THE EFFECTIVENESS OF JOINT CONSTRUCTION AND INDIVIDUAL CONSTRUCTION ON THE STUDENT WRITING ABILITY AT ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF ISLAM MALANG
THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF JOINT CONSTRUCTION AND INDIVIDUAL CONSTRUCTION ON THE STUDENT
WRITING ABILITY AT ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF ISLAM MALANG
Danafi
English
Education, Faculty Teacher Training and Education,
University
Islam of Malang
Jl. MT. Haryono
193 Malang, 65144
Abstract: This article aims to know the
effectiveness of join construction and individual construction on student
writing ability. Implementation of this technique was to know the performance
of students writing before and after giving teaching technique of join and
individual construction. They include mechanical, vocabulary, organization,
content, and language use. The design of the study was quasi-experimental,
non-randomized, pretest-posttest control group design. The subject of the
research was student semester 3 of UNISMA. It consists of 37 students. There
were two class in this research, control class and experimental class. The
control class was taught by individual construction while the experimental
class was taught by join construction. The instrument of the research study was
test. The stages in the research covered to test before treatment (Pre-Test),
treatment, and test after test (Post-Test). To analyze the score of student
used statistics. The computation score of the student used ANCOVA computation
with the significance level of 0.013. The research found that the mean of
experimental class was 78.015 while the control class was
75.445. It means that the students taught by using join construction in writing
are better than students taught by using individual construction.
Key
Words: join construction, individual construction, and writing ability
INTRODUCTION
Learning English need to pay attention in some skills which build
English ability of the students well. One of them is writing ability. This
skill is categorized as a productive skill (Harmer, 2004 p. 270-275). Writing
is categorized as productive skill because a writer generates an idea and
translates it into a readable text (Richards and Renandya, 2002, p. 303).
To master in the writing language, a writer is not only thinking about
the grammatical rules which is discussed, but also how the writer can
communicate their thoughts in the writing forms (Laksmi, 2006). Laksmi’s
statement means that the understanding in the written language is important
owned by a writer because writing skill also includes in the communicating
skill.
According to Lopes (2009), the writing the students could not be afraid
to make or avoid the mistake. Concentrating in the contents of writing is more
important in order to the students write the text well and clearly. By guiding
teacher in the teaching process is also needed by students. Lopes also said
that teacher should help the students develop a different attitude toward
writing by encouraging them to concentrate on thinking of contents and on
expressing their thought clearly, rather than concentrating on avoiding
mistakes.
In the teaching writing, in order to several of Indonesian students
write the written language well, the teacher should give the approaches that
are needed for students because without using the appropriate approaches the
students often get problem in the getting ideas, choosing the right words, and
organizing the details in their written (Laksmi, 2006). Therefore, the teacher
should have approaches which have several stages. As Flower and Hayes (1980 in
Beard, 1984) suggest that the stages include prewriting, drafting, revising,
editing, and publishing. Also in Britton (1994) in Tompkins (1970) suggests
that the stages of writing cover conception, incubation, and production.
Although the teaching writing aims to make students can communicate via
written language, however, in the reality of teaching writing is more dominant
in the grammatical rules and vocabulary. It can be seen in the survey of
Alwasilah (2000). Alwasilah (2000) reports that in Indonesian teaching writing
only dominant in the grammatical and vocabulary issue and less in the content
of the text. Thus, the students problematize to construct the text clearly.
To make the students understand in the constructing writing, the
researcher conducts the study aims to know the effectiveness of constructing
the writing ability which uses two technique, those are join construction and
individual construction in English department of University of Islam Malang.
Join construction includes in the collaborative writing because the students
have a small group or in pair then they have to discuss the topic and construct
the topic into good text (Dobao, 2012).
In
the join construction sure that in the process of constructing text will be
there any discussing about the language and correcting themselves or others
about text (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, p.
326). The students can elaborate correct the grammatical into the right
written. Meanwhile the individual construction is letting the students
construct the text their own self.
According to Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development in State of Victoria (2008), “join construction supports
the students to understand the purposes and audience impact on language
choices.” It is clear that the join construction help the students to know
their goal in their writing task and make the reader understand about their
language terms.
As
in Storch (2005), “the use of small group/pair works
in writing classes seems quite limited. I tends to be limited to the beginning
stages (brainstorming), or more commonly, to the last stages of writing—the
peer review stage.” It indicates that the activity in the small group/pairs has
limited time in the beginning, brainstorming or final section or in the review
step. It is caused the activity only focus on the process of the writing task.
In the Dobao (2008) also said that, “both
studies pairs were assigned more time to complete the task than individual
learners.” it can be drawn the conclusion that the limitation of join
construction spent more time to construct the writing tasks. So, the teacher
less involve the activity of writing process.
Dobao (2012) found that two studies both of pairs and individual
written task are same in terms of fluency and complexity. However, in pairs or
join construction have more accurate in the written ability than individually.
Eisenhower and Ettinger (2009) have also found there are many advantages in the
collaborative learning for the student and also the teacher. Working groups
emulate workplace models in which participants solve problems by committee.
Automatically, the opinions of two experts have been clear to explain that both
join construction and individual construction is suggested to implement in the
university students.
Based on the researcher’s
experience in University Islam of Malang found that there were some instructors
differences in the constructing written, those are organizing the written,
grammatical and structural the written, and improvement the content of the
written. There was an instructor always focus on the organizing the written and
for the grammatical and structural of the written that instructor wasn’t too
discussed.
Therefore, to know the effect of the join construction and
individual construction the researcher conducts the study that entitled ‘The
Effectiveness of Join Construction and Individual Construction on Writing
Ability of The Students First Semester at The English Department of University
of Islam Malang.
METHODE
This study is experimental research. Experimental
research is a scientific investigation in which an investigator manipulates and
controls one or more independent variables and observes the dependent variable
or variables for variation concomitant to the manipulation of the independent
variables (Ary, Donald, et al, 1979). This research is quasi-experimental,
non-randomized, pretest-posttest control group design because condition of the
classes cannot be reorganized or disrupted to conduct research study.
Therefore, researcher uses the classes that have already been organized into
classes (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002).
Based on Ary, Jacobs, & Razaviech (1979), stated that all
members of any well-defined class of people are called population. The
populations that will be observed in this research are UNISMA’s students in
academic year 2017-2018, exactly in English Department. There are 5 classes of
writing class of 3rd semester with the population about 125 students
and each of class consists of 20 students. The researcher chooses two classes
randomly with lottery and the researcher get class C and D. In the class 3C
consists of about 15 students and in the class 3D there are 22 students.
The instrument which is used in this study research
is a test. Based on the Ary, Jacobs, & Razaviech (1979) note that a test is
a set of stimuli presented to an individual in order to elicit responses on the
basis of which a numerical score can be assigned. The students are tested in a
prompts composition test that is given before treatment (pre-test). In the
pre-test, the students in the two classes do same tasks about procedure text
but difference in time. After conducting pre-test in two classes, researcher
does the treatments of join and individual construction but treatment is conducted
only in the class D which as experimental class. Meanwhile in the class C which
as control class, there is no treatment from researcher. After the treatment
have finished, researcher conducts test after treatment (post test). All of
students in two classes are tested. The allotted time in this test is 90
minutes for the join construction group and also 90 minutes for the
individuals. The students are asked to construct the procedure text.
To take the data
of the research, the researcher conducts pre-testing to ensure the test both of
groups is same. As Rahayu L. N. (2014) cited in the Lodio et al. (2010) notes
that “a pre-test measures whether the experimental and control groups are starting
out equal”. Pre-testing is checking the ability of the students both of two
classes of join or individual construction. In this research, both of class C
as individual construction and D as join construction are given 60 minutes to
construct the written. The students of class C and D construct the written
individually. The type of text in class join and individual constructions are
same, that is making procedure text. In the pre-test both of class C and D, the
researcher only once in conduct pre-test.
In this step is very important. The researcher
gives two treatments which are different. First, in the class D as join
construction is given to the experimental class and the second, the individual
construction is given to class C as control group. The meeting in this research
is done in once meeting, only in the class join construction.
The final step
to take the data collection is Post-testing. In the post-test process, both of
classes join and individual constructions are taken the last scores. The text
that will be made by students is procedure text. The time allotment which is
provided to the students is 60 minutes each of class.
FINDINGS
In the conducting ANCOVA, the researcher
has to know the assumption of ANCOVA first. There are three assumptions before
conducting ANCOVA those are linearity, homogeneity of variances, and
homogeneity of regression slopes.
Table 1 Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
|
|||
Dependent Variable:
Posttest
|
|||
F
|
df1
|
df2
|
Sig.
|
2.581
|
1
|
35
|
.117
|
Tests the null hypothesis
that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.
|
|||
a. Design: Intercept +
Pretest + Class
|
|||
Table 1 shows the Levene's Test of Equality of
Error. The levene’s test is the method to check whether equality of variance is violated or not. The assumption
of quality of variance is if significance value more than 0.05 the variance
is homogenous, and if smaller than 0.05 is not homogenous or violated,
(Pallant, 2000). Based on table 4.1 the researcher assumes that the value of
significance is Sig. 0.117, it
indicates that the assumption of quality of variance is met or not violated.
Table 2 Tests of
Between-Subjects Effects
|
||||||
Dependent Variable:
Posttest
|
||||||
Source
|
Type III Sum of Squares
|
Df
|
Mean Square
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
Corrected Model
|
364.392a
|
3
|
121.464
|
14.545
|
.000
|
|
Intercept
|
57.880
|
1
|
57.880
|
6.931
|
.013
|
|
Class
|
.724
|
1
|
.724
|
.087
|
.770
|
|
Pretest
|
219.545
|
1
|
219.545
|
26.290
|
.000
|
|
Class * Pretest
|
.226
|
1
|
.226
|
.027
|
.870
|
|
Error
|
275.581
|
33
|
8.351
|
|||
Total
|
219859.000
|
37
|
||||
Corrected Total
|
639.973
|
36
|
||||
a. R Squared = .569
(Adjusted R Squared = .530)
|
||||||
Table 2 shows that
the interaction term (Class*pretest) is more than 0.05. The significance value
in that table show 0.870, it is able to be concluded that interaction between
covariate variable and dependents variable or treatment is statically
significant. After knowing the assumption of significance value, the ANCOVA
computation will explore the differences between Independent variables.
Homogeneity of
regression slopes is testing the interaction between covariate variable and
independent variable to predict the dependent variable or treatment. In the
interaction between covariate variable and independent variable to predict
treatment, there is assumption that if significance level is smaller than 0.05
or equal to 0.05, it indicates that the significant or violated. Thus, ANCOVA
computation cannot be proceeded. Accordance to the Table 4.2 the significance
level of Class*Pretest is 0.870 or
in other word is more than 0.05. It indicates that the significance level is
not violated or computation of ANCOVA is able to be proceeded.
In
the table below provides the data analysis of significance value. The
significance value in the data analysis is 0.13. It means that the significance
level is less than 0.05. Thus, the experimental class and control class is
significantly different and the null hypothesis saying that the teaching
writing by using technique join construction and individual construction are
equal should not be accepted.
Table 3 One way Analysis of Covariance
|
||||||
Dependent Variable: Posttest
|
||||||
Source
|
Type III Sum of Squares
|
Df
|
Mean Square
|
F
|
Sig.
|
Partial Eta Squared
|
Corrected Model
|
364.166a
|
2
|
182.083
|
22.446
|
.000
|
.569
|
Intercept
|
65.790
|
1
|
65.790
|
8.110
|
.007
|
.193
|
Pretest
|
237.626
|
1
|
237.626
|
29.293
|
.000
|
.463
|
Class
|
55.929
|
1
|
55.929
|
6.895
|
.013
|
.169
|
Error
|
275.807
|
34
|
8.112
|
|||
Total
|
219859.000
|
37
|
||||
Corrected Total
|
639.973
|
36
|
||||
a. R Squared = .569
(Adjusted R Squared = .544)
|
||||||
Table
4 Estimated Marginal Means
|
||||
Dependent Variable: Posttest
|
||||
Class
|
Mean
|
Std. Error
|
95% Confidence Interval
|
|
Lower Bound
|
Upper Bound
|
|||
join construction
|
78.015a
|
.614
|
76.768
|
79.262
|
individual construction
|
75.445a
|
.747
|
73.926
|
76.963
|
a. Covariates appearing in
the model are evaluated at the following values: Pretest = 74.22.
|
||||
In
the table 4 reported differences adjusted means for two classes. For the
Estimated Marginal Means of join construction or experimental group is 78.015
and individual construction or control group is 75.445. According to the
Estimated Marginal Means above, students who get join construction have better
than individual construction in writing ability is accepted. As conclusion,
technique of join construction can enhance writing ability of students.
Discussion
In
this past, the researcher discussed the information about research findings. In
the finding of research, the research divided into two points of view; in
practical and statistical view. In the statistical view, researcher found the
significant effect of students who are taught by using join construction than individual
construction. It was proven by scores of mean join construction as experimental
class was 78.015 and individual construction as control group was 75.445. it
means that the students who taught by join construction have better in writing
ability than individual construction.
In
the join construction, the researcher believes that the technique join
construction is appropriate for constructing writing, in this case constructing
procedure text. By using that approach, the students is more clear in the arranging
the component of the written, such as mechanical, language use, vocabulary,
organization, and content because the student who do not understand about
material will be more understand when they are taught by join construction
approaches. According to Lara (2013) wrote that writing is not an isolated
activity, but collaborative one that also promotes self-reflection about one’s
own errors through listening to different opinions.
Many
of join construction begin to decide the material or genre to be taught. The
researcher gave procedure text that become material to be taught. Asking the
question about definition is the first activities to recall or build knowledge
of the student about the procedure text. They could mention the definition of
the text by differences explanation. Not just the definition about procedure
text, general structure of the text, and language use was also discussed in the
first activities of the class.
In
the join construction there are two ways to be applied; those are the teacher
can write together with the student, while the teacher acts as writer in front
of classroom and the student may write in a group (Emilia, 2010). In this research the researcher applies to
first ways; the researcher acts as writer. While the treatment use join
construction or collaborative learning, the researcher found interaction among
the students such as sharing opinions about definition, language use, and
general structure, etc. that interaction can impact the learners’ cognitive
processes (such as sharing the opinion about structure text with other students
etc). Thus, the finding of the research showed that join construction have
impact to the cognitive processes of the student.
In
the last activities the researcher asks the student to summarize about
discussion about procedure text enthusiastically. When the student could not
mention the structure of the text, researcher gives the clues to ease them
mention it.
This
strategy will be more effective if the participant or the student can
participate in the teaching learning process. As the facilitator, the teacher
should be able to create the attracting atmosphere so that the student comfort
with the learning writing.
REFERENCE
Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. 2006. From Local to Global:
Reinventing Local Literature Through English Writing Classes. Universitas
Pendidikan Indonesia. Bandung
Beard, R. 1984. Children
s Writing in the Primary School. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
2008. State of Victoria
Dobao, Ana Fernandez. 2012. Collaborative
Writing Tasks In
The L2 Classroom: Comparing Group, Pair, And Individual Work. University
of Washington. United States
Emi, Emilia. 2010. Teaching Writing. Rizqi Press. Bandung
Harmer,
Jeremy. 2004. How to Teach Writing. Pearson Education ESL. England
Laksmi, E. Dewanti. 2006. Scaffolding Students Writing in
Efl Class: Implementing Process Approach. Universitas Negeri Malang. Malang
Rahayu, N. R. Lutin, 2014. The
Effect of Pair and Individual Writing Tasks on the Quality of Writing by Efl
Learners of STKIP PGRI Blitar. Unpublished. Islamic University of Malang.
Richard, J. C. and Renandya, W. A. (2002. Methodology in Language
Teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction
and second language
learning: Two adolescent French immersion
students working together.
The Modern Language Journal, 82,
320–337.
Tompkins, G. E. 1994.
Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Malang, 10 February 2018
M.
Yunus, S.Pd, M.Pd
NPP:
209.02.000.02
Comments
Post a Comment