CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
According to the result of the analysis data of writing test, observation and questionnaire, it can be concluded that Task-Based Language Teaching Approach can improve the tenth grade (IPA-class) students‟ writing achievement at MAN 1 Jember. The statement is supported by the fact of the numerical data from the students‟ writing achievement test before and after the implementation of TBLT.
Before the implementation, the total number of students was 56% of them achieved score ≥72 and the mean score was 70. In Cycle 1, the total number od the students who succeed in achieving the target score beame 62% and the mean score increased as much as 5.7 became 75.7. In Cycle 2, the students who succeed in achieveing the target score became 85% and the mean score increased as much as 6.7 and became 82.4. The increasing total number of the students who achieved the target score before and after the impplementation of TBLT was 96%.
Meanwhile, the mean score increased for about 12.4. Thus, this research had already been successful since the minimum target of research was only 60%
students should achieve the target score.
From the result of analysis data of observation proved that the phases of TBLT contributed in assisting the students in writing descriptive paragraph. In the pre-task, the students were leaded to recall their prior knowledge to prepare them with the topic; questioning them, displaying pictures, videos, and listening narration. After being exposed to the language input and any prior knowledge they might recall, they were asked to generate their idea by drawing mind map.
Here the focus was to help them in choosing vocabularies that might become in handy. This was also proven that there were 3 students thought the pre-task phase could help them in writing. Then in task cycle, the students were asked to write short descriptive paragraph and exchange their works to other pairs to get feedback before the came in front of the class to report their works. The focus of
these activities was to make them practically write their first draft of writing along with the trial to make them more exposed and aware upon other pairs‟
work. Here again, the data from questionnaire showed that 3 students thought the task cycle could help them to write. In language focus, the students were given explanation and discussion about some language errors they had made and then they were asked to do the provided tasks dealing with their material that they had learned. The focus of this phase was to increase their awareness and associate it to their written language error production in order they could learn how to correct it and the tasks were to foster their knowledge about language use. In addition, data from questionnaire showed that there were 73.5 % or 25 of students thought language focus could help them to write descriptive paragraph. Therefore it could be concluded that the phases of TBLT Approach could assist the students write descriptive paragraph.
In addition, the result from the questionnaire was also stated that there were 85 % or 29 of students thought TBLT could reduce the problems of writing and help them to write.
5.2 Suggestion
Considering with the result of this classroom action research that proved the enhancement of the tenth grade (IPA class) students‟ writing achievement at MAN 1 Jember, some of suggestions were proposed for English teacher and future researcher.
1. The English Teacher
This research could be a reference for the English teacher if she wants to enhance the students‟ writing achievement by applying TBLT Approach. The teacher should follow the procedures of this approach very well in order to get the best result. She could design the materials and activities in the more interesting way, for instance by giving them other kinds of tasks like problem solving task where the students could be more active and competitive. Moreover, the teacher also needed to manage the classroom in order the students could be more communicative in delivering their ideas since the focus of TBLT was not merely about fostering the language use, but also the language usage to make meaning.
And the last, the teacher also needed to provide more discussion, explanation and practice about the language use to make the students more aware of it.
2. The Future Researcher
This research could be done in similar way or different way. Future researchers could add other kinds of questions, such as how TBLT improve the students‟ writing ability or how TBLT reduce the students‟ problems in writing.
Moreover, the meetings in each Cycle of also could be added if the phases needed more activities and time.
REFERENCES
Aarts, B. (2001). English Syntax and Argumentation. New York: Palgrave.
Ahmed, R. Z., and Siti J. bt B. (2016). The Effect of Task-Based Language Teaching of Writing Skill on EFL Learners in Malaysia. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics. 6. 207-218.
Ali, M. (1993). StrategiPenelitianPendidikan. Bandung: Angkasa.
Arikunto, S. (2006). ProsedurPenelitian: SuatuPendekatanPraktik. Jakarta:
RinekaCipta.
Alqahtani, M. (2015). The Importance of Vocabulary in Language Learning and How to be Taught. International Journal of Teaching and Education. 3(3).
Bathia, V. (2013). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. New York: Reuledge.
Birjadi, P., and Malmir A. (2009). The Effect of Task-Based Approach on The Iranian Advanced EFL Learners‟ Narrative Vs. Expository Writing. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies.1(2), 1-26
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th edition). Addison Wesley. New York: Longman
Cao, L. (2012). A Feasibility Study of Task-based Teaching of College English Writing in Chinese EFL Context. English Language Teaching (hal. Vol. 5, No. 10; 2012 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750). Canadian Center of Science and Education
Cohen, L., Manion L., and Keith M. (2007). Research Method in Education (Sixth Edition). Newyork: Routledge
Creswell, J. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Fairbairn, G., and Christoper W. (2011). Reading, Writing and Reasoning: A Guide for Students (3rd Edition). Berkshire: Open University.
Fraenkel, J. R., and Wallen N. E. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research Education. San Fransisco: Mc Graw Hill Companies.
Gabrielatos, C. (2002) Writing Product and Process.Seminar Procedings OMIROS Language Schools Teachers.
Ganta, T. (2012). The Strenghts And Weaknesses of Task Bask Learning (TBL) Approach.Schoolary Research Journal for Interdisiplinary. 3(16)
Hai-yan, M. (2014). The Task-Based Teaching of Writing to Big Classes in Chinese EFL Setting.English Language Teaching Journal. 7(3).
Harmer, J. (2004). How to Teach Writing. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Huges, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hung, N. (2014). Review of Notion and Framework of Task-Based Language Teaching. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research. 2(1), 39-48
Hyland, K. (2004). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knapp, P., and Watkins M. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar. Sydney: University of New South Weles.
Karim, I., Djamiah H., and Sukardi W. (2014). The Implementation of Task- Based Language Teaching (TBLT) to Improve Students‟ Ability in Writing Narrative Text. Procedin Seminar Nasional. 1(1).
Koshi, V. (2005). Action Research For Improving Practice. New Delhi: Paul Capman Publishing.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: New Age International.
Marashi, H,.and Dadari, L. (2010). The Impact of Using Task-based Writing on EF Learners‟ Writing Performance and Creativity. Theory And Practice in Language Study. 2(12), 2500-2507.
McMillan, J. (1992). Educational Research: Fundamentals for the Consumers.
New York: Harper Collins Publisher.
Min, H. (2014).The Effects of Task-Based Teaching Approach on College Writing Classes. Studies in Literature and Language. 9(3), 182-186 Munira and Syeda F. (2012). A Study of TBLT Approach: An Experiment of
Sample Lesson and Preparing Lesson Plan for EFL Classroom. UITS Journal. (1), Issue 2.
Munirah and Muhsin. (2015). Using Task-Based Approach in Improving the Students. Journal of Education and Human Development. 4( 3), 181-190.
Nik, Y., Azizah H., and Hasif . 2010. A Comparative Study on The Factors Affecting The Writing Performance Among Bachelor Students.
International Journal of Educational Research and Technology. (1), 54-59.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oshima, A., and Hogue A. (2007). Introduction to Academic Writing (3rd Edition). New York: Pearson Education Inc.
Parvizi, K., Khoshsima and Tajik. (2016). The Impact of Task-Based Language Teaching on Iranian Female Intermediate EFL Learners‟ Writing
Performance. International Journal of Learning and Development. 6 (4).
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. (2006). Communicative Language Learning Today. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., and Theodore S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sarani and Sahebi. (2012). The Impact of Task-based Approach on Vocabulary Learning in ESP Courses. English Language Teaching. 5(10).
Shabani and Gashemi. (2014). The Effect of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) andContent-Based Language Teaching (CBLT) on The
IranianIntermediate ESP Learners' Reading Comprehension. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences. 98, 1713-1721. Urmia University.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Valli, K. and N. S Vishnu P. (2016). A Task-Based Approach to Develop the Writing Skills in English of Students at College Level. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research. 11(3), 2145-2148.
Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework For Task-Based Language Learning. Harlow:
Longman.
Appendix B
Original scoring rubric by Jacobs et al.‟s (1981), cited in Weigle (2002:116)
Aspect Score Level Criteria
CONTENT
30-27 Excellent – very good
Knowledgeable; substantive; thorough;
development of thesis; relevant to assigned topic
26-22 Good – average Some knowledge of subject; adequate range; limited development of thesis;
mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail
21-17 Fair – poor Limited knowledge of subject; little substance; inadequate development of topic
16-13 Very poor Does not show knowledge of subject;
non-substantive; not pertinent; or not enough to evaluate
ORGANIZATION
20-18 Excellent – very good
Fluent expression; ideas clearly stated/supported; succinct; well- organized; logical sequencing;
cohesive
17-14 Good – average Somewhat choppy; loosely organized but main idea stands out; limited support; logical but incomplete sequencing
13-10 Fair – poor Non-fluent; ideals confused or
disconnected; lacks logical sequencing and development
9-7 Very poor Does not communicate; no
organization; or not enough to evaluate
VOCABULARY
20-18 Excellent – very good
Sophisticated range; effective word/idiom choice and usage; word form mastery; appropriate register 17-14 Good – average Adequate range; occasional errors of
word/idiom form; choice; usage but meaning not obscured
13-10 Fair – poor Limited range; frequent errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage;
meaning confused or obscured 9-7 Very poor Essentially translation; little
knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word form; or not enough to evaluate
25-22 Excellent – very good
Effective complex constructions; few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions
21-18 Good – average Effective but simple constructions;
minor problems in complex constructions; several errors of
LANGUAGE USE
agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured
17-11 Fair – poor Major problems in simple/complex constructions; frequent errors of negotiation, agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles,
pronouns, preposition and/or
fragments, run-ons, deletion; meaning confused or obscured
10-5 Very poor Virtually no mastery of sentence constructions rules; dominated by errors; does not communicate; or not enough to evaluate
MECHANICS
5 Excellent – very good
Demonstrates mastery of conventions;
few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing.
4 Good – average Occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing; but meaning not obscured
3 Fair – poor Frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization,
paragraphing; meaning confused or obscured
2 Very poor No mastery or conventions; dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing;
handwriting illegible; or not enough to evaluate
TOTAL SCORE = content + organization + vocabulary + language use + mechanics
Appendix C
Adapted scoring rubric by Jacobs et al.‟s (1981)
Aspect Score Level Criteria
CONTENT
5 Excellent – very good
Knowledgeable; relevant to assigned topic;
adequate detail
4 Good – average Some knowledge of object; mostly relevant to topic, but less detail
3 Fair – poor Limited knowledge of object; inadequate development of topic; least detail 2 Very poor Does not show knowledge of object; not
relevant to topic; not enough to evaluate
ORGANIZATION
30-27 Excellent – very good
Ideas clearly stated/supported; well-
organized, excellent use of generic structure 26-22 Good – average Main idea stands out; loose organization;
less support, clear use of generic structure 21-17 Fair – poor Communication occasionally impaired,
ideas confused or disconnected; least support; loose use of generic structure 16-13 Very poor Communication impaired; no organization
VOCABULARY
30-27 Excellent – very good
Sophisticated range; effective word choice and usage; closely to native-like writer 26-22 Good – average Adequate range; occasional errors of word
choice and usage but meaning not obscured;
little interfere of mother tongue 21-17 Fair – poor Limited range; frequent errors of word
choice and usage; meaning confused or occasionally obscured; some interfere of mother tongue
16-13 Very poor Essentially translation; little knowledge of English vocabulary, heavy interfere of mother tongue or not enough to evaluate
LANGUAGE USE
30-27 Excellent – very good
Effective constructions; few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions 26-22 Good – average Minor problems constructions; several
errors of agreement, tense, number, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions; little fragments/ run-ons; meaning seldom obscured
21-17 Fair – poor Major problems constructions; frequent errors of agreement, tense, number, word order, articles, pronouns, preposition; some fragments/ run-ons; meaning confused or obscured
16-13 Very poor Virtually no mastery of sentence constructions rules; dominated by errors;
does not communicate; or not enough to evaluate
5 Excellent – very good
Demonstrates mastery of conventions; few errors of spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, paragraphing.
4 Good – average Occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing; but meaning not obscured
3 Fair – poor Frequent errors of spelling, punctuation,
MECHANICS
capitalization, paragraphing; meaning confused or obscured
2 Very poor No mastery or conventions; dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, paragraphing; handwriting illegible; or not enough to evaluate
TOTAL SCORE = content + organization + vocabulary + language use + mechanics
Appendix D
The mean scores of the X-IPA students‟ mean score
Number Class Mean Score
1.
2.
3.
IPA-1 IPA-2 IPA-3
70 72 73,3
The list of all X-IPA students‟ names and pre-writing scores
No IPA-1 Students‟
Initial Names
Scores IPA-2 Students‟
Initial Names
Scores IPA-3 Students‟
Initial Names
Scores
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
AB A AKW ARS BANF DS DIF EM FIAT FMN HS HM IAM ISM IMA LAN LAN MF MA MA NFM NIA NNI NI RW RLA SDA SZS STMS SS TNH WRN WK ZDAP
70 71 78 60 70 65 75 73 80 82 62 60 72 70 65 71 79 76 86 74 69 71 87 83 78 66 60 73 70 75 75 80 80 73
AAM AWS AAPP AS AS AKMH ANC CPNA CAIN EW EZL FFH FZ FJAS FFN FRKA FF HAS IUK KN LA MAD MNS MDPA MFA NN NWAG NHP NM RMBBA SDYA SFM SEN WF
67 68 86 88 72 63 69 85 78 79 85 85 80 79 80 78 78 90 78 78 80 85 65 71 78 83 98 82 70 75 69 88 80 72
ATH AWW AIU ATS AQNT AHT AAM AOF AW APM ABN BAK DYW DAA DN FBH IR IZ IM KMS KM LWN MFAM MY MSFAG NAJ NLFF RN RR R SNCI UZF VZH WSS
90 80 72 85 78 80 85 86 76 78 70 65 69 78 65 50 78 58 78 58 52 63 78 76 80 72 63 72 73 82 88 72 88 78
Appendix E Observation Guide
Date :
Time :
Setting : Participants :
Observer :
Classroom Activity √ Descriptions Observer‟s comment
Introduction 1. T greets the Ss 2. T checks the Ss‟
attendance 3. T delivers leading
questions
4. T states the learning objectives
Main Activity Pre-Task
5. Ss identify information on the video
6. Ss make a mind map about some vocabulary to describe a place
Task Cycle
7. Ss work in pairs to write descriptive paragraph 8. Ss exchange their work to
other pairs to get/give written comment 9. Ss report their work in
front of the class 10. Other pairs give
comment and feedback orally
Language Focus 11. Ss analyze the other
pairs‟ work facilitated by T
12. Ss classify some vocabularies into part of speech then make a sentence
13. Ss do tasks about the use of simple present tense
Closing 14. T reviews today‟s
material
15. T appraciates students‟
performance 16. T ends the class
Appendix F The Questionnaire
1. What the most difficult aspect of writing? give number 1-5 from the most difficult.
Grammar
Vocabulary
Paragraph Organization
Mechanics
Content
Other....
2. Do you think TBLT can help you to reduce the problem in writing?
Yes
No
Not sure
Other....
3. Do you think TBLT can help you to get better understanding about writing descriptive paragraph?
Yes
No
Not sure
Other....
4. Relating to number 3, what materials do you get from the teaching of TBLT?
New vocabulary
Better understanding about Simple Present Tense
Better understanding about writing system and rules
Other....
5. Relating to number 3, what phase do you think helping you the most?
Pre task (video, narration, mind map)
During task (writing descriptive paragraph using outline)
Language focus (analyzing error feedback of writing facilitated by teacher, vocabulary practice, simple present practice, identify topic, main idea and supporting details practice)
Other....
6. Relating to number 3, if your answer is no, what do you think the barriers are?
Not enough time
Not enough explaination
Not enough material
Other....
Appendix G
The Result of Interview from the Preliminary Study
QUESTIONS ANSWERS
1. How many classes in tenth grade? 12 classes. It consists of 1 language program class, 3 natural science (IPA) classes, 2 BIC (Bina Insan Cendikia) classes, 2 PK
(Pendidikan Keagamaan) classes, and 4 social science classes (IPS).
2. How many students in each class? 30-35 students in each class
3. What classes do you teach? 8 classes. 3 natural science classes, 4 social science classes, and 1 language program class 4. Do you think the students have
difficulties in writing? What do you think the causes are?
Yes, They lack of vocabulary, cannot
distinguish which one is noun, verb, adjective, and little competence in structure or grammar.
The skill to write good paragraph is still low, it makes their writing is not quite comprehensive.
5. What are the learning objectives that you expect from the students in learning writing?
I just need them to write very simplest paragraph authentically.
6. What method of your scoring or assessment in writing?
Holistic scoring.
7. Have you ever give any feedback on students‟ writing? How often?
Yes, it is only written feedback. I mostly tell them who get good scores.
8. What is your strategy in teaching writing? What kind of technique, method, or approach do you use?
I just teach them about vocabulary using pictures.
9. Have you ever apply Task-Based Language Teaching Approach to your teaching learning process?
I‟m afraid I haven‟t. Because I‟m not sure about it.
10. Do you mind if I teach one of the classes you teach using TBLT Approach?
Yes, of course.
11. Do you mind if we teach collaboratively?
Yes, sure. I‟ll help you.
Appendix H
RENCANA PELAKSANAAN PEMBELAJARAN (RPP) CYCLE 1
School : MAN 1 Jember Subject : Bahasa Inggris Class/Semester : X/2
Skills : WRITING
Genre : Descriptive Paragraph Theme : Places
Time allocation : 2 x 40 minutes A. COMPETENCE BASIC
KI 4: Mengolah, menalar, dan menyaji, dalam ranah konkret dan ranah abstrak terkait dengan pengembangan dari yang dipelajarinya di
sekolah secara mandiri dan mampu menggunakan metoda sesuai kaidah keilmuan.
B. COMPETENCE STANDART