AN ANALYSIS OF THE STUDENTS’ RECOUNT TEXTS.

(1)

Aulia Arifaturrochmah, 2014.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE STUDENTS’ RECOUNT TEXTS

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |perpustakaan.upi.edu

AN ANALYSIS OF

THE STUDENTS’ RECOUNT TEXTS

A Research Paper

Submitted to the English Education Department FPBS UPI as a Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

Aulia Arifaturrochmah

1002709

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

An Analysis of the Students’

Recount Texts

Oleh

Aulia Arifaturrochmah

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

Oktober 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(3)

PAGE OF APPROVAL

AULIA ARIFATURROCHMAH

AN ANALYSIS OF THE STUDENTS’ RECOUNT TEXTS

Approved by:

Supervisor

Pupung Purnawarman, M.S.Ed., Ph.D.

NIP. 196810131998031001

Acknowledged by:

Head of English Education Department

Faculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

Prof. Dr. H. Didi Suherdi, M.Ed.

(4)

AN ANALYSIS OF THE STUDENTS’ RECOUNT TEXTS

Written by: Aulia Arifaturrochmah

Supervisor : Pupung Purnawarman, M.S.Ed., Ph.D

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study is to analyze students’ ability in writing a recount text by

investigating the generic structure and the linguistic features of recount text. This study is descriptive qualitative study. The data was six pieces of recount texts written by tenth grade students of high school. The data then was analyzed by using Transitivity system of Systemic Functional Linguistics developed by Halliday (1994) to identify the linguistic features of the text. Meanwhile, the generic structure of recount text is adopted from Anderson & Anderson (2003) and Emilia (2010) which was used to identify the generic structure of the

students’ recount texts. The findings show that five students applied the generic

structure of recount text in their writings, whereas one of whom missed the re-orientation part in hi writing. In regard to the text organization, five students put the structures in different paragraphs; however there is one student who wrote the story in only one paragraph. In regard to the linguistic features, most students likely found problems in applying regular and irregular verb form of simple past tense, the use of present tense, subject-verb agreement, gerund, to-infinitive, word choice, derivative form, conjunctions, prepositions, and articles. Therefore, it is recommended for the students to practice more in English grammar to improve their knowledge.

Keywords: recount text, transitivity, generic structure, linguistic features,

(5)

ANALISIS TEKS RECOUNT SISWA

Ditulis oleh: Aulia Arifaturrochmah

Pembimbing : Pupung Purnawarman, M.S.Ed., Ph.D

ABSTRAK

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisa kemampuan siswa dalam menulis teks recount dengan meneliti struktur organisasi dan unsur kebahasaan teks

recount. Penelitian ini merupakan studi kualitatif deskriptif. Data penelitian ini

adalah enam lembar teks recount yang ditulis oleh enam siswa kelas X SMA. Datanya kemudian dianalisis menggunakan sistem Transitivity dari Systemic

Functional Linguistics yang dikembangkan oleh Haliday (1994) untuk

mengidentifikasi unsur kebahasaan dari teks tersebut. Lantas struktur organisasi teks recount diadopsi dari Anderson & Anderson (2003) dan Emilia (2010) yang digunakan untuk mengidektifkasi struktur teks recount siswa. Hasil dari penelitian ini menyebutkan bahwa lima dari enam siswa memasukkan struktur organisasi teks recount ke dalam tulisan mereka, sedangkan satu sisanya tidak memasukkan struktur re-orientation ke dalam tulisannya. Mengenai struktur organisasi, lima siswa menulis bagian struktur organisasi teks mereka ke dalam paragraf yang berbeda; tetapi satu siswa menulis ceritanya dalam satu paragraf saja. Mengenai unsur kebahasaan, kebanyakan siswa menemui kesalahan dalam mengaplikasikan bentuk regular dan irregular simple past tense, penggunaan simple present tense,

subject-verb agreement, gerund, to-infinitive, word choice, derivative form, conjunctions, prepositions, dan articles. Oleh karena itu, disarankan kepada siswa

untuk berlatih bahasa Inggris lebih sering.

Kata Kunci: teks recount, transitivity, struktur organisasi, unsur kebahasaan,

(6)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |perpustakaan.upi.edu i

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1Background of the Study 1

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 5

2.1 Writing 5

2.2 Recount Text 6

2.2.1 Linguistic Features of Recount Text 8

(7)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |perpustakaan.upi.edu ii

2.4.2.6 Existential Process 19

2.4.3 Participants 20

2.5 Review of the Previous Studies 20

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 23

3.1 Research Questions 23

4.1 The Generic Structure Analysis of the Students’ Recount Texts 27

4.2 The Linguistic Features Analysis of the Students’ Recount Texts 29

4.3 The Analysis of the Students’ Recount Texts 31

4.3.1 The Analysis of Student 1’s Recount Text 31

(8)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |perpustakaan.upi.edu iii

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 55

5.1 Conclusions 55

5.2 Suggestions 56

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

(9)

(10)

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides general outline of the study. It covers background of

the study, statements of problems, aims of the study, clarification of terms, and

organization of the paper.

1.1 Background of the Study

According to the Indonesian Curriculum 2013, tenth grade students of high

school and vocational school in Indonesia should comprehend recount genre. One

of the basic competences for recount genre is that students have to be able to write

a simple written recount text which fulfills the social function, the generic

structure, and the linguistic features of the text. In other words, the aim of the

basic competence is that students can express their idea and form it into a good

written text which does not have ambiguous meanings to the readers.

English is included as one of obligatory subjects in secondary level in

Indonesia. One of the reasons why the students need to learn English is because

they have to be “adequately exposed to all of the four basic skills, namely

listening, speaking, reading and writing” (Brown, 2000, as cited in Darus & Subramaniam, 2009, p. 486) in order to communicate with people from different

cultures and background.

Furthermore, based on the preliminary study in a classroom during

Teaching Practicum Program (Program Pengalaman Lapangan) at one public

high school in Bandung, the students tended to write sentences ungrammatically,

particularly in writing recount text. Recount text has three parts in generic

structure: orientation, sequence of events, and re-orientation; (Department of

Education and Communities of New South Wales, 2011; Department of

(11)

2

specific participant, use of simple past tense, and use of action verbs (Derewianka,

1990; Gerot & Wignell, 1995; Emilia, 2010). Most of the students found

difficulties in applying the generic structure and the linguistic features in writing

in English, particularly in recount text. They were confused of how to write a

good recount text due to their limited mastery of English. In the end, they still

made errors in linguistic features, such as simple present tense and prepositions.

Learning a target language is more difficult than learning first language and a

number of students have problems learning the target language (Cook, 2008).

Therefore, first language may interfere the production of target language

competence in learning process.

Therefore, based on the preceding arguments, this study investigates the

ability of tenth grade students in writing recount texts in terms of the generic

structure and the linguistic features. This study is expected to give richer analysis

for the students so that in the future they can communicate in English well.

1.2 Statement of Problems

Two research questions coherent to the purpose of the study are elaborated

as follows:

a. To what extend do students apply the generic structure of recount text in

their writing?

b. How do students apply simple past tense in their writing?

1.3 Aims of Study

This section will elaborate general purpose and specific purpose of the

study.

The general purpose of the study is it is expected that the study would

(12)

3

Grammar. This study is an attempt to investigate students’ recount text in terms of

the generic structure and the linguistic features. It is also expected to give benefits

for teachers to pay more attention and gain insight into the learners’ difficulties and to find effective ways to teach text types and their linguistic features to their

students. Furthermore, it can facilitate the textbook writers in developing suitable

materials for the courses. This study is also expected to contribute to fill the gap in

the research of Systemic Functional Grammar.

There are two specific purposes of the study. Firstly, it is aimed to

investigate the difficulties which occur in students’ recount text. Secondly, it will

elaborate how students apply simple past tense in their writing.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This study is focused on analyzing the generic structure and the linguistic

features in students’ recount texts. In analyzing the texts, transitivity of Systemic

Functional Grammar by Halliday (1994) is employed to discover the generic

structure and the linguistic features of the students’ recount texts. The writing is

only focused on six pieces of recount texts written by tenth grade students of a

public high school in Bandung.

1.5 Clarification of Terms

In order to avoid misunderstanding of some particular words, this part will

elaborate briefly some related terms used in this study.

a. Recount Text – a text which retells events happened in the past (Emilia,

2010)

b. Systemic Functional Grammar – a theory that sees language serves not

only a set of rules, but a resource for making meaning as well (Halliday,

(13)

4

c. Writings – a group of pieces of writing, especially by a particular person or

on a particular subject (Oxford dictionary, 2010)

1.6 Organization of the Paper

The paper will be presented in five chapters, as follows:

Chapter I : Introduction

This chapter provides general outline of the study. It covers background of

the study, statements of problems, aims of the study, clarification of terms, and

also organization of the paper.

Chapter II : Theoretical Foundation

It presents review of the literature which is relevant to the study being

researched which includes writing, recount text, Systemic Functional Grammar,

Transitivity system and review of the previous studies.

Chapter III : Research Methodology

This chapter will give clear discussion about how data would be collected

and analyzed. It describes research design, participants of the study, data

collection, and data analysis.

Chapter IV : Findings and Discussion

This chapter will cover data presentation and data analysis. It consists of

the analysis of students’ recount texts in terms of the generic structure and the linguistic features.

Chapter V : Conclusions and Suggestions

This chapter presents conclusion and suggestion drawn from the analysis

(14)

23

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODS

This section explains the method of the research to answer statements of

problems proposed in Chapter I. It covers research design, participants of the

study, data collection, data analysis, and reliability and validity of the study.

3.1Research Questions

The problems to be investigated are formulated in the following questions:

1. To what extend do students apply the generic structure of recount text in

their writing?

2. How do students apply simple past tense in their writing?

3.2Research Design

The study used qualitative method in order to meet the objectives of the

study as the data was examined “by collecting primarily textual data and

examining it using interpretative analysis” (Heigham & Croker, 2009, p. 5).

Fraenkel et al. (2012, p. 426) add that this qualitative method is preferable since it

is more concerned of the quality of relationship, activities, situations, or materials

being analyzed. The findings of qualitative research cannot be generalized in

particular contexts. Although in certain circumstances, the researcher might let his

study be generalized, and usually very limited in scope, by the readers as long as

he provides rich description to his research (Heigham & Croker, 2009, p. 9;

(15)

24

3.3Research Cite

There was one legitimate reason on choosing SMA Negeri 5 Bandung as

the research cite of this study. Since the researcher conducted an internship (PPL)

at that school and she had thought tenth and eleventh grade students of SMA

Negeri 5 Bandung, she got the general picture of its students’ English fluency.

The students’ English fluency was relatively good and in general they could write

in English somewhat well. They also could follow proper generic structures of a

particular text type when asked to write, for example on writing a recount text,

they would include orientation, sequence of events, and re-orientation. The

interesting finding was that the researcher found that students still had difficulties

in tenses, prepositions, articles, and choice of words when writing or speaking in

English. Therefore, the researcher would like to research the students’ recount

texts further. The researcher chose SMA Negeri 5 Bandung as her research cite

Hence, the population of this study was all tenth grade students of SMA Negeri 5

Bandung of the academic year 2014-2015. As there were ten classes of tenth

grade, one class was chosen randomly for the sample of the study. A sample is

“the group on which information is obtained” (Fraenkel et al., ibid.). There were 37 students in that class and only 35 students participated in the study since the

other two students were absent on the first meeting of data collection. Therefore,

only six students were chosen as the sample for this study. They were chosen

(16)

25

The students were asked to write a piece of recount text under the topic

“The Best Day Ever in My Life.” This study was conducted to find out whether the students had difficulties in writing English text types, in this case writing a

recount text. The result of this study was also expected that it would provide the

best remedies for teachers that in the future time, they would notice the difficulties

and could arrange the best remedies to avoid this phenomenon to happen again

later.

3.4.2 Sampling Technique

The sample was chosen randomly from ten classes of tenth grade at SMA

Negeri 5 Bandung. There was no particular condition that classes were determined

by the students’ total number of errors. It meant that there were the same total

number of higher achievers, middle achievers, and low achievers in each class.

The selection of the class for the sample of the study did not under any

circumstances meet certain requirements since the academic year had just begun.

Therefore, random assignment was applied for the study since “each individual

who is participating in an experiment has an equal chance of being assigned”

(Fraenkel et al., 2012, p. 267).

The students were asked to write their own real life experience in the form

of recount text. After the data was analyzed and classified into three categories

based on the number of errors the students made (‘low’, ‘middle’, and ‘high’), six

students fulfilled each category would be treated as the sample of this study.

3.5 Data Collection

To achieve the prior purpose of the study, the data was collected from 35

tenth grade students of SMA Negeri 5 Bandung. The main data was six pieces of

recount texts written by the students. The writings were analyzed briefly and six

(17)

26

The primary data for this study was six pieces of students’ recount text

under the theme of “The Best Day Ever in MyLife”. They had to write their own

personal experience toward the theme and had to include where and when they

had the best day ever in their life and with whom they experienced it (if

necessary). They had to explain what they did and how they felt about the

experiences in about 200 words in 30 minutes.

3.6 Data Analysis

To analyze the data, the study applied two steps to fulfill the aims of the

study. First, the texts were analyzed using based on the generic structure of

recount text as suggested by Anderson & Anderson (2003) and Emilia (2010), as

follows:

1. Orientation

This stage describes who involved in the story, where it happened,

what happened, and when it happened.

2. Sequence of Events

In this part, the writer retells the events he experienced in his story.

Events were described in series by using temporal and additive

conjunction to connect them.

3. Re-orientation

The writer gives his comment for his overall story. He also may add a

conclusion about the story.

The second step is identifying the linguistic features that were found in

students’ recount texts by applying Transitivity of Functional Grammar as suggested by Gerot & Wignell (1995). It includes, specific participants,

circumstance of time and place, the use of first person, additive conjunction,

(18)

55

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents the conclusions and the suggestions of the study. The

conclusions are formulated from the research questions and are aimed to give

conclusion remarks about the study on investigating the students’ recount texts. The suggestions present the recommendation for related parties and further

research in the related topic.

5.1.Conclusions

The study was aimed at investigating the students’ recount texts in terms of the generic structure and the linguistic features. In regard to the linguistic

features, Transitivity system of Systemic Functional Linguistics was applied to

analyze the writings. The main findings show that most students (Student 1,

Student 2, Student 3, student 4 and Student 6) applied the generic structure of

recount text and used them as guidance to write good and acceptable recount

texts. The writings consist of orientation, sequence of events, and re-orientation

(Anderson & Anderson, 2003; Emilia, 2010). Only one student did write the

re-orientation part in his writing. In regard to text organization, only four writings

were organized well; that means all structures were written in different

paragraphs. One writing was actually well-organized if the student put three parts

of the generic structure in different paragraphs. The other one writing did not

include the re-orientation part.

In regard to the linguistic features, all students applied the linguistic

features of recount text as suggested Gerot & Wignell (1995) in their writings.

The linguistic features in recount text include the use of specific participants,

circumstances of time and place, the use of first person, the use of temporal and

additive conjunction, material processes, and simple past tense. Unfortunately

(19)

56

problem were caused by the inability of applying regular and irregular verb form

of simple past tense, the use of present tense, subject-verb agreement, gerund,

to-infinitive, word choice, derivative form, conjunctions, prepositions, and articles.

The ungrammatical structures that were found in students’ recount text were

caused of knowledge deficiency (Richards, 1971). It might be due to the lack of

knowledge and practice in English grammar that is different from the students’ first language grammar. Therefore, they were confused of several structures in

English.

5.2.Suggestions

There are two suggestions for this study: recommendations for related

parties and recommendations for future research in the related topic.

The recommendations for related parties include the recommendation for

English teachers. They should provide constructive feedback on their students’ grammatical mistakes and ask them to revise their work. The students should also

be given more time to practice their skill at writing in English both inside and

outside the class. The students also have to build their self-motivation to be able

to communicate in English well so that minor mistakes in both oral and written

skills will be minimized.

For the further research, one recommendation is drawn. A study included

(20)

[Type text] Aulia Arifaturrochmah, 2014.

REFERENCES

Anderson, M. & Anderson, K. (1997). Text types in English I. Melbourne:

Macmillan Education Australia

Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. (1997). The functional analysis of English. New York:

Martin's Press.

Brindley, S. (1994). Teaching English. London: The Open University.

Brown, D. H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. (4th e.d.).

New York: Pearson Education Company

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., Yallop, C. (2000). Using Functional

Grammar: An explorer’s guide 2nd

ed. Sydney: National Centre for

English Teaching and Research. Macquarie University.

Christie, F. (2005). Language Education in the Primary Years. Sydney: UNSW

Press.

Coffin, C. (2010). Language support in EAL context. Why systemic functional

linguistics? (special issue of NALDIC Quarterly). NALDIC, Reading, UK.

Department for Education and Child Development Government of South

Australia. (2012). Engaging in and exploring Recount writing: A practical

guide for classroom teachers. Retrieved from

(21)

Department of Education and Communities of New South Wales. (2011). School

A to Z: Text types (different types of writing). Retrieved from

https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/eppcontent/glossary/app/resource/factsheet/41

08.pdf

Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Newtown: Primary English

Teaching Association.

Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2012). Teaching Language in Context. Melbourne:

Oxford University Press.

Dudley-Evans, A. (1989). ‘An Outline of the Value of Genre Analysis in LSP Work’ in C. Lauren and M. Nordman (eds). Special Language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines. Cledovon: Multilingual Matters.

Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York:

Routledge.

Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. (2nd e.d.).

New York: Continuum.

Emilia, E. (2005). A critical genre based approach to teaching academic writing

in a tertiary ELF context in Indonesia (Doctorate's dissertation, University

of Melbourne). Melbourne: unpublished.

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

Press.

(22)

Feez, S. & Joyce, H. (1998). Writing skills. Phoenix: Phoenix Education Pty Ltd.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate

research in education. (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1995). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. New

South Wales: Antipodean Educational Enterprise.

Gibbons, P. (2009). English Learners, Academy Literacy and Thinking.

Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar 2nd ed.

London: Edward Arnold.

Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman

Group Limited.

Heigham, J. & Croker R. A. (Ed.). (2009). Qualitative research in applied

linguistics: A practical introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hornby, A. S. (2010). Oxford advanced learners’ dictionaries. (8th ed.). Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2012). Dokumen kurikulum 2013.

Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Indonesia.

Leckie-Tarry, H. (1993). The Specification of a Text: Register, genre and

(23)

Lock, G. (1996). Functional English Grammar: An introduction for second

language teachers. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Genre Relations. London: Equinox Publidhing

Ltd.

Martin, J. R., Matthiessen, M. I. M. C. & Painter, C. (1997). Working with

Functional Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.

Patel, M. F. & Jain, P. M. (2008). English language teaching. Jaipur: Sunrise

Publishers and Distributions.

Permanasari, P. (2011). An Analysis of Recount Writing of the Fifth Term Students

of English Department Teachers’ Training and Education Faculty

Pekalongan University (Undergraduate’s thesis, Universitas Pekalongan)

Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. Error

Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 172-188).

Singapore: Longman Group Limited.

Salkind, N. J. (2012). Exploring research. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson

Education.

Swarbrick, A. (1994). Teaching modern language. London: Longman.

Trosborg, A. (1997). Text Typology: Register, genre and text type. Amsterdam:

(24)

Tuan, L. T. (2011). Teaching Writing through Genre-based Approach.Theory and

Practice in Language Studies, (1) 11, 1471-1478. doi: