In Search of Good Student Teachers in Writing Skill: The Impact of Different Task Variance on EFL Writing Proficiency

Yıl 2016, , 0 - 0, 28.03.2016

Makmur Makmur , Yanti Ismiyati Amirul Mukminin , Verawati Verawati

https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901

Öz

The purpose of this experimental study was to investigate the effect of the different task variance involving providing topic sentences and signal words on student teacher’s writing proficiency at one public university’s English Education Program in Jambi, Indonesia. Two groups of the first year students were selected as participants. Each consisted of 30 students. Group I was required to perform the writing task and provided with a topic sentence and group II was required to perform the writing task and provided with signal words. The results of the test were rated or scored by using the analytical and holistic rating systems. The data were analyzed statistically by using Independent Sample T – Test and Correlation. The findings of the study showed that on average, Group I had a higher level of effect on student’s writing proficiency (M = 72.57, SE = 1.81) than Group II on student’s writing proficiency (M = 56.50, SE = 2.16). This difference is significant (t (58) = 5.70; p < 0.05). Our findings suggest the interactions among the components of complexity have a strong correlation. The positive relationships among the components of coherence are also statistically proved. We concluded that providing topic sentences helps students much better to develop paragraph writing than providing signal words.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Student teachers, different task variance; EFL writing proficiency

Kaynakça

• Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7 (3), 347 – 376.
• Blanchard, K., & Root, C. (2003). Ready to write. New York: Pearson Education.
• Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
• Castro, C. D. (2004). Cohesion and social construction of meaning in the essays of Filipino college students writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5 (2), 215-225.
• Ellis, R. & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59-84.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications.
• Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in education. San Francisco USA: Mc Graw - Hill Higher Education.
• Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135 – 159.
• Lynch, T. & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4 (3), 221-250.
• Johnson, P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English. RELC Journal, 23(2), 1 – 17.
• Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.
• Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 38-62.
• Snellings, P., Van Gelderen, A., & De Glopper, K. (2004). The effect of enhance lexical retrieval on second language writing: A classroom experiment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 175 – 200.
• Van Weijen, D. (2008). Writing processes, text quality, and task effects. Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT.
• White, R. E. & Rosenberg, S. (1993). Knowledge of text coherence and expository writing: A developmental study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 152 – 158.