Acuity (4)2 94-127
1
The Application of Process Approach in Enhancing Paragraph
Writing Skills of SMA Negeri 1 Lembang
Debby Annella Situngkir
situngkirdebby@gmail.com
English Language School, Pekan Baru
Abstract
Enhancing paragraph writing skill of students addresses the issues of
writing. To see the paragraph writing skill enhancement of students and finding out
the significant difference in paragraph writing skill enhancement between students
acquired Individual Process Approach and students acquired Collaborative Process
Approach are the aims of this research. To get the aims of this research used
quantitative research. Also, researcher conducted paragraph writing pre-test and
post-test, as an instrument, to 64 second year students of SMA Negeri 1 Lembang.
Then researcher analyzed students’ pre-test and post-test achievement by using
Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS). The results are paragraph writing
skills of students enhanced and there is significant difference in paragraph writing
skill enhancement between students acquired Individual Process Approach and
students acquired Collaborative Process Approach. It implies that Process
Approach enhance paragraph writing skill of students.
Keywords: Individual Process Approach, Collaborative Process Approach,
Paragraph Writing Enhancement
Background of the Study
Indonesian senior high school students are expected to be able both to share
information and instruction in writing and to master paragraph writing in English
(Mukti, 2016). However, Indonesian students often experience problems when
learning English (Katemba, 2019), In the case of Indonesians, there is a high level
of acceptability and tolerance of the use of English. The teaching of English in the
school curriculum is given a higher priority over all other foreign languages in the
school systems (Katemba, 2013) but, in mastering English writing skill, students
encounter problems since English is their foreign language. Thereby, issues in
writing need serious attention (Jurianto, Salimah, & Kwary, 2015) for high school
students to materialize what they are expected to.
There are various issues in English writing that students face. It includes
development and organization (Huang, 2005; Writing Center, 2014), lack of ideas
(Alwasilah, 2001; Fatemi, 2008), grammar intuition, missing punctuation, and
capitalization (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Suyanto, 2015). With these issues,
students need to take more time and effort in writing especially being learners of
English as a foreign language (Nunan, 1999).
mailto:situngkirdebby@gmail.com
(4)2 94-127
To address the issues of writing involves necessary steps to be taken into
account. It requires paying particular attention to the paragraph and its components
such as topic sentence, supporting details, and conclusion—to develop idea (Gillet,
2017). The above necessities require teaching approach in paragraph writing to
enhance students’ writing skills.
In enhancing students’ writing skills, researchers (Abd & Ibian, 2014;
Bayat, 2014; Pujianto, 2013) used Process Approach (PA) in teaching paragraph
writing. It has different stages such as prewriting, drafting, editing, revising, and
publishing (Johnson, 2008; Karatay, 2011; Simpson, 2013) which cover the writing
issues. Further, above studies emphasized that PA had positively affected students’
writing skill. An example to this is the developing of writing skills like report texts
(Pujianto, 2013). Therefore, it was recommended to place more emphasis on
teaching writing as a process of organizing or developing the writing idea and not
only a product (Alodwan & Ibnian, 2014) for it had contributions to writing success
(Bayat, 2014). PA seems to have significance to paragraph writing (PW).
Given the above discussion on the importance of PA to PW, the researcher
applied PA to her research to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) sophomore
students in Indonesia specifically at the Sekolah Menengah Atas Negeri (SMAN) 1
Lembang. Students were separated in two groups—one used individual PA while
the other was by collaborative PA. In Collaborative PA class researcher grouped
students using friendship ranking (Budden, 2008; DeScioli, Kurzban, Koch, &
Liben, 2011) and mixed-ability group technique (Cohen, Manion, & Marrison,
2004; Lyle, 2010)
Research Questions
This study was conducted to investigate the following:
1. Does paragraph writing skill of students enhance after being taught through
Individual Process Approach and Collaborative Process Approach?
2. Is there a significant difference in paragraph writing skill enhancement
between Individual Process Approach class and Collaborative Process
Approach class?
Related Literature & Studies
The Complexity of Writing
Writing, a skill that one must possess, is complicated. It necessitates
cognitive process (Flower & Hayes, 1981, cited in Deane, 2008) and the production
of ideas and thoughts (Fatimah, 2013) by organizing them in written forms (Copper,
2013). Furthermore, the forms and types of writing apply a variety of features which
can be seen within the sentences (Nunan, 2009, cited in Grossmann, 2009) and
paragraph (Firestone, 2015). Written forms may reflect the complexity of writing.
The complexity of writing (Brown, 2001) includes (1) producing graphemes
and orthographic patterns of language, (2) producing writing at an efficient rate of
speed to suit the purpose, (3) producing an acceptable core of words and using
(4)2 94-127
appropriate word order patterns, (4) using acceptable grammatical systems,
patterns, and rules, (5) expressing a particular meaning in different grammatical
forms, (6) using cohesive devices in written discourse, (7) using the rhetorical forms
and conventions of written discourse, (8) appropriately accomplishing the
communicative functions of written texts according to form and purpose, (9)
conveying links and connections between events and communicate such relations
as main idea, supporting idea, new information, given information, generalization,
and exemplification; distinguish between literal and implied meaning when writing.
The complexity of writing is reflected by its process.
Writing as a Productive Skill
Though writing is complicated, its skill is productive. It emphasizes
producing language rather than receiving language (Aguirela & Filologia, 2012) in
the form of writing materials. In the process of writing, Barnett (1991) discusses
three components which interact with and influence each other constantly and
intricately. It includes (a) the writer’s long-term memory where knowledge of topic
audience and writing plans are stored, (b) the task environment, including the
rhetorical problem and the text produced so far, and (c) writing processes such a
goal setting, organizing, reviewing, evaluating, and revising. Literally, the
framework of writing goal is achieved while the writer composes his writing
through the process.
In addition, there are steps that are required during the writing process—
when writers keep moving their thoughts back and forth between the components
of writing as suggested by Copper (2013). The steps are (1) prewriting gestation
(from a few minutes to months or years); (2) planning the particular piece (with or
without notes or outline); (3) getting the composition started; (4) making ongoing
decisions about word choice, syntax rhetorical style, and organization; (5)
reviewing what has been written and anticipating and rehearsing what comes next;
(6) tinkering and reformulating; (7) stopping; (8) contemplating the finished piece,
and (9) revising. Thus, writing skill is a skill one must have to produce his thoughts,
ideas in a written form, through organization, composing, and processing.
Writing a Paragraph
A paragraph is a group of sentences that support one main idea (Ireland,
Short, & Woollerton, 2008). The expansion of a main idea in a paragraph consists
a topic sentence, supporting sentence and a concluding sentence (McCloud, 2017;
Writing Pack, 2015) which serve as guidelines in the process of PW. Rosen and
Behren (2000) argued that every paragraph should be (a) unified—all sentences
should be related to a single controlling idea; (b) clearly related to the thesis—refer
to the central idea, or thesis, of the paper; (c) coherent—sentences are arranged in
a logical manner and should follow a definite plan for development, and (d) well-
developed—every idea discussed in the paragraph should be adequately explained
(4)2 94-127
and supported through evidence and details that work together to explain the
paragraph’s controlling idea.
The decision about what to put into parts of paragraphs begins with the
“germination process” known as brainstorming, questioning, and note-taking to
point the key word of the main idea (The Writing Center, 2017). An ideal structure
paragraph must be measurable and describable and consist of postulate six
principles to govern the creation of a paragraph (Sarfo, 2015). The six principles
of PW are (1) the beginning of each sentence upon what precedes shall be explicit
and unmistakable; (2) the consecutive sentences which iterate or illustrate the
same idea, they should, so far as possible be formed alike. This may be called the
rule of parallel construction; (3) the opening sentence, unless so constructed as
to be obliviously preparatory is expected to indicate with prominence the subject
of the paragraph; (4) the paragraph should be consecutive or free from
dislocation; (5) the paragraph should possess unity which implies a definite
purpose and forbids digression and irrelevance, (6) as in the sentence, so in the
paragraph a due proportion should obtain between principal and subordinate
statements.
Teaching Writing to EFL High School Students
Learning writing is important for all students. It is because writing is known
as a critical communication tool for students (Graham, 2016). The policy of
Indonesian Ministry of Education (Kurikulum, 2013, cited in Jurianto, Salimah, &
Kwary, 2015) requires that undergraduate students must have writing skills and that
it should begin in during high school years. This proves that teaching writing to
students is seen as a valuable medium to facilitate students’ writing skills in
preparation for further studies which may need adjustments in the present.
To teach paragraph writing, teacher needs writing instructions. There are
eleven types of writing instructions to be effective for helping teenage students to
write as enumerated by (Graham & Perin, 2007). It includes writing strategies,
summarization, collaborative writing, specific product goals, word processing,
sentence combining, prewriting, inquiry activities, process writing approach, study
of models, and writing for content learning. On the other hand, teachers should also
master the writing instruction details for them to apply in teaching writing.
Teachers do not only need to master writing instruction in teaching but they
also need to set the goal of what is expected from the student after learning writing.
Weigle (2005) stated that without a clear purpose in learning will lead to students’
disorientation and unorganized teaching and learning process—causing students’
less maximization of learning.
Furthermore, in teaching paragraph writing, teachers also have to consider
the teaching materials. Based on competency standard of English subject in
Indonesia (Curriculum of English for Senior High Schools, 2013), the material for
teaching writing is formulated as follows: interactional and monolog
text/paragraph, specified in the form of descriptive, narrative, spoof/recount,
procedure, report, news, anecdote, exposition, explanation, discussion, commentary
and review. Those material can be used as the reference of teaching writing.
(4)2 94-127
Teaching writing to EFL students have many challenges. However, since
writing is an important element for students’ writing skills success, it is suggested
that teachers should have effective teaching approaches towards teaching writing.
Approaches in Teaching Writing
Initially, the concept of approaches teaching writing to EFL learners is
adapted from the approaches of first language writing instruction. Over the past few
decades, researchers have sought to perfect ideas specifically related to EFL/
English as a Second Language (ESL) writing instruction. However, agreement on
approaches is not consistent (Vanderpyl, 2012). So, EFL writing teachers not only
need to be strong, but also flexible to adjust the approaches that will be used in
teaching writing. The following are some approaches that can be used to teach
writing. First is the Product approach (PrA). It is concerned with sentence level
structuralist linguistics, bottom-up processing, and the grammatical accuracy to
create the final product (Badger & White, 2000; Nunan, 1999). In creating the final
complete product, teacher’s role is as a provider of model language (an imitation of
the input into text and guided exercises) and corrector of errors (Oraif, 2016) in
writing.
Meanwhile, Cohen (1990) asserted that the PrA relies on the assumption
that learners are able to hand in a finished product the first time around. However,
since the PrA focuses on writing tasks in which the learner imitates, copies and
transforms teacher supplied models, this approach discourages learners from
tackling their writing tasks in a serious manner because the focus is on an instant
product (Grami, 2010) rather than the process.
Second, the Process Genre Approach, is promoted by Badger and White
(2000) who combined the steps in PA and genre-based approaches. This approach
focuses learners on an occurring situation for which a text is required by studying
the relationship between purpose and form of the required text as learners use the
process of writing such as prewriting, drafting, revision, and editing (Tudor, 2016;
Yan, 2005). The Process Genre Approach is formulated into six steps which include
preparation, modeling and reinforcing, planning, joint constructing, independent
constructing and revising (Badger & White, 2000; Yan, 2005). These steps will
develop students’ awareness in the process of composing different type of texts and
take benefits from the process of writing and become familiar with the required
texts (Sari & Saun, 2013).
Third, the Language Experience Approach, is a comprehensive beginning
reading method which integrates children’s language and background knowledge
(Carter, 2007). It can also be used as a starting point with beginning and improving
writers both for writing practice and for developing writing skills because it uses a
student’s own language and grammar to create reading and writing materials
(Nunan, 2011). The following discuss about the impact of PA to teaching writing.
(4)2 94-127
Process Approach
PA is used as the guide in teaching writing. It is seen as a planning-writing-
reviewing framework (Hyland, 2003). This framework sees writing as a non-linear,
exploratory, and generative process whereby writers discover and reformulate their
ideas as they attempt to proximate meaning (Zamile, 2003, cited in Vanderpyl,
2012). On the word PA is modeled as a stage of framework in formulating the idea
of a writer before writing. It has different stages such as prewriting, drafting,
editing, revising, and publishing (Johnson, 2008; Karatay, 2011; Simpson, 2013).
In addition, the PA is described as an approach that emphasizes teaching
writing not as product but as process; helping students discover their own voice;
allowing students to choose their own topic; providing teacher and peer feedback;
encouraging revision and using student writing as the primary text of the course
(Silvia & Matsuda, 2001). Through PA, students are directed to mind-expanding
activity which gains insight into the mental activity and decision-making process
of the writer as he or she carries out a writing task” (Weigle, 2002). To sum up,
teaching writing by using Process Approach mean guiding student in the process of
writing by involving mental and decision-making activity to compose the final
product.
The Concept of Process Approach
When working with process writing, the focus lies in the various steps that
a writer goes through when producing text. White and Arndt (1991) identify six
interrelated non-linear procedures in writing as reflected in Figure 1. It shows how
the concept of PA works.
Figure 1 Process Writing
PA focuses on the process of generating ideas, deciding which ideas are
relevant to the message, and then using the language available to communicate that
message in a process that evolves as it develops. In the classroom, this translates
into group brainstorming exercises, general discussions, and planning activities to
come up to the decision about the content of the piece of writing (Sun, 2009).
Hence, the emphasis of PA is writing process.
Drafting
Structuring
Generating Evaluating
Focusing Reviewing
(4)2 94-127
The Strengths and Weaknesses of Process Approach
PA has been applied to EFL and ESL writing classes because of its various
advantages. It helps students to manage their own writing by giving students a
chance to think as they write (Brown, 2001; Nunan, 1991). Also, it allows students
to be more independent and creative in writing because they are expected to explore
their own topic and are not limited to one-focused writing product (Brown, 2001;
Raimes, 1983). PA enhances students’ motivation and positive attitudes towards
writing (Abd & Ibian, 2014; Onozawa, 2010), promotes the development of
language use skills (Mayers, 2005), and develops skills, such as drafting and editing
texts and the ability to identify the ideas that lack sufficient support to the topic
(Cameron, 2009). Also, PA is possible to combine several approaches or writing
instruction and also incorporate with other skills (Leki, 1992).
On the other hand, PA has its weaknesses. It includes the less attention to
grammar and structure and put little importance on the final products (Reid, 2001).
It does not serve the learners’ purpose because it neglects accuracy or grammatical
element (Onozawa, 2010). It is suggested for adult learners (Grossmann, 2009).
Despite of its weaknesses, PA has been widely used (Hayland, 2003; Onozawa,
2010). It is a recommended approach to teach writing to EFL class learners.
Individual and Collaborative Learning
Learning is a process of gaining new or manipulating existing knowledge,
behaviors, skills, values, or preferences. There are three big ideas to be focused on
when it comes to learning. These include learning as a process of active
engagement, learning as individual and social (collaborative work), and learner
differences as resources to be used, not obstacles to be confronted (Wilson &
Peterson, 2006). On another word, learning illuminates the causal relationship
between social interaction (collaboration) and an individual’s difference.
There are six principles of learning seen as relationship between social
interaction and individual’s difference (Kolb, 2005). These are (a) learning is
interpreted as a relationship between the individual and the environment, (b)
learning is interpreted as the holistic process of adaptation to the environment, (c)
learning is to be regarded rather as a regulate process than an outcome condition,
(d) the student’s existing knowledge and experience play a decisive role in
processing new information, learning is assimilation and accommodation
adaptation (f) learning is a process of constructing knowledge— the result of which
presents itself as a relationship between community knowledge and individual
knowledge.
It can be said that individual learning (IL) and collaborative learning (CL)
are types of learning that can be applied in learning process to gain or acquire new
knowledge or skills. Furthermore, IL (Brown, 2016; Sieben, 2013) and CL
(Challob, Bakar, & Latif, 2016; Mandal, 2009) can be also applied to teach writing.
(4)2 94-127
Individual Learning
IL is an instruction method in which students work individually at their own
level and rate toward an academic goal (Petty, 2011), knowledge or skill
(Guechtouli & Guechtouli, 2009). This method has more emphasis on student-
center. Teachers of IL consider and cater for the needs of individual participants
such as rates of learning style, attitude, maturity, motivation, interest, and learning
environment (Crockett & Foster, 2005) in applying such method.
There are some advantages of applying IL method in teaching (Green,
2013). It includes (a) close learning gaps, teacher can deliver material at an optimal
pace that caters to each student’s interests and abilities; (b) building confidence in
students by applying individualized instruction which can help students gain self-
confidence as learners and helps them progress more quickly; (c) greater
engagement for teachers and students, teachers have more opportunities to interact
with students one-on-one when using individualized instruction in their classrooms;
self-directed, more independent learning frees up opportunities for teachers to talk
with students, assess where they are academically, and how their IL plan can be
tweaked to achieve maximum results; (d) allowing students to work at their own
pace.
IL gives students the opportunity to work at different paces and on different
areas without affecting the learning of their peers. Some students may work ahead
while students who are struggling in a particular area can take the time they need to
review and master a concept they may have previously not fully understood
(Crockett & Foster, 2005). However, this method has disadvantages as enumerated
by Stiller (2012). It includes (a) extra preparations, if the school is not using an
intelligent adaptive learning system that collects student data to achieve
personalized learning outcomes, teachers will need to thoroughly research the
academic history of each student and the ways he or she learns best, and (b)
teacher’s initiative, teacher needs to modify the classroom, teacher needs to do
observation or research in order to get the detailed information of the students, by
getting the detail information of the students, teacher can reconstruct the class.
Collaborative Learning
CL is an educational approach to teaching and learning that involves groups
of students working together to find the solution of the problems, do the task or gain
the new skill or knowledge (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). This educational approach is
based on the idea of natural social learning stated that learning occurs when all the
participants talk among themselves (Gerlach, 1994) in learning environment. There
are some elements that define the CL (Marzano, 2012) such as (a) positive
interdependence (a sense of sink or swim together), (b) face-to-face promotive
interaction (helping each other to learn, applauding success and efforts), (c)
individual and group accountability (each of us has to contribute to the group
achieving its goals), (d) group processing (reflecting on how well the team is
functioning and how to function better).
(4)2 94-127
CL has advantages when applied to the classrooms (Storch, 2007). It
includes (a) providing more language practice opportunity, (b) improving the
quality of students talk, (c) creating a positive learning climate, (d) promoting social
interaction, and (e) allowing students for critical thinking. Further, it is effective
technique for achieving certain kinds of intellectual; social learning goals;
conceptual learning; creative problem solving; and for increasing in written
language proficiently by grouping students.
Other advantages of collaborative technique in teaching writing are (a)
involving active learning, (b) making students feel less isolated and alone and
especially at the beginning, (c) depending on the task it may be possible to divide
out components and share workloads, (d) encouraging learner’s responsibility and
autonomy, (e) helping the low achieving student in still a different way (Elizabeth,
1994 cited in Pendi, 2015). However, there are also some disadvantages and
challenges of CL such as (a) allowing certain individuals feel comfortless
participating in a group setting, it keeps some individuals from benefiting from the
instruction, (b) granting the students more control over the flow of information and
focus of the instruction may veer from its intended course, (c) allowing some
members contribute in learning while others do not, (d) challenging teachers to
create and embrace a new environment and methodology for learning/instruction;
arm the students with resources and skills to remain productive outside the
classroom is the keystone of education (Moraru, 2015; Sansivero, 2016).
Writing Assessment
To know whether the teaching and learning process in writing is successful
or not, it can be seen through the improvement of students’ writing skill. The
improvement of student’s writing skill is seen through writing assessment— a guide
of evaluation to see and evaluate writer’s performance through writing task (Jarbel,
2017). The ideas to writing assessment in primary and secondary grades are focused
on three aspects of the overall vision (Bennett & Gitomer, 2009); (1) understanding
the cognitive basis for effective writing instruction; (2) designing formative and
summative writing assessment designs that meet the goal for assessment designs
that use more meaningful tasks, effective support for instruction, and constitute
valuable learning experiences in their own right; (3) conceptualizing an approach
to essay scoring that maintains a strong rhetorical focus while using automated
methods to assess key component skills.
The writing assessment can be intended to score writing task to see student’s
English writing skill improvement without substituting automated scores for human
judgment about content and critical thinking of writing product (Deane, 2011).
Assessing students’ paragraph writing can be scored through rubric with several
aspects involved such as content, organization and format; grammar, vocabulary
and fluency; and supporting document-rubric is recommended for assessment (NC
State University, 2011).
(4)2 94-127
Related Studies
Abd and Ibnian (2014), conduct a study at University students found that
Individual PA had positively affected students’ writing skill by placing more
emphasis on teaching writing as a process of organizing and developing the
writing idea. Bayat (2014), First year Preschool Teaching students PA had
significant effect on writing success and anxiety. Belinda (2006) College
students Individual PA was effective to improve students’ writing skill and
attitude toward writing. Faraj (2015), Second year collage Individual PA
improved students’ writing skill and helped students face the basic element of
writing, e.g. grammar and punctuation.
Onozawa (2010) Junior and senior high school students PA is one of the most
notable writing approaches and it appears to be lasting addition to ESL/ EFL
writing classroom. Pujianto, Emila and Sudarsono (2016) Senior high school
students Individual PA helped students overcome the difficulties they faced
when they wrote and it helped students realize their potential, discover new
information, and develop students’ writing skill. Sari and Saun (2013) Junior
high school students PA is good approach in teaching writing and it can be
applied in varieties of text type. Sun (2009) EFL Middle School Students PA can
be ideally applied in different teaching models, and when teacher use the same
PA but different models of teaching writing to teach the different students, an
optimal teaching effect can be realized. Vanderpyl (2012) Several levels of EFL
learners PA should be promoted to educator as a writing process. Another related
studies was cited as the following on the collaborative learning (CL).
Mandal (2009,Widhiyanto (2011),Albesher (2012), Wichadee (2013 English
college students CL had a positive effect on the students’ attitudes towards
writing in English and has great benefit to the student community and help them
enhance their writing skill. Besides that, makes students to be active, to work
with a good spirit and enjoy the process in the classroom Bakar and Latif (2016)
EFL Senior High School Students CL helped students reduced their writing
apprehension and improve their writing performance as they experienced and
learnt much knowledge concerning the micro and macro aspects of writing.
While, Rochwati (2007) Senior high school students her study promoted the use
of group work technique in teaching writing. From Malaysia Ismail and Rizan
(2009 CL had enhanced student’s writing performance. Sae-Ong (2010)stated
that work technique can be used to teach speaking and reading while, Sofiandi,
Salam and Riyant (2013)found that work technique can be used to teach
speaking and reading
Hypotheses
The hypotheses of the research are:
1. Null hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant difference between students’
achievement who will be taught using Individual PA and Collaborative PA.
(4)2 94-127
2. Alternative hypothesis (Ha): There is significant difference between
students’ achievement who will be taught using Individual PA and
Collaborative PA
Methodology
Research Design
This study employed comparative research. Comparative research is a broad
term that includes both qualitative and quantitative method (Mills, van de Bunt, &
Bruijn, 2006). This research was specified in quantitative research. It emphasizes
objective measurement and statistical, mathematical, or numeric analysis of data
collected through polls, questionnaire, and survey by manipulating statistical data
using computational techniques (Babbie, 2010; Muijs, 2010). The data of this
research was calculated through computational techniques, that was why researcher
used Comparative Research specified in Quantitative Method. The table below
showed the design of research and treatments (Creswell, 2003).
Table 1 Research Design
Sample Pre-test Treatment Post-test
G1 O T1 O
G2 O T2 O
G1: Second year senior high school majoring in eight natural science
G2: Second year senior high school majoring in eleventh natural science
T1: Individual PA
T2: Collaborative PA
O: Writing Test
The Sample
The participants of this study were two classes, they were senior high school
students in SMAN 1 Lembang which have the same level on class. The researcher
chose second year senior high school majoring in first and second natural science
as the sample of this research. The samples were given the same pre-test and post-
test, but different treatment. One class used individual PA while the other was by
collaborative PA.
The Instrument
Instruments were used to facilitate this research and to collect the data or
information which was important to find the result of this research, they were
paragraph writing pre-test and post-test both samples were acquired the same
instruments. To validate the test, the researcher administered pilot test. Below is the
explanation of the instruments and pilot test.
Pilot Test
The pilot test was administered before giving the pre-test. The test was a
writing test; adopted from some sources and text book of the students. This test was
(4)2 94-127
validated by using Anates. Anates is used to facilitate researcher to do reliability
test, difficulty level test, validity test and analyzing discrimination index.
Pre-test
After administering pilot test; a pre-test was conducted to get the
achievement before giving the treatment. The pretest was given in written form,
participants asked to write paragraph. The objective of the pre-test was to get the
achievement of the students before treatment.
Treatment
The treatment was given to the two classes (G1 and G2). For G2, in the
beginning researcher grouped it consisting four people and went to the treatment.
In grouping the students, researcher used friendship ranking (Budden, 2008;
DeScioli, Kurzban, Koch, & Liben, 2011) and mixed-ability group technique
(Cohen, Manion, & Marrison, 2004; Lyle, 2010). Next, for G1, the researcher
directly went to the treatment (Kamal & Faraj, 2015; Laksmini, 2006). Below were
the steps of the treatment for both classes.
Table 2 Procedures of the Treatment
G1 (Individual PA) G2 (Collaborative PA)
Students are not divided in group Students are divided in group consist
of four people
Stage 1: Prewriting
1. Students wrote on topics based
on the material given.
2. Students gathered and
organized ideas.
3. Students defined a topic
sentence.
4. Students wrote an outline for
their writing.
Stage 1: Prewriting
1. Students wrote on topics based
on the material given.
2. Students gathered and
organized ideas.
3. Students defined a topic
sentence.
4. Students wrote an outline for
their writing.
Stage 2: Drafting
1. Students wrote a rough draft.
2. Students emphasized content
rather than mechanics.
Stage 2: Drafting
1. Students wrote a rough draft.
2. Students emphasized content
rather than mechanics.
Stage 3: Revising
1. Students reread their writings.
2. Students shared their writings
with teacher.
3. Students participated
constructively in discussion
about their writing with
teacher.
4. Students made changes in their
compositions to reflect the
reactions and comments of
Stage 3: Revising
1. Students reread their writings.
2. Students shared their writings
with teacher and member of
the group.
3. Students participated
constructively in discussion
about their writing with teacher
and member of group.
4. Students made changes in their
compositions to reflect the
(4)2 94-127
teacher. Also, students made
substantive rather than only
minor changes.
reactions and comments of
teacher and members of group.
Also, students made
substantive rather than only
minor changes
Stage 4: Editing
1. Students proofread their own
writings.
2. Students increasingly
identified and corrected their
own mechanical errors.
Stage 4: Editing
1. Students proofread their own
writings and members of
group.
2. Students increasingly
identified and corrected their
own mechanical errors.
Stage 5: Publishing
1. Students made the final copy
of their writings.
2. Students published their
writings in appropriate forms.
3. Students shared their finished
writings with the teacher.
Stage 5: Publishing
1. Students made the final copy
of their writings.
2. Students published their
writings in appropriate forms.
3. Students shared their finished
writings with the teacher and
group.
To facilitate both classes in applying the treatment, every meeting the researcher
provided guideline paper. The guideline paper is illustrated in more details in the
following discussion. These are based on the steps as suggested by Faraj (2015).
Stage 1: Prewriting
In prewriting stage, everything comes about before writing the first draft by
writer. Most of the time prewriting takes about 85% of writer’s time of writing. In
addition, the writer focuses on the subject of his/her writing, spots and audience due
to having the complete thought and plan about what they are going to write before
starting their writings. The following are some activities in this stage.
Choosing a Topic
The teacher lets the students choose their own writing topics. The more
interested the students are in their own topic, the higher their communicative
language ability. This will be enable them to express their ideas.
Gathering Ideas
Most of the students have difficulties in gathering ideas for their writing.
Therefore, at this point, researcher needs to deliberately introduce students to some
different techniques (brainstorming, reading and interviewing) to guide and
stimulate them to gather ideas for their writing. These techniques will be further
discussed in the subsequent sections.
(4)2 94-127
1. Brainstorming techniques: Students brainstorm to generate ideas for their
writing. They use diagrams (clustering) or randomly listing ideas to help themselves
develop both ideas and words list for their writing, decide the sort of writing,
audience, and determine the purpose for their writing.
2. Reading technique: Leibensperger (2003) suggested that students collect
information and interesting vocabularies about their topic. So as to gather ideas for
their own topics, students are jotting down ideas from what they have read and are
making lists of the most interesting ideas that they might want for their topic. To
achieve this purpose, students can search the university or public library for any
books or any other sources about their topic. The internet is also a useful resource
to be used.
3. Interviewing: Students are talk to experts of the writing topic who will supply
the learners with perspectives on their topic which are more interesting and more
up-to-date than the information from reading alone of the learners themselves. For
instance, if a student wants to write a paper on ‘Great Depression’, he can take
advantages from interviewing someone who has lived during ‘Great Depression’
time period. The information will be very interesting because the interviewee can
talk about his unique experiences.
Organizing Ideas
Faraj (2015) designed following steps to help students organize their ideas.
1. Go through the ideas and cross out the irrelevant information or the information,
but not to erase it completely because maybe they can be useful in the future.
2. Put the ideas that are most closely related together in the group.
3. Look critically at the ideas that are put in groups. They may support the
insufficiency of ideas for they are needed in the future.
Defining a Topic Sentence
After organizing ideas students start writing topic sentence. Clear topic
sentence helps the readers guess what is next based on what they have already seen
(Mayers, 2005). In fact, creating a clear topic sentence is not only helpful for the
reader but also for the writer. For instance, topic sentence helps the writer organize
the main ideas of the essay, which also create unity in each of the paragraphs. At
this point, so as to work on building up learner’s confidence as an initial stage of
writing process the teacher has not taken grammatical mistakes into account.
Outlining
First, students are starting in writing an outline for their topic after they
organize the ideas that have been collected and get enough knowledge about how
to write the topic sentence. Second, students learn how to make an outline for their
writing and introduce their topic with a general statement. Third, students first learn
(4)2 94-127
how to start with a topic sentence then, giving the supporting details with examples
to support what is mentioned in the topic sentence. And the last is student making
conclusion in a new idea about their topic and the summarization should be written
in fresh language.
Stage 2: Drafting
Once the learners have planned out their ideas, the next step is to start
drafting. The first draft of their writing may contain lots of errors like incomplete
ideas and mechanical mistakes. At this point, students do not worry about correcting
the errors, because the aim of putting their ideas into sentence is greater than
correcting the errors. Students are informed that their drafts should be written in
double-space in order to give space for self-revising or teacher’s comment.
Stage 3: Revising
Students are not required to correct minor grammar mistakes but they should
pay particular attention to the content and organization of their writing. In this way,
they will see and revise their rough drafts from a fresh perspective and they will
gain what mistakes they did.
Stage 4: Editing
In this stage students work to make their writing ‘optimally readable’. To
have an optimally readable paragraph, student have editing checklists to enables
students focus more on specific points in the editing stage. The editing checklist
question is provided by the teacher for the students.
At this stage teacher also starts to comment student’ writing and use
correction symbols to help the students to think about their mistakes and then
correct them by themselves. The teacher writes the above correction symbol above
or next to the place that student’s writing mistake occurs. Then, students know what
the symbol means. They think about their mistakes and correct them. Below is the
correction symbol of teacher Faraj (2015).
Meaning Symbol Example of error
A spelling error S He has a fuuny hairstyle.
A mistake in word order WO I like very much it.
A grammar mistake G He give us only a half
hour for dinner without
any other rest.
Wrong verb tense T I went to the bookshop
and I buy a book.
Concord mistake (e.g.
subject and verb
agreement)
C He always telling the
dumb jokes.
(4)2 94-127
Something has been left
out.
“ I” too tired.
Wrong word WW I like and interest on my
job.
Something is not
necessary.
{} She wasn’t {very} funny
enough.
The meaning is unclear. ? M I don’t like the hours 4
to 9.
A punctuation mistake P one of my coworkers is
debby
Figure 2. Correction Symbols
Stage 5: Publishing
Students end up with their final writing draft and they will publish their
writing. Publishing has its advantages for the students, it can promote students the
real communication with their readers during writing process. Hence, students’
having real audiences enable them meaningfully responds to their writing and
increases or develops their confidence as authors (Bae, 2011). In this stage, teacher
plays the role of as both reader and evaluator. Teacher’s comments on the students’
mistakes will be so clear to aid the learners in their understanding of the problems.
Post-test
After treatment, a post-test was given to students. The post-test achievement
of students is given to be compared to pre-test score of students. The post-test was
the same with the pre-test.
The Scoring
To know the achievement of the two groups, the researcher scored the
pretest and posttest of research participants. The rubric was adapted from Douglas
E-book (2000) that will be used to score the test. There are four aspects in that rubric
and the score they are content; organization, discourse, syntax, vocabulary and
mechanic. The maximum score of the four aspect is 100.
3. Rubric for Scoring Writing Task
No Aspect of writing Score Criteria
1. Content 24 -Thesis statement
-Related ideas
-Development of ideas through
personal experience, illustration,
facts, opinion.
-Use of description, cause/effect.
Comparison/contrast
-Consistent focus
(4)2 94-127
2. Organization 24 -Effectiveness of introduction
-Logical sequence of ideas
-Appropriate length
3. Discourse 20 -Topic sentence and paragraph
unity
-Transition, discourse makers,
cohesion, variation and fluency
4. Syntax 12 -Grammar and sentence
structure
5. Vocabulary 12 -Choice of word and variation of
word.
6. Mechanic 12 -Spelling
-Punctuation
-Citation of reference (if
applicable)
-Neatness and appearance
Data Collection Procedures
To collect the data of this research was by administering the pre-test, post-
test, treatment and scoring then getting the result of each test. The first was the pre-
test; it was conducted by the researcher to both classes (individual and grouped
class) in order to know their achievement before treatment given. After the pre-test
given to the students, the treatment was given to two classes according the
procedures of the treatment.
The second was the post-test, it was conducted after giving the treatment to
the two classes. The third was scoring all the test given, by using rubric as the
guideline to score the test. The last was data collection by gathering the score of the
pretest and posttest test of students.
Data Analysis Procedures
The researcher used SPSS to calculate the data. SPSS is a kind of computer
program for statistically computation. It includes normalized gain, normality test,
variance homogeneity test and mean difference test (to find T-test). The level of
significance is 0.05 (5%).
Validity
Validity test is used to know or find out whether the instrument is
appropriate to be used in this research. Suherman (2003) proved that validity of
instrument depends on the constancy of the tool that is used. The following was the
formula for calculating the validity of the instrument.
(4)2 94-127
r
xy=
n ∑ XY (∑ X)(∑ Y)
√n (∑ X2− (∑ X)2)− (n (∑ Y2− (∑ Y)2)
Explanation:
𝑟𝑥𝑦: Correlation coefficient
n: Number of subject
X: Item score
Y: Total score
Suherman (2003) figured out the criteria of validity test that is reflected on next the
table.
Table 4. Coefficient Correlation of Validity Test
𝒓𝒙𝒚 Interpretation
≤ 0.00 Not Valid
0.00 – 0.20 Very Low
0.20 – 0.40 Low
0.40 – 0.70 Moderate
0.70 – 0.90 High
0.90 – 1.00 Very High
The result of validity test is reflected on the next table.
Table 5. Result of Validity Test
Question Number 𝒓𝒙𝒚 Interpretation
1 0.485 Moderate
2 0.592 Moderate
3 0.246 Low
4 0.743 High
5 0.596 Moderate
6 0.628 High
7 0.742 High
8 0.653 High
Based on the result above, it can be concluded that all the questions were
valid. The ryx value of all the questions were 0.83. Question number 1,2 and 5 were
on the level of moderate; question number 3 was on the level of low and question
number 4,6,7,8 were on the level of high.
(4)2 94-127
Reliability
Reliability test is used to evaluate the test result in the same subject.
Suherman (2003) the reliability to measure the instrument is a tool that finds out
the result that is consistent in the same subject. Formula is following this:
r
11= (
n
n−1
)(1−
∑ s1
2
st
2 )
Explanation:
𝑟11 : Reliability of the instrument
N: Number of questions
∑ 𝑠1
2: Sigma of Variance total score per number of question
𝑠𝑡
2 : Variance total score
Suherman (2003) figured out the criteria of reliability test that is reflected on the
table below.
Table 6. Interpretation of Reliability Test
Coefficient Reliability Interpretation
0.90 < r11 ≤ 1.00 Very High
0.70 < r11 ≤ 0.90 High
0.40 < r11 ≤ 0.70 Moderate
0.20 < r11 ≤ 0.40 Low
r11< 0.20 Very Low
The calculation result of reliability test was 0.83. It meant that the test was highly
reliable to be used as the instrument of the research.
Level of Difficulty
To determine whether the questions is appropriate to the students, analysis
of difficulty level was conducted. The formula based on Suherman (2003) as
follows:
𝐼𝐾 =
𝐽𝐵𝑎 + 𝐽𝐵𝑏
𝐽𝑆𝑎 + 𝐽𝑆𝑏
Explanation:
IK: Level of Difficulty
𝐽𝐵𝑎 : Number of upper-group’s correct answers
𝐽𝐵𝑏 : Number of lower-group’s correct answer
𝐽𝑆𝑎 : Number of upper-group student
𝐽𝑆𝑏 : Number of lower-group students
(4)2 94-127
Suherman (2003) figured out the criteria of reliability test that is reflected on the
table below.
Table 7. Interpretation of Difficulty Level
Level of Difficulty Interpretation
>1.00 Very Easy
0.71-1.00 Easy
0.31-0.70 Moderate
0.000-0.30 Difficult
≤0.00 Very Difficult
The result of the difficulty level of the test is shown below:
Table 8. Result of Difficulty Level Test
Question Number Index Difficulty Difficulty Level
1 0.7083 Very Easy
2 0.2333 Difficult
3 0.3704 Moderate
4 0.3532 Moderate
5 0.3796 Moderate
6 0.2111 Difficult
7 0.1389 Very Difficult
8 0.1833 Difficult
As reflected from table 3.8, question number 1 was on the very easy level, question
number 2, 6, 8 were on the difficult level. Furthermore, question numbers 3, 4, 5
were on the moderate level and question number 7 was on the very difficult level.
Discrimination Index
To determine the discrimination between high-ability students and low-
ability students using the formula as follows Suherman (2003):
𝐷𝑃 =
𝐽𝐵𝑎−𝐽𝐵𝑏
𝐽𝑆𝑎
or 𝐷𝑃 =
𝐽𝐵𝑎−𝐽𝐵𝑏
𝐽𝑆𝑏
Explanation:
DP: Discrimination Index
𝐽𝐵𝑎: The number of upper group’s correct answer
𝐽𝐵𝑏 : The number of lower group’s correct answer
𝐽𝑆𝑎: Number of upper-group students
𝐽𝑆𝑏: Number of lower-group students
Suherman (2003) figured out the criteria of reliability test that is reflected on the
table below.
(4)2 94-127
Table 9. Criteria of Discrimination Index
Level Interpretation
0.71 - 1.00 Very Good
0.41 - 0.70 Good
0.21 - 0.40 Sufficient
0.00 - 0.20 Poor
≤0.00 Very Poor
The result of the test is reflected below.
Table 10. The Result of Discrimination Index
Question Number Discrimination Index Interpretation
1 0.250 Sufficient
2 0.200 Sufficient
3 0.148 Poor
4 0.261 Sufficient
5 0.185 Poor
6 0.187 Poor
7 0.244 Sufficient
8 0.266 Sufficient
As reflected from Table 3.10 question numbers 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 were in the
level of sufficient and question numbers 3, 5, and 6 were in the poor level. It can be
concluded that most of the questions were in the level of sufficient discrimination
index.
The Recapitulation of Pilot Test Result
The total items of the pilot test were 8. They were analyzed by using Anates.
Below is the result of pilot test recapitulation.
(4)2 94-127
Table 11. The Recapitulation of Pilot Test Result
Question
Number
Validity Test Reliability
Test
Difficulty
Level
Discrimination
Index
1 Low
High
Very Easy Sufficient
2 Moderate Difficult Sufficient
3 Low Moderate Poor
4 High Moderate Sufficient
5 Moderate Moderate Poor
6 High Difficult Poor
7 High Very
Difficult
Sufficient
8 High Difficult Sufficient
Based on the result of pilot test recapitulation, six questions were employed
for the research instrument. They were question numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Further,
among these questions, two were in the moderate difficulty level, three questions
were in the difficult difficulty level and one question was in the very difficult level.
Those questions were employed because they had good result of validity test and
two questions were not employed because they were in the low level of validity
test.
Normalized Gain
To determine the improvement of students’ PW achievement in both
experimental groups, the researcher performed an analysis of the results of the
pretest and posttest. The analysis is performed by using normalized gain. The
formula for the normalized gain employed average normalized gain (Hake, 1999).
𝑔 =
(%post) − (%pre)
100% − (%𝑝𝑟𝑒)
Explanation:
(g) : Mean normalized gain
(%pre) : Percentage of mean score of pre-test
(%post) : Percentage of mean score of post- test
The category of normalized gain is shown on the table below:
Table 12. Criteria Level Normalized Gain
Gain (g) Category
0.71 ≤ g ≤ 1.00 High
0.31≤ g≤ 0.70 Moderate
0.00 ≤ g≤ 0.30 Low
(4)2 94-127
Normality Test
Normality test is used to see whether the data obtained from the population
was normally distributed or not. To test the normality of the population Saphiro-
Wilk test (Rajali & Wah, 2011) was used. To calculate the data using the SPSS 21.0
as follows:
Formula of Normality Test (Rusfendi, 1998):
𝑊 =
(∑ 𝛼𝑖 𝑋(𝑖)
𝑛
𝑖=1 )
2
∑ (𝑋𝑖−�̅�)
𝑛
𝑖=1
2 :
Explanation:
W: Test statistic
𝑋𝑖 : Statistics order
𝑎𝑖 : Constants from the mean, variance and covariance of the order statistics of a
sample from a normal distribution
�̅�: Mean sample data
To decide the data is normally distributed or not; the normality test will be
stated based on the criteria of normality test for α (0.05), by using SPSS:
1. ρ-value (sig) ≥ α (0.05), means the data population is normally distributed.
2. ρ-value (sig) < α = 0.05, means the data population is not normally distributed.
If the data is normally distributed, then the data can be analyzed using parametric
statistical techniques. However, if the data is not normally distributed, then the non-
parametric statistical will be used, which is Man-Whitney (Sugiono, 2007).
Variance Homogeneity Test
To determine the units between both experimental groups in testing whether
they are homogeneous or not, the criteria of homogeneity test will be decided by
the hypothesis below.
Ho: both data population has similar variances; (if significant value is≥ 𝛼(0.05);
Ho will be accepted)
Ha: both data population has different variances (if significant value is≤ 𝛼(0.05);
Ha will be rejected).
The formula that will be used is (Suprapto, 2013)
F=
𝑠1
2
𝑠1
2
Explanation:
F: F value (variance variable data)
𝑠1
2: The larger variance (X1)
𝑠2
2: The smaller variance (X2)
Mean Difference Test
If two populations are normal and homogeneous, then the researcher used t-
test with the formula (Uyanto, 2009):
(4)2 94-127
𝑡 =
𝑥1̅̅ ̅ − 𝑥2̅̅ ̅
𝑆𝐷√
1
𝑛1
+
1
𝑛2
𝑆𝐷 = √
(𝑛1 − 1) 𝑠1
2 + (𝑛2 − 2) 𝑠2
2
𝑛1 + 𝑛2 − 2
Explanation:
𝑥1̅̅ ̅ : Mean of Individual Process Approach class
𝑥2̅̅ ̅ : Mean of Collaborative Process Approach class
𝑛1 : Number of students in Individual Process Approach class
𝑛2 : Number of students in Collaborative Process Approach class
𝑠1 : Standard deviation of Individual Process Approach class
𝑠2 : Standard deviation of Collaborative Process Approach class
Criteria of T-test:
1. Ho is rejected if ρ-value (sig) is lesser than (α) 0.05 It means that there is
significant difference in students’ PW enhancement between individual PA
class and collaborative PA class.
2. Ho is not rejected if ρ-value (sig) is more than (α) 0.05. It means that there
is no significant difference in students’ PW achievement between individual
PA class and collaborative PA class
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Below is descriptive statistics result of both classes.
Table 13 Result of Descriptive Statistic
Samples Individual PA Collaborative PA
Mean Standard
Deviation
Mean Standard
Deviation
Pre-Test 34.50 13.561 30.53 10.647
Post-Test 51.25 12.231 54.64 11.3670
Normalized
Gain
0.2566 0.126 0.3479 0.101
From the result above it can be concluded that mean of the two classes are
increasing. The enhancement of individual PA class is in the level of low (0.2566)
and the enhancement of collaborative PA class is in the level of moderate (0.3479).
Analysis of Pre- Test Result
To know whether both classes have significant difference in writing skill
enhancement or not, a pre-test was administered to find its normality, homogeneity
test and mean difference.
(4)2 94-127
a. Normality Test
Table 14. Normality Test of Pre-Test
Samples Shaphiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig
Individual PA 0.943 36 0.062
Collaborative PA 0.936 28 0.087
Since the p value (sig) of both classes are 0.062 and 0.087, more (>) than α (0.05),
it means both data populations are normally distributed.
b. Homogeneity Test
Below is the result of the test.
Table 15. Homogeneity Test of Pre-Test
Based on
mean
Levene’s Test df1 df2 Sig.
3.500 1 62 0.066
Since the p value (sig) of the test is 0.066, more (>) than α (0.05), it means both
data population variances are homogeneous.
Hypothesis of Pre- test
Since pre – test is normally distributed and homogeneous, then researcher
used independent sample t – test. Below is the result.
Table 16. T-test of Pre-test
Levene’s Test for
Equality of variance
F Sig. T df Sig (2
tailed)
Equal variance
assumed
3.500 0.066
-
1.271
62 0.208
Hypotheses:
1. Ho: There is no significant difference between Individual PA and
Collaborative PA in writing skill ability before treatment is given.
Ho criteria: p value (significance value (2 tailed)) is more than α (0.05)
2. Ha: There is significant difference between Individual PA and Collaborative
PA in writing skill ability before treatment is given.
Ha criteria: p value (significance value (2 tailed)) is lesser than α (0.05).
(4)2 94-127
Since the p value (sig) of the test is 0.208, more (>) than α (0.05), seen from equal
variance assumed; Ho is not rejected. It means there is no significant difference
between the pre–test scores of the two samples.
Analysis of Normalized Gain Result
It consists of the normality test, homogeneity test, mean difference test of
normalized gain. Below is the result.
a. Normality Test
The result of normality test is reflected below:
Table 17. Normality test of Normalized Gain
Samples Shaphiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig
Individual PA 0.960 36 0.217
Collaborative PA 0.930 28 0.063
Since the p value (sig) of both samples are 0.21 and 0.063, more (>) than α (0.05),
it means both data populations are normally distributed.
b. Homogeneity Test
Below is the result of homogeneity test:
Table. 18. Homogeneity Test of Normalized Gain
Based on
mean
Levene’s Test df1 df2 Sig.
2.580 1 62 0.11
Since the p value (sig) is 0.11, more (>) than α (0.05) it means the both data
population variances are homogeneous.
c. The Result of Research Hypotheses
Since pretest is normally distributed and homogeneous, then researcher used
independent sample t – test. Below is the result.
Table 19. T-test of Normalized Gain
Levene’s Test for Equality
of Variances
F Sig. t df Sig (2 tailed)
Equal variance
assumed
2.580 0.113 3.209 62 0.002
(4)2 94-127
Hypotheses:
1. Ho: There is no significant difference in students’ writing enhancement
between Individual PA and Collaborative PA.
Ho criteria: p value [significance value (2 tailed)] is more than α (0.05)
2. Ha: There is significant difference in student’s writing enhancement
between Individual PA and Collaborative PA.
Ha criteria: p value [significance value (2 tailed)] is lesser than α (0.05).
Since the p value [significance value (2 tailed)] of the test is 0.002, lesser than α
(0.05) seen from equal variance assumed. It means there is significant difference in
student’s paragraph writing enhancement between Individual PA and Collaborative
PA.
Discussion of Findings
The result of the research hypothesis is there is significant difference in
students’ paragraph writing skill enhancement between Individual PA class and
Collaborative PA class. Further, the mean score of both classes are increasing after
treatment given; Individual PA’s mean score is increasing from 34.50 to 51.56, so
is Collaborative PA (30.54 - 54.64). Also, the normalized gain value of both classes
is positive; Individual PA’s normalized gain is 0.2655 and Collaborative PA’s is
0.3479. It means paragraph writing skill of both classes is enhancing.
Yet, Collaborative PA has higher enhancement than Individual PA’s.
Furthermore, standard deviation of both classes has different change. Individual PA
class’ standard deviation is decreasing (13.56 – 12.23) and Collaborative PA class’
standard deviation is increasing (10.65-11.36). The increase of standard deviation
is caused by the increase of mean variance.
However, since the enhancement of Collaborative PA class was higher than
Individual PA class and there was significant difference in students’ paragraph
writing enhancement between Individual PA class and Collaborative PA class, it
implies that Collaborative PA enhances student’s paragraph writing skill better than
Individual PA. To supports this research, Grimm (2004) stated in his study
“individual learning and group learning” that group learning has better grade than
individual learning.
Conclusion
To conclude, the paragraph writing skill of both classes enhanced. Also, it
is found that “There is significant difference in paragraph writing enhancement
between both classes after taught by Individual PA and Collaborative PA”. It means
PA can enhance paragraph writing skill of students.
Recommendations
Based on the research findings, the researcher wants to offer some
recommendation as follows:
1. Non-English students. This study can be a source to gain knowledge about
paragraph writing in English which will help them master writing skill.
2. English teachers. This study can help them to enrich their knowledge about a
teaching methodology on teaching paragraph writing.
(4)2 94-127
3. English private course owners and tutors. This study can be their reference for
considering the use of PA in teaching writing.
References
Abd, T. & Ibian. (2014). The Effect of Using Process Approach to Writing on
Developing University Students' Essay Writing Skill in EFL. Review of Arts
and Humanities, 3(2), 139-155.
Albesher, K. B. (2012). Developing the Writing Skills of ESL Students through the
Collaborative Learning Strategy. Tyne: Newcastle University.
Alwasilah, A. C. (2001). Language Culture and Education: A Portrait of Contem
porary. Bandung: Andira.
Babbie, R. E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Cengage.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing.
English Language Teaching Journal, 54(2), 153-160.
Bae, J. (2011). Teaching Process Writing for Intermediate/Advanced Learners in
South Korea. [Online]. Retrieved from: http:/minds.wisconsin.edu/ handle
/179 3/52570 [October 10, 2017]
Barnett, M. A. (1991). Writing as a Process. Virginia: Northeast Conference.
Bayat, N. (2014). The Effect of the Process Writing Approach on Writing Success
and Anxiety. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(3), 1133-1141.
Belinda, H. (2006). Effectiveness of Using the Process Approach to Teach Writin
g in Six Hongkong Primary Classrooms. English and Communication, 23
(4), 1-10.
Bennett, R. E. & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K–12 Assessment: Integra
ting Transforming K–12 Assessment: Integrating. New York: Springer.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Langua
ge Pedagogy 2. Washington, DC: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by Principle: An Interactive Approach to Langua
ge Pedagogy 1. California: Longman.
Brown, N. K. (2016). Individual Learning through One-on-One Teaching. Acade
mic Journal Article- English Journal, 105(3), 1-16.
Budden, J. (2008). Grouping Students. [Online]. Retrieved from: https//www.tec
hingenglisg.org.uk [October 10, 2017]
Cameron, J. (2009). Prewriting Strategies for Organizing Ideas. [Online]. Retrie
ved from: http://www.douglas.bc.ca/shared/assets/WR255724.pdf
[November 1, 2017]
Carter, V. E. (2007). Teaching Reading in Primary Schools. UNESCO.
Challob, A. I. Bakar, N. A. & Latif, H. (2016). Collaborative Blended Learning W
riting Environment: Effects on EFL Students' Writing Apprehension and
Writing Performance. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 229.
Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and R
esearcher. Boston Mass: Heinle.
http://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/52570
http://www.douglas.bc.ca/shared/assets/WR255724.pdf
(4)2 94-127
Cohen, A. & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on Composition: Teacher and S
tudents Verbal Reports. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design. California: Sage Publication
Deane, P. (2011). Writing Assessment and Cognition. New Jersey: Research
Report.
Deane, P., Oden dhal, N., Quiunlan, T., Fowles, M., Welsh, C., & Bivens, J. (20
08). Cognitive Models of Writing. Princeton, New Jersey: Research
Report.
DeScioli, P., Kurzban, R., Koch, E., & Liben, D. N. (2011). Best Friends: Allianc
e, Friend Ranking, and the MySpace Social Network. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6(1), 6-8.
Faraj, A. (2015). Scaffolding EFL Students’ Writing through the Writing Process
Approach. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(13), 131-141.
Fatemi, A. (2008). The Relationship between Writing Competence, Language
Proficiency and Grammatical Errors in The Writing of Iranian TEFL
sophomores. Malaysia: University Sains.
Fatimah, A. (2013). Developing Student's Writing Ability through Flash Card.
[Online]. Retrieved from: https://www.google.co.Feprints.ung.ac
[November 5, 2017]
Firestone, M. (2015). Paragraph-Form-Definition-Types-Example. [Online].
Retrieved from: http://study.com/academy/lesson/paragraph-form-dei
nition-types-ex amples.html [October 10, 2017]
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Gerlach, J. M. (1994). "Is this collaboration?”. [Online]. Retrieved from: http://
archive.wceruw.org/cl1/CL/more info/MI2A.htm. [January 9, 2018]
Gillet, A. (2017). Academic Writing: Writing Paragraph. [Online]. Retrieved fro
m: www.uefap.com [October 10, 2017]
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adoles
cents in Middle and High School- A Report to Carnegie Cooperation of
New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education
Graham, S., Fitzgerald, J., Friedrich, L. D., Greene, K., Kim, J. S., & Olson, C. B.
(2016). Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively. Washington,
DC: Institute of Education Sciences (IES).
Grami, G. M. (2010). The Effects of Integrating Peer Feedback into University-L
evel ESL Writing Curriculum: A Comparative Study in a Saudi Context. [
Online]. Retrieved from: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=1&uin=
ukb [November 5, 2017]
Green, N. (2013). Pros and Cons of Individualized Instruction. [Online]. Retr
ieved from: http:/www.dreambox.com/blog/pros-cons-individualized-
instruction [October 6, 2017]
https://www.google.co.feprints.ung.ac/
http://study.com/academy/lesson/paragraph-form-dei%20nition-types-ex%20amples.html
http://study.com/academy/lesson/paragraph-form-dei%20nition-types-ex%20amples.html
http://www.uefap.com/
(4)2 94-127
Grimm, Devon. (2014). Individual Learning versus Group Learning in a Surban S
econd-Grade Classroom. [Online]. Retrieved from: http://rdw.rowan. Ed
u/etd [January 9, 2018]
Grossmann, D. (2009). Process Approach to Writing. Teaching English as
Foreign Language Journal, 3(22), 1-7.
Guechtouli, M., & Guechtouli, W. (2009). Information Technologies' Impact on I
ndividual Learning Process: The Case of a Community of Practice. [Onli
ne]. Retrieved from:https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/information-
technologies-i mpact-individual-learning/20071 [January 9, 2018]
Hake. (1999). Analyzing /Gain Scoring. America: AEAD.
Hayland, K. (2003). Writing and Teaching Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Huang, J. (2005). A Diary Study of Difficulty and Constrain in EFL Learning
System. English Education Journal, 33(4), 609-621.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ireland, G., Short, M., & Woollerton, M. (2008). The English Writing Book 1.
Tokyo: Kabushikigaisha.
Jarbel. (2017). Wikipedia. [Online]. Retrieved from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org [
October 10, 2017]
Johnson, A. (2008). Teaching Reading and Writing: A Guidebook for Tutoring
and Remediating Students. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
Jurianto, S., & Kwary, D. (2015). Strategy for Teaching Writing in EFL Class at
Senior High School in Indonesia. Culture English Language Teaching,
15(1), 43-53.
Katemba, C., V. (2019), Students’ Vocabulary Enhancement at Grade 10: A
Comparative Study Using CALL & MALL in Indonesia. CALL-EJ, 20(1),
87-114. http://callej.org/journal/20-1/Katemba2019.pdf
Katemba, C.V. (2013), Anxiety Level of Indonesian Students and Its
Relationship To Academic Achievement In English. Journal of Education
and Practice Vol.4 No.27 pp. 1 -9. Retrieved from
http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/9873/10097
Karatay, H. (2011). Süreç Temelli Yazma modelleri: Planlı Yazma
Değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. (buku
Laksmini, E. D. (2006). Scaffolding” Students’ Writing in EFL Class:
Implementing Process Approach". TEFLIN: A publication on the teaching
and learning of English, 17(2), 43-44.
Leibensperger. (2003). Generate and Refine Ideas. [Online]. Retrieved from: http
://www .uhv.edu/ac/research/prewrite/pdf/generateideas.pdf [October 10,
2017]
Leki, L. (1992). Understanding ESL Writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth,
NH: Hein Hemann.
https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/information-technologies-i%20mpact-individual-learning/20071
https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/information-technologies-i%20mpact-individual-learning/20071
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/
http://callej.org/journal/20-1/Katemba2019.pdf
http://callej.org/journal/20-1/Katemba2019.pdf
(4)2 94-127
Lyle, S. (2010). An Investigation of Pupil Perception of Mixed Ability Grouping
to Enhance Literacy in Children Aged 9-10. Educational Studies, 29(3),
12-14.
Mandal, R. R. (2009). Cooperative Learning Strategies to Enhance Writing Skill.
The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistic, 1(2),93-102.
Marzano, R. J. (2012). Cooperative Learning. [Online]. Retrieved from: https:/
escmarzano.wikispaces.com/6. +Cooperative Learning [January 9, 2018]
McCloud, L. (2017). Writing Effective Paragraph. [Online]. Retrieved from: http
:// writes ite.athabascau.ca/documentation/writing-effective-paragraph
[October 10, 2017]
Mills, M., van de Bunt, G., & Bruijn, J. d. (2006). Comparative Research. Interna
tional Sociological Association, 21(5), 619-631.
Moraru, R. L. (2015). What are the advantages and disadvantages of collaborati
ve teaching? [Online]. Retrieved from: http: www.Researchg ate.netpost
Whataretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofcollaborativeteaching [January
9, 2018]
Muijs, D. (2010). Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS 2nd ed.
London: SAGE Publications.
Mukti, A. (2016). The Effectiveness of Dialogue Journals in Improving the Skill
in Writing Narrative Text. Available online at IJEE (Indonesian Journal of
English Education), 3(1), 1-14.
NC State University. (2011). Scoring Rubric for Written Essay. [Online]. Retrieve
d from: www4.ncsu.edu
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
Nunan, D. (2011). Teaching English to Young Learner. Anaheim: Anaheim
Univesity Press.
Onozawa, C. (2010). A Study of The Process Writing Approach. Research Note
Journal, 1(10), 153-163.
Oraif, I. M. (2016). The Right Approach in Practice: A Discussion of The
Applicability of EFL Writing Practices in a Saudi Context. English
Language Teaching, 9 (7), 98.
Petty, G. C. (2011). Comparing Lecturing and Small Group. [Online]. Retrieved
from: www.igiglobal.com/dictionary/individual-learning/14147. [January
9, 2018]
Pujianto, D. (2013). A Process Approach to Teaching Writing Report Text to
Senior High School Student. Bandung: UPI.
Raimes. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rajali; Wah. (2011). Power Comparison of Shapiro-Wilk test. Journal Statistical
Modeling and Analytics, 2(4), 13-14.
Reid, J. M. (2001). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(4)2 94-127
Rochwati, T. (2007). Improving Students’ Ability in Writing. Surakarta:
Muhammadiyah University.
Rusfendi. (1998). Statistik Dasar untuk Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: IKIP
Bandung Press.
Sansivero, G. (2016). Challenges & Advantages of Collaborative: Developing W
orkforce Readiness in Students. [Online]. Retrieved from: http:/ /www.
seenmagazine.us /Articles/Article-D [January 9, 2017]
Sae-Ong, U. (2010). The Use of Task-Based Learning and Group Work Incorpor
ating to Develop English Speaking Ability of Mattayom Suksa 4 Students.
[Online]. Retrieved from: https://scholar.google.co.id/scholar?=Sae ong
2010
Sarfo, K. (2015). Investigating Paragraph Writing Skills among Polytechnic
Students: The Case of Kumasi Polytechnic. International Journal of
Language and Linguistics, 3(3), 145-153.
Sieben, N. (2013). Self-Regulation, and Self-Efficacy as Predictors of Writing A
bility in First-Year College Students. [Online]. Retrieved from: https://e
ric.ed.go v/?q=individual+learningto+te aching+writing+writing&id
=ED560385 [October 10, 2017]
Simpson, A. (2013). A Process Approaches to Writing. [Online]. Retrieved from:
http:// ww w.developingteachers.com [October 10, 2017]
Sofiandi, Salam, U. & Riyant, D. (2013). Improving Students’ Reading Comprehe
nsion. [Online] Retrieved from: nitropdf.com/professional. [October 10,
2017]
Storch N (2007) Investigating the Merits of Pair Work on A Text Editing Task in
ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2),143–159.
Sugiono. (2007). Metode Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Suherman, E. (2003). Evaluasi Pembelajaran Matematika. Bandung: JICA UPI.
Sun, C. (2009). Process Approach to Teaching Writing Applied in Different
Teaching Models. English Language Teaching CCSE, 2(1), 154.
Suprapto. (2013). Metode Ilmiah Ilmu pendidikan dan Ilmu-iIlmu Sosial. Bogor:
Gramedia.
Suyanto, A. (2015). The Effectiveness of Mind mapping in Improving Students’
Writing Skill. IQ. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 2(2),
101-119
Stiller, N. (2012). Disadvantages Within the Classroom for Individualized
Instruction. [Online]. Retrieved from: http://www. brighthubeducation.co
m/teaching-methods-tips/70727-disadvantages-of-individualized-instructi
on/ [November 9, 2017]
Tudor, E. (2016). The Process Genre Writing Approach; San Francisco: SF
Publisher.
Vanderpyl, G. D. (2012). The Process Approach as Writing Instruction in EFL
(English as a Foreign Language) Classrooms.MA TESOL Collection.
Paper 545.
Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://scholar.google.co.id/scholar?=Sae
(4)2 94-127
Wilson, S. M.; Peterson, P. L. (2006). Theories of Learning and Teaching What
Do They Mean for Educators? Washington, DC: National Education
Association.
Writing Pack. (2015). Paragraph and Essay Writing. [Online]. Retrieved from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/337433810/writing-pack-2015-
paragraph-and-essay-writing [November 9, 2017]
Writing Center. (2014). Paragraph Writing. [Online]. Retrieved from: www .ad
elaide.edu.au/writingcentre [November 9, 2017]
Yan, G. A. (2005). Process Genre Model for Teaching Writing English Teaching
Forum. ECA Journal, 43(3), 18.
https://www.scribd.com/document/337433810/writing-pack-2015-paragraph-and-essay-writing
https://www.scribd.com/document/337433810/writing-pack-2015-paragraph-and-essay-writing
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/writingcentre
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/writingcentre