Study at Mts Negeri 2 Mataram in Academic Year 2016/2017
A JOURNAL
Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for
Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd.) Degree in English Education Department Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Mataram University
BY: ALVI SAFARA
E1D 113 013
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM LANGUAGE AND ARTS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION MATARAM UNIVERSITY
THE USE OF DICTOGLOSS AND DICTO-COMP IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL IN RECOUNT TEXT: A Comparative
Study at Mts Negeri 2 Mataram in Academic Year 2016/2017
ALVI SAFARA E1D113013
ABSTRACT
This study is aimed to find out and which method, between dictogloss and dicto-comp is more effective in teaching writing skill at the 8th grade students at MTs Negeri 2 Mataram
in academic year 2016/2017. The population for this research were the eight grade of MTs Negeri 02 Mataram. The eight grade students consist of 6 classes, there were 25-42 students in each class. Thus, the population of this study was 84 students. The method of this research was comparative study with pre-test and post-test design. The data collected was from the result of pre-test and post-test. There were 66 students as the sample of the research. There were 33 students in dictogloss group and 33 students of dicto-comp group. In conducting the research, the dictogloss group was taught by dictogloss technique, while the dicto-comp group was taught by dicto-comp technique. The mean score of the pretest of the dictogloss and the dicto-comp group are 45.90 and 45.75 respectively. The mean score of the post-test of the dictogloss and dicto-comp groups are 58.78 and 49.54 respectively. Furthermore, the score of t-test was 2.775 and the value of t-table was 1.671 at the confidence level 0.05 (95%) and 2.390 at the confidence level 0.01 (99%) using one–tailed table test in degree of freedom (df) 64. Those result indicated that Dictogloss was more effective than Dicto-comp in improving students’ writing skill in recount text.
PENGGUNAAN DICTOGLOSS DAN DICTO-COMP DALAM MENINGKATKAN KEMAMPUAN MENULIS SISWA PADA TEKS RECOUNT : Comparative Study di MTs Negeri 02 Mataram Tahun Ajaran
2016/2017
ALVI SAFARA E1D113013
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan memilih metode antara dictogloss dan dicto-comp yang lebih efektif dalam mengajarkan kemampuan menulis siswa pada kelas 8 di MTs Negeri 02 Mataram tahun ajaran 2016/2017. Populasi pada penelitian ini yakni siswa kelas 8 di MTs Negeri 02 Mataram. Metode pada penelitian ini adalah comparative study dengan menggunakan pre-test dan post-test. Dengan demikian, pengumpulan data didapat dari hasil pre-test and post-test. Jumlah total sampel adalah sebanyak 33 siswa pada kelompok dictogloss dan 33 siswa pada kelompok dicto-comp. dalam melakukan penelitian ini, kelompok dictogloss diberikan teknik dictogloss, sedangkan kelompok dicto-comp diberikan teknik dicto-comp. Nilai rata-rata pre-test yang diperoleh pada kelompok dictogloss dan dicto-comp adalah 45.90 dan 45.75. Sedangkan nilai rata-rata post-test yang diperoleh masing-masing kelompok adalah 58.78 dan 49.54. Selanjutnya, nilai t-test adalah 2.775 dan nilai dari t-table adalah 1.671 pada tingkat 0.05 (95%) dan 2.390 pada tingkat 0.01 (99%) menggunakan tabel one-tailed dengan df (degree of freedom) 64. Hasil tersebut dapat dijelaskan bahwa teknik Dictogloss lebih efektif dari pada teknik Dicto-comp dalam meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa pada teks recount.
1. INTRODUCTION
Writing is considered as the most difficult aspect of language learning for students in every grade level, because students are struggling to write their ideas and students have to think about their ideas. According to the Standard of 2013 Curriculum for Junior High School in Indonesia, students should learn about recount text. Recount text is a text that retells what happened, consisting of a series of personal events.
Based on the researcher observation at MTs Negeri 2 Mataram, the most common problem faced by students is having lack of ideas when they try to write paragraphs. English teacher states that the student’s ability in writing skill is low, especially to organize their ideas, opinions, and develop paragraphs. The English teacher rarely gives students writing assignment, so their writing ability and the students’ selection of vocabulary are considered low. Also, their grammar knowledge and punctuation used are usually inadequate.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 1) Writing
Rivers (1981:291) explains that writing is more difficult than speaking in which writing seems like “communicating into space”. In communication situated, there is a little time to think about what the speaker would saying and produce it properly.
According to Martin (1985) writing is processes to bring the experience and thought into the reality, also into arbitrary system. It means that, to express our ideas into sentences or paragraphs, we must have ideas or experiences. Meanwhile, Coffin (2003) attempt that writing is producing something through a paper, therefore people can read, perform it, also use it. In teaching writing, the teacher encourages student to produce their ideas and thoughts into written form so that people can read it. In this case, the students could not do it by themselves therefore the teacher obligates to provide them some advices through teaching and learning process.
2) The Importance of Teaching Writing
As a teacher, they have to deliver strategy and media which accordance to the material and students’ level. When a teacher could not adapt with the students’ ability in writing, the students will not pay attention and focus on what the teacher has presented. The teacher should have time management and classroom management when teaching writing, teachers should reduce the time when they give task for the students to write something, and use a strategy which helps teacher to abridge the exact time appropriately. Therefore, the teacher does not use much time and students will produce a good writing.
3) Definition of Recount Text
newspaper reports of events, histories, letters, diaries, journals, eye—witness accounts of incidents, and accounts of accidents submitted for insurances claims (Heinemann, 1997 in Husniati 2011).
4) Dictation
According to Oller (1979), “dictation is a task which requires the processing of temporally constrained sequences of material in the language, divided up to the stream of speech and then refers down what is heard requires understanding the meaning of material.” It means that dictation is not only the activity of listening comprehension and repeating the sound in written form.
5) Definition of Dicto-comp
Dicto-comp is the type of dictation which actually a combination of two forms, namely dictation and composition (Oller, 1979). Here, the teacher reads the whole passage three times and the students are only given chance to write their work after the teacher has finished the third reading. The students must listen carefully each time the paragraph is read. They should recall the whole story and write the story as a reproduction of what they heard. The students should write it as close as possible to the original paragraph. Teacher must prepare the students well before they do the task. The preparation provides the students with ideas, language items, and the organization of text (Nation, 1991). Therefore, students can focus on the skill aspect which is writing in the case of the dicto-comp. Dicto-comp can be done in every student proficiency level.
6) Definition of Dictogloss
could be an effective way for teaching strategy because it makes students aware of their own strengths and weaknesses in learning English during the small group activity.
7) Previous Study
a) The study by Shofiyah (2010). The aim of this study was to find out the empirical evidence about the effectiveness of dictogloss technique towards students’ narrative writing at the first-grade students of SMA Manba’ul Ulum. The method of this study was quantitative method. This study used quasi experimental design with pre-test and post-test. The result of this study showed that the value of to (t-observation) was 5.26. The value of tt (t-table) with degree of freedom 38 in significance degree 5 % was 2.02 and in significance degree 1% was 2.71. It indicates that to was higher than tt or 2.02 < 5.26 > 2.71. As a result, the null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was fail to be rejected. Hence, it was inferred that there was a significant difference between students’ narrative writing score who were taught by dictogloss technique and those who were not taught by using dictogloss technique. b) The Study by Anis (2013) entitled “The Writing Skill of the Eleventh
Grade Students of SMK Tunas Harapan Pati Taught by Using Dicto-comp Technique in the Academic Year 2013/2014”. The study was an experimental research. The level of the writing skill of the eleventh-grade students of SMK Tunas Harapan Pati in the academic year 2013/2014 after being taught by using dicto-comp technique is improving although several students still performed adequately. Therefore, there is a significant difference between the writing skills of the eleventh-grade students of SMK Tunas Harapan Pati in the academic year 2013/2014.
In this research, the researcher used comparative research design as a method.
2)Population and Sample
The population of the research was second grade students of MTs Negeri 2 Mataram in academic year 2016/2017. The eight grade students consist of 6 classes, there were 25-42 students in each class, and the total number of the students was 225. Each class consists of 42 students. Thus, the population of this study was 84 students. The technique that was used in this study was purposive sampling. The researcher used VIII C and VIII D. The students of those classes have the similarity in terms of ability and age. The researcher found it from the observation in the previous semester.
3) Method of Data Collection
In this research, the researcher used writing test in collecting the data. The data obtained through:
a. Pre-test. b. Treatments. c. Post-test. 4)Data Analysis Procedure
After all of the data were collected, they were analyzed using the rubric of assessment. Rubric of assessment is a form to check students’ ability in teaching and learning process by indicating some points of view below.
No. Aspects of Writing
0 Unacceptable: blank, off topic, illegible 2 Lexico grammatical
features
circumstance of time and place, use of
5 Inadequate: not follow the rules 0 Unacceptable: Blank of topic, illegible 3 Generic structure 20 Excellent to very good: follows the rules
5 Inadequate: not follow the rules 0 Unacceptable: blank of topic, illegible
(adapted from Heaton: 1975)
Subsequently, the researcher used the formula to find the t-value using the following formulas:
1. Finding out the mean score of both classes, DG group (x) and DC (y), by the totaling all of the scores in each classes.
a. Mdx = ∑𝑑𝑥
a. The square mean deviation of DG group: ∑X2 = ∑dx2 - (∑x)2
Nx
b. The square mean deviation of DC group: ∑Y2 = ∑dy2 - (∑y)2
Ny
t – test = 𝑀𝑥−𝑀𝑦
√( 𝑁𝑥+𝑁𝑦−2 ∑𝑥2+ ∑𝑦2)(𝑁𝑥1+𝑁𝑦1)
4. The last step was to count the degree of freedom, the following formula will be used:
df = (Nx + Ny) – 2 Where:
T-test = the degree of difference
Mdx = the mean deviation score of samples in X (DG group) Mdy = the mean deviation score of samples in Y (DC group) ∑dx2 = the total number of square deviation of sample in X ∑dy2 = the total number of square deviation of sample in Y Nx = the total sample in X
Ny = the total sample in Y
(Arikunto, 2006) 4. PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to:
1. To find out which technique is more effective between dictogloss and dicto-comp in teaching writing recount text at the 8th grade of MTs Negeri 2 Mataram in Academic Year 2016/2017.
5. RESULTS
4 AHY 30 70 4 F 50 40
Table 4.1.1 above shows that there were 4 students who got the minimum standard score 70 in the pre-test of the dictogloss group, while 29 students got score under 70. In the dicto-comp group, there were 2 students who got up to the minimum standard score 70 in the pre-test, while 31 students got score under 70. In the dictogloss group, 10 students got the minimum standard score in the post-test and 23 students got score under 70. While in the dicto-comp group, 3 students got the minimum standard score in post-test, and 30 students got score under 70.
below. Table 4.1.2 shows the deviation score of Dictogloss group, while Table 4.1.3 shows the deviation score of Dicto-comp group.
Table 4.1.2 The deviation score of Dictogloss Group
The mean score of the pretest of the dictogloss and the dicto-comp group are 45.90 and 45.75 respectively. In addition, the mean score of the post-test of the dictogloss and dicto-comp groups are 58.78 and 49.54 respectively. Thus, the mean score of dictogloss group is higher than that of the dicto-comp group in the pre-test and the post-test. It means that students’ writing skill on dictogloss group was better than the dicto-comp group.
Otherwise, the deviation score of the dictogloss is 420 and the square deviation is 11600. Meanwhile, the deviation score of the dicto-comp group is 125 and the square deviation is 5175. The deviation score and the square deviation of the dictogloss group is higher than that of the dicto-comp group. Then, the researcher computed the mean deviation score and sum of square deviation score of both classes to decide the significance of deviation by using following formulas:
Mean deviation score of Dictogloss group and Dicto-comp group. Mdx = ∑𝑑𝑥
= 8.94
The result shows that the t-value is 2.775. However, in order to know the meaning of this value, the researcher had to check the t–table to find minimum coefficient for the difference in score to be significant. Before that, the researcher needed to decide the degree of freedom (df) as the interpretation to compare the critical value, t–test and t–table.
df = (Nx + Ny) – 2 = (33 + 33) – 2 = 66 – 2 = 64
Finally, the researcher compared the result of t-test and t-table to know the significant difference of two groups using one–tailed table test.
Table 4.1.4 Degree of Freedom
6. DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research was to know which technique is more effective between dictogloss and dicto-comp in teaching writing recount text at 8th grade of MTs Negeri 2 Mataram in Academic Year 2016/2017.
There were only 33 students who joined this research of each groups. The result of the data provided by the researcher above showed that there was difference between the deviation score of class that used dictogloss and dicto-comp. The mean deviation score of dictogloss class was 12.727. Meanwhile, dicto-comp class showed that the deviation score was 3.787. In other words, the mean deviation score in dictogloss class was higher than dicto-comp class. The value of t-test was 2.775 and the value of t-table on confidence level 0.05 (95%) was 1.671 and t-table on confidence level 0.01 (99%) was 2.390 in the degree freedom (df) 64. It means that, the value of t-test was higher than the t-table. When the value of t-Test is higher or equal to the value of t-table on level 0.05 and 0.01, Ha is failed to be rejected.
Dictogloss is more effective than dicto-comp because students in DG class were taught to written down the key–words (verbs and adjectives) from the passage that have been dictated by the teacher. Each groups have to discuss and reconstructed the key–words into their own paragraph. According to Nunan (1991) this method also makes students more active in understanding and comprehending the text. In addition, students make inferences on the things that are not directly stated in the text and identify the type and the topic of the text.
Based on those explanation, the researcher finally concluded that the Null Hypothesis (Ho) that states, “Dictogloss is not more effective in improving students’ writing skill specifically in recount text” is rejected. Whereas, Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) which states “Dictogloss is more effective in improving students’ writing skill specifically in recount text” is failed to be rejected by ignoring the score of mean deviation and sum of square of deviation of DG and DC classes. Therefore, there is a significant difference between the students’ performance of DG group and DC group.
7. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Alkire, S. 2002. Dictation as a language learning device. Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VIII. No. 3. Retrieved from: http://iteslj.org/techniques/Alkire-Dictation.html
Arikunto, S. 2006. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta
Broadmann, & Frydenberg, J. 2002. Writing to Communicate. New York: Person Education, Inc.
Brown, H. 2001. Teaching by Principle: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: And Pearson Education Company.
Brown, H. 2001. Teaching by Principles an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Second Edition. Longman: San Francisco State University.
Coffin, C., Carry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings A., Lillis T. M., & Swann. J. 2003. Teaching Academic Writing. London: Centre of Language and Communication, Routledge, Falmer.
Cohen, E. G. 1994. Restructuring The Classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research: 64 (1), 1-35.
Davis, P. & Rinvolucri, M. 1988. Dictation: New methods, new possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fachrurrarzy. 1989. Dictation as a Device for Testing English as a Foreign Language. Journal Guidelines. Volume II. No. 2: 61.
Fasya, D. M. 2015. Improving The Grade VIII Students’ Writing Skill of Narrative Text Through Dictogloss at SMPN 1Mungkid Magelang in The Academic Year 2014/2015. A Published Thesis of Sarjana Degree in English Education Department of Universitas Negeri Yoyakarta. Yogyakarta: UNY.
Hafniah, L. F. 2010. A Study on Students’ Ability in Writing Narrative Text. An Unpublished Thesis of Sarjana Degree in English Education FKIP Unram. MATARAM: UNRAM.
Hedge, T. 2010. Teaching and Learning in Classroom, New York: Oxford University Press
Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Husniati. 2011. Improving Writing Recount Text Using Genre-Based Approach (GBA) at First Grade Students of Madrasah Aliyah Putri AL-Islahuddin Kediri in Academic Year 2010/2011. An Unpublished Thesis of S1 in English Education FKIP Unram. MATARAM: UNRAM.
Humaero, S. 2016. The Comparative Study on Standard Dictation and Partial Dictation in Listening Comprehension at 11th Grade of SMAN 01 Labuapi in Academic Year 2015/2016. An Unpublished Thesis of S1 in English Education FKIP Unram. MATARAM: UNRAM Hornby, A.S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary of Current English.
London: Oxford Progressive Press
Jacobs, G. & Small, J. 2003.
Combining Dictogloss and Cooperative
Learning to Promote Language Learning
. The Reading
Matrix, Vol.
3
(1): 1-15.
Li, W, and Renandy, A. W. 2012. Effective Approaches to Listening. The Journal of Asia Tefl Vol. 9, No. 44, PP 79-111, Winter 2012.
Ma, L. 2004. Employing Dictogloss in the Teaching of Newspapers to Enhance EFL Students' Integrated Skills. Sino-US English Teaching, 1(6), 40-43.
Martin, C. 1985. Exploring American English. London: Collier Macmilan Publisher.
Marzban, A. & Abdollahi, M. 2013. The Effect of Partial Dictation on The Listening Comprehension Ability of Iranian Intermediate EFL. Learners International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences ISSN 2551- 838X / Vol. 5 (2): 238-244 Science Explorer Publications.
Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A Text Book for Teacher. New York: Prentice Hall International English Language Teaching. Oller, J. W. 1979. Language Test at School. London: Longman
Oller, J. W. & Streiff, V. 1975. Dictation: A test of grammar based expectancies. English Language Teaching.
Putri, S. N. 2011. The Use of Picture Series to Improve Students’ Ability in Writing Recount Text. An Experimental Research on The Second Year Students of SMPN 7 Mataram in Academic Year 2011/2012. An Unpublished Thesis of S1 PBS FKIP Unram. Mataram: UNRAM
Raimes, A. 1998. Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 142-167. Oxford: OUP
Renandya, W. A. 2011. Extensive Listening in the second language classroom. In H. P. Widodo & A. Cirocki (Eds.), Innovation and creativity in ELT methodology (pp. 28-41). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Rivers, W. M. 1981. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rofiqoh, A. 2013. The Writing Skill of The Eleventh Grade Students of SMK Tunas Harapan Pati Taught By Using Dicto-comp Technique in the Acadmic Year 2013/2014. A Published Thesis of S1 English
Education Department of Muria Kudus University. Kudus: Universitas Muria Kudus.
Saifullah, A. 2013.The Effect of Using Mind Mapping Toward Students’ Writing Ability: An Experimental Study at Eight Grade Students of SMPN 17 Mataram. An Unpublished Thesis of English Education Program Faculty of Teacher Training Education Mataram University.
Shofiyah, E. 2014. The Effectiveness of Dictogloss Technique Toward Students’ Narrative Writing: A Quasi Experimental Study at The First Grade
Students of SMA Manba’ul Ulum. Thesis of Department English
Education at Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training of State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah. Jakarta.
Sullivan, J. & Caplan, N. 2004. Beyond the dictogloss: Learner generated attention to form in a collaborative, communicative classroom activity. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19(1), 65-89.
Ubuhiyah. 2014. The Effect of Using Mind Mapping Towards Students’ Writing Skill: An Experimental Study at SMPN 04 Mataram in Academic Year 2013/2014. An Unpublished Thesis of Sarjana Degree in English Education FKIP Unram. MATARAM: Unram.
Vasiljevic, Z. 2010. Dictogloss as an Interactive Method of Teaching Listening Comprehension to L2 Learners. English Language Teaching. Vol. 3, No 1.
Wajnryb, R. 1990. Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wishon, G. E. & Burks, J. M. 1968. Let’s Write English. New York: American
