i
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROCESS APPROACH IN TEACHING WRITING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ LEARNING INTEREST (An Experimental Study at SMK N 2 Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year)
By :
KASI N G S 8 9 0 9 0 8 2 1 0
A THESIS
Written as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting Post Graduate Degree in English Education
GRADUATE SCHOOL
SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY
SURAKARTA
ii APPROVAL
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROCESS APPROACH IN TEACHING
WRITING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ LEARNING INTEREST
(An Experimental Study at SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor
in the 2009/2010 Academic Year)
A Thesis By
KASING NIM: S890908210
Approved by Consultants
Position Name Signature Date
Consultan I
Consultant II
Prof. Dr. Sri Samiati Tarjana NIP. 19440602 196511 2 001
Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, M.A. NIP. 130 516 332
______________
______________
_____________
_____________
The Head of English Education
Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University,
iii
LEGITIMATION
This thesis entitled “The Effectiveness of Process in Teaching Writing
Viewed from Students’ Learning Interest, An Experimental Study at SMKN 2
Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year”, has been examined by the board of
the thesis examiners on August 10th, 2010.
The Board of Thesis Examiners:
1. Chairman : Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd. ……….
NIP. 19621231 198803 1 009
2. Secretary : Dr. Abdul Asib, M.Pd. ………
NIP. 195220307 198003 1 005
3. Member 1 : Prof. Dr. Samiati Tarjana ………
NIP. 19440602 196511 2 001
4. Member 2 : Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, MA. ……….
N IP. 130 516 332
The Director of Graduate Program, The Head of English Education
Graduate Program,
Prof. Drs. Suranto, M.Sc. Ph.D. Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd.
iv
PRONOUNCEMENT
This is to certify that I write this thesis by myself, entitled “The Effectiveness
of Process Approach in Teaching Writing Viewed from Students’ Learning Interest,
An Experimental Study at SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year”.
It is not plagiarism. In this thesis, the others’ work and opinion have been written is
listed on the bibliography.
I will accept the academic punishment, if this pronouncement is proven
wrong.
Surakarta, 19 July 2010
KASING
v ABSTRACT
Kasing, S890908210, Graduate School of Sebelas Maret University, July 2010. The Effectiveness of Process Approach Compared to Product Approach in Teaching Writing Viewed From Students’ Learning Interest (An Experimental Study at SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 Academic Year).
This research is aimed at finding out: (1) whether there is any difference in English writing skill achievement between students who are taught by process approach and those who are taught by product approach; (2) whether there is any difference in English writing skill achievement between students who have high learning interest and those who have low learning interest; and (3) whether or not there is an interaction between teaching methods and students’ learning interest on the students’ writing skill.
This experimental research is carried out at SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor in the 2009/2010 academic year from February to April 2010. The population is the second graders of SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor which consists of six classes: two classes of computer technology and network (XI TKJ), two classes of multimedia (XI MM), and two classes of business and management (XI PJ). Each class consists of 40 to 45 students. The total number of population is 258 students. The samples, which are selected by using cluster random sampling, are class XI PJ 1 as the experimental group and class XI PJ 2 as the control group. The instruments are tried-out to other students out of the samples having the same level as the samples. The questionnaire is scored by using continuum score method and writing test is scored by using readability formula. The scores are analyzed to know whether the instruments are valid and reliable. The experimental group is taught writing using process approach, while the control group is taught writing using product approach. The data are collected by using writing post-test to get the data of students’ writing achievement and questionnaire to measure the students’ learning interest. The data are classified into six groups, they are: (1) the students who are taught by using process approach (A); (2) the students who are taught by using product approach (B); (3) the students having high learning interest who are taught using process approach (A1B1); (4) the
students having low learning interest who are taught using process approach (A1B2);
(5) the students having high learning interest who are taught using product approach (A2B1); and (6) the students having low learning interest who are taught using
product approach (A2B2). In analyzing the data, the writer used multifactor analysis
vi
and homogeneity testing. At last, it needed to be followed by Tukey testing to know the different mean of each group.
1) From the results of the study, it can be concluded that: (1) the group of
students who are taught by using process approach have a difference English
writing skill achievement than those who are taught by using product approach. .
The main score of students who are taught by process approach (66.33) is higher
than those who are taught by product approach (59.58), so process approach
differs significantly from product approach; (2) the students having high learning
interest have a difference writing skill achievement than those having low
learning interest. The main score of students having high learning interest (66.75)
is higher than those who have low learning interest (62.15), so the students who
have high learning interest have a better writing skill achievement than the
students who have low learning interest.; and (3) Because Fo interaction (4.659),
is greater than Ft(.05)
Based on the result findings, the conclusion of this study is that process
approach is an effective method for teaching writing especially for students with
high learning interest. Therefore, it is recommended that: (1) teachers apply
process approach in teaching writing; (2) to promote students’ learning interest, it
is important to give students chance to develop their own ideas and share the
ideas with peer students; and (3) future researchers may conduct the same kind of
research with different sample and condition.
(3.96), the difference between rows and columns (cell) is
significant, so there is an interaction between teaching methods and students’
vii MOTTO
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow-men; along those fibers, as sympathetic threads,
viii DEDICATION
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praise and honor be to Jesus Christ, the merciful Lord, the writer can
finish his thesis as one of the requirements for achieving the graduate degree of
English Education Department. The writer is aware that it would be impossible for
him to complete the thesis without help and encouragement from other people.
Therefore, he would like to express his special gratitude to:
1. The Director of Graduate Program, Sebelas Maret University for giving the
writer permission to write this thesis.
2. Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd, the Head of English Education of Graduate School, for
giving permission to write this thesis.
3. Prof. Dr. Sri Samiati Tarjana and Drs. Heribertus Tarjana, MA., the writer’s
consultants, for the guidance, support, patience, and time in finishing this thesis.
4. The Head of Bulungan Regency, East Kalimantan, for the grant of the writer’s
scholarship.
5. Suriansyah, SST., the Headmaster of SMKN 2 Tanjung Selor who has allowed
the writer to carry out this experimental research.
6. The students of class XI Penjualan, semester February – July 2010, for the
willingness to be experimental students.
7. The writer’s parents, Ingan Lajing (R.I.P) and Uray Julung (R.I.P), for their
endless love.
8. Sahabuddin and Igit Bilung, the writer’s parents in law, for their motivation and
pray.
9. Marianti Karolus Hayon, Carold Firstionel, Michelle Ananta Christy, the writer’s
dearest wife and children, for their support, and motivation in doing the research.
10. All of my fondest brothers and sisters, especially Sadirin, Dorti Sirai Loly, F.M.
Aritonang, L.Laung, Robertus Jating Hayon and Yuli Karolus Hayon for their
x
11. All the writer’s friends, particularly Dina Destari and Erna Adita Kusumawati,
who have continuously supported the writer in completing his thesis.
Nothing in the world is perfect, and this thesis is not an exception. The writer
realizes that there are drawbacks in this thesis in spite of all efforts. He, however,
hopes that this thesis will be of any use for anyone, particularly those who are
interest in this topic.
Surakarta, July, 2010
xi
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page TITLE………. APPROVAL………... LEGITIMATION …... PRONOUNCEMENT ………... ABSTRACT ………... MOTTO ………. DEDICATION ……….. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……… TABLE OF CONTENT………... LIST OF APPENDICES ……….. LIST OF TABLES ……… LIST OF FIGURES ...
i ii iii iv v ix viii x xi xiv xvi xvii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
A. B. C. D. E. F.
Background of the Study ………...
Identification of the Problem ……….
Limitation of the Problems ………
Statement of the Problems ...……….
Objectives of the Study ... ……….
Benefits of the Study ………. 1 6 6 7 7 8
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 9 A. Theoretical Description ……….
1. The Nature of Writing ...………..
a. The Definition of Writing ………..
b. Writing Skill ………..
c. The Types of Writing ……… 9
9
9
11
xii B.
C.
D.
E.
d. The Characteristics of Writing ………..
2. The Teaching of Writing ……….
a. A Review of the Approaches to Teaching Writing
b. Process Approach ………..
c. Product Approach ………..
d. The Differences between Process Approach and
Product Approach ………..
Learning Interest ………
1. Definition ……….
a. Learning ……….
b. Interest ………...
Some other Previous Study …..……….
Rationale ……… Hypothesis ………. 20 24 24 24 29 32 34 34 34 35 39 39 41
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 43
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The Time and Place of the Study ………..
The Method of the Study ………...
The Subject of the Study ………...
1. Population ………
2. Sample ……….
3. Sampling ………..
The Technique of Collecting the Data ………...
1. Writing Test ……….
2. Questionnaire ………...
3. Trying-Out the Instrument ………...
4. Documentation ……….
xiii
CHAPTER IV THE RESULT OF THE STUDY 64
A.
B.
C.
D.
Data Description ………
1. Experimental Group ………..
2. Control Group ………...
Prerequisite Testing ………...
1. Normality Testing ……….
2. Homogeneity Testing ………
Hypothesis Testing ………
Discussion ………. 64
65
69
74
74
77
78
81
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION 85 A.
B.
C.
Conclusion ……….
Implication ………
Suggestion ………. 85
86
86
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Appendix 8 Appendix 9 Appendix 10 Appendix 11 Appendix 12 Appendix 13 Appendix 14 Appendix 15 Appendix 16 Appendix 17 Appendix 18 Appendix 19 Appendix 20 Appendix 21 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran ………..
The Blue Print of Learning Interest Questionnaire (Try-out)
Learning Interest Questionnaire (Try-out) ………...
The Blue Print of Writing Skill Test (Try-out) ……….
Writing Skill Test (Try-out) ………..
Validity and Reliability of Learning Interest Questionnaire
(Try-out) ……….………...
The Readability of Writing Test (Try-out) ………....
The Blueprint of Learning Interest Questionnaire
(Post-test) ………...
Learning Interest Questionnaire (Post-test) ……….…..
The Blueprint of Writing Skill Test (Post-test) ……….……
Writing Skill Test (Post-test) ………...
Analytic Scoring Rubric for Writing Test ……….
The Scores of Learning Interest Questionnaire (Post-test)
The Distribution for Experimental Group ……….…
The Distribution for Control Group ……….….
Normality Testing for Experimental Group ….…...………..
Normality Testing for Control Group ……….………..
Normality Testing for Learning Interest ………...
Homogeneity Testing ……….…...
The Scores of Distribution ……….…...
xv Appendix 22
Appendix 23 Appendix 24 Appendix 25 Appendix 26 Appendix 27 Appendix 28
: : : : : : :
The Tukey’s Formula ……….……...
Table of r Product Moment Critic Value ………..…………
Table of Chi-Square ……….…….
Table of Lilliefors Testing ……….…
Table of Distribution F-Score ………...
Table of Tukey Test ……….……….
Table of Normality Curve ………. 173
175
177
178
179
183
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
The Comparison between Process Approach and Product
Approach ……….………..
Time Schedule of the Research ………
The Factorial Design of the Variables Being Studied ………..
The Assessment of the Ease of Readability ………..
Groups of Data ………..
The Design of Multifactor Analysis of Variance ………..
The Data of Respondents Based on Their Sex Groups ……….
The Frequency Distribution of the Test Scores of the
Experimental Group ……….……….
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
Experimental Group having High Learning Interest ………....
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
Experimental Group having High Learning Interest ………....
The Frequency of Distribution of the Test Scores of the
Control Group ……….………..
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
Control Group having High Learning Interest …………...…...
The Frequency of Distribution of the Post-test Scores of the
Control Group having Low Learning Interest …………..……
The Summary of Normality Testing ……….
xvii Table 16
Table 17 : :
The Summary of a 2 x 2 Multifactor Analysis of Variance …..
The Tukey Test………
78
xviii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8 : : :
:
:
:
:
:
Procedures Involved in Producing a Written Text ……….
The Relationship between Motivation and Interest ………
The Histogram and Polygon of The Frequency Distribution of the
Test Scores of the Experimental Group ……….…
The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Experimental Group having High
Learning Interest ………...………..
The Histogram and Polygon of The Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Experimental Group having Low Learning
Interest ………...……..
The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Test Scores of the Control Group ………..….
The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Control Group having High Learning
Interest ………..………..
The Histogram and Polygon of the Frequency Distribution of the
Post-test Scores of the Control Group having Low Learning
Interest ………..…….. 28
38
66
67
69
70
72
