4 THE EFFECT OF LEARNING APPROACH AND READING INTEREST TOWARD STUDENTS’ NARRATIVE WRITING ACHIEVEMENT Noldy Pelenkahu noldypelenkahu@ymail.com English Department, State University of Manado Abstract: The aim of this research is to know the different kinds of instructional approaches (process skill and goals oriented) found in the process of learning narrative writing. The use of different instructional approaches gave different results on students’ achievement in narrative writing. Students who have different reading interests also showed different achievement in narrative writing. These two variables have a relationship in implementing instructional approach and reading interest. It showed that the testing result of interaction between the variables of process skill and goals oriented instructional approaches to narrative writing achievement is possible. It can be concluded that the use of different instructional approach (process skill and goals oriented) give different final results. The same result is also done to students who have different reading interests as they will give different narrative writing achievements. Key words: instructional approach, reading interest, narrative writing Abstrak: Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui perbedaan pendekatan instruksional (keterampilan proses dan orientasi tujuan) dalam proses pembelajaran menulis narasi. Penggunaan perbedaan pendekatan instruksional memberikan hasil yang berbeda pada prestasi siswa dalam menulis narasi. Siswa yang memiliki minat baca yang berbeda juga menunjukkan prestasi perbedaan dalam menulis narasi. Dua variabel ini memiliki hubungan dalam melaksanakan pendekatan pembelajaran dan minat baca. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa hasil pengujian interaksi antara variabel keterampilan proses dan tujuan pendekatan instruksional yang berorientasi pada naratif menulis prestasi dapat berhasil dengan baik. Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 177 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement bahwa penggunaan perbedaan pendekatan pembelajaran (keterampilan proses dan orientasi tujuan) memberikan hasil akhir yang berbeda. Hasil yang sama juga dilakukan kepada siswa yang memiliki minat membaca yang berbeda dan akan memberikan prestasi menulis narasi yang berbeda. Kata kunci: pendekatan instruksional, minat baca, menulis narasi INTRODUCTION The ability of someone to use English does not come by itself, but it comes from the process of studying the language. Learning to get the ability of using English in oneself can be done by formal and non formal educational setting. Cook (2007) argue that there are two kinds of goals students are expected to have in communicating English well. He uses the terms internal goals and external goals. The external goals relate to the students’ use of language outside the classroom, while the internal goals relate to the students’ mental development as individuals. Students should be able to use the language not only in the classroom but also outside the class room that is in real life. There are four language skills that must be mastered by students who learn English, namely listening, speaking, reading and writing. Among the four language skills that are taught in school, writing is the hardest skill to learn. Brown (2007) has found that the writers of the L2 do planning less accurately, fluently and less effectively in stating the objectives than those of L1. They also differ in the use of appropriate conventions of grammar and rhetoric and lexical variety. Hyland (2003) has defined that the process approach puts major focus on the process of writing, such as how writers develop their ideas. He has explained that the students are given enough time to go through the writing process along with appropriate feedback from both their teachers and peers. Onazawa (2010) defines that process approach is an approach to writing in which students focus the process. Dealing with this, students are allowed to manage their own writing by giving them the opportunity to think like the way they wrote. Guiding English language students formally and informally are needed because English is a strategic subject matter for studying other subjects. It is true because without having ability to use English language, one may not do thinking activities. It means that one cannot be able to think systematically, but he/she can communicate everything of what he/she is thinking to others. 178 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 With language one can express attitude and feelings. That is why, by the ability of having English, students can get knowledge to appreciate literature and art, and they can develop themselves continuosly. Besides that, by having English language ability, one can form him/herself physically to become social and cultural mankind in order to participate in the nation development as a good citizen. According to the English instructional field in schools such as Junior high school today, it can be known that teachers teach language knowledge and not to teach how language is used. These can be seen by observing teachers who, for instance in teaching speaking skills, only explain the conversation meaning in reading text and then invite students to read the text which contains the conversation. In this case, they do not drill students how to speak English perfectly, but only to drill students to sound what is written and not to develop their ability of thinking. It means that teachers did not give opportunity to them to think by him/her self of his/her ideas, what vocabulary and what sentences which becomes suitable to say with the topic discussion. From this case, it can be known also that English instructional in schools has problems which must be considered by English teachers. They must consider that students have the tendency to understand the concrete things and to look at someting as the one unity, integrated and manipulative. The one who can give his/her thinking or ideas of the variation of the words and correct usage of sentences would be considered students who are good in their writing skills. By writing, students will often get more varieties in using their vocabulary for various sentence types. It is true because effective writing skills can also upgrade students’ grammar skills that are needed in writing. It means that students who have a high interest in writing can directly or indirectly improve his/her ability to give their ideas across either in verbaly and in written form. It can be assumed, therefore that students having a high interest in writing, will have a higher achievement in their writing skill. That is why, it can be predict ed also that the higher is the student’s writing interest, the higher is the learning achievement, such is that in the writing skill achievement. In fact, it is needed by educational practitioners, especially teachers who must make conducive environments in order for their students to become involved physically and mentally in effective learning activities. An appropriate instructional approach is needed to support some learning objectives, because suitable instructional approaches will determine the students’ learning achievements. That is why, in this study, it tries to implement the instructional approaches, which are oriented to the needs of updating the educational Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 179 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement development system in schools. The implemented instructional approach is the orientation of students’ difficulty learning level, whicht in this study is called the “process skill instructional approach”. This instructional approach is implemented by giving full attention to students’ levels of mental activity. The instructional approach oriented to students’ learning difficulty levels will make teachers have to implement their instructions through observation, comparison, clarification, and interpretation; in order to conclude, analyze, synthesize, communicate, and predict the students’ achievements. LITERATURE REVIEW A. Narrative Writing Concept Writing is a communication act which is done individually without any support of voice stress, rhythm, mimic, and verbal communication. The writer plays with words, sentences, and use of punctuation for stating, figuring, and recommending something to other people. The writer must choose the exact words and construct right and logic sentences systematically in order that the objective and meaning can be understood by the reader (Hafferman, and Lincoln, 1990, p. 37). Nunan (1998, p. 36) states that the product approach to writing is an approach which focuses on the end result of writing activities. Soonpaa (2007, p. 3) states that process approach emphasizes on the process of the students producing a piece of writing by using techniques such as brainstorming, exploring ideas, peer editing, and rewriting. In addition, Onozawa (2010, p. 154) shares the idea that the process of writing is an approach to writing, where language learners focus on the process by which they produce their written products rather than on the product themselves. In the end, learners usually need to and are required to complete their products, i.e. the writing process itself. On the other hand, a student’s creativity is another factor to the result of a successful writing. Writing itself is a process of thinking. Cowley (2004, p. 141) says that thinking creatively is all about expressing ourselves in a unique and imaginative way. Creativity, describes the process of bringing something new and that applying our creativity means being able to take unusual or innovative approaches to the common place or the ordinary. Based on the above, it can be said that writing is an act that needs process which has a long enough process for guiding, and practicing by 180 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 teachers and students. Writing is a systemic act for giving ideas, thinking, and experience to use the right words and construct clear sentences with the purpose of making cohesive paragraphs to be understood by readers. In the context of writing ability, writing is a skill of process development. To write needs experience, time, opportunity, practice, and special ability. Besides that, to write needs ideas which are constructed logically, and expressed with a clear and systematic kind of thinking idea. Writing skill does not come by itself. It needs intense practice individual learning because it needs some kind of systematic planning. The ability to write is not a talent, by means it is not brought by a bird, but that ability is only achieved by going through a process development of learning, practicing, and developing writing skills continuously. There have been many studies trying to find ways to help students in minimizing their difficulties to improve their writing achievement. However, most of the studies were carried out in the classroom in which writing was taught. It has been a quite common activity to teach the four skills of English as separate subjects. However, recent research shows the trend of integrating the four English skills (Brown, 2007). The popularity of communicative language learning has promoted the importance of making integrative tasks (Delaney, 2008). As teachers try to find ways to improve the efficacy and efficiency of their instructional programs and practice in teaching writitng, they may capitalize the integration of reading and writing instruction. Many studies have revealed that reading and writing are connected and these two skills have positive correlation, (Palmer, 2010). The research into reading writing connection has taken three basic approaches, i.e. rhetorical relations, shared knowledge, and procedural connections (Shanahan, 2000). The rhetorical approach is based on the idea that reading and writing are communication activities and that readers and writers gain insights about how communication works by being both sender and receiver. The shared knowledge approach is one that has atracted the most research attention, i.e. of making an analysis of the shared knowledge and cognitive process between reading and writing. This approach is used by the majority of research in the reading writing connections (Koons, 2008). According to Fitzgeral (2000), both readers and writers rely on four common knowledge bases i.e. the domain or content knowledge, procedural knowledge, knowledge of specific features or components of written language, and meta knowledge. Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 181 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement Writing is one of the most important English skills to learn. Byne (1997, p. 1) states that writing is the act of forming symbols, letters or combinations of letters, which relate to the sound when we speak, the making of marks on a flat surface of some kind, which are arranged accordingly to certain conventions to form works and words arranged in order to later on form sentences. Furthermore, (Richard, 1997, p. 100) states that good writing skills are essential to academic success and requirements for many occupations and professions. According to (Harmer 1998, p. 73) there are four reasons for teaching writing to students of English as a foreign language, they are (1) the reinforcement of some students who acquire languages in a purely oral way, but also to those who benefit greatly from seeing the written down language, (2) the language development of the actual process of writing, which help learners to learn as they go long, (3) the learning style of writing appropiately for learners who take a longer time at picking up language just by looking and listening, (4) the writing as a skill, thus teaching writing is as important as speaking, listening and reading. The ability to write is very difficult than the other three language skills. Listening and reading skills are categorized receptive skills because they receive messages, while they also actively interpret and analyze messages which are listened to or read by. Speaking and writing skills are categorized under productive skills because they must actively produce the thinking of ideas and have them said either in verbal or writing language. Students in writing class are expected to produce written text by demonstrating a command of standard written English such as using appropiate structure, accurate grammar, spelling and punctuation, appropiate use of vocabulary and good organization of ideas manifested in coherent paragraphs (Hinkel, 2004, p. 19). Speaking is an activitity of saying whatever becomes the thinking of someone in verbal form while directly making a face to face interaction with a listener. To speak needs phonology. To write is to say the thinking and ideas in the form of writing, so that needs orthography. To say words and sentences used in the form of writing needs a skill, which is higher than the ability of speaking. This is true because a writer must have good ability in language use in order the communication be effective (Valette, 1999). To write is a process, so that, before one can do the acts of good writing, it needed the prior ability for doing the acts of writing. The prior ability to do the acts of writing in formal education starts from the elementary level. That is why learning to write in elementary level is differentiated in two stages: (1) early writing, and (2) continued writing. Early writing is transffered to the first 182 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 and second class which is started with the practice of writing minimum words to practice to write grammatically correct word combinations, and to also make use of appropriate punctuation in various writing stages. This writing instruction is given integratively with reading instruction. This is found true, because to write is a symbol system (phoneme symbols) and these symbols pronounced as alphabets have been long used until this modern century. The continued writing is given after the early writing had been mastered fluently. This prior knowledge of writing such as the alphabet, writing system, and grammatical mastery must be given to students in systematic steps. Narrative writing is a form of development process or writer’s ability to state ideas which will be stated to a reader, so the reader can understand the writer’s messages. The form of composition development undergofour kinds, they are (1) narration, (2) description, (3) exposition, and (4) argumentation. These forms of development or stating composition have the objectives and characteristics of what becomes the main ideas of the writer. For instance, if the writer wants to tell about an accident or experience, it will of course, be different from a writer who wants to inform about a product. In this study, narrative writing is chosen with a study sample of their development, whichare interesting to factual story, especially the story written in English. Narrative writing is a story that tells about accidents constructed chronologicaly. It is a story based on the chronological order of an accident. There are two kinds of narrative writing they are (1) factual narration and (2) fictive narration. Factual narration is a story which is told chronologically with factual incidents. Fictive narration is a story told by the writer, which consists of mankind experience which is considered carefully. Narrative writing is also a composition development or writing which has chronological incidents and problems. The implementation of the narrative writing strategy havehelped students to improve their narratives since the strategy especially helped them to use their imagination to create longer sentences for their composition. It was easy for them to write occurences of their story in writing as the story dealt with their factual life experiences. This is in accordance with (Campbell, 2009) who reveals that story–retelling is a powerful tool to get students to write because it provides opportunities to identify important details and dialogues needed as story elements. Butcher (2006) states that stories can change a student’s perspective. There are often implicit moral teachings in stories. B. The Reading Interest Interest will also exist to those who is doing some kind of learning. If a student has an interest to the subject matter which he/she learned (e.g. the Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 183 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement writing lesson), this student will have a strong tendency to be more attentive in their lessons. So, it can be said that interest can affect the writing achievement of students. Interest can also help develop students’ better concentration. This means that everyone who has interest would not be easily disturbed in implementing an activity such as reading or writing. If one has an interest to read, he/she will not be inclined to speak in a reading or writing classroom. Reading, according to some experts, is defined as the ability of an individual to recognize a visual form, and associating the form with the sound and/or meaning, and understanding and interpreting its meaning. Urquhart says that reading is a process of decoding written symbols, working from smaller units (invidual letters) to larger ones (word, clauses, and sentences) (1998, p. 22). There is an interactive process between a reader and text which leads to a certain reading fluency (Alyousef, 2005, p. 144) and the making of meanings from print and visual information (Moreillon, 2007, p.10). Grellet states that reading involves a variety of skills, such as follows: (1) recognizing the script of language; (2) understanding explicitly stated information; (3) understanding information when not explicitly stated; (4) understanding the communicative value of sentences and utterances; and (5) understanding relations within the sentences (1998, p. 43). Based on the readings above, it can be understood that the interest or motive of one’s psyche’s aspect which makes someone has the tendency for preference, happiness, high attention, positive respond to an object or act has a close relationship with what becomes the point of reading interest. Reading is one act which is not interested by just anyone. The factors affecting one’s interest or motive in reading can be determined by the kinds of material choosen in reading. Nevertheless, if a partiular reading material is interesting for a student, he/she will continuously have a good attitude in his/ her reading (Gillet, and Temple, 1994). C. Instructional Approach Instructional approach is an alternative method, strategy, and technique in teaching and learning in order the instructional objective can be maximally achieved. Instructional approach in language instruction is a set of axiomatic assumptions of the nature of language. Meanwhile, method is the whole planning of language instructional material that is presented systematically and based on an an alternate approach (Richards and Rodgers, 1986). In this case, an approach is axiomatic and method is procedural, whereas, technique is implementary. This means that what is happening in a classroom for achieving specific objectives and techniques must be relevant with method, and cannot 184 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 be in contradiction with approach. In other words, technique becomes the description from method, and method is the description from an approach. D. Instructional Skill Process Approach Instructional skill process approach is student skill for manage achievement get from teaching and learning process which giving wide opportunities to students for observing, categorizing, predicting, interpreting, implementing, planning a study, and communicating their achievement. The objective of process skill approach is to develop student creativities in learning. So, they are active to develop and implement abilities. Process skill approach consists of several skills such as observing, making clarifying, measuring, communicating, making conclusions, predicting, and connecting space with time (Abruscato, 1995). Process skill approach is very important in helping students in learning in order that he/she can get the success of facing all of life aspects, because of this skill practice is in stages with the focus starting from observing, clarifying, predicting, measuring, communicating, concluding, controlling, interpreting data, and finding a model (the last is an important act in process skill). The process of writing consists of (1) pre-writing where students must concentratewell to find and share ideas, and read literature from experience; (2) writing an early draft, i.e. the start of writng by choosing topics, and writing in persuasive form with interesting models to work with; (3) making revisions such as correcting, reading again, adding and lessening information, reading and writing again); and (4) editing, which includesrevision for punctuation, grammar correcting, publishing, reading in front of colleagues, writing books, making cover designs, and so on (Eisele, 1991). E. Goal Oriented Instructional Approach Goal oriented instructional approach is based on the thinking that in every teaching and learning activity, things must be thought or determined first by its objectives in order to be achieved. By paying attention to the objectives which have been stated, it is hoped that whatever method will be applied, or whatever instructional technique will be applied will answer the objectives of the instruction. The implementation of this approach is always correlated to learning mastery. It means that teaching and learning process is assumed successful if at least 85% of students can master 75% of the instructional material given by a teacher. Determination of this achievement is based on the formative tests Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 185 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement given. So, in this case, whatever approach, method, or technique applied is not to be a problem, with the condition that the instructional objectives stated can be achieved. Based on these facts, it can be said that the learning model oriented to a student ability which is measured based on the time needed by students meet the needs of the mastery of the lessons. This means that smart students would need less time than not smart students (Slavin, 1991). So, to achieve the objective stated, a teacher must prepare enough time for students until they achieve 85% of students’ mastery and 75% can achieve the instructional objective stated. These ways can also be affected by students who use their time well, which are in accordance with the level of instructional material difficulty, in addition to the students’ ability to catch the instructional material in the form of verbal communication. In instructional constructivism, where a teacher implements the teaching and learning process by using the right instruction and technique of questioning ability is based on three conditions: (1) receiving the given condition, (2) the readyness to learn, and (3) do the activities prepared. Receiving a condition and readyness to learn are implemented when a teacher can make students focustheir attention to a topic or problem to be discussed in class. Activity is implemented by way of giving opportunity to students in order that they can find by themselves kinds of problem solving activities, in order to predict and do tasks responsibly (Borich, 1996). Based on the above concepts, in this study, the approach to be implemented is the goal oriented approach which is modified between the goal, mastery learning, and constructivism approach which is constructed with the following steps: (1) writing instruction is implemented or oriented on the instructional objective which had been formulated, and is followed by the instructional material that is suitable with that instructional objective; (2) students do tasks, which are suitable with the instruction and time allotment given by the teacher with the condition thatguidance is given to students who till does not understand about the instruction material given; (3) the result of students’ tasks will be evaluate by two evaluators by using an evaluation standard which is stated and will be the guide for the writing achievement; and (4) whatever the number of result recived will be accounted for. In this case, students must achieve 85% of the targeted objectives of the learning mastery. In other word, whether individually or in groups, the students must show their work at their best with the responsibility of obtaining the targeted objectives of the learning materials given by their teachers. 186 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 METHODOLOGY A. Research Participant, Method and Design This study’s participant is one Junior High School in Minahasa regency, which agreed to be researched on for the periods of April – June 2014. This study uses an experiment method with two independent variables and one dependent variable. The variables experimented in this study is instructional approach. That is why, experimental method is chosen because it may show the effect of the implementation by controlling several things which maybe controlled. This is because, there are things which cannot be controlled such as some factors like the school environment, teacher experience of teaching and learning process, student background, parent education, the environment of students’ living, and so on. The research design of this study is 2 x 2 factorial design, wherethe design is alternated in order to see the effect of the core factors as dependent variables. Rodgers (2009), in his definition about methodology, reminds teachers that teaching strategies and activities may only be appropriate for a particular teaching/learning situation. This means that different teaching/learning situatiosn may require different teaching strategies, activities and approaches although it is possible that certain methods may be appropriate for learners of different types. B. Research Instrument This study uses an instrument in order to get data about how far the instructional approach and reading interest toward student narrative writing achievement are. Based on the variables on this study, there are three data which must be collected they are (1) narrative writing achievement, (2) the high and low interest of of reading, and (3) instructional approach experiment. As instruments of this study are (1) narrative writing test, (2) reading interest test, and (3) questionnaire for the teaching and learning process. C. Research Hypothesis The result of this study is analyzed with a two-way analysis of variance. The significant differences of the two way analysis of variance will interpret and determine the conclusion of what variable is more effective than the other independent variables. The four hypothesis to be evaluated in this study are: 1. Student narrative writing’s achievement of those who are learning with the process skill of instructional approach is better than the narrative writing achievement of students who are learning with a goal oriented instructional approach. In this situation the statistical hypothesis is: Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 187 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement Ho : µA1 = µA2 H1 : µA1B1 + µA1B2 ≥ µA2B1 + µA2B2 2. Student narrative writing’s achievement of those studentswhohave a high reading interest of learning have a high goal oriented instructional approach when compared with students’ narrative writing achievement who have a high reading interest of learning with a process skill of instructional approach. In this situation the statistical hypothesis is: Ho : µA1B1 ≥ µA2B2 H1 : µA1B1 ≤ µA2B2 3. Student narrative writing’s achievement of those who have less reading interest and of learning with an instructional process skill approach hase a higher achievement than those who have less reading interest nad of learning with a goal oriented instructional approach. In this situation the statistical hypothesis is: Ho : µA1B2 ≥ µA2B2 H1 : µA1B2≤ µA2B2 4. There is an interaction between the instructional approach and reading interest towards a student narrative writing achievement. In this situation the statistical hypothesis is: Ho : AxB= 0 H1 : AxB ≠ 0 FINDINGS Data description of narrative writing achievement consists of the data from students (1) who are learning with a process skill instructional approach (A1); (2) who are learning with a goal oriented instructional approach (A2); (3) who have high reading interest (B1); (4) who have less reading interest (B2); (5) who are learning with process skill instructional approach and who have a high reading interest (A1B1); (6) who are learning with an instructional process skill and have less reading interest (A1B2); (7) who are learning with a goal oriented 188 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 instructional approach and have a high reading interest (A2B1); and (8) who are learning with a goal oriented instructional approach and have less reading interest (A2B2). The descriptions of narrative writing achievement of the eight groups are described in table 4.1. Table 4.1. Narrative Writing Achievement Description Data Source n Variance Min Score Max Score Mean ( X ) Modus (Mo) Median (Me) St.Dev (S) Sum A1 30 37,775 27 50 38,533 38 38 6,146 1156 A2 30 21,375 16 30 24,733 26 26 4,623 742 B1 30 38,254 135 153 14,523 143 153 6,184 4357 B2 30 58,800 101 125 114,40 115 103 7,668 3432 A1B1 15 15,495 27 38 34,066 36 38 3,936 511 A1B2 15 23,352 16 30 22,066 21 26 4,832 331 A2B1 15 15,400 24 37 29,600 28 26 3,924 444 A2B2 15 5,686 22 30 27,400 28 28 2,384 411 A1: Group score of student narrative writing’s achievement who are learning with an instructional process skill approach. A2: Group score of student narrative writing’s achievement who are learning with a goal oriented instructional approach. B1: Group score of student narrative writing’s achievement who have high reading interest B2: Group score of student narrative writing’s achievement who have less reading interest. A1B1: Group score of student narrative writing’s achievement who are learning with an instructional process skill approach and have high reading interest. A1B2: Group score of student narrative writing’s achievement who are learning with an instructional process skill approach and have less reading interest. A2B1: Group score of student narrative writing’s who are learning with a goal oriented instructional approach and have high reading interest. A2B2: Group score of student narrative writing’s who are learning with a goas oriented instructional approach and have less reading interest. Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 189 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement Who are Learning with an Instructional Skill Process Approach (A1) The group of students with narrative writing achievements who are learning with an instructional process skill approach has a test instrument of 40 items, which has a theoretical score scale of 1 to 40. In this group, the score of group of students of narrative writing achievements are those learning with an instructional process skill approach with the highest score of 38 and the lowest score of 27. The mean score is 34.066 with a deviation standard of 3.936, the mode score of 38, and the median score of 36. The frequency distribution score of the group these students are described in table 4.2. Table 4.2. Frequency Distribution List Data of the Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement Who are Learning with an Instructional Process Skill Approach (A1) No Class Interval Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency (%) 1 26.5 – 28.5 3 10.71 2 28.5 – 30.5 4 14.28 3 30.5 – 32.5 8 28.57 4 32.5 – 34.5 7 25.00 5 34.5 – 36.5 5 17.86 6 36.5 – 38.5 3 10.71 Sum 30 100.00 Data description of this table shows that there are 7 students or 24.99% whose score is under the interval class of a mean score of 15 students or 53.57%, which is in the class interval of the mean score and 8 students or 28.57% who got the score above the class interval of the mean score. The data description shows that there are three categories, they are: the score above 1 and 2 of the interval class, which is categorized low; the score on the interval class of 3 and 4, which is categorized as being on average; and the score on the interval class of 5 and 6, which is categorized high. So then as a result, there are 7 students or 24.99% of them who are in the low score categorization; 15 students or 53.57% are in the average score categorization; and there are 8 students or 28.57% on the high score categorization. 190 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement Data Who are Learning with a Goal Oriented Instructional Approach (A2) The Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement Data Who are Learning with a Goal Oriented Instructional Approach (A2) got the highest score of 30 and the lowest score of 16. The mean score is 24.733 with a standard deviation score of 4.623, the mode score is 26, and median score is 26. The frequency distribution data of this group is described in table 4.3. Data description in this table shows that there are 5 students or 17.85% of them who got a score under the class interval which consists of a mean score of 9 students or 38.57% which is in the class interval of the mean score, and 7 students or 25.00% got above the class interval of the mean score. The data description therefore shows three categories, they are: the score on the class interval of 1 and 2 is categorized as low, the score on the class interval of 2 and 3 is categorized as on average, and the score on the class interval of 4, 5 and 6 is categorized high. So then, there are 3 students or 10.71% who are on the category which got a low score, 14 students or 57.30% in the category of average score, and 13 students or 46.43% is in the category of a high score. Table 4.3. The List of Frequency Distribution of a Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement Data Who are Learning with a Goal Oriented Instructional Approach (A2) No Class Interval Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency (%) 1 15.5 – 21.5 3 10.71 2 21.5 – 22.5 5 17.86 3 22.5 – 24.5 9 38.57 4 24.5 – 26.5 7 25.00 5 26.5 – 28.5 4 14.29 6 28.5 – 30.5 2 7.14 Sum 30 100.00 Group of Students Who are Learning with an Instructional Process Skill Approach Who have a High Reading Interest (B1) In this group of students, the narrative writing achievement of those who are learning with an instructional process skill approach have the highest score of 153 and the lowest score ofs 135. The mean score is 14.523 with a standard deviation score of 6.184, the mode score ofs 15.30, and the median score of 14.523. The frequency distribution data of this group of students is described in table 4.4.: Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 191 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement Table 4.4 The List of Frequency Distribution of a Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement Who are Learning with an Instructional Process Skill Approach with a High Reading Interest (B1) No Class Interval Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency (%) 1 134.5 – 143.5 3 10.71 2 143.5 – 145.5 5 17.89 3 145.5 – 147.5 5 17.89 4 147.5 – 149.5 8 27.43 5 149.5 – 151.5 6 21.43 6 151.5 – 153.5 3 10.71 Sum 30 100.00 Data description in this table shows that there are 8 students or 28.60% whose score is under the class interval of the mean score; 13 students or 46.13% got a score on the class interval of the mean score; and 9 students or 32.14% got a score above the class interval. So that, the data description shows there are three categories, they are: the score in the class interval of 1 and 2 are in the low score categorization, the score in the class interval of 3 and 4 are in the average categorization, and the score in the class interval of 5 and 6 is in the high score categorization. So then, there are 8 students or 28.60% that are categorized under the low score, 13 students or 46.13% are categorized under the average score, and 9 students or 32.14% are categorized under the high score. Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement Who are Learning with a Goal Oriented Instructional Approach with a Less Reading Interest (B2) In this group, the result of the Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement who are learning with a Goal Oriented Instructional Approach with Less Reading Interest (B2) have the highest score of 125 and the lowest score of 101. The mean score is 11.440, with a standard deviation score of 7.668, mode score of 10.300, and median score of 11.500. The frequency distribution data of this group is described in table 4.5. Data description in this table shows that there are 7 students or 25.00% who got a score under a class interval of the mean score; 14 students or 48.86% of them is in the class interval of the mean score; and 9 students or 32.15% got a score above the class interval of the mean score. The data description thus shows that there are three student categories, they are: the score in the class interval of 1 and 2 are categorized s low, the score in the class 192 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 interval of 3 and 4 are categorized as on average, and the score in the class interval of 5 and 6 are categorized as high. So then, there are 7 students or 25.00% which are categorized under a low score, 14 students or 48.86% are categorized under an average score, and 9 students or 32.15% is categorized under a high score. Table 4.5. Data Frequency Distribution List of a Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement who are Learning with a Goal Oriented Instructional Approach with Less Reading Interest (B2) No Class interval Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency (%) 1 110.5 – 112.5 3 10.71 2 112.5 – 115.5 4 14.29 3 115.5 –118.5 8 27.43 4 118.5 – 121.5 6 21.43 5 121.5 – 124.5 5 17.86 6 124.5 – 127.5 4 14.29 Sum 30 100.00 Data Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement Who are Learning with an Instructional Skill Process Approach and Who have a High Reading Interest (A1B1) In this group, the score of the Narrative Writing Achievement of students who are learning with an Instructional Skill Process Approach and have a High Reading Interest (A1B1) got the highest score of 38 and the lowest score of 27. The mean score is 34.006 with a standard deviation score of 3.963, mode score of 38, and median score of 36. The data frequency distribution result of this group of students can be seen in table 4.6. Data description in this table shows that there are 3 students or 20.00% got a score under the class interval of the mean score; 7 students or 46.66% got a score in the class interval of the mean score; and 5 students or 33.33% got a score above the class interval of the mean score. So then it means the data description shows that there are three categories, they are: a score in the class interval of 1 is categorized low, a score in the class interval of 2 and 3 are categorized average, and a score in the class interval of 4 is categorized high. So then, there are 3 students or 20.00%, which is categorized as having low scores, 7 students or 46.66% is categorized average, and there are 5 students or 33.33%, which is categorized high Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 193 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement Table 4.6. Data Frequency Distribution Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement Who are Learning with an Instructional Skill Process Approach and have a High Reading Interest (A1B1) No Class Interval Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency (%) 1 26.5 – 29.5 2 13.33 2 29.5 – 32.5 4 26.66 3 32.5 - 35.5 6 40.00 4 35.5 – 38.5 3 20.00 Sum 15 100.00 Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement who are Learning with an Instructional Skill Process Approach who have Less Reading Interest (A1B2) In this group, the Narrative Writing Achievement of students who are Learning with an Instructional Skill Process Approach and have a Less Reading Interest (A1B2) has the highest score of 30 and the lowest score of 16. The mean score is 22.066 with a standard deviation score of 4.832, mode of 26, and median score of 21. The data frequency distribution group of these students are described in table 4.7. Table 4.7. Data Frequency Distribution of a Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement who are Learning with an Instructional Skill Process Approach and have Less Reading Interest (A1B2) No Class Interval Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency (%) 1 15.5 – 18.5 2 13.33 2 18.5 – 22.5 4 26.66 3 22.5 – 27.5 6 40.00 4 27.5 – 30.5 3 20.00 Sum 15 100.00 Data description in this table shows that there are 2 students or 13.33% who got a score under the class interval of the mean score; 10 students or 46.66% are in the class interval of the mean score; and 3 students or 20.00% who got a score in the class interval of the mean score. Thus, the data description shows that there are three categories, they are: the score of the class interval of 1 and 2 which are categorized as low, the score of the class interval of 3 which is categorized as average, and the score of the class interval of 4 which is categorized as high. There are also 2 students or 13.33% whoo are 194 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 categorized under those who got less score, and 10 students or 46.66% who are categorized having average score, and there 3 students or 20.00% who are categorized under high score. Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement who are Learning with a Goal Oriented Instructional Approach and have a High Reading Interest (A2B1) In this group, the highest score is 37 and the lowest score is 24. The mean score is 29.600 with a standard deviation score of 3.924, mode of 26, and median of 28. The data frequency distribution of this student group is described in table 4.8. Data description in this table shows that there are 2 students or 13.33% who got a score under the class interval of the mean score; 9 students or 60.00% who got an average class intervalof the mean score; and 4 students or 26.66% who got a high class interval of the mean score. The data description thus shows that there are three categories, they are: the score of class interval of 1 which is categorized as less, the score of the class interval of 2 and 3 which are categorized as average, and the score of the class interval of 4 which is categorized as high. There are also 2 students with 13.33% who got less score, 9 students or 60.00% who got average score, and 4 students or 20.00% who got high score. Table 4.8. Data Frequency Distribution Group of the Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement who are Learning with a Goal Oriented Instructional Approach and have a High Reading Interest (A2B1) No Class Interval Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency (%) 1 23.5 – 27.5 2 13.33 2 27.5 – 33.5 3 20.00 3 33.5 – 35.5 6 40.00 4 34.5 – 37.5 4 26.66 Sum 15 100.00 Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement who are Learning with a Goal Oriented Instructional Approach and have Less Reading Interest (A2B2) In this group, the highest score is 30 and the lowest score is 22. The mean score is 27.400 with a standard deviation score of 2.384, mode of 28 and median of 28. Data frequency distribution these students are described in table 4.9. Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 195 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement Table 4.9. Data Frequency Distribution of the Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement who are Learning with a Goal Oriented Instructional Approach and have a Less Reading Interest (A2B2) No Class Interval Absolute Frequency Relative Frequnecy (%) 1 21.5 – 22.5 2 13.33 2 22.5 – 24.5 2 13.33 3 24.5 – 26.5 6 40.00 4 26.5 – 28.5 3 20.00 5 28.5 – 30.5 2 13.33 Sum 15 100.00 Data description in this table shows that there are 4 students or 26.66% who are in the class interval class of the mean score; 6 students or 40.00% got in the class interval of the mean score; and there are 5 students or 33.33% who got above the class interval of the mean score. Thus, the data description shows that there are three categories, they are: the core of the class interval of 1 and 2 is categorized as less, those in the score of 2 and 3 are categorized s average, and those of score 4 is categorized as high. So then, there are 4 students or 26.66% who are categorized as having less score, 6 students or 40.00% is categorized as having an average score, and 5 students or 33.33% is categorized having a high score. Based on the norm score of the Group of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement who are Learning with a Goal Oriented Instructional Approach and have Less Reading Interest (A2B2) tends to have a high score from the mean score. This can be seen from the mode score of 28 and median score of 28 which is relatively the same from the mean score. Analysis of the testing criteria that uses the Variance Analysis (ANAVA) of path analysis of data normality testing and data homogenity testing gives the following results like shown in table 4.10. Table 4.10. Data Description Result of the Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement of Variance Homogenity Testing Score on Two Experimental Groups (A1 and A2) The Groups X 2 count X 2 t( αααα=0,01) X2t(αααα=0,05) Conclusion A1 A2 12.933 19.000 37.566 27.688 31.410 22.362 Homogent From this table it can be known that the variance of the homogenity testing result got X 2 c = 19.00 and 12.933, and X 2 t = 37.566 and 31.410. If it is compared, soothe X 2 c is less than X 2 t, so that H0 is recieved. This means that 196 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 there is no variance differences between the two experimental groups, of those who are learning with an instructional skill process approach with the group of students who are learning with a goal oriented instructional approach. From this it can be concluded that the data of the two experimental groups is homogent. The variance homogenity testing from the attribute categories of the groups in this study was done through the stages used from part (a) above. The groups are a group of student narrative writing’s achievement who are learning with an instructional skill process approach who have a high reading interest and less reading interest. The description of variance homogenity testing can be seen table 4.11. Table 4.11. Data Description of Variance Homogenity Testing Result Score of Student Narrative Writing’s Achievement on Two Subject Attribute Categories of Groups B1 and B2 Group X2c X 2 t( α=0,01) X2t(α=0,05) Conclusion B1 B2 4.800 15.733 27.688 33.409 22.362 27.587 Homogent From this table it can be seen that the variance homogenity testing result of X 2 c = 4.800 and 15.733, in addition X 2 t = 22.362 and 27.587. If it is compared, then X 2 c is less than X 2 t, so H0 is recieved. This meant that there is no difference variance between the two attribute categories groups of the student group who has a high reading interest (B1) and the student group who has less reading interest (B2). It can be concluded then that the two experimental data are homogent. Based on the ANAVA testing result toward significant interaction between instructional approach and reading interest toward narrative writing achievement, it is shown that there is an interaction between the two variables toward narrative writing achievement. This is proven through the continued testing of Tuckey (t-testing). In order to know the significant interaction between the two variables of this study, it must be understood that the sample/subject size (n) of each group is the same. This analysis is used to investigate an absolute mean score difference from two groups which compares a critical score (table score). This was done in two subject groups: a students group who has a high reading interest and who is learning with an instructional skill process approach and goall oriented instructional approach. The other student group is the one who has less reading interest and who is learning with an instructional skill process approach and goal oriented instructional approach. Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 197 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement The result of the Tuckey testing for the student group who has a high reading interest shows that by using an instructional skill process approach there is a better effecti of the narrative writing achievement when compared with using a goal oriented instructional approach. So then, factually the result of Qc = 96.45 > Qt = 3.09 with a significance of α = 0,05. Beside that, it was seen that on the mean score result from A1B1group ( X = 2013,57) t iis higher than group A2B1( X = 2068,57). This data means that the hypothesis is recieved or is significant iin its testing. The Tuckey testing analysis result for the students group who has less reading interest showed that the use of the instructional skill process approach gives a better effect to the narrative writing achievement rather than the goal oriented instructional approach. So then, it was factually stated that Qt = 16.29 >Qt = 3,09 (α =0,05). Beside that, it can be seen from the narrative writing achievement’s mean score of groups A2B2 ( X = 1999.93) is higher than from the group A1B2 ( X = 2090.79). This data means that the hypothesis is recieved or significantly tested. This points to the result that the instructional skill process approach is better than the goal oriented instructional approach in increasing student narrative writing’s achievement. The instructional approach of the student narrative writing achievement is the activities done by a teacher in making conducive teaching and learning in order to achieve the instructional objectives. The instructional approach becomes the way of sharing messages or information to students through various instructional approaches such as the instructional media of pictures, OHP, Radio, Television, LCD, or media images that are suitable with the messages and objectives to be achieved. The instructional skill process approach has characteristics and specific strenghts in improving student narrative writing’s achievement, so it can give different effects toward student learning results. The strengths of this instructional approach is making students better in understanding and remembering material substances which is rolling and can be implemented in the whole class instructional materials because they were attended or involved directly by students who want to learn. The students care given possibilities for initiatives and creativities to work together to be active in doing their learning. This means that they are given opportunities to be the centre of their learning activities. Additionally the approach becomes a way for helping students to develop their cognitive process. With this condition, they are able to make and form their learning conception by themselves. That is why, the approach can function as a bridge between students’ prior knowledge with the new learnt knowledge. In other words, it can help students’ schemata in analyzing and accomodating messages recieved in preparing or motivating themselves to learn 198 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 narrative writing which needed mostly for doing a qualified learning process. The motivation developed by students in learning by using the instructional skill process approach is the ability to learn a high integration of a number of learning intruments. They learn not only to be the expert of narrative writing but also to use it for working profesionally. Meanwhile the strength of the goal oriented instructional approach is the students’ improvement of remembering instructional materials taught because in the instructional process, the main system is the drilling activity of acquiring the goals of the objective. CONCLUSION From the finding of this study, it can be concluded that the use of the differentinstructional approach of skill process and goal oriented, have given a difference in the final result. The same condition has been done to students who have a different reading interest to result in a different kind of narrative writing achievement. The two variables of this research data have a close relationship in implementing the instructional approach and reading interest such as shown in the testing result of interaction between the research variables of the skill process and goal oriented instructional approaches of student narrative writing’s achievement. In doing the instructional process, teachers need to implement the instructional approach and make different creativities which will affect the student narrative writing’s achievement. This research has found that the use of an instructional skill process approach can give better results than the goal oriented instructional approach. To teachers of writing subject matter, this research shows that in order to choose and state an instructional approach, the skill process is firstly needed to state the students’ creativity, so that good teachers can help makie ann increase in the student narrative writing’s achievement. By using the instructional skill process approach, a teacher can give the best learning experiences to students in order to make them understand the various concepts and learning process done not only by practicing what was the teacher centered instruction but to a student center instruction. For this reason, there is a need for a high participation of students because the use of the instructional skill process approach can effectively achieveing the results of student narrative writing. Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 199 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement REFERENCES Abu R, R. (2001). Integrating Reading and Writing for Effective Language Teaching. U.S.A.: English Teaching Forum. Alyousef, H.S. (2005) Teaching Reading Comprehension to ESL/EFL Learners. www.readingmatrix.com/articles/alyousef/article.pdf. Butcher, S.E. (2006). Narrative as a Teaching Strategy. The Journal of Correctional Education 57 (3). Brown, H.D. (2007). Teaching by Principle: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. (2nd ed). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Borich, G. (1996) . Effective Teaching Methods. Texas: Merril and Imprint. Campbell, T. A. (2009). Storytelling and Story Writing. Nipissing University and Michelle Hlusek, Nipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School Bord. Cowley, S. (2004). Getting the Buggers to Think. London: Continum. Cook, V. (2007) Reproducing Native Speakers or Promoting Multicompetence among Second Language Users. In Jim Cummins & Chris Davision. International Handbook of English Language Teaching. Hongkong: Springer. Delaney, A.Y. (2008). Investigating the Reading - to Write Construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Eisele, B. (1991). Managing the Whole Language Classroom. Cypress: Creative Teaching Press Inc. Fitzgerald, J. & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and Writing Relation and Their Development. Collins College Publisher. Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A Meta–Analysis of Writing Instruction for Adolescent Students. Educational Psychology. Gillet, J. W. & Temple, C. (1994). Understanding Reading Problems. New York: Harper English Language Test. London: Longman. Grellet, F. (1998). Developing Reading Skills: A Practical Guide to Reading Comprehension Exercise. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Harmer, J. (1998). How to Teach English, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman. 200 Celt, Volume 14, Number 2, December 2014, pp. 176-201 Harmer, J. (2004) How to Teach Writing. Essex: Longman. Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Ltd. Hefferman, J. A. W. & Lincoln, J. E. (1990). Writing: A College Handbook. New York: Norton and Company. Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching Academic ESL, Writing: Practical Technigues in Vocabulary and Grammar. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc. Hyland, K. (2003). Writing and Teaching Writing. In.J. C. Richards (Ed), Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koons, H.H. (2008). The Reading - Writing Connection Unpublished Doctoral Dissetation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Marsen, S. (2003). Profesional Writing. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Onazowa, C. (2010) A Study of Process Writing Approach. NY: Oxford Univrsity Press. Moreillon, J. (2007). Collaborative Strategies for Teaching Reading Comprehension, USA: American Library Association. Palmer, M.L. (2010) The Relationship Between Reading Fluency, Writing Fluency, and Reading Comprehension in Suburban Third - Grade Students. Unpublished Doctoral Diseration. San Diego: San Diego State University and the University of San Diego. Richards, J. C. (1997). The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodgers, T.S. (2009). The methodology of foreign language teaching: Methods, approaches, principles. In Karlfried Knapp & Barbara Seidlhofer (Eds). Handbook of Foreign Language Communicationand Learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Soonpaa, N. (2007). Product vs Process Approach to Teaching Legal Writing. A paper presented at conference on the pedagogy of legal writing for academic in Africa. Texas Tech University School of Law Texas. Sudjana. (1992). Metode Statistika. Bandung, Tarsiton . Palenkahu, N., The Effect of Learning Approach and Reading Interest Towards 201 Students’ Narrative Writing Achievement Urgurhart, S. & W. Cyril (1998). Reading in a Second Language Process, Product, and Practice. London: Longman.