CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
F. Data analysis
The data from narrative text written by the third semester of English Department at UNISMUH Makassar, the researcher analyzed the data as follows:
1. The researcher identified narrative text written by the third semester students of English Department at Unismuh Makassar.
2. The researcher identified the generic structure of the students‟ narrative writing.
3. Presented the data obtain from the data source.
26
4. The researcher classified and interpreted the data from the type grammatical cohesion with used the Haliday and Hasan theory.
5. The researcher counted the score students‟ ability, frequency and percentage of the each type of grammatical cohesion narrative text.
Table 3.1.Criteria identifying the data of students’ ability based on the general structure of narrative text.
a. Orientation
Criteria Score Specification
Complete to identify and set the scene and introduce the participant (it answer the questions: who, when, and where)
90-100 Very Good
Identify and set the scene and introduce the participant enough (it answer the question:
who, when, and where incomplete).
80-89 Good
Cannot incomplete to identify and set the scene and introduce the participant.
70-79 Fair
Not relevant to identify and set the scene and introduce the participant.
60-69 Poor
No answer of concept 50-59 Very Poor
b. Complication
Criteria Score Specification
Complete to identify and the crisis of problem arises. When the problem developed.
90-100 Very Good
27
Identify and the crisis of problem arises.When the problem developed enough.
80-89 Good
Cannot incomplete to identify and the crisis of problem arises.When the problem developed.
70-79 Fair
Not relevant to identify the crisis of problem arises. When the problem developed.
60-69 Poor
No answer of problem. 50-59 Very Poor
c. Resolution
Criteria Score Specification
Complete to find way or solution to solve problem.
90-100 Very Good To find a way or solution to solve the problem
is enough.
80-89 Good
Cannot incomplete to find a way or solution to solve the problem
70-79 Fair
Not relevant to find a way or solution to solve the problem
60-69 Poor
No answer of problem. 50-59 Very Poor
To calculate the mean score of the students‟ test result. The research used the following formula:
X = Where:
X = Mean Score
28 Σx = Sum of all score
N = Total number of sample
(Gay, et al, 2012)
Table 3.2. Classifying the data based the type grammatical cohesion
No Sentences
Grammatical Cohesion
Rf Sb E “C”
1 2 3 Total
Explanation:
Rf: Reference
Sb : Substitution
E : Ellipsis
“C” : Conjunction
To calculate the percentage of the students‟ grammatical cohesion found in narrative text. The researcher used formula:
P = Where :
29 P : Persentage
N : Types of grammatical cohesion T : Total Grammatical cohesion
(Tsareva, 2010)
Formula frequency of type grammatical cohesion : P = × 100%
Where :
P : Percentage of the frequency of each type of grammatical cohesion Fg : frequency of type grammatical cohesion
Tf : Total frequency of grammatical cohesion
30 CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consisted of the finding of the research and discussion that contains of data analysis in detail. The findings of the research covered the result of the data about students‟ ability in writing narrative text and grammatical cohesion in narrative text.
A. FINDINGS
The findings of the research deal with answer of the problem statement which was to identify students‟ ability to write narrative text and to identify the types of grammatical cohesion found in narrative text written by the third semester student of English Department at Unismuh Makassar. The grammatical cohesion by Haliday and Hasan theory classified into four types: reference, substitution, ellipsis, and resolution.
1. Students’ ability to write narrative text based on analyzing the generic structure of narrative text.
The students‟ ability was the ability to write the main of their narrative paragraph as relevantly, clearly, originality, logically, etc. Measuring of the
31
students‟ ability was based on classification the generic structure and mean score. The mean score of the students‟ in writing narrative text is found by counting the student‟ score classification in term of orientation, complication, and resolution. The success of students‟ ability was proved by the score classification and the mean score of content below:
Table 4.1. Students’ score Classification in term of Orientation Organization Criteria
Score
Total Students
Specification
Orientation
90 - 100 15 Very Good
80 - 89 2 Good
70 – 79 3 Fair
60 - 65 0 Poor
50 - 56 0 Very Poor
Based on the table 4.1 above the score classification orientation students‟ ability in writing narrative text. From the 20 students‟, the researcher found 15 students got score (90-100), 2 students got score (80-89), and 3 students got score (70-79). and no student got score (60-65) and (50-56).
Table 4.2. Students’ Score Classification in term of Complication Organization Criteria Score Total
Students
Specification
Complication
90 – 100 15 Very Good
80 – 89 5 Good
32
70 – 79 0 Fair
60 – 69 0 Poor
50 - 59 0 Very Poor
Based on the table 4.2 above the score classification complication students‟ ability in writing narrative text. From the 20 students, the researcher found 15 students got score (90-100), 5 students got score (80-89), and no student got score (70-79), (60-69), and (50-59).
Table 4.3. Students’ Score Classification in term of Resolution Organization Criteria
Score
Total Students
Specification
Resolution
90 - 100 12 Very Good
80 - 89 6 Good
70 – 79 2 Fair
60 - 65 0 Poor
50 - 56 0 Very Poor
Based on the table 4.3 above the score classification resolution students‟ ability in writing narrative text. From the 20 students, the researcher found 12 students got score (90-100), 6 students got score (80-89), 2 students got score (70-79), and no student got score (60-65) and (50-59).
Table 4.4. Mean Score Organization
33
Organization Ʃx N Mean (X)
Orientation 1860 20 93
Complication 1896 20 94.8
Resolution 1793 20 89.55
Based on the table 4.4 above from the 20 students that made a narrative text, the researcher found the mean score from the criteria score classification of organization generic structure in narrative text. The mean score of orientation was 93, complication was 94.8, and resolution was 89.55.
2. Types of Grammatical Cohesion found in narrative text.
The next step counted the frequency all types and percentages the data contain grammatical cohesion found in narrative text written by the third semester students of English Department at Unismuh Makassar. The types of grammatical cohesion are reference (Rf), substitution (Sb), Ellipsis (E), and conjunction (C).
Table. 4.5. The Frequency of All Types of Grammatical Cohesion and the Percentages
NO
Types of Grammatical Cohesion
Frequency Percentages
1 Reference (Rf) 557 69.02 %
2 Substitution (Sb) 28 3.5 %
34
3 Ellipsis (E) 1 0.12 %
4 Conjunction (C) 221 27.4 %
Total 807 100 %
Based on the table 4.5. above, reference used 557 times, substitution used 28 times, ellipsis used 1 times, and conjunction used 221 times. Then, the percentages of each types of grammatical cohesion found a reference was 69.02 %, substitution was 3.5 %, ellipsis was 1 %, and conjunction was 27.4 %. Grammatical cohesion that most used by the students is reference, the second is conjunction, the third is substitution, and the last is ellipsis.
B. DISCUSSION
After analyzed the data, the writer would like to discuss the result of the findings of the research.
1. Students’ ability in writing narrative text based on analyzing the generic structure of narrative text.
Narrative text there was the generic structure that contains such as orientation, complication, and resolution. Orientation was the introduction of the story in which the character, setting and time of the story are established.
Complication was explored the conflict in the story. Then resolution, was situation which the problem has been resolved. In every generic structure the writer identified the content of students‟ narrative text.
35
The researcher found the data students‟ ability in writing narrative text at the third semester students of English Department at Unismuh Makassar with the classified the criteria score of generic structure and counted of mean score. And the result of students score classification the generic structure of narrative text from 20 students, the organization of orientation there were 15 students got score (90-100) in very good specification, there were 2 students got score (80-89) in good specification, there are 3 students got score (70-79) in fair specification, and there was no student got poor and very poor specification.
The organization of complication there were 15 students got score (90- 100) in very good specification, there were 5 students got score (80-89) in good specification, and there was no student got fair, poor, and very poor specification.
The organization of resolution there were 12 students got score (90- 100) in very good specification, there were 6 students got score (80-89) in good specification, there were 2 students got score (70-79) in fair specification and there was no student got poor and very poor specification.
And the mean score from 20 students of orientation was 93, mean score of complication was 94.8, and mean score of resolution was 89.65.
2. The Frequency of All Types of Grammatical Cohesion found in narrative text and the Percentages.
36
Classified the frequency and counted percentages the types of grammatical cohesion by Haliday and Hasan theory found in narrative text written by students‟.
Haliday and Hasan (1976: 28) had distributed grammatical cohesion into reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. The researcher found 20 narrative text written by the third semester students of English Department at Unismuh Makassar. After analyzed the text, references is the mostly used in the narrative text with 557 times of used with the percentages was 69.02 %. The reference used is personal reference, such as I, we, me, and she. And demonstrative reference, such as this, that, these, and the. Azzouz (2009: 50) argues that such phenomena can be caused by the students‟ mastery of grammatical devices and their knowledge regarding such devices.
Conjunction is the second with 221 times of used with the percentages 27.4 %. Students‟ previous knowledge may help them to use kinds of conjunction. The conjunction used additive conjunction and, or, adversative conjunction but, however, causal conjunction because, and temporal conjunction after that. Substitution is the third that most used by students with 28 times of used with percentages was 3,5 %. The example substitution used by students is one, do, and did. Azzouz (2009: 51) argued that students‟ awareness regarding items to be substituted or omitted may affect the use of it. Ellipsis is the fourth that most used by students with 1 times of used with the percentages was 0,12 %. The example of ellipsis used by students is most of them.
According to the results, students are not familiar with the use of Ellipsis
37
concerning the use grammatical cohesion. The students may rarely or never use any ellipsis in their text writing which has been taught before, that‟s why ellipsis is rarely found in students writing.
From 20 text narrative written by students, the percentages four types grammatical cohesion used dominantly is Reference.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSSION AND SUGGESTION
After presenting the findings and the discussion in the previous chapter, the study concluded and provided some suggestion.
A. CONCLUSSION
The researcher concluded the students‟ ability to written narrative text was classification of generic structure of narrative text and the types of grammatical cohesion are found in narrative text written by the third semester students of English Department at Unismuh Makassar. And narrative text written by students
38
is 20 narrative texts. The researcher found the mean score of students‟ ability from the criteria score organization generic structure in narrative text. The mean score of orientation was 93, complication was 94.8, and resolution was 89.55.
The researcher found grammatical cohesion from the analyzed the frequency all types of grammatical cohesion by Haliday and Hasan theory, they are references, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. And the total frequency of grammatical cohesion produced by 20 students was 807. The most grammatical cohesion used by students is reference with 557 times of used, the second is conjunction with 221 times of used, he third is substitution with 28 times of used, and the last is ellipsis with 1 times of used. Then, the researcher calculated the percentages of each type of grammatical cohesion found in narrative text written by the third semester students of English Department at Unismuh Makassar. The researcher found that there were 69.02% of reference, 27.4% 0f conjunction, 3.5%
of substitution, and 0,12% of ellipsis. It can be conclude from the percentages cohesion above, for the grammatical cohesion used dominantly is References.
B. SUGGESSTION
Based on the analysis students‟ ability in write narrative text and the types of grammatical cohesion found in narrative text written by the third semester students of English Department at Unismuh Makassar, the researcher made suggestion, that are as follow:
1. For the students
39
The researcher suggests the students in making narrative texts must pay attention to the generic structure and language features of narrative text. And the students when writing text must understand about grammatical cohesion in order to improve English writing in giving all the ideas they want to write.
Hopefully after knowing the cohesive devices especially grammatical cohesion, the quality of the students in writing also increase. Writing is the most difficult skill that has to be accomplished by the students, thus the students should practice more to increase their skill in writing.
2. For the next researcher
Hopefully, there will be the next researchers who want to do similar research as the authors did. They can use this research as the researcher did.
They can use this researcher as previous research. And if they want to do similar research, they can use sources related to this. Many other references have been written by other researchers.
40
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andayani, P., Seken, K., and Marjohan, A. 2014. An Analysis of Cohesion and Coherence of the Students Narrative Writing in SMP Negeri 2 Banjar, In English Language Education Journal.
Arifiani, Dewi Mustika. 2016. An Analysis of Grammatical and Lexical Cohesion in Emma Watson Speech Text and Gender Quality. Jakarta: Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University.
Aryanika, Septa. 2016. The Correlation Between the Students‟ Writing Motivation and the Writing Ability. In English Education Journal.
Azzouz, Besma. 2009. A Discourse Analysis of Grammatical Cohesion in Student’s Writing. Algeria: Mentouri University-Constantie.
Bailey, Stephen. 2011. Academic Writing A Handbook for International Students (Third Edition). London and New York: Routledge.
Basri, Muhammad. 2014. Fundamentals of Research Methodology. Makassar:
Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Batubara, Fahmi Aulia. 2017. Improving Students’ Ability In Writing of Announcement Throught Gallery Walk Technique. Medan: State Islamic University of North Sumatera.
British, Course. 2017. Narrative Text: Definition, Purposes, Generic Structures, Language Features. http://britishcourse.com/narrative-text-definition- purposes-generic-structures-language-features.php accessed January 10, 2019.
British, Council. 2017. Cohesion.
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/cohesion accessed on February 10, 2019.
Gay, Et al. 2012. Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application (Tenth Education). UK: Perason Education.
Halliday M.A.K and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Third Edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Kerlinger. 1973. Definitionof Research Variable.
http://prasko17.blogspot.com/2015/02/definition-of-research-variable.html accessed on Juni 16, 2019.
41
Kern, Richard. 2002. Literacy and Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University.
Magribi, Prayudha. 2012. In Cohesion,Grammatical Cohesion.
http://gosrok.blogspot.com/2012/02/grammatical-cohesion.html accessed on February 10, 2019.
Ningsih, Rachmawati. 2004. Error Analysis in the Students’ English Writing.
Jakarta: Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University.
Rahman, Muhammad Fatur. 2016. The Use of Cohesion in Students Narrative Writing at English Department of Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University of Malang. Malang: Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University.
Rohim, Abdul. 2009. Cohesion Analysis on the Jakarta Post’s Editorial. Jakarta:
State Islamic University Syarif Hidayahtullah.
Suciati, Hikma. 2013. Improving the Students’ Ability to Write Narrative Paragraph
Through Intrapersonal Intelligence Strategy. Makassar. University Muhammadiyah of Makassar.
Tsareve, Anastasia. 2010. Grammatical Cohesion in Argumentative Essays by Nurwegion and Rusian Learner, M.A. Thesis. The University of Olso.
Ulfa, Maria. 2016. An Analysis of Lexical Cohesion In Narrative Text Three Children Storybooks of “Oliver and Jumpy” by Werner Stejskal.
Cirebon: Syekh Nurjati State Islamic Institute Cirebon.
Widiasprasetyo, Aniq. 2013. An Analysis of Grammatical Cohesion Found Narrative Written by the Second SemesterStudents of English Education Department of Muria Kudus University In Academic Year 2012/2013.
Kudus: Universitas Muria Kudus.
A P P E N D I C
E
S
Appendix 1
Narrative Text Topic : “My Embarassing Moment”
Name : Class :
Write down a story narrative text with the topic “My Embarassing Moment”
with the interesting stories that you have experienced!
Appendix 2
Writing Score Analysis
No Name Code Organization
Orientation Complication Resolution
1 S-01 95 100 95
2 S-02 95 100 100
3 S-03 75 89 85
4 S-04 70 95 80
5 S-05 95 85 98
6 S-06 100 95 80
7 S-07 89 95 100
8 S-08 79 100 70
9 S-09 89 100 80
10 S-10 100 80 80
11 S-11 90 89 89
12 S-12 100 98 90
13 S-13 100 100 95
14 S-14 95 100 98
15 S-15 100 100 95
16 S-16 100 95 100
17 S-17 95 80 70
18 S-18 98 100 100
19 S-19 95 95 90
20 S-20 100 100 98
Ʃx 1860 1896 1793
Mean (X) 93 94,8 89,65
Average 92,53
The mean score of the students‟ test result :
Orientation : X = = 93 Resolution : X = Complication : X = = 89,65
Appendix 3
Analysis Grammatical Cohesion Found in Narrative Text Written by Students Class BG3C.
Text 1
No Sentences
Grammatical Cohesion Rf Sb E C 1 One day on Monday, I left for school at 07.00
am.
2
I departed wearing neat clothes, wearing a tie or hat but on that day I wore a narrow skirt (span skirt) because the skirt that I used to use (loose skirt) was dirty.
3 At the time I was ceremony.
4 I passed it just fine.
5 This time I did not faint until the ceremony was over.
6
After that ceremony, we were immediately told to enter the classroom to begin our first lesson, namely Indonesian.
7 After the first subject is finished we processed to this second subject which Mathematics.
8 The subject of mathematic has already been passed.
9 Its time we entered the break at 09.30.
10 Since then, we have used our rest time by feeling the stomach with food.
11 One day way to the canteen I passed the field. 12 I the field there are many students who play
takraw ball and play volleyball.
13
When I was in the middle of the field accidentally the person who kicked the takraw ball hit my feel and I immediately took the ball and kicked it to the person who was playing the takraw ball.
14 I forgot that I was wearing a narrow skirt.
15 Without aba‟da I immediately kicked him and at the time I was falling with I central position.
16 During the incident many students laughed at
me.
17
There I felt ashamed because I fell in the middle of the field during recess when all the students did not do the learning process.
18 I immediately ran back to my class without seeing people laughing at me.
19 That’s when I thought, I should have been careful in making decisions, not rash.
20 Otherwise we will experience problems that can be embarrassing to ourselves.
Total 45 3 11
Percentage the type of grammatical cohesion in text 1:
Reference : Substitution :
Ellipsis : 0%
Conjunction :
Text 2
No Sentences
Grammatical Cohesion
Rf Sb E C 1 One day, when I has been 3 high school class.
2 I experienced a shameful event. 3 At the moment, me and all my classmate are in
the class waited for mathematic teacher.
4 For 1 hour we waited the teacher but the teacher did not came.
5 We were all very happy and nourished shouted
“yeay free class”.
6
A moment letter a classmate of my class was made a tiktok video that was at the moment was trend.
7 Me and all classes who are in the class are interested in made some tiktok video together.
8
We also started setting the table for in place by some of my friends to dance and rest only stood on the floor.
9 The time when passed and we had finished make the video.
10 Two days later BK teacher saw or tiktok video on facebook than reported is to the principal.
11
And on Monday where all teachers and students have finished did ceremony, we are one class in the principals called to advanced to the middle of the field.
12
We got some punishment of respect for the flog around I hour for had used school equipment to made the ridiculous video.
13
After completed the punishment, we also had another punishment that is pick up all to the trust seated around the school environment.
14
Me and all my classmate are very sorry made a tiktok video and promised after the incident me and my classmate agreed to not longer made tiktok video again.
Total 17 2 14
Percentage the types of grammatical cohesion in text 2 Reference :