17 

 EEJ 4 (1) (2014) 
  

English Education Journal 
  

http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej 

 

 

THE USE OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING TO ENHANCE LOW AND HIGH MOTIVATED 

STUDENTS IN WRITING DESCRIPTIVE TEXT 

(The Case of Grade Seven Students of SMP Kesatrian 1 Semarang) 

 

Suwarno   

 

Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia 

 

Info Artikel 
________________ 
Sejarah Artikel: 

Diterima Oktober 2014 

Disetujui Oktober 2014 

Dipublikasikan  

 Juni 2014 

________________ 
Keywords: 

Cooperative Learning, 

Students’ Motivation, 

Descriptive  Text  

Writing. 

____________________ 

Abstract
 

___________________________________________________________________ 
Many research projects was conducted to find out more effective techniques  to teach English.This 

study was conducted because  most of the students at SMP Kesatrian 1  Semarang had some 

difficulties in descriptive text writing. It was done to give a new experience for them to learn 

descriptive text by means of cooperative learning to improve the quality of their writing. It 

employed factorial design 2x2 because it employed more than one independent variable; TPS, 

CIRC and one dependent variable.The experimental group was given experiences of learning by 

TPS technique and the control group by CIRC technique. The study was accomplished in the 

academic year 2013/2014. The samples were two classes, class A, and class C. Class A was the 

experimental group and class C was the control one. The result of the study proved that both of 

the techniques were effective to enhance descriptive text writing for students of different levels of 

motivation. However TPS was more effective than CIRC. The result of the study can be used as the 

consideration on teaching descriptive text writing for the teachers. It can also be a reference in 

doing other research by other researchers. 

 

© 2014 Universitas Negeri Semarang 

 
 Alamat korespondensi:  

   Kampus Unnes Bendan Ngisor, Semarang, 50233 

   E-mail: pps@unnes.ac.id 

ISSN 2087-0108  

 



 

Suwarno / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 

 

18 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

Many research projects have been 

conducted to find out more effective techniques 

or ways to teach English as a foreign language in 

our country. The studies have been mostly 

conducted due to English as a medium of 

interaction and communication among people 

from different parts of the world. The four 

language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and 

writing are used for practical purpose to convey 

meanings and ideas. Those abilities must be 

seen as a whole ability because they are 

integrated with each other. The School-Based 

Curriculum of Junior High School stated that 

teaching English focuses on the mastery of four 

language skills, namely: Listening, speaking, 

reading, and writing.  

Writing skill is categorized as one of the 

productive skills besides speaking and reading. 

It contains symbols and involves a complicated 

process. It seems likely that it is apart from 

other skills.  Murcia. C, and Olshtain (2000:142) 

stated that writing is the production of the 

written words which produce a text that must 

be read and comprehended in order to 

communicate. By writing the students convey 

their needs, deliver their ideas, and express 

their thoughts to others. It is quite clear that 

writing skill is very useful for the students to 

express whatever is in their minds such as 

needs, ideas, thoughts, etc. 

This study was conducted due to the real 

condition that most of the students in the place 

where the researcher conducted the study still 

have some significant difficulties in doing 

exercises or assignments on writing simple 

descriptive text as shown in the preliminary 

experiences. They do not only have low 

motivation needed in the process of learning the 

materials but also they have lack of experiences 

in constructing the writing projects. That is why 

this study was conducted to give a new 

experience for the students to learn how to 

generate descriptive text by means of think 

pairs share (TPS) and cooperative integrated 

reading and composition (CIRC) techniques to 

improve their motivation in learning writing 

especially in constructing descriptive texts. The 

experimental group was given experiences of 

learning by think-pairs share technique and the 

control group was given experiences of learning 

by cooperative integrated reading and 

composition technique. 

The researcher also tried to get proof 

whether think pairs share and cooperative 

integrated reading and composition techniques 

were effective to be used as techniques to 

improve the descriptive text writing for the 

students of different levels of motivation or not. 

The writer formulated these following research 

problems: (1) How effective is think-pairs share 

(TPS) used to improve descriptive text    writing 

of students with low and high motivation? (2) 

How effective is cooperative integrated reading 

and composition (CIRC) used to improve 

descriptive text writing of students with low 

and high motivation? ( 3) Which technique is 

more effective to teach descriptive text writing 

of the students with low and high motivation? 

(4) How is the interaction between cooperative 

learning technique and the students with low 

and high motivation in teaching descriptive text 

writing? 

This study was conducted in the hope to 

get valuable contributions to the students and 

teachers in teaching and learning process. The 

students were expected to get the benefit from 

improving their achievement by the application 

of think-pairs share and cooperative integrated 

reading and composition techniques especially 

in descriptive texts writing. On the other hand, 

the teacher expected to find out which 

technique is more effective to enhance the 

descriptive text writing for the students with 

low and high motivation in the teaching and 

learning process.  

Winch.et.al (2006) state that writing is a 

great collector of ideas, clarifier of thinking, and 

major aspect of learning. They also said that 

writing is a language competence  to handle a 

range of problems that can’t be satisfactorily 

managed through reflection or talking. 



 

Suwarno / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 

 

19 

 

At this point, the variables being 

investigated in this study were limited to find 

out the effectiveness of think-pairs share and 

cooperative integrated reading and composition 

techniques and the influence of the students’ 

motivation on their writing quality. It was also 

aimed to find out the interaction of the two 

techniques on the students’ writing quality. 

Average differences between the techniques 

(independent variables) being investigated 

show the effects of the variables on the 

students’ writing achievement or quality 

(dependent variable). The greater the average 

is, the stronger the influence is, on the quality of 

the students’ writing. 

How to teach writing successfully 

Harmer (2007) said that the process of writing 

should follow the four stages. They are planning, 

drafting, editing, and final version. Hayland 

(2005) states that writing instruction begins 

with the purposes for communicating, and then 

move to the stages of text which can express 

these purposes. Teacher can help students to 

distinguish between different genres and to 

write them more effectively study of their 

structures.  

Gerot and Wignell (1994:208) state 

descriptive text is used to describe a particular 

person, place, or thing. Its purpose is to describe 

the subject matter by telling its features without 

person’s opinions. There are also two steps of 

schematic structures of this text. They are 

identification and description. The former 

identifies phenomenon to be described and the 

latter describes parts, qualities and characters 

of the subject matter. 

Kagan (1989) says that Think-Pair-Share 

is a method that allows students to engage in 

individual and pair thinking before they are 

asked to answer questions in front of the whole 

class, while Slavin (1995) says that cooperative 

integrated reading and compositions is 

designed for use with specific materials for 

teaching reading and writing in the upper 

elementary grades.  

Brown (1994) says that there are two 

kinds of motivation which is influencing 

students in learning English: first, intrinsic 

motivation which aimed at bringing about 

certain internally rewarding consequence, 

namely feeling of competence and self-

determination. The other one is extrinsic 

motivation which is carried out to anticipate of 

reward from outside and beyond their self. 

In the previous studies, the first 

researchers employed cooperative learning on 

the use the implementation of Student Team 

Achievement Division (STAD) technique and the 

students’ learning motivation gave a significant 

effect to the students’ writing achievement. The 

second researcher investigated effect of Think-

Pair-Share technique on the English reading 

achievement of the Students differing in 

achievement motivation. The third study was 

aimed to improve the students’ achievement in 

writing descriptive text. The forth researcher 

tried to analyze the effect of cooperative 

integrated reading and composition technique 

and traditional reading and writing pedagogical 

method for primary school students. The last   

study was aimed to investigate whether the 

implementation of guided writing strategy and 

the students’ achievement motivation gave a 

significant effect to the students’ writing 

competency.  

Meanwhile this research tried to find out 

the effectiveness of cooperative learning on 

think-pairs share and cooperative integrated 

reading and composition which was proposed 

to improve the descriptive text writing ability 

for the students with different levels of 

motivation.  

Harmer (2007) said that the process of 

writing should follow the four stages. They are 

planning, drafting, editing, and final version. 

Hayland (2005) states that writing instruction 

begins with the purposes for communicating, 

and then move to the stages of text which can 

express these purposes. Shastri (2010) says 

that a writer has to follow a sequential process 

for writing. First of all, he should be motivated 

to write. He should decide the topic first. He 

should have a plan ready in his mind. He should 

make an outline. He needs to make notes and 



 

Suwarno / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 

 

20 

 

write the first draft. This should be revised, 

redrafted and edited till the final version is the 

complete product. 

 

RESEARCH METHOD 

 

In this research the writer employed an 

experimental research which used factorial 

design as the design of the study. It was chosen 

because the study employed more than one 

independent variable. Gall et al.(2003) state 

that the 2 x 2  factorial design is appropriate for 

the experimental research that involves more 

than one independent variables. The pre-test 

and post-test with experimental and control 

groups design were employed in this study. The 

Figure below showed and clarified the design of 

the research which the researcher conducted. 

The Figure below showed and clarified the 

design of the research which the researcher 

conducted.

 

    Assessment    

Strategy 

 

 

Motivation 

 

Think-Pairs Share ( 

Experimental Group) 

(X1) 

Cooperative Integrated 

Reading and 

Composition 

 ( Control Group)     

            (X2) 

 

 

Low (Y1) 

 

X1 Y1 

(RQ.1) 

X2 Y1 

(RQ. 2) 

 

X1 X2 Y1 

 

 

 

High (Y2) 

X1 Y2 

(RQ.1) 

X2 Y2 

(RQ.2) 

 

X1 X2 Y2 

  

X1 Y1 Y2 

 

X2 Y1 Y2 

 

                 

                         (RQ.3) 

 

1) The interaction between cooperative learning technique and the different motivated 
students in teaching  descriptive text writing ( RQ.4) 

 

 

This research was conducted to the 

students of Kesatrian 1 Junior High School 

Semarang in the seven grade. It is one of the 

private schools in Semarang. The school is 

located in the downtown precisely at Jalan 

Gajahmada 123 Semarang.  

“A sample is a group of persons or things 

from which the data taken that resemble the 

population” (Saleh. Mursid. 2011: 39). The 

samples which were used in this research 

consisted of two classes: (1) 34 students of A 

class, and (2) 34 students of C class. Class A was 

the experimental group and class C was the 

control group. 

The writer used cluster random sampling 

to get the sample. The step of  getting the 



 

Suwarno / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 

 

21 

 

sampling were: (1) from the 7 homogeneous 

classes, two classes were taken randomly; the 

classes which were chosen were class A and 

class C; (2) from those two classes, the 

researcher chose the class randomly, one as an 

experimental group and the other as a control 

group. 

The instruments that used for collecting 

the data consisted of questionnaires, pre-test, 

and post-test. The pre-test and the post-test 

were used to measure the students’ 

achievement in writing descriptive text. The 

pre-test was conducted to both the 

experimental and control groups first before the 

implementation of the technique research. They 

were done on Friday 14th March 2014 to the 

experimental group and on Saturday 15th 

March 2014 to the control group. The post-test 

was conducted after the process of teaching and 

learning to both the experimental and the 

control groups to know the effect of the 

research.  They were accomplished on Friday 

and Saturday 28th and 29th March 2014. They 

were employed to the experiment group first 

and then to the control one. The result of the 

pretest and post test were then calculated and 

analyzed with ANOVA to get the conclusion. 

 

 RESULTS  

  

After conducting the pretest and posttest 

to both experimental and control groups, 

analyzing the test results were done. The 

procedures of analyzing the data include: 

Analyzing the result of the questioner given to 

both the experiment group and the control one; 

Analyzing the result of the pretest conducted to 

both the experiment group and the control 

group; Analyzing the result of the posttest 

conducted to both the experiment group and the 

control group; Analyzing the normality of test 

conducted to both the experiment group and the 

control group; Analyzing the homogeneity of the 

test conducted to both the experiment group 

and the control group; Analyzing the 

heterogeneity of the test conducted to both the 

experiment group and the control group; 

Analyzing the result of the improvement in the 

test conducted to both the experiment group 

and the control group. The data which were 

described here belonged to the result of the 

questionnaires that had been conducted to the 

experiment and control groups.  They also 

included the result of the pretest and posttest 

had been conducted to both the experiment and 

the control groups. To describe the data, the 

writer worked on the highest score, the lowest 

score, the range, the class, and the interval to 

know the frequency distribution. The data of 

each group were presented below: 

a) The result of the questioner test of the 

students in experiment group who were taught 

by Think Pairs Share technique. The results 

showed that there were 14 students in the 

experiment group that categorized as low 

motivation and 20 students considered as high 

motivation ones.  

b) The result of the questioner test of the 

students in the control group who were taught 

by Cooperative Integrated Reading and 

Composition. The same technique was 

employed in this step and the results showed 

that there were 13 students in the experiment 

group that categorized as low motivation and 21 

students considered as high motivation ones.  

c) The result of the pretest of the low and 

high motivation students in the experiment 

group who were taught by Think Pairs Share 

technique. After the pretest was conducted then 

the result was analyzed. First the names of the 

students were coded based on the students’ 

number. Students’ numbers were coded from E-

01 up to E-34. The computation of the data 

show that the minimal score was 28,00 and the 

highest one was 72,00. The sum of the score was 

1.392. The mean was 40,94. The variants were 

117,39. The standard of deviation was 10,83.  

d) The result of the pretest of the low and 

high motivation students in the control group 

who were taught by Cooperative Integrated 

Reading and Composition. The same procedure 

was done to analyze this result. First the names 

of the students were coded based on the 

students’ number. Students’ numbers were 



 

Suwarno / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 

 

22 

 

coded from K-01 up to K-34. The computation of 

the data show that the minimal score was 28,00 

and the highest one was 76,00. The sum of the 

score was 1.240. The mean was 36,47. The 

variants were 80,26. The standard of deviation 

was 8,96.  

e) The result of the posttest of the low and 

high motivation students in the experiment 

group who were taught by Think Pairs Share 

technique. From the computation of the data it 

was found that the minimal score was 44,00 and 

the highest one was 84,00. The sum of the score 

was 2.036. The mean was 50.88. The variants 

were 96.47. The standard of deviation was 9,82.  

f) The result of the posttest of the low and 

high motivation students in the control group 

who were taught by Cooperative Integrated 

Reading and Composition. From the 

computation of the data it was found that the 

minimal score was 40,00 and the highest one 

was 84,00. The sum of the score was 1.848. The 

mean was 54.35. The variants were 81.57. The 

standard of deviation was 9.03. 

 

CONCLUSION  

 

After the data was analyzed it could be 

concluded that think pairs share technique was 

effective enough to improve descriptive text 

writing of students with different levels of 

motivation. After analyzing the data it could be 

concluded that Cooperative Integrated Reading 

and Composition was also effective to improve 

descriptive text writing of students with 

different levels of motivation. 

Based on the computation of the 

improvement results of the study to both of the 

two groups there are significant improvement 

on the result of the study. According to the 

result of the improvement study of both groups 

it could be concluded that cooperative learning 

on TPS and CIRC were effective to enhance 

descriptive text writing of students with 

different levels of motivation. According to the 

hypothesis, formula, and the computation of the 

mean differences on the posttest result to both 

groups, it could be concluded that because t was 

in the acceptance area Ha, so it was concluded 

that the result of the study in the experiment 

group which was taught by think pairs share 

was better than the control group which was 

taught by cooperative integrated reading and 

composition. 

Finally, the study on cooperative learning 

to enhance the low and high motivation 

students’ in descriptive text writing which was 

conducted to the seven graders Junior High 

School of Kesatrian 1 Semarang showed that 

there were interaction between the two 

techniques employed to the experiment group 

and the control one (cooperative learning) and 

the students’ motivation in achieving the 

descriptive text writing. Both of them improve 

the students’ achievement in descriptive text 

writing of the students with different levels of 

motivation. Think Pairs Share improved the 

achievement of descriptive text writing of the 

low and high motivation students’ of the 

experiment group. Cooperative Integrated 

Reading and Composition increased the 

achievement of descriptive text writing of the 

low and high motivation students’ of the control 

group. Both of the techniques enhanced the 

students became more active in participating in 

the classroom activity 

For the teachers who intend to teach 

descriptive text writing to the seven graders 

Junior High the writer suggests them use Think 

Pairs Share technique. It due to the result of the 

study had been conducted by the writer showed 

that TPS was more effective to improve the 

quality of descriptive text writing of students 

with different levels of motivation. For the 

students who want to get better achievements 

should be more active in teaching and learning 

process, in doing the writing projects and 

experiencing the process of writing whether 

they work individually, in pairs or in group. For 

other researchers who propose the similar 

research, the result of this study can be used as 

a reference of the study. Think pairs share (TPS) 

technique is more advisable since the result of 

the study showed that it was more effective to 

enhance descriptive text writing of students 



 

Suwarno / English Education Journal 4 (1) (2014) 

 

23 

 

with different levels of motivation. They are also 

able to use cooperative integrated reading and 

composition (CIRC) to improve the students’ 

ability in descriptive text writing. 

 

REFERENCES 

 

Agustini, Marheini  and Suarnajaya. 2012. The Effect 

of  Cooperative Learning Technique 

and Students’ Attitude on Reading 

Comprehension.e-Journal Program 

Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan 

GaneshaProgram Studi Pendidikan Bahasa 

Inggris.Vol. 1/2013. Retrieved 30 December 

2013. 

Anderson, M and Anderson, K  2003. Text Types in 

English.  South Yarra: Macmillan Education 

Australia PTY. LTD. 

Brown, D. 2001. Teaching by Principles.AnInteractive 

Approach to  Language Pedagogy. 

Second Edition. New York: Addison Wesley 

Longman, Inc. 

Budiarta, P. and Budasi. 2012. The Effect of Think 

Pair Share    Technique on The English 

Reading Achievement of the Students 

Differing in Achievement Motivation at Grade 

Eight of SMPN 13 Mataram. e-Journal Program 

Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha 

Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Vol. 

1/2013. Retrieved 30 December 2013. 

Cohen, L. Manion, L., and Marison, K.2007. Research 

Method in Education.6th rd. New York: 

Roudledge. 

Depdiknas.2006. Kurikulum 2006; Standar 

Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris. 

Jakarta: PT Bina Tama. 

Durukan. 2010.Effects of Cooperative Integrated 

Reading and Composition (CIRC) Technique 

on Reading-Writing Skills. Educational 

Research and Reviews Turkey: Department of 

Turkish Education. Faculty of Fatih Education. 

Black Sea-Technical 

University.//www.academicjournals.org/ERR

. 6(1), 1990-3839.  

Fauziati. 2009. Introduction to Methods and 

Approaches in Second or Foreign Language 

Testing. Surakarta: Pustaka Utama. 

Fauziati. 2010. Teaching English as a Second 

Language. Surakarta: Pustaka Utama. 

Gall, Meredith D. et.al. 2003. Educational Research. 

An introduction. Seven Edition. New York: 

Pearson Education,inc. 

Gerrot, L. and P. Wignell. 1994. Making Sense of 

Functional Grammar. Cambridge: Gerb Stabler 

Harrmer, J. 2007 . How to Teach Writing.  Harlow: 

Pearson Educational Limited. 

Hyland,  K. 2007. Genre and Second Language 

Writing.  Michigan: The University of Michigan 

Press. 

Marhaeni, Afan, and Dantes. 2012. The Effect ot 

Motivation on TheWriting  Achievement of 

the Tenth Year Students of  SMA Negeri 4 

Singaraja in  The Academic Year 

2011/2012. e-Journal Program Pascasarjana 

 Universitas Pendidikan GaneshaProgram 

Studi Pendidikan Bahasa  Inggris Volume 

1/2013. Retrieved 30 December 2013. 

Murcia, C. M and  Olshtain. E. 2000. Discourse and 

Context in Language Teaching. A Guide for 

Language Teachers. London: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Murcia, C.2001. Teaching English as a Second or 

Foreign Language.3rd  ed.     Boston: Heinle & 

Heinle, Thomson Learning, inc. 

O’malley,J,M., and Pierce, L, V. 1996. Authentic 

Assessment for English Language Learners; 

Practical Approaches for Teachers. New York: 

Addison.  

Paramita, Rahmah. 2013. Improving Students’ 

Achievement in writing News Item Text 

Through Cooperative Integrated Reading and 

Composition. International Journal of 

Language Learning and Applied Linguistics 

World. (IJLLALW)Volume 3(3), July 2013 . 

Faculty of Languages and Arts Universitas 

Negeri Medan, Indonesia. Retrieved 30 

January 2014. 

Pintrich, R. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational 

and self-regulated learning components of 

classroom academic performance, Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. Retrieved 

30 January 2014. 

Saleh, M. 2011. Enam Tradisi Besar Penelitian 

pendidikan Bahasa. Semarang: UNNES Press. 

Slavin, E. R. 1995. Cooperative Learning Theory; 

Research and Practice. New York: The 

Hopkins University.  

Tuckman, B.W. 1978. Conducting Education 

Research. New York: Harcourt Brace 

Javanovic 

Winch, Gordon. et.al. 2006. Literacy. Third Edition. 

New York. Oxford    University Press