xv
ABSTRACT
Dorothya, Lucyana. (2008). The Contribution of Students’ Reading Habits of English Texts towards Writing Cohesion. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University.
This thesis analyzed the students’ reading habits of English texts and their writing cohesion. It studied the extent to which students reading habits of English texts indicated by motivation to read, types of reading texts, and reading strategies contribute to writing cohesion. There were two problems in this research. 1) What are the students’ reading habits of English texts, indicated by motivation to read, types of reading texts, and reading strategies? 2) To what extent do students’ reading activities contribute to writing cohesion?
The method used in the research was correlational research method. There were two instruments in the research. They were a questionnaire and the students’ final papers. The participants of the research were Writing VI students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University of the 2004/2005 academic year. There were thirty-two students selected as the subjects of the research.
The research findings revealed that the students had good integrative motivation to read non- fiction texts with different reading strategies applied to different types of reading texts. It also revealed that motivation to read and types of reading non- fiction texts gave positive and significant contribution towards writing cohesion. However, reading strategies did not give positive and significant contribution towards writing cohesion.
xvi
ABSTRAK
Dorothya, Lucyana. (2008). The Contribution of Students’ Reading Habits of English Texts towards Writing Cohesion. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Skripsi ini menganalisa kebiasaan mahasiswa dalam membaca teks berbahasa Inggris dan penggunaan kohesi dalam tulisan mereka. Skripsi ini mengkaji tentang sejauh mana kebiasaan membaca, yang diindikasikan oleh motivasi membaca, jenis teks yang dibaca, dan cara membaca berkontribusi terhadap kohesi dalam tulisan mereka. Ada dua rumusan masalah yang diajukan dalam skripsi ini. 1) Apa saja yang menjadi kebiasaan membaca mahasiswa yang diindikasikan oleh motivasi membaca, jenis teks yang dibaca, dan cara membaca? 2) Sejauh mana kebiasaan-kebiasaan membaca tersebut berkontribusi terhadap kohesi dalam tulisan mereka?
Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian korelasional. Ada dua jenis instrumen yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini, yaitu kuisioner dan tugas akhir mahasiswa. Partisipan dalam penelitian ini adalah para mahasiswa universitas Sanata Dharma tahun ajaran 2004/2005 program studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris semester enam kelas Writing VI. Ada tiga puluh dua mahasiswa yang menjadi subyek penelitian ini.
Temuan-temuan dalam penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa para mahasiswa memiliki motivasi integrative yang baik dalam membaca teks non- fiksi dengan menerapkan cara-cara membaca yang berbeda-beda terhadap jenis teks yang berbeda pula. Dalam penelitian ini juga ditemukan bahwa motivasi membaca teks non- fiksi memberikan kontribusi yang positif dan signifikan terhadap kohesi dalam tulisan mereka. Tetapi, cara membaca mereka tidak berkontribusi terhadap kohesi dalam tulisan mereka.
Dengan demikian disimpulkan bahwa semakin besar motivasi membaca teks non- fiksi mahasis wa, maka akan semakin baik pula kohesi dalam tulisan mereka. Beberapa saran ditujukan kepada para dosen Writing, mahasiwa, dan peneliti lainnya. Para dosen Writing dapat memberikan pendekatan terhadap para mahasiswa akan pengalaman membaca untuk meningkatkan kebiasaan membaca mereka. Penulis juga menyarankan kepada para mahasiswa untuk memberi perhatian terhadap teks-teks non- fiksi untuk menunjang penulisan akademik mereka.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS’ READING HABITS OF ENGLISH TEXTS TOWARDS WRITING COHESION
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Lucyana Dorothya Student Number: 031214095
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma :
: Lucyana Dorothya : 031214095
Nama
Nomor Mahasiswa
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas
Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul :
THE CONTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS' READING HABITS OF ENGLISH TEXTS TOWARDS WRITING COHESION
beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada
Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam
bentuk media lain, mengelolanya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis
tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupaun memberikan royalty kepada saya selama tetap
mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyatan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya.
Dibuat di Yogyakarta
Pada tanggal : 11 March 2008
Yang menyatakan
(Lucyana Dorothya)
v
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY
I honestly declare that the thesis, which I wrote does not contain the works or part of the works of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the bibliography, as a scientific paper should.
Yogyakarta, 20 February 2008
The writer
vi
W hatever you do in word or deed,
D o all in the name of Jesus C hrist
(Colossians 3:17)
...when the oceans rise and thunders roar,
I will soar with You above the storm.
Father You are King over the world,
I will be still and know You are God...
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank Jesus Christ for His blessing, grace, love, and guidance throughout the accomplishment of this thesis. I believe that this thesis come to its completion only by the mighty power of Him.
I would like to express sincere gratitude and appreciation to my major sponsor, F.X. Ouda Teda Ena, S.Pd., M.Pd., who willingly spent his time reviewing this thesis and giving suggestions for the revision. My sincere gratitude and appreciation also goes to my co-sponsor, Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd., who helped me to correct this thesis for further improvement.
Special thanks go to all the lecturers in the English Language Education Study Program who taught me knowledge and shared me guidance and experiences during my study.
My deepest love and appreciation go to my beloved ‘Siahaan’ family for never ending love and prayer for every single step I take. I present this thesis, especially, for Papa and Mama.
I also thank all of my colleagues in Language Institute of Sanata Dharma University. I thank them for great support and care. My special thanks go to my ‘angel’ Tika, who brought me to this ‘kingdom’.
viii
From the bottom of my heart, I would like to thank all of the people who have supported and loved me. I pray that God will bless them with the multiplication of love they have given me.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PAGE OF TITLE ... i
APPROVAL PAGES ... ii
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... iv
PAGE OF DEDICATION ... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... viii
LIST OF TABLES ... xii
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiii
ABSTRACT ... xiv
ABSTRAK ... xv
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study ... 1
B. Problem Formulation ... 4
C. Problem Limitation ... 4
D. Research Objectives ... 5
E. Research Benefits ... 5
F. Definition of Terms ... 6
x
1. Reading ……….. 8
a. Definition of Reading ………... 8
b. Roles of Reading ……….. 9
c. Types of Reading Text ………. 11
2. Writing ………... 13
a. The Process of Writing ……… 14
b. Writing Criteria ……… 16
c. Coherence and Cohesion in Writing ………… 17
1). Coherence ………. 18
2). Ties ……… 18
3). Cohesion ……… 20
a). Grammatical Cohesion ……… 20
(1). Reference ………. 20
(2). Ellipsis/ Substitution ……… 21
(3). Conjunction ………... 22
b). Lexical Cohesion ……….... 23
(1). Reiteration ………... 23
(2). Collocation ……….. 23
B. Theoretical Framework ... 23
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Method ... 27
xi
C. Research Instruments ... 29
1. Validity of the Research Instrument ... 29
2. Reliability of the Research Instrument ... 30
D. Data Gathering Technique ... 31
E. Data Analysis Technique ... 32
F. Research Procedure ... 35
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. Students’ Reading Habits ... 36
1. Motivation to Read ... 36
2. Types of Reading Text ... 38
3. Reading Strategies ... 40
B. Students’ Writing Cohesion ... 40
C. The Contribution of Students’ Reading Habits towards Writing Cohesion ... 46
1. The Contribution of Motivation to Read towards Writing Cohesion ... 46
2. The Contribution of Types of Reading Texts towards Writing Cohesion ... 48
xii
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions ... 51
B. Suggestions ... 52
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 54
APPENDICES ... 57
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Total Percentage of Students’ Motivation to Read ... 37 Table 4.2 The Frequency of Students’ Motivation to Read
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 The Questionnaire ... 57 Appendix 2 The Questionnaire Results ... 59 Appendix 3 Cohesion Scores ... 63 Appendix 4 Recapitulation Data of Students’ Reading Habits
xv
ABSTRACT
Dorothya, Lucyana. (2008). The Contribution of Students’ Reading Habits of English Texts towards Writing Cohesion. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University.
This thesis analyzed the students’ reading habits of English texts and their writing cohesion. It studied the extent to which students reading habits of English texts indicated by motivation to read, types of reading texts, and reading strategies contribute to writing cohesion. There were two problems in this research. 1) What are the students’ reading habits of English texts, indicated by motivation to read, types of reading texts, and reading strategies? 2) To what extent do students’ reading activities contribute to writing cohesion?
The method used in the research was correlational research method. There were two instruments in the research. They were a questionnaire and the students’ final papers. The participants of the research were Writing VI students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University of the 2004/2005 academic year. There were thirty-two students selected as the subjects of the research.
The research findings revealed that the students had good integrative motivation to read non- fiction texts with different reading strategies applied to different types of reading texts. It also revealed that motivation to read and types of reading non- fiction texts gave positive and significant contribution towards writing cohesion. However, reading strategies did not give positive and significant contribution towards writing cohesion.
xvi
ABSTRAK
Dorothya, Lucyana. (2008). The Contribution of Students’ Reading Habits of English Texts towards Writing Cohesion. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Skripsi ini menganalisa kebiasaan mahasiswa dalam membaca teks berbahasa Inggris dan penggunaan kohesi dalam tulisan mereka. Skripsi ini mengkaji tentang sejauh mana kebiasaan membaca, yang diindikasikan oleh motivasi membaca, jenis teks yang dibaca, dan cara membaca berkontribusi terhadap kohesi dalam tulisan mereka. Ada dua rumusan masalah yang diajukan dalam skripsi ini. 1) Apa saja yang menjadi kebiasaan membaca mahasiswa yang diindikasikan oleh motivasi membaca, jenis teks yang dibaca, dan cara membaca? 2) Sejauh mana kebiasaan-kebiasaan membaca tersebut berkontribusi terhadap kohesi dalam tulisan mereka?
Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian korelasional. Ada dua jenis instrumen yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini, yaitu kuisioner dan tugas akhir mahasiswa. Partisipan dalam penelitian ini adalah para mahasiswa universitas Sanata Dharma tahun ajaran 2004/2005 program studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris semester enam kelas Writing VI. Ada tiga puluh dua mahasiswa yang menjadi subyek penelitian ini.
Temuan-temuan dalam penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa para mahasiswa memiliki motivasi integrative yang baik dalam membaca teks non- fiksi dengan menerapkan cara-cara membaca yang berbeda-beda terhadap jenis teks yang berbeda pula. Dalam penelitian ini juga ditemukan bahwa motivasi membaca teks non- fiksi memberikan kontribusi yang positif dan signifikan terhadap kohesi dalam tulisan mereka. Tetapi, cara membaca mereka tidak berkontribusi terhadap kohesi dalam tulisan mereka.
Dengan demikian disimpulkan bahwa semakin besar motivasi membaca teks non- fiksi mahasis wa, maka akan semakin baik pula kohesi dalam tulisan mereka. Beberapa saran ditujukan kepada para dosen Writing, mahasiwa, dan peneliti lainnya. Para dosen Writing dapat memberikan pendekatan terhadap para mahasiswa akan pengalaman membaca untuk meningkatkan kebiasaan membaca mereka. Penulis juga menyarankan kepada para mahasiswa untuk memberi perhatian terhadap teks-teks non- fiksi untuk menunjang penulisan akademik mereka.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study attempts to investigate the students’ reading habits of English texts and the contribution of such reading habits towards writing cohesion. This chapter covers the background of conducting this research, problem identification, problem limitation, problem formulation, research objectives, research benefits, and the definition of terms.
A. Background
Reading is a process in which the readers combine information from a text they read and their own background knowledge about the text to build meaning (Nunan, 2003: 68). In other words, it is declared that the main objective of reading is comprehension. However, reading many English texts can also build other positive cognitive and linguistic elements such as vocabulary knowledge, English grammar skills, and also organization in writing (Camacho, 2005: 29). Intentionally, reading ability itself also influences other language skills.
enrich their ability in writing. Moreover, it is also stated by Campbell (1998: 21) that reading can provide authentic examples of texts and also the usage of vocabulary and sentence structure. In addition, she points out that any background of reading texts will bring certain effects to writing process. Based on the result of her study, Campbell (1998: 16) declares that “the ideas of the reading were to have the writers stimulate thought and generate ideas, not for a single kind of paper but to allow them to make choices.”
Writing is not merely a set of physical activity of texts production. Nunan (2003: 88) points out that writing is a physical and mental act. As a physical act, people write to perform their ideas through a medium. Nevertheless, before performing their ideas, they need to accomplish a mental act. In this case, they think about their ideas they are going to write, formulate how to express the ir ideas, and organize the ideas into a good and readable writing. Furthermore, Yan (2005: 29) elaborates that writing is a more challenging process of producing a coherent, fluent, and extended piece of writing in one’s second language. It should be noted that writing production in a second language is different from the one in the first language, especially in terms of structure, style, and organization.
from one key point to others. The connections and relationships among ideas can support a coherent writing. It is indicated by the use of transitional words and phrases or commonly known as cohesive devices. One should be able to keep his writing in orderly ideas from the beginning until the end. Therefore, the writing can be smooth and understandable.
Lee (2002: 33) mentions some writers who describe coherence in three ways. They are connection between sentences (McCrimon, 1980), the usage of explicit cohesive devices in the paragraphs (Bander, Dodds, and Laurel, 1985), and the usage of connective devices (Hodges and Whitten, 1982). Neverthele ss, in reality, there is a tendency that the students, sometimes, do not realize the importance of unity. The students might have many ideas in their mind but they do not know how to combine them into a united idea in writing. Some of them only put their ideas into sequences without combining them into a continuous writing. As a result, the lacks of cohesion are still found in students’ writings.
B. Problem Formulation
There are two problems to be discussed in this research. They are formulated as follows:
1. What are the students’ reading habits, indicated by their motivation to read, types of reading texts, and reading strategies?
2. To what extent do students’ reading habits contribute to writing cohesion?
C. Problem Limitation
This research is limited to students’ reading habits in terms of motivation to read, the types of reading texts, and reading strategies. The students’ motivation to read identified in this research is categorized into two. Firstly, instrumental motivation in which the students read for their academic purposes. Secondly, integrative motivation in which the students read for their own interest. The type of reading text is classified into two main types of reading. The first type is English non-fiction text, which is categorized into news, essays or some articles on magazines, biographies/autobiographies, narratives, journalisms, histories, science writing, websites, true stories using scenes, and some others. The second one is an English fiction text, which is divided into drama, fable, fairy tale, fantasies, fiction in verse, folklore, historical fiction, horror, short stories, and tall tale. Meanwhile, strategies utilized in reading are prediction, skimming, scanning, and note-taking.
classes. Since there are six Writing classes available in the research setting, the research is limited to the sixth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University considering the fact that they have already taken Reading and Writing classes. In addition, they are required to produce academic writing at the end of the semester. Their writings are identified through the presence of cohesive devices in their final papers.
D. Research Objectives
Based on the research problems, there are two objectives stated in this research. The first is to investigate the students’ reading habits of English texts in terms of their motivation to read, the types of reading texts, and reading strategies. The second is to analyze the extent to which the students’ reading habits of English texts contribute towards writing cohesion.
E. Research Benefits
benefits for other researchers who are willing to conduct further research about writing cohesion.
F. Definition of Terms
In understanding the research, there are several related terms to be defined in order to avoid misunderstanding.
1. Contribution
In English Dictionary for Advanced Learners (2001: 329), it is stated that “if you make a contribution to something, you do something to help make it successful or to produce it.” The term “contribution” being used in this research means the influence of reading habits of English texts in helping the students to produce a good writing assignment.
2. Reading Habit
According to Hornby (1974: 699), to read means to “gain the knowledge from book as the source.” However, reading activity does not only support comprehension of the texts, but also facilitates writing process preparation. In relation to writing, Lopes, 1991: 42 clarifies that reading is “the one that involves both the extraction and the supplying of information.” Therefore, reading is used more frequent ly to provide the students with information in Writing classes.
Reading habit to be discussed through this research is reading activity which is repeatedly accomplished by the students in terms of motivation to read, the types of reading texts, and reading strategies.
3. Cohesion
Cohesive devices hold an important role of understanding the texts by a reader. As the basic meaning, “cohesion means a tendency to stick together” (Hornby, 1974: 161). On this basis, it can be inferred that a cohesive writing is characterized by the usage of cohesive devices which relate one sentence to others in order to produce a good paragraph. Mei- yun (1993: 12) says that cohesion makes links between one part of the text and another. The links are necessary for the readers to interpret the text. Such a study refers to the term of cohesion to textual markers of the continuous ideas in sentences in creating a readable writing.
8
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter presents theories related to the research. It deals with references and citations which help the writer solve the research problems. This chapter includes two sections. They are theoretical description and theoretical framework related to the study.
A. Theoretical Description
This section describes the theories used in accomplishing such research. It discusses theories of reading, writing, and cohesion in English.
1. Reading
a. Definition of Reading
Thus, Harris (1947: 9) concludes that “reading is not one skill, but a large number of interrelated skills which develop gradually over a period of many years.”
In a second language learning theory by Spolsky in Elyidirim and Ashton (2006: 3), the students perform their attitudes towards language learning in which those attitudes contribute to the students’ motivation. There are various types of motivation. According to Ellis (1997: 75-76), there are four kinds of motivation. The first one is instrumental motiva tion in which the students learn for some functional reasons, for instance to pass an examination, to obtain a better job, or to attain a place at university. The second one is integrative motivation in which the students learn because of their own interest in the people and culture represented by the target language group. The third motivation is resultative motivation in which the motivation is the cause of second language achievement. In such motivation, the students will be more motivated if they obtain good achievement in the language learning. The last one is intrinsic motivation which involves encouragement and maintenance of curiosity which flows as a result of some factors as the students’ particular interest to which they feel personally involved in learning activities.
b. Roles of Reading
in this research that is writing activity. Generally, an extensive reading activity provides knowledge in language competence, for example in practicing word recognition. The width of word recognition can help students in other language skills performance. For instance, it can lead to improvement in writing activity.
Reading can provide insight in language learning in terms of models of lexical items and structural patterns as well. On the other hand, in writing and reading relationships as a constructive task theory by Langer and Flihan as quoted in Indrisano and Squire (2000: 119), it is noted that writers and readers use similar kinds of knowledge in making their meanings. They are knowledge about the language, knowledge about content, knowledge about genre convention, knowledge about organization and structure, knowledge about pragmatics, and knowledge about interaction.
In addition, a research conducted on L2 learners in Japan shows that reading contributes more improvement in the students’ writing than in other language skills. Tierney and Leys in Roswell and Natches (1989: 232) explain that “students will compare their own writing with the plot or character development present in what they are reading (and) the quality of writing produced is related to the quality of reading during writing”. Therefore, they draw a conclusion that selected reading experience can give contribution to students’ writing performance.
They are 1) reading to search for simple information, 2) reading to skim quickly, 3) reading to learn from text, 4) reading to integrate information, 5) reading to write or search information needed for writing, 6) reading to criticize texts, and 7) reading for general comprehension.
Commonly, college students read for simple information. It mostly happens for the sake of academic purposes. In such reading, the students will focus on the subject content of what they read and the language in which it is expressed. On this situation they read books and journals, take notes, summarize, paraphrase, and then writ e essays. This condition leads to the other purposes of reading which are to integrate information and to write. In this case, the readers have to decide what information to be integrated and how to integrate it for the readers’ goal. This purpose represents common academic tasks that call upon the reading abilities which are needed in order to integrate information. For the purpose of reading to write, White (1995: 40) states that reading can provide content, ideas, guidelines, and models.
c. Types of Reading Text
places. The form of non-fiction includes essays, journals, text books/references, diaries, autobiographies, biographies, magazine writings, travel writings, nature writings, science writings, histories, journalism, true stories using scenes, and dialogues.
According to Moore (1955), there are six characteristics of non- fiction text. The first one is significance. It is about the importance of the book and its contribution to the knowledge of its specialized readers. The second is the newness of the material. The third is the accuracy of the facts and the reasonableness of the inferences based upon them. The fourth is the scope of the book in which it completely covers the topic. The fifth is clarity in which it will be easy to understand the book in organization and in phrasing. The last one is readability.
to one’s purpose, 6) metacognitive knowledge and skills monitoring are the ability to reflect on what is being read. Writing is considered as a product in which these skills and knowledge are reflected.
Grabe and Stoller (2002: 20) identify reading processes that are activated when people read. It is called level and higher-level processes. The lower-level processes refer to the automatic linguistic processes such as lexical access, syntactic parsing, semantic proposition formation, and working memory activation. On the other hand, the higher-level processes refer to comprehension processes which need more attention of readers’ background knowledge and inference skills. The lower- level processes are considered to be the basic requirement of reading activity. However, it does not mean that one of the processes is easier or more important than the other one.
2. Writing
According to Nunan (2003: 88), writing can be a physical and a mental act. He says that writing is a physical act in which a writer sets his/her ideas into some media. On the other hand, writing is the mental work of inventing ideas, thinking of how to exp ress the ideas, and organizing them into a comprehensible reading. Accordingly, it can also be defined as a process and a product.
which it plays as a kind of social interaction. People can interact with the reader through a text. However, this is a kind of interaction in which the writer cannot respond directly and immediately to the reader and vice versa. Thus, a writer should make the writing as clear as possible for the reader.
a. The Process of Writing
Generally, writing in a second language involves a process of constructing the writer’s linguistic and vocabulary knowledge, syntactic patterns, and cohesive devices. Hyland (2003: 3) says that writing results from a process of imitating and manipulating models. First of all, the writers should be familiar with grammar and vocabulary through their experiences. Then, when they are required to write something, they recall what they have in their linguistic storage to be performed in their writing. Roswell and Natchez (1989: 226) sum up that “a whole piece of writing results from the selection, combination, arrangement, and development of ideas in effective sentences, paragraphs, and often, longer units of discourse.”
There are four stages of writing process according to Hugley et al. (1983: 11). The first stage is searching on what a writer is going to write about, which can be called as deciding the topic of writing. The next stage is discovering meaning, ideas, and linking them into coherent thoughts. The next stage is generating. This stage is almost the same as the second one in which the writer starts to expand the discovered ideas. The last stage is shaping the ideas into a well-organized writing.
formulation of concepts, proposition, and theme. Here, the writer states the purpose of his writing, the audience (reader), and the context for the message. In other words, Hugley (1983: 25) says that this step is the deep structuring of writing, 2) linguistic shaping in which a writer uses his ability to compose and correct appropriate words and sentences. In this case, a writer should be able to consider the cohesion and coherence of his writing, and 3) mechanical shaping which is also known as editing.
By reviewing the writing and reading relationships in a constructive task theory by Langer and Flihan as quoted in Indrisano and Squire (2000: 119), it can be concluded that the students are able to improve their writing by developing their reading strategies as well. This notion is based on the assumption of Lopes (1991: 42) that in reading process people extract information according to their interest and motivation. Later on, this reading experience will help them identify and understand cohesion, coherence, rhetorical organization, and conventions of written language.
students’ past experiences in their writing activity also supports bottom- up and top-down reading process.
b. Writing Criteria
In order to produce a good writing, a writer has to notice the criteria of writing itself. There are seven criteria of writing proposed by John Shiffert (2005) as cited in http://adminservices.clayton.edu. The first one is the knowledge of subject which consists of appropriateness, accuracy, extens iveness, and perspective. The second one is awareness of reader which consists of development, purpose, readers’ needs and attitudes, responsible argumentation, and also diction. The third one is organization which consists of introductory paragraph, where the thesis statement is stated, body paragraph, and concluding paragraph. The body paragraph provides the topic sentence, unity, coherence, and development. The fourth criterion of writing is format. It consists of manuscript form, spelling, abbreviations, numbers and symbols, capitalization, and document format as well. The fifth is punctuation. The sixth is sentence structures which consist of sentence patterns, grammar and usage, and sentence completeness. The last one is style which consists of appropriate tone, conciseness, and precision.
together by logic and grammatical structure. A coherent paragraph can be supported by the presence of adequate cohesive devices among the sentences.
c. Coherence and Cohesion in Writing
Wales in Asher (1994: 603) argues that coherence is a semantic cohesion whereas cohesion is a textual coherence. Coherence can be identified from the idea or content of the text which is put logically in sentences. Indeed, cohesive devices can answer how sentences of a text hang together but it cannot explain the whole story of the text continuously. Crystal (1987: 119) adds that it is possible to write a sentence sequence that is highly cohesive but nonetheless incoherent.
Cohesion concerns with the ways in which the first components, for example the words and the sentences, are mutually connected within a sequence by formal means such as grammatical patterns, lexical items, and also phonological rules in oral texts (Togeby in Asher, 1994: 4580). Hence, while coherence has to do with the deep structure of a text, cohesion has to do with the surface structure. Cohesive devices are useful in explaining how the words or sentences hang together.
To clarify this notion, the following example of a coherent and cohesive text is beneficial.
A week has seven days. Everyday I feed my cat. The cat is eating now. It seems that she loves the meals today.
sentence. The word everyday presupposes the seven days and the word she to presuppose the cat.
1). Coherence
Kies (1995) on http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp1/coherent.html states that coherence is a product which is combined to produce the meaning of every phrase, sentence, and paragraph as a whole piece of information. Accordingly, writers have to provide an explicit and well-planned pattern of coherence. Kies states that coherence itself is the product of two factors. Those are paragraph unity and sentence cohesion. Lee (2002: 33) views coherence in three ways. They are 1) connectedness between sentences, 2) use of explicit cohesive devices at the paragraph level, and 3) use of connective devices such as pronouns, repetitive structure, and transitional markers. However, He also admits that even though coherence is important in writing, it is sometimes not easy to be taught and to be learned since it is considered an abstract, hard to be defined, and controversial concept. The connection of ideas from sentence to sentences can be obtained by the use of cohesive devices.
2). Ties
A little provoked, she drew back and, after looking everywhere for the queen, she thought she would try the plan, this time, of walking in the opposite direction. It succeeded beautifully.
Example above contains two ties. The first is the reference it in which it presupposes the plan. Secondly, the word succeeded which presupposes try.
There are two types of tie. They are immediate tie in which the presupposition relates the sentence that is immediately precedes it and non-immediate tie in verse. There are two types of non-non-immediate tie, namely mediated and remote ties. Here is the example of these terms.
The last word ended in a long bleat, so like a sheep that Alice quite started (1). She looked at the queen, who seemed to have suddenly wrapped herself up in wool (2). Alice rubbed her eyes, and looked again (3). She couldn’t make out what had happened at all (4). Was she in a shop (5)? And was that really- was it really a sheep that was sitting on the other side of the counter (6)? Rub as she would, she could make nothing more of it (7).
In sentence (2), the word she refers to Alice in sentence (1). It is the same as she in sentence (4) which refers to Alice in sentence (3). This phenomenon is called immediate tie. Whereas, the presupposition of she in sentence (5) is the she in sentence (4) and in order to find the presupposition of she in sentence (4), one should follow through the sentence (3) then it will be found that she in sentence
(5) refers to Alice. This kind of phenomenon is called mediated tie.
she in sentence (4) and it should be followed through sentence (3) to find Aliceas the presupposition, hence it is also called remote.
3). Cohesion
Cohesion is textual markers that make links between one part of text and another (Mei- yun, 1993: 12). The types of cohesion are classified under two general terms. They are grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion.
a). Grammatical Cohesion
Grammatical cohesion is the marking of semantic links between clauses and sentences in written discourse. It is categorized into three namely reference, ellipsis/substitution, and conjunction.
(1). Reference
According to McCarthy (1976: 35), reference items include pronouns, demonstratives, and articles like the and such a. Halliday and Hassan (1976: 37-39) add another types of reference that is comparative. Personal reference can be identified by using devices such as pronoun, for example I, me, you, we, us, he, him, she, her, they, them, it, and one. It can also be identified by the existence of determiner, for example mine, my, yours, your, ours, our, his, hers, her, their, theirs, its, and one’s.
identified by the use of devices like same, identical, similar(ly), such, different, other, else, additional, more, less, and as many.
In identifying a textual reference item and its presupposition, a reader should notice whether it is anaphoric reference in which the presupposition of reference can be identified in the preceding text or cataphoric reference in which the presupposition of reference can be identified in the following text (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 56).
(2). Ellipsis/ Substitution
Ellipsis is often referred to as “substitution by zero” (Halliday and Hassan 1976: 142). Here is the example of ellipsis.
He loved her mother as much as any son would (love his mother).
In this example, the words in bracket are omitted because the content refers to the previous presupposition. In substitution, the words in bracket can be replaced by the word do, however in ellipsis it can be omitted. Therefore, ellipsis is called substitution by zero.
In English, as it happens to ellipsis, the substitute has three function types. The first is nominal substitution which functions as a noun, for instance the use of article one or ones:
These biscuits are stale. Get some fresh ones.
In this example, ones substit utes the use of the word biscuits. The second is verbal substitution which functions as a verb, for example do:
In this case, the word do substitutes the word knows. The last is clausal substitution which functions as a clause. For instance:
Everyone seems to think he’s guilty. If so, no doubt he will offer to resign. In this case, so, substitutes forhe’s guilty.
(3). Conjunction
b). Lexical Cohesion
“Lexical relation is one lexical item which enters into structural relationships with another,” (Crystal, 1987: 119). It means that lexical cohesion is established through the structure of the vocabulary. There are two terms being discussed in lexical cohesion. Those are reiteration and collocation (Nunan, 1993: 28-30).
(1). Reiteration
Reiteration is the repetition of a lexical item in the context of reference. It can be in terms of same lexical item (repetition), synonym, superordinate and general word. One of the examples of reiteration is:
The flowers were lovely. She loved tulips best.
This sentence shows relation by hyponymy, in which tulip is a hyponym of flower.
(2). Collocation
Collocation is a relationship of lexical items that regularly co-occur. It includes opposites, complementaries such as boy...girl, antonyms such as
likes...hate, and converses such as order...obey (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 284).
This section presents the related theories which are summarized and synthesized from the theoretical description. Those underlying theories are used to solve the research questions stated in Chapter I. It is also followed by a framework of answering the two questions of the research.
Reading is not a passive activity. It requires other skills, activity, and also knowledge. In a language learning process, reading plays an important role in providing knowledge, especially in writing activity. Moreover, reading also provides input in terms of models, such as lexical items and structural patterns.
The students read for many different purposes and types of reading texts. Generally, they read for pleasure and for academic purposes. In a second language learning theory, these attitudes contribute to their motivation. In this research, the writer specifically analyzes two main types of motivation among the four suggested by Ellis (1997). They are instrumental motivation which arises from reading for academic purpose and integrative motivation which arises from reading for pleasure. Research participants as college students are categorized into group of people who read, mostly, to integrate information and to write. The information gathered from the students in this research is divided into two main types of reading types. They are fiction and non- fiction texts.
consider the criteria of a good writing. Among those criteria, the organization in writing which includes unity, coherence, and development is the most important criteria which should not be taken for granted by a writer. One of the elements which support coherence is cohesive devices which provide links for a coherent writing.
Coherence is about the ideas connection within a text. Therefore, when someone writes, he should connect his idea from one sentence to others. The connection of ideas from sentence to sentence can be obtained by the use of cohesive devices. In this research, the writer definitely analyzes the use of cohesive devices that is the surface structure used in the students’ writing. As it is proposed by Halliday and Hasan (1976), the writer uses a term of tie to refer to cohesive devices.
In answering the research questions, the writer uses the collaborated classification of cohesion proposed by McCarthy (1991) and Halliday and Hasan (1976). They broadly divide types of cohesion into grammatical and lexical cohesion. The writer specifies the analysis into grammatical cohesion which includes reference, substitution/ellipsis, and conjunction. It is analyzed through the appropriateness and sufficiency of cohesive devices in the students’ writing.
those three reading habits possessed by the research participants. In solving the second problem, the contribution of reading habits to writing cohesion, the writer gathers the data from the sufficiency and appropriate cohesive devices in the participants’ writing.
27
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter is divided into six sections. The first is research method, the second is research participants, the third is research instruments, the fourth is data gathering technique, the fifth is data analysis technique, and the sixth is research procedure.
A. Method
The first objective of this research was to investigate the Writing VI class students’ reading habits of English texts. To accommodate this research, first of all, the writer employed survey research. The survey was aimed to collect information about the students’ reading habits of English texts. It was held by distributing a questionnaire to a group of research participants.
B. Research Setting and Participants
The research took place at Sanata Dharma University Yogyakarta, to be exact at the English Language Education Study Program. The research subjects were chosen from the target population of the sixth semester students of Writing VI classes of the English Language Education Study Program from 2004/2005 academic year. There were four classes included. The reason of choosing this target population was the accessibility, since it is located at the same faculty as the writer’s.
Ary et al. (2002: 163) define population as “the larger group about which the generalization is made.” Considering certain limitation in time and finance, it seemed impossible to manage all of the students to be the sample of the research. Sample, in a research, refers to “the small group that is observed” (Ary et al. 2002: 163). Thus, in order to simplify the population, the writer applied cluster sampling, in which she chose one class out of four Writing VI classes randomly. To sum up, the sample consisted of 32 participants in total.
The main reason of choosing the sample was that the students of Writing VI class are required to produce a form of academic writing at the end of the semester. In producing a good academic writing, sufficient and appropriate cohesive devices are highly important. In applying sufficient and appropriate cohesive devices in academic writing, the students’ reading activities have an important role to their writing. Therefore, it was appropriate to choose the students of Writing VI as the sample for the research.
C. Research Instruments
There were two instruments being employed by the writer. The first one was a questionnaire which was aimed to gain data about the students’ reading habits. The second one was the Writing VI class students’ final papers.
The questionnaire on the students’ reading habits was divided into three sections. The first one was concerned with the students’ motivation to read, containing nine questions. The second one was to investigate the types of reading texts. They were categorized into two main types, fiction and non-fiction texts, consisting of 16 questions which were formed into more specific questions from the two main types of reading texts. The last one was the types of reading strategies, containing eight questions. In brief, there were 33 items in the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was designed with categorical Likert-scale which was arranged in ordered series: “never”, “seldom”, “sometimes”, “frequently”, and “always”. The scoring of each item was on a 1 to 5 ordinal scales, depending on the chosen option. The detailed format of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1.
In conducting a scientific research, it is necessary to determine the accuracy and consistency of a research instrument. Therefore, the validity and reliability of the research instrument were discussed as follows.
1. Validity of the Research Instrument
content validity, criterion-related validity, construct validity, and face validity. Among those types of validity, the writer used content and construct validity in her study. A test is said to have content validity if its content represents samples of the language skills, structures, etc. (Hughes 1989: 22). The content validity of the research instrument was justified by the theories used in such research. In order to attain the construct validity, a blueprint of the test was made by the writer to ensure that the language functions to be tested were represented in the test item. There were three indicators used in the questionnaire. The first one is motivation which referred to the theory of second language learning strategies (Ellis, 1997). The motivation being observed in this research is classified into two kinds of motivation, such as integrative and instrumental motivation. The second one is the types of reading texts, which is classified into fiction and non- fiction texts according to Hiscar (2004). The last one is reading strategies which are applied according to reading purposes as proposed by Grabe and Stoller (2002).
2. Reliability of the Research Instrument
of Alpha-Cronbach coefficient as one of the internal consistency methods. The
s = sum of variances of the item scores
2 x
s = variance of the test scores (all K items)
An instrument could be reliable if the reliability coefficients (α) is higher
than 0.70 (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993: 296). From the calculation of Alpha-Cronbach formula, the writer found that the reliability coefficients (α) of motivation to read was 0.74, types of reading texts was 0.88, and reading strategies was 0.73. Thus, the questionnaire was reliable for the research. The detailed result from SPSS for Windows computation is attached in Appendix 5.
The second instrument was the Writing VI students’ final papers. In this case, the writer analyzed their writing cohesion through the presence of sufficient and appropriate cohesive devices. The types of writing were matched with the topic of writing which was learned by the students at that time. They might be in three major types of writing namely description, narration, and/or exposition.
D. Data Gathering Technique
of their reading activities. Every student received a piece of questionnaire sheet consisting of 33 items. It was distributed on May 16th, 2007.
Before distributing the questionnaire sheets, the writer explained the aims of the research, and then explained how to answer the questionnaire. The writer was there when the participants filled in the questionnaire in order to avoid ambiguous or unclear terms that the participants might face. Besides, the writer also asked permission from the Writing VI teacher to analyze the students’ final writing assignments. The writer started to analyze the students’ assignments in the beginning of June 2007.
E. Data Analysis Technique
appropriateness of cohesive devices scores range. The range of cohesion scores were arranged between 1 up to 15 interval scales. It was categorized into three levels. The scores between 1 up to 5.5 were poor, in which the students used many inappropriate and insufficient cohesive devices in their writing. The scores between 6 up to 10.5 were fair, in which the students used some inappropriate and/or insufficient cohesive devices in their writing. The scores between 11 up to 15 were good, in which the students used sufficient and appropriate cohesive devices in their writing.
In analyzing the data, first of all, the writer counted the correlation coefficient by using Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation (r).The formula for Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation is presented as follows.
SX = sum of scores in X-distribution SY = sum of scores in Y-distribution
SXY = sum of the products of paired X- and Y-scores SX² = sum of the squared scores in X-distribution SY² = sum of the squared scores in Y-distribution n = number of paired X- and Y-scores (subjects)
writing cohesion. In this case, the writer used regression analysis by employing the SPPS for Windows Program. To calculate the significance contribution of students’ reading habits towards writing cohesion, the writer used F-test formula as follows.
The result of regression analysis would be presented in regression equation. The formula for regression equation would be:
Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 X2 = content of reading types X3 = reading strategies
F. Research Procedure
Research procedure was an essential step in conducting this research. It was ordered as follows:
1. The writer set the questions which covered all of the data needed for the research.
2. The writer consulted the questionnaire with the research sponsors.
3. The writer distributed the questionnaire to the participants, and then collected them again.
4. The writer tested the reliability of the questionnaire with the Alpha-Cronbach coefficient.
5. The writer analyzed the data of the questionnaire concerning the students’ reading habits.
6. The writer asked permission from the Writing VI class lecturer to analyze the students’ final writing assignments.
7. The writer analyzed the cohesive devices used by the students in their writing assignments.
8. The writer scored the students’ writing cohesion.
9. The writer correlated the participants’ reading habits and their writing cohesion score by using Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation.
36
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of three parts. The first part discusses the research findings on students’ reading habits. The second part discusses the students’ writing cohesion. The third part discusses the contribution of students’ reading habits of English texts towards writing cohesion.
A. Students’ Reading Habits
There were three indicators used to observe the students’ reading habits. They were motivation to read, types of reading text, and reading strategies. In the questionnaire, they were scaled according to the freque ncy of doing the activities, which are never, seldom, sometimes, frequently, and always, with Likert-scale on a 1 to 5 ordinal scales respectively.
The questionnaire revealed that most of the participants had good motivation to read. In terms of reading types preferences, the writer found that the participants read non-fiction texts more frequently rather than fiction texts and that the participants mostly applied quick reading strategies, such as skimming and scanning, for different types of reading texts. The following sections elaborate detailed findings of the three indicators of the students’ reading habits.
1. Motivation to Read
explained in Chapter III, the writer elaborated the research findings into three levels of motivation they were high, medium, and low motivation. It revealed that among 32 research participants, seven students had high motivation to read, 19 students had medium motivation to read, and six students had low motivation to read. The questionnaire showed that the participants, who were highly motivated to read, would frequently spend their spare time by reading activity, even though many of them were not supported by their surrounding environments. Table 4.1 shows the total percentage of the students’ motivation to read.
Table 4.1 Total Percentage of Students’ Motivation to Read PARTICIPANTS
MOTIVATION
NUMBER PERCENTAGE High 7 21.88 %
Medium 19 59.34 %
Low 6 18.75 %
Total 32 100 %
gained good achievement since they were motivated to read for their assignments, even if it was not for Reading class. Table 4.2 shows the questionnaire data of the types of motivation.
Table 4.2 The Frequency of Students’ Motivation to Read Based on the Types of Motivation
CATEGORY OF FREQUENCY (%)
Sometimes, they were less motivated to read since they also had problems with the meaning of the words they read. Nevertheless, their background knowledge was helpful for a better understanding. The participants’ responses to the statement of “my personal experiences help me to understand reading better” in the questionnaire reached 56.25 % points for ‘frequently’ and ‘always’ category of frequency. The detailed data from the questionnaire were presented in Appendix 2.
2. Types of Reading Text
questionnaire concerning the types of reading text they always read. In this case, the writer calculated the ‘frequently’ and ‘always’ category of frequency. It was found that there were 3.1 % of the students read fiction texts while 12.5 % of them read non-fiction texts. Table 4.3 shows the total percentage of the types of reading texts read by the participants.
Table 4.3 Total Percentage of the Types of Reading Text
CATEGORY OF FREQUENCY (%)
3. Reading Strategies
In reading activities, the participants employed different reading strategies for different kinds of reading texts. It was found that most of the research participants frequently applied quick reading strategies. In applying this strategy, the participants usually predicted the idea of the writer in order to increase their comprehension faster. In addition, they also frequently skimmed through the texts in finding a particular point of the reading purposes. Yet, some of them also read slowly and carefully. They took some notes as they read that way.
The data showed that out of 32 participants, four always read slowly and carefully, nine frequently read slowly and carefully, and 14 sometimes read so. Moreover, one participant always took notes while reading, four participants frequently did so and 17 participants sometimes did so. They also even moved either their lips or head as they read.
On the other hand, it was revealed that six participants always skimmed through the texts and skipped the unknown words, while twenty participants frequently did so. Moreover, 13 participants always had questions in their mind that hopefully the texts would answer, while eight participants frequently had so, and eight participants sometimes had such questions. The detailed questionnaire data were presented in Appendix 2.
B. Students’ Writing Cohesion
appropriateness of cohesive devices in their writing. Sufficiency of cohesive devices concerns the quantity of the cohesive devices in a text. A text which possesses sufficient cohesive devices does not contain superfluous or lack devices. Meanwhile, appropriateness is related to the quality. A text which has appropriate cohesive devices contains proper transitional markers or cohesive devices.
The cohesive devices analyzed in this research included three types of cohesion. They were references, ellipsis/substitutions, and conjunctions. The references produced by the research participants did not show significant errors. The reference items which were mostly used by the students in this research were pronouns, for example he, she, it, him, and they. They also used the article the and a/an, and demonstrative, such as this, that, those, and these.
On the other hand, some of the participants could not apply ellipsis/substitutions properly. Substitution devices used by the students in this research were substitution by pronouns, which are similar to the reference devices, and substitution by other pro-form, such as one, so, and do. The last type of cohesive devices found in this research was conjunction. The data sho wed that the use of appropriate and sufficient conjunctions was quite a big problem. Most of the participants used lack of cohesive devices either as time relater or logical connector.
appropriate cohesive devices. The scores between 6 up to 10.5 were fair where the participants used some inappropriate and/or insufficient cohesive devices in their writing. The scores between 11 up to 15 were good that the participants used sufficient and appropriate cohesive devices in their writing.
Generally, the research participants obtained good level cohesion scores. It was shown by the average score obtained by the participants at a point of 11.33. The minimum score obtained was 5.5 while the maximum score was 15. Among 32 participants, three of them obtained poor cohesion score, six obtained fair cohesion score, and 23 obtained good cohesion score. Table 4.4 shows the percentage of the students’ writing cohesion level.
Table 4.4 The Students’ Writing Cohesion Level
Fragment 1) was one of the data found in this research which deserved a good level of cohesion for its sufficiency and appropriateness of cohesive devices.
1) ... Jigsaw text is an old but effective strategy (1). It makes reading more communicative because by integrating reading with other skill work, the students can see the value of reading (2). Besides, jigsaw text involves the students in speaking and summarizing skills (3)…
Fragment 1) showed that the reference “it” used in sentence (2) is properly used which referred to “jigsaw text” in sentence (1). The use of sufficient and appropriate conjunction within the fragment can also be clearly seen in sentence
(1), (2), and (3), such as “but” which indicated a contrast connector, “because” which indicated a causal connector, and “besides” which indicated an addition connector. Another finding that obtained a good cohesion score was presented in fragment 2).
2) ... In some cases, syllabus only needs to be known by a teacher (1). Sometimes, the teacher did not give the syllabus to the students (2). However, it is known that communication between the teacher and students is also important (3). As a matter of fact, syllabus is considered to be a way to communicate in which it conveys the expectation of the teachers and requirement for the students through the course (4). Therefore, it is necessary to distribute the syllabus before the course begins (5)...
In fragment 2), it could be seen that the use of a proper indefinite article “a” in sentence (1) was good since it indicated new information. The same case also happened in sentence (2) that the participant also used a definite article “the” for “the teacher”since the information had been mentioned in sentence (1). For the reference, the writer found the use of cataphoric reference in which the word “it” in sentence (3) and (5) did not refer to any reference in the preceding sentences. As a matter of fact, “it” in sentence (3) referred to “communication between teacher and students”, while “it”in sentence (5) referred to “distribute the syllabus before the course begins.” The other cohesive devices used properly in fragment (2) were the use of conjunctions “however” to show contrast between sentence (2) and (3), emphasis “as a matter of fact” in sentence (4), and result “therefore” as in sentence (5).
3) The university student more understands about the content and the structure of syllabus (1). He knows how to comprehend the syllabus, how to prepare the course, and how to gather the information or resources (2).
The use of article “the” in sentence (1) was considered an inappropriate tie since there was no information about “university student” on the previous sentences. Hence, using indefinite article, such as “a” before “university student” would be appropriate. However, there was still found a sufficient and appropriate cohesive device which was signaled by the use of pronouns reference. The participant wrote “he” in reference to “university student.” As a result, this fragment obtained fair level of cohesion.
Another writing which obtained fair level of cohesion was found in fragment 4).
4) ... a critical thinker must interest in argument first and evaluate whether the arguments provide good reason for acting or be believed or not be believed (1)... People sho uld evaluate the claim carefully so that they can separate issues which are relevant and not relevant (2)...
On the other hand, the writer also found some writings which obtained poor level of cohesion. One of them was presented in fragment 5) that indicated problems in the use of conjunction.
5) By first, the writer conducted many surveys in the library and the internet to search the sources as many as possible in order to answer the problems (1). Twice, the writer consulted the paper to the lecturer to get some feedback for a revision (2).
Enumeration was indicated by the use of expressions, such as first, firstly, first of all, in the first place, to begin with, next, second, secondly, finally, and many more. In this case, there was inappropriateness device in the use of “by first” in sentence (1) in which it was not permitted to use “by” before the word “first.” Next, there was also inappropriateness in the use of “twice” in sentence
(2). Ordinal number in showing number in series should be applied in enumeration. Hence, “twice” should be replaced by “second.”
Another one can be found in fragment 6).
6) A play is a story written to be acted. In a play, there are some dialogues to be spoken up (1). Then, there are some directions and sentences to construct the dialogue before the dialogue is spoken up (2).
C. The Contributions of Students’ Reading Habits towards Writing
Cohesion
This section elaborates the answer to the second research question about the contributions of the students’ reading habits of English texts towards writing cohesion. The result of the research showed that all of the three supporting reading habits had contributions towards writing cohesion. However, they were in different degrees of contributions. The following sections elaborate research findings on the contribution of students’ readings habits towards writing cohesion by using the computation of regression analysis by Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) program for Windows. By locating the constant value in the regression equation (Y= a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3), the formula will be:
Y= -6.671 + 2.195X1 + 2.304X2 + 0.999X3.
Generally, it was found that the three indicators of reading habits contributed 51.3% towards writing cohesion. Further explanation is elaborated as follows.
1. The Contribution of Motivation to Read towards Writing Cohesion
motivation to read obtained good cohesion score. Table 4.5 shows the data on participants’ motivation and their level of cohesion.
Table 4.5 The Students’ Motivation to Read and the Level of Cohesion COHESION
MOTIVATION
GOOD FAIR POOR High 7 0 0
Medium 14 5 0
Low 2 1 3
From the computation of regression analysis by SPSS program for Windows, it revealed that the coefficient was positive. It implied that the higher students’ motivation to read, the higher their writing cohesion scores would be. From the regression coefficient, it was found that the probability (0.003) was lower than the level of significance (0.05). It verified that the students’ motivation to read significantly contributes towards writing cohesion. Meanwhile, the regression equation formula was interpreted as if the students’ integrative motivation to read increased one level, while other indicators were constant, their writing cohesion scores would increase 2.195 point s. The result of regression analysis was presented in Appendix 6.
participant s with low motivation to read who obtained good cohesion scores indicated that there were other factors that also contributed towards writing cohesion which were not being observed in this research.
2. The Contribution of the Types of Reading Texts towards Writing Cohesion
There were two kinds of reading types to be discussed in the types of reading. They were fiction and non- fiction texts. In this research, the writer found that both fiction and non-fiction texts gave contribution towards writing cohesion for the sixth semester students.
In this research, the writer analyzed students’ academic writing. It meant that the students were required to perform their writing which was academically appropriate. Besides, the academic writing is considered as a non- fiction text. In other words, when the students read more non-fiction texts, they were exposed to the example or model of their required assignment. Therefore, most of the participants who read non-fiction texts obtained good cohesion scores than those who read fiction texts.
