THE EFFECT OF TEACHING METHODS AND
LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
ON THE STUDENTS’
WRITING ACHIEVEMENT
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in a Partial Fulfillment of the of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
NURMALA
Registration Number: 810 6112016
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
ABSTRACT
Nurmala. 8106112016. The Effect of Teaching Methods and LinguisticCompetence on the Students’ Writing Achievement.A Thesis.English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Post Graduate School State University of Medan. 2014.
ABSTRAK
Nurmala. 8106112016.
PengaruhMetodePembelajarandanKemampuanLinguistikdalamMenulisTeksNarat if.Tesis. Program Study LinguistikTerapanBahasaInggris. PascaSarjanaUniversitasNegeri Medan. 2014.
Penelitian eksperimenini bertujuan untuk mengetahuiapakah: 1) kemampuansiswamenulisteksnaratif yang diajardenganmenggunakantask-based learninglebihtinggidaripadasiswayang diajardengandirect instruction. 2) kemampuansiswayang memiliki kompetensi linguistik yang tinggi lebihbaikdibandingkandengan siswa yang memiliki kompetensi linguistik yang
rendah dalam menulis teks naratif 3)
adainteraksidiantarametodemengajardenganpenguasaanlinguistikpadakemampuan siswa dalam menulis teks naratif. Jenis penelitian iniadalaheksperimendenganpopulasipenelitianadalahseluruhsiswa SMA Negeri 2 Kisarantahunpelajaran2012/2013. Sampel penelitianinidiambilmelalui multistage cluster random sampling. Kelas yang pertama (XI-IA1) diajar dengan menggunakan metode task-based learning sementara kelas yang kedua (XI-IPA 2) diajar dengan menggunakan metode direct instruction. Data yang terkumpuldianalisadenganmenggunakan ANOVA 2 x 2 pada tingkat signifikan α = 0.05.Hasilpenelitianinimenunjukkanbahwa: 1) kemampuan siswayang diajardenganmenggunakanmetodetask-based
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.
First of all, praise and thank to Allah SWT, the Almighty, who has granted
countless blessing, knowledge, and opportunity to the researcher so that she has
been finally able to accomplish her thesis.
Praises are all also addressed to her Prophet, Muhammad SAW, his family,
and companions for being the role model in her life.
This thesis could have been completed because of the guidance,
encouragement, suggestions, and comments from several people, for which she
would like to extend her sincere and special thanks.
The researcher wishes to express her deepest gratitude to Dr. Didik
Santoso, M.Pd as her advisor for his advice, encouragement, suggestions and
guidance and Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., as her co-adviser for her valuable
advices and guidance in finishing this thesis.
She would also like to thank her deepest gratitude to the reviewers and
examiners: Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum,
and Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd for their valuable inputs to be included in this
thesis.
Her great gratitude is extended to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd and
Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S. as Head and Secretary of English Applied Linguistics
Study Program for their administrative assistance, and all lectures who have given
Furthermore, she would like to express her high appreciation to
Syahruddin Lubis, S.Pd, M.M, as the principal of SMA Negeri 2 Kisaran for
allowing her conducting research in there.
Finally, she conveys special gratitude for her beloved parents; Abdulsyah
Panjaitan (Alm.) and Saamah Sinaga (Almh.), her beloved family, especially her
husband; Drs. Parlaungan Siregar, M.Pd, her sons; Ahmad Jamhuri Siregar, STP.
and Raja Salim Siregar, her daughters; Ade Irmayani Siregar, SE. and Noyakina
Handayani Siregar, S.Pd., and her daughter-in-law; Ivon Zaenurlis, SP. for their
sincere prayer, understanding, caring and support. In deep, special gratitude is also
conveyed for Farid Ma’ruf Harahap for his kind in helping the writer during the
process.
Medan, January 9th, 2014 The Researcher,
NURMALA
v
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS ... i
ABSTRACT ... iii
TABLE OF CONTENT ... v
LIST OF TABLES ... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ... x
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 The Background of the Research ... 1
1.2 The Problems of Research ... 5
1.3 The Objective of the Research ... 6
1.4 The Scope of the Research ... 6
1.5 The Significance of the Research ... 7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE... 8
2.1 Theoretical Framework ... 8
2.1.1 The Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Text ... 8
2.1.1.1 Achievement in Writing ... 8
2.1.1.2 Writing ... 10
2.1.1.3 Assessment of Writing Achivement ... 18
2.1.1.4 Narrative Text ... 19
2.1.2 Teaching Methods ... 24
2.1.2.1 Task-Based Learning ... 26
2.1.2.1.1 Definition of TBL ... 27
2.1.2.1.2 Principles of TBL ... 31
2.1.2.1.3 Design of TBL ...32
vi
2.1.2.1.5 Model of Syllabus... 35
2.1.2.1.6 The Role of Learner in TBL ... 35
2.1.2.1.7 The Role of Teacher in TBL ... 36
2.1.2.1.8 The Role of Instructional Material ... 37
2.1.2.1.9 The Procedures of TBL ... 38
2.1.2.1.10 The Strengths of TBL ... 40
2.1.2.1.11 The Weaknesses of TBL ... 41
2.1.2.2 Direct Instruction ... 43
2.1.2.2.1 Definition of Direct Instruction ... 43
2.1.2.2.2 The Principles of Direct Instruction ... 45
2.1.2.2.3 The Objective of Direct Instruction ... 45
2.1.2.2.4 The Role of Learner in Direct Instruction ... 45
2.1.2.2.5 The Role of Teacher in Direct Instruction ... 46
2.1.2.2.6 Procedures of Direct Instruction ... 46
2.1.2.2.7 The Strengths of Direct Instruction ... 47
2.1.2.2.8 The Weaknesses Direct Instruction ... 47
2.1.3 Linguistic Competence ... 48
2.2 Relevant Studies ... 52
2.3 Conceptual Framework ... 54
2.4 Hypotheses of Study ... 58
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY... 59
3.1 Research Design ... 59
3.2 Population and Sample ... 60
3.2.1 Population ... 60
3.2.2 Sample ... 61
3.3 Instrumentation ... 62
vii
3.3.2 Operational Definition ... 64
3.3.3 Specification ...65
3.3.4 Calibration ...65
3.3.4.1 Validity of the Test ...66
3.3.4.2 Reliability of the Test ...66
3.4 The Procedures of Treatment ...67
3.4.1 Preparation ...67
3.4.2 Administering Linguistic Competence Test ...68
3.4.3 Conducting Treatment ...69
3.4.4 Writing Achievement Test ...70
3.5 Control of Treatment ...74
3.5.1 Internal Validity...74
3.5.2 External Validity ...75
3.6 Technique of Analyzing Data ...75
3.7 Statistical Hypotheses ...76
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 77
4.1 Research Findings ... 77
4.1.1 The Data Description ...77
4.1.1.1 Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Taught by Using TBL ...78
4.1.1.2 Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Taught by Using DI ... 79
4.1.1.3 Students’ Achievement with High Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using TBL ...80
viii
in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ...83
4.1.1.6 Students’ Achievement with Low Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ...84
4.1.1.7 The Interaction between Teaching Methods and Linguistic Competence on Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative ....85
4.1.2 Analysis Requirement Testing ... 87
4.1.2.1 Normality Testing ... 87
4.1.2.2 Homogeneity Testing ... 88
4.1.2.3 Groups of Teaching Methods and Linguistic Competence ... 89
4.1.3 Testing of Hypothesis ... 90
4.1.3.1 Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Text Taught by TBL is higher than taught by DI ...90
4.1.3.2 Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative with High Linguistic Competence is higher than with Low Linguistic Competence ...91
4.1.1.3 Interaction between Teaching Methods and Linguistic Competence on Students’ Achievement in Writing ...91
4.2 Discussion... 93
4.3 Research Limitation... 98
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION ...100
5.1 Conclusion ...100
5.2 Implication ...100
5.3 Suggestions ...102
REFERENCES ...103
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 The English Score of the Students at SMA N 2 Kisaran ... 3
Table 2 The 2 x 2 Factorial Design ... 60
Table 3 The Procedures of Treatment ... 69
Table 4 The Writing Test Indicator ...70
Table 5 Summary of Research Data Description ... 77
Table 6 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using TBL ... 78
Table 7 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ... 79
Table 8 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement with High Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using TBL ... 81
Table 9 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement with Low Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using TBL ... 82
Table 10 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement with High Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ... 83
Table 11 Frequency Distribution of Students’ Achievement with Low Linguistic Competence in Writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ... 85
x
Table 13 Multiple Comparisons of Dependent Variables ... 87
Table 14 The Result of One Sample of Kolmogorov-Smirnov ... 88
Table 15 Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances ... 89
Table 16 The Computation of Homogeneity of Teaching Methods
And Linguistic Competence ...89 Table 17 The Total Data Description with Factorial Design ... 90
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Process of Writing ... 14
Figure 2 Process Wheel ...14
Figure 3 Components of Task ... 33
Figure 4 Task-Based Learning Framework ...38
Figure 5 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in writing Narrative Text Taught by Using TBL ... 79
Figure 6 Histogram of the Students’ Achievement in writing Narrative Text Taught by Using DI ... 80
Figure 7 Histogram of the Students’ Writing Achievement with High Linguistic Competence Taught by Using TBL ...81
Figure 8 Histogram of the Students’ Writing Achievement with Low Linguistic Competence Taught by Using TBL ... 83
Figure 9 Histogram of the Students’ Writing Achievement with High Linguistic Competence Taught by Using DI ...84
Figure 10 Histogram of the Students’ Writing Achievement with Low Linguistic Competence Taught by Using DI ... 85
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix A Linguistic Competence Test ...107
Appendix B Writing Test ...115
Appendix C Answer Key ...116
Appendix D Lesson Plan of TBL ...117
Appendix E Lesson Plan of DI ...120
Appendix F Examples of Students’ Writing Products ...123
Appendix G The Students’ Score in Linguistic Competence ...126
Appendix H The Classification of High and Low Linguistic Competence ....127
Appendix I The Score of Writing Achievement (TBL) ...128
Appendix J The Score of Writing Achievement (DI) ...129
Appendix K The Descriptive Data Analysis ...130
Appendix L The Normality Testing ...133
Appendix M The Homogeneity Testing ...136
1 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Research
Writing in a foreign language is one of the most challenging skills for
almost all learners. Developing the writing skill is thought to be the most complex
in comparison to listening, speaking and reading. What makes writing a very
troublesome task for EFL learners is the fact that it requires some criteria of
acceptability relative to different aspects of writing which include content,
organization, vocabulary, language use, spelling, punctuation and accurate
capitalization and paragraphing.
Learning a foreign language requires learning the four skills of this
language. Language teachers usually follow a certain order; beginning with
listening, speaking, reading and then writing. The reason behind leaving writing at
the end is that it is viewed as the most important, most difficult and most
sophisticated one compared with the other language skills. The reading and
listening skills are known as receptive skills, whereas the speaking and writing are
productive skills.
Writing is an important skill in which someone can express his/her ideas,
thoughts, and experiences through written language. Manfred (2010) claims that
writing is one form of communication. Writing is a process of putting ideas,
thought, and feeling in words into a sequence of words combined into sentences in
the forms of paragraph. Writing proficiency does not develop instantaneously; it is a continuous process that adapts and changes with one’s experiences and
2
Harmer (2004 : 86) states that writing is a process and that we write is
often heavily influenced by contraints of genres, then these elements have to be
present in learning activities. It is a continuous process of thinking and organizing,
rethinking, and reorganizing. Writing is a powerful tool to organize overwhelming
events and make them manageable. Writing is really a form of thinking using the
written word.
Writing, like speaking, is essentially communication. The message
expressed should always be determined by the context of the whole
communication situation. This is sometimes overlooked either dealing with the
grammar side of writing or dealing with writing as the free expression side of
thoughts and feelings.
But, in fact, many students are less competent in writing. They tend to
avoid writing even before they try it. Writing skill in the context of EFL causes
students to lack confidence to write in English. When they are asked to write, they
face many problems in conveying what they want to say; selecting proper words,
using correct grammar, generating ideas and developing them into a proper
organizational pattern. More importantly, they have trouble using an acceptable
writing format that conforms to a target language and they strive to manipulate
proper language forms. It is very vital for the EFL students to grasp the whole
knowledge of writing.
The failure of the students in writing has been empirically proved by some
researchers. To mention some as Suprinata (2002) in his findings stated that many
students of senior high school made errors in writing, especially in narrative and
3
Students’ Ability in Creating a Writing Composition and the result showed that
among 40 students, there were 11 students (27.9%) that could get good score in
writing while the other 29 students (72.5%) failed to get the minimum standard.
And the writers assumed that the failure in writing were caused by unadequate
knowledge of the students on grammar and vocabulary to transfer their ideas into
writing symbols.
As the researcher’s experience in analyzing the achievement of students
of grade XI at SMA Negeri 2 Kisaran in writing shows that the achievement in
writing skill of competence standard: expressing meaning in written short
functional text and simple essay in the form of narrative in the context of daily
life is still low. Based on the list of score found by the researcher at that school, it
shows that the students’ achievement in writing is the lowest compared to three
other language skills. It is described in table 1.
Table 1. The English Score of the Students at SMA Negeri 2 Kisaran, 2011/2012
No Language Skill
Mean Score of each Class
Mean students’ score on writing is the lowest.
There are many factors causing the low writing achievement. They can be from students’ internal factors and external ones. The students’ internal factors are
4
competence. Meanwhile, the students’ external factors are the teaching material,
the total program of writing instruction, the environment outside their school, and
also teaching methods.
Based on the situation, the researcher thinks of adding variety of teaching
methods in the school. In teaching writing, it is better to measure how the students
are able to write in their own words and elaborate their creativity and deliver their
idea communicatively in writing. In order to make an active teaching learning
process, Task-Based Learning is suggested to be compared to Direct Instruction
method in the school.
In Task-Based Learning, learners made more rapid progress and were able
to use their new foreign language in real-world circumstances with a reasonable
level of efficiency after quite short courses. They were able to operate an effective
meaning system, i.e. to express what they wanted to write, even though their
grammar and lexis were often far from perfect.
Direct Instruction is different from task-based learning. In Direct
Instruction, teacher gives set of explanation, demonstration, and gives examples
then students are asked to make other examples based on the teacher’s instruction
and guides.
Besides teaching methods, students’ achievement in writing is also
affected by linguistic competence. They made a number of errors in terms of
content, organization, language use, and also they were lack of vocabulary in
expressing their ideas in writing. Linguistic competence is extremely important
for all language skills including writing. In spoken or written language, the main
5
linguistic competence affects the students’ achievement in writing as to create
self-esteem in them.
Thus it is badly needed to do some research about the difficulties of
students in writing and to see the adequate effect of linguistic competence on
writing achievement. Based on the underlying facts and concept of explanation,
this research is intended to discover the effect of teaching methods and students’
linguistic competence on students’ achievement in writing. It means that the effect
of applying the two teaching methods (Task-Based Learning and Direct
Instruction) and students’ linguistic competence (high and low) in teaching
writing will be proven whether they are effective towards the students’ writing
achievement.
1.2 The Problems of the Research
Based on the background of the research previously stated, the problems
of the research are formulated as follows:
1) Is the students’ achievement in writing narrative text taught by Task-based
Learning (TBL) higher than those taught by Direct Instructionn (DI)?
2) Is the students’ achievement in writing narrative text with high linguistic
competence higher than those with low linguistic competence?
6
1.3 The Objectives of the Research
In line with the problems of the research, the objectives of the research are
to find out:
1) whether the students achievement in writing taught by TBL higher than those
taught by DI.
2) whether the students’ achievement in writing narrative with high linguistic
competence is significantly higher than those with low linguistic competence.
3) whether there is interaction between teaching methods and linguistic
perfomance on students’ achievement in writing narrative text.
1.4 The Scope of the Research
There are many teaching methods can be applied in teaching writing but
this research is limited on the application of Task-Based Learning (TBL) and
Direct Instruction (DI) in teaching writing at SMAN 2 Kisaran of grade XI
students 2012/2013 academic year. This school is chosen due to its feasibility to
the researcher and it is the place where the researcher has observed their writing
products and collected other prior data. To give focus to the research, the students’ linguistic competence is selected as the moderator variable. The
linguistic competence will be categorized into two levels: high and low to the students’ achievement in writing. By controlling the students’ linguistic
competence in writing narrative, the study is expected to give clearer description
on the effect of TBL on teaching writing narrative text to the students with certain
linguistic competence level. The narrative text is chosen as it is one of the genres
7
Oriented Curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan/ KTSP), 2004 and
revised in 2008.
1.5 The Significance of the Research
This study is expected to provide information, which may have practical as
well as theoretical values for English language teachers.
Theoretically:
1) The result of this research will enrich the theory of teaching how to write
narrative text using Task-Based Learning and Direct Instruction.
2) The teachers will get the input which can make the students’ writing
improved.
3) The result of this research can be used as the references for those who want to
conduct a research in improving the writing.
Practically:
1) The result of this research will give a lot of positive contribution for English
teachers and other researchers to improve their professionalism.
2) The result of the research will help English teachers facilitate the students’
writing achievement.
3) It can help English teachers and the students in solving one of many problems
100 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on data analysis and research findings at the previous chapter, it can
be concluded that:
1. Both TBL and DI affect students’ achievement in writing narrative text. Students’ achievement in writing narrative text taught by using TBL is higher
than those taught by using DI;
2. The achievement of the students having high linguistic competence is higher
than those having low linguistic competence in writing narrative text;
3. There is significant interaction between teaching methods and students’
linguistic competence in writing narrative text. Students with high linguistic
competence showed significant effect in their writing achievement when they
were taught by using task-based learning method while students with low
linguistic competence showed significant effect in their writing achievement
when they were taught by using direct instruction method.
5.2 Implication
The findings of this research gives implication to the students who want to
improve their ability in writing narrative text and to the teachers who want to develop their students’ writing skill when teaching and learning takes part in the
classroom. This study has examined two methods of teaching writing , namely
101
high and low linguistic competence in order to know which teaching method is
more suitable for them in improving their achievement in writing narrative text.
The research findings that have been discussed in the previous chapter can
be used as consideration for the teacher to choose an appropriate method to be
applied in a certain class. A teacher should realize that every class has different
condition and they should be aware of individual differences because the students
as members of the class came from different background of personality and
ability. So, the teacher should be able to choose suitable method that can
encourage more students to get involved in the language learning teaching
process.
There are various kinds of teaching methods that have been tried,
researched, and applied by linguists and language teachers in the process of
learning and teaching foreign languages. Two of them are Task-Based Learning
(TBL) and Direct Instruction (DI). By previous research and by the result of the
research accomplished by the writer, both of them are good methods to be applied
in teaching writing for high school students by different characteristics and result.
In this case, the students with high linguistic competence are suitable taught by
TBL rather than by DI. It is because they will be more creative in creating
narrative text.
However, it does not mean that DI is not as good as TBL. It is proven by the students’ achievement taught by DI can also achieve satisfactory score when it
is used to teach students with low linguistic competence. It is because the way of
the students in writing narrative text guided by the teacher can help them. That is
102
The fact has proven that actually all teaching methods are good. Either
TBL or DI methods had been able to achieve satisfactory score. Therefore, it
cannot be argued that a teaching method is better than others since it comes
naturally in the students themselves. What should be done is how to find an
eligible method for the level of students’ linguistic competence.
5.3 Suggestions
There are some suggestions related to the previous conclusion and
implication. The suggestions are:
1. It is highly suggested for language teachers to apply task-based learning (TBL)
since it is able to improve students’ writing achievement.
2. It is highly suggested for language teachers to know the level of student’s
linguistic competence since it significantly affects the students’ writing
achievement.
3. It is suggested for language teachers to apply task-based learning (TBL) for
students with high linguistic competence while direct instruction (DI) for
students with low linguistic competence.
4. Teachers should realize the students’ characteristics such as their linguistic
competence before choosing teaching methods. Thus, the methods applied will
be matched with what they need. As the result, their brightness is able to be
103
Ary, D. 1979. Introduction to Research. America: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Ary, D., Jacobs, C., L., Sorensen, C. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education.
America: Wadsworth.
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Integrative Approach to
Language Pedagogy (2nd Ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practice. White Plains: pearson Education.
Byrne, D. 1984. Teaching Writing Skill. London: Longman.
Caroll, A., J., Wilson, E., & Forlini, G. 2001. Writing and Grammar. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cresswell, W., J. 2008. Educational Research. Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Ohio: Pearson.
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2006. Standar Nasional Pendidikan Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris Sekolah Menengah Pertama.(National Standard English Subject of Junior High School). Jakarta.
Djiwandono, M., S. 1996. Tes Bahasa dalam Pengajaran. Bandung: ITB.
Ellen, D.E. & Rebecca, M.V. 1997. Classroom Techniques: Foreign Languages
and English as Second Foreign Language. USA: Hourcourt Brace
Jovanivich.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Southwood Press.
104
Harahap. F.S. 2009. The Effect of Content-Based Instruction and Task-Based
Language Teaching on Students’ Writing Achievement. Thesis. Medan: PPS State University of Medan.
Harmer, J. 1998. How to Teach English: An Introduction of English Language
Teaching. London: Longman.
. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd Edition. London: Longman.
Heaton, J.B. 1990. Writing English Language Test. England: Longman.
Howatt, A.P.R. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hughey, J.B. 1983. Teaching ESL Composition: Principal and Techniques: Why
write? Writing is Lifetime Skill. Newberry House Publisher.
Ki, W. W. 2000. ICT Applications in Task-Based Learning. In N. Law and et. al. 6. Changing Classrooms & Changing Schools: A Study of Good Practices
in Using ICT in Hong Kong Schools (pp: 79-91). Hong Kong.
Knapp, P. & Watkin, M. 2005. Genre, Text, Grammar. Sydney: University of
McAndrews, S.L. 2008. Diagnostic Literacy Assessment Strategies. International Reading Association.
Morley, D. 2007. Creative Writing. Cambridge University Press.
Murray, E. & Christison. 2011. What English Language Teachers Need to Know. Volume 2. Facilitating Learning. Roudledge: New York.
Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.
105
. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J.M. & Pierce, L.V. 1996. Authentic Assessment for English Language
Learners. Practical Approaches for Teachers. Massachusetts: Addison -
Wesley Publishing Company.
Patel, F., M. & Jain, M., P. English Language Teaching. Methods, Tools, & Techniques. Jaipur: Sunrise.
Popham, J., & Eva 2003. Teknik Mengajar Secara Sistematis. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy: A Perspective Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J., C.& Renandya, W., A. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching:
An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Santoso, D., 2008. Pengaruh Pendekatan Pembelajaran dan Gaya Belajar
terhadap Keterampilan Berbicara Bahasa Inggris. Medan: Duta Azhar.
Setyaningrum, R. 2011. Task-Based Language Teaching to Teaching Writing for
7th Students. An Action Research at SMP 17 Surakarta.
Shehadeh, A. 2005. Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In Edwards, C and Willis, J (Eds). Teachers Exploring Tasks
in English Language Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sholehah, U. 2011. Improving Students’ Writing Ability Using Task-Based
Language Teaching. A Classroom Action Research at the Students’ of
Class X TKJ 1 SMKN 2 Sragen. A Thesis.
Skehan, P. 1996. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sokolik, M. 2003. Writing Skill. David Nunan (Ed.). Practical English Language
Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.
Swan, M. 2005. Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction.
Applied Linguistics, 26 (3), 376-401.
106
New Directions in Composition Research (pp. 54–71). New York:
Guildford Press.
Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-based Learning London: Longman.
American Journal of Scientific Research. 2012. “Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.” (http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.htm). Euro Journals Publishing Inc. (pp. 162 – 168). Accessed on October, 14th, 2012.
Buzan, J. “Writing Skill.” (http://www.ukans.edu/~writing). Accessed on January,
15th, 2012.
Educational Psychology. (http://en.bookfi.org). “Direct Instruction”. Categories: Pedagogy. Accessed on September, 2nd. 2012.
Ellis, R. 2006. “The Methodology of Task-based Learning”. Asian EFL Journal
Quarterly. Vol.8 (3), 19-45.
Frost, R. 2004. “A Task-based Approach.” On line Documents at (http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/methodology/task_based.shtml). (Dec.12th, 2011)
Littlewood, W. 2004. “The Task-Based Approach: Some Questions and Suggestions”. ELT Journal, 58 (4), 319-326.
Lochana, M. & Deb. G. 2006. “Task-Based Learning: Learning English without
Tears”. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly. Vol.8 (3), 140-164.
Manfred, K. ” Narrative Writing”.
Task”. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly. Vol.8 (3), 12-18.
Saukah, Ali. 2000. “The Teaching of Writing and Grammar in English”. Bahasa
dan seni: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, Seni dan Pengajarannya. 28(2), pp.191 – 199.
Seedhouse, P. 1999. “Combining Meaning and Form”. ELT Journal: 51, 336-344.
Solares, M. E. 2006. TBLT: Challenges and Problems in an Online Course Design
for 15. “Teacher’s Development”. On Line Documents at
