EEJ 2 (2) (2012) English Education Journal http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej IMPROVING NARRATIVE TEXT WRITING SKILL THROUGH DICTATION TOWARDS AUDITORY AND VISUAL LEARNERS Ida Saadatul Wuzaro  Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Abstrak Tesis ini mendiskusikan tentang diktasi, listening, dan penulisan naratif. Peneliti menggunakan factorial design dalam memilih latar belakangnya. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian quantitative. Metode yang digunakan adalah studi eksperimental. Sebelum penelitian dilakukan peneliti membagi kelas menjadi kelas eksperimen dan control. Tes diklasifikasikan kedalam auditory dan visual learner. Penelitia mencoba menggunakan ANOVA untuk mendapat data final. Oleh karena beberapa karakter ANOVA yang menyebabkan data distribusi tidak normal, peneliti menggunakan Kurskall-Walls tes dilanjut dengan pos-hoc ANOVA untuk menemukan signifikansi dari strategi diktasi dan listening. Hasil menunjukan bahwa diktasi lebih efektif untuk mengajar naratif dibandingkan listening. Abstract This thesis discusses about the dictation, listening and narrative writing. Learning styles are needed in this area, so, the researchers gets the data of learning styles first before she decides to collect the data and analyze it. While choosing the background of the study the researcher uses factorial design. There are seven factors which become the problems of the study for this research. This research is quantitative research. The method used in this research uses experimental study, while there are experimental and control group. Before the researcher decides to do pre test and post test for both groups, the researcher uses learning styles test. The test classifies each group into au- ditory and visual learners. The researcher tried to use ANOVA to get the final data. Because of some factors that become the characteristics of ANOVA itself, there is not normal distribution data appeared in the research, so the researcher uses Kurskal- Walls test and continually with pos-hoc ANOVA to find the significance of strategies between dictation and listening. Based on the result of Pos-hoc ANOVA that has been done, it proves that dictation is more effective way for teaching narrative writing than listening. It is for both visual and auditory learners. © 2012 Universitas Negeri Semarang Info Artikel Sejarah Artikel: Diterima Agustus 2012 Disetujui September 2012 Dipublikasikan November 2012 Keywords: Dictation Writing Narrative  Alamat korespondensi: Kampus Unnes Bendan Ngisor, Semarang 50233 E-mail: pps@unnes.ac.id ISSN 2087-0108 113 Ida Saadatul Wuzaro / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) INTRODUCTION Writing is the thinking process which in- volves the sharpness of memorizing and imagi- nation ability. Writing is the way to pour down the ideas of what one’s experienced, saw, and felt into the form of text. “writing is the form of thin- king” (Tarigan: 1994). Listening is an invisible mental process, making it difficult to describe. Listeners must disc- riminate between sounds, understand vocabulary and grammatical structures, interpret stress and intention, retain and interpret this within the im- mediate as well as the larger socio-cultural con- text of the utterance (Wipf, 1984). Narrative is the very familiar kind of text. It is always appeared in every semester since 7th grade of Junior School to 12th grade of Senior High School. That is the reason why I choose Narrative as the media for the test of experimen- tal research. Learning styles are various approaches or ways of learning. They involve educating met- hods, particular to an individual, that are presu- med to allow that individual to learn best. Most people prefer an identifiable method of interac- ting with, taking in, and processing stimuli or information. Based on this concept, the idea of individualized “learning styles” originated in the 1970s, and acquired “enormous popularity”. METHODS A factorial design is the most common way to study the effect of two or more independent variables, although we will focus on designs that have only two independent variables for simpli- city. In a factorial design, all levels of each in- dependent variable are combined with all levels of the other independent variables to produce all possible conditions. Factorial designs refers to a statistical met- hod known as ANOVA, or analysis of variance. ANOVA is a method for comparing different groups of subjects on some quantitative measu- re. More specifically, it is a way to test whether the different groups have equal mean scores. For example, we might want to test whether Democ- rats, Republicans and Independents are the same age. (What Are Factorial Designs? | eHow.com) The table has shown us that the problems of the study that have been appeared in chapter 1 are based on the factorial design above. It has shown us that the treatments which are held by the researcher are related to design above. First, the application between dictation to auditory learner. Secondly, it has shown us that dictation is applied to auditory learners. The third, the tab- le has shon that listening is applied to auditory learners. Fourth, also the table shows the liste- ning which is applied to visual learners. Fifthly, the table has shown that it is the application of Below is the lists of factorial design that is used by the researcher to identify the problems based on factorial design. Ida Saadatul Wuzaro / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) 114 dictation to auditory and visual learners. And the last it is application of listening to auditory and visual learners. The data source of this research is from SMAN 1 Ciwaringin students especially for XI Grade. Eleven grade of SMAN 1 Ciwaringin con- sists of 260 students, and the researcher takes two classes that are XI social 1 and 3. The Social 1 is treated to be Experimental group, and Social 2 is treated to be control group. Each of them consist of 45 students. But the researcher only takes 20 students in every class. From 20 students, they are treated as Auditory and Visual learners. So the sample that will be a data and will be analyzed is 40 students. 20 students are from Experimental group and 20 students are from Control group. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The researcher has done the observation in SMAN 1 Ciwaringin and has found some fin- dings that has been calculated as follows: After the reseracher classified them by using learning style test, the next step is doing pre test and gives the treatments for each group, after that the researcher held post test. Below the result of pre test and post test that have been held by the resercher. Hypothesis form of data normalization Ho : Normalization of data distribution Ha : Data which is not normal distribution A.1. Pre-Test 1 76 85 82 85 2 89 83 78 75 3 77 86 90 82 4 90 89 89 78 5 75 86 85 77 6 94 86 75 75 7 80 93 86 83 8 92 86 82 60 9 95 86 77 75 10 86 80 90 90 NTWS Pree Test dictation Auditory dictation visual listening auditory listening visual Obj. No Look at the values of normaity examina- tion that use kolmogrov smimov normality exa- mination. The statistical value of Kolmogorov- Smirnov, this value is as same as the value of statistical examination of liliefors. The criteria of this normality examination, if the statistical va- lue is bigger than the value of statistical kolmo- gorov-smirnov/statistical value of liliefors, so, Ho is rejected, it means that the data does not have normal distribution. By using the free de- gree that has the same degree as df = 10 and α = 0.05, so, the statistical value which is got from the table of liliefors is 0,258, therefore the researcher gets the conclusion as follows : Table 4.5. Shows the data that have been tested on pre test for experimental group. It is for auditory and control group. It has been given dictation treatment. Tests of Normality FAKTORPRETEST Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. NTWSSCOREPREET- EST DICTATION AUDI- TORY .179 10 .200* .892 10 .180 DICTATION VISUAL .300 10 .011 .895 10 .192 LISTENING AUDI- TORY .146 10 .200* .922 10 .378 LISTENING VISUAL .255 10 .064 .912 10 .294 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction *. This is a lower bound of the true significance. Factor of Pre Test Statistic Statistic Kol- mogorov-Smirnov/ Statistik Liliefors Explanation Dictation Auditory 0.179 0.258 Normal distributional data Dictation Visual 0.300 Not normal distributional data Listening Auditory 0.146 Not normal distributional data Listening Visual 0.255 Normal distributional data 115 Ida Saadatul Wuzaro / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) A.2. Data Post-Test 1 79 88 85 90 2 90 89 85 80 3 95 86 94 85 4 95 94 94 80 5 94 90 90 80 6 97 94 78 78 7 94 94 90 85 8 94 87 85 75 9 97 95 85 80 10 98 89 94 94 Objek No. NTWS Post Test dictation Auditory dictation visual listening auditory listening visual By using the same rules and by using the free degree which is as same as = 10 and α = 0.05, so, the statistical value which is got from the tab- le of liliefors is 0,258, therefore the reearcher has the conclusion. The table above shows that not all the data has normal distribution, therefore the data analysis is done by using parametric of ANOVA (analysis of variance comparing more than 2 va- riables) is not able to be done, because parame- tric data analysis (ANOVA) has the characteris- tics that the data must have normal distribution (Sudjana : 2005;299). Therefore, the data will be analyzed by using non parametric statistical ana- lysis (Siegel : Statistika Non Parametrik). The examination of average differential The form of hypothesis is as follows: 0 1 2 3 4:H µ µ µ µ= = = , means that there is no average of different treatment among four of samples. Ha : at least, there is a sign of (≠) , it means that there is treatment average difference among four samples.. Kruskal-Wallis Test Table above shows the result of Kruskal- Wallis Test that has been done on both groups. They are experimental and control groups. Both groups use dictation and listening treatments. Table 4.8. above shows the result of post test for both groups, they are experimental and control. They have been given dictation and listening treatment. FACTOR OF POSTTEST Kolmogorov- Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic Df Sig. Statistic df Sig. NTWSSCOREPOSTTEST DICTATION AUDITORY .351 10 .001 .721 10 .002 DICTATION VISUAL .246 10 .089 .881 10 .135 LISTENING AUDITORY .215 10 .200* .879 10 .127 LISTENING VISUAL .279 10 .026 .905 10 .248 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction *. This is a lower bound of the true significance. Factor Pre Test Statistic Statistic Kolmogorov- Smirnov/ Statistik Liliefors Keterangan Dictation Auditory 0.351 0.258 Normal distributional data Dictation Visual 0.246 Not normal distributional data Listening Auditory 0.215 Not normal distributional data Listening Visual 0.279 Normal distributional data Ranks FAKTOR POST TEST N Mean Rank NTWSSCOREPOSTTEST DICTATION AUDITORY 10 30.35 DICTATION VISUAL 10 23.15 LISTENING AUDITORY 10 18.10 LISTENING VISUAL 10 10.40 Total 40 Ida Saadatul Wuzaro / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) 116 Test Statisticsa,b NTWSSCOREPOSTTEST Chi-Square 15.851 Df 3 Asymp. Sig. 001 Kruskal Wallis Test Grouping Variable: FACTOR POSTTEST Look at the result of statistical examinati- on that has different average of Kruskal-Walis, it is got statistical value of Chi-Square examinati- on, that is 15.851 with the degree of freedoms (df) 3 and the value of significance or opportunity value, that is 0.001. there are two ways to know the result of examination, they are: Comparing the value of counting Chi- Square hitung and Chi-Square table by using the rules , ( ) 2 1 ; 1 2 kαχ − −    , k is the amount of sample group. If we take α = 0.05 and the amount of sample k = 4, the value of Chi-Square table is ( ) 2 2 0,975;30,051 ; 4 1 2 9,35χ χ − −    = = By using the examination criteria, if the value of chi-square counting is bigger than chi- square table, so, Ho is rejected. Post-Hoc Anova examination which is used is tets Duncan which has Purpose knowing different variables with the help of software SPSS v 16 is got the result as follows: C.1. Test of Homogenity of Varians TTest of Homogeneity of Variances NTWSSCOREPOSTTEST Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .739 3 36 .536 Test Homogenity of varians is done for knowing wether four samples have the same po- pulation which have same varians or not. It has the purpose to know the accurate post hoc ana- lysis based on the homogenity assumption. The form of the hypothesis is as follows: 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 3 4: , var homH ians ogenσ σ σ σ= = = aH : at least there is a sign of ≠ among them, so, the variant is not homonenous. Test criteria : Reject Ho if , 1, 2df dfF Fα< or ( .)P value sig α− < Based on the counting result, it is got statistical levene result 0.739, the value will be comparewd with F table with the significance de- gree α = 0.05 and the degree of freedom 1 = 3 and the degree of freedom 2 = 36, it is got value Post Hoc Tests Multiple Comparisons NTWSSCOREPOSTTEST Tukey HSD (I) FAKTORPOSTTEST (J) FAKTORPOSTTEST Mean Dif- ference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. DICTATION AUDI- TORY DICTATION VISUAL 2.70000 2.26887 .637 LISTENING AUDITORY 5.30000 2.26887 .109 LISTENING VISUAL 10.60000* 2.26887 .000 DICTATION VISUAL DICTATION AUDITORY -2.70000 2.26887 .637 LISTENING AUDITORY 2.60000 2.26887 .664 LISTENING VISUAL 7.90000* 2.26887 .007 LISTENING AUDITO- RY DICTATION AUDITORY -5.30000 2.26887 .109 DICTATION VISUAL -2.60000 2.26887 .664 LISTENING VISUAL 5.30000 2.26887 .109 LISTENING VISUAL DICTATION AUDITORY -10.60000* 2.26887 .000 DICTATION VISUAL -7.90000* 2.26887 .007 LISTENING AUDITORY -5.30000 2.26887 .109 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Homogeneous Subsets NTWSS CORE POST TEST Tukey HSD FAKTORPOSTTEST N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 2 LISTENING VISUAL 10 82.7000 LISTENING AUDITORY 10 88.0000 88.0000 DICTATION VISUAL 10 90.6000 DICTATION AUDITORY 10 93.3000 Sig. .109 .109 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. 117 Ida Saadatul Wuzaro / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) (0.05),(3),(36) 2,80F = , based on the criteria of la- vene statistical test value 0.739, this value is less than (0.05),(3),(36) 2,80F = , so, Ho is accepted. It means that the four samples have homogenous difference. If we use sig value(significancy) levene sta- tistic or called as P-value which is 0.536, com- pared to α = 0.05, P-value = 0.536 > from α = 0.05, based on the test criteria, so Ho is accepted, it means that the four samples have homogenous varians. Homogenous assumption said that varians homogenous is filled, so the researcher will do tu- key test to do Post Hoc anova towards the four factors to know factors that are different each other. By using the help of SPSS v 6, it is got the result as follows: This is multiple comparison which shows the different factors each other partially. Using hypothresis : 0 : a bH µ µ= :a a bH µ µ≠ Test criteria, Reject Ho if P-value < α. The first homogenous group is Listening visual and auditory, dengan P-value 0.109 The second homogenous group is listening auditory, dictation auditory dan dictation visual with P-value 0.109. Based on the factor of grouping result on the homogeneous subsets, so, it will be done the examination of 2 averages between: Dictation Auditory vs Listening Visual; Dictation Visual vs Listening Visual; Listening Auditory vs Listening visual The examination of 2 averages will be done by using Non-parametric statistical analysis analisis by using the test of Mann-Whitney, it will be done, because on the normality test, not all the data from four groups have normal distribution (look at the test of data normality) CONCLUSION There is not normal distribution data ap- peared in the research, so the researcher uses Kurskal-Walls test and continually with pos-hoc ANOVA to find the significance of strategies bet- ween dictation and listening. Based on the result of Pos-hoc ANOVA that has been done, it proves that dictation is more effective way for teaching narrative writing than listening. It is for both vi- sual and auditory learners. REFERENCES Anggareni, Dian. 2007. Students’ Errors In Dictation As A Testing Device Of Listening: The Case Of The Fifth Grade Students Of SDN Slawikulon 03 In The Academic Year Of 2006/2007. Semarang. Sema- rang State University Arikunto, Suharsimi. (2002). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Yogyakarta: Rineka Cipta. Bahri, Saeful (2006). The effectiveness of Discovery-Dis- cussion Technique on Intermediate-Two students’ Vocabulary Mastery (An experimental Research at conversation classes of Global Lingua Tegal). A the- sis. Semarang. Semarang state University. Borg, W.R. & M.D. Gall. (1979). Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: Longman Inc., 3rd edition. Brown, H.Douglas 2004, Language assessment, San Fransisco, Longman Press Burns, Anne, 2010. Doing Action Research in English Language teaching. New York, Routledge Cartledge, H. A. (1968). A defence of dictation. ELT Jour- nal, 22, 226-231 Celce-Murcia, Marianne, 2001. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Third Edition. USA Cohen, Louis, Manion, Lawrence & Morrison Keith, 2007. Research Methods in Education in Education Sixth Edition. New York. Routledge. Cornett, C., 1983: What You Should Know about Teach- ing and Learning Styles. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R., 1990: Adult language learn- ing styles and strategies in an intensive training set- ting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-326. Jurickova, Olga (2006). Teaching English Vocabulary to Children with Specific Learning Difficulties. Uni- verzita PardubiceMcMillan, James H. and Sal- ly Schumacer, 2001. Rersearch in Education: A conceptual Introduction. United States. Addison Wesley Longman, inc Morris, S. (1983). Dictation-a technique in need of reap- praisal. ELT Journal, 37, 121-126 Oller, John W, 1971. Dictation as a device for testing the proficiency. English Language Teaching, 25, 254-259 Paltridge, Brian&Starfield, Sue, 2007. Thesis and Des- sertation Writing in a second language. New York, Routledge Rahimi, Muhammad. 2008. Using Dictation to Improve Language Proficiency. Asian Journal, Vol 10, Is- sue 1 Richards, J.C, 1990. The teaching Language Matrix. New York. Cambridge University Press Richards, Jack C(1983). Listening comprehension; Ap- proach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly 17, 219-239 Rost, M, 2002. Teaching and researching listening. Lon- don, UK. Longman Siahaan, Sanggam, 2008. The English Paragraph, Yog- yakarta, Graha Ilmu Soedhono, R. Kumbino Ari, 2011. “The effectiveness of text based strategy to teach adjectives and adverbs: an Ida Saadatul Wuzaro / English Education Journal 2 (2) (2012) 118 experimental study on the second semester students of the English department at the faculty of language and culture UNTAG Semarang in the academic year 2009/2010”. Semarang. Thesis. State University of Semarang. Sudjana, 2005. Metoda statistika. Bandung Susilowarti, Lany. 2010. The use of Indonesian cukltureal heritage comics for the teaching of writing English Narrative texts. An experimental study at SMA Ko- lese Loyola Semarang Grade XI in the Academic year of 2009/2010. English Education, Post Graduate Program State University of Sema- rang (UNNES) Valette, R.M. (1964). The use of the dictee in the French language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 48, 431-434. Wahidin, Khaerul and Saondi, Ondi 2010. Penelitian Pendidikan, Cirebon, UMC Press Widdowson.H.G, 1981. Teaching language as communi- cation. Oxford. Oxford University Press Wipf, J, 1984. Strategies for teaching Second Language Lis- tening Comprehension. Foreign Language Annals 17:345-48 (http://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/dicta- tion/), “Dictation” March 10, 2012(http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_types), Narrative, February 11, 2012 (http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/elements. htm), Theoritical Framework, February 15, 2012. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/narrative), Narra- tive, February 12, 2012 (http://sos.net/~donclark/hrd/styles/vakt.html), learning style. February10, 2012