FOUR SQUARE WRITING METHOD (FSWM) USED IN PROCESS
APPROACH TO TEACHING WRITING OF ANALYTICAL
EXPOSITION TEXTS
A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master’s Degree in English Education
By
Wa Ode Ritna Yuniyr Ullah
(1302446)
ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM
SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis entitled Four Square Writing Method (FSWM) Used in
Process Approach to Teaching Writing of Analytical Exposition Texts is fully my own work.
I am compeletely aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from various sources. All quotations are properly acknowledged.
Bandung, August 2015
Wa Ode Ritna Yuniyr Ullah
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
This part presents the research design, research site and participants as well as the data collection techniques. In addition to these, the analysis of data is also presented including the marking scheme of writing used in analyzing the students’ writing,
3.1 Research Design
This study is addressed to investigate the ways Four Square Writing Method (FWSM) helps students write analytical exposition text. Thus qualitative research particularly case study method is considered appropriate to be applied. According to Alwasilah (2000: 111), qualitative paradigm is used to understand the social phenomena from the perspective or perception of the participants through involving into the participants’ life. Here, the participants’ perspective or perception on a certain method will be investigated after being involved in their learning process (see also Creswell, 2010; Hyland, 2002, p.157).
Case study is employed since this study tries to explore, to understand, and to investigate a single or small case of a group of participants (Merriam, 1998:29& 34) in this case the use of FSWM used in process approach to teaching writing as well as the attitude of a group of students in a school. Furthermore, this study deals with making sense of a process, in this case writing process, through which events and actions proceed (see Maxwell, 1996:34).
3.2Research site and participants
In addition, regarding the participants, the present study involved one class of the eleventh grade students. They were chosen purposively to meet the specific purpose from the researcher, i.e. to find out the ways FSWM help students write analytical exposition text as well as their attitude towards the use of this method in teaching them writing. The selection of the participant purposively is done to enhance the quality of the data gotten from the participants which in turn can strengthen the quality of the discovery (Alwasilah, 2000: 62).
3.3Data Collection Techniques
The present research employs triangulation method through involving four main techniques of collecting the data. They are documentation of students’ texts, classroom observation, questionnaires, and interview. The employment of the triangulation method is to strengthen the validity and the reliability of the data gotten and to diminish bias (Alwasilah, 2000: 130; Alwasilah, 2011: 136; Johnson, 1992: 146; Mackey and Gass, 2005: 181). Each technique will be elaborated in the following sections.
3.3.1. Documentation of Students’ Texts
Documentation of students’ analytical exposition text is the technique which aims to see the characteristics of the students’ texts which may give description on the ways the FSWM helps them write the analytical exposition text. The documentation technique was done by selecting six analytical exposition texts. The texts chosen represented three levels of achievement –two texts from low achievers, two texts from middle achievers, two texts from high achievers. Afterwards, the students’ analytical exposition texts were analyzed using the SFG analysis.
3.3.2. Classroom Observation
teaching of writing and is used to answer the two research questions. The observation in the present research was done by using video-tapping. It was useful to find out more about the students’ behaviors and interaction in the course of implementing the teaching program in this case the implementation of FSWM in the teaching of writing. In addition, the researcher was also equipped with the brief notes and comments regarding the behaviors of the students while the class was in progress or after the teaching program had been accomplished when the memory was still fresh (see Van Lier, 1988).
3.3.3. Questionnaire
Questionnaire is used to answer the second research questions namely to collect information with regard to the students’ attitude on the use of FSWM in the teaching of writing. The questionnaire is adapted based on the theory of attitude from Oskamp and Schultz (2000). It consists of 20 close-ended items using Likert-scale which are classified into three main theme subscales namely affective, behaviour, and cognitive component. The statements were provided in Bahasa Indonesia in order to assist the students to choose the options more easily. There are five options provided namely SS (Sangat Setuju) if they strongly agree, S (Setuju) if they agree, N (Netral) if they are netral, TS (Tidak Setuju) if they disagree, and STS (Sangat Tidak Setuju) if they strongly disagree.
3.3.4. Interviews
meeting of the research activity. This was employed by using Bahasa Indonesia to help the students answer the questions easily. The students being interviewed were six persons representing the three levels of achievement – two from high achievers, two from average achievers, and two from low achievers.
3.4Data analysis
The data analysis gained from the instruments is done throughout the study as has been stated by Hatch (2002) that the analysis of data in qualitative paradigm happens along the study and guides the ongoing process during the data collection (see also Lodico, et al, 2004). In this research, data analysis is done during and after data collection. To gain valid data, all data collections techniques comprising documentation of students’ texts, classroom observation, questionnaire, and interviews are triangulated.
3.4.1. Documentation of Students’ Texts
The data from students’ analytical exposition text were analyzed using the SFG analysis. In this model, students’ texts are analyzed in terms of social function and generic structure as well as the language features. In so doing, the three metafunctions including interpersonal, textual, and experiential metafunction were employed in analyzing the students’ writing. The result of analysis of students’ texts using this model was aimed to answer the first research question namely to find out the ways FSWM improve students’ writing ability. In this regard, students were given a topic in the first meeting to see their initial ability. Then, at the end of the research, they were asked again to write in the same topic to see the improvement of their writing after being taught using FSWM.
3.4.2. Classroom Observation
observation guideline which was equipped with the notes during observation. Then, all the notes denoting the teaching and learning activities during the research were categorized based on the research questions. These categorized notes were interpreted to answer the first research question namely to find out the ways FSWM helps students write analytical exposition text.
3.4.3. Questionnaire
The questionnaire is written in 20 close-ended items which are used to answer the second research question namely to find out students’ attitude on the use of FSWM in process approach. The questionnaire is classified into three main components of attitude namely affection, behaviour, and cognitive component. This questionnaire provides 5-level Likert Scale consisting of ‘Strongly Agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘Disagree’, and ‘Strongly Disagree’. For the analysis of these items, mean scores, frequency and percentages was employed to describe students’ attitude on the use of FSWM as a means for teaching and improving writing.
3.4.4. Interviews
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the conclusion derived from the findings and the discussion in chapter 4. In addition, several recommendations are pointed out in order to give information as well as guidance to conduct upcoming research related to the same issue
1.1 Conclusions
FSWM is a teaching learning strategy which has a big potency to improve students’ ability in writing. This study aims to examine the ways FSWM helps students write analytical exposition text. In addition, the study also attempts to investigate students’ attitude on the use of FSWM in the teaching writing of analytical exposition text.
With respect to the first research question, it can be concluded that FSWM does help students write analytical exposition texts through the steps established in the FSWM itself. This finding was supported by the results gotten from classroom observation and the sample of students’ texts. Also, the data from questionnaire and interview to the students highly supported the answer to this first research question.
Based on the classroom observation, it was found that FSWM did help students in improving students’ ability in writing analytical exposition text, students’ writing ability in general, as well as classroom situation during writing which became more conducive. Additionally, the data from students’ text revealed that through the steps established in FSWM students had shown significant improvement in writing analytical exposition text in terms of social function, schematic structure, and appropriate linguistic features.
components of attitude fell above the midpoint (36) namely 46.35 or about 77.25% (above 50%) of the students showed positive attitude. This indicated that students gave positive response on the use of FSWM. In addition, the result of interview data affirmed that students preferred highly this method to write and for them FSWM was surely interested, useful, and helpful. In summary, students show positive attitude on the use of FSWM in teaching writing of analytical exposition text.
Based on the findings throughout the implementation of FSWM in this teaching program, there was a new interesting issue appeared which was worth noticing. It was the promotion of student-centered activity which had become the trend of education nowadays. Students-centeredness seems to be obviously developed during the implementation of this program in which students started actively creating their own discovery on constructing their writing. The steps of FSWM provided to them enabled them to have a direction on how to write well even when there was not teacher’s assistance anymore. Related to this part, then FSWM was obviously an effective method which not only promote students’ ability in writing with guidance but also later promote students’ centeredness in writing even just by themselves.
1.2 Recommendations
Based on the findings and the conclusion of this study, the following recommendations are proposed for both the next research and the teacher’s practice. For future research: This study was still limited in context i.e. it was done just in one school in Bandung. Thus, the next study may be used in broader context out of Bandung which may involve many schools, not only one school. In addition, this study was applied in writing skill, thus the next study may attempt to examine the effectiveness of this method to other skills, i.e. speaking skill or reading skill. Also, this study was addressed to senior high school students, hence the next study might use this to other level, i.e. in junior high school student.
REFERENCES
Alwasilah, A. C. (2000). Pokoknya kualitatif: Dasar-dasar merancang dan
melakukan penelitian kualitatif. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya.
Alwasilah, A. C. (2011). Pokoknya action research. Bandung: PT Kiblat Buku Utama.
Alwasilah, A. C. and Alwasilah, S. S. (2005). Pokoknya menulis. Bandung: PT Kiblat Buku Utama.
Badger, R, and White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT
Journal, 34 (2), 153-160.
Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research in written
composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Bridwell, L. S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students‟ transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14: 197–222.
Byrne, D. (1988). Longman handbooks for language teacher: Teaching writing skills. London: Longman Group UK Limited.
Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cheung, M. (1999). The process of innovation adoption and teacher development.
Education and Research in Education, 13 (2), 55-75.
Cheung, M. and Chan, A. (1994). Teaching writing as a process. Hong Kong: Education Department.
Cheung, M., Wong, A., Chan, M., Yeung, A. & Murphy,M. (1992). Implementing process writing in a F.3 classroom. Institute of Language in Education Journa, 9, 171-176.
Cimcoz, Y. (1999). Teaching ESL/EFL students to write better. The Internet TESL
Cook, M. (2004). A fun way to generate ideas for comparison paragraphs. The
Internet TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 7, July 2004.
Creswell, J. W. (2010). Educational research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Criollo, R. (2003). Teaching TESOL undergraduates to organize and write literature reviews. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 4, April 2003.
Dempsey, M.S., Pytlikzillig, L.M., and Bruning, R.H. (2009). Helping pre-service teachers learn to assess writing: Practice and feedback in a web-based environment. Assessing Writing, 14, 38– 61.
Derewianka, B. (1992). Exploring how a text works. Newton, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.
Derewianka, J & Jones. (2012). Teaching language in context. Australia: Oxford University Press.
Diaz, D. (1986). The writing process and the ESL writer: Reinforcement from second language research. Writing Instructor, 5,167–175.
Eggins, E. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group
Emilia, E. (2005). A critical genre-based approach to teaching academic writing in a
tertiary EFL context in Indonesia. Volume 2. A PhD thesis submitted to the
Department of Language, Literacy and Arts Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne.
Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching writing: Deveoping critical learners. Bandung: Rizqi Press.
Emilia, E. (2011). Pendekatan genre-based dalam pengajaran bahasa Inggris:
Petunjuk untuk guru. Bandung: Rizqi Press.
Feez, S., & Joyce, H. (1998). Writing skills. Phoenix: Phoenix Education Ply Ltd. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). The pregnant pause: An inquiry into the nature of
planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 229–244.
Goldstein, A.A. and Carr, P.G. (1996). Can students benefit from process writing?
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. United States of America: Addison Wesley Longman.
Hedge, T. (1988). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Harlow: Longman.
Jacobs, H. L., Stephen, D. V., & Faye, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition profile: A
practical approach. London: Newbury House Published.
Katayama , A. D. and Daniel H. R. (2000). Getting students „partially‟ involved in note - Taking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education. 68 (2) 119-133.
Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Long-term working memory in text production. Memory &
Cognition, 43-52.
Kim, Y., & Kim, J. (2005). Teaching korean university writing class: Balancing the process and the genre approach. Asian EFL Journal, 68-89.
Knapp, P. & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar technologies for teaching
Kpolugbo, S. (2006). Second language writing: Pre-writing. writing. and final text.
An Encyclopedia of the Arts, 4 (4): 284-289.
Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123-43.
Mandal, R. R. (2009). Cooperative learning strategies to enhance writing skill. The
Modern Journal of Applied Linguistic, 1, 94-102.
Mappe, S. (2000). A comparative study of the teaching of writing to Indonesian
university students under two instructional modes. Singapore: Dissertation
SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Martin, J. R., Mathiessen, C. M. I. M., and Painter, C. (1997). Working with
functional grammar. New York: Arnold.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Process and post-process: A discursive history. Journal of
Sec-ond Language Writing, 12, 65–83.
Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse.
Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 113–134.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. London: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Montague, N. (1995). The process oriented approach to teaching writing to second language learner. New York State Association for Bilingual Education Journal,
10, 13-24.
Nesamalar C., Saratha S. & Teh, S. C. (2001). ELT methodology: Principles and
practice. Selangor: Fajar Bakti.
Nor Shidrah, M. D. (2007). ESL writing: Problems in editing. Paper presented at 5th Asia TEFL International Conference 8-10 June, Kuala Lumpur.
Nunan, D. (1995). Focus on the learner: Learning styles and strategies, in language teaching methodologies: A Textbook for Teachers, Chapter 9, pp. 165-188. Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (1991). Writing academic English. A writing and sentence
structure handbook (2nd ed.). NJ: Longman.
Oskamp, S. & Schultz, P. W. (2005). Attitudes and Opinions. (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Prentice Hall.
Paltridge, B. (2004). Academic Writing. Language Teaching, 37(2), 87-105.
Perl, S. (1979). The composing process of unskilled college writers. Research in the
Teaching of English, 13,317–336.
Priyana, J., Riandi, & Mumpuni. (2008). Interlanguage: English for senior high
school students XI. Jakarta: Grasindo.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Reid, J. M. (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. In R. Cater & D. Nunan (Ed.), Writing (p.23-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Beth, A., Odom, S., Ya-Ping, H., & Vanderveen, A. (2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial
graphic organizer. Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 103-111.
Rohman, G. (1965). Pre-writing: The stage of discovery in the writing process.
College Composition and Communication, 16, 106–112.
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic
writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. CCC, 31,378–388.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sudarwati. Th. M. and Grace, E. (2007). Look ahead; An English course for senior
Suharyadi. (2013). Exploring “scientific approach” in English language teaching. English Teachers’ Association. 1348-1355.
Stewart, M. and Cheung, M. (1989). Introducing a process approach in the teaching of writing in Hong Kong. Institute of Language in Educational Journal, 6, pp.41-48.
Thai, M. D. (2009). Text-based language teaching. NSW: Mazmania Press.
Tyson, R. (1999). Using process writing effectively in Korean University EFL classes.
Paper presented at the 12th World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA
‟99) at Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan, August 1-6, 1999.
Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about reading and writing
difficulties. Victoria: ACER Press.
White, R. and Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. London and New York: Longman. William, J. D. (2003). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory and practice.
(Third ed.). London: Mahwah, New Jersey.
