i TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPROVAL PAGE ... i
DECLARATION ... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT... iii
ABSTRACT ... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ... x
LIST OF TABLE ... xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1. Background of the Study ... 1
1.2. Research Question ... 4
1.3. Research objectives ... 5
1.4. Significance of Study ... 5
1.5. Definition of Key Terms ... 6
1.6. Organization of the Thesis ... 7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8
2.1. Historical Overview of Scaffolding ... 8
2.1.1 Piaget’s Constructivism ... 8
2.1.2 Vygotsky’s Constructivism ... 9
2.2. Instructional Scaffolding ... 12
2.2.1 Definition of scaffolding ... 12
2.2.2 Types of Scaffolding ... 15
2.3. Genre-Based Approach ... 19
2.3.1 Definition of Genre-based Approach ... 20
2.3.2 Basic Principle of Genre-Based Approach ... 21
2.3.3 Scaffolding as a Basic Principle in Genre-based Approach ... 23
2.4. Exposition Texts ... 27
2.4.1 Definition of Exposition Text ... 27
2.4.2 Types of Exposition text ... 28
2.4.3 Schematic Structure of Hortatory Exposition ... 28
2.4.4 Language feature of Hortatory Exposition ... 30
2.5 Systemic Functional Grammar ... 31
2.5.1 Defining Systemic Functional Grammar ... 31
2.5.2 Transitivity System ... 33
2.5.3 Modality System ... 38
2.8 Related Research ... 38
CHAPTER THREE. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 42
3.1. Research Design... 42
3.2. Research Site ... 43
3.3. Participants ... 43
ii
3.4.1 Observation ... 44
3.4.2 Interview ... 45
3.4.3 Documentation of Students Text ... 46
3.5. Data Analysis ... 47
3.5.1 Observation ... 47
3.5.2 Interview ... 50
3.5.3 Documentation of Students’ Text ... 50
3.5.4 Research Validity ... 50
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ... 51
4.1 Actualization of Scaffolding ... 51
4.1.1 Types of Scaffolding ... 51
4.1.1.1 Offering Explanation ... 52
4.1.1.2 Modeling ... 55
4.1.1.3 Inviting Students’ participation... 58
4.1.1.4 Verifying and Clarifying Students’ Understanding ... 59
4.1.1.5 Inviting Students Contribute to Clues ... 61
4.1.1.6 Bridging ... 62
4.1.1.7 Schema Building ... 64
4.1.1.8 Developing Metacognition... 65
4.1.1.9 Content Scaffolding ... 66
4.1.1.10 Strategic Scaffolding ... 69
4.1.1.11 procedural Scaffolding ... 69
4.1.1.12 Summary of Scaffolding provided by Teacher A and B... 70
4.1.2 The Relation of Scaffolding to Each Curriculum Cycle ... 72
4.1.2.1 Scaffolding in Building Filed of Knowledge (BKoF) ... 73
4.1.2.2 Scaffolding in Modeling of Text (MoT) ... 75
4.1.2.3 Scaffolding in Joint Construction of Text (JCoT) ... 78
4.1.2.4 Scaffolding in Independent Construction of Text (ICoT)... 80
4.1.3 Teacher Awareness of Scaffolding ... 81
4.1.3.1 Teacher Awareness of the Scaffolding Concept ... 82
4.1.3.2 Teacher Awareness of Scaffolding Realization in the Classroom ... 88
4.1.3.2.1 Offering Explanation ... 89
4.1.3.2.2. Modeling ... 92
4.1.3.2.3 Inviting Students’ Participation ... 94
4.1.3.2.4 Verifying and Clarifying Students’ Understanding ... 96
4.1.3.2.5 Inviting Students to contribute to clues ... 98
4.1.3.2.6 Bridging ... 99
4.1.3.2.7 Schema Building ... 101
4.1.3.2.8 Developing Metacognition... 103
4.1.3.2.9 Content Scaffolding ... 104
4.1.3.2.10 Strategic Scaffolding ... 106
4.1.3.2.11 Procedural Scaffolding... 106
4.1.3. 3 Teacher’s Awareness and Realization of Scaffolding ... 107
4.2 Students’ Progress in Writing Hortatory Exposition ... 108
iii 4.2.1.1 Analysis of Schematic structure and social function of Text 1
and Text 2 ... 110
4.2.1.2 Analysis of Linguistic Feature ... 114
4.2.2 Analysis of Middle Achiever Students of Teacher 1 ... 119
4.2.2.1 Analysis of Schematic Structure and social function of text 3 and text 4 ... 119
4.2.2.2 Analysis of Linguistic Feature ... 122
4.2.3 Analysis of Low Achiever Students’ Text of Teacher 1... 126
4.2.3.1 Analysis of Schematic Structures and Social Function of Text 5 and text 6 ... 127
4.2.3.2 Analysis of Linguistic Features ... 129
4.2.4. Analysis of High Achiever Students’ Text of Teacher 2 ... 133
4.2.4.1 Analysis of Schematic structure and social function of Text 1 and Text 2 ... 133
4.2.4.2 Analysis of Linguistic Feature ... 137
4.2.5 Analysis of Middle Achiever Students of Teacher 2 ... 140
4.2.5.1 Analysis of Schematic Structure and social function of text 3 and text 4 ... 140
4.2.5.2 Analysis of Linguistic Feature ... 143
4.2.6 Analysis of Low Achiever Students’ Text of Teacher 2... 146
4.2.6.1 Analysis of Schematic Structures and Social Function of Text 5 and text 6 ... 146
4.2.6.2 Analysis of Linguistic Features ... 148
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 150
5.1 Conclusions ... 150
5.2 Suggestion ... 153
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 154
APPENDIX 1: Semi- Structured Interview with Teachers... 162
APPENDIX 2: Students’ Text ... 165
APPENDIX 3: Condensed Version of Data from Interview with Teachers ... 167
APPENDIX 4: Samples of Reading Materials ... 175
iv LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1 Representation of Purposeful Scaffolding ... 18
Figure 2.2 Cycles and Stages of Learning ... 27
Figure 2.3 Relational Processes ... 37
v LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 The Summary of process type and participant roles ... 37
Table 4.1 Types of Scaffolding Instruction used by Teacher A ... 70
Table 4.2 Types of Scaffolding Instruction used by Teacher B ... 71
Table 4.3 Scaffolding Instruction used by teacher in BKoF Stage ... 73
Table 4.4 Scaffolding Instruction used by Teacher in Modeling Stage ... 77
Table 4.5 Scaffolding Instruction used by Teachers in JcoT Stage ... 79
Table 4.6 Scaffolding Instruction used by Teachers in ICoT ... 80
Table 4.7 Summary of Scaffolding Instruction of Research Finding ... 81
Table 4.8 Text 1 Produced by High Achiever student ... 110
Table 4.9 Text 2 Produced by High Achiever student ... 111
Table 4.10 The Summary of Schematic Structures Produced by High Achiever Student ... 114
Table 4.11 The Summary of Linguistic Features of Texts Produced by the High Achiever Students ... 114
Table 4.12 Text 3 Produced by Middle Achiever Student ... 119
Table 4.13 Text 4 Produced by medium Achiever student ... 121
Table 4.14 The Summary of Schematic Structures produced by Middle Achiever student ... 122
Table 4.15 The summary of Linguistic Features of Text Produced by Middle Achiever Student ... 123
Table 4.16 Text 5 Produced by Low Achiever Student ... 127
Table 4.17 Text 6 Produced by Low achiever Student ... 127
Table 4.18 The Summary of Schematic Structure Produced by Low Achiever student ... 129
Table 4.19 The Summary of Linguistic Features Produced by Low Achiever Student ... 130
Table 4.20 Text 1 Produced by High Achiever Student ... 133
Table 4.21 Text 2 Produced by High Achiever Student ... 134
Table 4.22 The Summary of Schematic Structures Produced by High Achiever Student ... 136
Table 4.23 Linguistic Features of Text 1 and Text 2 ... 137
Table 4.24 Text 3 Produced by Middle Achiever Student ... 140
Table 4.25 Text 4 Produced by Middle Achiever Student ... 141
Table 4.26 The Summary of Schematic Structures by Middle Achiever Student ... 143
Table 4.27 Linguistic Features of Text 3 and Text 4 ... 143
Table 4.28 text 5 produced by Low Achiever Student ... 146
Table 4.29 Text 6 produced by Low Achiever Student ... 146
Table 4.30 The Summary of Schematic Structure Produced by Low Achiever Student ... 147
vi
1 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
The popularity of the idea of scaffolding among educators has increased as educational researcher and practitioners has focused on the quality of teaching (Verenikina, 2004:5). They used the concept of scaffolding as the metaphor to describe and explain the role of adults or more knowledge-able peers in guiding children’s learning and development. Teachers find the concept of scaffolding appealing because it resonates with their own intuitive conceptions of what it means to intervene successfully in students’ learning (Mercer, 1994 in Hammond 2001:2). Scaffolding is claimed as an innovative method of supporting students’ learning and development (Bedrova and Leong, 1998:1). Scaffolds are therefore valuable teaching and learning resources that can help students to both manage learning tasks and understand difficult concepts associated with the content material (Cheong and Goh, 2002:58).
2 One of the areas for which scaffolding is potentially applicable is the teaching writing, the most difficult skills for L2 learners to master (Richards and Renandya,2002:303; Gibbons, 2002:52). The difficulties lie not only in generating and organizing ideas, but also in translating these ideas into readable texts. L2 writers have to pay attention to a higher level of skills of planning and organizing as well as the lower level of skills of spelling, punctuation, word choice and so on. This is in relevant to the observation carried out by Alwasilah (2001 cited in Emilia, 2005:12) which shows that writing is the most difficult language skills to learn by the majority of students. Students were barely exposed to the practice of writing and teachers lacked information and knowledge on what they should do regarding their students’ composition.
The study of scaffolding instruction to improve writing skills can be traced to the work of Vygotsky (1978). He proposes that social interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of cognition and social activity where scaffolding is certainly crucial to child development as learner (Burch, 2007:13). Learning must be guided and supported by adult modeling and corrective feedback. The studies on scaffolding were later developed by Bruner (1976) who found that parents‘ talk is scaffolding provided for children to mediate the world and to help them to solve the problem (Cameron, 2001:8).
3 classroom practices. Bedrova and Leong (1998) revealed that scaffolded writing is effective method in supporting children’s emergent writing. In 2005, Sam found that the implementation of three types of purposeful scaffolding influence leaner’s achievement level in relation to the assigned task. The following study is conducted by Priyatni, et al. (2008) who showed that scaffolding technique is significantly effective to improve the students’ competence in paragraph writing. Afterward, Cotteral and Cohen (2003) argued that scaffolding promotes learners’ autonomy focusing on authentic task by making the expectation of the task explicit and providing flexible supports for the learner as they approximate the target performance. The next study conducted by Dewanti Laksmi (2006) showed that students have become more confident in expressing their ideas in writings after actualizing scaffolding in process writing.
4 Overall, from the previous studies which have been mentioned, only a few studies discussed the implementation of scaffolding based on teaching and learning cycles in genre-based approach for teaching writing of high school in Indonesia particularly hortatory exposition text. As supported by Gibbons (2002:67) scaffolding is a significant term which must be put into practice throughout the curriculum cycle.
The present study seeks to examine the use of scaffolding instruction in teaching writing. The genre under focus is hortatory exposition. The study is conducted at a senior high school in Bandung, in which hortatory is a compulsory text to be taught.
1.2. Research Question
In accordance with the background of the research mentioned above, this particular writing hopefully could provide the answers of the following research question:
1. How is scaffolding actualized in writing instruction of hortatory exposition text in selected class? This research question is elaborated as follows:
a. What types of scaffolding does the teacher use?
b. Do types of scaffolding relate to each curriculum cycle?
c. Do teachers’ awareness of scaffolding relate to their realisations of scaffolding in class?
5 1.3. Research Objectives
Related to the background of the study and the research problem above, this study is conducted to do the following:
1. To find how the teachers actualize scaffolding in the writing instruction of hortatory exposition writing.
2. To find the difference between the student’s writing before and after scaffolding instruction.
1.4. Significance of the Study
There are some contributions which the study may offer. The result of this study is expected to:
1. provide additional informative input for other researchers who intend to carry out research in the same field with certain interest.
2. become a basis of policy making in education which can lead to the betterment of the quality in teaching English generally and in the teaching and learning writing specifically.
6 1.5. Definition of Key Terms
To avoid misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and ambiguity, a number of key words in this study need to be defined. They are defined as follows:
1. Scaffolding
Scaffolding is “social interaction in which a knowledge able participant can create supportive conditions in which the novice can participate in, and extent his or her current skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence” (Donato, 1994 in Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Scaffolding refers to “support that is designed to provide the assistance necessary to enable learners to accomplish tasks and to develop understanding that they would not quite able manage on their own” (Hammond,2001:3). Scaffolding is “row of teachers and others in supporting the learner’s development and in providing support structures to get to the next stage or level” (Raymond, (2000, p. 176, cited in Van Der Stuyf, 2002). The support is integrated in the four-staged curriculum cycle as stated by Gibbons (2002:60-67), Derewianka (1990:6-9), Hammond (2001:28).
2. Writing
Writing is the act of producing a sequence of sentences arranged in particular order and linked together in certain ways (Byrne, 1988:1).
3. Hortatory exposition
7 judgment (Martin,1985:13). The purpose of hortatory texts is to argue a case for or against a particular position or point of view and it proposes a suggestion at the end of the argumentation (Joko Priyana,et al,2008).
1.6. Organization of the Thesis
42 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses some important aspect related to research methodology. The first part begins with the research design and describes how the study was carried out. The second relates to participants involved and research setting in the study. The third part is data collection methods. The last part elaborates the technique used to analyze the data.
3.1. Research Design
This study adopted a qualitative approach as it involved the collection and qualitative data analysis. This study belongs to a case study because it focused on a particular phenomenon, situation or event within its real life context (Merriam, 1998:29; Yin, 2003; Heigham and Croker, 2009:68) and concern on “a small scale and a single case” (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998;Stake,1985 as cited in Emilia,2005:74). A single case of this study referred to the issue of the implementation of scaffolding instruction in teaching hortatory exposition writing. This study employed documentation and analyzing texts which regard as characteristic of a case study (Meriam, 1998:30).
43 3.2. Research Site
This research was conducted at one Senior High School (SMA) in Cimahi,and one at Senior High School (SMA) in Cisarua regency, West Java province. There are several reasons for choosing the schools as the setting of the study. First, teaching English in this institution is based on the recent English curriculum, which have implemented scaffolding instruction and have introduced some kinds of the text type to the students. The second one is the location of institution is near the researcher’s place. This would make the researcher easier to conduct the research in accordance with the feasibility of the site or data source of the study (Bogdan, and Biklen,1998:54). The third one is related to accessibility. The researcher has no problem in gaining the data because the researcher has been familiar with the teachers as participants in this study.
3.3. Participants
44 To simplify the number of participant this study employed purposive sampling. The participant were chosen purposefully due to similar characteristics in terms of the way the teachers taught their students (see Cresswell, 2008:214)
Purposive sampling is used because the researcher use personal judgment to select a sample, based on prior information and it will provide the data needed. The researcher assume they can use their knowledge of the population to judge whether or not a particular sample will be representatives (Fraenkel and Wellen, 2007; Sugiyono, 2008; Sudjana, 2005).From 40 students, the researcher with the help of English teacher, take six students from high, mid and low achiever whose work will be further analyzed in this study.
3.4. Data Collection Method
As outlined above, this study employed a qualitative research, using multiple techniques of data collection to answer the research questions. Three techniques of data collection comprised classroom observation, interview, and analysis of students’ texts as supported by Silverman (2005:121) and Alwasilah (2008:176). Each technique will be elaborated below.
3.4.1. Classroom Observation
45 In this study, a non-participant classroom observation was conducted by the researcher. This is relevant to a theory outlined by Frankel and Wallen (2007:450; Gay, 1992; Sugiyono,2008:66) who proposed that the researcher did not participate in the activity being observed but rather sat on the sideline and watched; they are not directly involved in the situation they are observing. The researcher took notes on what was said and done by the teacher and students during the class activity (Alwright, 1988). The researcher also took note (field note) immediately after each session while the memory of the observation still fresh (Van Lier, 1988:24).
The classroom observation was done in all stages of teaching cycles. Meanwhile, to obtain a clear picture of the activity in each classroom observation, video-taping was carried out. It was helpful for the researcher to describe the class activity and to be replayed to watch the video of the lesson for further analysis to discover the scaffoled interaction (Alwright, 1988).
3.4.2. Interview
The second source of data is interviews with the participant of the study. Interview was done to get information that could not be obtained from field observation and could be used to check the accuracy of the observation (Maxwell, 1996:76) and to verify observation (Mcmillan, 1992). The interviews are conducted in Bahasa Indonesia which is intended to obtain clear understanding of what was uttered by both researcher and participants.
46 scaffolding in teaching cycles of genre-based approach to teaching hortatory exposition text. The questions elaborated points of the teaching-learning practices observed. The intention of interview is to clarify whether the teachers were aware the actualization of scaffolding throughout the curriculum cycle. The interview is recorded so that the researcher would be able to transcribe it later (see, Emilia, 2005:84).
A semi structured interview was used in interviews to enable the researcher to get all information required. It attempts to give the respondents freedom in answering questions (Sugiyono, 2007,p.73). In addition, it lies in allowing the interview to develop naturally so that the respondent does not feel that they are simply replying to questions (Heigham and Crocker, 2009).
3.4.3. Documentation of Students’ Text
The last method of data collection is the documentation/collection of the students’ written work. The researcher collected the students’ written works which were produced in the teaching learning in the classroom to discover the characteristic of their texts. The text analysis was used as a primary instrument to explore the effect of scaffolded instructions on students’ hortatory exposition writing performance. In addition, it was also carried out to fulfill one of conditions that should apply when scaffolding occurs.
3.5. Data Analysis
47 documentation of students’ text. Those instruments, basically, were administered altogether to answer the research questions. Each of them is elaborated below. 3.5.1. Classroom Observation
The data were analyzed descriptively due to the reason stated by Cresswell (1994:162) that the data emerge from qualitative study are descriptive, that is data are reported in words (primarily the participants’ word). The analysis process was commenced by making verbatim transcription of classroom interactions. Then, the transcriptions were read repeatedly. During the reading process, the researcher employed coding activity by matching the data with the research questions. This coding process was aimed at fracturing the data and rearranging them into categories that facilitate the comparison of data within and between these categories (Maxwell, 1996:78).
Data from observation were analyzed to validate the data from the interviews with the teacher. The analysis based on procedures, types and the stage when the scaffolding actualized and teachers understanding on the concept of scaffolding in the teaching cycle.
3.5.2. Interview
48 find out whether the teacher actualized and aware scaffolding instruction in teaching hortatory exposition text.
3.5.3. Documentation of Students’ Text
Systemic Functional grammar analysis was conducted to explore the characteristic of students’ text which served as evidence for the instructional scaffolding done previously. The analysis focused on social function, the schematic structure, the language feature, transitivity systems, conjunction systems and the aspect of modality (see chapter two section 7.7).
3.6 Research Validity
Validity is one of important issues in conducting both quantitative and qualitative research. In quantitative method, validity refers to the extent to which a particular test really measures what is intended to be measured (see Hatch and Farhady, 1982:251). In qualitative method, validity refers to the “trustworthiness” (Creswell, 1994:157) of study, or “how research findings match reality” (Merriam, 1998:201), and “can be applied to other situation”(Meriam, 1998:207). Since the design of the present study is qualitative, the discussion focuses on how to meet the validity in qualitative research.
50 Figure 2.4 Sequence of Conducting the Present Study
Background
Theory Fact
Research Question
Data Collection techniques Validity:Thick
description
Observation Interview Document
analysis Problem
Conclusion and Suggestion Data Analysis,
150 CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter highlights the conclusion of the present study that is closely related to the research problems presented earlier in chapter 1. This chapter also offers suggestion both for further researchers and practitioners.
5.1. Conclusion
Two research problems were formulated in the present study. The first problem explores three sub research problems i.e. (a) types of scaffolding the teacher use, (b) whether the type of scaffolding is related to each curriculum cycle, and (c) whether is the teacher aware of the concept and the actualization of scaffolding. The second problem examines the progress that can be faced in the students’ writing produced before and after the scaffolding instruction.
With regard to the first research problem, it is found that there are eleven types of scaffolding provided by two teachers in teaching cycles. They implemented offering explanation, modeling, inviting students’ participation, verifying and clarifying students understanding, inviting students to contribute clues, bridging, schema building, developing metacognition, content scaffolding, strategic scaffolding and procedural scaffolding.
151 scaffolding and weakens in independent construction. This activities supported by Evangeline, et.al (2007:15) suggesting that the instructional activities designed based on the scaffolds of curriculum cycle are effective in teaching student genre practices.
The last first research problem revealed that both teachers aware the concept and the actualization of the scaffolding terminology, the teachers seemed to share the same ideas over the response. They mostly asserted that scaffolding instruction is easier to reach the goals of process of teaching and learning, to ease them achieve the learning goals, to facilitate the learning process, to help students better understand the material provided and to enhance the students critical thinking. Both teachers aware the aim of scaffolding instruction they provide in their classroom, They asserts that scaffolding instruction make students achieve the learning objectives, fast, fun and easy to understand by her students and also scaffolding can make students successful in learning. Both teachers have to master the media, the materials which is used to teach are easy to operate, easy to get and must be relate to the material being taught. They seemed to have awareness to provide scaffolding in each of learning process.
152 can separated thesis, argument and recommendation correctly. This finding strengthen the previous studies conducted by Roehler and Cantlon (1997), Sam (2005) and also elaborated the types of scaffolding activity proposed by Walqui (2006).
Furthermore, the student has applied the appropriate language features of hortatory exposition. the use of human and non-human participants, action verbs (material process), feeling verbs (mental processes), relational processes, present tense, passive voice, connective conjunction shows the student has applied the appropriate linguistic features of hortatory exposition text indicate that the students has good understanding in how to write hortatory exposition text. Therefore, the text the student write in Independent construction at final stage of curriculum can be considered as a good hortatory exposition text as it is relevant with steps in constructing hortatory exposition text (Derewianka, 2004;76; Gerrot and Wignell, 1995:210) that the students write hortatory exposition in an appropriate schematic structure.
153 instruction depend on the teachers’ understanding on the theory of scaffolding and types of scaffolding they implemented. The last, scaffolding instruction is effective to improve students’ writing hortatory text. The activities contribute to the improvement of students’ writing such as explanation, re-explanation, highlighting toward the content of the lesson (social function, schematic structure and language features).
5.2. Suggestion
In line with the topic under discussion, there are three possible recommendation for further research to enhance the richness of scaffolding instruction in EFL contexts. The use of group work in genre-based teaching, interaction among peers should be discovered in an attempt to find out another dimension in the use of scaffolding instruction. This activity is very important to the scaffolding instruction provided by teacher.
Concerning the strength and weakness found in writing hortatory exposition, the teacher should provide the students with enough model texts and sufficient sources about the issues. The material can be obtained from internet or newspapers. The teacher should teach the students explicitly and guide them in details. It is intended to provide vocabularies related to the topic and its correction, engaging the students in terms of providing evident and examples in the text.
154 References
Alwasilah, A.C. (2008). Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-Dasar Merancang dalam Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka Jaya.
Alwright, D. (1988). Observation in the Language classroom. United States of America: Longman Inc.
Anderson, M. & Anderson. K. (1997). Text Type in English 2. Australia: Mcmillan Education Australia Pty.Ltd.
Barnard R.and Campbell L. (2005). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of process writing: The scaffolding of learning in a university
context.Retrieved from:
https://waikato.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/10289/433/1/content.pdf (October 12, 2009).
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D.J. (1998). Scaffolding Emergent Writing in the Zone of Proximal Development. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3 (2), 1-18.
Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Burch, J.R. (2007). A Study examining the Impact of Scaffolding Young Children Acquisition of Literacy in Primary Grades. A Dissertation. USA: Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University.
Butt, D., et al. (2000). Using Functional Grammar an explorer’s guide.Sydney: National centre for English language teaching and research.
Byrne, D. (1998). Teaching Writing Skillls.UK: Longman.
Callaghan, et al.,(2002).Genre in Practice. In John, A.M. 2002. Genre in the Classroom. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Cameron. (2001). Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge:Cambridge University press.
Christie, F. (2005). Language Education in Primary Years. Sydney:UNSW press. Christie, F and Martin, J.R. (2000). Genre and Institution. London: Continuum. Cope, B. Kalantzis, M. (1993). The Power of Literacy: A Genre Approach to
Teaching Writing. London: The Falmer Press.
155 Cresswell, J.W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches.
California:SAGE Publications,Inc.
Cresswell. J.W. (2008). Educational research (planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research). New jersey:Pearson education,Inc.
Denzin, N K and Yvonna S. Lincoln (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. USA. Sage Publications, Inc.
Depdiknas. (2004). Kurikulum 2004 Standard kompetensi mata pelajaran bahasa Ingris sekolah menengah atas dan Madrasah aliyah., Jakarta: Pusat kurikulum, Baliotbang Depdiknas.
Derewianka, Beverly. (1990). Exploring How Text Work. Sydney:Primary English Teaching Association.
Derewianka,B.(2003). Trends and Issues in Genre-based Approaches. RELC
Journal,34.2;133-154. London:continuum. Retrieved from:
http//rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/2/133/. (October 12, 2009). Dufficy, P. (2001). Scaffolding and Assisted Performance in Multilingual
Classrooms. Journal of Educational Enquiry, Vol.2, No.1,2001. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.unisa.edu.au/JEE/Papers/JEEVol2No1/paper3.pdf (December 24, 2010).
Eggin,S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Printer Publisher, Ltd.
Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics 2nd edition. New York. London: Continuum International Publishing Group
Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia, unpublished Ph.D thesis, volume 1, Australia: Department of Language, Literary art education. Faculty of Education. The University of Melbourne.
Emilia, E.,Lengkanawati,Nenden S., Christie, F.,and Martin J.(2010). Genre-based approaches for teaching English in Indonesian schools: A study jointly conducted by Indonesia university of education, Melbourne and Sydney universities.Bandung, Indonesia
156 Evan-Dudley, T. (2002). The teaching of Academic Essay:Is Genre Approach Possible? In A.M. John (2002). (Ed). Genre in the Classroom:Multiple perspectives. London:Erlbaum Associates,Inc.
Feez,S & Joyze H. (1998). Writing Skilss: Narrative and Non-fiction Text Types.Australia. Phoenix Education Pty Ltd.
Feez,S. (2006).Text-Based Syllabus Design. Sydney: Macquarie University. Feez,S. (2002). Heritage and Innovation in second language education. In John,
A.M. 2002. Genre in the Classroom. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Firkins, A.,Forey,G.,&Sengupta,S. (2007). ‘A Genre-Based Literacy Pedagogy: Teaching Writing to Low Proficiency EFL students’. English language Teaching Journal, fortcoming Oct 2007. Retrieved from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/61/4/341 (October 12, 2009).
Fraenkel, Jack R. and Wallen, N.E. (2007). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: Mcgraw-Hill companies Inc.
Gay.L.R. (1992). Educational Research. Competencies for Analysis and Application. United States of America: Macmillan publishing company. Gerot, L. (1995) Making Sense of Text. Sydney: Southwoood Press.
Gerot,L., and Wignell,P (1995). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney:Antipodean Educational Enterprises
Gibbon, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, Scaffolding Learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Gobbon,P. (2009). English Learners academic literacy and Thinking. Learning in the challenge Zone. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Guleff,Virginia. (2002). Approaching Genre. Pre-writing as apprenticeship to communities of practice. In John, A.M. 2002. Genre in the Classroom. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Hakamaki and Lonka.(2000). Scaffolded assistance provided by a teacher in an EFL Classroom. Department of English university of Jyvaskyla.
Halliday, M.A K. and Matthiessen. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Arnold.
Hammond, J. (2001). Scaffolding, Teaching and Learning in Language and Literacy Education. Newtown: PETA.
157
2005. Retrieved from:
http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/prospect_journal/volume_20_no_1/20_ 1_1_Hammond.pdf (December 24, 2010).
Hyland,K.,and Hyland,F.,(2006). (Ed.) Feedback in Second Langauge Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Hyland,K. (2002). Genre: language, context, and Literacy. Annual review of applied Linguistics (2002) 22,112-135.USA:Cambridge University press. Hyland,K. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writing. Michigan: The
University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: language Literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of second language writing 16 (2007) 148-164.
Retrieved from
https://shop.elsevier.com/authored_subject_sections/S06/S06_345/misc/jour nal_second_language_writing1.pdf (April 1, 2010).
Hyland, K.(2007). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of second language writing. 12 (2003) 17-29. Retrieved from: http://www.aguadillaenglish.net/3425_Readings/genre-based.pdf (October 12, 2009)
Hughes, S. (2001). Jean Piaget’s Educational Theory. Retrieved from: http://www. Newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Piaget.html (January 1, 2010).
Johns, A.M. (2002). Genre in The Classroom: Multiple Perspectives. London: Lawrence ErlBaum Associates,Publisher.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.California: SAGE publication, Inc.
Knapp, P. and Watkins, M. (2009). Genre, Text, Grammar, Technologies for Teaching and Assesing Writing. Sydney: University of South Wales Press Ltd.
Kim. Miyoun.S. (2007). Genre-based approach to teaching writing. Retrieved from http://web1.hpu.edu/images/GraduateStudies/.../07Kim_Genre_a17238.pdf (January 2, 2010).
Kim, Y. and Kim J. (2005). Teaching Korean University Writing Class.Balancing the process and the genre approach. ASIAN EFL Journal volume 7. Issue
2. article 5. Retrieved from:
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_05_yk&jk.php (September 24, 2010).
158 presented as the 47th annual international Reading association convention.San Fransisco,CA,April 28-May 2,2002.
Kongpetch, S.(2006). Using Genre-based approach to teach writing to Thai students: A case study. Prospect vol.21, No.2.August 2006. Retrieved from:
http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/prospect_journal/volume_21_no_2/21 _2_1_Kongpetch.pdf (April 1, 2010).
Kurnia, A.D. (2009). Instructional Scaffolding in Teaching Descriptive Writing. A Thesis. English Education Department Post Graduate School Indonesia University of Education.
Laksmi, E.D. (2006). Scaffolding students’ writing EFL Class: Implementing Process approach. TEFLIN journal,Volume XVII, number 2, August 2006.
Lange, V.L. (2002). Instructional Scaffolding. A course material. November 21,
2002. Retrieved from: http:
condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu/~group4/Lange/Lange%20Paper.doc. (September 24, 2009).
Lawson,L.(2002). Scaffolding as teaching strategy. Retrieved from http://condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu. City college (September 24, 2009). Lin, B. (2006). Vygotskian Principles in a Genre-based approach to Teaching
Writing. NUCB JLCC,8 (3),2006.
Macken-Horarick,M.(2002). Something to Shoot for. In John, A.M. 2002. Genre in the Classroom. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Mali-Jali, Nomfundo. (2007). A Genre-Based Approach to writing across the curriculum in Isixhosa in the cape Peninsula schools. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch. Retrieved from: http://etd.sun.ac.za/jspui/bitstream/10019/673/1/Mali-Jali,%20N.pdf
(January 1, 2010).
Martin, J.R. Mathiessen and Painter. (1997). Working with Functional Grammar. London:Arnold.
Martin, J.R. and David, R. (2008). Genre Relations, Mapping Culture.London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. California;Sage Publications Inc.
159 Merriam, Sharan B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Application in
Education.San Fransisco:Jossey-bass publishers.
Michell, M.,&Sharpe,T.(2005). Collective Instructional Scaffolding in English as a Second Language Classrooms. Prospect vol. 20, No.1 April 2005.
Retrived from:
http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/prospect_journal/volume_20_no_1/20 _1_2_Michell.pdf (December 24, 2009).
Nisak.(2008). The Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Writinga Resount Genre. A Case Study. A Thesis. English Education Department Post Graduate School Indonesia University of Education
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. United States of America: Cambridge University Press.
Paltridge,B. (2004). Approaches to Teaching second Language Writing. 17th Educational Conference Adelaide 2004.The university of Sidney.
Patton, Michael Q. (1987). How to use qualitative method in evaluation. United states of America: Sage publications.
Pinter. (2006).Teaching Young language Learners. Newyork:Oxford University Press.
Priyatna, J. et al,. (2008). Interlanguage: English for Senior High School students XI,Science and Social Studies Programme.Jakarta.Grasindo
Priyatni, et.al.,(2008). Peningkatan Kompetensi menulis paragraph dengan teknik scaffolding.Bahasa dan Seni, tahun 36, nomor 2, Agustus 2008.
Purcell-Gates,V.,N.K.,N.K., and Martineau,J.A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-Specific Text: Roles of Authentic Experience and Explicit Teaching. Reading research Quarterly, Vol.42, No 1 January/February/march 2007. International reading association (p. 8-45).
Reppen, R. (2003). A Genre-based Approach to content writing instruction. In Richards,Jack. C. and Renandya Willy A. (2003). Methodology in language Teaching an anthology of current practice. Cambridge. Cambridge university press.
Roehler, L. R.,&Cantlon,D.J. (1997). ‘Scaffolding: A powerful Tool in Social Constructivist Classrooms’. In K.Hogan & M.Pressley. (1997). Scaffolding Student Learning: Instructional Approaches and Issues. Cambridge: Brookline Books, Inc.
160 Saifudin, A. 2008. The Implementation of Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Narrative Text (A Case Study). A Thesis. English Education Department Post Graduate School Indonesia University of Education.
Sam, C. (2005). ‘Purposeful Scaffolding: Beyond Modelling and Thinking Aloud’. Paper presented at the Conference on Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy,Practice, 30 May to 1 June 2005. Retrieved from http:
conference.nie.edu.sg/paper/Converted%20Pdf/ab00655.pdf (September
24, 2009).
Sidaway,R. 2006. The genre-based approach to teaching writing. In English Spring 2006.British Council.
Shook Cheong,A.C.,&C.M Goh,Christine. (2002). Teachers’ Handbook on Teaching Generic Thinking Skills. Singapore:Prentice Hall.
Silverman, D (2005) Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Suherdi,D. (2008). Scaffolding in Junior High school (SMP) English Teaching-Learning Processes. A Paper presented in the international conference on applied linguistics 1, 11-12 June 2008 in Indonesia university education. Suzanna, E. (2008). The Implementation of Genre-Based Approach to Teaching
Writing Exposition Texts (A Case Study). A Thesis. English Education Department Post Graduate School Indonesia University of Education.
Stuyf, Rachel R.V.D. (2002). Scaffolding as a teaching strategy, Adolescent
learning and Development. Retrieved from:
condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu/.../Van%20Der%20Stuyf%20Paper.doc (September 24, 2010).
Turuk, Mamour C. (2008). The Relevanve and Implications of Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory in the Second Language Classroom. ARECLS, 2008,
Vol.5, 244-262. Retrieved from:
http://research.ncl.ac.uk/ARECLS/vol5_documents/Articles/turuk_vol5.pdf (December 17, 2010).
Van Der Stuyf, R.R. (2002). Scaffolding as Teaching Strategy. Retrieved from http: condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu/.../Van%20Der%20Stuyf%20Paper.doc. (September 24, 2009).
161 Walqui, A. (2006). ‘Scaffolding Instruction for English Language Learners: A Conceptual; Framework’. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Vol.9, No.2.
Weisberg, R. (2006). Scaffolded Feedback:Tutorial Conversation with Advanced L2 Writers in Hyland K and Hyland F. 2006. Feedback in Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
