INVESTIGATING STUDENTS’ WRITING PROCESS IN DESCRIPTIVE WRITING (A case study in one state university in Bandung).

(1)

INVESTIGATING STUDENTS’ WRITING PROCESS

IN DESCRIPTIVE WRITING

(A case study in one state university in Bandung)

A Thesis

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master’s Degree in English Education

ANDRIAN PERMADI

1006928

ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

==================================================================

Investigating Students' Writing Process in

Descriptive Writing

Oleh Andrian Permadi

S.Pd Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, 2008

Sebuah Tesis yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Magister Pendidikan (M.Pd.) di Sekolah Pascasarjana, Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Juli 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Tesis ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian,

(3)

(4)

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that the thesis entitled "Investigating Students' Writing Process in Descriptive Writing" is completely my own work. I also declare that some statements and ideas from various sources that have been quoted in this thesis are properly acknowledged.

Bandung, May 23rd 2014

(5)

Andrian Permadi, 2014

Investigating students’ writing process

in descriptive writing (A case study in one state university in Bandung)

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

This study aims to investigate students’ writing process in writing a descriptive text in one state university in Bandung. This study used a case study research design which employed four data collection techniques, i.e. classroom observation, questionnaire, semi-structured interview, documentation and analysis of students’ descriptive texts. The participants of the study were 14 undergraduate students who were studying in their first year majoring in English. The study revealed several findings. Firstly, the results of classroom observation, questionnaire, and semi-structured interview data showed that all participants, who were high, middle and low achiever students, had gone through three main stages, pre-writing stage, writing/drafting stage, and post-writing stage, in their writing process. Secondly, it was also found that the high and middle achiever students conducted the same activities throughout their writing process, which were reading, outlining, mind mapping, writing a written guideline, planning, brainstorming, inquiring, formulating, monitoring, drafting, conferencing, evaluating, revising, sharing, and publishing. While, the low-achiever students conducted different activities compared to the high and middle achiever students. Those activities were brainstorming, writing the first draft in bahasa Indonesia, revising, conferencing, and publishing. Furthermore, the analysis of students’ descriptive texts (final draft) using Systemic Functional Grammar revealed that the high and middle achiever students were able to produce descriptive texts that fulfilled the required schematic structure, organization, purpose and linguistic features of a descriptive type of writing, while the low achiever students were not. These findings showed that the activities performed by the high and middle achiever students at the pre, writing/drafting, post writing stages gave beneficial contribution toward the quality of their descriptive texts. On the other hand, the activities conducted by the low achiever students at those stages did not give any significant contribution toward the quality of their descriptive texts. Based on these findings, it is suggested that the curriculum or syllabus should focus more on the nature of students’ writing process where different (writing) activities have occurred, as they are able to influence the quality of students' writing. In addition, specific writing courses or programs are also needed both for students, specifically for low achievers, and teachers or lecturers in order to accommodate students with their writing difficulties and tasks.

(6)

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

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengamati proses menulis subjek penelitian dalam membuat teks deskriptif di salah satu perguruan tinggi negeri di Bandung. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode studi kasus dengan empat teknik pengumpulan data yaitu; observasi, kuesioner, wawancara semi terstruktur, dokumentasi, dan analisis teks. Subjek penelitian dalam penelitian ini adalah empat belas mahasiswa S1 jurusan bahasa Inggris semester satu. Hasil penelitian ini terdiri dari beberapa temuan. Pertama, hasil observasi kelas, kuesioner, dan wawancara semi terstruktur menunjukkan bahwa semua mahasiswa yang dibagi ke dalam kategori pemelajar tingkat lanjut (high-achievers), pemelajar tingkat menengah (middle-achievers), dan pemelajar tingkat dasar (low-achievers) telah melalui tiga tahapan dalam proses menulis, yaitu; tahap pra menulis (pre writing stage), tahap menulis (writing/drafting stage), dan tahap pasca menulis (post writing stage). Kedua, ditemukan juga bahwa para pemelajar tingkat lanjut (high-achievers) dan pemelajar tingkat menengah (middle-(high-achievers) melakukan tahapan menulis yang sama, yaitu; reading, outlining, mind mapping, writing a written guideline, planning, brainstorming, inquiring, formulating, monitoring, drafting, conferencing, evaluating, revising, sharing, dan publishing. Namun, para pemelajar tingkat dasar (low-achievers) melakukan tahapan menulis yang berbeda, yaitu membuat kerangka tulisan dalam bahasa Indonesia, revising, conferencing, dan publishing. Ketiga, hasil analisis teks deskriptif para pemelajar dengan menggunakan teknik analisis tata bahasa fungsional sistemik menunjukkan bahwa pemelajar tingkat lanjut (high-achievers) dan pemelajar tingkat menengah (middle-achievers) mampu menghasilkan teks deskriptif yang sesuai dengan skema struktur, organisasi, tujuan, dan ciri-ciri kebahasaan tulisan deskriptif, sedangkan para pemelajar tingkat dasar (low-achievers) tidak mampu menghasilkan teks deskriptif yang sesuai. Temuan-temuan tersebut menunjukkan bahwa tahapan menulis yang dilakukan oleh pemelajar tingkat lanjut (high-achievers) dan pemelajar tingkat menengah (middle-(high-achievers) dalam proses menulis memengaruhi kualitas teks deskriptif yang dibuat, sedangkan tahapan menulis yang dilakukan oleh para pemelajar tingkat dasar (low-achievers) dalam proses menulis tidak memengaruhi kualitas teks deskriptif yang dibuat. Berdasarkan temuan-temuan yang didapat dalam penelitian ini, penulis menyarankan agar kurikulum dan silabus yang digunakan dalam mata kuliah menulis di Jurusan Bahasa Inggris perlu lebih menyasar pada proses menulis pemelajar karena tahapan menulis yang runut dapat memengaruhi kualitas tulisan yang dibuat. Selain itu, program pelatihan menulis yang intensif juga diperlukan baik untuk pemelajar dan pendidik agar semua hambatan ketika menulis dapat diminimalisasi.

(7)

in descriptive writing (A case study in one state university in Bandung) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.2.2 Writing/Drafting Stage ... ₁₆

2.2.3 Post Writing Stage ... ₁₉

2.3 Overview of Learning Theories ... ₂₁

2.4 The Importance of Comprehending Students' Writing Process in the Teaching of Writing ... ₂₄

2.4 Descriptive Writing ... ₂₇

2.5 Systemic Functional Grammar ... ₂₉

2.5.1 Transitivity System ... ₂₉

2.5.1.1 Material Processes ... ₃₀

2.5.1.2 Relational Processes ... ₃₀

2.6 Criticism and Issues in the theory of Writing Process ... ₃₁

2.7 Conclusion ... ₃₂

CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... ₃₃

3.1 Research Purposes and Questions ... ₃₃

3.2 Research Design ... ₃₃

3.3 Research Setting and Participants ... ₃₄

3.4 Data Collection Techniques ... ₃₅

3.4.1 Classroom Observation ... ₃₅

3.4.2 Questionnaire ... ₃₆

(8)

3.4.4 Documentation and Analysis of Students' Descriptive Texts

... ₃₇

3.5 Data analysis Method ... ₃₇

3.5.1 Analysis of Observation Data ... ₃₇

3.5.2 Analysis of Questionnaire and Interview Data ... ₃₈

3.5.3 Analysis of Students Descriptive Texts ... ₃₈

3.6 Validity ... ₃₉

3.7 Conclusion ... ₃₉

CHAPTER IV : DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ... ₄₀

4.1 Findings and Discussions ... ₄₀

4.2 Discussion of Observation Data ... ₄₀

4.2.1 Pre Writing Stage ... ₄₁

4.2.2 Writing/Drafting Stage ... ₄₃

4.2.3 Post Writing Stage ... ₄₅

4.3 Discussion of Questionnaire Data ... ₄₆

4.3.1 Pre Writing Stage ... ₄₇

4.3.2 Writing/Drafting Stage ... ₅₀

4.3.3 Post Writing Stage ... ₅₃

4.4 Discussion of Interview Data ... ₅₅

4.4.1 Pre Writing Stage ... ₅₆

4.4.2 Writing/Drafting Stage ... ₆₀

4.4.3 Post Writing Stage ... ₆₅

4.5 Analysis of Students' Descriptive Texts ... ₆₆

4.5.1 Analysis of the High Achiever Students' Descriptive Text (Text 4.5.1) ... ₆₆

4.5.1.1 The Schematic Structure, Organization and Purpose of Text 4.5.1

4.5.2.1 The Schematic Structure, Organization and Purpose of Text 4.5.2

(9)

CHAPTER IV : CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

... ₇₈

5.1 Conclusions ... ₇₈

5.2 Recommendations ... ₈₁

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... ₈₂

APPENDICES ... ₈₃

Appendix 1 : Field Notes

Appendix 2 : Students' Questionnaires

Appendix 3 :Interview Questions and Condensed Version of Data from Individual Interview

(10)

List of Tables

Table 2.1 A Sample of a Descriptive Text ... ₂₈

Table 2.2 A Sample of a Clause with Material Process ... ₃₀

Table 2.3 A Sample of a Clause with Relational Process ... ₃₁

Table 4.1 A Sample Questionnaire of a High Achiever Student ... ₄₇

Table 4.2 A Sample Questionnaire of a Middle Achiever Student ... ₄₈

Table 4.3 A Sample Questionnaire of a Low Achiever Student ... ₄₉

Table 4.4 A Sample Questionnaire of a High Achiever Student ... ₅₀

Table 4.5 A Sample Questionnaire of a Middle Achiever Student ... ₅₁

Table 4.6 A Sample Questionnaire of a Low Achiever Student ... ₅₂

Table 4.7 A Sample Questionnaire of a High Achiever Student ... ₅₃

Table 4.8 A Sample Questionnaire of a Middle Achiever Student ... ₅₄

Table 4.9 A Sample Questionnaire of a Low Achiever Student ... ₅₄

Table 4.10 Analysis of Text 4.5.1 (High Achiever) ... ₆₇

Table 4.11 Process types used in text 4.5.1 ... ₆₉

Table 4.12 Analysis of Text 4.5.2 (Middle Achiever) ... ₇₁

Table 4.13 Process types used in text 4.5.2 ... ₇₃

Table 4.14 Analysis of Text 4.5.3 (Low Achiever) ... ₇₄

(11)

1 Andrian Permadi, 2014

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

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter covers the background of the study, the research questions, aims of the study, significance of the study, limitation of the study, methods of the study, data collection, data analysis, clarification of essential terms used in the study, and the organization of the study.

1.1 Background of the Study

Writing, to some extent, is regarded as the most important skill for literate society considering the fact that it is one of several main indicators in determining the quality of a university in terms of teaching, research and international reputation (Kellog, 2008; Hyland, 2009). Likewise, Bailey (2003) and Feez & Joyce (1998)

state that one’s ability to compose an extended text is the only indicator best to

predict the success of university students within their first year. In line with the aforementioned explanation, Emilia (1997) also argues that writing plays an important role in accelerating learning process, building character developments, and establishing empowerments of the writers. Thus, It can be concluded that writing has a significant role in terms of the success of university students in their academic life which will also determine the success of the university itself.

(12)

products to studying or researching how writers write a composition or their writing process.

Based on the previous explanation, in the context of English writing as a a foreign language, Mu and Carrington (2007) assert that it entails all L1 writing process and ESL/EFL processing issues where in L1 writing, an ESL/EFL writer has to be involved in producing content, drafting ideas, revising writing, choosing appropriate vocabulary, and editing text. Therefore, Influenced by the research of writing in a native language, the focus of English as a foreign language writing studies has also shifted from products of writing to the process of writing (Oshima & Hogue, 1999; Bailey 2003; Walsh, 2004; Mu & Carrington, 2007; Hyland, 2009, among others).

In accordance with writing process studies in EFL context, as it has been explained above, findings from several research focusing on writing process that

were conducted by O’Malley & Chamot (1990), Richards & Renandya (2002),

Chen (2002), Widodo (2008) and many others, have shown that in an EFL context (i.e., Indonesia) the elements of writing and writing process have been a daunting task for students because English, to some extent, is not used as a medium of communication. Thus, for most students in EFL context, including Indonesian students, writing tends to be secondary, i.e. it is only conducted during classroom writing activities with limited exposures of authentic written expressions (Widodo, 2008). In the same manner, Wong (2005) also states that teaching writing, especially in tertiary level in EFL setting, is not carried out in an authentic context because writing practitioners do not fully comprehend the process gone through by students. Therefore, it is crucial for educational practitioners to understand the nature of learners' writing process in order to recognize and manage the differences.

Moreover, William (2005) elaborates that teachers or educationers need to

comprehend and understand the process of students’ writing in order to give

(13)

understanding and identifying students’ writing process in producing a descriptive type of writing. In addition, this study also focuses on writing process employed by university students, specifically undergraduate students, in making a descriptive type of writing. In this study, writing process is defined as writing activities which are perfomed by students in each writing stages, such as pre-writing, writing/drafting, and post-writing stages as proposed by several experts, such as Emig (1971; 1977), Britton, et al. (1975), Murray, (1980; 1982), Graves (1983; 1991), Bailey (2003), Walsh (2004), Hyland (2009), among others. Furthermore, this study also tries to comprehend and identify the significance of activities conducted by students in each writing stages toward the end product of students' descriptive text making in regard to its schematic structure, organization, purpose, and linguistic features by using the analysis of Systemic

Functional Grammar (SFG)..

1.2 Research Questions

This study is aimed to address the following research questions:

1.2.1 What activities do students do in the process ( pre writing, writing/ drafting & post writing stage) of making a descriptive text?

1.2.2 Do the texts (final drafts) fulfill the required schematic structure, organization, purpose and linguistic features?

1.3 Significance of the Study

The results of the study are expected to give positive contributions to the theory and practice of English as Foreign language writing studies. Thus, the following explanation will elaborate the significance of the present study from three main perspectives.

(14)

in western educational settings. Although numerous studies have been conducted in EFL settings, most of them were conducted in Spanish (e.g. Roca de Larios et al., 1999, 2001, 2006, 2008; Machon, et al., 2005; etc), Polish (e.g. Skibniewski

& Skibniewski, 1986; Skibniewski 1988; etc.) and Chinese (e.g. Wang & Wen, 2002; Hu & Chen, 2006; etc.). Therefore, studies that aim to uncover the complex patterns of writing process applied by ESL/EFL learners are needed in order to contribute to the ESL/EFL writing theories, spesifically in Indonesian context and language setting.

Practically, it is expected that development towards syllabi and curricula can be taken in accordance with the study on ESL/EFL writing process. Hence, it is expected that the study can fill the gap between students ESL/EFL writing process and government policy making.

Professionally, by comprehending the nature of students’ writing process,

teachers, lecturers or educationer are able to examine the difficulties, the benefits and the complexity level. Accordingly, the teacher can comprise syllabi that basically encompass suitable method in teaching writing. By considering a growing body of research, writing teachers should also understand the process of ESL/EFL writing and allow them for writing instruction and thus, the study on writing process is significant to be conducted. In addition, the information

provided from this study is expected to enhance educators’ reflection toward their current practices. Consequently, the reflections may enable teachers or lecturers to implement their approaches in teaching ESL/EFL writing with more considerations on their learners’ writing process.

1.4 Scope of the Study

(15)

al. (1975), Murray, (1980; 1982), Graves (1983; 1991), Bailey (2003), Walsh (2004), Hyland (2009), among others.

Moreover, previous studies on process of foreign language writing (e.g. Sasaki & Hirose, 1996; Roca de Larios et al., 1999; Machon et al., 2000; Richards & Renandya, 2002; Chen, 2002; Watskins, 2004; Widodo, 2008; among others) have shown that different writers perform different strategic behavior in their process of writing a second language essay. Furthermore, those studies have also indicated that the level of language proficiency influence the process which is used in writing an essay in a foreign language. Therefore, this study investigates the process which is used by students in their second/foreign language writing, specifically in descriptive writing. In addition, this study also analyzes the descriptive texts which are made by three students that represent the classification of low, middle and high achievers.

1.5Definition of Key Terms

1.5.1 Writing process

Writing process, in this study, corresponds to stages which are gone through by writers as they compose. Those stages are pre-writing stage, writing/drafting stage, and post-writing stage, as suggested by writing experts (i.e., Emig, 1971; Britton, et al. 1975; Murray, 1980; 1982; Graves, 1983; 1991; Richards, 1990; Friedlander, 1990; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Gibbons, 2002; Bailey, 2003; Walsh, 2004; Tompkins, 2008 and many others).

1.5.2 Descriptive Writing

(16)

smells, touches, and tastes (i.e., Gerot and Wignell, 1995, Derewianka, 2003; Holliway, 2004; Emilia, 2005; 2010; 2014 and many others).

1.6 Organization of the Thesis

The thesis consists of :

1.6.1 Chapter I: Introduction; it includes background of the study, research questions, the aims of the study, significance of the study, limitation of the study, methods of the study, data collection procedure, clarification of the key terms, and organization of the paper.

1.6.2 Chapter II: Literature review; it provides some theories from expert related to the study.

1.6.3 Chapter III: Research Methodology; it explores the methodology in conducting the research that includes overview of methodology, participants, data collecting methods, data analysis methods, and triangulation or validity.

1.6.4 Chapter IV: Data Presentation and Discussion; it consists of all data from the study and interpretation of the writer towards the data.

(17)

(18)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter two has discussed and elaborated the literature review of the study concerning the nature of writing, writing process, the importance of comprehending students’ writing process in teaching writing, descriptive writing and systemic functional grammar. Hence, this chapter comprises the methodology applied in the research covering the research purposes and questions, research design, site and participants, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and establishment of trustworthiness.

3.1. Research Purposes and Questions

As mentioned in Chapter one, this study aims to, firstly, identify writing process that student undergone in their second/foreign language writing, specifically their descriptive writing. Secondly, this study aims to identify the quality of students’ descriptive writing in the end of their writing process. Therefore, to meet these two purposes, two research questions are proposed:

3.1.1 What activities do students do in the process ( pre writing, writing/ drafting & post writing stage) of making a descriptive text?

3.1.2 Do the texts (final drafts) fulfill the required schematic structure, organization, purpose and linguistic features?

3.2. Research Design

(19)

process and developing “full understanding of that case as possible” (Punch, 1998, see also Samanhudi, 2010) in a “bounded text” (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In addition, Holliday (2003) states that “ a case study design is employed to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning for those involved” (p.19). In this study, the interest is “more in the process than outcomes”, that is the process which is gone through by students in producing a descriptive text.

Regarding the previous explanation, this study is also regarded as a case study because it performs the following characteristics. Firstly, this study deals with a single or small-case that is studied in detail (Freebody, 2003; Silverman, 2005). Secondly, this study attempts to describe, interpret and evaluate some phenomena by arranging them into categories or types based on functions (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). Lastly, this study uses multiple sources of evidence or multiple data collections (Hughes, 2003; Nunan & Bailey, 2009) which include classroom observation, questionnaires, semi-structured interview and students’ writing analysis in order to gain a deep understanding on students’ writing process in descriptive writing.

3.3. Research Setting and Participants

This study was conducted at one state university in Bandung. There are several reasons in selecting this university as the research site. Firstly, the researcher is currently studying and working in this university, consequently there are, relatively, no difficulties in accessing the university and managing the time in conducting the research. Secondly, according to QS World University Ranking (2011), this university is included among the top five universities in Indonesia, regarding to its graduate employability, teaching quality, infrastructure, internationalization, and engagement. Therefore, students, or participants of the study, in this university have been considered to have sufficient knowledge and capability in academic context, more specifically, in academic writing.

(20)

number of participants in this study, considering time, place, funds, energy, and effort (Nunan, 1993), the researcher used purposive sampling. Therefore, there were 14 participants selected for this study who, then, were classified and divided into four high-achiever students (English national exam score of >90), seven middle-achiever students (English national exam score of 89-70) and three low-achiever students (English national exam score of <69) who were currently studying in their first year.

3.4. Data Collection Techniques

This study applied four data collection techniques, which were classroom observation, questionnaire, semi-structured interview and analysis of students descriptive texts. Each of the technique will be further described in details.

3.4.1 Observation

The observation was conducted in one writing class consist of 14 undergraduate students who were classified and divided into four high-achiever students (English national exam score of >90), seven middle-achiever students (English national exam score of 70-89) and three low-achiever students (English national exam score of <69) who were currently studying in their first year. Broadly, the activities were undergone over a period of twelve weeks or twelve meetings. Regarding this, non-participant classroom observation was performed during the process of producing an descriptive writing. In this non-participant observation, the researcher did not participate in the activity and not directly involve in the situation and only act as an observer (Allwright, 1988; Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993).

(21)

3.4.2 Questionnaire

An open-ended format questionnaire is generally used to gain basic information from participants of a study and it consists of several questions based on the objectives of the study. It also enables participants to elaborate their answers (Van Lier, 1989). Hence, this study uses an open-ended format questionnaire which is adapted from similar studies (i.e Ravelli & Ellis, 2004; Tompkin, 2008; Hyland 2009 and many others) in order to identify participants’ knowledge regarding writing activities that are performed during the process of making a descriptive text.

These questions are mainly divided into three main stages, i.e pre-writing, writing/drafting and post writing, which were given to 14 undergraduate students majoring in English Education (see appendix). This questionnaire is used to gain preliminary data regarding activites that students perform in their writing process. The questionnaire also has a purpose in stimulating the participants to think about English and Indonesian writing in order for them to elaborate more about activities that they do in the writing process.

3.4.3 Semi-structured Interview

The semi-structured interview is aimed to gain a direct insight from the participants regarding their writing process, specifically in making descriptive writing. This type of interview consists of questions in which there are more flexibly worded and related to students’ writing process and strategies (Kvale, 1996).

(22)

(see appendix) are largely focused toward process in writing that is gone through by students and also students’ perception toward writing activities that are perfomed in the process.

3.4.4 Documentation and analysis of Students’ Descriptive Texts

Documentation of students’ descriptive texts was conducted in order to gain information of elements that were produced by students in their descriptive essays throughout their writing process. They were asked to make a descrptive essay based on interview result which was previously conducted before writing their essay. This task was assigned by their lecturer. The final drafts were analyzed using systemic functional grammar regarding its schematic structure, organization, purpose and linguistic features, as it has been previously discussed

in chapter II of the study (see section 2.6, section 2.6.1, section 2.6.2) .

3.5 Data Analysis Method

Data analysis is the process of systematically searching and arranging the interview, transcripts, field notes, and other materials that you accumulate to increases your own understanding of them and to enable you to present what you have discovered to others. Analysis involves working with data, organizing them, breaking them into manageable units, synthesizing them, searching for patterns discovering what is important and what is learned, and deciding what you will tell others.

(23)

3.5.1 Analysis of Observation Data

Data from the observation were analyzed in order to support the findings found in the interview and questionnaire. It was intended to identify students’ activities conducted during the process of making an descriptive writing. Thus, information found during the observation were analyzed and intepreted in order to provide answers of the research questions.

3.5.2 Analysis of Questionnaires and Semi-Structured Interview

In keeping with qualitative research methods, analytic induction was used to analyze the transcribed interview data and the result of questionnaires. Analytic induction gives a more chance for a deeper identification of phenomena (Nunan & Bailey, 2009).

The analysis and interpretation of data were carried out in two stages. The first stage dealt with the analysis and interpretations of the participants’ questionnaire, while the second stage dealt with the analysis of interviews. Each part consisted of coding and categorization in order to identify students’ writing process. Coding and recoding were required for the categorization writing process (pre-writing, writing/drafting, post writing) applied by EFL students (Van Lier, 1989). It is hard to do categorization without preliminary coding and every coding will be done as soon as the data has been gathered. The faster coding is conducted, the easier categorization to be conducted (Bailey, 2007). Coding, however, is “efficient data-labeling and data-retrieval device. They empower and speed up analysis” (Miles and Huberman, 1994)

(24)

3.5.3 Analysis of Students’ Descriptive Essays

The students’ descriptive essays were analyzed with regard to the logic or shematic structure, organization, purpose and lingustic features, as previously pointed out in Chapter Two of the study. Thus, The analysis of students’ descriptive essays was conducted in two steps. Firstly, the essays were divided into three categories (high, middle and low achiever). Secondly, the essays were analyzed based on the logic or schematic structure, organization, and linguistic features of a descriptive text in regards with the conception of some experts mentioned in Chapter Two of the study (e.g Derewianka, 1990; Eggins, 1994; Gerrot and Wignell, 1998; Butt, et al, 2000; Emilia, 2010; 2014)

3.6. Validity

To ensure the validity of the study, triangulation was conducted. Triangulation refers to two concepts, namely plural and stability dimensions (Nunan & Bailey, 2009). Combination of various sources, methods, and techniques will enhance credibility and validity (Holliday, 2003).

In this study, open-ended format questionnaires, analysis of interview, documentation of students’ descriptive essays and observation were used to ensure the credibility. Observation and Interview was done to identify the stages and activities used by students in their writing process and questionnaire was used to provide additional information regarding students writing process in descriptive writing in order to answer the research questions. In addition, documentation of students’ descriptive essays was conducted to provide insights regarding elements of descriptive writing produced by students in their writing process.

3.7. Conclusion

(25)

(26)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter four has displayed and discussed the data analyses from the classroom observation, questionnaires, semi-structured interview and analysis of students’ descriptive essays regarding their writing process. This chapter concludes the study by proposing the contribution or consolidation of the reported study to the previous studies in writing process (section 5.1) and some recommendations are provided in order to give information as well as guidance to conduct further research concerning the same field or issue (section 5.2).

5.1. Conclusions

This study investigates students’ writing process, which is conscious and unconscious activities conducted at the pre-writing stage, writing/drafting stage and post-writing stage as realized in students’ descriptive texts. As discussed in chapter four, findings of the study suggested that the participants of the study, which were the high-achiever, middle-achiever, and low-achiever students, underwent complex, non-linear, recursive process of writing, in which planning, monitoring, revising/editing, reviewing, conferencing, sharing and publishing might occur repeatedly at any stages of writing process. These findings were relevant with the findings of previous studies (e.g. Emig, 1971; Britton, et al. 1975; Murray, 1980; Graves, 1983; Bailey, 2003; Walsh, 2004; Lindemann, 1982, Proet and Gill, 1986, Friedlander, 1990; Richards, 1992, Benton, et al., 1993, Emilia, 1998; 2008; 2010; 2014; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Angelova, 1999, Gibson, 2002, Ronk, 2003, Tompkins, 2008 and many others) as mentioned in Chapter Two of the study.

(27)

as; brainstorming, making an outline or written guideline, free writing and discussing their writing with peers, which were in accordance with the findings of previous studies (e.g. Emig, 1971; Britton, et al. 1975; Murray, 1980; Graves, 1983; Richards, 1992; Bailey, 2003; Walsh, 2004; Emilia, 1998; 2008; 2010; 2014). On the other hand, the low achiever students did not make any written guideline or dicussion with their friends. The only activity that they did was brainstorming ideas for their writing.

Secondly, at the writing/drafting stage, the high-achiever and middle achiever students performed the following activities; monitoring the composition process, re-writing the composition, revising the content, grammar, dictions and organization of the essay, and conferencing or sharing ideas with other writers. These findings are in line with conceptions proposed by process theorists (e.g. Emig, 1971; Britton, et al. 1975; Murray, 1980; Graves, 1983; Richards, 1992; Bailey, 2003; Walsh, 2004; Emilia, 1998; and many others). In contrast, the low-achiever students demonstrated different activities from the high and middle achiever students in the writing/drafting stage such as writing a draft in bahasa Indonesia, translating, and fast writing. Some of these findings are in conjuction

with the conception proposed by some theorists (e.g. Emig, 1971; Britton, et al. 1975; Murray, 1980; Graves, 1983; Richards, 1992; Bailey, 2003; Walsh, 2004; Emilia, 1998; and many others), but the act of translating is considered to be not in the circle of many writing process theories. Therefore, teachers or educators need to pay more attention towards the low achiever students and adjust their teaching approach so that the low achiever would also be well facilitated in the context of teaching and learning EFL writing.

Lastly, at the post-writing stage, the high and middle achiever students had also conducted different activities that were different from the low-achiever students. The findings showed that the high and middle achiever students performed the following activities: sharing or publishing their writing to other

writers, presenting their writing, revising their essay’s grammaticality, dictions,

(28)

findings were in line with the findings of previous studies (e.g. Murray, 1980; Lindemann, 1982; Proet and Gill, 1986; Richards, 1992; Emilia, 1998; Ronk, 2003; Tompkins, 2008). On the other hand, the low-achiever students only performed an act of evaluating their essay by making minor changes regarding

their essays’ grammaticality and choice of words.

(29)

5.2 Recommendations

In accordance with the topic under discussion, which focuses on students’ writing process in descriptive writing, the following recommendations are put forward in order to provide valuable information in regards to the study of writing process, especially in context of the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language.

Firstly, with regard to students’ writing process, it has been mentioned that

in general the low-achiever students conducted different writing process compared to the middle and high-achiever students. In regards to this finding, teachers or lecturers should provide alternative technique or strategy in teaching writing, especially in EFL context, spesifically towards students with low English proficiency.

Secondly, by comprehending the nature of students’ writing process, a teacher or lecturer are able to examine the difficulties, the benefits and the complexity level of it. Accordingly, the teacher, lecturer or even curriculum developers are able to comprise a curriculum and syllabus that basically focus on

the nature of students’ writing process.

(30)

(31)

REFERENCES

Allwright, D. (1988). Observation in the Language Classroom. New York: Longman Inc.

Anderson, J. & Millicent, P. (2001). Assignment and Thesis Writing. Australia: John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd.

Angelova, M. (1999). An exploratory study of factors affecting the process and product of writing in English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral thesis, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.

Bailey, S. (2003). Academic Writing: A Practical Guide for Students. London: Routledge Falmet.

Bailey, C.A. (2007). A Guide to Qualitative Field Research. Second Edition. California: Pine Forge Press.

Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Butt, D. et al. (2003). Using Functional Grammar. An explorer’s Guide. National Center for English Language Teaching and Research. Sydney: Macquarie University.

Bernat, E. (2004). Investigating Vietnamese ESL learners’ beliefs about language

learning. EA Journal. 21 (2), 40-54. Retrieved from http://www.englishaustralia.com.au/index.cgi?E=hcatfuncs&PT=sl&X=ge tdoc&Lev1=pub_jnl21_2&Lev2=EAJ_21-2ber

Bryne, D. (1998) Teaching Writing Skills. England: Longman Group UK Limited. Christie, F & Soosai, A. (2001). Language and Meaning. Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

Britton, et al. (1975). The development of writing abilities, 11-18. London: Macmillan Education for the Schools Council.

Callaghan, M., & Rothery, J. (1988). Teaching Factual Writing. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.

(32)

Chafee, J. (2000). Thinking critically. Sixth edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Chafee, J., McMahon, C., Stout, B. (2002). Critical thinking, Thoughtful writing. Second edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company

Chamot, A.U. (2004). Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching. In the Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. Available at http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/. Retrieved on December 16, 2011.

Chamot, A.U. (2005). Language Learning Strategy Instructions: Current Issues and Research. In The Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, pp. 112-130.

Chance, P. (1986). Thinking in the classroom: A survey of a programs. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Coffin, C. (2000). Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. In Christie, F., and Martin. J.R. (1997). Genre

Connole, H. (1993). The research enterprise. In Issues and Methods in Research: Study Guide. South Australia: University of South Australia.

Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Hodder Education.

Cumming, A. (1989). Writing Expertise and Second Language Proficiency. In International Journal of Language Learning, 39, pp. 81-141.

Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to Write in a Second Language: Two Decades of Research. In International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), pp. 1-23

Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

(33)

Diestler, S. (2001). Becoming a critical thinker. A User Friendly Manual. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Printer Publisher, Ltd.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. London and New York: Oxford University Press.

Emig, J. (1971). The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a Mode of Learning. In College Composition and Communication. Available at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ncte.html. Retrieved on December 12, 2011.

Emilia, E (1997). Pendekatan Proses dalam Pengajaran Menulis (A Process Approach to the teaching of Writing). An article in Bunga Rampai Pengajaran Bahasa.

Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Emilia, E. (2008). Menulis Thesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta

Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching Writing: Developing Critical Learners. Bandung: Rizqi Press.

Emilia, E. (2014). Introducing Functional Grammar. Bandung: Dunia Pustaka Jaya.

Feez, S., and Joyce, H. (1998b). Writing Skills: Narrative and Nonfiction Text Types. Melbourne: Phoenix Education Pty. Ltd.

Fetterman, D.M. (1988). Excellence and Equality: A Qualitatively Different Perspective on Gifted and Talented Education. New York: State University of New York Press.

Flores, R.D. (2006) Thinking Skills Reflected in the Argumentative Essays of Freshman College Students: A Descriptive Analysis. De La Salle

University Manila, Philippines. Available at

(34)

Flower, L. (1989). Problem Solving Strategies for Writing. San Diego, California: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.

Flower, L. (1994). The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Flower, L. and Hayes, J.R. (1981a). A cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication, 32. pp. 365-387.

Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 109-125). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fraenkel, J. R & Wallen, N. E. (1993). How Design and Evaluate Research in Educaiton. McGraw-Hill Co. Inc: New York.

Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative Research in Education. Interaction and Practice. London: SAGE Publication.

Gerrot, L. (2000). Exploring Reading Process. In Christie, F., and Unsworth, L. (2000). (Ed). Researching language in schools and communities. Functional linguistic perspectives. London: Cassell.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language: Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Heinemann.

Gibbons, P. (2003). Learning to Learn in a Second Language. Primary English Teaching Association.

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

Graves, Donald H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

(35)

Harmer, J. (2002). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teacher. Cambridge University Press: England.

Holliday, A. (2003). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publication.

Hu, G.W. and Chen, B. (2006). A Protocol-Based Study of University-Level

Chinese EFL Learners’ Writing Strategies. In The English Australia

Journal, 23 (2), pp. 37-56. Available at http://www.Multilingualmatters /ILLT/Articles/ILLT020/. Retrieved on January 14, 2012.

Hyland, K. (2009). Genre and Second Language Writing. Michigan: University Michigan Press.

Illeris, K. (2004). The three dimensions of learning. Malabar, Fla: Krieger Pub.

Johnston, K (2001). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited

Joyce, H. & Feez, S. (2000). Writing Skills: Narrative and Non-Fiction Text Types. Phoenix Education.

Joyce, H. & Feez, S. (2004). Developing Writing Skills: for junior secondary students. Book 1. Phoenix Education.

Kellogg (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Available at http://neillthew.typepad.com/files/training-writing-skills.pdf. Retrieved June, 25 2011.

Kent, T (1999). Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing Process Paradigm. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press: .

Krashen, S. (2003). We learn to write by reading, but writing can make you

smarter. Available at

http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/viewFile/7444/68 25. Retrieved on June, 25 2011

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: Sage Publication Ltd.

(36)

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education. Second Education, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Machon, R.M. (2001). Trends in the Conceptualizations of Second Language Composing Strategies: A Critical Analysis. In International Journal of English Studies, 1 (2), pp. 47-70.

Machon, R.M., Murphy, L., and Roca de Larios, J. (2000). An Approximation to the Study of Backtracking in L2 Writing. In Learning and Instruction Journal, 10, pp. 13-35.

Murray, D.M. (1980). Writing as a Process: How Writing Finds its Own Meaning. In C. Cooper and L. Odell (Eds.) Research on Composing. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Murray, D.H. (1982). Learning by teaching. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.

McGinnis, J. & Smith. (1982). Analyzing and Treating Writing Problem. New York. McMillan Publishing Co. Inc.

Merriam, B (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Application in Education. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.

Mezirow, J (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions

for Adult and Continuing Education. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass

Publisher.

Mu, C. (2007). A Proposal for Taxonomy of ESL Writing Strategies. In STETS Language and Communication Review, 6 (1), pp. 5-13.

Mu, C. & Carrington, S. (2007). An Investigation of Chinese Students English Writing Strategies. In TESL- English Journal, 11 (1).

Nunan, D., & Bailey, M. (2009) The Practitioners Guide to Teaching Thinking Series. Evaluating Critical Thinking. Melbourne: Hawker Bronlow Education.

Oshima, B., & Hogue, A. (1999). Writing Academic English. Addison Wesley Longman.

O’Malley, J. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language

(37)

Taylor, E.W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. Jossey-Bass.

Travers, M. (2001). Qualitative Research through Case Studies. London: Sage Publication.

Tobin, L (2001). "Process Pedagogy." A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. Ed. Tate, et al. Oxford University Press.

Tompkins, G.E. (2008). Teaching Writing; Balancing Process and Product. New Jersey: Pearson Eduation.

Richards, J.C (1990). Content Knowledge and Instructional Practice in Second Language Teacher Education. In Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Richards, J. C. and W. A. Renandya (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Samanhudi, U. (2011). Researching Students’ Critical Thinking in Argumentative Writing. Bandung: Unpublished Graduate Thesis Paper.

Silva, M. (1989). A Study of Composing in a First and Second Language. In Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 1, pp. 132-151.

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research. Second Edition: London Sage Publication.

Unsworth, L. (2000). Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Linguistics Perspectives: Great Britain: TJ International Ltd.

Walsh, M. (2004). The Application of Process Writing to the Needs of L2 Student-Writers. Available at http://www.walshsensei.org/processwriting.pdf. Retrieved on December 21 2013.

(38)

Languages and Linguistics 1991 (pp. 302-322). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Widodo, H. P. (2008). Process-Based Academic Essay Writing Instruction in an EFL Context. Jurnal Bahasa dan Seni: Jember

William, J. (2005). Teaching Writing in Second and Foreign Language Classrooms. USA: The McGraw-Hill, Inc.