i
METACOGNITIVE WRITING STRATEGIES IN SMK DARUL ULUM PURWODADI
SKRIPSI
BY
IMAS MASYITHOH NPM 21701073116
UNIVERSITAS ISLAM MALANG
FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 2021
METACOGNITIVE WRITING STRATEGIES IN SMK DARUL ULUM PURWODADI
SKRIPSI Presented to
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Universitas Islam Malang
in partial fulfillment of requirements of the degree of Sarjana in English Language Education
BY
IMAS MASYITHOH NPM 21701073116
UNIVERSITAS ISLAM MALANG
FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 2021
vi
ABSTRACT
Masyithoh, I. 2021. Metacognitive Writing Strategies in SMK Darul Ulum Purwodadi. Skripsi, English Education Department Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Universitas Islam Malang. Advisor I: Eko Suhartoyo, S.Pd., M.Pd; Advisor II: Atik Umamah, S.Pd., M.Pd.
Key words: metacognition, metacognitive writing strategies, students’
performance, writing
English writing task for students is considered as the most complex task since they need to combine all English skills on writing construction.
Metacognition, the highest order thinking, has to be in writing strategies
(planning, monitoring, evaluating). The students who use their metacognition can know which effective writing strategies on doing their writing task. This research aimed to elaborate on whether there are significant differences between high and low achievers in writing using metacognitive strategies or not. The researcher selected the Ex-Post Facto research and emerged two instruments; (1) writing test – descriptive text to differentiate between high and low achievers in writing (2) questionnaire – to identify the most and the least uses of metacognitive writing strategies. With the Independent T-test for analyzing the data, the findings are; (1) The uses of metacognitive writing strategies and students’ writing performance are not significantly different. The mean of each strategy had been compared to the mean of students’ performance; moreover, based on the statistical analysis at SPSS, it showed no significant difference. (2)The most frequently used strategy by high and low achievers in writing is planning while the least is monitoring.
From these findings, the null hypothesis is accepted. Although there were no significant differences in the uses of metacognitive writing strategies between high and low achievers in writing; The students have already known what effective writing strategies to improve their writing.
ABSTRAK
Masyithoh, I. 2021. Strategi Menulis Metakognitif di SMK Darul Ulum
Purwodadi. Skripsi, Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Islam Malang. Pembimbing I:
Eko Suhartoyo, S.Pd., M.Pd; Pembimbing II: Atik Umamah, S.Pd., M.Pd.
Kata kunci: metakognisi, strategi menulis metakognitif, hasil menulis siswa, menulis
Tugas menulis dalam bahasa Inggris termasuk tugas yang paling rumit bagi siswa karena mereka harus menggunakan semua skill bahasa Inggris dalam proses penulisan. Metakognisi, tingkatan pola pikir tertinggi, harus ada di dalam strategi menulis (perencanaan, pemantauan, pengevaluasian). Siswa yang
menggunakan metakognisi dapat menentukan strategi menulis yang efektif untuk tugas mereka. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan apakah ada perbedaan yang signifikan antara siswa dengan kemampuan bagus dan kurang dalam menulis dengan penggunaan strategi metakognitif. Peneliti memilih desain penelitian Ex- Post Facto dengan dua instrumen penelitian; (1) test menulis - descriptive text untuk membagi siswa menjadi siswa yang memiliki kemampuan bagus dan kurang dalam menulis (2) kuesioner – untuk mengidentifikasi penggunaan
terbanyak dan tersedikit dari strategi menulis metakognitif. Dengan menggunakan Independent T-test untuk menganalisis data, temuan adalah sebgai berikut; (1) Tidak ada perbedaan yang signifikan antara penggunaan strategi menulis metakognitif dan hasil menulis siswa (2) Strategi menulis yang paling banyak digunakan oleh semua siswa adalah perencanaan, sedangkan strategi pemantauan paling jarang mereka gunakan. Hipotesis null diterima dari hasil temuan ini.
Walaupun tidak ada perbedaan yang signifikan dalam penggunaan strategi menulis metakognitif untuk siswa dengan kemampuan bagus dan kurang dalam menulis; Siswa telah mengetahui strategi menulis yang efektif untuk
meningkatkan kemampuan menulis mereka.
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter devotes several subchapters: background of the research, research problem, the objective of the research, the hypothesis of the research, scope, and limitation, significances of the research, and the definition of key terms.
1.1. Background of the Research
As an EFL learner, as well as a pre-service English teacher, the researcher recognizes that writing is a complex task. The major problem of EFL learners in writing is constructing pre-writing and drafting (Fatsah, 2020). Writing always is placed at the top among three skills in English, then it covers them in constructing it. That difficulty remains in students’ tasks. Looking back on my field work- study and community service at a class eleventh grade in Khampee Withya School Yala, Thailand, the researcher found that the students have a general-similar problem in doing writing tasks. The students see writing as the second choice if they can select between it and learning vocabulary. That contradicted with Competence Standard of English for senior high school that students can express various meanings (interpersonal, ideational, and textual) from interactional text and monolog such as descriptive, narrative, spoof/recount, procedure, report, news item, anecdote, exposition, explanation, discussion, commentary, and review (Sundayana, 2016). Since the Ministry of Education and Culture of Indonesia has regulations introducing English at the elementary school level, the common
assumptions are setting an expectation that senior and vocational high school students in Indonesia will have good English proficiency, but in the reality reveals the reverse. That truly is not all about the curriculum, then, the way students engage in learning English is one solution.
Considering that English is in subject-categorized in Permendikbud No 37 2018; however National Examination has been excluded for higher school’s graduation, English still need to deepen in term of preparations (Yunardi, 2014).
Since those examinations call English complex, structured in limited time,
learning writing is good to be their ‘on focus.’ Aside from understanding students’
English proficiency level, to overcome this issue, figuring out their way of facing the subject then following their perceptions in conducting the lesson is the right choice. One step in doing this is the teacher would examine students’
metacognitive writing strategies for seeing what they are in prefer to, the way class running, and writing strategies that they have already used, not mention to those that they have not used.
Metacognitive writing strategies, in short, is one of the writing strategies that have been proved by numerous researchers in their significant effect on learning English (Binandeh et al, 2017). This finding had university students as participants, thus through this research, the researcher will genuinely conduct this kind of research for vocational high school students seeking whether it works for them or not to have effective writing strategies for their better writing
achievements.
3
The researcher truly understands that changing the method in teaching English in a school, even in a class cannot directly be applied; however, the endeavor of seeking the right method and learning more about students’
characteristics is a good decision. Since after all, the truth in learning is getting a good score on the national examination and university entrance examination.
1.2. Research Problem
From the background of the research, the research question of this study is the following:
“Are there any significant differences between high and low achievers in writing in using metacognitive writing strategies in SMK Darul Ulum Purwodadi?”
1.3. The Objective of the Research
To elaborate on whether there are significant differences between high and low achievers in writing in using metacognitive writing strategies or not.
1.4. The Hypothesis of the Research
Ha: the use of metacognitive writing strategies between high and low achievers in writing is significantly different.
H0: the use of metacognitive writing strategies between high and low achievers in writing is not significantly different.
1.5. Scope and Limitation
This research gives focus on figuring out metacognitive writing strategies used by high and low achievers in writing in terms of both differences and most and less used by them.
1.6. Significances of the Research
The researcher arranged the significances of this research for further research, the students, and the teachers. The significances are divided into two kinds: theoretical and practical.
a. Theoretical
The purpose is that these research findings could be a fruitful resource in the education research context, particularly in investigating future research on metacognitive writing strategies for senior high school in Indonesia, not to mention to construct new instruments – questionnaire or interview (qualitative).
b. Practical 1) for students:
Students would consider more on what writing strategies are effective strategies in enhancing their writing achievements.
2) for teachers:
It can be the other insight on teaching methods. In line with what the Ministry of Education and Culture considers teachers as multiplayer and agents of change so that the differential of the curriculum in teaching English is essential. Thus, investigating students’ metacognitive writing strategies would be one of its applications.
5
1.7. The Definition of Key Terms
Since this research would emphasize several terms, the following general definitions of them would be beneficial for better understanding while reading.
1) Metacognition: When the students perform metacognition in constructing their writing task, they can select which writing strategies that they need and prefer to use and do not need and prefer to use.
2) Writing strategies: learning strategies that are utilized by students in
constructing writing activities. It covers the strategies in making more effective stages in constructing writing – prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing.
24
The last chapter in this research delivered conclusions derived from findings and discussions, followed by some relevant suggestions.
5.1. Conclusions
The research was to answer the objective of the research that elaborating on whether there are significant differences between high and low achievers in writing in using metacognitive writing strategies or not. The results of the findings were that the use of metacognitive writing strategies and students’ achievements were not significantly different in all the strategies. The mean of each strategy on metacognitive writing strategies compared to the mean of students’ achievements.
The independent t-test outputs showed that significant value (2-tailed) for all strategies were higher than the significant value level at .05 (.308; .225; .609; .318
> Sig .05). It also confirmed that the null hypothesis (H0) was accepted in this research, yet it rejected the alternative hypothesis (Ha). The most used strategy on metacognitive writing strategies by the students was planning whereas monitoring was the least.
The previous research with university students as the participants also found that there were no significant differences between high and low achievers in writing in using metacognitive writing strategies. Planning as the most used metacognitive writing strategy is beneficial for students’ writing progress because planning will be still used in advanced writing. The findings indeed stated that
25
there was no significant difference in the use of metacognitive writing strategies to students’ achievements; nevertheless, the students have already known the effective strategies for their writing.
5.2. Suggestions
Referring to the conclusions, several suggestions are needed to consider for future research. For English teachers who will refer these research findings to teach in class, instead of using only planning strategy on students’ writing (the most used of metacognitive writing strategies), it should be better to provide and introduce the students to the other strategies, as well. Considering the research’s finding that monitoring is the least used of metacognitive writing strategies by the students, the teacher should have the self-evaluation to give more intense teaching of monitoring strategy to the students. Another possible suggestion is that the teacher can also provide the writer’s self-check sheet to the students. It will help students to check their writing according to the instruction.
The participants of this research were vocational high school students, it is good to have further research for senior high school student as the participants since the majority of previous research were for university students. Another reason is that the curriculum for vocational high school is somewhat different from senior high school. It is also because some research found that there was a significant difference in the use of metacognitive writing strategies to students’
achievements, and some research found the reverse. Therefore, the finding of the further research is not predictable.
Regarding the research method, the sample of this research is small, a broader sample is needed to collect when gathering the data. Besides the sample, it would be better if two quantitative instruments used in this research are also accompanied by the qualitative instrument to represent more participants’
opinions. In addition, the research with other possibilities of the independent variable might be fruitful for further research. One example is gender. It will be to investigate if there is a significant difference in the use of metacognitive writing strategies between male and female students.
27
References:
Alnufaie, M., & Grenfell, M. (2012). EFL Students’ Writing Strategies in Saudi Arabian ESP Writing Classes: Perspectives on Learning Strategies in Self- access Language Learning. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(4), 407-422.
Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A
Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). New York:
Longman.
Balta, E. E. (2018). The Relationships among Writing Skills, Writing Anxiety, and Metacognitive Awareness. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(3), 233-241.
Binandeh, M., Rahmani, S., & Raoofi, S. (2017). An Investigation into Writing Strategies and Writing Proficiency of University Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(1), 191-198.
De Silva, Radhika, & Graham, S. (2015). The Effects of Strategy Instruction on Writing Strategy Use for Students of Different Proficiency Levels. System 53 (3): 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.009
Elzarka, Sammy, Valerie Beltran, Jessica Decker, Mark Matzaganian, and Nancy T. Walker. (2015). The Value of Metacognition and Reflectivity in Computer-based Learning Environments. In Handbook of Research on Technology Tools for Real-World Skill Development, edited by Yigal Rosen, Steve Ferrara, and Maryam Mosharraf, 105–36. Hershey: IGI Global language learning. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(4), 407-422.
Ex-Post Facto Research. (2017). Retrieved on December 21, 2020, from http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/20909/1/Unit-2.pdf
Farahian, M. (2015). Assessing EFL Learners’ Writing Metacognitive Awareness.
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(2), 39-51.
Farahian, M., & Avarzamani, F. (2018). Metacognitive Awareness of Skilled and less-skilled EFL Writers. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 3(10), 1-17.
Fatsah, H. (2020). The Students' Writing Difficulties in Writing an Essay Based on Cognitive Process. Lingua, 16(1), 61-69.
Fisher, R. (1998). Thinking about Thinking: Developing Metacognition in Children. Early Child Development and Care, 141, 1-15.
Fitriani, F., Nur, R. H., Bustamin, B., Ali, S.,M., Nurisman, N.(2019). Improving Students' Descriptive Text Writing by Using Writing in the Here and Now Strategy at the Tenth Grade Students of Vocational High School.
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Studies, 1(6),632- 636
Hyland, Ken. (2015). Teaching and Researching Writing. London: Routledge.
Jaleel, S. Premachandran, P. (2016). A Study on the Metacognitive Awareness of Secondary School Students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 165-172.
Lai, C.L., & Hwang, G.J. (2016). A Self-regulated Flipped Classroom Approach to Improving Students' Learning Performance in a Mathematics Course.
Computers & Education, 100, 126–140.
Limpo, T, Alves, R. A. (2018). Effects of planning strategies on writing dynamics and final texts. Acta Psychologica, 188, 97-109.
Medina, M. S., Castleberry, A. N., & Persky, A. M. (2017). Strategies for Improving Learner Metacognition in Health Professional Education.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(4), 1-14.
Ministry of Education (2008). The Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). Retrieved on November 30, 2020, from
http://academic.obec.go.th/web/doc/d/147
Mohite, M. (2014). An Investigation into the English Language Writing Strategies Used by Polish EFL Secondary School Learners. London: British Council ELT Master’s Dissertation Awards: Commendation.
Moqbali, I.S.I., Humaidi, S. A., & Hilal, M.A. (2020). Metacognitive Writing Strategies Used by Omani Grade Twelve Students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(8), 214-232.
Oxford, Rebecca. (2017). Teaching and Researching Language Learning
Strategies: Self-Regulation in Context. 2nd ed. London: Taylor & Francis.
Roebers, C. M., & Feurer, E. (2016). Linking Executive Functions and Procedural Metacognition. Child Development Perspectives, 10(1), 39-44.
Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The Flipped Classroom: An Opportunity to Engage Millennial Students through Active Learning.
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44–49.
Sawangsamutchai, Y. Rattanavich, S. (2016). A Comparison of Seventh Grade Thai Students’ Reading Comprehension and Motivation to Read English through Applied Instruction Based on the Genre-Based Approach and the Teacher’s Manual. English Language Teaching, 9(4), 54-63.
Setiyadi, B. (2016). Language Learning Strategy Questionnaire (LLSQ) A Measurement to Identify Students’ Learning Strategies and Prepare the Success of Learning English in the Indonesian Context (Empirical Evidence). Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Sukarni, S. (2018). Language Learning Strategies Used By Senior and Vocational High School Students and Its Implications for Practice in ELT. ELTiC Conference, 3(1), 1-8.
Sundayana, W. (2016). Pedoman Guru Bahasa Inggris SMA.
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0801.24.
http://file.upi.edu/Direktori/FPBS/JUR._PEND._BAHASA_INGGRIS/19 5802081986011.
Wang, Z., & Han, F. (2017). Metacognitive Knowledge and Metacognitive Control of Writing Strategy between High- and Low-performing Chinese EFL Writers.Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(7), 523-532.
Weir, C. J. (2005). Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-based Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
29
Yang, L. (2016). Languaging in Story Rewriting Tasks by Chinese EFL Students.
Language Awareness 25 (3): 241–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1197230
Yunardi. (2014). Sistem Pendidikan di Thailand. Kantor Atase Pendidikan, Kedutaan Besar Republik Indonesia (KBRI) Bangkok.
Zhang, L.J., & Qin, T. L. (2018). Validating a Questionnaire on EFL Writers’
Metacognitive Awareness of Writing Strategies in Multimedia
Environments. New York: Routledge Studies in Applied Linguistics.
