COHERENCE AND COHESION IN THE BACKGROUND SECTION OF THE THESES WRITTEN BY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM AT ONE STATE UNIVERSITY IN BANDUNG.

(1)

Wahyu Mardhatillah, 2013

Coherence And Cohesion In The Background Section Of The Theses Written By Undergraduate Students Of English Education Program At One State University In Bandung

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

COHERENCE AND COHESION IN THE BACKGROUND SECTION OF THE THESES WRITTEN BY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM AT ONE STATE UNIVERSITY IN

BANDUNG

A THESIS

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

By

Wahyu Mardhotillah NIM 1007204

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

COHERENCE AND COHESION IN THE BACKGROUND SECTION OF THE THESES WRITTEN BY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM AT ONE STATE UNIVERSITY IN

BANDUNG

By

Wahyu Mardhotillah NIM.1007204

A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master’s

Degree in English Education

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Agustus 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Tesis ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhnya atau sebagian,

(3)

(4)

Abstrak

Penelitian ini bertujuan mempelajari koherensi dan kohesi yang terdapat dalam latar belakang skripsi yang ditulis oleh mahasiswa pendidikan bahasa inggris di salah satu universitas negeri di Bandung. 12 latar belakang dalam skripsis telah didokumentasikan untuk diteliti menggunakkan teks analisis yang mengacu pada Systemic Functional Grammar. Selain itu ada tiga teori besar yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu CARS Model atau Create Research Space Model (Swales and Feak, 1994), Thematic Progression (Eggins, 1994), dan Cohesive Device Terminology (Halliday dan Matthiessen, 2004).

Hasil dari penelitian ini ada tiga. Yang pertama dari analisis latar belakang menunjukkan bahwa mahasiswa memiliki kemampuan untuk menulis latar belakang berdasarkan Move Structure yang terdapat pada CARS Model. Akan tetapi peneliti menemukan bahwa beberapa latar belakang tidak memasukkan elemen-elemen wajib Move Structure yang harus dimasukkan dalam pola dasar penulisan karya ilmiah. Ketiadaan elemen wajib dari latar belakang ini mempengaruhi struktur pakem koherensi dari bentuk penulisan ilmiah. Kedua, data dari analisis Thematic Progression menunjukkan bahwa mahasiswa menulis latar belakang dengan menggunakan pola Theme Reiteration dan Zig Zag. Kedua pola ini menunjukkan bahwa mahasiswa mampu mengaplikasikan kedua pola tersebut dan mengetahui cara menciptakan koherensi dalam penulisan. Namun demikian, Theme Reiteration merupakan pola yang paling sering muncul dalam teks latar belakang. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa mahasiswa lebih sering menuliskan fokus yang jelas tanpa mengembangkan fokus tersebut di alinea selanjutnya. Ketiga, data dari analisis cohesive device menunjukkan bahwa Reference item merupakan item yang paling sering ditemukan dalam latar belakang. Ini menunjukkan bahwa mahasiswa mampu mengaitkan subjek dan element dalam text. Teks #2 memiliki tingkat referensi sebanyak 30.15%, teks #8 sebanyak 35,1 %, sedangkan teks no 11 sebesar 33.67%. Hal ini akhirnya akan membentuk penulisan yang lebih kohesif.

Kesimpulannya adalah mahasiswa membutuhkan pelatihan reguler untuk dapan menulis karya ilmiah sesuai pakem generic dengan menggunakan Move Structure dan Thematic Progression. Hal ini merupakan tanggung jawab para dosen dan pembimbing untuk memberikan pengarahan, contoh, dan pengajaran yang eksplisit tentang CARS Model, Thematic Progression, serta Cohesive Devices. Hal ini dilakukan agar mahasiswa mampu menulis latar belakang karya ilmiah mereka dengan lebih koheren dan kohesi.

(5)

vi

Besides, the findings from a study on coherence and cohesion of undergraduate students’ research proposals which was conducted by Widiastuti (2010) reveals that teachers’ guidance in writing is extremely significant to improve students’ ability in writing a coherent and cohesive research proposal. This study emphasizes that teachers’ assistance and support can encourage

students to create a more coherent and cohesive academic writing.

Moreover, similar findings from several well-established researches

recommends that analyzing students’ writing with the emphasis on meaning and

function, Theme-Rheme, and textual metafunction of text have provided an effective framework for identifying coherence in students’ texts (Vande Kopple, 1991; Bloor & Bloor, 1992; Eggins, 2004; Schleppegrell, 2004, 2009; Christie &

Dreyfus, 2007; Wang, 2007). As a result, it has been suggested that analysis on

textual coherence and cohesion using Theme-Rheme progression can be

incorporated and implemented in teaching writing and writing instruction (Vande

Kopple, 1991; Bloor & Bloor, 1992; Eggins, 2004; Schleppegrell, 2004, 2009;

(10)

The studies above point out that a study on coherence and cohesion in students’ writing can provide essential outcomes in teaching academic writing. Motivated by the aforementioned issues above, this present study aims to analyze

the coherence and cohesion properties in the introductory chapter of a research

thesis and in order to investigate coherence and cohesion in students’ introductory

chapter of a thesis, Systemic Functional Grammar and CARS Model (Create a

Research Space) are selected as the appropriate tool of analysis in this study.

SFG analysis examines spoken or written text in systematic way which

means grammar is viewed as a system of networks that contains the pattern of

choices through which people make meaning of language depend on its function

and context (Halliday, 1985; Martin, 1992; Eggins, 1994; Matthiessen, 1995; Butt

et al, 2000; Emilia, 2003; Bloor and Bloor, 2004). In other words, SFG views a

language as a meaning making system (Martin, Mathiessen, and Painter, 1997).

Whereas CARS Model is a well- known schematic structure that used to

identify elements of background section which serve as a standard and

communicative purposes in a research paper (Swales and Feak, 1994; Paltridge

and Starfield, 2007). The theories above are relevant to be implemented in this

study particularly to explain linguistics devices and generic elements that

substantially contribute to a cohesive and coherent in students’ text.

In sum, the study on coherence and cohesion analysis in students’

background section of a research thesis is needed particularly to provide

explanation on grammatical function and elements of a research thesis and to

better guide students in their thesis writing.

Furthermore, this study is expected to give insight and information for

teachers who act as supervisors and are actively engaged in teaching writing as

well for tertiary students who are required to produce a good scientific writing or

(11)

4

1.2Research Questions

Based on the explanation in the background of the study above, this study

seeks to answer the following questions:

1. How do the students maintain the structure of background section of

theses as can be seen from the Move structure and Theme system of the

theses written in the second half of 2010, 2011, and 2012 academic years?

2. What kind of thematic progression pattern and cohesive ties are

dominantly applied in the background section of the thesis?

3. To what extent do both systems contribute to the coherence and cohesion

of background section of the theses?

1.3Research Objectives

This study is intended to:

1. Find out the structure of background section in the introductory chapter of the

theses written in the second half of 2010, 2011, and 2012 academic years.

2. Identify the dominant thematic progression and prominent cohesive device

which are used in the background section of the thesis.

3. Find out the contribution of Move structure and Theme system to the

coherence and cohesiveness of background sections.

1.4Significance of the Study

This study is considerably significant in three aspects:

1. Theoretically, this study can enrich the literature of the theories of coherence,

(12)

2. Practically, this study is expected to elicit students’ awareness in

implementing cohesive devices and employing thematic progression in order

to achieve coherence in their background writing.

3. Pedagogically, this study is expected to give ample information on the

difficulties of thesis writing faced by EFL students. Thus, by analyzing the

thesis product, this study will point out the precise difficulties that students

have in common in writing their thesis so that lecturers can resolve the

problems and can provide assistance in their thesis writing.

1.5Scope of the Study

This study focuses on analyzing the coherence and cohesion of

background section of theses written by undergraduate students of English

Education program at one state university in Bandung. The data were taken from

the theses which written in three consecutive years 2010, 2011, and in the latest

2012 academic year.

The purpose of limitation in this study is to provide detailed explanation

and information on coherence and cohesion in the thesis and the readability from

each thesis which is written in three consecutive years. The analysis was to do

with the schematic structure, Theme system, thematic progression pattern, and

cohesive devices employed in the background section of theses.

1.6Definition of Related Terms

Considering that several theoretical terms may cause misinterpretation and

ambiguity, this section provides clarification of the terms which is employed in

(13)

6

1. Coherence : Continuity in meaning and context. It concerns with

underlying phenomenon in the text (Encyclopedia of Linguistics,

2005).

2. Cohesion : Continuity in word and sentence structure. It concerns

with the elements in surface text (Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 2005).

3. Theme : The point of departure, the first element of a clause, or the

given information in the clause (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004).

4. Rheme : The reminder of Theme, the rest of the clause after

Theme, or the new information in the clause (Halliday and

Matthiessen, 2004).

5. Thematic Progression : The pattern or the flow of information from

Theme to Rheme in a clause (Eggins, 1994).

1.7Thesis Organization

This thesis starts with the introduction chapter which consists of the

background of the study, research questions, research objectives, limitation of the

study, and thesis organization. The second chapter is mainly designed to review

theories which are used in this study. The third chapter provides some information

on methodology which includes research design, population and samples, data

collection method, and data analysis.

Next, the fourth chapter of this study covers the report on cohesive devices

used in the background section of the thesis and provides the analysis on the

importance of cohesive devices which contribute to the coherence and

cohesiveness of the background section. The last chapter, chapter five, presents a

(14)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the methods of the research which covers five

sections: (3.1) research questions, (3.2) research design of the study, (3.3) data

collection method which includes procedure of data collection, (3.4) data analysis,

and (3.5) chapter summary.

3.1 Research Questions

This research was conducted to answer three research questions. These

questions are formulated as follows:

1. How do the students maintain the structure of background section in the

thesis as can be seen from the Move structure and theme system?

2. What kind of cohesive ties are dominantly applied in the background

section of the thesis?

3. To what extent both systems contribute to the coherence and cohesion of

in the background section of the thesis?

3.2 Research Design

In order to answer the research questions, this study employed a

qualitative research design. A qualitative research design is appropriate to

examine a phenomenon of a single case study (Alwasilah, 2007). Besides, this

design also provides an opportunity to get a “complex, holistic picture” of the

(15)

42

In terms of analysis, SFG textual analysis method is appropriate in this

study particularly to examine students’ writing. SFG textual analysis can be used

to examine a small scale and single case phenomenon, generate a qualitative data,

and provide an interpretive analysis of that data (Emilia, 2008).

Furthermore, regarding the characteristics of this method, qualitative case

study research design allows the researcher to conduct naturalistic observation of students’ original text which is based on concepts, models, and theories (Merriam, 1998; Gilham, 2000; Travers 2001 in Emilia 2005). Thus, this research design

was considered suitable for this study.

3.2 Research Site

This study was conducted at one state university in Bandung, Indonesia

and the data used in this study were taken from theses written by undergraduate

students of English Education program in 2010, 2011, and 2012 academic years.

The research site was selected based on its relevancy to the researchers’

current educational background. As a graduate student of the university, the setting supported to research’s accessibility and feasibility.

3.3 Data Collection Method

In collecting data, documentation method was applied since the data were

taken from printed media (Arikunto, 1998: 158).With documentation method, 12

background section texts were selected as the samples used in this study. The

background section texts were chosen from the second half of 2010, 2011, and

2012 academic years and were submitted in the end of each academic year which

(16)

Furthermore, the background sections selected for the study were taken

from introduction section of the theses with 300 - 500 words count. This criterion

was considered to be suitable for the analysis on academic writing because

commonly the requirement for formal academic writing or introduction for

undergraduate thesis contained, at least, two to three pages or about 300 to 500

characters (Evans and Gruba, 2002; Glatthorn and Joyner; 2003; Murray, 2002: 98

in Paltridge and Starfield 2007). Thus, the data collection method was conducted

based on this criterion.

3.4 Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using textual analysis. Textual analysis

concentrates on the formal features (such as vocabularies, grammar, syntax, and

sentence coherence) from which discourse and genre are realized linguistically

(Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002: 69).

Furthermore, in relation to identify, describe, and analyze the coherence

and cohesion in the introduction chapter of the study, textual analysis using

systemic functional grammar was the analysis method in this study. SFG textual

analysis is to do with an attempt to show “how and why the text meant what it did” (Halliday, 1994 in Webster 2002: 6).

SFG textual is designed to scrutinize on “how the language is used in particular context and function” (Halliday, 1985; Emilia, 2005). This means SFG

analysis was primarily meant to explain the role and functions of grammatical and

linguistic features in the text. With that reason, qualitative case study using SFG

textual analysis was appropriate to describe and interpret the data in this study.

Besides, the data were analyzed in terms of Move elements, Theme system, and

cohesive device.

Furthermore, the data were analyzed using the following procedures. First,

(17)

44

textual analysis of Systemic Functional Grammar. Textual analysis using

functional grammar is a kind of linguistic approach that has been well developed

in language education field and is used as a foundation to study coherence and cohesiveness in students’ text (Freebody, 2003 in Emilia, 2005). This first procedure was used to answer the first question in this study and to reveal the

Theme system and prominent thematic progression used in the background

section of a thesis.

Second, the samples of background section text were analyzed based on

Create a Research Space theory (Swales and Feak, 1994; Paltridge and Starfield,

2007) to find out the schematic structure of background section in the theses. In

this step, the identification of schematic structure was conducted through

underlining the typical features (words, statement, or phrase) of Move elements.

Furthermore, to find out the prominent Move elements in the schematic structure

of background section, each paragraph and clause in the text was analyzed in

detail to find out the position and the feature of Move elements.

The two procedures of data analysis mentioned above were used to answer the first question and was to do with students’ ability to control the schematic structure, Theme system, and thematic patterns appear in the background section

of a thesis. Thus, if all background section texts fulfilled “the demands of

schematic structure of background section in a research thesis and its social

purposes”, it means the students have completed “the first and foremost task of a writer” (Kress, 1985: 46 in Emilia, 2012).

Next, the third step, the samples from students’ background text were

analyzed using cohesive terminology to find out the most prominent device that

occured in this study which perform the cohesive ties in the text. This step was

conducted to find out how students make use the cohesive devices to create a

cohesive writing. In term of cohesion analysis, the analysis was conducted by

(18)

Underlining a word was needed particularly to highlight the data. This phase was

significant to answer the second questions of this study.

Practically, in the process of data analysis, the researcher employed

categorization. A categorization was conducted to give information on Move

elements, types of Theme, Theme-Rheme pattern, and Cohesive Devices used in

the samples of background section. This was the important step in the data

analysis since in this phase the researcher was required to classify the clauses,

sentences, and paragraphs carefully. In addition, the categorization of the

grammatical and lexical features was conducted to reveal the types of Theme,

prominent Theme-Rheme pattern, and cohesive devices used in the background of

the study.

The last step was interpreting the data and giving the result. The

interpretation came up with evidences from the categorization. The interpretation was conducted to find out students’ ability to maintain generic Move structure, dominant thematic progression pattern, and prominent cohesive item in the

background section of their thesis.

The interpretation from the three systems was used to answer the third

research question that is the contribution of the systems to the texts’ coherence

and cohesiveness. Then, all data interpretation was used to frame concluding

remark and suggestion for thesis writing, thesis supervision, and further study.

3.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter provides the information on research methodology used in

this study. There are four important points reviewed in this chapter. First, this

study was designed based on qualitative case study. This design was selected in

order to clearly explain the single and small scale phenomenon in particular

context. Second, the data were collected using documentation of background

(19)

46

analysis in order to gain information on grammatical and linguistic features of the

investigated phenomenon. Fourth, the data were analyzed using three procedures

and were classified and underlined based on its category. Further, the data

(20)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents conclusion of the study and some recommendations. The

conclusion and recommendations in this chapter are drawn based on the data analysis

which is discussed in the fourth chapter of this thesis.

5.1 Conclusion

The major conclusions from the analysis of coherence and cohesion in the

background section of the thesis are taken from the data analysis in Chapter Four. First

of all, the results of this study revealed that some students showed their ability to write a

background section using generic structure of research paper and thematic progression

whereas some other failed in establishing generic structure in the background section

and showed disconnected of ideas in their writing. This means some students actually

have been able to show their skill on writing the background section of thesis using

generic structure of research thesis of CARS Model which is proposed by Swales and

Feak (1994), Paltridge and Starfield (2007), and Emilia (2008) also using thematic

progression as proposed by SFG (Eggins, 2004).

In term of generic structure of research thesis, the most common rhetorical

Move employed by students in their background section were Move 1a which deals

with establishing research territory and Move 3a which is related to statement of

purpose of their study. However, the data showed that some background section have

not completed the Move structure. There are missing Moves structure that found in the

background text analysis. This indicated that some students do not aware to employ

generic structure of research paper and that some background sections were not properly

applied the standard of CARS Move structure.

From 12 background sections of the theses, the result indicated that students

(21)

99

Theme in the background section were unmarked topical Theme. Marked theme was

also employed in the background section but were less used then unmarked topical

Theme. Other types of Theme such as textual and interpersonal Theme were also

applied in the background section, but these two Themes were less found in Background

section. The use of unmarked topical theme can be interpreted that students tried to

provide clear topic focus in their background section by repeating the same element of

the Theme. Yet, as the result showed, the frequent use of unmarked topical Theme

triggered the sense of monotony in the background text.

In addition, the result of background section analysis clearly signified that

Reiteration pattern is the most prominent thematic progression used in the background

section. The frequent use of Reiteration pattern indicated that background section lacks

in elaboration of information. There were also the use of Zig Zag patterns, yet, this

pattern was not the prominent pattern employed in the background section. This

suggests students need to practice in employing Zig Zag pattern in their writing.

Then, in cohesive device analysis, the result indicated that Reference is the most

prominent device used in the background section. The use of Reference in the

background section showed that students have been able to provide linguistic source to

related each participants in the background text.

Thus, in conclusion of coherence and cohesion analysis in the background

section of the thesis, some texts that lacks of generic Move structure can be considered

as a failure in providing research space and unity. Moreover, the lack in establishing

thematic progression affected the unity and coherence of the background text.

Finally, it can be sum up that there are two aspects that influenced the lack in

coherence and cohesion, the first was the absence of generic Move structure of research

paper, the second was disconnectedness in thematic progression which means that

students have not fully maintained the thematic progression in their writing. These two

points has affected the coherence and cohesion in the background section.

This finding, overall, supports the previous studies in coherence and cohesion of

academic writing context like the research conducted by Emilia (2005, 2010), Watson,

(22)

5.2 Suggestions

Drawing from the conclusion above, what can be suggested from overall

background section analysis is that it might be better if teachers can assist and control

students writing in applying CARS Model and thematic progression pattern. Applying

thematic progression and CARS Model might increase the value and quality of research

paper as well as prevention to the lack of coherence disconnected information in the

text. Both theories may be helpful for students to write a better background section in

the thesis coherently and cohesively.

In addition, the suggestion to be made in terms of background writing in

particular is that supervisor should help their students to be aware and familiar with

typical elements of Move structure in the background section (Swales and Feak, 1994;

Paltridge and Starfield, 2007; Emilia, 2008). The supervisor and teacher should remind

their students about applying Move structure in the background section. Direct telling,

such as introducing the notion of CARS Model, showing the example of recent theses,

or regular practice in research writing, can be implemented to make students familiar

with typical rhetorical Move in the background section of the thesis. Furthermore,

explicit teaching in writing a good research paper using generic structure and thematic

progression is effective to train student to be familiar with the convention of research

paper as well the academic writing, so that, in the end of their study, students can

improve the quality of their thesis writing.

Direct telling, explicit teaching, showing the example of research paper, and

guidance in writing generic Move structure in the background section can be used to

enhance students’ ability in writing research paper (Emilia, 2008; Paltridge and

Starfield, 2007). As a result, when students realize the significant of maintaining Move

structure in the background section, coherence and cohesion in their writing can be

achieved.

This can be assumed that besides students effort to update her/his own

knowledge about the theory in the research area, feedbacks and guidance from the

(23)

101

area become a great help for students. To put it simply, the supervisor and teacher play

significant role to inspire, update, and guide their students about the old and new

development in the research area. In another word, teacher and supervisor’s expertise is

needed to assist students to be able to write coherently and cohesively.

Finally, to conclude there are many important attributes of successful

undergraduate thesis writing but coherence, cohesion, and generic convention in the

research paper should be given a proper attention. The success of completion in

students’ thesis writing is not only determined based on their ideas and elaboration of it

but also based on other positive element that contribute the quality of research thesis

(24)

REFERENCES

Agustini, D. 2009. A Study on Cohesion in Three Articles of Alwasilah. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI).

Alwasilah, A. C. 2007. Pokoknya Menulis. Bandung: PT Kiblat Buku Utama.

Alwasilah, A.C. 2000. Pokoknya Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Bachman, L.F. and Palmer, S. 1996. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bamberg, B. 1984. Assessing coherence: A reanalysis of essays written for the national assessment of educational progress. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 305-319.

Bloor, M. and Bloor, Thomas. 1995. The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.

Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. 1992. Given and new information in the thematic organization of text: An application to the teaching of academic writing. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 6(1), 33-43.

Bloor, M. and Bloor, Thomas. 1995. The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.

Brause, R. S. 2000. Writing Your Doctoral Dissertation: Invisible Rules for Success. London: Falmer Press.

Burns, A. and Coffin, C. (eds.) 2000. Analysing English in a Global Context: A Reader. Oxford: Routledge.

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. 2000. Using Functional

Grammar: An Explorer’s Guide. Sydney: Southwood Press.

Butt, D. G., Lukin, A. et al. 2004. Grammar—The First Covert Operation of War.’Discourse Society. 15: 267-290.

(25)

103

Canagarajah. A.S. 2002. Critical Academic Writing and Multilingual Students. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Christie, F. 1999. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Genre Theory and ESL Teaching: A Systemic Functional Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Winter, 1999), pp. 759-763.

Christie, F., & Dreyfus, S. 2007. Letting the secret out: Successful writing in secondary English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30(3), 235-247.

Christie, F. and Derewianka, B. 2008. School Discourse. London: Continuum.

Coffin, C. 2001. Theoretical Approaches to Written Language—A TESOL Perspective.

Cullip, P. F. 2000. Text Technology: the Power-Tool of Grammatical Metaphor. RELC Journal 31: 76-104.

DeBeaugrande, R. and Dressler, W.U. 1983. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln Y.S. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.

Derewianka, B. 1990. Exploring How Texts Work. Laura Street Newtown. New South Wales: Primary English Teaching Association.

Dijkstra, K., Bourgeois, M.S., Allen, R.S., and Burgio, L.D. 2004. Conversational coherence: discourse analysis of older adults with and without dementia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 263-283.

Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Emilia, E. 2005. A Critical Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Unpublished Dissertation in Department of Language, Literacy and Arts Education Faculty of Education. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.

(26)

Emilia, E. 2010. Teaching Writing: Developing Critical Learners. Bandung: Rizki Press.

Evans, G. and Gruba, P. 2002. How To Write A Better Thesis. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press

Gillham, B. 2000. Case Study Research Methods. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Glatthorn, A. A. and Joyner, R. L. 2005. Writing the Winning Thesis or Dissertation. California: Sage Publication.

Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group.

Halliday, M.A.K. 2001. Literacy and Linguistics: Relationships Between Spoken and Written Language. London: Longman Group.

Hyland, K. 1999. Academic attribution: citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, vol. 20, pp. 341-367.

Jeremy, J. 2007. Papers in TESOL, 2(2), 125-148. ISSN: 1834-3198 (Print) & 1834 – 4712 (Online). University of Sydney.

Jordan, R.R. 1997. English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and Resource Book for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Joseph, L. Nancy. 1999. Research Writing Using Traditional and Electronic Sources. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kaplan, R. and Grabe. W. 1991. The fiction of science writing. In H. Schroder (ed.), Subject-oriented Texts, pp. 199-216. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, Massachusetts.

Liles, B.Z. and Coelho, C.A. 1998. Cohesion Analysis. In L.R. Cherney, B.B. Shadden, & C.A. Coelho (Eds.). Aspen: Gaithersburg, MA.

Lipson, C. 2005. How To Write BA Thesis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Marianne, J. and Phillips, L. J. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage Publications.

(27)

105

McCarthy, M. 2001. Issues in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler-Songer, N., and Kintsch, W. 1996. Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction. American Eduational Research Journal, 41, 119-123.

McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., McCarthy, P.M., and Graesser, A.C. 2010. Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292-330. reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional “high -stakes” measures of high school students’ science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 161–196.

O’Reilly, T. and McNamara, D. S. 2007. Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121–152.

Oshima, A. and Hogue, A. 2006. Writing Academic English. New York: Pearson Longman.

Oster, S. (1981). The use of tenses in reporting past literature. In Selinker, L., E. Tarone & V. Hanzeli (eds.), English for Academic and Technical Purposes: Studies in Honour of Louis Trimble, pp. 76-90. Newburg House, Rowley, Massachussetts.

Paltridge, B. 2007. Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language. London: Routledge.

Paltridge, B. 2002. Thesis and Dissertation Writing: An Examination of Published Advice and Actual Practice. London: Routledge.

(28)

Palmer J. 1999. Coherence and cohesion in the language classroom: the use of lexical reiteration and pronominalisation. RELC J., 30(61): 61-85.

Phillips, E.M. and Pugh, D.S. 2005. How to Get a PhD. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Renkema, J. 2004. Introduction to Discourse Studies. New York: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Richard, J. Plat, J. and Weber, H. 1985. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London: Longman.

Roberts, C. M. 2004. The Dissertation Journey. California: Sage Publication.

Schleppegrell, M. J. 2004. The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schleppegrell, M. J. 2009. Grammar for generation 1.5.: A focus on meaning. In M. Roberage, M. Siegal, & L. Harklau (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition: Teaching academic writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 221-234). New York: Routledge.

Shane, A. Thomas. 2000. How To Write Health Sciences Papers, Dissertations, and Theses. London: Harcourt Publishers.

Swales, J. and Feak, C. 1994. Academic writing for graduate students: Essential task and skills. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Thompson, G. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thornbury, S. 2005. Beyond the Sentence. Oxford: Macmillan.

Todd, R.W., Khongput, S., and Darawangsa, P. 2007. Coherence, Cohesion, and Comments on Students’ Academic Essays. Assessing Writing 12. 10-25. www.sciencedirect.com

Van Leer, E., and Turkstra, L. 1999. The effect of elicitation task on discourse coherence and cohesion in adolescents with brain injury. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 327-349.

(29)

107

Wang, L. 2007. Theme and rheme in the thematic organization of text: Implications for teaching academic writing. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 164-176.White, P. R. R. 2000. Functional Grammar. Birmingham: University of Birmingham

Webster, J (ed). 2002. Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. Volume 2 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. London: Continuum.

Widdowson, H.G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Widiastuti, Sri. 2009. A Study on Cohesion in Three Articles of Alwasilah. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI).

Williams, Joseph M. 2000. Style: Ten Lesson in Clarity and Grace: 6th Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Yan Xi. 2010. Cohesion Studies in the past 30 years: Development, Application, and Chaos. The International Journal: Language, Society, and Culture. ISSN 1322.744 X. Issue 31. www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/journal/

COHERENCE AND COHESION IN THE BACKGROUND SECTION OF THE THESES WRITTEN BY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM AT ONE STATE UNIVERSITY IN BANDUNG.

TABLE OF CONTENTS