TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ………. 7
2.1 The Nature of Essay Writing ……….………..…….. 7
2.2 Expository Writing ……….…...………..…….. 8
2.2.1 The Definition and Purpose of Expository Texts …...………..… 9
2.2.2 The Types Schematic Structure of Expository Texts ……….….... 10
2.2.3 The Language Features of Expository Texts ………....… 11
2.3 Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) ….………...…..….. 15
2.3.1 Defining the Systemic Functional Grammar …..……..………….... 15
2.3.2 Theme System ……….………….………….….. 17
2.3.3 Thematic Progression ……….... 20
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ………..……… 30
3.1 Research Design ………..…….………..…….. 30
3.2 Research Site and Participants …..………...……….. 31
3.3 Data Collection Techniques ………...…..…………..…….. 32
3.3.1 The Documentation of Participants’ Written Texts ………..……. 33
3.3.2 The Use of Interviews …..……….……..…..…...….. 33
3.4 Data Analysis ………..…………..…….. 34
3.4.1 The Teachers’ Argumentative Texts ………...………. 34
3.4.2 The Interviews ………...………. 35
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ………. 36
4.1 Introduction ………...………..…………..….. 36
4.2 Analysis of the Teachers’ Argumentative Essays ……….……..….……. 36
4.2.1 General Descriptions of Teachers’ Analytical Expository Texts... 37
4.2.2 The Purpose and Schematic Structure of Teachers’ Analytical Expository Texts ….………. 38
4.2.7 Lexico-Grammatical Analyses of Elements in Teachers’
Hortatory Exposition Texts …..………. 67
4.2.7.1 Thesis Elements ……….……… 67
4.2.7.1.1 The Theme System ………….……… 67
4.2.7.1.2 The Transitivity System ……….………. 69
4.2.7.1.3 The Mood System ……….……...…… 71
4.2.7.2 Argument Elements ……….…………... 72
4.2.7.2.1 The Theme System ………. 72
4.2.7.2.2 The Transitivity System ………... 75
4.2.7.2.3 The Mood System ……… 78
4.2.7.3 Recommendation Elements ………..… 79
4.2.7.3.1 The Theme System ……….. 79
4.2.7.3.2 The Transitivity System ……… 82
4.2.7.3.3 The Mood System ………. 84
4.2.8 Summary of Discussion of Teachers’ Hortatory Exposition Texts ………...……….. 86
4.2.9 Conclusions of Discussions of Teachers” Argumentative Texts ………. 87
4.3 Finding and Discussion of Interview Data ……….……… 88
4.3.1 Teachers’ Ability of Writing ………... 90
4.3.2 Teaches’ Problem in Writing the Texts ……….. 95
4.3.3 Possible Solutions Suggested by Teachers ………...… 97
4.3.4 Summary of Discussion of Interview Data ………. 97
4.3.5 Conclusion of Discussion of Interview Data ……… 98
4.4 Conclusion of Chapter 4 ………. 99
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ……… 100
5.1 Introduction………...………….………… 100
5.2 Conclusions ………...………….….…… 100
5.3 Recommendations ……….……….…...………...……… 102
REFERENCES ……….………..…… 104
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the general issues related to the present study.
These include the background of the study, research questions, aims of the
study, significance of the study, scope of the study, and clarifications of key
terms related to this study.
1.1 Background of the Study
The curriculum of English teaching in Indonesia stated by Ministry of
National Education has been concerned with communicative competence of
the students (Depdiknas, 2003). Further, it is stated that the communicative
competence has been programmed to be gradually mastered from junior up
to high school level. In turn, in high school level, the students are targeted to
be able to communicate through spoken and written language appropriately.
Concerning the communicative competence through written mode, the
national curriculum prescribes that the writing competence to be achieved by
the high school students is not determined by the number of words that the
students can produce but more on the quality of the writing they produce
which is characterized among others through the application of genre based
writing (Depdiknas, 2003;13).
In order to pursue this goal, teachers are expected to take appropriate
roles in developing students’ writing competence. Consequently, the teachers
themselves are required to have adequate writing competence in order to
carry out their tasks well. To this point, there have been insufficient efforts to
investigate the teachers’ writing skills condition in Indonesia, and then
performance which in turn expectedly will give rise to the betterment of the
teaching learning process in the classroom. Thus, it is necessary to examine
teachers’ writing competence in various genres prescribed in the national
curriculum including the Exposition genre.
With regard to Indonesian teaching learning context, Emilia (2005) has
conducted research related to this issue. Her research involving 18
participants of semester six student teachers of a Bachelor degreeindicates
that there is room for teachers’ proficiency improvement in this field. Other
research which takes teachers as the participants indicates a similar
condition. Other studies also show that teachers in Indonesia still need to
evaluate their writing performance. The national education office of Bandung
mentions that writing for Indonesian teachers is still a matter to be carefully
concerned by the ministry of national education (Kompas.com, 2009a). In a
wider sense, the government reveals that Indonesian English teachers are of
inadequate mastery related to their roles as teachers to teach writing skills.
The research which involved 600 teachers from international standard
schools of junior and senior high levels indicates that 60% of the teachers are
even in the poorest writing proficiency standard as required by the
government (Kompas.com, 2009b). These facts indicate that the need of
developing and maintaining teachers writing skill is still a relevant issue to
evaluate.
In some other countries, studies have been conducted to examine
some related aspects of the teachers’ writing competence in various
perspectives by taking prospective teachers and teachers into account. For
the writing skill of prospective teachers might identify their writing ability. In
addition, Cherednichenko (1987) as well as Gilfert (1999) found that teachers
writing performance can reveal the teachers’ professional development. Atay
and Kurt (2006) have also carried out research concerning with 85 Turkish
prospective teachers writing quality related to their anxiety. The research
indicates that most of the teachers had difficulties in organizing their thoughts
and producing ideas while writing in L2, especially those with high and
average anxiety level. In addition, Holmes (2010) reveals that writing is still
viewed as a daunting task by some teachers. His research which was
conducted within EFL context shows that the teachers are still in need of
evaluating and developing their writing performance
On the ground of this condition, this study aims to get more ideas of
the teachers’ ability and problem in writing as well as to find possible solutions
to cope with the problems.
1.2 Research Questions
This research addressed the following questions:
1. What is the ability of the teachers in composing Exposition essays?
2. What problems do the teachers have in writing the essays?
3. What solutions can be proposed to help teachers improve their writing
skills?
1.3 Aims of the Study
As mentioned above, this study was aimed at:
(i) analyzing teachers’ ability in writing Expository essays
(iii) proposing relevant possible solutions to improve the teachers’ writing
ability.
1.4 Significance of the study
This study reported here theoretically has attempted to provide a
reference on the study on Expository writing. It was expected that this
study can enrich the literature related to the teachers’ ability in composing
Expository texts. Furthermore, this study might be preliminary inputs for
other researchers to further study in the similar area of research in
different context.
Professionally, the results of this study expectedly can be beneficial
for English teachers themselves to review their writing performance. This
study may provide information on what problems they encounter. This will
give them ideas to work on the betterment for their writing skills which in
turn give rise to their awareness of teaching writing practices.
This study has been carried out to provide some features of
teachers’ writing performance which is necessary to be taken into
consideration related to developing teachers’ writing ability. Thus, to some
extent, this study can also provide ideas for the government which is in
charge of developing teachers’ quality in dealing with teachers’
development program. This may provide inputs for them to specify the
matters to deal within in the teachers’ training as well as up grading
1.5 Scope of the Study
This study is a case study researching writing ability of high school
teachers’ of English in Bandar Lampung. This research used text analysis
to investigate the teachers’ writing performance in composing
argumentative text especially Hortatory and Analytical Expositions. The
analysis focused on the schematic structure and the linguistic features
employed in the writing of the argumentative texts. The analysis attempted
to view the teachers’ ability and problems in writing Exposition texts, the
possible causes of the problems as well as the possible way of coping with
the problems. Interviews were also conducted to confirm the findings
gained from the texts analyses.
1.6 Clarifications of Key Terms
For the sake of clarity, key terms in this study were defined and
specified as follows:
Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL): a model of text analysis as a point of
reference and theoretical framework for the analysis of teachers’ writing in
terms of linguistic features particularly for the transitivity system. This
model is developed by among others Halliday (1985, 1994); Martin and
Rose (2007, 2008); and Eggins (1994).
Expository writing: a writing genre which comes with the purpose which is
to take a position on some issues and justify it. This genre concerns with
the analysis, interpretation and evaluation of the world around us. In this
study, this genre covers Hortatory and Analytical Expositions as
(1995); Knapp and Watkins (2005); Macken and Horarik - cited in Johns -
(2001) and Martin (1985).
1.7 Organization of the Paper
This thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter One covers
general description of the introduction of the study. It provides background
of the study, research questions, purpose of the study, and significance of
the study, definition of key term and organization of the thesis. Chapter
Two discusses relevant theories by which the present study underpinned,
especially the theory of Argumentation and SFL as well as and related
research. Chapter Three provides the methodological aspects of this
thesis which consists of research design, research site, participants, data
collection and data analysis. Chapter Four elaborates data presentation
and discussion of each research finding. Finally, Chapter Five is the
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the general elaboration related to the method of
this study. These include the descriptions related to Research Design,
Research Site and Participants, Data Collection Techniques and Data
Analysis.
3.1 Research Design
In order to cope with the purposes of this research, this study applied a
qualitative research design for some considerations. First of all, this research
has the characteristics of qualitative research as stated by Nunan (1992);
Kvale (1996); Holliday (2005); Setiyadi (2006); Dornyei (2007); Frankel
(2007); and Alwasilah (2009). As they mention that qualitative research is
characterized by the nature of the data which may be originated from various
source, among others are document and data processing which elaborate the
findings into textual form. In addition, this research is also characterized by
the nature of qualitative research which tries to describe social phenomena as
they occur naturally.
Besides, qualitative research concerns subjective interpretation of the
data into the findings. In this case, the research analyzed the data collected
and attempted to describe certain phenomena appear from the research
findings. It is considered appropriate as this study dealt with analyzing and
describing the pattern of grammar found in the text produced by the teachers.
Furthermore, this research was also characterized as a case study as
it met the following reasons. First, the research was carried out in a limited or
(1987); Merriam (1988) as cited in Nunan (1992); Creswell (1994); Setiyadi
(2006); Frankel (2007); and Alwasilah (2009). In this study, the research only
dealt with analyzing particular written document from six teachers in a region,
in this case in Bandar Lampung. Then the results were not to be generalized
as general conditions of the whole teachers in Bandar Lampung.
The second feature that constitutes this study as a case study is that
the study was to examine a case mainly to provide insight into an issue
(Stake: 1995 and Dornyei: 2007). In this case the study focused on examining
the writing performance from the case of the participants only. In addition,
Yin (1989) as cited in Creswell (1994) mentioned that case study works with
the search for “patterns” by comparing results with patterns predicted from
theory or literature. In this case, the patterns of writing problems were in
search and compared to the pattern proposed by the experts in the field. The
third characteristic is that this study used text analysis which is another
method of qualitative study as mentioned by Patton (1987); Yin (1989) cited in
Creswell (1994); Nunan (1992); and Setiyadi (2006).
3.2 Research Site and Participants
The choice of the place of the participant was determined as
considering of the accessibility of the researcher to carry out the research.
Alwasilah (2009) mentioned that convenience factor should be taken into
consideration to support the researcher to carry out the research. As the
researcher is originated from Bandar Lampung, then he into certain extent
understands the field of research condition and accessibility. For this reason,
As expected, it enabled the researcher to collect the data needed.
The researcher is also familiar with the participants intended to be contacted
for this research since he has access and personal as well as professional
relationship with the participants, which also helped the researcher to carry
out the data collecting process.
The participants were six English teachers in the region who were
chosen considering that they are potential to take advantage of the study and
thus give rise to any implication for evaluating their teaching processes.
Another reason to work with those teachers was related to the genre focus,
the argumentative genre, which can be considered difficult one (Emilia, 2005).
It was assumed that the teachers were expected to deal with certain level of
mastery of the genre. Considering this reasons, it is expected that the
participants would be appropriate to fulfill the need of the research as
indicated by Supriyoko (2008) and Marisi (2008).
However, to anticipate the possible constraints concerning with their
availability of time to cooperate, the participants then were recruited by asking
them voluntarily to be involved the research. So, after listing the possible
participants to work with, the researcher contacted the teachers until the
number needed for this research fulfilled. Moreover, voluntary-based
participation was expected to have more motivated participants to cooperate
in carrying out this research in a natural sense which in turn will affect the
reliability of the findings (Emilia, 2005).
3.3 Data Collection Techniques
The study collected data through documentation in this case the
gained from this study were be analyzed at the end of the research. The data
were categorized, analyzed and interpreted to answer the research questions.
3.3.1 Documentation of Participants’ Written Text
The main method of data collection in this research was the
documentation of the participants’ written texts. The texts were considered
important in that in most cases actual achievements can be gauged through
the productions of such kinds of documents (Freebody as cited in Emilia,
2005).
In this case each of the participants was to write a 500 word
argumentative essay. For this purpose, the researcher met the expected
teachers either individually or in group as they joined the English teachers
forum namely Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran (MGMP), and asked for their
willingness to cooperate for the study. Every teacher who was willingly able
to cooperate was given a task to write a text in accordance with the topic
given i.e National Education. This task was carried out individually at their
respective place – at home or school. The task was expected to be carried
out through recursive writing processes.
3.3.2 The Use of Interviews
The research also made use of interviews in order to verify the data
gained through written text of argumentative essay documents. As an
alternative data collecting technique (Patton, 1987; Nunan, 1992; Kvale, 1996
and Dornyei, 2007) interview is defined as “any written documents that
present respondents with a series of questions or statements to which they
are to react either by writing out their answers or selecting among existing
research applied factual questions type which was used to find out certain
facts about the respondents (Dornyei, 2007).
For this study, the interviews were arranged in form of open-ended
interviews (Kvale, 1996; Setiyadi, 2006; and Dornyei, 2007. This type of
interview was employed to gain the needed information – such as the
participants’ background experience and knowledge related to the genre
writing, problems encountered during the process of writing and possible
solutions suggested in attempt to answer the research questions of this
research.
The data collection was carried out within two steps. In this case the
writing work were administered first and then followed by the interviews.
Through this way, hopefully, the writing process which was intended to
provide the major data source was not disturbed by any condition which might
be resulted from the interviews.
3.4 Data Analysis
Data analyses in this study were conducted over the course of the
study. Ongoing data analyses and interpretation were based on the data from
document analysis which were teachers’ argumentative essays and
interviews.
3.4.1 The Teachers’ Argumentative Texts
In this research, then the documented respondents’ texts were
analyzed to examine the quality of teachers’ writing. The argumentative
essays written by the teachers were classified and presented in accordance
with the types of the texts namely Analytical and Hortatory Expositions. They
textual, ideational and interpersonal metafunctions as suggested by systemic
functional linguists (see among others Halliday, 1985; Gerot and Wignell,
1994; Lock, 1996; Martin and Rose, 2007; and Eggins, 1994). This analysis
allows the researcher to get the teachers’ strengths and weaknesses in
composing an argumentative essay.
In analyzing the documents, the data were coded in order to
categorize the pattern of the writing problems appear in the documents.
These categories then were interpreted to formulate certain pattern of findings
related to the aims of the research in accordance with existing theories
related to the research.
3.4.2 The Interviews
The research also analyzed the interviews distributed in order to gain
more information related to the teachers writing performance. The interviews
were more about the schemata of the writers related to their writing
command. It was expectedly useful to understand their educational
background, teaching experiences, as well as their familiarity with the topic of
the text to write. That information was later incorporated to determine the
quality of the text they produced; as such information also determined the
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This study sought to investigate the teachers’ ability and problems in
composing argumentative texts as well as possible solutions for the problems
encountered by the teachers. After exploring the issues to investigate
through texts analyses and interview data as presented in the previous
chapter, this chapter highlights the conclusion of the present study that is
closely related to the research problems presented earlier in Chapter 1. This
chapter also offers suggestion both for further researchers and practitioners.
On the basis of the findings, which may not be generalisable to other settings,
several conclusions and recommendations can be proposed below.
5.2 Conclusions
Three research problems investigated in this study include teachers’
ability in composing the argumentative texts, the problems encountered by
the teachers in composing the texts and possible solutions to overcome the
problems emerged. As discussed in detail in the previous chapter, it can be
observed that the teachers show their ability to make use of appropriate
features required to compose good Expository texts. However, the analyses
also indicate that there should be serious efforts of improving the teachers’
professional competence.
With regard the first research problem, it is found that the teachers –
with varied results among them – to some extent have been able to
demonstrate appropriate strategies to compose the targeted texts. Referring
and Anderson (2003), Paltridge (in Johns, 2001), Knapp and Watkins (2005),
Rose (2008), Uribe (2008) and Christie and Derewianka (2008), it can be
concluded that the teachers possess successful grasp and understanding of
the demands of the generic form of arguing genre, to achieve the purpose
and the function of the genre. In addition, the grammatical analyses indicate
that the writers had successfully attempted to use some of the main
conventions of written language and argumentative discourse with
consistency and accuracy. To construe textual metafunction, the teachers
could efficiently employ linguistic devices as well as a combination of thematic
progression (the theme reiteration, zigzag and multiple theme progression),
which is a feature of more written-like texts, to strengthen the text’s
coherence and cohesion. Meanwhile, referring to experiential metafunction
investigated, it is found that the teachers could demonstrate their ability to use
various linguistic resources, which again show the teachers’ capacity to
create a more written-like compositions. Finally, interpersonally, the writers
could efficiently use various linguistic resources to create forceful but
objective arguments, and to effectively communicate with an audience or the
readers.
Despite the findings above, the discussions also reveal that not all of
the teachers’ texts can be considered successful texts. This can be identified
as few errors in syntactical matter occur within the texts of some of the
teachers. It can be concluded that the teachers have weaknesses related to
the ability of developing better paragraphs through appropriate use of
multi-layer Theme strategy, the use of conjunctive adverbs to convey modality and
statement, inconsistency of representing himself within the text, as well as a
use imperative mood which may disturb the quality of the texts of such genre
which are also underlined by the experts mentioned above.
With regard to the second research problem, it is found that the
teachers had problems mainly with managing their time to carry out the task
which gave rise to their inability to give maximum efforts to work with the
texts. In addition, their background knowledge and language competence as
well as their commitment to carry out the task also appeared to be problems
in producing the texts. As for the third question, the possible suggestions
elicited deal with the idea of providing efforts to motivate the teachers to write,
and training to improve the teachers’ ability. Those suggestions will be
elaborated and presented in the subsection below as it will be formulated as
suggestions as the teachers urged.
5.3 Recommendations
The recommendations formulated below are derived from what the
teachers suggested as well as what could be inferred from the experts and
previous studies. These are practically for teachers themselves and
methodically for any related further studies in the future.
First of all, it is advisable that the teachers derive their own intrinsic
motivation and commit themselves to improve their professional competence,
particularly in writing. Technically this commitment can be realized by
attempting more writing practices as it would benefit themselves as
professional school teachers as suggested by such experts as Johnson
Rahman (2005), Ediger (2006), Mendelsohn (2006), Liu (2007), Ebata (2008),
and Wu (2008).
In addition, effective teacher trainings need to be carried out in order to
maintain and improve the teachers’ professional competence. This could be
held by optimizing the functions of the existing teachers association in the
region or by joining other appropriate programs initiated by government.
Such programs may concern the issue of SFL and GBA within the curriculum
development as well as practical knowledge related to writing ability. This
has been urged by Kuncoro (2009) in The Jakarta Post daily as he mentioned
that “Giving more chance for teachers to have professional development
training is a need to boost education quality”.
The last recommendation is related to further studies concerning this
subject matter. It is suggested that the next related research deals with a
bigger number of participants within different contexts to get richer and more
reliable data. It is also necessary to consider the effective teachers’ time to
execute the project to minimize any potential external factors which may
References
Alwasilah, C. A. 2009. Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT. Dunia Pustaka Jaya.
Alonso, I. 2003. Improving text flow in ESL learner compositions. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 2, February 2003. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Alonso-ImprovingFlow.html. Accessed on September, 14th 2011.
Anderson, M and Anderson, K. 2003. Text Types in English (Book Two). Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Atay, D. and Kurt, G. 2006. The prospective teachers and L2 writing anxiety. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, December 2006 Volume 8, Issue 4, pp. 100-118.
Bailey, S. 2003. Academic Writing: A Practical Guide for Students (e-book edition). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Bazerman, C., and Prior, P (eds). 2004. What Writing Does and How It Does: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. London: Lawrence Erlebaum Associates Publisher.
Brown, H. D. 2000. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education.
Burns, A., and Coffin, C. (Eds). 2001. Analyzing English in a Global Context: a Reader. London; Routledge.
Byrne, D. 1988. Teaching Writing Skills. New York: Longman Group Ltd.
Celce-Murcia, M., and Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and Context in Language Teaching: A guide for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cherednichenko, B., et al. 1987. The practice of beginning teachers: identifying competence through case writing in teacher education. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol. 22 No. 2, 1997, pp.20-27.
Christie, F. and Derewianka, B. 2008. School Discourse. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Clark, I. L. 2003. Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing. London: Lawrence Erlebaum Associates Publisher.
Coleman, C. 2003. Simple steps to successful revision in L2 writing. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 5, May 2003. Available at:
http://iteslj.org/Technique/Coleman-Writing Revision .html. Accessed on
September, 14th 2011.
Creswell, J. W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Dawson, C. 2009. Introduction to Research Methods: A Practical Guide for Anyone Undertaking a Research Project. Oxford: How To Books Ltd..
Depdiknas. 2003. Standar Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris Sekolah Menengah Atas dan Madrasah Aliyah. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
Derewianka, B. 1990. Exploring How Texts Work. Newton: Primary English Teaching Association.
Dornyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ebata, M. 2008. Motivation factors in language learning. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XIV, No. 4, April 2008. Available at:
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ebata-MotivationFactors.html. Accessed on September, 14th 2011.
Ediger, A. M. 2006. Developing strategic L2 readers by reading for authentic purposes . In Uso´-Juan, Esther and Alicia Martı´nez-Flor (Eds). Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter Publisher inc.
Emilia, E. 2005. A Critical Genre Based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. (PhD Dissertation). Melbourne University.
Emilia, E. 2010. Teaching Writing: Developing critical learners. Bandung: Rizqi Press.
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse : Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Rotledge.
Feez, S., and Joyce, H. (2000). Creative Writing Skills. Literary and Media Text Types. Melbourne: Phoenix Education Pty. Ltd.
Fowler, A. 2006. How to Write. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Frankle, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. 2007. How to Design and Evaluate
Gerot, L., and Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.
Gerot, L. 1995. Making Sense of Text. Sydney: Gerd Stabler, Antipodean Educational Enterprise.
Gilfert, S. 1999. Let’s write in English: teachers we never learned that. The Internet TESL Journal Vol V No 4 April 1999. Available at:
http://iteslj.org/ Teachers/Susan-NeverLearnedThat.html. Accessed on September, 14th 2011.
Gray, R. 2000. Grammar correction in ESL/EFL writing classes may not be effective. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 11, November 2004. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Technique/Gray-WritingCorrection.html. Accessed on September, 14th 2011.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press..
Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Melbourne, Deakin University.
Hasan, R. (1985). Linguistics, Language, and Verbal Art. Melbourne: Deakin University.
Ho, C. M. L. 2003. Empowering English teachers to grapple with errors in grammar. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 3, March 2003. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Ho_Grammar_Errors.html.
Accessed on September, 14th 2011.
Holliday, A. 2005. Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications Inc.
Holmes, N. 2010. The use of a process-oriented approach to facilitate the planning and production stages of writing for adult students of English as a Foreign or Second Language. Available at: http://www.
developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/ processw1nicola.htm.
Accessed on June 23, 2011.
Johns, A. M (ed). 2001. Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. .
Knapp, P. and Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, Texts, Grammar: Technologies for Teaching and Assessing Writing. Sydney: UNSW press.
Kompas.com. 2009a. Guru Masih Terkendala Menulis . Available at:
http://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2009/11/06/20273165/Guru.Masih. Terkendala.Menulis. Accessed on 17 March 2011.
Kompas.com. 2009b. Waduh,Bahasa Inggris 600 Guru RSBI Ternyata “memble”. Available at: http://edukasi. kompas.com/read/xml/ 2009/06/24/ 17410455. Accessed on 17 March 2011.
Kress, G. 1985. Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Melbourne: Deakin University
Kuncoro, E. A. 2009. How to boost the quality of education in Indonesia. The Jakarta Post Daily. Saturday, December 19, 2009.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. An introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Lee, C. 2004. Seeing is understanding: improving coherence in students' writing. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 7, July 2004. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Lee-Writing.html. Accessed on
September, 14th 2011.
Liu, M. 2007. Chinese students’ motivation to learn English at the tertiary level. Asian EFL Journal, Volume 9, Number 1, 2007. Pp. 126-146
Lock, G. 1996. Functional English Grammar: An Introduction for Second Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marisi, A. K. Profesionalisme Guru di Abad Kebangkitan Bangsa. Accessible in: http//lpmpjoga.diknas.go.id
Martin, J. R., Mathiessen C.M.I.M., and Painter, C. 1997. Working with Functional Grammar. New York: Arnold (Hodder Headline Group).
Martin, J.R. 1985. Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J. R. 1992. English text. System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Martin, J.R and Rose, D. 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Martin, J.R and Rose, D. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum Publisher.
Mendelsohn, D. J. 2006. Learning how to listen using learning strategies In Uso´-Juan, Esther and Alicia Martı´nez-Flor (Eds). Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co..
Murphy, E. 2007. Essay Writing Made Simple. Sydney: Pearson Education.
Nunan, D. 1992. Research Method in Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oshima, A., and Hogue, A. 1998. Introduction to Academic Writing. New York: Pearson Education Inc.
Patton, M. Q. 1987. How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Peters, P. (1986). ‘Getting the theme across: A study of dominant function in the academic writing of university students.’ In Couture, B. (1986). (Ed). Functional approaches to writing. Research perspectives. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Rahman, S. 2005. Orientations and motivation in English language learning: a study of Bangladeshi students at undergraduate Level. Asian EFL Journal March, 2005. Vol. 7, Issue 1. Pp.29-55
Ramet, A. 2007. Creative Writing: How to Unlock your Imagination, Develop your Writing Skills and Get Published. Begbroke: How To Books Ltd.
Ravelli, L. J. and Ellis, R. A. (eds). 2000. Analyzing Academic Writing: Contextualized Frameworks. New York: Continuum.
Rose, D. 2008. Reading to Learn: Accelerated Learning and Closing the Gap. (Book 4: Assessing Reading and Writing). Available at: www.readingtolearn.com.au. Accessed on 19 February 2011.
Schirato, T., and Yell, S. (1996). Communication and Cultural Literacy. An Introduction. New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.
Setiyadi, A. B. 2006. Metode Penelitian untuk Pengajaran Bahasa Asing: Pendekatan Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif. Jogjakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Stake, R. E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Tang, R. 2006. Helping Students to see "Genres" as more than "text types". The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XII, No. 8, August 2006. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Tang-Genres.html. Accessed on
September, 14th 2011.
Thompson, G. 2004.Introducing Functional Grammar (second edition). London: Arnold.
Toulmin, S. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Travers, M. (2001). Qualitative Research Through Case Studies. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Uribe, D. 2008. Characteristics of academic English in the ESL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XIV, No. 3, March 2008. Available at:
http://iteslj.org/Articles/UribeAcademic. English.html. Accessed on
September, 14th 2011.
Veal, R. 1981. Assessing the writing skills of prospective English teachers. Available at: http://www.eric.ed. gov/PDFS/ED205986.pdf. Accessed on 11 August 2010.
van Eemeren, F., et al. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Wang, W. 2006. Intertextuality across Languages and Cultures: a
Contrastive Study of Chinese and English Newspaper Commentaries on September 11. Proceedings of the International Conference on Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory into Research. Tasmania: Faculty of Education University of Tasmania.
Wu, W. 2008. Creating an Authentic EFL Learning Environment to Enhance Student Motivation to Study English. Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4: Conference Proceedings, pp.211-226.
