12
IMPROVING STUDENTS’ WRITING ABILITY IN DESCRIPTIVE TEXT BY USING MEANING, USE, AND FORM (MUF) FRAMEWORK
TECHNIQUE AT THE SECOND GRADE STUDENTS OF SMK LPP UMI MAKASSAR
Dwi Kartini1, Arma Amir Hamzah2, Andi Haeriati Alimuddin3
1STKIP YPUP/Makassar, Email: [email protected]
2STKIP YPUP/Makassar, Email: [email protected]
3STKIP YPUP/Makassar, Email: [email protected]
ABSTRAK
This research was intended to find out whether MUF Framework technique improves the students' writing ability at the second-grade students of SMK LPP UMI Makassar.
This research used a pre-experimental research method. The population of this research was the second-grade students of SMK LPP UMI Makassar. It consists of one class with a total number of 15 students. This research used the total sampling technique which took all the students in class. The result of this research showed that the mean score of the post-test was higher than the pre- test (72.26 > 94.99). Furthermore, the result of the t-test value was higher than t- table (11.19 > 2.145). Finally, the researcher concluded that MUF Framework technique can improve students' writing ability at the second-grade students of SMK LPP UMI Makassar.
KEYWORDS: MUF framework technique, writing ability.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, in the era of digital development also known as the millennial era, everyone could easily learned from any platform. However, only a few of us wanted to pursue and be serious about learning a new thing. Especially in learning a foreign language. English as the second language in Indonesia has become an important subject in the schools, from elementary to high school.
In learned English, there were four language skills; listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills. Writing was one of the language skills which were important in our life. Through writing, people could inform others, carry out transactions, persuade, infuriate, and told what we felt.
According to Beeson, et al. (2003), improved your writing skills helped you become a better communicator overall, as well as improved your reading, which is another important job skill.
Good writing did not simply restate the message or idea in grammatically correct sentences or expressions, but also organized the idea or message in an easy-to-understand format. The idea or message must be written in a way that was purposeful, rhetorical, structural, and linguistic realization or grammatical pattern. It must be effectively created in the form of written text.
Based on the researchers’ observation in August 2021 at the second grade students of SMK LPP UMI Makassar, the researcher found some problems faced by the students, particularly in writing. For example, grammatical errors, and lack of vocabulary. In evaluated the students'
13 writing assignments was important to check how far the students’ writing performance improved.
It was needed to consider the objectives or the criterion of the materials. Each objective through the writing assignment given. Based on the study above, the researcher conducted a study titled Improving Students’ Writing Ability in Descriptive Text by Using Meaning, Use, and Form (MUF) Framework technique at The Second Grade Students of SMK LPP UMI Makassar.
MUF Framework was regarded as one of the most child-friendly methods of taught English to the students. Moon (2008) introduced this framework as part of a British Council program aimed at improved English taught and learned in Asian Elementary Schools. M-U-F stood for M- U-F grammar teaching framework (Teaching Approach). English taught and learned should be organized in a way that allowed students to reach their full potential. As a result, the M-U-F framework was used as a started point.
According to Moon (2005), the purpose of MUF Framework in the research was to assisted students in active-learning activities with proper grammatical patterns, particularly in writing. On the other hand, MUF Framework significantly improved students' writing abilities. Moon (2005) explained that there were several things that teachers should paid attention to in sequencing the classroom activities: Learned what the students need, students learned some things first to prepared them for the activities. Moved from receptive to productive activities from receptive skills to productive skills. Then, the activities should started from easy to more difficult or challenging. Impersonal and personal, the learned process started from an activity that was not personally related to the students’ experience.
The MUF Framework contained five key elements that could be used when created lesson plans. Topic, Activities, Language Focus, Situation, and Sequence were the elements. They were referred to as TAFLSS.
According to Moon (2005), the purpose of MUF Framework in the research was to assisted students in active-learning activities with proper grammatical patterns, particularly in writing. On the other hand, MUF Framework significantly improved students' writing abilities.
Moon (2008) mentioned the advantages of MUF Framework technique were that more meaningful, memorable, and serviceable for the students, the students got extra language practiced, and it made the students got self-reliance. While the disadvantages were that students may hypothesized the wrong rule, it could place heavy demands on teachers in planned a lesson, and sometimes could be made frustrated the students who preferred simply to be told the rules.
METHOD
The pre-experimental method was used in this research, with one group pre-test and post- test. The pre-test was given before the treatment to determine the students' prior knowledge, and the post-test was given after the treatment to determine the effect of the treatment.
The population of this research was the second grade students’ of SMK LPP UMI Makassar, in the academic year 2022/2023 that consider one class; XI TKJ/TKR. Therefore, the total number of the population was 15 students.
In this research, the technique that used for took the samples was total sampling technique.
According to Sugiyono (2014:124), total sampling was a sampling technique when all members of the population were used as samples. The researcher took one class of the second grade namely XI TKJ/TKR as a sample, which consisted of 15 students. The researcher chose the sample by looked at the characteristics of the class which the students still need to improve their writing ability.
Before given the treatment, the researcher gave a pre-test for each student in the experimental class. The pre-test was writing test in descriptive text with the topic favorite place
14 at a minimum 250 words. The test was intended to find out the students’ writing ability before given the treatment. After the pre-test, the researcher taught the students’ for four meetings. The students were taught by using MUF Framework technique in descriptive text. This research spent about 2x45 minutes of each meeting. After the researcher gave the treatment, the class was given a post-test. The researcher gave a post-test to the students. The post-test was writing test in descriptive text with the topic vacation place at a minimum 250 words. The post-test was used to determine whether the treatment was successful in improved the students' writing abilities.
The step of collected data was undertaken by quantitative analysis as followed:
1. Tabulating the students’ score a. Content
To evaluate the score of the content component, the researcher used the followed scale.
Range
Score Classification Criteria
30-27 Excellent to Very Good Knowledgeable-substantive etc.
26-22 Good to Average Some knowledge of the subject adequated range.
21-17 Fair to Poor Limited knowledge of subject little substance - etc.
16-13 Very Poor Did not show knowledge of subject non-substantive
Table 3.2 Content Component
b. Organization
To evaluate the score of the organization component, the researcher used the followed scale.
Range
Score Classification Criteria
20 – 18 Excellent to Very Good Fluent expression - ideas clearly stated - etc
17 – 14 Good to Average Somewhat choppy - loosely organized but the main idea stands out - etc 13 – 10 Fair to Poor Non-fluent-ideas confused or
disconnected - etc
9 – 7 Very Poor Did not communicate - no organization - etc
Table 3.3 Organization Component c. Vocabulary
To evaluate the score of the vocabulary component, the researcher used the followed scale.
Range
Score Classification Criteria
20 – 18 Excellent to Very Good Sophisticated range - effective word/idiom choice and usage - etc
15 17 – 14
Good to Average Adequate range - occasional errors of word/idiom, form, choice, usage but meaning not obscured.
13 – 10
Fair to Poor Limited rang - frequent errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage but meaning not obscured
9 – 7 Very Poor Essentially translation - little knowledge of English vocabulary Table 3.4 Vocabulary Component
d. Language Use
To evaluated the score of the language use component, the researcher used the followed scale.
Range
Score Classification Criteria
25 – 22 Excellent to Very Good Effective complex construction – etc 21 – 19 Good to Average Effective but simple constructions -
etc
18 – 11 Fair to Poor Major problems in simple or complex constructions - etc
10 – 5 Very Poor Virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules - etc
Table 3.5 Language Use Component
e. Mechanics
To evaluate the score of the mechanics component, the researcher used the followed scale.
Range
Score Classification Criteria
5 Excellent to Very Good Demonstrates mastery of convention - etc
4 Good to Average Occasional errors in spelling, punctuation - etc
3 Fair to Poor Frequent errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization - etc
2 Very Poor
No mastery of conventions - dominated by the error of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing - etc
Table 3.6 Mechanics Component
(Heaton, 2010) 2. Classified the students’ scores used the followed scale:
Level Range Score Classification
A 100 – 88 Very Good
16
B 85 – 76 Good
C 75 – 64 Fairly
D 63 – 45 Poor
E 44 – 34 Very Poor
Table 3.7 Students' scores
(Jacobs, 2014) 3. Compute the frequency and the rule percentage of the students’ scores.
P = F
x 100N
Where:
P: Percentage F: Frequency
N: The total number of students’
(Airasian, et al., 2012) 4. Found the mean score of the difference score by used the formula:
𝐷̅
= ∑D N
Where:𝐷̅: The mean score
∑D:The sum of the difference N: The total number of samples
(Airasian, et al., 2012) 5. Found the significant difference between the score pre-test and post-test by calculated the
value of the t-test by used the followed formula:
t = 𝐷
√∑𝐷 2− (∑𝐷)2𝑁
𝑁 (𝑁−1 )
Where:
T: Test of significance
𝐷̅: The score of the different score ∑D: The mean different score
∑D2: The some of the different score N: The total number of the sample RESULT AND DISCUSSION RESULT
A pre-test was given to the students before having the treatments which aimed to know the prior writing ability of the students. Post-test was given to the students after having the treatments which aimed to know the improvements in the students’ ability after they got the treatments. In the pre-test, the researcher asked the students to make descriptive text by used MUF
17 Framework technique for about 90 minutes, and then after they did the pre-test, the researcher gave treatments for four meetings.
Table 4.1
The total raw score of students’ pre-test (X1) and post-test (X2), gain or difference with the matched pairs (D), and the square of the gain (D2)
The total score of students’ pre-test before treatment and post-test after treatment. Based on the result, the total score for pre-test (∑X1) was 1074 and the total score for post-test (∑X2) was 1425. The gain of the difference between the matching pair (∑D) was 351 and the square of gain (D2) was 9133. The minimum pair (D) of students’ scores was 7 and the maximum score of gain (D) was 37.
Table 4.2
Comparison between the total score pre-test and post-test
No Classification Frequency Rate Percentage
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
1 Very Good (100 - 88) 0 15 0% 100%
2 Good (85 - 76) 4 0 26.6% 0%
3 Fairly (75 - 64) 8 0 53.3% 0%
4 Poor (63 - 45) 3 0 20% 0%
5 Very Poor (44 - 34) 0 0 0% 0%
Total 15 15 100% 100%
Table 4.17 showed that in the pre-test, there were none of the students (0%) got very good score, there were 4 students (26.6%) who got good score, there were 8 students (53.3%) got fairly score, there were 3 students (20%) got poor score, and none of the students (0%) got very poor score. While in the post-test, there were 15 students (100%) who got very good score, there were none of the students (0%) got fairly score, none of the students (0%) got poor score, and
No Name of the
Students’ Pre-test (X1) Post-test (X2) Gain (D)
(X2-X1) D2
1 M.K 72 94 22 484
2 M.R.P 70 99 29 841
3 I.A 76 97 21 441
4 P.I.S 75 98 23 529
5 E.S.P 62 94 32 1024
6 M.R.D 84 91 7 49
7 M.G.A 70 97 27 729
8 M.A 75 91 16 256
9 M.R.S 70 92 22 484
10 M.B 73 90 17 289
11 M.R.Z 76 97 21 441
12 R.H 60 97 37 1369
13 P 82 97 15 225
14 I.A.K 71 97 26 676
15 M.A.A 58 94 36 1296
N = 15 ∑X1 = 1074 ∑X2 = 1425 ∑D = 351 D2 = 9133
18 none of the students (0%) got very poor score. These data indicated that the score of the post-test was higher than the pre-test.
Table 4.3
Mean Score of Pre-Test and Post-Test
After calculated the result of the mean score of students’ writing in five components content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanic between pre-test and post-test, then there was a graphic as followed:
Based on the graphic above, the researcher concluded that the mean score of the students based on the content component of the post-test score (27,8%) was greater than the mean score of the pre-test (21,33%). It is shown that in content where there was an improvement in the student's ability in writing narrative text by using MUF Framework technique. The organization means score of the students writing on post-test (19,13%) was higher than the mean score of pre- test (14,2%). The mean score of students writing on the post-test (19,53%) based on the vocabulary component was greater than the mean score of the pre-test (14,8%). The student's score in language use criteria of post-test (23,6%) focused on the language use mean score was higher than the mean score of the pre-test (18,4%). The student's score in mechanic criteria of post-test (4,93%) focused on the mechanics component score was higher than the mean score of pre-test (3,53%).
Table 4.4
Students’ writing ability achievement
Variable T-test T-table
(X2-X1) 11.19 2.145
Based on table 4.20 above explained the T-table was 2.145 and the T-test was 11.19. It could be concluded that the t-table was smaller than the t-test value of students writing ability
Component Mean Score
Pre-Test Post-Test
Content 21,33% 27,8%
Organization 14,2% 19,13%
Vocabulary 14,8% 19,53%
Language Use 18,4% 23,6%
Mechanic 3,53% 4,93%
Total 72,26% 94,99%
Pre-test Post-test
19 achievement. Referred to the data shown, it also could be inferred that there was a significant difference between the result of students’ scores in pre-test and post-test.
After calculated the value of both the T-test and T-table, then both the value of the T- test and T-table were compared, the T-test value was 11.19 and the T-table value was 2.145. The value of the t-test and t-table explained that the T-test value was higher than T-table, in the other words 11.19 > 2.145. Based on the value of the T-test and T-table, the researcher concluded that there was a significant difference between the students' results in pre-test and post-test by using MUF Framework technique in taught writing descriptive text. It means that the null hypothesis (H0) of this thesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was acceptable.
DISCUSSION
The ability of the students’ writing by the used of MUF Framework technique showed that the mean score of students’ writing ability without MUF Framework technique was 72,26 and classified as fair score. The mean score of students’ writing ability by the used of MUF Framework technique was 94.99 and classified as a very good score.
Hypothesis (H1) using MUF Framework technique in descriptive text explains that T- table 2.145 and the T-test was 11.19, T-table was smaller than the T-test. It could be concluded that there was a significant difference between the result of the student's scores in pre-test and post-test.
As stated from the data from the research that has been done, the researcher concluded that the improvement in students' writing ability occurred when the researcher carried out the third and the fourth treatments. Especially on the writing components of language use and mechanics.
When the researcher gave the students the first and the second treatment, the students had not mastered language use and mechanics, they were still stucked on the use of Indonesian language rules which they translated into English when they practiced writing descriptive text.
Then in the third and the fourth treatment, progress was seen where the students were able to understand the use of English rules according to the grammar they had learned, and it was clear that they were able to wrote by paid attention to periods and commas in wrote descriptive texts.
This result was supported by Moon (2008), who stated that this technique could guide the students to regenerate ideas into a meaningful composition. By using MUF Framework technique, the students got involved indirectly. The researcher concluded that the advantage that appeared in the use of MUF Framework technique when the researcher used this technique in class was that the students become easier to remember the rules of the material provided by the researcher.
The students were also more active in asking questions and expressing their opinions, and finally, the students were more independent in completed their assignments. While the disadvantage was that the use of this technique used a little time-consumed to be applied in the classroom in taught writing. The students were so excited to continue learning, however the time used by the researcher was only 2x45 minutes for each treatment.
CONCLUSION
The result of the t-test value was 11.19 with a level of significance (p)=0,5% and the significant level on the t-table was 2.145. It showed that the pre-test value was higher than the t- table (11.19 > 2.145). It means that the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected while the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.
The used of MUF Framework technique improved the students' writing ability at the second grade students of SMK LPP UMI Makassar. It could be seen from their achievement.
There was a significant difference in the students writing ability before and after the used of MUF
20 Framework technique in teaching writing in Descriptive Text. It was shown by the mean score of the students' pre-test and post-test. Where the mean score of students' writing in the pre-test was (72.26) classified as fairly level and the mean score of students' writing in the post-test was (94.99) classified as a very good level.
REFERENCES
Airasian, Mills, Gay. (2012). Educational Research Competencies For Analysis and Application. Tenth Edition. Pearson Education, Inc. The United States of America.
Beeson, Kindle. (2003). Writing Treatment for Severe Aphasia. The University of Arizona.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach. Los Angeles: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Diane, L. F. (2007). Grammar Dimensions Form-Meaning-Use. Vol.4. 4th Edition. The USA.
Edward, (2021). Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. English Grammar Teaching M-U-F Framework. Seoul. South Korea.
Harmer, Jeremy. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Jacobs. (2014). The Routledge Companion to Travel Writing. The USA.
Moon, J. (2005). Children Learning English. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Limited.
Moon, J. (2008). Primary Innovation Module, London: British Council.
Sugiyono. (2014). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D.
Alfabeta. Bandung.
