1 ELT FORUM 2 (1) (2013) English Language Teaching Forum http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt THE USE OF BLOG AS A MEDIUM TO IMPROVE STUDENTS` SKILL IN WRITING HORTATORY EXPOSITION A Classroom Action Research at the Eleventh Grade Students of SMAN 12 Semarang Maulina Nur Chikmahwati Department of English, Faculty Language and Arts, Semarang State University, Indonesia Info Artikel ________________ SejarahArtikel: DiterimaJanuari 2013 DisetujuiFebruari 2013 DipublikasikanJuni 2013 ________________ Keywords: blog, hortatory exposition, writing skill ____________________ Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ The purposes of this study are to investigate students’ problems in writing hortatory exposition, to explain why students have problems in writing hortatory exposition, and to find out how well does blog contribute in improving students’ mastery of writing hortatory exposition In constructing this study, the writer collected data using a classroom action research, which was carried out through four activities. The activities consisted of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. The subjects of this study were 37 students of year eleven of SMA NEGERI 12 SEMARANG in the academic year of 2011/2012. The action was done through teaching learning process. All of the teaching learning processes were presented by the help of blog.The data was analyzed qualitatively, to find the answers. Based on the data analysis from each activity, it can be seen that the students’ problems in writing hortatory exposition text were the difficulty in drawing contents, organizing text, using the language and vocabulary, and mastering the mechanics. They were caused by the lack of students’ attention, enthusiasm, activeness in asking answering questions and activeness in doing the task given by the teacher. It was found that there was a significant difference of the students’ skill in writing hortatory exposition from the pre-test, first cycle and second cycle. After the treatments, the students’ achievement in writing hortatory exposition text was improved. Therefore, using blog as a medium was effective to improve the students’ writing skill in hortatory exposition text and very beneficial for the students in order to facilitate them in learning English.To explore the advantages of using blog in teaching learning process, in the future study, not only the teachers, but also the students are also recommended to possess blog accounts. By possessing their own blog accounts, students are supposed to compose the blog posts and explore the references of their writings by themselves. It also abridges the students to share their writings and testimonials to the others’ blogs. In this way, the frequency of the communication practice and word building gradually increases that is expected to be able to improve students’ writing skill, especially in hortatory exposition text, and generally in all other text types. © 2013UniversitasNegeri Semarang Alamatkorespondensi: GedungB3Lantai3 FBSUnnes KampusSekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, 50229 E-mail: maulina101@gmail.com ISSN 2252-6706 Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 2 INTRODUCTION Since English has been determined as the international language of communication by The United Nations in 1948, every nations including Indonesia, took the language into the school curriculum. In Indonesia, English has begun to be taught in junior high school, even in some elementary school English has been taught as a local subject. The condition shows that Indonesia takes English seriously to be learnt. From time to time, English is taught in classical method using classical media as books, while in fact there exists other innovative possible effective media that the technology offers. According to Maddux and Johnson (2005:121), using technology to foster innovative teaching and learning, or type II technology applications, should be a priority for all educators. Nowadays, children have started to be acquainted with technology, in this matter is internet, since their childhood. As the Indonesian students’ internet access has improved significantly, it is the time for the teachers to keep in balance themselves with the students’ interest and ability in accessing the internet. One of the most famous internet’s features is blog. Blog has been well received in education owing to its multimedia features, interactivity, and ability to support cooperative and autonomous learning. The strong interconnectedness between bloggers and readers makes blog a powerful tool for global conversation. Bloggers can read other blogs, link to them, and reference them in their own blogs. The worldwide blog audience enables students to interact with and have their work viewed by others outside the classroom. Blog can benefit students to improve their mastery in learning English. In addition, it will also be a good initiative for the teachers to enrich their teaching variations. In teaching-learning of English, the skills that have to be mastered are listening, speaking, reading and writing. The fact proves that writing is one of the language skills that is a little bit harder to be mastered than the other skills. It needs the combination of ideas that is gotten from listening, reading, thinking and imagining. In this study, writing is more emphasized than the others. The result of the writing can be classified into book, novel, journal, short story, poem, short text, etc. Short text is a kind of text type that is used in Indonesia curriculum, text- based curriculum. There are many genres of short texts, among others are narrative, recount, news item, anecdote, spoof, hortatory exposition, and analytical exposition. Hortatory exposition is one of text type which is taught in senior high school. The writer chooses hortatory exposition as the writing material because as stated in school curriculum, it is one of the genres that must be learnt by students in senior high school. In addition, hortatory exposition is considered as a hard subject since it is the newest in English text genres. Not to mention, the various fitures of blog support the character of the medium that can be used to teach writing hortatory exposition text. Nowadays ICT (Information and Communication Technology) has significantly improved, as technology has a crucial role in people’s life. Therefore, making use of the technology, in this case is blog, to improve students’ writing skill in hortatory exposition is very suggestable. Thus, blogs with all their comprehensiveness are easy to be accessed by people, especially high school students who have advanced skill in IT (Information and Technology). The comprehensiveness of blog facilities can be a good point for the teacher to make the lesson as creative as possible. Specifically the research questions posed in this study are What are the students’ problems in writing hortatory exposition?, Why do the students have problems in writing hortatory exposition?, How well does blog contribute in improving students’ skill in writing hortatory exposition? Therefore, the main purposes of this research are to investigate students’ problems in writing hortatory exposition, to explain why students have problems in writing hortatory exposition, to find out how well does blog contribute in improving students’ skill in writing hortatory exposition. Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 3 By conducting this research, the writer expects that the result of this study will theoretically provide the reader, especially English department students, with a new understanding about using blog in improving the students’ skill in writing hortatory exposition and practically give the English teacher some kinds of understanding or reflection that can be used as the basic idea in designing the teaching and learning process. METHOD In this study, the writer chose the eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 12 Semarang in the academic year of 2011/2012 as the subject of the study. The writer chose the eleventh grade because based on the curriculum, hortatory exposition is taught to this grade. In SMA Negeri 12 Semarang, there were seven classes of the eleventh grade, three science classes, three social classes and one language class. Firstly, the writer wrote the entire eleventh grade classes in some pieces of paper. Then, randomly, the writer took a piece of paper that determined as the sample. The students of XI Social 3 were chosen. This action research was conducted in collaboration between the teacher and the researcher. The researcher created the lesson plan and pre-test items to give to the students in the pre-test. Then the researcher assessed the students’ pre-test works then analyzed them. Afterwards, the researcher created the lesson plans, the blog medium, test items, and observation note, for the first cycle. After analyzing the first cycle results, the researcher created the next lesson plan, blog medium, test-items, observation note, and questionnaire to conduct the second cycle. In doing the research, the researcher gave the treatments by herself with the help of the classroom English teacher and her colleague. In this study, to collect the data, the researcher used three instruments. The instruments were tests, questionnaires, and observation notes. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Pre-test The pre-test was conducted by the researcher at the beginning of the study. The purpose of giving the pre-test was to check the students’ skill in writing hortatory exposition based on five categories given. Those were: content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics. On April 25th 2012, the pre-test was taken by 37 students of XI Social 3 class. In this activity the researcher at first asked the students whether they have ever made a speech text and/ or given a speech or not. The students replied, “No, we haven’t/ we only ever listened to speeches!” The researcher then showed the students a hortatory exposition text entitled “Watch Your Students While Watching Television” and asked whether they were familiar with the text or not and then the students replied, “Yes.” Therefore, the researcher gave a brief review about hortatory exposition to the students using the earlier text as the example. Afterwards, the researcher showed four topics entitled: 1) “Sex education course should be taught in high school”, 2) “Dying hair should/should not be banned in high school”, 3) “Stop eating junk food”, and 4) “Study tour is/is not important for high school students”. After they finished writing the hortatory exposition text, the students submitted their works. The result of the students’ works can be seen in table 4.1 below. From the pre-test result, it was found that the students problems were all the five competences, those were: content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. In term of content, the students’ average pre-test was “fair to poor”. It was shown by the fact that most of the students’ work contents were still too general and/or incoherent. The students’ work showed that they had limited subject knowledge and had not enough development of the topic. Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 4 In term of organization, the students’ average pre-test was “fair to poor” too. It was shown by the fact that the students’ ideas were not clear and/or disconnected though they had followed the generic structure and logical order of hortatory exposition text. In term of vocabulary, the students’ average pre-test was considered as “fair to poor” too. It was shown by the fact that the students made frequent errors in words choice and/or usage. Some of the words’ meanings were confused though they had enough range of words and used varied adjectives. In term of language use, it was also considered as “fair to poor”. the students’ made frequent errors and the meanings were often confusing. Though their language was effective but the construction was still simple. In term of mechanics, the average pre-test score was considered as “fair to poor” since the students made numerous mistakes that make sentences choppy. For this reason, the writer analyzed the observation note of the pre-test first to find the causes of the students’ problems before conducting the action to improve students’ skill in writing hortatory exposition using blog as the medium. Pre-test Observation Note The observation notes were analyzed to explain why students have problems in writing hortatory exposition. The notes were made in the pre-test, first cycle and second cycle to explain why the students had the problem in writing hortatory exposition. During the pre-test the writer and colleague did the observation. The result of observation in the pre-test can be seen in table 4.2 below. Based on the result, it was found that the causes of the students having problem in writing hortatory exposition were the students’ lack of: 1) Attention Based on the item number 1, more students didn’t pay attention to the learning process than those who paid attention. They were not concentrating in the class, for example: they often looked outside of class, got sleepy and talked to his/her friends. 2) Enthusiasm Item number 2 also showed that most students were not enthusiastic during the research conducted, almost half of the students were not enough enthusiastic and busy with themselves. 3) Activeness in asking and answering questions Item number 3 and 4 showed that most of the students weren’t active in asking and answering questions. They were still shy to ask or answer questions. 4) Activeness in doing the tasks given by the teacher Item number 5 showed that the students’ activeness in doing the tasks given by teacher was not good enough. Not enough questions they asked to the teacher that made their tasks done not satisfying. Using the findings of the pre-test and observation note, the researcher then prepared the first cycle. First Cycle The first cycle was conducted in two meetings, which were identified as the first and second activity. The first activity was conducted on April 26th 2012 by 37 students. Since Weblog or Blog is an online learning method, the activity was conducted in a computer laboratory with internet connection. The writer used a computer that linked to an LCD screen so the students could see each step that the writer explained. Moreover, each student sat at his/her own computer. All of the computers had direct access to the internet. The writer introduced the Blog method to the students as a start. The writer asked whether they had heard of blog or familiar with Blog before. Most of the students only knew the basic idea of what blog is. They read blogs yet they hadn’t ever found one that is used to learn English. The writer then introduced the Blog to the students. At first, the writer asked the students to connect to the internet and open a blank web page in the internet. Each step was shown clearly from the LCD screen. After the Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 5 students were on the blank page, the writer asked them to type a web address namely “OscToEnglish.blogspot.com”. Students were then on the Blog’s front page. Afterwards, the writer told the students to explore the Blog for about ten minutes in order to help them become familiar with this new medium of learning/teaching. Then the writer asked the students to click on a blog thread entitled “Learning Hortatory Exposition: Cycle 1”. Following the introduction, the writer then asked them to scroll down the page, which led them to the link of the Pre-Activity. In the Pre-Activity, the students were recalled to the basic definition of hortatory exposition, still using the one-on-one communication-like method so the students would feel closed to the blogger. The writer gave the students about 25 minutes to read and understand the explanation of Hortatory Exposition that could be found in Pre-Activity. The writer then walked around the class and observed what the students were doing. While observing the class, the writer noticed that some students were reading the explanation very carefully but some others were trying to open Twitter, Facebook and games online. Then the writer reminded every student not to play on Facebook or any other site during the class. It was continued to Part Two or The Whilst Activity which consists of two parts. The first one was Whilst Activity Part 1. In this part, students were asked to understand a Hortatory Exposition text although to answer the questions following the text, the writer needed to guide them to the expected answers. Students also found it hard to understand the meaning of some words or phrases so the teacher suggested them to open “www.Translate.Google.com” to help them figure out the meaning of the words or phrases. After given the example of Hortatory Exposition text, in the Whilst Activity Part 1, the students were asked to read a short dialogue as an implementation of Simple Present Tense and Present Perfect Tense. Then, they were asked to understand the explanation about Simple Present Tense and Present Perfect Tense following the dialogue independently. Afterwards, the students were asked to analyze the dialogue about which of sentences use Simple Present Tense and Present Perfect Tense. The activity then continued to the second activity. In this activity, the writer continued giving the treatment. The writer asked the students to open the Blog the same way that they did in the previous meeting. Afterwards, the writer asked them to continue to the last activity that they did in the previous meeting. The students gave positive responses and showed that they have understood well what they should do. It was the Whilst Activity 2 of the treatment. In this activity, the students were showed a persuasive text and the analysis of it. To emphasize the understanding, students were given another example of persuasive text that is created based on an article in some newspaper. The last activity was the Post-Activity in which the students were asked to make a group of 6 to 7 so there would be 6 groups in the class. Then each group was given a case based on a newspaper’s article. After reading the article, the members of group discussed about it and shared their arguments about the topic/case. Since there were 6 groups, there would be 6 different topics/cases to for each group. For the group number one, the case is an article entitled “IPads replacing textbooks and notebooks in local school”. The members should share their opinions whether they support the idea of replacing textbooks and notebooks to Ipads in local school or not. Group two got an article from chicagotribune.com entitled “City plans free Wi-Fi in all parks, public spaces”. The members should discuss their arguments whether they agree or disagree with the plan of providing free wifi in public parks. Close to the students’ life, the group number three got a case entitled “Philadelphia's juvenile curfew is extended through Labor Day”. Thus they could share their opinion about teenager curfew policy. An article entitled “Britain's fattest woman dies of heart attack after junk food binge in hospital bed” was given to group number four. Therefore they could think whether they would make persuasive speeches supporting or Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 6 opposing the consuming of junk food. The group number five got an article entitled “A child expelled from school because parents are gay”. By understanding this article, students should make persuasive speeches about the gay and lesbian discrimination among public, whether they against the discrimination or else they agree with the discrimination. The last but not the least, group number six got an article from abcnews.go.com entitled “New Jersey Woman Sues, Can't Fully Blink After Eyelid Surgery”. The students needed to give their opinion and arguments about plastic surgery that is being more popular in society lately. In this activity, the students were allowed to open other supporting websites such as Google Translate, Wikipedia and any other sites. Students were trying hard to make their best work since they said it was their first time working on the internet. Those who finished writing their persuasive speech were asked to do the peer editing. They were asked to do peer editing their friend’s first cycle test. In peer editing, the students needed to answer these questions. 1) Is there any thesis paragraph? 2) What information does your friend need to add in his/her thesis? 3) Is there any argument paragraph? 4) What information does your friend need to add in his/her argument paragraph? 5) Pay attention to the vocabulary. Does the vocabulary vary enough? 6) Give some suggestions to make it better. 7) Is there any sentence that confuses you? 8) Write down the confusing sentence. 9) Is the content clear enough for you? Any suggestions? 10) Is there any grammatical error? Mention! 11) What is your general impression of his/her persuasive speech? 12) a. Strength (what do you like most about the speech?) 13) b. Weaknesses (Give some suggestion for your friend’s improvement!) The students had to submit their peer editing worksheet in the comment box below the instruction post. Following the peer editing worksheet, the writer graded the students’ hortatory exposition text and analyzed their errors. Afterwards, the writer cumulated the students’ errors and analyzes their errors. The result of the students’ achievement during the first cycle-test can be seen in table 4.3. From the first cycle result, it was found that the students’ problems were getting better. In term of content, the students’ average score was “good to average”. It was shown by the fact that most of the students’ works showed some knowledge of the subject although they still had limited development of the topic and lacks depth of detail contents. In term of organization, the students’ work was “good to average”. The finding showed that they students had followed the generic structure of hortatory exposition text; though their works were still loosely organized but the main ideas were clear. The students had followed the logical order but it was not completed. In term of vocabulary, the students’ average score was considered as “good to average”. The students had had enough range of words, used some adjectives and verbs; made occasional errors in word usage; but the meaning is clear. In term of language use, it was also considered as “good to average”. It was shown that the students’ use of language had been effective although the construction was still simple. The errors in agreement and tense were seldom too. In term of mechanics, the average score was considered as “good to average” too. It was shown by the finding that the students made minor mistakes in mechanic. For the findings in pre-test result, the researcher the design a better plan for the second cycle. Second Cycle In the second cycle, the writer considered the weaknesses that the writer did in the first cycle. Then, the writer did some Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 7 reflections and evaluations to improve the teaching learning performance; especially to manage the students’ behavior in order to make them pay more attention to the lesson’s instructions. The writer’s evaluations that had been practiced in the second cycle included: spoke more clearly and slowly in order to make the students understand the instructions. After that was the shut down access to the online social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo Messenger. So, the second cycle was conducted based on those evaluations. Furthermore, the writer gave deeper explanation of some materials regarding students’ error and mistakes in writing the hortatory exposition texts. The second cycle also was conducted in two meetings, which was the third activity and fourth activity. The third activity was conducted on Thursday May 3rd 2012. The writer prepared some materials to be discussed. Following the peer editing worksheet, the writer graded the students’ hortatory exposition text and analyzed their errors. Moreover, the writer created materials related to the students’ common mistakes in order to minimalist their mistakes. The material was posted in the blog. The writer explained the students’ common mistakes and gave some advice in order to make their work better. The students were then given a chance to ask questions. After the question-answer session was finished, the writer asked the students to repair their persuasive text based on that day’s explanation and peer editing. The writer told the students to finish their work today. Unfortunately some of the students could not finish their work on the day. Then the teacher held the fourth activity to give the students additional time to finish their works. The fourth activity was an extended activity for the students who had not posted their persuasive speech. The result of students’ achievement in the second cycle can be seen in the table 4.5. From the second cycle result, it was found that the students’ problems got significant improvement. In term of content, the students’ average score was “good to average”. It was shown by the fact that most of the students’ works showed some knowledge of the subject although they still had limited development of the topic and lack depth of detail contents. In term of organization, the students’ work was “good to average”. The finding showed that they students had followed the generic structure of hortatory exposition text; though their works were still loosely organized but the main ideas were clear. The students had followed the logical order and it was completed. In term of vocabulary, the students’ average score was considered as “good to average”. The students had had enough range of words, used a lot of adjectives and verbs, the meaning is clear but made occasional errors in word usage. In term of language use, it was also considered as “good to average”. It was shown that the students’ use of language had been effective and some of them used complex sentence construction. The errors in agreement and tense were seldom too. In term of mechanics, the average score was considered as “good to average” too. It was shown by the finding that only the students made minor mistakes in mechanic. Considering the finding on cycle two, the researcher then decided to end the research. Questionnaire The questionnaire which consisted of 10 questions was analyzed to find out how well blog had contributed to improve students writing skill in hortatory exposition. It had to be answered by choosing “yes” or “no” answer. The percentage result of the questionnaire can be seen in the table 4.7. The questionnaire number one showed that most of the students (29) had difficulty in learning hortatory exposition text before the treatment given. Based on the questionnaire number two, there were 28 students also had the difficulty in determining the elements of hortatory exposition text. The questionnaire number three showed that there were 32 students thought that writing hortatory Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 8 exposition was hard. Questionnaire number four showed that before the treatments given, most of the students (22) hadn’t known blog. Questionnaire number five showed that 32 students thought that there was a difference in mastering hortatory exposition text writing. Based on questionnaire number six, there were 36 students liked to learn hortatory exposition through blog. Also in questionnaire number seven, 36 students thought that blog was more attractive than the conventional teaching. Questionnaire number eight showed that there were 30 students were more motivated learning hortatory exposition text using blog as the medium. Questionnaire number 9 showed that the teacher had never used any special techniques to teach hortatory exposition text. In addition, questionnaire number ten showed that 34 students wanted this kind of activity to be continued. Table 4.1 The Students’ Pre-test Result No. Students' Code Component of Writing Score Score C O V LU M 1 A – 01 22 10 11 17 1 61 2 A – 02 22 14 12 18 2 68 3 A – 03 22 10 11 17 1 61 4 A – 04 22 13 11 12 1 59 5 A – 05 22 14 11 17 1 65 6 A - 06 15 14 11 12 1 53 7 A - 07 22 15 12 19 2 70 8 A - 08 15 14 11 18 2 60 9 A - 09 16 10 17 18 1 62 10 A - 10 22 15 12 18 2 69 11 A - 11 22 15 11 17 2 67 12 A - 12 16 10 11 17 1 55 13 A - 13 22 13 17 16 2 70 14 A - 14 17 11 9 16 1 54 15 A - 15 22 15 15 19 2 73 16 A - 16 21 14 12 20 1 68 17 A - 17 22 15 12 18 2 69 18 A - 18 22 15 11 17 2 67 19 A - 19 22 16 16 18 2 74 20 A - 20 22 14 12 15 2 65 21 A - 21 16 9 11 17 1 54 22 A - 22 22 15 11 17 2 67 23 A - 23 22 15 12 18 2 69 24 A - 24 21 14 12 15 2 64 25 A - 25 22 15 11 17 2 67 26 A - 26 22 14 17 17 2 72 27 A - 27 22 14 12 21 2 71 28 A - 28 22 10 11 21 2 66 29 A – 29 16 9 11 17 1 54 30 A – 30 16 13 7 12 1 49 31 A – 31 22 14 12 18 2 68 32 A – 32 22 15 12 18 2 69 33 A – 33 16 14 7 15 1 53 34 A – 34 22 15 11 17 2 67 35 A – 35 22 15 11 17 2 67 36 A – 36 22 15 11 17 2 67 37 A – 37 17 14 11 18 2 62 ∑ 752 497 435 631 61 2376 MEAN 20.32 13.43 11.76 17.05 1.65 64.22 Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 9 Where : C = Content O = Organization V = Vocabulary LU = Language Use M = Mechanics Table 4.2 The Pre-test Observation Note No . Students’ Activities Scale (Number of Student) Total Good Fair Poor 1. Students’ attention to the teacher 10 (27%) 12 (32%) 15 (40%) 37 (100%) 2. Students’ enthusiasm 10 (27%) 10 (27%) 17 (46%) 37 (100%) 3. Students’ activeness in asking questions 2 (1%) 10 (27%) 25 (68%) 37 (100%) 4. Students’ activeness in answering teacher’s questions 2 (1%) 10 (27%) 25 (68%) 37 (100%) 5. Students’ activeness in doing the tasks given by teacher 10 (27%) 10 (27%) 17 (46%) 37 (100%) Table 4.3 The First Cycle Test Result No. Students' Code Component of Writing Score Score C O V LU M 1 A – 01 22 14 12 22 4 74 2 A – 02 22 18 18 22 4 84 3 A – 03 26 18 18 23 4 89 4 A – 04 17 14 12 18 3 64 5 A – 05 22 14 14 22 2 74 6 A – 06 22 20 17 22 4 85 7 A – 07 26 18 18 23 4 89 8 A – 08 22 17 15 18 3 75 9 A – 09 22 17 12 20 1 72 10 A – 10 26 18 17 23 4 88 11 A – 11 22 17 12 20 4 75 12 A – 12 20 13 21 14 3 71 13 A – 13 21 17 15 21 3 77 14 A – 14 22 16 17 18 1 74 15 A – 15 26 18 18 23 3 88 16 A – 16 22 15 18 18 2 75 17 A – 17 25 13 11 17 1 67 18 A – 18 19 16 17 18 2 72 19 A – 19 26 18 18 23 3 88 20 A – 20 24 17 15 17 3 76 21 A – 21 22 17 17 21 1 78 Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 10 22 A – 22 22 18 17 21 1 79 23 A – 23 22 17 17 18 1 75 24 A – 24 24 18 15 17 1 75 25 A – 25 24 17 17 17 2 77 26 A – 26 27 18 18 23 5 91 27 A – 27 24 19 17 22 4 86 28 A – 28 26 17 17 18 3 81 29 A – 29 24 17 19 17 3 80 30 A – 30 23 17 11 17 3 71 31 A – 31 24 18 17 23 4 86 32 A – 32 24 18 18 23 4 87 33 A – 33 24 17 15 17 3 76 34 A – 34 24 17 17 17 2 77 35 A – 35 24 17 17 17 3 78 36 A – 36 24 17 15 17 3 76 37 A – 37 26 18 18 23 3 88 ∑ 862 625 597 730 104 2918 MEAN 23.29 16.89 16.13 19.72 2.81 78.86 Table 4.5 The Second Cycle Result No. Students' Code Component of Writing Score Score C O V LU M 1 A – 01 24 18 12 22 4 80 2 A – 02 26 18 18 23 4 89 3 A - 03 27 18 18 23 5 91 4 A - 04 22 17 15 18 3 75 5 A - 05 21 17 15 21 3 77 6 A - 06 26 18 18 23 4 89 7 A - 07 27 18 19 22 5 91 8 A - 08 21 17 15 21 3 77 9 A - 09 22 17 15 18 3 75 10 A - 10 27 18 18 23 4 90 11 A - 11 21 17 15 22 4 79 12 A - 12 24 17 15 17 3 76 13 A - 13 24 18 12 22 4 80 14 A - 14 24 18 12 22 4 80 15 A - 15 27 18 18 23 4 90 16 A - 16 21 17 15 22 4 79 17 A - 17 22 15 18 18 2 75 18 A - 18 24 17 15 17 3 76 19 A - 19 27 18 18 23 5 91 20 A - 20 24 18 12 22 4 80 21 A - 21 22 20 17 22 4 85 22 A - 22 24 20 17 22 4 87 23 A - 23 22 17 15 22 4 80 24 A - 24 24 17 15 22 4 82 Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 11 25 A - 25 22 18 17 22 4 83 26 A - 26 27 20 18 23 5 93 27 A - 27 27 18 18 23 5 91 28 A - 28 24 19 17 22 4 86 29 A - 29 22 20 17 22 4 85 30 A - 30 24 17 14 17 3 75 31 A - 31 27 18 18 23 4 90 32 A - 32 25 18 18 23 4 88 33 A - 33 22 18 17 22 4 83 34 A – 34 22 18 17 22 4 83 35 A – 35 24 19 17 22 4 86 36 A – 36 22 18 18 22 4 84 37 A – 37 27 18 18 23 5 91 ∑ 888 662 601 796 145 3092 MEAN 24 17.89 16.24 21.51 3.91 83.56 Where : C = Content O = Organization V = Vocabulary LU = Language Use M = Mechanics Table 4.7 The Questionnaire Result Pertanyaan Ya Tidak Total 1. Apakah Anda mengalami kesulitan dalam mempelajari teks yang berbentuk hortatory exposition? 29 (78%) 8 (22%) 37 (100%) 2. Apakah Anda mengalami kesulitan dalam menentukan elemen- elemen dalam teks hortatory exposition? 28 (76%) 9 (24%) 37 (100%) 3. Apakah menulis teks hortatory exposition itu sulit? 32 (86%) 5 (14%) 37 (100%) 4. Apakah sebelum diadakan kegiatan ini Anda telah mengenal blog? 22 (59%) 15 (41%) 37 (100%) 5. Apakah ada perbedaan penguasaan penulisan teks hortatory exposition sebelum dan sesudah penggunaan medium blog? 34 (92%) 3 (8%) 37 (100%) 6. Apakah Anda senang mempelajari hortatory exposition menggunakan blog? 36 (97%) 1 (3%) 37 (100%) 7. Apakah penggunaan blog dalam mempelajari hortatory exposition lebih menarik dibanding pengajaran konvensional (menggunakan buku pelajaran)? 36 (97%) 1 (3%) 37 (100%) 8. Apakah pengajaran dengan medium blog membantu Anda untuk lebih termotivasi mempelajari hortatory exposition? 30 (81%) 7 (19%) 37 (100%) 9. Apakah guru Anda pernah menggunakan teknik khusus dalam pengajaran teks hortatory exposition? 0 (0%) 37 (100%) 37 (100%) 10. Menurut pendapat Anda, apakah kegiatan semacam ini perlu dilanjutkan atau tidak? 34 (92%) 3 (8%) 37 (100%) Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 12 REFERENCES Arikunto, S., 1996, Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Best, J. W. 1981. Research and Education. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Inc. Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Assessment Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education Limited. Brown, W. J. 1977. Educational Media Yearbook. New York: rr Browker. Brooks, K., C. Nichols, and S. Priebe. 2004. Remediation, Genre, and Motivation: Key Concepts for Teaching with Weblogs. Gurak, L. et al. (nd) Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs. www.blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere [accessed 02/29/12] Cahyono, K. D. and E. Purnama. 2006. Communicative Competence 2B: A course in Acquiring English Communicative Competence, For Senior High School Level, Grade XI Semester 2. www.text-types.com/2011/01/hortatory- exposition-text-campaign-of.html [accessed 01/10/12] Creswell, J. W. 2005. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. New York: University of Michigan. Drexler et al. 2007. Collaborative Blogging as a Means to Develop Elementary Expository Writing Skills. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, Vol. 6. 140 – 160. Finocchiaro, M. 1974. English as a Second Language. From Theory to Practice. New York: Regents Publishing Company, Inc. Gerlach, V. S., P. E. Donald and R. Melnick. 1980. Teaching and Media: A sistematic Approach. University of Michigan: Prentice Hall. Gerot, L and P. Wignell.1994. Making Sense of Grammatical. Sydney: Gerd Stabler. Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in Social-Semiotic Perspective. London: Oxford University Press. Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Longman: Essex. Harris. P. D. 1969. Testing English as a Second Language. Mc. Graw-Hill Book Company: USA. Hartoyo. 2010. Academic Writing. Semarang. Harvey, C. 2010. ESL Composition Profile. Maryville: Unpublished article. Larsen-Freeman, D. 1996. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. Locatis, C. and F. D. Atkinson. 1984. Media and Technology for Education and Training. Columbus, Ohio: C.E. Merril Pub. Co. Lowe, C. 2004. Moving to the public: Weblogs in the writing classroom. Into the Blogosphere. http://Blog.lib.umn.edu//blogosphere/ moving_to_public_pf.html [accessed 01/23/13] Maddux, C. D. and J. D. Lamont. 2006. Type II Uses Technology in Education: Project, Case Studies, and Software Application. Mills, G. E. 2010. Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. Pennsylvania State University: Pearson. Murcia, Marianne C. 2001. Teaching English as A Second or Foreign Language. Heinle & Heinle. Mynard, J. 2007. Professional Teaching Articles: A blog as a Tool for Reflection for English Language Learners. Japan: Koryo International College. Pinkman, K. 2005. Using Blogs in the Foreign Classroom: Encouraging learner independence. JALT CALL Journal, 1(1): 12-24. Rozgiene, Inga, Olga Medvedeva, Zuzana Straková. 2008. Integrating ICT into Language Learning and Teaching. Altenberger :Johannes Kepler Universität Linz. Subyantoro. 2009. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Undip and CV. Widya Karya. Maulina Nur Chikmahwati / Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (1) (2013) 13 Tuckman, B. W. 1999. Conducting Educational Research. University of Michigan: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Vurdien, Ruby. 2011. Enhancing writing skills through blogs in an EFL class. Spain: White Rose Language School. White, R. and A. Maley. 1987. Writing: Advanced. New York: Oxford University Press.