25), which indicates that the intervention had a large impact to the students’ score. The result was significant at p < .05. It means that null- hypothesis is rejected.

In addition, the analyses of student texts imply that the use of scaffolding in

teaching writing leads to the improvement of students’ writing performance, not only in terms of score, but also in terms of its schematic structure, content, and language. Students write recount schematic structure in a better organisation. The content is improved, in which students are able to more properly depict the events. In terms of the use of language, error in grammar, vocabulary and spelling, and punctuation frequently occurred. Moreover, students use more proper style and tone after being scaffolded in writing. Students, furthermore, write recount text more purposefully and they can convey the context of recount text properly.

To conclude, both hypothesis testing and analysis of students text obviously answer the first research question proposed, whether the use of scaffolding in

(34)

73

guarantee students to get better score achievement, and achieve better writing ability.

The findings of interview demonstrated that scaffolding gives positive contribution in students’ understanding development. Bridging and contextualizing help students in identifying and engaging the whole lesson. Furthermore, offering explanation helps students in understanding the content of the lesson. Modelling provides scheme building, which helps students to organize their writing. Moreover, scaffolding also enables students to comprehend complex ideas into an easy and understandable concept in accordance with their level. Iterative practice helps students to experience the learning in various mode, in which the concept is delivered through various way. In addition, developing metacognition enables students to measure their understanding. To finish, feedback scaffolds students to identify their own errors in writing.

In conclusion, scaffolding is considered important in learning. Students feel that scaffolding helps them to master writing skill. Hence, scaffolding (Bruner, 1978)

is a ‘real’ tool for the students to enable them move across the ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978).

5.2 Suggestions

Having seen the result of this study, the researcher suggests some positive recommendations that can be possibly considered. Furthermore, the suggestions are presented as follows:

(35)

74

also need to be conducted, to cover whole aspects of literacy so that the scope of study can also cover receptive skills.

(36)

REFERENCES

Acevedo, C. & Rose, D. (2006). Closing the gap and accelerating learning in the middle years of schooling. Literacy learning: the middle years. vol. 14, no. 2.

Acevedo, C. & Rose, D. (2007). Reading (and writing) to learn. PEN 157. Primary English Teaching Association.

Alwasilah, C. (2010). Language, culture, and education: A portrait of contemporary Indonesia. Bandung: Andira

Anderson, M., & Anderson, K. (1997). Text types in English 1. Mmelbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

Axford, B., Harders, P., & Wise. (2009). Scaffolding literacy: An integrated and sequential approach to teaching reading, spelling and writing. Victoria: ACER Press.

Badan Nasional Standar Pendidikan (2013). Standar isi Kurikulum 2013. Jakarta: Depdikbud.

Bodrova, E. & Leong., D. J. (1998). Scaffolding emergent writing in the zone of proximal development. Literacy teaching and learning. Vol 3 (2) pp. 1 – 18.

Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by principles. New York: Pearson Education.

Brown, A.L., Brandsford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering and understanding. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognitive development (Vol. 3, pp. 77-166). NY: John Wiley. Bruner, J. S. (1977). Early social interaction and language acquisition. in H. R. Schaffer (Ed.). Studies in infant-mother interaction (pp. 271-289). London: Academic Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. in Sinclair A., Jarvelle, R., J., & Levelt, W. J. M., (Ed.) The child’s concept of language. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bruner, J. S. & Watson, R. (1983). Child’s talk: learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(37)

76

Burch, (2005). A study examining the impact of scaffolding young children’s acquisition of literacy in primary grades. A dissertation. the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University Ana Agricultural and Mechanical College.

Bryman, A. (2006) Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Byram, M. (2004). Genre and genre-based teaching. The Routledge Encycopledia

of Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 234 – 237). London: Routledge. Chang, K. E., Chen, I. D., & Sung, Y. T. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to

enhance text comprehension and summarization. The journal of experimental education Vol 71 (1) pp. 5 - 23

Coolidge, F. L. (2000). Statistics: gentle introduction. London: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed

method approaches. London: Sage Publications.

Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Newton: PETA.

Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and issues in genre-based approach. SAGE RELC Journal.

Dewi, M. N. S., (2013). Scaffolding provided by a teacher in teaching news item text. S1 thesis. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.

Dorn, L. J. & Soffos, C. (2001). Scaffolding young writers. Portland: Stenhouse Publisher.

Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Printer Publisher, Ltd.

Emilia, E., Hermawan, B., & Tati, D. (2008). Pendekatan genre based approach dalam kurikulum Bahasa Inggris tahun 2006: penelitian tindakan kelas di sebuah SMP di Bandung. Laporan Penelitian Tindakan Kelas Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris FPBS UPI.

Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching writing: developing critical learners. Bandung: Rizqi Press.

Emilia, E. (2011). Teaching academic writing: A critical genre-based approach in an efl context. Saarbrucken, Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing. Emilia, E., & Christie, F. (2013). Factual genres in English: learning to write,

(38)

77

Emilia, E. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya. Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing.

University of Michigan Press.

Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. In American Psychologist, Vol 34(10), October 1979, pp. 906 – 911.

Flynn, N., & Stainthorp, R. (2006) The learning and teaching of reading and writing. Chicester: Whurr Publisher Ltd.

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Gerrot, L. & Wignell, P. (1995). Making sense of functional grammar. Australia: Gerd Stabler Anpodean Educational Enterprises.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing. in P. Hogan (Ed.). Cambridge encyclopaedia of language sciences. (pp. 848 – 851). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grami, M. A. (2005). The Effect of Teachers’ Written Feedback on ESL Students’

Perception: A Study at a Saudi ESL University Level Context. Retrieved

January 26th, 2014 from

http://research.ncl.ac.uk/ARECLS/vol2_documents/Grami/grami.htm

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Hammond, J. (2001). Scaffolding, teaching and learning in language and literacy education. Newton: PETA.

Harders, P. & Horarik, M. M. (2008). Scaffolding literacy and the year 9 boys: Developing a language centred literacy pedagogy. In TESOL in Context December 2008. Vol 18 No. 2, pp. 4 – 21.

Harmer, J. (2004). The practise of English language teaching. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Ltd.

(39)

78

Hyland, K. (2004). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing. Harlow: Pearson Ed. Ltd. Johnson, A. P. (2008). Teaching reading and writing: A guidebook for tutoring

and remediating students. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Knapp, P. & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar: technologies for teaching

and assessing writing. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Kusumandasari, N. (2012). Teaching recount texts: using learning journals and students’ perceptions. S1 Thesis. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.

Laksmi, E. D. (2006). “Scaffolding” students’ writing in EFL class: implementing

process approach. TEFLIN Journal, Volume 17, Number 2, August 2006. Universitas Negeri Malang. 144 – 156

Martin, J. R. (2009). Text in the middle school. London: Equinox.

Martin, J.R., Rose, D. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy. Continuing Discourse on Language. London: Continuum.

McKenzie, J. (1999). Scaffolding for success. [Electronic version] Beyond technology, questioning, research and the information literate school

community. Retrieved October 12, 2013, from

http://fno.org/dec99/scaffold.html

Means, B. & Lindner, L. (1998). Teaching writing in middle school: tips, tricks, and techniques. Colorado: Teacher Ideas Press.

Mulianda, M.A. (2009). Teacher feedback in writing: A case study at an Islamic senior high school in Bandung. UPI Bandung: An unpublished paper Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York:

Routledge.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research method in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(40)

79

Languages and ESOL (pp. 55-63). Retrieved January 20, 2014 from

http://www.tesolanz.org.nz/

Rodgers, A. & Rodgers, E. M. (2004). The role of scaffolding in teac hing. In Rodgers & Rodgers (Ed.). Scaffolding literacy instructions: strategies for K-4 classrooms (pp. 1 – 11). Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Roehlr, L. R. & Clanton, D. J. (1997). Scaffolding: a powerful tool in social constructivist classroom. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (1997). Scaffolding students learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge: Brookline Books, Inc.

Rose, D., et. al. (2003). Scaffolding academic reading and writing at KOORI centre. The Australian journal of indigenous education. Vol. 32, 2003. Rose, D. (2004). Sequencing and pacing of the hidden curriculum: How

Indigenous learners are left out the chain. in Muller, J., et. al. (Eds.).

Reading Bernstein, Researching Bernstein. London: Routledge Falmer, 91-107.

Sam, C. (2005).Purposeful scaffolding: beyond modelling and thinking aloud

[online]. Available at:

http://conference.nie.edu.sg/paper/Converted%20Pdf/ab00655.pdf

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H.

Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189-215).

Sedgwick, F. (1999). Thinking about literacy: Young children and their language. London: Routledge.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (3rd Edition). New York: Teacher College Press.

Van der Stuyf, (2002). Scaffolding as a teaching strategy. [online]. Available at:

http://www.condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu/

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

(41)

80

Watt, J. H. & Van den Berg, S. (2002). Research method for communication science. [Online]. Retrieved January 20, 2014 from

http://www.cios.org/readbook/rmcs/rmcs.htm

Williams, J. D. (2003). Preparing to teach writing: research, theory, and practices. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Wilson, P. & Glazier, T. F. (2009). the least you should know about English writing skills. Tenth Edition. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

THE USE OF SCAFFOLDING IN TEACHING WRITING : Pre-experimental Study of Grade X Students at SMK Budhi Cendekia Bandung.

The Use of Scaffolding in Teaching Writing

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

The Use of Scaffolding in Teaching Writing

PAGE OF APPROVAL

STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION

ABSTRAK

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

REFERENCES