THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PEER-ASSESSMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK TOWARDS STUDENTS WRITING SKILL IN NARRATIVE TEXT

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PEER-ASSESSMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK TOWARDS STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL IN NARRATIVE TEXT (A Quasi-experimental Study at Tenth Grade Students of Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education) A Skripsi

By: Aziz Awaludin 1110014000067

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS’ TRAINING SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY JAKARTA 2015

ABSTRACT Aziz Awaludin (1110014000067). The Effectiveness of Peer-assessment through Facebook towards Students’ Writing Narrative Text (A Quasiexperimental Study at the Tenth Grade Students of Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education, South Tangerang). Skripsi of Department of English Education at Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training of State Islamic Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta University, 2015. Advisor I : Siti Nurul Azkiyah, Ph.D. Advisor II: Atik Yuliyani, MA TESOL.

The objective of this research is to examine the effectiveness of using “peerassessment” method through “Facebook” media in improving students’ skill in writing narrative text. Method of the study which is used in this research is a quantitative method, i.e. a quasi-experimental study. Samples of this research are the tenth grade students of Kharisma Bangsa in South Tangerang. They are class 10 E (standard level) as the controlled class and class 10 CD (standard level) as the experimental class. Each class consists of 20 students. For sampling technique, the researcher uses convenience sampling as a part of nonprobability sampling. Instrument of this research is a written test. To attain the reliability of the test instrument, the researcher used rubric for scoring, namely an analytic scoring to score the students’ writing on the pre-test and the post-test. Result of this research is that the students’ pre-test mean score (x) of the experimental class is 44 and the students’ post-test mean score (x) is 71.25. On the other hand, the students’ pre-test mean score (x) of the controlled class is 49.25 and the post-test mean score (x) is 79.75. Implementation of peer-assessment through Facebook is not an effective way for improving the students’ writing narrative text because the experimental students’ scores are not better than that of the controlled one. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is rejected. Finding of statistical hypothesis test shows that sig. (2-tailed) value of the prost-test score is bigger than α value, 0.92 > 0.05, so, the H0 (null hypothesis) of the study is accepted. Keywords: Peer-assessment, Facebook, Writing, Narrative Text.

I

ABSTRAK Aziz Awaludin (1110014000067). The Effectiveness of Peer-assessment through Facebook towards Students’ Writing Narrative Text (A Quasiexperimental Study at the Tenth Grade Students of Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education, South Tangerang). Skripsi Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Ilmu Keguruan Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2015. Pembimbing I : Siti Nurul Azkiyah, Ph.D. Pembimbing II: Atik Yuliyani, MA TESOL.

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menguji efektivitas penggunaan metode “peerassessment” melalui media “Facebook” dalam meningkatkan keterampilan menulis siswa unutk writing teks naratif. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah riset quantitatif, yaitu studi eksperimen semu. Sampel dari penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas sepuluh sekolah Kharisma Bangsa di Tangerang Selatan. Mereka adalah kelas 10 E (standard level) sebagai kelas control dan kelas 10 CD (standard level) sebagai kelas eksperimen. Setiap kelas terdiri dari 20 siswa. Untuk teknik penentuan sampel, Peneliti menggunakan “convenience sampling” sebagai bagian dari “nonprobability sampling”. Instrumen penelitiannya adalah tes tertulis. Untuk mendapatkan reliabilitas instrumen, Peneliti menggunakan rubrik untuk penilaian, yaitu penilaian analitis yang dipakai untuk menilai tulisan siswa baik dari pre-test maupun post-test. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa nilai rata-rata (x) siswa kelas eksperimen dari pre-test adalah 44, sedangkan nilai rata-rata (x) dari post-test adalah 71,25. Di sisi lain, nilai ratarata (x) siswa kelas kontrol dari pre-test adalah 49,25, sedangkan nilai rata-rata (x) dari post-test adalah 79,75. Penerapan peer-assessment melalui Facebook bukanlah cara yang efektif untuk meningkatkan skor tulisan siswa dalam menulis teks naratif. Maka dari itu hipotesis alternatif ditolak. Penemuan dari uji hipotesis secara statistik menunjukkan nilai sig. (2-tailed) nilai prost-test lebih besar dari nilai α, 0,92 > 0,05, jadi, H0 (hipotesis nihil) dari penelitian ini diterima. Kata kunci: Peer-assessment, Facebook, Writing, Narrative Text.

II

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds and the King of all kings, who has given all creatures blessings and mercies and beautified this pleasant life with knowledge humans search for. Salawat and salam may be addressed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who brought conception from God to enlighten this world. It is really a happiness and pride that the researcher is able to complete this final assignment, skripsi, under the title “The Effectiveness of Implementing Peerassessment through Facebook in Teaching Writing Narrative Text”. The researcher presents this work for Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers Training and, therefore, he gets bachelor of art degree in English education. However, this skripsi is nothing without the help of some other people. Therefore, here the researcher is very thankful to the following figures who contributed very much in finishing this work: 1. H. Sukra and Setiawati, parents of the researcher who fully supports him all this time. 2. All lectures of department of English education who taught the researcher with plenty of precious knowledge and experience. 3. Siti Nurul Azkiyah, Ph.D. and Atik Yuliyani, MA TESOL, the two advisors who patiently guided the researcher in completion of skripsi from the beginning to the end. 4. Dr. Fahriany, M.Pd. and Dadan Nugraha, M.Pd., the examineers who correct this work to make it better. 5. Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., the researcher’s academic advisor who always gives advises and motivation along his undergraduate program.

VI

6. Sutirto, S.Si., M.T., a headmaster of SMA Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education who warmly welcomed the researcher to conduct the study in the school. 7. Isti Subandini, S.Pd., an English teacher of tenth grade students at SMA Kharisma Bangsa who had given suggestions and criticisms for the study and the instructions. 8. All students of class 10 CD and 10 E of Kharisma Bangsa who voluntarily participated in this study. 9. Drs. Syauki, M.Pd., a chief of department of English education. 10. Prof. Dr. Ahmad Thib Raya, MA., a head of Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training. 11. Dian Rahmawati, a partner in every business, who is loyally be there— whenever the researcher is in need. 12. All friends of PBI B 2010. Especially, Lia, Arof, Wahyu, Ari, Abdul, Dea, Windy, and Indri who motivate and contribute their ideas and experience in enriching this research. 13. All family members of the researcher. In special, Aditya Setiawan and Faiz Riyadi, younger brothers of him who always give much inspiration. 14. All members of Dershane Ciputat with whom the researcher stay. More specially, Fery Küçük, Takdir, Tarekh, Ikhwan, Ade, and Fery Büyük who always support and motivate him. 15. Everyone who directly and indirectly had contributed to the study. Finally, the researcher realizes that this study is far from a word “perfect”. Therefore, he is open for suggestion and criticism for the better of this study in the future. Jakarta, March 16th, 2015 The Researcher

VII

TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT…..................................................................................................

I

ABSTRAK…....................................................................................................

II

LETTER OF APPROVAL.............................................................................

III

ENDORSEMENT SHEET.............................................................................

IV

LETTER OF AUTHENTICITY...................................................................

V

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.................................................................................

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS…............................................................................. VIII LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................

XI

LIST OF FIGURES…....................................................................................

XII

LIST OF APPENDICES.................................................................................

XIII

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION...................................................................

1

A. Background of the Study.................................................................. 1 B. Identification of the Problem...........................................................

4

C. Limitation of the Problem................................................................

4

D. Formulation of the Problem.............................................................

5

E. Objective of the Research................................................................

5

F. Significance of the Research...........................................................

5

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.......................................

7

A. Peer-assessment...............................................................................

7

1. Understanding of Peer-assessment.............................................

6

2. Advantages of Peer-assessment…….......................................... 8 3. Disadvantages of Peer-assessment…….....................................

8

B. Writing.............................................................................................

9

C. Narrative Text..................................................................................

10

1. Understanding of Narrative Text...............................................

10

2. Generic structure of Narrative text............................................. 11 3. Linguistic Features of Narrative Text........................................

12

D. Facebook..........................................................................................

12

VIII

E. Previous Studies...............................................................................

13

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................ 16 A. Research Design..............................................................................

16

B. Time and Location of the Research.................................................

17

C. Population and Sample..................................................................... 17 D. Instrument of the Research…..........................................................

18

Test of Validity and Reliability of the Instrument………………..

18

E. Technique of Data Collection..........................................................

22

F. Content of the Intervention.............................................................

22

G. Technique of Data Analysis.............................................................

24

1. Normality Test………………………………….……………..

24

2. Homogeneity Test……………………………….…………….

25

3. Hypothesis Test………………………………….……………. 25 H. Statistical Hypothesis……………………………….……………..

26

CHAPTER IV: FINDING AND DISCUSSION............................................

28

A. Description of Data........................................................................

28

1. Experimental Class...................................................................

29

2. Controlled Class..………….....................................................

30

B. Test of the Hypothesis.....................................................................

31

1. Preliminary Analysis.................................................................

31

a. Normality............................................................................

31

b. Homogeneity......................................................................

32

2. Result of T-test.........................................................................

32

a. T-test of Pre-test Scores.......................................................

33

b. T-test of Post-test Scores.....................................................

34

c. Gained scores of Experimental and Controlled Class…….

36

d. T-test of the Gained Scores..................................................

37

C. Discussion…………….……...........................................................

38

IX

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION.....................................

42

A. Conclusion……..............................................................................

42

B. Suggestion………………………....................................................

43

REFERENCES...............................................................................................

X

45

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. : Scoring Rubric for Narrative Writing……..……………………..

20

Table 4.1. : Score of Pre- and Post-test of Experimental and Controlled Class

27

Table 4.2. : The Result of Normality Test of the Pre-test…………………….

30

Table 4.3. : Test of Homogeneity of Variance……………………………….

31

Table 4.4. : Result of T-test of Pre-Test………………………………............

32

Table 4.5. : Result of T-test of Post-Test…..…………………….……............

33

Table 4.6. : Gained Scores……………………….............................................

35

Table 4.7. : T-test of the Gained Scores…..…………………...………............

36

XI

LIST OF FIGURE Figure 3.1.

: Nonequivalent Design……..………………...…………..

XII

16

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1

: Instrument of the Research; Pre- & Post-test…………

47

APPENDIX 2

: Eliciting a Valid Sample of Writing Ability………….

48

APPENDIX 3

: Student’s Rubric..…………………………………….

49

APPENDIX 4

: Pre- & Post-test Scores of the Experimental Class…..:

50

APPENDIX 5

: Pre- & Post-test Scores of the Controlled Class……..

51

APPENDIX 6

: Gained Scores of the Experimental Class…………….

52

APPENDIX 7

: Gained Scores of the Controlled Class……………….

53

APPENDIX 8

: Lesson Plan 1 (Control)………………………............

54

APPENDIX 9

: Lesson Plan 1 (Experiment)…..………………............

60

APPENDIX 10

: Lesson Plan 2 (Control)………………………............

66

APPENDIX 11

: Lesson Plan 2 (Experiment)…..………………............

73

APPENDIX 12

: Lesson Plan 3 (Control)………………………............

80

APPENDIX 13

: Lesson Plan 3 (Experiment)…..………………............

85

APPENDIX 14

: Overview of Facebook Group………..………............

91

APPENDIX 15

: Pre-treatment Observation Sheet……..………............

92

APPENDIX 16

: Post-treatment Observation Sheet…....………............

93

APPENDIX 17

: Sample of Student’s Work in Pre-test (Experiment)..... 94

APPENDIX 18

: Sample of Student’s Work Pre-test (Control)…...........

95

APPENDIX 19

: Sample of Student’s Work in Post-test (Experiment)...

96

APPENDIX 20

: Sample of Student’s Work Post-test (Control)….......... 97

APPENDIX 21

: Surat Keterangan Penelitian…..………………............

98

APPENDIX 22

: The Researcher’s Biography....………………............

99

XIII

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study Discussing about teaching writing skill, many questions may appear. For example: what the effective way to teach writing is, whether students could master writing with limited time provided, whether writing is as important as other skills due to it is not tested in the National Examination. Those questions can emerge and may be quite hard to answer. Writing as the last productive skill is considered as the most difficult skill to be mastered by EFL students. Their difficulties are not only because they must generate and organize ideas, but also they have to turn the ideas into the target language. Richards said that the students are considered to acquire some complicated skills in which they have to concern to higher level skills of planning and organizing. Also they must pay attention to lower level skills of spelling, punctuation, word choice, and so forth.1 In this part, the writer attempts to point out some possible causes that explain students‟ problems. First, concerning teaching method, most of EFL teachers still implement teachers‟ performance (teachers-centered situation) which is contradictive with what is demanded by the curriculum. For this Carolyn Kessler stated that “the role of teacher in traditional classroom is basically that of instructor and knowledge transmitter. Thus, the teaching approach in class is mainly lecture-based with teacher-centered transmissive models”.2 Because of this, classroom activities give fewer opportunities for student in participating and ignore the learners‟ potentials and resources. It becomes a problem because it is contradictive with the process of learning in Kurrikulum 2013 (character-based curriculum). On the other hand, the process of learning

1

Jack C. Richards, Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 3. 2 Carolyn Kessler (Ed), Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource Book, (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992), p. 5.

1

2

that is centered on the students is activities encouraging student enthusiasm and desire. Kurrikulum 2013 is aimed to encourage students-centered situation in which they are able to learn independently. Holec defines learner autonomy as “the ability to take charge of one‟s own learning”. In addition, in KD (standard competency) 4.1 of English subject it is also said that, “Menyusun teks lisan dan tulis sederhana, untuk memaparkan, menanyakan, dan merespon cerita naratif, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan, secara benar dan sesuai dengan konteks”3 which means students are considered to be able to create a simple text both orally or writtenly to expalin, question, and respond narrative story, considering social function, text structure, and language feature correctly and based on context. Furthermore, concerning teaching time, teachers have very limited time to cover their very large materials with huge number of students in a class. Based on observation conducted by the writer at several schools around Tangerang Selatan, there are only two meetings in a week and they have only 90 minutes (per meeting) for an English class. It is not enough to cover the four skills of English which have so many materials to teach. Besides, writing is a process that takes time. To create a good writing work is not an easy way. Before completing a final draft, a writer should pass some procedures, such as: pre-writing, outlining, developing outline, proofreading, revising, and final drafting (writing process).4 It can be imagined, how hard teachers‟ task in designing a good lesson plan is. They must have a trick to make teaching and learning activities run well. Based on the statements above, the writer believes that an appropriate method may help teacher in teaching writing and improves student achievement in writing. There are many strategies that can be used in teaching and learning writing. One of those methods is peer-assessment in which students are actively involved in the process of teaching and learning 3

Kurikulum Berbasis Karakter, (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Budaya Republik Indonesia, 2013). 4 Purdue Owl, The Writing Process, 2015, (https://owl.english.purdue.edu).

3

to assess each other. Peer-assessment is an assessment of students that is done by their friends, and it can be used for both formative reviews to facilitate feedback and cumulative scoring.5 Peer-assessment as a method of writing can enhance autonomous learning. Even though Kroll argues that teaching writing skill with implementing written comment—like a process of peerassessment—is commonly not effective6, peer-assessment, according to Falchikov, becomes a center of attention in recent years due to the rising focus on learner autonomy in learning and assessment.7 Thus, teachers at schools begin to use peer-assessment as one activity done by students. Furthermore, peer-assessment used in this study is not a method that is traditionally implemented at classrooms. As what is stated above, writing has several processes that consume much time to do, so the writer used another way of using peer-assessment. The writer used Facebook as a medium of teaching that facilitates the method. This idea inspired by a study, The Effect of Using Facebook to Assist English for Business Communication Course Instruction, conducted by Ru-Chu Shih.8 The use of this virtual media can make teaching writing more effective, because teachers do not need to use his teaching time for conducting peer-assessment. Through Facebook students can simply assess their friends‟ works outside classrooms so that teachers are able to use their teaching time for other things. Then, after the assessment the students know errors of their writings, so they can revise them—as one of the writing procedures. In addition, there is no doubt that Facebook is one of the most popular social media used by millions of people. There are more than 500 million 5

Wenjie Qu & Shuyi Yang, A Peer and Self-assessment Project Implemented in Practical Group Work, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2010, p. 776. 6 Kroll Barbara, Second Language Writing, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 60-61. 7 Elena Meletiadou, The Impact of Training Adolescent EFL Learners on Their Perceptions of Peer-assessment of Writing, Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2012, p. 241. 8 Ru-Chu Shih, The Effect of Using Facebook to Assist English for Business Communication Course Instruction, TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, January 2013, volume 12 Issue 1.

4

people all around the world and more than 50 million Indonesian people actively use Facebook to communicate, interact, and socialize with others directly and indirectly9. Thus, the writer sees that the campaign of “positive Internet” to school ages is crucial. Therefore, through this study the writer hopes that students realize to use Facebook, and other social media as well, effectively and efficiently in wise way, not only to „play‟ and get amusement, but also to get knowledge and other useful information for their studies. Therefore, the model of instruction in which face to face and virtual teaching were conducted in this study is called blended learning. Blended learning is kind of learning that combines face-to-face learning and electronic learning. The writer expects implementing peer-assessment through Facebook as one type of blended learning can complete the limited teaching time owned by teachers and encourage students‟ autonomous learning. Hopefully, this instruction model can be a trend for education practitioners in encouraging students‟ independent learning to improve their achievements in writing.

B. Identification of the Problem The writer views that the factors which cause problems in writing narrative text lie on three things: teaching method, media of instruction, and limited time of instruction. Based on the background explained, here are the problems listed: 1. Students‟ low achievement in writing narrative text. 2. Traditional teaching method which focuses only on teacher‟s performance is not effective to encourage students‟ autonomous learning demanded by the curriculum. 3. Time for teaching is limited and is considered not enough to effectively cover all procedures of good writing. 4. Students are not really interested and feel bored in writing because it needs long process, imagination, ideas, skill, and hard work.

9

Ibid., p. 33.

5

C. Limitation of the Problem The focus of this study is on the implementation of method in teaching, i.e. peer-assessment. The media Facebook is used only to facilitate the implementation of pee-assessment. In addition, this study is also limited to the result or achievement of students‟ writing, not on the process of teaching or writing. Therefore, the success of the study is viewed based on students‟ marks of their writing.

D. Formulation of the Problem The problem is formulated based on a question: “Is peer-assessment through Facebook effective towards students‟ writing skill in narrative text?”

E. Objective of the Research This study is aimed to examine whether the implementation of peerassessment through Facebook is effective to improve students‟ achievements in writing narrative text to students. The writer wants to analyze cause and effect between independent variable, peer-assessment through Facebook, and dependent variable, students’ writing skill in narrative text.

F. Significance of the Research This study presents practical method of peer-assessment through blended learning to be useful for education practitioners and as a contribution to the literature about autonomous learning. In addition, the writer expects that the study is specifically advantageous for: 1. the writer as a student-teacher/future teacher, in the way that the study completes all requirements in getting bachelor degree in English education, 2. other future teachers (students of English education department), in helping them to conduct the similar study, 3. English teachers, in helping them determine what method they use, and

6

4. students of high school level, in helping them how to conduct peerassessment through Facebook.

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK A. Peer-assessment 1. Understanding of Peer-assessment Peer-assessment is an assessment of students‟ works given by other students. The assessment is used for both formative evaluations to provide feedback and summative grading.1 Students‟ attention is therefore focused on those course goals which appear to be assessed over others which are not. In other words, in doing this kind of assessment the students are able to take benefit from the given feedback, so they can correct or improve their work. According to McDowell, peer-assessment is one method of novelty which aims to improve the quality of learning and empower students in contrast to more traditional methods which can make students feeling disconnected from the complete assessment practice.2 Brindley and Scoffield argue that peer-assessment also encourages independent learning, thoughtful learning and less dependence on the teacher as the only resource at classroom.3 It helps students to become more autonomous learners, better able to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their own work; it enables assessment to become part of the learning process rather than an adjunct to it; Involving students in the assessment process. Donaldson and Topping state that peer-assessment: (a) boosts students to take responsibility for their own learning and development, (b) gives assessment as part of learning so that mistakes are seen as opportunities rather than failures, and (c) practices the exchangeable abilities needed for life‐long learning mainly correlated to assessment 1

Wenjie Qu & Shuyi Yang, A Peer and Self-assessment Project Implemented in Practical Group Work, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2010, p. 776. 2 Elena Meletiadou, The Impact of Training Adolescent EFL Learners on Their Perceptions of Peer-assessment of Writing, Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2012, p. 241. 3 Wenjie Qu & Shuyi Yang, loc. cit., p. 777.

7

8

skills.4 A major reason for using peer-assessment is for its role in student skill development, in improving learning and in helping students to improve their performance on assessed work. Additionally, it has a place as a means of summative assessment.

2. Advantages of Peer-assessment There are some advantages that can be gained in doing peerassessment for writing. According to Rosario Hernandez, peer-assessment has the following benefits for students as follow: (1) encouraging transfer of learning and reflection, (2) enhancing the students learning experience, (3) permiting students to internalize, and comprehend better the assessment criteria, (4) removing the mystery that often portrays the assessment process, (5) helping better learning from seeing other students‟ successes and weaknesses, and increases student responsibility, and (6) rising student autonomy/independence.5 With the benefits mentioned peerassessment is considered an appropriate method to be implemented by teachers in encouraging autonomous learning at classroom or outside of it.

3. Disadvantages of Peer-assessment Besides its usefulness, PA also has weakness or destructive factors for students. There are several disadvantages of peer-assessment: (1) peer pressure and friendship can affect the consistency of grades given by students, (2) students may have a tendency to give everyone the same mark (for example, there may be conspiracy in return for good grades), (3) students are not experienced in assessing each other, (4) students may cheat in teamwork for group tasks, and (5) objectivity may not be maintained because extroverted students can be usually be marked higher

4

Elena Meletiadou, loc. cit. Rosario Hernandez, Benefits and Challenges of Using Self and Peer-assessment, (Dublin: UCD Teaching and Learning), p. 2. 5

9

and quieter students got marked down.6 However, these advantages can be avoided if teachers implement it in the right way and can manage class, so that students understand what they should do.

B. Writing Writing allows humans to trace and deliver information and stories outside the immediate moment in which allowing to link at a distant place and time.7 There are several opinions about the understanding of writing. Writing can be defined as the use of vivid mark to represent particular linguistic word in that it makes a sound visible.8 Jack C. Richards said, “Writing is used either as indication of positive learning or as a means of learning.” Richards considers writing leads to a product that can be observed and reviewed directly, it offers response to the teacher and learner on what has been comprehended.9 According to the several definitions of writing above, the writer assumes that writing is a physical act process in expressing ideas and feeling of thinking by arranging it into correct sentences to share experience. In addition, Hedge argues that effective writing needs some stuffs, such as: a high level of organization in the development of thoughts and information; a high level of precision so that there is no vagueness of meaning; the use of complex grammatical procedures for focus and emphasize; and cheerful choice of vocabulary, grammar forms, and sentence organization.10 With all criteria mentioned then good and effective writings can be produced. The writer also concludes that writing involves a highly creative use of composing processes. Because of that explanation, writing can be seen as a 6

Center of Enhancement for Teaching and Learning, Peer-assessment, 2015 (ar.cetl.hku.hk). 7 Henry Roger, Writing System: A Linguistic Approach, (Sydney: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), p. 1. 8 Ibid, p. 2. 9 Jack C. Richard, The Language Teaching Matrix, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 100. 10 Tricia Hedge, Writing, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), p.5.

10

powerful means of communication. In fact, writing is more complicated rather than speaking because it requires some steps from composing until revising. That is why writing can be used as an evidence of what students learned in the teaching and learning process.

C. Narrative text 1. Understanding of Narrative Text Narrative, or it is also called narration, is a text that tells a story. 11 It is a short story that is artificial or even taken from the real event, like a personal experience or experience of another person.12 Events and actions that happen in time are things which make narrative dynamic. This kind of text requires characters who act out events in a sequence of events orderly.13 The organization of the events may take chronological order. However, it may also be in another order like flash back order. A story told in narration can be a fiction or even a real event as long as it contains generic structures of a narrative text. Some types that are commonly told narratively are: history, biography, autobiography and news stories. Purpose of writing narrative text is to tell, amuse or entertain readers about stories as well as to grab its audience to participate in the story.14 In addition, the readers also are able to learn moral value or lesson from stories they read.15 The main characteristic of a narrative story is that the story contains conflict, crisis, or problem faced by its character. Then, at the end of the story the character could solve the problem—that part is named resolution.

11

Thomas E. Kakonis & John Scally, Writing in an Age of Technology, (London: Collier Macmillan Publisher, 1978), p. 105. 12 J.B. Alter, Writing & Understanding for Certificate Students, (Hong Kong: Times Educational Co. Ltd., 1980), p. 213. 13 Thomas E. Kakonis & John Scally, loc. cit. 14 Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, The Art of Writing, (California: Alfred Publishing Co. Inc., 1981), p. 32. 15 Pardiyono, Teaching Genre-based Writing, (Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi, 2007), p. 93.

11

It can be concluded that as one of some kinds of texts, narrative text tells stories in which the readers are able to get enjoyment, moral value, or eagerness. This is very important for the students to be open-minded knowing other perspective of the world through problematic-experience of stories.16 Therefore, teachers can involve their students to recall their past experience to tell at classroom. The stories will be very interesting and really amusing in that the students are not bored.

2. Generic structure of narrative text There are steps for constructing a narrative text, such as: a. Orientation In this paragraph the narrator tells the audience who is in the story, when it is happening, where it is happening and what is going on. b. Complication This is the part of the story where the narrator tells about something that will begin in a chain of events. These events will affect one or more of the characters. The complication is the trigger. c. Sequence of event This is where the narrator tells how the characters react to the complication. It includes their feelings and what they do. The events can be told in chronological order (the order in which they happen) or with flashback. The audience is given the narrator‟s point of view. d. Resolution In this part of the narrative the complication is sorted out or problem is solved. e. Coda

16

Ibid, p. 94.

12

The narrator includes a coda if there is a moral or message to be learned from the story.17

3. Grammatical features of narrative text Narrative usually includes the following grammatical features: a. Nouns that identify the specific characters and places in the story. b. Adjectives that provides accurate description of the characters and setting. c. Verbs that show the actions that occur in the story. d. Time words that connect events, telling when they occurred.

D. Facebook Facebook is an online social media which was first launced in Februari 2004. Mark Zuckerberg, a student of Harvard University, with his roommates, Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz dan Chris Hughes, is the founder of the media. Its name comes from a colloquialism for the directory given to American university students.18 There are more than 500 million people all around the world and more than 50 million Indonesian people actively use Facebook to communicate, interact, and socialize with others directly and indirectly19. Facebook users must register before using the site, after which they may create a personal profile, add other users as friends, exchange messages, and receive automatic notifications when they update their profile. Additionally, users may join common-interest user groups, organized by workplace, school or college, or other characteristics, and categorize their friends into lists such as “People from Work” or “Close Friends”. As of September 2012, Facebook has over one billion active users,

17

Ibid, p. 95. Wikipedia, Facebook, 2015 (en.wikipedia.org). 19 Ru-Chu Shih, The Effect of Using Facebook to Assist English for Business Communication Course Instruction, TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, January 2013, volume 12 Issue 1., p. 33. 18

13

of which 8.7% are fake.20 It means that Facebook as a social online media plays very important role for people‟s social interaction in this modern era. In Indonesia Facebook is very popular. There are 65 million Indonesian people who have Facebook accounts (90% of them are active users) and Indonesia is considered the 2nd largest country which uses Facebook21. In addition, almost, if not all of, senior high students actively use Facebook in their daily lives. Mostly they use it only for amusement. However, this online media is not only used for amusement, but also it is used for more useful activities, like sharing information, ideas, or even experience. Therefore, in this study Facebook is used to facilitate peer-assessment, so that students are able to implement independent learning in their own home.

E. Previous Studies Previous study which is related to this study is a skripsi by Zain Zarkasih, a student of Islamic State University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, under title The Effectiveness of Peer Assessment on Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement (A Quasi-Experimental Study at the Second Grade Students of SMAN 11 Tangerang Selatan).22 The objective of the study is to find out whether Peer Assessment effective in teaching narrative writing at second grade of SMAN 11 Tangerang Selatan. The sample of this study is 64 students taken from class two of SMAN 11 Tangerang Selatan. The method used is a quantitative method and the design used in this study is quasiexperimental design. In collecting the data, the researcher conducted pre-test and post-test by instruction test. In analyzing the data, the writer used t-test. The result of statistical calculation shows that t-test (to) > t-table (tt) (7.158 > 2.388). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted and null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. Therefore, the students who were taught narrative writing using peer-

20

Wikipedia, op. cit. Amelia Chen, Indonesia Is a Huge Social Media Nation, Tech in Asia, January 14, 2011 (https://www.techinasia.com/indonesia-social-media-nation/). 22 Zein Zarkasih, The Effectiveness of Peer Assessment on Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement, (Jakarta: Islamic State University Syarif Hidayatullah, 2014). 21

14

assessment got higher scores than those who were not. Thus, it is concluded that implementing peer-assessment is effective in teaching narrative writing at the second grade students of SMAN 11 Tangerang Selatan. Another relevant study is Effect of Using Facebook to Assist English for Business Communication Course Instruction by Vincent Ru-Chu Shih23, an associate professor at National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. This study aimed to investigate the effect of incorporating Facebook with blended learning approach for improving the quality of learning and teaching for college students in Taiwan. The research participants were 111 college students enrolled in an ESP course. In this case, she conducted blended learning approach. To collect the data, the researcher used some instruments in the study. Finally, the findings statistically showed very significant and positive results. The improvement of achievement between pre-test and post-test were very significant. In addition, the qualitative results from analyzing content of the students‟ comments, interview, and survey questionnaire also approved that most of the students liked this type of research. The last related study is an article entitled The Impact of Training Adolescent EFL Learners on Their Perceptions of Peer-assessment of Writing by Elena Meletiadou,24 a researcher from University of Cyprus. This article examines that peer-assessment has been increasingly used as an alternative method of engaging learners in the development of their own learning. This paper describes part of a research project conducted in a Cypriot State EFL Institute. Forty adolescent „English as a Foreign Language (EFL)‟ students were involved in peer-assessment of writing in an attempt to improve their writing performance and attitudes towards the assessment of writing. Learners received training since they had no peer-assessment experience prior to the 23

Ru-Chu Shih, The Effect of Using Facebook to Assist English for Business Communication Course Instruction, TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, January 2013, volume 12 Issue 1. 24 Elena Meletiadou, The Impact of Training Adolescent EFL Learners on Their Perceptions of Peer-assessment of Writing, Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2012.

15

study. The students‟ attitudes were canvassed both prior to the peerassessment training and at the end of it by means of a peer-assessment questionnaire. The findings showed that students‟ response to peer-assessment was: (a) negative before the training, and b) positive after the training. This study concludes that peer-assessment is an innovative method and students have to be given time, training and support to adapt to it, in order to perform to the best of their ability and exploit its full potential. From the three previous studies above, the study that was conducted by the writer is different. It is seemed that the writing is going to combine the three different researches above into one study. In experimenting effectiveness of implementing peer-assessment through Facebook for teaching writing narrative text, the writer adopt and adapt the method from the study done by Zarkasih and Meletiadou, and the teaching media from Shih‟s study. However, this study becomes completely different from the related previous studies in terms of its method, media, and design of the methodology used. Therefore, framework of the study is that peer-assessment method is not traditionally implemented inside classroom, but it is done outside in which virtual class, i.e. Facebook group, is used. However, a face to face meeting is also needed in that teachers are able to do simulation with the students. This is to make students ready to implement peer-assessment using Facebook. This kind of peer-assessment is in a form of comment addressed by students for their peers. Then, the feedback can be useful information to correct and improve their future writings. This model is to help teachers make their teaching time more efficient and useful—or in the other word, it is also called blended learning. Previous related studies above are all combined and adapted in this study, so a new model done.

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Design The writer uses a quasi-experimental research design. This is the development design from the true experiment which is quite hard to conduct. This quasi-experimental research does not require random assignment, so the researcher decided to select groups that are considered representatives, of the population, and have same characteristics. For this, the researcher discussed with the English teacher and considered their writing scores report. The type of the design is nonequivalent controlled group design with pre-test and post-test. This type has been described as one of the most common type used for quasi-experimental designs.1 This is often the case since students are naturally organized in groups as classes within schools and are considered to share similar characteristics. The nonequivalent controlled group design with pre-test and post-test is represented as:2

Treatment

Experiment

Post-test

Pre-test -

Control

Figure 3.1. Nonequivalent Design In this design both the controlled and experimental class complete a pre-test and post-test, the experimental class students as the only group that received the research treatment. On the other hand, the controlled class

1

John W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 4th edition, (Boston: Pearson Education, Inc, 2008), pp. 309-310. 2 Ibid., p. 310.

16

17

students were not given any special treatment, but they were only taught with usual/traditional input, or instruction.

B. Time and Location of the Research The researcher conducted the study from January 18th to 30th, 2015. The location is at Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education in Pondok Cabe, Tangerang Selatan City.

C. Population and Sample The writer did the research at Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education. The population of the research is students of tenth grade. They are divided into 3 classes: 10 AB (higher level), 10 CD (standard level), and 10 E (standard level). All of the students are from science program and the total number of students or population is 60 students—there are 20 students each class. This population was selected considering the material “narrative text” of this study is addressed for them. Sampling technique used in this quantitative research is convenience sampling as a part of nonprobability sampling. This kind of technique was used because in convenience sampling the researcher was allowed to select individuals because they were available, convenient; moreover, they represent characteristics the investigation.3 In addition, the researcher chose this sampling because it allows him to select participants as sample because of the students’ availability to be studied at the school. The availability came when the researcher got permission from the school principle. Furthermore, the principle gave the two available classes to participate in this study as sample and it is also with the permission of the English teacher. Therefore, the researcher decided to select students from class 10 CD and class 10 E of standard level who have the same level in English subject. The controlled class and the experimental class were decided after having pre-

3

Ibid., pp. 145-146.

18

test. Then, the students of 10 E who got lower mean score of pre-test (44 points) than that of class CD (49.25 points) became an experimental group, while the students of 10 CD became the controlled one. It is because the researcher considers that the lower achievement class needs more helps and treatments to get better marks.

D. Instrument of the Research To get the data, the writer used pre-test and post-test as the main instrument to measure students’ writing skill in narrative text. Pre-test was given in both classes to make sure that they have the same level of background knowledge and to determine controlled and experimental class in the beginning of the session (before the treatments). Then, post-test was given in the end of the session (after the treatments) to know whether implementation of peer-assessment using Facebook effective in teaching of narrative text or not. Then, students’ writings were analyzed using rubric of narrative text proposed by PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers)4 with scale score from 0 to 4 points per criterion. In addition, as a supplement, observation sheet was also used here to analyze attitudes of the students.

Test of Validity and Reliability of the Instrument Validity test of the instrument was done to know whether it measures what is intended to measure to gain correct decision in designing the instrument.5 The tests used for this instrument are face validity and content validity. Face validity is validity which shows if appearance or form of an instrument measures what it is meant to measure. This kind of validity is focusing on the form or the appearance of the instrument. The instrument 4

PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers), Expanded Scoring Rubric for Analytic and Narrative Writing (Grade 5-11), 2015, (http://www.parcconline.org). 5 Peter W. Airasian, Classroom Assessment: Concept and Application, (New York: McGrawn-Hill, 2003), pp. 16-17.

19

of this study is to measure the students’ ability in writing narrative text, so the form or the appearance of it is open ended question (not multiple question) in which the students are asked to write narratives. In addition, the instrument is also validated its content through content validity. Content validity is related to ability of an instrument in measuring content or concept of what is desired to measure in the way that the instrument is representative.6 An instrument which contains content validity for sure contains face validity. Based on standard competency (KD) 4.1 of class 10, it is mentioned that students are able to write a simple text with its basic structures, language features, and appropriate context. The intended content of the instrument is described in the KD and the instrument answers it by including itself with operations mentioned in it. The detail of eliciting validity is shown in appendix. In addition, to obtain reliability of the instrument the researcher uses analytic scoring by John Harris, so scoring of the test is consistent. Reliability is a consistency of a set of measurements and an instrument.7 It is also said that scoring using analytic scoring is the most reliable scoring both for speaking and writing task. The researcher assessed the students’ writings using rubric in which 5 criteria of the scoring are detailed. The rubric is from a credible source for assessment: PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers). Therefore, both validity and reliability the instrument are tested.

6

James Dean Brown, Comprehensive Guide to English Language Assessment, (New York: McGrawn-Hill, 2003), pp. 220-221. 7 Peter W. Airasian, loc. cit., pp. 17-20

20

Table 3.1. Scoring Rubric for Narrative Writing Construct Measured

Score Point 4

Score Point 3

Score Point 2

Score Point 1

Score Point 0

The student response addresses the prompt and provides effective development of the claim, topic and/or narrative elements by using clear reasoning, details, textbased evidence, and/or description; the development is largely appropriate to the task, purpose, and audience.

The student response addresses the prompt and provides some development of the claim, topic and/or narrative elements by using some reasoning, details, textbased evidence, and/or description; the development is somewhat appropriate to the task, purpose, and audience.

The student response addresses the prompt and develops the claim, topic and/or narrative elements minimally by using limited reasoning, details, textbased evidence and/or description; the development is limited in its appropriateness to the task, purpose, and/or audience.

The student response is underdeveloped and therefore inappropriate to the task, purpose, and/or audience.

Written Expression

The student response addresses the prompt and provides effective and comprehensive development of the claim, topic and/or narrative elements by using clear and convincing reasoning, details, textbased evidence, and/or description; the development is consistently appropriate to the task, purpose, and audience. The student response demonstrates purposeful coherence, clarity, and cohesion and includes a strong introduction, conclusion, and a logical, well-executed progression of

The student response demonstrates a great deal of coherence, clarity, and cohension, and includes an introduction, conclusion, and a logical progression of ideas, making

The student response demonstrates some coherence, clarity, and/or cohension, and includes an introduction, conclusion, and logically grouped ideas, making the writer’s

The student response demonstrates limited coherence, clarity, and/or cohension, making the writer’s progression of ideas somewhat unclear.

The student response demonstrates a lack of coherence, clarity and cohesion.

Development of Ideas

Written Expression Organization

21

Written Expression Clarity of Language

Knowledge

ideas, making it easy to follow the writer’s progression of ideas.

it fairly easy to follow the writer’s progression of ideas.

progression of ideas usually discernible but not obvious.

The student response establishes and maintains an effective style, while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline. The response uses precise language consistently, including descriptive words and phrases, sensory details, linking and transitional words, words to indicate tone, and/or domainspecific vocabulary.

The student response establishes and maintains an effective style, while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline. The response uses mostly precise language, including descriptive words and phrases, sensory details, linking and transitional words, words to indicate tone, and/or domainspecific vocabulary.

The student response establishes and maintains a mostly effective style, while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline. The response uses some precise language, including descriptive words and phrases, sensory details, linking and transitional words, words to indicate tone3 and/or domainspecific vocabulary.

The student response has a style that has limited effectiveness, with limited awareness of the norms of the discipline. The response includes limited descriptions, sensory details, linking or transitional words, words to indicate tone, or domainspecific vocabulary.

The student response has an inappropriate style. The student writing shows little to no awareness of the norms of the discipline. The response includes little to no precise language.

The student response demonstrates command of the conventions of standard English consistent with effectively edited writing.

The student response demonstrates command of the conventions of standard English consistent with edited writing. There

The student response demonstrates inconsistent command of the conventions of standard English. There are a few patterns of

The student response demonstrates limited command of the conventions of standard English. There are multiple errors in

The student response demonstrates little to no command of the conventions of standard English. There are frequent and varied errors in

22

of Language and Conventions

Though there may be a few minor errors in grammar and usage, meaning is clear throughout the response.

may be a few distracting errors in grammar and usage, but meaning is clear.

errors in grammar and usage that may occasionally impede understanding.

grammar and usage demonstrating minimal control over language. There are multiple distracting errors in grammar and usage that sometimes impede understanding.

grammar and usage, demonstrating little or no control over language. There are frequent distracting errors in grammar and usage that often impede understanding.

E. Technique of Data Collection To get the data that is related to the study, the writer used pre-test and post-test. The two-kind test was given for getting the data of students’ achievement in writing narrative text. Form of the test is task-based writing narrative text. The students were asked to write at least 150 words for one narrative text. Then, their works were analyzed using rubric of narrative text from PARCC. In order to case the computation, the researcher uses analytic scoring by John Harris8 and convertes each score point criterion of the rubric to the scale of which maximum point of 100 is obtained when calculated.

F. Content of the Intervention/Experiment The research was conducted in two weeks. In the first meeting on January 16th, 2015, the researcher did observation in both classes. This is to know the classes’ environment and to introduce the students to the research. In the next meeting, the research conducted pre-test to both classes. The pre-test was scheduled on September 17h, 2015 for 10 CD and on September 19h, 2015 for 10 E. The pre-test scores of those classes become the first raw data of this research by which experimental and controlled class are determined. Then, the 8

Arthur, Hughes, Testing for Language Teachers, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 83-102.

23

data determines class 10 E as the experimental class and class 10 CD as the controlled one. After giving the pre-test, the researcher began the intervention. The intervention was done in 6 meetings whose each period is 40 minutes. However, two meetings are counted as one session, so there are only 3 syllabi for each class in this study. The first treatment was given in the experimental class on January 21st, 2015. In that time, the researcher told to the students about the concept of drama. Then, the researcher explained objective of the study and then explained about the nature of writing narrative text. The activities were to know, analyze, and practice writing narrative text. Then, students also learnt about peer-assessment and how to conduct it. At the end of the meeting, the students were assigned to write a narrative text and submit it in the following meeting. In the next meeting, on January 22nd and 23rd, 2015, they collected their writings to the teacher. Then, they were instructed to do simulation of peerassessment at classroom. This was to prepare them before conducting it on Facebook. After that, the students were asked to add the researcher’s Facebook account, so that he could invite them to the class group made. Then, they had to write a story at the classroom and the following meeting their writings were posted in the Facebook group. After that, they were asked to implement peer-assessment on their friends’ works, so that they knew what their mistakes were. Furthermore, in the last meeting, the teacher continued explaining how to create a good narrative story. It was happened on January 26h, 2015. The researcher gave the treatment three times for the experimental class, so on that day the study was completed. The teacher then showed their writings on the group through LCD screen. On the other hand, method used for the controlled class was a traditional one. It was drill method in which the students wrote writing tasks at classroom. Finally, on January 28h, 2015, the researcher conducted post-test to the experimental class and controlled class. The post-test was similar with the pre-test. The researcher gave writing narrative text to the students. Duration of

24

the test was 30 minutes. After the post-test was done, the researcher then did scoring their writings using rubric.

G. Technique of Data Analysis Technique used to analyze the data in this study is “T-test” through SPSS (Special Package for the Social Sciences) version 18 software. This test was used because it analyzes the t-statistic, t-distribution and degrees of freedom to determine a p value (probability) that can be used to determine whether the population means differ. The t-test is one of a number of hypothesis tests. The content of the students’ works were analyzed and assessed using rubric for narrative text. However, before T-test calculation, the researcher did normality and homogeneity of the test. Here are steps done to analyze the collected data:

1. Normality Test The normality test is performed using Kolmogorov Smirnnov and Shapiro-Wilk. The test is for the two groups, both post-test and pretest group, to determine if the distribution of the data from the sample is normal. Thus, the researcher used SPSS version 18 software. Trihendrari said that if the normality Asymp. sig. is more than the level of significance α (0.05), scores will be normally distributed. The steps are the following bellows: a. Open SPPS program b. Go to variable view and fill in the columns as follows: a) Name: write “class” in the first row. This is to indicate and differentiate between experimental and controlled class. Write score in second row. b) Type column is numeric. c) Width column is filled with “8”. d) Decimal is changed from “2” to “0”. e) Label column is left blank.

25

f) Value column is none. g) Missing column is none. h) Columns is filled with “8”. i) Align column is “right”. j) Measure column is “unknown”. k) Role column is filled with “input”. c. Click data view, in score column, compute “1” as representing experimental class and “2” representing controlled class. d. In score column, compute score of each class. e. Click Analyze >> Descriptive Statistics>> Explore f. Fill in the Dependents List with score with pre-test and then fill in the Factor List with class. g. Click Plots >> checklist Normality Plots with Tests, Histograms, Power Estimation >> Continue >> Ok

2. Homogeneity Test Homogeneity test is used to test whether the data from the two groups have the same variant in order that the hypotheses can be tested by T-test. Like normality test, this kind of test also uses SPSS version 18 software. The steps are the same like those of normality test. Furthermore, after testing its normality and homogeneity the researcher began to test the hypothesis.

3. Hypothesis Test The writer seeks the significant differences result from the post-test data. The writer also used SPSS 20 to calculate the t-test. In calculating ttest, steps done are as follows: a. Open SPPS program b. Go to variable view and fill in the columns as follows:

26

a) Name: write “class” in the first row. This is to indicate and differentiate between experimental and controlled class. Write score in second row. b) Type column is numeric. c) Width column is filled with “8”. d) Decimal is changed from “2” to “0”. e) Label column is left blank. f) Value column is none. g) Missing column is none. h) Columns is filled with “8”. i) Align column is “right”. j) Measure column is “unknown”. k) Role column is filled with “input”. c. Click data view, in score column, compute “1” as representing experimental class and “2” representing controlled class. d. Click Analyze >> Compare Means >> Independent Samples T-Test e. Fill in Test Variables with score of pretest and post-test. Then fill in the Grouping Variables with class and fill Define Groups with 1 and 2 f. Click Options >> fill Confidence Interval Percentage with 95% g. Click Continue >> Ok

H. Statistical Hypothesis The statistical hypothesis states: a. Null hypothesis (H0) = x1

x2 (if mean score of the post-test of the

experimental class is smaller than that of the controlled class post-test) or p > α (if sig. 2 tailed is greater that alpha) there is no a significant difference between students who are treated with peer-assessment through Facebook and those who are not treated with. b. Alternative hypothesis (Ha) = x1 > x2 (if mean score of the post-test of the experimental class is greater than that of the controlled class posttest) or p < α (if sig. 2 tailed is greater that alpha) there is a significant

27

difference between students who are treated with peer-assessment through Facebook and those who are not treated with.

CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION A. Data Description In this research, the experimental class was the students of class 10 CD (standard level) and the controlled class was the students of class 10 E (standard level). There are 20 students each class. Then, the total sample is 40 students. The pre-test and the post-test score of the students from both classes is described in table 4.1 below: Table 4.1. Score of Pre- and Post-test of Experimental and Controlled Class Experimental Class Score

Pre-Test

Band F

%

Controlled Class

Post-Test F

%

Pre-Test F

%

Post Test f

%

< 30

4

20 %

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

31 – 40

4

20 %

0

0%

3

15 %

1

5%

41 – 50

6

30 %

3

15 %

11

55 %

0

0%

51 – 60

5

25 %

2

10 %

5

25 %

1

5%

61 – 70

1

5%

5

25 %

1

5%

5

25 %

71 – 80

0

0%

8

40 %

0

0%

3

15 %

> 80

0

0%

2

10 %

0

0%

11

55 %

Total

20

100 %

20

100 %

20

100 %

20

100 %

f = Frequency Based on descripting table of the pre-test given to the experimental class, there are 4 students (20% of them) getting score <30. This means that their writing English at first was extremely poor. The most frequent scores appeared on the table are the scores between 41-50 with frequency number 6 or 30% of the students. On the other hand there was no student who got score >81. After the students were given the treatment of implementing peer-assessment through

28

29

Facebook, there is an improvement of the scores. Shown in the post-test data, there is no student getting the scores below 30 points or even the scores between 31 and 40 points. The most frequency appearance on the table is the scores between 71 and 80 points consisting of 8 students (40% of them) and students who got the score above 80 points are 2 students. From the table data of controlled class in pre-test it shows that there are 3 students who got the scores 31-40 and 55% of the them (11 students) got the scores between 41 and 50. Furthermore, only 1 student got score between 61-70 points and there was no student who got the score above 81. From the post-test result, it can be seen that the most appearance frequency is the scores above 80 points which consist of 11 students (55% of them) and there are 15% of them got the scores 71-80. Then, there are 5 students who got the scores 61-70 points. The detail of the scores can be seen on appendix.

1. Experimental Class The pre-test given to students of experimental class is written test. It was given to know their writing ability of narrative text before they were given the treatment. The pre-test used is to measure a starting point of the amount of pre-existing knowledge on the course topic (narrative text) and also to compare with point of the post-test. Based on the test, the pre-test mean score (x) achieved by the students is 44 points. In addition, the lowest score achieved in the pre-test is 20 and the highest one is only 65 points. Therefore, this shows that there is no score reaching KKM (minimum score criterion), 70 points. Next, after doing pre-test, the researcher implemented peer-assessment method through Facebook in class 10 E. Then, when the treatment finished, the post-test was done in that class. The mean score of the post-test of the experimental class increasingly achieves 71.25 points. The finding points that the mean score of the post-test is higher than the mean score of the pretest which is only 44 points. The range between the mean score of pre-test score and the mean score of the post-test score gains 27.25 points. The

30

student’s lowest score of the post-test achieved is 50 and the highest one was 90. This shows that there is quite significant improvement gained by the experimental class. However, though the scores of post-test are improved compared to the pre-test, the mean score of the experimental class is still lower than the controlled one—the controlled class’ post-test data is explained below. Therefore, it shows that the treatment given in the class is not really effective compared to the traditional one.

2. Controlled Class Based on the table data, it is shown that the students’ mean score x achieved in the pre-test is 49.25. The lowest score of this class is 30 and the higher score is 75. There is only 1 student who got score above KKM (75 points) and the other 19 students did not pass the minimum score (below 70 points). Therefore, this means that the students had not high ability in writing narrative text. After teaching was completed, students of the controlled class did the post-test. Eventually, the students’ mean score x of the post-test achieved in this class is 79.75 which is higher than the experimental class. It can be seen that the difference (range) between the mean score of the post-test and the pre-test of this class is significant. It is 30.5. The student’s lowest score of the post-test achieved is 35 points and the highest one is 95 points. From the explanation above, it can be concluded that the students’ mean score of pre-test in the controlled class is higher than that of the experimental one. Therefore, the class whose mean score is lower (Class 10 E) becomes the experimental class that was given the treatment of implementing peer-assessment through Facebook to improve their writing ability. On the other hand, another class whose mean score is higher (Class 10 CD) is the controlled one in which the traditional treatment was done. Furthermore, from the data of the score of post-test in experimental class and controlled class shown, it can be analyzed that the mean score of the post-test in controlled class is higher than that of the controlled class.

31

Therefore, the special treatment which was given in the experimental class is not effective than the traditional treatment given in the controlled class.

B. Test of the Hypothesis 1. Preliminary Analysis The test done in this research was test of normality and test of homogeneity. Normality test was conducted to determine whether the data set is well-modeled by a normal distribution or not. Then, homogeneity test was done to measure the differences or similarities in population of the research. In this research, the researcher applied normality and homogeneity test only in the pre-test data of experimental and controlled class.

a. Normality Table below shows how the data analyzed and interpreted to test the normality of the data. Table 4.2. The Result of Normality Test of the Pre-test Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Class

Statistic Pretest

df

Shapiro-Wilk Sig.

Statistic

Df

Sig.

experiment

.132

20

.200*

.960

20

.543

control

.170

20

.133

.911

20

.068

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction *. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

From table 4.2, it is shown Shapiro and Kolmogorov.Smirnov test. In Kolmogorov.Smirnov it is shows that sig. value of the pre-test of the experimental class is .200. However, sig. value of the pre-test of the controlled class is .133. Meanwhile, minimum alpha (α) value is 0.05. for

32

each sig. value of the pre-tests. Therefore, sig. value of the pre-test of the experimental class is bigger than α 0.200 > 0.05) and sig. value of the pretest of the controlled class is also bigger than α 0.133 > 0.05). It means that the samples of both classes are from normal distributed population. Based on Shapiro.Wilk test, it also shows that sig. > α. Form the experimental class 0.543 > 0.05 and from the controlled class 0.068 > 0.05. Therefore, the classes are normal.

b. Homogeneity Table 4.3. Test of Homogeneity of Variance Levene Statistic Pretest

df1

df2

Sig.

Based on Mean

2.325

1

38

.136

Based on Median

2.018

1

38

.164

Based on Median and with

2.018

1

36.514

.164

2.222

1

38

.144

adjusted df Based on trimmed mean

The table shows the test of homogeneity using Lavene’s test.

The

Lavene’s test shows that the rows based on sig. value based on mean is .136 which is above α 0.136 > 0.05). This means that both classes are homogent.

2. Result of T-test The statistical hypothesis states: 

Null hypothesis (H0) = x1

x2 (if mean score of the post-test of the

experimental class is smaller than that of the controlled class posttest) or p > α (if sig. 2 tailed is greater that alpha) there is no a

33

significant difference between students who are treated with peerassessment through Facebook and those who are not treated with. 

Alternative hypothesis (Ha) = x1 > x2 (if mean score of the post-test of the experimental class is greater than that of the controlled class posttest) or p < α (if sig. 2 tailed is greater that alpha) there is a significant difference between students who are treated with peer-assessment through Facebook and those who are not treated with.

a. T-test of Pre-test Scores The researcher uses SPSS 18 software to analyze the pre-test scores. Table below shows how the data is analyzed:

Table 4.4. Result of T-test of Pre-Test Group Statistics class Pretest

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

experiment

20

44.00

12.524

2.800

control

20

49.25

9.072

2.029

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality

t-test for Equality of

of Variances

Means

F Pretest

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

2.325

Sig.

t .136

df

-1.518

38

-1.518

34.635

34

t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower pretest

Upper

Equal variances assumed

-12.250

1.750

Equal variances not assumed

-12.273

1.753

It is described that the significant level (sig.) of pre-test between experimental class and controlled class got similar level at 0.136 and mean of score experimental class is 44.00 and of the controlled class is 49.25. Then, the score of equal variances assumed is not similar with the not assumed one. Also, the table shows that difference between the lower and upper of confidence interval of the difference is only 0.003 point.

It shows the pre-test score of both classes does not have

significant difference and have the same characteristic.

b. T-test of Post-test Scores Using SPSS 18 software in analyzing the post-test scores the researcher finds result as below: Table 4.5. Result of T-test of Post-Test Group Statistics class Posttest

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

experiment

20

71.25

13.560

3.032

control

20

79.50

16.456

3.680

35

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for

t-test for Equality of

Equality of Variances

Means

F Posttest

Equal variances assumed

Sig. .115

T

.736

Equal variances not assumed

df

-1.730

38

-1.730

36.661

Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means Std. Error Sig. (2-tailed) posttest

Mean Difference

Difference

Equal variances assumed

.092

-8.250

4.768

Equal variances not assumed

.092

-8.250

4.768

Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower posttest

Upper

Equal variances assumed

-17.902

1.402

Equal variances not assumed

-17.914

1.414

The mean score of the post-test for the experimental class is 71.25 while for the controlled class is 79.50. Result of T-test in table 4.5 shows that there is significant difference between controlled and experiment class. Sig. (2-tailed) value of the prost-test score is bigger

36

than α, 0.92 > 0.05. It proves that the mean score of the experimental class is lower than that of the controlled class. Furthermore, this also means implementing peer-assessment through Facebook in teaching writing narrative text has not better results compared to the traditional teaching method (drilling method).

c. Gained Scores of the Experimental and Control Class Because there is significant improvement between experimental and controlled class, the researcher here adds information how the two classes compare each other in gaining scores (form pre- and post-test). The detailed table can be found in appendix. Table 4.6. Gained Scores Student’s Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Average

Experimental Gained score 25 50 30 35 20 15 35 30 15 10 25 15 10 15 35 40 40 15 40 45 27.25

Controlled Gained score 15 5 40 45 50 20 45 55 20 40 35 45 45 15 25 40 20 25 15 10 30.5

37

The table above presents that average gained by the two classes is high in that the experimental class gains 27.25 points and the controlled one gains 30.5 points. This shows that actually the two methods (peer-assessment through FB and the traditional drilling) can improve students’ achievement. However, the controlled class’ method is leading with range point: 3.25.

d. T-test of the Gained Scores The researcher also implements t-test for the gained score to examine the difference between the two groups. This seems critical to strengthen the previous analysis. Using SPSS 18 is software used to analyze, then the researcher finds result as below: Table 4.7. T-test of the Gained Scores Group Statistics class gained

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

experiment

20

27.2500

12.40490

2.77382

control

20

30.5000

15.03505

3.36194

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for

t-test for Equality of

Equality of Variances

Means

F gained

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

2.276

Sig. .140

t

df -.746

38

-.746

36.677

38

t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Sig. (2-

gained Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

Std. Error

tailed)

Mean Difference

Difference

Lower

.460

-3.25000

4.35852

-12.07337

.461

-3.25000

4.35852

-12.08383

Because the data is homogenous (F=2.275; p>0.05), so it is directed to see column equal variances assumed. It shows that the difference is below 1% degree (t=-7.46; p<0.01). This means that the experimental class has no significant difference compared to the controlled class. Therefore, the special treatment in it is not better than that of the controlled class. Therefore, the researcher jumps into a conclusion that the null hypothesis (H0) of the study is accepted.

C. Discussion Though the students of the experimental class which was treated with peerassessment through Facebook implementation method improved their writing skill, but the hypothesis is rejected because their scores are not better than that of the controlled class. The analysis above has already shown that the mean score of the experimental class in the pre-test is 44, while the post-test score is 71.25. In addition, it is shown that sig. (2-tailed) value of the post-test is bigger than α, 0.92 > 0.05. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is rejected and null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. This means that implementing peer-assessment through Facebook is not effective. While, if it is compared to the previous study done by Ru-Chu Shih, the method is effective for university students. Moreover, a theory presented by Brindley and Scoffield in the second chapter also supports that can effectively

39

enhance students’ autonomous learning. In fact, when it is done in school ages, it is not as good as that of the traditional drilling method. In other word, peerassessment through Facebook is not effective. There may be factors why this method is not effective, so the researcher here provides the causes observed. First, even though the experimental group students were given rubric for assessing, almost all of them students did peer-assessment only around grammatical area, whereas grammatical mistakes are not the main concern in writing. However, the students did not address more fatal mistakes around structure of texts and writing organization. Consequently, this influenced their post-test’s writings in which there were some of them still had misconception in differentiating recount text and narrative text, and organizing their ideas. Second, as mentioned before, studies on independent learning (more especially the use of peer-assessment method through Facebook) are done for adult learners, like a study done Shih on implementing peer-assessment through Facebook towards university students of Pingtun University. The students independently did their assignments from lecturers without any pressure. It is very contrast in the case of younger learners. Secondary students do not really care of homework. In addition, the researcher at class is a new comer whose authority on the students is not as high as the real English teacher. Therefore, controlling the students outside classroom is really hard. This is because of their psychological factor or, in other word, their maturity as humans. This is proved by numbers of comments on the group (see appendix) Third, the students’ ability in assessing their friends’ works is quite limited. This is shown in some comments made by them, for example a student just commented a word ―correct‖ and others commented a wrong sentence, like: ―the sentences ‘the women that getting relax’ is not exactly correct, it should be ‘the women that was getting relax’‖. Those comments did not give any useful information for its audience to correct his writing. If he does, he still commits mistake. Four, the experimental students seem that they do not learn from mistakes they made in the previous writings. For instance, there are some texts posted on

40

Facebook group having mistakes around grammatical area, such as: ―there is a man who waited‖ then it is corrected this way, ―the was a man who waited‖. Unfortunately, they do not learn from that mistake. They still did the same mistake in the post-test. However, compared to writings of the pre-test, their last works are far better. Five, the students seem not really familiar with peer-assessment method and few of them even do not just made Facebook account at the time the researcher asked. Even though the researcher had already did simulation at the classroom about how to implement peer-assessment through Facebook. This lack of knowledge also may cause quality of their comments or assessments on their friends/ writings. Last, a factor why students of the controlled class improve better their writing skill even without special treatment is because while studying they really paid great attention to the lectures. While the students of the experimental class seemed neglected the lessons and were not really serious when studying. For instance, in the middle of explaining lesson, the experimental students were so noisy and doing other activities except studying, like walking around the classroom, etc. On the other side, the controlled students paid their great attention to the lesson being delivered. Therefore, they understand the lesson well far more that the experimental students. The researcher sees that this behavioral factor also plays important role that results in their lower achievements. To sum up, applying peer-assessment through Facebook to encourage independent learning is considered effective enough to improve the student scores, but the improvement is less than the traditional drilling method does — unless the factors are handled, the improvement will be more. The six factors above may explain why the alternative hypothesis is rejected. In addition, this study is to examine a theory about independent learning and the study successfully proves that the method is not appropriate. However, this is not generalized for all senior high school students. This can only be implemented for the scope of Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education for a reason that

41

because this study does not use random sampling, so that the sample selected cannot be generalized.

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION A. Conclusion From the data analysis using SPSS software, it is shown that implementing peer-assessment through Facebook in writing narrative text is not better than the traditional method. In this research, the post-test of students’ mean score (x) in the experimental class which was treated by implementing peer-assessment is lower than the post-test of students’ mean score (x) in the controlled class which was treated by traditional method. It is 71.25 > 79.5. Furthermore, it is proven that sig.2-tailed (p) > α

0.092 < 0.05 with negative mean differences,

-8.250. This means that alternative hypothesis (Ha) is rejected and null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. Therefore, implementation of peer-assessment through Facebook is not effective towards students’ writing narrative text. However, the researcher finds several observable factors. Firstly, the experimental students were only focused on grammatical area in assessing their friends’ writings. Next, psychologically, independent learning is rather more suitable for adult learners than that for younger learners. Last, student comments on Facebook are so limited that those cannot give useful information for improving their writings. The factors above seemed to have caused the effectiveness of this study.

B. Suggestion Here are suggestions the researcher delivers for future studies. Hopefully, the suggestions are useful for readers in general, and researchers and other people involved in education specially. The suggestions are as follow: 1. For teachers:

42

43

a) Teachers should give clear instruction about what students are going to do in teaching writing narrative text using peer-assessment, especially in explaining assessment rubric, in order that they are not confused about what to do or to assess. Simulation on peerassessment can be done. In addition, teachers must also consider and be concerned about the six observable factors. b) Teachers should use various techniques in writing narrative text, for example playing music loudly while students are writing the text, so that they are not bored. 2. For students: a) Because there is similarity found between narrative and recount text, students must really be concerned about their different generic structures. b) While doing peer-assessment, students are free to comment their friends’ works. There is no hurt feeling in correcting their writings because that is for the sake of goodness. 3. For education experts, researchers and academicians: a) Studies on teaching and learning English for foreign language learners like in Indonesia are crucial, and must be improved and updated continuously to get better and relevant technique, method, or even teaching model. b) Theories on EFL instruction must be massively tested in the real life and in various contexts.

44

REFERENCES Airasian, Peter W. Classroom Assessment: Concept and Application. New York: McGrawn-Hill, 2003. Alter, J.B. Writing & Understanding for Certificate Students. Hong Kong: Times Educational Co. Ltd., 1980. Brown, James Dean. Comprehensive Guide to English Language Assessment. New York: McGrawn-Hill, 2003. Creswell, John W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Third edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008. Expanded Scoring Rubric for Analytic and Narrative Writing (Grade 5-11). PARCC: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers, (n.d.) [retrieved January 1, 2015]. Provided in: www.bernardsboe.com/.../Preparing_for_PARCC_Partnership_for_Assessm ent_of_Readiness_of_College_and_Careers. Facebook. Wikipedia, February 27, 2015 [retrieved on September 10, 2014]. Provided in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook. Hedge, Tricia. Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Hernandez, Rosario. Benefits and Challenges of Using Self and Peer-assessment. Dublin: UCD Teaching and Learning. Hughes, Arthur. Testing for Language Teachers. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Chen, Amelia. Indonesia Is a Huge Social Media Nation, Tech in Asia, Tech in Asia, January 14, 2011 [retrieved March, 23, 2015]. Provided in https://www.techinasia.com/indonesia-social-media-nation. Kakonis, Thomas E. & Scally, John. Writing in an Age of Technology. London: Collier Macmillan Publisher, 1978. Meletiadou, Elena. The Impact of Training Adolescent EFL Learners on Their Perceptions of Peer-assessment of Writing. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning. Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2012.

45

Pardiyono. Pasti Bisa! Teaching Genre-based Writing. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi, 2007. Qu, Wenjie & Yang, Shuyi. A Peer and Self-assessment Project Implemented in Practical Group Work. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2010. Richards, Jack C. Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. _______________. The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Roger, Henry. Writing System: A Linguistic Approach. Sydney: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Self- and Peer-assessment. CETL: Center of Enhancement for Teaching and Learning, (n.d.) [retrieved on November 3, 2014]. Provided in: http://celt.ust.hk/learner-centered-course-design/learning-assessment/selfand-peer-assessment. Shih, Ru-Chu. The Effect of Using Facebook to Assist English for Business Communication Course Instruction. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. January 2013, volume 12 Issue 1. Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan (Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan R&D). Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta, 2013. The Writing Process. Purdue Owl, (n.d.) [retrieved January 9, 2015]. Provided at: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/1/1/. Trihendradi, T. 7 Langkah Mudah Melakukan Analisis Statistik Menggunakan SPSS 17. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi, 2009. Widhiarso, Wahyu. Mengaplikasikan Uji-t untuk Membandingkan Gain Score antar Kelompok dalam Eksperimen. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Psikologi, UGM, 2011. Weigle, Sara Cushing. Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan. The Art of Writing. California: Alfred Publishing Co. Inc., 1981.

46

Zarkasih, Zein. The Effectiveness of Peer Assessment on Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement (A Quasi-Experimental Study at the Second Grade Students of SMAN 11 Tangerang Selatan). Jakarta: Islamic State University Syarif Hidayatullah, 2014.

APPENDIX 1 INSTRUMENT OF THE RESEARCH: PRE- & POST-TEST WRITING TEST Narrative Text Choose one of the following options: 1. Write a story about your unforgettable experience. 2. Write about one of famous legends you know. 3. Narrate the plot of your favorite book/film (remember it is not an opinion essay, it must be a narrative text). 4. Write a story with the title: “The Time We First Met”.

Tips for writing narratives:  Use all generic structures of narrative text (orientation, complication, sequence of event, resolution, coda).  Use different verbal tenses (past simple, past continuous, past perfect).  Use time expressions (while, until, by the time, as soon as, etc.).  Use adverbs and adjectives (amazingly, sadly, luckily, happy, surprised, curious, etc.).  Describe atmosphere and feelings as well as what happened (thrilled, sympathetic, etc.).  Write at least 150 words. Happy writing! 

47

APPENDIX 2 ELICITING A VALID SAMPLE OF WRITING ABILITY WRITING TEST Narrative Text

(2) type of text

(4) topics Choose one of the following options: 5. Write a story about your unforgettable experience. 6. Write about one of famous legends you know. 7. Narrate the plot of your favorite book/film (remember it is not an opinion essay, it must be a narrative text). 8. Write a story with the title: “The Time We First Met”. in language testing it is not normally interesting in knowing whether students are creative, imaginative, or even intelligent, have wide general knowledge, or have good reasons for the opinions they happen to hold1, therefore, the researcher here gives some themes to not to limit students’ ideas or not to benefit only some of them Tips for writing narratives:  Use all generic structures of narrative text (orientation, complication, sequence of event, resolution, coda).  Use different verbal tenses (past simple, past continuous, past perfect).  Use time expressions (while, until, by the time, as soon as, etc.).  Use adverbs and adjectives (amazingly, sadly, luckily, happy, surprised, curious, etc.).  Describe atmosphere and feelings as well as what happened (thrilled, sympathetic, etc.).  Write at least 150 words. the task must be representative in which five elements are included: operations, types of text, addressees of texts, topics, dialect and lenghth of texts2 (1) operations (5) dialect and length of texts (6) addressees of texts: the addressee here is for the teacher or the researcher of the course

1

Arthur Huges, Testing for Language Teachers (2nd Ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2008), p. 90. 2 Ibid, pp. 84-85.

48

APPENDIX 3 STUDENT’S RUBRIC

Criteria 

Main Idea & Focus 



Plot & Narrative Devices 



Organization 

Voice



Sentence  Fluency 

Conventions

4 Advanced Skillfully  combines story elements around main idea Focus on topic  is profoundly clear Characters,  plot and setting are developed strongly Sensory details and narratives are skillfully evident Strong and  engaging description  Sequencing of details are effective and logical Voice is  expressive and confident Sentence  structure enhances meaning A strong sense  of writing conventions is apparent

3 Proficient Combines  story elements around main  idea Focus on topic is clear

2 Basic Story elements  do not reveal a main idea  Focus on topic is somewhat clear

1 Not There Yet There is no clear main idea Focus on topic is not clear

Characters,  plot and setting are developed Sensory  details and narratives are evident Engaging  description Adequate sequencing of details

Characters,  plot and setting are minimally developed  Attempts to use narratives and sensory details

Lacks development on characters, plot and setting Fails to use sensory details and narratives

Description  needs some work Sequencing is limited

Description and sequencing needs major revision

Voice is authentic



Purposeful  use of sentence structure Standard  writing conventions is apparent

49

Voice is undefined



Writer's voice is not evident

Sentence structure is limited



No sense of sentence structure

Grade level appropriate conventions



Limited use of appropriate conventions

APPENDIX 4 PRE- & POST-TEST SCORES OF THE EXPERIMENTAL CLASS Pre-test

Post-test

Criteria

Criteria

Student code

Student code

I

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

1

15

20

15

15

65

1

25

25

20

20

90

2

5

5

5

5

30

2

25

20

15

20

80

3

5

5

5

5

20

3

10

10

15

15

50

4

10

15

10

10

45

4

20

20

20

20

80

5

15

20

15

10

60

5

20

20

20

20

80

6

15

15

15

15

50

6

10

15

20

20

65

7

10

15

15

15

55

7

25

25

20

20

90

8

15

15

15

10

55

8

25

20

20

20

85

9

5

15

15

15

50

9

5

20

20

20

65

10

5

10

10

15

40

10

5

15

15

15

50

11

5

10

10

15

40

11

5

20

20

20

65

12

5

10

10

10

35

12

5

15

15

15

50

13

15

10

15

10

50

13

5

15

20

20

60

14

5

10

15

10

40

14

5

15

15

20

55

15

5

15

10

15

45

15

20

20

20

20

80

16

5

15

10

15

45

16

25

20

20

20

85

17

10

10

10

15

45

17

20

20

20

25

85

18

15

15

15

15

60

18

20

15

20

20

75

19

5

5

5

5

30

19

20

15

20

15

70

20

5

5

5

5

20

20

10

15

20

20

65

Total

Average

44

Total

Average

50

71.25

APPENDIX 5 PRE- & POST-TEST SCORES OF THE CONTROLLED CLASS Pre-test

Post-test

Criteria

Criteria

Student code

Student code

I

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

1

5

10

15

15

45

1

5

15

20

20

60

2

5

5

10

10

30

2

5

10

10

10

30

3

5

15

15

15

50

3

25

20

25

20

90

4

10

15

10

15

50

4

25

25

25

20

95

5

5

10

15

10

40

5

25

25

20

20

90

6

15

15

15

15

60

6

20

20

20

20

80

7

5

10

15

15

45

7

25

25

20

20

90

8

10

10

10

10

40

8

25

25

20

25

95

9

5

15

10

15

45

9

5

20

20

20

65

10

5

15

10

15

45

10

25

20

20

20

85

11

5

15

15

15

50

11

20

20

25

20

85

12

5

15

10

15

45

12

25

25

20

20

90

13

5

15

10

15

45

13

25

25

20

20

90

14

5

15

15

15

50

14

5

20

20

20

65

15

10

15

10

15

50

15

20

20

20

15

75

16

15

15

10

15

55

16

25

25

25

20

95

17

20

20

20

15

75

17

25

25

25

20

95

18

15

15

10

15

55

18

20

20

20

20

80

19

15

15

10

15

55

19

20

15

15

20

70

20

15

15

10

15

55

20

5

20

20

20

65

Total

Average

Total

Average

49.25

51

79.5

APPENDIX 6 GAINED SCORES OF THE EXPERIMENTAL CLASS Student’s code PRETEST POSTTEST GAINED 90 1 65 25 80 2 30 50 50 3 20 30 80 4 45 35 80 5 60 20 65 6 50 15 90 7 55 35 85 8 55 30 65 9 50 15 50 10 40 10 65 11 40 25 50 12 35 15 60 13 50 10 55 14 40 15 80 15 45 35 85 16 45 40 85 17 45 40 75 18 60 15 70 19 30 40 65 20 20 45 71.25 Average 44 27.25

52

APPENDIX 7 GAINED SCORES OF THE CONTROLLED CLASS Student’s code PRETEST POSTTEST GAINED 60 1 45 15 35 2 30 5 90 3 50 40 95 4 50 45 90 5 40 50 80 6 60 20 90 7 45 45 95 8 40 55 65 9 45 20 85 10 45 40 85 11 50 35 90 12 45 45 90 13 45 45 65 14 50 15 75 15 50 25 95 16 55 40 95 17 75 20 80 18 55 25 70 19 55 15 65 20 55 10 79.75 Average 49.25 30.5

53

APPENDIX 8 LESSON PLAN 1: CONTROLLED CLASS Sekolah Mata Pelajaran Kelas/Semester Topik Keterampilan Durasi Hari/Tanggal

: : : : : : :

Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education Bahasa Inggris X/2 Narrative Text Writing 2x40 menit Senin-Rabu, 19-21 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti KI 1: Menghayati dan mengamalkan ajaran agama yang dianutnya. KI 2: Menghayati dan mengamalkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggungjawab, peduli (gotong royong, kerjasama, toleran, damai), santun, responsif dan pro-aktif dan menunjukkan sikap sebagai bagian dari solusi atas berbagai permasalahan dalam berinteraksi secara efektif dengan lingkungan sosial dan alam serta dalam menempatkan diri sebagai cerminan bangsa dalam pergaulan dunia. 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. Kompetensi Dasar dan Indikator KD 1.1: Mensyukuri kesempatan dapat mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa pengantar Komunikasi internasional yang diwujudkan dalam semangat belajar. KD 2.1: Menunjukkan perilaku santun dan peduli dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi interpersonal dengan guru dan teman. KD 2.2: Menunjukkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, percaya diri, dan bertanggung jawab dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi transaksional dengan guru dan teman. KD 2.3: Menunjukkkan perilaku tanggung jawab, peduli, kerjasama, dan cinta damai, dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi fungsional KD 3.1: Menganalisis fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan dari teks pemaparan jati diri, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya.

54

Indikator:  Memahami pengertian teks naratif  Menganalisis struktur teks naratif yang baik dan benar  Menyimpulkan pengertian teks naratif yang telah dipelajari  Membedakan teks naratif dengan teks recount  Memahami hakikat teks naratif dengan menyebutkan struktur dasarnya C. Tujuan Pembelajaran Selama dan setelah mengikuti kegiatan pembelajaran melalui metode ceramah dan presentasi siswa mampu: 1. Memahami apa itu teks naratif berikut struktur dasar dan unsur kebahasaanya 2. Menganalisis suatu teks naratif dengan memerhatikan prinsip-prinsipnya 3. Mampu membedakan teks naratif dengan teks-teks lain D. Materi Pembelajaran Materi fakta : Cerita (yg terkait dengan kehidupan sehari-hari) Materi konsep : Pengertian teks naratif (teori) Materi prinsip : Latihan mengidentifikasi sebuah cerita Materi prosedur : Orientation, Complication, Resolution, Coda (generic structures) (Bahan ajar terlampir) E. Metode Pembelajaran Strategi pembelajaran Pendekatan Metode

: Task-based Learning : Scientific : Ceramah

F. Media, Alat dan Sumber Pembelajaran Media :Alat/ Bahan : Infocus, Laptop Sumber Belajar : Buku Bahasa Inggris “Aim High: Oxford”, Internet G. Materi Pokok: Definition A narrative is a text that tells a story to entertain the audience. Narrative can be presented as written or spoken texts. Written narratives often take the form of novels. The story is usually told by a narrator.

55

Generic Structures  Orientation  Complication  Sequence of events  Resolution  Coda Example Snow White Once upon a time there lived a little girl named Snow White. She lived with her Aunt and Uncle because her parents were dead. One day she heard her Uncle and Aunt talking about leaving Snow White in the castle because they both wanted to go to America and they didn’t have enough money to take Snow White. Snow White did not want her Uncle and Aunt to do this so she decided it would be best if she ran away. The next morning she ran away from home when her Aunt and Uncle were having breakfast. She ran away into the woods. Then she saw this little cottage. She knocked but no one answered so she went inside and fell asleep. Meanwhile, the seven dwarfs were coming home from work. They went inside. There they found Snow White sleeping. Then Snow White woke up. She saw the dwarfs. The dwarfs said, “what is your name?” Snow White said, “My name is Snow White.” Doc, one of the dwarfs, said, “If you wish, you may live here with us.” Snow White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told the dwarfs the whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs lived happily ever after.

56

H. Langkah-langkah Kegiatan Pembelajaran: Pertemuan I: 2x40 Menit No

Kegiatan

Deskripsi

Alokasi waktu

1

Pendahuluan



Doa

15 menit



Mengecek kehadiran



Menyampaikan tujuan pembelajaran dan penelitian



Menyampaikan metode dan kegiatan belajar

2

Kegiatan Inti

Mengamati  Guru menjelaskan definisi teks naratif: struktur dasarnya, karakteristik kebahasaannya. Dan memberikan contoh salah satu legenda naratif: “Snow White.”  Guru mengarahkan siswa untuk membuka buku “Aim High” (hal. 17) dan membacakan cerita tentang “Niki Lauda”. Siswa mendengarkan mengamati dengan seksama sembari memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, unsur kebahasaan, maupun format penulisannya. Menanya  Dengan bimbingan dan arahan guru, siswa mempertanyakan antara lain: tujuan sebuah cerita dan perbedaan antara teks naratif dan teks recount, dan atau fungsi keduanya.

57

25 menit

Mengeksplorasi

20 menit

 Siswa diarahkan untuk menganalisa penulisan teks naratif yang baik di buku “Aim High” dan juga dari ceritacerita rakyat yang mereka ketahui. Mengasosiasi  Siswa menghubungkan pengetahuan tentang cerita/legenda yang telah dimiliki dengan pelajaran, terutama coda dari cerita yang disampaikan.  Siswa memperoleh umpan balikan (feedback) dari guru dan teman tentang struktur dan unsur kebahasaan teks. Mengomunikasikan  Siswa berlatih mengidentifikasi teks naratif dengan memperhatikan struktur dasarnya, dan unsur kebahasaan yang benar di bahan bacaan yang ada. 3

Penutup



Membuat kesimpulan



Evaluasi



Penugasan: menulis sebuah

10 menit

teks naratif dengan tema bebas

I. Penilaian Penilaian sikap

: Siswa memperhatikan dengan seksama pemaparan guru dan mampu bekerja sama dengan guru dan atau teman sejawat.

58

Penilaian pengetahuan

Penilaian keterampilan

: Siswa mampu memaparkan teks naratif berikut struktur dasarnya, tata bahasa, kosa kata, dan ejaan dengan benar. : Siswa mampu menulis teks naratif yang sederhana.

Mengetahui,

Pondok Cabe, 19 Januari 2015

Kepala Sekolah,

Guru Peneliti Bahasa Inggris,

Sutirto, S.Si., M.T.

Aziz Awaludin

59

APPENDIX 9 LESSON PLAN 1: EXPERIMENTAL CLASS Sekolah Mata Pelajaran Kelas/Semester Topik Keterampilan Durasi Hari/Tanggal

: : : : : : :

Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education Bahasa Inggris X/2 Narrative Text Writing 2x40 menit Rabu, 21 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti KI 1: Menghayati dan mengamalkan ajaran agama yang dianutnya. KI 2: Menghayati dan mengamalkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggungjawab, peduli (gotong royong, kerjasama, toleran, damai), santun, responsif dan pro-aktif dan menunjukkan sikap sebagai bagian dari solusi atas berbagai permasalahan dalam berinteraksi secara efektif dengan lingkungan sosial dan alam serta dalam menempatkan diri sebagai cerminan bangsa dalam pergaulan dunia. 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. Kompetensi Dasar dan Indikator KD 1.1: Mensyukuri kesempatan dapat mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa pengantar Komunikasi internasional yang diwujudkan dalam semangat belajar. KD 2.1: Menunjukkan perilaku santun dan peduli dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi interpersonal dengan guru dan teman. KD 2.2: Menunjukkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, percaya diri, dan bertanggung jawab dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi transaksional dengan guru dan teman. KD 2.3: Menunjukkkan perilaku tanggung jawab, peduli, kerjasama, dan cinta damai, dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi fungsional KD 3.1: Menganalisis fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan dari teks pemaparan jati diri, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya.

60

Indikator:  Memahami pengertian teks naratif  Menganalisis struktur teks naratif yang baik dan benar  Menyimpulkan pengertian teks naratif yang telah dipelajari  Membedakan teks naratif dengan teks recount  Memahami hakikat teks naratif dengan menyebutkan struktur dasarnya C. Tujuan Pembelajaran Selama dan setelah mengikuti kegiatan pembelajaran melalui metode ceramah dan presentasi siswa mampu: 4. Memahami apa itu teks naratif berikut struktur dasar dan unsur kebahasaanya 5. Menganalisis suatu teks naratif dengan memerhatikan prinsip-prinsipnya 6. Membedakan teks naratif dengan teks-teks lain D. Materi Pembelajaran Materi fakta : Cerita (yg terkait dengan kehidupan sehari-hari) Materi konsep : Pengertian teks naratif (teori) Materi prinsip : Latihan mengidentifikasi sebuah cerita Materi prosedur : Orientation, Complication, Resolution, Coda (generic structures) (Bahan ajar terlampir) E. Metode Pembelajaran Strategi pembelajaran Pendekatan Metode

: Task-based Learning : Scientific : Ceramah

F. Media, Alat dan Sumber Pembelajaran Media :Alat/ Bahan : Infocus, Laptop Sumber Belajar : Buku Bahasa Inggris “Aim High: Oxford”, Internet G. Materi Pokok Definition A narrative is a text that tells a story to entertain the audience. Narrative can be presented as written or spoken texts. Written narratives often take the form of novels. The story is usually told by a narrator.

61

Generic Structures  Orientation  Complication  Sequence of events  Resolution  Coda Example Snow White Once upon a time there lived a little girl named Snow White. She lived with her Aunt and Uncle because her parents were dead. One day she heard her Uncle and Aunt talking about leaving Snow White in the castle because they both wanted to go to America and they didn’t have enough money to take Snow White. Snow White did not want her Uncle and Aunt to do this so she decided it would be best if she ran away. The next morning she ran away from home when her Aunt and Uncle were having breakfast. She ran away into the woods. Then she saw this little cottage. She knocked but no one answered so she went inside and fell asleep. Meanwhile, the seven dwarfs were coming home from work. They went inside. There they found Snow White sleeping. Then Snow White woke up. She saw the dwarfs. The dwarfs said, “what is your name?” Snow White said, “My name is Snow White.” Doc, one of the dwarfs, said, “If you wish, you may live here with us.” Snow White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told the dwarfs the whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs lived happily ever after.

62

H. Langkah-langkah Kegiatan Pembelajaran: Pertemuan 1: 2x40 Menit No. 1

Kegiatan Pendahuluan

Deskripsi 

Doa



Mengecek kehadiran



Menyampaikan tujuan

Alokasi waktu 15 menit

pembelajaran dan penelitian 

Menyampaikan metode dan kegiatan belajar

2

Kegiatan Inti

Mengamati  Guru menjelaskan definisi teks naratif: struktur dasarnya, karakteristik kebahasaannya. Dan memberikan contoh salah satu legenda naratif: “Snow White.”  Guru mengarahkan siswa untuk membuka buku “Aim High” (hal. 17) dan membacakan cerita tentang “Niki Lauda”. Siswa mendengarkan mengamati dengan seksama sembari memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, unsur kebahasaan, maupun format penulisannya. Menanya  Dengan bimbingan dan arahan guru, siswa mempertanyakan antara lain: tujuan sebuah cerita dan perbedaan antara teks naratif dan teks recount, dan atau fungsi keduanya.

63

25 menit

Mengeksplorasi

20 menit

 Siswa diarahkan untuk menganalisa penulisan teks naratif yang baik di buku “Aim High” dan juga dari ceritacerita rakyat yang mereka ketahui. Mengasosiasi  Siswa menghubungkan pengetahuan tentang cerita/legenda yang telah dimiliki dengan pelajaran, terutama coda dari cerita yang disampaikan.  Siswa memperoleh umpan balikan (feedback) dari guru dan teman tentang struktur dan unsur kebahasaan teks. Mengomunikasikan  Siswa berlatih mengidentifikasi teks naratif dengan memperhatikan struktur dasarnya, dan unsur kebahasaan yang benar di bahan bacaan yang ada di buku untuk kemudian bias bermanfaat ketika melakukan peer-assessment. 3

Penutup



Membuat kesimpulan



Evaluasi



Penugasan: menulis sebuah

10 menit

teks naratif dengan tema bebas

I. Penilaian Penilaian sikap

: Siswa memperhatikan dengan seksama pemaparan guru dan mampu bekerja sama dengan guru dan atau teman sejawat. 64

Penilaian pengetahuan

Penilaian keterampilan

: Siswa mampu memaparkan teks naratif berikut struktur dasarnya, tata bahasa, kosa kata, dan ejaan dengan benar. : Siswa mampu menulis teks naratif yang sederhana.

Mengetahui,

Pondok Cabe, 21 Januari 2015

Kepala Sekolah,

Guru Peneliti Bahasa Inggris,

Sutirto, S.Si., M.T.

Aziz Awaludin

65

APPENDIX 10 LESSON PLAN 2: CONTROLLED CLASS Sekolah Mata Pelajaran Kelas/Semester Topik Keterampilan Durasi Hari/Tanggal

: : : : : : :

Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education Bahasa Inggris X/2 Narrative Text Writing 2x40 menit Rabu-Jumat, 21-23 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti KI 1: Menghayati dan mengamalkan ajaran agama yang dianutnya. KI 2: Menghayati dan mengamalkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggungjawab, peduli (gotong royong, kerjasama, toleran, damai), santun, responsif dan pro-aktif dan menunjukkan sikap sebagai bagian dari solusi atas berbagai permasalahan dalam berinteraksi secara efektif dengan lingkungan sosial dan alam serta dalam menempatkan diri sebagai cerminan bangsa dalam pergaulan dunia. 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. Kompetensi Dasar dan Indikator KD 1.1: Mensyukuri kesempatan dapat mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa pengantar Komunikasi internasional yang diwujudkan dalam semangat belajar. KD 2.2: Menunjukkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, percaya diri, dan bertanggung jawab dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi transaksional dengan guru dan teman. KD 2.3: Menunjukkkan perilaku tanggung jawab, peduli, kerjasama, dan cinta damai, dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi fungsional KD 3.1: Menganalisis fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan dari teks pemaparan jati diri, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya. Indikator:  Memahami hakikat teks naratif yang benar sehingga mampu membuatnya dalam bentuk tulisan 66

KD 4.1: Menyusun teks lisan dan tulis sederhana, untuk memaparkan, menanyakan, dan merespon cerita naratif, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan, secara benar dan sesuai dengan konteks. Indikator:  Mampu membedakan teks naratif dengan teks-teks lain, khususnya recount  Memahami hakikat teks naratif dengan menyebutkan struktur dasarnya, terutama orientation dan complication  Bisa menulis sebuah cerita naratif yang baik dan benar C. Tujuan Pembelajaran Selama dan setelah mengikuti kegiatan pembelajaran melalui metode peerassessment dan presentasi siswa mampu: 7. Memahami 2 struktur utama teks naratif: orientation dan complication 8. Mampu memproduksi tulisan berupa teks naratif yang baik dan benar D. Materi Pembelajaran Materi fakta : Kisah rakyat yang melegenda dan kisah yang pernah dialami siswa Materi konsep : Pengertian orientation dan complication dari teks naratif (teori) Materi prinsip : Latihan menulis orientation dan complication untuk sebuah cerita Materi prosedur : Memahami pengertian dasar teks naratif dan menuliskannya (Bahan ajar terlampir) E. Metode Pembelajaran Strategi pembelajaran Pendekatan Metode

: Task-based Learning : Scientific : Drilling

F. Media, Alat dan Sumber Pembelajaran Media :Alat/ Bahan : Infocus, Laptop Sumber Belajar : Buku Bahasa Inggris “Oxford: Aim High”, Internet

67

G. Materi Pokok What is narrative?  A narrative is a text that tells a story to entertain the audience.  Narrative can be presented as written or spoken texts.  The story is usually told by a narrator.  If the narrator is one of the characters in the story is said to be told in the first person.  If a person outside the story is the narrator, then the story is being told in the third person.

First step  Start with delivering “orientation” or introduction of the text  In this part the narrator tells the audience who is in the story, when it is happening, where it is happening and what is going on. Second step  Thrill your reader with emotional “complication”  This is the part of the story where the narrator tells about something that will begin in a chain of events. These events will affect one or more of the characters. The complication is the trigger or problem.

The difference between narrative and recount text “Snow White” (Orientation) Once upon a time there lived a little girl named Snow White. She lived with her Aunt and Uncle because her parents were dead. (Complication & Sequence of Event) One day she heard her Uncle and Aunt talking about leaving Snow White in the castle because they both wanted to go to America and they didn’t have enough money to take Snow White. Snow White did not want her Uncle and Aunt to do this so she decided it would be best if she ran away. The next morning she ran away from

68

home when her Aunt and Uncle were having breakfast. She ran away into the woods. (Resolution) Then she saw this little cottage. She knocked but no one answered so she went inside and fell asleep. Meanwhile, the seven dwarfs were coming home from work. They went inside. They found Snow White sleeping. Then Snow White woke up. She saw the dwarfs. The dwarfs said, “What is your name?” Snow White said, “My name is Snow White.” Doc, one of the dwarfs, said, “If you wish, you may live here with us.” Snow White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told the dwarfs the whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs lived happily ever after. “Visiting Semirang” On Sunday, I and my best friend, Sari, visited Semirang Waterfall in Ungaran. It was the first time for me to visit the waterfall. When we arrived at the hill, I felt so fresh and I could enjoy the scene. The air was so pure and all I could see only green and green. In Ungaran, we took a little bit trekking to find Semirang Waterfall. It was too bad for me because the distance to see the waterfall was too far. After taking so far distance, we found Semirang Waterfall. What a beautiful waterfall. We enjoyed the nice water in the rain forest surrounding the waterfall. Hearing the sound of falling water made me peace and relax. It was also excellent drowning out background sound. Playing with the water made me feel so happy. Finally, the time was over. It was time for us to go home. It was an unforgettable moment. I really enjoyed it.

69

H. Langkah-langkah Kegiatan Pembelajaran: Pertemuan II: 2x40 Menit No

Kegiatan

Deskripsi

Alokasi waktu

1

Pendahuluan



Doa



Mengecek kehadiran



Menyampaikan tujuan

15 menit

pembelajaran 

Menyampaikan metode dan kegiatan belajar

2

Kegiatan Inti

Mengamati  Guru menjelaskan dan menekankan 2 struktur dasar teks naratif: 1) orientation dan complication. Kemudian guru memberikan dari kedua struktur di cerita “Snow White” untuk diamati.  Guru mengarahkan siswa untuk membuka buku “Aim High” (hal. 18) dan memerhatikan cerita “Jesse Owen”. Siswa membaca dan mengamati dengan seksama sembari memperhatikan orientation dan complication dari cerita tersebut. Menanya  Guru kemudian menstimulus siswa menanyakan hal berkaitan 2 struktur dasar tersebut dengan teks yang telah

70

25 menit

dibaca. Mengeksplorasi

20 menit

 Siswa diminta untuk menyebutkan legenda rakyat yang mereka ketahui dan kemudian mengeksplorasinya dengan memaparkan orientation dan complication dari cerita itu. Mengasosiasi  Siswa mengasosiasikan pemahaman yang telah didapat dengan memaparkan orientation dan complication dari cerita yang ada di buku. Mengomunikasikan  Siswa mengomunikasikan dengan guru akan tulisantulisan yang telah mereka buat. 3

Penutup



Membuat kesimpulan



Evaluasi



Penugasan: menulis

10 menit

sebuah teks naratif dengan tema “The Man Who Can’t be Moved”

I. Penilaian Penilaian sikap Penilaian pengetahuan Penilaian keterampilan

: Siswa memperhatikan dengan seksama pemaparan guru. : Siswa mampu menjelaskan orientation dan complication dari teks naratif. : Siswa mampu mengoreksi dan memberikan masukan terhadap tulisan teman sejawatnya.

71

Mengetahui, Kepala Sekolah,

Pondok Cabe, 21 Januari 2015 Guru Peneliti Bahasa Inggris,

Sutirto, S.Si., M.T.

Aziz Awaludin

72

APPENDIX 11 LESSON PLAN 2: EXPERIMENTAL CLASS Sekolah Mata Pelajaran Kelas/Semester Topik Keterampilan Durasi Hari/Tanggal

: : : : : : :

Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education Bahasa Inggris X/2 Narrative Text Writing 2x40 menit Kamis-Jumat, 22-23 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti KI 1: Menghayati dan mengamalkan ajaran agama yang dianutnya. KI 2: Menghayati dan mengamalkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggungjawab, peduli (gotong royong, kerjasama, toleran, damai), santun, responsif dan pro-aktif dan menunjukkan sikap sebagai bagian dari solusi atas berbagai permasalahan dalam berinteraksi secara efektif dengan lingkungan sosial dan alam serta dalam menempatkan diri sebagai cerminan bangsa dalam pergaulan dunia. 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. Kompetensi Dasar dan Indikator KD 1.1: Mensyukuri kesempatan dapat mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa pengantar Komunikasi internasional yang diwujudkan dalam semangat belajar. KD 2.2: Menunjukkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, percaya diri, dan bertanggung jawab dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi transaksional dengan guru dan teman. KD 2.3: Menunjukkkan perilaku tanggung jawab, peduli, kerjasama, dan cinta damai, dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi fungsional KD 3.1: Menganalisis fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan dari teks pemaparan jati diri, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya. Indikator:  Mampu bekerja sama dengan teman sebaya untuk melakukan peerassessment

73

 

Memahami hakikat teks naratif yang benar sehingga mampu mengomentari karya temannya Bisa memberika masukan yang berguna dan konstruktif terhadapt tulisan teman

KD 4.1: Menyusun teks lisan dan tulis sederhana, untuk memaparkan, menanyakan, dan merespon cerita naratif, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan, secara benar dan sesuai dengan konteks. Indikator:  Membedakan teks naratif dengan teks recount  Memahami hakikat teks naratif dengan menyebutkan struktur dasarnya, terutama 2 fokus struktur: orientation dan complication  Mampu menulis sebuah cerita naratif yang baik dan benar C. Tujuan Pembelajaran Selama dan setelah mengikuti kegiatan pembelajaran melalui metode peerassessment dan presentasi siswa mampu: 9. Mampu menulis teks naratif yang baik dan benar 10. Dapat memahami dengan baik rubrik siswa khusus teks naratif 11. Bisa melakukan peer-assessment terhadap tulisan teman sejawatnya D. Materi Pembelajaran Materi fakta : Kisah rakyat yang melegenda, baik cerita lokal maupun internasional Materi konsep : Pengertian orientation dan complication dari teks naratif (teori) dan pengertian peer-assessment Materi prinsip : Latihan mengidentifikasi tulisan teman sejawat menggunakan rubrik Materi prosedur : Menulis teks naratif kemudian menukarnya dengan teman (Bahan ajar terlampir) E. Metode Pembelajaran Strategi pembelajaran : Task-based Learning Pendekatan : Scientific Metode : Peer-assessment F. Media, Alat dan Sumber Pembelajaran Media :Alat/ Bahan : Infocus, Laptop

74

Sumber Belajar

: Buku Bahasa Inggris “Oxford: Aim High”, Internet

G. Materi Pokok What is narrative?  A narrative is a text that tells a story to entertain the audience.  Narrative can be presented as written or spoken texts.  The story is usually told by a narrator.  If the narrator is one of the characters in the story is said to be told in the first person.  If a person outside the story is the narrator, then the story is being told in the third person.

First step  Start with delivering “orientation” or introduction of the text  In this part the narrator tells the audience who is in the story, when it is happening, where it is happening and what is going on. Second step  Thrill your reader with emotional “complication”  This is the part of the story where the narrator tells about something that will begin in a chain of events. These events will affect one or more of the characters. The complication is the trigger or problem. The difference between narrative and recount text “Snow White” (Orientation) Once upon a time there lived a little girl named Snow White. She lived with her Aunt and Uncle because her parents were dead. (Complication & Sequence of Event) One day she heard her Uncle and Aunt talking about leaving Snow White in the castle because they both wanted to go to America and they didn’t have enough money to take Snow White. Snow White did not want her Uncle and Aunt to do this so she decided

75

it would be best if she ran away. The next morning she ran away from home when her Aunt and Uncle were having breakfast. She ran away into the woods. (Resolution) Then she saw this little cottage. She knocked but no one answered so she went inside and fell asleep. Meanwhile, the seven dwarfs were coming home from work. They went inside. They found Snow White sleeping. Then Snow White woke up. She saw the dwarfs. The dwarfs said, “What is your name?” Snow White said, “My name is Snow White.” Doc, one of the dwarfs, said, “If you wish, you may live here with us.” Snow White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told the dwarfs the whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs lived happily ever after. “Visiting Semirang” On Sunday, I and my best friend, Sari, visited Semirang Waterfall in Ungaran. It was the first time for me to visit the waterfall. When we arrived at the hill, I felt so fresh and I could enjoy the scene. The air was so pure and all I could see only green and green. In Ungaran, we took a little bit trekking to find Semirang Waterfall. It was too bad for me because the distance to see the waterfall was too far. After taking so far distance, we found Semirang Waterfall. What a beautiful waterfall. We enjoyed the nice water in the rain forest surrounding the waterfall. Hearing the sound of falling water made me peace and relax. It was also excellent drowning out background sound. Playing with the water made me feel so happy. Finally, the time was over. It was time for us to go home. It was an unforgettable moment. I really enjoyed it.

76

H. Langkah-langkah Kegiatan Pembelajaran: Pertemuan II: 2x40 Menit No. 1

Kegiatan Pendahuluan

Deskripsi 

Doa



Mengecek kehadiran



Menyampaikan tujuan

Alokasi waktu 15 menit

pembelajaran 

Menyampaikan metode dan kegiatan belajar

2

Kegiatan Inti

Mengamati  Guru menjelaskan dan menekankan 2 struktur dasar teks naratif: 1) orientation dan complication. Kemudian guru memberikan dari kedua di cerita “Snow White” untuk diamati.  Guru mengarahkan siswa untuk membuka buku “Aim High” (hal. 18) dan memerhatikan cerita “Jesse Owen”. Siswa membaca dan mengamati dengan seksama sembari memperhatikan orientation dan complication dari cerita tersebut.  Siswa dikenalkan dengan peerassessment: pengertian, kegunaan, dan prosedur pelaksanaannya. Menanya  Guru kemudian menstimulus siswa menanyakan hal berkaitan 2 struktur dasar tersebut dengan teks yang telah dibaca.

77

25 menit

Mengeksplorasi

20 menit

 Siswa diminta untuk menyebutkan legenda rakyat yang mereka ketahui dan kemudian mengeksplorasinya dengan memaparkan orientation dan complication dari cerita itu. Mengasosiasi  Siswa mengasosiasikan pemahaman yang telah didapat dengan memaparkan orientation dan complication dari teks yang dibuat teman sejawatnya (bagian dari peerassessment).  Siswa memperoleh umpan balikan (feedback) teman teman sejawat tentang orientation dan complication untuk tulisan mereka. Mengomunikasikan  Siswa mempelajari masukanmasukan yang diberika temannya dan kemudian mengomunikasikan dengan guru.  Siswa kemudian dikenalkan dengan peer-assessment melalui Facebook dan cara praktis pelaksanaannya. 3

Penutup



Membuat kesimpulan



Evaluasi



Penugasan: menulis sebuah teks naratif dengan tema “The Man Who Can’t be Moved” dan unggah ke grup Facebook yang tersedia

78

10 menit

I. Penilaian Penilaian sikap

Penilaian pengetahuan Penilaian keterampilan Instrument penilaian

: Siswa memperhatikan dengan seksama pemaparan guru dan mampu bekerja sama dengan teman sejawat dalam melakukan peer-assessment. : Siswa mampu menjelaskan orientation dan complication dari teks naratif. : Siswa mampu mengoreksi dan memberikan masukan terhadap tulisan teman sejawatnya. : Rubrik khusus teks naratif dari PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers) untuk guru dan juga siswa.

Mengetahui,

Pondok Cabe, 22 Januari 2015

Kepala Sekolah,

Guru Peneliti Bahasa Inggris,

Sutirto, S.Si., M.T.

Aziz Awaludin

79

APPENDIX 12 LESSON PLAN 3: CONTROLLED CLASS Sekolah Mata Pelajaran Kelas/Semester Topik Keterampilan Durasi Hari/Tanggal

: : : : : : :

Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education Bahasa Inggris X/2 Narrative Text Writing 2x40 menit Senin, 26 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti KI 1: Menghayati dan mengamalkan ajaran agama yang dianutnya. KI 2: Menghayati dan mengamalkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggungjawab, peduli (gotong royong, kerjasama, toleran, damai), santun, responsif dan pro-aktif dan menunjukkan sikap sebagai bagian dari solusi atas berbagai permasalahan dalam berinteraksi secara efektif dengan lingkungan sosial dan alam serta dalam menempatkan diri sebagai cerminan bangsa dalam pergaulan dunia. 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. Kompetensi Dasar dan Indikator KD 1.1: Mensyukuri kesempatan dapat mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa pengantar Komunikasi internasional yang diwujudkan dalam semangat belajar. KD 2.2: Menunjukkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, percaya diri, dan bertanggung jawab dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi transaksional dengan guru dan teman. KD 2.3: Menunjukkkan perilaku tanggung jawab, peduli, kerjasama, dan cinta damai, dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi fungsional KD 3.1: Menganalisis fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan dari teks pemaparan jati diri, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya.

80

KD 4.1: Menyusun teks lisan dan tulis sederhana, untuk memaparkan, menanyakan, dan merespon cerita naratif, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan, secara benar dan sesuai dengan konteks. Indikator:  Memahami resolution dan coda untuk sebuah teks naratif  Menunjukkan resolution dan coda dari cerita yang ada di buku pelajaran  Menulis sebuah cerita yang memuat minimal 2 struktur: resolution dan coda C. Tujuan Pembelajaran Selama dan setelah mengikuti kegiatan pembelajaran melalui metode ceramah dan presentasi siswa mampu: 12. Dapat menunjukkan resolution dan coda dari cerita-cerita yang terdapat di buku dan legenda yang diketahui 13. Mampu memproduksi tulisan yang berisi resolution dan coda D. Materi Pembelajaran Materi fakta : Cerita-cerita yang diambil dari kisah hidup seseorang Materi konsep : Pengertian resulotion dan coda dari teks naratif (teori) Materi prinsip : Latihan mengidentifikasi resulotion dan coda dari buku Materi prosedur : menerapkan resulotion dan coda pada tulisan pribadi (Bahan ajar terlampir) E. Metode Pembelajaran Strategi pembelajaran Pendekatan Metode

: Task-based Learning : Scientific : Drilling

F. Media, Alat dan Sumber Pembelajaran Media :Alat/ Bahan : Infocus, Laptop Sumber Belajar : Buku Bahasa Inggris “Oxford: Aim High”, Internet G. Materi Pokok Third step  Try to create unpredictable ending, “resolution”

81

 In this part of the narrative the complication is sorted out or problem is solved. Example ‘Doc, one of the dwarfs, said, “If you wish, you may live here with us.” Snow White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told the dwarfs the whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs lived happily ever after.’

Forth step  Coda  The narrator includes a coda if there is a moral or message to be learned from the story.

Exercise Identify resolution of Buck story about “The Call of the Wild” in AIM HIGH: OXFORD book (page 20)

H. Langkah-langkah Kegiatan Pembelajaran: Pertemuan III: 2x40 Menit No

Kegiatan

Deskripsi

Alokasi waktu

1

Pendahuluan



Doa

15 menit



Mengecek kehadiran



Menyampaikan tujuan pembelajaran



Menyampaikan metode dan kegiatan belajar

2

Kegiatan Inti

Mengamati  Guru menerangkan dan memfokuskan 2 struktur dasar teks naratif: 1) resolution dan 82

25 menit

coda. Kemudian guru memberikan dari kedua di cerita “Snow White” untuk diamati.  Guru menyuruh siswa untuk membuka buku “Oxford: Aim High” (hal. 20) dan memerhatikan cerita “The Call of the Wild”. Siswa membaca dan mengamati dengan seksama sembari memperhatikan resolution dan coda dari cerita itu. Menanya  Guru kemudian merangsang siswa menanyakan hal berkaitan 2 struktur dasar tersebut dengan teks yang telah dibaca.  Siswa diminta menanyakan hal-hal belum mereka mengerti. Mengeksplorasi  Siswa diminta untuk menceritakan kisah film/buku yang mereka ketahui dan kemudian menggalinya dengan memaparkan resolution dan coda dari cerita tersebut. Mengasosiasi  Siswa menghubungkan pemahaman yang telah dipunya dengan menghubungkan pengertian resolution dan coda dengan cerita yang ada di buku Mengomunikasikan  Siswa mengomunikasikan tulisan yang telah mereka buat dengan guru.

83

20 menit

3

Penutup



Membuat kesimpulan



Evaluasi



Mengingatkan untuk bersiap

10 menit

menghadapi post-test di pertemuan selanjutnya

I. Penilaian Penilaian sikap

Penilaian pengetahuan Penilaian keterampilan

: Siswa memperhatikan dengan seksama pemaparan guru dan mampu bekerja sama dengan teman sejawat. : Siswa mampu menjelaskan resolution dan coda dari teks naratif temannya. : Siswa mampu menulis resolution dan coda untuk sebuah cerita.

Mengetahui, Kepala Sekolah,

Pondok Cabe, 26 Januari 2015 Guru Peneliti Bahasa Inggris,

Sutirto, S.Si., M.T.

Aziz Awaludin

84

APPENDIX 13 LESSON PLAN 3: EXPERIMENTAL CLASS Sekolah Mata Pelajaran Kelas/Semester Topik Keterampilan Durasi Hari/Tanggal

: : : : : : :

Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education Bahasa Inggris X/2 Narrative Text Writing 2x40 menit Senin, 26 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti KI 1: Menghayati dan mengamalkan ajaran agama yang dianutnya. KI 2: Menghayati dan mengamalkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggungjawab, peduli (gotong royong, kerjasama, toleran, damai), santun, responsif dan pro-aktif dan menunjukkan sikap sebagai bagian dari solusi atas berbagai permasalahan dalam berinteraksi secara efektif dengan lingkungan sosial dan alam serta dalam menempatkan diri sebagai cerminan bangsa dalam pergaulan dunia. 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. Kompetensi Dasar dan Indikator KD 1.1: Mensyukuri kesempatan dapat mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa pengantar Komunikasi internasional yang diwujudkan dalam semangat belajar. KD 2.2: Menunjukkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, percaya diri, dan bertanggung jawab dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi transaksional dengan guru dan teman. KD 2.3: Menunjukkkan perilaku tanggung jawab, peduli, kerjasama, dan cinta damai, dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi fungsional KD 3.1: Menganalisis fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan dari teks pemaparan jati diri, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya.

85

KD 4.1: Menyusun teks lisan dan tulis sederhana, untuk memaparkan, menanyakan, dan merespon cerita naratif, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan, secara benar dan sesuai dengan konteks. Indikator:  Memahami 2 fokus struktur teks naratif: resolution dan coda  Memproduksi cerita yang memuat minimal 2 unsur dasar narasi: resolution dan coda  Mengimplementasikan peer-assessment pada tulisan teman sejawat  Mengambil manfaat (berupa koreksian) dari komentar temantemannya di Facebook C. Tujuan Pembelajaran Selama dan setelah mengikuti kegiatan pembelajaran melalui metode ceramah dan presentasi siswa mampu: 14. Bisa menulis cerita yang memuat resolution dan coda 15. Mampu menulis dan memposting teks naratif di beranda grup Facebook 16. Dapat memberikan komentar terhadap hasil tulisan teman sebagai feedback yang kemudian digunakan untuk memperbaiki tulisannya D. Materi Pembelajaran Materi fakta : Cerita-cerita yang diambil dari kisah hidup seseorang Materi konsep : Pengertian resulotion dan coda dari teks naratif (teori) Materi prinsip : Latihan mengidentifikasi resulotion dan coda dari tulisan teman sejawat dan buku Materi prosedur : Memahami feedback dari teman dan kemudian menjadikannya perbaikan untuk tulisan pribadi (Bahan ajar terlampir) E. Metode Pembelajaran Strategi pembelajaran Pendekatan Metode

: Task-based Learning : Scientific : Peer-assessment

F. Media, Alat dan Sumber Pembelajaran Media :Alat/ Bahan : Infocus, Laptop Sumber Belajar : Buku Bahasa Inggris “Oxford: Aim High”, Internet

86

G. Materi Pokok Third step  Try to create unpredictable ending, “resolution”  In this part of the narrative the complication is sorted out or problem is solved. Example ‘Doc, one of the dwarfs, said, “If you wish, you may live here with us.” Snow White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told the dwarfs the whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs lived happily ever after.’

Forth step  Coda  The narrator includes a coda if there is a moral or message to be learned from the story.

Exercise Identify resolution of Buck story about “The Call of the Wild” in AIM HIGH: OXFORD book (page 20)

H. Langkah-langkah Kegiatan Pembelajaran: Pertemuan III: 2x40 Menit No. 1

Kegiatan Pendahuluan

Deskripsi 

Doa



Mengecek kehadiran



Menyampaikan tujuan

15 menit

pembelajaran 

Alokasi waktu

Menyampaikan metode dan kegiatan belajar

87

2

Kegiatan Inti

Mengamati

25 menit

 Guru menerangkan dan memfokuskan 2 struktur dasar teks naratif: 1) resolution dan coda. Kemudian guru memberikan dari kedua di cerita “Snow White” untuk diamati.  Guru menyuruh siswa untuk membuka buku “Oxford: Aim High” (hal. 20) dan memerhatikan cerita “The Call of the Wild”. Siswa membaca dan mengamati dengan seksama sembari memperhatikan resolution dan coda dari cerita itu.  Siswa diperlihatkan dengan hasil peer-assessment yang telah mereka lakukan di Facebook. Menanya  Guru kemudian mernagsang siswa menanyakan hal berkaitan 2 struktur dasar tersebut dengan teks yang telah dibaca.  Siswa diminta menanyakan hal-hal belum mereka mengerti. Mengeksplorasi  Siswa diminta untuk menceritakan kisah film/buku yang mereka ketahui dan kemudian menggalinya dengan memaparkan resolution dan coda dari cerita tersebut. Mengasosiasi  Siswa menghubungkan pemahaman yang telah dipunya dengan menunjukkan 88

20 menit

resolution dan coda dari teks yang dibuat teman sejawatnya yang telah mereka nilai.  Siswa diminta menjadikan umpan balikan (feedback) teman untuk memperbaiki tulisannya di masa yang akan datang. Mengomunikasikan  Siswa mempelajari masukanmasukan yang diberika temannya dan kemudian mengomunikasikan dengan guru. 3

Penutup



Membuat kesimpulan



Evaluasi



Mengingatkan untuk bersiap

10 menit

menghadapi post-test di pertemuan selanjutnya

I. Penilaian Penilaian sikap

Penilaian pengetahuan Penilaian keterampilan Instrument penilaian

: Siswa memperhatikan dengan seksama pemaparan guru dan mampu bekerja sama dengan teman sejawat dalam melakukan peer-assessment. : Siswa mampu menjelaskan resolution dan coda dari teks naratif temannya. : Siswa menganalisa masukan yang diberikan teman sejawatnya. : Rubrik khusus teks naratif dari PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers) untuk guru dan juga siswa.

89

Mengetahui, Kepala Sekolah,

Pondok Cabe, 26 Januari 2015 Guru Peneliti Bahasa Inggris,

Sutirto, S.Si., M.T.

Aziz Awaludin

90

APPENDIX 14 OVERVIEW OF FACEBOOK GROUP

Visit the group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1592353290978382/

91

APPENDIX 15 PRE-TREATMENT OBSERVATION SHEET Date:___________________ Class identification:

Facilitation at classroom:

Student attitudes:

Teacher attitudes:

Class environment:

92

APPENDIX 15 POST-TREATMENT OBSERVATION SHEET Date:___________________ Class identification:

Students’ attitudes when the treatment is given:

Students’ attitudes to the tasks assigned:

Number and content of comments on students’ writings:

Students’ responses to the feedbacks:

93

THE RESEARCHER’S BIOGRAPHY

Aziz Awaludin was born on Monday, October 2nd, 1989 in Bogor. He began his formal education at SD Negeri 3 Pingku in Parung Panjang and continued his study at Pondok Modern Ummul Quro Al-Islami in Bogor. After graduated from the boarding school he did not directly pursue his bachelor degree, but he was assigned by the school to devote himself for one year at Al-Ansor Islamic Boarding School in Padangsidimpuan City, North Sumatera. However, he realized that education is very important and that it can change his life to be better. Thus, after striving very hard, in 2010 he became a university student of English Education Department in Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic State University Jakarta. Other than studying English education at the university, he was actively involved in leadership organization HMI (Himpunan Mahasiswa Islam), writing forum FLP (Forum Lingkar Pena), board of student organization of the department, and other social organizations. Also, he enriched himself with knowledge of research and language in Research and Language Development Program held by the university for three months. Along his undergraduate program he grabbed several achievements, such as: 1) nominated as an outstanding student 2014 in Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher’s Training by dean of the faculty, 2) achieving Student Achievement Award 2014 for his work Kamus Santri (a three-language dictionary in Bahasa Indonesia, English and Arabic) by rector of the university, 3) participating Summer Camp 2011 in Turkey for a month, and 4) awarded as the best graduate of English Education Department in the 96th graduation ceremony 2015. He believes the best person in the world is a person who is beneficial for others, “khairunnaas(i) „anfauhum linnaas(i).” The researcher can be reached by:  

Email : [email protected] Twitter : @Aziz_Awe